LIBRARY 
 
 University of California^ 
 
 IRVINE 
 
 / 
 
62 , CONGRESS 1 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ( 
 
 3d Session / I No. 1447 
 
 HEARINGS 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 VOL. I 
 
 SCHEDULES A AND B 
 
 INDEX IX FINAL VOLUME 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OTTIOE 
 1913 
 
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS. 
 HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 OSCAR \V. UNDERWOOD, Alabama, Chairman. 
 
 CHOICE B. RANDELL, Texas. ANDREW J. PETERS, Massachusetts. 
 
 FRANCIS B. HARRISON, New York. A. MITCHELL PALMER, Pennsylvania. 
 
 WILLIAM G. BRANTLEY, Georgia. TIMOTHY T. ANSBERRY, Ohio. 
 
 DORSEY W. SHACKLEFORD, Missouri. SERENO E. PAYNE, New York. 
 
 CLAUDE KITCHIN, North Carolina. JOHN DALZELL, Pennsylvania. 
 
 OLLIE M. JAMES, Kentucky. SAMUEL W. McCALL, Massachusetts. 
 
 HENRY T. RAINEY, Illinois. EBENEZER J. HILL, Connecticut. 
 
 LINCOLN DIXON, Indiana. JAMES C. NEEDHAM, California. 
 
 CORDELL HULL, Tennessee. JOSEPH W. FORDNEY, Michigan. 
 
 WINFIELD S. HAMMOND, Minnesota. NICHOLAS LONGWORTH, Ohio. 
 
 DANIEL C. ROPEE, Clerk. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Tariff hearings were begun on January 6, 1913, pursuant to the 
 following notice: 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means announces to all concerned that it will hold 
 hearings at Washington, D. C., looking to the revision of the present tariff act as per 
 the following schedule: 
 
 Schedule A: Chemicals, oils, and paints; Monday, January 6, 1913. 
 
 Schedule B: Earths, earthenware, and glassware; Wednesday, January 8. 
 
 Schedule C: Metals and manufactures of; Friday, January 10. 
 
 Schedule D: Wood and manufactures of, and schedule L: Silk and silk goods; 
 Monday, January 13. 
 
 Schedule E: Sugar and manufactures of, and Schedule H: Spirits, wines, and other 
 beverages; Wednesday, January 15. 
 
 Schedule F: Tobacco and manufactures of, and Schedule M: Pulp, paper, and 
 books; Friday, January 17. 
 
 Schedule G: Agricultural products and provisions; Monday, January 20. 
 
 Schedule I: Cotton manufactures; Wednesday, January 22. 
 
 Schedule J: Flax, hemp, and jute, and manufactures of; Friday, January 24. 
 
 (Schedule K: Wool, and manufactures of; Monday, January 27. 
 Schedule N: Sundries; Wednesday, January 29. 
 Free list: Administrative features and miscellaneous: Friday, January 31. 
 The hearings will be conducted in the hearing room of the committee, 321 House 
 of Representatives Office Building. 
 
 Sessions will begin at 10 a. m. and 2 p. m. unless otherwise ordered. 
 Persons desiring to be heard should apply to the clerk of the committee previous 
 to the date set for the hearing, to be assigned time on the program for that day. In 
 making such application the following information should be given: 
 
 Name; permanent address; temporary address in Washington; person, firm, or 
 corporation represented; paragraphs of the act concerning which testimony will be 
 given; brief mention of attitude to revision of the tariff; and the amount of time 
 desired. 
 
 In addition to this the person intending to give testimony should forward in advance 
 to the clerk a copy of his brief and of any documents he desires to file with the com- 
 mittee. In preparing this brief it is desired that the following outline be observed: 
 
 1. State by items and paragraphs the changes in duties recommended, assigning 
 in each instance reasons for recommendations. 
 
 2. Estimate the increase or decrease of imports by paragraphs and items, which 
 would result from suggested modifications of duties. 
 
 3. Explain methods or experience relied upon in making estimates. 
 
 4. Suggestions as to changes in phraseology of present tariff law. 
 
 5. Suggestions as to the betterment of the administrative features of the present 
 law. 
 
 All briefs and other papers filed with the committee should have indorsed on them 
 the name and address of the persons submitting them and the numbers of the para- 
 graphs of the present tariff law to which they relate. 
 
 0. W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman. 
 DECEMBER 11, 1912. 
 
 in 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 The time devoted to the hearings in accordance with this notice 
 was distributed by tariff schedules as follows, the committee sitting 
 as a rule in both day and evening sessions: 
 
 Date. 
 
 Schedule A January 6 and 7. 
 
 Schedule B January 8 and 9. 
 
 Schedule C January 10, 11, and 14. 
 
 Schedules D and L January 13. 
 
 Schedules E and H January 15. 
 
 Schedule F January 17. 
 
 Schedule M January 17 and 18. 
 
 Schedule G January 20 and 21. 
 
 Schedule I January 22 and 23. 
 
 Schedule J January 24 and 25. 
 
 Schedule K January 27 and 28. 
 
 Schedule N Januaiy 29 and 30. 
 
 Free list, Administrative and Miscellaneous January 31-February 1. 
 
 Beginning with January 10 and with the testimony on Schedule C, 
 all witnesses appearing before the committee were sworn before giving 
 testimony. 
 
 The stenographic minutes of each day's proceedings, together with 
 the briefs and memorials filed, were printed and distributed usually on 
 the day following and about 2,500 copies of this first print were thus 
 disposed of through a mailing list of requests and on personal applica- 
 tion. Copies were sent to each witness with the request that he make 
 necessary corrections for clearness in his statement and return the 
 revised copy to the clerk. Such corrections have been observed in 
 preparing this revised edition of the hearings. In this revised edition 
 the chronological order of the statements has been disregarded and the 
 oral testimony and the papers filed on each subject have been grouped 
 and arranged as near as practicable, according to the paragraphs of 
 the present tariff law. 
 
 A large number of letters filed with the committee, merely stating 
 the attitude of the writer or substantially repeating arguments already 
 appearing; in the hearings, have not been printed in this revised edition 
 but suchletters are in the committee's files and accessible to the com- 
 mittee. By this means the size of the volumes has been somewhat 
 reduced, the printing has been expedited, and repetitions and dupli- 
 cations avoided. 
 
 DANIEL C. ROPER, 
 Clerk, Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 FEBRUARY 1, 1913. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 SCHEDULE A. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Preface Ill 
 
 Date of hearings IV 
 
 Outline of briefs IV 
 
 Time devoted to hearings IV 
 
 Acme White Lead & Color Works, Detroit, Mich., white lead and colors 353 
 
 Allen, Hon. A. G., telegram 414 
 
 American Alkali & Acid Co., Bradford, Pa. , oxalic acid 54 
 
 American Camphor Refining Co., Boston, Mass., crude and refined camphor.. 128 
 
 American Chicle Co., New York, N. Y., gum chicle 234 
 
 Arnold & Co., New York, N. Y., soaps, etc 391 
 
 Arnold, Francis R., New York, N. Y., fancy, toilet, and castile soaps, etc 391 
 
 Badcock, Robert, jr., New York, N. Y., cod oil 288 
 
 Baker & Adamson Chemical Co., Easton, Pa., photographic chemicals 35 
 
 Baker & Bro., New York, N. Y., synthetic and refined camphor 128 
 
 Baker Castor Oil Co., New York, N. Y.: 
 
 Castor seed, flaxseed, castor oil 251 
 
 Soluble oil, alizarin 257 
 
 Batten Co., New York, N. Y., perfumery 397 
 
 Baugh & Sons Co., Philadelphia, Pa.: 
 
 Charcoal, blood char, etc 119 
 
 Gelatin, glue, and glue size 221 
 
 Bauer Chemical Co., New York, N. Y., chemicals 374 
 
 Beckton Chemical Co., Newark, N. J., lithopone 329 
 
 Berry Bros., varnish, quicksilver, white lead, and white pigments 321 
 
 Bird & Co., New York and Boston, varnishes 312 
 
 Black Horn Leather Co., Great Bend, Pa., fish and cod oils 296 
 
 Blumauer, Frank, Drug Co., sponges 429 
 
 Borgfeldt, Geo., & Co., chemicals, oils, paints, and perfumery, etc 66 
 
 Bosson & Lane, Atlantic, Mass., alizarin and soluble oil, castor oil 254 
 
 Bowker, W. H., Boston, Mass., arseniate of soda 416 
 
 Boykin, S. G., Atlanta, Ga., Epsom salts 236 
 
 Bredt & Co., New York, N. Y., tannic acid or tannin 54 
 
 Brigham, Louis S., Randolph. Vt., sheet gelatin 198 
 
 Brigham Sheet Gelatin Co., Randolph, Vt 198 
 
 Bright, F. S., Washington, D. C., olive and cottonseed oil 267 
 
 Brindle, Frank M., chemicals, oils, paints, and perfumery, etc 66 
 
 Brown, H. W., and others, laundry soap 412 
 
 Buddecke, Win. A., Mineral Point, Mo., barytes 301 
 
 Callahan, P. H., Louisville, Ky., varnish gum, china-nut and soya-bean oils. . 315 
 California firms regarding duty on cream of tartar, crude tartar or wine lees, 
 
 cream of tartar, tartaric acid 99 
 
 Campbell & Co., New York, N. Y., dyestuffs, logwood and hematine extracts, 
 
 pastes, etc 197 
 
 Carpenter, H. B., Newark, N. J., animal charcoal 305 
 
 Cassella Color Co., New York City, fast vat dyes 163 
 
 Chamber of Mines & Oil, Los Angeles, Cal. , borax, borate products 122 
 
 Cleveland Tanning Co., Cleveland, Ohio, cod oil 293 
 
 Cochrane Chemical Co., Boston, Mass., sulphuric acid 41 
 
 Cocorullo, Ferdinand, New York, N. Y., mannit 87 
 
 Colgate & Co., New York, N. Y., santonin, perfumed and laundry soaps 398 
 
 Columbia Western Mills, West Pullman, Chicago, 111., oils 73 
 
 Coulston & Co., New York, N. Y., paints, colors, pigments, etc 353 
 
 Crescent Burner Manufacturing Co., New York, N. Y., cut steatite or German 
 
 lava 133 
 
 Crowdus Drug Co., Dallas, Tex., medicinal preparations 377 
 
 V 
 
VI CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Cushman, Allerton S., Washington, D. C., chemical industry 8 
 
 Davis, Albert, New York, N. Y., sponges 431 
 
 Day & Son, New York, N. Y., gelatin, glue, etc 206 
 
 Debie, Dr. J., St. Louis, Mo., chemical industry 7 
 
 Delany, Charles, Philadelphia, Pa., glue and gelatin 204 
 
 Dick, Joseph, New York, N. Y., bone glues in cake form 217 
 
 Dippel, William J., New York City, nitrate of ammonia 89 
 
 Dodge & Olcott Co., New York, N. Y., oil of cloves, drugs, chemicals, etc 68 
 
 Dow Chemical Co., Midland, Mich., bleaching powder, or chloride of lime. . . . 114 
 
 Drury, Jno. H., Troy, Ohio, chlorate of potash 371 
 
 Elson & Brewer, New York, N. Y., salicylic acid 30 
 
 Emery, Lewis, jr., Bradford, Pa., oxalic acid 54 
 
 Ewing Fox & Co., New York, N. Y., calcimines, paints, and varnishes 324 
 
 Geigy-ter Meer Co., New York, N. Y., tannic acid and nutgall extracts 53 
 
 Goodrich & Co., Milwaukee, Wis., linseed oil 260 
 
 Grasselli Chemical Co., Cleveland, Ohio, acetate of lead, sulphide and chloride 
 
 of zinc 326 
 
 Greene, Hon. William S., sperm oil 287 
 
 Griffin Drug Co., Peekskill, N. Y., white lead (whiting, Paris white) 323 
 
 Gudger, Francis A., New York, N. Y., pyroxylin compounds 166 
 
 Hamilton, Francis E., Esq., New York, salicylic acid 18 
 
 Harshaw, Fuller & Goodwin Co.. Cleveland, Ohio: 
 
 Cream of tarter, tartaric acid 45 
 
 Crude and refined glycerin 226 
 
 Tartrate of lime, or wine lees, crude 88 
 
 Hart, Albert, New York, N. Y., raw sponges 419 
 
 Heller & Merz- Co., Buffalo, N. Y., coal-tar dyes 137 
 
 Heller & Merz Co., Newark, N. J., ultramarine blue 310 
 
 Heyden Chemical Works, New York, N. Y., salicylic acid 18 
 
 Hibberd, N., San Francisco, Cal., whale oil, sulphur bottoms, finbacks, etc... 293 
 
 Higginson Manufacturing Co., Newburgh, N. Y., whiting and Paris white 323 
 
 Howard, Henry, Boston, Mass., general 1 
 
 Hubbard, R. S., Philadelphia, Pa,, paints 322 
 
 Huff, Dr. L. J., Los Angeles, Cal., olive oil 262 
 
 Irsch, Frank E., New York, N . Y., glue and gelatin 208 
 
 Italian Chamber of Commerce, New York, N. Y.: 
 
 Argols and wine lees, citrate of lime, lemon juice, licorice root, etc 101 
 
 Olive, peppermint, and whale oil 284 
 
 Job & Co., New York, N. Y., cod oil 288, 298 
 
 Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, N. J.: 
 
 Chemical and pharmaceutical preparations 6 
 
 Healing, court, and adhesive plasters 378 
 
 Jones & Co., San Francisco, Cal., castor, rapeseed, and hempseed oil, etc 257 
 
 Klipstein, E. C., New York, N. Y., indigo extracts or pastes, etc 227 
 
 Krebs, H. J., Newport, Del., lithopone, crude baryta, and zinc ores 300 
 
 Kubie Co., New York, X. Y., chicle 234 
 
 Kuh & Valk Co., New York, N. Y., glue 207 
 
 La Manna, Azema & Farnan et al., New York, N. Y., olive oil 286 
 
 Lamar Chemical Works, Newark, N. J., phosphorus 357 
 
 Laundry soap manufacturers, laundry soap 400 
 
 Leon, Maurice, New York, N. Y., medicinal soaps, alcoholic and nonalcoholic 
 
 perfumery 389 
 
 Leousi, Clonney & Co., New York, N. Y., bleached sponges 428 
 
 Listers, A. C'., Works, Newark, N. J., animal charcoal 305 
 
 Lockwood, Bracket t & Co., New York, N. Y., castile soap 414 
 
 Longworth, Hon. Nicholas, of Ohio, telegram 402 
 
 McCormick & Co., Baltimore, Md., juniper berries, etc 168 
 
 McCormick, R. A., Baltimore, Md.. juniper berries, insect flowers, gum asa- 
 
 fetida, marjoram leaves, celery seed, etc 168 
 
 Mallinckrodt et al., tannic, gallic, and pyrogallic acid, caffeine, chloroform, 
 
 ethers, alkalies, alkaloids, etc 46 
 
 Mariani, C. A., New York, N. Y., olive oil 278 
 
 Marx & Rawolle, New York, N. Y., refined glycerin 224 
 
 Mechling Bros. Manufacturing Co., Camden, N. J.: 
 
 Epsom salts 250 
 
 Silicate of sod a 417 
 
CONTENTS. Vn 
 
 Page. 
 
 Mepham & Co., East St. Louis, 111., colors 356 
 
 Merck & Co., New York, N. Y., salicylic acid, crude iodine, opium, coca leaves, 
 
 cocaine, morphine, etc 28 
 
 Merrimac Chemical Co., Boston, Mass.j hydrate of alumina, etc 94 
 
 Michigan Ammonia Works, Detroit, Mich., ammonia 98 
 
 Michigan Carbon Works, Detroit, Mich., charcoal 115 
 
 Miller, W. E., New York, N. Y., gelatins, glue, isinglass, fish glue 220 
 
 Mousanto Chemical Works, St. Louis, Mo., phenolphthalein , alkalies, and 
 
 vanillin 79 
 
 National Association of Glue and Gelatin Manufacturers, Philadelphia, Pa., 
 
 glue and gelatin 204 
 
 National Association of Tanners, Milwaukee, Wis., dying or tanning extracts. . 183 
 
 National Borax Co., San Francisco, Cal., borax, boracic acid, borate of lime... 121 
 National Wood Chemical Association, Atlanta, Ga., charcoal, acetate of lime, 
 
 and wood alcohol 117 
 
 Natural Products Refining Co., Jersey City, N. J., bichromate of potash, sul- 
 phuric acid 359 
 
 Newark Chamois Co., Newark, N. J., cod oil 293 
 
 New York Metal Ceiling Co., New York, N.Y., olive oil 285 
 
 New York Tanning Extract Co., New York, N. Y., quebracho extract 182 
 
 Niagara Alkali Co., Niagara Falls, N. Y., caustic potash 360 
 
 Nichols, W. H., jr.- epsom salts, sulphuric, muriatic, and nitric acids 36 
 
 O'Connell, Joseph F., coal-tar dyes or colors 158 
 
 Ohio Chemical & Manufacturing Co., Cleveland, Ohio, epsom salts 238 
 
 Orr, John B., Boston, Mass., bone glue and liquid fish glue 216 
 
 Orth, M. S.. Boston, Mass., tanning extracts, nutgalls, Persian berries, hem- 
 lock bark,' etc 192 
 
 Pacific Coast Borax Co., New York, N. Y., boracic acid and borax 125 
 
 Pacific Mills, Cocheco Department, Dover, N. H., hydron blue 165 
 
 Paint Manufacturers' Association of the United States, Philadelphia, Pa., 
 
 paints 322 
 
 Paint Manufacturers' Association of the United States, Detroit, Mich., white 
 
 lead and colors . 353 
 
 Park & Tilford, chemicals, oils, paints, and perfumery, etc 66 
 
 Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Co., hydrate of alumina, etc 93 
 
 Perth Amboy Chemical Works, New York City, formaldehyde, paraformalde- 
 
 hyde 77 
 
 Pfker & Co., New York City: 
 
 Camphor, refined, etc 129 
 
 Citric acid, lime and lemon juice 43 
 
 Pfister & Vogel Leather Co., Milwaukee, Wis., Newfoundland oil 293 
 
 Philadelphia (Pa.) Quartz Co., Philadelphia, Pa., silicate of soda 418 
 
 Point Milling & Manufacturing Co., Mineral Point, Mo., barytes 301 
 
 Pomeroy & Fischer, New York City, paints, oils, and varnishes 348 
 
 Powers-Weightman-Rosengarteii Co., Philadelphia, Pa., citric acid, citrate of 
 
 lime, lime juice 42 
 
 Pratt Laboratory, Atlanta, Ga., Epsom salts 236 
 
 Procter & Gamble. Cincinnati, Ohio, soaps 403 
 
 Providence Drysalters Co., Providence, R. I., blanc fixe and satin white 303 
 
 Purves, Austin M. , hydrate of alumina, etc 92 
 
 Queeny, John F., St. Louis, Mo., phenolphtalein, alkalies, and vanillin 79 
 
 Randolph, Hollins N., Atlanta, Ga., charcoal, acetate of lime, and wood 
 
 alcohol 117 
 
 Reichard, F. A., New York, N. Y., dry colors 307 
 
 Ricksecker, Theodore, perfumeries, toilet waters, alcohol, and cologne 380 
 
 Ritchie & Co., New York, N. Y., glue 207 
 
 Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co., New York City: 
 
 Ceramic colors (metal oxides) .. 345 
 
 Cyanide salts and potassium cyanide 371 
 
 Rueb & Gleichman, Rotterdam, barytes 302 
 
 Russell Borate Mining Co., Ventura, Cal., borax, boric acid, and borate of lime. 124 
 
 Russell, Henry M., Ventura, Cal., borax, boric acid, and borate of lime 124 
 
 Seabury & Johnson, New York City, surgical dressings 380 
 
 Schering & Glatz, New York, N. Y., camphor 130 
 
 Schoellkopf, J. F., Buffalo, N. Y., coal-tar dyes 134 
 
 Schoellkopf, Hartford & Hanna Co., Buffalo, N . Y., coal-tar dyes 134 
 
VTTT CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Sholes, J. G., Cleveland, Ohio, Epsom salts 238 
 
 Simon, George, Garfield, N. J., salicylic acid 18 
 
 Skiddy, W. W., Stamford, Conn., tanning extracts, dyewood, and bark 170 
 
 Smith, Alfred H., Co., chemicals, oils, paints, and perfumery, etc 66 
 
 Snevily, M. B., New York City, olive seed, flaxseed, and hempseed 75 
 
 Somers, Arthur S., New York City, dry colors (chrome colors, coal-tar dyes, 
 
 paints, Paris green) 330 
 
 Spencer, Kellogg & Sons, New York City, linseed, flaxseed, and hempseed 
 
 -i at OEcn 
 
 oils 81, 259 
 
 Stengel & Rothschild, Newark, N. J., oils and chemicals 292 
 
 Summers, Dr. S. Lewis, Fort Washington, Pa., acetyl-salicylic acid 
 
 Tartar Chemical Co., Brooklyn, N. Y., argols 112 
 
 Tennant Sons & Co., New York City, nitrate of ammonia 89 
 
 Tirrell, Frederick N., Boston, Mass., chalk, Paris white, whiting (natural, 
 
 ground, or bolted) 131 
 
 Todd, T. S., & Co., New York City: 
 
 Alizarin 252 
 
 Blanc fixe and satin white 303 
 
 Verona Chemical Co., North Newark, N. J., spices, peppermint, clove, pimento, 
 
 allspice, etc 70 
 
 Victor Chemical Works, Chicago, 111., Epsom salts 246 
 
 Vogel, August, Milwaukee, Wis., tanning extracts, ethers, sulphuric acid 183 
 
 Waddell, Robert S., Peoria, 111., chlorate of potash 369 
 
 Wadhams, William H., New York City, soap 403 
 
 Walton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., cod oil 292 
 
 Washburn, A. H., enameled paints, oil, varnish, zinc oxide 312 
 
 Watson, Herbert, Charles County, Md., bicarbonate of potash 83 
 
 Weil, Jacob, New York City, medicinal preparations 375 
 
 White, William A., gallic and pyrogallic acids 31 
 
 Wilckes, Martin Wilckes Co., New York City, lampblack (bone, ivory, or vege- 
 table) 304 
 
 Williams, C. K., & Co., Easton, Pa., ourl (siennas, lead, and bichromate of 
 
 potash or soda) 307 
 
 Wrigley Co., Chicago, 111., chicle 235 
 
 Yahr & Lange Drug Co., Milwaukee, Wis., medicinal preparations 376 
 
 Zucca, Antonio, olive oil, cottonseed oil 274 
 
 SCHEDULE B. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Agard, E. A., Fairbury, 111., glass bottles 760 
 
 Alabama Marble Co., and others, marble, etc 920 
 
 Allegheny Plate Glass Co., Glassrnere, Pa., and others, plate glass 835 
 
 Allegany Window Glass Co., Port Allegany, Pa., window glass 815 
 
 Altenberg, G. P., Cincinnati, Ohio, vacuum bottles, jars, carafes 752 
 
 American Association of Flint and Lime Glass Manufacturers, glass cutters 739 
 
 American Association of Portland Cement Manufacturers, cement, lime 438 
 
 American Carbon & Battery Co., St. Louis, Mo., carbon brushes, etc 697 
 
 American Clay Co., Akron, Colo., fuller's earth 543 
 
 American Clay Producers' Association, Macon, Ga., china clay 528 
 
 American Ever Ready Co., carbon clinkers 683 
 
 American Flint Glass Workers' Union, glass and glassware 710, 743 
 
 American Optical Co., Southbridge, Mass., spectacles, lenses, etc 862 
 
 American Plate Glass Industry, plate glass '835 
 
 Ansco Co., Binghamton, N. Y., lenses, cameras, etc 895 
 
 Armstrong, Theodore, Philadelphia, Pa., bauxite 520 
 
 Asheville Mica Co., Asheville, N. C., mica 555 
 
 Ashley, George W., Baltimore, Md., marble, etc 936 
 
 Association of American Portland Cement Manufacturers, cement, lime 449 
 
 Atlas Roofing Co., Xewburgh, N. Y., fire-brick tiles 435 
 
 Auerbach, Joseph S., New York, N. Y., plate glass 821 
 
 Baldwin, A. H., Washington, D. C., cement imports into Canal Zone 460 
 
 Barber, Asphalt Paving Co., asphalt 486 
 
 Bausch & Lorub Optical Co., Rochester, X. Y., spectacles, lenses, etc 882 
 
 Benton Chamber of Commerce, Benton, Ark., bauxite 521 
 
 Blake, Will T. , pottery 680 
 
CONTENTS. DC 
 
 Page. 
 
 Boggs, F. C., Washington, D. C., cement 461 
 
 Borgfeldt & Co., New York, N. Y., pottery 676 
 
 Brantley, Hon. W. G., asphaltum 505 
 
 Brotherhood of Potters, white chinaware 631 
 
 Brown, S. H., Asheville, N. C., mica 555 
 
 Brown, W. Vance, Asheville, N. C., mica 556 
 
 Burgess, William, Trenton, N. J., pottery, china, etc 593 
 
 Burley & Tyrell Co., Chicago, 111., pottery 683 
 
 California Camera Club, San Francisco, Cal., lenses, etc 891 
 
 Carey, H. D., Scranton, Pa., cut glass 744 
 
 Casey, Charles L., Cambridge, Ohio, pottery 587 
 
 Champion Carbon Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, carbon 689 
 
 Champion Coated Paper Co., Hamilton, Ohio, china clay 530 
 
 Chavant Manufacturing Co., Jersey City, N. J., carbon 687 
 
 Chrystall, Ckarles B., New York, N. Y., pumice stone 484 
 
 City of Mobile, Mobile, Ala., asphalts 510 
 
 Clow & Sons, Chicago, 111., marble 941 
 
 Clyde, J. L., Olean, N. Y., glass bottles 707 
 
 Corliss Carbon Co., Bradford, Pa., carbons, etc 686, 702 
 
 Curie, Smith & Maxwell, New York, N. Y., stained window glass, etc 906 
 
 Cut Glass Manufacturers' Association, Brooklyn, N. Y., cut glass 751 
 
 Denny & Wright, Rome, Ga., asphaltum 505 
 
 Dorflinger, William F., glass cutters, etc 739 
 
 Feeney & Devanny Co., New York, N. Y., marble 940 
 
 Fies, Eugene, Birmingham, Ala., asphalts 506 
 
 Forrest, Edwin J., Pyriton, Ala., mica 561 
 
 Friedlaender, Oscar O., New York, N. Y., hollow glassware, shades, chimneys. 776 
 
 Gemnert, G., New York City, lenses, cameras, etc 897 
 
 Gennert, G. C., New York, N. Y., opera and field glasses, etc 883 
 
 Glass Bottle Blowers' Association Philadelphia, Pa., glass and glassware 709 
 
 Glassworkers' Union, Philadelphia, Pa., imported glassware 776 
 
 Gostling, Charles R., Eustis, Fla., kieselguhr (diatomite) 546 
 
 Grant, Adolph, & Co., New York, N. Y., tiles 437 
 
 Graves, Henry B., spectacles, lenses, etc 873 
 
 Great Southern Mica Co., Asheville, N. C., mica 556 
 
 Grindstaff, B. C., Asheville, N. C., mica 556 
 
 Guernsey Earthenware Co., Cambridge, Ohio, pottery 587 
 
 Hammill & Gillespie, New York, N. Y., fuller s earth 545 
 
 Hamilton, Alice, Chicago, 111., pottery 682 
 
 Hamilton, F. E., New York, N. Y., spectacles, lenses, etc 881 
 
 Hanold, Frank J., New York, N. Y., granite, etc 942 
 
 Hastings Pavement Co., New York, N. Y., asphalts 507 
 
 Hays, D. A., Philadelphia, Pa., glass and glassware 709 
 
 Henry Marble Co., Chicago, 111., marble 939 
 
 Hilton, H. R., window glass 803 
 
 Homer Laughlin China Co., Newell, W. Va., pottery 679 
 
 Howard, William M., Philadelphia, Pa., asphaltum 502 
 
 Huke, Herman W., Torrington, Conn., lime 464 
 
 Hutchins, Frank H., white chinaware G31, 365 
 
 "Icy-Hot" Bottle Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, vacuum bottles, jars, carafes 752 
 
 Iowa State Highway Commission, Ames, Iowa, asphalts 510 
 
 Italian Chamber of Commerce, New York, N. Y., pumice stone 480 
 
 Jackson & Co., New York, N. Y., and others, marble, etc 928 
 
 Jackson, C. D., New York, N. Y., marble, etc 928 
 
 Jacoby & Son Co., Philadelphia, Pa., marble 940 
 
 Jenkins, Harry, Alton, 111., glass bottles 703 
 
 Johnston Glass Co., Hartford City, Ind., window glass, etc 777 
 
 Johnston, J. R., Hartford City, Ind., window glass, etc 777 
 
 Jones, Jerome, Boston, Mass., earthenware, china, glass 612 
 
 Jost, Henry L., Kansas Citv, Mo., asphalts 509 
 
 Keene Mica Products Co., Keene, N. H., mica 562 
 
 King, J. B., & Co., New York, N. Y., and others, plaster rock, crude gypsum. . 471 
 
 Kirchberger, M., & Co., New York, N. Y., and others, glassware 765 
 
 Kolb, George, New York, N. Y., decorated china 668 
 
 Lane, T. M., stained window glass 901 
 
 Lesley, Robert W., cement, lime 438 
 
 Lessler, Montague, New York, N. Y., plaster rock, crude gypsum 470 
 
X CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Limoges China Co., Sebring, Ohio, pottery 680 
 
 M. & G. Mica Co., Pyriton, Ala., mica 561 
 
 McDonald, Chas., Marble Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, marble 940 
 
 Marble Industry Employers' Association, New York, N. Y., marble 920 
 
 Marquardt Marble & Granite Co., St. Louis, Mo., marble 940 
 
 Mayer, Frederick E., Philadelphia, Pa., stained window glass 905 
 
 Mayer & Co., Philadelphia, Pa., stained window glass 901 
 
 Merrimac Chemical Co., bauxite 519 
 
 Meyer Co., New York, N . Y., quarry, tiles 436 
 
 Meyer, Max, New York, N. Y., lenses cameras, etc 899 
 
 Meyer, W. C., Spokane, Wash., electric-light bulbs 765 
 
 Mica Association, mica 551 
 
 Martin-Copeland Co., Providence, R. I., lenses, cameras, etc 900 
 
 Moore, R. M., New York, N. Y., moving-picture cameras 901 
 
 Morgan, Peter W., china clay 528 
 
 Moulton, H. G., Rockland, Me., cement 455 
 
 Mungesser Carbon & Battery Co., Cleveland, Ohio, carbon 696 
 
 Murphey, Elmer R., Chicago and New York, pumice stone 474 
 
 National Association of Granite Dealers, granite, etc 942 
 
 National Brotherhood of Operative Potters, pottery 635, 680 
 
 National Carbon Co. , Cleveland, Ohio, carbons 697 
 
 National Vial and Bottle Manufacturers' Association, glass bottles 707 
 
 National Window Glass Association, window glass 785 
 
 Neenan, J. M., window glass 788 
 
 Neilson, Winthrop C., Philadelphia, Pa., bauxite, alumina 510 
 
 Nelson, N. 0., Marble Co., Edwardsville, 111., marble 946 
 
 New England Portland Cement Co., Rockland, Me., cement 457 
 
 Newark Lime & Cement Manufacturing Co., Newark, N. J., crude gypsum 473 
 
 Munn, C. S., fluorspar 531 
 
 Ornamental Glass Manufacturers' Association, stained-glass windows 910 
 
 Pedrara Onyx Co., San Diego, Gal., onyx 941 
 
 Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Co., Philadelphia, Pa., bauxite 520 
 
 Perkins Goodwin Co., New York, N. Y., china clay or kaolin, earths, glassware. 529 
 
 Peoria Stone and Marble Works, Peoria, 111., marble, etc 939 
 
 Perry, John F., Bridgeton, N. J., glass bottles 707 
 
 Pitcairn, W. S., New York, N. Y., pottery 564, 580, 586 
 
 Pitkin, E. II., Chicago, 111., pottery, crockery, earthenware, china 607 
 
 Pure Carbon Co., Wellsville, N. Y., carbons,"etc 695 
 
 Reisinger, Hugo, New York. N. Y., carbons, etc 689 
 
 Republic Mining & Manufacturing Co., bauxite, alumina 510 
 
 Rhodes, James H., & Co., Chicago and New York, pumice stone 474 
 
 Richardson, John, Boston, Mass., china clay of kaolin 521 
 
 Richardson Co., Boston, Mass., china clay or kaolin 521 
 
 Rock Island Batteiy Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, coal-gas retort carbon, etc 697 
 
 Rockland & Rockport Lime Co., Rockland, Me., lime 464 
 
 Rosenberger, John A.. Alexandria, Ind., glass and glassware 710 
 
 Rosiclare Lead and Fluor Spar Mines, Rosiclare and Fairview, 111., fluor spar. 543 
 
 Rowe, T. W., Toledo, Ohio, glass, glassware, etc 710 
 
 Rudd, Henry W., New York, N. Y., asphalt 507 
 
 Salomon. F. A., & Bro., New York, N. Y., fuller's earth 545 
 
 Sargent, Paul D., Washington, D. C., asphaltum 502 
 
 Scammell, H. B., St. Louis, Mo., pottery 563 
 
 Schwarz, Laz. Mobile. Ala., asphalts 510 
 
 Scott, M. F., Benton, Ark., bauxite 521 
 
 Semon Bache & Co., Xew York, N. Y., window glass, plate glass 816, 848 
 
 Seneca Camera Manufacturing Co., Rochester, N. Y., lenses, etc 892 
 
 Sewall, Arthur W., asphaltum, bitumen 486 
 
 Sewall, John S., marble, etc 920 
 
 Shearn, Clarence J., New York, N. Y., lampshades and chimneys 775 
 
 Shipway & Bro., New York, N. Y., marble 941 
 
 Simmons, Fred G., Milwaukee, Wig., lake asphalts, petroleum residuum or 
 
 blown-oil asphalts 506 
 
 Sisson Marble Co., Baltimore, Md., marble, etc 936 
 
 Solari, Luigi, New York, N. Y., pumice stone 480 
 
 Southern Asphalt & Construction Co., Birmingham, Ala., asphalts 506 
 
 Southern Gypsum Co., North Holston, Va., crude gypsum 467 
 
CONTENTS. . XI 
 
 Page. 
 
 Speer Carbon Co., St. Marys, Pa., carbons, etc 685 
 
 Stackpole Carbon Co., St. Marys, Pa., carbons 686 
 
 Standard Diatomite Co. , Eustis, Fla. , kieselguhr (diatomite) 546 
 
 Standard Marble Works, Cincinnati, Ohio, marble 939 
 
 Standard Optical Co., Geneva, N. Y., spectacles, lenses, etc 873 
 
 Stevens, D. F., Danbury, Conn., window glass 820 
 
 Stone, William A., window glass 785 
 
 Storrs, Charles P., Owego, N. Y., mica 547 
 
 Taylor-Hobson Co., New York, N. Y., spectacles, lenses, etc 881 
 
 Thurston, F. W., & Co., Chicago, 111., pumice stone 485 
 
 Tilton Optical Co., Tilton, N. H., spectacles, lenses, etc : 880 
 
 Tomkins, Calvin, New York, N. Y., crude gypsum 473 
 
 Traitel, Benjamin D., New York. N. Y., marble 911 
 
 Underbill, Geo. H., Boston, Mass., lenses, cameras, etc 898 
 
 United States Incandescent Lamp Co., electric-light bulbs, electric lamps 763 
 
 United States Lens Co. , spectacles, lenses, etc 878 
 
 United States Potters' Association, pottery, china, etc 593 
 
 United States Stoneware Co., Akron, Ohio, stoneware 563 
 
 Vereinigte Lansitzer Glaswerke, A. G., New York Branch, glass and glassware. 708 
 
 Vermont Marble Co., and others, marble, etc 918 
 
 Voorhis, J. W., carbon clinkers 683 
 
 Waddell, R. J., & Co., New York, N. Y., schumachersche fabrik or German 
 
 rubbing bricks, hones, and whetstones 478 
 
 Waling, Donald, Keene, N. H., mica 562 
 
 Watson Bros., Boston, Mass., mica 561 
 
 Watts, Ethelbert, consul general, Brussels, glass industry 820 
 
 Wells, Charming M., Southbridge, Mass., spectacles, lenses, etc 862 
 
 Wells, W. E., East Liverpool, Ohio, white tableware 636 
 
 Whitacre, J. J., white tableware 647 
 
 Wilder, Frank A., North Holston, Va., crude gypsum 467 
 
 Williams, Brown & Earle, Philadelphia, Pa. , lenses, etc 891 
 
 Wills, J. M., Akron, Ohio, stoneware 563 
 
 Witnesses, swearing of 946 
 
 Yost, George W., Bellaire, Ohio, glass bottles 707 
 
SCHEDULE A. 
 CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 ZTTT 
 
SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 January 6 and 7, 1913. 
 
 The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Oscar W. Underwood 
 in the chair. 
 
 Present with the chairman: Messrs. Harrison, Shackleford, 
 Kitchin, James, Rainey, Dixon, Hull, Peters, Payne, Hill, Needham, 
 Palmer, Longworth . 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The clerk will 
 dispense with the roll call. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HENRY HOWARD, BOSTON, MASS., CHAIRMAN 
 OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE MANUFACTURING 
 CHEMISTS' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Weed is secretary of the Manu- 
 facturing Chemists' Association, and he can not attend. I am 
 appearing for the executive committee, being chairman of the 
 executive committee. My name is Henry Howard. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Henry Howard ? 
 
 Mr. HOWARD. Henry Howard. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Howard, the committee will be glad if you 
 can make your statement in 15 minutes. 
 
 Mr. HOWARD. I can easily do that. In view of the fact that the 
 Manufacturing Chemists' Association of the United States has been 
 assigned among the first to be heard at the opening hearing of your 
 committee on January 6, it is perhaps proper that this association 
 should first raise the question of the best method of procedure with 
 respect to all investigations regarding Schedule A, to the end that 
 the true conditions of the chemical industry may be fairly and 
 accurately ascertained. 
 
 Furthermore, this association must necessarily confine itself to the 
 broad question of the character and method of investigation, as the 
 association has not the available data necessary to enable it to speak 
 specifically regarding the many and varied items of the chemical 
 schedule. The association will therefore address itself to the funda- 
 mental principle of expert investigation, pointing out in this regard 
 certain errors and inconsistencies which have resulted from past 
 methods of procedure, and leave the question ol the discussion of 
 individual items to individual witnesses. 
 
 The association has for years given much study to the question of 
 tariff and tariff revision. As a result of the experience thus gained 
 the association has reached, the conclusion that no adequate and 
 
 TS'J.j!) VOL 113 I I 
 
2 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 just revision of Schedule A can be had except after careful and 
 expert investigation. The association advocated this principle at 
 the time of the last revision in 1908-9. Again, in September, 1911, 
 by resolutions at that time adopted, the association with unanimous 
 consent embodied its views. Copies of these resolutions were sent 
 to the members of your committee, with a tender of cooperation in 
 any investigation which your committee should then undertake. 
 The association again tenders its cooperation. 
 
 The first question which arises is the creation of a proper forum 
 for the taking of evidence and the ascertaining of the essential facts 
 and data. The association feels strongly that no committee or body 
 of the size of the Ways and Means Committee can, as a whole, con- 
 duct an investigation which is so essentially technical as an investi- 
 gation of the chemical industry. The very fact of the number pres- 
 ent necessarily prohibits a scientific inquiry and results in the intro- 
 duction of collateral issues foreign to the topic of discussion. Fur- 
 thermore, two days, which is the maximum amount of time assigned 
 by your committee to Schedule A, is hardly more than sufficient for 
 presenting and cataloguing the many briefs from those who undoubt- 
 edly wish to be heard. 
 
 For some time the members of this association have held the 
 opinion that a satisfactory investigation can only be conducted by 
 a committee or commission, nonpartisan in composition, which shall 
 have a tenure of office of sufficient duration to complete work of 
 great magnitude, and which shall be clothed with the necessary 
 authority to employ competent experts and hear the testimony of 
 those possessing an accurate knowledge of the subject. The associa- 
 tion has not changed its attitude in this regard; but, in the absence 
 of an investigation by such a body, this association respectfully 
 requests that your committee consider the advisability of delegating 
 to a subcommittee of its own members, or other duly constituted 
 bod} T , the authority to investigate the chemical industry, with power 
 to employ sufficient and competent experts and to hear testimony. 
 Such a subcommittee or body, when fortified by its own experts, 
 should be able to conduct hearings orderly in procedure and scien- 
 tific in character. No report should be required nor any legislation 
 attempted until such time as the investigating committee had acquired 
 sufficient data and knowledge of the industry to be able not only to 
 comprehend the relation which eacJi product bears to the other 
 products in its own schedule but also the relation which each product 
 bears to the entire industry of the country. 
 
 In this connection the association refers without comment to the 
 report of Mr. Xagel, Secretary of Commerce and Labor. Apparently 
 there exists with this department sufficient authority to conduct an 
 expert tariff investigation by virtue of an act passed several years 
 ago, it only requiring an effective appropriation to make this act of 
 real working value. The association, however, does not pretend to 
 discuss the validity of this act but rather offers it as a suggestion for 
 the consideration of your committee in connection with the question 
 of expert investigation, which alone is of fundamental importance. 
 
 Your committee has already had under discussion the chemical 
 schedule. Your Report on Schedule A, submitted to the House on 
 February Hi. 1912, is a very comprehensive document, considering 
 the limited amount of time which vour committee had to devote to 
 
SCHEDULE A. 3 
 
 the problem. The proposed bill which is embodied in the report 
 known as H. R. 20182 contains many salutary changes in the ex- 
 isting law and offers many changes in present classifications which 
 would undoubtedly prove beneficial. 
 
 The bill II. R. 20182, however, is far from perfect. The changes 
 in classification are hardly fundamental, and the revision of rates is 
 distinctly illogical in that the relation of raw material to finished 
 product is persistently ignored, the relation of one product to another 
 is apparently in many instances misunderstood, and there are many 
 other errors which would undoubtedly be eradicated in the light of 
 expert consideration. The report contains a glossary on Schedule 
 A, marked "Appendix C." Tnis document is, however, little more 
 than its name indicates, a mere glossary or translation of technical 
 chemical terms into laymen's English. The information contained 
 hi this document is but the a b c to a chemical education, and it is 
 submitted without a suggestion of disrespect that the glossary is of 
 practically no avail to the lay mind without the constant interpreta- 
 tion of the chemical expert. 
 
 In thus freely criticizing the bill and the accompanying report on 
 Schedule A, our association does not wish to adopt the attitude of 
 superior wisdom. On the contrary, it is with the greatest respect for 
 the .enormous task before your committee that we venture to sug- 
 gest that no adequate revision can be had under the ordinary meth- 
 ods of procedure which have characterized revisions in times past. 
 
 Regarding the question of adjustment of rates as between raw 
 materials and finished product, our association has made a careful 
 analysis of H. R. 20182 as compared with the act of 1909. For the 
 purpose of this analysis the so-called "caucus print," which is Appen- 
 dix B of your report, has been used. The "caucus print" gives 
 definite data and an estimate of revenue, etc., for a 12-months' 
 period regarding approximately 300 specific articles contained in 
 the 76 paragraphs of the duitable list. Of these 300 articles, 97, 
 or approximately one-third, may be classified as raw materials, and 
 the rest, or approximately two-thirds, may be classified as finished 
 product. 
 
 Of the 97 different raw materials made dutiable under the pro- 
 posed bill (H. R. 20182), 80 were entered free under the Payne act of 
 1909. Of the remaining 17 articles, the duty in almost every instance 
 was increased from the rates under the existing law. 
 
 The "caucus print" further shows that the total revenue derived 
 from Schedule A under the Payne act for 1911 amounted to 
 $12,966,545, while the estimated revenue for a 12-months' period 
 under H. R. 20182 amounts to $16,170,157, or an increase hi revenue 
 of nearly $3,500,000. This increased revenue, however, results 
 entirely from the increase of rates on raw materials, the revenue from 
 the above-mentioned raw materials under the act of 1909 amounting 
 to $1,826,955, while the estimate for a 12-months' period for the same 
 raw materials under H. R. 20182 amounts to $6,081,060, or an increase 
 of approximately $4.000,000. At the same time, under the proposed 
 bill, the rates of duty on finished products are very materially de- 
 creased with the estimated result that the revenue for a 12-months' 
 period on finished products would amount to $10,089,097 as against 
 $11,139,590 revenue under the act of 1909, or an estimated decrease 
 
4 TAEIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 in revenue by virtue of the decrease in rates on finished products of 
 more than $1,000,000. 
 
 Thus it is apparent that the estimated increase in revenue under 
 II. R. 20182 comes entirely from a most radical increase in rates on 
 raw materials, an increase so great, that a loss in revenue on finished 
 products of approximately $1,000,000, owing to a drastic decrease i i 
 the average rate from about 25 per cent ad valorem to about 16 pe.' 
 cent ad valorem, is not only offset but a net increase in revenue i > 
 estimated of nearlv $3.500,000. 
 
 A complete analysis, showing a comparison of the Payne Act and 
 H. R. 20182 with respect to changes in duties on raw materials and 
 finished products, may be found in a brief of this association printed 
 in the Hearings and Statements before the Committee on Finance, 
 United States Senate, March 14 to 22, 1912, at pages 438-454. 
 
 This means a double hardship to the manufacturer. It not only 
 removes his protection against the more favorable conditions of manu- 
 facture existing in foreign countries, but it renders those conditions 
 even more difficult, if not prohibitive, by taxing the basic materials 
 which enter into the finished product. 
 
 It is hardly conceivable that this result in its entirety was intended 
 as a matter of policy by your committee, for such a policy, if pursued 
 for all schedules, would inevitably bring disaster to many industries 
 with the consequent hardship to labor unemployed. The result, in 
 a large number of instances at least, must have been brought about 
 by a misconception of the basic character of many commodities a 
 misconception which will inevitably occur in the absence of a thor- 
 oughly expert investigation. 
 
 The American manufacturers are not only in competition with 
 each other, but they arc also in competition with the great German 
 syndicates, combinations which under the laws of this country would 
 undoubtedly be declared illegal and void. These large German com- 
 binations effectually control the market, regulate prices, and are able 
 to dump surplus product into this country at prices against which 
 our domestic manufacturers can not compete. The existence of the 
 German syndicates is recognized in the report of your committee. 
 
 The question of the dumping of surplus product into this country 
 by foreign manufacturers is a matter of most serious concern to the 
 chemical industry. The Manufacturing Chemists' Association strongly 
 recommends to your committee a thorough consideration of this im- 
 portant subject, and in this regard calls attention to section 6 of the 
 Canadian customs tariff act of 1907. which provides as follows: 
 
 In the case of articles exported to Canada of a class or kind made or produced in 
 Canada, if the export or actual selling price to an importer in Canada is less than the 
 fair market value of the same article when sold for home consumption in the usual 
 and ordinary course in the country whence exported to Canada at the time of its 
 exportation to Canada, there shall, in addition to the duties otherwise established, be 
 levied, collected, and paid on such article, on its importation into Canada, a special 
 duty (or dumping duty) equal to the difference between the said Selling price of the 
 article for export and the said fair market value thereof for home consumption; and 
 such special duty ('or dumping duty) shall be levied, collected, and paid on such 
 irticle, although it is not otherwise dutiable. 
 
 Provided, That the said special duty shall not exceed fifteen per cent ad valorem 
 in any ca^e. 
 
 The higher cost of labor in this country, as compared with foreign 
 countries, is a disadvantage which daily confronts our domestic 
 manufacturer. On pages -'-505 and 37U of your report statistics are 
 
SCHEDULE A. 5 
 
 given which throw much light on the difference between this country 
 and Germany. From this authority it appears*that for 1910 there 
 were employed in this country in the cnemical industry 311,537 
 officials and employees, at a total salary or wage of $197,251,000, or 
 an average of $633.12 per man. The statistics given for Germany 
 show the average salary or wage in 172 different establishments to be 
 from $291.55 to $318.44. 
 
 These and many other disadvantages are all factors in drafting any 
 revision of the tariff which shall be adequate and just. 
 
 It is submitted, in conclusion, that if the interests of the manu- 
 facturer are to be considered and the high standard of the Ameri- 
 can wage earner to be maintained, your committee should at the 
 very outset take under most careful consideration the best method 
 of conducting its investigations, to the end that, whatever the theory 
 of revision may be, the revision, when made, shall contain a readjust- 
 ment of classifications and rates which shall be economically and 
 scientifically just. 
 
 The Manufacturing Chemists' Association of the United States 
 comprises the following members: 
 
 Barrett Manufacturing Co., 17 Battery Place, New York City; 
 Baugh & Sons Co., 20 South Delaware Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa.; 
 Butterworth & Judson Co., 60 Wall Street, New York City; Henry 
 Bower Chemical Manufacturing Co., 2185 Grays Ferry Road, Phila- 
 delphia, Pa.; The Cassella Color Co., 182 Front Street, New York 
 City; B. P. Clapp Ammonia Co., 257 Broadway, New York City; 
 Cochrane Chemical Co., 55 Kilby Street, Boston, Mass.; Columbia 
 Chemical Co., 1618 Frick Building, Pittsburgh, Pa.; Columbia Chem- 
 ical Works, 11 Broadway, New York City; Consolidated Color & 
 Chemical Co., 122 Hudson Street, New York City; Contact Process 
 Co., Buffalo, N. Y.; Davison Chemical Co., 601 Keyser Building, Bal- 
 timore, Md.; Detroit Chemical Co., 190 Junction Avenue, Detroit, 
 Mich.; General Chemical Co., 25 Broad Street, New York City; 
 Grasselli Chemical Co., Cleveland, Ohio; Harrison Bros. & Co. (Inc.), 
 Thirty-fifth Street and Grays Ferry Road, Philadelphia, Pa.; The 
 Heyden Chemical Works, 135 William Street, New York City; 
 Hooker Electro Chemical Co., New York City; Hudson River Aniline 
 Color Works, Albany, N. Y.: Heller & Merz Co., Newark, N. J. ; 
 Charles Lennig & Co. (Inc.), 112 South Front Street, Philadelphia, 
 Pa.; Thomas Leland & Co., Boston, Mass.; Mallinckrodt Chemical 
 Works, 3600 North Second Street, St. Louis, Mo.; Merrimac Chemical 
 Co., 33 Broad Street, Boston, Mass.; Merck & Co., New York City; 
 Momanto Chemical Works, St. Louis, Mo.; Mutual Chemical Co. of 
 America, West Side and Fulton Avenues, Jersey City, N. J.; National 
 Ammonia Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; Naugatuck Chemical Co., Nauga- 
 tuck, Conn.; New England Gas & Coke Co., 40 Water Street, Boston, 
 Mass.; New York Quinine & Chemical Co., 114 William Street, New 
 York City; Nichols Cooper Co., 25 Broad Street, New York City; 
 Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Co., 115 Chestnut Street, Philadel- 
 phia, IPa. ; Charles Pfizer & Co. (Ltd.), 81 Maiden Lane, New York 
 City; Philadelphia Quartz Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; Powers-Weight- 
 man-Rosengarten Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; Roessler & Hasslacher 
 Chemical Co., 100 William Street, Xew York City; Rumford Chemical 
 Works, Providence, R. I.; Solvay Process Co., Syracuse, N. Y.; 
 
6 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 Schoellkopf, Hartford & Hanna Co., Buffalo, N. Y.; Tartar Chemical 
 Co., 135 William StFeet, New York City. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Just one minute. I will say to the members of 
 the committee that the clerk and chairman have tried to divide the 
 time among these witnesses, and I will be very glad if the witnesses 
 may be allowed to consume their portion of the time, and then if 
 the committee desire to cross-examine the witness, let that time 
 come out of the time of the committee, and not out of the witness's 
 time. Mr. Howard has used up all of his time now, but if any member 
 of the committee desires to ask him any questions they may do so; 
 if not, we will call the next witness. 
 
 VIEWS OF JOHNSON & JOHNSON, NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J., ON 
 THE CHEMICAL SCHEDULE. 
 
 NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J., January 28, 1913. 
 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. O. 
 
 DEAR SIR: In consideration of the tariff schedules, especially 
 Schedule A, which applies to chemical and pharmaceutical prep- 
 arations, etc., we desire to present the following facts for your 
 consideration : 
 
 \Yhile we do not contend that the manufacturers of these products 
 need a high protective tariff, they should have a certain amount of 
 consideration. Taking our own line as a basis it is a fact that nearly 
 all of the goods which we manufacture originated and have been 
 developed by American industry. The manufacture of these prod- 
 ucts lias been followed and in some instances grossly imitated by 
 foreign manufacturers. In many countries when we attempt to 
 compete with European manufacturers in then: home market we 
 are met not only with conditions of lower cost of labor and lower 
 cost of raw materials but a high protective tariff. For example, 
 in Germany, whore there are a large number of manufacturers of 
 goods in our line, and which manufacturers have followed our methods 
 and our goods, there is a tariff ranging from 25 to 60 per cent on 
 manufactured products. Should manufactured products be admitted 
 free of duty, in our line we would be met with a peculiar condition 
 of an almost prohibitive tariff in Germany, with German products 
 admitted to this country either free or at a normal rate. 
 
 Further, we believe that manufacturers in this line should be 
 encouraged from the fact that in the case of great disasters, wars, 
 and the like, experience lias shown that our people must depend 
 on American manufacturers. For instance, in such late disasters 
 as the Galveston flood, the Johnstown flood, the San Francisco 
 earthquake, the Spanish- American War, and the like, it was impera- 
 tive that there should bo a source of supply immediately accessible. 
 This can only obtain where there is sufficient encouragement for 
 homo manufacture of these products. Our suggestions would be 
 ;..s follows : 
 
 The duly on finished products should be of such a rate as to enable 
 homo manufacturers to compote with European manufacturers in 
 1 ho American market. This would encourage the home manufacture 
 of these products. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 7 
 
 It would insure a revenue to the Government from continued 
 importations. 
 
 It would enlarge the demand for crude materials and encourage 
 the manufacture of such other raw material and intermediate products 
 as are now imported. 
 
 If, as we understand is proposed in the bill now being considered, 
 raw materials are taxed it will place home manufacture at a disad- 
 vantage. 
 
 Should it be advisable to levy duties on crude materials for revenue 
 purposes, then an increase of duty should also be made on the fin- 
 ished products for the encouragement and development of home 
 manufacture. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHNSON & JOHNSON. 
 F. B. KELME. 
 
 DE. J. BEBIE, ST. LOUIS, MO., WRITES CONCERNING THE 
 CHEMICAL SCHEDULE. 
 
 ST. Louis, Mo., February 1, 1913. 
 Mr. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: The chemical schedule being now under discussion by 
 the Ways and Means Committee. I am taking the liberty of submit- 
 ting my views on the subject, an action to which I am prompted by 
 my 12 years' experience as chemical engineer. 
 
 H. R. 20182 as passed by the House of Representatives last fall 
 contains the extraordinary feature of proposing to levy import duty 
 on chemical raw materials, and lowering or removing the duties on 
 finished products made from these very raw materials. 
 
 While I can not conceive that it be the deliberate intention or 
 purpose of a legislative body to cripple or destroy a hitherto flour- 
 ishing and growing industry, it is certain in my mind that a tariff 
 bill such as H. R. 20182, if it becomes law, is bound to so affect 
 the now existing chemical industry of this country. The following 
 few arguments should, I believe, substantiate my views. 
 
 A great number of drug and chemical products can not be manu- 
 factured in this country in competition with European products, 
 unless duty is levied as to offset the difference in cost of manufacture 
 here and abroad. As is generally known, the higher cost of manu- 
 facture in this country over the cost in Europe is due to several 
 causes high wages paid to skilled and unskilled labor; higher sal- 
 aries paid to chemists, engineers, and all other professionals; higher 
 first and maintenance cost of machinery, buildings, and general 
 fixtures. 
 
 The crude materials for many drugs and chemical products are not 
 available in this country, therefore these products should remain on 
 the free list in order to enable the American manufacturer using these 
 raw materials to meet foreign competition with the finished products, 
 in the manufacture of which these raw materials have been used. 
 
 Only on that basis will it be possible for many branches of the 
 American chemical industry to continue and to develop. To encour- 
 age such a development is not only in the interest of the many thou- 
 sands connected directly or indirectly with these industries but it is 
 
8 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 also in the interest of the Government and the consumer, because it 
 is an established fact that many of those products which are not manu- 
 factured in this country are selling at excessive prices and many 
 products could be enumerated which are selling 30 to 50 per cent 
 cheaper now that they are also manufactured in this country. The 
 duty on these products, which made their home manufacture possible, 
 therefore not only did not increase the selling price of these products, 
 but was the actual cause of bringing it down to a reasonable figure. 
 
 That the present duties are not of a prohibitive character is demon- 
 strated by the fact that importation of dutiable products is steadily 
 increasing, and the present tariff system and principle of levying duties 
 should therefore be also satisfactory from the standpoint of Govern- 
 ment revenue. On the other hand if duties should be put on raw 
 materials, the importation would undoubtedly decrease to a great 
 extent, because the manufacture of products necessitating such raw 
 materials would be discouraged and stopped as soon as foreign com- 
 petition would make such manufacture prohibitive. It is therefore 
 more than likely that duties on raw materials would prove to be a 
 very unreliable source of revenue. 
 
 If, however, changes are considered necessary, due consideration 
 should be given to the arguments submitted by the various manufac- 
 turing interests, because they are in position to give data and facts 
 which make a thorough study of the subject possible. On that basis 
 changes could be brought about for revenue purposes and with the 
 object of doing away with some prohibitive duties as may exist at 
 present and without the danger of inflicting serious damage to the 
 industry. 
 
 Having at heart not only my own personal interest as a chemical 
 engineer, but also the one of the profession and the growth of the 
 American chemical industry as well, I urge you to give that important 
 branch of American manufacture in the coming issue a fair hearing 
 and the chance for further development to which it is justly entitled. 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 DR. J. BEBIE, 
 3717 McDonald Avenue. 
 
 ALLERTON S. CUSHMAN, WASHINGTON, D. C., WRITES REGARD- 
 ING SCHEDULE A. 
 
 THE INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH, 
 
 Washington, D. C., January 27, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD. 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 f louse of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: [ have followed with the closest attention the hearings 
 of the Ways and Means Committee \vitli reference to Schedule A. I 
 have also given study to the bill, IT. R. 20182, which was passed at the 
 last session of Congress and which was framed on lines that, in the 
 general average, called for distinct reductions on the finished products 
 of American chemical industry and showed a tendency to place taxes 
 on raw materials previously on the free list. 
 
 My position as director of the Institute of Industrial Research, 
 which calls for cooperative investigation work with a great number 
 of chemical industries in this coimtrv, has led me to the belief that 
 

 SCHEDULE A. 9 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 the general policy of heavy reduction on finished products and 
 increase of taxation on raw materials must inevitably tend to dis- 
 courage and, to some extent, to destroy the chemical manufacturing 
 industry of this country. There is prooably no line of human indus- 
 try, in my opinion, in which this country Is more justified in seeking 
 protection than in the chemical industries, nor is there any line in 
 which we are more distinctly led, up to the present time, by Europe. 
 Nevertheless, we have been making great strides in this country, 
 especially in the last ten years. Many of our chemical industries are 
 just struggling to get ahead at the present time, and although the 
 labor cost against our chemical industry is much higher than the 
 European cost, our American ingenuity and cleverness in adapting 
 means to ends by substituting labor-saving devices is beginning to 
 pull us out to even terms. I can not help but feeling that if the 
 committee should in their wisdom give very careful heed to the 
 arguments which have been filed by the manufacturers they will 
 notice that, in respect to Schedule A particularly, there is very little 
 indication of greed or desire for undue or unjustified profits. The 
 taxation of the raw materials considered under Schedule A, as \yell as 
 the substantial increase of duties on finished materials, will, in my 
 opinion, operate only to the advantage of Germany and the other big 
 manufacturing countries. 
 
 Only my close touch with the subject which I am discussing would 
 justify my adding my word of appeal to you in respect to these 
 matters. 
 
 Very sincerely, yours, 
 
 ALLERTON S. CUSHMAN, Director. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1: 
 
 Acids : Acetic or pyroligneous acid, not exceeding the specific gravity of 
 one and forty-seven one-thousandths, three-fourths of one cent per pound; 
 exceeding the specific gravity of one and forty-seven one-thousandths, two 
 cents per pound ; acetic anhydrid, two and one-half cents per pound ; boracic 
 acid, three cents per pound; chromic acid, two cents per pound; citric acid, 
 seven cents per pound; lactic acid, containing not over forty per centum 
 by weight of actual lactic acid, two cents per pound; containing over forty 
 per centum by weight of actual lactic acid, three cents per pound; oxalic 
 acid, two cents per pound; salicylic acid, five cents per pound; sulphuric 
 acid or oil of vitriol not specially provided for in this section, one-fourth of 
 one cent per pound; tannic acid or tannin, thirty-five cents per pound; 
 gallic acid, eight cents per pound; tartaric acid, five cents per pound; all 
 other acids not specially provided for in this section, twenty-five per centum 
 ad valorem. 
 For boracic acid, see also Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 103; for thymol and 
 
 terpin hydrate, see Veiona Chemical Co., page 71. 
 
 ACIDS. 
 SALICYLIC ACID. 
 
 STATEMENT OF DR. S. LEWIS SUMMERS, FORT WASHINGTON, PA. 
 
 Dr. SUMMERS. Our Government and its citizens are being unjustly 
 taken advantage of by a 8100,000,000 corporation of Germany. 
 Through the inequalities of our tariff laws, in conjunction with our 
 patent laws, and the skillful manufacture and dissemination of 
 defamation calculated to discredit competition, this special interest 
 
10 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 has patented control of opportunity and deprived the noncombative 
 sick of the use of what would best restore their health. 
 
 This corporation is selling in the United States a long list of patent 
 medicines at prices many hundred per cent in excess of the prices for 
 what they sell the same products for to all other peoples. The drug- 
 gists of the United States have to pay 43 cents per ounce for aspirin 
 or acetyl-salicylic acid. There are most probably more than 10,000 
 ounces of it sold in this country every day. It costs the manufac- 
 turers of it less than 5 cents per ounce to produce it. All other peoples 
 can buy the same identical substance, made by the same corporation, 
 for less than 10 cents per ounce. The excess extortion filched from 
 the sick of the United States by this corporation of Germany for 
 acetyl-salicylic acid will most probably exceed in 17 years over 
 $20,476,500. 
 
 The so-called patent on acetyl-salicylic acid was obtained from our 
 Government by misrepresentation. The product was fully described 
 in Current Literature by Kraut in 1869. They claimed that their 
 acetyl-salicylic acid was different from that described by Kraut in 
 that their's did not liquefy until it reached a much higher tempera- 
 ture and that it did not produce a violet color when added to a weak 
 solution of chloride of iron. Our Patent Office has since acknowl- 
 edged, when it issued patent No. 740702 on the sodium salt of acetvl- 
 salicylic acid, that if the medicine is made in exact accordance with 
 the prescription written by Kraut in 1869 it would produce the 
 identical acetyl-salicylic acid fhey claimed. As to the definite 
 temperature at which the product is converted to a liquid condition, 
 there is none. It will completely liquefy, with decomposition, if 
 gradually heated to a temperature of 120 C., or 15 less than 
 claimed in the patent. 
 
 If our tariff is to be one of protection to American industry or one 
 of evenness, then these medicines should be taxed on the basis of 
 their selling prices in this country, and not taxed on the basis of the 
 cost of their production in another country. 
 
 The postal laws of our country are being violated by the Journal of 
 the American Medical Association to the material benefit of this 
 octopus corporation and some other favored German corporations 
 who have combined in the restraint of trade. Under the regulations 
 governing the use of the mails by publications at second-class rates, 
 our laws provide that there shall be no discrimination between manu- 
 facturers in the use of the advertising pages. The Journal of the 
 American Medical Association refuses the opportunity of making 
 known the truth about American-made competing chemical com- 
 pounds of superior value on the technicality that all products 
 advertised in the journal must be first approved of by its council on 
 pharmacy and chemistry of the American Medical Association. 
 This device is supposed to constitute this council as a "referee" and 
 is supposed to bind those who are intrepid enough to submit their 
 products to it to abide by its decision and forfeit the right to adver- 
 tise in that journal. Do our laws tolerate such blatant deceit? 
 
 Thus the patent medicines made by the $100,000,000 corporations 
 in Germany, who are in the combination to restrain competition in 
 medicines in the United States, were approved of en masse, over six 
 
SCHEDULE A. 11 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 years ago, by this so-called council on pharmacy and chemistry of 
 the American Medical Association. The competing medicines that 
 possess superior values in the amelioration of human suffering were 
 to be acted on later, after due consideration. It was not a question 
 of proprietary rights versus freedom of manufacture. Neither was it 
 the laudable question of curative values versus medicinal uselessness, 
 as stated by trie chairman of the council on pharmacy and chemistry 
 of the American Medical Association in a letter to me that the pro- 
 prietary products made by the favored German manufacturers 
 
 Are recognized and will need no investigation on the part of the council. * * * 
 If your preparations are patented, * * * send the number and date of the patent. 
 The therapeutic properties of the preparations need not be gone into except in brief. 
 The main thing in this case, of course, is to define the chemical position. That being 
 done, the rest is easy. 
 
 There is no class of men so sensitive to ridicule as the medical pro- 
 fession. This fact has made the American people the victims of the 
 German corporation. 
 
 Were the maintenance of this German monopoly and the discredit- 
 ing of American competition merely a question of merchandise the 
 Government would not stand for it. It is far worse. Being a ques- 
 tion of human life the public naturally have a right to think that the 
 function of this council was in the interests of the health of the people. 
 It is the cleverest device ever foisted before the American people for 
 the patenting of control of opportunity in behalf of special interests 
 by the manipulation of the confidence of guardians or the health of 
 the Nation. The tremendous prestige of the honorable positions 
 held by the individual members of this council, and the knowledge 
 that tne issue involved human lives, made it unthinkable that any 
 such class of men would permit the use of their reputations in this 
 scurvy attempt to discredit medicines having the power to alleviate 
 human sufferings. Thus, the weighty influence of the high prestige 
 of Harvey W. Wiley, then Chief Chemist of the Bureau of Agriculture, 
 the chief of the Drug Laboratory of the Bureau of Agriculture, along 
 with the power of the high positions in our leading medical colleges 
 held by the other members of that body, have produced deep-rooted 
 prejudices and fixed opinions of the prescribers of medicines and 
 established an insidious boycott of medicines capable of reducing 
 the period of sickness as quickly and in many instances much more 
 rapidly than any other medicine made anywhere by anybody. 
 
 By the display of the official positions of the individuals compos- 
 ing the council on pharmacy and chemistry there is accomplished 
 the appearance of the indorsement of favored patent medicines and 
 the condemnation of meritorious chemical compounds of known 
 composition by our Government and the leading medical colleges 
 (if our countiy that should prohibit the use of their stationery for 
 such purposes. 
 
 Six years ago the Government bought some acetyl-salicyl-phenet- 
 idin on the open market. It was analyzed and found to be a true 
 chemical compound. The chief of the drug laboratory, Lyman F. 
 Kebler, the so-called referee (he stated) to whom the council on 
 pharmacy and chemistry had referred this chemical compound to 
 for a report on it, told me that he could not report favorable upon 
 it, "because it passed through the alimentary canal without being 
 
12 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 absorbed." He gave as authority an article that had been pub- 
 lished hi Germany. 
 
 In the stipulation contained hi the agreement sent me by the 
 chairman of the council on pharmacy and chemistry all that was 
 essential was that 
 
 . The main thing in this case, of course, is to define the chemical position. That' 
 being done, the rest is easy. The therapeutic properties of the preparations need 
 not be gone into except in brief. 
 
 Under legislative law the chief of the drug laboratory of the Bureau 
 of Agriculture has to admit that these competing synthetics are 
 chemical compounds of known composition. Under the caption as 
 "referee" of the council on pharmacy and chemistry of the American 
 Medical Association he avoids approval by sophistry on specious 
 technicalities. 
 
 After several letters from me demanding evidence in substantiation 
 of his statement to me he supplied the name and issue of the German 
 publication. For this gentleman to be so well posted in the litera- 
 ture of the world, especially in a branch of science different from his 
 vocation and that printed in a foreign tongue, caused me to smile 
 when I thought of the many other such partisan statements that had 
 been conveniently printed in Germany and astutely circulated in the 
 United States for the purpose of discrediting the chemical compounds 
 which I had created. 
 
 The article he referred to was printed in the Berechte der Deutschen 
 Gesellschaft, volume 37, page 3975, and entitled, "Acetyl-salicyl- 
 phenetidin." See page 69 of my monograph. The article was pre- 
 pared by two of the leading chemists of Germany and one of its great- 
 est authorities on pharmacological testing. It was honest in what 
 \vas stated, but dishonest in conveying misleading inference by 
 adroitly omitting to state the principal part of the whole truth. It 
 gave me credit as being the originator of the compound and admitted 
 that the process, published by me, for the manufacture of this syn- 
 thetic chemical compound, was correct. It admitted that the medi- 
 cine does not reduce the normal temperature of the body, and that it 
 does not interfere with the oxygen-carrying function of the red-blood 
 corpuscles so vitally essential for life. But it deftly omitted to 
 tell the important part of the whole truth that where an abnormal 
 temperature or fever is present as the result of the germs of disease 
 that the chemical compound does remove the excess temperature 
 with safety. When that quality of not doing harm whilst doing 
 good is the valuable feature of the compound which I added to this 
 world's sum of knowledge, and is the one true reason for its existence, 
 what does the suppression of such important knowledge indicate f 
 
 The product that is the nearest approach to this unequaled chem- 
 ical compound in relieving mankind of the pains of neuralgic condi- 
 tions and the fevers caused by infectious diseases, colds, etc., is con- 
 trolled by the favored (ierman corporation, there being none other 
 made in tliis country. 
 
 Statistics state that there are 25, 000 deaths from typhoid fever 
 and 100, 000 deaths from pneumonia in the United States every year. 
 There is no one medicine more efficient and potent in the treatment 
 of these diseases than is ace tyl-salicyl-phenetidin' when used hi ade- 
 
SCHEDULE A. 13 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 quato dosage. Dr. Henry Beates, for many years president of the 
 Pennsylvania State medical examining board, states: 
 
 In typhoid fever, as proven by cultures studied by competent observers, it rapidly 
 diminishes the number of bacilli typhosi in the urine (50 per cent in 4 days) and 
 frequently lessens the duration of the disease because of its antiseptic quality. 
 
 By using the German quotation as his authority and reason, 
 Lyman F. Kebler, in stating that the compound is inactive, admits 
 that no medicine is safer to use in the treatment of these diseases. 
 He has no justifiable reason for not knowing of its efficiency. He 
 would not personally take an overdose of it to prove his contention. 
 So. in playing the part of being the mentor as to just who shall man- 
 ufacture medicines capable of saving human lives, this so-called 
 "referee" may be responsible, in my opinion, for the sacrifice of 
 many times more lives than went down with the Titanic. 
 
 Application for space in the exhibit hall of the annual meetings 
 of the American Medical Association is also denied, because the 
 products submitted had not been acted upon by the council on 
 pharmacy and chemistry. 
 
 Finally, in June, 1907, the council on pharmacy presented the 
 appearance of action by refusing to approve of the synthetic medicine, 
 bismuth methylene disalicylic acid, assigning as an object that I had 
 obtained a patent on another product, which, it stated, had been 
 described in current literature in Germany. This was an admission 
 that one of the functions of this council was the passing upon the 
 validity of patents. 
 
 To this objection we answered that the Government grant to us is 
 prima facie valid by force of the statute, and that we aid not think 
 the council on pharmacy and chemistry was a tribunal in substitution 
 for the courts to determine ex parte the validity of the patents. If 
 such were the case, then why had the council on pharmacy and chem- 
 istry approved of aspirin or acetyl-salicylic acid that had been fully 
 described in current literature as far back as 1869 ? The members of 
 this council on pharmacy and chemistry knew of the nature of the 
 defect in the claims in the patent rights of foreign-made product. It 
 also knew that that product, outside of the commercial advantage, ' 
 was in no sense superior in medicinal values to the salts of salicylic 
 acid, described in the Pharmacopoeia, that were entirely free of pro- 
 prietary rights. It also knew that there were no products described 
 by the Pharmacopoeia that possessed the chemical nature and the 
 medicinal qualifications of the American-made synthetic. It also 
 knew that the compound possessed sufficient merits as to necessitate 
 the manufacture of a specious technicality for the appearance of a 
 defect. 
 
 The rights of the sick to the use of the meritorious medicinal values 
 of the new synthetic compound were trampled upon by the ruse of 
 raising a cloud on the validity of letters patent issued by our Govern- 
 ment on another different substance. It was a device that looked as 
 if they would like to undermine the right of honorable compensation 
 to the inventor of the acetyl compound of methylene disalicylic acid. 
 When I went the Germans one better and chemically combined 
 formaldehyde with acetic acid and salicylic acid and produced acetyl 
 methylene disalicylic acid, I created the product that cures rheu- 
 
14 TAEIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 matism and gout in less time than by any other agent known to man. 
 It is far safer and more efficient than the product controlled by that 
 German corporation, especially in the presence of heart disease. 
 But in doing so I have brought down upon myself and my cause the 
 wrath of that $100,000,000 corporation and have been deprived of 
 the vaunted rights of citizenship. 
 
 To undermine confidence in the curative value of acetyl methylene 
 disalicylic acid, that far surpasses in curative quality the German- 
 made proprietary, approved of by the council on pharmacy and 
 chemistry, the so-called " referee" to whom the council had referred 
 it for investigation prepared a fake "report" that contained over 
 10,000 words with the difficult collaboration of elaborate tables. 
 Months of tune were consumed in its preparation, which involved 
 the " reading" of much of the German literature and the manufac- 
 tured evidence, so as to neatly place here and there some quotation 
 to give it the appearance of reliability with which to impress the 
 readers as to the care, thought, and accurateness involved in its 
 preparation. This dishonest "report" the council on pharmacy and 
 chemistry ordered to be printed in the Journal of the American 
 Medical Association. 
 
 This fake "report" bore the immaculate appearance of a dispas- 
 sionate research contribution "from the pharmacological laboratory 
 of the Western Reserve University" on the value of "Formaldehyde 
 derivatives: Their fate and actions in the body, together with obser- 
 vations on some other urinary, intestinal, and wound antiseptics." 
 
 Emanation from such a source carried with it the high prestige 
 of correctness of that college. Bearing the approval for publication 
 by the council on pharmacy and chemistry of the American Medical 
 Association gave to the fake "report" the atmosphere of infallibility. 
 Having the approval of the Chief Chemist of the Bureau of Agricul- 
 ture and the chief of the drug laboratory caused the medical profes- 
 sion to accept it as authentic. The function of these apostles of virtue 
 was supposed to be guarding the welfare of the sick and their time 
 was supposed to be donated to the service for the uplifting of the 
 cause of pure food and clean thought. 
 
 All of the foreign-made formaldehyde derivatives described in 
 that fake "report" had already been approved of by that council 
 on pharmacy and chemistry. All of the American-made formaldehyde 
 derivatives mentioned in that "fake" report were first thought out by 
 me and the process of manufacture published to the world. This 
 fake "report" was the highest effectual advertisement of the foreign- 
 made proprietary medicine brought out by that favored German 
 corporation to compete with the chemical which I had created, and 
 at the same time a severe denunciation of our product which is so 
 efficient that false witness must be manufactured to discredit it. 
 
 The total amount of the medicines used for testing for the libera- 
 tion of formaldehyde in watery solution would bulk about as much 
 as a No. S grain of shot. The amount administered to observe their 
 fate and actions in the human body, together with observations on 
 their antiseptic influence on the urine, was less than one single dose, 
 and that used but twice on two separate days. The American 
 synthetic, bismuth oxyiodido methylene digallate, that is used by 
 honest men in those diseased and accidental conditions exhibited 
 
SCHEDULE A. 15 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 as diarrhoeas, ulcerations, contused wounds, burns, etc., at reputable 
 medical colleges was measured by these male creatures on the basis 
 of a urinary antiseptic. The synthetic acetyl-methylene disalicylic 
 acid, that is so superior in the curing of gout and rheumatism to 
 those approved of proprietaries made in Germany, was measured 
 on the basis of a wound powder. The synthetic benzoyl methylene 
 diguaiacol was denounced and rejected with the ruse "that it was 
 most probably not absorbed" Into the human organism, although 
 no attempt was made to find out by administering it. 
 
 The author of the "report" afterwards stated that he did not 
 consider it incumbent on him to conduct lengthy researches to sup- 
 ply information which should have been furnished by the manu- 
 facturer, and that he therefore contented himself with stating that 
 the latter had not made good his claims. But he failed to state 
 where and wiien he had ever before stated it. Then why the exist- 
 ence of his "report"? The Journal of the American Medical Asso- 
 ciation and the council on pharmacy and chemistry had stated, 
 and afterwards repeated the misstatement in the face of this admis- 
 sion that he had not, that he had proven it. 
 
 On the subject of conducting "researches" and praising foreign- 
 made patent medicines upon the "use" of a fraction of one solitary 
 dose, and that use but three times on separated days, in whose behalf 
 was he conducting them ? He was supposed to be serving the cause 
 of afflicted humanity. In whose behalf was the "research" con- 
 ducted in praise of another foreign-made proprietary medicine and 
 published on the previous month in the Journal of the American 
 Medical Association ? Was he working in behalf of the sick or working 
 the sick ? 
 
 The author of that fake "report" also confessed, on the subject of 
 the liberation of formaldehyde in passing through the human organ- 
 ism, that none of his evidence that had been published as proven hi 
 the Journal of the American Medical Association and approved of as 
 proven facts by the council on pharmacy and chemistry was true, as 
 shown by his admissions 
 
 I took care to avoid any statement that the decomposition was disproved. * * * 
 None of this amounts to a final proof that these products are not decomposed in the 
 body; and I have with care avoided any statement to this effect. 
 
 The fake "report" purported to be one founded on "Formaldehyde 
 derivatives: Their fate and actions in the body." It contained no 
 reference to personality, yet the editor of the Journal of the American 
 Medical Association and the chairman of the council on pharmacy 
 and chemistry afterwards confessed that 
 
 Knowing what I know, I think Dr. Summers has been treated much more leniently 
 than he ought to have been treated, but I do not care to give the reasons to you now. 
 
 According to this evidence from the general manager of the Ameri- 
 can Medical Association the discrediting of nonsecret chemical com- 
 pounds possessing unsurpassed curative properties in the saving of 
 human lives, was upon me question of personality and not because 
 of any therapeutic inefficiency of those medicines. Then why the 
 Sollmann "report" and the misuse of such valuable space in the 
 leading medical journal of the world? 
 
16 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 In its follow-up plan of attempting to destroy our competition by 
 its assumed rights to designate who shall manufacture medicines and 
 who shall invent chemical compounds for the relief of human sick- 
 ness, the editor of the Journal and the general manager of the 
 American Medical Association, and the council on pharmacy and 
 chemistry caused to be published in the journal of the association, 
 on May 8, 1909, a general assault against acetyl-methylene-disalicylic 
 acid, which is so much more efficient than the approved of German 
 made antigout and antirheumatic remedies, against the manufac- 
 tures of it, and fiercely abused those who had dared to defend the 
 rights of the sick by testifying to the facts. 
 
 Being unable to refute the irrefragible evidence contained in these 
 chemical compounds, and the evidence submitted by those who do- 
 nated their talents and time without price in defense of the rights 
 of the sick, the council on pharmacy and chemistry resorted to the 
 device of calling names and intimating lack of integrity and of ability 
 in men of achievement who stand far above any member of that 
 council. Many thousands of words were used ana so arranged as to 
 skillfully cloud the questions at issue, with appeals to the passions 
 of the medical profession. It was a masterpiece of work of the kind 
 calculated to confuse and entangle, with the omission of the crucial 
 part of the facts. Venomous mendacity was promoted with the 
 appearance of truth with a cunning confusion. 
 
 The character of responsibility of this council on pharmacy and 
 chemistry is such as appears to enable it to originate and circulate 
 wicked untruths and committing fraudulent acts that were personally 
 irresponsibly indorsed collectively but not personally responsible by 
 being indorsed individually. The invested capital of American cor- 
 porations should be just as much protected from defamation calcu- 
 lated to undermine confidence as is now possessed by our national 
 banks. The noncombative sick of our country are entitled to the 
 use of what will best restore their health. Collusive fraud, such as 
 practiced by this council on pharmacy and chemistry, should be 
 punished by personal imprisonment. 
 
 Believing that the then chief chemist of our Government and the 
 chief of the drug laboratory would be willing to die the death of 
 martyrs in behalf of the innocent public in the arena of Christian 
 courage, I wrote to them and asked them to assume individual 
 responsibility for what bore the appearance of their approval, as to 
 the truthfulness of the statements contained in these "reports." But 
 their courage was not sufficient to apologize or to assume the conse- 
 quences of a suit for perjury, if they would swear to what they loaned 
 the high prestige of their official positions to accomplish. 
 
 In 1901 the American representatives of that audacious foreign 
 corporation attempted to obtain a restraining injunction against the 
 manufacture of a synthetic that we were selling in competition with 
 their phenacetin. This was at a period of time when they were 
 enjoying their heyday from the profits from this drug. More than 
 Hi, 000 ounce^ were most probably sold every day at the price of $1 
 pei- ounce for what did not cost them more than 5 cents. The duty 
 they paid the Government was probably less than 2 cents. All other 
 peoples could buy the same product for about 10 cents. An injunc- 
 
SCHEDULE A. 17 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 tion against a product which they claimed to be identical that sold 
 for 25 per cent less than they charged would have been of value to 
 them. The United States district court refused them an injunction. 
 Then began a virile campaign of defamation calculated to destroy 
 confidence in our products, that was printed and mailed in Germany 
 and beyond the reach of our laws. 
 
 In 1904 the Journal of the American Medical Association became 
 a party to publications reflecting upon our products not on the 
 curative quality, but on the question that the readers could not be 
 competent to judge. As the editor and general manager of the 
 American Medical Association wrote me on the subject: 
 
 It is one of those questions that can not be settled by ordinary correspondence, 
 since it has underlying it principles about which the average physician knows but 
 little. 
 
 The advertising manager and the left-hand bower of the general 
 manager wrote: 
 
 Can you tell me, confidentially, why such an article should be presented? I am 
 not quite sure, but I think the article was read in the therapeutic section of the A. 
 M. A., a program of which meeting I am sending you under separate cover. Does 
 any one firm in New York make preparations similar to yours? I know about thermol, 
 but whose toes are you tramping on with ur-a-sol and iodomuth? Is it the same 
 party? This is as much as I can say in a letter. 
 
 The owners of the foreign-made patented chemicals possessed 
 ample funds to protect their rights. When they were the exclusive 
 beneficiaries of the libelous attack against their American competing 
 products, why did not the Journal of the American Medical Associa- 
 tion refer the question to the courts, especially as it was beyond the 
 comprehension of the "average physician" ? 
 
 This assault was followed up by the sending out of another medical 
 publication containing reference to the publication in the Journal 
 of the American Medical Association, which was sent to every phy- 
 sician and druggist in the United States and Canada at an. expense 
 of many thousands of dollars. 
 
 In 1907 a combination in restraint of trade of German chemical 
 manufacturers prevented our purchase of supplies from which to 
 construct the synthetic medicine which was our largest seller. 
 
 The general manager of the American Medical Association admitted 
 knowledge of this fact and wrote: 
 
 From what I have heard in the past it is quite probable that the German firms are 
 working with other firms to control certain products not yours particularly, but many 
 others. 
 
 In 1907 the Journal of the American Medical Association published 
 a scathing defamatory attack against me personally and the company 
 of which I was president. Being unable to bring the slightest evi- 
 dence of any wrongdoing of ours to be used against us, the editor of 
 the Journal of the American Medical Association wrote himself down 
 as skilled in all the arts appropriate to forgers and convicted himself 
 of being guilty of a studied perversion of the truth and a desire to de- 
 prive the sick of meritorious medicines. By his so doing and with 
 the presentation of photographs of his misstatements and of my 
 chemical-therapeutic contributions which he described as a clinical 
 
 78959 VOL 113 2 
 
18 TAEIFF HEAKINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 contribution, there is revealed a more severe reflection of his inten- 
 tional incorrectness than any that I could make. This manufacture 
 of false evidence to be used against an innocent person in holding him 
 up to the medical profession of the United States as an object of 
 ignominy and contempt and to discredit the manufacturers or medi- 
 cines possessing unsurpassed curative virtues and of known compo- 
 sition may be right in the minds of those $100,000,000 corporations 
 of Germany but not hi the interest of the innocent sick. 
 
 Detailed replies to those seeking the destruction of competition in 
 medicines have been prepared in pamphlet form, much of which is 
 contained in my monograph on How Special Interests Patented Con- 
 trol of Opportunity with the Delivery of Noble Sentiments for the 
 Welfare of the Afflicted. 
 
 STATEMENT OF FRANCIS E. HAMILTON, ESQ., REPRESENTING 
 THE HEYDEN CHEMICAL WORKS, OF NEW YORK. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear Mr. F. E. Hamilton. 
 
 Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I wish to be heard 
 through my client, the president of the Heyden Chemical Works, who 
 knows a great deal more about the subject than I do; and I call the 
 attention of the committee to the fact that I am a lawyer making 
 such an admission. The subject to be discussed is salicylic acid, 
 which I believe, if not at the present moment of personal interest to 
 every member of the committee, may at some time become of some 
 interest to every member, because it is the most universal remedy 
 for rheumatism I know of. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now hear Mr. George Simon. 
 
 STATEMENT OF GEORGE SIMON, OF GARFIELD, N. J., PRESI- 
 DENT OF THE HEYDEN CHEMICAL WORKS, OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Gentlemen, this bill which passed the House of Rep- 
 resentative last summer affects our company in about 50 different 
 preparations. Some of our raw materials have been made subject 
 to a duty, and all of our finished products have been reduced in duty. 
 I will confine myself only to salicylic acid, not because it is in quan- 
 tity or in value the most important of our products, but because it 
 is a basic product which is used in the manufacture of fine chemicals 
 in various ways, and it is very important that the source of supply 
 of this product should not become wholly foreign. 
 
 In a brief which I have already submitted, and which I will not 
 read again unless I am asked to, I have tried to prove that a duty of 
 2} cents per pound, as this bill proposes, would put the American 
 manufacturers and the American consumers entirely at the mercy 
 of a foreign trust called the ''Salicylic Acid Syndicate." The Ding- 
 ley tariff put a duty of 10 cents per pound on salicylic acid; the Payne- 
 Aldrich bill reduced this to 5 cents per pound. Now, a further cut 
 of 24- cents per pound would be disastrous. The amount of money 
 which we have invested in our factory alone, in the manufacture of 
 salicylic acid, in buildings and machinery, amounts to a little more 
 than $190,000. Our pay roll is $28,000 per year. Those are com- 
 paratively small figures, but the total quantity of salicylic acid which 
 
SCHEDULE A. 19 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 would be imported here if the manufacture in the United States 
 should entirely cease would not exceed, probably, 500,000 pounds, 
 and with a duty of 2 cents per pound this would make a revenue of 
 $12,500 per year. The question may be asked, Is it worth while to 
 destroy this industry, which, as I have stated, is important, and to 
 deprive a considerable number of workmen who are employed in the 
 manufacture of this product of their living, for the sake of getting a 
 revenue of $12,500? 
 
 But I understand that these are minor questions, that this is going 
 to be a tariff for the consumer. What would be the result as far as 
 the consumer is concerned? We would have to stop making the 
 salicylic acid here, and then the consumer would be dictated to as to 
 his price by the European syndicate. He would be forced to buy 
 from a combination which, under the laws of our country, would 
 be illegal. I do not believe that it has been intended to bring about 
 such conditions, and in trying to find the reason for it, I notice that 
 there are certain conditions which must have misled the framers of 
 this bill. The tariff rates in Schedule A have been reduced in this 
 bill from an average of 25 per cent ad valorem to 16 per cent ad 
 valorem. On salicylic acid the duty has already been 19 per cent ad 
 valorem, but the new bill, No. 2182, reduces it to 2 per cent, or an 
 equivalent of 9 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I think you are mistaken about that. 
 
 Mr. SIMON. I will explain that in one minute. That is just the 
 point I want to make clear to you. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. What paragraph is that ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Salicylic acid, Schedule A, paragraph 1, I think. 
 
 The value given in the import list which you have before you does 
 not represent the correct European value for pure salicylic acid, and 
 consequently the duty of 5 cents per pound does not equal the ad 
 valorem rate of 31 per cent, as you have it in these lists, but equals 
 only 19 per cent. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Let me state there, of course you understand that 
 this equivalent ad valorem rate of 31.04 per cent is the rate that is 
 estimated by the Treasury Department; those are not our figures. 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Yes. We wish to state that the salicylic acid which 
 has been imported, and on which this figure has been calculated, has 
 not been commercial salicylic acid; it has been crude salicylic acid, 
 a product from which the commercial salicylic acid is manufactured, 
 and the value of this crude salicylic acid is away below the value of 
 the regular salicylic acid. Of course, we do not manufacture it 
 from crude salicylic acid. Certain quantities of that crude product 
 have been imported at a very low value, but the actual value all over 
 Europe, in every country except the United States, is 26 cents a 
 pound. An3'body who sells in Europe at 1 cent below this figure will 
 be subject to a heavy fine. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Why ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Because It is a syndicate. It is a salicylic syndicate, 
 or trust. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. In fact, all these concerns in Europe, or across the 
 waters, which come in competition on this chemical schedule are in 
 syndicates or monopolies, are they not ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. I know of this one. 
 
20 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PAKAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I know all I have heard of to-day have been in 
 syndicates. 
 
 Mr. SIMON. I do not know about the others, but I know about this. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What do you suppose is the American consumption 
 of salicylic acid ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. All that could be sold here would probably not exceed 
 500,000 pounds. I have shown that in detail in the brief which I 
 have submitted. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. And about 30,000 pounds are the imports now? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. I believe they have been considerably more in 1912, 
 because the trust over there has made great efforts to invade our 
 market. I will read a few words from our brief, which will be of inter- 
 est in connection with it: 
 
 Salicylic acid is manufactured on a large scale in the United States since about 
 1893 to 1895. Prior to that time practically all salicylic acid consumed here was sup- 
 plied by the German manufacturers, who were then, the same as they are to-day, 
 combined to control the prices all over the world. The price was $1.25 per pound 
 when the first salicylic-acid factory was erected in St. Louis. The American manu- 
 facturers cut the price far below the European prices and forced the agents of the 
 trust to reduce their prices in the United States to 56 cents per pound for quantities of 
 more than 100 pounds. 
 
 Under the severe competition which followed, the price of salicylic acid in this 
 country went gradually down to about 30 cents per pound and less in wholesale 
 quantities. About 10 years ago there existed five manufacturers of salicylic acid in the 
 United States, three of which have since failed. 
 
 The American manufacturers are to-day the only opponents of the European trust. 
 All other countries in the world are controlled by this trust and uniform prices are 
 fixed in every country, except the United States, which is left open as a dumping 
 ground for any surplus that may exist. The prices at which the European manu- 
 facturers ship their salicylic acid into this country are much lower than those at which 
 they sell in their home markets. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much did foreign countries dump on us of the 
 salicylic acid last year ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. I estimated it at 50,000 pounds. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Less than $6,000 worth, was it not? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Is $6,000 worth going to destroy you folks? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Yes; and I will tell you why. This was a 5 cents per 
 pound duty. I did not base my remarks on the present duty; I 
 based them on the duty of 2 cents per pound, which will be in 
 effect under this, and I have submitted here a statement to you, 
 a calculation, showing why we will be at the mercy of the Europeans 
 if this duty is reduced, because our cost of manufacture is 2 cents 
 per pound more than in Germany. 
 
 Mr. KITCIIIN. In 1909, when the tariff was up for discussion, you 
 salicylic acid gentlemen appeared here, did you not? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Xo; we did not. 
 
 Mr. KITCIIIN. Did you not protest against a reduction of 50 per 
 cent, from 10 cents a pound down to 5 ? 
 
 Air. SIMON. In 1 909 we did not appear before this committee. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. The Dingley Act was 10 cents a pound, and the 
 Payne Act reduced it to 5 cents. 
 
 Mr. SIMON. The manufacturers who protested at that time, when 
 the Dingl;\v Act was made, have gone out of business. We have 
 manufactured since 1900. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 21 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I say, in 1909, when it was reduced from 10 to 5 cents 
 a pound, did you people not think it would ruin you ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. I did not appear here then. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You did not find out when they reduced it ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Oh, yes, we found it out. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. It did not hurt you, did it? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. I do not say that a duty of 5 cents will hurt us. The 
 duty of 5 cents is just sufficient to equal the difference, as I have 
 tried to figure out here. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much of the product of the salicylic acid for 
 1912 was manufactured; what was the total amount of manufacture ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. About $150,000. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. So this little six thousand that came in did not 
 bother you much, did it ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. It did not bother us, because it was not so much; but 
 it will be a great deal more under the new bill. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. A reduction from 10 cents to 5 cents, in 1909, did not 
 seem to hurt you gentlemen, did it ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. It did not. Our price was already very low. The 
 competition in this country prevented us from adding the duty of 10 
 cents to our price. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You were selling our consumers here at a low price, 
 because you got competition among American producers ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Our consumers were getting it about- as cheaply as 
 any other consumers in the world, were they not ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. They were. 
 
 Mr. HARBISON. What is the price of salicylic acid in this country? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. There are different qualities. There is the pharma- 
 ceutical, which is worth about 30 cents a pound. On the average, we 
 do not realize more than 25 cents per pound. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is that all you desire to say ? 
 
 Mr. HILL. Just one moment. Salicylic acid is made from oil of 
 wintergreen as well as from coal-tar products ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. As a matter of fact, this last chemical bill cut the duty 
 on salicylic acid in two and puts a duty of 10 to 20 per cent on the 
 raw material. 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Up to the present time carbolic acid has been the 
 chief raw material for salicylic acid, but the price has become so 
 high it is not to-day considered the raw material. Our competitors 
 in Germany have in recent years installed plants to produce salicylic 
 acid by synthetic process, starting from benzol, and this is to-day to 
 be considered the most important raw material. 
 
 The natural carbolic acid has up to last year been used in our 
 factory as the chief raw material for the manufacture of salicylic 
 acid. The price of this product, however, has become so high that 
 the German salicylic acid manufacturers have installed large plants 
 to make their carbolic acid synthetically from benzol. The product 
 which they obtain by this process is not only considerably cheaper 
 than the natural carbolic acid at its present price, but also consid- 
 erably purer. We obtain from 5 to 6 per cent higher yields by 
 
22 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 employing the carbolic acid derived from benzol, anti are therefore 
 now buying this product from our competitors in Germany, to whom 
 we have to pay a profit of at least 15 to 20 per cent. 
 
 We have worked out a process which will enable us within a short 
 time to start from benzol in our manufacture of salicylic acid, if the 
 rate of duty of this product will enable us to continue to make it 
 here on a competitive basis. 
 
 Benzol is a product of the United States. We do not object to a 
 duty of 5 per cent on this product, if it is deemed wise to impose it, 
 but we respectfully request that this duty be also considered in 
 fixing the duty on salicylic acid, which is a so-called fine chemical, 
 requiring a very large amount of labor. The other raw materials, of 
 which salicylic acid is made are also subject to duty or produced 
 here under conditions which make the price considerably higher than 
 in Europe. 
 
 To make 100 pounds salicylic acid we require: 75 pounds syn- 
 thetic carbolic acid made from benzol (proposed ad valorem duty 
 5 per cent) ; 40 pounds caustic soda (proposed duty, J cent per pound 
 equals 10 per cent ad valorem); 50 pounds carbonic acid (proposed 
 ad valorem duty 15 per cent); 75 pounds sulphuric acid, and 2 
 pounds muriatic acid (free, but price here 50 per cent higher than 
 in Germany). 
 
 I do not wish to appear as opposing the duties on these materials, 
 if it is deemed wise to have them for the sake of revenue or for other 
 reasons, but I respectfully submit that, in view of the resulting 
 higher cost of our raw materials for salicylic acid and the higher 
 cost of labor and machinery, with resulting higher cost of tear and 
 wear, a duty of 1\ cents per pound on salicylic acid is inadequate. 
 
 This rate of 2^ cents per pound as proposed in H. R. 20182 corre- 
 sponds to an ad valorem rate of 9^ per cent, figured on the lowest 
 selling price for pure salicylic acid anywhere in Europe, which is 
 26 cents per pound. The present duty on salicylic acid is 5 cents 
 per pound, or equal to 19 per cent, which, as I have shown in the 
 statement printed, is just sufficient to put the American manufac- 
 turers of salicylic acid on a competitive basis with their European 
 opponents. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Taking the coal-tar products by and large, and adding 
 from 10 to 20 per cent duty on them, and cutting your products, as 
 au example, can you make salicylic acid at a reduction of duty of 50 
 per cent and an addition of duty of 20 per cent on your raw material 
 without cutting your labor cost ? 
 
 Mr. SIMOX. No; wo would not cut our labor cost; I think we would 
 have to stop. 
 
 Mr. HILL. That would cut it, would it not? It would cut it out 
 entirely ? 
 
 Mr. SIMOX. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Then you say it is impossible for you to make salicylic 
 acid under this schedule as proposed in the chemical bill passed at 
 the last session of Congress ? 
 
 Mr. SIMOX. I say it just depends on the price at which the Euro- 
 peans ship it over here. 
 
 .Mr. HILL. CouM you have made it during the last year under this 
 schedule, taking the prices as the}' are now? 
 
SCHEDULE A. 23 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 Mr. SIMON. I doubt it very much. Conditions were very unfavor- 
 able during the past year for us. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You know whether you could make it or not, do you 
 not? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. I do not think we could; not to any advantage. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You could not do it without a large reduction in the 
 wages of labor ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. No ; we could not do it at all. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Just for the sake of record, the figures which Mr. 
 Hill referred to as 20 per cent in our bill are 5 per cent ad valorem ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Five per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. And the ad valorem equivalent of 2 cents per 
 pound for salicylic acid is a little more than 13 per cent? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Nine and a hah*. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. According to your own statement of the value of 
 the foreign products; but according to the Treasury returns, upon 
 which we must base our figures, it equals 13 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. SIMON. If you want to be just, I think you must base your 
 figures on the facts. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. You said that the foreign salicylic acid sells for 26 
 cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. SIMON. It does. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. And sells here for 25 cents a pound. Why do you 
 need to fear competition under free trade, then ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Because they are selling it here at a much lower rate 
 than they are selling it over there. They are considering the Ameri- 
 can market as a country where they ship their surplus. We are 
 obliged to get the trade here, because we have to run our factory day 
 and night, continually it is never stopped ; and we can not reduce it. 
 We must either have the output which we have or we will be much 
 worse off than we are. We would rather cut the price down than let 
 considerable quantities of the foreign product come in here, because 
 then we can not continue to manufacture it to any advantage. 
 
 Mr. HILL. As a cold, mathematical fact, a reduction of the duty 
 from 5 to 1\ cents is a reduction of 50 per cent in the duty, is it not? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Yes; it has been cut 50 per cent already, and now it 
 is proposed to cut it another 50 per cent. 
 
 I would like very much to submit herewith a statement showing 
 the exact difference in price for making salicylic acid here and abroad, 
 to show that 5. cents per pound is just equal to the difference in cost, 
 and that 1\ cents is not. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much of this salicylic acid do you export? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Insignificant quantities, very small quantities, which 
 we occasionally ship to Canada, because it is so near. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do we really not export more than we import ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Salicylic acid? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SIMON. We import hardly any very little. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I know we imported very little; but did we not 
 export more than we imported '? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. The quantities do not cut any figure either way. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I know; but I ask you if we do not export more than 
 we import ? 
 
24 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 Mr. SIMON. I have not the figures; I do not know. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And we exported most to Canada, did we not ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. Yes; because that is near to our country, and they are 
 sometimes short hi salicylic acid, and buy it from here because they 
 can get it hi a short time. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What country can compete with us hi salicylic acid ? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. France and Germany. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. England does not compete with us 1 
 
 Mr. SIMON. England does not make it. 
 
 Mr. HULL. How many employees are there engaged hi the manu- 
 facture of salicylic acid? 
 
 Mr. SIMON. I can only speak for our factory. We have 40 engi- 
 neers and workmen. It is not a large industry. As I stated at the 
 beginning, the whole duty on imported salicylic acid will be $12,500. 
 
 The folio whig papers were submitted by Mr. Simon : 
 
 Under the Dingley tariff the duty on salicylic acid was 10 cents per pound. The 
 Payne-Aldrich tariff reduced it to 5 cents per pound. A further cut to 2J cents, as 
 the House bill 20182 provides for, would be disastrous to the industry in our country. 
 
 In our factory at Garfield, N. J., we have invested in the manufacture of salicylic 
 acid more than $190,000 for buildings and machinery. Our pay roll for this product 
 amounts to $28,000 per year. 
 
 The total amount of salicylic acid which is sold per year in this country is hardly 
 more than 500,000 pounds. If all of this was imported, the duty at the rate of 2 
 cents per pound would be $12,500 per year. 
 
 It would seem that a revenue of $12,500 is no adequate equivalent for the possible 
 destruction of the values invested in the product and the means from which a large 
 number of people employed in this business obtain their living. But what would 
 be the effect upon the consumer? The European trust, after destroying the Ameri- 
 can industry, would have absolute control of this market, the same as it has control 
 of all other markets in the world, and the natural result would be that the consumer 
 would be forced to pay to a combination that would be illegal in this country the 
 prices which it would dictate. 
 
 The tariff rates of Schedule A have been reduced on an average from 25 per cent 
 ad valorem under the present tariff to about 16 per cent ad valorem under bill 20182 
 which passed the House of Representatives last summer. On salicylic acid, however, 
 the duty is now only equivalent to 19 per cent ad valorem, and the bill 20182 reduced 
 it to an equivalent of 9^ per cent ad valorem. 
 
 This radical and, in our opinion, unintended reduction can be explained by an 
 erroneous impression about values which the framers of this bill may have obtained 
 from the import lists. The values given in these lists do not represent the correct 
 European prices of pure salicylic acid, and consequently a duty of 5 cents per pound 
 does not equal an ad valorem rate of 31 per cent, as it has been figured out on the lists 
 published by the Bureau of Statistics. 
 
 The lowest price at which pure salicylic acid, answering the requirement of the 
 U. S. P., is sold anywhere in Europe is 26 cents per pound in large wholesale quanti- 
 ties. There has been imported into this country a crude salicylic acid at a much 
 lower price, but this is not the article generally known as salicylic acid, and in fact no 
 commercial product at all. Sample Xo. 1, which I submit, is salicylic acid and 
 Sample No. 2 is the crude stuff, on the price of which the Bureau of Statistics based 
 its figures. 
 
 Salicylic acid is manufactured on a large scale in the United States since about 1893 
 to 1S95. Prior to that time practically all salicylic acid consumed here was supplied 
 by the German manufacturers, who were then, the same as they are to-day, combined 
 to control the prices all over the world. The price was $1.25 per pound when the firft 
 salicylic acid factory was erected in St. Louis. The American manufacturers cut the 
 price far below the European prices and forced the agents of the trust to reduce their 
 ] trices in the United States to 56 cents per pound for quantities oi more than 100 pounds. 
 
 Under the severe competition which followed, the price for salicylic acid in this 
 country went gradually down to about 30 cents per pound and less in wholesale quan- 
 tities. About ten years ago there existed five manufacturers of salicylic acid in the 
 United States, three of which have since failed. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 25 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 The American manufacturers are to-day the only opponents of the European* trust. 
 All other countries in the world are contolled by this trust and uniform prices are fixed 
 in every country, except the United States, which is left open as a dumping ground 
 for any surplus that may exist. The prices at which the European manufacturers ship 
 their salicylic acid into this country are much lower than those at which they sell in 
 their home markets. 
 
 We respectfully submit these facts. We have already filed a brief stating why the 
 maintenance of the present duty of 5 cents per pound on salicylic acid is absolu'ely 
 necessary, if this industry is to continue in the United States. 
 
 In addition to this we file herewith a memorandum, showing that the duty of 5 cents 
 per pound does not even fully cover the difference in cost of production here and 
 abroad. 
 
 THE HEYDEN CHEMICAL WORKS. 
 GEORGE SIMON, Vice President. 
 
 Our plant at Garfield, N. J., for the manufacture of salicylic acid, as it now stands, 
 costs somewhat more than $190,000. The greater part of the machinery had to be 
 imported from Germany, and we paid 45 per cent duty on this. This duty and the 
 higher expense for putting it up makes our machinery cost 50 per cent more than 
 the German manufacturer has to pay for his. Also our buildings are about 50 per 
 cent more expensive, because it costs about that much more to erect a chemical 
 plant here than in Germany. 
 
 Our factory therefore costs us about $63,000 more than a manufacturer in 
 Germany has to pay for a salicylic-acid plant of equal size $63, 000 
 
 The wear and tear of machinery in the chemical business, where strong 
 acids are used, is generally figured at 10 per cent per year. 
 
 Our salicylic-acid machinery costs us $102, 735 
 
 In Germany it would cost only 68, 000 
 
 Our depreciation is therefore 10 pel cent of 34, 000 
 
 Higher than in Germany 3, 400 
 
 Besides, we have to figure interest on the actual cost of the investment on 
 buildings and machinery; this is $63,000 more than in Germany. Conse- 
 quently, the difference in favor of the German competitors is 5 per cent of 
 
 this amount 3, 150 
 
 The number of laborers employed in our salicylic acid works is now 
 about 40, including high-salaried chemists and mechanics, and the 
 wages and salaries which we pay for salicylic acid total $28,000 per year. 
 
 The German laborer receives only half the amount of wages (see pp. 
 305 and 370 of your report). 
 This makes a difference in favor of our foreign competitors of 14, 000 
 
 It appears from this that our highest cost for labor, depreciation, and interest 
 
 alone amounts to 20, 550 
 
 This figure does, however, not include the higher cost of raw materials, 
 some of which are subject to duty and cost considerably more here than 
 in Germany. 
 
 It is somewhat difficult to figure out exactly what the difference on raw ma- 
 terials amounts to because we do not have the exact foreign values to com- 
 pare with. We estimate it at 5, 000 
 
 Total 25,550 
 
 3 per pound ( 
 ts per pound 
 
 Submitted by 
 
 5 cents per pound duty on 500,000 pounds, $25,000. 
 2 cents per pound duty on 500,000 pounds, $12,500. 
 
 THE HEYDEN CHEMICAL WORKS. 
 G. SIMON, Vice President. 
 
 Mr. Simon also submitted the following brief of the Heyden Chemi- 
 cal Works, 135 William Street, New York (factory, Garfield, N. J.), 
 supporting the maintenance of present rate of duty on salicylic acid: 
 
 We have submitted to the Finance Committee of the United States Senate on March 
 21 a memorandum regarding tariff bill H. R. 20182, as passed on February 15 by the 
 
26 TAEIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 House of Representatives. As our statements made before the Senate committee 
 are matters of public record, we refrain from repeating them. We beg, however, to 
 submit herewith some facts regarding salicylic acid, for which we request kind con- 
 sideration in fixing the duty on this product in the new tariff bill which is expected 
 to be passed next summer. 
 
 Salicylic acid is a basic product used in the manufacture of a number of chemicals 
 for pharmaceutical purposes. It is, therefore, of considerable importance for the 
 chemical industry in this country that its source of supply should not become entirely 
 foreign. The European market of salicylic acid is, and has been for more than 25 
 years, controlled by a syndicate, which has fixed uniform selling prices for all coun- 
 tries except the United States, and is a strong competitor to the salicylic acid manu- 
 facturers in our country. 
 
 The fight between the European syndicate and the American salicylic acid manu- 
 facturers is fully 20 years old. 
 
 In order to afford the American industry an adequate protection ag_ainst the com- 
 petition of the European Salicylic Acid Trust, the Dingley tariff provided for a duty 
 of 10 cents per pound on salicylic acid. This rate was reduced to 5 cents per pound in 
 the Payne-Aldrich tariff, not without causing considerable injuries to the American 
 salicylic acid manufacturers, and ever since then they have been hard pressed by 
 their European competitors. The tariff bill (H. R. 20182) which was passed by the 
 House of Representatives on February 15, 1912, made a further reduction of the 
 present rate of duty to 2i cents per pound. 
 
 When we started 12 years ago to manufacture salicylic acid in our factory at Gar- 
 field, N. J., there existed, besides us, four other salicylic acid manufacturers, but the 
 prices have declined to such an extent that three of them have since that time failed 
 or suspended the manufacture of the product. 
 
 In the month of November, 1912, alone, 12,700 pounds of salicylic acid have been 
 imported into this country, and were sold at prices which we had to decline to meet, 
 in spite of the duty of 5 cents per pound. A further increase in these importations 
 will reduce our sales of salicylic acid to a point where we can not continue to 
 manufacture advantageously. 
 
 The importation of above 12.700 pounds was preceded by the offer of one member 
 of the European salicylic acid syndicate to withdraw its competition from the 
 American market if we would pay a yearly indemnity of 10,000 francs, which was 
 promptly declined. 
 
 We are fully aware of the fact that the tariff bill to be introduced next summer will 
 be li a tariff for revenue," but we can not believe that it is the intention to secure the 
 revenue, in this case, at the expense of the destruction of an American industry. 
 
 Our pay roll for the manufacture of salicylic acid amounts to $28,000 per year. 
 Should the duty on salicylic acid be reduced below the present rate of 5 cents per pound 
 and the American manufacturers forced to discontinue the production of salicylic 
 acid, the total revenue on about 500,000 pounds of salicylic acid, which would then 
 have to be imported into this country, would amount to only $12,500 per annum. 
 To obtain this amount of revenue, property invested in buildings and machinery for 
 the manufacture of salicylic acid to the extent of more than $200,000 would have to be 
 destroyed and many American workmen (about 40) would be thrown out of 
 employment. 
 
 It has been stated that the interest of the consumer shall receive first consideration 
 in fixing the rates of the new tariff bill. 
 
 The consumer would not profit by a reduction in the rate on salicylic acid, for if 
 the European trust thereby succeeds in driving its only competitors in America out 
 of business, it will then have an opportunity to advance the prices in this country 
 without fear that the American manufacturers would revive, because they would 
 know that as soon as they start operations again the trust prices would again be put 
 down to a basis where the manufacture in America becomes unprofitable. 
 
 We can not compete here against German manufacturers with a duty of 1\ cents 
 per pound on salicylic acid, because our expense for labor and chemists' salaries 
 amounts to more thau twice as much as that of'the European manufacturers, our build- 
 ings and machinery cost at least 50 per cent more, and therefore the depreciation is 
 50 per cent higher, and our raw materials cost also considerably more here than in 
 Germany. 
 
 We depend on the European markets for cur supply of carbolic acid. This product 
 lias, in recent years, become so expensive that the large and successful salicylic acid 
 manufacturers abroad have introduced in their works synthetic processes, starting 
 from benzol instead of carbolic acid. In order to be able to compete, we shall be 
 obliged to do the sam in this country, but the bill (H. R. 20182) which passed the 
 
SCHEDULE A. 27 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 House in February provides for a duty of 5 per cent ad valorem on benzol. It pro- 
 vides also for a duty of one-quarter of 1 per cent per pound, equal to about 10 per 
 cent ad valorem, on caustic soda, the raw material which ranges second in importance 
 in the manufacture of salicylic acid, and sulphuric acid and muriatic acid, two other 
 materials, are almost twice as expensive here as in Germany. 
 
 We are able to produce evidence that the cost of making salicylic acid here is con- 
 siderably more than 2$ cents per pound higher than in Germany, and we are con- 
 vinced that a duty of 5 cents per pound, as now levied, is about the lowest measure 
 necessary to equalize the difference in conditions existing here and abroad. 
 
 The lowest price for pure salicylic acid is in Germany to-day 26 cents per pound. 
 A duty of 2 cents per pound would be less than 10 per cent ad valorem. No other 
 fine chemical which requires a similar amount of labor and expensive machinery to 
 manufacture has been put down in tariff bill H. R. 20182 at such a low rate. 
 
 We respectfully request that in fixing the new tariff rates the duty of 5 cents per 
 pound for salicylic acid be maintained, so that the American industry may be able 
 to keep up its existence against the competition of the European trust. Our country 
 would not benefit if it should become dependent on a European monopoly for the 
 supply of salicylic acid. 
 
 The following statement contains such information as we are able to give in regard 
 to the outline suggested for preparation of briefs by the Hon. O. W. Underwood. 
 
 SCHEDULE "A," PARAGRAPH I, SALICYLIC ACID. 
 
 In the foregoing memorandum we respectfully recommend the maintenance of 
 present duty of 5 cents per pound on salicylic acid, because the manufacturers in the 
 United States need this duty in order to maintain their existence against members of 
 the European salicylic acid syndicate, which use the American market to dispose of 
 their overproduction at much lower rates than they obtain in their own home markets. 
 
 The amount of salicylic acid sold in the year 1910 by all the sali- 
 cylic acid manufacturers in the United States was approxi- Pounds. Pounds, 
 mately r 440, 000 
 
 The importations in 1910, according to glossary on Schedule A, 
 prepared by the tariff board, amounted to 62, 000 
 
 Total 502, 000 
 
 The sales of the American manufacturers in 1911 amounted ap- 
 proximately to 500,000 
 
 The importations in the year 1911 to 30, 000 
 
 Total 530,000 
 
 The sales by the American manufacturers in the year 1912 are 
 
 estimated at 480, 000 
 
 And the importations at 50, 000 
 
 Total 530, 000 
 
 Three years 1, 562, 000 
 
 Average per year 520, 666 
 
 We obtain our information regarding the importations in the year 1911 and 1912 
 from import lists published in trade papers, which, however, are not complete and 
 not perfectly reliable, and from the knowledge of sales of imported salicylic acid made 
 in these years. 
 
 A further increase of importations and a proportionate decrease of the sales of the 
 domestic manufacturers would greatly increase the cost of manufacture of salicylic 
 acid, because it would mean that the factories could only be run part of the time, 
 which is always very uneconomical. 
 
 It would then perhaps be better to entirely discontinue the manufacture. 
 
 The total revenue to be derived by a duty of 5 cents per pound, if all the salicylic 
 acid sold in this country is imported, will be about $25,000 per year. 
 
 With a duty of 5 cents per pound the American industry will, however, continue 
 and perhaps 50,000 pounds will be imported, the same as in previous years. The 
 revenue on this amount will be $2,500. Should the duty be cut to 2 cents per pound, 
 and should all salicylic acid be imported, the revenue derived therefrom would 
 amount to $12,500. This revenue would then have been procured by destruction of 
 the domestic industry. 
 
28 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 The glossary on Schedule A prepared by the tariff board gives the ad volorem duty 
 on imports in 1910 at a rate of 10 cents per pound (under the Dingley tariff) as 32.84 
 per cent. At the rate of 5 cents per pound (under the present tariff) as 30.36 per cent. 
 This seems contradictory; if the rate of 10 cents per pound is 32.84 per cent,- the rate of 
 5 cents per pound should be 16.52 per cent and not 30.36 per cent. 
 
 We can explain this apparent discrepancy by the statement that the salicylic acid 
 imported in the year 1910 at a rate of duty of 5 cents per pound was not pure salicylic 
 acid, but a crude product which was sold very much below the value of the regular 
 salicylic acid standardized by the United States Pharmacopoeia. 
 
 The above compilations have been made as carefully and conscientiously as possible, 
 and we believe that they are correct. 
 
 NEW YORK, December 20, 1912. 
 
 BRIEF OF MERCK & CO., NEW YORK, N. Y., ST. LOUIS, MO., 
 
 AND RAHWAY, N. J. 
 
 The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Schedule A should be modernized as to classification. There are many 
 anomalies in classification resulting from the patchwork methods of 
 past revisions. This condition requires no extended comment, as it 
 has already been pointed out by the report on Schedule A by your 
 committee in connection with H. R. 20182, passed at the last session 
 of Congress. It is entirely in order that there should be revision of 
 the text of the law to modernize the classification. 
 
 Basket-clause definitions should he precise. In the tariff acts of the 
 past there has been too much uncertainty, and it has frequently 
 required protracted litigation to find out the meaning of tariff terms 
 in Schedule A. 
 
 The new law should set definite standards and make clear what is 
 the precise meaning, for tariff purposes, of the terms used in the vari- 
 ous basket clauses, such as acids, chemical compounds, chemical mix- 
 tures (whatever these may be), drugs, medicinal preparations, etc. 
 
 Radical revision of rates downward. Revision of the rates downward 
 in Schedule A to any such extent, for instance, as provided in H. R. 
 20182 of the last session, would seriously disturb the chemical industry 
 of this country. 
 
 We are large importers, as well as large manufacturers, of the class 
 of so-called fine chemicals, and where we might be put to a disadvan- 
 tage by a reduction of the rates in one case we would gain correspond- 
 ingly on the side of our import business. 
 
 We would probably be less affected than any other American house 
 in our line by radical changes such, for instance, as were adopted by 
 the old 11. R. 20182, so far as direct effects upon our manufacturing 
 and import costs arc concerned. But we fear that a cut from the 
 present average of about 25 per cent to a rate of, say, 15 per cent, 
 cutting the old one almost in half, would result in a serious unsettle- 
 mont of trade conditions in the chemical industry. 
 
 It is our opinion, based upon our dual experience and interest as 
 manufacturers and importers, that the average rate of about 25 per 
 cent, in general, marks the legitimate line of division between protec- 
 tion and revenue for lino chemicals. 
 
 \Vo do not argue for or against protection as such, but we strongly 
 urge against such radical revision as will surely upset trade condi- 
 
SCHEDULE A. 29 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 tions and ruin running plants whicli have existed for decades. Both 
 protectionists and free traders must agree that sudden transition 
 from one condition of cost basis to another is as unkealthy for com- 
 mercial organizations as is a violent change of temperature or atmos- 
 pheric pressure to the individual human organism. And we insist 
 that an absolute reduction of 10 per cent ad valorem in a rate of duty 
 is a radical cut. The increased amount of revenue that may be col- 
 lected as a result of such cut will be incommensurate with the indirect 
 effect upon the commerce in that product. 
 
 Raw materials now free should not J)e assessed. We urge upon your 
 committee also the danger and unwisdom of imposing heavy taxes on 
 such raw materials as are now free of duty. They are not only 
 burdensome to the manufacturer in unsettling his business, which 
 has hitherto adjusted itself to the natural trade conditions, but they 
 are, eventually, transferred to the consumer in increased measure 
 through concentration of the product, additional profits, etc., pro- 
 vided, of course, that the manufacturer is not altogether put out of 
 the business of making the articles in which the raw material is used. 
 
 Dynamiting the tariff wall. Your honorable chairman is reported 
 to have stated in an interview as follows: "To reach this result I 
 prefer to lower the tariff wall, by taking bricks off the top of the wall, 
 rather than dynamiting the structure at the bottom." We would 
 respectfully express our conviction that assessment of duties on such 
 raw materials as are now being supplied to the trade free of duty is 
 applying dynamite at the bottom of the structure. 
 
 If theory of protection justifiable at all, is so in chemical industry. If 
 the element ot protection to infant industry is to be considered to any 
 degree, it may be noted in passing that the chemical industry as a 
 whole in this country is, generally speaking, far behind that of Ger- 
 many, which has attained a high state of development. ("Her 
 supremacy as a whole is at present undisputed, etc." Page 363, 
 report on Schedule A of Committee on Ways and Means, 1912.} 
 
 STATEMENT AS TO SPECIAL ITEMS. 
 
 Paragraph 1: Acid, salicylic. The present rate on this article is 5 
 cents per pound, and this should not be changed. The present cur- 
 rent German market value ranges from 2.40 marks to 2.80 marks 
 per ko. (26 \ to 30 cents per pound). The short price is for 1,000 kp. 
 ( = 1 ton). A duty of 2 cents per pound as fixed, for instance, in 
 H. R. 20182 is equivalent therefore to a very low and unfair ad 
 valorem rate, and such a rate will simply put the American salicylic 
 acid business out of existence. 
 
 Error in report of Tariff Board. In the appendix attached to the 
 report on Schedule A (H. R. 20182) the ad valorem equivalent of 
 the specific duty of 5 cents per pound on salicylic acid (act 1909) is 
 given as about 30 per cent for the year 1910; under the act of r897 
 (year 1905), with the duty at 10 cents per pound, the equivalent 
 ad valorem rate is calculated at 32 per cent. These figures mani- 
 festly embody an error; comparison with present values shows that 
 5 cents per pound figures less than 20 per cent. 
 
30 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 Paragraph 593: Iodine, crude. Iodine, crude, being a raw material, 
 should be retained on the free list for the reasons previously stated in 
 our general remarks in regard to the taxation of raw products. 
 Iodine is used in preparing many important pharmaceutical and 
 photographic preparations and also in the manufacture of aniline 
 
 Paragraph 4-1: Opium, morphine, coca leaves, cocaine. The tariff 
 tax on opium, coca leaves, etc., should not at this time be further 
 increased, as they are already carrying an exceptionally heavy rate 
 for drugs and as it is also contemplated to impose an internal-revenue 
 tax on these products and to assess in addition a special tax on 
 manufacturers of and dealers in these articles and preparations. 
 
 Internal-revenue taxes on narcotics. The collection of such internal- 
 revenue taxes on these products will create efficient machinery for 
 restricting the traffic with habitues. An increased tariff tax would 
 not have any effect on the illegitimate traffic, but in the meantime 
 the accumulated charges will have considerably augmented the cost 
 to the legitimate consumer. 
 
 Rate on morphine and cocaine. However, if the duty is increased 
 on opium and on coca leaves (as was done in H. R. 20182), then there 
 should also be a revision of the duty rate on their alkaloids accord- 
 ingly. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 MERCK & Co., 
 New York, N. Y., St. Louis, Mo., and Rahway, N. J. 
 
 JANUARY 6, 1913. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ELSON & BREWER (INC.), NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 11, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 House of Representatives, Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: We beg herewith to urge a further reduction in the duty on 
 salicylic acid. Act H. R. 20182 provided a specific duty of 1\ cents 
 per pound, which at present prices would be about 11 per cent on the 
 chemically pure product and 15 per cent on the technical salicylic 
 acid. 
 
 Inasmuch as both grades are largely used as basic raw materials 
 for the manufacture of medicinal chemicals, it is evident that it would 
 be to the interest of the masses to transfer this product to the free 
 list. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 ELSON & BREWER (!NC.), 
 B. ELSON, President, 
 American Agents for the Societe Chimique des Usines du Rhone, 
 
 Paris and Lyon (France). 
 
SCHEDULE A. 31 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 GALLIC AND PYROGALLIC ACIDS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. WHITE, OF HARTFORD, REPRE- 
 SENTING THE EASTERN CHEMICAL WORKS. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear Mr. William A. White, repre- 
 senting the Eastern Chemical Works. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, we have made our brief filed before 
 the Finance Committee of the Senate a part of this brief, and I think, 
 perhaps, I had better read from that first. [Reading:] 
 
 GALLIC AND PYROGALLIC ACIDS. 
 
 This company was organized in 1910, and after extensive experiments purchased 
 land, erected buildings, and had special machinery constructed for the manufacture 
 of pyrogallic and gallic acids, which are at present entirely imported from Germany. 
 The prospects of success were based upon the assumption that an infant industry such 
 as this, struggling against great odds, would be protected from ruinous competition 
 from abroad. The foreign manufacturers of the above-mentioned products are un- 
 questionably in a much better position, for they enjoy the advantages of enormous 
 capital, lon established works, sales organizations, extensive experience in the art 
 and particularly cheap manual and professional labor. In order to succeed in the 
 manufacture of these chemicals in the United States, it was necessary to work out 
 entirely different processes in order to avoid manual labor as far as possible. After 
 the expenditure of much time and money we are now so far advanced that the appear- 
 ance of our product on the market is only a matter of a few months. 
 
 If, however, the proposed bill should be enacted into law, all our labor and money 
 will be lost for the following reasons. 
 
 Pyrogallol was not specifically mentioned in the tariff act of August 5, 1909; it 
 came in under the head of a "medicinal preparation not specially provided for" 
 (Schedule A, 65) at 25 per cent ad valorem we would call attention to the fact that 
 it is a United States Pharmacopeia article later it came in under the head of "all 
 other products or preparations of coal tar, not colors or dyes and not medicinal, not 
 especially provided for" (Schedule A, 15) at 20 per cent ad valorem. And this in 
 spite of the fact that it is a medicinal preparation mentioned in the United States 
 Pharmacopoeia and is also used as a dye in dyeing furs. 
 
 Gallic acid enters under the specific duty of 8 cents per pound (Schedule A, 1). 
 
 The proposed bill makes a specific duty of 4 cents per pound on gallic acid and of 
 6 cents per pound on pyrogallic acid. Gallic acid can not be made in this country 
 under so small a protection, until the manufacturers have becoma well known to 
 the trade and have had time to refine the processes so as to reduce the cost of pro- 
 duction as much as possible. The reasons for this are that the raw material, nut- 
 galls, must be imported at great risk to the buyer, as shipments are very irregular 
 and at times impossible on account of the political conditions in the only countries 
 where this crop is gathered, namely, China, Turkey, and Persia. This is shown 
 by the imports of gall nuts during the last six months. Under normal conditions 
 the crop is gathered so that the first shipments start about August and most of the 
 crop follows during the fall and winter, but during the six months ending March 1, 
 1912, we can only get a record of a few small lots. Another very important "reason" 
 is that the consumption of gallic acid is not great enough to warrant its manufacture 
 in large quantities at one time, which means that the labor element constitutes a 
 very large proportion of the cost of production; and it must also be mentioned that the 
 manufacture requires skilled labor and a well-trained chemist. 
 
 It is a well-known fact that as soon as the manufacture of any kind of chemicals is 
 taken up here, the foreign manufacturer reduces his price, and this is well illustrated 
 in the case of hydroquinone, which is used in photography for same purpose as pyro. 
 Here we are told that the only American producer has been forced to sell his product 
 at so near cost as to leave scarcely any profit, and were it not for the loss in capital in- 
 vested in machinery etc., would abandon the manufacture at once. 
 
 This gallic acid is the product of which pyrogallic acid is made, and theoretically 2 
 pounds of pyro will be produced from 3 pounds of gallic, but in actual practice the 
 yield does not approximate any such amount on account of the unavoidable losses in 
 operation. It will therefore be seen that in this case the duty on the prime material 
 (gallic acid) is virtually higher than that on the finished product (pyrogallic acid); 
 
32 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 for example, 3 pounds of gallic acid with the proposed duty of 4 cents per pound 
 amount to 12 cents, while the duty on the pyro that can be obtained from 3 pounds of 
 gallic acid would amount to only about 9 cents at proposed rate of 6 cents por pound . 
 
 That was our brief before the Senate Finance Committee. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. But the ad valorem equivalents are very much the 
 same thing on the figures taken from the' Treasury books, in one case 
 10.14, and in the other 9.60. Those are the only figures we can go by. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes; but you are taking the figures of the propor- 
 tionate tariff per pound or per dollar's worth, but gallic acid is prac- 
 tically a raw material for pyrogallic acid. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much is the product in the United States for 
 1912? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. How much was it? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much did it amount to, the American product ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I have no report for 1912, but I gave it in my previous 
 evidence for 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910 and 1911. The Oil, Paint, and 
 Drug Report gives it for 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, and 1911. It was 
 38,000 pounds for 1907. This is merely in thousands. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much is that in dollars ? How much would it 
 be, about? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. For the fiscal year 1908-9 the average invoice price 
 was $1.04. This is the price on which duty was computed. In 1908, 
 it was 32,000 pounds, 23,000 pounds in 1909, 37,000 pounds in 1910, 
 22,000 pounds in 1911. [Reading:] 
 
 Since appearing before the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate, 
 we have entered the market and we have found that the statements made in our 
 brief "submitted to that committee and hereto appended have been fully substan- 
 tiated by the facts brought to light by our actual manufacturing experience. Espe- 
 cial attention should be called to the fact that we find the item for wages and sal- 
 aries to all employees to constitute about 35 per cent of the present selling price. 
 This item alone is well known to be at least twice as high as that borne by the Ger- 
 man manufacturer and is the Chief reason why we are compelled to ask for a con- 
 tinuance of the present rate of 25 per cent ad valorem for pyrogallic acid and of 8 
 cents per pound on gallic acid. The now existing rates are barely sufficient to 
 equalize the difference in the item of wages and salaries above mentioned. 
 
 Another reason is that the revenue would decrease, for the amount of pyrogallic 
 and gallic acids imported would not increase at all by any lowering of the duty, since 
 at present the entire consumption of this country is imported from Germany, and 
 consequently the revenue would be smaller in exactly the same proportion as the duty 
 is lowered. The Germans and their agents here would be the only ones benefited 
 by such a measure. The manufacture of these articles, which is a difficult one, would 
 be ruined by their competitive practices and they would be given the monopoly 
 which we are now trying to wrest from them. As they are not hindered, and, if 
 anything, encouraged to form syndicates, which are unlawful in this country, they 
 will dump their goods on our market until we are ruined and then reimburse themselves 
 by fixing the prices so high after that end is once attained that the consumer will be 
 much worse off than if through a slight protection competition had been kept alive. 
 The practice here mentioned is proven by the statistics of importations. For instance, 
 during the fiscal year 1908-9 the average invoice price of pyrogallic acid was $1.04. 
 In 1909-10 the average invoice price of pyrogallic acid was |0.68. In 1910-11 the 
 average invoice price of pyrogallic acid was"$0.641. 
 
 That was owing to the tremendous competition between manufac- 
 turers in Germany who afterwards got together, and the price for 
 the last quarter of 1911 and 1912 was 95 cents. 
 
 We have invested a large sum of money in experiments to adapt this difficult indus- 
 try to the peculiar conditions existing here, and more money was spent in buying 
 land and building and equipping a factory. The equipment is all of such a nature 
 that it had to be designed and built specially for our particular needs, and jf we are 
 

 SCHEDULE A. 33 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 ruined by any lowering of the present duties on the articles in which we are interested 
 nearly all this could not be sold or utilized for any other purpose, but would be scrapped 
 at a total loss. 
 
 For the reasons above set forth we would respectfully ask for a continuance of the 
 present duty of 25 per cent ad valorem on pyrogallic acid and of 8 cents a pound on 
 gallic acid, which, all things considered, are not too high and would not create a 
 monopoly on this side. We shall then in this country be enabled to fight the German 
 monopoly and to gradually build up an independent industry. 
 
 We may sum up the consequence of any lowering of the tariff on pyrogallic acid 
 and gallic acid thus: 
 
 First. Smaller revenue for the United States Treasury. 
 
 Second. Higher prices to the consumer. 
 
 Third. Strengthening of the grip of the German monopoly. 
 
 Fourth. Ruin of a young industry which now promises to create competition and 
 ultimately reduce the price to the consumer. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How long do you think it would take, with this 
 present tariff, for that industry to become an old industry that is, 
 not an infant industry one tnat would not need this protection ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. It is somewhat difficult to say, but if we should be 
 able to get hold of the market firmly in five years we should accom- 
 plish a great deal, I think. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You would not need much protection, then? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I do not think we would. I think as soon as we have 
 become known to the trade and have a chance to refine our methods 
 so as to reduce the labor element as far as possible, we shall not object 
 to a reasonable lowering of the tariff; but we shall always have the 
 element of low wages paid to foreign labor to contend with. In 
 Germany, in a continuous process, the laborers work 12 hours a day. 
 They have two shifts which work the entire 24 hours. Our laborers 
 work 9 hours. If we put on continuous process we must have three 
 shifts of 8 hours. We could not get laborers to work 12 hours here. 
 Not only that, but we pay our laborers $12 to $15 a week. Over 
 there they pay not over naif of that. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Gallic acid is made from nutgalls, which are on the 
 free list? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Pyrogallic acid is made from gallic acid ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. This bill of last session cuts the duties on both of them 
 about 60 per cent, from 25 to 10. The question I want to ask is, Can 
 you continue to manufacture the gallic and pyrogallic acid if nutgalls 
 remain on the free list, as they are now, with a reduction of 60 per 
 cent of the present duty without cutting your wages ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. We can not do it under any conditions. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Then, you can not continue the manufacture at all? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What is the process of making pyrogallic acid out 
 of gallic acid ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. It is a secret process. I can tell you in a general way. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Is it an expensive process ? Is it a high grade of 
 manufacture ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. It is not a high grade of manufacturing, as classed 
 with watchmaking, perhaps, or something of that character, but it 
 requires a class of labor that we pay from two to two and a half dollars 
 a day. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 3 
 
34 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. You make it out of gallic acid ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes. We are now trying to make our own gallic acid. 
 We expect to make our own gallic acid. We have large quantities 
 of nutgalls now on the way from China, and while we nave not yet 
 made our gallic acid so as to be able to compete with the gallic acid 
 we can buy abroad, we fully expect to do it, and we can say it is an 
 assured thing. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. About how much of this acid is consumed in the 
 United States ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. We imported only about $9,000 worth of it last 
 year, and I believe your figures there gave a production of about 
 $22,000, so that would indicate we did not consume over $32,000 
 all over the United States. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. The Treasury figures, or the import figures, are very 
 misleading. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. There must have been some smuggling going on. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Oh, no, sir. I beg your pardon. The acid comes in 
 under "Other articles not specifically mentioned." 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. No, it comes in under "gallic acid." 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Pyrogallic acid, too. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What I wanted to get at is this: Is it a big industry ? 
 Do we make as much as $1,000,000 worth in the United States? Is 
 there much of it consumed ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. No, sir. At present it is impossible to ascertain the 
 exact amount of pyrogallic acid imported. It is well known to the 
 trade that the actual amount imported is much larger than the 
 Treasury reports show. We have been told by Mr. O. P. Austin, of 
 the Bureau of Statistics, that this is on account of pyrogallic acid 
 not being specially mentioned in the tariff act of August 5, 1909. It 
 is optional with the importer to enter it as pyrogallic acid or as "an 
 acid not specially provided for." (Schedule A, par. 1.) Reliable 
 estimates place the actual importation at between 100,000 and 
 ] 50, 000 pounds annually. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You have passed over your time considerably. Is 
 that all you desire to say ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. That is all. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. Is your labor any more efficient than similar 
 labor in Europe ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. No, sir; I do not believe it is. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Does Germany get her supply of nutgalls from China 
 also ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. The world's supply comes from China? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Practically. Some comes from Persia and some from 
 Turkey, but practically all from China. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 35 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 BRIEF OF BAKER & ADAMSON CHEMICAL CO., EASTON, PA. 
 
 EASTON, PA., January 27, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: So far as this company's interests are concerned the changes 
 proposed in the Underwood bill (H. R. 20182) would be injurious only 
 in respect to the following reductions in the duties on five photographic 
 chemicals, ail of which are coal-tar products, except pyrogallic acid: 
 
 1. Mono^methyl-para-amido-phenol (known as "metol"): Present 
 duty, 20 per cent (par. 15); proposed duty, 15 per cent (H. R. 20182, 
 par. 22). 
 
 2. Diphenyl oxide: Present duty, 20 per cent (par. 15); proposed 
 duty, 15 per cent (H. R. 20182, par. 22). 
 
 3. Cinnamic acid: Present dutv, 25 per cent (par. 1); proposed 
 duty, 15 per cent (H. R. 20182, par. 1). 
 
 4. Pyrogallic acid: Present duty, 25 per cent (par. 1); proposed 
 duty, 6 cents per pound (H. R. 20182, par. 1). 
 
 5. Hydroguinone (hydrochinori) : Present duty, 25 per cent (par. 65) 
 or 20 per cent (par. % 15); proposed duty, 15 per cent (H. R. 20182, 
 par. 22). 
 
 Since our domestic trade in these articles is controlled by Europe, 
 and since European exportations to the United States are sold at 
 prices having no relation to the rate of duty, we think it certain that 
 a moderate increase in the rate of duty would not tend to increase 
 domestic prices. 
 
 We, therefore, suggest an advance of duty to 30 or 35 per cent ad 
 valorem generally on all coal-tar chemicals covered by paragraph 22 
 of the bill under consideration, and on cinnamic acid and pyrogallic 
 acid belonging to paragraph 1. 
 
 Practically the entire domestic consumption of fine chemicals, espe- 
 cially coal-tar products such as the five above specified, is and always 
 has been imported from Europe, where the production and sale are 
 controlled by "convention" embracing substantially all the manu- 
 facturers. As a consequence, exportations to the United States are 
 sold at prices generally very much in excess of cost, since very few of 
 the articles are manufactured in this country. On the other hand, 
 the European prices to the United States for those few articles which 
 domestic manufacturers have lately attempted to produce and sell in 
 competition with the foreign "convention" are frequently, if not gen- 
 erally, below cost in accordance with the avowed and determined 
 policy of European manufacturers to stamp out all attempted Ameri- 
 can competition in this entire field. 
 
 This is the case with the five articles above specified. Until 1910 
 none of them was manufactured in this country. Since that time we 
 have manufactured and sold each of them in quantities which are 
 relatively small as compared with the European exportations to this 
 country. The following table of domestic prices for these articles in 
 1910 and 1913 illustrates both the excessive European prices for fine 
 chemicals when not produced in this country and the European cut- 
 throat prices for those few which domestic manufacturers attempt to 
 
36 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 produce and sell in competition with the European "convention." 
 Obviously, neither scale of prices bears any "relation to the present 
 relatively insignificant duties on these articles : 
 
 
 1910 
 
 1913 
 
 Metol 
 
 $5. .50 
 
 $2 .50 
 
 Diphenyl oxide 
 
 4.00 
 
 1.25 
 
 
 2.00 
 
 1.00 
 
 Pyrogallic acid 
 
 1.80 
 
 1.20 
 
 Hydroquinone 
 
 1.20 
 
 .52 
 
 
 
 
 Past experience shows, therefore, that so lonj* as the United 
 States market in these and similar articles is controlled by Europe 
 which must be for a long time to come any ordinary rate of duty 
 is not an appreciable factor, either in the determination of the 
 volume of imports or in the determination of domestic prices. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 BAKER & ADAMSON CHEMICAL Co., 
 GEORGE P. ADAMSON, Vice President. 
 
 SULPHURIC ACID. ' 
 
 STATEMENT OF W. H. NICHOLS, JR., VICE PRESIDENT OF 
 THE GENERAL CHEMICAL CO. 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 represent the General Chemical Co., manufacturers of what is known 
 as heavy, inorganic chemicals almost exclusively, such as sulphuric, 
 muriatic, and nitric acids, some of the soda products, and some of 
 the alums. We have never enjoyed a very serious protective tariff 
 in our particular branch of the chemical industry, and it was not 
 with the idea of complaining that the tariff is not sufficient to pro- 
 tect us on the bulk of our manufactures that I appear here. I believe 
 it is true in our line of business that we need no protection based 
 solely on the difference between the cost of manufacture in this 
 country and abroad. We have tried to take the best methods that 
 wo can find and adapt them to the conditions in this country, enabling 
 us to pay the same rate of wages to our workmen as in other lines of 
 industry, and making it unnecessary in many cases to ask for pro- 
 tection. 
 
 There are two or three articles that we are interested in that I 
 believe have been overlooked, or possibly have not been fully under- 
 stood by the committee having this matter of revision in charge. 
 Out of the 30 or 40 articles that we manufacture there are practically 
 only three on which we would bring up this question of possible error. 
 One is what is known as sodium sulphide. The solution of sodium 
 sulphide has been put on the same basis as the concentrated in the 
 proposed bill, so that an article of twice the strength of the solution 
 comes in at the same rate of duty as the solution. The concentrated 
 should take twice the duty of solution. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is it an ad valorem rate or a specific rate? 
 
SCHEDULE A. 37 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. A specific rate. Epsom salts, in which we are inter- 
 ested, and, as has been pointed out in your very complete appendix 
 and glossary to the chemical schedule, is made largely from magne- 
 site. It is also manufactured from kieserite or crude magnesite sul- 
 phate which is a production of a German syndicate. I think under 
 the present wording of the proposed bill, the crude material takes 
 the same duty as Epsom salts, which is cut from the old rate of 20 
 cents to 10 cents per 100 pounds. We are entirely in the hands of 
 our German friends in this matter, as we make our Epsom salts on 
 suiferance. They are getting to-day, as near as I can discover, a 
 little more for the crude kieserite than they are from their Epsom, 
 after they have manufactured it from kieserite, and it is simply a 
 question of what they want to let us make over here. The duty 
 should remain on Epsom salts and kieserite should be free. 
 
 The third article is acetic acid. This under the old schedule took 
 a moderate duty for the weaker strength and 2 cents a pound for the 
 so-called strong glacial acid. It is now proposed that acetic acid be 
 placed entirely upon the free list. On the other hand, you have put 
 on the dutiable list acetic anhydride, which may be said to be still 
 stronger, at 2^ cents a pound. I should urge very much the placing 
 of glacial acid on the dutiable list at something like the old rate of 2 
 cents a pound, whether the weaker acid is or is not. These materials 
 I believe to be illustrations of chemicals that can come into this 
 country at times irrespective of the rate of tariff that is placed upon 
 them the so-called "dumping 7 ' of certain surplus manufactured 
 products from the other side. While we have by-product acid in this 
 country, large volumes of it, it is made at points where the freight to 
 the consuming points is very heavy; but in many directions we are 
 growing faster man our production of by-product materials. On the 
 other hand many of our European manufacturing competitors have 
 surplus sulphuric acid to place. They can not place it directly as 
 sulphuric acid and it must therefore be placed as one of the salts, as 
 glacial acetic acid, or some other product made by the use of sul- 
 phuric acid. Seeing the need of protecting themselves from this class 
 of importation Canada instituted what is known as a dumping clause, 
 and I believe it has been successful. Whether or not it is wise to 
 enact such a clause into our law, I am not prepared to say. I do think, 
 however, that inasmuch as we must secure in this country some 
 revenue for the maintenance of the Government, I think the duty 
 should be placed on just such things as these I have mentioned and 
 of course there are many other things upon which it will be perfectly 
 reasonable and fair to place a duty. It is quite immaterial, on some 
 of these things what the duty is. If the foreign manufacturer wants 
 to place them here, he is going to place them here . We are going to 
 do our best to keep them from taking our business away from us, 
 whether there is a duty or whether there is not a duty. In our 
 experience we have found that irrespective of duty many of the 
 foreign manufacturers will bring in such articles as glacial acetic 
 acid, without any reference whatever to the cost but simply as a 
 surplus material that they desire to rid themselves of. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You would do the same thing abroad if you had the 
 surplus ? 
 
38 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. Absolutely; and I make no argument against it. 
 But here is an opportunity for us to get additional revenue without 
 charging the ultimate consumer more. I would like to add just a 
 word or two about things in which we are only very slightly inter- 
 ested. You have, and wisely, I believe, decided to place a duty on 
 aniline oil and salt. We are interested in a company producing 
 aniline oil and salt in this country. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What is the amount of production of those things ? 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. I think our maximum production in this country 
 would be 1,000 tons. I think that is one-half of the consumption in 
 this country. You have, I believe, placed that on the dutiable list at 
 10 per cent. Whether that is going to protect a very young infant 
 which is starting, is something I do not know. I believe a larger duty 
 than that would be reasonable 15 or 20 per cent. The industry was 
 started in a tune when there was no protection. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Which would produce tne most, 15 or 20 per cent? 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. I believe you would get all the revenue you charged, 
 because the production is not sufficient to meet the demand. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Why did you start that industry without any duty? 
 Did you think you could make it pay? 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. There are a great many experiments that we try 
 
 Mr. HILL. Mr. Emory was speaking of the manufacture of oxalic 
 acid running 6 years under free trade. You say you started this 
 industry without any duty on it at all? 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. And you think it ought to have more duty than the 
 committee has given it ? 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. We agree with the Congress which has already 
 decided that the duty on that for revenue purposes, I believe, was 
 wise. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Did you start it for the purpose of using the by-prod- 
 uct, or with the idea of making a successful business investment ? 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. That is one of the things in which we use sulphuric 
 and nitric acid, a thing which I believe we must encourage in this 
 country, the use of the growing production of what might be called 
 basic chemicals. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You did not start it as an altruistic proposition? 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. We haven't made any money. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You are not satisfied with your experience? 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. It has not been very good. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. This witness has made no request for protection. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I know that. 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. We have no business in this country in fine chemicals 
 that can compare with the chemical industry abroad. It is simply 
 a question of whether it is not wise to foster the growth of the chem- 
 ical industry or at least give us a source of revenue. I believe that 
 our business is going to grow over here, whether we have free trade 
 or whether we do not. I believe that we are going ahead in this 
 country, but I think there are certain things that should be pro- 
 tected and that certain duties should be levied. It seems to me to 
 l)e a question so important that one man's wisdom is not sufficient to 
 cover the ground. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 39 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. There are several other witnesses, and we must 
 adjourn early this afternoon. 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. I am entirely at your disposal. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Have you covered the ground that you wish to 
 cover ? 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. I have, sir, unless you would like to ask me to submit 
 a brief later on. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We would be very glad to have you submit a 
 brief. 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. I intended to have the chairman of our research 
 department to do that, but that has been impossible on account of 
 his illness. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. If you will submit your brief and get it in to-day, 
 it will be printed in the hearings on the chemical schedule; if not, 
 it would go back in another schedule, where it would not be so much 
 in evidence. 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. Any brief that I would submit to-day would be of 
 no very great aid to your committee. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You can file a brief at any time before the hear- 
 ings are over, at the end of the month. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTII. Where are your plants ? 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. We have them all over the country. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You have a number of them? 
 
 Mr. NICHOLS. Yes, sir; we have about 25 of them. 
 
 At a later date the witness filed the following statement of General 
 Chemical Co. regarding the Underwood bill to amend the Chemical 
 Schedule of the tariff act. 
 
 NEW YORK, JANUARY 27, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: In accordance with your request to our vice president, Mr. W. H. Nichols, jr., 
 at the hearing of 7th January 1913, we submit a few criticisms of the Underwood bill. 
 \Ve are of the opinion that no great injury would result by the adoption of the amend- 
 ments to the duties in that portion of Schedule A with which we are familiar, and we 
 would be willing to accept the proposed amendments with the exception of four 
 articles, namely: 
 
 "1. Magnesium sulphate: Epsom salt and kieserite. Page] 11, line 22, erase "one- 
 tenth" and in lieu thereof insert "one-fifth." Page 22, between lines 19 and 20 insert 
 "88a kieserite." 
 
 Kieserite contains about 60 per cent sulphate of magnesia in an impure state, which 
 has always been on the free list (paragraph 602 of present tariff act); its only use is as a 
 raw material for Epsom salt and for which it is the only commercial raw material; it 
 must all be imported since this country has no deposits thereof. If the understanding 
 be correct that, in general, raw materials are to be duty free, then kieserite should be 
 definitely placed on the free list in some such manner as that proposed; the bill, as 
 at present framed, leaves open to serious discussion whether or not kieserite is dutiable 
 under paragraph No. 45 of H. R. 20182. 
 
 In any event, we believe that sulphate of magnesia or Epsom salt should be taxed 
 as heretofore, namely, one-fifth of 1 cent per pound, plus any tax that may be assessed 
 against kieserite. and we so request, the reason being that 1 pound of kieserite produces 
 about 1 pound of Epsom salt. 
 
 In this connection it is only jiist to you and to us to point out that on page 229 of 
 report No. 326 on Schedule A, kieserite is not mentioned as a raw material for Epsom 
 salt; the statement there made that Epsom salt is obtained from a by-product in the 
 making of liquid carbonic acid was true some years ago, but no longer represents the 
 actual state of affairs. It may very well be that this incorrect statement led to the 
 omission of kieserite from the free list of H. R. 20182. 
 
40 . TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGBAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 2. Sodium sulphid. Page 19, line 25, erase "sulphid of, and." Page 20, line 1, 
 before "cyanide" insert "sulphid of, containing not more than 35 per cent of true 
 anhydrous sodium sulphid, one-fourth of one cent per pound; containing more than 
 35 per cent of true anhydrous sodium sulphid, one-half of one cent per pound." 
 
 In the manufacture of sulphid of soda two distinct and clearly differentiated com- 
 mercial qualities exist and are so recognized and so treated in the trade. They are 
 known as "crystal" and "concentrated" respectively. "Concentrated" contains 
 rougly twice as much actual active material as "crystal;" "crystal" seldom, if ever, 
 contains more than 35 per cent true anhydrous sulphid of soda, whereas "concentrated ' 
 rarely contains less than 60 per cent true anhydrous sulphid of soda. "Concentrated " 
 can and does therefore, weight for weight, perform twice the work of "crystal;" 
 "concentrated" is in a more advanced stage of manufacture than is "crystal." These 
 iacts are our reasons for suggesting that "concentrated" should bear twice the duty 
 imposed on "crystal." We are convinced therefore that for purposes of fair taxation 
 ft would be better to define the grades of sulphid of soda by their actual content in 
 anhydrous sulphid, and suggest that the two classes be distinguished by drawing a 
 line between sulphids containing more than 35 per cent and those. containing less than 
 35 per cent. It would seem that such a classification would be better than "crystal" 
 and "concentrated." 
 
 We agree to the 50 per cent cut in duty on "crystal" as proposed in H. R. 20182. 
 
 3. Acetic acid. Page 21, line 4, after "pyroligenous" insert "containing not more 
 than 65 per cent of true acetic acid." Page 2, line 7, before "benzoic " insert "acetic 
 acid containing 65 per cent or more of true acetic acid, 2 cents per pound." 
 
 In the chemical manufacture of acetic acid there are at present several processes in 
 use, and the average resulting product contains about 65 per cent of true acetic acid. 
 In order to produce acids of higher strength, it is necessary to add another step in the 
 manufacture. Since it is a fair general statement that acetic acid of more than 65 per 
 cent strength is a different article of manufacture from acid below 65 per cent, and is in 
 a more advanced stage, and since the actual value of acetic acid is greater the greater 
 its strength, we accept the placing of the weaker acid on the free list and ask for the 
 retention of the present duty rate of 2 cents per pound on acid of a strength above 65 
 per cent. 
 
 4. Nitrate of soda. Page 23, between lines 9 and 10, insert "95a soda, nitrate of, or 
 cubic nitrate." 
 
 Nitrate of soda is now on the free list (paragraph 677). It is omitted from the free 
 list in H. R. 20182 and would therefore presumably be assessed at 10 or 25 per cent duty 
 according to the classification finally adopted for it; at any rate its position now is 
 ambiguous. Nitrate of soda comes exclusively from South America, the United States 
 importing between 400,000 and 500,000 tons annually; none is produced in this country. 
 About 40 per cent is used in agriculture as fertilizer; about 40 per cent is used in 
 explosives; about 15 per cent is used in chemicals; about 5 per cent is used in miscel- 
 laneous. 
 
 It is essentially a raw material and its omission from the free list must be an over- 
 sight. 
 
 The duty on many items in the chemical schedule might, however, we believe, be 
 advantageously retained as in the present act, or even raised, without reducing impor- 
 tations or affecting prices. 
 
 In the United States the chemical industry as a whole is not evenly developed. The 
 manufacture of fertilizers is its largest branch and is absolutely unprotected by any 
 tariff. In the manufacture of heavy chemicals, sulphuric acid, muriatic acid, and 
 nitric acid, there is either no duty at all or it is a noneft'ective duty. The large num- 
 ber of mineral salts made from these acids are dutiable and furnish some revenue. 
 They are subject to attack from Europe, and the tariff placed upon them is simply a 
 means of collecting revenue rather than in any sense a protective measure. 
 
 Coal-tar dyes and medicines are other branches of great importance, but they can 
 hardly bo said to exist in the United States. A moderately high duty on these prod- 
 ucts would, we believe, neither rest rid the importation thereof nor seriously affect 
 the selling price of the finished produds consuming them. Paragraphs 487 and 592 
 of the pn-sent free list might safely be put on the dutiable list at a duty of 30 per cent 
 ad valorem or even higher, and paragraphs 536, 639, and 491 might be raised to 15 or 
 20 per cent,. 
 
 The census bulletins show the total revenue under Schedule A in 1911 to have been 
 4.0<; per cent of the entire revenue collected under the existing act, while for the previ- 
 ous 10 years the average tariff collected from Schedule A was only 3.42 per cent. The 
 average rate of duty on all of the schedules is 41 per cent and the average rate of duty 
 on Schedule A is 23 per cent. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 
 
 41 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 A study of the appended table will make it obvious that Schedule A has never been 
 treated as a source of revenue. Consideration from this point of view may well result 
 in the Government's pursuing a diffenert policy. 
 
 The chemicals manufactured by this company on which a duty is assessed, are as 
 follows: Sodium hyposulphite, sodium sulphid (crystal and concentrated), sodium 
 phosphate, trisodium phosphate, sodium sulphite (crystal and anhydrous), sodium 
 silicate, bichloride of tin, tin crystals, alum products. 
 
 These are all dependent upon cheap sulphuric acid, and when Europe is permitted 
 to dump its biproduct acid in this country in the form of such salts, it simply deprives 
 the United States of an outlet for its own acids. If these importations are to be allowed 
 then we strongly recommend the Government's collecting a revenue thereon, which 
 it can do without the least risk of increasing the cost of the articles to the consumer. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 GENERAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, 
 W. H. NICHOLS, JR., Vice President. 
 
 Rough analysis of Schedule A yielding 4 per cent of total tariff revenue. 
 
 
 Approximate 
 valueUnited 
 States pro- 
 duction. 
 
 Value of imports. 
 
 Duty collected. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Average 
 rate. 
 
 Heavy chemicals l 
 
 $125,685.000 
 49,212,000 
 4,505,000 
 2,267,000 
 8,054,000 
 63,537,000 
 91,780,000 
 124,889,000 
 
 $12,226,385 
 10,731,626 
 33,738,548 
 12,218,722 
 8,726,995 
 32,749,574 
 829,141 
 2,017,507 
 
 10.8 
 9.5 
 
 29.8 
 10.8 
 7.7 
 28.9 
 0.7 
 1.8 
 
 $764,553 
 422,294 
 4,534,267 
 1,911,446 
 1,222,833 
 3,126,281 
 271,697 
 618,403 
 
 Per cent. 
 6.25 
 3.93 
 13.50 
 15.64 
 14.01 
 9.54 
 32.80 
 36.50 
 
 Alkalis and alkalis salts . . 
 
 Medical chemicals and fine chemicals 
 
 Dyes and coal-tar products 
 
 Extracts 
 
 Oils. ... . . 
 
 Soaps 
 
 Paints 
 
 Total 
 
 469,929,000 
 
 113,238,498 
 
 100.0 
 
 12,871,774 
 
 
 
 
 1 Includes $104,000,000, fertilizers'. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE COCHRANE CHEMICAL CO., BOSTON, 
 
 MASS. 
 
 BOSTON, MASS.. January 2, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We, the Cochrane Chemical Co., of Boston, a Massa- 
 chusetts corporation, beg to present our views on the proposed tariff 
 reductions in Schedule A. 
 
 Our principal product is sulphuric acid, on which there is now a 
 duty of one-fourth cent per pound. We admit that the full amount 
 of this duty may not be necessary in the case of competition with the 
 European nations, where freight rates form a natural barrier. In 
 the case of Canadian competition, however, the situation would be 
 dangerous to the American sulphuric-acid producer. 
 
 Canada is rich in raw material, viz, pyrites, and with cheaper 
 labor can, if the duty is removed, flood our markets, while we would 
 be unable to retaliate so long as she retains her present tariff, forti- 
 fied by a "dumping clause." Under these circumstances our 
 disadvantage is obvious. 
 
 We believe it would be only fair to our interests to have a similar 
 dumping clause, especially if the duty should be entirely removed. 
 
42 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 We further believe that it is not only unwise but impossible to 
 intelligently draw up the chemical schedule until the various mineral 
 schedules which deal with our raw materials, such as lead, zinc, 
 bauxite, etc. have been settled. As the manufacture of chemicals 
 is by far the most complicated and technical of any of the industries 
 of the countries, it i$ a schedule not to be drawn up hurriedly. 
 
 In closing, we think that the most practical policy and fairest to 
 all concerned would be somewhat as follows: 
 
 First. Eliminate the tariff peaks by reducing excessive rates, so 
 that the advantages of protection may be more equitably distributed 
 among its beneficiaries. 
 
 Second. Abolish tariff on raw materials essential to American 
 industries in order to compensate for lower rates upon the manu- 
 factured products. 
 
 Third. Reduce duties upon manufactured articles gradually by 
 enforcing as far as possible a moderate percentage of reduction each 
 year for a period of years. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 COCHRANE CHEMICAL Co., 
 LINDSLEY LORING, Treasurer. 
 
 CITRIC ACID. 
 
 STATEMENT OF POWERS-WEIGHTMAN-ROSENGARTEN CO., 
 MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS, PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, January 6. 1913. 
 The Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 
 Washington, D. C.: 
 
 Citric acid is now assessed at a duty of 7 cents per pound. This 
 duty, which is a trifle less than 25 per cent ad valorem, should be 
 allowed to remain undisturbed, as great advantages are possessed by 
 the foreign makers owing to cheaper labor, cheaper apparatus, and 
 cheaper reagents which enter into its manufacture. 
 
 This article is made from citrate of lime, which is imported from 
 Sicily and the West Indies, and also from lime juice obtained from 
 the West Indies. 
 
 These raw materials, citrate of lime and lime juice, should remain 
 upon the free list. There is no country in the world which imposes 
 an import duty on either of them. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 POWEHS-WEIGHTMAN-ROSENGARTEN CO., 
 
 A. G. ROSENGARTEN, Treasurer. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 43 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CHARLES PFIZER & CO. (INC.), NEW YORK, 
 
 N. Y. 
 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. 0. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Pursuant to your notice of tariff hearings, 1913, dated 
 December 11, 1912, we beg to submit the following. The para- 
 graphs mentioned below refer to the present tariff law: 
 
 Paragraph 1. Citric acid. Present rate, 7 cents per pound. 
 
 This represents, on the present market price abroad, less than 20 
 per cent ad valorem, which we think is little enough to enable the 
 manufacturers in the United States to compete with the lower cost 
 of production in Europe. Imports into the United States of foreign 
 manufacture are constant, and at present rate, therefore, the Gov- 
 ernment obtains a revenue. Under the Wilson bill this article was 
 dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem. We suggest, therefore, that the 
 present rate of duty should be maintained. 
 
 In European countries combinations and agreements to maintain 
 prices are not only permissible but encouraged by some Govern- 
 ments, as is well known; hence if, because of a reduction in our 
 tariff rate, manufacturers in the United States found it unprofitable 
 to operate, the people of this country would be the eventual sufferers 
 by being compelled to pay much higher prices because of control of 
 markets in Europe beyond the reach of the laws of the United States. 
 
 Paragraph 613. Lime, citrate of. Now on the free list of the pres- 
 ent tariff. 
 
 Paragraph 610. Lemon juice, lime juice. Now on the free list of 
 the present tariff. 
 
 These are the raw materials for the manufacture of citric acid. In 
 no large manufacturing country of the world is there an import duty 
 imposed on these crude materials. The greatest country of produc- 
 tion is Sicily, and in that country the Italian Government has estab- 
 lished a monopoly, controlling prices to be paid by buyers. 
 
 We strongly recommend that lime, citrate of; lemon juice; and 
 lime juice be retained upon the free list. If for any reason, however, 
 in the wisdom of your committee, it is deemed desirable to effect a 
 tariff on these articles, then we trust that an equivalent advance on 
 the tariff on citric acid be effected, bearing in mind always that it 
 takes from 1 to If pounds of citrate of lime to manufacture 1 pound 
 of citric acid. 
 
 Paragraph 1 . Tartaric acid. Present rate, 5 cents per pound. This 
 rate has increased imports very largely to the detriment, proportion- 
 ately, of the manufacturers in the United States. The imports in 
 1907 were 11,573 pounds, and increased constantly until in 1911 they 
 were 331,538 pounds. 
 
 Crude argols is the raw material for the manufacture of this article. 
 
 European makers of tartaric acid operate by using the lowest grade 
 of wine lees and the refuse which they get from the wine presses. 
 American manufacturers can not use this low-grade stuff because of 
 added freight costs from Europe on about 80 per cent waste material 
 and because of labor costs being at least three times greater in the 
 
44 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 United States than in Europe. Further, the makers in the United 
 States must pay duty on the crude material used, while the Europeans 
 have it directly at their doors free of any extra cost. Manufacturers 
 in the United States also pay from 50 to 100 per cent more for other 
 raw materials used in the manufacture of tartaric acid, as well as 
 everything that goes into construction of plant and operation of same. 
 In and about our factory we employ labor in the form of carpenters, 
 coppersmiths, tinsmiths, machinists, masons, and ordinary workmen, 
 as well as high-priced chemists, clerks, etc., to all of whom we pay 
 wages far in excess of anything paid in other countries. 
 
 The advantages possessed by the European makers over the manu- 
 facturers in the United States in practically everything that goes to 
 make up the cost of producing this article is not offset by a duty of 5 
 cents per pound. To make a relative and proper proportion of rates, 
 as compared to cream of tartar mentioned below, the duty upon tar- 
 taric acid should be 6J cents per pound. 
 
 Paragraph 6. Cream tartar. Present rate, 5 cents per pound. 
 What we have said above with regard to tartaric acid applies with 
 equal force to cream tartar. We think if the duty on crude argols is 
 maintained at 5 per cent ad valorem, as at present, that the rate upon 
 cream tartar should remain at 5 cents per pound. 
 
 The chemical ratio between tartaric acid and cream tartar is as 1 is 
 to 1|, 1 part of tartaric acid being equal to 1^ parts of cream tartar. 
 
 Paragraph 6. Tartrate of soda arid potash or Rochelle salts. Present 
 rate, 3 cents per pound. 
 
 This rate was established under the law of 1909, and the imports 
 during the fiscal year of 1909 immediately increased to 40,123 pounds, 
 as compared to the import in 1908 of 1,722 pounds. Imports have 
 constantly increased since the enactment of the law of 1909, so that 
 during the fiscal year 1911, 78,257 pounds were imported, and, as far 
 as we have been able to learn, imports during the fiscal year 1912 will 
 exceed at least 125,000 pounds, clearly demonstrating that the law 
 of 1909, establishing a rate of 3 cents per pound, is as low as it should be. 
 
 The crude material for this article is crude argols, and what we have 
 said above with regard to tartaric acid and cream tartar applies with 
 equal force to this article. 
 
 Paragraph 6. Argols or crude tartar, or wine lees, crude. Present 
 rate, 5 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 About 95 per cent of all the consumption in the United States is 
 imported from European centers. 
 
 These articles are the crude material for the manufacture of cream 
 tartar, tartaric acid, and Rochelle salts. If in the wisdom of your 
 committee this crude material is placed upon the free list, then a 
 proportionate reduction could be consistently made in the above- 
 mentioned rates for the products. If, on the other hand, any advance 
 in the tariff rates on this crude material is deemed wise, then a pro- 
 portionate increase should be made in the rates of duty for the above- 
 mentioned products. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 CHARLES PFIZER & Co. (!NC.). 
 FRANKLIN BLACK, Secretary. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 6, 1913. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 45 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 TARTARIC ACID. 
 
 BRIEF OF THE HARSHAW FULLER & GOODWIN CO., CLEVE- 
 LAND, OHIO. 
 
 JANUARY 6, T 913. 
 
 SIR: Paragraph 1 provides for a duty on tartaric acid of 5 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 Paragraph 6 provides for a duty on argois or crude tartar or wine 
 lees, crude, 5 per cent ad valorem; also cream of tartar and patent 
 tartar, 5 cents per pound. 
 
 We respectfully ask that no change be made in the duties on these 
 articles. 
 
 On April 1, 1911. Mr. E. Fabre, who was for 15 years superintendent 
 of the largest factory in Europe, engaged in the manufacture of cream 
 of tartar and tartaric acid, entered our employ to superintend the 
 building, equipping, and operation of a plant for the manufacture of 
 these products, in connection with our chemical works located at 
 E^ria, Ohio. The plant was completed in August, 1912, and has 
 been in operation since. While we nave not been long enough in the 
 business to have full information as to the cost of manufacturing and 
 distributing these goods, we have learned enough to know that if any 
 material reduction is made in the tariff we can buy them cheaper 
 abroad than we can produce them here. Through Mr. Fabre we have 
 complete information as to manufacturing conditions in France. 
 
 Our factory was built by American workmen receiving the American 
 scale of wages. It is equipped entirely with American-made machin- 
 ery. We are advised by our superintendent that the cost of building 
 and equipping our factory was almost double that of a similar plant 
 in France. 
 
 Our minimum wage is $2 per day, and the average wage paid is 
 $2.80 per day. 
 
 In the French factory, of which our superintendent had charge, the 
 minimum wage paid was 3J francs per day; the average was 4 francs, 
 or a little less than 80 cents per day American money. In other words, 
 the average daily wage in the French factory is less than one-third of 
 the average wage in our factory. 
 
 The raw material used by us is obtained almost entirely from 
 France, Italy, and other wine countries of southern Europe, as our 
 own country produces only about 2 per cent of the total amount which 
 it consumes. The majority of the crop is marketed during three or 
 four months of the year, and this, coupled with the fact that we are 
 so far from the source of supply, compels us to keep invested large 
 sums of money in stocks of raw materials. 
 
 We pay freight on this raw material from Europe to Elyria, Ohio, 
 not only on the goods which can be used, but on impurities contained 
 in them, which amount to from 30 to 50 per cent of the total bulk, 
 and have no value as a by-product. The foreign factories, which are 
 close to the supply of raw material, are able to obtain it as required, 
 and do not have to invest large sums in supplies. In addition, they 
 can obtain at low prices goods which are wet or otherwise damaged, 
 and consequently not in fit condition to transport a long distance. 
 
46 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 Moreover, the cost of packages, transportation charges, and general 
 expenses of doing business are much greater in this country than 
 abroad. 
 
 Briefly, we have tried to give some of the items that make up the 
 difference in the cost of manufacturing these products in this country 
 and in foreign countries, and if we are to continue this manufacture 
 of them there must be a sufficient tariff to cover the difference. The 
 present tariff barely does this. We would not object to a reduction 
 on the present tariff on the finished goods, provided a corresponding 
 reduction were made on the raw materials, but the parity between the 
 two must be maintained. If changes are made that prevent us from 
 operating our factory the loss will fall not only upon ourselves and the 
 men we employ directly, but in more or less degree upon the entire 
 community, as the well-being of the people of a manufacturing town 
 depends upon the constant operation of its factories. 
 
 We are not connected in any way with other manufacturers of these 
 .products in this country, and ask for no protection against manufac- 
 turers who are working under the same conditions as ourselves, but 
 we do feel that we should be permitted to operate this factory and 
 should receive the necessary protection to enable us to do so and sell 
 our goods in this country in competition with foreign manufacturers 
 who operate under entirely different labor and living conditions. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 RALPH L. FULLEK V Secretary. 
 
 Hon. O. W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. 0. 
 
 TANNIC ACID. 
 
 BRIEF OF MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS ET AL., RE- 
 GARDING MEDICINAL AND OTHER FINE CHEMICALS. 
 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Pursuant to your notice of tariff hearings, 1913, dated 
 December 11, 1912, we beg to submit the following: 
 
 Our business is confined largely to the manufacture of medicinal 
 chemicals. Our products are mostly those prescribed by the United 
 States Pharmacopoeia. Our processes are not secret but generally 
 known, and none of our articles are patented. We represent a dis- 
 tinct branch of the chemical industry which, because of special 
 features, should be considered separately and apart from the indus- 
 tries manufacturing chemicals for technical purposes in very large 
 quantities with the employment of machinery and in which labor is a 
 small part of the cost and in which few expert chemists are required. 
 
 In our industry, on the other hand, the expense of labor is a consid- 
 erable portion of the cost and we are unable to employ machinery 
 except to a very limited extent. We pay our workmen from $2 to $3 
 per day. In Germany similar workmen receive from 3 to 5 marks 
 per day, equal to, say, SO. 72 to SI. 20 per day. We are somewhat 
 
SCHEDULE A. 47 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 familiar with the conditions that obtain in the German factories in 
 our line and from our own observations are convinced that the aver- 
 age German workman, at the lower wages, is more intelligent, more 
 careful and efficient, and more amenable to discipline than the 
 American workman. We attribute this largely to the training in the 
 German industrial schools and German military system. 
 
 We beg to submit the following: 
 
 The paragraphs mentioned below indicate the paragraphs in the 
 present tariff law. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1. 
 
 Tannic acid or tannin. Present rate, 35 cents per pound. Since 
 this rate was enacted, conditions in this country have changed hi 
 the matter of solvents used, etc., and the duty could be reduced. 
 We suggest that the phraseology with respect to this article in para- 
 graph 1 read as follows : 
 
 1 ' Tannic acid or tannin, over 70 per cent, 25 cents per pound ; less 
 than 70 per cent, 10 cents per pound. " 
 
 This new rate would not prohibit imports but probably would cause 
 an increase of imports. 
 
 Gallic acid. The present rate, 8 cents per pound. Taking the 
 present lowest foreign cost at 30 cents per pound, the rate of 8 cents 
 is equivalent to an ad valorem duty of 26 per cent. The Payne bill 
 reduced the duty 25 per cent, from 10 cents to 8 cents. The present 
 duty of 8 cents per pound is no more than sufficient to offset the differ- 
 ence in cost of manufacture. 
 
 We suggest that this article be included in the general provision 
 of 25 per cent ad valorem duty. 
 
 All other acids not specially provided for in this section: Present 
 rate of duty, 25 per cent ad valorem. We think this rate should be 
 maintained so as to enable manufacturers in this country to exist in 
 competition with foreign producers who have all the advantages of 
 cheap labor, cheap scientific help, and cheap crude material to assist 
 them. In connection with this clause we especially desire to mention 
 
 Pyrogallic acid. The manufacture of this article has only recently 
 been successfully established in this country, after a number of years 
 of experimentation. The effect has already been to reduce prices. 
 A considerable sum has been spent by domestic manufacturers in 
 establishing the manufacture and investment in apparatus and plant. 
 
 The duty of 25 per cent declared on this article is not sufficient to 
 offset the handicap under which American manufacturers are labor- 
 ing, and should be retained. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3. 
 
 Alkalies, alkaloids, etc. Present duty 25 per cent. 
 
 This clause covers a multitude of medicinal chemicals produced 
 not only by us but by numerous other small manufacturers. Medici- 
 nal chemicals are mostly made in small quantities, many of them in 
 lots of only a few pounds or ounces. The operations have to be either 
 conducted by or under the immediate supervision of expert experi- 
 enced chemists. We submit that in medicinal chemicals purity is of 
 
48 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 first importance. A small increase in the cost of medicinal chemicals 
 is of no importance to the ultimate consumers, the sick. Medicinal 
 chemicals are dispensed to the public through the pharmacists who 
 charge mainly for their professional knowledge and skill, and whether 
 the ingredients cost 2 or 5 or 10 cents or more, the prices of the pre- 
 scriptions are made 25, 50, 75 cents, or $1. The original cost, there- 
 fore, bears but little relation to the price paid by the ultimate con- 
 sumer. A large amount of capital is invested in this industry and a 
 large number of skilled workmen and chemists are employed. 
 
 The present duty is, in our opinion, not sufficient to offset the high 
 cost of manufacture in this country, and the importation of medicinal 
 and other pure chemicals has been steadily increasing. Our industry 
 is, therefore, not in a strong position to meet foreign competition, 
 even under present rates. That the rate is in no sense prohibitive 
 is shown by the value of the imports, which in 1911 amounted to 
 $3,338,419 and yielded revenue amounting to $834,494. 
 
 One of the articles affected by this paragraph is: 
 
 Caffeine. This product is now imported quite largely into the 
 United States in competition with home m anuf actures, and there should 
 be no change, therefore, in the present rate, provided tea siftings the 
 raw material remain on the free list. With the present rate of 25 per 
 cent on the foreign market price of caffeine equal to about 76 cents 
 per pound American manufacturers can and do compete. If, 
 however, it should be concluded to put a duty on tea siftings, then a 
 corresponding increase of duty should be made on caffeine. 
 
 We desire to call attention to the error in the caucus print of 
 H. R. 20182, in which appears the average unit value of caffeine 
 as SI. 66 per pound, 1910, and $1.82 per pound, 1911, whereas the 
 correct value is $3.06 per pound, as shown in the letter from the 
 Treasury Department under date of April 24, 1912. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 14. 
 
 Chloroform. Present rate of duty, 10 cents per pound. Crude 
 materials for the manufacture of this article are acetone, bleaching 
 powder, and carbon tetrachloride, all of which are dutiable when 
 imported into this country, and all of which the foreign manufacturers 
 obtain without the payment of duty. 
 
 We believe that this rate of duty should be maintained. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15. 
 
 All other products or preparations of coal tar, not colors or dyes 
 and not medicinal, not specially provided for in this section, present 
 rate of duty. 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 We strongly urge that if a change should be made in this section of 
 the paragraph the words ''and not medicinal" be retained, for the 
 reason that this wording covers a number of intermediate coal-tar 
 products used bv home manufacturers as raw materials in the manu- 
 facture of medicinal products. The omission of this provision is 
 likely to cause confusion, trouble, and expense in the classification of 
 such intermediate products. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 49 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 PARAGRAPH 21. 
 
 Ethers, sulphuric. Present rate, 8 cents per pound. 
 
 Conditions surrounding the manufacture of this article are now 
 such that we as manufacturers of this article recommend a reduction 
 to 4 cents per pound. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 27. 
 
 Iodine resublimed. Present rate of duty, 20 cents per pound. This 
 rate of duty represents only about 7 per cent ad valorem, and we think 
 is as low as it should be. Crude iodine is the crude material for the 
 manufacture of this article, and is at present on the free list. If any 
 duty is established upon crude iodine, then a proportionate increase of 
 duty should be made upon the resublimed article. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 28. 
 
 lodqform. Present duty, 75 cents per pound. 
 
 Crude iodine is the crude material for this article. If crude iodine 
 is allowed to remain upon the free list, where it is at present, then the 
 duty on iodoform, we suggest, can be established at the minimum rate 
 of 50 cents per pound. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 31. 
 
 Magnesia, calcined medicinal. Present duty, 7 cents a pound. 
 
 In 1911, 65,739 pounds were imported into this country, yielding a 
 duty amounting to $4,598. The above imported quantity is probably 
 more than is altogether manufactured in this country. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 41. 
 
 Opium. Crude or unmanufactured, and not adulterated, contain- 
 ing 9 per cent and over of morphia, $1.50 per pound; opium of the 
 same composition dried, powdered, or otherwise advanced beyond the 
 condition of crude or unmanufactured, $2 per pound ; morphia or mor- 
 phine, sulphate of, and all alkaloids of opium and salts and esters 
 thereof, $1.50 per ounce; cocaine, ecgonine, and all salts and deriva- 
 tives of the same, $1.50 per ounce; coca leaves, 5 cents per pound. 
 
 We believe that the present duties on opium and morphine are in 
 proper relative proportion and should remain unchanged. We be- 
 lieve that any considerable further advance of duties would induce 
 extensive smuggling and an evasion of duty, as has been the experi- 
 ence in the past when very excessive rates have been imposed. We 
 believe, too, that the present duties on coca leaves, cocaine alkaloid 
 and salts are sufficiently high and on an equitable basis and should 
 not be changed. If, however, it is concluded, as was proposed in 
 H. R. 20182, to advance the duty on coca leaves 100 per cent, from 5 
 cents per pound to 10 cents per pound, the advance on cocaine and 
 salts should not be less than 75 cents, making the specific duty $2.25 
 per ounce. It requires 10 pounds or more, according to the quality 
 of coca leaves, to make 1 ounce of cocaine hydrochloride. Making the 
 same rate of advance on both leaves, alkaloid, and salts would 
 therefore really be reducing the duty on the latter. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 4 
 
50 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 PARAGRAPH 62. 
 
 Hydriodate, iodide, and iodate of potash. Present rate of duty, 25 
 cents per pound. 
 
 This is equivalent to less than 10 per cent on the present import costs. 
 Crude iodine is the crude material for the manufacture of this article, 
 which is at present on the free list. If any duty is established upon 
 crude iodine, then a proportionate increase of duty should be made 
 upon the articles in this paragraph. These articles contain over 77 
 per cent of iodine. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 65. 
 
 (No. 1.) Medicinal preparations containing alcohol, or hi the prepa- 
 ration of which alcohol is used, not specially provided for in this sec- 
 tion, 55 cents per pound, but in no case shall the same pay less than 25 
 per centum ad valorem. 
 
 Should any change be made in this paragraph, we strongly recom- 
 mend that this section of the paragraph be retained as it now reads. 
 In the manufacture of many articles covered by this section, alcohol, 
 being the chief material, is either decomposed or lost in the process of 
 manufacture, and therefore does not appear in the finished product. 
 Any change in the above wording would therefore be likely to cause 
 confusion and enable the entering of such articles under other classifica- 
 tions with a consequent loss of revenue to the Government. The 
 imports under this paragraph paying the specific rate of 55 cents per 
 pound are apparently on the increase, as shown in the following tabu- 
 lations : 
 
 
 From Report No. 326 (p. 272). 
 
 From Report No. 320 (p. 63). 
 
 1890 
 
 1890 
 
 1900 
 
 1905 
 
 1910 
 
 1911 
 
 Pounds 
 
 41,312 
 
 $7, 274 
 
 50,208 
 $39,583 
 
 147,112 
 $133,994 
 
 147,447 
 $113,534 
 
 171,342 
 $152, B59 
 
 157, 713 
 $138,583 
 
 Value 
 
 
 
 
 (No. 2.) Calomel , corrosive sublimate, and other mercurial medicinal 
 preparations, present rate of duty, 35 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 At the present time there is a duty on mercury, which is the crude 
 material for the manufacture of these articles, of 7 cents per pound. 
 As these preparations contain about SO to 85 per cent of mercury, the 
 actual tariff afforded is equivalent to only about 20 per cent. We 
 think therefore that this rate of duty should continue. If it is deemed 
 wise to reduce the duty upon the metal mercury, then a propor- 
 tionate reduction could be made in these preparations. Imports of 
 these preparations have been constantly increasing, notwithstanding 
 the above-mentioned duty, s ) that while the imports in the year of 
 1900 were 16. 047 pounds the imports during the year 1912, in so far 
 as we have been able to ascertain, far exceed the rate of 100,000 pounds 
 per annum. We would suggest that this part of the paragraph be 
 made to read as follows: 
 
 "Calomel, corrosive sublimate, red precipitate, and all mercurial 
 medicinal preparations, 35 per cent." 
 
SCHEDULE A. 51 
 
 PARAGBAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 PARAGRAPH 80. 
 
 Strychnia or strychnine and all salts thereof. Present rate of duty, 
 15 cents per ounce. 
 
 The crude material for the preparation of this article is nux vomica, 
 which contains a very small percentage of strychnine (less than an 
 average of 1^ per cent). The process of extraction from nux vomica 
 is a highly scientific and laborious one, involving the cost of much 
 labor and high-cost solvents. We think the present rate of duty 
 should be maintained, which is little enough to have the industry 
 prosper in this country. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 83. 
 
 Vanillin. Present rate of duty, 20 cents per ounce. 
 
 This is a synthetic chemical product for which cloves is the raw 
 material, and until about 15 years ago sold in the United States by 
 European manufacturers at $5 per ounce. It is now selling at 32 to 
 35 cents per ounce, due to home competition. The rate of duty was 
 80 cents per ounce until 1909, when it was reduced to 20 cents per 
 ounce, the rate now ruling. The manufacture of this product 
 requires a large investment for the quantity manufactured. Its 
 process of manufacture is very complicated and requires besides 
 competent chemists a number of dutiable chemical products for its 
 manufacture in addition to the raw material cloves. The present 
 rate of 20 cents per ounce is none too high with cloves, the raw 
 material, on the tree list. If cloves should be made dutiable, the 
 rate on vanillin should be proportionally higher. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 482. 
 
 (No. 1.) Phosphoric acid, now free and yielding no revenue. 
 
 There are two grades of phosphoric acid on the market; one the 
 pure acid made from phosphorus and the technical acid made from 
 bones or phosphate rock. The foreign price of pure phosphoric acid 
 from phosphorus is fixed by agreement among European manufac- 
 turers who work together under a combination. In order to en- 
 courage the manufacture of phosphoric acid in this country we think 
 the duty should be made 25 per cent ad valorem. Pure phosphoric 
 acid is produced in a diluted state by burning phosphorus in large 
 chambers constructed of sheet lead, which are very expensive, and 
 owing to the destructive nature of the acid require frequent repairs 
 and have to be entirely replaced within a few years. Large quanti- 
 ties of porcelain and earthenware are required, all of which have to be 
 imported, as none of the kind is made in this country. All of the 
 materials and apparatus required in the manufacture of the pure 
 phosphoric acid now pay a very heavy duty. The process of manu- 
 facture is a difficult and more or less dangerous one, requiring skilled 
 labor and very careful supervision by expert chemists. The wages of 
 laborers and salaries of chemists paid by American manufacturers 
 average at least double those paid by foreign concerns. Under H. li. 
 20182 a duty of 2 cents per pound, equivalent to 10 per cent ad 
 valorem, was proposed, but this duty is not sufficient to offset the 
 
52 TABTFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 increased cost of manufacture in this country. We believe that a 
 duty of 25 per cent ad valorem on pure phosphoric acid, while yielding 
 a revenue to the Government, would encourage the manufacture in 
 this country without materially increasing the cost to the consumer. 
 We therefore suggest the following change in the schedule: 
 "Pure phosphoric acid made from phosphorus, 25 per cent ad 
 valorem; phosphoric acid technical, free." 
 (No. 2.) Phthalic acid, now on the free list. 
 
 Phthalic acid should be retained in the free list, as more than 60 
 per cent of the total quantity imported is used in the manufacture of 
 the medicinal product, phenolphthalein. If phthalic acid be put in 
 the dutiable list at the rate of 5 cents per pound, as proposed in H. R. 
 20182, then phenolphthalein should be specially provided for at the 
 specific rate of 55 cents per pound. Phenolphthalein up to three 
 years ago was manufactured exclusively in Europe and sold in this 
 country at $2.15 to $2.75 per pound in a wholesale way. It is now 
 made by home manufacturers, with the result that the wholesale price 
 is now $1.20 to $1.25 per pound. 
 
 Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Canada, Japan, and other coun- 
 tries are following the principles of free raw materials and are effecting 
 duties 011 manufactured products more and more. In aU of the above- 
 mentioned countries combinations, agreements, and conventions are 
 legally permitted for the purpose of maintaining prices and effecting 
 other controls of trade situations that under our Sherman antitrust 
 law are not permitted, and therefore manufacturers in the United 
 States are not enabled to effect trade agreements that establish their 
 control of the situation in such a manner that they can afford to ex- 
 port at cost or below cost, so as to compete successfully with foreign 
 manufacturers, by dumping surpluses of their products abroad in 
 competition witli the foreign manufacturers. Unless adequate duties 
 arc maintained by the Government of the United States, enabling 
 manufacturers in this country to sustain themselves, foreign manu- 
 facturers certainly will flood the market of the United States with 
 goods at prices which will ultimately eliminate the manufacture of 
 many products in the United States. "A dumping clause" might 
 advantageously be introduced in the tariff law of the United States 
 similar to that effected by the Canadian Government, which might 
 restrain the foreign manufacturers from dumping goods into the 
 United States at or below cost with the object of driving manufac- 
 turers of the United States out of business and then controlling the 
 situation themselves. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Edw. Mallinckrodt, presi- 
 dent; Schaefer Alkaloid Works, O. Schaefer, presi- 
 dent; Powers-Wcightman-Rosengarten Co., A. G. 
 Rosengarten, treasurer; Monsanto Chemical Works, 
 Jno. F. Queeny, president; Charles Pfizer & Co. 
 (Inc.), John Anderson, treasurer; New York Quinine 
 & Chemical Works (Ltd.). Donald McKenon; Stand- 
 ard Essence Co., E. W. Preston, secretary and 
 treasurer. 
 JANUARY 6, 1913. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 58 
 
 PABAQRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 BRIEF OF THE GEIGY-TER MEER CO., NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 4, 1918. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 United States Congress, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR : We beg herewith to respectfully call your attention to 
 the subject of tannic acid and nutgall extracts, with a view of having 
 these two products properly classified in any new tariff bill which 
 may be drawn for consideration of the new Congress soon to meet. 
 
 We have carefully read the statement of Messrs. Zinsser & Co., 
 dated March 22, 1912, and addressed to the Hon. Boies Penrose, 
 chairman Finance Committee of the United States Senate, but would 
 point out that the argument of these gentlemen seems one-sided and 
 refers only to tannic acid and nutgall extracts prepared by means 
 of alcohol and of ether. 
 
 Our factory in Basel, Switzerland, the aniline color and extract 
 works, formerly John R. Geigy, are large manufacturers of both 
 products, but in their process neither alcohol nor ether are used as 
 solvents, only water, and we consider that products produced by 
 these means should be specifically provided for, in distinction to 
 tannic acid and nutgaU extracts manufactured by means of alcohol 
 and of ether and at a lower rate of duty than such. The existing 
 tariff places a prohibitive duty on tannic acid of 35 cents per pound, 
 in consequence of which the American manufacturers of this article 
 have for years had a clear field for their product. A competition 
 with the foreign article was impossible owing to the aforesaid pro- 
 hibitive duty. We beg, therefore, to indorse fully the rate of duty of 
 4 cents per pound on tannic acid (par. 1, H. R. 20182) and of 10 per 
 cent ad valorem on nutgall extracts (par. 31 same bill), as proposed, 
 provided the same are produced without the use of either alcohol or 
 ether as solvents. For products made with alcohol and of ether a 
 somewhat higher duty would be justified. 
 
 To the best of our knowledge and belief the American manufac- 
 turers are making only alcohol or ether tannic acids and nutgall 
 extracts, and we therefore claim that the textile manufacturers of 
 this country should now be given an opportunity of buying and using 
 water tannins and nutgall extracts by the aid of a lower tariff. 
 
 Regarding nutgall extracts, we differ materially from Messrs. 
 Zinsser & Co. in their statement that these extracts are simply solu- 
 tions of tannic acid. As regards our nutgall extracts, we would 
 positively state that they are not such solutions, but are aqueous 
 extracts from China nutgalls. Thus a duty of 25 per cent as Messrs. 
 Zinsser & Co. propose is unwarranted, except to act as a stop to the 
 further importation of these extracts which are so necessary to all the 
 silk manufacturers of America. 
 
 We trust that the proposed duty on tannic acid of 4 cents per pound, 
 and on nutgall extract 10 per cent ad valorem, and as already passed 
 by the retiring Congress, may not be altered, at least not for products 
 manufactured by the water process. 
 
54 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 We should very much appreciate it if you would kindly place our 
 communication before the proper committee for hearing to be held, 
 we understand, on the 6th instant. 
 
 Very respectfully, GEIGY-TER MEER Co. 
 
 ROBERT J. KELLER. 
 ALFRED KUBLER, 
 
 Vice President. 
 
 STATEMENT OF F. BEEDT & CO., NEW YOEK, N. Y. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 6, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 CJiairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 SIR: We, the undersigned chemical manufacturers and engaged in 
 the manufacture of tannic acid and its derivatives, respectfully request 
 your kind consideration of the following paragraphs : 
 
 Paragraph 1, tannic acid or tannin, duty 35 cents per pound. In 
 view of the changes, conditions, and prices of solvents used in the 
 manufacture of this product we consider that a fair and just rate of 
 duty would be 15 cents per pound. 
 
 Paragraphs 20 and 22, gall extract, duty one-fourth cent per 
 pound and 10 per cent ad valorem. Gall extract is really tannic acid 
 in solution, in which tannic acid is the ingredient of chief or sole value; 
 in fact, gall extract for many purposes can and is used in place of 
 tannic acid. 
 
 We further beg to call your attention to the fact that gall extract 
 can be converted into tannic acid by drying, and we consider that a 
 fair and just rate of duty for this product gall extract would be 
 25 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 We have manufactured tannic acid and gall extract for about 30 
 years in New York, and have invested a considerable amount in build- 
 ingS) machinery, equipment, etc., for the special production of 
 tannic acid and gall extract. We have given the matter under pres- 
 ent conditions careful and thorough study and respectfully submit 
 the following rates of duty for these products, which we consider fair 
 and just: 
 
 Paragraph 1, tannic acid, or tannin, 15 cents per pound. 
 
 Paragraphs 20 and 22, gall extract, 25 per cent ad valorem. 
 Kespectfully, 
 
 F. BREDT & Co. 
 
 OXALIC ACID. 
 
 STATEMENT OF LEWIS EMERY, JR., ON BEHALF OF THE 
 AMERICAN ALKALI & ACID CO., BRADFORD, PA. 
 
 Mr. EMERY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the 
 question that is before the committee will be prefaced by some 
 explanation as to what kali or muriate of potasn is and how it is 
 obtained in Germany, the only country in which it is produced. 
 
 I have visited the mines and wells from which this product is taken. 
 There are two ways of obtaining it. One is by drilling a well or a 
 
SCHEDULE A. 56 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 hole into the ground to a depth of some 1,600 to 2,000 feet, and by 
 the introduction of water, hot or cold, or by steam the kali or muriate 
 of potash is dissolved and is pumped out. The more modern and 
 cheaper way, however, of obtaining it is by sinking large shafts, 
 'ihe shaft that I saw being sunk at the time I visited the field was 16 
 feet in diameter, and at that time it was down 1,600 feet, and they 
 sunk it to a depth of 2,200 feet, and there they struck this great 
 deposit of kali or potash. It is taken from the ground the same as 
 you take out coal or almost any other mineral, if you may call it 
 such. Therefore, the German Government has a complete monopoly 
 on the raw product. 
 
 The American Alkali & Acid Co., as you will see from the circular, 
 is the first and only factory in this country. Now, if the chairman 
 will permit, I will read. 
 
 The American Alkali & Acid Co., of Bradford, Pa., respectfully sub- 
 mits the following facts to show that the duty of 2 cents per pound 
 on oxalic acid be retained, and that the duty of 25 per cent ad valorem 
 on salts of oxalic acid be also retained, the said salts of oxalic acid 
 being calcium oxalate, potassium oxalate, ammonium oxalate, and all 
 other oxalic-acid salts not mentioned. 
 
 Before presenting our facts we desire to call your attention to the 
 following: We are up against two foreign trusts, both of which are 
 strongly supported and protected by the German Government the 
 German Potash Trust, which controls the supply of our most-needed 
 raw material, caustic potash, and, secondly, the German Oxalic Acid 
 Syndicate. 
 
 These two trusts go hand in hand, and the reason, as* I say, the 
 German Government controls this product is because it has retained 
 an interest in the products of the soil of Germany in regard to every- 
 thing, as I understand. It is a wise Government, and therefore they 
 have a direct interest in this product, and they permit syndicated 
 power throughout the entire German Empire. 
 
 The base product used in the manufacture of oxalic acid is caustic 
 potash, which is a product of kali, or muriate of potash. 
 
 Below we give the reasons why the tariff should not be changed. 
 
 1. In the year 1911 the German Government, against the ex- 
 tended protest of the United States Government, placed an export 
 duty of $0.0119 per pound on muriate of potash or raw material. 
 
 2. The Underwood committee in 1912 placed a United States im- 
 port duty of $0.006 per pound on the raw material (caustic potash), 
 product of muriate of potash. 
 
 (The two items mentioned above have raised the price of the raw 
 material $0.0179 per pound, which is a very severe blow to the 
 manufacture of oxalic acid, because we can not obtain the raw mate- 
 rial in any other country in the world except Germany.) 
 
 3. The Underwood committee of 1911 also reduced the duty on 
 oxalic acid from 2 to \\ cents, which, from the above, would seem 
 eminently unfair, as our business is hit by the action of both Ger- 
 many and the United States. 
 
 4. We are the first and only manufacturers of oxalic acid in the 
 United States. 
 
 5. The difference in labor cost is in favor of the foreign manufac- 
 turers, our product representing 60 per cent of its cost in labor. 
 
56. TABLFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 6. The German Government trust or potash syndicate control the 
 base raw material, potash. 
 
 7. The oxalic-acid syndicate or trust in Germany control the pro- 
 duction and sales of oxalic acid, as Germany produces seven-tenths 
 of all the oxalic acid consumed. 
 
 8. The industry is young and needs the Government's assistance 
 for a time. 
 
 9. During the years 1903-1907, the German syndicate succeeded 
 in driving the American Acid & Alkali Co. to the wall, and their 
 property was sold at sheriff's sale on June 2, 1908. In 1909 the duty 
 of 2 cents per pound was granted, and we have revived the business, 
 and at the present tune oxalic acid is not so expensive to the Ameri- 
 can manufacturer as it was for a number of years previous to this 
 time, even with the duty upon it. (See reference for prices in 1903- 
 1907 hi statistical list.) 
 
 10. Germany protects her oxalic-acid manufacturers with an import 
 duty on oxalic acid. 
 
 The manufacture of oxalic acid and its by-products is a new Ameri- 
 can industry, the first and only American factory being located at 
 Bradford, Pa. The American Alkali & Acid Co., of Bradford, Pa., 
 incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, was 
 organized for the purpose of manufacturing oxalic acid, and 19 large 
 buildings, covering 10 acres of land, were built and equipped to 
 this end, at the cost of $500,000. That does not cover the entire 
 money which we have spent; the total amount has been several 
 hundred thousand more, because we have been up against the real 
 thine;. 
 
 We would call your attention to the four important differences in 
 the cost of manufacture and sale of oxalic acid in the United States 
 compared to those existing in Germany and other foreign countries, 
 where are located the principal manufacturers of this article. 
 
 It is a well-known fact that common labor in the United States is 
 paid about 100 per cent more than is paid for the same class of labor 
 in Germany. We pay an average wage per hour in our oxalic-acid 
 plant of 20 cents, and the German wage for the same class of work 
 is 8 cents and 9 cents per hour. For factory superintendents, chemists, 
 engineers, and other positions of responsibility there is an even 
 greater difference in the scale of wages paid. In the manufacture of 
 oxalic acid the cost of raw material used is now practically constant, 
 but we would call your attention to the fact that the price of our raw 
 materials has increased 40 per cent within the last four years. The 
 labor cost in the manufacture of oxalic acid is the larger part of the 
 total cost, and the cost of raw materials being constant, any reduc- 
 tion in the manufacturing cost must necessarily be borne by the labor 
 item. 
 
 As is well known, there are no commercial deposits of potash salts 
 in the United States. Potash is necessary for the manufacture of 
 oxalic acid, and the Germans control, through the German Govern- 
 ment and the potash sjmdicate, all the raw material for the world's 
 supply of potash in its various forms. It is also a well-known fact 
 that the German Government aids the Kali Syndicate, or German 
 Potash Trust, in almost any manner they may desire. According 
 
SCHEDULE A. 57 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 to the Imperial German law and regulations regarding the sale of 
 kali or potash (par. 24) the Government forbids the sale of kali cheaper 
 abroad than for the German interior. (Imperial German law and 
 regulation regarding the sale of kali, par. 24.) "The prices for sell- 
 ing and delivering kali abroad must not be lower than those given 
 for the German interior." 
 
 This restriction guarantees to the German consumer of potash 
 in any form from the potash syndicate at a maximum, or highest 
 price, which can not be more than the minimum, or lowest, price 
 abroad, and this guaranty is upheld by the German Government. 
 
 In other words, that the minimum price paid by the Americans 
 is the maximum price paid by the Germans. It can be as much lower 
 as they see fit to sell it at. Therefore, there is an agreement that the 
 price in this country shall be fixed at a stipulated sum, but they can 
 make it as much lower to the German manufacturers of oxalic acid 
 as they see fit. 
 
 The oxalic-acid manufacturers of Germany, Russia, England, 
 Belgium, Norway, and Austria have formed a syndicate, headed and 
 controlled bv the German manufacturers, to hold at a high level the 
 price of oxalic acid in their respective countries, and to deliver the 
 surplus to the United States. Prior to the control of the oxalic-acid 
 trade by the German manufacturers, through the syndicate, all for- 
 eign producers sold their product in the United States on a compet- 
 itive basis, and the consumer in the United States bought his oxalic 
 acid at a very low figure because of the keen competition among the 
 European manufacturers. By maintaining a high price abroad for a 
 major part of their product, the foreign manufacturers were able to 
 sell then- surplus production in the United States at the best price 
 they could obtain in the open market. The use of oxalic acid in the 
 United States has increased nearly 70 per cent in the past eight years 
 and the price has remained practically constant for the last six years. 
 
 In fact, it has increased since its introduction in 1884, the first 
 statistics we had of it, over several hundred per cent. 
 
 This, we believe, was due to our presence as manufacturers in the 
 oxalic-acid market in the United States. We have been a check on 
 the advancing trust price, as is shown by the following incident: In 
 1906 the price of acid w T as 7 cents per pound, New York. In the 
 early part of 1907 our plant in Bradford was shut down to overcome 
 some difficulties in our process. Remember that we knew nothing 
 about this business, and we could not get the necessary expert labor 
 from Germany or from any other country to teach us how, and our 
 process was rather crude at first, and we were shut down for nearly a 
 year. Simultaneously the price of oxalic acid jumped to 9 cents 
 f. o. b. New York, and that price was maintained until we started 
 operations again; then the price of oxalic acid dropped again to 7 
 cents. We believe that with all competition removed by reduction 
 in the tariff the German syndicate would immediately raise the price 
 in the United States to a figure as high, or higher, than that main- 
 tained during the time of our shutdown. The 2-cent duty on oxalic 
 acid is no burden to the ultimate consumer. This is proven by the 
 fact that the price of oxalic acid for the four years since the duty has 
 been effective has not been as high as for the two years preceding the 
 
58 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 PARAGBAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 imposing of the tariff. We give below the table showing the prices 
 of oxalic acid in the years shown in the table. 
 
 Government statistics on oxalic acid. 
 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Price. 
 
 1884... 
 
 Pounds. 
 1,371,842 
 
 $145,392.00 
 
 $0.11 
 
 1886 
 
 1,371,030 
 
 137,137.00 
 
 .10 
 
 1886 
 
 1,488,539 
 
 106, 608. & 
 
 .07 
 
 1887 
 
 1,865,878 
 
 129,149 00 
 
 .07 
 
 1888 
 
 1,387,527 
 
 100,831.00 
 
 .07 
 
 1889 
 
 1,851,682 
 
 142,757.00 
 
 .08 
 
 1890 
 
 1,973,050 
 
 139,676.00 
 
 .07 
 
 1891.. . 
 
 2,743,222 
 
 200, 595. 00 
 
 .07 
 
 1892 
 
 2,209,940 
 
 150, 529. 75 
 
 .07 
 
 1893 .... 
 
 2, 464, 443 
 
 143,194 00 
 
 .06 
 
 1894 
 
 2,783,876 
 
 159,026.00 
 
 .06 
 
 1895 
 
 2,889,513 
 
 189,506 00 
 
 .066 
 
 1895 
 
 3, 164, 964 
 
 219, 630. 00 
 
 .07 
 
 1897 
 
 3,602,124 
 
 246, 200. 00 
 
 .07 
 
 189.S 
 
 3, (47,041 
 
 242, 276. 00 
 
 .075 
 
 1899 
 
 3,981,788 
 
 246,027.94 
 
 .06 
 
 1900 
 
 4, 900, 123 
 
 275, 747. 00 
 
 .055 
 
 1901 .. 
 
 5,622,908.60 
 
 300, 879. 00 
 
 .054 
 
 1902 
 
 5,678,139 
 
 301,675-00 
 
 .053 
 
 1903 . .. ... 
 
 5,363,646 
 
 257,289.00 
 
 .048 
 
 1904 
 
 6, 726, 159 
 
 329,836.00 
 
 .049 
 
 1905 .- 
 
 7,906,886 
 
 360,951.00 
 
 .046 
 
 1906 : 
 
 7,129,105 
 
 334,855.00 
 
 .047 
 
 1907 
 
 7,296,246 
 
 376,860.00 
 
 .052 
 
 1 90S 
 
 8,853,539 
 
 524,836.00 
 
 .06 
 
 1909 
 
 9,797,901 
 
 '621,387.00 
 
 .063 
 
 1910 
 
 r 1,002, 626 
 
 61,271.00 
 
 .061 
 
 
 
 
 
 i Duty on Aug. 6, 1909, $96,<>51.06. 
 Sales price to consumer during years 1904-1912. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 1904 
 1905 
 190G 
 
 1907 9 and 74 
 
 1908... . 7 and 
 
 Cents. 
 
 5 and 5^ 1909 7} and 7$ 
 
 5 and 5i 1910 7 and 1\ 
 
 5iand7i j 1911 7 and 7^ 
 
 1912 7 and 7} 
 
 In addition to the foregoing reasons why the duty of 2 cents a 
 pound be retained on oxalic acid and be placed on the salts of oxalic 
 acid, we would respectfully call your attention to the fact that the 
 German Government imposed a duty of approximately 1 cent per 
 pound on any oxalic acid imported into Germany. It was on account 
 of fear, due to that condition of things, that they immediatelv pro- 
 tected their manufacturers. Russia has also placed a tariff of 3 
 cents per pound on oxalic acid, and Austria and Belgium have fol- 
 lowed on the same line. They are very jealous of their manufac- 
 turers, and each one has attempted to take care of their manufac- 
 turers in the respective countries. 
 
 This fact, together with the natural advantages of cheap raw 
 materials, cheap transportation, cheap labor, and unlimited supply 
 of potash, gives the German manufacturers the power with which 
 the} 7 can- completely destroy all competition unless the present duty 
 is retained. 
 
 We trust we have made clear the necessity for duty on oxalic acid 
 and its salts, and ask that you recommend to the Congress of the 
 
SCHEDULE A. 59 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 United States that the present tariff of 2 cents per pound on oxalic 
 acid be retained and that a 25 per cent ad valorem duty be retained 
 on the salts of oxalic acid. 
 
 I might say, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that quite a number 
 of people started out in the manufacture of this oxalic acid, but, as 
 we say in common parlance, "they got cold feet" because of the 
 enormous amount of money we had expended. They let it go 
 because of this competition to which I have referred, and on June 
 2, 1908, the plant was sold at sheriff sale for its debts. A copy of 
 the deed is hereto appended. On that point I would like to call 
 your attention for a moment to the reason we were obliged to shut 
 down. 
 
 We commenced the construction of that factory in 1903, and 
 immediately upon our doing so the German manufacturers reduced 
 their prices from 6 cents in 1901 to 4-^ in 1903; 4-j%- cents in 1904; 
 4^ cents in 1905, and to 5^ cents in 1906. Then we came into 
 the market. We feared that they would attempt to break our 
 back again, as our backs were broken financially in our first attempt, 
 and we then asked the United States Congress to protect us, and 
 they did by levying an import duty of 2 cents a pound, which went 
 into effect August 6, 1909. 
 
 Now, we would like to have the 2-cent duty remain. Why? 
 Because, as you will note from the said figures indicating the Gov- 
 ernment statistics of the United States, the prices at which the 
 goods were billed from Germany, England, and Norway to their 
 respective representatives in the United States for resale were, from 
 1884 to 1903, maintained at a high price. We are also appending 
 hereto a schedule of the average sale price to the consumer from 1904 
 to 1912, inclusive. 
 
 The American Alkali & Acid Co., in whose behalf I ask the main- 
 tenance of a 2-cent duty on oxalic acid, commenced the construc- 
 tion of their plant during the year 1903. The plant was not con- 
 structed along proper lines and was rebuilt three separate times, 
 and did not commence the manufacture of oxalic acid until the fall 
 of 1907. You will note that the prevailing price in 1904 and 1905 
 during the early construction of our plant was from 5 to 5J cents. 
 This was due to the fact that we had produced a small quantity of 
 goods and put them on the market during that period. However, 
 during 1906 we shut the plant down completely, and you will note 
 that in that year the German manufacturers combined with the 
 English and Norwegians to form the Oxalic Syndicate, raised the 
 price to 1\ cents, and from that in 1907 to 9 cents, which price pre- 
 vailed until t'he fall of the year, when we again started operations 
 in our plant. 
 
 The financial strain was so heavy in the year 1907 and 1908 that 
 on June 2, 1908, the plant was sold at sheriff sale, as above stated. I 
 purchased same and became the sole owner of this company, which was 
 reorganized under the name of the .American Alkali & Acid Co. In 
 1908 we became a factor in the oxalic business in the United States, 
 and the German Oxalic Syndicate immediately reduced the price 
 to 6 cents, which price was maintained until August 6, 1909, at 
 which time the tariff of 2 cents went into effect on the commodity. 
 
60 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1 ACIDS. 
 
 The price was then raised to 7 and 7 cents, which price has been 
 prevalent during the following years, 1910, 1911, and 1912, and you 
 will note by the schedule incorporated in this paper that the German 
 syndicate raised the price as soon as we were incapacitated, but im- 
 mediately upon our return to the market the prices were lowered 
 with the evident intention of driving us out of the business. 
 
 Let us now ask how oxalic acid is made from kali. I expected to 
 have a sample of oxalic acid and kali here, but the express companies, 
 I suppose, have failed to deliver it. So that you may thoroughly 
 understand it, I will say that kali is distilled from what is called 
 "caustic potash." Caustic potash is the basis. The next product 
 that is put into the caustic potash is sawdust. That is fed into the 
 kettles, where it is digested, and then it is taken from there. Then 
 we use lime; after that we use sulphuric acid. We use 15,000 pounds 
 of lime a day, and we use about 10,000 pounds of sawdust a day, and 
 for every pound of oxalic acid that we produce we use 1.17 pounds of 
 sulphuric acid. If you will notice upon that picture there, we have 
 done everything that we could to cheapen our products. We built 
 a large sulphuric-acid plant, that we might get it down to the manu- 
 facturer's cost; and we have gone so far as to buy tracts of timber, 
 that we might be sure of having a source of supply for our sawdust 
 in the future. The question of lime is a serious one. 
 
 Now, the enormous amount of lime that we use, the enormous 
 amount of sawdust that we use, and the enormous amount of sul- 
 phuric acid that we use, give employment to hundreds of men, 
 although the number employed directly in the factory is only about 
 70 to 80 men. 
 
 You have only to turn to the statistics of the United States Govern- 
 ment as to the prices of these goods to show what the situation was 
 in 1903, 1904, and 1905. It was only done to drive the American 
 out of business; that is all. 
 
 Who uses this product ? The American print works use a million 
 pounds a year. The shirt and collar you wear upon your person are 
 washed partially with it, and 2,500,000 pounds of it are used by the 
 laundry people. Then, again, the tanning industry are large users 
 of oxalic acid. This product enters largely into the chestnut extracts 
 of the South for clarification purposes and for other purposes too 
 numerous to mention. 
 
 Lot me say to this committee that there is no company. I am the 
 company; and I have withstood the storm and battle for years, and I 
 am going to withstand it longer if possible. 
 
 Since I have been at the head of the American Alkali & Acid Co. 
 wo have had in our emplov continually one or two research chem- 
 ists; and the reason that those goods nave gained to the enormous 
 percentage of 70 per cent in the last six or seven years is because we 
 have found now uses for this product, and it is but in its infancy at 
 the present time. 
 
 Why should the American Alkali & Acid Co. not have protection? 
 In 1911 there were 7,538,000 pounds brought into this country, and 
 we manufactured about 2, 000, 000 pounds additional, making 9,000,000 
 pounds and upward. The United States Government received from 
 the duty on the importation of oxalic acid $141,177.98. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 61 
 
 PABAGRAPH 3 OELS. 
 
 We are working with a process at the present time to materially 
 reduce the price of oxalic acid ? and if the United States Congress will 
 allow this duty to remain as it is for the present we will be able to 
 cheapen the commodity to the consumer ii the process on which we 
 are working fully materializes. 
 
 In addition to all the foregoing we are manufacturers of 22 per cent 
 dark commercial lactic acid. There are three manufacturers of lactic 
 acid in the United States at the present time. Originally the duty 
 on this commodity was 4 cents, then reduced to 3 cents, and is now 
 1J cents. We are perfectly willing that the duty should be taken off 
 if you see fit, as we have perfected our process to such a degree that 
 wo are to-day selling these goods to the consumer at 2 cents per 
 pound, package included, f. o. b. our works, and this to the amount 
 of 2,000,000 pounds per year, with the prospects of a large increase in 
 consumption during the ensuing year. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Emery, I do not like to limit you, but you 
 have already had 20 minutes. 
 
 Mr. EMERY. I am ready for any questions. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Does any gentleman desire to ask Mr. Emery any 
 questions. [After a pause.] That is all. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 2. 
 
 Alcoholic compounds, including all articles consisting of vegetable, animal, 
 or mineral objects immersed or placed in, or saturated with, alcohol, not 
 specially provided for in this section, sixty cents per pound and twenty- 
 five per centum ad valorem. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3. 
 
 Alkalies, alkaloids, distilled oils, essential oils, expressed oils, rendered 
 oils, and all combinations of the foregoing, and all chemical compounds, 
 mixtures and salts, and all greases, not specially provided for in this section, 
 twenty-five per centum ad valorem; chemical compounds, mixtures and 
 salts containing alcohol or in the preparation of which alcohol is used, and 
 not specially provided for in this section, fifty-five cents per pound, but in 
 no case shall any of the foregoing pay less than twenty-five per centum ad 
 valorem. 
 
 For sodium cyanide, see also Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co., page 372; for 
 sodium sulphide, see also W. H. Nichols, jr., page 36; for formaldehyde, see also 
 Dr. S. Lewis Summers, page 14; for perilla oil, see also S. L. Jones & Co., page 259; 
 for sulphide of soda, see also General Chemical Co., page 40; for aqua ammonia, see 
 also Michigan Ammonia Works, page 98. 
 
 OILS. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY SPENCER KELLOGG & SONS. 
 
 BUFFALO, N. Y., January 4, 1913. 
 Mr. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We respectfully request that the following communica- 
 tion be made a part of the hearings by your committee of the pro- 
 posed changes in the chemical schedule and the free list of the present 
 tariff law : 
 
 During the past two years we have been investigating the crushing 
 in the United States of various oil seeds, nuts, and beans grown in 
 foreign countries, with the idea of competing with Europe and the 
 
62- TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 OILS. 
 
 United Kingdom, each of which is now extensively engaged in this 
 branch of manufacture and is exporting the oil to this country in 
 great quantities. 
 
 In our investigations we have discovered that, although none of 
 the raw materials, with the exception of peanuts, is grown in the 
 United States, there is under the present tariff law either a sufficiently 
 heavy duty imposed upon these raw materials and a proportionately 
 low oluty on the resultant oil, as to render economic manufacture in 
 the United States a practical impossibility, due to the necessity of 
 importing a dutiable raw material and manufacturing a duty-free 
 product in competition with Europe where the raw material is 
 imported duty free. Or there is no duty on either raw material or 
 oil, which makes it impossible to compete with Europe owing to their 
 cheap freight rates on raw materials, their cheap labor, and their 
 ready market for the by-products (oil cake) almost none of which can 
 be marketed in this country. This condition results in American 
 consumers being forced to buy foreign oils through importers and 
 brokers on foreign terms, paying higher prices than necessary and 
 having little recourse in the case of inferior quality. 
 
 We believe that the oils enumerated below can be manufactured 
 in this country with the same success that they are now manufactured 
 in foreign countries, and that the result will be the starting in the United 
 States of industries hitherto untried with the further result of better 
 and cheaper oil to the consumer. 
 
 Let us repeat that none of those oil seeds or nuts is grown in this 
 country, with the exception of peanuts, which article is treated 
 separately in the detailed explanation below. Therefore there can 
 l)e no injustice done the American farmer by lowering the duty on 
 the materials enumerated below and allowing their crushing in this 
 country. 
 
 Some of the materials, the crushing of which we have investigated, 
 are not specifically provided for in tho tariff act, thus bringing them 
 under the n. s. p. f. clause for oil seeds or 25 cents per bushel of 56 
 pounds. 
 
 As this branch of manufacture has boon neglected in this country 
 up to this time, we fool that this chomical schedule of the Payne- 
 Aldrich Tariff Act has become obsolete and that it should be changed 
 in order to allow manufacturers to build up now oil industries in this 
 country similar to those abroad. Thore has been during the last 10 
 years a tremendous growth in tho oil sood crushing industry in Mar- 
 seilles, Rotterdam, nnd tho other centers of Europe, most of which 
 growth has boon occasioned by the inoroasod demand for oil in the 
 Unitod States. It is our hope that if tho schedule is changed the 
 United States may bo enabled to retain this large business and thereby 
 improve tho condition of both the manufacturer and the consumer. 
 
 We have given this matter much study and we respectfully submit 
 to your committee 1 the request that, the following be the rates of duty 
 on tho following materials. Wo have given in this schedule a de- 
 tailed description of each seed, its resultant oil with the present and 
 suggested duty: a record of the imports into the United States from 
 September 1, 1911, to September 1, 1912, of each oil and following 
 this date a condensed paragraph giving materials and the suggested 
 duties. 
 

 SCHEDULE A. 63 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 OILS. 
 
 Shea nuts, present duty n. s. p. f . ; suggested duty, free. 
 
 Shea-nut oil, present duty n. s. p. f . ; suggested duty, 2 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 This nut is a native of India and is not grown in the United States. 
 It is inedible. The oil when refined is used for edible purposes and 
 when raw for soap-making purposes. This oil was classed under 
 "all other oils" in the import record. 
 
 Soya bean, present duty n. s. p. f. ; suggested duty, free. 
 
 Soya-bean oil, present duty free; suggested duty, 2 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 A native of Manchuria. Inedible. Not grown in the United 
 States. Oil used for paint purposes and for soap making. Imports 
 during 1912, 26,230,061 pounds. 
 
 Mowra seed, present duty n. s. p. f.; suggested duty, free. 
 
 Mowra oil, present duty n. s. p. f.; suggested duty, 2 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 This seed is a native of India. Inedible. Not grown in the 
 United States. Resembles the peanut. Oil used for soap, and, when 
 refined, for edible fats. No imports during 1912. 
 
 Niger seed, present duty n. s. p. f.; suggested duty, free. 
 
 Niger oil, present duty 25 per cent; suggested duty, 2 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 Native of India. Not grown in the United States. Inedible. 
 Oil used for soap and, when refined, for edible purposes. Classed under 
 " all other oils" in imports. 
 
 Sesame seed, present duty, 25 cents per bushel; suggested duty, 
 free. 
 
 Sesame oil, present duty, free; suggested duty, 2 cents per pound. 
 
 Native of India. Not grown in the United States. Oil used for 
 soap and edible purposes. Imports during 1912. Classed under 
 " all other oils." 
 
 Palm kernels, present duty, free; suggested duty, free. 
 
 Palm-kernel oil, present duty, free; suggested duty, 2 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 Native of Africa and South America. Not grown in the United 
 States. Inedible. Oil used for soap, and, when refined, used for 
 edible purposes. Oil imports during 1912, 29,323,889 pounds. 
 
 Peanuts, present duty (shelled), 1 cent per pound; suggested duty, 
 free. 
 
 Ground nuts, present duty (unshelled), \ cent per pound; suggested 
 duty, free. 
 
 Peanut oil, present duty, free; suggested duty, 2 cents per pound. 
 
 Native of Africa. Oil used for edible purposes. Imports during 
 1912, 6,878,237 pounds. 
 
 Peanuts are grown in some of the Southern States, but are almost 
 entirely exported to France or used here for roasting or eating. 
 These are of a superior quality to the African nuts and are hi con- 
 sequence used for edible purposes and command a premium and are 
 not crushed. The African 'peanuts, on the other hand, are used 
 entirely for crushing purposes and do not, therefore, compete with 
 the American peanuts. The American nut is grown in quantities 
 insufficient even to supply the demand for a roasting peanut. We 
 
64 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 OILS. 
 
 will suggest that the words "for crushing purposes only" be inserted 
 in the new schedule as applying to peanuts. 
 
 Candlenut, present duty, tree; suggested duty, free. 
 
 Candlenut oil, present duty, n. s. p. f.; suggested duty, 2 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 Not grown in the United States. Used for burning and soap 
 purposes. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Free list. Shea nuts, soya beans, mowra seeds, niger seeds, sesame 
 seed, palm kernels, ground nuts or peanuts for crushing purposes 
 only, candlenuts. 
 
 Duty 2 cents per pound. Shea-nut oil, soya-bean oil, inowra oil, 
 niger oil, sesame oil, palm-kernel oil, peanut or ground-nut oil, 
 candlenut oil. 
 
 In conclusion, may we express the hope that our requests will be 
 granted and the chemical schedule changed according to our sugges- 
 tions. Should this be done, we are sure that great benefit will result 
 to both the American manufacturer and the American consumer. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 SPENCER KELLOGG & SONS (!NC.). 
 GEORGE H. SICARD. 
 
 BUFFALO, N. Y., January 10, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: We wish to respectfully call your attention to the inclosed 
 letters which we have sent to the Chairman of the Committee on 
 Ways and Means, of which we understand you are a member. 
 
 We desire to point out the good results that would accrue to 
 consumers of oils as well as to the manufacturers, should our ideas 
 of duties be followed. 
 
 Of course, the removal of the duty on the raw materials (shea 
 nuts, soya beans, mowra, niger, sesame, palm kernels, peanuts, and 
 candlenuts) would encourage the starting in this country of crushing 
 industries in competition with this branch of manufacture in Europe. 
 This would result in groat benefit to the consumer for the following 
 reasons : 
 
 (1) It would enable him to buy oil direct from the manufacturer 
 and not through brokers, as is now done, thus saving him the broker's 
 commission. 
 
 (2) He would also be saved the loss that almost invariably results 
 through leakage when oil is imported, which leakage can not be and 
 is not covered by any exporter under 1 per cent. 
 
 (3) The consumer would also have direct recourse in case of 
 inferior quality of the oil. to a reputable American manufacturer, 
 governed by the same laws as the consumer, and anxious to please, 
 knowing that his trade depends entirely on his reputation here in 
 this country. But, in case the manufacturer should not show any 
 disposition to adjust the claims of the consumer, the latter could 
 refuse to pay the bill, and would thereby have a lever with which 
 to force the manufacturer to come to terms, and in case this should 
 fail, recourse could be had to the law, which treats manufacturer 
 and consumer alike. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 65 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 OILS. 
 
 As the matter now stands, in case of inferior quality, the consumer 
 can only file his claims with the broker, who forwards them to the 
 manufacturer. In case this gentleman does not desire to settle, the 
 matter must be referred to arbitration, which arbitration is never 
 held in the United States, but is usually held in the country and city 
 of the manufacturer. In case the arbitration proves unsatisfactory 
 to the American consumer, as is usually the case, bis only recourse is 
 the law, as he has none of the manufacturer's money in his posses- 
 sion, due to the universal custom of paying sight drafts before the 
 documents can be obtained and the cargo unloaded. Of course, any 
 such lawsuit would be tried in the manufacturer's country and under 
 its laws, and would, in all probability, result unsatisfactorily to the 
 consumer. 
 
 (4) It would enable him to get away from the purchase of oils on 
 foreign terms and contracts, dictated by the manufacturers, which 
 terms are highly unfavorable to consumers in this country. 
 
 We have further asked for a duty on the corresponding oils (shea, 
 soy bean, mowra, niger, sesame, palm kernel, peanut, candlenut) for 
 the following reasons: 
 
 Aside from the oil produced from these seeds, there is a residue or 
 oil cake, which is used for cattle feeding. This material finds a ready 
 market in Europe, but due to the large supply of fodder in this country, 
 there is very little demand here. It is, therefore, necessary to export 
 all of this oil cake and pay the freight to Europe in order to compete 
 with the European oil cake. The freight rates to Europe on oil and 
 oil cake are about on a parity. But, as there are about 40 poun.ds of 
 cake to 15 pounds of oil in a bushel of seed, the freight on the oil cake 
 to Europe will be correspondingly higher per bushel or gallon than 
 the freight on oil from Europe, and, therefore, the American manufac- 
 turer is working under this disadvantage and also under the disad- 
 vantage of the difference between raw material freight to Europe and 
 America. Oil mih 1 labor is also cheaper in Europe than in the United 
 States. We, therefore, feel that a 2 cents per pound duty on oil 
 would be just in order to encourage competition with Europe for the 
 oil business of the United States. And we further feel that, if our 
 suggestion of duties is followed, at least four or five oil-seed crushers 
 in this country will begin experimenting with the seeds enumerated 
 above, and that there will be keen competition among these firms for 
 the oil business of this country this resulting in the general lowering 
 of prices. 
 
 Before closing, we would further call your attention to the inclosed 
 letter on linseed oil and seed. (See under par. 35, p. 259.) This 
 question is, of course, familiar to you, but we would like to impress 
 the fact that when both raw material and finished product are duti- 
 able, if there is to be any reduction of duty made, it should be made 
 to each correspondingly. 
 
 We would further reiterate our statement that there is no linseed 
 oil trust, and that on the contrary the business is now conducted on 
 such a competitive basis that the profits have been reduced to a 
 minimum and money has been lost by the company erroneously 
 termed, "The trust." 
 
 78959 VOL 113 5 
 
66 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 OILS. 
 
 We hope that you will support our suggestions in the meetings of 
 the committee. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 SPENCER KELLOGG & SONS (INC.). 
 GEO. H. SICARD. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY PARK & TILFORD, ALFRED H. SMITH 
 CO., GEORGE BORGFELDT & CO., AND FRANK M. BRINDLE. 
 
 JANUARY 6, 1913. 
 The CHAIRMAN WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: As importers of perfumery, toilet preparations, and 
 other articles under Schedule A, we respectfully submit the following 
 for consideration when drawing up the new tariff. (Reference is 
 made in most instances to H. R. 20182; when reference is made to 
 the tariff act of 1909, this is specifically stated.) 
 
 Tariff act 1909, paragraph 3. With reference to the phrase "in the 
 manufacture or preparation of which alcohol is used, this sentence 
 should be omitted, because in some instances the same article is 
 manufactured in different ways, and there seems no obvious reason 
 why the duty should be assessed differently because in the manufac- 
 ture of it alcohol was used, although alcohol is not contained in the 
 product. 
 
 Tariff act 1909, paragraph 7 (H. R. 20182, p. 12). Should be 
 amended to read "blacking of all kinds, or all creams and prepara- 
 tions for cleaning or polishing boots and shoes or metals 20 per cent 
 ad valorem, whether in printed tin containers or otherwise." 
 
 The addition of the words "or metals" is for the purpose of over- 
 coming the inconsistent rulings of the appraising officers and courts 
 in holding powders and pastes for polishing metals to be dutiable 
 under paragraph 95 of the Payne bill as "articles of wares composed 
 wholly or in chief value of earthy or mineral substances whether sus- 
 ceptible of decoration or not." 
 
 The addition of the words "whether in printed tin containers or 
 otherwise" is to the amendment of paragraph 195 of the Payne bill. 
 
 Tariff act 1909, paragraph 17 (H. R. 20182, p. 26). This paragraph 
 should be amended by striking from the revised schedule the words 
 "but not less than 40 cents per pound" of line 19, page 7. The tax 
 per pound of celluloid is a variable one in its incidents for the reason 
 that the weight of the celluloid used never runs uniform; the celluloid 
 plates from which articles are made will not be of uniform but of 
 varying weight, with corresponding variation consequently in duties 
 assessed. 
 
 Also, the specific rate is not a rational one, owing to great difficulty, 
 if not practical impossibility, of arriving at the weight when celluloid 
 is used in connection with other materials. 
 
 Thirty-five per cent duty ad valorem should be a sufficiently high 
 duty, but if this is not agreed to, then it would be preferable to offset 
 the weight limit by a corresponding increase in the ad valorem duty, 
 so as to avoid a compound rate. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 67 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 OILS. 
 
 Tariff act 1909, paragraphs 32 to 88, inclusive (H. R. 20182, p. 50, 
 lines 14, 15, 16 of p. 13). Olive oil should be provided for at a rate 
 per gallon instead of 20 per cent ad valorem, say about 10 to 20 cents 
 per gallon. If a specific duty is placed on oil it will conduce to the 
 importation of the best grades of oil and will to a great extent shut 
 out the many deleterious oils now being imported for consumption. 
 Also it will save endless amount of litigation as to the value of the oil. 
 
 The specific rate per gallon should apply on all olive oil, irrespective 
 of the capacity of the containers. 
 
 Tariff act 1909, paragraph 67 (H. R. 20182, p. 53). This para- 
 graph should be amended by omitting the phrase "and other toilet 
 articles" in line 10 of page 15. This is too general an application, as 
 combs, brushes, soaps, etc., while specifically provided for under 
 other provisions of the tariff, are also covered by this phrase. Specific 
 designation should be sought as far as possible and misleading 
 generalities omitted. 
 
 We recommend that hi paragraph 53, line 7, reading "if containing 
 alcohol, 60 cents per pound and 50 cents per ad valorem," be changed 
 to "50 per cent ad valorem," without a specific weight duty; "if not 
 containing alcohol, 50 per cent ad valorem" instead of 60 per cent. 
 At the time the 60 cents per pound was assessed in the 1909 tariff, 
 paragraph 67, the contention was that this specific- weight duty was 
 to onset the internal revenue on alcohol taxed in this country. Aside 
 from the fact that if this is the purpose, 60 cents per pouna is exces- 
 sive, and that 20 per cent per pound would serve to amply offset this 
 consideration, we respectfully call your attention to the fact that, 
 inasmuch as the alcohol contained in such perfumery pays an internal 
 revenue in the country of origin, which internal revenue is contained 
 in the selling price to this country and pays duty accordingly ad 
 valorem, the internal-revenue tax in the United States is thereby ipso 
 facto equalized. 
 
 Reference to the Government statistics on the importations of 
 perfumery will show that from England and Germany they are insig- 
 nificant and from France have since 1909 not increased to any 
 extent, certainly not in proportion to the increase in the population 
 of the country. In fact, such reference will show that the total 
 importation of perfumery at this time is practically nil compared 
 with the total consumption a sufficient indication in itself that the 
 rates imposed are not conducive to producing revenue. 
 
 Tariff act 1909, paragraph 68 (H. R. 20182), Payne bill, 56. This 
 paragraph should be amended to include all paint "whether contained 
 in lacquered metal containers or otherwise, to correct the manifest 
 injustice of paragraph 195 of the Payne bill. 
 
 'Tariff act 1909, paragraph 69 (H. R. 20182, paragraph 70). The 
 duty on soaps should be ad valorem exclusively, without specific- 
 weight rate provision, for, owing to the range of prices from ordinary 
 laundry soaps to the expensive toilet soaps, the specific rate in the 
 amended House bill of 20 cents per pound is absolutely prohibitory 
 on the cheaper grades, which would otherwise be most used. It is 
 recommended that ad valorem rates be made to apply on soaps 
 exclusively of 35 per cent, or, if this is not approved on the very 
 
68 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 OILS. 
 
 cheap soaps, that a specific duty exclusively be assessed on this low 
 grade of merchandise instead of the compound duties proposed in 
 H. R. 20182, paragraph 70. 
 
 Respectfully, PARK & TILFORD. 
 
 ALFRED H. SMITH Co. 
 
 GEO. BORGFELDT & Co. 
 
 FRANK M. BRINDLE. 
 Presented by 
 
 1 
 
 Mr. C. S. WELCH, of Park & Tilford. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE DODGE & OICOTT CO., OF NEW YORK 
 CITY, IMPORTERS AND MANUFACTURERS OF ESSENTIAL 
 OILS, DRUGS, AND CHEMICALS. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 2, 1913. 
 The WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington D. C. 
 
 We have no specific recommendations to make at this time as to 
 changes in duties; but we are vitally interested in the essential oil 
 paragraphs of Schedule A, and are desirous of affording your com- 
 mittee any assistance we can to make these paragraphs reasonable, 
 fair, and consistent with other correlated sections of tne tariff. And 
 along this line we call your attention to the question of 
 
 Species as raw materials for the domestic manufacture of essential 
 oils : We have no wish to oppose or bring in question the levying-of a 
 duty upon spices as spices that is, as foods or condiments; but the 
 provisions of the bill passed at the last session, while doubtless 
 intended to levy a duty upon certain spices as condiments, had a 
 much farther reaching effect. 
 
 For example, clove buds were made dutiable at the specific rate of 
 2 cents per pound. At that time the value of standard grades of 
 cloves was approximately 10 cents per pound, which is about an 
 average price under normal conditions. The proposed duty, there- 
 fore, was the substantial equivalent of 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 On the other hand, oil of cloves, distilled from the clove buds, as an 
 unenumerated essential oil was to be made dutiable at 20 per cent 
 ad valorem. 
 
 Under the present tariff the American distiller of oil of cloves has 
 the protection of a duty of 25 per cent ad valorem on the oil, whereas 
 his raw material, the clove itself, comes in free of duty. 
 
 This house has distilled as much as 150,000 pounds of clove oil per 
 annum, and it has been able to do so solely and absolutely because 
 the raw material has been free of duty, whereas upon clove oil of 
 foreign manufacture there has been a duty of 25 per cent ad valorem. 
 Even as it is. however, the oil is sold here at next to no profit, the 
 competition being extremely keen; but it is a "labor maker," without 
 which it would be practically impossible to keep an essential oil fac- 
 tory in existence; and without the protection we have up to this time 
 enjoyed we should have to abandon the industry. It is obvious that 
 with a duty on the raw material amounting to 20 per cent or more 
 ad valorem while the manufactured product itself pays only 20 per 
 cent ad valorem, we are not only deprived of the protection we have 
 
SCHEDULE A. 69 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 OILS. 
 
 had, but are placed completely at the mercy of the foreign manufac- 
 turer, who has every advantage of us now hi cost of labor, main- 
 tenance, and materials, besides having a profitable outlet for his 
 by-product, while here we have none. 
 
 A large proportion of all the clove oil distilled is used as the basic 
 material in the manufacture of vanillin, a fine aromatic chemical. 
 Last year's bill reduced the duty on vanillin to 10 cents per ounce, 
 specifically, in the face of the new duty proposed upon the raw material, 
 tne clove bud. As will doubtless be shown to your committee by the 
 vanillin manufacturers, such a reduced rate of duty on the finished 
 product would hardly be sufficient to protect the American manufac- 
 turer even when his vanillin is manufactured from homemade oil dis- 
 tilled from free cloves. But if the domestic vanillin maker is to have 
 the cost of his raw material advanced while the protection on his 
 manufactured product is cut in half, he will simply have no chance 
 whatever. He will have to abandon the industry or resort to an 
 entirely different raw material which has never been employed in this 
 country and which would yield no revenue whatever to the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 We simply ask for the continuance of a reasonable protection in a 
 plain case where the raw materials of a long and well established in- 
 dustry are accidentally spices but are used for purposes entirely for- 
 eign to the usual and ordinary employment of spices. The situation 
 is substantially the same as above stated in the case of the somewhat 
 less important oils of pimento, nutmeg, and one or two others distilled 
 from spices. 
 
 We venture to suggest further that, while the essential-oil section, 
 paragraph 51 in last year's bill was in this respect an improvement 
 upon the Payne and preceding tariffs (which specified by name "es- 
 sential oils" that do not and never did exist), it showed clearly that 
 the provision was not drawn by one having anything like an accurate 
 knowledge of the subject. It mentions by name, first, oil of pepper- 
 mint for discriminative treatment, i. e., a specific duty of 25 cents per 
 pound ; then it proceeds to enumerate by name over 20 essential oils 
 which, together with " all * * * essential and distilled oils, etc.," 
 are to come under the horizontal duty of 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 Among the oils thus enumerated are many whose real importance 
 perhaps would warrant specific mention by name ; but there are others, 
 like chamomile, cedrat, jasmine, valerian, and the like, which are of 
 no consequence whatever, being imported, when at all, only in the 
 pettiest quantities, or, as in the case of the cedrat and jasmine, being 
 little more than curiosities. 
 
 Again, open to criticism are such specifications as ' ' anise or anise 
 seed," since there is no anise oil other than anise-seed oil; "citronella 
 or lemon grass/' indicating two names for the same thing, whereas 
 the two oils of these names are widely different in character and value 
 and no reason exists for linking them together; "rosemary or anthoss," 
 perpetuated from former tariffs like the foregoing, in which the expres- 
 sion "or anthoss" is altogether meaningless. And there are otners. 
 
 We suggest that nothing substantial is gained by enumerating part 
 of a general class in this way, especially if the enumeration is un- 
 scientific and includes members which are neither important nor 
 
70 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 OILS. 
 
 typical, while on the other hand such an enumeration is apt to open 
 the door to unnecessary complications and confusion. We submit 
 that only such oils should be enumerated by name as are to receive 
 discriminative treatment by being assessed with special rates of duty 
 diff erent from the general horizontal rate ; and that the general hori- 
 zontal class should be covered by a single definitive specification 
 similar to the one used in paragraph 51 for the residuary portion, say, 
 "all essential and distilled oils and all combinations of same," etc. 
 
 It should be borne in mind, however, that while not all essential 
 oils are distilled, there being several important exceptions, neither are 
 all distilled oils essential oils. 
 
 DODGE & OLCOTT Co., 
 By CHRISTIAN BRILSTEIN, Secretary. 
 
 BEIEF OF VERONA CHEMICAL CO., MANUFACTURERS OF 
 
 FINE CHEMICALS, CUSTOM DISTILLERS OF ESSENTIAL 
 
 OILS. 
 
 NORTH NEWARK, N. J., January 2, 1913. 
 Hon. CHAIRMAN UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We beg to inclose briefs on paragraphs 5, 22, 51, 54-76, 
 of the dutiable list; also a brief treating on "Spices." In reading 
 same you will note we have not asked for an increase (one exception, 
 see brief No. 3), but simply to leave the present duties remain, for the 
 reason that a great number of the raw materials, especially those 
 covered by paragraphs 23 and 24, have been taken on the tree list 
 and a duty imposed. This has evidently been done for revenue pur- 
 poses and to give American manufacturers of these products a pro- 
 tection, and we can not object to this. In return, therefore, it would 
 not he fair nor reasonable to lower duties on the finished products, 
 especially as the duties now prevailing, to wit, 25 per cent, paragraph 
 5, and 20 per cent, paragraph 22, are not excessive, which is proven 
 by the undeniable fact that there is a very large importation. Again, 
 the chemical manufacturing industry, especially the one producing 
 high-class products, is laboring under rather difficult conditions, and the 
 duties allowed for the past years have always been very moderate com- 
 pared to the 45 per cent and 60 per cent rates of the iron and steel and 
 the textile industries. Progress has been comparatively slow, and we 
 can not but too forcibly state that a further reduction, in the face of 
 possible import duties on our raw materials, would place the American 
 industry in a very precarious position. Surely it is not the intention of 
 Congress to do that. A general downward revision may be necessary 
 and in good order, but there are exceptions and these are some of them. 
 
 The writer will he pleased to give testimony to the best of his ability 
 any time convenient to the committee. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 VERONA CHEMICAL Co., 
 By EDWIN KUTTROFF, President. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 71 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 OILS. 
 
 BRIEF No. 1. 
 
 Paragraph 5. This paragraph covers a whole line of chemical and medicinal prod- 
 ucts. In fact, a great majority of the products that do not find special mention in 
 other paragraphs fall in under this heading. We can truthfully claim that the pres- 
 ent duty of 25 per cent is very fair and not too high, for it is safe to state that the 
 importation exceeds the domestic production. So long as the paragraph is left 
 written in this broad sense probably no exact figures can be given, besides many 
 articles are imported without stating their exact nature or composition. While 
 there may be comparatively few products that can be made here in competition 
 to the imported goods, plus the proposed duty of 15 per cent, we do not hesitate to 
 state that it is the honest opinion of every chemical and pharmaceutical manufac- 
 turer in this country familiar with the condition of the increased cost of labor, machin- 
 ery, repairs, and nearly every item of expense, that a duty of 15 per cent means the 
 shutting down and ceasing of many a manufacture now in operation. A duty of 
 15 per cent will mean a large importation of the overproduction from, especially, 
 Germany, and that country will certainly welcome such a move on the part of the 
 tariff legislators of the United States. We, as a good many other manufacturers, 
 have capital invested, have spent a lot of time and money for the manufacture of 
 products which fall under this paragraph, and we respectfully and earnestly request 
 that no reduction is made. 
 
 The consumption of these products is relatively limited, the cost of production, on 
 account of increased expenses, as everyone familiar with the manufacture of chemicals 
 in the United States will admit, is higher all proves that we need a protection of at 
 least 25 per cent, and that this rate is not excessive is, as above stated, undeniably 
 proven by the fact that great numbers and quantities of these products are now imported . 
 What argument can be more convincing than this latter fact? 
 
 We have been manufacturing thymol and terpin hydrate for several years, and, we 
 can state, without any profit to us. For example, on thymol the present duty of 25 
 per cent has not been sufficient to offset the increased cost of freight of the raw material 
 from India to New York against the same from India to Hamburg. We are told the 
 difference is about 1 shilling per hundredweight. As one gets only about H-l$ pounds 
 thymol from 100 pounds raw material, you will note the shilling must be added to the 
 1^-lJ pounds finished product. Again, the resulting by-product, an oily cake, finds a 
 very much better market in Europe, due to the relatively cheap cattle-food products 
 found here, such as cottonseed cake, etc. The consumption in this country is equal 
 to about 30.000 pounds so you will note how very limited the manufacture can be 
 which again increases the cost per pound. We suggest a fixed duty would be more 
 satisfactory, and propose as a fair and reasonable rate 50 cents a pound . 
 
 For terpin-hydrate the same arguments, practically, hold; the consumption is 
 about the same, etc. In this case also a fixed duty would be far more satisfactory, and 
 we propose 10 cents a pound as a reasonable rate. 
 
 BRIEF No. 2. 
 
 Paragraph 22. Exactly the same arguments apply here as we give in the case of 
 paragraph 5 i^see Brief No. 1). Paragraph 22 is very broad and far reaching in its 
 application, and it is impossible to treat the subject matter of this paragraph except 
 in a general way. We can state in addition in the case of the manufacture of coal- 
 tar products or preparations which are covered by this paragraph that the raw mate- 
 rials used fall mostly under paragraphs 23 and 24, and it is proposed to take both of 
 these off the free list and place a duty of 5 per cent on the products mentioned in 
 paragraph 23 and a duty of 10 per cent on the products mentioned in paragraph 24. 
 In other words, it is proposed to lower the duties on the finished products and raise 
 the duties on the raw materials. This is surely not in order and we again respectfully 
 request and urge that no reduction is made in paragraph 22. 
 
 BRIEF No. 3. 
 
 Paragraph 51. We respectfully request and urge that after the words "peppermint 25 
 cents per pound," the following is inserted: "Clove, pimento or allspice, nutmeg, 
 mace, patchouli, 35 per cent ad valorem." This is altogether necessary, for the new 
 tariff (see paragraph 41 ) proposes a range of duties on the raw materials used for the dis- 
 tillation of these various oils which averages about 20 per cent ad valorem. A differ- 
 ence of 15 per cent, or a 35 per cent duty, is therefore very fair and reasonable. We 
 respectfully urge the committee to give especial attention to this feature of the bill. 
 
72 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 OILS. 
 
 BRIEF No. 4. 
 
 Paragraph 54- This paragraph covers a whole range of products, some of which 
 must be imported and others which can be made in this country. We may state that 
 the latter form a large minority. We manufacture two products covered by this 
 paragraph, namely, heliotropin and terpineol. We respectfully request and urge 
 that both of these products are taken out of this paragraph and given specifies duties 
 as follows: Heliotropin 50 cents a pound, terpineol 6 cents a pound. 
 
 Heliotropin. The raw material used for this article is camphor oil, which under 
 the proposed tariff will pay a duty of 20 per cent; paragraph 54 proposes for heliotropin 
 the same rate, namely, 20 per cent this is therefore not just. Fifty cents a pound 
 equals about 35 per cent of the selling price, but as we would have to pay a duty of 
 20 per cent on the raw material, camphor oil, the same is not excessive. 
 
 Terpineol. The present duty on this article is 25 per cent. We manufacture this 
 product, but owing to the increased cost of production (the item of labor enters here 
 largely) far more is imported than we manufacture. A reduction of the present tariff 
 is therefore entirely unnecessary and would be most unjust to the manufacturers of 
 this country, of whom we are one. 
 
 BRIEF No. 5. 
 
 Paragraph 76. Vanillin. Present Payne rate, 20 cents per ounce. Proposed rate, 
 10 cents per ounce. 
 We respectfully request and urge that the present rate be allowed to remain: 
 
 (1 ) The rate was reduced from 80 cents to 20 cents per ounce in the last tariff which 
 in itself is already a tremendous cut. 
 
 (2) We use the following raw materials: Cloves, caustic potash, acetic anhydride, 
 bichromate of potash, sulphuric acid, benzol. 
 
 (A) Cloves: These have always been on the free list; it is now proposed to place a 
 duty of 2 cents per pound, which is equal to about 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 (13) In the case of caustic potash we have a similar condition. This article has 
 ahvays been free; is now to be taxed with an import duty of three-fifths cent per 
 pound . 
 
 (C) Acetic anhydride: The duty now is 2 cents per pound plus 30 per cent for the 
 container and there is no change proposed. 
 
 (D) Bichromate of potash is made here, and we use the domestic article exclusively. 
 
 (E) Sulphuric acid costs us fully 50 to 60 per cent more than the price paid by our 
 German competitors. 
 
 (F) Benzol: The proposed tariff places a duty of 5 per cent on this product; this 
 probably means the price will advance nearly proportionately. 
 
 The above is a brief resume of the situation of the point of view of the raw materials 
 used by us. The increased cost of labor, the more expensive special machinery used, 
 in fact every item of cost and expense is higher here than abroad. These facts all go to 
 prove a reasonable tariff is absolutely necessary. You will note that the proposed bill 
 reduces the present tariff by 50 per cent, and of the six principal raw materials used 
 it is proposed to take three off the free list and on another, acetic anhydride, there is 
 no decrease, but the present rate is allowed to remain unchanged. In view of the 
 foregoing we respectfully request that no change be made in the present rate of 20 cents 
 per ounce. 
 
 BRIEF No. 6. 
 
 The attention of the committee is respectfully called to the fact that a good many 
 spices, etc., are used for two purposes in this country. 
 
 First. As spices or condiments, and we can not discuss these uses and what effect 
 a duty will have on the same. 
 
 Second. Spices are also the raw materials for two very important industries now 
 existing in the United States, the distillation of essential oils and the production of 
 vanillin. The duties proposed in paragraph 41 equal about 20 per cent ad valorem 
 and we claim, placing a burden of such high duties on the raw materials of two indus- 
 tries, is altogether out of proposition. If it is the intention of the committee to propose 
 a tariff on spices used for food and spice purposes then some means should be devised 
 whereby those used for manufacturing purposes can enter free of duty as before. They 
 could perhaps be made unfit for human consumption is some way or the manufacturers 
 could use and distill these raw materials under some suitable governmental control. 
 We understand in France and German v the latter method is used evidently with some 
 degree of success otherwise the practice would not continue. It appears to us that the 
 
SCHEDULE A. 73 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 OILS. 
 
 framcrs of the new bill had in mind when the duties were proposed for spices that these 
 articles are used solely as spices and condiments and may therefore be considered possi- 
 bly as a luxury, but they evidently did not, at the same time, consider the fact that 
 spices also form the basis of two important chemical industries. We respectfully 
 request and urge that this feature of the matter is carefully considered and if the various 
 duties proposed must remain on the spices used by the food and spice trade, then 
 some means and method be introduced and decided upon, whereby spices, etc., 
 imported and used for distilling and manufacturing purposes can come in free of 
 duty. 
 
 BEIEF OF THE COLUMBIA WESTEEN MILLS IN RE OILS. 
 
 WEST PULLMAN, CHICAGO, ILL., January 3, 1913. 
 Mr. JAMES R. MANN, 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 
 DEAR SIR: As you are probably aware a hearing is going to be 
 given on January 6 at Washington, D. C., Ways and Means Com- 
 mittee presiding, on the Underwood Bill, on which there is a proposed 
 duty of one-fourth cent per pound on soya bean oil and 5 cents per 
 gallon on China wood oil. 
 
 As you will probably remember, this matter was discussed during 
 March, April, 1912, when the above bill passed the House of Repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 We can not see any reason why any amount of duty should be 
 assessed on these oils, because the same are raw materials for paint 
 and varnish industry of this country and both these oils are not 
 crushed here. 
 
 The assessment of any amount of duty on such raw materials will 
 place the consumers in a very disadvantageous position in buying 
 these materials in the future. 
 
 Our object in writing you is to protest against such assessment 
 of duty on these items, leaving them free as they now are. 
 
 Attached we give you some information covering these two oils 
 which is self-explanatory, and anything you can do to leave their 
 entry free into this country without duty will be appreciated by us. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 COLUMBIA WESTERN MILLS, 
 F. B. REYNOLDS, Manager. 
 
 [Inelosure.] 
 CHINA NUT OIL (CHINA WOOD OIL). 
 
 China wood oil is crushed from nut. which is a production of southern China, 
 Hankow district being the center. This nut tree is only grown in southern China 
 and not in any other place in the world. We heard that experimental plantation of 
 this nut tree was made in this country, but such experiment was a total failure. 
 
 We tried to import the nut instead of the oil, to be crushed in this country, but 
 we were not successful. 
 
 Every year, about the beginning of October, the nut is picked from the tree by 
 natives in southern China and crushed to obtain the oil. Then it is sold to refineries 
 around Hankow, by whom the oil is refined, and shipped to this country. Usually 
 the new crop oil is shipped from China by the end of October or early November. 
 It generally takes 90 days before the oil arrives in this country from China. 
 
74 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 OILS. 
 
 As long as the nut tree can not be raised in this country, we do not think that any 
 industry for crushing of this nut can be established, especially if you take into con- 
 sideration the fact that we were not successful even to import the nut for crushing 
 purpose here. 
 
 We are unable to obtain statistics for the production of nut in China, because 
 there is no way of obtaining any figure, but we state below the quantity and value 
 of importation of this oil into this country for the past few years: , 
 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Value. 
 
 1907... 
 
 Gallons. 
 2,515,643 
 
 $1,044,016 
 
 1908 
 
 1,874,217 
 
 857, 782 
 
 1909 
 
 2,897,319 
 
 1,151,016 
 
 1910 
 
 2,494,896 
 
 846,635 
 
 1911 
 
 5,840,739 
 
 2, 204, 016 
 
 January-August 1912 
 
 3,045,758 
 
 1,591,926 
 
 
 
 
 SOYA BEAN OIL. 
 
 Soya bean oil is crushed from soya bean, which is a product of North Manchuria, 
 China. 
 
 This oil has been used by soap manufacturers in extensive quantities about three 
 years ago, when cotton-seed oil, tallow, grease, and other soap materials were very 
 high. 
 
 We heard that experimental plantations were made in this country with soya bean 
 in the past, but the result was not successful. 
 
 There even might be a small quantity of soya bean raised in this country, but such 
 quantity is used for cattle feeding, fertilizer, etc., and is not enough for crushing use 
 to obtain oil. Therefore the only way to obtain soya bean oil is to import from foreign 
 countries. 
 
 The production of soya bean in North Manchuria averages around 1,000,000 tons 
 of 2,240 pounds per year. About 40 per cent of this quantity is now exported to 
 Japan, where it is used for aoy making, or feeding purpose, as well as for crushing use 
 to make soya bean oil. About 20 per cent is consumed by China itself; about another 
 20 per cent is crushed in northern China, thereby obtaining oil and cake; about 5 per 
 cent will be kept by farmers for sowing use for next season. The balance of about 15 
 per cent is for export to European crushers. In Europe soya bean is used for crusher 
 purpose to obtain soya bean oil and soya oil cake. 
 
 Soya bean has only been introduced to European crushers since 1909. Therefore 
 it is still quite a new product to them. 
 
 There is no industry in this country for crushing soya bean . Therefore the soya bean 
 oil used by soap manufacturers lias to be imported as above stated from foreign 
 countries. 
 
 Below are the statistics of import into this country. 
 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Value. 
 
 August 1909 to Juno 1910 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1,020,000 
 
 July 1910, to June, 1911 
 
 41,106,000 
 
 2, 560, 000 
 
 Julv 1911 to December 19)1 . . 
 
 11,286,000 
 
 670,000 
 
 January 1912 to \ugust 1912 
 
 20, 208, 905 
 
 1,113,483 
 
 
 
 
 P. S. Under present tariff then- is a duty of 45 cents per bushel on soya bean 
 which is a prohibitive rate. If there is a small number of farmers who are raising 
 soya beans in this country they are well protected under the above prohibitive duty 
 on soya beans. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 75 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 DLLS. 
 STATEMENT OF M. B. SNEVILY, OF NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 Mr. SNEVILY. If the committee please, a provision should be made 
 in your tariff to cover vegetable oils and seeds met with elsewhere and 
 which are now named under either the similitude clause or under the 
 paragraph "Not otherwise specified," the result of which is that an 
 inferior oil or a seed which we use to produce an oil to be used as a 
 substitute for a staple, will pay in some cases the same duty and in 
 other cases more duty than the staple itself. 
 
 This fact prevents the use of substitutes, because it is well recog- 
 nized in the trade that a buyer will never pay for a substitute the 
 same price for which he can obtain a staple. 
 
 The duties on vegetable oils and seeds, in my opinion, should be 
 specific and not ad valorem for several reasons. One reason is that a 
 specific duty will do away entirely with undervaluation. It will also 
 absorb any difference in market values of the different markets of 
 the world. 
 
 Furthermore, in this country, where we import a seed we import it 
 to obtain the oil. The value of that seed depends upon the percent- 
 age of oil which it contains and the quality of the oil that we can 
 secure. 
 
 Ad valorem duties increase the assessment on the consumer when 
 the market advances. For example, take table olive oil, a fair 
 quality of which was obtainable a year ago at 80 cents a gallon. I 
 am not alluding to the class of oil that you would use yourself on your 
 own table, but to a fair grade of wholesome oil. The duty on that 
 oil in barrels is 40 cents a gallon, equivalent to 50 per cent, of course. 
 To-day that same grade of oil will cost $1.20 a gallon. An equivalent 
 of 50 per cent would make the duty 60 cents instead of 40 cents, and 
 that 20 cents a gallon increase is paid by the consumer, not to the 
 producer but to the Government. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. In that respect you are satisfied with our bill, 
 because in all our seed laws the duties provided are specific. 
 
 Mr. SNEVILY. If my recollections are correct, you provide in some 
 places an ad valorem duty, not on olive oil, but on some of the seeds 
 covered in the schedule. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. The seeds themselves or the oil ? 
 
 Mr. SNEVILY. The seeds and oils. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. They are in the agricultural schedule ? 
 
 Mr. SNEVILY. The seeds are in the agricultural schedule; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. We have not reached that yet. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. To what paragraph are you particularly re- 
 ferring ? 
 
 Mr. SNEVILY. I am not referring to any particular paragraph, but 
 am on the general subject of vegetable oils and seeds. 
 
 Fluctuations in these commodities are sometimes very violent. 
 Prices have been steadily advancing for several years in fact, are 
 continuing to advance. As an illustration of what we have in the 
 way of fluctuations, linseed oil sold a short time ago for 95 cents and 
 is now being sold for 40 cents a gallon. Coconut oil, of which we 
 have sold hundreds of tons at 4 cents a pound and which I con- 
 sidered extremely high at 6 cents a pound has sold during the past 
 
76 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 3 OILS. 
 
 three years for 10 cents a pound, and 7 cents a pound has been con- 
 sidered a low price. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Are you in favor of a duty on coconut oil ? 
 
 Mr. SNEVILY. Not unless that duty can be sufficient to overcome 
 the difference in cost of transportation and manufacture in this 
 country. There is a certain amount of coconut oil made in the 
 United States, but that is made for a particular purpose. It is not 
 the oil which is sold to the soap makers. The oy-product of that 
 oil is what is sold to the soap makers. 
 
 Commercial olive oil is used in the industries, tanning of leather, 
 dressing of worsteds and woolens. When we paid a duty of 25 per 
 cent, we considered the oil high at 65 cents a gallon, including that 
 25 per cent duty. To-day we consider olive oil at 65 cents a gallon, 
 without any duty, as a safe investment. A low price or an average 
 price is 80 cents, and a high price is 90 to 95 cents. Coconut oil at 
 present pays no duty at all, and neither does commercial olive oil. 
 As illustrating the advance which has taken place in these oils, prior 
 to the enactment of the Payne-Aldrich bill olive oil could not be 
 imported into the United States except upon payment of 40 cents a 
 gallon duty, if the cost at port or the place of origin exceeded 60 cents 
 per gallon, and now it is seldom if ever that we can get olive oil at 
 60 cents a gallon. 
 
 That simply illustrates the advance in values. I will hardly take 
 the liberty to suggest to your honorable committee the rates of duty 
 that should be assessed on these various oils and seeds, but I would 
 like to call a few facts to your attention. The imports of vegetable 
 oils and seeds, dutiable and free, in the year 1910 aggregated about 
 $25,000,000 to $27,000,000; in the year 1911 practically $65,000,000. 
 Ocean freights are an item that has to be considered on this proposi- 
 tion, particularly of recent years when the rates have advanced to 
 the extent that they have. A ton of seed occupies 55 cubic feet. 
 We have just paid $6.10 per ton on an import, which figures out 11 
 cents per cubic foot. The product of that ton of seed in oil, on an 
 average, would run from eighty to a hundred gallons. Allow that it 
 is a hundred gallons or two barrels; the cubic space occupied by that 
 two barrels would be 20 feet, which at 11 cents per foot is $2.20. 
 You will therefore perceive that as freight room on steamship is sold 
 by the cubic space occupied by cargo that a domestic manufacturer 
 would be obliged to pay $2.00 more for the product of 1 ton than 
 the foreign manufacturer. We consider the outlay on a ton of 
 seed as practically $10. That is, from the time a ton of seed is landed 
 on the dock until we finish its manufacture into oil, meal, or cake the 
 cost of it is approximately $10. In some cases it is less; in others 
 more. That represents the amount which we spend on every ton 
 of seed which we import. 
 
 An importer will bring to this market the oil content of that ton of 
 seed, and it will cost him not over 50 cents expenses here. It may 
 cost him nothing. If he has a free lighterage clause, the oil may be 
 discharged from the steamer, and the railroad company absorbs the 
 charge. 1 le may have weighing and sampling, but it will not cost him 
 over 50 cents. In other words, the man who imports oil will spend 
 50 cents on wluit lie gets out of a ton, while a domestic manufacturer 
 will spend $10. If he brings the cake or meal here, which seldom 
 
SCHEDULE A. 77 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 FORMALDEHYDE. 
 
 if ever is done, he may make an outlay possibly of another dollar. 
 Increased consumption has steadily advanced prices. It is a problem 
 for all manufacturers who are consumers of oils and fats, making it 
 very difficult for them to compute costs or establish any standard of 
 values. It seems to me that relief must necassarily come by substi- 
 tuting for these staple articles some of the oils that are used elsewhere 
 in the world. This, to my mind, can be best accomplished by offering 
 to those who are willing to promote the use of these oils an opportu- 
 nity to do so at a fair margin of profit. Scarcity r-crop failures 
 invariably result in higher prices. The consumer, if he is enter- 
 ing goods on an ad valorem rate, has a further hardship beside that 
 of increased values through scarcities. By-products of these seeds 
 are seldom, if ever, brought to the United States. In fact, in most 
 places where produced they are of more value than they are here. 
 That is all I have to say. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Any questions ? 
 
 No response. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Thank vou, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is cottonseed oil and olive oil oftentimes used inter- 
 changeably for the same purposes ? 
 
 Mr. SNEVILY. Not if the Department of Agriculture can locate it, 
 unless so branded. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I know, but 
 
 Mr. SNEVILY (interposing). There are mixtures that are branded 
 as a mixture of olive oil and cotton oil. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is it not prepared so that the ordinary person who is 
 not an expert could not tell the difference ? 
 
 Mr. SNEVILY. Personally, I had rather have a high grade of cotton 
 oil than a low grade of olive. 
 
 Mr. HILL. For food purposes ? 
 
 Mr. SNEVILY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. One is free and the other pays duty? 
 
 Mr. SNEVILY. Yes, sir. 
 
 FORMALDEHYDE. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY PERTH AMBOY CHEMICAL 
 WOKKS, NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 PERTH AMBOY CHEMICAL WORKS, 
 
 New York, January 4, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: We respectfully petition that formaldehyde, 40 per cent solu- 
 tion, also commercially called formalin, be dutiable at 1$ cents per 
 pound specific; paraformaldehyde, solid, 95 per cent pure, be dutiable 
 at 7 cents per pound specific. Formaldehyde, containing 40 per cent 
 formaldehyde, is an aqueous solution, and paraformaldehyde is a 
 polymerized formaldehyde, formed by evaporation of the aqueous 
 solution of formaldehyde, an amorphous solid product 95 per cent 
 pure. 
 
78 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 FORMALDEHYDE. 
 
 Both are powerful antiseptic disinfectants and preservatives, 
 employed in a number of ways, separately or in different combinations. 
 
 Formaldehyde is produced by the oxidation or partial combustion 
 of methyl alcohol by an elaborate process of purifying crude wood 
 alcohol. 
 
 The apparatus and plant necessary for the production of formalde- 
 hyde, consisting chiefly of large expensive copper stills and fittings, 
 etc., are correspondingly higher in cost in the United States than in 
 other countries, requiring a larger investment of capital, affecting 
 overhead charges, including interest, insurance, and depreciation. 
 
 The price of formaldehyde and paraformaldehyde is governed by 
 the price of crude wood alcohol. The price of wood alcohol is largely 
 regulated by what the wood-alcohol producers secure for their by- 
 products, namely, acetate of lime and charcoal. For acetate of lime 
 a relatively uniform market exists, while for charcoal great fluctu- 
 ations at times take place, on account of the varying demand on the 
 part of the iron industry, in which charcoal is mostly consumed. Low 
 prices of charcoal almost always mean higher prices for wood alcohol. 
 The price of wood alcohol is also affected by tne demand and supply, 
 thus leaving the manufacturer of formaldehyde at the mercy of rather 
 erratic fluctuating market conditions, as far as the supply of his raw 
 material is concerned. On one side the constantly increasing demand 
 for wood-alcohol products and on the other the fact that our depleted 
 forests are not being replanted tends toward a marked increase in the 
 value of all wood-alcohol products. 
 
 The Canadian competition, with its lower cost of labor and immense 
 resources of undepleted forests, has cheaper raw material for the manu- 
 facture of wood alcohol at its disposal. 
 
 As pioneers of the formaldehyde industry in this country, we there- 
 fore petition that the adequate rate of duty on formaldehyde of 1J 
 cents per pound specific, paraformaldehyde 7 cents per pound specific, 
 be established, so that in case the reciprocity question between the 
 United States and Canada should at any time be reopened and con- 
 cessions on the United States import rates of duty be agreed to it will 
 not endanger the American formaldehyde industry. 
 
 The Canadian competition in seeking the nearest market as an out- 
 let for its formaldehyde surplus which can not be consumed at home 
 may cause ruinous competition in the United States, which could not 
 be checked, as our customs laws do not embody any "dumping" 
 provision. 
 
 Approximate revenue estimates. 
 
 Payne- Aldrich Tariff Act 1909: 
 
 Paragraph 3: Paraformaldehyde, basis 100 per cent pure, 25 per cent 
 
 ad valorem, 25,000 pounds, at 1\ cents per pound $1, 812. 50 
 
 Paragraph 3: Formaldehyde, 40 per cent solution, 25 per cent ad 
 
 valorem, 250,000 pounds, at 2 cente per pound 5,000. 00 
 
 Modified duty suggestion: 
 
 Paraformaldehyde. 25,000 pounds, at 7 cents per pound 1, 750. 00 
 
 Formaldehyde, 500,000 pounds, at \\ cents per pound 7,500.00 
 
 We therefore petition that: Formaldehyde 40 per cent solution be 
 dutiable at 1 \ cents per pound; paraformaldehyde, solid, be dutiable 
 at 7 cents per pound. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 PERTH AM BOY CHEMICAL WORKS, 
 HUGO Du Bois, Treasurer. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 79 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 ALKALIES. 
 
 ALKALIES. 
 
 BRIEF OF JOHN F. QUEENY, PRESIDENT MONSANTO CHEMICAL 
 WORKS, ST. LOUIS, MO. 
 
 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Pursuant to your notice of tariff hearings of December 
 11, 1912, we beg to say that we are engaged in the manufacture of a 
 limited number of medicinal and fine chemicals, most of which, up 
 to a few years ago, were manufactured exclusively in Europe 
 principally in Germany and sold in the United States at materially 
 higher prices than are now ruling, the reduction due entirely to our 
 competition. 
 
 It is no unusual procedure for the foreign chemical manufacturers 
 to maintain high prices here, so long as they have no competition, 
 but immediately the manufacture of a product is undertaken here, 
 the price is dropped to a point which makes its manufacture prac- 
 tically unprofitable in an endeavor to discourage the new manufac- 
 turer. This they are enabled to do, and at a profit to themselves, 
 because they can maintain high prices at home, due to their com- 
 binations a fact well known and dump their surplus production 
 here in competition with us. 
 
 To illustrate: The selling price of phenacetin (acetphenetidin) 
 classified under paragraph 65 in the United States in wholesale 
 quantities was $12 per pound for 17 years, up to and including the 
 year 1906, during the time it was manufactured exclusively in 
 Europe. The patent expired during 1906, and in 1907 its manufac- 
 ture was taken up by us, with the result that the price in the United 
 States to-day, in wholesale quantities, is about 90 cents per pound, 
 as against $12 per pound six years ago, and $1.15 per pound the 
 year following. 
 
 Phenolphthalein also imported under paragraph 65 was manu- 
 factured exclusively in Europe until about three years ago, and 
 was sold in this country in wholesale quantities at $2.15 to $2.75 
 per pound. It is now manufactured by us in competition with the 
 European manufacturers, with the result that the wholesale selling 
 price is now $1.20 to $1.25 per pound, almost one-half the price 
 previously obtained here by them. Nevertheless, thousands of 
 pounds are still coming in from Europe. 
 
 The manufacturers of fine and medicinal chemicals are perhaps 
 under greater expense proportionately to the amount of business 
 done than any other line 01 manufacture. They must always mam- 
 tain, at a considerable cost, a research laboratory, with no assured 
 compensatory results to offset such cost. They must keep pace with 
 the changes that are constantly taking place in processes of manu- 
 facture, which changes often make obsolete the machinery or 
 apparatus then in use. This necessitates a complete change in the 
 character of the machinery or apparatus at a considerable cost, and 
 as part, and very often the greater part of the machinery and appara- 
 tus required in an installation, must be imported from Europe, the 
 manufacturers of fine chemicals start out with an investment of at 
 
80 TAKIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 ALKALIES. 
 
 least 45 per cent more than the European manufacturers in machinery 
 and apparatus alone, as comparatively little of the machinery or 
 apparatus required in this industry is now manufactured in the 
 United States. 
 
 Chemists who are satisfied with a salary of $600 to $900 a year 
 in Europe Germany and Switzerland particularly demand $1,800 
 to $3,000 a year under similar conditions of employment in the United 
 States. The young men who graduate as chemists from our uni- 
 versities demand a salary of $900 the very first year they are out of 
 college, while in Europe such graduates are glad of the opportunity 
 to get in a factory at comparatively little or no compensation, to 
 get a start and for the knowledge they acquire in such factories. 
 
 The manufacture of medicinal chemicals, even under the present 
 tariff, is not in any too good a position, while Germany is spending 
 an enormous amount every year for its development through its 
 great universities, in which the professors and the chemical factories 
 are working hand in hand with enormously good results. 
 
 Medicinal chemicals reach the consumer in very small quantities, 
 and therefore any reduction in the present rates, which we ask you 
 to retain, will not affect the ultimate cost to them to any appre- 
 ciable extent, but will affect and discourage home manufacture, and 
 at the same time reduce the revenue now obtained by the Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Our investment for the manufacture of the medicinal products 
 we now make has been made within the past five years and repre- 
 sents about $300,000. This investment was made in good faith, 
 based on the present tariff rates, and the benefits thus far obtained 
 have been more for the consumers than for us, because they have 
 obtained such products as we manufacture at from 25 per cent to 
 50 per cent less than the}' were paying when we started manufac- 
 turing. We ask, therefore, that the raw materials used in the 
 manufacture of fine and medicinal chemicals be retained on the free 
 list and the present rates be also maintained on the finished products, 
 which are commensurate only with the conditions now existing in 
 this country. 
 
 This will enable us to continue manufacturing, and further, it 
 will encourage the manufacture of fine and medicinal chemicals in 
 this country to the ultimate good of our whole people. 
 
 We respectfully submit the following: 
 
 Paragraph, 3. Alkalies, alkaloids, etc.: Caffeine being an alkaloid 
 is now classified and imported under this paragraph and assessed 
 at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Caffeine is very largely imported into the United States in com- 
 petition with home manufacturers, and the quantity imported pays 
 a good revenue to the Government. There should be no change, 
 therefore, in the present rate, if tea siftings the raw material is 
 retained on the free list. 
 
 With the present rate of 25 per cent on the entered foreign value 
 for caffeine-- equal to 70 cents per pound we can and do compete, 
 whereas if tea siftings the raw material be made dutiable at 1 cent 
 per pound- equal to about 40 per cent of its value as proposed in 
 H. K. 201S2, then caffeine should be made dutiable at 40 per cent 
 ad valorem, or preferably at a specific rate of $1.25 per pound. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 81 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 ALKALIES. 
 
 We desire to call attention to an error in the caucus print of 
 H. R. 20182, in which appears the average unit value of caffeine 
 as $1.66 and $1.82 per pound- (1910), (1911), whereas the entered 
 value for the fiscal year 1911 is $3.06 per pound, as shown in a letter 
 from the Treasury Department to us under date of April 24, 1912, 
 appended herewith. 
 
 The actual market value of caffeine abroad in maximum quantities 
 is 30 marks per kilo, equal to $3.24 per pound. 
 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 
 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, DIVISION OF CUSTOMS, 
 
 Washington, April 24, 1912. 
 The MONSANTO CHEMICAL WORKS, 
 
 1800 South Second Street, St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: Referring to your letter of the 12th instant, and to previous cor- 
 respondence, relative to the market value of caffeine imported during the past year, 
 I have to advise you that an investigation of this subject discloses that the prices 
 stated in your letters as the foreign value are approximately correct. 
 
 The collector of customs at New York reports that due to erroneous quantities 
 having been recorded by the statistical clerk the quantities shown in the report 
 published by the Bureau of Statistics are incorrect. The following is a correct report 
 of the caffeine imported during the fiscal year 1911: 
 
 
 Quantity 
 (pounds). 
 
 Value. 
 
 Quarter ended: 
 Sept. 30, 1910 
 
 10,611 
 
 $33,160 
 
 Dec. 31, 1910 
 
 1,858 
 
 5,680 
 
 Mar. 31, 1911 
 
 4,519 
 
 14, 104 
 
 June 30, 1911 
 
 16,941 
 
 51,067 
 
 
 
 
 
 33,929 
 
 i 104,011 
 
 1 $3.06$ per pound. 
 
 The price lists inclosed with your letter of January 20 last are herewith returned. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 F. M. HALSTEAD, 
 Chief Division of Customs. 
 
 Paragraph 15. " Coal-tar dyes or colors, not specially provided 
 for in this section, thirty per centum ad valorem; all other products 
 or preparations of coal tar, not colors, or dyes and not medicinal, 
 not specially provided for in this section." 
 
 We strongly urge the retention of the words "and not medicinal" 
 in this paragraph, which were omitted in paragraph 22, H. R. 20182, 
 although included in the two succeeding paragraphs of that bill, i. e., 
 paragraphs 23 and 24. The classification "not colors or dyes and 
 not medicinal" covers a number of intermediate coal-tar products 
 used in the manufacture of medicinal products, and the. omission of 
 the words "and not medicinal" in said paragraph is likely to cause 
 confusion, trouble, and expense for the importer of such intermediate 
 coal-tar products, with no apparent benefit to the Government. 
 
 The imports under the classification of "not colors or dyes and not 
 medicinal" during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1910, amounted to 
 $661,500 and the duties collected amounted to $130,312 as shown 
 in Schedule A, Report No. 326, page 205. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 1> 
 
82 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 PABAGBAPH 3 ALKALIES. 
 
 Paragraph 65. (1) "Medicinal preparations containing alcohol, 
 or in the preparation of which alcohol is used, not specifically pro- 
 vided for in this section, fifty-five cents per pound, but in no case 
 shall the same be less than twenty-five per centum ad valorem." 
 
 The imports under this paragraph, paying the specific rate of 55 
 cents per pound, are apparently on the increase, as shown herewith: 
 
 
 From Schedule A, Report 
 No. 326, p. 272. 
 
 From Schedule A, Report 
 No. 326, p. 63. 
 
 1890 
 
 1896 
 
 1900 
 
 1905 
 
 1910 
 
 1911 
 
 Pounds 
 
 41,312 
 $7,274 
 
 50,268 
 $39,583 
 
 147,112 
 $133,994 
 
 147,447 
 $113,534 
 
 171,342 
 $152,659 
 
 157,713 
 $138,583 
 
 Value 
 
 
 In the manufacture of a number of articles coming under this para- 
 graph the alcohol is transformed or lost during the process of manu- 
 facture and does not appear in the finished product. For that reason 
 we ask that the wording of this paragraph (65) be retained as it now 
 reads; otherwise products so made might come in under other classfi- 
 cations, with a loss of revenue to the Government. Paragraph 18 of 
 H. R. 20182, introduced at the last session of Congress, would not 
 cover such articles, for the reason that the finished products do not 
 contain alcohol, as such, although alcohol was a raw material or the 
 base for their manufacture. 
 
 Paragraph 83. Vanillin, present rate 20 cents per ounce. 
 
 Vanillin is a synthetic chemical product manufactured from cloves. 
 Until about 15 years ago it sold in the United States by European 
 manufacturers at So per ounce, now selling at 32 to 35 cents per 
 ounce, due to home competition. 
 
 The rate of duty was reduced in 1909 from 80 cents per ounce to 
 20 cents per ounce, the rate now ruling. The manufacture of this 
 product requires a largo investment for the quantity manufactured, 
 its process of manufacture is very complicated, and requires, besides 
 competent chemists, a number of dutiable chemical products for its 
 manufacture in addition to the raw material, cloves. 
 
 Vanillin enters almost entirely into the manufacture of perfumery, 
 flavoring extracts, biscuits, chocolate, and confectionery, the price 
 of which would not be affected in the slightest by the cost of vanillin, 
 even if it were two or three times its present selling price, because of 
 its strong and far-reaching flavoring properties. 
 
 .None would therefore suffer by continuing the present rate of 20 
 cents per ounce, with cloves, the raw material, on the free list. If 
 cloves should be made dutiable at 2 cents per pound, then vanillin 
 should be made dutiable at 25 cents per ounce. 
 
 Pantf/rapTi 679. Cloves now on free list. About one-third of the 
 entire quantity imported is used in the manufacture of vanillin. If 
 cloves are made dutiable, a proportionate increase should be made 
 in the rate on vanillin (par. S3): for instance, if cloves are made 
 dutiable at 1 per cent per pound, the duty on vanillin should be 
 increased 2J cents per ounce. If cloves are made dutiable at 2 cents 
 per pound, then the duty on vanillin should be increased 5 cents per 
 ounce over the present rate, 
 
SCHEDULE A. 83 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 ALKALIES. 
 
 Paragraph 482. (Free list.) Acid phthalic should be retained in 
 the free list, as more than 60 per cent of the total quantity imported 
 is used in the manufacture of the medicinal product phenolphthalein. 
 If phthalic acid be placed in the dutiable hst, as proposea in H. R. 
 20182, phenolphthalein should be specially providea for at the specific 
 rate of 55 cents per pound, as alcohol also enters into its manufacture. 
 
 Phenolphthalein up to three years ago was manufactured exclusively 
 in Europe and sold in the United States at $2.15 to $2.75 per pound 
 in a wholesale way. It is now manufactured by us, with the result 
 that the wholesale price is $1.20 to $1.25 per pound, a reduction of 
 about 50 per cent in about three years, and due entirely to our 
 competition. 
 
 As long as the European manufacturers had no competition they 
 obtained high prices here, but with home competition they lowered 
 their prices in an endeavor to make the manufacture here unprofitable 
 and undesirable. 
 
 Paragraph 500. * * *; also quicksilver flasks or bottles, iron 
 or steel drums used for the shipment of acids, of either domestic or 
 foreign manufacture, which shall have been actually exported from 
 the United States, but proof of the identity of such articles shall be 
 made under general regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of 
 the Treasury. 
 
 After the words "iron or steel drums" insert "exported empty or," 
 and after the word "acids" insert "or other chemical products," 
 making the lines read "iron or steel drums exported empty or used in 
 the shipment of acids or other chemical products of either domestic 
 or foreign manufacture," etc. 
 
 We request this amendment for the reason that numerous chemical, 
 products are shipped into the United States in such iron or steel drums 
 and on which drums a duty of 30 per cent ad valorem is levied under 
 paragraph 151 in addition to the duty levied on the contents. 
 
 Under the present act if such drums are returned or exported to be 
 refilled and shipped back to the United States, these same olrums are 
 again assessed at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem, the importers 
 paying duty twice or more on the same drums as often as they are 
 returned and reshipped into the United States. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 MONSANTO CHEMICAL WORKS, 
 Per JOHN F. QUEENY, President. 
 
 ST. Louis, January 6, 1913. 
 
 PETITION OF HERBERT WATSON, OF CHARLES COUNTY, MD., 
 REGARDING DUTY ON BICARBONATE OF POTASH. 
 
 To the Chairman and Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
 
 Representatives: 
 
 The petition of Herbert Watson, of Charles County and State of 
 Maryland, respectfully shows and represents: 
 
 1. That the specific duty of 1^ cents per pound which, as appears 
 from the first item in paragraph 69 of the bill H. R. 20182, originally 
 introduced in the House of Representatives on February 15, 1912, 
 it is proposed to place upon potash, bicarbonate of, and carbonate 
 
84 TABIPP HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 ALKALIES. 
 
 of, refined, should be made to be at least 1 cents per pound on 
 bicarbonate of potash, for the following reasons, that is to say: 
 
 As proven by experience, it has been impossible heretofore to maintain 
 a plant and to manufacture and sell bicarbonate of potash in the United 
 States in competition with importers of this commodity manufactured 
 abroad, even with therateof duty25per cent ad valorem, as it is at pres- 
 ent, this being about equal to a specific duty of 1 cents per pound. 
 
 The Diamond Soda Works, a branch of the Liquid Carbonic Co., 
 at Milwaukee, Wis., the only concern in the United States which has 
 attempted the manufacturing and marketing of this product, com- 
 menced the manufacturing of bicarbonate of potash in the year 1901, 
 and continued until the year 1907, when the enterprise was abandoned 
 as being unprofitable, for the cause hereinafter stated. 
 
 As will appear from the tabulated statement herewith submitted, 
 as part hereof, marked "Exhibit A/' the importation of the com- 
 modity fell from 162,798 pounds in 1900, the year before the manu- 
 facturing in this country commenced, to 44,850 in 1906, owing to the 
 output from the domestic concern at Milwaukee. In the year when 
 the manufacturing in this country ceased importations were 310,281 
 pounds; and the import value was reduced from $0.049 in 1906 to 
 $0.022 in 1907, or considerably less than the value per pound of the 
 crude carbonate of potash from which the bicarbonate of potash is 
 made. It was the importation of this large quantity in 1907 and the 
 low price for which trie commodity was offered on the market that 
 made the further manufacturing in this country wholly unprofitable 
 and caused its abandonment at Milwaukee, as above set forth. 
 
 The following year, 1908, the value of the imported commodity was 
 again put up, and the selling price to the trade became, for lack of compe- 
 tition, about 1 cent per pound greater than the price of 6 cents, for which 
 thedomestic concern atMilwaukee had beensellingtheproduct manufac- 
 tured there. The price has continued to rule slightly above these fig- 
 ures, there being no longer competition with any domestic manufacturer. 
 
 While, even at the prevailing 25 per cent ad valorem duty, it was 
 found, after six years' experience, impossible to manufacture bicar- 
 bonate of potash at Milwaukee in competition with foreign manufac- 
 turers, your petitioner believes it would be possible to manufacture 
 the product at a place nearer the Atlantic coast if a duty of at least 1 
 cents per pound were laid upon the imported commodity; and, with 
 this duty, your petitioner is prepared to undertake such manufacture 
 in Charles Count}", in the State of Maryland, where he now owns land 
 about 25 miles south of Washington City. For, not only would the 
 expense of maintaining a plant and operating in said Charles County 
 be less than in Milwaukee, but there would be relief from the heavier 
 freight charges on the crude potash west, as well as from the return 
 charges on shipments of the refined product east. Besides, in this 
 section of Maryland, the entire section south of Washington, there are 
 no manufacturing establishments whatsoever, and the installing of 
 such plant and the operating thereof would aid greatly in the develop- 
 ment of this section, so in need of development. 
 
 With such a plant in southern Maryland your petitioner would be 
 able to supply at least 60 per cent of the trade in this commodity in 
 the United States, at a price not exceeding 6^ cents per pound. The 
 
SCHEDULE A. 85 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 ALKALIES. 
 
 ruling prices three months ago were from 7$ to 1\ cents per pound, 
 ex dock, New York, although in some cases contracts for 1912 have 
 been made at $6.87 per 100 pounds. 
 
 Thus consumers would be benefited by the imposition of a duty 
 which would make it possible and profitable to manufacture this com- 
 modity here, while at the same time the revenue to the Government 
 would increase. 
 
 For instance, take the 275,204 pounds imported in 1912, as appears 
 from "Exhibit A" herewith, as the quantity fairly demanded by the 
 trade in this country in a year. Selling at 6 cents, as against the 
 present ruling price of 1\ cents per pound, there would be a saying to 
 the consumers of $2,752.04; and (conceding that the domestic con- 
 cern would supply 60 per cent of this quantity), as against the revenue 
 from the importation of the entire quantity at \ cent duty per pound, 
 amounting to $1,386, we should have, from the 40 per cent, or 110,082 
 pounds, imported with a duty of 1 cents per pound, revenue amount- 
 ing to $1,657.23. 
 
 2. Your petitioner respectfully submits that the figures given in the 
 exhibit herewith, together with what has been hereinbefore stated as 
 to the ability of your petitioner to manufacture at least 60 per cent of 
 the quantity of bicarbonate of potash required by the trade in the 
 United States, fairly indicate what would be the decrease in importa- 
 tions if the duty were fixed at \\ cents per pound, thus enabling your 
 petitioner to establish his plant in southern Maryland and to manu- 
 facture the commodity, as hereinbefore stated. Of course, if others 
 should be similarly encouraged to engage in the work of manufac- 
 turing the product the result might be no further importations. At 
 best the total revenue from such importations under present condi- 
 tions is not large, as appears from "Exhibit A." 
 
 There are no secrets about the manufacture and use of bicarbonate 
 of potash. The cost of the plant, machinery, and apparatus is approxi- 
 mately $10,000. The commodity is made by treating carbonate of 
 potash in solution with carbonic-acid gas and crystallizing the product, 
 which involves the production of carbonic-acid gas on a commercial 
 basis ; and it requires from 12 to 14 days to crystallize and prepare the 
 product for use. It must be chemically pure and answer to all the 
 requirements of the United States Pharmacopoeia. All crude mate- 
 rial is imported duty free. Bicarbonate of potash is used principally 
 by manufacturers of patent medicines and by baby food and con- 
 densed milk manufacturers. It is rarely sold by retail druggists, 
 except in small quantities as a component part of physicians' pre- 
 scriptions. Therefore, it enters as a very small fraction into the cost 
 of any article or compound. 
 
 3. In submitting the aforegoing statements and estimates your 
 petitioner has relied, both upon a publication by the Bureau of Sta- 
 tistics of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, from which the tabulated 
 statement herewith, marked "Exhibit A," was taken by courtesy 
 of the officials of that bureau, and upon knowledge and information 
 gained from his experience and work as a chemist, as an inventor 
 who has made discoveries in applied chemistry, and as a manufac- 
 turer. He was superintendent and chemical engineer of the Diamond 
 Soda Works, at Milwaukee, hereinbefore mentioned, where he in- 
 stalled the plant for the manufacturing of bicarbonate of potash, and 
 
86 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 ALKALIES. 
 
 operated it for two years, at the end of which period he had charge 
 of the works of this company at Pittsburgh, manufacturing carbQnic- 
 acid gas and Epsom salts. Later, he was engaged by a concern in 
 Chicago in the matter of manufacturing a new and useful chemical, 
 "acetaldehyde," not previously manufactured in this country. He 
 resigned his position in Chicago about three months ago with the 
 view of establishing a plant for the manufacturing of bicarbonate of 
 potash upon his land in Southern Maryland, being then ignorant of 
 the fact that it is proposed to make the tariff upon this product so 
 low as one-half cent per pound. He has already ordered, and there 
 has been delivered, a portion of the requisite machinery for his plant; 
 but pending the enactment into law of the new tariff bill, and your 
 petitioner being fearful that the proposed rate of one-half cent per 
 pound upon this product may be prescribed, he has been impelled to 
 abandon the further prosecution of his plans for the present, to be 
 resumed, nevertheless, if the duty shall be 1^ cents per pound. 
 
 In conclusion it is respectfully submitted that your petitioner 
 knows of no reason why the rate of duty on bicarbonate of potash 
 should not be maintained on equality with the duty on permanganate 
 of potash; the duty whereupon, as appears from said paragraph 69, 
 is proposed to be at the rate of 1 cents per pound in lieu of the pres- 
 ent duty of 25 per cent ad valorem upon that commodity. 
 
 It may be added that the Government has been making search 
 Cor available sources of potash other than the German deposits, and 
 that it is important to develop the potash industry where possible. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 HERBERT WATSON. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 IMPORTATIONS OF BICARBONATE OF POTASH. 
 
 Y Rate of 
 duty. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Duties. 
 
 Value per 
 unit of 
 quantity. 
 
 Ad va- 
 lorem rate 
 of duty. 
 
 Per cent. 
 1900 .. 25 
 
 162,798 
 
 $9,666 
 
 $2,416.50 
 
 $0. 059 
 
 Per cent. 
 25 
 
 J901 25 
 
 73, 770 
 
 5,054 
 
 1,263.50 
 
 .069 
 
 25 
 
 1 902 25 
 
 56, 970 
 
 3,625 
 
 906.25 
 
 .064 
 
 25 
 
 ] 903 . . . . 25 
 
 19, 130 
 
 1,518 
 
 379. 50 
 
 .079 
 
 25 
 
 1904 25 
 
 93, 769 
 
 4,778 
 
 1,194.50 
 
 .051 
 
 25 
 
 1905 25 
 
 76,983 
 
 4,504 
 
 1,126.25 
 
 .059 
 
 25 
 
 190(1 25 
 
 44, 850 
 
 2,192 
 
 548 06 
 
 .049 
 
 25 
 
 1907 . 25 
 
 310, 281 
 
 6,787 
 
 1,696.75 
 
 .022 
 
 25 
 
 1908 25 
 
 218, 007 
 
 11,500 
 
 2, 875. 00 
 
 .052 
 
 25 
 
 1909 . 25 
 
 342,856 
 
 16,915 
 
 4, 228. 75 
 
 .049 
 
 25 
 
 1910 25 
 
 334, 300 
 
 16,633 
 
 4, 158. 25 
 
 .049 
 
 25 
 
 1911 25 
 
 325,016 
 
 16,428 
 
 4,107.00 
 
 .051 
 
 25 
 
 1912 25 
 
 275, 204 
 
 13, 155 
 
 3,288.00 
 
 .048 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NOTE.- In (be above tabulation the year is the fiscal year ended on June 30 of the designated year. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 87 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 COMPOUNDS N. S. P. P. 
 
 COMPOUNDS N. S. P. F. 
 
 REQUEST THAT MANNIT BE PLACED ON THE FREE LIST WITH 
 
 MANNA. 
 
 NEW YORK, February 4, 1913. 
 The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN : It has recently been brought to our attention that 
 our people in America, and other classes of your population, originat- 
 ing from southern Europe, use almost exclusively crude manna 
 instead of mannit. 
 
 Mannit is the sugar extracted from manna. Manna is a sap from a 
 tree known as frassino, which grows only in Sicily and Southern 
 Europe. Manna and mannit are both used for the same purposes 
 namely, as a sirup and gentle laxative. Mannit is the more desirable 
 of the two, but on account of its being taxed 25 per cent duty the 
 people import cmde manna duty free instead. 
 
 Approximately 47,427 pounds crude manna were imported in 1911, 
 valued $21,424, duty free. The importations of mannit are unob- 
 tainable, but we know them to be very small, only a few hundred 
 pounds. The high duty, 25 per cent ad valorem, on material worth 
 $2 a pound, brings the price up to $2.50 a pound, with the results 
 that there are no importations, no revenue derived, none is produced 
 here, and the people are importing crude manna instead. 
 
 It requires 4 parts manna to yield 1 part of mannit, so the persons 
 using manna take a proportionately larger quantity, and get a lot of 
 molasses and other impurities in their system. The principal sales in 
 other countries are of mannit, because the price is right, and mannit 
 is better adapted for children and delicate persons, because of its 
 purity. It seems reasonable, therefore, to ask that the consumer in 
 the United States be also placed in a position to get mannit reasonably, 
 especially as there is nothing to be lost to anybody in granting to 
 mannit the same exemption from duty as accorded to manna. Busi- 
 ness will be handled through the same channels here, and the supply 
 received from the same sources abroad. 
 
 It seems that mannit has been improperly classified with "Chemical 
 compounds, n. s. p. f., subject to a duty of 25 per cent ad valorem." 
 Mannit is not a "chemical compound," alcohol is not used in refining 
 it commercially, and mannit does not contain alcohol in any form 
 whatsoever. The mannit of commerce is the pure crystal obtained 
 from a solution of manna in water. The alcohol process referred to in 
 textbooks is not employed except in very rare instances; not over 
 250 pounds a year of alcohol-prepared mannit is used in the whole 
 world. 
 
 Mannit is not manufactured or refined in the United States in any 
 form, and probably never will be because of its peculiar and excep- 
 tional nature. The sap-bearing trees grow only in a few places in 
 southern Europe, and are not grown in the United States. It requires 
 12 years before a tree begins to bear, and then another 5 to 10 years 
 for the sap to ripen after it has been tapped. Manna improves with 
 age; so the villagers pile it against the walls of their huts and have 
 
88 TABIFP HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 3 COMPOUNDS N. S. P. E. 
 
 it around them this way, year after year. They are a deserving 
 class of poor but industrious people, living cheaply on their own gar- 
 dens, and sell their manna wnen they need money. The \yorld' s pro- 
 duction and supply of manna does not exceed half a million pounds 
 annually; take out 50,000 pounds of crude shipped to America, and 
 the balance is boiled down to 150,000 pounds of mannit, the refined 
 manna, which plays an important r6le in the health of many peo- 
 ple elsewhere, and would be better for our own people than the 
 present use of crude manna. 
 
 We therefore respectfully petition your honorable committee to 
 place mannit in the same specific classification as manna on the free 
 list; that is, to have paragraph 620 instead of reading "manna," 
 read "manna and mannit," thereby benefiting and encouraging the 
 consumer, without injuring any industry or merchant, and without 
 depriving the Government of revenue. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 FERDINAND COCORULLO, Importer. 
 
 Endorsed by the Italian Chamber of Commerce in New York. 
 
 G. R. SCHROEDER, Secretary. 
 
 THE HARSHAW FULLER & GOODWIN CO., CLEVELAND, OHIO, 
 ASK FOR CLASSIFICATION OF TARTRATE OF LIME. 
 
 THE HARSHAW FULLER & GOODWIN Co., 
 
 Cleveland, January 6, 1913. 
 
 SIR: We respectfully ask that paragraph 6 be changed by adding 
 the following: "Tartrate of lime" (after argols). 
 
 The paragraph would then read: 
 
 "Argols, or crude tartar, or wine lees crude, and tartrate of lime, 5 
 per cent ad valorem; tartars and lees crystals, or partly refined argols, 
 containing not more than 90 per cent of bitartrate of potash, and tar- 
 trate of soda or potassa, or Kocholle salts, 3 cents per pound; con- 
 taining more than 90 per cent of bitartrate of potash, 4 cents per 
 pound: cream of tartar and patent tartar, 5 cents per pound." 
 
 "Tartrate of lime" is a by-product in the manufacture of cream of 
 tartar, and is the raw material in the manufacture of tartaric acid; 
 hence it bears the same relation to tartaric acid as argols to cream of 
 tartar, and, in our opinion, should come under the same classification, 
 and be subject to the same rate of duty. It has not been heretofore 
 specifically classed. 
 
 Respectfully, RALPH L. FULLER, Secretary. 
 
 Hon. O. W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. G. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 89 
 
 PABAGRAPH 3 COMPOUNDS N. S. P. F. 
 NITRATE OF AMMONIA. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF MR. WILLIAM J. DIPPEL, REPRESENTING C. TEN- 
 NENT SONS & CO., NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 The witness was duly sworn by the chairman. 
 
 Mr. DIPPEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I rep- 
 resent the C. Tennent Sons & Co., of New York City. We are the 
 selling agents of the Norwegian Hydroelectric Nitrogen Co. (Ltd.). 
 of Norway, and the article w r hich I desire to bring to your attention 
 is nitrate of ammonia. Under the present tariff it is not specially 
 provided for, and consequently pays a duty under the blanket para- 
 graph No. 3 of 25 per cent ad valorem. Under House bill 20182, 
 paragraph 8, a duty of three-quarters of a cent per pound is pro- 
 vided, which, of course, we think is a reasonable rate when the article 
 is to be used for explosive purposes. Up to the present time it has 
 been used merely for explosive purposes, in the manufacture of per- 
 missible powders that is. for explosive purposes and in a limited 
 way in the manufacture of nitrous oxide, which is commonly known 
 as " laughing gas." 
 
 Since the bill was drawn, however, a wonderful advance in the 
 chemioal industries of the world has taken place through the syn- 
 thetic process for the manufacture of nitric acid and ammonia, which 
 has made it possible now to manufacture nitrate of ammonia at a 
 price which will permit of its being utilized as a fertilizing material 
 if it is admitted free of duty. It contains 35 per cent of nitrogen, 
 which is equivalent to about 42 per cent of ammonia, and in this con- 
 centrated form it is most valuable as a fertilizer. In fact, nitrogen 
 in the form of nitrates is the most available of any form of nitrogen, 
 as detailed in Farmers' Bulletin No. 44, on page 15, which bulletin 
 was issued by the United States Department of Agriculture; and 
 that bulletin Swells at some length on nitrogen, particularly on nitro- 
 gen in the form of nitrates. 
 
 In the Southern States, to show you how much of this fertilizing 
 material is consumed in the country in the Southern States the con- 
 sumption of fertilizers for 1911 was approximately 4,250,000 tons, 
 of which about 106,000 tons was nitrogen, taken out at 100 per cent; 
 that is to say, the amount of nitrate of soda would be equal to about 
 530,000 tons in the Southern States alone. 
 
 Mr. William H. Bowker, of Boston, conected with the American 
 Agricultural Chemical Co., one of the oldest and best-informed 
 men in the fertilizer trade, in his publication, entitled " Plant Food- 
 its Sources, Conservation, and Preparation," writes in reference to 
 nitrogen : 
 
 Nitrogen is so rare an article, the commercial sources of it being so few 
 that he who will discover a cheap commercial process for obtaining it from 
 the atmosphere and combining it in a form that will be servicable to crop pro- 
 duction not only will be a great benefactor and inventor but will change the 
 economy of living on this earth." 
 
 This is just what the Norwegian Co. has done. That was written 
 about two or three years ago, but they have done exactly what he 
 refers to here. 
 
90 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 3 COMPOUNDS N. S. P. F. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is that cyanamide? 
 
 Mr. DIPPEL. No ; it is not cyanamide. 
 
 We have presented briefs, giving in detail full particulars, which 
 we will be glad to have you incorporate into the record, and we do 
 not think any lengthy argument is necessary to show the committee 
 the great value which will accrue to the agricultural interests of the 
 country if this article is placed on the free list. 
 
 In order to make it obtainable to the American farmer all duty 
 must be eliminated, otherwise it can not compete with nitrate of soda, 
 sulphate of ammonia, and other ammoniates for fertilizing purposes 
 which are at the present time on the free lists. 
 
 Congress has always been in sympathy with the free importation 
 of fertilizing materials, and, as far as I know, no duty is at this time 
 imposed on an article used for this purpose. 
 
 In the Payne- Aldrich bill of 1909 these fertilizing materials, 
 namely, sulphate of ammonia, basic slag, cyanamide, andf lime nitro- 
 gen were all placed on the free list, while prior to the passage of that 
 act rates of duty of three-tenths of a cent a pound and $1 per ton 
 and 25 per cent, respectively, prevailed. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What is the amount of importation of this 
 product ? 
 
 Mr. DIPPEL. The importation now is limited, because it is only 
 used for explosive purposes. You are speaking of nitrate of am- 
 monia ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Is cyanamide on the free list now? 
 
 Mr. DIPPEL. Cyanamide is now on the free list, and also nitrate 
 of lime. In fact, there are no fertilizing materials that I know that 
 are not on the free list. If nitrate of ammonia is placed on the free 
 list, our company can import it to compete with nitrate of soda 
 and other ammoniates ; and we feel that after knowing the facts and 
 giving due consideration thereto you honorable committee will put 
 it on an equal basis with these articles. 
 
 100 WILLIAM STREET, 
 New York, January 16, 1913. 
 Honorable COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIRS : We. the United States agents for the Norwegian Hydro-Electric 
 Nitrogen Co. (Ltd.), do respectfully submit for your consideration the following 
 in the contemplated revision of the tariff: 
 
 Nitrate of ammonia. This material has been imported for several years for 
 the purpose of being used in the manufacture of safety explosives and also in 
 a limited way in the manufacture of nitrous oxide. Under paragraph 8 
 (H. R. 20182) a duty is proposed of three-quarters of a cent per pound, which, 
 at the present time, is a reasonable rate of duty on the material when nitrate 
 of ammonia is used for either of the aforesaid purposes. We do, however, 
 respectfully claim that 
 
 Nitrate of ammonia when used for fertilizing purposes should be placed on 
 the free list for the following reasons : 
 
 The development of the synthetical process for the manufacture of nitric acid 
 has made it possible to manufacture nitrate of ammonia in Norway at a price 
 so low that it can be used as a fertilizer. Nitrogen in the form of nitrates is 
 the most valuable form in which nitrogen is obtainable for fertilizing purposes, 
 and the ever-increasing demand in the United States, as evidenced by the 
 increased importations of nitrate of soda, shows conclusively that the United 
 States is not able to produce sufficient nitrogen for the requirements of the 
 country. In the Southeastern States Virginia, North Carolina, South Car- 
 olina, Georgia. Florida. Alabama. Tennessee, and Mississippi the consumption 
 
SCHEDULE A. 91 
 
 PAKAGBAPH 3 COMPOUNDS N. S. P. F. 
 
 of fertilizers for the year 1910 were, according to the 1910 United States census 
 advance reports, 3.761,972 ton?, a large percentage of which was in the form 
 of nitrogen. The demand for nitrates from the Northeastern States and Pacific 
 coast is also on the increase, and the consumption in the entire United States 
 will undoubtedly continue to increase steadily as the yield for each acre of 
 cultivated land in the United States, on the average, is only about one-half of 
 the yield obtained from most European soils of equal quality. Consequently it 
 is absolutely essential to secure fertilizer materials to be applied to the agri- 
 cultural lands in the United States. The sources of supply in the United States 
 are mainly from the waste substances of the slaughterhouses, such as dried 
 blood and tankage, which, naturally, are limited. 
 
 Nitrate of ammonia contains 35 per cent nitrogen and represents the most 
 concentrated form of nitrogen as a nitrate. This material, on account of its 
 highly concentrated form, will be a great benefit to the American farmers and 
 consumers. 
 
 The Norwegian Hydro-Electric Nitrogen Co. (Ltd.) can manufacture nitrate 
 of ammonia to compete with nitrate of soda and other ammoniates, if it is ad- 
 mitted free of duty. It is being used abroad in an experimental way, and the 
 company informs us that they are prepared to manufacture 60,000 tons, of 
 which 30.000 tons can be available for export to this side. 
 
 We commend this to the attention of your honorable committee, and we feel 
 that the benefits to be gained by the American farmer by the use of this article 
 can not be overestimated. 
 
 Yours, faithfully, C. TENNANT SONS & Co. OF NEW YORK. 
 
 E. O. LEMON, Vice President. 
 
 100 WILLIAM STREET, 
 New 1'orfc," January 29, 191S. 
 Honorable COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Subject: Nitrate of ammonia, which we think should now be placed upon the 
 free list in the interest of the American agriculturalist. 
 
 DEAR SIRS : We desire to supplement our brief of January 16 on this subject. 
 
 Nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash are the constituents most likely to be 
 deficient in soils or most quickly exhausted by the production and removal of 
 crops. They are known as essential fertilizing constituents, and a value of com- 
 mercial fertilizer is determined almost exclusively by the amount of form of the 
 nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash which it contains. 
 
 The Farmers' Bulletin, No. 44, page 12, United States Department of Agricul- 
 ture, says about nitrogen, " Nitrogen is the most expensive of the three essential 
 fertilizing elements. It exists in fertilizers in three distinct forms, viz, as an 
 organic matter, as ammonia, and as nitrate." 
 
 (1) Organic nitrogen. The most abundant supply of nitrogen occurs in or- 
 ganic forms, and the most available source of organic nitrogen, from the stand- 
 point of uniformity in composition, richness in the constituents, and availability 
 are dried blood, dried meat, and concentrated tankage, which are produced in 
 large quantities in slaughterhouses; also dried fish, refuse from fish oil and fish- 
 canning establishments; also the residue of cotton seed after the oil has been ex- 
 tracted. 
 
 (2) Nitrogen a-s ammonia. Nitrogen of ammonia exists in commercial prod- 
 ucts in the form of sulphate of ammonia ; it is more readily available than ni- 
 trogen in organic forms. Ammonia nitrogen is derived to-day almost exclusively 
 from sulphate of ammonia, the commercial product of which contains about 20 
 per cent of nitrogen ; this form of nitrogen is readily converted in the soil into 
 nitrate. 
 
 (3) Nitrogen as nitrate. Nitrogen as nitrate exists in commercial products 
 to-day in the form of nitrate of soda, nitrate of potash, and nitrate of lime. 
 These, like the ammonia compounds, are extremely soluble, and the nitrate con- 
 tained in them is readily available as food for plants. The nitrogen in this form 
 is directly and immediately available, no further change being necessary. The 
 main source of nitrate nitrogen is nitrate of soda; this Chile saltpeter contains 
 15.5 per cent nitrogen. 
 
92 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 4^HYDRATE OF ALUMINA. 
 
 Nitrate of lime has been placed on the market the last few years. It contains 
 13 per cent nitrogen, and is produced from synthetic nitric acid and limestone. 
 The development of the synthetic nitric acid and ammonia industry has made 
 it possible to manufacture nitrate of ammonia at a price low enough to permit 
 its use in Europe, and it could also become available to the American farmer in 
 the United States in competition with Chile saltpeter if put upon the free list. 
 
 The consumption of fertilizers in the Southern States was in 1911 approxi- 
 mately 4.250,000 tons, containing about 306.000 tons of nitrogen. For 1910 the 
 consumption, according to the 1910 United States Census Advance Report, was 
 3,761,972 tons. The demand for nitrogen has been increasing very rapidly over 
 the entire United States and must continue to gain as the demand for fertilizers 
 increases ; for example, the consumption of sulphate of ammonia in the United 
 States in the year 1900 was 36,011 tons, and for 1911, 230,743 tons. It is also a 
 fact that the importation of nitrate of soda from Chile shows an enormous in- 
 crease over the corresponding period. 
 
 One of the greatest problems to be solved in the United States is how to in- 
 crease the yield per acre of cultivated land under the various crops. To illus- 
 trate : 
 
 Germany : Bushels. 
 
 Rye 29 
 
 Barley 38 
 
 Oats 51 
 
 Potatoes _ _ 158 
 
 United States: Bushels. 
 
 Rye 16 
 
 Barley 21$ 
 
 Oats 25 
 
 Potatoes _83 
 
 England obtains a little more per acre than Germany. The difference in the 
 output between the United States and European countries lies in the lavish use 
 of fertilizers in Europe. All of the different kinds of fertilizers are now on the 
 free list nitrate of soda, nitrate of lime, sulphate of ammonia, tankage, fish 
 scraps, etc. and we now respectfully petition that nitrate of ammonia be placed 
 upon the free list, where, in all fairness, it seems to belong. 
 
 As shown by the foregoing, the economic production of nitrate of ammonia 
 is of recent origin ; the new industry has come into existence since the last tariff 
 act. Nitrate of ammonia has been imported into the United States in limited 
 quantities for the explosive industry. The argument here is exactly the same 
 as with nitrate of soda now imported from Chile which enters into the fertilizer 
 industries and is on the free list. 
 
 Yours, truly, C. TEN N ANT SONS & Co. OF NEW YORK. 
 
 WM. J. DIPPEL, Secretary. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 4. 
 
 Alumina, hydrate of, or refined bauxite, containing not more than sixty- 
 four per centum of alumina, four-tenths of one cent per pound; contain- 
 ing more than sixty-four per centum of alumina, six-tenths of one cent per 
 pound. Alum, alum cake, patent alum, sulphate of alumina, and aluminous 
 cake, containing not more than fifteen per centum of alumina and more than 
 three-tenths of one per centum of iron oxide, one-fourth of one cent per pound; 
 alum, alum cake, patent alum, sulphate of alumina, and aluminous cake, 
 containing more than fifteen per centum of alumina, or not more than three- 
 tenths of one per centum of iron oxide, three-eighths of one cent per pound. 
 
 HYDRATE OF ALUMINA. 
 
 STATEMENT OF AUSTIN M. PURVES, REPRESENTING THE 
 PENNSYLVANIA SALT MANUFACTURING CO. 
 
 Mr. PURVES. I have the honor to represent before you, gentlemen, 
 the Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Co., in whose behalf I request 
 your attention in connection with the proposed reduction of the duty 
 on- 
 Air. HARRISON (interposing). Please give your name. 
 Mr. PURVES. A. M. Purves. 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. To what paragraph are you referring ? 
 
SCHEDULE A. 93 
 
 PABAGBAPH 4 HYDRATE OP ALUMINA. 
 
 Mr. PURVES. Paragraph 4. 
 
 The duty proposed under the act known as House bill No. 20182 
 is fixed at 15 per cent ad valorem. This duty we beg to submit is not 
 sufficient to compensate for the difference in cost of manufacture 
 between the United States and foreign countries and this principally 
 on account of the element of labor entering into the proposition. 
 The average of labor in Germany and England is a dollar per day. as 
 compared with an average rate of $2.25 a day in this country. As 
 the item of labor in the manufacture of alumina approximates 40 per 
 cent of the total cost, it is seen at a glance that the proposed duty 
 does not compensate for this one single element of cost. 
 
 The duty now current under the Payne bill of four-tenths of a 
 cent per pound on hydrate of alumina containing not more than 64 
 per cent of alumina, and six-tenths of a cent per pound when it con- 
 tarns more than 64 per cent alumina, amounts to only 25 per cent ad 
 valorem, and is insufficient to maintain the current rate of wages on 
 this side. The industry has been made possible of maintenance in the 
 United States through the large demand abroad for alumina products; 
 but this has been met by increased production in England, Germany, 
 and France, with the result that longing eyes are now being cast upon 
 the great markets of the United States, made so attractive by the 
 low rate of duty prevailing under our present tariff law. This im- 
 portant industry, now aggregating a production of 100,000 tons per 
 annum, demands, we believe, careful consideration in connection 
 with the economic measure now before your honorable committee, 
 and we beg to request your favorable attitude as applied to the 
 current rates of duty, to wit, four-tenths of a cent per pound on 
 hydrate and six-tenths of a cent on calcined as necessary to the integ- 
 rity of the alumina industry in the United States. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., January 2, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chaii~man Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: I have the honor to represent before you the Pennsylvania Salt Manu- 
 facturing Co., in whose behalf I respectfully request your attention in connection 
 with the proposed reduction of duty on hydrate of alumina, etc. 
 
 The duty proposed under the act known as House bill 20182 is fixed at 15 per cent 
 ad valorem. This duty we beg to submit is not sufficient to compensate for the dif- 
 ference in cost of manufacture between the United States and foreign countries, and 
 this principally on account of the element of labor entering into the proposition. The 
 average of wages in England and Germany is $1 per day, as compared with an average 
 rate of $2.25 per day in this country. As the item of labor in the manufacture of 
 alumina approximates 40 per cent of the total cost, it is seen at a glance that the pro- 
 posed duty does not compensate for this one single element of cost. 
 
 The duty now current under the Payne bill of four-tenths cent per pound on hydrate 
 of alumina containing not more than 64 per cent of alumina and six-tenths cent per 
 pound when it contains more than 64 per cent alumina amounts to only 25 per cent 
 ad valorem and is insufficient to maintain the current rate of wages on this side. The 
 industry has been made possible of maintenance in the United States through the 
 large demand abroad for alumina products, but this has been met by increased pro- 
 duction in England, Germany, and France, with the result that longing eyes are now 
 being cast upon the great markets of the United States made so attractive by the low 
 rate of duty prevailing under our present tariff law. 
 
 This important industry now aggregating a production of 100,000 tons per annum 
 demands, we believe, careful consideration, in connection with the economic measure 
 now before your honorable committee, and we beg to request your favorable attitude 
 as applied to the current rates of duty, to-wit, four-tenths cent per pound on hydrate 
 
94 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 4^-HYDRATE OF ALUMINA. 
 
 and six-tenths cent on calcined, as necessary to the integrity of the alumina industry 
 in the United States. 
 
 We have the honor to be, very respectfully, 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA SALT MANUFACTURING Co. 
 
 AUSTIN M. PURVES, Vice President. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY THE MERRIMAC CHEMICAL CO., 
 BOSTON, MASS. 
 
 JANUARY, 1, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. G. 
 DEAR SIR: On behalf of the Merrimac Chemical Co., I beg to sub- 
 mit the following brief for the consideration of your committee in 
 connection with its investigations regarding tariff: 
 
 HYDRATE OF ALUMINA, ETC. 
 
 Paragraph 4 of the act of 1909 provides as follows: 
 
 "Alumina, hydrate of, or refined bauxite, containing not more than 
 sixty-four per centum of alumina, four-tenths of one cent per pound ; 
 containing more than sixty-four per centum of alumina, six-tenths of 
 one cent per pound. Alum, alum cake, patent alum, sulphate of 
 alumina, and aluminous cake, containing not more than fifteen per 
 centum of alumina and more than three-tenths of one per centum of 
 iron oxide, one-fourth of one cent per pound ; alum, alum cake, patent 
 alum, sulphate of alumina, and aluminous cake, containing more than 
 fifteen per centum of alumina, or not more than three-tenths of one 
 per centum of iron oxide, three-eighths of one cent per pound." 
 
 The rates and the classifications as provided in the above paragraph 
 wo believe should be maintained. 
 
 Hydrate of alumina is produced from bauxite. It is essentially 
 refined bauxite in that, if the impurities are removed from the crude 
 bauxite, hydrate of alumina is the resultant product. It was origi- 
 nally entered into this country free of duty under the head of "refined 
 bauxite," but it was subsequently made dutiable. 
 
 Hydrate of alumina contains commercially' about 64 per cent of 
 alumina and about 36 per cent of water and is used for two distinct 
 purposes: (1) For the production of salts of alumina by dissolving it 
 in acids; and (2) for the production of aluminum. When it is used 
 to produce salts of alumina, the water content is not objectionable, 
 but. when used for the production of aluminum, it is necessary that 
 it should first bo calcined in order to drive off the water. As hydrate 
 of alumina may or may not contain water, according as it is to be 
 used, the distinction for the purpose of assessing a duty is drawn at 
 64 per cent alumina content. 
 
 The experience of the Merrimac Chemical Co. has been somewhat 
 as follows: 
 
 In ls()4 we secured from Russia, at much trouble and expense, a 
 process for the manufacture of hydrate of alumina. In the following 
 year we erected a plant and started operation; but shortly thereafter 
 a duty of 81 a ton was placed upon bauxite, with the result that our 
 profits from the manufacture of hydrate of alumina were so reduced 
 that we were unable to enlarge our plant in any way whatsoever. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 95 
 
 PARAGRAPH 4 HYDRATE OF ALUMINA. 
 
 If the duty on hydrate of alumina is to be reduced, as contemplated 
 in the bill drafted last year and known as "H. K. 20182," it will be 
 impossible for our manufacturers to compete with those manufac- 
 turing abroad. 
 
 SULPHATE OF ALUMINA, ALUM, ETC. 
 
 The distinction in the amount of iron oxide content, in regard to 
 alum, etc., is made *f or the purposes of separating the high-cost from 
 the low-cost alums. Alums containing more than -^ per cent of iron 
 oxide are presumably made by dissolving bauxite in acid and are 
 cheaper than those containing less than ^ per cent of iron oxide, 
 which are presumably made from hydrate of alumina. The further 
 distinction in regard to the alumina content in the alums is made 
 for the following reasons: It is possible to concentrate the low-grade 
 alums by driving off all the water and thereby greatly enhance the 
 value. In other words, the low-grade alums, irrespective of the iron- 
 oxide content, may be greatly ei hinced by concentration, and, on 
 the oth T hand, those alums with a low percentage of iron oxide are 
 more valuable than those with a high percentage of iron oxide, irre- 
 spective of concentration. 
 
 For these reasons we believe that the classifications as set forth in 
 paragraph 4 of the present tariff act are advisable and should be 
 maintained. 
 
 Alum, alum cake, sulphate of alumina, etc., from 1898 until August 
 5, 1909, carried a specific duty of one-half cent per pound. During 
 this period the importations were only approximately 2,500,000 
 pounds, with an annual revenue of from $10,000 to $13,000. By the 
 provisions of the tariff act of 1909 the duty was changed, so that 
 alum, alum cake, etc., containing not more than 15 per cent of alu- 
 mina and more than ^ per cent of iron oxide, carried a duty of one- 
 fourth cent per pound; while alum, alum cake, etc., containing more 
 than 15 per cent of alumina, or not more than -fo per cent of iron 
 oxide, carry a duty of three-eighths cent per pound. The imports 
 for 1911 show an increase of approximately 1,250,000 pounds, or in 
 excess of 50 per cent. 
 
 This increase in importation would undoubtedly have been much 
 larger but for the conditions existing in the industry in this country. 
 For the past five or six years competition has been so active in these 
 various grades of alum that the prices have been reduced to a point 
 where there is not only no profit but an actual loss to the factories 
 which are not most favorably located; and, while business can be 
 carried on in this way for a number of years by strong concerns, it is 
 not likely to be continued indefinitely. Eventually, the natural laws 
 must control, and the manufacturers will either abandon or restrict 
 their output until business shows a normal profit. With the duty 
 as at present any increase in price would undoubtedly enormously 
 increase the proportion of importations. This increase of importa- 
 tions is not going to affect manufacturers of the country equitably, 
 owing to the fact that the value of alum cake is so low that the cost 
 of transportation or freight rates form an effectual protection for the 
 manufacturer located in the interior of the country. If the tariff is 
 fixed at a rate purposely intended to stimulate importations of the 
 
96 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 4 HYDRATE OF ALUMINA. 
 
 various grades of alum which are consumed in this country, it will 
 simply mean the annihilation of that part of the industry which is 
 located along the Atlantic seaboard, while that part of the industry 
 which is located hi the interior will not be affected materially, if at 
 all, as the freight rates will furnish ample protection. 
 
 Furthermore, in alum as in many other articles, America is con- 
 sidered the dumping ground for surplus product abroad. We there- 
 fore feel that the reduction of duty brought about by the Payne bill, 
 which reduction amounted to 100 per cent of the present tariff on 
 one grade and 33J per cent on the other grade, was indeed radical, 
 and a further reduction should not be made. 
 
 Conclusion. In conclusion, it is submitted that the rates and 
 classifications contained in paragraph 4 of the act of 1909 should be 
 maintained. 
 
 SULPHURIC ACIDS. 
 
 Paragraph 687 of the act of 1909 provides as follows: 
 
 "Sulphuric acid which at the temperature of sixty degrees Fahren- 
 heit does not exceed the specific gravity of one and three hundred and 
 eighty one-thousandths, for use in manufacturing superphosphate of 
 lime or artificial manures of any kind, or for any agricultural pur- 
 poses: Provided, That upon all sulphuric acid imported from any 
 country, whether independent or a dependency, which imposes a 
 duty upon sulphuric acid imported into such country from the United 
 States, there shall be levied and collected a duty of one-fourth of one 
 cent per pound." 
 
 Paragraph 1 of the act of 1909 provides that * * * "Sulphuric 
 acid or oil of vitriol not specially provided for in this section, one- 
 fourth of one cent per pound." 
 
 Paragraph 77 of the proposed bill known as "H. R. 20182" places 
 sulphuric acid and oil of vitriol on the free list without making any 
 proviso. We believe that the proviso contained in paragraph 687, 
 as above set forth, should be retained in any revision of the tariff act. 
 This vitally affects the manufacturers along the Canadian border line. 
 If the American market is to be thrown open to Canadian manufac- 
 turers, the American manufacturers should have equal opportunities 
 in the Canadian market. This can only be effected by some such 
 provision in our tariff law as above set forth. 
 
 BAUXITE. 
 
 Under section 90 of the act of 1909, bauxite is assessed a duty of 
 SI a ton, the language of the act being as follows: " Bauxite, or 
 beauxite. crude, not refined or otherwise advanced in condition from 
 its natural state, one dollar per ton." * * * 
 
 Bauxite is distinctly a raw material, and it is our contention that 
 it should be placed on the ''free list." 
 
 There are two distinct kinds of bauxite, one of the character of the 
 American bauxite, commonly known as "white" bauxite, and con- 
 taining less than 10 per cent of iron oxide, and the other known as 
 "red" bauxite, containing more than 10 per cent of iron oxide, and 
 mined almost exclusively in foreign countries, particularly France. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 97 
 
 PARAGRAPH 4 HYDRATE OP ALUMINA. 
 
 The "white/' or American, bauxite contains 47 per cent to 57 per 
 cent alumina, iron oxide not exceeding 10 per cent, and from 6 per 
 cent to 20 per cent of silica. The better qualities of this bauxite are 
 used in the manufacture of sulphate of alumina, in the manufacture 
 of which a high percentage or silica is not objectionable, while a 
 high percentage or iron is very detrimental. 
 
 The ordinary "red" bauxite contains 58 per cent to 60 per cent of 
 alumina, 18 per cent to 22 per cent iron oxide, and 2 per cent to 4 
 per cent silica. This "red bauxite is used principally in the pro- 
 duction of alumina, which is the principal source 01 aluminum used 
 in the manufacture of the metal aluminum. In the refining process 
 of this "red" bauxite the high percentage of iron is not objectionable, 
 while a high percentage of silica content is almost fatal to economical 
 manufacture. Thus it is apparent that the American, or "white," 
 bauxite and the "red" bauxite, which constitutes the greater portion 
 of the foreign importation being distinct in their character and pur- 
 pose, are not in serious competition with each other. 
 
 An effort was made at the last tariff revision in 1908-9 to have the 
 duty on bauxite increased from $1 a ton to $2 a ton on the ground 
 that the American mines could not compete with the foreign mines. 
 
 We do not believe that importations of bauxite interfere in the 
 slightest with our American mines, nor do we believe that the output 
 of our American mines would be affected if bauxite were placed on 
 the free list. The following are our reasons for this opinion: 
 
 (1) As already stated, the "red" bauxite, which constitutes the 
 bulk of the foreign importation, is used for different purposes than 
 the "white" bauxite, which is mined in this country. The only 
 important exception to this statement that we know of is the Arkansas 
 bauxite used by the Aluminum Co. of America in their works near St. 
 Louis. The Arkansas mines in question are, we understand, owned 
 and operated by the Aluminum Co. of America, and it is most im- 
 probable that their operations would be in the least curtailed by the 
 removal of the duty because the inland freight on the imported ore 
 would be prohibitive. 
 
 (2) Our American mines have shown a steadily increasing output, 
 and there is no indication that the development of these mines has 
 been or is likely to be retarded by the importation of foreign bauxite. 
 
 According to the Mineral Industry for 1911, which is the most 
 accurate and official estimate of mineral productions published in 
 the United States, there were produced in the United States in 1911 
 155,618 tons of bauxite. This is somewhat larger than the output 
 in 1910 and 1909, and three times the output in 1908. In 1911 there 
 were imported into this country 43,222 tons of bauxite, but the 
 major portion of this importation was "red" bauxite, which, as 
 already explained, is not really in conflict with our American ore. 
 
 It is submitted that when due consideration is given to the fact 
 that the American output of bauxite has tripled since 1908, and 
 when it is considered how small has been the importation of "white" 
 bauxite under the present duty, it will be apparent that our American 
 producers of bauxite do not require the protection of this $1 duty. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 1 
 
98 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 5 AMMONIA. 
 
 Conclusion. To place bauxite on the free list would surely stimu- 
 late the aluminum industry and would not, in our judgment, seri- 
 ously affect our American mine owners, because, as already explained, 
 the American markets for the imported and domestic ore are to a 
 large extent separate and distinct. 
 
 Furthermore, should it be deemed advisable to maintain a duty 
 on our American bauxite, a distinction may be made between the 
 "red" and the "white" bauxite, and the duty removed on the 
 former. This may be effected by providing that bauxite containing 
 in excess of 10 per cent of iron (Fe^) shall be entered free, and 
 bauxite containing less than 10 per cent iron shall pay a duty of $1 
 a ton. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 S. W. WILDER, President. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 5. 
 
 Ammonia, carbonate of, one and one-half cents per pound; muriate of, or 
 sal ammoniac, three-fourths of one cent per pound; liquid anhydrous, five 
 cents per pound. 
 
 AMMONIA. 
 
 BRIEF OF THE MICHIGAN AMMONIA WORKS. 
 
 DETROIT, MICH., January 2, 1918. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: As manufacturers of aqua ammonia and carbonate 
 ammonia we beg to submit our most earnest protest against a pos- 
 sible reduction in the duties on these two articles. 
 
 Aqua ammonia. The gradual increasing cost of the raw material, 
 the continuous advances in labor in this country against cheap labor 
 and cheap material of foreign countries, has handicapped the manu- 
 facture of this article considerably. The manufacture requires an 
 expensive plant, careful and conscientious attention, and only a large 
 production permits the American manufacturer to operate on a 
 small margin if the duty will at least remain at its present state. 
 A standard of a high-grade article must be maintained on account 
 of the efficiency expected from aqua ammonia in its ultimate appli- 
 cation. A reduction of duty would not result in any advantages to 
 the individual at large. 
 
 Carbonate ammonia. The manufacture of this article requires an 
 expensive plant and very careful attention to the process. Its 
 consumption is confined practically in the baking of sweet baked 
 goods by the bakers in this country and is limited to a compara- 
 tively small consumption. Largely on account of the limited con- 
 sumption we can operate this plant a few months in the year only. 
 The foreign manufacturers have considerable advantages over us. 
 Their cost of labor is about half of ours. Their cost of raw material 
 is much less than ours. Their larger production gives them the 
 advantage over us by lessening their total cost. They are in posi- 
 tion to maintain profitable prices at home and use the foreign markets 
 
SCHEDULE A. 99 
 
 PARAGRAPH 6 ARGOLS. 
 
 to dispose of their surplus production at a low price and sometimes 
 below cost. 
 
 High cost of labor and material together with the increased cost of 
 manufacture on account of the limited home consumption bj the 
 American market make it absolutely necessary to at least retain the 
 present duty in order to permit the domestic manufacturer to con- 
 tinue the production of this article. 
 
 A possible reduction of duty on this product would in no way 
 benefit the ultimate consumer. Less than a pound of carbonate 
 ammonia is used to a barrel of flour, yielding about 400 pounds of 
 sweet baked goods. The carbonate ammonia is sold at 8 to 9 cents 
 per pound and fractionally higher for small quantities. 
 
 If therefore the present tariff on these products would be decreased 
 it would eventually involve the American manufacturer into a very 
 serious loss, and we respectfully and urgently ask you not to decrease 
 the present duties of these articles. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 MICHIGAN AMMONIA WORKS, 
 GEORGE Osius, 
 
 Secretary and Treasurer. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 6. 
 
 Argols or crude tartar or wine lees crude, five per centum ad valorem ; tartars 
 and lees crystals, or partly refined argols, containing not more than ninety 
 per centum of bitartrate of potash, and tartrate of soda or potassa, or Bochelle 
 salts, three cents per pound; containing more than ninety per centum of bitar- 
 trate of potash, four cents per pound; cream of tartar and patent tartar, five 
 cents per pound. 
 
 For cream tartar, etc., see also Charles Pfizer & Co. (Inc.), page 44; for argols, see 
 also Harshaw Fuller & Goodwin Co., page 45. 
 
 ARGOLS. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY CALIFORNIA FIRMS REGARD- 
 ING DUTY ON CREAM OF TARTAR. 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO, January 6, 1913. 
 To the honorable REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS 
 FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN : We urgently commend to your attention the attached 
 communications to the Hon. Burton Harrison, chairman of a sub- 
 committee of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House, 
 relating to H. R. 20182. 
 
 No doubt you will agree with us that tariff provisions should not 
 be enacted which, at best, can procure but a very slight reduction in 
 cost for the ultimate consumer by destroying a domestic manufac- 
 turing industry, and with it the market for a domestic raw material, 
 with consequent loss to American labor interested in both. 
 
 We submit this additional thought: That the principal article 
 affected by the reduction in section 9 of said bill, cream of tartar, 
 is mainly used in the manufacture of baking powder; and that the 
 resulting reduction in the market price of one of its ingredients will 
 
100 TARIFF HEAETWGS. 
 
 PABAGBAFH 6 ABOOLS. 
 
 not be sufficient to affect the retail prices of this article, thus favoring 
 only its manufacturers and distributers. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 CALIFORNIA WINE ASSOCIATION. 
 
 GUNDLACH-BUNDSCHU WlNE Co. (INC.). 
 
 ITALIAN Swiss COLONY. 
 NAPA & SONOMA WINE Co. 
 LACHMAN & JACOBI. 
 WETMORE-BOWEN. 
 ARTHUR LACHMAN & Co. 
 THE ROSENBLATT Co. 
 B. ARNHOLD & Co. 
 AMERICAN CREAM TARTAR Co. 
 
 GRAPE GROWERS' ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, 
 
 San Francisco, Col., January 6, 1913. 
 Hon. BURTON HARRISON, 
 
 Chairman, Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: House Bill No. 20182 increases the duty on argols (crude tartar or wine 
 lees), apparently favoring the American wine industry, of which argols are a by- 
 product. 
 
 The marketing of this product in California, where the industry is mainly located, 
 has been made possible in recent years only through the establishment on this coast 
 of a refining plant, producing therefrom cream of tartar, tartaric acid, and Rochelle 
 salts; and on these the same bill makes a 50 per cent reduction. See sections 9 
 and 1. 
 
 We have reason to believe that such an increase in duty on its raw material and a 
 reduction on the finished product will seriously cripple, if not ruin, this local industry; 
 thus destroying instead of improving our market for argols. 
 
 Aside from the freight handicap in marketing this by-product on the Atlantic 
 coast, it seems likely that this tariff will destroy even that meager opportunity by 
 opening the way for foreign countries to supply the entire American requirements 
 of cream of tartar and the other products from wine lees. 
 
 A tariff giving us a more remunerative price for argols would, of course, be welcome; 
 but we protest against a change that tends to kill the industry which is the only 
 outlet for this product. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 E. M. SHEEHAN, President. 
 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO, January 6, 1913. 
 Hon. BURTON HARRISON, 
 
 Chairman Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: As grape growers and wine manufacturers, we are urged by mutual 
 interests to join in and earnestly indorse the representations made to your committee, 
 under even date, by the Grape Growers' Association of California in reference to 
 House bill No. 20182. 
 
 ITALIAN-SWISS COLONY. 
 CALIFORNIA WINE ASSOCIATION. 
 
 GUNDLACH-BUNDSCHU WlNE Co. (INC.). 
 
 ARTHUR LACHMAN Co. 
 NAPA & SONOMA WINE Co. 
 LACHMAN & JACOBI. 
 WETMORE-BOWEN Co. 
 THE ROSENBLATT Co. 
 B. ARNHOLD Co. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 101 
 
 PARAGRAPH 6 ARQOLS. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF THE ITALIAN CHAMBER OF COMMEECE, 1TEW 
 
 YORK CITY. 
 
 Hon. O. W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. 0. 
 
 HONORABLE SIR: The Italian Chamber of Commerce in New York, 
 an organization representing the commercial interests of a community 
 of over 600,000 consumers and dealers in this city, and of a still greater 
 number distributed in various States in the Union reached through 
 this market, desire to submit to this honorable committee the follow- 
 ing recommendations concerning the revisions of Schedule A of the 
 tariff act of August 5, 1909, now under consideration. 
 
 To make its position clear as to the interests it represents, this 
 organization states at the outset that while it was established for the 
 promotion of reciprocal trade relations between Italy and this country, 
 where its members have made their permanent home, the scope of the 
 interests it represents is not confined to imported articles, but extends, 
 by reason of the correlated necessities of trade, to a wider field, includ- 
 ing many commodities of domestic productions which enter their 
 business. 
 
 This chamber is an exponent of commercial interests with which 
 Italo-American communities living in this country have been identi- 
 fied, irrespective of the origin of the articles exchanged, as well as of 
 the consumers whose needs they supply. 
 
 The unbiased character of tne motives bv which it is moved to 
 submit recommendations respecting the revision of the tariff thus 
 appears manifest. 
 
 In recommending the changes in the rates of duties herein explained 
 this chamber has not been unmindful of the many issues implied in 
 tariff legislation, of which some of the most important are: The neces- 
 sity of raising revenue; the offsetting of the difference in the cost of 
 production of an article between this and foreign countries; the 
 relieving, as much as possible, from taxation of articles necessary to 
 the livelihood and comfort of the people; the lightening of fiscal 
 burdens on raw materials necessary to American industries; the 
 interests of the ultimate consumers in the case of products of industry 
 necessary to manufacturers of other products; and is aware of the 
 difficult task of reconciling these various and often contrasting issues 
 so that a tarn? may result of which, rather than the fiscal side, its 
 function in relation to the economic life of the Nation may stand out 
 conspicuously. 
 
 This chamber believes that the changes of rates hereby recom- 
 mended are not only La accord with the interests it vouches, but also 
 harmonize with the fundamental principles above stated, upon which 
 the present revision is conducted, and trusts that they will receive 
 due consideration from this committee. 
 
 Argols and wine lees. This raw material, necessary to American 
 industry, is not produced, save in irrelevant quantity, in the United 
 States and is imported from the countries of southern Europe at 
 the rate annually of about 28,250,000 pounds. Argols are a by- 
 product of the wine industry and the only visible source of raw 
 material for the production of cream of tartar, tartaric acid, and 
 
102 TABIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 6 ARGOLS. 
 
 Rochelle salts, tartaric products not having been obtained yet by 
 any synthetic process. 
 
 Many are the uses of these finished products: Tartaric acid (of 
 which about 3,000,000 pounds are yearly manufactured in this coun- 
 try) in dyeing and printing of fabrics, in the preparation of medicinal 
 compounds, and as a substitute of citric acid in the manufacture of 
 beverages ; cream of tartar, in medicines and food products, especially 
 in the form of baking powders, in the preparation of which probably 
 more than one-half of the whole output (estimated yearly at about 
 25,000,000 pounds) is absorbed; and Rochelle salts, used pharma- 
 ceutically. 
 
 Baking powders are a household necessity. There is practically 
 no family, however modest in circumstances, in whose grocery bill 
 baking powders are not an item. 
 
 It is important, from the standpoint of health, that the use of bak- 
 ing powders made from cream of tartar be encouraged in preference 
 to less healthful preparations of a similar denomination, such as the 
 phosphate and alum baking powders. To this end it is necessary 
 that the cost of baking powders should not increase, as a higher 
 price would be felt widely, and in some measure add to the already 
 nigh cost of living. 
 
 If the purpose of the present tariff revision is, as this chamber 
 understands, to relieve raw materials bearing upon the necessities of 
 life from fiscal burdens and to bring about by fiscal legislation such 
 conditions as will promote a reduction in, or at least prevent an 
 increase of, the cost of living, then the advisability of leaving 
 unchanged the present rate of 5 per cent on argols, or crude tartar, 
 is manifest, if they can not be returned, as in former tariffs, to the 
 free list; while on partly refined argols, containing no more than 90 
 per cent of bitartrate ol potash, a rate of 10 per cent, and, on those 
 containing more than 90 per cent, a rate of 2 cents per pound would 
 appear fair for revenue purposes. 
 
 On cream of tartar and tartaric acid this chamber recommends, in 
 lieu of the present high duties, the rates, respectively, of 2 and 3 
 cents per pound, which appear sufficient for reasonable protection 
 to the manufacturer, without leaving the consumers entirely at the 
 discretion of the latter. 
 
 Citrate of lime. For like reasons citrate of lime should be main- 
 tained on the free list. It is a raw material, imported chiefly from 
 Sicily (5,219,544 pounds in fiscal year 1911), used in the manufacture 
 of citric acid, of which over 2,000,000 pounds are yearly produced in 
 the United States. Citric acid enters largely into the preparation of 
 pharmaceutical compounds and of temperance beverages, so healthful 
 in our climate. 
 
 The importations of citrate of lime have shown during the last 
 years a tendency to increase, owing to the greater demand of citric 
 acid for the above-stated purpose. As it is an article not produced 
 in the United States, and as its market in the country of production 
 has been organized to eliminate the fluctuations in prices formerly 
 ruling in this raw material, its continuation on the free list, while not 
 prejudicial to any American industry, would obviate increase in the 
 price of citric acid and allied products, otherwise unavoidable. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 103 
 
 PARAGRAPH 6 ARGOLS. 
 
 Because of the fact that few houses control the manufacture of 
 citric acid in this country protection of the interests of consumers 
 suggests the advisability of a reduction from the present prohibitive 
 rate to one affording better guaranties against monopoly. 
 
 Lemon juice. In line with the arguments for free citrate of lime 
 are those for free lemon juice, an article not produced in this country, 
 used in the preparation of medicinal compounds and of cooling drinlts, 
 the consumption of which should be encouraged in the interest of 
 public healtn, against that of poor and often noxious substitutes. 
 
 With a high protective tariff on lemons, depriving the consumer of 
 small means of this healthful commodity, some avenue should be left 
 open to him for getting, during the hot days of summer, the refreshing, 
 thirst-quenching benefits of its juice, while by encouraging the utiliza- 
 tion of culls in the manufacture of juice and eliminating them from 
 the fruit market the latter is benefited also to the advantage of 
 domestic production. 
 
 Boracic acid and borax. The maintaining on boracic acid of a duty 
 other than for revenue purposes is hardly understandable, considering 
 the natural advantages possessed by this country for its production, 
 averaging yearly about 3,000 tons against a little over 155 tons 
 imported (during the fiscal year 1911). 
 
 The markedly declining tendency in the importations of this article, 
 used chiefly in the manufacture of glass and as an antiseptic, and at 
 present protected with a duty of 3 cents per pound, equivalent to a 
 protection of about 80 per cent, shows that the reduction of the 
 duty to a more reasonable rate is advisable, and this chamber indorses 
 the proposed rate of three-fourths of 1 cent per pound contained in 
 H. K. 20182, as well as the reduction of the present rate of 2 cents per 
 pound to one-eighth of 1 cent per pound on refined borax. 
 
 The production of borax in the United States is almost entirely 
 controlled by one firm, and amounts annually to about 20,000 tons. 
 It is largely used for cleansing purposes, in the manufacture of soap, 
 and in that of glass and earthenware. 
 
 Crude borate, of which this country produced 41,434 tons in 1909, 
 should be placed on the free list. 
 
 Licorice root and extract. Licorice root, a raw material not pro- 
 duced in this country and imported chiefly from southern Europe 
 and Asia Minor to the amount of $2,060,561 in fiscal year 1911, is 
 used in the preparation of licorice extract, and the latter is utilized 
 in flavoring tobacco and for medicinal purposes. It should be main- 
 tained on the free list as a necessary material to industrial use, identi- 
 fied with the prosperity of an important American industry, and in 
 the interest of consumption of American tobacco. 
 
 A specific duty equivalent to 15 per cent on licorice extract would 
 be preferable to one ad valorem, owing to the difficulty of ascertain- 
 ing the market price of said commodity in the countries of origin. 
 
 Sumac and tannic extracts. The removal of duties on hides and 
 undressed skins, accomplished by the tariff act of 1909, aimed at 
 counterbalancing the increase in the cost of raw materials, due to the 
 fact that production does not keep apace with consumption and the 
 consequent reaction on the cost or leather manufacturers, which has 
 to be paid by the ultimate consumer. 
 
104 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 6 ARQOLS. 
 
 Tanning materials being an important factor in determining the 
 cost of leather, it is evident that tney should be relieved as much as 
 possible from fiscal burdens. 
 
 The scarcity in the domestic supply of tanning materials will make 
 itself felt in the near future, as the deforestation of the hemlock, oak, 
 and chestnut forests, from which are derived most of the materials 
 now employed in the tannery, proceeds with alarming rapidity. 
 
 The importation of tanning materials should therefore be encour- 
 aged in the interest of the American tanning industry, and among 
 these is ground sumac, used in the tanning of upper leather. 
 
 The duty on ground sumac should be lowered from the present 
 rate of three-tenths of 1 cent per pound, equivalent to about 16 per 
 cent ad valorem, to one-fifth or 1 cent per pound, equivalent to about 
 10 per cent ad valorem; and the importation or tannic extracts 
 should be encouraged by reason of economy in freight, labor, and 
 waste material in comparison to the raw materials, with tangible 
 reductions in the duties. On sumac extract, instead of the present 
 rate of five-eighths of 1 cent per pound, the duty should be fixed at 
 three-eighths of 1 cent, and on chestnut extract reduced from the 
 present rate of 15 per cent to three-eighths of 1 cent per pound. 
 
 Although some sumac and sumac extract are produced in the 
 United States, namely, in Virginia, Sicily supplies most of this com- 
 modity, Sicilian sumac yielding the lightest and most esteemed ex- 
 tract, used not only in the tanning of leather but also in the textile 
 industry. 
 
 Oils of lemon, orange, and bergamot. These essential oils are not 
 produced in the United States, are supplied almost entirely by Sicily 
 (in fiscal year 1911, lemon, pounds, 430,768, valued $323,552; orange, 
 pounds, 73,804, valued $100,115; and bergamot, pounds, 65,199, 
 valued $222,225), are used chiefly in perfumery and, save bergamot, 
 as flavorings in beverages, confectionery, and pharmaceutical 
 preparations. 
 
 They are at present on the free list, where they have been for many 
 years, with the exception of orange oil, upon which at the last tariff 
 revision a duty at first of $1 per pound, and then, upon protest, of 
 25 per cent was assessed. The imposition of a duty caused a decrease 
 in the importations of orange oil from 92,077 pounds hi fiscal year 
 1905 to 73,804 pounds in fiscal year 1911. 
 
 Bergamot is not grown in the United States and no manufacture 
 either of lemon or orange oil exists or can be established in California 
 on account of the high cost of labor, which does not admit of the 
 extraction of the essential oils by hand, while no efficient machinery 
 has yet been devised that will render the extraction of these oils 
 industrially possible. 
 
 Protection can not be a valid argument in regard to these articles, 
 because, as no domestic production exists, there is nothing to protect. 
 Identified as they are with the success of important lines of American 
 industry (perfumery, beverages, confectionery, etc.), lemon and ber- 
 gamot oil should be continued on the free list and orange oil should 
 be returned to it. 
 
 If, however, for revenue purposes, a duty should be deemed una- 
 voidable, which in the end would have to be paid by the consumer, 
 
SCHEDULE A. 105 
 
 PARAGRAPH 6 ARGOLS. 
 
 this chamber recommends that, instead of an ad valorem, as pro- 
 posed in H. R. 20182, a specific rate, equivalent to the proposed 20 
 per cent rate ad valorem, be charged, in order to avoid the difficulty 
 of assessment and the consequent fines to importers, through no fault 
 of their own, which are apt to be encountered by an ad valorem rate. 
 
 Olive oil. Olive oil, wnich only a score of years ago was imported 
 in comparatively small amount, nas become of late years an impor- 
 tant article of food, owing to the demand created by tne notable num- 
 ber of immigrants from southern Europe, in whose diet this article is 
 an important item, as well as to the extension of its use among natives. 
 
 In fact, while the importations of edible olive oil in 1892 amounted 
 to only 706,486 gallons, they reached in 1911 a total of 4,405,827 gal- 
 lons. 
 
 From the above figures, showing the remarkable progress in its 
 consumption, the classification of ouve oil under Scheaule A (chemi- 
 cals, etc.), appears rather out of date. Edible olive oil would be 
 more properly classified under Schedule G (agricultural products), 
 because olive oil destined to industrial use represents now the smaller 
 amount of importations (in fiscal year 1911, 578,477 gallons, against 
 4,405,827 gallons of edible olive oil). 
 
 Olive oil, for many of our people, even of small means, who have 
 come from southern Europe, wnere this food practically takes the 
 place of butter in the diet of the people, is an article of prime neces- 
 sity, and its beneficial use, either medicinally or as an article of food, 
 is becoming more recognized also among our native population. The 
 importation of olive ofl has steadily and notably increased during the 
 last two decades. 
 
 The olive-oil industry in California is still in its infancy. It has 
 had a checkered career and passed through periods of inflation, when 
 planting was general in sections where the climate and localities were 
 altogether unsuitabls, so that hi many places planting had to be 
 stopped and many of the trees previously planted had to be rooted 
 out. 
 
 The planting of olive trees in unsuitable conditions, inexperience 
 in the cultural methods and in the best ways of preparing the oil, 
 the fact that the olive tree required many years before bearing full 
 crops, the scarcity of labor existing in that State, while the gathering 
 of the olives is an operation that has to be performed by hand, aJj 
 these facts show that the conditions of olive culture in California are 
 not such as to enable it to supply this commodity at a reasonable cost 
 in any quantity adequate to the requirements of consumption. 
 
 Although the production of olive oil in California is stated to have 
 been of 920,000 gallons in 1911, or a little more than the increase 
 (703,617 gallons) shown by the consumption of imported olive oil in 
 fiscal year 1911, against 1910, its wholesale cost, which averages 
 about $2.40 per gallon, against $1.90 for the imported, puts it beyond 
 the reach of the consumers who mostly need this commodity. 
 
 If the price of olive oil is not reasonable and not easily accessible to 
 consumers of small means, who, with normal crops, can obtain im- 
 ported olive oil of good quality at $1.75 per gallon, other vegetable 
 oils of less cost and lower value regarding both health and nourish- 
 ing qualities will replace the use of olive oil among the less fortunate 
 classes. 
 
106 TAKIPF HEAB12STGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 6 ABGOLS. 
 
 For a number of years the people of this country have had to pay 
 exorbitant duties on olive oil simply for the protection of a very small 
 number of growers, who, notwithstanding this heavy protection, have 
 not materially increased the output or made a success of olive-oil 
 production; and, as judging from the experience of the past and of 
 the conditions relating to this production in California there is not 
 the slightest hope that California will ever be able to supply the de- 
 mand of this article at a logical cost, it is evident how unwise and 
 unjust would be the continuation of such high rates as are assessed 
 at present on olive oil, especially in view of the increased cost of this 
 commodity experienced during the last few years, owing to shortage 
 of production in the countries from whence it is imported. 
 
 In the readjustment of the duty on olive oil, the criterion that this 
 is a necessary article of food for a large number of our population 
 should first of all be borne in mind, and that as such it should not be 
 burdened with a heavy duty. 
 
 Another important condition is that the duty should be so framed 
 as to encourage the use of olive oil in the original package in which 
 it is shipped to this country, so that the consumer may have a better 
 guaranty than is now possible, even taking into account the beneficial 
 effects of the enactment of the pure-food law, which certainly pre- 
 vents the importation and interstate commerce of adulterated oil, 
 but even in those States where pure-food regulations exist does not 
 prevent the reduction of an olive oil of high quality with one of low 
 quality, or the mixture of olive oil with other vegetable oils, pro ;ded 
 they are sold as compounds, while often (for instance, in the restaur- 
 ants, where the oil is not supplied to the consumer in an original pack- 
 age) the supply of a mixed oil, ostensibly as olive or salad oil, but 
 without any statement as to the nature of the product, is not pre- 
 vented by any law. 
 
 This chamber, in order to submit to this honorable committee an 
 unbiased report on the subject of the revision of the duties on olive 
 oil, heard, through its tariff committee, at a special hearing, many of 
 the most important distributors of olive oil in this country, who an- 
 swered a set of specific questions. From the replies received the 
 fol] owing conclusions have been arrived at: 
 
 (a) That the present duties on olive oil are exorbitant and ought to 
 be reduced. 
 
 (6) That a reduction of them will not affect unfavorably any Ameri- 
 can industry. 
 
 (c) That no ad valorem rates should be assessed on olive oil. 
 
 (d) That the majority of distributors are in favor of a uniform rate 
 of specific duty on olive oil, irrespective of the kind or size of package 
 In which it is imported; i. e., a uniform rate per gallon for ooth oil 
 imported in bulk and oil imported in bottles, jars, tins, etc. 
 
 (e) That the majority are in favor of a uniform rate of 25 cents 
 per gallon. 
 
 Sufficient has already been stated on paragraphs a and 6 to render 
 superfluous further argument on the issues implied in said para- 
 graphs. 
 
 Unanimous is the consensus of opinion among the distributors 
 heard against the assessment of any ad valorem rate as proposed for 
 
SCHEDULE A. 107 
 
 PARAGRAPH 6 ARGOLS. 
 
 ofl in bulk in H. R. 20182, because of the difficulty of ascertaining 
 market values in the countries from whence this commodity is de- 
 rived, the market value differing considerably according to grades 
 and other factors not easily ascertainable in markets which are not 
 always in a high developed condition and often subject to fluctua- 
 tions, and also because of the objectionable feature of fines, necessa- 
 rily implied in such form of duty assessment, which often makes the 
 importer the scapegoat of unavoidable discrepancies, through no 
 fault of his. 
 
 The reason why a uniform rate both on oil in bulk and in cases is 
 recommended is one of equitv and of the necessity of avoiding the 
 unjustifiable discrimination that the present system of duty mam- 
 tains between oil in bulk and oil in bottles, jars, tins, etc., irrespective 
 of Quality and to the disadvantage of the oil imported in the smaller 
 packages. 
 
 Olive oil in bottles or other small packages is already in the matter 
 of cost per gallon, owing to the higher cost of its packing, higher 
 freight, and of the duty of 40 per cent on the containers in the case of 
 oil in bottles, at a disadvantage in comparison with oil in bulk, and 
 should not be made to bear, as at present, the addition of a higher 
 fiscal burden. 
 
 The difference of cost of olive oil, of identical quality and brand, 
 by reason of the different package in which it is put up, reaches in 
 some cases as much as 43 cents, and is never below 15 cents per gal- 
 lon, to the disadvantage of the oil imported in tins. To be more 
 exact, this difference is: For cases containing 2 tins of 6 gallons each, 
 equal to 15 cents per gallon; for cases containing 12 one-gallon tins, 
 equal to 18 cents per gallon; for cases containing 24 one-half gallon 
 tins, equal to 23 cents per gallon; for cases containing 48 quart tins, 
 equal to 28 cents; and for cases containing 96 pint tins, equal to 43 
 cents per gallon. 
 
 In the case of bottles, which are subject to a duty of 40 per cent 
 ad valorem, this difference in cost is even more striking, and both 
 encourage unfair competition to the advantage of the oil in bulk, and 
 also a loss to the revenue. 
 
 The discrimination against cased oil by the present tariff is not, 
 however, the only argument for which a uniform rate is recommended 
 on olive oil, irrespective of how it is packed. 
 
 A still more valid argument is that olive oil imported in tins or 
 bottles gives a better guarantee, practically a Government guarantee, 
 to the consumer not only of the purity, but also of the quality, of the 
 oil imported, such as only the original imported package can assure, 
 encouraging the consumption of oil of better quality, which is essen- 
 tial to the promotion of the use of this healthful commodity. 
 
 The present tariff indirectly favors the illegitimate competition of 
 adulterated or mixed oils, in the preparation of which is used the 
 largest part of the olive oil imported in bulk, chiefly represented by 
 oil of strong flavor and odor, fit only for blending. 
 
 A uniform rate is therefore respectfully recommended by this 
 chamber in the interest of the consumer, of revenue, of equity, and 
 of hygiene, and this chamber recommends, further, that the rate be 
 fixed at 25 cents per gallon, which is ample protection to domestic 
 
108 TABIFP HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH &-ARGOLS. 
 
 production of a commodity largely used and which, for a great num- 
 ber of our population, is one of prime necessity. 
 
 Containers i. e., bottles or jugs at present subject to a duty of 
 40 per cent, should be assessed with a specific and not with an ad 
 valorem rate and exempted from duty when bearing the brand or the 
 name of the manufacturer in such manner that it can not be removed, 
 thus rendering the containers unfit for further commercial use. 
 
 Olive oil for mechanical or manufacturing purposes, rendered unfit 
 for use as food by such means as shall be satisfactory to the Secretary 
 of the Treasury and under such regulations as he shall prescribe, 
 should be continued on the free list, where it has been under previous 
 tariffs, this being a raw material required for the textile mills (which 
 used in 1908, according to T. S. Todd, 1,610,000 pounds of castile 
 soap manufactured from olive oil) as well as for the soap and leather 
 manufacturers. A duty on such, however small, would necessarily 
 react in an increase in tne cost of the products of said manufacturers, 
 which enter largely into the consumption of the masses. 
 
 Castile soap. Upon this commodity, which is especially popular 
 among consumers, originating from countries where olive oil is pro- 
 duced, this article being manufactured from low-grade olive oil or 
 olive roots and being demanded for its special features largely by a 
 class of consumers of small means, who should not be burdened with 
 a high duty on an article so promo tive of the hygienic habit of cleanli- 
 ness, the present duty of 1J cents per pound should be lightened, 
 considering the advantage already enjoyed by the manufacturers in 
 getting the raw material necessary for its making, free from duty. 
 
 The proposed duty of 15 per cent ad valorem, or not less than 1 
 cent per pound, contained in H. R. 20182, is ample protection to the 
 domestic manufacturer, who sells his article at a lower price than the 
 importer, still making more than a fair profit, while the imported 
 article can not compete advantageously, as far as cost goes, with the 
 domestic soaps, and can hold its own only through its superior 
 quality and tne small margin of profit by which it is sold. 
 
 Crude glycerin. The wide and ever- increasing use of glycerin in 
 the manufacture of nitroexplosives, in the finishing of leather, in the 
 curing of tobacco, in printing and dyeing, in the preparation of liq- 
 uors, toilet articles, and medicines, and also for mechanical purposes, 
 shows how this article is so identified, not only with the important 
 domestic industry of its refinery (with a production, according to the 
 census of 1909, of 17,000 tons, not including the glycerin consumed 
 in the establishments where made, which brings the consumption to 
 an estimated total of 40,000 tons), but with so many branches of our 
 industrial life that it is essential the importation of crude glycerin 
 should not be burdened with a higher rate than the present, of 1 cent 
 per pound, especially considering the increased cost of the raw material 
 that has ruled of late years. 
 
 This chamber, therefore, recommends that the present rate on 
 crude glycerin remain unchanged. 
 
 Medicinal compounds. The rates of duty on articles used for 
 medicinal purposes and considered vital to health should be materially 
 reduced. 
 
 At present medicinal preparations containing alcohol are taxed at 
 55 cents per pound, a rate equivalent to over 60 per cent ad valorem, 
 
SCHEDULE A. 109 
 
 PARAGRAPH 6 ABOOLS. 
 
 which is exorbitant, the alcohol in said preparations being used solely 
 as a solvent and means of preservation for the essential therapeutic 
 constituents. 
 
 As this class of goods includes medicines essential, either as pre- 
 ventative against or curative of many kinds of illnesses to which the 
 poor people, and especially those living in unhealthy climates, are 
 more subject, owing to the less hygienic conditions and absence of 
 comfort under which they are obliged to live, a reduction of the 
 present rate of 55 cents per pound to 10 cents per pound and 20 per 
 cent ad valorem, equivalent to about a 30 per cent duty, such as con- 
 templated by H. R. 20182, is strongly recommended; also the reduc- 
 tion of the rate on other medicinal preparations n. s. p. f. from 25 to 
 15 per cent. 
 
 in the latter paragraph is included mannit, a product not manu- 
 factured in the United States, which is becoming of wider use among 
 a numerous class of our population as a gentle cathartic, and also 
 finds employment in the manufacture of nitroexplosives. 
 
 On calcined magnesia, a medicinal article of wide use, at present 
 subject to a rate of 7 cents per pound, equivalent to about 44 per 
 cent ad valorem, the duty should be reduced at least 50 per cent, i. e., 
 to 3 cents per pound, as proposed in H. R. 20182. 
 
 The United States already holds an important position in the manu- 
 facture of magnesia salts and is not wanting in natural advantages in 
 this direction. Magnesite, the raw material from which this article 
 is manufactured, notwithstanding the large proportion in which it is 
 imported, is mined in large quantities on the Pacific coast, and, with 
 the opening of the Panama Canal and the possibility of lower freights, 
 this mineral will be able to reach the eastern centers of manufacture 
 in competition with the imported. 
 
 The small amount of calcined magnesia imported (57,393 pounds 
 in fiscal year 1910) shows that in the production of this article this 
 country has nothing to fear from the foreign article. 
 
 Calomel is another indispensable therapeutic article, now subject 
 to a duty of 35 per cent, the duty on which should be reduced, as 
 proposed in H. R. 20182, to 15 per cent. 
 
 This, as other mercurial therapeutic compounds, is manufactured 
 in the United States (which have the advantage of a notable produc- 
 tion of quicksilver) in quantities sufficient to cover, and probably 
 above, the requirements of consumption, so that in this case protec- 
 tion is not only superfluous but unadvisable, the rate of 15 per cent 
 contained in H. R. 20182 being hereby indorsed. 
 
 Perfumery. The prevailing idea that the articles included under 
 this paragraph are luxuries, while a good many of them, such, for 
 instance, as hair lotions, mouth, skin, and teeth applications, are 
 only articles of ordinary comfort, indispensable for reasons of hygiene 
 and cleanliness, which should not therefore be placed outside the 
 reach of even the consumer of small means, have caused the enact- 
 ment of the present exorbitant duties, especially on alcoholic per- 
 fumery, subject to 60 cents per pound and 50 per cent ad valorem, 
 while nonalcoholic is charged 60 per cent. 
 
 These practically prohibitive rates for many of the imported arti- 
 cles, which are not necessarily luxuries, but demanded simply by 
 
110 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 6 ARGOLS. 
 
 reason of confidence acquired from long usage and attachment to a 
 particular brand, have defeated their purpose both as a revenue 
 measure, because they have not stimulated importations, and as a 
 protective measure, because the exclusion of many articles of foreign 
 perfumery, represented by proprietary or patent brands, by a duty 
 that increases their cost often 100 per cent, has not benefited domestic 
 production, by reason of the proprietary character of the imported 
 articles, of which the high rates discouraged importation. 
 
 This chamber is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of 
 revenue to reduce the duties on these commodities to more reason- 
 able rates, because the increased importations thus stimulated, 
 without injuring domestic production, would increase the revenue. 
 The foreign article, owing to its proprietary or patented character, 
 does not compete with the domestic. It therefore recommends 
 that the duty on alcoholic perfumery be fixed at 60 cents per pound 
 and 25 per cent ad valorem, and on nonalcoholic perfumery, in the 
 production of which the United States possesses natural advantages, 
 because of abundance of some of the necessary materials (fats, soap, 
 glycerin, powders, etc.) 40 per cent ad valorem, as it was in the 
 Wilson tariff. 
 
 Sulphur. It would be superfluous to dwell upon the advisa- 
 bility of maintaining crude sulphur on the free list, when the exten- 
 sive use of this mineral, especially in the manufacture of gunpowder, 
 in the bleaching of wood pulp and textile fibers, in the vulcanizing 
 of rubber, in the making of fumigating sticks, matches, etc., in the 
 manufacture of sulphuric acid where the pyrites are not economi- 
 cally obtainable, in medicinal use, etc., is considered. 
 
 The United States have become, since the beginning of the last 
 decade, largely productive of this mineral, the output of the Louisi- 
 ana sulphur deposits being so important (in 1908 the production 
 was estimated at 369,444 tons) as to easily cover domestic consump- 
 tion, so that the importations from Sicily, which up to 1902 were the 
 principal source, having supplied in that fiscal year as much as 
 163,571 tons, have since fallen off to a paltry 8,753 tons hi fiscal 
 year 1911. 
 
 The cost of production of the Louisiana brimstone, although not 
 stated for recent years, is, owing to the ingenious mining method by 
 which it is extracted, much lower than in the case of the sulphur 
 mined in Sicily, where, besides other disadvantages, a considerable 
 amount of sulphur ore has to be burned and is therefore lost in the 
 process of extraction. 
 
 Not only is the cost of production of brimstone lower in Louisiana 
 than in Sicily, but the domestic brimstone is obtained at a higher 
 decree of purity. 
 
 The United States are already exporting more sulphur than they 
 import (in fiscal year 1910, 45,595 tons, against 29,329 imported), 
 which shows that in the production of this mineral this country 
 enjoys natural and technical advantages to render any protection 
 not only superfluous but dangerous, as certainly over 95 per cent of 
 the production is controlled by one concern. 
 
 Most of the Sicilian sulphur imported into the United States is 
 used in the manufacture of gunpowder and in bleaching wood pulp, 
 
SCHEDULE A. Ill 
 
 PARAGRAPH 6 ARGOLS. 
 
 the latter especially an industry which appeals for free raw materials, 
 owing to the wide scope of its bearing on the economic life of the 
 Nation. 
 
 Refined sulphur, which under the present tariff is taxed $4 per 
 ton, should, for like reasons, be placed on the free list, but especially 
 so in order to avoid in future a repetition of the unsuccessful attempt 
 that was made about a year ago to have the purer grades of brim- 
 stone classified as refined sulphur and thus made subject to duty. 
 
 This chamber, therefore, recommends that sulphur in any form be 
 exempted from duty. 
 
 Talc. This article, which under the present tariff is admitted free 
 of duty only in a crude or unground condition, is subject to a duty 
 of 35 per cent when ground. 
 
 Although talc is produced largely in the United States (about 
 120,000 tons annually), the quality of the domestic talc, chiefly 
 fibrous and used as a filler in paper making and in paints, is different 
 from the imported, which serves, as a rule, a different purpose. 
 The notable difference in cost between imported talc selling, the 
 Italian from $35 to $40 per ton and the French from $15 to $25 
 and domestic talc, selling as low as $9 at the mine, shows clearly 
 the difference in the quality and principal use of the two articles. 
 
 The imported talc is used chiefly in the preparation of toilet 
 powders, which, on account of their extensive use among all classes, 
 can not be considered a luxury, but an article of necessity in the 
 household. 
 
 For this purpose whiteness and fineness are required in the talc, 
 and these qualifications the imported article possesses in a greater 
 measure than the domestic, to which it is therefore preferred. 
 
 The consumption of ground talc is increasing with the increase 
 of population. 
 
 In the Dingley tariff ground talc was taxed at the rate of 20 per 
 cent. The act of 1909 increased the impost to 35 per cent, with the 
 result that importations, which had averaged annually in the pre- 
 vious three years about 16,833,000 pounds, fell in the following two 
 years to about 15,518,000 pounds, showing that the increase of 
 duty was responsible for the falling off of importations, and therefore 
 of revenue, on this article. 
 
 This chamber respectfully recommends that talc in a crude or 
 unground condition be maintained on the free list, while the duty on 
 ground talc be reduced to 15 per cent. 
 
 Sienna. The importance of lightening fiscal burdens on pigments 
 required in the preparation of paints, which absolve not only an 
 esthetic function, out the more important one of preserving and secur- 
 ing a longer duration of the materials to which they are applied, is 
 self-evident and in line with the policy of conservation, so much 
 insisted upon in these days, when the consequences of a wasteful past 
 of many national resources are beginning to be felt. 
 
 Sienna earths, like umbers and ochers, enter in paints used princi- 
 pally for staining wood. They are imported chiefly in the crude state 
 and powdered here and made ready for use. 
 
 American mines produce a lower grade of sienna than the imported 
 article, as shown by the marked difference in price. While domestic 
 
112 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 6 ARGOLS. 
 
 sienna is quoted from $50 to $60 per ton, the imported sells from $80 
 to $140. 
 
 At present crude sienna earth, i. e., when not powdered, washed, or 
 pulverized, is subject to a duty of one-eighth of 1 cent per pound. 
 
 The milling of imported sienna gives employment to American 
 labor, a reason which, together with the fact that raw material of 
 this class can not be replaced by domestic production, ought to be 
 sufficient to exempt it from duty. 
 
 Should, however, a duty be aeemed unavoidable for revenue pur- 
 poses, this chamber recommends that the present specific rate be 
 maintained in preference to the proposed 10 per cent ad valorem con- 
 tained in H. R. 20182, and also that the word "washed" be omitted 
 from the first portion of paragraph 47, Schedule A, of the present 
 tariff, because a considerate part of the sienna earth imported in 
 lumps is naturally washed and should not thereby be made to incur 
 the classification of powdered or artificially washed sienna, and thus 
 be subjected to the higher rate of three-eighths of 1 cent per pound, 
 without having undergone any process that has materially enhanced 
 its value. 
 
 As in the case of the crude sienna, in that of the powdered also, a 
 specific rate, as in the present tariff, is preferable to an ad valorem 
 rate. 
 
 BRIEFS SUBMITTED BY TARTAR CHEMICAL CO. 
 
 The Tartar Chemical Co. filed the following papers with the com- 
 mittee : 
 
 RATES OP DUTY ON TARTARIC ACID AND CREAM OF TARTAR. 
 [Tartar Chemical Co., manufacturers of cream of tartar and tartarlc acid, No. 135 Wflllam Street.] 
 
 NEW YORK, January 2, 191S. 
 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 Bowse of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIRS: In relation to the proposed increase in duty on our raw material and the 
 decreases in the duties on our manufactured products, we desire to meet your com- 
 mittee in a right spirit and to ask you to consider the following: 
 
 Assuming that bill H. R. 20182 may serve as basis of the new tariff legislation, it is 
 stated in Paragraph I, to reduce tartaric acid to 3 cents per pound against the existing 
 rate of 5 cents and the Dingley tariff rate of 7 cents; Paragraph IX, to reduce cream of 
 tartar to 2i cents per pound against the existing rate of 5 cents and the Dingley tariff 
 rate of 6 cents; Paragraph XI, to increase the duty on argols from 5 per cent (present 
 rate) to 10 per cent (or 100 per cent increase). 
 
 Argols are the crude material from which the two above-named products are made 
 in this country, and of which at least 98 per cent must be imported from wine-pro- 
 ducing countries principally France and Italy. 
 
 We produce cream of tartar and tartaric acid in such proportions that the average 
 duty would be 2.7 cents per pound, from which must be deducted the duty on the raw 
 material of 10 per cent, and this, at the present price of argols, would be 1.7 cents, 
 leaving an apparent protection of 1 cent per pound, which the foreign manufacturer 
 can far more than offset in the lower cost of his raw material, in addition to which he 
 has the far lower cost of all classes of labor, which in the competing countries is one- 
 half of what we pay, and in some cases even less than half. 
 
 Under the present tariff the foreign manufacturers have an advantage of at least 4| 
 cents per pound on cream of tartar and 6 cents on tartaric acid, but with the proposed 
 increase pi duty on raw material it will be over 5 cents on cream of tartar and 6| cents 
 on tartaric acid. 
 
 _ 1. They use a lower testing grade of crude material, which will not bear transporta- 
 tion here because of chemical disintegration before it could be brought here and 
 
SCHEDULE JL. 
 
 113 
 
 PABAGBAPH 6 ABQOLS. 
 
 employed. To prepare these goods for transportation necessitates special prepara- 
 tion, and the handling, packing, and freight charges are the aame on crude material 
 testing 25 per cent as on the argols averaging 70 per cent, which latter we must employ 
 here for the reasons just mentioned. 
 
 The crude material employed by the foreign manufacturers costs them 2J cents per 
 pound, based on 100 per cent purity, less than it would cost us here. 
 
 2. Labor cost is unquestionably higher here than with the foreign manufacturer 
 situated in the argol-producing countries generally in southern Europe. We 
 employ skilled labor steadily in our works, as well as a large number of ordinary work- 
 men, who, as you know, are paid more than double here than in France, Italy, or 
 Spain. This difference amounts to 1.2 cents per pound. 
 
 3. Italy has an export duty, which amounts to about 3 per cent ad valorem on argols, 
 while on the lower grades, which they mostly employ, it amounts to 6 per cent or more. 
 This differential duty amounts to an average of 0.6 cent per pound. Besides this, 
 all foreign manufacturing countries have a protective duty on the manufactured 
 products. 
 
 4. The manufacturer in the United States is further handicapped by the much higher 
 cost in this country of the various chemicals and other materials employed in the 
 process of manufacture compared with those in Europe. 
 
 Recapitulation of advantages of foreign manufacture. 
 
 
 Per pound 
 cream of 
 tartar. 
 
 Per pound 
 tartaric 
 acid. 
 
 Crude material cost 
 
 Cents. 
 1.88 
 
 Cents. 
 2.87 
 
 Labor 
 
 1.20 
 
 1.20 
 
 Chemicals and supplies 
 
 .65 
 
 .55 
 
 American duty 
 
 .75 
 
 .94 
 
 
 
 
 Italian export duty - 
 
 4.38 
 .45 
 
 5.56 
 .60 
 
 
 
 
 With additional duty as proposed 
 
 4.83 
 .75 
 
 6.16 
 .94 
 
 
 
 
 Against a proposed duty 
 
 5.58 
 2.50 
 
 7.10 
 3.00 
 
 
 
 
 Advantage to foreign manufacturers under proposed duty 
 
 3.08 
 
 4.10 
 
 
 
 
 REVENUE ACCRUING TO THE COUNTRY ON PROPOSED TARIFF CHANGES. 
 
 Estimated revenue from duties on argols, cream of tartar, and tartaric acid under 
 the proposed bill is figured as $312,250, of which $300,000 is on crude material, but 
 for the reasons stated above this latter sum will fall away if our domestic factories 
 are forced to reduce their output. The Government will not be the gainer in the 
 revenue from the importation of the manufactured product. Even under existing 
 tariff the importations of tartaric acid have increased from 36,389 pounds in 1907 to 
 over 300,000 pounds in 1911, and on cream of tartar from 6,000 pounds in 1907 to over 
 100,000 pounds in 1912. 
 
 Combinations of large European manufacturers have been going on; are legal and 
 encouraged by their governments; and we allege on best information and belief, from 
 facts in our possession, that the people of this country would not receive benefit of any 
 reduction in the tariff of the United States, but on the contrary a combination of 
 large European manufacturers of cream of tartar and tartaric acid would result, and 
 prices be increased after makers in this country cease to exist. Tentative statements 
 to this effect are in our possession, and should you desire any substantiation of the 
 above-cited facts we will gladly submit it. 
 
 We have been in business over 30 years Capital employed is over $2,000,000, and 
 our annual disbursements for pay roll and other expenses are about $500,000. 
 
 For the above-explained reasons we pray that you allow the duties to remain as they 
 are, but if it seems necessary for you to increase the revenue as estimated, it will be 
 
 78959 VOL 1 13 8 
 
114 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 8 BLEACHING POWDEB. 
 
 obtained by advancing the duty on crude material from 5 per cent ad valorem to 10 
 per cent ad valorem, as proposed, and continuing the present duty of 5 cents per pound 
 on manufactured cream of tartar and filing the duty on tartaric acid at 6 cents per 
 pound to make the equivalent. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 TARTAR CHEMICAL Co., 
 WILLIAM C. VOIGHT, Treasurer. 
 
 TARTAR CHEMICAL Co., 
 Brooklyn, N. T., January 25, 1913. 
 The COMMITTEE ON WATS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN : On page 101 is printed the memorial of the Italian Chamber of Com- 
 merce in New York. 
 
 The seventh paragraph begins with our raw material, argols, and wine lees and 
 goes on to the products manufactured therefrom. 
 
 This memorial favors leaving the duty on the raw material, where it now is. and 
 reducing the tariff on cream of tartar and tartaric acid from 5 cents per pound to 
 3 cents per pound on tartaric acid and 2 cents per pound on cream of tartar. 
 
 This would leave the European manufacturers, who almost wholly work in agree- 
 ment, as open a market here for their manufactured products as would H. R. bill 
 20182, and this is of course the desire of the Italian Chamber of Commerce. 
 
 This chamber is subsidized by the Italian Government and is designed to promote 
 the industries of Italy rather than of this country. On pages 282 and 284 of Tariff 
 Schedule A, No. 2 Hearings, you will find admissions from Mr. MarianitoMr. Palmer 
 that the Italian Government subsidizes the Italian Chamber of Commerce in New 
 York. Naturally, therefore, this institution favors throwing down the bars here for 
 the benefit of the Italian industries without regard to the consequences to the same 
 industries of this country. 
 
 Very respectfully, TARTAR CHEMICAL Co., 
 
 EDWARD McC. PETERS, 
 
 Vice President. 
 PARAGRAPH 7. 
 
 Blacking of all kinds, twenty-five per centum ad valorem; all creams and 
 preparations for cleaning or polishing boots and shoes, twenty-five per centum 
 ad valorem. 
 For blacking, of all kinds, etc., see also Park & Tilford et al., page 66. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 8. 
 
 Bleaching powder, or chloride of lime, one-fifth of one cent per pound. 
 
 BLEACHING POWDER. 
 
 THE DOW CHEMICAL CO., MIDLAND, MICH., SUBMITS BRIEF 
 REGARDING BLEACHING POWDER. 
 
 By the tariff act of 1897 bleaching powder was taken off the free 
 list and a duty of two-tenths of 1 cent per pound was placed upon it. 
 Prior to this change the price of bleaching powder, in the United 
 States, was about 2 cents per pound. Either simultaneously with 
 the placing on this two-tenths of 1 cent per pound duty, or shortly 
 afterwards, the United Alkali Co. of Great Britain, who controlled 
 more than 90 per cent of the bleach sold within the United States, 
 lowered the price in the United States to about $1.87 per 100 pounds 
 and also paid the import duty. 
 
 The placing of this small import duty that was only about 10 per 
 cent of the ruling price proved to be sufficient to inspire enough con- 
 fidence among capitalists so that two bleaching-powder plants were 
 
SCHEDULE A. 115 
 
 PARAGRAPH 10 CHARCOAL. 
 
 erected in the United States, one at Niagara Falls and the other at 
 Midland, Mich.; both plants increased their capacity from time to 
 time until competition became very keen and prices were reduced to 
 $1.25 per 100 pounds, which is the ruling price to-day on yearly con- 
 tracts, the price being substantially the same in the United States 
 and Great Britain. 
 
 The United Alkali Co. of Great Britain, and not the consumer, is 
 
 Eaying the two-tenths of 1 cent per pound now assessed on imported 
 leach, and if the duty is reduced we do not think that any more 
 bleaching powder would be imported or the price to the consumer 
 reduced, for the following reason: 
 
 A bleaching-powder plant costs several times the annual output of 
 this plant and if the selling price changes 10 per cent, it would only 
 affect the return on the investment in the bleaching-powder plant by 
 a small part of the 10 per cent. It is not likely that the proposed 
 reduction in the import duty will cause any plants now built to dis- 
 continue their operations, and thereby permit any increased amounts 
 of bleaching powder to be brought into this country from abroad, 
 neither would the prices be likely to change for the reason that the 
 selling price at the present tune does not return a normal profit on the 
 investment and new competitors are not likely to enter this market 
 and thereby cause a still further reduction in the selling price. 
 
 To summarize: We believe the present import duty will furnish a 
 larger revenue to the Government than a lower import duty, and at 
 the same tune the risk of an American industry being blotted out by 
 a foreign monopoly is less than it would be if the import duty were 
 lower. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 THE Dow CHEMICAL Co., 
 By HUBERT H. Dow, 
 
 General Manager. 
 
 MIDLAND, MICH. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 9. 
 
 Blue vitriol or sulphate of copper, one-fourth of one cent per pound. 
 See W. H. Bowker, page 416. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 10. 
 
 Charcoal in any form, not specially provided for in this act; bone char, 
 suitable for use in decolorizing sugars, and blood char, twenty per centum 
 ad valorem. 
 
 CHARCOAL. 
 
 PROTEST OF MICHIGAN CARBON WORKS AGAINST DUTY ON 
 
 CHARCOAI, ETC. 
 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee of the 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: As manufacturers of charcoal (animal), bone char, or bone 
 black, we beg to submit our most earnest protest against a possible 
 reduction hi the duties on these materials. 
 
 At the present tune this company has invested in the portion of 
 its plant devoted to the manufacture of charcoal (animal), bone char, 
 or bone black, approximately SI 00,000. During the five-year period 
 
116 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 10 CHARCOAL. 
 
 ended December 31, 1912, the net profits to the Michigan Carbon 
 Works, in the production of charcoal (animal), bone char, or bone 
 black, have averaged 8.27 per cent on the actual cash capital invested, 
 with no deduction whatever for depreciation of plant. 
 
 Charcoal (animal), bone char, or bone black, is employed principally 
 for decolorizing purposes in the refining of cane sugar, glucose, and 
 special lubricating oils. It is not used in the beet-sugar industry. 
 Modern methods of users in reburning or revivifying the material 
 have largely reduced the consumption, so that the expense for bone 
 black per barrel of sugar, glucose, or lubricating oil produced is so 
 small as to be practically negligible. In the lubricatmg-oil refining 
 industry bone black has in a very large measure been replaced by 
 fuller's earth. 
 
 The collection of bones used in the production of charcoal (animal), 
 bone char, or bone black, gives occupation to a large number of men 
 throughout the United States, and in order to gather and secure the 
 material, much higher prices must be paid than in Europe. Further- 
 more, the labor expense in the production of bone black is a very 
 large item; and as our labor is now being paid approximately 65 per 
 cent more than is received by labor abroad doing the same kind of 
 work, it is not difficult to see the effect of a reduction in the present 
 rate of duty. 
 
 In the manufacture of charcoal (animal), bone char or bone black, 
 there is produced a large amount of by-products now available and 
 used for fertilizing purposes. In recent years a considerable quantity 
 of bones has been brought to this country from South America to be 
 used in the manufacture of bone black. In the event of any reduc- 
 tion in the present duty, these bones will go to Canada or Europe to 
 be made into bone black for export to the United States, and not 
 only will the domestic industry be injured, many men deprived of 
 their present means of livelihood, but the farmers of the United 
 States will suffer the loss of a large quantity of very desirable and 
 much-needed fertilizer for the improvement of their land, now obtain- 
 able at a low cost. 
 
 As the industry in the United States is already seriously handi- 
 capped and in anything but a flourishing condition, we therefore 
 petition that the present rate of duty 20 per cent ad valorem be 
 retained on charcoal (animal), bone char or bone black, not suitable 
 for use as a pigment. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 MICHIGAN CARBON WORKS, 
 By GEO. B. BURTON, Manager. 
 
 DETROIT, MICH., January 27, 1918. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 117 
 
 PABAGBAPH 1O CHABCOAL. 
 
 BRIEF OF HOLUNS N. RANDOLPH, COUNSEL FOR THE NATIONAL 
 WOOD CHEMICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 In Re Hearings Before the Committee on Ways and Means, United 
 
 States Congress. 
 
 ATLANTA, GA., February 8, 191S. 
 
 I shall be very brief in submitting the considerations which I wish 
 to advance in this matter. The National Wood Chemical Association 
 and its members are interested in the chemical schedule of the pro- 
 posed new tariff measure, and more particularly in the tariffs on 
 charcoal and its related products, acetate of lime and wood alcohol. 
 
 The present duties on these articles are as follows: Acetate of lime, 
 25 per cent; charcoal, 20 per cent: wood alcohol, 20 per cent. 
 
 These articles are manufactured at about 100 works in the United 
 States, the factories being located principally in Pennsylvania 
 and parts of New York State, Michigan, and Wisconsin; with an 
 investment of approximately $25,000,000 and giving employment 
 and support to aoout 75,000 people. The articles are made from 
 wood, and the wood which is used to a large extent consists of 
 tops, butts, and breaks of trees which have been cut into sawlogs, 
 thereby creating from what would otherwise be a waste material 
 valuable commercial commodities and a corresponding field for the 
 employment of American labor. It is believed that the employment 
 of these waste tree products has a tendency to greatly reduce the 
 danger of destructive forest fires, and to that extent brings about a 
 conservation of our forests rather than a waste of wood. 
 
 If these articles were placed on the free list or the prevailing rates 
 of duty greatly reduced, it would result in the building of a large 
 number of new works in Canada, where wood and labor are about 
 20 per cent cheaper than in the United States. The inevitable result 
 would be to exterminate this industry in the United States and force 
 our manufacturers to sustain large losses, and deprive their employees 
 of the means of livelihood. Canada, with its vast areas of cheap raw 
 material, is offering every encouragement to the building up of this 
 industry in its own borders by paying a large bounty on the manu- 
 facture of charcoal iron, and an enormous price for the wood alcohol 
 used for denaturing purposes. The Canadian market charcoal is 
 cheaper than the markets in the States, returning to the manufac- 
 turer, it is estimated, about 50 per cent more than is realized by our 
 home industry. 
 
 From this it can readily be seen that with new markets open to 
 them the Canadian production will increase very rapidly and their 
 surplus dumped into the United States, which could only result in 
 ruinous competition. 
 
 The Canadian duty on charcoal at the present time is 17 per cent, 
 and if these chemicals were manufactured in Canada and the present 
 rates of duty in the United States removed or greatly reduced, we 
 have no law that would prevent her from dumping all her surplus 
 product into this country. 
 
 For the information of the committee, I will state that in the manu- 
 facture of these chemicals about 60 to 75 per cent of the total amount 
 received from the sales thereof is expended in labor. 
 
118 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH CHABCOAL. 
 
 We would like to have the present rates of duty continued, but if a 
 change is deemed imperative we suggest that the duties be made 
 specific and as foUows: Crude wood alcohol (82 per cent), 5 cents 
 per gallon; refined wood alcohol, all grades, 10 cents per gallon; 
 acetate of lime, one-half cent per pound; formaldehyde, 2 cents per 
 pound; charcoal, 1 cents per oushel. 
 
 No demand in any quarter for lower duties on wood chemicals 
 has so far manifested itself, and so far as known prices are satisfactory 
 to the consumers. 
 
 The above facts are taken from evidence submitted at the hearings 
 before the Senate Committee on Finance, March 19, 1912. 
 
 But little more needs to be said. We have here a typical American 
 industry, and one which has been created from our waste wood pro- 
 ducts and by the wit and wisdom and thrift of the people living in 
 the States named. The art and trade has become valuable, and to 
 allow it to be destroyed or greatly impaired by the admission of com- 
 petitive products free of duty from Canada would, it seems to me, 
 be without justification, particularly so as there is no complaint or 
 agitation in any quarter for a change and reduction in the prevailing 
 rates of duty. 
 
 Finally, it should be remembered that the Canadians have protected 
 themselves against the importation of these products, or some of 
 them, from the United States by the imposition of the rates of tariff 
 named, at least on charcoal. For all of which reasons it is respect- 
 fully urged that the present rates of duty be aUowed to remain, but 
 if as stated above a change is deemed imperative, then we respect- 
 fuly suggest that the duties be made specific as above outlined. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 HOTJ.TNS N. RANDOLPH. 
 
 ATLANTA, GA., February 24, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 MY DEAR MR. UNDERWOOD: My attention has been called by one 
 of my friends to a mistake I made in my little brief filed on the sub- 
 ject of import duties on charcoal and its by-products. I stated 
 therein that the Canadian market for charcoal is cheaper than in the 
 United States. In this I find I am mistaken. The Canadian market 
 is higher and returns the manufacturer a much better average per 
 bushel than we are able to get in the United States ; it seems also that 
 the product does not have to be so well prepared. Therefore, in the 
 event the Canadian manufacturers produced more of these products 
 than their markets can readily absorb, instead of reducing the price 
 to their home trade they would use the United States and its con- 
 sumers as a dumping ground, if they had no tariff duties to confront 
 on importing the product in this country. 
 
 I regret this mistake and hasten to correct it at first opportunity. 
 With kindest regards. I am, 
 
 Sincerely, yours, HOLLINS N. RANDOLPH. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 119 
 
 PARAGRAPH 10 CHARCOAL. 
 
 PROTEST OF BAUGH & SONS CO., OF PHILADELPHIA, PA., 
 AGAINST THE REMOVAL OF DUTIES UPON CHARCOAL, BLOOD 
 CHAR, ETC. 
 
 To Hon. Oscar W. Underwood, Chairman, and Members of the Ways 
 and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, Washing- 
 ton, D. C. 
 
 In the matter of proposed revision and amendment of Schedule A 
 of the present tariff act so as to remove all duties payable upon 
 importations of charcoal, blood char, bone char, or bone black not 
 suitable for use as a pigment, and so as to make, as suggested in 
 House bill No. 20182, the tariff act under the head of free list read: 
 "85. Charcoal, blood char, bone char, or bone black, not suitable 
 for use as a pigment," as shown by the report of the Committee on 
 Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, page 136. 
 
 Baugh & Sons Co. is a corporation of the State of Pennsylvania 
 and is a large manufacturer of charcoal (animal), bone char, or bone 
 black, not suitable for use as a pigment, and has a capital of approx- 
 imately $270,000 invested in the portion of its plant devoted to such 
 manufacture. The company is not connected or affiliated in any 
 manner whatever with any trust or combination. It is an absolutely 
 independent concern, competing with all manufacturers of charcoal, 
 blood char, bone char, or bone black, not suitable for use as a pigment, 
 and other products, within the territories which it is practicable 
 for it to reach profitably, considering the location of its plant, which 
 is at Philadelphia, Pa. The company employs a large number of 
 men at its plant, and their average working day is 10 hours and the 
 wages paid skilled men are at the rate of $12 per week and the wages 
 paid the unskilled workmen are at the rate of $10 per week. The 
 present tariff act imposes a duty of 20 per cent ad valorem upon 
 importations of charcoal, blood char, bone char, or bone black, 
 not suitable for use as a pigment, and it is earnestly submitted 
 that a proper consideration of the interest of the American workman 
 engaged in this industry, and of his employer, require that this duty 
 be not removed or decreased. During the past year, 1912, the profits 
 of Baugh & Sons Co. (after allowing a proper rental for the premises 
 in which the business is conducted) from the manufacture and sale 
 of bone black, charcoal, bone char, or blood char, not suitable for 
 use as a pigment, amounted to but approximately 6 per cent upon 
 the amount invested in the business in other words, a profit 
 slightly more than would be received by any investor in any good 
 bonds, and that slight increase was more than earned by the risks 
 and hazards incident to the conduct of the business. 
 
 The rate of profit above mentioned is obtained upon the basis of 
 price of crude materials in the United States being $26 per ton, the 
 minimum price, whereas in fact the price ranges and is likely to range 
 higher, having already been as high as $31 per ton, so that the above- 
 mentioned rate of profit, even under the present protective policy, 
 is not a fixed profit, but is subject to diminution as the prices of crude 
 materials advance, and indeed it is a well-known fact that the prices 
 for crude materials which enter into the manufacture of charcoal, 
 bone char, blood char, or bone char not suitable for use as a pigment 
 
120 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 10 CHARCOAL. 
 
 are rapidly advancing and there are no longer available to a manu- 
 facturer of these products, such as Baugh & Sons Co., any great source 
 of supply of crude materials such as a few years ago existed, and 
 the result is that a great deal of crude material must be imported 
 from other countries and at greatly increased prices, in addition to the 
 freight. 
 
 On the other hand, the prices of crude materials in foreign countries 
 producing these articles are much cheaper than in the United States, 
 and under the prevailing low scales of wages paid the foreign work- 
 man (the skilled men receiving about $7.50 per week and a common 
 laborer about $6 per week) it is very apparent that the foreign manu- 
 facturer is able to produce charcoal, blood char, bone char, or bone 
 black not suitable for use as a pigment, at a much lower cost than the 
 American maunfacturer, who must pay more for his crude material 
 and a higher rate of wages to his workmen, to whom he pays wages, 
 as hereinbefore mentioned, to the skilled men at the rate of $12 per 
 week and to the common laborer $10 per week. Right here it is 
 clear that there is a difference in cost of production in America and 
 foreign countries, considering the element of labor merely, of 37 to 
 40 per cent. 
 
 Therefore, to remove the present duty upon these commodities and 
 to admit them free into this country would obviously work to the 
 advantage of the foreign manufacturer alone and to the great dis- 
 advantage of the American workman and his employer, making it 
 impossible for the American citizens, both employee and employer, 
 engaged in the industry, to compete if the American workman is to 
 receive his present scale of wages. The only possible way the 
 American manufacturer could compete with the foreign trade would 
 be to decrease greatly the wage scale of the American workman, 
 who, in order to have employment, would be obliged to accept this 
 decreased wage and consequently set for himself and his family a 
 lower standard of living. If the workman were not willing to 
 accept the decreased wage and the pressing conditions which would 
 follow its acceptance, then the American manufacturer would be 
 compelled to cease operations and thus abandon the field to the 
 foreign producers without competition from the American manu- 
 facturer. 
 
 The only recourse of the American workmen under such conditions 
 would be to seek employment in other directions, which, of course, 
 would tend to decrease the wage rate in the other lines of business 
 by reason of an oversupply of labor and would demoralize conditions 
 socially as well as the charcoal, blood char, bone char, or bone black 
 (not suitable for use as a pigment) industries in this country. 
 
 The geat damage that would be suffered by the American manu- 
 facturers by the removal of the present duty of 20 per cent ad valorem, 
 will be more clearly apparent when it is known, as is the real fact 
 that the profit upon the manufacture and sale of bone black, for 
 example, does not ; at the prevailing price, exceed 6 per cent. If, 
 therefore, the foreign producer is able to enter his goods into this 
 country without a duty of 20 per cent ad valorem atleast it is clear 
 that he would have such an advantage as to entirely eliminate the 
 American manufacturer and employee from the industry. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 121 
 
 PARAGRAPH 11 BORAX. 
 
 It is clear that to place these commodities upon the free list can 
 only result in aiding the large manufacturers of charcoal, blood char, 
 bone char, or bone black in European countries, where the crude 
 materials and labor are so much cheaper and lower than in this 
 country, to the great detriment not only of the American manufac- 
 turer, but to those workmen who are dependent upon the industry 
 here for the, livelihood of themselves and their families. 
 
 But if upon a consideration of the whole subject it be determined 
 to place these articles upon the free list, then not only to be con- 
 sistent, but in the hope of preventing the absolute destruction of 
 the industry, there should be placed upon the free list not only crude 
 bone but bone ground, crushed and broken particles of afl kinds 
 which might enter into the manufacture of charcoal, blood char, 
 bone char, or bone black not suitable for use as a pigment. This 
 would afford the American producer and his workmen a very slight 
 or the only chance to continue the condition of their industry. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 BAUGH & SONS Co., 
 
 B. H. BREWSTER, Vice President. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, January 3, 1918. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 11. 
 
 Borax, two cents per pound; borates of lime, soda, or other borate material 
 not otherwise provided for in this section, two cents per pound. 
 For borax, Bee also Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 103. 
 
 BORAX. 
 
 BRIEF OF NATIONAL BORAX CO., SAN FRANCISCO, CAI., IN 
 FAVOR OF TARIFF ON BORAX, BORACIC ACID, AND BORATE 
 OF LIME. 
 
 The borax produced by the mines of the company which I have the 
 honor to represent are situate in the northeastern portion of Ventura 
 County, a very sparsely populated section and practically a desert 
 country. 
 
 The mines are a long distance away from railroad transportation, 
 something like 70 miles, and we have been compelled to build and 
 maintain wagon roads to haul our products and supplies this long dis- 
 tance at a very high expense. 
 
 Our mine is one of the four existing borate mines hi this country, 
 and all are more or less laboring under these same disadvantages, 
 besides having to pay the highest rate of wages to miners and other 
 high costs for supplies. 
 
 The ore produced by these mines is principally colemanite, a variety 
 of borate of lime, containing a very large percentage of waste matter, 
 and has to be refined before it becomes an article of commerce. 
 
 The output of our mines will average 1,000 tons a month at an 
 approximate value of $25 per ton for the crude ore at the mine. 
 
 Over 100 people are more or less directly interested in the mainte- 
 nance of the operations of our mines, and our pay roll, including sup- 
 plies, exceeds the amount of $10,000 per month. 
 
122 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 11 BOBAX. 
 
 Any reduction of the present tariff would only force us to discon- 
 tinue our operations ana would not only work a very great hardship 
 upon our laborers and others depending upon them, but also upon our 
 stockholders, of which there are 200. 
 
 The present price of the refined commercial product, borax, and 
 also all other products derived from the mineral we mine (colemanite, 
 borate of lime) is lower than it has ever been known before. 
 
 The reduction of tariff would only open the American markets to 
 the borate of lime produced in South America, where they have very 
 cheap labor, and would close the operations of all of the American 
 mines, without giving the American consumer any compensating 
 benefits. 
 
 NATIONAL BOBAX Co., 
 By MAX P. FRIES, 
 President and General Manager. 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. 
 
 CHAMBER OF MINES AND OIL, LOS ANGELES, CAL., URGES 
 RETENTION OF DUTY ON BORAX. 
 
 CHAMBER OF MINES AND OIL, 
 
 Los Angeles, Cal., January 9, 1913. 
 Mr. DANIEL C. ROPER, 
 
 Clerk Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR : We beg to confirm our telegram to you to-day, quoting 
 resolutions passed by our board of directors, urging that no action 
 be taken by the Committee on Ways and Means toward placing borax 
 or borate products on the tariff free list. 
 
 We inclose herewith copy of the resolution, as telegraphed to you; 
 also a brief of facts on the borax industry of this State, as prepared by 
 our committee. 
 
 We will appreciate it if you will bring this resolution and brief to 
 the attention of the committee, and assure you of our appreciation in 
 advance. 
 
 Very truly, yours, CHAMBER OF MINES AND OIL, 
 
 G. M. SWINDELL, Secretary. 
 
 [Night letter.] 
 
 Los ANGELES, CAL., January 8, 1913. 
 DANIEL C. ROPER, 
 
 Clerk Committee Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Please bring to attention committee following resolution passed to-day by our board 
 of directors: 
 
 AYhereas the borax-mining industry in California has shown a small but steady increase 
 after 40 years of development work notwithstanding the limited market; and 
 
 Whereas with the increase in production and transportation facilities there has been 
 an enormous decrease in the price of borate products to the consumer; and 
 
 "Whereas any reduction in the existing tariff will eliminate this industry in California, 
 throw open the markets of the United States to foreign mines, benefit foreign labor 
 at the expense of American labor, practically destroy the work of those who have 
 built up the industry, and cause great loss in capital now invested in California: 
 Now, therefore, be it 
 
SCHEDULE A. 123 
 
 PARAGRAPH 11 BORAX. 
 
 Resolved by the Chamber of Mines and Oil of Los Angeles, Cal., That we do most earn- 
 estly protest against any reduction in the existing tariff on borax and borate products, 
 and do urge our Senators and Congressmen to devote their best efforts to the support 
 of this resolution in the proper committees and on the floor of the Senate and House of 
 Representatives. 
 
 Russ AVERT, President. 
 
 JANUARY 9, 1913. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE BOARD OP DIRECTORS, CHAMBER OP MINES AND OIL OF 
 LOS ANGELES, CAL., PROTESTING AGAINST REDUCTION IN EXISTING TARIFF ON BORAX 
 AND BORATE PRODUCTS. 
 
 Whereas the borax mining industry in California has shown a small but steady 
 increase after 40 years of development work, notwithstanding the limited market; 
 and 
 
 Whereas with the increase in production and transportation facilities there has 
 been an enormous decrease in the price of borate products to the consumer; and 
 
 Whereas any reduction in the existing tariff will eliminate this industry in Cali- 
 fornia, throw open the markets of the United States to foreign mines, benefit foreign 
 labor at the expense of American labor, practically destroy the work of those who 
 have built up the industry, and cause great loss of capital now invested in California: 
 Now, therefore, be it 
 
 Resolved by the Chamber of Mines and Oil of Los Angeles, Cal., That we do most 
 earnestly protest against any reduction in the existing tariff on borax and borate 
 products, and do urge our Senators and Congressmen to devote their best efforts to the 
 support of this resolution in the proper committees and on the floors of the Senate and 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 Certified as a true and correct copy. 
 
 Russ AVERY, President. 
 G. M. SWINDELL, Secretary. 
 
 JANUARY 9, 1913. 
 BRIEF OF FACTS IN RE THE BORAX MINING INDUSTRY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 In view of the fact that the entire production of borax in the United States is vir- 
 tually derived from four producing mines in this State, the industry may be defined 
 as essentially Californian. The crude ore now being mined is principally colemanite, 
 a borate of lime, and its content of anhydrous boric acid varies considerably, owing to 
 the presence of impurities in the ore. The total production for the present year, from 
 present indications, will be in the neighborhood of 4,100 tons monthly, with an approxi- 
 mate valuation at the mine of $29 per ten. 
 
 The present wholesale price of refined commercial borax, a chemical combination 
 of boric acid and soda, is $3.75 per 100 pounds. Incidentally, the wholesale price 
 in the United States is as cheap as in Europe. 
 
 It is estimated that the industry provides employment for about 1,000 men; that 
 salaries and wages will approximate $2,000 to $3,500 daily; that the average monthly 
 purchase of supplies, very conservatively estimated and excluding machinery and 
 equipment, will reach $50,000. Los Angeles, being the nearest large center to the 
 mines, secures the bulk of this business. It is, therefore, apparent that the industry ia 
 a small one, comparatively, and one which would seem to warrant protection and 
 encouragement. 
 
 Any reduction in the present tariff will, we feel sufficiently confident, eliminate 
 borax mining in the United States, and yet at the same time will not tend to reduce 
 prices to the consumer. Such tariff reduction will open the United States market to 
 foreign mines in South America, Asia, and Europe. It would also help foreign labor, 
 throw out of employment in the United States men who have specialized in this 
 industry and helped build it up from a gross production in 1895 of 5,959 short tons to 
 53,330 tons in 1911. It is interesting to note that with the growth of the borax mining 
 industry there has been an immense reduction in the value of the crude ore. Thus 
 in 1895 a production of 5,959 tons netted the miners $595,900, or $100 per ton; while 
 the production of 53,330 tons in 1911 brought them but $1,569,151, or about $29 per ton. 
 Statistics to be obtained from the Federal authorities will also show that the price of 
 borax and boric acid to the consumers has been steadily reduced during the period 
 mentioned. 
 
124 TABIFF HEAB1NGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 11 BORAX. 
 
 Even with the nominal protection afforded by the present tariff foreign competitor* 
 found it possible to import in 1911 for consumption in the United States borax and 
 berates, including boric acid, with a valuation of about $24,000. 
 
 The facts furnished above will prove the limited market for borate products in the 
 United States, and a reduction in the present tariff will merely mean an increased 
 profit for the foreign producer, as he could mine and ship the refined product to the 
 United States at a slightly lower cost than at present, while such a reduction in tariff 
 would effectually eliminate a minor industry in this State, the development of which 
 has gradually lessened the cost of a household necessity year by year, and not followed 
 the trend of other protected industries to the detriment of the general public. 
 
 We urge all Senators and Congressmen receiving this brief to give the matter their 
 most earnest consideration, and we sincerely trust that the facts presented may con- 
 vince them of the necessity for retaining the existing small tariff on borax and borate 
 products. 
 Respectfully presented. 
 
 CHAMBER OP MINES AND OIL, 
 HENRY BLUMENBERQ, Jr., 
 THOS. THORKILDSEN, 
 C. E. CALM, 
 
 Committee. 
 Approved. 
 
 Russ AVERT, President. 
 G. M. SWINDELL, Secretary. 
 
 BRIEF IN FAVOR OF THE PROTECTIVE TARIFF ON BORAX, 
 BORIC ACID, AND BORATE OF LIME. 
 
 VENTURA, CAL., January 7, 1913. 
 
 The entire production of borax in the United States is virtually 
 derived from lour producing mines located in this State in outlying 
 and desert country. Our mine is one of the four and is under heavy 
 expense for hauling the ore 75 miles by wagon and very high rate for 
 wages to miners and for supplies. 
 
 Our crude ore is principally colemanite, a variety of borate of lime, 
 having a large percentage of impurities, which necessitates refining 
 
 The total yearly production of our mine is 6,000 tons, at an approxi- 
 mate valuation at the mine of $25 per ton for the crude ore. 
 
 We employ about an average of 65 men, whose wage is approxi- 
 mately $200 per day. Any reduction of the present tariff will force 
 us to discontinue operations and will not only work a hardship upon 
 our stockholders, but also upon the laborers and others depending 
 upon the operation of this mine. 
 
 The present market price of the refined commercial product (borax) 
 is lower than has ever been known before and would not be reduced 
 even with a reduction of the tariff, and we can not see that it will be 
 of any advantage either to the American consumer or manufacturer. 
 
 HENRY M. RUSSELL, 
 President Russell Borate Mining Co. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 125 
 
 PARAGRAPH 11 BORAX. 
 BRIEF OF THE PACIFIC COAST BOEAX CO., NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 PACIFIC COAST BORAX Co., 
 
 New York, January 28, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Referring to the present law: 
 Paragraph 1. Boracic acid, present duty 3 cents per pound. 
 Paragraph 11. Borax, present duty 2 cents per pound; borates of 
 lime, soda, or other borate material not otherwise provided for in 
 this section, present duty 2 cents per pound. 
 
 We beg to protest against any change in the above duties, for the 
 following reasons: 
 
 BORATES OF LIME OR SODA OR OTHER BORATE MATERIAL NOT OTHER- 
 WISE PROVIDED FOR. 
 
 The mineral (borate of lime) from which borax and boracic acid 
 are manufactured is found in this country in commercial quantities 
 chiefly in the western portion of the United States, and particularly 
 in the States of California and Nevada, where it is confined to a lim- 
 ited area of desert country known as the Death Valley region. From 
 this region there is mined annually approximately 50,000 tons of 
 crude borate material. The production of this material has neces- 
 sitated extensive developments for many years, and an industry of 
 considerable magnitude has grown up in connection with the pro- 
 duction of borate of lime in Death Valley. 
 
 In the past years of growth in the borax business in America, it 
 has been necessary to build railroads and wagon roads, and to establish 
 water stations through the development of springs, and generally 
 to civilize arid wastes of drifting sand. This development work has 
 so opened up the thousands of square miles of land in Death Valley 
 and other desert sections of California and Nevada that it is now 
 possible to reach, with safety, most of the ulterior points on the 
 desert, and prospectors as well as others are frequently seen trav- 
 eling with safety from place to place on the desert, depending largely 
 for food and water upon the stations established by the borax people, 
 until death from want of water is much less frequent than formerly, 
 and through prospecting thus made possible, much land containing 
 other valuable minerals has been found which heretofore was entirely 
 unknown. The possibility in potash alone is an example of what 
 has been accomplished through civilization by the borax people, 
 who alone have done the pioneer development work hi the American 
 deserts and converted them, and particularly the Death VaUey, as 
 it is generally known to-day, into an oasis of health and remunerative 
 employment for many contented workmen and prospectors. 
 
 During the past 10 years, extensive plants have been constructed 
 in order that the borate material may be economically produced, 
 assorted, calcined, and shipped. A great many men are constantly 
 employed in this industry. A railroad of 127 miles in length has 
 been built to carry the crude material from one of the fields of pro- 
 
126 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 11 BORAX. 
 
 duction to a point of connection with a transcontinental railway 
 line. The industry which, through years of development, effort, and 
 economic management, has thus grown and developed in the arid 
 region of Death Valley, until at present there is expended annually 
 for labor and supplies approximately $750,000. 
 
 In order to produce commercial borax and boric acid from the 
 crude material extracted from the Death Valley fields, it is necessary 
 to combine the borate ingredients existent in the material with a 
 certain percentage of soda. Soda of proper quality does not exist 
 in that region. It therefore becomes necessary to either ship the 
 crude material to some point on the Atlantic seaboard, where it may 
 be combined with soda, or to ship soda from the point of its produc- 
 tion in the Eastern States to some point on the Pacific coast, and 
 there to combine it with the borate material. 
 
 Since the territory of the greatest distribution for the refined prod- 
 uct is existent upon the Atlantic coast and east of the Mississippi 
 River, it has been determined by experience that it is necessary to 
 ship the crude ore to some point in the East for its manufacture into 
 refined borax and boric acid, and from that point distributed to the 
 consumers. The vast production and transportation of raw mate- 
 rial from the fields in the West to eastern points of manufacture 
 necessitates a considerable expenditure. Approximately 25,000 tons 
 of marketable borate ore are shipped from the 50,000 tons mined 
 from these fields each year to the Atlantic seaboard for refining. Of 
 such crude material so shipped approximately 60 per cent consists of 
 lime, which has no commercial value. Thus it becomes necessary 
 to transport across the continent 15,000 tons of waste material in 
 order that the essential ingredients of the crude ore may be secured. 
 Such trnsportation necessitates the payment of large sums for freight 
 and adds greatly to the commercial and economic value of the 
 borax industry, as the same has grown up in this country. 
 
 With the present import dut} r existing, the American borax indus- 
 try is enabled to compete successfully in the American market with 
 foreign producers of the same material. The producers of borate 
 material in the western United States have their strongest competi- 
 tors in the fields of borate ore existent upon the eastern and western 
 coasts of South America. In the Argentine Republic, Chile, and 
 Peru borate of lime superior in quality to the California mineral 
 can be produced from extensive fields at a low cost with "peon" 
 labor, which receives a daily wage of from 25 to 50 cents. The 
 product of these fields can be cheaply transported by ship to American 
 ports, and the total expenditure for production ana delivery of 
 South American borate material to points of manufacture and dis- 
 tribution within this country is, and will continue to be, very cheap 
 when compared with the outlay necessary to produce the material 
 in the Death Valley region and transport the same to the Atlantic 
 coast, there to be refined and manufactured into the commercial 
 product. Such South American competition becomes doubly dan- 
 gerous to the borax industry of this country because of the fact 
 that upon the completion of the Panama Canal the South American 
 producer, chiefly in Chile and Peru, can extract, ship, and deliver 
 crude borate material to New York or other Atlantic seaboard ports 
 
SCHEDULE A. 127 
 
 PARAGRAPH 11 BORAX. 
 
 at a less cost than the cost of mining in the Death Valley fields 
 plus the cost of transportation to the eastern seaboard points. 
 
 If the import duty is removed from borate, as was proposed in 
 House bill 20182 and passed by the House, the industry which has 
 been built up in this country, together with its incidental and attend- 
 ant activities and benefits, would cease. A great amount of valuable 
 property would be forced to lie dormant and to revert to its original 
 condition of an arid, nonproductive desert waste of drifting sand. 
 The only direct result would be to wreck an American industry and 
 take from the channels of trade and commerce the benefits which are 
 now directly derived from such industry in a monetary and commer- 
 cial sense. If, on the other hand, the import duty was maintained 
 upon borate of lime, borax, and boracic acid, the present extensive 
 workings of Death Valley will continue their operations and hun- 
 dreds of persons who are now dependent for support upon such 
 industry and its incidental activities would continue in their present 
 satisfied and prosperous condition, and the other mineral resources 
 of the territory which have been developed hi the past will continue 
 to be prospected and developed in the future. 
 
 The duties under the present law are a reduction of 60 per cent 
 from what they were under the Dingley law, and under these condi- 
 tions only mines that are fairly well situated from a transportation 
 standpoint are able to operate. Many properties that were formerly 
 operated have been compelled to discontinue operations. We may 
 mention some of these properties : In Oregon, the Rose Valley Borax 
 Co.; in Nevada, the Arnedee Borax Co., the Rhodes-Marsh Borax 
 Co., Teels-Marsh Borax Co.; the borate properties at Columbus, 
 Nev., the Reno Borax Co., in California, the San Bernardino Borax 
 Co. (where the recent potash discoveries were made), and the mine 
 of the Sterling Borax Co. in Ventura County. None of these prop- 
 erties can be profitably worked under the present conditions. It is 
 therefore imperative that instead of putting borate material on the 
 free list the present duty should be maintained and that the duties 
 on refined borax and boracic acid also should not be reduced. 
 
 The price of borax has decreased over 90 per cent since 1870, when 
 it was 35 cents per pound, to 3| cents per pound in 1912. The annual 
 consumption has increased from approximately 300 tons in 1870 to 
 over 20,000 tons in 1912. The duty has been reduced 60 per cent 
 from what it was under the Dingley bill, 5 cents per pound, to 2 
 cents per pound under the present law. To remove the duty would 
 close the western mines. 
 
 The present improvements and desert developments, including 
 127 miles of broad-gauge railroad, would, however, suffer, which is 
 much to be regretted, for if the borate shipments were discontinued 
 the railroad would have to be abandoned, as the other business 
 would not support the operations of the road, and all development 
 in that region of the Pacific coast would consequently cease. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 PACIFIC COAST BOB AX Co., 
 C. K. FABRISIDE, 
 
 Eastern Manager. 
 
128 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH Id CAMPHOR. 
 
 PAEAQEAPH 12. 
 
 Camphor, refined, and synthetic camphor, six cents per pound. 
 
 CAMPHOR. 
 
 AMERICAN CAMPHOR REFINING CO., BOSTON, MASS., URGES 
 RETENTION OF DUTY ON CAMPHOR. 
 
 BOSTON, January 6, 1918. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman of Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: We respectfully bring to your attention the importance to the 
 American refiner of camphor that there should be no change hi the 
 existing rate of duty under the present tariff. 
 
 Crude camphor is a monopoly of the Imperial Japanese Govern- 
 ment and is admitted free of duty. 
 
 Refined camphor is manufactured by the American refiner from 
 the crude camphor imported from Japan and Formosa. 
 
 Notwithstanding a duty of 6 cents per pound on refined camphor, 
 the imports of Japanese refined camphor are constantly increasing, as 
 will be seen by the following statement: 
 
 Imports Japanese refined camphor. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1890 87 
 
 1896 153, 912 
 
 1900 109, 971 
 
 1905 214, 049 
 
 1909 430, 524 
 
 1910 492, 583 
 
 At the present time Japanese refined camphor is selling at from 1 
 to 2 cents per pound less than the home product, notwithstanding the 
 duty of 6 cents per pound. 
 
 In consequence of the fact that labor in Japan is less than one- 
 fourth of the amount paid in the United States for similar labor, and 
 as refiners here are not favored as are the refiners in Japan, it will 
 readily be seen that if the duty on the refined product is decreased, 
 or if a duty is placed on crude camphor without a corresponding 
 increase in the duty of refined camphor, the industry in the United 
 States must be discontinued. 
 
 We shall be pleased to furnish any additional information or to 
 answer any inquiries. 
 
 Respectfully, AMERICAN CAMPHOR REFINING Co., 
 
 CHAS. A. WEST, President. 
 
 BAKER & BRO., NEW YORK CITY, PROTEST AGAINST CHANGE 
 OF DUTY ON CAMPHOR. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 8, 1918. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR : In reply to your notice of tariff hearings, dated De- 
 cember 11, 1912, we oeg to submit the following : 
 
SCHEDULE A. 129 
 
 PARAGRAPH 12 CAMPHOR. 
 
 "Paragraph No. 12. Refined camphor, present duty, 6 cents per 
 pound." 
 
 We beg to enter our protest against any changes in the present 
 tariff reducing the tax on refined camphor from 6 cents per pound 
 and placing a duty on the crude material, which is now on the free 
 list. 
 
 Should the changes in H. R. 20182 become effective, it will be the 
 equivalent of reducing the present duty on refined and synthetic cam- 
 phor 66 per cent. 
 
 The crude supply of the world is controlled by the Japanese Im- 
 perial Government monopoly. 
 
 Due to the advantages enjoyed by the Japanese refiners of location 
 and cheap-labor conditions, even under the present duty imports 
 of refined camphor have increased as follows : 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1890 87 
 
 1896 153,912 
 
 1900 109,791 
 
 1905 214,049 
 
 1909 430,524 
 
 1910 492,583 
 
 We have been refiners of camphor for about 40 years and desire 
 to remain in the business, but any radical changes in the present tariff 
 schedules will put the business in the hands of foreign refiners. 
 We remain, very respectfully, yours, 
 
 H. J. BAKER & BRO. 
 
 PFIZER & CO., NEW YORK CITY, REQUESTS THAT PRESENT 
 DUTY ON CAMPHOR BE MAINTAINED. 
 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Pursuant to your notice of tariff hearings, 1913, dated 
 December 11, 1912, we beg to submit the following: 
 
 The paragraphs mentioned below refer to the present tariff law. 
 
 Paragraph 12. Camphor, refined, and synthetic camphor. Present 
 rate, 6 cents per pound. 
 
 It is evident from the fact that refined camphor is constantly 
 being imported into the United States in increasing quantities that 
 the refiners in the United States are not enabled to compete success- 
 fully with the foreign refiners, especially those of Japan, where all 
 the costs of refining camphor are vastly lower than those of our 
 own country. The imports of refined camphor into the United 
 States in 1900 were 109,971 pounds, and have been constantly 
 increasing since then, until in 1911 the imports were 492,111 pounds. 
 
 We submit, therefore, that if this industry is to be continued in 
 the United States the present duty should be maintained, if not 
 increased. 
 
 Paragraph 527. Camphor, crude, natural. On the free list of the 
 present tariff. 
 
 78959 VOL 1 
 
130 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 12 CAMPHOR. 
 
 This is the raw material for the manufacture of refined camphor. 
 Supplies of the world of crude natural camphor are now practically 
 under the control of a monopoly established by the Imperial Japa- 
 nese Government. Crude natural camphor is not only the raw 
 material for refined camphor, but also for other important products 
 manufactured in the United States. 
 
 We submit that this article should be retained upon the free list. 
 If, however, for reasons of revenue it is deemed wise to place a tariff 
 upon this material, then we suggest that a proportionate increase 
 should be made in the tariff for refined, bearing in mind that 100 
 pounds of crude camphor represents in the finished refined product 
 85 to 87 pounds. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, CHARLES PFIZER & Co. (!NC.), 
 
 FRANKLIN BLACK, Secretary. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 6, 1913. 
 
 STATEMENT BY SOBERING & GLATZ, NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 30, 1913. 
 The honorable COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. G. 
 
 SIRS: We beg leave to present to your committee for considera- 
 tion the following data relating to the chemical schedule of the tariff 
 revision: 
 
 1. Crude synthetic camphor from oil of turpentine. The tariff act of 
 1909 provides that natural crude camphor enters the United States 
 free of duty, excluding, however, absolutely a crude synthetic cam- 
 phor, because the impurities of the latter are not identical with 
 those of natural camphor. Importers of crude synthetic camphor 
 are required, therefore, to enter the product under the paragraph 
 which provides that "Refined or synthetic camphor shall pay a 
 duty of 6 cents per pound." Competition with the natural product 
 is made impossible, therefore, although it is well known that neither 
 the natural nor the synthetic crude camphor can be used for the 
 production of a satisfactory colorless grade of celluloid. 
 
 We recommend that this paragraph be changed to read: "Refined 
 natural or synthetic camphor shall pay a duty of 6 cents per pound" 
 and that paragraph 527 dealing with natural crude camphor be 
 supplemented to include also the synthetic crude camphor. 
 
 2. Chemical compounds and salts containing alcohol, or in the prep- 
 aration of which alcohol is used. Paragraph 3 of the tariff act of 1909 
 provided that chemical compounds and salts containing alcohol, or 
 in the preparation of winch alcohol is used, shall pay a duty of 55 
 cents per pound, but not less than 25 per cent ad valorem n. s. p. f. 
 
 We recommend that this paragraph be changed to exclude chem- 
 ical preparations in the preparation of which alcohol is used which 
 do not contain alcohol, however, and that an ad valorem duty be 
 provided therefor not higher than that assessed on medicinal prep- 
 arations. The present rate of duty is absolutely unjust, because it 
 exceeds in many instances many times the value of the merchandise. 
 Chloral hydrate, for instance, entering under this paragraph, has a 
 
SCHEDULE A. 131 
 
 PARAGRAPH 13 CHALK. 
 
 market value of about 15 cents per pound and the duty thereon is 
 55 cents per pound. 
 
 3. Tannic acid " Tannin." Tannin is specially provided for under 
 paragraph 1 of the tariff act of 1909 to pay duty at the rate of 35 
 cents per pound. 
 
 In view of the fact that its market value rarely exceeds 35 cents, 
 we recommend that the duty be modified to an ad valorem rate on 
 the basis of chemical compounds or chemical acids, n. s. p. f. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 SCHERING & GLATZ. 
 
 PARAGEAPH 13. 
 
 Chalk, when ground, bolted, precipitated naturally or artificially, or other- 
 wise prepared, whether in the form of cubes, blocks, sticks or disks, or 
 otherwise, including tailors', billiard, red, or French chalk, one cent per 
 pound; manufactures of chalk not specially provided for in this section, 
 twenty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 See M. Ewing Fox & Co., page 324. 
 
 CHALK. 
 
 STATEMENT OF FREDERICK N. TIRRELL, OF STICKNEY, 
 TIRRELL & CO., BOSTON, MASS. 
 
 Mr. TERRELL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I wish to call your 
 attention = 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What industrv do vou speak for? 
 
 Mr. TIRRELL. Stickney, Tirrell & Co.; Paris white, coming under 
 two different articles in the schedule. 
 
 First, I will take chalk. Please refer to the present tariff under 
 the free list, page 71, section 531, and page 2, section 13. Please 
 note that H. K. 20182, page 21, section 84, continues chalk on the 
 free list, but the wording of section 17, page 4, would impose a duty 
 on "Chalk, natural," of 10 per cent ad valorem. Eliminate the 
 word "natural" in H. R. 20182 and, as relates to chalk, it is con- 
 sistent. There are no deposits of chalk on this continent from which 
 the American manufacturer can obtain his supply of raw material, 
 so that it must be imported from Europe mostly from England 
 and France paying the ocean freights on same. The advantage 
 to the foreign manufacturer under these conditions is obvious, as 
 he has his whiting factory adjoining the chalk quarry. It is unques- 
 tionably most beneficial to all concerned in this country that chalk 
 "crude or natural chalk" shall be continued on the free list; we 
 understand this to be your intention. In this section 17 please 
 note that chalk, ground or bolted, becomes by this process of manu- 
 facture whiting, and should carry the same rate of duty as whiting 
 and Paris white. We would suggest, to avoid confusion, that the 
 folio whig be stricken out of section 17, page 4, line 24, viz: "Natural 
 ground or bolted, ten per centum ad valorem." Also permit us to 
 call your attention to H. R. 20182, page 20, section 74, line 14, 
 "French chalk, powdered, washed, or pulverized." By this process 
 it becomes whiting and should carry the same duty as whiting and 
 Paris white. Chalk "crude, natural" whether English or French, 
 
132 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 13 CHALK. 
 
 reduced to powdered form by any process of manipulation, becomes 
 whiting and Paris white. 
 
 "Whiting" and "Paris white" are commercial terms and refer to 
 merchandise produced principally from crude or natural chalk. A 
 ton of chalk will not make a ton of whiting or Paris white. It re- 
 quires from 2,700 to 2,800 pounds of the crude material to make 
 2,000 pounds of whiting or Paris white. The freight and handling 
 charges on this 700 to 800 pounds per ton of waste reduces by so 
 much the duty protection. We have no knowledge of any demand 
 or request from the American consumer for a reduction in the present 
 duty of one-fourth of 1 cent per pound. Please refer to the present 
 tariff, page 5, section 54. Also piease refer to H. R. 20182, page 18, 
 section 65, proposing reduction to one-tenth of 1 cent per pound. 
 The Government has imposed a duty on whiting and Paris white 
 since 1816, and under any and all conditions never less than the 
 present duty, and during most of this period the duty has ranged 
 from one-half to 1 cent per pound, except from July, 1846, to July, 
 1862, when the "bars were let down," resulting in wide and violent 
 fluctuations in prices, caused by short or oversupply in importations 
 and ruling rates in ocean freights. "Corners" were of frequent 
 occurrence and the very conditions which dealers and consumers 
 seek to avoid were always present, creating an element of uncertainty. 
 During this period the industry languished in this country. The 
 universal sentiment expressed by dealers and consumers is that 
 prices under the present rate of one-fourth of 1 cent per pound are 
 satisfactory and that what is most desired is stability and uniformity 
 of price which is secured to them by competition among the Ameri- 
 can manufacturers and the avoidance of fluctuations certain to pre- 
 vail under a tariff that would eliminate the American manufacturer. 
 The present tariff is not prohibitive, although very little whiting and 
 Paris white is imported. This is because of the low rate of prices of 
 the American manufacturer. There is no trust or combination in 
 the business. There have been no fortunes made by the whiting 
 manufacturers. Competition among American manufacturers is, 
 and always has been, intense. The margin of profit to the American 
 manufacturer is so small that freight rates in this country largely 
 determine the market in which the consumer places his orders. 
 
 Consumption of whiting and Paris white in this country, based on 
 the statistics of 1911, is about 100,000 tons yearly. If the entire 
 amount were imported under the proposed tariff rate, the Govern- 
 ment would receive about $200,000 in duties and the loss to labor in 
 this country would be about $500,000 to 8600,000 per annum. 
 
 Labor is all able-bodied men and the scale of wages hi this country 
 ranges from SI. 65 to S3 per day, the same being somewhat over 50 
 per cent higher than for similar labor in Europe. 
 
 The cost of chalk and labor to the European manufacturer is from 
 S4.50 to So. 50 per ton less than to the American manufacturer, so that 
 the present rule of one-fourth of 1 cent per pound duty on whiting 
 and Paris white is protecting the American laborer only and does not 
 contribute to the American whiting manufacturer's margin of profit. 
 It Li by superior methods of manufacturing we are able to maintain 
 
SCHEDULE A. 133 
 
 PARAGRAPH 13 CHALK. 
 
 this business under the present tariff, and it appears to us the limit 
 of possibilities in that direction is reached. We will be pleased to 
 inform you in detail any information we possess in relation to this 
 industry, believing that careful investigation by your committee will 
 verify these statements and convince you that the industry is not 
 deriving undue profit from the present rate of one-fourth of 1 cent 
 
 Ker pound duty, that the present rate barely protects the common 
 iborer in this industry in a modest wage, and that any reduction 
 of the present duty is certain to seriously disturb and, 'if the rate 
 proposed is maintained in the new tariff, probably abolish the manu- 
 facture of whiting and Paris white in this country. 
 
 In this connection it is only fair to state that the investments in 
 mills and machinery, because of their nature, would become practi- 
 cally worthless, seriously crippling the various owners. 
 
 We therefore protest, and earnestly request that in your proposed 
 bill these articles be placed at not less than that now imposed, and 
 further ask the benefit of your wide influence to give us this measure 
 of justice. 
 
 I present this not only in my own behalf, but have been requested 
 to do so by the legislative committee of the whiting manufacturers, 
 all of whom have indorsed this, and I would be pleased to present it 
 as the brief of the whiting manufacturers, to be substituted for any 
 brief that any individual member may have filed with your com- 
 mittee, because it embraces substantially all the facts contained in the 
 various briefs that have been submitted. 
 
 I am also pleased to file with your committee, for reference, a 
 couple of photographs that may be of some interest in determining 
 the competition we are against as regards simply the process of 
 manufacturing. 
 
 BRIEF OF THE CRESCENT BURNER MANUFACTURING CO., NEW 
 
 YORK, N. Y. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 27, 1918. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We take the liberty of submitting to you herewith 
 specimen of a raw material which is extensively imported into this 
 country for the purpose of manufacturing gas burners and insulators. 
 
 This material is now taxed, in the condition in which we submit 
 it to you, at 1 cent per pound, the same as talcum powder. 
 
 We would ask to have this material, which classifies either as "cut 
 steatite" or " German lava," on the free list, as it can not be used in 
 this condition for any other purposes than to manufacture other 
 articles, and in order to reduce it by crushing to powder American 
 labor would have to be added, which amounts to more than 1 cent 
 per pound. We have established a considerable industry with this 
 material, and not only sell these goods all over the United States but 
 also in foreign countries, where we have to compete with the market 
 of Germany, which is also the country of origin of this raw material. 
 
134 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 The case would be covered by a paragraph in Schedule B, which 
 would read : " Steatite, German lava, or soapstone, cut either in squares 
 or in trapeze form, free." 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 CRESCENT BURNER MANUFACTURING Co. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 14. 
 
 Chloroform, ten cents per pound. 
 For chloroform, see also Mallinckrodt Chemical Works et al., page 48. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15. 
 
 Coal-tar dyes or colors, not specially provided for in this section, thirty per 
 centum ad valorem; all other products or preparations of coal tar, not colors 
 or dyes and not medicinal, not specially provided for in this section, twenty 
 per centum ad valorem. 
 
 For other coal-tar products, etc., see also Mallinckrodt Chemical Works et al., page 48; 
 for coal-tar dyes or colors n. s. p. f., see also John F. Queeny, page 81; E. C. Klipstein, 
 page 231; Verona Chemical Co., page 71; and General Chemical Co., page 40. 
 
 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 STATEMENT OF J. F. SCHOELLKOPF ON BEHALF OF THE 
 SCHOELLKOPF, HARTFOBD & HANNA CO., BUFFALO, N. Y. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We respectfully request that no change be made 
 in the rates on coal-tar dyes and allied products, covered by para- 
 graphs 15, 482, 491, 536, 593, and 639, until a careful and expert 
 investigation of the whole chemical schedule has been made by a 
 committee or commission appointed for that purpose. 
 
 We are members of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association of 
 the United States (with the exception of Central Dyestuff & Chemical 
 Co.) and we thoroughly agree with the position taken by that associa- 
 tion as outlined in the letter of October 31, 1912, addressed to you by 
 the chairman of the executive committee, Mr. Henry Howard. 
 
 We maintain that the coal-tar color industry has never had adequate 
 protection since the tariff act of 1883, and the most conclusive proof 
 of this is that the large German manufacturers have consistently 
 refused to establish plants in the United States, while they have not 
 hesitated to build branch factories in Russia, France, and England, 
 in all of which countries the consumption of these dyes is smaller 
 than here in America. 
 
 A further convincing proof that this industry has not received 
 proper encouragement is the fact that since its establishment over 30 
 years ago it at no time supplied over 20 per cent of the domestic con- 
 sumption, and at the present time more than 80 per cent of the coal- 
 tar dyes used in the United States are imported, principally from 
 Germany. 
 
 The principal reasons for the nondevelopment of the coal-tar 
 industry in the United States are: 
 
 (1) Patent law. Up to 1880 the industry was in its infancy every- 
 where, even in Germany. About that tune the first important 
 German patents were taken out. Under our patent laws then, which 
 remain unchanged to this day, the foreign owners of patents were not 
 compelled to manufacture in the United States. The American 
 
SCHEDULE A. 135 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 manufacturers were therefore restricted to a few colors, such as 
 magentas, rosanilinblues, eosines, chrysoidines, bismarckbrowns, etc. 
 
 (2) Duty on raw materials. Since 1883 the domestic color manu- 
 facturers were necessarily confined to using coal-tar products which 
 were on the free list and could be obtained in this country on a com- 
 petitive basis, such as aniline oil and salts, benzole, nitrobenzol, 
 arseniate of aniline, etc. For this reason the American maker was 
 slow in taking up new lines even when the expiration of the foreign 
 patents permitted him to do so. 
 
 (3) Insufficient duty on colors. At no time since 1883, when the 
 specific duty of 50 cents per pound was taken off coal-tar dyes, was 
 the duty on colors high enough to compensate for the difference in 
 cost between America and Europe. This was true even for colors 
 using free raw materials, let alone dyes, the raw materials for which 
 were taxed. (See Table D, annexed hereto.) Immediately following 
 the passage of the tariff act of 1883 more than hah* of the American 
 coal-tar dye factories shut down permanently, and the few remaining 
 plants have kept up the struggle ever since under the most adverse 
 circumstances. 
 
 We refer to the Report No. 326, on Schedule A, which report was 
 printed to accompany H. R. 20182. On page 17, paragraph 4 of this 
 report, the following language occurs: 
 
 Probably the most radical change in the chemical schedule made by H. R. 20182 
 is that of the classification and change of the duties of coal-tar products. The manu- 
 facture of these products is little developed in this country and imports are principally 
 from Germany, where this manufacture is highly developed. 
 
 The changes alluded to were radical, indeed, for they proposed to 
 reduce the duty on the finished colors and dyes and make the raw 
 materials, which were on the free list, dutiable, thus placing the 
 American manufacturers in a worse position than they ever were in 
 before. 
 
 Why this industry, already underprotected and in a precarious 
 condition, should be singled out in this manner we do not pretend to 
 understand. If under present conditions it is hardly able to supply 
 20 per cent of the domestic requirements, one can easily imagine 
 what would happen if these conditions were made infinitely worse by 
 adopting such radical changes as proposed in H. R. 20182. 
 
 We have annexed hereto the brief submitted to the Ways and 
 Means Committee during the tariff revision of 1909. The statements 
 made in that brief are as true to-day as they were then, and if given 
 the opportunity every statement made therein can be substantiated. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., March 14, 1912. 
 Hon. BOIES PENROSE, 
 
 Chairman Senate Committee on Finance. 
 
 DEAR SIR: The undersigned respectfully wish to protest most emphatically against 
 the amendments to the present tariff law contained in H. R. 20182, paragraphs 21, 23, 
 and 24, for the following reasons: 
 
 1. Even with the present duty on coal-tar colors and with coal-tar products coming 
 in free we are barely able to hold our own against our foreign competitors. In fact 
 we can only do so by sacrificing the greater part of our legitimate profits, and if a change 
 is made in the rate for coal-tar dyes it should be increased rather than decreased, as 
 is clearly shown by Tables A, B, C, and D, annexed hereto. 
 
 2. If the purpose of making these changes was to increase revenues this object will 
 not be attained, for even if the importers should give the American consumers the 
 benefit of the entire reduction in the duty, the consumption would not be stimulated. 
 
136 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 If, as the makers of the bill assume, the value of imported coal-tar dyes would actually 
 increase a million dollars, then as the total consumption of coal-tar ayes in the United 
 States is about seven and one-half millions, of which the American manufacturer 
 produces but one and one-half millions, the result would be to deprive the domestic 
 manufacturers of a million dollars worth of products, which would be equivalent to 
 driving them out of business. 
 
 3. The American consumers of coal-tar colors would not be benefited by the reduc- 
 tion in the duty proposed for the reason that the importers would not lower their 
 eelling prices in the same ratio. On the contrary, to judge by similar experiences in 
 the past, the foreign makers, after eliminating American competition, would raise 
 their prices, so that the final result would be higher prices to the American user and 
 smaller revenues to the United States Government. 
 
 4. It would be an economic blunder to crush out American competition and abandon 
 the market to the mercy of foreign makers. It has been our experience in the past 
 that whenever we came into the market with a new color the price of this particular 
 dye experienced a decided drop, thus benefiting the American consumer. The mere 
 fact that the industry exists in this country has a restraining influence on the importers, 
 tends to keep prices at their proper level, and saves the American consumer from the 
 arbitrary exactions and high prices of the foreign manufacturers. 
 
 We beg to call special attention to the fact that our raw materials, which are now on 
 the free list and which this bill proposes to tax, can not be manufactured to advantage 
 in this country for the reason that the individual products are used in comparatively 
 small quantities, which would not warrant the investment of the capital required for 
 their manufacture. We speak from experience in this matter, for we ourselves spent 
 a great many thousand dollars in endeavoring to make these products, but we finally 
 had to give up the attempt. 
 
 We took up the manufacture of these colors in 1880 and within the next three years 
 eight other factories were established for the same purpose. If this industry had not 
 been so handicapped at that time, America would now doubtless be manufacturing 
 its own requirements in these products. But what happened? The tariff act of 1883 
 abolished the specific duty of 50 cents per pound, leaving an ad valorem duty of 35 
 per cent on the colors and 20 per cent on the coal-tar products, the raw materials for 
 the colors. 
 
 The immediate result was that five of the new factories closed their doors, and the 
 remaining four struggled along under adverse conditions, hoping that some future 
 revision would bring them relief. This hope was in vain, however. On the contrary, 
 the ad valorem duty on the colors was further reduced to 30 per cent in 1897 without 
 any corresponding reduction in the duty on raw materials. 
 
 During the last revision for the first time in 30 years Congress evinced a disposition 
 to meet us in a fair spirit by adding to the free list these additional raw materials: 
 
 Naphtylaminsulfoacids and their sodium or potassium salts. 
 
 Naphtolsulfoacids and their sodium or potassium salts. 
 
 Amidonaphtolsulfoacids and their sodium or potassium salts. 
 
 Amidosalicylic acid. 
 
 Diamidostiibendisulfoacid. 
 
 Metanilic acid. 
 
 Paranitranilin. 
 
 Dimethylanilin. 
 
 Binitrochlorbenzol. 
 
 This enabled us to increase our range of colors considerably but it certainly is rather 
 discouraging that barely two years after these changes were adopted, to practically 
 put us out of business by not only again placing a duty on these products but also at 
 the same time lowering the duty on the finished colors to a point where their manu- 
 facture becomes absolutely unnemunerative. 
 
 We wish to state here that we have signified to the Tariff Board our willingness to 
 open our books to them whenever they are ready to investigate the chemical schedule. 
 
 In closing we would like to draw your attention to that part of the "Glossary on 
 Schedule A " prepared by the Tariff Board, relating to "Special features of the German 
 chemical industry" (p. '224) (H. Kept. 326, 62d Cong., p. 378) which discloses in a 
 rather startling manner the danger to the domestic consumer of the elimination of 
 American competition. 
 
 SCHOELLKOPF, HARTFORD & HANNA Co 
 
SCHEDULE A. 137 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 BUFFALO, N. Y., November 9, 1908. 
 Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 DEAR SIR: The undersigned respectfully request that at the impending revision 
 of the tariff the minimum duty on coal-tar colors and dyes be increased from 30 per 
 cent to 40 per cent ad valorem, and that all coal-tar products and preparations not col- 
 ors or dyes used in the manufacture of these dyes be placed on the free list. 
 
 In submitting this request we do so with the understanding that it is the intention 
 of Congress to adjust import duties, so as to give the domestic manufacturer adequate 
 protection against his foreign rival, or, in other words, the duties imposed shall cover 
 the difference in cost of the article protected when made in America as against the 
 same article when made abroad. 
 
 In asking for free entry of all coal-tar products and preparations used in the manu- 
 facture of coal-tar colors, no American industry will be injured, as these articles are 
 not made in the United States, nor can they be manufactured profitably under exist- 
 ing conditions. 
 
 In order to prove that our demands as outlined above are not unreasonable, we 
 have prepared the following tables: 
 
 Table A: Showing cost of a coal-tar dye plant in America and Germany designed 
 for a yearly output of 3,000,000 pounds; also showing the .cost for depreciation on 
 buildings and wear and tear on machinery and interest on investment. 
 
 Table B: Showing number of employees required and their salaries for such a plant 
 in America and Germany. 
 
 Table C: Showing material required to produce 3,000,000 pounds of color and cost 
 of same under present tariff; also under tariff as proposed by us; also cost of same 
 material in Germany. 
 
 Table D: Showing comparative cost of 3,000,000 pounds of color when produced in 
 Germany, also cost when produced under present tariff, also cost when produced 
 under tariff as proposed by us. 
 
 By referring to Table D, it appears that taking the cost of colors in Germany at 100 
 per cent, the same colors cost to produce in America under the present tariff, 144.1 
 per cent, and in case all coal-tar preparations should be admitted free, the cost would 
 still be over 134.4 per cent. That our figures are correct is positively proven by two 
 highly significant facts: 
 
 First. These same colors are now being imported from Germany and sold in this 
 market for less than it costs us to produce them, even omitting charges for depre- 
 ciation and interest on investment. 
 
 Second. By the fact that German manufacturers do not manufacture in the United 
 States, because, as people high in authority state openly, they can manufacture the 
 colors in Germany and lay them down in the United States, with duty of 30 per cent 
 and manufacturer's profit added, at a lower price than they could manufacture the 
 same colors in America. 
 
 By referring again to the same table, it appears that under the proposed tariff the 
 cost of colors would be only 35 per cent higher than the same colors when made in 
 Germany, while we are asking for a duty of 40 per cent. It should be borne in mind, 
 however, that in the first place the American manufacturer, in order to secure the 
 home market, must be in a position to undersell the importer, and in the second place, 
 the foreign manufacturer, when driven to it, will always assume part of the duty 
 himself. The result would be that with a duty of 40 per cent the American manu- 
 facturer could not hope to realize more than 30 per cent in excess of what the same 
 goods are sold for in Germany, and probably considerably less. In any event, there- 
 fore, even with a 40 per cent duty the American manufacturer would have to content 
 himself with a considerably smaller profit than his German rival. 
 
 Since the present tariff went into effect American coal-tar dye manufacturers have 
 striven strenuously to capture the home market, and while they have succeeded in 
 increasing very materially their output, they have done so at no profit to themselves. 
 Whenever the domestic production of any one color increased sufficiently to inter- 
 fere seriously with the sale of the imported product, the foreign manufacturers dropped 
 prices to a point that compelled the American manufacturer to sell at cost or even lower. 
 
 On the other hand colors not made in America and controlled by the foreign manu- 
 facturers, either through patents or combinations, were not only not reduced but in 
 many instances actually increased in price. Eliminate American competition, and 
 prices, even with a reduced duty, will rise and not fall. We refer to such products as 
 alizarines, aniline salt, aniline oil, beta naphthol, etc., which during the past few 
 
138 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 years have advanced from 15 to 50 per cent, although the cost of production has not 
 risen. 
 
 In conclusion we beg to state that the figures and tables contained in this docu- 
 ment are taken from our books and represent actual conditions, and if desired, we are 
 prepared to prove the correctness of same in every particular. 
 
 On a separate sheet annexed hereto, marked "Table E," we suggest the wording 
 of the sections in the tariff which we desire to have changed. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 SCHOELLKOPP, HARTFORD & HANNA Co. 
 THE HELLER & MERZ Co. 
 
 TABLE A. Table showing cost of coal-tar dye plant designed for a yearly output oj 3,000,000 
 pounds: also showing the cost oj depredation of buildings and wear and tear on machin- 
 ery, etc. 
 
 
 Cost of plant in- 
 
 United 
 States. 
 
 Germany. 
 
 For land 
 
 $50,000.00 
 100,000.00 
 380,000.00 
 500,000.00 
 
 $50,000.00 
 60,000.00 
 250,000.00 
 350,000.00 
 
 Fnr buildings 
 
 For machinery, tools, etc 
 
 For working capital. 
 
 Total cost of plant 
 
 1,030,000.00 
 
 710,000.00 
 
 Depreciation on buildings, 5 per cent 
 
 5,000.00 
 38,000.00 
 61,800.00 
 
 3,000.00 
 25,000.00 
 
 42,600.00 
 
 Wear and tear on machinery, etc., 10 per cent 
 
 Into rpst nn invpstrnpnt, fi por npnt 
 
 Total 
 
 104,800.00 
 
 70,600.00 
 
 
 TABLE B. Table showing employees needed for a coal-tar dye plant with a yearly capacity 
 
 of 3,000,000 pounds. 
 
 
 United States. 
 
 Germany. 
 
 Rate. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Rate. 
 
 Total.' 
 
 1 general manager 
 
 $10,000.00 
 5,000.00 
 1,500.00 
 1,300.00 
 900.00 
 1, 144. 00 
 468.00 
 312.00 
 208.00 
 2, 500. 00 
 1,800.00 
 1, 200. 00 
 900.00 
 780.00 
 500.00 
 364.00 
 1,560.00 
 1,200.00 
 1,040.00 
 780.00 
 728.00 
 624.00 
 780.00 
 936. 00 
 676. 00 
 624.00 
 718.00 
 540.00 
 
 $10,000.00 
 10,000.00 
 6,000.00 
 1,300.00 
 900.00 
 3,432.00 
 468.00 
 312.00 
 416.00 
 2,500.00 
 1,800.00 
 1, 200. 00 
 2, 700. 00 
 780.00 
 1,000.00 
 364.00 
 1,560.00 
 1, 200. 00 
 2,080.00 
 4,680.00 
 1,456.00 
 1,248.00 
 3, 120. 00 
 1,872.00 
 1,352.00 
 2, 496. 00 
 7,180.00 
 44, 820. 00 
 
 $5,000.00 
 2,500.00 
 1,000.00 
 800.00 
 600.00 
 390.00 
 160.00 
 135.00 
 78.00 
 1, 220. 00 
 900.00 
 600.00 
 450.00 
 350.00 
 250.00 
 160.00 
 750.00 
 450.00 
 520.00 
 390.00 
 390.00 
 390.00 
 390.00 
 468.00 
 468.00 
 2CO.OO 
 390.00 
 300.00 
 
 $5,000.00 
 5,000.00 
 4,000.00 
 800.00 
 600.00 
 1,170.00 
 160.00 
 135.00 
 156.00 
 1,200.00 
 900.00 
 600.00 
 1,350.00 
 350.00 
 500.00 
 160.00 
 750.00 
 450.00 
 1,040.00 
 2,340.00 
 780.00 
 780.00 
 1,560.00 
 936.00 
 936. 00 
 1,040.00 
 3,900.00 
 24,900.00 
 
 2 head chemists 
 
 4 chemists . 
 
 
 Do 
 
 3 dyers 
 
 1 helper 
 
 Do.. 
 
 2 boys. 
 
 1 head bookkeeper 
 
 1 clerk 
 
 Do 
 
 3 clerks. 
 
 1 clerk 
 
 2 boys 
 
 1 telephone operator 
 
 1 superintendent 
 
 1 shipping clerk 
 
 2 engineers 
 
 C firemen 
 
 2 watchmen 
 
 2 teamsters . 
 
 4 carpenters 
 
 2 machinists . . 
 
 2 blacksmiths 
 
 4 helpers 
 
 10 foremen 
 
 83 laborers 
 
 Total... 
 
 
 llo,236. 00 
 
 
 61,493.00 
 
SCHEDULE A. 139 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 TABLE C. Material required for 3,000,000 pounds of coal-tar dyes and cost of same. 
 
 Chemicals used. 
 
 Quantities 
 in pounds. 
 
 Cost in United States 
 
 Cost in 
 Germany. 
 
 Under 
 present 
 tariff. 
 
 Under pro- 
 posed 
 
 tariff. 
 
 Nitrite soda 
 
 385,803 
 1,369,125 
 122,814 
 790,875 
 111,942 
 3,371,280 
 4,860 
 2,880 
 4,437 
 139,041 
 68,445 
 593,145 
 54,270 
 29,295 
 35,910 
 9,630 
 4,032 
 12,420 
 18,720 
 19,908 
 47,952 
 104,625 
 23,400 
 25,740 
 218,340 
 
 $29,899.74 
 10,268.43 
 409.38 
 7,592.40 
 2,417.94 
 5,899.74 
 65.61 
 144.00 
 1,668.30 
 16, 128. 75 
 16,426.80 
 206,414.46 
 4,205.94 
 4,247.79 
 9,605.91 
 1,661.16 
 695.52 
 5,464.80 
 4,867.20 
 4,411.62 
 5.591.19 
 22J 965. 18 
 7,317.18 
 8,494.20 
 66,047.85 
 
 $29,899.74 
 10,268.43 
 409.38 
 7,592. 40 
 2,417.94 
 5,899.74 
 65.61 
 144.00 
 1,387.89 
 16,128.75 
 13,689.00 
 172,605.21 
 4,205.94 
 3,544.71 
 7,989.96 
 1,396.35 
 584.64 
 4,558.14 
 2,822.97 
 4,081.14 
 5,072.22 
 21,228.09 
 5,974.02 
 8,494.20 
 66,047.85 
 
 $23,919.79 
 8,214.74 
 327.50 
 6,073.92 
 1,934.35 
 4,719.79 
 52.49 
 115.20 
 1,110.31 
 12,903.00 
 10,951.20 
 138,084.17 
 3,364.75 
 2,835.77 
 6,391.96 
 1,117.08 
 467.71 
 3,646.51 
 2,258.38 
 3,264.91 
 4,057.78 
 16,982.47 
 4,779.22 
 6,795.36 
 52,838.28 
 
 Muriatic acid 
 
 Sulphuric acid 
 
 Carbonate soda 
 
 Caustic soda 
 
 Common salt 
 
 Sulphide sodium 
 
 Ammonia 26' mono-aethyl . . 
 
 Alpha naphthylamine . . ... 
 
 Aniline oil 
 
 Paranitraniline 
 
 H-acid 
 
 Alpha naphthylamine 
 
 R-salt . . . t " 
 
 A Tnidn-fr-sfl.lt . L ..... 
 
 Freund's acid 
 
 Cleve acid 
 
 Gamma acid 
 
 Salicylic acid 
 
 A A Tm Ba 
 
 A B Sp Sa 
 
 A A Bm Ba 
 
 A A TmS 
 
 Tolidine. 
 
 Benzidine 
 
 Total.. 
 
 7,568,889 
 
 442,911.09 
 
 396,508.32 
 
 317,206.64 
 
 
 TABLE D. Cost of producing 8,000,000 pounds of coal-tar dyes. 
 
 Materials, labor, fuel, etc. 
 
 When made in United 
 States. 
 
 When 
 made in 
 Germany. 
 
 Under 
 present 
 tariff. 
 
 Under 
 proposed 
 tariff. 
 
 Materials... 
 
 $442,911.09 
 20,250.00 
 116,236.00 
 61,800.00 
 43,000.00 
 8,000.00 
 
 $396,508.32 
 20,250.00 
 116,236.00 
 61,800.00 
 43,000.00 
 8,000.00 
 
 8317,206.64 
 27,000.00 
 61,493.00 
 42,600.00 
 28,000.00 
 4,000.00 
 
 Fuel 
 
 Labor 
 
 Interest on investment 
 
 Depreciation on plant 
 
 Taxes, fire insurance, and incidentals 
 
 Total 
 
 692,197.09 
 
 645,784.32 
 
 480,299.64 
 
 Per cent 
 
 144.1 
 
 134.4 
 
 100 
 
 
140 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 TABLE E. 
 
 Present wording. 
 
 New wording suggested. 
 
 SEC. 15. Coal-tar dyes or colors, not specially pro- 
 vided for in this act, thirty per centum ad valorem; 
 all other products or preparations of coal tar, not 
 colors or dyes and not madicinal, not specially pro- 
 vided for in this act, twenty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 Coal-tar dyes or colors, not specially provided for 
 in this act, forty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 FREE LIST. 
 
 SEC. 469. Alizarin, natural or artificial, and dyes 
 derived from alizarin or from anthracin. 
 SEC. 524. Coal tar, crude, pitch of coal tar, and 
 products of coal tar known as dead or creosote oil, ben- 
 zol, toluol, naphthalin, xylol, phenol, cresol, xylidin, 
 toluidine, cumidin, binitrotoluol,binitrobenzol, ben- 
 zidin, tolidin, dianisidine, naphthol, naphthylamin, 
 diphenylamin, benzaldehyde, benzyl chloride, re- 
 sorcin, nitrobenzol, and nitrotoluol; all the forego- 
 ing not medicinal and not colors or dyes. 
 SEC. 580. Indigo. 
 
 No change suggested. . 
 
 Coal tar, crude, and all products or preparations 
 of coal tar, not colors or dyes and not medicinal, not 
 specially provided for in this act. 
 
 No change suggested. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Now, if you are through with your brief, let me 
 ask you a question. The manufacturer of coal-tar dye in this country 
 is really assembling a partly finished product and it is only the question 
 of assembling what has already been manufactured after it gets into 
 this country? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Oh, no. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would describe that to the committee. 
 In the first place tell us what raw material you import. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We import coal-tar products, nitrate of soda, 
 and we use very many domestic chemicals, sulphuric and muriatic 
 acid, caustic soda, and soda ash, common salt, coal, etc. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What do you do after you get those acids, sodas, 
 or manufactured products when they come in here ? When you get 
 them here, what do you do to make your product? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We put them through the regular process of 
 manufacture, combining certain chemicals under certain conditions. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That is merely the process of mixing them together ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Much more. Chemical changes take place 
 there very radical chemical changes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Of course, chemical changes take place, but I am 
 talking about a mechanical proposition, as far as labor and time are 
 concerned. It is a question of mixing them together? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Oh, no, Mr. Chairman; you are entirely mis- 
 informed there. It takes us about four weeks to complete the manu- 
 facture of our color. The process takes us four weeks. You can 
 hardly say that it is simply stirring them together. There are quite 
 a few manufacturers on the other side that do the same thing we do. 
 They buv the intermediate products or raw materials and manu- 
 facture the color from those. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I am trying to get this proposition: The four 
 weeks that it takes, is that in the process of manufacture all of that 
 time, or do you mix them together and wait for four weeks ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Oh, no. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 141 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Describe to the committee what you do. After 
 you get this manufactured product that you use for your manu- 
 factured product, what do you do ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Well, we will take one color; for instance, 
 magenta; we would mix nitrpbenzol with aniline oil and apply heat. 
 That would probably be agitated for four days. Then trie surplus 
 aniline oil is removed by distillation. The resulting crude smelt is 
 then dissolved in large tanks, and then drawn off in large vats. 
 Here about 30 per cent of the color crystallizes. The remaining liquor 
 is again boiled down and recrystaUized. This process is repeated until 
 all of the color is exhausted, the whole process taking about two 
 months. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What is the total cost of manufacture hi your 
 plant, including labor and raw material ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. The labor is about 20 per cent and the crude 
 material is about 60 per cent. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. And the overhead charges are about how much ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. They make up the balance of about 20 per 
 cent. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Sixty per cent for raw material; is that your raw 
 material ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Twenty per cent for labor and 20 per cent for over- 
 head charges ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions to ask the 
 witness ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. There are a few more remarks I would like to 
 make, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 Mr. HILL. This is what strikes me as a typical case with reference 
 to this schedule, and I want to ask you a question or two. Three 
 years ago you came before this committee and submitted your books 
 as to the results of your business. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I have before me the statement that you made at that 
 time, showing the cost of coal-tar dyes made from the intermediate 
 products of coal tar, showing a difference of 44 per cent between this 
 country and Germany. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Those books were examined by the chairman of the 
 committee, and as a result a duty of 35 per cent instead of 44 per 
 cent was recommended. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. The Senate cut that down to 30 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You have been going on with that duty since, have 
 you not? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Have there been any excessive profits under that duty, 
 from that time to this ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No, sir; in fact, our profits are less. 
 
142 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 15 COAL-TAB DYES. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I suppose you are perfectly willing to submit your books 
 to the chairman of the committee, are you not, just as you did three 
 years ago ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. This proposed bill I will not say that; I have no 
 authority to say that but the bill that was proposed by the Dem- 
 ocratic House last session provided for cutting down that duty 5 per 
 cent? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes : from 30 to 25 per cent. 
 
 Mr. HILL. And for increasing the duty on raw material 10 per 
 cent? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I see by your statement here, which I assume you still 
 continue as correct, notwithstanding the lapse of three years' time 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF (interposing) . I do. 
 
 Mr. HILL. That the materials constitute about two-thirds of the 
 cost of the product. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. About that. 
 
 Mr. HILL. So that the duty on the materials would be 6.6 per cent 
 of the entire product, making a reduction of 11.6 per cent. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. On that duty of 30 per cent. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Can you carry on that industry at 18.6 per cent duty 
 without a reduction of labor? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We can not carry it on and make any money 
 out of it. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Can you carry it on without a reduction in the cost of 
 labor, at a duty of 18.6 per cent? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. If that bill was passed as it is now, and leaving 
 the labor as it is, we could make absolutely no profit. 
 
 Mr. HILL. How much of a reduction, in your judgment, in the cost 
 of labor, would be necessary, with a duty of 18.6 per cent on coal-tar 
 d}^es and colors ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We would have to cut down our labor one-half. 
 
 Mr. HILL. About one-half ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Could you do it; would it be possible to do that? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No ; we could not do it. 
 
 Mr. HILL. It is proposed, as to coal-tar dyes and colors, to put a 
 10 per cent duty on the raw materials and cut the finished product 
 5 per cent, and that would absolutely compel you to stop the industry 
 of making coal-tar dyes and colors ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Unless we wanted to carry it on at a loss. 
 
 Mr. HILL. To go one step further: Would there be any revenue 
 received whatever on the 10 per cent duty on the intermediate 
 products ; would there be any imported under ohose circumstances ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Not so far as we are concerned. 
 
 Mr. HILL. And you are typical of the industry, are you not; you 
 are about as large as anybody in it ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes, sir. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 143 
 
 PARA GRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 Mr. HELL. Then there would be no revenue; from the standpoint 
 of revenue there would be no gain in this bill by putting 10 per cent 
 on the intermediate coal-tar products? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I woula not say that absolutely, because some 
 are used outside of colors. 
 
 Mr. HILL. So far as your industry is concerned there would be no 
 gain in revenue ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No. 
 
 Mr. HELL. It would be necessary, then, to increase the importa- 
 tions, the quantity of importations of the finished product, enough 
 to make up for the 5 per cent loss in duty on the finished product ? 
 Do you not think that would be done ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No. 
 
 Mr. HULL. Did you reduce the price of labor when these other 
 reductions were made in the present law ? 
 
 Mr. HELL. There was no reduction. 
 
 Mr. HULL. I misunderstood the witness, then. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. There was a reduction by the Dingley bill from the 
 act of 1883 and by the act of 1897, was there not? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. There was a reduction in 1883. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Was the reduction in 1883 greater than in 1897? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We were hardly started hi 1883. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. There were some industries in 1883, were there not? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. They did not amount to very much in those 
 days. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. If there were no industries, what did they want to 
 reduce the tariff for ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. They wanted to get goods in cheaper, I 
 presume. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do I understand that they reduced the wages after 
 1883, after reducing the tariff? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We can not reduce wages. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. In fact, wages have been increased since the tariff 
 has been decreased, have they not ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You told Mr. Hill you could not make any money 
 with 18 per cent tariff on the finished product? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We are making very little now. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Very little now on 30 per cent? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much do you think would be a fab* rate, so that 
 the industry could make as much profit as the industry would like to 
 make? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. It is not a question of what we would like to 
 make. It is a question of what is fair. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Well, reasonable? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I think 35 per cent. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Thirty-five per cent? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We are not asking for that, you understand, 
 but that would be the fair thing. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You think 35 per cent would satisfy you? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. It would satisfy me. 
 
144 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 15 COAL-TAB DYES. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How many wage earners are employed in this 
 industry ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Altogether, probably six or seven hundred. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How many ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Probably six or seven hundred, I presume, 
 altogether. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You mean that is for your own plant ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No; our plant has only about 300. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. The whole industry employs six or seven hundred? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I imagine so. I do not know how many the 
 other plants have. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. That is, in the entire country ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. That is directly employed in the industry. 
 Of course, indirectly, there are more employed. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I understand. What is the average amount of 
 wages ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Well, to our ordinary labor we pay about $2 a 
 day. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. $2 a day ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes; then, of course, it goes up; to skilled labor 
 we pay $3 and more. We employ quite a few mechanics and pipe 
 fitters, and other skilled hands. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you work any women ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How many hours a day do they work? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Nine to ten hours. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. Do you work any children under 16 years of age? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you know about how much yearly the imports 
 of this color are ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. About six millions. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. How much ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. About six millions. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Do you know what wages are paid in Germany 
 for the same class of labor ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. They pay about 3^ marks. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. About 80 cents ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. It is about 80 to 90 cents. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I want to ask you this question: Is your labor 
 more efficient than the labor in Germany? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Xo. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. It is not more efficient ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Not in our industry. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Man for man, your labor is not more efficient 
 than corresponding labor in Germany? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No. sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. But your wages are more than they are in 
 Germany ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes, sir. If we could make the difference in 
 our wages we would be satisfied. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 145 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Is there any tariff on these articles in Germany? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. They are admitted free? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. But there is a tariff in France and in Russia. 
 There is no tariff in Germany. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Speak a little louder. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. There is no tariff in Germany, but there is in 
 France and Russia. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Is not the tariff in Germany on the finished product 
 and no tariff on the raw materials ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. They do not need any tariff. They would have 
 one quickly enough if they needed one. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Why not ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Because they put tariffs on. I know of other 
 goods that are imported into Germany, and when they found the 
 domestic manufacturers could not compete they put a tariff on. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. I say, why is it they do not need any. You said they 
 do not. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Because they can produce goods cheaper than 
 we can here. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Is not that because their labor in chemicals, in a 
 general way, is more efficient than in this country? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I would not say that; but their labor is cheaper. 
 Where we pay $200,000 they pay $100,000. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Is not that same labor, so far as dollars and cents are 
 concerned, cheaper in every other single industry than it is here ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. How is that ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Is not the labor in Germany in every other industry 
 cheaper, as far as dollars and cents are concerned, or as far as the 
 amount they pay per day is concerned, than it is in this country ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Labor is cheaper, certainly. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Yet the German tariff is the highest of all foreign 
 tariffs, is it not, on practically everything ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. That may be on some articles. On some things 
 possibly we have an advantage. Take leather, for instance 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Take what ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Leather. I know my father started to import 
 leather in 1873 into Germany, until they put the tariff so high that he 
 could not import a cent's worth any more. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I wish to say that Germany has a tariff on dyes, but 
 none on the raw material. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other difference in cost between your 
 mill and your competitors in Germany, except the labor cost ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Well, there is a difference in the cost of mate- 
 rial. Our materials, if we imported them free, would cost pretty 
 nearly 10 per cent more than they do on the other side. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean on account of the tax ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. On account of the freight and charges of one 
 kind and another. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. They pay freight charges on the other side that 
 more than equalize the freight rate on your raw material ? 
 
 78959 VOL 113 10 
 
146 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes; but it is relatively small. You see the 
 finished product costs more. The freight on a 30-cent article is not 
 much more, if anything more, than freight on a 5-cent article, while 
 on a 5-cent article it would amount to 10 per cent and on a 30-cent 
 article it would only amount to 2 or 3 per cent. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN, How much difference would there be in the cost 
 on account of the freight, do you think ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. On that finished product ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Assuming that there is a difference in the 
 freight rates in bringing them over, how large a percentage on your 
 total output, your total product, would that amount to ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Well, 60 per cent of our product is raw mate- 
 rial, and that costs us 10 per cent to import; it would mean that ours 
 would cost us 66 per cent where it would only cost them 60 per cent 
 on the other side. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. About 6 per cent difference ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No; 10 per cent difference. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Ten per cent. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that difference is as much as 10 per 
 cent? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The main difference in the cost, then, is in refer- 
 ence to getting your raw materials here, your freight rates, etc., and 
 your labor cost? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes; and not only that. Of course, our do- 
 mestic products are more expensive. Take our acids. They cost a 
 great deal more here than they do on the other side. Our buildings 
 cost a good deal more than they do on the other side. Our repairs 
 cost double what they do on the other side, and there are quite a lot 
 of repairs in the chemical industry in general. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That is only a small percentage of your total out- 
 put, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No; it is quite an item. I have set it all out 
 in that brief. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you one question there: You said the 
 difference in the labor cost is about as one is to two; that is, you 
 pay pay twice as much as thev do on the other side ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes; fully. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. And your total labor cost on that product is only 
 20 per cent of the value of the product ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Then 10 per cent of the value of the product 
 would cover the difference in the labor cost? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Certainly. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. So that if we add an 18 per cent net tariff to you, 
 there is a margin of 8 per cent above your difference in labor cost to 
 cover these other charges, is there not? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes; I know; but they are more than made up 
 by the other increased expenses. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are not very far wrong in equalizing the 
 difference in cost in that 18 per cent, are we? 
 
SCHEDULE A. 147 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes, you are, because I showed just a moment 
 ago that if these materials that we import would come in free they 
 would cost us about 10 per cent more than they pay on the other 
 side. There is more than 18 per cent right there. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What is that? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. If we import the raw material, it costs us about 
 10 per cent more to import it on account of the charges. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. If you have 18 per cent above the difference in the 
 raw material, after you equalize the duty on the raw material, in 
 subtracting that from the duty you have on the finished product 
 you still have 18 per cent net profit to you under this bill that Mr. 
 Hill was questioning you about ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No, Mr. Chairman, you are mistaken there. 
 That is so theoretically; but, 'of course, we pay in addition to the 
 10 per cent that you intend to impose on the raw material 10 per 
 cent in charges, so that we are really paying 20 per cent, under a 
 law like that, more for our raw materials than they pay on the other 
 side. I say, if it comes in free, it would cost us 10 per cent to import 
 it. Now, if you put another 10 per cent on, it would be 20 per cent; 
 then 10 per cent increase in the cost of labor would mean 30 per cent 
 right there. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I realize that. But if you subtract the duty 
 placed on the raw materials from the duty we gave you on the finished 
 product, that would leave you with a net duty of about 18 per cent. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No. You have 10 per cent on the raw materials 
 and 25 per cent on the colors. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You just a moment ago stated to Mr. Hill that 
 his statement to that effect was correct. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. That is under the present law. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. He did not ask you about the present law; he asked 
 you about the proposed bill that came before Congress the last time, 
 and you stated, in answer to his question, that there was an 18 per 
 cent difference, which is the fact. If you will take the figures and 
 estimate them, you will find that there is a difference of 18 per cent 
 between your raw material and your finished product. You agreed 
 to that when Mr. Hill asked you the question. Now, if you have an 
 18 per cent difference in the net protection to you, incidental or other- 
 wise, and your 10 per cent equalizes your difference in labor cost and 
 your cost of transportation and assembling these products, which 
 according to your statement is 10 per cent, this duty must very closely 
 equalize your difference in cost. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I did not understand him to say that 10 per cent 
 would equalize the difference in cost. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you mean to say that 20 per cent of the finished 
 product represents labor? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. He said 10 per cent would equalize only the 
 difference in labor cost. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. He said that the total labor cost was 20 per cent of 
 the finished product. He said the difference in labor cost was about 
 one as to two, and that he paid $200,000 and they paid $100,000. It 
 is self-evident that if that is the case 10 per cent would equalize the 
 difference in labor cost 10 per cent of the finished product would 
 
148 IABIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR, DYES. 
 
 equalize the difference in labor cost. That is merely a mathematical 
 calculation. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What I do not understand is his statement that he 
 still would have about 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Because the freight charges and the charges in 
 bringing them through the customhouse will amount to 10 per cent 
 of the cost of the raw materials. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you mean to say it is 10 per cent on the raw mate- 
 rials you use that the freight charges are 10 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Exactly; we figure about a cent a pound. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You figure that, but what does it actually cost ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. It does cost actually that much; it may be 
 more on some and a little less on others. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do not the foreigners have to pay these freight 
 charges too? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. If we get an article that costs 5 cents a pound 
 the charges will be 20 per cent, and on a 10-cent article would be 
 about 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Would not the foreigners who are competing with 
 you have to pay that 10 per cent on the finished material too ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. But where they import a pound of color, we 
 have to import two pounds of this raw material, and they pay the 
 freight on the high-priced article where the percentage will probably 
 be 2 or 3 per cent. The average price of our colors which we sold 
 last year was 33 cents. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Would there be a higher freight rate on the finished 
 articles ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Very little, if any. 
 
 Mr. HILL. The chairman has asked you what the difference in 
 labor cost is, and you state 10 per cent, and that, according to your 
 brief, is correct; that is, 10 per cent of the American cost, and he 
 asks you the question whether 18 per cent would not cover it and 
 more too. Is it not a fact, commonly overlooked, that the import 
 duty is laid on the cost of the foreign product and not on the Ameri- 
 can product, and that therefore it would take 20 per cent to cover 
 the difference in labor cost, if the difference was 10 per cent of the 
 American cost, being about one- half as you stated? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes; I presume that would be so. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Of course, that is true, that the duty is laid on the 
 foreign cost and not on the American cost. So that the duty to 
 cover the difference in labor cost alone, according to your own show- 
 ing here, would have to be more than 18.6 per cent, which you have 
 said would be the difference under this new tariff. Now, I want to 
 ask you another question on the general industry. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. You do not wait to hear his answer to your 
 other question. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I will wait. That is correct, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. It is exactly so. 
 
 Mr. HILL. The difference is 10 per cent of the American cost of 
 labor and that is twice as much as the foreign cost of labor ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 149 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Consequently, a compensating duty on a foreign prod- 
 uct of half the American value would have to be twice 10 per cent 
 to make up that difference. I think that is plain enough. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Not at all. 
 
 Mr. HILL. If I recollect rightly, you stated three years ago that the 
 patents on these coal-tar dyes had largely expired, did you not ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. So that they had become open to American competition ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. That is correct? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Are there still a large number of patents in coal-tar dyes 
 that are still held by the Germans ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. There are quite a large number, but they are 
 not as important as those that have expired. 
 
 Mr. HILL. So that competition would not be complete, so far as the 
 general range of coal-tar dyes is concerned, but only on those that 
 are not covered by German patents held in this country ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes; but at the same tune if we could make the 
 colors that are open to us to make that are not patented, and if we 
 could make those and make them at a profit, we would be perfectly 
 satisfied. That would be the bulk of the colors that are in use at the 
 present tune. 
 
 Mr. HILL. So far as the coal-tar dyes are concerned that are 
 covered by patents, they are owned absolutely by a syndicate in 
 Germany, are they not, so that it is a trust-controlled product abso- 
 lutely? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. That is true. 
 
 Mr, HILL. So far as those patents are concerned? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. There are two combinations over there, 
 but they work together, as I understand. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I have a list of them here in the committee's report, a 
 list of five concerns in Germany that were the owners of the patents 
 on coal-tar dye products in the United States. Is not the effect of 
 this legislation, if carried into effect, to give absolute control to a 
 foreign trust, a syndicate authorized and legalized by the German 
 Government, and to give them the benefit of the American trade 
 rather than give the advantage to American manufacturers? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. That is well known. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. That is what? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. That is well known, that fact. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Other things being arranged by Congress, as 
 you think they ought to be, the question of patents would not inter- 
 fere with your successful manufacture of these articles ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No; I do not think so. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. There are no patents that would interfere with 
 your manufacturing as cheaply as other nations if you could get other 
 matters arranged to your liking? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. There are some colors that we oould not manu- 
 facture at the present time. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. But you do not regard that as materially 
 interfering ? 
 
150 TAEIFP HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAJL-TAR DYES. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. But the more important colors are open to 
 competition. 
 
 Mr. HULL. The cost of machinery, tools, and so forth, constitute 
 more than a third, in the neighborhood of a hah 1 , of the total cost of 
 one of these plants, does it not ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes; just about. 
 
 Mr. HULL. Where do you get your machinery? Do you import 
 any of it ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No; we get it all here in America. 
 
 Mr. HULL. What are the tariff rates on machinery that you use ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. What are the rates ? 
 
 Mr. HULL. Yes. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I do not know. Our machinery is mostly iron. 
 
 Mr. HULL. Do you know what effect the present rate on the 
 machinery you use has on the prices ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. In our statement we show that the interest on 
 the investment was $61,800 for a certain sized plant, against $32,400 
 in Germany. 
 
 Mr. HULL. What I was getting at is, what is the present effect of 
 the existing tariff on the prices or the machinery you use ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I do not know that it would have very much 
 effect, because the things that we use are largely cast iron and it is 
 doubtful whether we could import that, pay the freight on the stuff, 
 and get it out much cheaper, even if the present duty was lowered. 
 Of course, it costs us quite a little more here than it does on the 
 other side, but it is doubtful in my mind whether it would help us 
 very much i the duty was reduced on those goods. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. If we keep the tariff like you want it on your prod- 
 ucts, you are willing to keep the tariff on machinery and others like 
 they want it ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We have not interested ourselves by any study 
 along those lines; we have not looked into it for that feature; but I 
 do not see how that would help us very much. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. That is a sort of general understanding ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. A good deal of that machinery is made after 
 our own plan, and we would never think of going to Germany or 
 France and have the machinery made and wait probably three or 
 four months for it, particularly if we could have it made here. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. In other words, your interests are not asking for any 
 reduction in the tariff on machinery and such apparatus or anything 
 of that kind ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We are not asking, at this hearing, for any- 
 thing of that kind. We are simply asking that the rates on these 
 products of our manufacture be let alone until some committee can 
 satisfy itself as to what is needed. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. To be left alone, and if touched at all, to be increased 
 a little ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We are not asking for that. We are simply 
 asking the committee to look carefully and properly into the thing. 
 We are willing to open our books, and if we can satisfy them we are 
 entitled to more, then give us more; and if after they have looked into 
 
SCHEDULE A. 151 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 the matter they do not think we should have it, or they think it 
 should be lowered, let them put it down. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. In this brief that you have filed here you make the 
 statement that the machinery here costs you more than the machinery 
 costs your competitors in Germany ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. That is true. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Is that caused by reason of the fact that you have a 
 better class of machinery, or by reason of the tariff ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No; it is by reason of cheaper labor on the other 
 side. Of course they can produce machinery on the other side 
 cheaper than we can here. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Then, there is a tariff on that machinery, or else you 
 would buy it instead of American machinery, if you could buy it 
 cheaper ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I doubt whether we could import it. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. I say, if you could buy machinery manufactured hi 
 Germany cheaper than American machinery, you would buy it as a 
 matter of economy ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Probably so, as a matter of economy; but most 
 of our machinery is hi the nature of replacements, where we must be 
 in touch with the foundry or the machine shop, right in our own town, 
 so that if anything comes up where any slight change must be made, 
 we can go right there and attend to it. I do not think we could do 
 that with the special machinery required in our business if we bought 
 it at long range. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. There is a tariff, then, on your own machinery, you say? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I presume there is. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. And for that reason it costs you more to run your busi- 
 ness? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. It costs us more for our plant. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. And you want this committee, in arranging the tariff, 
 to allow you a duty that will equalize that charge which is made upon 
 you by the tariff on the article you use ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. As I said before, I do not know whether that 
 would make much difference, or whether there is any duty on the 
 machinery or not. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. But you do state it in here as a fact 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. (interposing) . That it costs us more. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. And your reason in doing that was to call it to our 
 attention. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. If we reduce the tariff on the articles that you buy 
 you could stand a little reduction ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Reduce what article? On machinery? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I mean the product of your plant. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. On machinery? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I do not think so. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. We import about $6,000,000; about what per cent 
 comes from Germany ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Of those intermediate products ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. This product that you are speaking of; your product. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. The finished product ? 
 
152 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Yes; the coal-tar dyes. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I presume over 80 per cent of that comes from 
 Germany. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Where does the other 20 per cent come from ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Quite a little comes from Switzerland and a 
 little from England and France. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further you wish to say? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I would like to make a few remarks to show the 
 difference between the 30 per cent duty away back in 1883 and now. 
 Our colors in 1883 sold for about five times what they are selling for 
 to-day, so that a color that sold for a dollar, with a 30 per cent duty, 
 would mean a protection of 30 cents. If that same color were selling 
 to-day for 20 cents our protection would be only 6 cents. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Has that been caused by American competition or by 
 competition between foreign establishments ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Both by competition and by lowering the cost 
 of the raw materials. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. That high price was correspondingly high in foreign 
 countries, too, at that time? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. That is true. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And it is correspondingly low now? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. What I am trying to get at is that we actually 
 had a protection then of 30 cents a pound. Now, 30 cents a pound 
 is a lot more than 6 cents a pound, because the other charges are 
 about the same to-day, if not higher, than they were then, such as 
 our labor, replacements, and so on. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. But one man produces three or four times more 
 now, by unproved machinery and methods, than he did then. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. That applies to the other side as well as to this 
 side. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I know that. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Take our raw material, for instance. The bill 
 puts 10 per cent on the raw material. That is 6 cents a pound. So 
 that we have a net protection there of 24 cents. That is reduced now 
 to about 60 per cent of 20 cents would amount to 12, and 10 per 
 cent of that would be 1.2, so that we have a net protection now of 
 only about 4^ cents. That is entirely inadequate. This is further 
 cut by the import charges on the present cheap raw material, which 
 amount to another 10 per cent, which charges on the same article in 1880 
 amounted to only about 2 per cent. So that in those days we actually 
 paid when importing the raw material carrying a 10 per cent import 
 duty about, say, 12 per cent. Now we are paying about 20 per cent, 
 because we pay 10 per cent duty and 10 per cent more for charges. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN, if we equalized the difference in cost, in labor 
 cost and other costs, between you and your foreign competitors, 
 would you be satisfied? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No; that does not make all the difference in 
 cost. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I say, if we equalized the difference in labor cost 
 and other costs, would you be satisfied ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes; we would be perfectly satisfied if you 
 equalized the difference in cost of producing those goods here and 
 
SCHEDULE A. 153 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 on the other side. That is all we ask for. Even then, we would 
 not realize that difference. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Some of these gentlemen seem to be laboring under 
 the delusion that the only difference in cost is the difference in cost 
 of labor. In the brief you presented four years ago, you presented 
 what was called Schedule D, in which you set out in detail the differ- 
 ence in cost here and in Germany, in labor and everything else. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Including capital, interest on capital, depreciation, 
 taxes, insurance, and every other element that goes into it, as well 
 as the difference in cost of material. Then you make this statement: 
 
 By referring to Table D, it appears that taking the cost of colors in Germany at 
 100 per cent, the same colors cost to produce in America, under the present tariff, 144.1 
 per cent, and in case all coal-tar preparations should be admitted free the cost would 
 still be over 134.4 per cent. That our figures are correct is positively proven by two 
 highly significant facts: First. These same colors are now being imported from Ger- 
 many and sold in this market for less than it costs us to produce them, even omitting 
 charges for depreciation and interest on investments. 
 
 That included, of course, the duty ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. That item included the duty? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Is that fact true to-day? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. It is. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE (reading) : 
 
 Second. By the fact that German manufacturers do not manufacture in the United 
 States, because, as people high in authority state openly, they can manufacture the 
 colors in Germany and lay them down in the United States, with duty of 30 per cent 
 and manufacturer's profit added, at a lower price than they could manufacture the 
 same colors in America. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. That is so. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Is that true to-day? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Absolutely. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. So that the difference is not simply the element of 
 labor; and when these gentlemen simply say the percentage is equal 
 to that, they do not grasp the question. That is all. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. But in spite of the fact that in 1909 and 1897 Ger- 
 many was making this stuff, shipping it here, paying the tariff, and 
 selling it cheaper than you people could produce it, the gentlemen on 
 the other side did not increase the tariff at all, but allowed it to 
 remain just the same. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. You did increase it. It was increased hi the 
 House 35 per cent. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Thirty per cent; they are paying that. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. The Payne bill was 35 per cent, and it was 
 reduced in the Senate, but it also put raw materials on the free list. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I am talking about the act as it passed, because it 
 could not have passed unless my Brother Payne had consented to 
 it, you know. So you had the same tariff in 1897 and the same 
 tariff in 1909. And you had a losing business just because they 
 were bringing it here paying the tariff, and selling it to our people 
 cheaper than you could produce it and you have been losing ever 
 since. 
 
154 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Oh, no; I am not saying that. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. In the hope that somebody would come along and 
 raise it for you ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I am not saying that. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I know you did not intend to say it, but he made 
 you say it. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I am saying that we are not making 5 per 
 cent on our investment, not taking anything off for depreciation. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I know you did not mean to say it, but Mr. Payne 
 got you to say it. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. It amounts to the same thing. We are really 
 losing money, because if we take off 10 per cent for depreciation, as 
 we should do and as they do on the other side, then we would be 
 money out of pocket. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. So you are really complaining against the Dingley 
 and Payne bills because you have been losing ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We are asking now 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Because you have lost ever since? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We are willing .to have you appoint a committee 
 of your own members, if you wish, and we will pay all the expenses of 
 coming up to Buffalo and looking over our business and seeing what 
 we are doing. Then we will abide by your decision. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Of course, if you are losing money and have been 
 losing money since the Dingley Act, from a manufacturer's or mer- 
 chant's standpoint, you would be perfectly satisfied with the law re- 
 maining as it is, would you not? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No; we are not satisfied. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You would like to have it increased somewhat, 
 would you ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I think we are entitled to an increase, but we 
 are perfectly willing to leave it to you to settle after investigation. 
 Xow, another thing. Assuming that we had adequate protection 
 that is, the difference between the foreign cost and the domestic 
 cost then we could not realize the entire difference in cost. If the 
 difference is 35 per cent, we can not get 35 per cent more here for our 
 goods than they get on the other side, because we must cut that price 
 at least 10 per cent in order to get the bulk of trade. There are 20 
 importers here competing with us. We can only get our share of the 
 trade unless we cut the price, because our good American consumers 
 of aniline dyes, when we offer them American-made colors, the first 
 question asked is, ' ' What inducement can you offer ?" We are obliged 
 to offer an inducement. We must cut the price 10 per cent below the 
 import price before we can get any more than a fair share of the 
 business. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much has the industry increased since 1909 ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. It has not increased, so far as we are con- 
 cerned ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I mean the industry, the business. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I do not know that it has increased at all. I 
 do not believe our sales are more now than they were then. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I know, but how about the industry in the United 
 States ? 
 
SCHEDULE A. 155 
 
 PABAGBAPH 16 COAL-TAB DYES. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Our volume of manufactures has increased, 
 but the value has not increased. In other words, we are making less 
 money to-day than before the enactment of the Payne bill. In 
 other words, we are losing more through lower prices of our colors 
 than we are saving on the duty on those raw materials. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much more capital is invested to-day in your 
 industry, not your private business, but in the industry in the United 
 States, than there was in 1909? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I can not speak for other manufacturers. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Has it not more than doubled ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No, sir; oh, no. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. It has not ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Oh, no. I doubt whether it has increased at 
 all. Our industry has not increased 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. It has been one of the industries that has not pros- 
 pered under the Dingley and Payne Acts ?, 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Is yours an industry that could profitably be 
 carried on in this country without some bonus in the way of a tariff? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I do not look upon it as a bonus. All we are 
 asking for is an equalization of cost. We can not pay our men $2 
 where they pay their men 90 cents, and produce these colors at the 
 same price. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. I live out in Missouri, in the central part of the 
 country, and in the hot-houses we grow lemons and figs. It is not 
 profitable unless we can shut out other markets, so as to give us some 
 artificial stimulus, to enable us to successfully grow figs. What I 
 mean is this : Is yours a business in and of itself profitable without it 
 gets some favors extended to it by law ? I speak of yours individually, 
 by itself. I am not referring to the lemon and fig business especially, 
 but this particular coal-tar dye business. Can it be successfully 
 carried on in this country without some sort of stimulus being given 
 to it in the way of a tax in its behalf ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We have not had any stimulus. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. You have not had it ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I will say we can not manufacture hi this coun- 
 try under free trade and pay the same wages we are paying now. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. That in and of itself it is not a prosperous busi- 
 ness in this country ? Is that what you mean to say ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. It can not be prosperous. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. And it can only be made prosperous by levying 
 a tax on the people who consume it ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No. It can be made prosperous if the differ- 
 ence in cost is equalized. If you take the duty off of colors altogether, 
 the ultimate consumer will not profit one iota. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. That is a question of argument. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. That is so. Here is a dye [indicatingl, if you 
 reduce the duty 5 per cent on the dye (which is a heavy shade), it 
 will make a difference of just two-twenty-fifths of a cent a yard, and 
 it sells for $1.50 a yard. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. We differ as to who the ultimate consumer is. 
 The ultimate consumer in your case is the manufacturer who buys 
 your dyestuffs? 
 
156 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. The ultimate consumer is you and all the rest 
 of us who wear clothes. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Then we look at it from a different standpoint. 
 The ultimate consumer is the person to whom you sell. What I 
 I want to know is, whether or not your business of manufacturing 
 dyes in this country is in and of itself a prosperous business, in that 
 it is profitable to engage American labor and capital there being, 
 as you know, a shortage in both capital and labor in this country. 
 We have prosperous industries in this country that do not have 
 either enough capital or enough labor. Do you think it is wise to 
 turn capital and labor from prosperous enterprises and put them 
 into unprofitable industries, which can exist only by levying a tax in 
 their favor, upon the people who consume it ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. If you carry that principle through absolutely, 
 we would be satisfied. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. I am not talking about a principle. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. If you take the duty off everything that needs 
 protection, then we probably will be able to get labor at half price. 
 We are one of many industries that need protection. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. What do you mean by that term, "need 
 protection" ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We need enough protection, enough duty, to 
 equalize the difference in cost here and abroad, thus giving us a 
 chance to compete. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. What you mean is that the industry will not 
 sustain itself unless it is propped up by a tax upon the consumer, to 
 make it go? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Put it that way if you like, although there is a 
 great deal more to it than that. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Now, is it profitable to invest American capital 
 and labor in that industry, if there is a well-known shortage in capital 
 and labor to carry on the industries of this country, which are profit- 
 able in and of themselves ? You do not pay your labor now as much 
 as we pay carpenters, bricklayers, stonemasons, and farm hands in 
 our country. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Of course, the present time is exceptional 
 anyway, because there are a great many times when labor is not as 
 scarce as it is now. but the competition which it creates is surely 
 for the benefit of all our citizens, who thereby get their goods cheaper. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. But is not your labor lower paid than the 
 unprotected labor of this country ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Possibly that is so. That is simply because we 
 can not compete with the people on the other side and Day more 
 wages. We pay as much as we can. But an unprotected industry, 
 such as those you mention, those goods would not be imported any- 
 way. You can not import a house or a road. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. There is such a shortage of those profitable 
 enterprises that it would be better, would it not, for us to invest our 
 capital and employ our labor in American industries that are profit- 
 able within themselves, rather than to put exorbitant taxes on the 
 consumer in order to sustain 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF (interposing). I do not think so. You might be 
 able to get more labor for what you call the unprotected industries, 
 
SCHEDULE A. 157 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 but I think if you took the duty off all the industries that do need 
 and now have protection you would have labor down pretty low and 
 men walking the streets looking for work. I will say now that if we 
 can be put on the same basis as the Germans, if we can get our labor 
 at the same price as the Germans, we are perfectly willing to have no 
 duty at all. If you want absolute free trade, we are satisfied. But 
 under present conditions we must have that protection, because we 
 have to pay double for our labor and have to pay a good deal more 
 for other things that make up the cost of our goods. Anyway, we 
 are not asking exorbitant taxes, because under the present tax, which 
 we ask to be left as it is, over 80 per cent of the total consumption in 
 the United States is imported. If we have absolute free trade and 
 take the tariff off of everything and put it on coffee, tea, whisky, and 
 do as the English do, then we will be perfectly satisfied. Then 
 things will equalize themselves. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. One other question: Is the raw material of 
 which these dyes are manufactured more available to other countries 
 than to us ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I think it is more available here. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. It is more available here? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. But it must come from foreign sources ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Well, it comes from foreign sources, because it 
 is not made here at the present time. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Could it be made here? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. It could be made here; certainly. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You were speaking a moment ago about the 
 price to the ultimate consumer if these raw materials were put on the 
 free list. Do you think that if the German manufacturers were no 
 longer forced to compete with American manufacturers it would 
 lower the price to the American consumer ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I do not think it would. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. You do not think it would ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. I do not think so; no. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Do you know whether the German Government itself is 
 interested in these syndicates, or any of them, and which it has legal- 
 ized, as it is interested in the phosphate syndicate ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Not to my knowledge in anilines. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You have no reason to suppose they are ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. No, sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. If the committee are through, I would like to have 
 you complete your statement. 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPP. There is one aniline plant in this country that 
 is controlled by a German plant, and that is the only plant that has 
 not increased its line of colors since they obtained control. In other 
 words, they find they can import the colors cheaper under the present 
 rate than they can manufacture them here. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What is the name of that concern ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. The Hudson River Aniline Color Works, con- 
 trolled by Farbenfabriken, of Elberfeld. They have increased their 
 production of pharmaceutical products, but have not increased the 
 
158 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 production of their line of aniline colors. Up to 1896 we lost money 
 steadily; we absolutely lost money. From then on we were able to 
 increase our production materially, owing to expiring foreign patents 
 and to the working of our own patents, and to the placing on the reef 
 list in 1897 of additional raw materials. We were never, however, 
 able to earn as much as 6 per cent on our coal-tar dyes, even without 
 writing off anything on machinery and plant. Our books are open 
 to the inspection of your committee or any authorized representative 
 at any time. We have been working on a declining market for over 
 30 years, or ever since we have been in business, and the process is 
 still going on. As I said before, our colors have gone down in price 
 to such an extent, since the Payne bill was passed, that we make less 
 on our colors than we save on the raw materials coming in free. So 
 that shows that competition does something. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOSEPH F. O'CONNELL, ON BEHALF OF 
 SCHOELLKOPF, HARTFORD & HANNA CO. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNELL. Gentlemen, I have only a few observations to 
 make, because I believe that when Mr. Schoellkopf's testimony is 
 read it will clear up very many things of which the committee were 
 in the dark. 
 
 I would like to call your attention particularly to sections 21 and 
 24 of the proposed bill. Section 21 calls for a cut of from 30 to 25 
 per cent on the coal tar dyes or colors that are manufactured in this 
 country. 
 
 Now, if I understand it, one of the purposes of the committee in 
 revising this chemical schedule was to raise revenue primarily, 
 having proper regard for the interests of the consumer. 
 
 It seems to me the committee have made a mistake in this matter, 
 and we respectfully call the committee's attention to these particular 
 sections, with the desire that they may go into it very carefully. 
 There is consumed in this country only seven and one-half million 
 dollars worth of coal tar products. Of that, 80 per cent comes from 
 abroad. That 80 per cent equals $6,000,000. There are $6,000,000 
 in value imported, which pay in revenue to this Government 
 SI, 800, 000 surely not a prohibitive tariff. This proposed cut will 
 make a difference in the revenue of $300,000. Now, as against that, 
 you seek to put on, in section 24, a 10 per cent duty on articles that 
 are now on the free list, and from those articles that are now on the 
 free list you estimate that you are going to get $100,000. 
 
 Taking into consideration article 22, which is also allied with it, 
 which shows a loss in that section of $25,000, which, added to the 
 $300,000, makes a total of $325,000, as total loss in revenue by the 
 proposed changes. In other words, you are losing approximately 
 $325,000 on the manufactured articles, and you are imposing $100,000 
 on the raw materials, a net loss of revenue of $225,000. 
 
 Now, we submit that the committee are not accomplishing their 
 purpose in doing this, and in addition are doing two things that 
 I am sure they never intended to do, namely, crippling an American 
 industry and adding to the burden of the American consumer. The 
 American consumer is burdened whenever you tax raw materials. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 159 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 As a Democrat, I think I am justified in protesting against the 
 policy of taking raw materials from free list and taxing them. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. One moment, if you please, Mr. O'Connell: Is it 
 not true that, if a reduction is made in the duty upon the finished 
 product, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the American 
 manufacturer to hand on that tax on the materials that are manu- 
 factured to the consumer? In other words, it would be difficult for 
 him to increase the price to the consumer if the duty is lowered upon 
 his finished product? 
 
 Mr. O'CONNELL. I do not know that I grasp your intent exactly, 
 but do I gather from your statement 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. How can the manufacturer of coal-tar dyes or 
 colors increase the price to the consumer of coal-tar dyes and colors 
 if his duty is reduced upon his finished product ? He can not hand 
 down to the persons who buy from him the duty which we impose upon 
 his materials of manufacture, because the competition from abroad 
 will increase. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNELL. No; the competition from abroad would wipe out 
 the competition here, and then the competition from abroad would 
 be able to do what it pleased and surely raise the prices to the con- 
 sumer. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. That is just an assumption; that is a different 
 matter. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNELL. I do not think it is an assumption; it is a well 
 known and accepted fact in the oal-tar industry. In the first place, 
 only seven and a half million dollars worth of products are used, 
 and if you lower the tariff it is not going to increase the consumption. 
 For instance, the dye that is in my coat or necktie will not be increased 
 because the duty on the dye is going to be lowered or is going to be 
 raised. 
 
 Now, you say you expect to gain $1,000,000 in products coming in 
 under section 24. If you increase that a million dollars, it merely 
 means that you are taking away from the American manufacturer 
 the opportunity to make $1,000,000 worth of goods which he now 
 makes, and you are cutting that American industry absolutely in 
 two. Thus you are increasing the output of foreign manufacturers 
 and retarding and taking away our market to the extent that the 
 American manufacturer will only supply less than 10 per cent of the 
 whole amount of coal-tar colors whicn are consumed. 
 
 That points out in another way the difficulty that I think the com- 
 mittee overlooked in framing this bill. 
 
 Now, I submit as a Democrat that it is very poor policy to put any 
 raw materials needed for manufacturing in this country on the duti- 
 able list. I think there are very many eminent authorities who have 
 protested most strongly against such a policy. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I suppose what you mean by raw materials are 
 those materials not produced in this country ? 
 
 Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I agree with you, too. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNELL. When Mr. Cleveland was President, in his message 
 he protested against it most strongly. Let me quote what he said 
 
160 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 in a letter to Mr. Wilson denouncing the Senate for its action at that 
 time. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Let me interrupt you. Maybe I misunderstood 
 you, but Mr. Cleveland did not make the difference or distinction that 
 my friend from Ohio makes. Mr. Longworth, in referring to raw 
 materials, refers to only those articles that are not produced in this 
 country. Mr. Cleveland made no such distinction. 
 
 Mr. O'CoxNELL. I am sure President Cleveland intended, by raw 
 materials, all those materials that are necessary for our factories to 
 use which they make into the finished product. Coal-tar products 
 which are to be made into colors are as much raw materials as iron 
 ore or wool, which are to be finished into other forms. 
 
 Mr. Cleveland was very emphatic. He said: 
 
 One topic will be submitted to the conference which embodies Democratic prin- 
 ciples so directly that it can not be compromised. We have in our platforms and 
 in every way possible declared in favor of the free importation of raw materials. We 
 have again and again promised that this should be accorded to our people and our 
 manufacturers as soon as the Democratic Party was invested with the power to deter- 
 mine the tariff policy of the country. 
 
 The party now has that power. We are as certain to-day as we have ever been of 
 the great benefit that would accrue to the country from the inauguration of this policy, 
 and nothing has occurred to release us from our obligation to secure this advantage to 
 our people. 
 
 Mr. William Jennings Bryan, in the Fifty-third Congress, took the 
 same attitude. Speaking about free raw materials at that time, he 
 said: 
 
 They tell us that free coal can not benefit the interior. Take the tariff off from coal 
 so that the New England manufacturers can buy it for less, and they can manufacture 
 more cheaply, and then by cutting down the tariff on the products of their factories 
 we can compel them to sell at a lower price to the people of the South and West. That 
 is the reason our folks are interested in free coal. So long as we lay burdens upon 
 what the manufacturers use they can with some justification ask a tariff on the product 
 of their looms. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, in the first place, I believe we can make no permanent progress in 
 the direction of tariff reform until we free from taxation the raw materials which lie 
 at the foundation of our industries. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Mr. O'Connell, you are very familiar, of course, 
 with our tariff history and you know that the class of raw materials 
 as used at that time was specially defined or referred to as the crude 
 products in the soil, and then they have been advanced in the process 
 of manufacture. That surely does not apply to any of these inter- 
 mediate coal-tar products, which are the result of high systems of 
 manufacture. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNELL. I believe that the same distinction would have 
 been made then as is made now if it had been brought out along the 
 same lines that you now refer to. When 60 per cent of the value of 
 the products consumed by an industry are imported from abroad, 
 those certainly ought to be considered raw materials, particularly 
 when they are not found here in this country. They are basic raw 
 materials, so far as our manufacture is concerned, and are so specified 
 in the coal-tar industry. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, it seems to me that this committee ought to bear 
 in mind that it is necessary for our textile manufactures that this 
 industry should be kept in this country. It serves as a restraint 
 upon the German syndicates, cartels, and combinations that are 
 
SCHEDULE A. 161 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 raising prices ad libitum whenever there is no competition. If we 
 have no competition in this country the foreign makers will surely 
 and quickly raise the prices of their articles. 
 
 Our factories at Buffalo are engaged in a work that ought to receive 
 your heartiest aid. They are engaged in an enterprise which can be 
 made one of the greatest enterprises in this country. 
 
 The great industrial development of Germany has centered around 
 her chemical industry, and the most marvelous part of her chemical 
 industry has been along the lines of the coal-tar industry. Their 
 products and profits have been enormous. The profits, according to 
 your own glossary, which you have published, have been from 24 to 25 
 per cent. We barely survive under present conditions, as our books 
 will disclose if you care to investigate. Those people are now able to 
 come into this country, and even with the competition which we 
 have in this country and the 30 per cent that is now on it, they are 
 able to lay down the goods here and sell them cheaper than houses 
 in this country are able to do. The Germans have gone into this 
 matter very carefully and very minutely and are giving it their 
 closest attention and encouragement. 
 
 The various changes that the coal-tar industry has suffered during 
 the variations of the tariff might be brought closely home to you 
 when I say this: That the price of coal-tar colors was immediately 
 lowered after the passage of the last tariff act when these articles 
 were put upon the free list that you now seek to put back on the 
 dutiable list. If you put these articles back on the dutiable list, as 
 you now contemplate under section 24, the cost of production of 
 coal-tar colors will necessarily rise and the American manufacturer 
 will suffer accordingly. It may occur to some that the putting of 
 this 10 per cent will help the consumer, but I would like to refer you 
 to page 162 of the tariff hearings held before the Finance Committee 
 of the United States Senate last year on this bill, and will quote to 
 you a letter from one of the German houses to the effect that when- 
 ever contracts are made this clause is put in: 
 
 In case any duty should be charged on any merchandise sold under this contract 
 or in case of any change in said duty the buyer to pay or receive in dutiable funds 
 any difference from the present rates, the buyer to pay any additional duty caused 
 by advance in the market value. 
 
 In other words, the consumer must bear this burden. You do not 
 improve the situation, and you do not increase the revenue, by 
 lowering the tariff from 30 to 25 per cent on the finished articles, and 
 putting 10 per cent on the raw materials. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Mr. O'Connell, will you let me ask you a question 
 right there? 
 
 Mr. O'CoxxELL. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. Suppose, as you contend, the passage of this 
 legislation will destroy this industry here, in this country, do you 
 think that would result in lowering the price to the consumer? 
 
 Mr. O'CONNELL. Absolutely not. It would result in an immediate 
 rise in the prices to the consumer. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I welcome you to my school of political thought. 
 
 Mr. O'CoxxELL. I think everybody will agree to that. Mr. 
 Harrison and Mi-. Underwood will absolutely agree with this position 
 after they have considered the matter a little more fully. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 11 
 
162 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Are you advocating a tariff for protection to this 
 industry, or are you advocating it for revenue? 
 
 Mr. O'CoNNELL. I am advocating a tariff for revenue along Demo- 
 cratic lines and that is a tariff that permits competition. I think 
 you and I both agree on that, Mr. James. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. I agree with you as to a tariff for revenue. I do not 
 know of any Democrat that approves of a tariff for protection. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNELL. I am not asking for a tariff for protection. We 
 are asking for a tariff in order to allow us to compete for the benefit 
 of the American consumer. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. I merely made the remark, or asked the question, 
 rather, to see whether my friend Mr. Longworth was right when he 
 welcomed you to his political school. I do not want to lose any 
 Democratic followers here. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNELL. Well, I rather think we will be welcoming Mr. 
 Longworth to our school before we finish. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. As enunciated by yourself, not by Senator 
 James. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNELL. Well, I don't know. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I wish you would clear up the Democratic policy on 
 this question, Mr. O'Connell. 
 
 Mr. O'CONNELL. I will leave that to those who are better qualified, 
 Mr. Payne. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. We will attend to that when we come to make the bill. 
 
 Mr. O'Connell, at a later date, submitted the following brief on 
 behalf of Schoellkopf, Hartford & Hanna Co.: 
 
 DECEMBER 26, 1911. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In accordance with your suggestion that a brief be filed in 
 reference to article 15, schedule 1, viz, that referring to "coal-tar dyes or colors, 
 not specially provided for, on which there is imposed a thirty per cent ad valorem, 
 and all other products or preparations of coal tar not colors or dyes, and not medicinals, 
 not specially provided for, of fifteen per cent ad valorem, " let me say that I am 
 firmly of the belief that this section should not be in any way changed. The duty 
 is hardly a sufficient one. 
 
 German manufacturers control practically the whole output and are able to compete 
 in our market to-day, and very frequently can undersell us. 
 
 In the last year there was over ,%. 000,000 worth of coal tar imported under this 
 section, giving a revenue of $1, 700, 000. 
 
 There can be only two possible reasons assigned for a change in this schedule, viz, 
 first, that a reduction of the rate of the tariff might lower the price of the imported 
 coal-tar products in this country, and, second, that the cost of coal-tar products in 
 the form of aniline colors and dyes would be cheaper to the manufacturers that use 
 these colors. 
 
 Inasmuch as it, will be practically impossible for American manufacturers to com- 
 pete against German manufacturers, if this rate is cut, we can safely assure your 
 committee that a cut of the present '.*>() per cent only means that the aniline dye 
 manufacturers in this country must close their doors. The consequence of this is 
 apparent, viz. there will be no competition in this country against the German 
 color makers, thus affording them a monopoly. Their first step in this case will 
 lie to raise the price of coal-tar products, and the same situation will arise as was 
 found in iho case of the ali/arin color.-; which were put upon the free list the 
 Dingley bill and the prices immediately raised. Thus it is quickly seen that the very 
 objects which arc soutrht for in a reduction of the tariff will be quickly and effectually 
 defeated. It will establish a monopoly which can not in any way be combated 
 
SCHEDULE A. 163 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 or opposed, and the American manufacturer will be hopelessly at the mercy of the 
 German manufacturers. 
 
 This industry in this country is composed principally of four different manufacturers. 
 Their total production is about 20 per cent of the total consumption of these dyes in 
 the United States. This certainly is a large enough percentage to constitute an actual 
 industry here. 
 
 This percentage is arrived at by taking the total imports of aniline colors into the 
 United States in any of the last five vears and comparing against them the production 
 of the four factories, of which a fairly accurate estimate can be made, resulting in a 
 finding that 20 per cent of the whole is manufactured in this country. 
 
 The chemical industry in the last few years has undergone a great impetus, through 
 the better conditions which have been evolved from placing the raw products on the 
 free list and leaving a reasonable tariff on the finished products. The 30 per cent now 
 imposed represents a proper or fair proportion. It is our firm belief that if the situa- 
 tion is left unchanged our industries will increase and will become formidable com- 
 petitors with the great German manufacturers. They certainly will be sufficient to 
 offset the monoplies established by the conventions and combinations formed by the 
 European manufacturers which cause the products governed by these combinations 
 to actually cost the consumer more in proportion than the protected colors on which 
 prices are forced down to a reasonable basis through competition of the American 
 manufacturers. The consumer to-day is no better off in reference to alizarin colors, 
 aniline salts, and aniline oil, which are on the free list, than if there was an actual 
 duty on these products, simply because the conventions and combinations have 
 placed a greater cost upon them. 
 
 The American coal-tar colors industry gradually is becoming a recognized competitor 
 against the European manufacturers, which should be encouraged. 
 
 The commercial world is fast realizing that the tremendous progress made by 
 Germany has been due in no small measure to the splendid encouragement of her 
 chemical industries. Any step taken by this Government in discouraging chemical 
 advancement will be a distinct retrograde movement. 
 
 Any reduction of the present 30 per cent duty will not help the manufacturers that 
 use aniline dyes in any way, shape, or form, because the percentage of reduction 
 would never be credited in the selling price, because it would be deemed inconsider- 
 able. The same situation will confront them as has been considered in the preceding 
 paragraphs, viz, that if the German manufacturers control the output the price, 
 instead of being lowered, will most certainly be raised. 
 
 It should be borne in mind that the American manufacturer, in order to secure the 
 home market, must be in a position to undersell the importer. This he can not do 
 to-day, and the struggle is a very severe one to maintain the industry even with the 
 present rates. The foreign manufacturer very often assumes part of the duty him- 
 self in order to get the American trade. The German manufacturers do not manufac- 
 ture in the United States because, as the people high in authority state openly, they 
 can manufacture the colors in Germany and lay them in the United States with the 
 duty of 30 per cent and the manufacturer's profit added at a lower price than they 
 could manufacture the same colors in America. 
 
 In conclusion I desire to state that the Schoellkopf, Hartford & Hanna Co., which 
 is the largest color industry in America, is willing and anxious to submit its books to 
 any member or members of the committee and to give them the fullest information 
 possible in reference to the actual condition of the color industry in this country, 
 which will verify and substantiate every statement made in this letter. The money 
 invested at the present time, which is not watered in any way, barely returns a small 
 dividend. In the last four years it has been less than 6 per cent. 
 
 SCHOELLKOPF, HARTFORD & HANNA Co., 
 By Jos. F. O'CoNNELL, Attorney. 
 
 BRIEF ON BEHALF OF IMPORTERS OF CERTAIN ALIZARIN VAT 
 
 DYES. 
 
 The COMMITTEE ox WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: We desire to call to the attention of your committee 
 certain inequalities in the treatment, under existing law, of various 
 anthracin dyes belonging to the class known as "fast vat dyes," 
 
164 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 which inequalities we believe will be perpetuated if the language of 
 the present tariff act, or of the chemical bill of 1912 known as H. R. 
 20182, is adopted in new legislation. 
 
 We are importers of certain anthracin fast vat dyes manufactured 
 in Germany and known as hydron blues. These dyes are produced 
 from carbazol, which is derived from commercial or crude anthracin. 
 We have claimed the hydron blues to be properly classifiable under 
 paragraph 487 of the present tariff act as " dyes derived from * * * 
 anthracin," but such classification has been denied by the customs 
 officials who assess the dyes in question as "coal-tar dyes or colors 
 not specially provided for " at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 
 15 of the tariff act of 1909. 
 
 Litigation as to the propriety of this assessment is now pending in 
 the United States Court of Customs Appeals, but, as the law is thus 
 misconstrued, we venture to ask your committee to clear the matter 
 up by the insertion of appropriate phraseology when it writes the 
 new tariff bill. 
 
 The language of the present act reads: 
 
 "Par. 487. Alizarin, natural or artificial, and dyes derived from 
 alizarin or from anthracin." 
 
 The language we propose is: 
 
 "Alizarin, natural or artificial, and dyes derived from alizarin, 
 anthracin, or carbazol." 
 
 THE RELATION OF HYDRON BLUES TO ANTHRACIN. 
 
 The hydron blues are derived from anthracin because their origin 
 is traceable to the physical substance, commercial anthracin. Car- 
 bazol, from which they are directly made, is derived from commercial 
 anthracin and can not be obtained in commercial quantities from any 
 other substance. Up to this time the customs authorities have held 
 that the phrase "derived from anthracin" does not refer to the com- 
 mercial product, but refers to technically pure anthracin having the 
 chemical formula C 14 H 10 . 
 
 It is only since the last tariff act went into effect that a commercial 
 method of separating carbazol from anthracin has been perfected, 
 and the discovery of hydron blues has resulted. Their derivation 
 and properties therefore place them in the same class with the vat 
 blues derived from anthracin. Clearly bringing them within that 
 group in the tariff is in accord with the avowed object of your com- 
 mittee to bring the classification of the chemical schedule up to date, 
 remove all obsolete features, and eliminate possible misconstruction. 
 
 Such treatment of these dyes is also in accordance with 
 
 THE ATTITUDE OF CONGRESS TOWARD THE FAST VAT DYE STUFFS 
 KNOWN AS ALIZARIN OR ANTHRACIN DERIVATIVES AND INDIGO. 
 
 For nearly 40 years it lias been the policy to exempt from duty 
 alizarin or anthracin derivatives and indigo. Provisions exempting 
 alizarin, or alizarin or anthracin derivatives, and indigo, are found 
 in every tariff since 1875, the phraseology changing from time to 
 time to meet the development of the industry. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 165 
 
 PARAGRAPH 15 COAL-TAR DYES. 
 
 While the policy of giving these products free entry was departed 
 from for the first time in many years in the bill which passed the 
 House of Representatives in 1912, known as H. R. 20182, there was 
 no departure from the policy of treating them alike. That bill 
 imposed an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent on "alizarin, natural or 
 artificial, and dyes derived from alizarin or from anthracin" (par. 6) 
 and the same rate on "indigo, indigo extracts, or paste and indigo 
 carmined" (par. 38). 
 
 If your committee sees fit to remove the dyes just enumerated 
 from the free list and subject them to a tax of 10 per cent, no ine- 
 quality will result. But what we ask is that the phraseology of the 
 act should be so clear that ah 1 dyes properly falling within the same 
 class shall be treated alike. We do not believe that your committee 
 intends that one fast vat dye derived from anthracin shall be dutiable 
 at 10 per cent and another fast vat dye from the same derivation shall 
 by reason of a lack of clearness in the law be assessed at 30 per cent. 
 
 The law as it now stands is interpreted in favor of certain German 
 manufacturers who produce a limited number of patented anthracin 
 derivatives and import them into this country, and discriminates 
 against other manufacturers and importers who have discovered and 
 developed valuable competing products in the same class. No dyes 
 of this class are manufactured in America. We believe you wiU wish 
 to correct this in the interest of the American textile industry as well 
 as in fairness to the importer. Hydron blues are among the fastest 
 dyes known and are largely used abroad, but are almost prohibited 
 to the American textile manufacturer because of the misconstruction 
 of which we complain. 
 
 As the dyes for which we speak have been upon the market but 
 two years, and have had to pay a duty of 30 per cent, while other 
 anthracin dyes have paid notliing, the importations have been rela- 
 tively small and the aggregate duty unsubstantial. An equal or 
 greater amount of revenue would doubtless be collected from them 
 if properly classified with the anthracin derivatives because of the 
 increased consumption that would result from placing them upon a 
 competing basis. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 CASSELLA COLOR Co., 
 182-184 Front Street, New York City. 
 ROBERT ALFRED SHAW, 
 
 Vice President. 
 
 (Curie, Smith & Maxwell, attorneys, 32 Broadway, New York City. 
 Thomas M. Lane, of counsel.) 
 
 BRIEF OF THE PACIFIC MILLS, COCHECO DEPARTMENT, IN 
 RE HYDRON BLUE, ETC. 
 
 DOVER, N. H., February 6, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, Esq., 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR : We are large users of indigoes and vat colors on cotton 
 goods, and we also use hydron blue to a moderate extent. We have 
 
166 TAEIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 17 PYROXYLIN COMPOTJNDS. 
 
 just been advised of the brief filed by the Cassella Color Co., requesting 
 the removal of the misconstruction in the present tariff, which makes 
 hydron blue dutiable at 30 percent. We believe a favorable action 
 in this matter would be of great advantage, both to the textile 
 industry and the public in general. 
 
 Hydron blue is one of the more important of the recent additions 
 to the color industry, being a decidedly faster color than indigo, which 
 it would largely replace if the price were more favorable. At its 
 
 E resent price it is used only for the more expensive lines of work, and 
 )wering the duty would undoubtedly increase the use of this valuable 
 dyestuff. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 H. W. OWEN, 
 General Superintendent. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 16. 
 
 Cobalt, oxide of, twenty-five cents per pound. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 17. 
 
 Collodion and all compounds of pyroxylin or of other cellulose esters, 
 whether known as celluloid or by any other name, forty cents per pound; 
 if in blocks, sheets, rods, tubes, or other forms, not polished, wholly or 
 partly, and not made up into finished or partly finished articles, forty-five 
 cents per pound; if polished, wholly or partly, or if in finished or partly 
 finished articles, except moving-picture films, of which collodion or any 
 compound of pyroxylin or of other cellulose esters, by whatever name known, 
 is the component material of chief value, sixty-five cents per pound and thirty 
 per centum ad valorem. 
 For celluloid, see also Park & Tilford et al., page 66. 
 
 PYROXYLIN COMPOUNDS. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY FRANCIS A. GUDGER, NEW YORK 
 CITY, IN BEHALF OF MANUFACTURERS OF PYROXYLIN 
 COMPOUNDS. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 10, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Clia-irman Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: The American manufacturers of compounds of pyroxylin beg 
 to express their appreciation of the opportunity afforded them to 
 bo heard by your committee relative to contemplated changes in the 
 tariff law affecting their industry, but owing to the shortness of time 
 and the absence of the undersigned upon the dates set for the hearing 
 on paragraph 17, Schedule A, and realizing that your committee will 
 undoubtedly be crowded to the utmost by the large number of persons 
 who will wish to be heard on this schedule, we respectfully ask you 
 1o accept this short statement concerning the matter in question: 
 
 The paragraph in the tarhT act of 1909 which is applicable to our 
 industry is Xo. 17, Schedule A. 
 
 We earnestly protest on behalf of the stockholders of our several 
 companies, as well as on behalf of the thousands of workmen employed 
 in our factories and factories of allied industries, against any reduc- 
 tion in the rates of duty now set forth in paragraph No. 17 of Schedule 
 
SCHEDULE A. 167 
 
 PARAGRAPH 17 PYROXYLIN COMPOUNDS. 
 
 A of the act of 1909. We firmly believe in the justice of our position 
 and feel that it is supported by facts and conditions, the most impor- 
 tant of which we set forth briefly as follows: 
 
 First. Our product is distinctly and originally American. It was 
 discovered by an American citizen forty-odd years ago, and American 
 capital and brains developed and perfected it to a point where it 
 became a valuable commercial commodity. When that point was 
 reached our patents were copied, our secret processes were learned 
 and transported abroad and developed to such an extent that to-day 
 there exist large factories in Germany, France, England, Austria, 
 Russia, Italy, and Japan. 
 
 Second. There is no trust or monopoly in the industry and never 
 has been. Each one of the companies is an independent corporation 
 in which the others have no interest whatsoever, marketing their goods 
 wholly independent of each other, and there exists between them all 
 competition of the very keenest character. 
 
 Third. The Government records will not show a large importation 
 of pyroxylin articles, but this is because under the interpretation of 
 the tariff laws the great majority of these goods are imported into 
 this country under other tariff schedules than the one applying 
 specifically to our industry. Such importations are, however, very 
 large and increasing rapidly and progressively year by year. A 
 single glance at the stocks of any of the department or retail stores 
 throughout the country will fully bear out this assertion. 
 
 Fourth. We firmly believe that if the protection now afforded our 
 industry is taken away or radically reduced, our business will be seri- 
 ously crippled and in many of the lines now produced by us will be 
 completely destroyed, as tney are now being gradually crippled. 
 
 Fifth. The foreign manufacturers have taken from us all the markets 
 of the world except the United States of America, and unless adequate 
 protection is continued we will undoubtedly gradually suffer the same 
 defeat at home as abroad. 
 
 Sixth. Foreign manufacturers have a great advantage over us in 
 cheaper crude materials and cheaper labor, and in many other ways, 
 both from a point of cost and labor conditions. In the European 
 countries well-known and well-established records show their labor 
 to be less than one-third of the wages paid in our factories. In 
 Japan, where there are now two completed "celluloid" factories on 
 modern improved scale, the labor is less than a fourth or fifth of what 
 ours is m this country, and some records show it to be far less than this. 
 
 Seventh. There is scarcely a single article that we manufacture or 
 that is manufactured from our material but what is strictly a luxury 
 and has always been so classified or which can not be replaced by 
 other and cheaper materials. 
 
 Eighth. In the manufacture of our material we are very large 
 users of two raw products, the conditions surrounding which we 
 wish to call to your particular attention. 
 
 (a) The American manufacturers of compounds of pyroxylin,while 
 unable to give figures of an exact character, owing to the competi- 
 tion which prevents each from knowing the figures of the other, are 
 users of approximately 10,000,000 pounds of cotton per year and a 
 decrease in our manufacture or a resulting cessation of our industry 
 will, of course, wholly or partially eliminate this consumption. 
 
168 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 20 DYEING OR TANNING WOODS, ETC. 
 
 (&) Our industry consumes millions of pounds of camphor, all of 
 which comes from the Empire of Japan. The price of this raw ma- 
 terial is controlled by the Government of Japan, the supply is control- 
 led by the Government of Japan, and the distribution of this material 
 is in the hands of the financial backers of the celluloid industry of 
 Japan, all of which places the pyroxylin industry of America largely 
 at the mercy of these same Japanese manufacturers who are plan- 
 ning to become our keenest competitors. 
 
 Finally, we respectfully protest against any reduction of the pro- 
 tection afforded us in paragraph 17, Schedule A, act of 1909, and 
 the clean conduct of our industry in botn giving to the world and our 
 country a commodity hitherto unknown, and with prices reasonable 
 and fair we firmly believe justify every claim that we make for this 
 encouragement from our Government, and we further respectfully 
 request and wish to impress upon you the importance of a more strict 
 and correct reading of the paragraph referring to our product and 
 ask that the following paragraph be appended to the present tariff 
 act as it now reads: 
 
 "No article of which a compound of pyroxylin, or of other cellulose 
 esters, is a component of chief value shall be entered for import 
 under any other classification bearing a lower rate of duty." 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 FRANCIS A. GUDGER, 
 Second Vice President, The Arlington Co. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 18. 
 
 Coloring for brandy, wine, beer, or other liquors, fifty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 19. 
 
 Copperas, or sulphate of iron, fifteen hundredths of one cent per pound. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 20. 
 
 Drugs, such as barks, beans, berries, balsams, buds, bulbs, bulbous 
 roots, excrescences, fruits, flowers, dried fibers, dried insects, grains, gums 
 and gum resin, herbs, leaves, lichens, mosses, nuts, nutgalls, roots, stems, 
 spices, vegetables, seeds (aromatic, not garden seeds), seeds of morbid 
 growth, weeds, and woods used expressly for dyeing or tanning; any of the 
 foregoing which are natural and uncompounded drugs and not edible, and 
 not specially provided for in this section, but which are advanced in value or 
 condition by any process or treatment whatever beyond that essential to the 
 proper packing of the drugs and the prevention of decay or deterioration 
 pending manufacture, one-fourth of one cent per pound, and in addition 
 thereto ten per centum ad valorem: Provided, That no article containing 
 alcohol, or in the preparation of which alcohol is used, shall be classified 
 for diity under this paragraph. 
 For nutgalls, see also F. Bredt & Co., page 54. 
 
 DYEING OR TAXXIXG WOODS, ETC. 
 
 STATEMENT OF R. A. McCORMICK, REPRESENTING 
 McCORMICK & CO. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McCormick, we have assigned to you 15 
 minutes, if that is satisfactory. 
 Mr. MCCORMICK. Entirely so. 
 The CHAIRMAN. Give your name and address to the stenographer. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 169 
 
 PARAGRAPH 20 DYEING OR TANNING WOODS, ETC. 
 
 Mr. McCoRMicK. R. A. McCormick, of McCormick & Co., of Balti- 
 more. Mr. Chairman, the items that we as a firm are interested in 
 are very small as compared with the main item in Schedule A, and 
 I will therefore not take up very much of your tune on them. 
 
 We handle a number of articles in the chemical schedule, but wish 
 to speak only of those under section 20. This section deals with a 
 number of items which we import under the free list, section 559, but 
 which in the ground state, or in a state described in the section as 
 " advanced hi value, " carry a specific duty of one-fourth cent per 
 pound and 10 per cent ad valorem. The principal items we import 
 affected by the sections are: Section 559, juniper berries, insect 
 flowers, gum asafetida, marjoram leaves, thyme leaves, savory 
 leaves, laurel leaves, and senna leaves; section 668, tumeric root, 
 celery seed, caraway seed, anise seed, fennel seed, coriander 
 seed, and fenugreek. None of these items, so far as we are 
 informed and also advised by the United States Department of 
 Agriculture, are produced in this country other than as an occa- 
 sional kitchen-garden product, except insect flowers. These, we are 
 advised by Prof. Woodward, entomologist of the department of 
 agriculture of California, are cultivated in that State by one grower 
 only, who sells all his products at higher prices than are paid for the 
 imported flowers. As the yield is not one- thousandth enough to 
 supply the demand, it would seem that this single product needs no 
 protection when unground or ground. Different grades of practically 
 every agricultural product may come from the same field. They will 
 vary in value on account of soil or season by the care and intelligence, 
 or their lack, used in gathering the crops, together with the facilities 
 for curing and weather conditions while being matured. Any of our 
 common grains, as oats, wheat, barley, or corn, may be so badly 
 grown, gathered, cured, or protected that they may be difficult to 
 market, but bring a f air price in the ground state, simply because the 
 buyer can not so thoroughly examine or so easily see the defects and 
 inferiority when in the ground condition, and also because no chemical 
 or microscopical examination will equal the examination by the eye 
 when in the whole state. 
 
 Any one of the leaves named may lose its strength wholly or in 
 part, and in consequence could not be imported unground, and would 
 sell in the country of origin for only a fraction of the cost of prime 
 quality leaves, but could still be ground and hardly denied entry. 
 For instance, if they were mixed with a small quantity of first- 
 quality powder, they would meet every requirement for entry. In 
 some seeds, as, for instance, caraway, the grains may be exhausted 
 in the process of distilling the essential oil. The exhausted seeds 
 are inert and of no practical value, easily distinguished and condemned 
 in examination by the eye and taste, but if ground and mixed with 
 powder from good seed would pass current and not be refused entry. 
 
 This danger of substitution is greater now than a few years ago, 
 for damaged products not up to a certain well-defined standard 
 may be and are rejected when presented for entry at our ports; there- 
 fore the reasons for importing ground goods are greater rrorn a profit 
 standpoint. 
 
170 TARIFF HEAKINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 20 DYEING OR TANNING WOODS, ETC. 
 
 Heretofore practically none of these items have been imported 
 in the ground state; therefore there has been little or no revenue 
 derived under this section from the class of goods named. In fram- 
 ing a new tariff act with reference to goods affected by this section, 
 if the duty is left unchanged we believe that in the main importing 
 the ground goods will be prevented. It is, however, probable that 
 in some instances 'it will be still found to pay the foreign grinder to 
 send to the United States inferior ground goods rather than good 
 class whole goods. In that event this class of goods would yield a 
 small revenue, but to the detriment of the legitimate American 
 grinder or to the ultimate consumer. 
 
 If duties are reduced additional revenue will be had, as importing 
 would be fostered, but the dangers pointed out would be propor- 
 tionately increased. Putting these articles, if ground, on the free 
 list would be particularly regrettable and would not only bring in no 
 revenue but would certainly foster an evil without any compensating 
 benefit. A duty on ground goods of this class is for one of two 
 objects: First, as a revenue producer; second, to entirely bar out 
 the goods. If for revenue, the duty must be at a happy medium 
 between free and so high a tariff as to be prohibitive, or it must be 
 high enough to be practically prohibitive. The latter is presumably 
 the end here sought. 
 
 I urge that your committee either leave the duties as they are 
 now or increase them, and recommend that an ad valorem duty of 
 30 per cent rather than a combined specific and ad valorem duty, as 
 at present will be best, and respectfully urge that this rate be adopted. 
 
 STATEMENT OF W. W. SKIDDY ET AL., REPRESENTING 
 THE MANUFACTURERS OF DYEWOOD AND TANNING EX- 
 TRACTS. 
 
 Paragraphs, present law: No. 20. Dutiable list, Schedule A; 
 No. 22! Dutiable list, Schedule A. No. 559. Free list. 
 
 Committee representing the manufacture of these extracts in the 
 United States: W. W. Skiddy, Stamford, Conn.; Geo. A Kerr, 
 Lynchburg, Va.: Onia Carr, Canton, N. C.: The New York Tanning 
 Extract Co., New York, N. Y.; John D. Lewis, Providence, R. I.; 
 American Dyewood Co.. Chester. Pa.: The Stamford Manufacturing 
 Co., Stamford, Conn.: Brevard Tannin Co., Pisgah Forest, N. C.; 
 Jno. E. Heaid & Co.. Lynchburg, Ya.; Mount Union Extract Co., 
 Mount Union, Pa.: Smethport Extract Co., Damascus, Va.; The 
 Tanners & Dyers Extract Co., Charleston, W. Va.; The Champion 
 Fibre Co., Canton. X. C.; Cherokee Tanning Extract Co., Andrews, 
 N. C.; American Extract Co., Port Allegheny, Pa.; and others (see 
 page 9, Compilation of Tariff Hearings). 
 
 WASHINGTON, January 6, 1913. 
 Hon. 0car \V. Underwood, chairman, and the honorable members of 
 
 the Way* and Means Committee. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: Representing the manufacturers of dyewood extracts 
 and tanning extracts in the United States, we beg to submit the 
 
SCHEDULE A. 171 
 
 PARAGRAPH 20 DYEING OR TANNING WOODS, ETC. 
 
 following statement in connection with paragraphs 20 and 22 in the 
 dutiable list and 559 in the free list. 
 
 Messrs. Kerr & Can* are manufacturers of tanning extracts only; 
 and Mr. Skiddy of both dyewood and tanning extracts, representing 
 also the dyewood manufacturers. These gentlemen constitute a 
 committee appointed by these manufacturing interests in the United 
 States to represent them. 
 
 DYEWOOD EXTRACTS. 
 
 Your attention is called to what is known in the present law as 
 paragraph No. 20, Schedule A, relative to woods imported that are 
 used expressly for dyeing or tanning, and these woods represent the 
 raw material for the manufacturing of these extracts. These woods 
 have always come into this country free, provided that they have 
 not been advanced in value by grinding, chipping, etc., as stated in 
 this paragraph No. 20, and also stated in a corresponding section of 
 the free list No. 559. 
 
 These woods come from the islands of the West Indies, from the 
 Gulf ports of Mexico, and from South American ports, aiding very 
 materially the trading and shipping interests between these countries 
 and the United States. Cargoes consisting of a great variety of 
 goods can always be secured for export from this country, but owing 
 to the fewer articles that these countries have that can be used in 
 the United States, it is more difficult to get return cargoes. 
 
 When these trees are cut down, it takes but a short time for con- 
 siderable of the bark to peel off naturally, owing to the heat in these 
 countries, so that the chipping is resorted to, to save time. This 
 saves unnecessary handling and freight on the worthless bark, and 
 enables the storing of the wood in vessels to better advantage. 
 
 The adding of the word "peeling" in the two sections named, 
 would place a duty on them for the first time, adding greatly to then* 
 cost, for one-fourth of 1 cent per pound and 10 per cent ad valorem 
 would mean over 1J cents per pound on the extract, as you can call 
 4 tons of wood equal to 1 ton of extract, and the value in the United 
 States $19 to $20 per ton. 
 
 Endless litigation would also be created in trying to prove what 
 bark had fallen off naturally and what had been chipped off, opening 
 wide the door for misrepresentation and fraud. 
 
 A sample of the wood of the logwood tree, and of the bark of same, 
 and one of the quebracho tree and the bark, is submitted. 
 
 These dyewood extracts also meet strong competition in the impor- 
 tation of coal tar or aniline colors, manufactured in Germany, all of 
 them having a prohibitive protection for a long term of years by 
 United States patents. 
 
 The tonnage imported annually of these dyewoods at the present 
 time is not as great as many years ago, owing to the competition 
 with foreign goods and aniline colors. 
 
 These conditions have caused several manufacturers of dyewood 
 extracts of former days to quit the business. 
 
 In the early eighties there was from seventy to eighty thousand 
 tons of wood brought into this country, and, if I remember correctly, 
 
172 TABIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 20 DYEING OB TANNING WOODS, ETC. 
 
 nearly 100,000 tons per annum prior to that time; the figures since 
 1906, according to the United States reports, show as follows: 
 
 Importations of logwood and fustic into the United States from 1906-1912, inclusive. 
 
 Fiscal year ending June 30 
 
 Logwood. 
 
 Fustic. 
 
 Fiscal year ending June 30 
 
 Logwood. 
 
 Fustic. 
 
 1906... 
 
 36,625 
 
 5,783 
 
 1910 
 
 31,270 
 
 5,816 
 
 1907 
 
 37 902 
 
 (i) 
 
 1911 
 
 35 340 
 
 5,379 
 
 1908... 
 
 21,809 
 
 4,452 
 
 1912 
 
 39,571 
 
 (i) 
 
 1909 
 
 17 873 
 
 2 466 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 No record. 
 
 In 1897 nearly the whole of the textile manufacturers, the users 
 of these extracts, presented a protest against any reduction in the 
 duty on these dyewood extracts of seven-eighths of 1 cent per pound 
 and as at present in paragraph 22, realizing that any injury done to 
 the manufacturers in this country would greatly decrease compe- 
 tition and that it was the home competition that kept down the 
 prices for them, not only in dyewood extract, but in the patented 
 German aniline extracts. 
 
 These dyewood extracts are made in England, Germany, France, 
 and Russia, and 25 years ago the United States shipped large quan- 
 tities to France and Russia, but these countries placed a prohibitive 
 tariff on them, completely killing these exports. France has been 
 using this country as a dumping ground for these extracts when their 
 manufacturing output could not be taken care of in their own country. 
 
 The duty on dvewood extracts in France, unless it has been lately 
 changed, is on blacks and violets (which is logwood), 20 francs per 
 hundred kilos, which equals 1.8 of a cent per pound, and on reds and 
 yellows (which means fustic and redwoods) 30 francs per hundred 
 kilos, which represents 2.7 of a cent per pound, and I do not know of 
 any commercial agreement between the two countries that changes 
 in any way these rates. 
 
 The wages paid in this country are much higher than paid in 
 England, France, or Germany. 
 
 Any reduction from the present rate of seven-eighths of a cent per 
 pound on these extracts, as in paragraph Xo. 22, would be an encour- 
 agement to the European manufacturers to ship their surplus to this 
 country, thus running their factories full at the expense of the Ameri- 
 can manufacturers, knowing that their tariffs prohibit interference 
 from the American market. 
 
 During the last few years, as stated, five or six manufacturers of 
 dyewood extracts, included in former tariff hearings, have been 
 obliged to go out of business, owing to foreign competition, including 
 aniline colors, thus reducing profits, and those few who remain earn- 
 estly ask that no change be made in the present law, thereby crip- 
 pling their business and probablv reducing still further the number 
 left. 
 
 TANNING EXTRACTS. 
 
 Tanning extracts are made from various woods and under processes 
 similar to dvewood extracts. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 173 
 
 PARAGRAPH 20 DYEING OR TANNING WOODS, ETC. 
 
 The largest quantities of tanning extracts used in the United States 
 are those made from chestnut wood and quebracho wood. These 
 extracts are manufactured in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, 
 Tennessee, Pennsylvania, New York, and Connecticut. The chestnut 
 wood used grows in Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, North 
 Carolina, and Tennessee, and the quebracho wood is imported from 
 the Republics of Argentina and Paraguay. 
 
 As already stated, a sample of the quebracho wood and of the bark 
 has been submitted. This wood holds the same position as dyewoods, 
 according to paragraphs 20 and 559 of the present law, and the same 
 statement made for dye wood applies to quebracho wood. 
 
 We would add that after a quebracho tree has been cut down and 
 allowed to lie on the ground, which is always the case, it becomes 
 necessary to remove the bark; otherwise the sap contained in this 
 bark breeds a large quantity of worms which immediately attack the 
 wood and injures its value for extract purposes. 
 
 The duty thus created would add, as stated regarding dyewood 
 extracts, an additional cost to the extract manufactured in this 
 country of over 1J cents per pound. We pray that this word "peel- 
 ing" will not be placed in these sections. 
 
 The first mention of quebracho distinct from other tanning extracts 
 was made in the law of 1897. At that time only one grade was shipped 
 into this country, as regards density or gravity, and that grade was a 
 liquid article in barrels standing at about 28 Baum6 and containing 
 abt ut 35 per cent of tannic acid, and the law of 1897 placed upon 
 this grade one-half of 1 cent per pound. 
 
 Tanning extracts are sold by me pound, the price per pound based 
 upon the percentage of tannic acid or tannin, as it is termed, contained 
 in a pound; therefore, according to the strength or the weakness 
 of the percentage of tan is fixed the price per pound on the market. 
 
 Some tune after 1897 and prior to 1909 great improvements were 
 made in machinery and apparatus for the reducing of liquid extracts 
 to solid extracts without injury to the article so reduced. Extracts 
 from woods are very susceptible and can easily be ruined by excessive 
 heat, nothing more so than tannic acid, and these new methods and 
 improvements enabled the manufacturer of the liquid to reduce these 
 extracts further, or, in other words, to take the liquid which was at 
 28 Baume, representing one-half quebracho extract and one-half 
 water and containing 35 per cent of tannic acid, to a heavier density 
 by driving off the half amount of water, and producing what is known 
 as solid extract. 
 
 By driving off this water they of course made 1 pound of extract 
 represent, more quebracho and less water, the result showing that 
 this solid article contained about 12 to 15 per cent of water only and 
 65 per cent of tannic acid. This decrease of water and increased 
 percentage of tannic acid immediately increased the value per pound; 
 therefore in 1909 the manufacturers of this extract in the United 
 States asked that an adjustment or equalization be made to meet 
 these new conditions, and that the duty of one-half of 1 cent per 
 pound on the liquid quebracho remain as in the law of 1897, bv 
 adding the words " under 28 Baume" (which is the universal stand- 
 ard in this country and all European countries to distinguish the 
 
174 TAHIPF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 20 DYEING OR TANNING WOODS, ETC. 
 
 difference between liquid and solid extracts), and that the solid 
 extract, or that above 28 Baume", be placed at seven-eighths of 1 
 cent per pound, which would equal the one-half cent per pound on 
 the liquid, as the solid was 65 per cent tannic acid instead of 35 per 
 cent, as in the liquid. 
 
 The Congress at that time, in 1909, saw fit to make the rate of 
 duty on the solid three-fourths of a cent per pound, as per paragraph 
 21 in present law, instead of seven-eighths of a cent, which we asked 
 for, which was a slight reduction, as it made the duty based on the 
 percentage of tannic acid (viz, 65 per cent) less than the old duty 
 of one-half cent on the liquid (viz, 35 per cent) as in 1897. The 
 foreign manufacturer, in addition to this decrease in duty on sol d, 
 gained a reduction of freight, in that they did not pay on the weight 
 of barrels, as they put up and ship the solid in bags, which is a much 
 cheaper package than barrels, also saving the freight on 50 per cent 
 water that they formerly paid on the liquid extract and getting 
 about double the price they could get for the liquid which they 
 brought in under the law of 1897. 
 
 Manufacturers of tanning extracts have always felt, and still do, 
 that this adjustment was not an advance in 1909, but actually a 
 reduction. Immediately after the passage of the 1909 law liquid 
 extracts were no longer imported into this country, they coming 
 only in solid form. 
 
 The foreign manufacturer is noted for his shrewdness, and were it 
 not to his advantage he would not have dropped the liquid entirely 
 in favor of the solid. 
 
 Our greatest competition in quebracho extract in fact, we might 
 say 90 per cent of it comes from the Argentine Republic, and from 
 one concern in that country known as the Forestal Land, Timber & 
 Railways Co. In 1896 and 1897, when this extract was first manu- 
 factured in the United States, there were a number of small independent 
 manufacturers in the Argentine, but certain Germans, seeing an 
 opportunity for large combinations, started in, and late in 1907 our 
 agent or representative in Buenos Aires wrote us a letter in which he 
 said an agreement has been made between several of the quebracho- 
 extract manufacturers, etc., of the Argentine as to the fixing of prices 
 and the soiling of the extract, and stating that "the signing parties 
 aro tlio Forestal Land, Timber & Railways Co., the Puerto Sastre 
 Co., T. II. Brncht & Co., the Puerto Marie, the Industrial Del Chaco, 
 and tlio Cnssjulos." 
 
 Sijiee that timo we have been constantly hearing of the Forestal 
 Trust, and nothing we think can bo more convincing as to their 
 increased growth and power and control of this business than to 
 quoio from their own reports and the newspaper statements, relative 
 to ^ hat they have done. 
 
 hi 190'.) there appeared a small pamphlet published in London by 
 1! is company, giving maps, views, and facts concerning their busi- 
 ness, and thoy state in this prospectus that their chief business is to 
 make. \Sio extract from the quebracho wood. We quote: 
 
 It ;s infeivsiino; to note that tlio pioneers of the quebracho-extract industry were 
 Messrs. Hartneck, Portalis & Renner, now directors of the Forestal Land, Timber & 
 Railways Co. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 175 
 
 PARAGRAPH 20 DYEING OR TANNING WOODS, ETC. 
 
 The result of the labors of those gentlemen culminated in the formation of the Com- 
 pania Forestal del Chaco, which built a factory at Guillermina, capable of turning 
 out 24,000 tons of extract per annum, some 300 miles north of the factory which had 
 already been established at Calchaqui, which had a capacity of 14,000 tons yearly, 
 and they later on completed a third plant with a capacity of 7,000 tons yearly at 
 Peguaho. 
 
 The business of that company was taken over by the Forestal Land, Timber & Rail- 
 ways Co. (Ltd.), as from the 1st January, 1906. This company has now a share capital 
 of 1,200,000 pounds sterling, of which 1,171,500 pounds sterling has been issued, 
 divided equally into preference and ordinary shares, besides 477,680 pounds sterling 
 outstanding 5 per cent first mortgage debentures. 
 
 On a slip placed in this book after publication they say: 
 
 Since this pamphlet was sent to press, the Forestal Land, Timber & Railways Co. 
 (Ltd.), has purchased $1,500,000 paper (or, say 130,000 pounds sterling) of 6 per cent 
 first mortgage debentures of La Sociedad Quebrachales Fusionados at 90, and secured 
 at the same time, the consignment of the total production of the Fusionados extract 
 for the next seven years. 
 
 The Review of the River Plate (a trade paper published in Buenos 
 Aires), under date of June 16, 1911, presents the report of the directors 
 to the stockholders for the year 1910, and states: 
 
 The company has taken a substantial participation in the capital of the Ocampo 
 Railway Co., which owns 36 kilometers of permanent way between the port of Ocampo 
 and the terminus of the company's Malberti Railway, together with rolling stock, an 
 investment which will conduce to the economical working of the Campo Redondo 
 factory. The directors have been advised by cable that the long-deferred arrangement 
 with the Fusionados Co. has been completed, and they await fuller mail particulars. 
 
 The Fusionados Co. and the Hardy & Co. were the largest and 
 strongest competitors the Forestal Co. had in the Argentine, and 
 now they own or control them both. 
 
 In 1912, at their stockholders' meeting in London, they issued a 
 statement, with a balance sheet (a copy of which We have) showing a 
 profit of over 429,000 pounds sterling. They also declared for 1911 
 dividends, the same as previous year 1910, viz, 14 per cent on their 
 preferred stock and 24 per cent on their ordinary or common stock. 
 
 Next to the Argentine, the largest manufacturing interests of this 
 extract, is found in Germany and was started some years ago in 
 Hamburg by Mr. Herman Renner. This gentlemen, as already 
 shown, is a director in the Forestal Land, Timber & Railways Co., 
 and we now quote from a Hamburg paper of October 28, 1912, as 
 follows : 
 
 [Gerb und Farbstoffwerke H. Renner & Cle, A. Q. Hamburg.] 
 
 The principal object of the extraordinary stockholders' meeting held on October 
 28 was the proposition to accept an amalgamation of interests with the Forestal Land, 
 Timber & Railways Co. (Ltd.), London. The presiding officer, Herr Geh. Kom- 
 merzieurat, Dr. Ing. Carl Delius opened the meeting with the statement that the ex- 
 ecutive committee felt sure that the amalgamation of interests would be beneficial 
 to the shareholders. The principal points of the contract were as follows: 
 
 We conclude on January 1, 1913, an amalgamation of interest with the Forestal 
 Land, Timber & Railways Co. (Ltd.), by handing over our total profit, including the 
 dividends, received from our ownership of Forestal shares and other participations in 
 connection with the Forestal Co. 
 
 The Renner Co. continues its present and absolutely independent organization; 
 we in return are to receive a payment, which shall be governed by the dividend paid 
 on the common and preferred shares of the Forestal. Calculating the dividend of 19 
 per cent paid for the past 2 years on the fully paid-in capital, said payment would 
 amount to 1,940,000 marks a year. 
 
176 TAEIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 20 DYEING OR TANNING WOODS, ETC. 
 
 Every reduction of 1 per cent would be equal to a decrease of 100,000 marks; every 
 addition of 1 per cent would represent an increase of 80,000 marks, but in no case 
 shall the payment of the Forestal Co. exceed two and one-half millions yearly. 
 
 We to receive 10 per cent of all special reserves, but said amounts shall be de- 
 ducted whenever said reserves later on are paid out in the shape of dividends. 
 
 We bind ourselves not to sell any of our "participations" without the consent of 
 the Forestal. This conditions does not include the 11,669 preferred Forestal and 
 9,624 common shares, procured last year, with which we can act as we please. 
 
 Any profit we may- make by a sale of these shares does not belong to the Forestal 
 Co., but to our stockholders; we have also reserved to ourselves the ownership of a 
 special reserve fund of 600,000 marks set aside to be used for the purpose of a supple- 
 ment to our dividends in special instances. 
 
 This agreement has been made for a period of 10 years and can be mutually can- 
 celed by giving notice 6 months in advance earliest per January 1, 1920 by the 
 payment of 30,000 pounds sterling as a compensation. 
 
 The compensation of a cancellation for 1921 is reduced to 25,000 pounds sterling 
 and for 1922 to 20,000 pounds sterling. 
 
 The legal settlement of disputes shall be subject to the decision of the English 
 auditors Deloitte, Plender, Griffiths & Co., and the Revision Treuhand A. G. Berlin. 
 
 As a public indication of the amalgamation of interests, we propose the supple- 
 mentary election of Mr. C. Hartneck, one of the directors of the Forestal Co., as a 
 member of our executive committee. 
 
 We ourselves are represented on the board of the Forestal Co. by our president, Herr 
 Kommerzieurat and Herman Renner. 
 
 The stockholders accepted the agreement unanimously by accla- 
 mation; in the same Way Mr. Hartneck was elected a member of the 
 executive committee. 
 
 In reply to the question of a stockholder, whether the possibility 
 exists to receive for the current year a considerably higher dividend, 
 the presiding officer stated that, taking as a basis the result of the 
 past 9 months, it is believed that at least the same dividend as the 
 one paid last year will be distributed. 
 
 But at the last moment he could not say whether a larger dividend 
 could be paid, because it was impossible to foretell the result of the 
 remaining three months, and, further, nobody could tell whether 
 some complication in reference to the political situation may arise. 
 
 In regard to the future prospect of the Forestal Co., the president, 
 Mr. Renner, stated that the present year was of less interest for said 
 company than the years 1913 and 1914. 
 
 The outlook for the year 1913 could be called extraordinarily 
 favorable, because there have been made such large sales of extract 
 that it is believed that the average dividend of 19 per cent paid for 
 some years past is safe. In the future also we may count upon 
 receiving the same good dividends regularly. 
 
 In reply to a further question the speaker gave the additional infor- 
 mation that the stockholders' meeting of the Forestal Co. was taking 
 place on October 28 at 3.30 p. m. in London, and in that way alt 
 formalities in reference to the amalgamation of interest were settled 
 on the same day. 
 
 Again we quote from the Financial Times of London, under date 
 of September 25, 1912: 
 
 The Financial Times, referring to the reported amalgamation of the Santa Fe Land 
 Co. with the Forestal Land, Timber & Railways Co., remarks that this will enable 
 them, if the project is realized, to keep up the present price of quebracho, the working 
 of which is the principal object of the two companies. 
 
 Thus it seems that the control of this business is pretty well in the 
 hands of one company, and all they require now in order to control 
 
SCHEDULE A. 177 
 
 PARAGRAPH 20 DYEING OR TANNING WOODS, ETC. 
 
 a large part of the world is the American manufacturing interests 
 which a reduced tariff rate would make it easy for them to accom- 
 plish. 
 
 In the hearings before your committee in 1909 Mr. Klipstein, the 
 agent of the Forestal Land, Timber & Railways Co., undertook to deny 
 a statement made by Mr. Skiddy that there had been a trust formed 
 in the Argentine in 1907 to control the price of quebracho extract, 
 but his denial is as follows: 
 
 Mr. Skiddy states that there was formed a trust in Argentine in 1907 to control the 
 pri; e of quebracho extract. As a matter of fact, the manufacturers of quebracho 
 extract, in view of the impending panic, tried to form a combination to prevent enor- 
 mous losses, but the panic was too severe, and the combine went to pieces, and the 
 price of 2 cents per pound for quebracho extract, as mentioned in our first state- 
 ment, was the result. The Argentine makers of extract had to take their panic med- 
 icine like all the rest of the world. 
 
 Please note that the price went to 2 cents per pound in 1908, as 
 stated by Mr. Klrpstein, prior to then- purchase of 130,000 pounds 
 sterling of the Fusionados Co., a very natural result of prices below 
 the cost of manufacture. 
 
 Mr. Klipstein in 1909 furthermore stated before the Ways and 
 Means Committee in a brief that the price used to be 4 cents to 
 5 cents per pound, and generally imported in the form of the liquid 
 extract. 
 
 Bear in mind, if you please, that Mr. Klipstein hi this statement is 
 referring back prior to the time of their making solid extract, and 
 before they realized the growth of the American competition, and 
 this competition when realized caused a reduction from 4 or 5 cents 
 for liquid at 35 per cent tan to 4 cents for solid at 65 per cent tan 
 (worth in the market almost double the price of the liquid), or, in 
 other words, they were selling liquid without the American competi- 
 tion at a price equal to 9^ cents per pound for the solid that thev are 
 selling to-day for 4 cents per pound. Why should not prices advance 
 again without competition? 
 
 If the Forestal Co. or their representatives in this country under- 
 take to claim that they are being frozen out and that the present 
 rates of duty are so great they can not compete, then we would refer 
 you to their statements already made in their reports to their stock- 
 holders at their annual meetings held in London and their continuing 
 to pay 24 per cent on their ordinary stock and 14 per cent on their 
 preferred stock. 
 
 Such dividends have not been and can not be earned by the Amer- 
 ican manufacturers. A reduction in the present duty would tend to 
 bring about one of two results, either the closing out by the American 
 manufacturers at great loss, or the temptation to get together, 
 advance prices, and control the market. 
 
 We also have received a copy of the Daily Mail of Paris, under date 
 of November 14, 1912, with an advertisement of the Forestal Land, 
 Timber & Railways Co., stating that the capitalization is 1,700,000 
 pounds sterling, setting forth their great earning power, etc., and 
 offering to sell 1,000,000 pounds sterling of 5 per cent first mortgage 
 bonds. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 12 
 
178 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 20 DYEING OR TANNING WOODS, ETC. 
 
 That imports have not been checked by the present tariff, we sub- 
 mit the following table: 
 
 Fiscal year ending June 30 
 
 Tons of wood received and 
 amount of extract same 
 represents each Govern- 
 ment fiscal year. 
 
 Tons of solid extract im- 
 ported into the United 
 States and the tons of 
 wood same represents 
 each Government fiscal 
 year. 
 
 Per cent ex- 
 cess of extract 
 imported and 
 wood used 
 for same 
 above that 
 used for man- 
 ufacture in 
 the United 
 States. 
 
 Tons of wood 
 received in 
 the United 
 States per 
 Department 
 of Commerce 
 and Labor. 
 
 Represents 
 in solid 
 extract 
 (pounds). 
 
 Pounds of 
 solid extract 
 imported 
 into United 
 States per 
 Department 
 of Commerce 
 and Labor. 
 
 Represents 
 total tons 
 wood used 
 for same. 
 
 1906 
 
 87,838 
 67,310 
 48,871 
 66,113 
 80,210 
 64,703 
 68,174 
 
 49,189,280 
 37,693,600 
 27,367,760 
 37,023,280 
 44,917,600 
 36,238,720 
 38,177,400 
 
 43,989,707 
 76,479,846 
 62,593,671 
 99,108,284 
 90,483,576 
 77,606,700 
 74,239,715 
 
 78,553 
 136,572 
 111,774 
 176,979 
 161,578 
 138,584 
 132,571 
 
 
 1907 
 
 102.8 
 128.7 
 107.7 
 101.4 
 114.2 
 94.4 
 
 1908 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1911 
 
 1912 
 
 
 Please note that in 1906 the United States manufacturers did a 
 little more business in pounds of extract than did the importers. The 
 Forestal Trust at that time, as already shown, was not fully in the 
 saddle, but later the imports were considerably over 100 per cent, and 
 in 1908-1909 it was the largest, probably due to the low price of 2 
 cents mentioned by Mr. Klipstein. 
 
 The year 1912 shows about double the quantity of extract 
 imported as compared with the quantity manufactured in this 
 country, but a decrease of about 20 per cent from the imports of 1911. 
 This decrease can not be attributed to the increase of the home 
 manufacture, as they only show about 5 per cent increase between the 
 same years, which was 10 per cent less than they showed in 1910. 
 
 The present tariff can not be called excessive; otherwise, the 
 imports would not exceed the home manufacture by 100 per cent and 
 maintain this position year after year. 
 
 We understand that the desideratum of tariff adjustment is 
 to establish a rate that will produce the greatest revenue, combined 
 with greatest encouragement for both home and foreign competition; 
 therefore as a tariff for revenue and competition the present rate 
 should be retained. 
 
 
 Total money re- 
 ceived by pres- 
 ent rates on the 
 actual imports 
 each year, viz, 
 three- fourths 
 cent per pound. 1 
 
 Total money re- 
 ceived at a rate 
 of three-eighths 
 cent per pound 
 on total used hi 
 United States 
 by adding to ac- 
 tual imports the 
 amount manu- 
 factured hi 
 the United 
 States.* 
 
 Loss in revenue to 
 the Government 
 even by having 
 total consump- 
 tion imported at 
 three-eighths 
 cent per pound 
 and home manu- 
 facture wiped out 
 and no competi- 
 tion.' 
 
 1907 
 
 $573,598 84 
 
 $428, 150. 40 
 
 $ 145, 448 44 
 
 1908 
 
 469,452.52 
 
 337,355.37 
 
 132, 097. 15 
 
 1909 
 
 743,312.13 
 
 510,493.36 
 
 232, 818. 78 
 
 1910 
 
 678, 626. 82 
 
 507,754.41 
 
 170,872.41 
 
 1911 
 
 582, 050. 25 
 
 426,901.41 
 
 155, 148. 84 
 
 1912 
 
 556,797.85 
 
 421,564.33 
 
 135, 233. 52 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Three-fourths per cent on account imports. 
 
 1 Three-eighths on all. 
 
 'Loss. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 179 
 
 PABAGBAPH 20 DYEING OB TANNING WOODS, ETC. 
 
 If the tanners of this country understood the actual conditions, 
 they would be more anxious than the extract manufacturers to have 
 the duty on these extracts maintained. 
 
 We have seen of late articles in the leather-trade papers advocating 
 reductions in the tariff, all written by importers or representatives of 
 foreign manufacturers (or their employees), the usual method they 
 have adopted for years prior to tariff hearings. 
 
 On the 30th day of August last the Stamford Manufacturing Co. 
 wrote to their agent in Buenos Aires, putting to him a few questions, 
 wishing to have an answer in time to place before your committee, 
 which we now submit : 
 
 Question No. 1. What is the wage per day or month of the ordinary laborer at a 
 quebracho factory in the Argentine? 
 Answer. The wage of the ordinary laborer in the Chaco is about $20 per month. 
 
 NOTE. In this country the ordinary laborer receives $1.75 per day, 
 about 127^ per cent higher. 
 
 Question No. 2. What are the wages per day or month of a more intelligent man, 
 such as bosses, etc.? 
 
 Answer. The wages of a more intelligent man, such as a foreman, is about $40 per 
 month, or perhaps $50. 
 
 NOTE. The wage of such men in this country is from $2.75 to $3 
 per day, about 56 per cent higher. 
 
 Question No. 3. What are the wages per day or month of still higher class of me- 
 chanics or engineers who have to be imported to that country? 
 Answer. About $80 a month. 
 
 NOTE. In this country from $4 to $4.50 a day, about 46 per cent 
 higher. 
 
 Certain other questions as to cost, freights, etc., he states, depends 
 upon distance, freight, etc., making the cost of the solid extract on 
 board vessel ready for shipment to the United States at from $59 to 
 $62 gold per thousand kilos. 
 
 NOTE. This represents 2.62.7 cents per pound. To this must 
 be added the freight from the Argentine and the present duty to give 
 the cost price here. 
 
 Assuming an equal division of the various grades of labor (although 
 the ordinary labor of $1.75 per day would be the largest), the average 
 shows 76 per cent higher in this country than in the Argentine 
 Republic. The difference in wages, taking the cost of the extract 
 in this country and as shown to be in the Argentine, estimated on 
 the average higher wage of 76 per cent, shows about nine-tenths of 
 1 cent per pound. 
 
 Chestnut extracts are largely used in connection with quebracho 
 extracts, a combination of the two extracts used quite extensively 
 by the tanners. 
 
 Chestnut extracts are made abroad and could easily become a part 
 of the business of quebracho manufacturers, a natural result of a 
 reduction in the present tariff. Such a result would be injurious to 
 the American chestnut manufacturers, probably causing many of 
 them to quit business, thus throwing on the market many plants at 
 low prices, the purchase of which might result in the absolute control 
 of the two most important and largely used extracts by the tanners 
 in the United States. 
 
180 TABTFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 20 DYEING OR TANNING WOODS, ETC. 
 
 The attached pamphlet is submitted as part of this brief, it being 
 a compilation of the tariff hearings in 1909 and since, and which we 
 believe in this form will be of aid to your honorable committee. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF W. W. SKIDDY, NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 28, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Certain corrected figures furnished by the Department 
 of Commerce and Labor somewhat changed the brief under date of 
 January 6, 1913, relative to the dutiable clauses No. 20 and No. 22 
 in Schedule A, and 559 on the free list. (Corrections made in brief 
 above.) 
 
 I also beg that you accept a few statements further in relation to 
 the matter. 
 
 First, that you notice in a page taken out of the Review of the 
 River Plate under date of December 13, 1912, being a general trade 
 paper, published in Buenos Aires, which shows, according to the re- 
 ports from the Argentine Government, the exports for the first 11 
 months of 1912, and notice the total amount of quebracho wood ex- 
 ported from that country, there was 31 per cent of it shipped to the 
 United States and 34 per cent of it shipped to Germany, and there 
 was shipped of the extract to the United States 41 per cent of the 
 total and to Germany only 17 per cent, showing that an excess of 
 the manufactured article over the raw material to the United States 
 was 10 per cent, but that to Germany it was the reverse, and there 
 was 85 per cent in excess of the raw material over the manufactured 
 goods. 
 
 The total raw material, therefore, would indicate that 65 per cent 
 of it was shipped 1o the United States and Germany. 
 
 These figures prove absolutely that when 41 per cent of the total 
 exports of any particular kind of manufactured goods from any one 
 country can be shipped to the United States that the existing laws 
 do not interfere with the free trading in these goods, particularly 
 when this quantity shows, as it does in the Government figures, that 
 it is 100 per cent greater than the amount of the same kind of goods 
 manufacture in the United States. 
 
 The American manufacturers under these conditions certainly do 
 not control the market, but are simply competitors as against the 
 much greater market that is bringing into this country the same 
 kind of goods. 
 
 On the 6th of January last Mr. August Vogel appeared before your 
 committee, stating that he represented the tanners, and I believe he 
 does represent some of them, but not all of them, and in his cross- 
 examination, which you will lind on page 87 of No. 1 Tariff Hearings, 
 in answer to Mr. .lames, is the following: 
 
 Mr. JAMKS. il.,\v niadi cheaper d<> they sell that .stuff in Canada than here? 
 
 Mr. Yor; i-;i.. You can buy f|uel>raeh<> at :} cents there, and it costs you 3| cents here. 
 
 Mr. JAMKS. They just add <>n the tariff? 
 Mr. YIH;EL. They just add the tariff. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 181 
 
 PARAGRAPH 20 DYEING OR TANNING WOODS, ETC. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. They sell it in competition in Canada? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir. The American chestnut extract is sold in Canada in com- 
 petition with the world's extracts, even so far that they manufacture quebracho ex- 
 tract in this country and sell it over there in competition with the world's markets. 
 That, Mr. Hill, would seem to me rather a good indication that they could exist, the 
 fact that they can take this quebracho extract manufactured in this country and sell 
 it over in Canada in competition with the world's extracts. We do not ask to go as 
 far as that. 
 
 This statement is not only misleading but is not true, and we do 
 not believe that Mr. Vogel would have made it did he really know the 
 actual facts. 
 
 The vice president of the New York Tanning Extract Co., hi answer 
 to this statement, has written a letter which I 'inclose and which proves 
 very positively so far as they are concerned, the error of Mr. Vogel, 
 and the sales manager has given to me one as regards my company, 
 which also disproves the statement. 
 
 We think this is sufficient to correct Mr. Vogel's error, but hi 
 further answer to this statement, Mr. George A. Kerr, of Lynchburg, 
 Va., a member of this committee and a manufacturer of chestnut 
 extract, stated to Mr. F. B. Harrison, that the only reason they could 
 ship liquid chestnut extract to Canada was owing to the use of tank 
 cars, because in shipping in tank cars there is from one-fourth to thirty 
 one-hundredths of a cent saved per pound in the cost of barrels, hand- 
 ling, and freight of the same, and this difference enables them to 
 send their liquid chestnut extract to Canada; Otherwise, they could 
 not do so. In fact, the use of tank cars during the last few years in 
 the tanning extract business, has grown rapidly, being forced upon 
 the manufacturers in order to have a saving, as stated by Mr. Kerr, 
 which enables them, in all of these liquid extracts, to compete with the 
 imported solid extracts at the present prices. 
 
 The United States has almost entirely lost their solid extract 
 business, and a very large percentage of their liquid business is now 
 being carried on in tank cars, and but for this we fear they would 
 have lost a large quantity of that business also. 
 
 A little incident for further proof I would quote, viz, that the Stam- 
 ford Manufacturing Co.'s representative, Mr. H. Stacy Smith, of 
 Newark, N. J., finding that some of his customers want occasionally 
 a little extract in the solid form, and, of course, wishing it at the 
 prevailing price, placed us in a position where we could not furnish 
 it except at a heavy loss; therefore Mr. Smith asked us if we would not 
 allow him or arrange for him to sell the imported solid, which was 
 granted; and Mr. E. C. Klipstein, agent or the Forestal Co., was 
 communicated with, and you will find copy of his letter to us, the 
 original of which, of course, we should be very glad to show if you wish 
 it, and also a copy of Mr. Smith's reply, which we can also show. 
 
 The price fixed upon these goods by Mr. Klipstein for Mr. Smith 
 was 4 cents per pound for the higher grade or clarified at 65 per cent 
 of tan, and 3| cents per pound for the ordinary or unclarified at 65 
 per cent of tan, f. o. b. New York. 
 
 This transaction was somewhat humiliating, but made necessary 
 hi order that we could retain the liquid-extract trade hi the tank cars 
 by furnishing what solid these customers required. 
 
182 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 20 DYEING OR TANNING WOODS, ETC. 
 
 Silence as to statements made against us might be construed as an 
 admission on our part of their truthfulness, and we therefore stand 
 ready to answer any statements that tend to question the truth of 
 anything that we have said. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 W. W. SKIDDY, 
 For W. W. Skiddy, Geo. A. Kerr, and Oma Case, committee. 
 
 Destination of principal exports from Argentina of the first 11 months of 1912 to Euro- 
 pean, North American, and Brazilian ports. 
 
 ppst.raticn. 
 
 Quebracho. 
 
 Wood. 
 
 Extract. 
 
 United Kingdom 
 
 Tons. 
 6,562 
 75,075 
 18,707 
 83,727 
 11,085 
 5,310 
 
 Tffns. 
 7,478 
 28,192 
 2,114 
 11,954 
 7,015 
 2,257 
 60 
 9,276 
 
 United States . . . . 
 
 France 
 
 Germany 
 
 Belgium 
 
 Italy 
 
 Brazil. . 
 
 Other countries 
 
 43,315 
 
 Total 
 
 243, 781 
 
 68,346 
 
 11 months: 
 1911.. . .... 
 
 394,835 
 343,299 
 266,162 
 253,231 
 
 77,115 
 60,537 
 54,034 
 56,687 
 
 1910 
 
 1909 . . . ... 
 
 1908.. 
 
 
 [Inclosure.] 
 
 NEW YORK TANNING EXTRACT Co., 
 
 New York, January 29, 1913. 
 Mr. W. \V. SKIDDY, 
 
 President Stamford Manufacturing Co., 82 Wall Street, New York. 
 
 DEAR SIR: In connection with tariff hearings on Schedule A, held in Washington 
 on January G, we note that on page 87 of pamphlet No. 1 of the Ways and Means 
 Committee covering these hearings that Mr. Vogel. chairman of the National Associa- 
 tion of Tanners' Tariff Committee in hie cross-examination is reported as saying in 
 regard to the sale of solid quebracho extract in Canada that ''they manufacture 
 quebracho extract in this country and sell it over there (in Canada) in competition 
 with the world's markets." 
 
 In reply to this assertion we wish emphatically to state that as far as our own business 
 in quebracho extract goes, Mr. Vogel' s statements are absolutely at variance with the 
 facts, and calculated to do us a great deal of harm in this tariff discussion. It is wholly 
 impossible for us to sell any of our solid quebracho extract of domestic make in Canada 
 in competition with the foreign-made goods, and we can not recall an instance where 
 we have ever sent a pound of our domestic-make solid quebracho extract into that 
 section. We. however, have a number of customers in Canada who buy of us foreign- 
 made solid quebracho extract, which we sell on commission and ship through the 
 United States to Canada in bond, but all of this extract is made in the Argentine 
 Republic. 
 
 For your guidance I might state we are sending a small amount of liquid quebracho 
 to Canada, but are getting for same the regular market price charged for these goods in 
 this country. This business, however, is not important, and it is equally impossible 
 for us to compete witli our liquid quebracho extracts in Canada with foreign-made 
 solid extracts. 
 
 The facts of this whole matter are that solid quebracho extract can not be made in 
 ih is country from the raw material and sold at prevailing market prices, even with the 
 present duty, at any profit whatever, and the business in liquid quebracho extracts 
 
SCHEDULE A. 183 
 
 PARAGRAPH 22 DYEING OR TANNING EXTRACTS. 
 
 is only made possible by reason of their peculiar efficiency for certain purposes, whereby 
 the customer is willing to pay a relatively higher price for them, or by reason of the 
 fact that they can be shipped in tank cars at a minimum of expense for handling, 
 freight, etc. 
 
 We can not too strongly urge you to impress the Tariff Committee with the fact that 
 American manufacturers of quebracho are to-day in a most hazardous position on this 
 tariff matter, and that any reduction whatever in the duty will be a most serious 
 matter for this business, which although not large by itself, yet as a branch of the 
 tanning extract industry, certainly demands proper consideration. 
 
 Mr. Vogel says nothing about the fact that even though the duty on solid quebracho 
 extract in the Payne bill was by reason of its greater strength readjusted to differentiate 
 it from the liquid, the price of solid extract which at that time was 4J to 4| cents per 
 pound has in the meantime dropped to 3| to 4 cents per pound. This drop in price 
 has been caused by competition of foreign makers of quebracho, whose consistant aim, 
 as you know, has been to force American manufacturers out of business, and who 
 apparently have been able under present conditions of prices and tariff to sell their 
 goods here at a profit. The present duty to-day barely gives us a fighting chance in 
 continuing the manufacture of quebracho extracts in this country, and any reduction 
 in same would surely force us to give up the business. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 NEW YORK TANNING EXTRACT Co., 
 J. STEVENS, Vice President and Treasurer. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 21. 
 
 Ethers: Sulphuric, eight cents per pound; spirits of nitrous ether, twenty 
 cents per pound; fruit ethers, oils, or essences, one dollar per pound; ethers 
 of all kinds not specially provided for in this section, fifty cents per pound; 
 ethyl chloride, thirty per centum ad valorem: Provided, That no article of 
 this paragraph shall pay a less rate of duty than twenty-five per centum ad 
 valorem. 
 For sulphuric ethers, see also Mallinckrodt Chemical Works et al, page . 49 
 
 PARAGRAPH 22. 
 
 Extracts and decoctions of logwood and other dyewoods, and extracts of 
 bark, such as are commonly used for dyeing or tanning, not specially provided 
 for in this section, seven-eighths of one cent per pound; extract of nutgalls, 
 aqueous, one-fourth of one cent per pound and ten per centum ad valorem; 
 extract of Persian berries, twenty per centum ad valorem ; chlorophyll, twenty 
 per centum ad valorem; extracts of quebracho, not exceeding in density 
 twenty-eight degrees Baumfi, one-half of one cent per pound; exceeding in 
 density twenty-eight degrees Baum6, three-fourths of one cent per pound; 
 extracts of hemlock bark, one-half of one cent per pound ; extracts of sumac, 
 and of woods other than dyewoods, not specially provided for in this section, 
 five-eighths of one cent per pound; all extracts of vegetable origin suitable 
 for dyeing, coloring, staining, or tanning, not containing alcohol and not 
 medicinal, and not specially provided for in this section, fifteen per centum 
 ad valorem. 
 
 For nutgall extract, see also F. Bredt & Co., page 54; for tanning extracts, see also 
 W. W. Skiddy, page .172 
 
 DYEING OR TANNING EXTRACTS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF AUGUST VOGEL, OF MILWAUKEE, WIS., REPRE- 
 SENTING THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TANNERS. 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Mr. Chairman, I desire to have a correction made in 
 the calendar. I am not interested in brewers' malt, in spite of the 
 fact that I come from Milwaukee. I suppose the word "Milwaukee" 
 was sufficient to carry the beer sign with it, but I desire to correct 
 that, and also that it is not "tunners," but the tanners who are 
 
184 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 22 DYEING OB TANNING EXTRACTS. 
 
 appearing before you. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would 
 like to read the brief of the tanners in reference to this schedule. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The committee has allowed you 15 minutes with- 
 out interruption. Of course after that the committee may cross- 
 examine you. You may dispose of the 15 minutes to suit yourself. 
 
 Mr. Vogel read the brief referred to, as follows: 
 
 On behalf of the National Association of Tanners, and representing a majority of 
 the tanning interests of this country, we respectfully ask the attention of your hon- 
 orable committee to the items enumerated below, which appear under Schedule A 
 of the Payne Tariff Act. 
 
 Para- 
 graph. 
 
 Item. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 1 
 
 
 2j cents per pound. 
 
 4 
 
 
 J to f cent. 
 
 4 
 
 
 i to I cent. 
 
 9 
 
 
 J cent. 
 
 11 
 
 
 2 cents. 
 
 15 
 
 
 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 22 
 
 
 j cent per pound. 
 
 22 
 
 
 A to $ cent per pound. 
 
 22 
 
 
 J cent. 
 
 22 
 
 
 | cent. 
 
 22 
 
 
 1 cent. 
 
 22 
 
 Extract sumac 
 
 | cent. 
 
 22 
 
 
 f cent. 
 
 22 
 
 
 | cent. 
 
 35 
 
 Linseed oil 
 
 15 cents per gallon. 
 
 40 
 
 Cod oil 
 
 8 cents. 
 
 40 
 
 Sod oil . . 
 
 8 cents. 
 
 40 
 
 Fish oil . 
 
 8 cents. 
 
 71 
 
 Bichromate soda 
 
 IJ cents per pound. 
 
 74 
 
 Sal soda 
 
 J cent. 
 
 75 
 
 Soda ash 
 
 i cent. 
 
 79 
 
 Sponges 
 
 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 81 
 
 
 ?4 per ton. 
 
 82 
 
 Sumac, ground . . 
 
 i^j cent per pound . 
 
 559 
 
 Bark 
 
 Free. 
 
 290 
 
 Degras - - 
 
 } to i cent per pound 
 
 1 
 
 Lactic acid 
 
 2 to 3 cents per pound. 
 
 1 
 
 Sulphuric acid 
 
 } cent. 
 
 73 
 
 Soda sulphide 
 
 | to f cent. 
 
 45 
 
 Lampl ilack 
 
 25 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 GO 
 
 Bichromate potash 
 
 '2\ cents per pound. 
 
 73 
 
 Yellow prussiate soda 
 
 2 cents 
 
 09 
 
 Soap 
 
 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 1 
 
 Oxalic acid 
 
 2 cents per pound 
 
 
 Cottonseed oil 
 
 Free 
 
 
 
 
 The above equal an average ad valorem duty of about 29 per cent. 
 
 Our recommendation in reference to these items (all of which enter into the tanning 
 of leather) is that the rates indicated in II. R. 20182, introduced in the last session of 
 Congress, be used in the readjustment of duties on paid items, except that on tanning 
 extracts other than chestnut and quebracho we suggest one-eighth cent per pound all 
 providing that there is to be no important change made in the present low duties on 
 leather. The reduction of duty on belting, sole, and rough leather from 20 per cent 
 in the !>iiiLj;ley Act to ~> per cent in the Payne Act, a reduction of 75 per cent, has 
 already n suited in a marked increase in importations of such leathers, as illustrated 
 in table below. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 
 
 185 
 
 PARAGRAPH 22-DYEING OR TANNING EXTRACTS. 
 
 Importations of belting, sole, and rough leather, duty 5 per cent (record incomplete prior 
 
 to December, 1911). 
 
 [Source: Monthly Summaries of Commerce and Finance.) 
 
 Six months ending 
 
 December, 1911 $314,422 
 
 January, 1912 406,406 
 
 February, 1912 452, 565 
 
 March, 1912 497,858 
 
 April, 1912 5;%, 615 
 
 May, 1912 626, 349 
 
 June, 1912 706, 492 
 
 July, 1912 806, 891 
 
 August, 1912. 871, 398 
 
 September, 1912 872, 528 
 
 October, 1912 932, 200 
 
 Referring to the items of tanning extracts, which are the most important items to 
 our industry of those listed above, we argue for the reduction of these duties on the 
 broad ground that the duties are unreasonably high. 
 
 The approximate cost of producing liquid chestnut extract in this country is 1 cent 
 per pound and of solid chestnut extract 2f cents per pound. A duty of three-eighths 
 cent per pound, as recommended above, equals 37.5 per cent of the cost of liquid 
 chestnut extract and 13.6 per cent for the solid. The present duty on chestnut ex- 
 tract of five-eighths cent per pound equals 62.5 per cent of the cost of the liquid 
 extract and 22.5 per cent for the solid. These duties seem to us manifestly too high, 
 especially in view of the low rates of duties (5 and 1\ per cent) on the various kinds 
 of leather in which these extracts are used. 
 
 The imports of quebracho extract into the United States has varied from seventy- 
 five to one hundred million pounds per year during the past three years. This im- 
 portation has produced a revenue for the Government of over $500,000 annually, but 
 has failed to materially increase the production of quebracho extract in the United 
 States, which is limited to two plants. It is, therefore, our opinion that no duty 
 should be placed on quebracho, except as may be found necessary for revenue pur- 
 poses. 
 
 We would call to your attention the importance of this matter of tanning extracts to 
 the leather industry, by submitting herewith a table showing the relation of the 
 value of tanning extracts to the value of the leather tanned with that extract. 
 
 Classes of sole leather. 
 
 Price per 
 pound of 
 leather. 
 
 Tanning 
 material 
 cost per 
 pound of 
 leather. 
 
 Equivalent 
 percentage. 
 
 Packer slaughter 
 
 Cents. 
 
 27 
 
 Centi. 
 31 
 
 13.0 
 
 Tannery run dry hide . 
 
 24 
 
 3} 
 
 14.6 
 
 Dry hide, No. 2 
 
 26 
 
 34 
 
 13.5 
 
 Dry hide, No. 3 
 
 24 
 
 3i 
 
 14.6 
 
 Dry hide scabs .. 
 
 15 
 
 34 
 
 23.3 
 
 Dry hide rejects 
 
 22 
 
 3J 
 
 15.9 
 
 Heads 
 
 12 
 
 li 
 
 29.2 
 
 Bellies . . . . 
 
 18 
 
 34 
 
 18.4 
 
 
 
 
 
 This table is based upon two well-known classes of sole leather, namely, packer 
 slaughter leather and dry hide leather, which leathers are those principally used in 
 the manufacture of low and medium priced shoes. You will note from this table that 
 the value of the tanning extract in a pound of leather varies from 13 to 29.2 per cent 
 of the value of the leather in the different grades enumerated . In fact, the duty on the 
 extract at three-fourths of a cent a pound equals the entire duty on a pound of the 
 lowest grade leather mentioned (dry hide scabs). Approximately, it takes about 1 
 pound of solid extract to tan 1 pound of leather. 
 
186 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 22-DYEING OR TANNING EXTRACTS. 
 
 Quebracho extract is used in combination with domestic chestnut extract to- pro- 
 duce the proper color in the leather. Lower duties on foreign extracts will tend to 
 increase the use of chestnut extract, and this will conserve our hemlock and our oak 
 
 a We 8 would also call to your attention that our principal-competitor is the Canadian 
 tanner who pays no duty on tanning extracts. He has cheaper bark and labor as 
 low or lower than ours. In spite of the competition of free quebracho and other 
 tanning extracts in Canada, American extract manufacturers are regularly shipping 
 quebracho and chestnut extract from the United States to Canada, demonstrating that 
 these American extract manufacturers can compete even with free foreign extract. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TANNERS' TARIFF COMMITTEE. 
 AUGUST VOGEL, Chairman. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to say anything further ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. I have nothing to say, unless questions should come 
 from the other side. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I would like to ask a question with reference to que- 
 bracho. Do you think the duties provided hi this bill should remain 
 hi reference to the extract of quebracho ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. No, sir. I recommend that it be reduced from three- 
 fourths to three-eighths of a cent. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I mean the duties on the raw material ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. On the raw material ? I do not quite get your question. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Do you think there should be a 10 per cent duty on 
 what has always been free, as the raw material of the industry of 
 making extract of quebracho, solely for the sake of getting revenue? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. The duty is at present three-fourths of a cent a pound 
 on quebracho. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I understand that, but I am talking about the log from 
 which it is made. 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. The log will remain free. 
 
 Mr. HILL. It does not remain free under this bill, if it is peeled, and 
 it can not be brought here any other way. There is a duty of 10 per 
 cent on it. 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. I am not prepared to argue that point. 
 
 Mr. HILL. That is a very vital point, is it not, to the manufacturer 
 of quebracho ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. It is, no doubt. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is it possible to make a cut of 50 per cent in the duty on 
 the extract and add 10 per cent to the raw material and expect the 
 industry to continue in this country ? 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. This gentleman is not a manufacturer of quebracho. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I understand that; he is appearing in behalf of the 
 tanners, and. as I read the statement here, is in favor of continuing 
 the duties on the raw materials put down in the chemical bill re- 
 ported last year. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. He is in favor of the reduction made in the chem- 
 ical bill reported to the House last year as to all those items as to 
 which material reductions were made in that bill. 
 
 Mr. HILL. But the brief says: 
 
 Our recommendation in reference to these items (all of which enter into the tan- 
 ning of leather) is that the rates indicated in H. R. 20182, introduced in the last 
 session of Congress, be used in the readjustment of duties on said items, except that 
 on tanning extracts, oilier than chestnut and quebracho we suggest one-eighth cent 
 
 per pound. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 187 
 
 PARAGRAPH 22 DYEING OR TANNING EXTRACTS. 
 
 And so it goes on. Now, do you recommend that the log be sub- 
 jected to a duty of 10 per cent in order to get revenue? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. No, sir; I do not. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Then, you would not insist upon the statement in this 
 brief, that the duties provided in the recent chemical bill be made 
 the basis of a readjustment in that industry ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I will state to Mr. Vogel, so that there may be no 
 misunderstanding, that the law was changed when the bill went 
 through the House last year, so that the word "peeling" was added 
 to the present law. It has been suggested that to put the word 
 "peeling" in there might put a tax on the log. There was no inten- 
 tion on the part of the committee to tax the raw material. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I am glad to hear that. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. And if that construction of the word should put 
 a tax on the raw material, it would be corrected at the proper time. 
 I want the record to be clear as to that point. 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. I am very glad you brought up the point, because it 
 has been brought up to us, and we took it for granted that it was not 
 to be taxed. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Has the tanning business been pretty prosperous in 
 the United States in the last three or four years ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. It has been pretty fairly so. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Pretty universally so, has it not? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. With the present rate of duty both on the extract and 
 on the leather? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do you advocate taking the duty off the sole leather ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. No, sir; we do not. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Suppose the duty, which is now 5 per cent, were taken 
 off, in order to take the duty off shoes, which is now 15 per cent, 
 do you think that would add to the prosperity of the tanning business 
 in this country ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. The tanning business as it is to-day is not earning a 
 percentage of profit which compares favorably with other industries, 
 as far as my own knowledge goes, and the very fact that these imports 
 of sole leather are increasing so rapidly, as they are doing, is a very 
 good indication that the Canadian tanner has an advantage over the 
 American tanner at the present time. With his free extracts and 
 his labor cost no higher, he has undoubtedly an advantage over the 
 American tanner. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You might get along without any duty; is that the 
 idea? 
 
 Air. VOGEL. I do not wish to be understood so. We have labor cost, 
 as far as England is concerned, fully double. I can submit to you 
 reliable figures, which we will be pleased to give you when the leather 
 schedule comes up, showing that where we pay $12 the English- 
 man and German pays six. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do you advocate taking the duty of 5 per cent off sole 
 leather ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. We claim we are justly entitled to the difference of 
 labor cost abroad and in this country. 
 
188 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 22 DYEING OB TANNING EXTBACTS. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Will you advocate taking it off? 
 
 Mr. VOGHL. I do not advocate taking it off; no, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You are aware, are you not, that in another bill 
 which passed the House that leather was put on the free list ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. I understood so; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. If that should happen, which the indications are 
 will come to pass, would you revise your recommendations as set forth 
 in this brief? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. We certainly should. We should very strongly con- 
 tend we would be entitled to free extracts. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. This is based on the contingency that there will 
 be no change in the leather schedule ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir. As far as the sole leather and heavy leather 
 schedule is concerned, that is our contention. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I think you will have to rewrite it very shortly. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. It is a fact, is it not, that four years ago the tanning 
 business for sole leather in this country was done either in Germany 
 or by what is called the Meat Trust, largely? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. No; I can not agree with that statement. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. It was shown pretty conclusively four years ago that 
 that was the case. 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. I have not seen that evidence. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. The meat people were buying up and renting the tan- 
 neries at that time in this country? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir; they were renting a good many. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. And had control of a good portion of them? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. And our tanners here could not get hides from the 
 meat people, except the few that were imported? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. You will notice that the imports of hides have increased 
 enormously since then, to the benefit, I believe, of our industry, as 
 well as to the people at large. 
 
 Mr. HILL. In considering this recommendation for a continuance 
 of 5 per cent duty on leather, do you concurrently recommend the 
 application of the tanning extract rates in this bill which was passed 
 last session ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes. sir: we do. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Have you figured how much advantage there would be 
 to the t turner in the reduction of rates? 
 
 Mr. \OGEL. } es. sir. I believe our brief so states, if you will read 
 tliis brief. 
 
 Mr. HILL. It strikes me that the reduction in the tanning extracts 
 would be fully equivalent to the ."> per cent, making practically a 10 
 per cent rate now as compared with 5 per cent under the present 
 law, with these articles at the other rate of duty. Is not that 
 correct ( 
 
 Mr. Y(H;KL. You will find from our brief that we state that the 
 duty is equivalent in some of these eases. 
 
 Mr. HILL. But. taking the trade by and large, if these extracts 
 are reduced in accordance with this bill, should not the 5 per cent 
 come oil' leather ( 
 
SCHEDULE A. 189 
 
 PARAGRAPH 22 DYEING OR TANNING EXTRACTS. 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. No, sir; unless you wish to lower your standard of 
 American labor, and unless you want us to cut our laborers down. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Why are you not willing to concede to the manufac- 
 turers of the tanning extracts, from whom you buy, the same cour- 
 tesy you ask from the committee on your finished product of leather ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. We do. 
 
 Mr. HILL. No; you recommend a reduction. 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Because they are entirely too high; because they run 
 up as high as 62 ^ per cent, and we are down to 5. We do not ask 
 them to give free extracts. We simply state that the American ex- 
 tract manufacturer is to-day selling extracts in Canada, out of which 
 they make leather competing with ours in this country, to our disad- 
 vantage. We do not ask for free extracts. We believe that under 
 the three-eighths cent duty they can carry on a profitable business. 
 
 Mr. DIXON. Do they sell it cheaper in Canada than here ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Were you here four years ago ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Did you not then say that if you could have free hides 
 you were willing to have free leather? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. I never made such a statement. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Who was it that made that statement ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. I believe that was made by a gentleman in the shoe 
 industry. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Did not the tanners unite with the shoe manufacturers 
 in that request? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. We did, sir; but we did not unite in this statement. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. How much cheaper do they sell that stuff in Canada 
 than here ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. You can buy quebracho at 3 cents there, and it costs 
 you 3f cents here. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. They just add on the tariff? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. They just add the tariff. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. They sell it in competition in Canada ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir. The American chestnut extract is sold in 
 Canada in competition with the world's extracts, even so far that 
 they manufacture quebracho extract in this country and sell it over 
 there in competition with the world's markets. That, Mr. Hill, 
 would seem to me rather a good indication that they could exist, 
 the fact that they can take this quebracho extract manufactured in 
 this country and sell it over in Canada in competition with the world's 
 extracts. We do not ask to go as far as that. 
 
 Mr. HILL. What proportion of the leather is now produced by the 
 independent tanners strictly independent, I mean and the packers; 
 half and half, is it ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. I should say, taking the industry as a whole in- 
 cluding goatskins, calfskins, and every kind of leather manufac- 
 tured that the packer tanners would not produce over 15 per cent 
 of the total output and that the independent tanners would produce 
 85 per cent of tne total output. When you consider only the pro- 
 duction of heavy leather, the packer's proportion is larger. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Immediately after hides were made free they went up, 
 did they not ? 
 
190 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 22 DYEING OR TANNING EXTRACTS. 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Have they ever got back to where they were when the 
 duty of 15 per cent was on them? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes, they have. 
 
 Mr. HILL. When? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. I think about two and a half years ago, in the begin- 
 ning of 1910, the prices were lower than before the repeal of the 
 duty. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. About a year after the bill was passed, was it not ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. About a year after the bill was passed. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. The price stayed there overnight, or such a matter ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Not at all. The prices continued lower during 1910 
 and 1911 until about the middle of 1912. For three or four months, 
 in the early part of January, 1911. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Then they went up again ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Then they went up again. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Have they stayed up since ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. How much higher would the price have gone if the 
 rate had stayed on ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Approximately 13 per cent. 
 
 Mr. HILL. That is a question of supply and demand, is it not? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Entirely so. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Tell me, is the same grade of leather higher or lower 
 here than it is in Europe to-day? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. That is rather a difficult comparison to make. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Take ordinary sole leather. 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Ordinary sole leather, what we call dry hide leather, 
 has been the unprofitable end of the sole leather business during the 
 past year. 
 
 Mr. HILL. "Why is it the unprofitable end? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Because the tendency has been to use union and oak 
 leather, a lighter colored leather. The old-fashioned hemlock leather, 
 which at one time was used so largely for the common shoes of this 
 country, is being replaced by union and oak. The American tanner 
 had the advantage over his foreign competitors in making the old- 
 fashioned hemlock leather through the fact that the hemlock bark 
 was a domestic product. If you will look up the census of the Gov- 
 ernment you will find that there has been a falling off of about 20 
 per cent in the consumption of hemlock solo leather and an increase 
 of about 25 to 30 per cent in the consumption of union and oak. In 
 other words the America u tanner is losing his advantage over his 
 foreign competitor. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You do not get my point. The question I want answered 
 is this: The ordinary sole leather, mostly in use, made here and 
 mnde abroad from tanning extracts is that much higher in this 
 country to-day, or is it higher in Europe than it is in this country? 
 
 Mr. \ OGEL. I see your question; the answer is not as easy. 
 
 Mr. HILL. It either must he higher or lower or the same. 
 
 Mr. Krrrmx. Let him answer the question. 
 
 Mr. "\ O(;F.!.. It must he approximately the same, otherwise you 
 could not have this interchange of sole leather that is going on at the 
 present time. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 191 
 
 PARAGRAPH 22 DYEING OR TANNING EXTRACTS. 
 
 Mr. HILL. There are importations every day made by the hide and 
 leather importers, are there not ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Is it not a fact that we are exporting sole leather in 
 competition with all the world England, Germany, and France? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And we are the biggest exporters of sole leather in 
 the world, are we not ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And we import only about a million dollars' worth 
 a year, and export from nine to twelve million dollars' worth a year; 
 is not that a fact ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KIT-CHIN. And we are making sole leather as cheaply and 
 selling it here as cheaply as it is sold anywhere in the world, are 
 we not ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And for this nine or ten million dollars' worth of 
 leather we export yearly to foreign countries we are getting a higher 
 price abroad than we are getting at home ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. No, on an average about the same price. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. So that this tariff on leather amounts to very little 
 one way or another, does it not? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. It depends on what you call "little," of course. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. That is the profit. But you are paying now three- 
 quarters of a cent on your extract and still making it cheaper and 
 selling it cheaper than any people in the world ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. So, if you reduce your tariff on your extract here 
 you could get along with free leather all right, could you not ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. No, sijr; we could not. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You are now underselling the world in sole leather 
 with a tariff on this stuff? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. I purposely called your attention to the important fact 
 that since 1911 the imports into this country were very rapidly 
 increasing, as shown by this table which I have submitted to you. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. They have trebled, have they not? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir; they have trebled in that time. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And your exports 'have grown very rapidly, too ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. No, sir ; they have not grown in proportion. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we are being called away from the 
 chemical schedule in this hide proposition. 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. I was not prepared to argue this question to-day. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I would like to know, in that connection, whether we 
 are exporting sole leather in any quantity ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. We are; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Is not the most of the leather the fancy leathers* and 
 of a higher grade of manufacture than sole leather ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. We have always exported large quantities of glazed 
 kid from this country. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. The record shows we exported about $20,000,000 
 worth of glazed kid last year, and of sole leather over nine millions. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Is it not a fact that of the higher grades of leather we 
 make the best in the world ? 
 
192 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 22 DYEING OB TANNING EXTBACTS. 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. We hope we do. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. We do; that is the reason we are exporting it. Why 
 not have the whole truth ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. He has told too much about it now. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. We do not want to give it all to you at once. [Laugh- 
 ter.] 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Do you sell rough leather in Canada? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. We do not. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Not at all ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Not to my knowledge is any rough leather being sold 
 from this country to Canada. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Do you sell sole leather in Canada ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. No, sir; it is impossible to sell any sole leather in 
 Canada. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. Why ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. Because they are evidently able to buy cheaper at 
 home. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. Do you sell abroad any leather cheaper than you 
 sell at home ? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. No, sir; we do not. We never trade on that basis. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. You sell abroad cheaper than you do at home? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. No, sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I would like to get back to the chemical schedule 
 Mr. Vogel, have you anything further? 
 
 Mr. VOGEL. I 'have nothing further to say. I am very much 
 obliged to you gentlemen for your attention. 
 
 STATEMENT OF M. S. ORTH, REPRESENTING MARDEN, ORTH & 
 HASTINGS, BOSTON, MASS., DEALERS IN TANNING EXTRACTS; 
 AND THE BASIC EXTRACT CO., BASIC CITY, VA., MANUFAC- 
 TURERS OF CHESTNUT EXTRACT. 
 
 Mr. ORTH. Mr. Chairman, with reference to Schedule A, paragraph 
 22, 1 think that the tariff should be revised downward on materials 
 where the present rates prohibit importation and also on materials 
 used in American factories -raw materials in the sense that they 
 are to be remamifactured. 
 
 I think that logical American industries should be moderately pro- 
 tected against cheaper foreign labor, and I believe in tariff for revenue. 
 
 Changes proposed in the act of 1909: 
 
 Paragraph 22, to read : 
 
 Kxtrvts i if nutLralls ami of {Vivian berries. 1 cent per pound; extracts of quebracho, 
 of chc.-tni I wood, and of oak wood, three-eights of 1 cent per pound; extracts of 
 lieinlnck 1 .irk, of sumac, and extracts and decoctions of logwood and other dye woods, 
 extract.- o barks and of woods oilier than dye woods, such as are commonly used for 
 
 >i vegetable origin suitable for dyeing, coloring, 
 FtainiiiL*. ' r tanninir. all the fnreiroiii'jr nm containing alcohol, not medicinal, and not 
 specially provided for in this act or in the first, section of the act cited for amendment, 
 onc-civhi h i if I cent per p' iinid. 
 
 My reasons I'or the-e changes are: 
 
 I he- rate-; of duty >pe. ilird in paragraph 22, Schedule A, act of 
 1909, arc practically prohibitive on all tanning extracts except que- 
 bracho, preventing or greatly curtailing the importation of Joreign- 
 made extracts of foreign-grown woods, barks, acorns, and nuts which 
 do not grow in this country, but which are valuable to and greatly 
 
SCHEDULE A. 193 
 
 PARAGRAPH 22 DYEING OR TANNING EXTRACTS. 
 
 needed by our tanners. A reduction of the rate of duties would 
 greatly increase the importation of these foreign extracts and thereby 
 provide great revenue and help conserve the hemlock and oak bark of 
 of the United States. 
 
 (2) Paragraph 22 is too complex in its specifications, causing un- 
 necessary work for the collectors and appraisers. House bill 20182, 
 paragraph 31, is much simpler. It would seem unnecessary for the 
 collector or appraiser to have to determine whether an extract was 
 made from the root or wood or bark or fruit of a tree. 
 
 (3) These reduced duties would hurt no one in the United States, 
 except one or possibly two quebracho extract manufacturers, located 
 in Connecticut and New York, and their business is too illogical to 
 endure. It requires three or four tons of quebracho wood to produce 
 one ton of quebracho extract. This quebracho wood grows in the 
 interior of South America and has to be transported to New York 
 and Connecticut if it is to be made into extract by these two factories. 
 The freight on a ton of wood from South America to New York is as 
 much as it is on a ton of extract. This freight is about $3.50 to $4 
 per ton. Consequently these factories are handicapped to the extent 
 of $7 to $12 a ton of extract compared with the factories in South 
 America. In addition to this handicap the American labor is 50 to 
 100 per cent higher than the South American labor. Obviously, 
 therefore, the business is an illegal one and it is not fair to the 
 American tanner to make him pay a high duty (amounting to 
 $547,850.24 in 1912) to protect these two American factories. 
 
 These reduced duties would benefit many: First, the American 
 tanning industry (comprising some 600 tanneries), than which industry 
 there is none in the United States which requires such a large casn 
 outlay, such a long process of manufacture, with as great risks of no 
 profits and as little chance for a large profit. Second, the Govern- 
 ment, by increased revenue. Third, the 20 or 30 chestnut extract 
 manufacturers of the United States. They would be benefited by an 
 increased consumption of and a greater demand for their chestnut 
 extract. This increased consumption would be brought about by 
 the fact that the greater the quantity of imported extracts that are 
 used the greater the quantity of chestnut extracts used. One is 
 not a substitute for the other, but together thev are substitutes for 
 oak and hemlock barks. The best proof of this contention is the 
 fact that the Canadian tanners, who have free extracts of all kinds, 
 and cheaper barks than the United States tanners, use large quan- 
 tities of chestnut extract from the United States, which costs them 
 more than it costs our tanners because the freight rates are higher. 
 They use these large quantities of chestnut extract in spite of the 
 fact that their quebracho extract costs them three-fourths cent per 
 pound less than it costs the American tanners and their other im- 
 ported extracts cost them from 15 to 30 per cent less. This proves 
 conclusively that the imported extracts are used with chestnut 
 extract and that if we increase the use of imported extracts we will 
 increase the use of chestnut extract proportionately. 
 
 I have suggested three-eighths cent per pound on quebracho ex- 
 tract instead of a lower rate, because I think that just as much would 
 be imported at three-eighths cent as at a lower rate, and the revenue 
 derived would be greater. 
 78959 VOL 113 13 
 
194 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 22 DYEING OR TANNING EXTRACTS. 
 
 I have suggested three-eighths cent per pound on chestnut wood 
 and oak wood extracts instead of a lower rate merely to protect the 
 American chestnut extract manufacturers against a dumping of Italian 
 and Saxonian chestnut and oak extracts onto this market at times of 
 depression in those countries. Such a condition might never arise, 
 but inasmuch as no chestnut extract is imported into this country 
 under ordinary conditions, and inasmuch as the American chestnut 
 extract industry is a worthy one and very beneficial to the mountain- 
 ous sections of our Southern States, where its factories are located, I 
 think it should be protected against such a possible condition. 
 
 To show the necessity of these lower rates of duties, the apparent 
 benefits to be derived from them by the American tanners, and the 
 increased revenue they would furnish to the Government, I give below 
 three tables. 
 
 (1) The quantity and value of domestic barks consumed in the 
 United States in the years 1900 and 1909 (the Department of Agri- 
 culture informed me that no record has been kept since 1909) and the 
 quantity and value of tanning extracts consumed in the United States 
 in the years 1900 and 1909. 
 
 (2) The quantity and duties collected thereon of tanning extracts 
 imported into the United States during the year ending June 30, 1909 
 (the last year under the Dingley tariff) and the year ending June 
 30, 1912. 
 
 (3) My estimate of the probable importations and revenues there- 
 from under the duties proposed by me in this brief for the year 
 ending June 30, 1915, compared with the importations and the 
 revenue therefrom for the year ending June 30, 1912, under the 
 Payne-Aldrich bill. 
 
 TABLE 1. Tanning materials consumed in the United States. 
 
 Kind. 
 
 1909 
 
 1900 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 RAW MATERIALS. 
 
 Domestic: 
 Hemlock bark 
 
 Tons. 
 698,365 
 324.070 
 18,527 
 
 18,925 
 18,000 
 1,023 
 
 $6,434.848 
 3,533,862 
 65,152 
 
 514,169 
 534,727 
 42,992 
 
 Cords. 
 1,170,131 
 445,934 
 
 $7,747,242 
 3,174,995 
 
 Oak bark 
 
 Chestnut wood 
 
 Imported: 
 Mangrove bark 
 
 
 
 Myrobolans nuts 
 
 
 
 All other 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 
 1,078,910 
 
 11,125,750 
 
 1,616,065 
 
 10,922,237 
 
 Domestic: EXTRACTS. 
 Hemlock bark. . . 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 10,862,540 
 
 276,436 
 3,613,344 
 703,805 
 
 Pounds. 
 6,406,000 
 
 150,914 
 
 Chestnut wood 
 
 184,307,498 
 
 Oak bark 
 
 36,930.861 
 
 27,115.500 
 
 550,065 
 
 Total 
 
 232,100,899 
 
 4,693,585 
 
 33,521,500 
 
 700,979 
 
 Imported or from imported material: 
 Quebracho extract 
 
 147,109,443 
 1.401,008 
 1.101.303 
 2. 041, 001 
 1.0.84,171 
 350 535 
 
 5,877,989 
 43 566 
 
 10,180,000 
 
 292,133 
 
 Mangrove bark extract 
 
 Myrobolan extract . . 
 
 37. 571 
 133, 765 
 43,757 
 16.167 
 18.022 
 14, 755 
 
 
 
 (Jambier extract .. 
 
 (?) 
 
 (?) 
 
 Qurrmos extract 
 
 Sumac extract 
 
 (?) 
 
 (?) 
 
 Valonia extract 
 
 243.536 
 785,996 
 
 All other extracts 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 
 1 "1 716 993 
 
 6,185.572 
 
 10,180.000 
 
 292, 133 
 
 Total all extracts.. 
 
 
 386.817,892 
 
 10,879,157 
 
 43,701,500 
 
 993,112 
 
 
SCHEDULE A. 
 
 195 
 
 PARAGRAPH 22 DYEING OR TANNING EXTRACTS. 
 
 Compared with 1900, the quantity consumed in 1909 of domestic 
 barks decreased 36 per cent. 
 
 Compared with 1900, the quantity consumed in 1909 of domestic 
 extracts increased 592 per cent. 
 
 Compared with 1900, the quantity consumed in 1909 of imported 
 extracts increased 1,420 per cent. 
 
 This shows that imported extracts are absolutely necessary for 
 the preservation of our tanning industry. 
 
 TABLE 2. Duties collected on tanning extracts imported during years ending June SO, 
 
 1912, and June SO, 1909. 
 
 
 19 
 
 12 
 
 19 
 
 09 
 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Duties. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Duties. 
 
 Quebracho extract: 
 Less than 28 
 
 3.579.050 
 
 $17,895.25 
 
 
 
 Exceeding 28 . 
 
 70,660,665 
 
 529,954.99 
 
 99,108,284 
 
 $495,541.42 
 
 Logwood and other dyewood 
 
 2,463,422 
 
 15,396.39 
 
 3,463,582 
 
 30,306.36 
 
 All other wood extracts .. 
 
 82,226 
 
 513.91 
 
 5,006 
 
 31.29 
 
 All other bark extracts 
 
 2,439,966 
 
 21,349.70 
 
 4,339,596 
 
 37,971.45 
 
 Sumac extracts 
 
 1,389,733 
 
 8,685.83 
 
 1,232,530 
 
 7,705 21 
 
 All other vegetable origin 
 
 1,272,670 
 
 6,615.60 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 81,887,732 
 
 600,411.67 
 
 109,517,412 
 
 571,555.73 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Quantity imported, 1912, 25 per cent less than in 1909; duties collected, 1912, 5 per cent greater than in 
 1909; quantity quebracho, 1912, 25 per cent less than in 1909; duties on quebracho, 1912, 10 per cent greater 
 than in 1909; quantity other extracts, 1912, 26 per cent less than in 1909; duties on other extracts, 1912, 31 
 per cent less than in 1909; quebracho in 1912, 90.66 per cent of total quantity and 91.24 per cent of total 
 duty collected; quebracho in 1909, 90.49 per cent of total quantity and 86.70 per cent of total duty collected. 
 
 This proves that the higher rates charged under the Payne-Aldrich 
 bill on tanning extracts prohibited the importation of some extracts 
 and greatly restricted the importation of others. And, in the mean- 
 time, the chestnut extract manufacturing business of the United 
 States has been poorer than ever before a less active demand and 
 with smaller profits. 
 
 TABLE 3. Estimated importations for year ending June 15, 1915, of tanning extracts and 
 revenue therefrom under rates proposed in this brief, compared with the importations and 
 revenue for year ending June 30, 1912. 
 
 
 Year June 30, 1915. 
 
 Year June 30, 1912. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Duties. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Duties. 
 
 Quebracho extract 
 
 Pounds. 
 150,000,000 
 1,000,000 
 
 2,000,000 
 4,000,000 
 1,000,000 
 10,000 000 
 40,000,000 
 6,000,000 
 12,000,000 
 
 $562,500.00 
 3, 750. 00 
 
 2,500.00 
 5,000.00 
 1,250.00 
 12,500.00 
 50,000.00 
 7,500.00 
 15,000.00 
 
 Pounds. 
 74,239,715 
 
 $547,850.24 
 
 Chestnut and oak extract ... ... 
 
 All other extracts, comprising 
 Sumac extracts 
 
 1,389,733 
 2, 463, 423 
 
 8,685.83 
 15,396.39 
 
 Logwood and dvewood extracts 
 
 Hemlock bark extracts 
 
 Myrobolans extracts 
 
 
 
 Mangrove cutch, extracts 
 
 
 
 Valonea extracts 
 
 
 
 All other 
 
 3, 794, 902 
 
 28, 479. 21 
 
 
 226,000,000 
 
 660,000.00 
 
 81,887,772 
 
 600,411.67 
 
196 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 22 DYEING OR TANNING EXTRACTS. 
 
 This estimates an increase in importations of about 176 per cent 
 for 1915 over 1912, which may seem too optimistic to you. But it is 
 not too optimistic when you consider that the present rates of duty 
 are practically prohibitive on all but quebracho extract, and restrictive 
 on it, as shown by Table 2, where the quantity of extracts imported 
 in 1912 are shown to be 25 per cent less than in 1909, although Table 1 
 shows that between the years 1900 and 1909 the quantity of im- 
 ported extracts consumed increased 1,420 per cent and the quantity 
 of domestic extracts consumed increased 592 per cent, while the 
 quantity of domestic barks consumed decreased 36 per cent. 
 
 This proves that imported extracts are an absolute necessity and 
 that at a low rate of duty an enormous quantity would be imported 
 (and thereby conserve our bark supply). 
 
 This estimate also shows only 10 per cent increase in the revenue 
 from duties over the year 1912, but it shows an increase of about 80 
 per cent more than your committee estimated would be the revenue 
 under House bill 20182. (See H. Kept. No. 326, p. 35.) 
 
 METHODS ANB EXPERIENCE RELIED UPON IN MAKING MY ESTIMATE. 
 
 All the figures submitted of importation have been taken from 
 Government documents. 
 
 In addition to being a chestnut extract manufacturer, I am one 
 of the largest dealers in other tanning extracts, imported and domes- 
 tic, and in oils and greases used by the tanners. I meet the tanners 
 constantly and study their business as well as mine and think I am 
 competent to judge of the probable increase hi the importation of 
 foreign extracts for this industry under lower duties. 
 
 Besides, I am familiar with the foreign supplies of crude tanning 
 materials. The tremendous quantities available in India, Borneo, 
 Africa, and South America which could be sent here in the shape of 
 concentrated extracts where they can not be profitably sent here as 
 crude tanning materials on account of the high freight rates. 
 
 In addition, a study of the tables above submitted to you shows 
 the probable effect of a lower duty. These tables show that the 
 quantity of imported extracts increased 1,420 per cent from 1900 to 
 1909; that the quantity decreased 25 per cent from 1909 to 1912 
 under the Payne- Aldrich bill, which raised the duty on quebracho 
 extract 50 per cent. 
 
 Furthermore, every one in the industry knows that our hemlock 
 and oak bark supply is diminishing year by year, and that imported 
 extracts, in increasing quantities, are essential for the tanning 
 industry. 
 
 To sum up 
 
 There can be only two possible reasons why there should be any 
 duty at all on imported tanning extracts. 
 
 First. For revenue. 
 
 Second. To protect the domestic chestnut extract manufacturers. 
 
 [ have given you my best opinion as to how to obtain the greatest 
 revenue three-eighths of a cent per pound on quebracho extract and 
 on chestnut wood and oak wood extract and one-eighth of a cent per 
 pound on all other tanning extracts. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 197 
 
 PARAGRAPH 22 DYEING OR TANNING EXTRACTS. 
 
 I have also presented my argument why low duties and large 
 importations of foreign extracts other than chestnut extract will 
 help the domestic chestnut extract manufacturers. 
 
 No doubt some of the chestnut extract manufacturers do not 
 agree with me. In 1908 it was stated to this committee that 1904 
 was the last profitable year in the chestnut extract industry; that 
 money had been lost every year thereafter to 1908; and that they 
 would, have to go out of business unless the duties on foreign extracts 
 were increased materially. 
 
 I made extremely satisfactory profits in my extract plant during 
 those years, 1905 to 1908, much greater profits than since the Payne- 
 Aldrich bill increased the duty on quebracho extract 50 per cent. 
 In fact the year 1912 was the poorest year we have ever had in the 
 chestnut extract industry, and incidentally the quebracho extract 
 importations in 1912 were the smallest for many years. 
 
 I am convinced that high duties are a detriment to the chestnut 
 extract industry, and, as a chestnut extract manufacturer, I want to 
 see the duties on foreign extracts reduced to the lowest possible point 
 compatible with a good return of revenue. 
 
 JOHN CAMPBELL & CO., NEW YORK, N. Y., NATURAL AND 
 ARTIFICIAL DYESTUFFS, EXTRACTS, AND CHEMICALS. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 15, 1913. 
 Hon. O. W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 CJiairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Following the advice contained in your letter of Jan- 
 uary 8, 1913, we are taking the liberty of bringing before the notice 
 of the Committee on Ways and Means an item of the Chemical 
 Schedule, which, if not already considered, we think should be sub- 
 jected to the removal, or at least a reduction, of the import duty. 
 We refer to logwood and hematine extracts, pastes and crystals, also 
 fustic extract, of which we are importers, and upon which there is 
 now a specific duty of seven-eighths cent per pound. 
 
 Our reasons for requesting this revision are: 
 
 In the first place, the products mentioned are in the nature of raw 
 products used in the textile, leather, and other industries and as such 
 should not be subjected to a duty charge, as this proves a heavy 
 handicap on the manufacturers when attempting to compete with 
 foreign manufacturers in the open markets of the world. 
 
 Secondly, we consider, since a large majority of the trade, not only 
 of this country but of the world, in these products, is in the hands 
 of a holding company in the United States controlling factories in 
 this country, France, Great Britain, and the West Indies; and able, 
 we believe, by reason of their large purchases to more or less govern 
 the price of the raw materials, logwood and fustic, from which these 
 goods are manufactured, that no duty is necessary to protect the 
 industry which is in such a strong position. 
 
 The customs statistics show the importations of these products 
 during the last year to be about 5,000 barrels, a very small proportion 
 of the total consumption, and in view of the fact that the labor cost 
 
198 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 of the manufacture is relatively small we feel that no injustice will 
 be inflicted by the removal or considerable reduction of the duty and 
 therefore respectfully request that our petition may receive such con- 
 sideration as is its due. 
 
 Yours very truly, JOHN CAMPBELL & Co. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23. 
 
 Gelatin, glue, isinglass or fish glue, including agar-agar or Japanese 
 isinglass, and all fish bladders and fish sounds other than crude or dried 
 or salted for preservation only, valued at not above ten cents per pound; two 
 and one-half cents per pound ; valued at above ten cents per pound and not 
 above thirty-five cents per pound, twenty-five per centum ad valorem; valued 
 above thirty-five cents per pound, fifteen cents per pound and twenty per 
 centum ad valorem; gelatin in sheets, emulsions, and all manufactures of 
 gelatin, or of which gelatin is the component material of chief value, not 
 specially provided for in this section, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; glue 
 size, twenty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 
 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 STATEMENT OF LOUIS S. BRIGHAM, REPRESENTING THE BRIG- 
 HAM SHEET GELATIN CO. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Give your name and address to the stenographer. 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. Louis S. Brigham, Randolph, Vt. We filed a orief 
 with the clerk, and I wish to make one change. The word "color- 
 less" should be changed to "colored." 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We have allowed you 15 minutes. 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. I represent the Brigham Sheet Gelatin Co., a com- 
 pany that takes raw gelatin and converts it into sheets. These sheets 
 are not used for edible or adhesive purposes. They do not enter into 
 the cost of living in any way whatever. The business was started in 
 1876 and has grown slowly and steadily ever since. In 1896 we found 
 that vast quantities of sheet gelatin were imported into New York 
 City at a price that seriously crippled our business. Since then we 
 have competed against German gelatin and the prices have been 
 steadily driven downward. Last year we found that immense quan- 
 tities of sheet gelatin were imported into New York and Baltimore 
 at a price very much lower than ours. That naturally led to an inves- 
 tigation. Comparing the prices of imported sheet gelatin with ours, 
 it was almost impossible to see how sheet gelatin could be made and 
 sold in this country, with all the transportation charges and the duty 
 paid, at the prices paid by box makers, who used these sheets in vast 
 quantities. 
 
 Therefore we wish to have sheet gelatin classified in the tariff by 
 itself, the same as gelatin bandeau, or gelatin artificial flowers. It 
 has always been classified as a manufacture of gelatin and carries a 
 duty of .'-55 per cent. Gelatin bandeau carries a duty of 60 per cent. 
 Gelatin flowers carry a duty of 50 per cent. Last spring the duty on 
 raw gelatin was raised 10 per cent more through a technicality, but 
 that technicality was really 011 the word "sheet." 
 
 I have a sample hero of what the technicality is or shows. That 
 [indicating] is called a sheet of gelatin. So is that [indicating]. 
 That carries 10 per cent more duty than gelatin in little pieces or 
 Hakes. 1 ou can hardly see them in my hand [indicating]. As soon 
 
SCHEDULE A. 199 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 as this duty of 10 per cent was put on gelatin like that [indicating! 
 the price of the product went up 10 per cent to me. But when I 
 analyzed gelatin like that [indicating] for all its qualities, and made 
 the price on it, I found that gelatin made in this country, which cor- 
 responds to this foreign gelatin in every way, carried just about the 
 same price. This is the gelatin whicn we make [indicating], and 
 that [indicating] is what we call a sheet. You see it is very much 
 different from anything like that [indicating]. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What is this used for? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. This particular sheet of gelatin, this grade, is used 
 for wrapping candy boxes and for various antiseptic purposes. Tooth 
 brushes ana toothpicks are inclosed in a little wrapper like that 
 [indicating]; also high-grade cigars. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What is the tariff on that now? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. The tariff on this is 35 per cent. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What is it on that larger piece ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. This piece [indicating piece of gelatin] ? 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. The tariff on that is 35 per cent. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. And you say it was increased 10 per cent on a tech- 
 nicality? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. On the word "sheet." I should call it a tech- 
 nicality. Before, it carried a duty of 25 per cent. When that word 
 "sheet" was introduced, then these two [indicating] carried the 
 same duty. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What was the effect on the one that you hold in your 
 right hand ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. The effect on this one [indicating] ? 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Yes; by the duty. 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. They made me pay 10 per cent more for my raw 
 stock. You understand, I use this product [indicating] and convert 
 it into a product like that [indicating]. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You have no increased duty to pay on the finished 
 product? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. No, sir; that remains still at 35 per cent. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What was the effect of the increased duty on the raw 
 material which you have there? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. The increased duty on this [indicating a sheet of 
 gelatin] ? 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. It makes me pay the importer 10 per cent more for 
 it. It amounted to about three-fourths of 1 cent a pound. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. It increases the price of that 10 per cent? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. Yes, sir. I have investigated the prices of labor up 
 there in Vermont. My minimum wage, in my little industry, is 
 $7.50 a week, paid to women. It is impossible for them to live on 
 any less than that up there. The maximum wage paid to men in 
 Germany I find from the consular reports is $4 a week. They work 
 10 hours a day, or 60 hours per week. My help works 9 hours a day. 
 
 Mr. Dixox. Can you refer us to the consular report giving those 
 figures ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. Yes, sir; it is dated January 26, 1911. It is the 
 report of Consul General Frank Dillingham, at Coburg, on technical 
 
200 TARIFF HEABIKGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 articles. The wage to boys is from $2.14 to $2.86; to men it is $3.57 
 to $4. That is as near to gelatin as I could find. Even if it came in 
 under the head of lithographic printing or something like that the 
 wages are not higher. But that does not conflict with our business. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Does your business require the hiring of skilled labor ? 
 
 Mr. BBIQHAM. I should not call it skilled labor. I have some girls 
 who become proficient in a month ; others I have to let go, sometimes. 
 I keep them sometimes for six months, and then if they are not able 
 to make $7.50 even if they work by the piece I let them go. I 
 pay more wages than that when they become skilful by putting them 
 on piecework. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. What effect has the increased tariff on these raw 
 materials had upon the price at which you sell your finished manu- 
 factured product ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. It has not had any effect. I interviewed two large 
 users of gelatin on the way down here and they said that the quality 
 of American sheet gelatin is superior to any imported gelatin, but 
 that our prices are prohibitive. That is the only reason we could 
 get no orders. 
 
 Mr. KAINET. Could you not lower your price ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. We could not lower it to where the imported article 
 is sold now. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Have you changed the amount of wages paid your 
 employees ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. We have not changed the wages. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. It is just a question of profits, then, that you are 
 presenting a question of the individual profits of your firm wnich are 
 affected by this raise in the tariff on raw material ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. The profits are affected and also the total income. 
 I had to shut the factory down on the 21st day of December, the 
 first time since I have been in it, which dates from May, 1890. 
 
 I tell you, gentlemen, I did not like the looks of the faces of the 
 women when I paid them. We live in a cold country and coal is $10 
 a ton, which is $2.80 more than it is in Burlington, 40 miles up the 
 road. Wood is $8 a cord. When you turn women off in the middle 
 of the winter up there for lack of work it is a serious thing. 
 
 Mr. DIXON. Have you made a comparison of the efficiency of your 
 labor with foreign labor ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. I have made a careful study of it. Last Thursday 
 I spent with an expert in Norwich, Conn., who has visited every for- 
 eign factory making this article, and he says that my methods and 
 the equipment of my factory are the simplest that he has seen 
 anywhere. I think, comparing the methods and the location of the 
 factory, that we can produce gelatin as cheaply as anybody can, 
 barring the question of wages. 
 
 will say that one factory, turning out this product in Cincinnati 
 s now m the hands of a receiver. Their boast was on their letter- 
 heads and circulars -that they made American sheets from American 
 gelatin. 
 
 Mr. R.AIXKY. Have you anv objection to stating what vour 
 profits are? 
 
 Mr. BuiGiiAM. What is that? 
 
SCHEDULE A. 201 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLTJE, ETC. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. I say, have you any objection to stating what your 
 profits are ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. I will gladly state them in writing. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. What is that, please ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. I will gladly state them in writing (on file). I 
 would rather not state them orally. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. I understood you to say that you pay just the same 
 wages to your laborers now as you did before the increase in the 
 tariff on the raw material ; that you sell your manufactured products 
 for exactly the same price as you did before the increase in the tariff 
 on the raw materials, and; moreover, that the increase in the tariff 
 on raw materials simply affected the amount of the dividends that 
 you paid your stockholders. Now, I am asking you, and what I am 
 anxious to know is, what your dividends are and how much they are 
 affected, inasmuch as you are asking relief on that account and on 
 that account alone. 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. The relief I want is not to lose the business I have. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Have you read this chemical schedule which was 
 passed by the House of Representatives last year ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. No, sir; I have not studied it. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Have you read the paragraph dealing with gelatin, 
 glue, glue size, etc. ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. I have not. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. If you will read that, I think you will find that this 
 proposed measure prevents the injustices which you describe and 
 which were due, as I understand it, to the decision of the board of 
 appraisers under the Payne law, by which gelatin in sheets, which was 
 originally, no doubt, intended by the committee which framed the 
 bill to cover only ornamental sheets that the finished product was 
 interpreted to mean all gelatin that comes into the country, at least 
 if it comes in in similar sheets to that. If you will read the bill, you 
 will see that it corrects that injustice by reclassifying the gelatin. 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. Do I understand that it would carry a duty like the 
 duty on gelatin bando or flowers ? They carry specific duties of their 
 own. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I think you had better read the bill and if you 
 have any further suggestions to make after you have studied that, 
 we will be glad to have you put them in the record. 
 
 Mr. HILL. What is the first sample sheet you showed ? It is con- 
 strued as a manufacture of gelatin, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. This first sample I intended to show you is not a 
 manufacture of gelatin; it is gelatin. 
 
 Mr. HILL. And the other is a manufacture of gelatin ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. The thin sheet like that [indicatingl is the finished 
 product, the manufacture of gelatin. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Then under the language of this bill, the bill passed 
 by the last session of Congress, the first article would come in accord- 
 ing to its value and not as sheet gelatin, that is under the bill as 
 prepared at the last session of Congress? Would not that relieve 
 your difficulty? As a manufacture of gelatin, valued not above 
 10 cents a pound, 25 cents a pound, and above 25 cents a pound, 
 where would that first sample come in valued not above 10 cents, 
 or above 25 cents ? 
 
202 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. Above 25 cents. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Above 25 cents ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Then it would bear a duty of 25 per cent ad valorem 
 and the manufactures of gelatin would bear the same duty of 25 
 per cent ad valorem under the terms of this bill, so that your diffi- 
 culty would not be relieved at all from what it is now ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. I understand that it carried a duty of 35 per cent 
 for sheet gelatin. 
 
 . Mr. HILL. I mean under the proposed law as passed by the major- 
 ity of the House at the last session. 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. I am not informed on that. 
 
 Mr. HILL. If your first sample is worth 25 cents a pound or more, 
 the duty would be the same as on manufactures of gelatin. 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. I think that is right. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Your contention is that you are paying just as much 
 duty on your raw material as you are on your manufactured product ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. That is it exactly. It puts the foreign manufacturer 
 and myself on exactly the same basis. He is protected by the duty 
 and I am protected by the duty, and that throws us back on the labor 
 question. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Under which head of the list of imports would you 
 place your raw materials under gelatin valued not above 10 cents a 
 pound, or valued above 10 cents a pound and not above 25 cents a 
 pound, or valued above 25 cents a pound? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. The higher value. We use about the best grade 
 there is. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What are the classes of gelatin that come in under 
 the lower grades ? Have you any samples with you ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. I have no samples, because the different grades of 
 gelatin are the results of different parts of animal matter and may be 
 for different purposes; they may bo for cheaper purposes. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What proportion of the total cost of production of 
 your finished product does your raw material bear? You realize 
 that under the ad valorem rate there is not the same amount of duty 
 upon the finished product as upon the raw material, even though 
 there is the same ad valorem rate on both processes. 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. On that grade sheet [indicating] a very thin sheet 
 the percentage of raw stock entering into the total cost is about 30 
 per cent. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? 
 
 Mr. LONG WORTH. Does 70 per cent represent the labor cost in the 
 manufacture ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. Xo, sir: the rest we divide into labor and overhead 
 charges. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Where do your profits come in there? 
 
 Mr. liuKMFAM. Where do the prolits enter? 
 
 Mr. .!AM MS. If '.]() per cent is the cost of the raw material and 
 70 per cent is the lal>or and overhead charges, you leave your 
 profits out entirely. 
 
 Mr. BIUMIAM. I gave you the percentage of the factory cost of the 
 article, and upon that we determine the selling price. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 203 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You are trying to get relief from those schedules in 
 the Payne bill. You have not read the bill that was passed by the 
 House last year and which failed in the Senate ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Your complaint is against the existing law? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. I was informed at the office that the sheets, or 
 rather the manufactured product, and the raw stock carry the same 
 duty. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. It was not a scientific adjustment of the schedule rela- 
 tive to your products ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. I would like to have them classified the same as 
 other articles are classified. Celluloid is an article almost identical 
 with sheet gelatin. The city of Newark has been practically built 
 up on the manufacture of celluloid. It also has a very high pro- 
 tective duty and a tremendous industry has resulted one of the 
 biggest industries of the world. We would like to have a righteous 
 duty put on sheet gelatin, if possible, and I can agree not to raise 
 our selling price if such a duty is put on. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What do you think the rate of duty should be to 
 give you as much profit as you think the industry ought to have ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. We had in our brief figures from 50 to 60 per cent 
 on imported sheet gelatin. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. It is now 35 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. Yes, sir; it is now 35 per cent. The difference in 
 the foreign labor and ours is 50 per cent, and I do not think that is 
 very large. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you think an increase to 90 or 1 00 p'er cent from 
 35 per cent would be about fair ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. I do not understand that. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You think that an increase to 90 or 100 per cent, 
 or about double what it is now, would be the fair thing for this 
 industry ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. I think it would be fair; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And you think you would make a little more profit? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. Well, I have got to make a little more profit hi 
 order to live now. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. The consumer would not have to pay any more ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. I can sell at the same price that we are selling now, 
 but we would expect to do a great deal more business if the imported 
 sheet were kept out of the country. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. If you had that duty you think you could sell it 
 much cheaper because you could sell more of it ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. I can not tell how much cheaper. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And if there were any importations made you would 
 have to sell it at a higher price ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. We have competition here in this country. There 
 are other factories. There is a larger factory than ours at Buffalo. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I would like to state to the committee that as we 
 have allowed this gentleman 15 minutes, the time consumed in ask- 
 ing him questions will be taken out of the time of the committee 
 and not out of his time. 
 
 Mr. BRIGHAM. That is all I have to say. 
 
204 TAEEBT KEABINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 The brief of Brigham Sheet Gelatine Co. follows: 
 
 As gelatin sheets, colored, clear, white, frosted or ground, figured or opaque, trimmed 
 to standard sizes, made from ordinary crude gelatin or glue in sheet form, which is 
 now taxed at 35 per cent ad valorem, should have more protection, because the gelatin 
 sheets as above specified are a finished article made from the crude gelatin or glue; 
 and as a finished article should be taxed at a higher rate of duty, viz, 50 or 60 per cent 
 ad valorem. 
 
 The following is a suggested change in phraseology: Gelatin sheets, a manufacture 
 of gelatin, colored, clear, frosted or ground, figured or opaque, trimmed to standard 
 sizes. 
 
 We recommend that the paragraphs on gelatin as suggested above be made sepa- 
 rate and not included with related articles as in paragraph 23. 
 
 BRIQHAM SHEET GELATINE Co., 
 
 Randolph, Vt. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CHARLES DELANY, PHILADELPHIA, PA., PRES- 
 IDENT NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GLUE AND GELATIN 
 MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 Mr. DELANY. In reference to paragraph 23 of Schedule A of the 
 present tariff act we understand it to be the wish of your committee 
 that the glue and gelatin manufacturing industry of the United 
 States should make a brief presentation of what it considers to be 
 the best interests of the people in this special matter, tKe needs of 
 the Treasury, and the continued progress of the manufacturing of 
 glue and gelatin in this country. 
 
 Taking up these several matters in the order above given, it can 
 truthfully be said that the glue consumers of the United States are 
 now being as well served by their own manufacturers as are any 
 other glue consumers in the industrial world. The United States 
 glue makers have now attained to a standard of quality in what is 
 needed in the way of permanence of adhesion required in this trying 
 climate, that is not appreciated or needed in the greater part of 
 Europe, as well as a diversity of product that is well adapted to the 
 great variety of purposes for which glue is required, while the for- 
 eign glue maker has concerned himself with the production of an 
 article suitable to existing conditions in his own locality, and much 
 more limited in its adaptability to general use in this country than 
 the American product. 
 
 The usi> of foreign-made glues has been chiefly for specific purposes 
 and has shown a steady and regular growth in the operation of exist- 
 ing tariff raters. As the actual cost of glue, as a component part of 
 any article in which it is used, is so small as to make it a negligible 
 quantity, a reduction in the rate of duty would be of no benefit to the 
 ultimate consumer. 
 
 Regarding the question of revenue, we conceive it to be the wish 
 
 of your committee that this should be fixed at such point as will 
 
 bring the most money to the United States Treasury without any 
 
 burden to our consumers. A reference to the statistics compiled by 
 
 the Department of Commerce and Labor will show that the present 
 
 tariil rates have brought a steadily increasing revenue to the Treasury 
 
 >, and in connection with this fact we respect- 
 
 > the estimated revenue that would be produced 
 
 operation <M the taritl' rates proposed in H. R. bill 20182. 
 
 1-or the fiscal year of J'JIU the revenues collected from items included 
 
SCHEDULE A. 205 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 in paragraph 23 were $437,301.37; for the year 1911, $442,511.05, 
 while the estimated revenue from the operation of H. R. bill 20182 
 was $291,025. 
 
 As an evidence that the present rates of tariff have tended to in- 
 crease the revenue for the Treasury, your attention is called to the 
 three years beginning July 1, 1894, and ending June 30, 1897, during 
 which time the Wilson bill was in force, when the rate of duty on glue 
 and gelatin was 25 per cent ad valorem. The average amount of duty 
 collected on glue and gelatin during those three years was $199,334.41. 
 The following three years the Dingley bill was in operation, which car- 
 ried the same rates of duty as the present act, and during those three 
 years the average revenue collected from glue and gelatin was 
 $248,886.04. This has increased steadily, the highest point being for 
 the fiscal year ending June 30, 1910, when the revenue amounted to 
 $402,697.26. The greatest amount of revenue collected hi any one 
 year during the operation of the Wilson bill was $208,576, and the 
 revenue on the same articles for year ending June 30, 1910, the year 
 carrying the largest importations of glue and gelatin, was $402,697.26, 
 clearly showing that present rates of duty are not prohibitive, but 
 permit a steady growth in importations. 
 
 Your attention is here called to the fact that in submitting these 
 figures we deal with glue and gelatin exclusively, and not with all the 
 articles enumerated in paragraph 23 of Schedule A, for the reason 
 that the Wilson bill did not include agar-agar and manufactures of 
 gelatin in the same paragraph with glue and gelatin. Agar-agar is not 
 an animal product like glue or gelatin, but is exclusively a vegetable 
 
 Eroduct which enters into competition with gelatin for food purposes, 
 ut is not applicable for purposes requiring glue. 
 It is also tne opinion of the trade that the administrative depart- 
 ment of the Government can be best served by separating the items 
 of glue and gelatin instead of including them in one bracket. Prior 
 to the act of October 1, 1890, glue and gelatin were not included in 
 the same paragraph and they should not be, because the labor cost 
 in gelatin is two to five times that of glue. Since that date the 
 operation of the pure-food laws has imposed certain exacting re- 
 quirements upon the American gelatin maker which have resulted 
 in greatly increasing the cost, while on the other hand, the European 
 manufacturer does not have to comply with similar requirements in 
 his own country. A proper enforcement of the pure-food laws in 
 this matter requires a certain amount of coordinative action between 
 our customhouse and such other departments of our Government as 
 may be interested, and we respectfully suggest that these conditions 
 be carefully considered in the construction of a new bill. 
 
 Regarding the third point to be considered at this time the con- 
 tinued progress of the manufacture of glue and gelatin in this coun- 
 try it may be well to say that there is probably no industry in the 
 United States which has to invest such a large proportion of its cap- 
 ital in fixed plant that is worthless for any other purpose, and which 
 would be seriously injured by any considerable change from present 
 conditions. 
 
 Under the moderate rates of duty, which have not even fairly well 
 equalized conditions as to labor between this country and Europe, the 
 domestic cost of labor in glue being about double that of Europe, our 
 
206 TAKIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 manufacturers have been stimulated to work out the various prob- 
 lems put before them by the competition of modern business condi- 
 tions, but cannot now afford to meet an unrestricted competition from 
 the recently organized European Glue Trust. This trust is now one 
 of the strongest and most complete monopolies in the world and has 
 the advantage of being able to do its work with the approval of the 
 various European Governments. At present it absolutely controls 
 the glue manufacturing industry of Germany and Austria, has plants 
 in Italy, France, Holland, and Eussia, and has recently extended its 
 operations to South America. The trust claims to control 75 per 
 cent of the output of glue of the Continent of Europe and is largely 
 engaged in the manufacture of gelatin. In view 01 the attitude of 
 the American Government toward monopoly, we assume that it is 
 not the intention of your committee to make such reductions hi 
 duties on our product as will materially assist this mammoth com- 
 petitor of the American manufacturer to secure the control of this 
 market. The National Association of Glue and Gelatin Manufac- 
 turers, now making this presentation to you, represents simply a 
 friendly association organized very largely for the purpose of working 
 in harmony with the United States Government in various ways and 
 which our association would be glad to do still further in matters 
 needing consultation with either the legislative or administrative 
 departments of the United States. Any statements made herein 
 can be proved to the entire satisfaction of your committee, and all 
 information in possession of the association is at the service of your 
 committee when needed before the enactment into law of legislation 
 relating to glue and gelatin. 
 
 Under present conditions the glue makers of the United States are 
 importing about 50.000,000 pounds of their raw material from 
 countries with which this country desires to establish even closer 
 trade relations, and any disturbance of this condition would work 
 great harm to a number of legitimate commercial interests. In sup- 
 port of this statement we submit letters from several prominent im- 
 porters in this line of business. 
 
 We also respectfully call your attention to the fact that in the 
 manufacture of glue and gelatin there is produced throughout the 
 United States, as a by-product, an immense quantity of nitrogenous 
 and phosphatic material, available and used for land-fertilizing 
 purposes^ Any tariff law adopted that will affect adversely the glue 
 and gelatin industry in this country will tend to deprive the farmers 
 of the United States of many thousand tons of most excellent and 
 much needed animal-matter fertilizers, now procurable at a low cost. 
 
 The letters referred to by Mr. Delany are as follows: 
 
 STEPHEN D. DAY & SON, 
 
 New York, January 2, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR \V. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: I desire to make respectful protest to your committee against favorable action 
 on the chemical hill as originally passed by the House. The paragraph relating to glue 
 and gelatin would tend to cause the shipment to Europe of a large quantity of raw glue 
 stork which we are now receiving from India and selling to the glue makers of the 
 United Slates. 
 
 A reduction of the present duty on glue and gelatin would undoubtedly cause a 
 decreased amount of these goods to be made in the United States and a largely in- 
 
SCHEDULE A. 207 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 creased quantity to be manufactured by the cheaper labor of Europe. This would not 
 only injure our home manufacturers but it would also be some distuibance to freight 
 rates between our country and those to which we desire to increase pur exports. I 
 have recently returned from a trip around the world and am in a position to be able 
 to impress upon you the value of business relations with India. 
 
 I am also in a position to state to you that a decreased shipment of glue stock to the 
 United States would tend to lessen the amount of valuable fertilizing material now 
 available to our farmers, while increasing the oxitput of such goods in Europe. 
 
 The Ways and Means Committee must have been mistaken about their facts in regard 
 to the matter of glue and gelatin, as I can not imagine any good reason for a change 
 which will decrease revenue to the United States Treasury, disturb existing business 
 in this country, and onlv be of service to a group of foreign glue makers openly banded 
 together in a combination which is allowed to exist in Europe, by both law and 
 custom, but which is not allowed in the United States. 
 
 Respectfully, THOS. H. DAY, 
 
 Of Stephen D. Day & Son. 
 
 OFFICE OF GEORGE B. RITCHIE & Co., 
 
 New York, January 5, 191S. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: I hereby respectfully protest to your committee against the approval of H.R. 
 20182 in its original form as relating to glue and gelatin. I have not a dollar invested 
 in any glue factory, but have been an importer of raw glue stock for over 20 years 
 from India, South America, and other parts of the world, and a reduction in the duty 
 on glue and gelatin would cause an increased shipment of this kind of raw material 
 to Europe to be worked up by cheaper labor there, while decreasing its use in the 
 United States. Also, we can not expect to get fair freight rates to the countries to 
 which we wish to sell our manufactured goods unless we bring their raw goods to our 
 own shores. There Ls now over 50,000,000 pounds of glue stock imported into the 
 United States, and it is clearly to the interest of our own people that this should not 
 be lessened, as the manufacturing of this into glue gives employment to a large num- 
 ber of people. Also, the waste from glue stock produces a good deal of valuable 
 fertilizing material, and this ought to be available to our own farmers to the fullest 
 extent possible. 
 
 For many years there has been very strong competition between the glue makers of 
 this country, and they have not the advantage of the combination now controlling the 
 greater part of the output of glue in Europe. I do not know what is the profit of glue 
 making in Europe, but have good reasons to believe that it is, and for some time has 
 been, very low in the United States, and I do not think it is for the interest of anyone 
 in this country that present conditions should be disturbed. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 GEO. B. RITCHIE & Co. 
 
 NEW YORK, December 23, 1912. 
 Mr. RTJFUS W. POWELL, 
 
 Secretary National Association of Glue and Gelatin Manufacturers, 
 
 New York, N. Y. 
 
 DEAR SIR: In reply to your inquiry as to the effect on our international relations 
 of a reduction in rates of duty on glue into the United States I will say to you frankly 
 that it would not be for the good of any interests except the glue trust in Europe. 
 
 During the present year we have ourselves brought in from India alone about 
 6,000,000 pounds of glue stock for the use of the glue makers of this country. This 
 has helped to make better rates of exchange in our Asiatic business. It has also 
 added to the amount of valuable fertilizer material for our farmers. We think it 
 much better for all interests in the United States that this raw material should be 
 used here than diverted to the European glue factories, and we strongly hope that 
 nothing may be done by the present Congress to injure the glue industry of the United 
 States, which we know to be conducted on a very moderate basis of profit and without 
 any combination of any kind. 
 
 You are welcome to use this letter in any way you choose. 
 Yours, truly. 
 
 E. S. KTJH & VALK Co., 
 By E. S. KUH, President. 
 
208 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 FRANK E. IRSCH, MERCHANDISE BROKER, 
 
 New York, January S, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 . Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: Kindly enter my protest against that part of the proposed chemical bill which 
 reduces the duty on glue and gelatin. 
 
 I have been with my father, as a broker, handling South American raw animal 
 products for over 25 years, and have therefore always been in very close touch 
 with the manufacturers of glue of the United States, and would state that the condi- 
 tions in this industry in this country are quite different from what they are in Europe, 
 as over there business is largely a side industry, being controlled by a strong combina- 
 tion, whereas in this country the glue business is mostly in the hands of independent 
 parties who are not in any way affiliated with the packers. 
 
 I have never heard in any way of any combination existing among the manufac- 
 turers of glue of the United States, and know there is strong competition amongst 
 them. 
 
 In view of the fact that large quantities of glue stock are now brought to the United 
 States from countries with whom we ought to increase the sale of our manufactured 
 goods, I therefore consider that a reduction of the rates of duty on glue and gelatin 
 would only disturb present conditions without being of any service to any interest 
 except those of the glue manufacturers of Europe. 
 Will you, therefore, kindly consider this protest? 
 
 Yours, truly, FRANK E. IRSCH. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Have you any figures on the exports of glue from 
 
 the United States ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. They are very limited, Mr. Harrison, and they have 
 been confined exclusively to specialties. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. To high-grade glues ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. No; rather what we would call low grades. They 
 are mostly packing-house products, and only the packing houses have 
 the material. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Will you be kind enough to include those figures 
 in your statement if you can get them ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. I will. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I see by the figures that the United States is the largest 
 producer of glue in the world. 
 
 Mr. DELANY. I think so. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Can you stand a reduction and scaling of the duty of 
 60 per cent as proposed in this bill, 60 per cent of the present duty 
 cut off from it ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. On some grades of glue 60 per cent of the lowest 
 grade? 
 
 Mr. HILL. I mean 60 per cent of the duty; from 34 to 13 on the 
 low grades, from 25 to 15 on the middle grades, and from 42 to 25 
 on the high grades ? Can you stand it ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. If the paragraph were so arranged that gelatines 
 and glues could be separated, there could be some adjustments in 
 the rate of duty. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Why do you not make some such proposition to the 
 committee ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. I have suggested it, sir, in my brief, that the para- 
 graph be so divided that gelatines and glues be separated, if that could 
 be done. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Some portion of this classification could be changed, so 
 that you could have the duty lower, and not cut your life out? 
 
SCHEDULE A. 209 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLTJE, ETC. 
 
 Mr. DEL ANY. We could have some reduction in the duty on certain 
 qualities. On the other hand, for example, on high-grade gelatines 
 that come under the classification of over 35 cents, consisting almost 
 exclusively of photographic gelatines, it would be different. If the 
 duty were reduced on that, the Government would simply receive 
 that much less revenue. 
 
 Mr. HILL. It would not do any harm to reduce the duty on that, 
 then, if it would not affect the importations. 
 
 Mr. DELANY. The consumption of photographic gelatin in this 
 country is practically limited to one consumer, whose whole require- 
 ments were formerly supplied by foreign manufacturers, but the 
 United States gelatin makers are now furnishing this party with a 
 portion of his requirements. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You people know more than anybody else about this; 
 why do you not come in with a proposition showing the articles on 
 which you can reduce the duty without affecting seriously your indus- 
 try, and showing the necessity for continuing it in other ways 1 
 
 Mr. DELANY. I can make such a suggestion now. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You had better make it in writing. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Let him suggest it now. 
 
 Mr. DELANY. I would suggest that a proper line of demarcation be 
 made between glue and gelatin from a technical standpoint, and I 
 believe perhaps the maximum point, as far as revenue is concerned, 
 would be a duty of 25 per cent on glues, 35 per cent on gelatin up to 
 35 cents a pound, and 45 per cent on gelatins above 35 cents a pound. 
 I believe those rates would produce the greatest amount of revenue. 
 
 Mr. HILL. How about equalizing cost of production here and 
 abroad ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. I think those rates would fairly well do it. 
 
 Mr. HULL. Gelatin is merely a high-grade glue, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. Yes ; you may say it is high-grade glue. It requires 
 great purification of the material, and a different process, a much 
 more expensive process. 
 
 Mr. HULL. Isinglass is high-grade fish glue, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. I am not familiar with that. 
 
 Mr. HULL. What would you make as the line of distinction between 
 gelatin and glue ? Would you define it by giving it some specific 
 price? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. Yes; I think so. 
 
 Mr. HULL. If so, what ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. With the exception of a moderate amount of low- 
 grade Swiss gelatine, which comes into this country at a cost of about 
 13 or 14 cents, I would say that 16 cents would be the line of demar- 
 cation between glue and gelatine. There is no real gelatine im- 
 ported into this country under about 16 cents a pound, with the 
 exception of the Swiss gelatine to which I referred. 
 
 The CHAIKMAN. Then the demarcation is not in the terms "glue" 
 and "gelatine" ? It is in the value of the article, is it ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. It is in the value of the article, and it is also in its 
 application and the purposes for which it is required. 
 
 T'S959 VOL 113 14 
 
210 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What I am asking about is this: If we put a tax 
 on gelatine and then put a tax on glue, according to the customs of 
 the trade, could the Treasury Department make a distinction be- 
 tween what was glue and what was gelatine ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. Yes, sir; I think so. 
 
 I referred to the administration of the pure-food act, which is one 
 very important matter. At present the gelatin importer can import 
 gelatin as glue, because they are both classified in the same bracket. 
 After he gets it into this country he does not have to sell it as glue 
 if he does not want to. The attention of the customhouse officials is 
 not called to the fact that he is importing gelatin. When gelatin 
 is imported, which is largely used for edible purposes, then it is apt to 
 come within the jurisdiction of the pure-food law. A separation of 
 the two articles, glue and gelatin, would help very materially in the 
 administration of these laws. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What I meant was, if we designate them in the bill, 
 one as glue and the other as gelatin, do the customs of the trade 
 sufficiently make a demarcation for the Treasury Department to know 
 the difference ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. Yes, sir; the trade would not consider anything as 
 gelatin of a valuation under 16 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Does not the color usually show what it is? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. Largely so, but you can get almost the same color in 
 a very low grade bone glue. It is the color, sweetness, and the 
 strength. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Can they be interchangeably used for food? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. Not satisfactorily; no, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How old is the glue industry in this country? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. There is a gentleman in this room whose great grand- 
 father was in the business in 1808, and I do not know how much 
 further back it goes. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. We are now the largest producers of glue in the 
 world ? 
 
 Mr. DELAXY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. How much longer will the industry need a protective 
 tariff before it will be able to stand alone, being now the largest pro- 
 ducers of glue in the world? 
 
 Mr. DELAXY. 1 would say until the cost of labor is about the same 
 in this country and any other country. 
 
 Mr. KITCIIIX. Do you moan the productive cost? Do you not 
 understand the American laborer, as a general thing, produces two or 
 three times more for his employer than the German laborer, and do 
 not the free-trade Knglish laborers produce just one and one-half 
 times as much as the German laborer? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. That has not been the experience of the people in 
 our business, who have been engaged in both German and American 
 factories. That matter has been very thoroughly discussed in our 
 association, and the experiences given' by men who are familiar with 
 conditi' ns on both sides of the water show that that is not true so 
 far as the glue business is concerned. They give as a reason for it 
 the glue factories in Europe are located in places where 
 tne population is small, and the inhabitants, or at least the male 
 
SCHEDULE A. 211 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 portion thereof, depend upon that industry for their living. Our 
 people, they say, move around from one place to another, and we 
 never know whether our men are coming back from Saturday night 
 to Monday morning. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. If these new rates are put into effect, do you expect 
 to cut down the wages? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. No, sir ; not if we can help it. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Then what you want to have is a cutting down of 
 profits ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. They were not very big last year. They will not 
 stand much cutting. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Have you any objection to stating how large they 
 were ? What were your dividends ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. We are a partnership. I do not object to stating 
 what my profits were last year. They were about eight-tenths of a 
 cent per pound on a pound" of glue. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. That does not mean much to us. What was your 
 return on the capital you have invested? What dividends do you 
 pay? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. We pay no salaries, and it amounted I will have 
 to go to memory on this without the payment of salaries, to 
 about, I think, between 8 and 9 per cent. We had a total invested 
 in our glue department of about $210,000, and our profits were 
 between $17,000 and $18,000. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. What you want to do is to maintain your 8 and 9 
 per cent annual dividends ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. We do not pay dividends. It is a partnership. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. It is the same thing. 
 
 Mr. DELANY. But in corporations, of course, salaries are paid. 
 There are no salaries charged at all in our concern. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What is the value of the American output for 1912 ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. I should think about $10,000,000 of glue and gela- 
 tine; perhaps a little more. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. W r e imported less than a million? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. Dollars' worth ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. DELANY. I think I can tell you. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. That is correct. 
 
 Mr. DELANY. 1912 is rather misleading, because there was a deci- 
 sion of the Treasury Department in 1911 which embraced a large 
 quantity of sheet gelatin; 1910 is really the last year in which there 
 is any division made between manufacturers of gelatin and glue. 
 In the year 1910, the fiscal year, the importations of glue and gelatin 
 amounted to $1,237,000. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Glue in 1912 amounted to $772,842. It was sepa- 
 rated in 1912. 
 
 Mr. DELANY. Glue alone. $770,130. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Did the Pavne act increase the tariff on glue 3 
 
 Mr. DELANY. It did not. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. It did not? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. Xo, sir. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What is the labor cost ? 
 
212 TAEIFP HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 Mr. DELANY. It depends a great deal on the kind of glue being 
 made. In my own factory the cost of labor last year was about $1.80 
 or $1.85 per hundred pounds. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What is the tariff on it now? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. The tariff ranges, on such goods as we make, from 
 2^ cents per pound on the lowest bracket to 25 per cent on the next 
 succeeding bracket. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. That is much greater than the labor cost, then. 
 
 Mr. DELANT. I have stated that with a rearrangement of the 
 schedule, so glue and gelatine were separated, a 25 per cent duty all 
 around on glue would be satisfactory, so far as production of revenue 
 is concerned, and it is sufficient for the manufacturers. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. How much of a reduction would that be on the 
 schedule ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. On goods below 10 cents per pound it would be a 
 reduction of about 30 per cent. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That would be practically no reduction at all. 
 What you contend for really is to maintain practically the present 
 schedule, is it not? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. No, sir; I do not. I would much rather see the 
 schedule rearranged so that gelatin and glue would be separated. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. But the rate would amount to the same, would it 
 not ? You would not have much difference on the basis you suggest. 
 
 Mr. DELANY. You would have 25 per cent on goods up to 10 cents 
 per pound. I do not think there are many goods brought into this 
 country between 10 and 16 cents a pound. I think that is the smallest 
 end of the importation. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. Is it not true the imports have increased almost 
 every year for a long period ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And the exports have increased, too, have they not? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. I do not think there has been much difference in the 
 exports, because they are specialties. They are not competitive 
 goods. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. We do export several hundred thousand dollars 
 worth, do we not ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. Yes: I think so. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. And we do not sell it to the foreigner cheaper than 
 we sell it to our own people, do we? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. I can not answer that question. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You do not, do you ? 
 
 NT. DELANY. We do not export any at all. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. By far the greatest amount of importations of glue 
 that come in is valued at not above 10 cents a pound?. 
 
 Mr. DELAXY. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Three times as much of the next class, and practi- 
 cally none at all of the high-grade class? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. That is what I say. There is very little glue coming 
 into this country above 10 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. Docs not the importation uniformly increase 
 every year ? 
 
 Mr. DELAXY. The importations increase every year, as shown by 
 my record, which goes back to 1895. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 213 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. How much were they in 1895 ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much were they last year? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Let us get 1895 first. How much were they in 
 1895? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. $421,862.44. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. How much were they last year? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. You refer to glue alone ? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Yes. 
 
 Mr. DELANY. Last year, $770,130. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. This glue which they export has to be sold in competi- 
 tion with the world, does it not ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. No, sir; that is not a competitive glue. It is a 
 packing-house product. Only the packing houses have the material 
 to make it. It is a specialty. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. If it is not a competitive glue, why do you want a high 
 tariff over here to protect you against competition ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. That is a very small proportion of the production of 
 the country. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Then on that you would not need any tariff at all, 
 because it is not competitive ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. I do not suppose the packer cares much about it, one 
 way or the other. 
 
 Mr. DELANY. May I be permitted to make a correction of a ques- 
 tion Mr. James asked me a moment ago ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. DELANY. Mr. James asked me a question as to the percentage 
 of profit in our glue department last year. We are also engaged hi 
 the manufacture of curled hair, and I had in mind the total profits 
 of our business when I told him 14 per cent. The amount of capital 
 we had invested in our glue department last year was about $210,000 
 and our profits were between $17,000 and $18,000 in that depart- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What is the other commodity you manufacture ? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. Curled hair. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Curled hair? 
 
 Mr. DELANY. Yes, sir. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FROM NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GLUE 
 AND GELATIN MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., February 4, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 DEAR SIR: In response to a request for a constructive suggestion 
 in regard to the wording of paragraph 23, Schedule A, of the existing 
 tariff act, we respectfully suggest that the maximum revenue that 
 can be collected and that will also permit full and free competition 
 with the domestic product can be realized by the adoption of the 
 following phraseology and rates of duty, to wit: 
 
 Glue, glue size, insinglass or fish glue, and prepared fish sounds other than crude 
 or dried or salted for preservation only, twenty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 
 Gelatin in sheets, emulsions, or any other form, and all manufactures of gelatin or 
 or which gelatin is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for, 
 
014 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 valued at not above thirty-five cents per pound, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; 
 valued at above thirty-five cents per pound, forty-five per centum ad valorem; agar- 
 agar, or Japanese isinglass, twenty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 
 Taking the above-named articles into consideration, we beg to 
 refer to the reports of the Bureau of Commerce and Navigation for a 
 period of 14 years, from 1899 to 1912, inclusive, during which time 
 57,755,892.90 pounds of glue, valued at not over 10 cents per pound, 
 were imported into this country, of which the value was $4,085,585.49 
 and the duties collected were $1,443,898.26, as shown by the table 
 annexed hereto. 
 
 These figures show the average invoice price to have been 7.07 cents 
 per pound and the average rate of duty to have been 35.34 per cent. 
 From the best information that can be obtained, about 25 per cent of 
 these importations consisted of hide-stock glue, and the greater part 
 of which was used for one specific purpose, and the average invoice 
 price for which is about 9 cents per pcund ; the remaining 75 per cent 
 equal to about 43,316,919 pounds, was therefore invoiced at about 
 an average price of 6.43 cents per pound, on which the average rate of 
 duty was 38.86 per cent, and at this valuation a duty of 25 per cent 
 would place such qualities of glue in this market at a cost of slightly 
 over 8 cents per pound, a price sufficiently attractive to encourage an 
 increase in importations to such an extent that the revenue derived 
 therefrom would exceed the amount of duties now collected. Glues 
 carrying an invoice price of 6.43 cents per pound enter more fully into 
 general use than glues imported for specific purposes, hence the 
 opportunity for increased importations. 
 
 We recommend an ad valorem instead of a specific rate, for the 
 reason that the higher the price of glue the greater is its amnufacturing 
 cost, and while the specific rate imposed in H. R. 20182 would be 
 equivalent to over 15 per cent on glues of an average value of 6.43 
 cents per pound, it would only be about 11 per cent on glues valued 
 at 9 cents per pound, which appears to us as a discrimination against 
 the makers of the better qualities. 
 
 We also respectfully submit that the rate of duty which we suggest 
 is an average reduction of over 28 per cent from the present schedule 
 on glues valued at not over 10 cents per pound. 
 
 Wo request higher rates of duty on gelatin than on glues for the 
 following reasons, viz: 
 
 First. The labor expense per pound to manufacture gelatin is much 
 greater proportionately than in glue. 
 
 Second. The operation of the national and State pure-food laws has 
 imposed within the past three years certain exacting requirements 
 upon the makers in the United States, which have resulted in greatly 
 increasing the cost of manufacturing gelatin (the larger part of which 
 is used for edible purposes), whereas the European manufacturers do 
 not have to comply with similar requirements in their own countries. 
 
 Third. The rates of duty asked for by the gelatin manufacturers of 
 the United States will permit of lively competition and produce the 
 highest possible revenue for the Treasury of the United States without 
 any burden to the consumer. 
 
 Fourth, (ielatin valued above 35 cents per pound imported into 
 the I imed States is for photographic purposes only and practically 
 all of it is consumed bv one concern. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 
 
 215 
 
 PARAGR PH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 Fifth. Furthermore, gelatin is a commodity that enters into the 
 manufacture or production of luxuries quite altogether. 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 CHARLES DELANY, 
 President National Association of 
 
 Glue and Gelatin Manufacturers. 
 
 Totals of sworn statements of profit and loss given to Senator Charles F. Johnson, of 
 Maine, by the most prominent glue manufacturers of the United States for a period 
 of 12 months ending in 1912. 
 
 Plant $4, 523, 448. 95 
 
 Other assets 3, 980, 355. 97 
 
 Total 8, 503, 804. 92 
 
 Profit 55, 766. 00 
 
 Showing a percentage of profit of 0.66/100 of 1 per cent. 
 
 The above figures are the totals of statements sent to Senator Johnson in response to 
 a request to the individual glue manufacturers of the National Association of Glue and 
 Gelatin Manufacturers that such sworn statements be sent. 
 
 81 FULTON STREET, New York, N. Y. 
 
 RUFUS W. POWELL, 
 Secretary National Association of 
 Glue and Gelatin Manufacturers. 
 
 Imports into the United States of glue valued at not above 10 cents per pound, including 
 glue improperly reported as gelatin under above valuation, under specific rate of duty 
 0/2% cents per pound. 
 
 [Collated from Reports of Commerce and Navigation, 1899 to 1912, inclusive.] 
 
 Years. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Values. 
 
 Duties paid. 
 
 Averages. 
 
 Per unit 
 of quan- 
 tity. 
 
 Ad valo- 
 rem rate 
 of duty. 
 
 1899: 
 Glue 
 
 2,706,304.00 
 18,749.00 
 
 3,910,182.00 
 85,717.00 
 
 2,986,541.00 
 19,726.00 
 
 2,842,851.00 
 50,639.00 
 
 3,125,352.50 
 18, 746. 00 
 
 3,448,304.00 
 57,392.00 
 
 4,762,379.20 
 67,311.00 
 
 4,236,648.00 
 88, 359. 00 
 
 4,733,963.00 
 82,081.00 
 
 4,763,905.00 
 39, 400. 00 
 
 $202,565.50 
 1,034.00 
 
 265,909.00 
 5,575.00 
 
 210,068.00 
 817.00 
 
 186,988.00 
 3,002.00 
 
 220, 296. 00 
 1,081.00 
 
 236, 153. 49 
 3,369.00 
 
 305,900.00 
 4, 553. 00 
 
 283, 836. 00 
 5,968.00 
 
 330,719.50 
 6,257.00 
 
 359, 952. 00 
 1,955.00 
 
 $67, 657. 62 
 468.72 
 
 97,754.59 
 2, 142. 93 
 
 74, 663. 54 
 493. 15 
 
 71,071.30 
 1,265.98 
 
 78, 133. 83 
 468.65 
 
 86, 207. 63 
 1,434.81 
 
 119,059.52 
 1,682.79 
 
 105,916.27 
 2, 208. 98 
 
 118,349.15 
 2,052.03 
 
 119,097.70 
 985.01 
 
 Cents. 
 0.075 
 .055 
 
 .068 
 .065 
 
 .070 
 .042 
 
 .066 
 .059 
 
 .070 
 .058 
 
 .068 
 .059 
 
 .064 
 .068 
 
 .067 
 .068 
 
 .070 
 .076 
 
 .076 
 .049 
 
 Per cent. 
 33.40 
 45.33 
 
 36.76 
 38.44 
 
 35.55 
 60.36 
 
 38.01 
 42.17 
 
 35.47 
 43.35 
 
 36.51 
 42.50 
 
 38.92 
 36.96 
 
 37.32 
 37.01 
 
 35.79 
 32.80 
 
 33.09 
 50.38 
 
 Gelatin 
 
 1900: 
 Glue 
 
 Gelatin 
 
 1901: 
 Glue 
 
 Gelatin 
 
 1902: 
 Glue 
 
 Gelatin 
 
 1903: 
 Glue 
 
 Gelatin 
 
 1904: 
 Glue 
 
 Gelatin 
 
 1905: 
 Glue 
 
 Gelatin 
 
 1906: 
 Glue... 
 
 Gelatin . . . 
 
 1907: 
 Glue 
 
 Gelatin 
 
 1908: 
 Glue 
 
 Gelatin 
 
 
216 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 Imports into the United States of glue valued at not above 10 cents per pound, including 
 glue improperly reported as gelatin under above valuation, etc. Continued. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ave 
 
 rage. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Values. 
 
 Duties paid. 
 
 Per unit 
 of quan- 
 tity. 
 
 Ad valo- 
 rem rate 
 of duty. 
 
 1909: 
 Glue 
 
 3.839.866.00 
 
 $279.988.00 
 
 $95,996.76 
 
 Cents. 
 0.073 
 
 Per cent. 
 34.29 
 
 Gelatin 
 
 12,063.00 
 
 609.00 
 
 301.58 
 
 .050 
 
 49.52 
 
 1910: 
 Glue .. 
 
 5.947,184.20 
 
 455,029.00 
 
 148,679.68 
 
 .076 
 
 32.68 
 
 Gelatin . 
 
 30,954.00 
 
 2,210.00 
 
 773.86 
 
 .071 
 
 35.00 
 
 1911: Glue 
 
 5,439,949.60 
 
 395,017.00 
 
 135,998.89 
 
 .073 
 
 34.43 
 
 1912: 
 Glue 
 
 4,440,885.40 
 
 316,697.00 
 
 111,022.26 
 
 .0713 
 
 35.00 
 
 Gelatin 
 
 441.00 
 
 37.00 
 
 11.03 
 
 .0839 
 
 29.81 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Glue 
 
 57,184,134.90 
 
 4,049,118.49 
 
 1,429,608.74 
 
 .0708 
 
 35.30 
 
 Gelatin 1 
 
 571,758.00 
 
 36,467.00 
 
 14,289.52 
 
 .0638 
 
 39.18 
 
 Total . . 
 
 57,755,892.90 
 
 4,085,585.49 
 
 1,443,898.26 
 
 .0707 
 
 35.34 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Glue improperly reported by collectors of customs as gelatin. 
 
 A careful estimate regarding the foregoing indicates that 25 per cent of the impor- 
 tations of glue valued at not above 10 cents per pound are mostly used for one specific 
 purpose and average in value about 9 cents per pound. Deducting from the above 
 totals this 25 per cent shows: 
 
 
 
 
 
 Aver 
 
 ages. 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Values. 
 
 Duties paid. 
 
 Per unit 
 of quan- 
 tity. 
 
 Ad valo- 
 rem rate 
 of duty. 
 
 25 per cent of total quantity 
 
 14,438,973.20 
 
 $1,299,507.58 
 
 $360,974 33 
 
 Cents. 
 0.09 
 
 Per cent. 
 27.78 
 
 Leaves 
 
 43,316,919.70 
 
 2,786,077.91 
 
 1,082,923.90 
 
 .0634 
 
 38.86 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total, 14 years 
 
 57,755,892 90 
 
 4 085 585 49 
 
 1 443 898 26 
 
 0707 
 
 35 34 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LETTER OF JOHN B. ORE, BOSTON, MASS. 
 
 BOSTON, January 1, 191S. 
 Congressman WILLIAM F. MURRAY, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Referring to conversation on Saturday 
 last regarding liquid fish glue, after careful investigation here in 
 Boston, I find that the customs authorities do not keep a separate 
 record of the importations of bone glue and liquid fish glue. I have, 
 however, found that during the past four years there have been no 
 importations of fish glue excepting what~I imported myself from 
 St. Pierre, Miquelon, to Boston amounting to 40 barrels, which was 
 1,627 gallons. I imported this glue to see what I could do in com- 
 petition with manufacturers of liquid fish glue in the United States and 
 have found that I could not compote. There has been no liquid fish 
 glue imported in here from Canada; whether there has been any 
 importations to other ports or not is a question. There have been no 
 importations in from Newfoundland because there has been none 
 
SCHEDULE A. 217 
 
 i 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23- GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 manufactured there. The only other place that any liquid fish Hue 
 could come in from would be Norway. It is my opinion that there 
 is no liquid fish glue in what I call bulk that is, in 5-gallon kegs 
 or 50-gallon barrels imported into the United States from any 
 place in the world, as the present duty is absolutely prohibitive. 
 
 I find that the duty on glue is 1\ cents per pound on glue valued 
 at less than 10 cents a pound and 25 per cent ad valorem on glue 
 valued at over 10 cents a pound. Prices are based on f. o. b. point 
 of shipment. For instance, if I shipped any glue in from our factory 
 at Burnt Islands, Newfoundland, the price would be based on f. o. b. 
 Burnt Islands. With reference to duty, for example, a gallon of fish 
 glue weighs 9 pounds 14 ounces, which makes the duty between 24 
 and 25 cents per gallon. If there was a duty, say of 1 cent per pound, 
 which would be equal to about 10 cents per gallon on the cost of our 
 manufacture, undoubtedly we would be able to ship many thousands 
 of gallons of glue into the United States, whereby the United States 
 Government would be receiving a revenue from shipments made from 
 our factory into the United States, which would not only help them 
 but would help the dealer and consumer, while at the present time 
 there are no importations and they are getting no revenue whatever. 
 I sent Mr. Gallivan, in confidence, a copy of a letter from one of the 
 three largest liquid glue manufacturers in the United States, showing 
 that they are not able and have not been able to supply the trade. 
 
 I might say that the capital of $100,000 invested in our business 
 in Newfoundland comes entirely from the citizens of the United 
 States. 
 
 I sincerely believe that allowing our glue to come into the United 
 States with a reasonable duty will open up a very much larger field 
 and give a number of dealers an opportunity of using liquid fish glue 
 who are at present handicapped on account of not being able to get 
 same in the United States. 
 
 If there is any further information or any detail that I can give 
 you, will be glad to have you advise me. 
 
 I was given to understand that the Commerce and Labor Bureau, 
 statistical department, at Washington had considerable information 
 with reference to the glue business. Whether they have any infor- 
 mation regarding liquid fish glue I do not know. 
 
 I hope that you are quite well, and, with kind regards, 
 Sincerely, yours, 
 
 JOHN B. OBE. 
 
 BRIEF OF JOSEPH DICK, NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 I am an American citizen, resident and voter of New York City, 
 and engaged in importing German and Austrian bone glues in cake 
 form. I have been engaged in this business as the general agent of a 
 German and of an Austrian glue concern tor the last four years. I 
 have no experience in glue manufacturing. But in the course of my 
 business dealings with American glue manufacturers and glue jobbers 
 I have through them come into possession of a few elementary facts 
 bearing upon the cost of making American glues which, second-hand 
 though they be, derive their value from their source, whose authentic- 
 ity can not be doubted. 
 
218 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 As an American citizen I respectfully ask to be allowed to submit 
 to you the knowledge thus gained and some other facts and con- 
 siderations showing that the present duty on glue is exorbitant. 
 
 The cost of manufacturing an American glue' is said by domestic 
 manufacturers to vary between 2J cents a pound to 3 cents on bone 
 glues, and 3 cents to 3 cents a pound on hide glues. But this cost 
 is not merely the cost of labor. It includes all overhead expenses 
 and salaries, all chemicals, and the fuel used in manufacturing. In 
 fact, the cost of labor is the smaller part. Thus take, for instance, 
 one single operation, the only one in which each individual sheet of 
 glue is handled by the worker. I mean the process of drying, which 
 is the following: 
 
 From vats the glue solution is drained into galvanized iron coolers, 
 each holding about 100 pounds of glue jelly. Take 500 such coolers, 
 with altogether 48,000 to 50,000 pounds of glue jelly. Six girls can 
 spread this jelly upon nets, after it is cut, in one working day, pro- 
 ducing altogether 9,000 pounds of dry glue. One girl, therefore, has 
 handled jelly yielding 1,500 pounds of dry glue. The wages of the 
 girls are between $6 to $8 a week. Taking them $7 a week as the 
 basis, each girl receives SI. 17 a day for spreading upon the drying 
 nets enough glue jelly to yield, when dry, 1,500 pounds of dry glue. 
 To spread glue jelly yielding, when dry, 1 pound of glue costs, there- 
 fore, less than two twenty-fifths of 1 cent. These figures apply to 
 bone glues. Of hide glue, 500 coolers yield only about 7,200 pounds 
 of dry glue for the six girls, so that the cost of labor of drying 1 pound 
 of hide glue is, per pound of dried glue, not quite one-tenth of 1 cent. 
 Yet drying is the only operation during which each sheet is handled 
 by the worker. In all other operations the simplest mechanical con- 
 trivances make it possible to transform the raw material and to handle 
 the finished product in bulk so that the cost of actual labor for each 
 operation is barely appreciable in the value per pound of the finished 
 product. The cost of pure labor, exclusive of overhead expenses, of 
 chemicals and hi el, do?s not exceed li cents per pound, and is very 
 often as low as 1 cent per pound, according to the quality of glue, and 
 particularly according to the efficiency of the factory. If the duty on 
 glues below 10 cents would be fixed even at only 1J cents, covering 
 thus the whole cost of labor, it only could be done on the supposition 
 that glue is manufactured in Europe without any labor cost. Yet 
 the duty on glues valued at less than 10 cents is at present 2J cents 
 per pound, covering not only the \\koJe cost of labor, but all overhead 
 expenses, chemicals, and fuel in addition. 
 
 The dry glue produced by the drying out of jelly is, for bone glues, 
 between 20 per cent and 35 per cent of the weight of the jelly, and 
 for hide glues between 8 per cent and 20 per cent of the weight of the 
 jelly. In taking as the basis of my calculation 9,000 pounds of dry 
 glue, as restilting from 48,000 pounds of bone jelly, and 7,200 pounds of 
 dry glue, as resulting from 48,000 pounds of hide jelly, I have figured 
 with the very fair percentage of 19 per cent for bone glues and 14 per 
 cent for hide glues. In order to forestall pointless quibbling that 
 might obscure the ival issue 1 also want to state that the coolers are 
 In some factories they hold 50 pounds of jelly, in 
 others loo pound-, and sometimes 150 pounds. But the essential 
 
SCHEDULE A. 219 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 fact that six girls handle during a working day 48,000 pounds of jelly 
 remains unchanged. 
 
 Labor, indeed, is a very small part in the value of the glue. There 
 are glues in which the cost of labor does not amount to 10 per cent of 
 the value of the finished product. Anybody entering a glue factory 
 unawares, even when running at full capacity, is struck by the com- 
 parative absence of labor. Almost everything is done by natural 
 agencies and machinery. Macerating, boiling, cutting, and drying 
 are the chief operations and require almost no labor, but only occa- 
 sional watching. 
 
 The packers, tanners, and fertilizing manufacturers, with all of 
 whom glue is only a by-product, manufacture certainly 60 per cent 
 or more of the glue manufactured in this country. I inclose a com- 
 plete list of American glue factories. 
 
 I also inclose my sworn statement that never since I have been 
 general agent for the European glue concern, nor ever before, has the 
 importation of glues coming from that concern, whether sold direct 
 or through me, reached 2 per cent of the glue consumption of the 
 United States. I am ready to prove this by my books. Yet I sell 
 considerably more than other foreign glue concerns and their agents. 
 
 Sometimes the argument is being advanced by American glue 
 manufacturers that so little glue enters into each individual piece of 
 manufactured goods that the raised price of glue is hardly felt in the 
 price of the finished merchandise; but this is misleading. The 
 United States consumes yearly about 50,000 tons of glue of a con- 
 servatively estimated value of $12,000,000. One million dollars of 
 this saved to the people of this country by the imposing of a duty, 
 the purpose of which would be to insure revenue, or at most to cover 
 the real difference in the cost of labor, but not to artificially boost 
 prices for the benefit of a class, will be part of the many millions simi- 
 larly saved in other Hues of industry. Please to consider that there 
 is literally no article manufactured in any line into whose composi- 
 tion glue does not enter at some stage. Glue is the one universal 
 requisite in all industries. But supposing even that, for instance, 
 the value of glue entering into a piano does not exceed $2; that is still 
 no argument for the maintenance of an excessive duty. The value 
 of celluloid, of felt, or of wood filler and stain, or shellac, rubber, or 
 gilding used in the manufacture of a piano is less than 50 cents. As 
 the manufacturers of all of these materials also want to be "pro- 
 tected," the aggregate protection thus loaded on the consumer is 
 very considerable. And then while glue is being used in the manu- 
 facture of a piano it has also been used in the manufacture of most 
 of the materials out of which a piano is made. The felt has glue in 
 it: the wood filler is prepared with glue; the metal parts of the piano 
 are polished on wheels, an important part of which is glue. The 
 varnishing of the piano can not be done without the use of sandpaper, 
 which is also made with glue. Altogether, there is considerably 
 more glue used than appears on the surface. 
 
 I have submitted here some technical considerations in favor of 
 the reduction of duty on glue; but there are some considerations 
 whose weight is much greater. As a revenue measure a tariff law 
 has a warranty in the Constitution; but as a means of keeping on 
 their feet at public expense industries that might stand by them- 
 
220 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 selves if they were driven to it, the tariff law is justified neither by 
 the Constitution nor by moral law. 
 
 There is one hard fact less weighty than abstractions, but proving 
 more. American glue manufacturers are selling their glues in 
 Europe. Several of them have resident agents in different European 
 countries. And they are selling their glues in spite of the duties in 
 Europe. They are selling their glues either at prices prevailing here, 
 in plain contradiction of their assertion that they can not compete 
 with the foreign goods, or they are selling their glues at lower prices 
 than here, thus following the rule generally observed by our "pro- 
 tected" manufacturers of giving the lower price to the foreigner and 
 piling it upon their compatriots. Will these ever be allowed to do 
 with their dollar as they please, or will they always be compelled to 
 give it to needy interests that must be "protected" ? 
 
 STATE OF NEW YORK, 
 
 City of New York, County of New York, ss: 
 
 Joseph Dick, being duly sworn, says that he resides at No. 1058 
 Southern Boulevard, city of New York, and that his place of busi- 
 ness is at No. 198 Broadway, in the Borough of Manhattan, city of 
 New York. 
 
 And upon oath declares that the importation of glue to the United 
 States of America coming from European concerns whose general 
 agency he has, whether such glues are sold directly or whether the 
 same are sold by him as representative of such European concerns, 
 has at no time exceeded or reached 2 per cent of the entire glue con- 
 sumption in the United States. 
 
 JOSEPH DICK. 
 Sworn to before me this 31st day of December, 1912. 
 
 SAMUEL ZUCKERMAN, Jr., 
 Commissioner of Deeds, New York City. 
 
 BRIEF OF W. E. MILLER, NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 COIGNET & CO., 
 
 17 State Street, New York, N. Y., January 4, 1913. 
 The COMMITTEE ox WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: As per your postal of the 3d instant, giving me an 
 appointment to appear before you on the 7th instant, I beg to file 
 with you the following brief, as per your suggestion : 
 
 I recommend a change in paragraph 23, Schedule A, from 
 
 e present rales A duty of 1 cent per pound on gelatins, glue, 
 
 fish glue, etc., valued at and under 10 cents per pound, 1 
 
 cent per pound duty instead of 1\ cents, for the reason that the domes- 
 
 ic manufacturers do not need this protection any longer, inasmuch 
 
 Co. are now selling one of their low grades of 
 
 t<> the house of Pervilhac Silk Finishing, of Lvon, France, at a 
 
 lower price than they sell the very same grado in the United States. 
 
 in I. you includes the cost of transportation to the city of 
 
 1 recommend a change from 25 per cent to 15 per cent on 
 
SCHEDULE A. 221 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 the above-mentioned goods valued at above 10 cents and not above 
 35 cents, inasmuch as the domestic manufacturers can produce gela- 
 tins of sufficiently good quality to eliminate the necessity of a 25 
 per cent protection. I take this from the fact that the Michigan Car- 
 bon Co., of Detroit, Mich., now produces a gelatin for the manufac- 
 ture of gelatin capsules, which they sell at about 38 cents per pound, 
 which is superior for this purpose to French gelatins selling at about 
 the same price in France. This is substantiated by the fact that in 
 the past we sold enormous quantities to the capsule industry in this 
 country, where now we sell very little, entirely due to the superiority 
 and low price of the domestic manufactured article. 
 
 I recommend a rate of 15 per cent instead of 15 cents per pound 
 and 20 per cent on the above-mentioned articles valued above 35 
 cents, for the reason that this classification includes photographic 
 gelatins, of which there are none made in this country, therefore no 
 protection is needed. 
 
 No. 2. This change will undoubtedly materially increase the im- 
 portations, certainly sufficient to produce as much if not more revenue 
 than the present rates. If this result is not arrived at, at any rate the 
 consumers in this country will be materially benefited, because the 
 competition which the importers will be enabled to give the domestic 
 manufacturers would compel them to reduce their prices, and not 
 ask the exorbitant profit they now ask. 
 
 No. 3. I estimate the increase specified above from an experience 
 of 18 years in the glue and gelatin importing business, during which I 
 have seen a great decrease in the importations of a number of grades 
 of foreign goods which would be recovered by reduced rates. 
 
 No. 4. In paragraph 23 of Schedule A, the classification of gelatin 
 in sheets, emulsions, etc., is ambiguous, inasmuch as raw gelatin is 
 originally produced in sheets and should not be confounded in any way 
 with that manufacture of gelatin known as " gelatin sheets"; there- 
 fore, I would decidedly recommend that this classification be made 
 more specific, at least in the elimination of the word "in." 
 
 No. 5. I beg to suggest that inasmuch as glues, gelatins, etc., are 
 susceptible to the absorption of moisture while crossing the ocean 
 which increases their weight for which we are charged an additional 
 duty under the present tariff, and as this increase in weight dries out 
 after the goods have been in our warehouses for a short tune, this 
 additional duty is a total loss, and the elimination of this additional 
 duty on all increase in weight on glues and gelatins, etc., up to 1\ per 
 cent, will be equitable. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, W. E. MILLER. 
 
 PROTEST OF BAUGH & SONS CO., OF PHILADELPHIA, AGAINST 
 THE PROPOSED REVISION AND REDUCTION OF IMPORT 
 DUTIES UPON GLUE. 
 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: 
 
 In the matter of proposed revision and amendment of Schedule A 
 of the present tariff act so as to reduce the duties payable upon im- 
 portations of gelatin, glue, glue size, and other kindred products, and 
 
222 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLTJE, ETC. 
 
 so as to make, as suggested in House of Kepresentatives bill No. 20182, 
 the tariff act read: 
 
 Gelatin, glue, and glue size, valued not above ten cents per pound, one cent per 
 pound; valued above ten cents per pound and not above twenty-five cents per pound, 
 fifteen per centum ad valorem; valued above twenty-five cents per pound, twenty-five 
 per centum ad valorem; manufactures of gelatin or manufactures of which gelatin is 
 the component material of chief value, twenty-five per centum ad valorem; isinglass 
 and prepared fish sounds, twenty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 
 as shown by the report of the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
 House of Representatives, page 75. 
 
 Baugh & Sons Co. is a corporation of the State of Pennsylvania, and 
 is a large manufacturer of glue and glue products, and has a great deal 
 of capital invested in this industry. The company is not connected or 
 affiliated in any manner whatsoever with any trust or combination. 
 It is an absolutely independent concern, competing with any and all 
 manufacturers of glue and glue products within the eastern markets 
 where its business is conducted. 
 
 The company has a considerable number of men employed in its 
 plant and their average working day is 10 hours a day, and the wages 
 paid the skilled men are SI 3. 50 per week and those paid the unskilled 
 men, commonly called laborers, are at the rate of $10 per week. 
 
 The tariff act as it stands to-day and which subjects glue to a duty 
 of 2 cents a pound is barely sufficient to afford a reasonable protection 
 to the American manufacturer, and a duty of 1 cent a pound would be 
 totally insufficient. To reduce the duty to that amount would give 
 an enormous advantage to the foreign manufacturer of glue and glue 
 products, because a duty of 1 cent a pound would not begin to cover 
 the difference in cost of production in America and in foreign coun- 
 tries. From the best information obtainable and after an exhaustive 
 examination into the conditions existing in America and foreign manu- 
 factories, it can be conservatively stated that the difference to-day 
 between the cost of manufacturing a pound of glue in America and in 
 Europe is from 2.2 cents to 2.8 cents. Of course, a great deal of this 
 difference in the cost of production is due to the low rate of wages paid 
 in European countries compared with those paid in America, the 
 European workingmen receiving wages at least 40 to 50 per cent below 
 those paid in America, and in addition the cost of crude materials is 
 much lower abroad than in this country. 
 
 The average rate of duty on glue and gelatin under all tariff bills 
 for the last 10 years or more has been considerably less than the aver- 
 age rate of duty on other dutiable products imported into this country, 
 and, therefore, there should not be a reduction in the duty which 
 would hamper to a greater extent the efforts of the American manu- 
 facturers of glue and gelatin products to compete with the foreign 
 manufacturers. 
 
 Even under the existing tarifT, importations of glue and gelatin 
 products have increased during the past three years, and there has 
 naturally been a corresponding increase in revenue, and this proves 
 conclusively that the rates of duty fixed in the Payne-Aldrich bill do 
 not prohibit importations, but on the contrary freely permit foreign 
 manufacturers to sell their product in this country in competition 
 with the American manufacturer. It is evident that a reduction in 
 
SCHEDULE A. 223 
 
 PARAGRAPH 23 GELATIN, GLUE, ETC. 
 
 the rate of duty from 2 cents a pound to 1 cent per pound would give 
 such a great advantage in this competition to the foreign manufac- 
 turer as to render him the easy victor over the American manufacturer 
 who has invested his capital in this country and gives employment 
 to the citizens of this country and at higher rates of wages than 
 those paid to the foreign workman. 
 
 But any argument that a reduction in the duty on importations of 
 glue and gelatin products, and especially glue, would result in a de- 
 crease in the cost thereof to the consumer, and, therefore, a general 
 saving to the public, is not entitled to any weight whatsoever. To 
 reduce the duty on glue might well result, and no doubt would, in the 
 flooding of the American market with foreign-made glue and even in 
 the dismantling of the American plants, which could hardly hope to 
 compete with the foreign product, but the only persons who would 
 feel any advantage would be those who purchase glue or gelatin in 
 large quantities, because the cost of glue, for example, as a component 
 part of other products is relatively so small that it may be considered 
 as a negligible quantity so far as affecting the cost of any article into 
 the manufacture of wnich it enters is concerned. For instance, the 
 glue which enters into the manufacture of a valuable piece of furniture 
 may cost but a few cents, while a straw hat selling for several dollars 
 requires no more glue than that of a value of about one-half a cent. 
 
 Surely it can not and ought not to be said that the larger purchaser 
 of glue, with protection under other clauses of the tariff act and 
 who uses glue m the manufacture of his products, should be given 
 further aid and protection by the Congress reducing the duties on 
 glue to such an extent as to drive the American manufacturer out of 
 the industry and enabling the larger purchaser of glue to obtain his 
 supply at a price from the foreigner at which the American can not 
 manufacture and vend it. 
 
 The protestant here is not, as above stated, a member nor has it 
 any connection with any trust or combination. Furthermore, from 
 long experience and from an actual knowledge of the conditions 
 existing in the industry, it can be stated positively that the manufac- 
 ture and selling of glue and glue products is not controlled in this 
 country by any trust or combination. 
 
 It is true that some of the packing houses may he engaged hi the 
 manufacture of glue from hides, but at least 65 per cent of the glue 
 and gelatin produced in this country is made in manufactories that 
 are entirely independent and not owned or controlled by any pack- 
 ing house concerns or trust or combinations of any kind. 
 
 To reduce the tariff would be ruinous to the American manufacturer 
 of glue, but it would be a highly advantageous happening for the only 
 Glue Trust in the world, a German-Austrian syndicate, which may 
 now be said on good authority to control practically all of the glue 
 factories of any consequence in Germany, Austria, Belgium, Italy, 
 France, Russia, and other European countries a trust so powerful 
 that it absolutely regulates the production for Europe by regulating 
 the output of its factories and dominates and controls the selling price 
 of glue and gelatin products throughout Europe. This gigantic trust, 
 with an enormous capital and economical methods of conducting its 
 large business, is so powerful that competition by the various inde- 
 
224 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 24^-GLYCERIN. 
 
 pendent concerns in this country with it would be perfectly impos- 
 sible, and the result would be that this trust would make this country 
 a dumping ground for its surplus stock, and the American manufac- 
 turer and his workmen wouloT be in the position of seeing themselves 
 without a market for their joint product at a price which would make 
 it reasonable for them to continue to carry on business. 
 
 The competition between the American manufacturers of glue has 
 for some years past and now is so keen and severe that the result has 
 been to keep the margin of profit to the lowest possible minimum, 
 and to-day it can positively be asserted that the approximate return 
 on capital invested in "glue" is not over 8 per cent, and the great 
 competition has resulted in keeping prices to a uniform and low level, 
 and during the past three years glue is the only article in the list of 
 animal products that has not advanced in price. The price of raw 
 material, on the other hand, has greatly advanced, and the prices 
 paid during the past year for raw materials were higher than any 
 average for over 20 years, and approximately 10 per cent higher in 
 America than in Europe. 
 
 It is earnestly urged, therefore, that the duty upon importation of 
 glue be not changed from those existing at the present time, for if 
 the downward revision proposed should be made it will inevitably 
 result in great harm not only to the man with his capital invested in 
 the industry but also to the many American citizens engaged in the 
 industry and earning their livings and the livelihood of their families 
 therefrom. 
 
 BAUGH & SONS Co. 
 B. H. BREWSTER, 
 
 Vice President. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, PA., January 8, 1913. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 24. 
 
 Glycerin, crude, not purified, one cent per pound; refined, three cents per 
 pound. 
 
 For crude glycerin, see also Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 108. 
 
 GLYCERIN. 
 
 BRIEF OF MARX & RAWOLLE, NEW YORK CITY, REGARDING 
 DUTY ON REFINED GLYCERIN. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 4, 1913. 
 The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: Marx & Rawolle, of No. 100 William Street, Borough 
 of Manhattan, city of New York, a corporation engaged in the manu- 
 facture of refined glycerin, does hereby protest against the reduction 
 of the rate of duty on refined glycerin as was proposed by H. R. 
 2, section 36, from 3 cents to 2 cents per pound, and against any 
 change in the rate of duty on glycerin, whereby a 'difference in the 
 rate of duty between the crude and the refined is less than 2 cents 
 per pound. 
 
 After a full consideration of the matter in the hearings had on 
 tunil measures heretofore adopted it was conceded that the rate of 
 duty on the refined article must exceed the rate on the crude in at 
 
SCHEDULE A. 225 
 
 PABAGBAPH 24r GLYCEBIN. 
 
 least a difference of 2 cents as a fair and just margin to protect our 
 home refiners. 
 
 Under the Wilson bill that difference was maintained and the 
 Dingley Tariff Act continued it, as has also the Payne Tariff Act, 
 and we submit that no change has since occurred in the product 
 itself nor in the difference between the cost of production at home 
 and abroad to make necessary the proposed reduction of 1 cent per 
 pound in the rate of duty on the refined article without any reduction 
 ui the rate on the crude article. 
 
 Believing the purpose of the proposed amendment to be a reduc- 
 tion that will meet the exact line, if possible, of the difference in the 
 cost of production at home and abroad and not to overthrow the pro- 
 tection policy in force for so many years, and as a result of which 
 the refining industry in this country was encouraged and made 
 possible, we feel reasonably sure that a thorough consideration of the 
 matter will show that this proposed reduction will be unjust and 
 unfair to the refiner in this country. 
 
 The bulk of crude glycerin imported contains only about 80 per 
 cent anhydrous crude glycerin, the remaining 20 per cent consisting 
 of salt, water, and impurities, and as the duty is imposed on the~ 
 weight of the material as received, there is in effect a duty of 1.25 
 cents per pound on the crude article. Refined glycerin as made in 
 Europe contains from 98 to 99 per cent actual glycerin, no salt, and 
 only from 1 to 2 per cent water, so that in reality the only protection 
 the refiner in this country will get if the proposed amendment goes 
 into effect will be about three-quarters of a cent per pound, which is 
 not a sufficient margin, because of the higher cost of labor in this 
 country, to protect the home manufacturer in his own market against 
 foreign competition. 
 
 The cost of labor employed in this business is almost 50 per cent 
 less in Europe than here, unskilled labor in Europe receiving from 10 
 to 14 cents per hour and skilled labor from 20 to 25 cents per hour, 
 while in this country unskilled labor receives from 18 to 22i cents 
 per hour and skilled labor from 30 to 35 cents per hour. The other 
 elements of the cost of production are as low as the strictest attention 
 and improvements in methods and machinery can make them. 
 
 It is to enable the home manufacturer to continue the present rate 
 of wages that a difference of at least 2 cents per pound between the 
 rate of duty on the crude and refined article is demanded or otherwise 
 the cost of labor will have to be reduced to enable the refiners here 
 to meet foreign competition, because in a fair contest, all the condi- 
 tions except the price of labor being equal, the producing country 
 paying the highest wages can not successfully compete and must 
 ultimately be defeated. 
 
 A reference to the Canadian tariff will show the extent to which 
 the difference in duty between the crude and refined article must go 
 to protect the Canadian refiner against foreign competition. In 
 Canada crude glycerin is admitted free of duty, while the refined 
 glycerin, if imported from England and its colonies, must pay a 
 duty of 15 per cent, and if imported from the United States and other 
 countries a duty of 17i per cent. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 15 
 
226 TARIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 24r-GLYCERIN. 
 
 The report of the House of Representatives on Schedule A, para- 
 graph 36, page 77, shows that the duty at the rate of 1 cent per pound 
 on the crude glycerin, based on estimates for a 12-month period 
 under H. R. 20182, equals a duty of 9.26 per cent ad valorem, and at 
 the rate of 2 cents per pound on the refined glycerin, based on esti- 
 mates for like period, equals a duty of 9.75 per cent ad valorem, a 
 difference of less than one-half of 1 per cent ad valorem between the 
 rate on crude and refined glycerin. 
 
 We do therefore protest against this proposed reduction of the rate 
 of duty on refined glycerin as proposed by H. R. 20182, as manifestly 
 unjust and unfair to the refiner at home in that it will not provide 
 protection sufficient to enable the manufacture of refined glycerin at 
 home to meet foreign competition on a fair and equitable basis. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 MARX & RAWOLLE, 
 By H. CALDER, Treasurer. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY HARSHAW FULLER & GOODWIN CO., 
 CLEVELAND, OHIO. 
 
 HARSHAW FULLER & GOODWIN Co., 
 
 Cleveland, January 6, 1913. 
 
 SIR: We respectfully request that no reduction be made in the 
 duties on this article but that the paragraph be amended to read as 
 follows : 
 
 Glycerin, crude, not purified, 1 cent per pound; refined, 3 cents 
 per pound; usual iron drums as containers, free. 
 
 For the past 15 years we have operated a factory at Elyria, Ohio, 
 in connection with our chemical works there, in which we have taken 
 crude glycerin, imported from foreign countries, and by a process of 
 refining nave converted it into refined or chemically pure glycerin. 
 
 The operation of any factory within the United States where 
 imported raw material is used, involves the transportation of that 
 raw material from abroad to the point where the factory is located. 
 This transportation charge is on the gross amount of such raw mate- 
 rial, and any loss of such raw material in manufacture involves a 
 freight expense which the imported manufactured goods does not bear. 
 This loss in refining glycerin is approximately 20 per cent. 
 
 There must also be considered the difference in manufacturing 
 costs, including added cost of buildings, machinery, labor, and general 
 expense of carry big on the business upon the plane of American life 
 in contrast with that obtaining abroad. 
 
 In carrying on the business in Elyria, Ohio, of converting crude 
 glycerin into the high quality of refined glycerin required by the pure 
 food and drugs law of the United States, a difference of at least 2 
 cents pci; pound between the duties on crude glycerin and refined 
 glycerin is positively required, and even then the business is only 
 moderately profit aide. 
 
 During the year 1912 there were produced in our factory at Elyria 
 and distributed throughout the United States approximately 5,000,000 
 pounds of refined glycerin. The gross profit on this business did not 
 exceed 9 per cent, leaving a net profit, after deducting cost of labor, 
 
SCHEDULE A. 227 
 
 PARAGRAPH 25- INDIGO. 
 
 fuel, plant depreciation, taxes, insurance, buying and selling expense, 
 etc., of possibly 4 per cent. 
 
 It can readily be seen that any change in duties, reducing the dif- 
 ferential duties between the crude and refined products, would com- 
 pel us to close our factory in this country and, if we desired to continue 
 the business of manufacturing refined glycerin for distribution in this 
 country, to build a factory abroad. 
 
 Prior to the enactment of the tariff act of 1909 the iron drums used 
 as containers for glycerin were admitted free, but since the enactment 
 of this law the Treasury Department has collected a duty of 30 per 
 cent, under paragraph 151 of Schedule C, which reads: Cylindrical 
 or tubular tanks or vessels, for holding gas, liquids, or other material, 
 whether full or empty, 30 per cent ad valorem." Under this ruling 
 the importers of crude glycerin have been obliged to pay this duty, 
 which is equivalent to approximately $1.75 per drum or one-quarter 
 of a cent per pound on glycerin contents, and this is, in effect, an 
 additional duty on glycerin, for in selling these drums the price real- 
 ized was the same as American-made drums, resulting in a loss to 
 the manufacturers of refined glycerin of approximately the amount of 
 the duty. 
 
 It is our contention that the framers of the law never intended to 
 impose this duty on the regular drums used as containers of glycerin, 
 but the Treasury Department have held otherwise under the above- 
 named schedule. 
 
 Respectfully, RALPH L. FULLER, Secretary. 
 
 Hon. O. W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives , Washington, D. C. 
 
 PARAGBAPH 25. 
 
 Indigo extracts or pastes, three-fourths of one cent per pound; indigo, 
 cannined, ten cents per pound. 
 
 INDIGO. 
 
 STATEMENT OF E. C. KLIPSTEIN, ESQ., REPRESENTING A. KLIP- 
 STEIN & CO., OF NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent the firm 
 of A. Klipstein & Co., of New York. We are importers, and conse- 
 quently we have not come here to say that any of the things you have 
 done or are going to do are going to ruin us. We have been up 
 against it for the last 40 years on the tariff; they have all been 
 against us. 
 
 But what I do want to call to your attention is the necessity for 
 clearness and precision in drawing the paragraphs of the tariff. In 
 paragraph 38 of the proposed law, which refers to indigo and its 
 products, this paragraph is exactly the same as the paragraph under 
 the present law, the Payne law, and as that paragraph was under the 
 Dingley law, except that it contained the word indigo" in addition 
 to ' indigo paste" and "extracts of indigo." 
 
 We are now importing some new products of indigo, new colors 
 that are directly produced from indigo. We were importing these 
 
228 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 25 INDIGO. 
 
 products under the Dingley bill, but we brought them in as indigo 
 paste, at three quarters of a cent a pound. The present law contains 
 exactly the same provision as the DingJey bill. It reads exactly the 
 same way, but as the first importation came in under this law, the 
 duty of 30 per cent was assessed on this stuff as an aniline color. 
 
 We immediately protested, and the Board of General Appraisers 
 decided hi our favor, that the duty should be three quarters of a cent 
 a pound. The Government attorney appealed it to the customs 
 court, and the customs court decided that the attorney had no case, 
 and threw it out of court. The customs attorney then made up a new 
 case, and brought it before the Board of General Appraisers. 
 
 The first importation came in soon after the passage of the present 
 law, and it is not out of the customhouse yet. We do not know 
 to-day whether we are going to pay on the stuff that we have im- 
 ported during the past two years three quarters of a cent a pound or 
 whether we are going to pay 30 per cent as an aniline color. We can 
 not make the price to the consumer what we think we ought to make, 
 and it acts as a disadvantage to us, as compared with similar dyes 
 that are brought in by other people that come under another list. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. All indigo that is imported now is artificial indigo, 
 made out of coal tar ? 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. There is very little of anything else. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. The indigo has been driven out of the market. 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. In the past year, the last drop in price on that 
 received from the Swiss was from 16 to 15. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. The law as proposed is: 
 
 " Coal-tar dyes or colors not especially provided for * * * 25 
 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 But indigo is especially provided for at 10 per cent. How could 
 there be a question whether indigo was a coal-tar dye or color or an 
 intermediate product ? 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. This dye we are bringing in is not an indigo 
 itself. It is a bromide of indigo; it is a direct derivative. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Then it would be extract. 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. Extract or paste. But that word "paste" is 
 indefinite. What does it mean ? It used to mean sulphate of indigo, 
 which is used very little now. Bromide of indigo has come Into large 
 and important use, and it is necessary to make a distinction. 
 
 What I propose is to treat indigo exactly the same as alizarine is 
 treated. Alizarine is one of the fast dyestuffs, and so is indigo, 
 They have always been handled in the tariffs since 1883 on the free 
 list, for the benefit of cotton manufacturers. There is no reason why 
 indigo should not be treated the same as alizarine. 
 
 Paragraph No. 6 reads as follows: "Alizarine, natural or artificial, 
 and dyes derived from alizarine or from anthracene." 
 
 Indigo, in the natural condition, or as paste, and sulphate of indigo 
 do not mean anything at all. Isatin corresponds to anthracene. I 
 think the tariff should read "Indigo, or dyes derived from indigo or 
 isatin." As I said, isatin corresponds to anthracene. You would 
 be treating indigo as you treat alizarine, and you would remove 
 the uncertainty. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 229 
 
 PARAGRAPH 25 INDIGO. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. How many of the coal-tar dyes or colors would that 
 remove from the 25 per cent list and bring them down as a derivative 
 of indigo ? 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. It would not remove any. All the dyes that are 
 there now would remain. But, as I say, this word "isatin" prac- 
 tically corresponds to anthracene in regard to alizarin. 
 
 I am not asking or opposing a duty on these dyes. If you put a 
 duty on this class of dyestuff I do not believe it would make very 
 much difference. Nobody would object very much, and you would 
 get $180,000 revenue; you would get twice as much revenue from 
 indigo as from anthracene, because there is about $1,200,000 from 
 indigo and about $600,000 from anthracene, etc. 
 
 As I have said, the word "paste" is very indefinite. You might 
 just as well use "chocolate" or "ice cream." So much for that. 
 That is all I have to say about that. 
 
 There is another paragraph, No. 50, that covers alizarin oil, alizarin 
 assistant. I have it here, and I will read the first three or four lines, 
 to make myself intelligible : 
 
 Alizarin assistant, sulphoricinoleic acid, and ricinoleic acid, and soaps containing 
 castor oil, any of the foregoing in whatever form, and all other alizarin assistants and 
 all soluble greases used in the process of softening, dyeing, or finishing, not specially 
 provided for. 
 
 And so forth. 
 
 Alizarin assistant was put into the tariff in the McKinley bill. It 
 was not even shown in 1883 what it was made of exactly. As a matter 
 of fact alizarin assistant, the words used, used to apply as well to 
 sulphonated castor oil used in dying alizarin, and sometimes a little 
 olive oil was used. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. That is the turkey red dye ? 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. Yes. There was a man in Moscow, named Miller 
 Jacobs, that got a patent on it; it was bought, and there was a dis- 
 pute. That is the reason why alizarin assistant is quoted always in 
 the tariff here with castor oil. It was put in at the time of the Mc- 
 Kinley bill on account of this dispute over the Miller Jacobs patent. 
 
 As a matter of fact the use of sulphonated oilsJs one hundred times 
 greater than it was in the days of the McKinley oill. Not only that, 
 but they are sulphonating a great many other oils. In the last two 
 or three years more particularly they have been sulphonating fish 
 oils, cod oils, and using them in the leather business. The con- 
 sumption in the leather business is more than the other consumption 
 all together, and more important. 
 
 What I wanted to point out was that under this tariff, which is 
 practically the same as the one to-day, there is an English firm sul- 
 phonating fish oil, cod oil, and Japanese seal oil, which pays no duty 
 in England, sulphonating it, mixing it with mineral oil and some 
 other cheap oils, shipping it to the United States and selling it as a 
 "soluble grease fit only for leather dressing." 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. What is the name of that firm ? 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. The name is Livingston, but it is not going to be 
 confined to Livingston. As soon as you say I can do it, I will be 
 there. And I only want to point out here that, for the sake of 
 
230 TABIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 35 INDIGO. 
 
 clearness, you use the term, " sulphonated oils." It is not too long. 
 It is not indefinite; it is a perfectly definite term. If you will simply 
 say that sulphonated oil should pay this duty, that will give rise to 
 no uncertainty, because it stops here with the word "finishing." 
 
 I was in the trial myself before the Board of General Appraisers in 
 New York when this man argued his case there, and all he claimed 
 was it was not suitable for dyeing and finishing. Consequently they 
 said that is not covered by this paragraph, and they let it in free of 
 duty as a grease. 
 
 If you would make these two paragraphs plain, it does not amount 
 to very much. They ought to be plain. Being an importer I am 
 running up against it all the time with the customhouse, and I would 
 like to see these things cleared up. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. When we come to write the bill, we will give 
 careful consideration to what you say. 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. Thank you. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. How long have you been an importer? 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. About 25 years. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. Is there an organization of importers.in New York 
 City? 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. How long has it been in existence ? 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. That I do not know about. I believe I belong 
 to it myself, but I have never attended any of its meetings. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. Is it not organized for the purpose of promoting 
 the interests of importers? 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. That is what it is for, for protecting the importers. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. You do not know the objects of it other than that ? 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. Its object is to promote the interests of the im- 
 porters. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. And bring in as much foreign goods as possible ? 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. That is not it at all. The importers ever since I 
 have been coming down hero, and I have been before every tariff 
 committee since the days of McKinlcy we have always been defend- 
 ing ourselves against manufacturers that had to be protected. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. Who is the president of the association ? 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. I do not know that. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. Has it a board of directors ? 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. I suppose so. As I tell you, I have never at- 
 tended a meeting of it. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. Can you give us that information ? 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. I can get it for you if you want it. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. I would like to have that in the record, the name of 
 the president, the other officers, its objects, and if it has a constitution 
 and by-laws I would like to have that set out in full. 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEIN. The importers have had the whole force of the 
 Government against them, just as it lias been in favor of manufac- 
 turers, but still we have managed to exist. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. Will you kindly get that information for us? 
 
 Mr. KLIPSTEJN. Yes, sir. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 231 
 
 PARAGRAPH 25 INDIGO. 
 
 ALIZARIN AND DYES DERIVED PROM ALIZARIN OR ANTHRACENE. 
 INDIGO INDIGO PASTES. 
 
 From time immemorial the two "fastest" and best natural dyes were madder and 
 indigo. The colors produced by these dyes were alike fast to washing and to light, 
 and wherever the human race exists they have been preferred on that account to all 
 other colors. For this reason when the development of the coal-tar dye industry 
 began, the first problems attacked by the chemists were the synthetic production of 
 madder and indigo. The first was solved nearly 40 years ago by the production of 
 alizarin from anthracene, with the result of destroying the madder-raising industry 
 of Europe. The second problem has only been solved within the past 10 years by 
 the production of synthetic indigo from anilin or naphthalene. The result has been 
 the utter extinction of the indigo-planting industry. In House bill 20182, passed 
 by the House in 1912, paragraph 6 reads as follows: "Alizarin, natural or artificial, 
 and dyes derived from alizarin or from anthracene, 10 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 The imports and values of these dyes were stated as follows: 1905, 4,076,573 pounds, 
 value $625,076; 1910, 3,605,854 pounds, value $647,948; 1911, 3,188,037 pounds, 
 value $709,909. 
 
 It follows, from these figures, that while the quantity of these dyestuffs decreased 
 25 per cent the value increased 13 per cent. These figures show that either the value 
 or the character of the dyes grouped under this head had undergone a change, and the 
 figures correspond with the commercial facts. Since 1905 the consumption of aliza- 
 rine dyes, properly so called, has decreased; but an entirely new class 01 dyes, known 
 as "fast vat dyes," of which indanthrene blue is a type, have come into use. These 
 dyes are admitted free of duty, because they are derived from anthracene, and 
 because they are new and patented dyes, the price is very much higher than the old 
 alizarine dyes properly so called. That is why the value has increased while the 
 quantity has declined. 
 
 These new dyes are patented and chiefly sold by one German firm. They are termed 
 "fast vat dyes" because they are very fast, like indigo, and are dyed in a vat like 
 indigo, being in both these points different from all former dyestuffs. In the last 
 few years this class of dyes has increased rapidly owing to the demand for "fastness" 
 to light, washing, etc. In consequence, the whole invention ability of all the dye 
 manufacturers in Europe has been devoted to their production. As a result there 
 are to-day on the market many "fast vat dyes." Some of them are produced from 
 anthracene, some from indigo or isatin. But in spite of their similarity in the prop- 
 erty of fastness and of their mode of application by "vat" dyeing, only those derived 
 from alizarine or anthracene are admitted duty free, while all the rest must pay 30 
 per cent duty. The House bill, 20182, proposes 10 per cent duty on dyes derived from 
 alizarine. Whether such dyes pay 10 per cent or are made free of duty, the chief 
 producer of them is one German company, who thus obtains an advantage over all 
 other dye manufacturers who make their "fast vat dyes" from other products, such 
 as indigo or isatin. 
 
 All these dyes are coal-tar products and there is no reason whatever why they 
 should not be classed with all other coal-tar dyes and be made to pay the same duty . But 
 this paragraph is one of the curiosities of Amrican tariff legislation, because it demon- 
 strates that for the past 30 years the Congress of the United States has been uncon- 
 sciously passing tariff bills in the special interest of German manufacturers. The 
 first appearance of the word alizarine was in the tariff act of 1883, in which the free list 
 contained the paragraph ' ' Alizarine, natural or artificial . " At that time the Badische 
 Aniline and Soda Fabrik claimed to have a United States patent for the production 
 of alizarine from anthracene, and sold a 20 per cent alizarine in the United States 
 at $1 to $1.25 a pound. A few years later this patent was declared invalid by the 
 United States Supreme Court, other manufacturers were allowed to sell in this coun- 
 try, and in consequence the price of alizarine dropped to 11 cents per pound, thus 
 proving conclusively that the cost of a dyestuff is more dependent upon competition 
 than upon the tariff. 
 
 The next appearance of the word alizarine was in paragraph 478 of the act of October 
 1, 1890 the McKinley bill which read as follows: "Alizarine, natural or artificial, 
 and dyes commercially known as alizarine yellow, alizarine orange, alizarine green, 
 alizarine blue, alizarine brown, alizarine black." All of these dyes were special 
 products of the same German company and not one of them was made from alizarine. 
 
 In the Wilson Tariff Act passed August 27, 1894, the matter was made more general 
 and therefore worse. Paragraph 368 of the free list of that act read: "Alizarine and 
 
OJ2 TAEIFP HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGRAPH 25 INDIGO. 
 
 alizarine colors or dyes, natural or artificial." But this act, at least, put all manu- 
 facturers of dyes on the same level. It was, however, indefinite and lead the foreign 
 manufacturers to call every new dye invented an alizarine dye, and this indefiniteness 
 was sought to be remedied in the Dingley tariff of July 24, 1897, where paragraph 469 
 of the free list reads: "Alizarin, natural or artificial, and dyes derived from alizarin 
 or from anthracin." 
 
 It will be plain from the foregoing that for the past 30 years a few German manu- 
 facturers have been able to dictate an important paragraph of the United States tariff 
 and to-day enjoy privileges not granted to other manufacturers of the same class of 
 dyes. During the years that have passed since the tariff act of 1883 the manufacture 
 of alizarin and on the dyes most directly derived from it has been monopolized 
 by about three German firms and has become the most profitable branch of the dye 
 business, because in consequence of this monopoly the price of alizarin 20 per cent 
 has been advanced from 11 cents to 15 cents per pound. This advance of 40 per cent 
 in price is 33 per cent more than the 30 per cent duty on other coal-tar dyes, and 
 proves that the solicitude of the German dye makers for lower duties is not because 
 they want the American consumer to have the benefit of low prices but because it 
 will enable them to get higher prices and make larger profits. 
 
 Since the tariff act of 1883 it has been the policy of Congress to put not only alizarin 
 but indigo on the free list for the benefit or the textile industries, "When synthetic 
 indigo replaced the natural product, this policy was continued. The existing tariff 
 places indigo in paragraph 692 of the free list. In other words, indigo and alizarin 
 have been treated alike and kept in the free list since 1883. On the other hand, dyes 
 derived from alizarin or anthracene have been made free while dyes derived from 
 indigo or isatin have been made dutiable, although they belong to the same class, 
 both as to fastness and method of application. This should not be. All the new 
 dyes derived from indigo or isatin are even faster than indigo itself, and they are 
 dyed in a vat exactly the same as indigo. This is also true of the new dyes derived 
 from alizarin, which are dyed not like alizarin, but like indigo. The new tariff 
 should treat both these classes of fast dyes alike. If alizarin and dyes derived from 
 anthracene and alizarin are free or taxed 10 per cent, or 20 per cent, then indigo and 
 dyes derived from indigo or isatin should be treated exactly the same. To make one 
 class free and tax the other or to impose one rate on one class and another rate on the 
 other would be to discriminate unjustly in favor of special manufacturers, to the great 
 inconvenience of the consumer, who must often use both classes at the same time 
 to get his results. Since the manufacture of synthetic indigo and dyes derived from 
 indigo and isatin was commenced the price of 100 per cent indigo has declined from 
 the parity of $2 per pound to 75 cents per pound, thus permitting its greatly increased 
 use and rendering it and its derivatives more important as dyestuffs than formerly, or 
 even than alizarin. I am not arguing to have these two classes of dyes put in the 
 free list, but if the necessity for revenue makes a tax advisable, both justice and com- 
 mon sense require that the tax be the same on both. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 E. 0. KLTPSTEIN. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 6, 1913. 
 
 INDIGO STATISTICS. 
 
 The imports of indigo can not be compared by quantity becanse some of it contains 
 20 per cent, some 50 per cent, and some 100 per cent. The total value of indigo 
 imported in 1900 was $1,446,490. The total value from Germany $319,329 (21.3 per 
 cent), $1,127,161 (78.7 per cent). The total value imported in 1911 was $1,152,518. 
 The total value from Germany $987,082 (85.6 per cent), $165,436 (14.4 per cent). 
 
 The imports from Germany represent synthetic indigo and consequently the amount 
 of synthetic indigo used as compared with the total consumption has gone up from 
 
 .3 per rent in J900 to 85.6 per cent in 1911. Last year the manufacture of synthetic 
 indigo was commended in Switzerland and the German convention at once dropped 
 the price from 16-^ cents net per pound for 20 per cent paste to 15 cents net, a fan of 
 about 9 per cnnt. 
 
 Based on the imports for the year 1911, viz, indigo to the value of $1,152,518 and 
 alizarin-anthracene dyes $650,000, a 10 percent duty on those two products would 
 produce a revenue of $180,251 yearly. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 233 
 
 PARAGRAPH 25 INDIGO. 
 
 ALIZARIN ASSISTANT CASTOR OIL. 
 
 Hon. 0. W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee: 
 
 House bill 20182 in paragraph 50 makes the duty on castor oil 20 cents per gallon and 
 on the sulphonated oil made from it, known as alizarin assistant, 15 per cent ad valo- 
 rem. These are practically the rates of the Wilson bill, which made the duty on 
 castor oil 35 cents per gallon and on alizarin assistant 30 per cent. The Wilson bill 
 seriously injured the manufacturers of assistant and it is certain the rates now pro- 
 posed would do the same, because the duty on the finished product is relatively lesa 
 than on the raw material, castor oil. In this case three rates of duty must be con- 
 sidered: First, the duty on castor beans; second, the duty on castor oil; third, the 
 duty on alizarin assistant. 
 
 The McKinley tariff in 1890 imposed the following rates: Castor beans, 50 cents 
 per bushel; castor oil, 80 cents per gallon; alizarin assistant (containing 50 per cent 
 of castor oil), 80 cents per gallon, less than 50 per cent, 40 cents per gallon; all other, 
 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 The Wilson bill in 1894 reduced the duty on castor beans to 25 cents per bushel, on 
 castor oil to 35 cents per gallon, and on alizarin assistant to 30 per cent. 
 
 The Dingley Act of 1897 and the Payne bill both retained the low rates of the 
 Wilson bill on castor beans (25 cents per bushel) and on castor oil (35 cents per gal- 
 lon), but made the rates on alizarin assistant to correspond, viz, 30 cents per gallon 
 when it contained over 50 per cent of castor oil, 15 cents per gallon when it con- 
 tained less than 50 per cent castor oil, and 30 per cent ad valorem when made of 
 other than castor oil. 
 
 The makers of both castor oil and alzarin assistant have managed to exist com- 
 fortably in spite of the tremendous reduction of duty in the Dingley and Payne 
 bills as compared with the McKinley bills, because the duties on beans, oil, and 
 alizarin assistant were justly proportioned. 
 
 In view of this fact both the makers of castor oil and of alizarin assistant would 
 be perfectly satisfied with a reduction of duty on their products if you will make 
 a corresponding reduction in the duty on castor beans; and in that case you could 
 not do better than to follow the relative rates of the present tariff and make the 
 duties about as follows: Castor beans, 12 cents per bushel; castor oil, 20 cents per 
 gallon; alizarin assistant, containing 50 per cent and over of castor oil, 17 cents per 
 gallon, containing less than 50 per cent castor oil, 10 cents per gallon. If made from 
 any other oil than castor oil, 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 The consumption of sulphonated oils has increased very much in the past few 
 years, and a great many other oils are being so treated besides the castor oil. This is 
 notably true of fish oils, cod oils, etc., which when so treated are largely used by the 
 leather industry. It is important, therefore, to specify clearly that all sulphonated 
 oils must pay a duty say, 20 per cent as otherwise foreign manufacturers can 
 evade the duty on oils by sulphonating them. As a matter of fact, at the present 
 time an English manufacturer is sulphonating fish oil and shipping it in large quan- 
 tities to this country free of duty as a "soluble grease fit only for leather dressing." 
 This is a fraud on the revenue and should be rendered impossible in the new tariff. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 E. C. KLIPSTEIN. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 6, 1913. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 26. 
 
 Ink and ink powders, twenty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 27. 
 
 Iodine, resublimed, twenty cents per pound. 
 See Mallinckrodt Chemical Works et al., page 49. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 28. 
 
 lodoform, seventy-five cents per pound. 
 See Mallinckrodt Chemical Works et al., page 49. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 29. 
 
 Licorice, extracts of, in paste, rolls, or other forms, two and one-half cents 
 per pound. 
 For licorice root, etc., see also Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 103. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 30. 
 
 Chicle, ten cents per pound. 
 
234 TARIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 30 CHICLE. 
 
 CHICLE. 
 
 BEIEF OF THE ISAAC KUBIE CO., NEW YORK, IT. Y. 
 
 NEW YORK, February 3, 1918. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. 0. 
 
 SIR: We would like to call your attention to the rate of duty on 
 chicle, which to-day is 10 cents a pound, and there is no other con- 
 dition included in the paragraph which we believe is not just, for the 
 following reasons : 
 
 The American Chicle Co., Wm. Wrigley, jr., Co., the Sen-Sen Co. 
 (Ltd.), etc., otherwise known as the trust, forward practically all the 
 gum they receive in transit to Canada, where it is ground, cleaned 
 and all tne moisture and foreign matter taken out, and is then reim- 
 ported into the United States. This process, however, reduces the 
 weight about 30 per cent, and naturally the Government loses the 
 duty on said shrinkage, besides which the labor which would other- 
 wise be performed by the residents of this country, and the greater 
 number of people which would be employed. 
 
 We do not know the exact number of smaller manufacturers of chicle 
 chewing gum, but there are from 150 to 200 scattered all over this 
 country that have not sufficient capital to enable them to do the same 
 as the trust is doing, and therefore they are at a disadvantage and 
 find it extremely difficult to compete with the trust. 
 
 We would suggest, therefore, that in revising the tariff, paragraph 
 30, Schedule A, it read as follows: 
 
 Chicle: Crude, in solid or liquid form, 10 cents per pound. Refined, cleaned, 
 dried chicle, advanced in manufacture or in anywise prepared for making chewing 
 gum, or similar purposes, 25 cents per pound; chewing gum prepared for sale without 
 any further manufacture, 50 cents per pound. 
 
 It is possible that the trust will be manufacturing the chicle in 
 foreign countries and import it into this country unless some such 
 step as we suggest herein is taken, and while the gist of our meaning 
 is expressed above, \ve have not the slightest objection to your chang- 
 ing the wording in such manner as to make the distinction between 
 the various classes of chicle clearer, and the rate of duty on each 
 respective class well defined and without liability of misinterpretation. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 ISAAC KUBIE Co., 
 ISAAC KUBIE, President. 
 
 BEIEF OF AMERICAN CHICLE CO., NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 3, 1913. 
 The WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 JIouKt of Representatives, Washington. D. C. 
 
 SIRS: We und"istand .hat section 37 of bill 20182, which passed the 
 House of Representatives on February 20, 1912, will be included in 
 the tariff bill your committee now has under consideration. As large 
 gatherers, importers, and users of the article known as gum chicle, we 
 respectfully request your attention to the following statement: 
 
SCHEDULE A. 235 
 
 PARAGRAPH 30 CHICLE. 
 
 First. Gum chicle is the sap of the sapote tree and is found only in 
 Mexico, Guatemala, and British Honduras, and is used in the United 
 States solely in the manufacture of high-class chewing gums. 
 
 Second. The gathering of gum chicle is attended by many diffi- 
 culties and risks. The crop of chicle is determined by the rainfall. 
 A drought in the early part of the year affects the output to a large 
 extent, and may involve the gathers in heavy financial loss. If the 
 rainfall be abnormally heavy, the roads become impassable for 
 months, thereby increasing me cost of transportation. An added 
 trouble will be seen in the disturbed political conditions of Mexico. 
 
 Third. Gum chicle contains a large percentage of water, much of 
 which must be extracted before it can be incorporated with the other 
 ingredients hi the manufacture of chewing gum. During the past 
 12 years 29 per cent of water has been extracted from gum chicle 
 used by us. 
 
 Fourth. The present import duty on gum chicle is 10 cents per 
 pound. The average invoiced price is 32 cents per pound, making 
 a duty of over 31 per cent, but on the gum chicle actually usable and 
 used, the duty amounts to 44 per cent. 
 
 Fifth. Your committee will readily see that in the event of section 
 37 of bill No. 20182 becoming law, the duty on chicle actually used 
 will be 88 per cent. 
 
 Sixth. We contend that gum chicle is a raw material and as such 
 should be admitted into the country duty free. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 AMERICAN CHICLE Co., 
 H. ROWLEY, 
 
 Secretary and Treasurer. 
 
 BRIEF OF WM. WRIGLEY, JR., CO., CHICAGO, ILL. 
 
 CHICAGO, January 4, 191S. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives , Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Referring to bill H. R. 20182, which passed the House 
 February 20, 1912, and which we understand will oe the basis of a 
 new tariff bill to be introduced, we desire to protest against an item 
 in section 37, raising the duty on chicle from 10 to 20 cents per pound, 
 for the following reasons : 
 
 First. There is not a pound of gum chicle, so far as we know, raised 
 in the United States, and we have to depend entirely on Mexico, 
 British Honduras, Guatemala, and other tropical countries for our 
 supply. In order to obtain a large supply of gum chicle it is now 
 necessary for us to advance the cost of hiring native help, buying 
 mules, implements, etc., for sending them into the woods to tap the 
 trees, and this advance is often made months before we use the 
 chicle. There is more or less loss by contractors to whom the money 
 is advanced failing to produce the chicle. There have also been 
 advances in the duties to the Governments in the different countries. 
 All of this tends to raise the price of chicle, and inasmuch as we are 
 paying an extremely liberal duty on this article (10 cents per pound), 
 we believe it would be unjust to raise this duty. 
 
236 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 31 EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 Second. The chewing-gum business is very difficult to successfully 
 conduct. This is proven by the fact that many thousands who have 
 gone into this business have failed, and we believe the smaller chew- 
 ing-gum manufacturers who are struggling to make enough to pay 
 their help and a small profit can only continue by raising their prices. 
 
 Third. Thousands of people are employed in the manufacture of 
 chewing gum, and there are many more thousands employed in sell- 
 ing same. There is a large class of people selling chewing gum on 
 the streets in a retail way that are not able to do anything else, and 
 perhaps supporting families by so doing, who would otherwise become 
 a burden to the community. Hundreds of thousands of stores add 
 a little to their profit by selling chewing gum, and inasmuch as raw 
 material, labor, etc., have been steadily advancing, this bill, if it 
 becomes a law, will add an additional burden, which can only be 
 borne by raising the price of chewing gum. 
 
 We respectfully ask that the above letter may receive your careful 
 consideration, and that only a just and equitable duty be placed on 
 gum chicle. 
 
 Very truly, yours, WM. WRIGLEY JR. Co., 
 
 A. G. Cox, Vice President. 
 
 PAEAGRAPH 31. 
 
 Magnesia and carbonate of, medicinal, three cents per pound; calcined, 
 medicinal, seven cents per pound ; sulphate of, or Epsom salts, one-fifth of one 
 cent per pound. 
 
 For calcined medicinal magnesia, see also Mallinckrodt Chemical Works et al.; 
 page 49; for Epson salts, see also W. H. Nichols, jr. page 37, and General Chemical 
 Co., page 39. 
 
 EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF S. G. BOYKIN, REPRESENTING THE N. P. 
 PRATT LABORATORY, ATLANTA, GA. 
 
 Mr. S. G. BOYKIN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the 
 committee- 
 Mr. LONGWORTH (interrupting). Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
 suggest that each witness, if he can, state what paragraph he intends 
 to speak on, and what his interest in it is. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we will be glad to have you state what para- 
 graph you intend to talk about. 
 
 Mr. BOYKIN. Paragraph 31, Schedule A. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. And of what commodity are you a manufacturer? 
 
 Mr. BOYKIN. Epsom salts. I am vice president of the N. P. 
 Pratt Laboratory of Atlanta. I filed my brief with the clerk, and 
 I just want to say that Epsom salts produced in the United States 
 is simply a manufactured article, while the majority of Epsom is 
 dug out of the ground and made from kaiserite. Therefore, we are 
 unable to compete with those people, as ours is a purely manu- 
 factured article. Epsom salts can be imported into the United 
 States with the duty around 65 cents. 
 
 Now, to reduce the duty on Epsom will not benefit the consumer. 
 Why, you can buy for 5 cents all you can carry now and in 10-cent 
 quantities you would have to get a cart to carry it away with you, so 
 the consumer will not be benefited; it will be~the foreign manufac- 
 
SCHEDULE A. 237 
 
 PARAGBAPH 31 EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 turer. This kaiserite is controlled by the general pdtash syndicate, 
 and it will simply put us out of business if this duty is taken off. 
 We are selling it now as cheaply as we can make it, and it will simply 
 be a benefit to German manufacturers rather than to the consumer. 
 We get for Epsom around 85 cents or 90 cents a hundred pounds at 
 the factory, and it is sold to the consumer by the retail drug trade 
 we sell to the wholesalers at anywhere from 10 to 40 cents a pound, 
 so if the imported article comes in to a greater extent it will be the 
 same thing. It will simply put us out of business. We can not com- 
 pete with a 20-cent reduction or a 10-cent reduction on Epsom salts. 
 We would simply have to abandon it. Now, in the past three years 
 two Epsom factories have gone out of business on account of the low 
 price of salts, and I certainly hope you gentlemen will see that the 
 sarn^ duty remains on Epsom. I thank you for your attention, sirs. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir. 
 
 Mr. Boykin presented the following brief of the N. P. Pratt Lab- 
 oratory, Atlanta, Ga., manufacturers of Epsom salts, protesting 
 against a reduction of duty on Epsom salts : 
 
 The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 GENTLEMEN: The tariff act of 1909, page 4, line 34, reads: 
 "Sulphate of magnesia or Epsom salts, one-fifth of 1 cent per pound." 
 The proposed Underwood bill now reads, on page 11, line 22: 
 "Sulphate of magnesia or Epsom salts, one-tenth of 1 cent per pound." 
 We respectfully ask your honorable body to recommend to Congress the retention of 
 the present rate of duty and not to make the reduction fixed in the proposed Under- 
 wood bill for the following reasons: 
 
 1. Epsom salts produced in the United States is strictly a manufactured product, 
 raw materials required being sulphuric acid and carbonate of magnesia, and, conse- 
 quently, the cost of manufacturing is much greater than that of the German article 
 which is mined in the crude state and only needs slight purification. 
 
 2. The proposed reduction in duty will not benefit the American consumer but the 
 beneficiary will be a foreign monopoly. 
 
 On these two points we beg to submit the following: 
 
 EPSOM SALTS PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES IS STRICTLY A MANUFACTURED PRODUCT. 
 
 Considering the high price of raw materials, no American manufacturer could 
 manufacture Epsom salts solely. It is therefore, manufactured in connection with 
 carbonic-acid gas from magnesite and sulphuric acid. 
 
 Grecian magnesite is an imported article, upon which we pay a freight of $5.20 per 
 ton from New York to our plant, in addition to the price per ton to New York, which 
 varies from $7 to $8. While there is no duty on magnesite, it will be seen that the 
 transportation charges are very high. 
 
 To show the cost of manufacturing Epsom salts and the low prices received for same, 
 in the past three years two carbonic acid plants have discontinued the manufacture 
 of Epsom salts, due to the fact of the low selling price and the high cost of materials, 
 even in the face of the present duty. 
 
 THE PROPOSED REDUCTION IN DUTY WILL NOT BENEFIT THE AMERICAN CONSUMER, 
 BUT THE BENEFICIARY WILL BE A FOREIGN MONOPOLY. 
 
 To reduce the tariff from its present basis it will mean a reduction in the selling price 
 of the American producer, and, considering the extremely high cost of producing 
 Epsom salts now, it would mean the discontinuance of the manufacture of Epsom salts, 
 thereby leaving the field in the United States entirely to a foreign monopoly. 
 
 A reduction of 10 cents per 100 pounds in the wholesale price of Epsom salts will 
 never be felt by the consumer, who pays from 15 cents to 40 cents per pound. 
 
238 TARIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 31 EPSOM SAI/TS. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 As manufacturers of carbon dioxide, the process which we are now using will not be 
 the most economical if the duty on Epsom salts is reduced. We have already been 
 seriously considering the abandonment of same and substituting the method of manu- 
 facture from the combustion of coke, and any curtailment of our present profits by rea- 
 son of a reduction in the duty will certainly force us to take this step. Should we aban- 
 don the manufacture of Epsom salts the whole southern territory will be surrendered 
 to the foreign monopoly, for the reason that the ocean freights even now to western 
 points are much lower than our railroad rates to the same places, and any manufacturers 
 remaining in the East will not be able to supply this territory in competition to the 
 
 N. P. PRATT LABORATORY, 
 By S. G. BOYKIN, 
 
 Vice President and Treasurer. 
 
 STATEMENT OF J. G. SHOLES, ESQ., REPRESENTING THE 
 OHIO CHEMICAL & MANUFACTURING CO. 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent the Ohio 
 Chemical & Manufacturing Co., of Cleveland. We are intensely inter- 
 ested in Epsom salts, or sulphate of magnesia. 
 
 The present tariff is one-fifth of 1 cent per pound, while the proposed 
 tariff is one-tenth of 1 cent per pound. We believe that the present 
 tariff is the best revenue getter, and is truly a competitive tariff. Dur- 
 ing 1907 there were imported 4,1 13,000 pounds of Epsom salts, and four 
 years later the importations were 8,000,000 pounds, almost double, 
 showing the rapid increase. The domestic production during 1912, 
 as near as we can figure it, was 16,000,000 pounds. Consequently 
 one-third is imported, while two-thirds is produced. 
 
 If the new traiff goes into effect it will be necessary to import double 
 the quantity to obtain the same revenue. Of course, reducing the 
 domestic production to one-third will practically stop domestic manu- 
 facture. The imports come from the German Potasn Syndicate, who 
 obtain Epsom salts as a by-product. They now ship it into this 
 country at a very low price, from about 37 to 39 cents, and the duty, 
 dockage, insurance, etc., brings it up to 61 or 67 cents. Those at a 
 distance from the coast are able to manufacture and seh 1 it at a very 
 small profit; but if the duty is reduced of course the importations 
 will take its place. 
 
 Epsom salts is manufactured from Grecian magnesite and sulphuric 
 acid. Consequently the sulphuric-acid industry is to an extent inter- 
 ested in the production of the Epsom salts; it assists in the production 
 of it. 
 
 During one-half of the year we use crude Grecian magnesite, which 
 comes into the country free, and during the other half of the year we 
 use calcined magnesite, which in the past has come in free, but the 
 present schedule, I believe, proposes to put a tariff of $1 a ton on that. 
 Consequently we are hit both going and coming. 
 
 The amount of calcined magnesite imported during the fiscal year 
 1912 was 204,997,000 pounds, and the revenue from that would be 
 8102,000. Our consumption of calcined magnesite, although it 
 means a great deal to us, is only a small part of that, and we feel we 
 have no right to object to the proposed tariff for revenue purposes 
 on the calcined magnesite; nevertheless it makes it pretty nard for 
 us, and we hope that the duty of one-fifth of 1 cent per pound will be 
 retained. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 239 
 
 PARAGRAPH 31 EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 With the opening of the Panama Canal we will be able to get our 
 crude magnesite from California, where there are the largest deposits 
 of magnesite in the world, and it will develop mines there which are 
 now inactive, I believe, on account of the very small production on 
 the coast. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Do I understand that for half the year you get 
 your raw material crude ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. And during the other half of the year it is calcined 
 magnesite ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What benefit, if any, would your Epsom salts 
 derive from our placing sulphuric acid on the free list ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. None at all. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Why is that ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Because we could not import sulphuric acid from any 
 other country, I do not think, as cheaply as we could buy it at our 
 door. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON, Is that on account of tlie difficulties of trans- 
 portation or because of the price ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. On account of the difficulties of transportation, I 
 would say. 
 
 Mr. HILL. This business, as stated here in the brief, by a reduction 
 of 10 cents a hundred pounds, will probably stop the manufacture of 
 Epsom salts in the United States ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. That is, $2 a ton ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. It can be very easily figured. It takes 1 pound of 
 calcined magnesite and 3 pounds of sulphuric acid to produce 5 
 pounds of Epsom salts. Koughly the cost would be 2 cents at the 
 present time, although actually slightly in excess of that. To be 
 more accurate, the crude material only costs us in Cleveland 56 cents 
 a hundred pounds. The imported can be purchased at 61 cents 
 f . o. b. New York. Our 56 cents is without even a barrel. A barrel 
 will raise the price on that 10 cents a hundred, making it 66 cents. 
 
 Mr. HILL. There is not much labor involved in its manufacture ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. About 5 cents a hundred. Consequently our figures 
 of 73 cents, or 71 cents during 1911, is what it costs us. 
 
 Mr. HILL. The entire labor of manufacturing would be $1 a ton 
 at 5 cents a hundred ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. That is as much as the entire labor involved in the 
 production ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Yes, sir; twice as much. Moreover, the price of labor 
 should be added to the cost of crude material. 
 
 Mr. HILL. It is not a question of the price of labor in this matter 
 at all? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. No. 
 
 Mr. HILL. It is simply a question of the turning of it over to the 
 German Potash Syndicate, of which the Government is a part owner ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. They do not manufacture Epsom salts. 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Yes, sir. 
 
240 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 31 EPSOM SAI/TS. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. It is a by-product ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. The German Potash Syndicate obtains Epsom salts 
 as a by-product, and if they import to such an extent that do- 
 mestic manufacturers cease to manufacture I do not believe they 
 will continue to sell it at a low price. They have not done it in other 
 things. The present price of Epsom salts in Germany, France, and 
 England to-day is equal to this country or above this country. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You think they will absorb the reduction if it is made ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. They will get the advantage of it, and perhaps the 
 domestic manufacturers will go out of business. Then,' I believe, 
 when we are unprepared to manufacture and give competition, they 
 will raise the price. 
 
 One thing more. I do not think the ultimate consumer will 
 obtain any benefit of a reduction of one-tenth of 1 cent, inasmuch 
 as the man who buys Epsom salts at a drug store pays 5 or 10 cents 
 and obtains a package. It goes into certain preparations, such as 
 mineral waters, and things like that, but the price of those will not 
 be reduced. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Do you think when the Panama Canal is opened 
 you can get your raw material much cheaper? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Not much cheaper; but it will be a higher grade of 
 raw material, at probably about the same price. It will be the 
 natural source for us to obtain our supply. We have been trying 
 to do so for the past 5 or 10 years. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. You are now getting it from Germany, you say ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. We are now getting the raw material from Greece. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. When the Panama Canal is opened up, and you get 
 cheaper freight rates from California, you will not need any tariff? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Not on the crude material. I do not think the raw 
 material will bo decreased in price when the Panama Canal opens, 
 but we will be able to obtain a higher grade of magnesite in probably 
 a little more convenient way. At present it is very difficult to 
 obtain magnesite, because we have to order sometimes six months 
 in advance of our requirements. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Then you will be able to make a better profit ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. No: not a better profit. If crude magnesite comes 
 from Greece and contains 48 per cent of magnesia, we get 48 per cent 
 out of it. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Then you will be able to make Epsom salts cheaper; 
 is that it ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. I do not think it will be any cheaper. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. What is the use of using this better stuff you are 
 going to get from California ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. It might he fractionally cheaper. It requires less 
 labor in a way, and it probably would be somewhat cheaper. It is 
 problematical. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Is it a cheaper process of manufacture? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. No; it is simply a hotter grade. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. You say you can not make any better salts? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. No: because, we can only get 52 per cent of magnesia 
 out of rock from California. In buying from Greece we get 48 per 
 rent, or approximately those figures. Those figures may not be 
 exact but they show the ratio, it depends upon what the price will 
 
SCHEDULE A. 241 
 
 PARAGBAPH 31 EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 be and whether it will be lower or higher, to tell whether it will be 
 cheaper or not. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. I do not see any use of using the California product 
 at all, then, if you can not make it better or cheaper. 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. We will be able to get it more regularly and more 
 quickly, and perhaps a little cheaper, but we can not tell what the 
 price will be. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. There is no duty on .magnesite ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. There is no duty on the raw magnesite, but on calcined 
 magnesite the duty proposed is $1 a ton, and that is what we use 
 one-half of the year. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. Your hope is that by the completion of the Panama 
 Canal you can obtain it cheaper ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. We will be able to get the crude material from Cali- 
 fornia, which we have been trying to get for a number of years. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. This article is sold in the drug stores, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. It is sold in small quantities to individual consumers ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Three or four ounces as a usual thing? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. What effect would it have on the price to the ultimate 
 consumer if we did reduce this duty to one-tenth of 1 cent a pound ? 
 Have you figured it out ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. The ultimate consumer would undoubtedly get no 
 benefit, but the wholesale druggist would. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. The 10 per cent would get lost before it got to him. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I notice in your brief your last statement is: 
 
 These facts are not presented to you at this time as an argument for protection, but 
 to assist you in demonstrating the fact that the greatest amount of revenue can be 
 received by allowing the present duty to stand. 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. We believe it will produce a more equitable revenue 
 to the Government. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is it your interest to give the Government a larger 
 revenue in your particular industry ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. No, not entirely. Each one of us is interested in what 
 we are doing, and if we do not continue in manufacture, we do not 
 believe the Government will get as large a revenue at one-tenth of 
 1 cent per pound as they do now at one-fifth of 1 cent per pound. 
 
 Mr. HILL. As a matter of fact, in one case it is protection and in the 
 other case it is not ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. It is incidental protection. 
 
 Mr. HILL. There is no such thing as incidental protection. 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. It would undoubtedly reach this. 
 
 Mr. HILL. In this case your argument is for protection to your 
 industry ? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I suggest you use an equivalent word. One 
 gentleman did not like the sound of protection. 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. I do not know anything else that would 
 
 Mr. HILL (interposing). You do not like the word? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. I want protection, but I do not like the word. 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 TS959 VOL 113 -16 
 
242 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 31 EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What interests vour company most is the increased 
 revenue the Government will get if we increase this tax, or is it the 
 increased profits you will be able to contribute to your stockholders ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. We want to continue to manufacture, and we do not 
 believe the Government will receive any benefit by our going out of 
 manufacture. By our ceasing to manufacture we believe the Gov- 
 ernment will obtain a less revenue rather than a greater revenue 
 eventually. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You stated that this reduction in the tariff would not 
 make the article any cheaper to the consumer. Then how is your 
 company affected if it would not affect the price to the consumer ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. The ultimate consumer is the man who buys a small 
 amount at the drug store at the price of 5 or 10 cents. It will affect 
 the wholesale druggist. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is not this used for manufacturing purposes, to some 
 extent, in the textiles ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Not so much. It is not used in the textiles to amount 
 to anything; it is very little, as I understand it. That statement has 
 been made, but I have not been able to verify it. It is used in the 
 tanning industry. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. So, then to take the tariff off will not cheapen the article 
 and to increase the tariff will not raise the price ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. I do not quite get that. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. So the tariff does not affect it at all? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Xot to the ultimate consumer. We believe the pres- 
 ent tariff of 20 cents a hundred or one-fifth of 1 cent a pound is the 
 best tariff, for the reason that it is a competitive one. We have to 
 hustle, and we make very little money on it. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. Do you know that the Government only collected 
 $7,000 on Epsom salts? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. My figures for last year show they collected $16,000. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. What is the difference between sulphate of magnesia 
 and Epsom salts ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. They are the same thing. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. The figures that the Treasury Department give show 
 that they got 7,000 out of it last year. Oil, yes; it is 816,000; you 
 are right. 
 
 But if we reduce this tariff we will bring; m more of it, will we not? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. You will bring in more of it. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. Therefore we will got more revenue? 
 
 Mr. SHOLKS. You will have to increase just double. In other 
 words, you will have to bring in 16,000,000 pounds in order to get the 
 present revenue of 816.000. Epsom salts amounts to very little to 
 the Government. I should think that the calcined magnesite would 
 be of greater interest. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWOHTH. Do you or do you not think this, that generally 
 in the chemical industry it would not only not be to the benefit but 
 to the damage of the ultimate consumer in this country to drive any 
 American chemical works out of business? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. 1 do. 
 
 Mr. I.oNowotrnr. In other word... do you not think that the Ger- 
 man manufacturers, if they were relieved of the competition here of 
 
SCHEDULE A. 243 
 
 PARAGRAPH 31 EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 American manufacturers, instead of lowering the price would raise it 
 eventually ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Yea, sir; that is what I have been saying. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. So the ultimate consumer would be at a disad- 
 vantage ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Eventually wherever an American manufacturer 
 is driven out of business ? 
 
 Mr. JAMES. That would depend upon whether or not the American 
 manufacturer were in a monopoly to raise the prices on the consumer, 
 would it not ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. If the tariff is competitive, I do not see how they can. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. I know; but suppose the manufacturers of certain 
 articles are in a monopoly and they raise the price and press the 
 people behind the tariff wall, would you say the ultimate consumers 
 were injured by driving them out of business and letting competition 
 come in ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Of course, the ultimate consumer would be injured in 
 that case. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. That is what I thought. And your answer to Mr. 
 Longworth's question must be corrected. 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. I can only answer with regard to my own business. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You are answering as it relates to your business. 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. As relating to our business, I have tried to say that 
 if the Potash Syndicate imported Epsom salts to this country when 
 American manufacturers have dismantled their plants, using them 
 for other purposes that is, these departments I do not believe the 
 Potash Syndicate will be philanthropic enough to continue the low 
 prices. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Exactly. Wherever you get a duty so low that 
 it does not measure the difference between the cost of production here 
 and abroad, then you drive the American industry out of business, 
 do you not ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Yes; but I can only answer, Mr. Longworth, for the 
 Ohio Chemical & Manufacturing Co. and on Epsom salts, because I 
 am not familiar enough with other lines of business. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Then, I ask you about your own. If the duty is 
 placed below the difference of wtiat it costs you to produce and wnat 
 it costs the syndicate in Germany to produce, or your competitor in 
 Germany or anywhere else to produce, you can not continue in busi- 
 ness? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. That will then be a loss to the consumer, you 
 having been a competitor and having been driven out of business. 
 Will he benefit by that reduced tariff ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. He will not. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. By the reduced price? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. I do not think he will, because the moment we cease 
 to manufacture I believe the German Potash Syndicate would increase 
 the price. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH, Exactly; that is it. 
 
244 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 31 EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. And that the ultimate consumer would not be really 
 as well off as he is to-day with the competition which there is between 
 Germany and America in producing this article and in selling it. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. And that is what protection is, without using the 
 word? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Is there any understanding among the manufacturers 
 who are protected by this chemical schedule that they will all come 
 here and say that they want this tariff maintained at the old rate for 
 the purpose of protecting the people of this country against German 
 syndicates ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Is it not singular that every one of them advance the 
 same argument now for the reason of keeping the tariff up ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Of course that is the evident argument. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How does it happen that these German syndicates do 
 not drive out of business manufacturers who are manufacturing the 
 same thing over in free-trade England, just a few miles from Ger- 
 many, where they can ship their goods for nothing ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. I believe they have an arrangement with England. I 
 have heard it once or twice. I think it was in connection with the 
 brief of the Victor Chemical Co., which they asked me to file for 
 them. When I read the brief it said that they had information to 
 the effect that in attempting to purchase Epsom salts from Germany 
 there was some provision made that if it was resold to England there 
 would be a penalty of 25 cents per 100 pounds. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. That is, according to your position, the German 
 manufacturers of Epsom salts and I presume the same argument 
 would apply to these other things are so solicitous of the English 
 manufacturers that they do not want to interfere with their business, 
 but they feel so antagonistic toward Americans that they would come 
 over here and destroy their business and put up prices to the American 
 consumers when they would not permit it to be done in England ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Xo; I think the price is already up in England. This 
 is only a surmise from what I have always heard; but I believe the 
 prices in England .are higher than they are in America on Epsom salts. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. Do you think they have succeeded in driving out 
 English manufacturers from Emgland ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. Xo; I think there is some arrangement there, so that 
 they use America as a dumping ground. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Like all these other manufacturers, do you pay more 
 wages to your laborers than they do in Germany? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. I do not know what the German scale is. I can only 
 say it is extremely hard to get labor. In the last two years we have 
 increased our wages about 33 per cent. 
 
 Mr. IVAIXEY. Is it not a matter of surprise that almost all these 
 American manufacturers claim they pay twice as much wages as they 
 do in Germany (and I presume yon would claim that, too, if you inves- 
 tigated iO; is it not a matter of surprise that German laborers do not 
 come over here and get the benefit of the increased wages we pay? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. I think they do. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. How manv? 
 
SCHEDULE A. 245 
 
 PARAGRAPH 31 EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Is it not true that the influx of German laborers is 
 comparatively small ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. I have no idea. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. It used to be large when they came over here as 
 agriculturists . 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. I have no idea. I know that if we wanted to-day an 
 excellent chemist, at a low price, we would probably go to Germany 
 for him. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is it not a matter of fact that the competition of Ger- 
 many and England has been so keen that the English have had to 
 change their patent laws and compel the Germans to come over there ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. I am sorry I can not answer your question. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. There is no patent on Epsom salts ? 
 
 Mr. SHOLES. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I was not speaking of Epsom salts. I had in mind dye- 
 stuffs and so on. 
 
 Mr. Sholes presented the following brief, relative to sulphate of 
 magnesia (Epsom salts), on behalf of the Ohio Chemical & Manufac- 
 turing Co., Cleveland, Ohio: 
 
 The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, United States. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: As manufacturers of sulphate of magnesia (Epsom salts) we desire 
 to submit to you our recommendation, urging most strongly the retention of the present 
 duty of one-fifth of 1 cent per pound. At the last session of Congress the chemical 
 schedule as agreed upon by Congress provided for a rate of duty of one-tenth of 1 cent 
 per pound. 
 
 During the year ending June 30, 1907, the importation of Epsom salts amounted to 
 4,113,167 pounds, and under the present law the importations have increased until 
 the amount reached a total of 8,012,228 pounds for the fiscal year of 1912, thus indi- 
 cating that the rate of one-fifth of 1 cent per pound provides a competitive rate, which 
 undoubtedly brings the maximum of revenue for the Government. The revenue to 
 the Government for the fiscal year 1907, upon which the tariff of 1909 was based, was 
 $8,226.33, and for the fiscal year 1912 was $16,034.44, showing a revenue increase of 
 nearly 100 per cent. 
 
 The domestic production of Epsom salts amounts to about 16,000,000 pounds per 
 annum, which together with the importations of about 8,000,000 pounds indicates 
 a yearly consumption of about 24,000,000 pounds. At the rate of duty imposed on 
 the bill of the last session the importations would have to double in quantity in order 
 to produce the same amount of revenue, and at the same time the production in this 
 country would necessarily be curtailed in at least the corresponding degree. 
 
 Epsom salts is made largely of magnesite and sulphuric acid. The magnesite is 
 principally imported from Greece without duty, but your attention is directed to the 
 fact that the chemical schedule of the last session provided a duty of $1 per ton upon 
 magnesite when calcined. Sulphuric acid enters largely into the production under 
 theprocess used by four of six producers of Epsom salts. 
 
 The average cost of producing the article in 1911 by our company was 71 cents 
 per 100 pounds, while our average selling price was 73 cents per 100 pounds. 
 The importations to this country come principally from Germany and represent 
 sales made by the Potash Syndicate. This syndicate obtains the article as a by- 
 product, and they are able under some circumstances to sell same at a very low 
 price. However, our information is that the price generally on Epsom salts in for- 
 eign countries is as high or higher than in this country. 
 
 Your committee has information relative to the manner in which the German 
 Potash Syndicate is able to control the price of potash; and if the rate of duty to 
 this country is lowered in the manner suggested, it would seem that the only bene- 
 ficiary would be this oppressive monopoly. The duty as it now stands is purely 
 competitive; does not allow an excessive protection to American industry. In 
 our opinion the reduction of the duty to one-tenth of 1 cent per pound will practi- 
 cally stop the manufacture of Epsom salts in the United States without any cor- 
 
246 TABIFP HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 31 EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 responding benefit to the general revenues of the Government. A very large pro- 
 portion of Epsom salts is sold in the drug stores throughout the country at prices 
 ranging from 5 to 10 cents per pound. It is quite evident that the reduction of one- 
 tenth of 1 cent per pound on the tariff duty will not affect the price of Epsom salts 
 to this class of the ultimate consumers. They buy only a few ounces at a time, and 
 the price to them would undoubtedly remain the same. Epsom salts also enters 
 into some medicinal preparations; but the retail price of these could not possibly 
 be reduced by reason of any reduction in the pnce of Epsom salts. 
 
 We have already invested large sums in our endeavors to increase the production 
 of this company and we believe that other manufacturers are also increasing their 
 plants, for the reason that if Epsom salta is to be manufactured at all in this country 
 under present conditions a greater volume of business must be done in order to pro- 
 duce the necessary economies. The margin between the cost price and the selling 
 price in 1911, which we consider a representative year in the business, was only 
 2 cents per 100 pounds. If the duty is reduced as proposed, and there is a cor- 
 responding reduction in the selling price, we will be doing business at a loss and 
 must necessarily go out of business of manufacturing the article. The experience 
 which we expect under such circumstances must also be expected by all other 
 manufacturers of Epsom salts in the United States. 
 
 At the present time the raw product, magnesite, is, as stated above, imported from 
 the Grecian Archipelago. There are large deposits of this mineral in the United States, 
 notably in Santa Clara and Stanilaus Counties, Cal. In these places are found the 
 largest known deposits in the world, but on account of the high rail freight rates, it has 
 been found impossible to transport this raw product to the eastern part of the United 
 States, where Epsom salts are manufactured. It is our opinion that with the opening 
 of the Panama Canal all manufacturers will be able to obtain the California magnesite 
 and so assist in bringing into use a material which is now mined only in small quan- 
 tities, due to the fact that there is an insufficient consumption on the Pacific coast. 
 
 Your attention is also called to the fact that sulphuric acid enters so very largely into 
 the manufacture of the article, thus affording a market for another product of our 
 manufacturers. In brief 
 
 First. The present tariff of one-fifth of 1 cent per pound provides a competitive rate. 
 
 Second. A reduction below present rate will not, except by entirely wiping out the 
 industry in this country, provide a larger revenue to the Government. 
 
 Third. The reduction of the tariff would result in benefit only to the German Potash 
 Syndicate, an oppressive monopoly. 
 
 Fourth. The destruction of American producers will result in loss of large amounts 
 of capital with no corresponding benefit. 
 
 Fifth. The small consumer could not possibly receive any benefit from the reduction 
 on account of the manner of selling small quantities. 
 
 These facts are not presented to you at this time as an argument for protection, but 
 to assist you in demonstrating the fact that the greatest amount of revenue to the Gov- 
 ernment can be received by allowing the present duty to stand. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 THE OHIO CHEMICAL & MANUFACTURING Co., 
 J. G. SHOLES, Secretary. 
 
 JANUARY 4, 1913. 
 
 BRIEF OF VICTOR CHEMICAL WORKS, CHICAGO, PROTESTING 
 AGAINST A REDUCTION OF DUTY ON EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AXD MEAXS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 (inxTLEMEx: The tarill' act of 1909, page 4, line 34, reads: 
 
 Sulphate of magnesia or Epsom salts, one-fifth of one cent per pound. 
 The proposed Underwood hill now reads, on page 11, line 22: 
 Sulphate of magnesia or Epsom salts, one-tenth of one cent per pound. 
 
 \\e respectfully ask your honorable body to recommend to Con- 
 gress the retention of the present rate of duty and not to make the 
 reduction lixed in the proposed Underwood bill for the following 
 
 reasons: 
 
SCHEDULE A. 247 
 
 PARAGRAPH 31 EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 1.' The reduction proposed will not result in an increase of revenue 
 to the Government, but rather a decrease. 
 
 2. The proposed reduction will not benefit the American consumer, 
 but the direct beneficiary of it will be a foreign monopoly. 
 
 3. The committee's decision fixing the proposed reduction is 
 based on erroneous information. 
 
 On these three points we beg to submit the following: 
 
 REDUCTION PROPOSED WILL NOT RESULT IN AN INCREASE OF REVENUE 
 TO THE GOVERNMENT, BUT RATHER A DECREASE. 
 
 Attached to this brief will be found statistics on the importations 
 of Epsom salts taken from the Foreign Commerce and Navigation of 
 the United States, published by the Department of Commerce and 
 Labor, Bureau of Statistics. 
 
 It will be noted that at the present rate of duty there were imported 
 into the United States in the year ending June 30, 1907, 4,113,167 
 pounds of Epsom salts. Importations from then on (excepting during 
 1908, when they were 3,631,245 pounds) increased until they reached 
 8,012,226 pounds in 1912. 
 
 It will be readily recognized, therefore, that the import business in 
 Epsom salts has grown tremendously with the present rate of duty. 
 
 A careful estimate of the domestic production of Epsom salts places 
 the total output of the five or six manufacturers in this country at 
 about 15,000,000 pounds per annum. If the duty is reduced, it will 
 mean that 16,000,000 pounds per annum of Epsom salts will have to 
 be brought into this country to insure to the Government the same 
 amount of revenue which it is collecting under the present tariff on 
 8,000,000 pounds. It would mean that to obtain the same revenue 
 the imports would have to be doubled, the domestic production cut 
 one-half. Since American manufacturers have capital invested in 
 plant and other assets of value, it is fair to assume that for a while 
 at least they will run their factories at a loss, rather than dismantle 
 them, so that Congress can not expect to increase the tariff revenue 
 for some years to come by a lowering of the duty on Epsom salts. 
 
 As we have shown above, if all the Epsom salts consumed were 
 imported, the duty under the proposed reduced tariff rate of one- 
 tenth of 1 cent per pound on 23,000,000 pounds would yield a 
 total revenue of $23,000. The Government now is collecting one- 
 fifth of 1 cent per pound on 8,000,000,000 pounds imported under the 
 present tariff rate of one-fifth cent per pound, or $16,000. There- 
 fore, as a revenue producer, the proposed decrease in duty on Epsom 
 salts could, at the very most, yield only $7,000 per annum more than 
 is now collected, and that only after the American factories had all 
 been closed and had ceased to produce. 
 
 We respectfully submit to your honorable committee that this 
 increase in revenue is not worth while if it carries with it a total 
 destruction of an industry employing American capital and American 
 labor. 
 
248 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 31 EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 THE PROPOSED REDUCTION WILL NOT BENEFIT THE AMERICAN CON- 
 SUMER, BUT THE DIRECT BENEFICIARY OF IT WILL BE A FOREIGN 
 MONOPOLY. 
 
 Practical!} 7 " all the Epsom salts which is manufactured in this 
 country is produced from magnesite. 
 
 Magnesite is a mineral which is imported into this country from 
 Greece. Austria, and other European countries. The Epsom salts 
 which is imported is made in Germany and is produced from kieserite. 
 
 Kieserite is one of the minerals found in the potash mines of Ger- 
 many, and its production and sale is under the control of the German 
 Potash Syndicate. The subsidiary companies of this syndicate 
 manufacture Epsom salts and kieserite. and it is this which is imported 
 into this country. Kieserite is a crude, impure Epsom salts, and all 
 that is necessary is to refine it in order to produce the Epsom salts of 
 commerce. 
 
 To produce Epsom salts from magnesite in this country, the 
 magnesite must undergo expensive chemical processes and we are free 
 to admit that the production of Epsom salts from magnesite is more 
 expensive than is the production of Epsom salts from kieserite. It 
 is true that both magnesite and kieserite, under the present tariff, 
 enter the country free of duty, but since kieserite is controlled by the 
 German monopoly, which also makes Epsom salts, it is self-evident 
 that kieserite is available to the manufacturers in this country only 
 on such conditions as the German monopoly, in active competition 
 on the finished material, sees fit to impose. 
 
 The average market price for Epsom salts in barrels, car lots, in 
 this country, is somewhere around 90 cents per 100 pounds, f. o. b. 
 works. We are advised, and we have every reason to believe that it 
 is true, that the prices governing in Germany and England are con- 
 siderably higher. In fact, a quotation which we had some time ago 
 from Germany and which named a low price on Epsom salts, was 
 made with the provision that the product was for delivery and sale 
 in the United States, that if it were sold in the United Kingdom, a 
 penalty of 1 per ton would be exacted. 1 per ton is approxi- 
 mately 25 cents per 100 pounds. 
 
 Your honorable committee will agree, therefore, that the assump- 
 tion is fair that if the proposed change of disty carries with it a 
 destruction of the American manufacturing industry, it will cer- 
 tainly not mean a lower cost to the consumer. As soon as the 
 domestic competition is snuffed out, we can rely on the foreigner 
 placing a higher price on his product than is now in effect under the 
 present system of competition and the consumer, instead of paying 
 less, will pay more for his product. 
 
 We respectfully submit that it would be strange indeed if Congress 
 in these days, where so much legislative effort is exerted toward the 
 rectification of evils due to combinations and trusts, should wipe 
 out of existence an American industry which is on a strictly com- 
 petitive basis, in order to hand the business over to a foreign monopoly 
 over which Congress \has no control, and the selfishness and power of 
 which has made itself so strongly felt in the potash controversy. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 249 
 
 PARAGRAPH 31 EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 That the very existence of this American manufacturing industry 
 is immediately threatened by a reduction of the tariff, is perhaps 
 best emphasized by this statement of fact: 
 
 Two years ago the then largest producers of Epsom salts, viz: 
 the Liquid Carbonic Co., of Pittsburgh, Pa., found it unprofitable 
 to continue even at the present tariff rate, the manufacture of Epsom 
 salts. It discontinued that portion of its business entirely, disman- 
 tled its plant, and sold its machinery. We leave it to the imagination 
 of the members of your honorable committee as to the effect a still 
 lower rate of duty will have on what remains of the industry. 
 
 THE COMMITTEE'S DECISION FIXING THE PROPOSED REDUCTION is 
 
 BASED ON ERRONEOUS INFORMATION. 
 
 Report 326, which is the report on Schedule A, submitted to Con- 
 gress by the Committee on Ways and Means, states on page 88 the 
 consumption in this country of Epsom salts during 1905 as 30,677,838 
 pounds and the consumption for 1910 as 47,785,000 pounds. On 
 page 328 the consumption of Epsom salts for 1904 is given as 15,935,837 
 pounds. 
 
 According to these figures it would appear that the consumption of 
 Epsom salts doubled in 1905 over what it was during 1904. 
 
 No such increase hi the consumption took place. As a matter of 
 fact, the figure of actual consumption of Epsom salts, given by us as 
 23,000,000 pounds per annum during the year ending June 30, 1912, 
 is a conservative estimate and based on a thorough knowledge of the 
 business and is, we believe, as near accurate as can be had. When it 
 is considered, therefore, that the importations of Epsom salts of 
 8,000,000 pounds during the year ending June 30, 1912, represent 
 fully one-third of the total consumption in this country and tnat the 
 importations are increasing at the present rate of duty, we believe 
 that your honorable committee will agree that the foreign producer 
 is already in the position to control the Epsom-salts business in this 
 country and a reduction in duty will simply strengthen the foreigner's 
 hold on the business, without any advantage to the American con- 
 sumer, the American Government, nor the American manufacturer. 
 
 Further, on page 229 of the same report, a statement is made that 
 Epsom salts is used in the industry in dye and print works for making 
 carbonate of magnesia, and the argument has been made that Epsom 
 salts, being an important raw material hi the dye and print industry, 
 the duty should be reduced. As a matter of fact, the quantity of 
 Epsom salts used in the dye and print industry is negligible. In our 
 opinion it amounts to less than 50,000 pounds per annum. The prin- 
 cipal use of Epsom salts is for pharmaceutical purposes. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 We are convinced that the American Epsom salts industry will not 
 be able to maintain itself for very long even at the present rate of 
 duty, but believing that the principle 01 protection is not one that is 
 being considered in framing tariff schedules at this time, we refrain 
 from suggesting the wisdom of increasing the tariff rate on Epsom 
 salts to protect the industry. 
 
250 
 
 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 PARAGRAPH 31 EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 We believe, however, that on the facts as shown not even the most 
 strenuous advocate of free trade will be in favor of a reduction of the 
 duty on Epsom salts, and we respectfully but earnestly petition your 
 honorable committee that the present rate of one-filth cent per 
 pound be maintained. 
 
 VICTOR CHEMICAL WORKS, 
 By AUGUST KOCHS, General Manager. 
 CHICAGO, January 2, 1918. 
 
 Imports entered for consumption, Epsom salts. 
 [Commerce and navigation of the United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Statistics.] 
 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Duties 
 
 Value 
 per unit 
 quan- 
 tity. 
 
 Actual 
 and com- 
 puted ad 
 valorem 
 rate. 
 
 Year ending June 30 1907 
 
 Pounds. 
 4, 113, 167 
 
 $16,072 
 
 $8,226.33 
 
 $0.004 
 
 Per cent. 
 51.18 
 
 1908 
 
 3,631,245 
 
 12,094 
 
 7, 262. 47 
 
 .003 
 
 60.05 
 
 1909 
 
 8,053,235 
 
 26,138 
 
 16, 106. 45 
 
 .003 
 
 61.62 
 
 1910 
 
 6,147,159 
 
 27,330 
 
 12,294.32 
 
 .004 
 
 44.98 
 
 1911 
 
 6, 204, 219 
 
 23,092 
 
 12,408.42 
 
 .004 
 
 53.73 
 
 1912 
 
 8, 012, 226 
 
 31,332 
 
 16,024.44 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BRIEF OF MECHLING BEOS. MANUFACTURING CO., CAMDEN, 
 N. J., RELATIVE TO EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 CAMDEN, N. J., January 4, 1913. 
 The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: We submit to your honorable committee the follow- 
 ing reasons against a reduction in the present rate of duty on Epsom 
 salts. A reduction in the duty will not in any way change the price 
 to the consumers at large. It will probably increase importations 
 and thereby reduce the amount of products manufactured in the 
 United States. A reduction in the tariff can not possibly change 
 the price to the ultimate consumer, as the public at large buys Epsom 
 salts in minute quantities. A reduction in the tariff would not affect 
 the retail prices. 
 
 We further protest on the ground that a reduction of the tariff 
 on a low-priced article is manifestly unfair to manufacturers located 
 on the Atlantic coast, as it opens competition from abroad, which they 
 alone feel. The interior points are not affected because the imported 
 goods can not come into their territory on account of the freight 
 rate from the seacoast. 
 
 The object of a reduction in the tariff is therefore defeated, inas- 
 much as prices are not reduced excepting along the Atlantic coast. 
 
 Trusting that your committee will give the foregoing their consid- 
 eration, wo beg to remain, 
 
 Very truly, yours, MECHLING BROS. MANUFACTURING Co. 
 BEXJ. S. MECHLING, Secretary. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 251 
 
 PARAGRAPH 32 ALIZARIN ASSISTANT. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 32. 
 
 Alizarin assistant, sulpho-ricinoleic acid, and ricinoleic acid, and soaps con- 
 taining castor oil, any of the foregoing in whatever form, in the manufacture 
 of which fifty per centum or more of castor oil is used, thirty cents per gallon; 
 in the manufacture of which less than fifty per centum of castor oil is used, 
 fifteen cents per gallon; all other alizarin assistants and all soluble greases 
 used in processes of softening, dyeing, or finishing, not specially provided 
 for in this section, thirty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 For alizarin assistant, see E. C. Klipstein, page 229; T. S. Todd & Co., page 252; 
 Bosson & Lane, page 254. 
 
 ALIZARIN ASSISTANT. 
 
 BRIEF OF BAKER CASTOR OIL CO., NEW YORK CITY, RESPECT- 
 ING ALIZARIN ASSISTANT OR SOLUBLE OIL. 
 
 The WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Under the Dingley bill the provision with respect to alizarin assist- 
 ant has been subject to criticism, and several cases have been carried 
 to the courts. It is therefore important that the reading of this pro- 
 vision should be so arranged as to eliminate dispute and litigation, 
 and also be so broad as to prevent the real intent of the act from being 
 avoided. 
 
 We are not manufacturers of alizarin assistant, but sell castor oil 
 to those makers of alizarin assistant who do not manufacture their 
 own castor oil. Many foreign manufacturers of alizarin assistant 
 have branch houses in this country and import this oil in quite large 
 Quantities, as you will see from the records of imports. Consequently 
 it can not be claimed that 30 cents per gallon protection on this article 
 is prohibitive. 
 
 Alizarin assistant usually consists of castor oil treated with sul- 
 phuric acid, etc., and is used as a mordant, and has been variously 
 known under the names of alizarin assistant, soluble oil, Turkey red 
 oil, oleate of soda, padding liquor, etc.; various importers bring it 
 under various names in order to endeavor to pass it through the cus- 
 tomhouse at a lower rate of duty than the Government exacts. 
 
 It is made of varying strengths, the strength usually used by the 
 consumer being what is called 50 per cent, that being the percentage 
 of castor oil used in the mixture. It is possible, however, to have 
 almost the entire mass of this article consist of what was originally 
 pure castor oil, in which shape it can be and has been imported into 
 this country, and afterwards, by the addition of water, can readily be 
 reduced to the required strength. 
 
 Alizarin assistant has the property of holding castor oil in solution, 
 just as water would hold sugar in solution, and the castor oil could be 
 thus mechanically mixed with it, imported into this country, and 
 afterwards recovered from the mixture as castor oil by a very simple 
 process. 
 
 Referring to H. R. 20182, this bill made a reduction of duty on 
 alizarin assistant to 15 per cent ad valorem, regardless of the per cent 
 of castor oil in the assistant, and reduced castor oil to 20 cents per 
 gallon. 
 
 To illustrate the gross injustice of a duty of 15 per cent ad valorem 
 on assistant as compared with 20 cents per gallon on castor oil we beg 
 to submit a concrete example: 
 
252 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 32 ALIZARIN ASSISTANT. 
 
 A imports 100 pounds of alizarin assistant containing 50 per cent 
 castor oil or 50 pounds, costing at 4 cents per pound, $45. Cost $45 
 at 15 per cent ad valorem the duty would be 67 cents. 
 
 B imports 50 pounds of castor oil and pays duty of 20 cents a gallon, 
 or $1.25. (Fifty pounds equals 6i gallons.) 
 
 This little example is sufficiently plain to illustrate how necessary 
 it is to have the rate of duty on alizarin assistant within 5 cents per 
 gallon of the rate of duty on straight castor oil. 
 
 We suggest that the wording of the tariff be as follows : 
 
 "Alizarin assistant, by whatever name known, whether liquid, 
 solid, or in paste, 10 cents per gallon when containing less than 50 per 
 cent castor oil, and 15 cents per gallon when containing over 50 per 
 cent castor oil, including all soluble greases used in processes of 
 softening, dyeing, or finishing." 
 
 We would state that the clause "by whatever name known" is very 
 important, as parties have endeavored to evade the tariff by bringing 
 it in under various names. The words "liquid, paste, or solid" are 
 necessary, as parties have had alizarin assistant made abroad, car- 
 rying the process to the point of saponification (which can be readily 
 done by expelling the moisture) and then passing it through the cus- 
 tomhouse as "soap." 
 
 Castor oil and alizarin assistant are manufactured here by many 
 concerns, and the use of castor oil in this country is small compared 
 with what it is used abroad, consequently cost of manufacturing and 
 distribution is much cheaper abroad. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 THE BAKER CASTOR OIL Co., 
 
 100 Williams Street, New York City. 
 F. H. MARSH, Secretary and Treasurer. 
 
 JANUARY 2, 1913. 
 
 BRIEF OF T. S. TODD & CO., NEW YORK, N. Y., CUSTOMHOUSE 
 BROKERS AND FORWARDERS. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 8, 1918. 
 The WATS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: The manufacturers of alizarin assistant desire to 
 brin<* to your attention the close relationship that exists between this 
 article and castor oil and which they hope will be recognized and main- 
 tained when tariff provision is made for them. 
 
 Should provision be made for alizarin assistant without regard to 
 its castor-oil content, such provision would, without doubt, more or 
 less nullify the provision for castor oil and at the expense of the 
 revenue. 
 
 Alizarin assistant is made of castor oil which has been treated with 
 sulphuric acid, washed and neutralized by alkalies so as to be made 
 perfectly soluble in water, and it is used as a mordant and softener, 
 and for fixing the dyes in cotton fabrics. 
 
 In II. R. 201 82 provision was made for castor oil at 20 cents per 
 gallon; alizarin assistant was provided for at 15 per cent ad valorem, 
 without limitation as to castor-oil content. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 253 
 
 PARAGRAPH 32 ALIZARIN ASSISTANT. 
 
 As castor oil is the component material of value in alizarin assistant 
 it seems manifest that the duty should be based on such material, and 
 previous tariff legislation has followed this reasoning. In the tariff 
 of 1890 the duty was 80 cents per gallon when containing more than 
 50 per cent castor oil, and 40 cents per gallon when containing less 
 than 50 per cent castor oil. 
 
 The tariff of 1894 provided for it at 30 per cent, and because of this 
 marked reduction the manufacture in this country was entirely 
 eliminated; the tariff of 1897 provided for duty of 30 cents per gal- 
 lon when containing more than 50 per cent castor oil, and 15 cents 
 per gallon when containing less than 50 per cent, and this latter pro- 
 vision was continued without change in the tariff of 1909, thus, wnile 
 very pronounced reduction in the rate covering this material has been 
 made during the past 22 years, with exception of three years, duty 
 has always been collected based on its component material which 
 undoubtedly is always the basis of tariff enactment, otherwise sub- 
 terfuge might easily defeat its purpose. 
 
 If the above-mentioned rate of 15 per cent ad valorem should be 
 made a part of the proposed bill, the effect would be that, based on 
 the present English price of 16 10s., material imported and described 
 as alizarin assistant, by reason of the mixture of sulphonating sub- 
 stances incorporated therein, could go to the point of 95 per cent 
 castor oil and, the foreign substances being tnen removed, would 
 leave castor oil of sufficient purity for large commercial use, and the 
 duty would be 8^ cents per gallon instead of 19 cents, which it should 
 be as castor oil; and alizarin assistant of 80 per cent castor-oil content 
 would pay duty of 7 1 cents per gallon instead of 16 cents, which it 
 should do as castor oil, and, further, if under 50 per cent castor-oil 
 content, the duty would be 4.3 cents instead of 10 cents, which it 
 should relatively be. 
 
 Advantage would undoubtedly be taken of such a condition to the 
 extent that only castor oil which was intended for human consump- 
 tion and must conform to the provisions and requirements of the 
 United States Pharmacopoeia would be declared for the rate provided 
 for this material. 
 
 How closely this article comes into competition with the foreign is 
 illustrated by the following : The present price of alizarin assistant of 
 50 per cent castor oil abroad is 16 10s. per ton of 2,240 pounds, or 
 3.6 cents per pound. Adding 15 per cent duty, as above proposed, 
 makes the price duty paid on the Atlantic seaboard 4| cents per 
 pound, or fully 1J cents per pound less than American cost of pro- 
 duction. 
 
 If there is applied 10 cents per gallon duty on that containing 50 
 per cent castor oil, the foreign would cost 5^ cents duty paid and 
 place the American producer in a position to compete. 
 
 In the present law castor oil is provided for at 35 cents per gallon 
 and alizarin assistant, when containing over 50 per cent of castor oil, 
 at 30 cents per gallon, which slight difference would seem to indicate 
 that the lawmaking body recognized the danger that would be 
 present if provision for it was made other than on the basis of its 
 castor-oil content. 
 
 The annual production of alizarin assistant in this country is about 
 275,000 gallons, and the imports for 1912 were 108,331 gallons. 
 
254 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 32 ALIZARIN ASSISTANT. 
 
 The reduction in H. R. 20182 on castor oil from 35 cents to 20 
 cents per gallon is 43 per cent, and we earnestly pray that this sanie 
 ratio of reduction be maintained on alizarin assistant when contain- 
 ing over 50 per cent of castor oil, thus making the duty 17 cents per 
 gallon, and on alizarin assistant containing 50 per cent or under 10 
 cents per gallon. 
 
 While this latter provision is slightly less than 43 per cent reduc- 
 tion, it will no more than compensate for the increased cost of pack- 
 ages, labor, and transportation on the lower grade, as these items 
 bear a larger percentage to cost of production than do the higher 
 grades. 
 
 Such provisions would be in accord with the policy of tariff reduc- 
 tion, allow the continuation of an American industry representing a 
 very considerable amount of labor and investment, and at the same 
 tune tend to good administration by removing the temptation for the 
 practice of deception or fraud upon the revenue. 
 
 We have the honor to be, yours, respectfully, 
 
 T. S. TODD. 
 
 Firms represented. The Oil Seeds Co., New York; Providence 
 Drysalters Co., Providence, R. I.; Thos. Leyland & Co., Boston, 
 Mass.; John Shaw & Co., Boston, Mass.; Jacques Wolf & Co., 
 Passaic, N. J.; Maas & Waldstein Co., New York. 
 
 BRIEF OF BOSSON & LANE, ATLANTIC, MASS., REGARDING 
 ALIZARIN ASSISTANT, ETC. 
 
 ATLANTIC, MASS., January 4, 1913. 
 DANIEL C. ROPER, Esq., 
 
 Clerk Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAK Sm: We respectfully ask if you will please file this com- 
 munication with the committee, which gives our position with refer- 
 ence to items of alizarin assistant and soluble oil, Schedule A, para- 
 graph 30, and castor oil, paragraph 31, and castor seeds, Schedule 
 G, paragraph 262, tariff law of 1909, which is the same for these items 
 as the law of 1897. 
 
 These three items are so closely related that consideration of one 
 should necessarily include the others, from the business interests' 
 point of view. 
 
 From the fact that the present rates have proven to be satisfactory 
 to manufacturers of alizarin assistant in this country, and inasmuch 
 as foreign-made alizarin assistant has and is now being imported, 
 we feel that the present tariff lias not been a burden to the consumer, 
 and we are not, therefore, in a position to ask for any revision; but we 
 recognize the popular demand for lower tariff rates, and it is our 
 desire to call attention to certain pertinent points with reference to 
 the subjects mentioned. 
 
 If lower rates are to be made we hope that they will be equalized 
 in such a way t hat the industry in this country will not be jeopardized, 
 and this we believe will be the case, provided your honoraole com- 
 mittee u'ive due consideration to the items mentioned, inclusive. It- 
 has been a source of great satisfaction to us that the manufacturing 
 
SCHEDULE A. 255 
 
 PABAGBAPH 32 AUZABIN ASSISTANT. 
 
 interests have received such general assurance from our Representa- 
 tives at Washington and from our President-elect that a revision of 
 the tariff downward is to be made in such manner that our industries 
 will not suffer. 
 
 It is our firm conviction that this can be done with the commodities 
 in which we are now interested. 
 
 Our position hi placing this matter before you is based upon an 
 experience in the business covering more than 30 years, the past 18 
 having been under the present partnership. 
 
 Previous to the tariff law of 1894 the writer sold alizarin assistant 
 made in the United States. During the operation of the tariff law 
 of 1894 we sold imported alizarin assistant. 
 
 That law, Schedule A, paragraph 26, charged 30 per cent ad valo- 
 rem on alizarin assistant, and paragraph 27, castor oil, at $0.35 per 
 gallon; Schedule G, paragraph 205, castor seeds, at $0.25 per bushel. 
 
 This permitted alizarin assistant to be imported at a cost of $0.04 
 per pound for 50 per cent. Under such conditions we could not 
 manufacture the product here and compete; hence we sold the 
 imported goods. 
 
 The tariff law of 1897 charged alizarin assistant $0.15 per gallon 
 for less than 50 per cent castor-oil contents, and $0.30 per gallon for 
 higher grade than 50 per cent. This was equal to almost $0.02 and 
 $0.04 per pound, respectively. 
 
 The same law charged castor oil at $0.35 per gallon, equal to $0.04f 
 per pound. 
 
 The same law charged castor seeds at $0.25 per bushel, equal to 
 $0.01 per pound for oil contents. 
 
 Upon the passage and operation of this law we started the manu- 
 facture of alizarin assistant, and within a few years we began to 
 import castor seeds and started the manufacture of our own castor 
 oil, which we have been continuing since that time. 
 
 The tariff law of 1909 remained same as law of 1897 in items 
 referred to. 
 
 Alizarin assistant is sold by the pound. It is manufactured from 
 castor oil, the castor oil being extracted from castor seeds. The 
 present cost to produce a pound of alizarin assistant containing 50 
 per cent of castor oil, including barrels, carting, labor, and chemicals, 
 is $0.05^, but not including cost of selling or any percentage of fixed 
 charges. 
 
 Castor oil has been quoted selling abroad at $0.06 per pound. 
 Based upon this price, and as near as we can estimate their cost, to 
 produce a pound of alizarin assistant a 49 per cent grade could be 
 imported at $0.05^. We take 49 per cent rather than 50 per cent, 
 inasmuch as the duty is only one-half as much on the 49 per cent 
 grade, which is near enough for the purpose to compare witn cost of 
 our 50 per cent. 
 
 Our average cost to produce a pound of castor oil, going back for 
 about two years, figures $0.0904, including barrels, carting, usual 
 discount, but not including per cent of fixed charges. 
 
 We understand that castor oil is sold in England at $0.06 per 
 pound. 
 
256 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 32 ALIZABIN ASSISTANT, 
 
 With the present duty of $0.35 per gallon, equal to $0.04f per 
 pound, this would bring price of imported oil to about $0.10$ per 
 
 pound. 
 
 Our figures are based upon commercial castor oil. We do not 
 manufacture the medicinal quality. 
 
 The present duty on castor seeds is $0.25 per bushel, or equal 
 to approximately $0.01 \ per pound of castor-oil contents. 
 
 The yield of oil varies from 35 to 40 per cent. The price of seeds 
 varies from time to time, so that the cost of oil should be averaged 
 in order to obtain a fair basis. 
 
 The key to the situation seems to be with the raw material. With 
 the tariff reduced on the castor seeds a corresponding reduction may 
 be made on both castor oil and alizarin assistant without injury to 
 the manufacturing end. We have never used American castor seeds; 
 have never had any offered to us, and do not know that it is or has 
 been a profitable industry. In fact, we doubt if castor seed raising 
 is of any interest to the farming sections of the country. At any 
 rate, without a market of castor oil manufacturers the castor-seed 
 crop would be useless in this country. 
 
 We trust that whatever reductions are made will be equalized, as 
 based upon the castor-oil contents. With free seed our industry 
 would stand a reduction of $0.01^ per pound or $0.10 per gallon on 
 the castor oil, and $0.05 per gallon, or $0.00f per pound on 50 per 
 cent alizarin assistant. We fear that a further reduction on the 
 manufactured goods would interfere with the success of the industry 
 in this country. Wages paid by us are from $14.50 to $16 per week. 
 Other expenses, including selling expenses, are no doubt much higher 
 here than abroad. We would like to call attention to another point 
 when the work we are engaged in becomes unprofitable, we may turn 
 our hands to something else. We intend to remain in business, and 
 do not now wish to appear before your committee as the time-honored 
 infant in swaddling clothes, but in connection with an object to 
 obtain lower costs for the consumer, we have observed that when 
 the foreign manufacturer does not have competition in this country 
 his prices rise beyond our first calculations, considerably displacing 
 our estimate that the reduction in the tariff rate was to secure a cor- 
 responding reduction in the cost to the consumer. And in the mean- 
 time the present competition among us manufacturers in this country 
 in this line is a great regulator of prices. There has never been to 
 our knowledge any hint of combination or understanding. There is 
 a sharp fight to secure business, and this is a pretty good guaranty 
 of low prices. 
 
 Our industry is not large, but we trust it will have your thoughtful 
 consideration. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 BOSSON & LANE. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 257 
 
 PARAGRAPH 33 CASTOR OIL. 
 PABAGBAPH 33. 
 
 Castor oil, thirty-five cents per gallon. 
 
 See S. L. Jones & Co., page 258; Baker Castor Oil Co., page 251; T. S. Todd & Co., 
 page 252; Bosson & Lane, page 254. 
 
 CASTOR OIL. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY THE BAKER CASTOR OIL CO., NEW 
 
 YORK CITY. 
 
 JANUARY 2, 1913. 
 The WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 Washington, D. C.: 
 
 As the largest manufacturers of castor oil in the United States, and 
 located on the Atlantic seaboard, we use entirely imported castor seed 
 produced principally in India and Brazil. 
 
 We do not desire to take up the time of the committee with an 
 appearance in person, and will state in a few words that we are 
 heartily in accord with the committee for a revision of the tariff 
 downward, and only ask such consideration as will enable us to con- 
 tinue the business that was established 55 years ago. The House bill 
 (H. R. 20182, 62d Cong.) which passed the House of Representatives 
 fixed the duty on castor oil at 20 cents per gallon. The duty under 
 the Payne tariff law, and which is the auty that is now in effect, is 
 35 cents per gallon. A lowering of the duty to 20 cents per gallon 
 figures out some 43 per cent reduction. A reduction of this nature 
 is exceedingly drastic, and we fear will seriously affect the castor oil 
 industry of the United States unless accompanied with a reduction 
 of the duty on the raw product castor seed. The present duty on 
 castor seed is 25 cents per bushel of 50 pounds, equal to the castor- 
 oil content contained therein some 12 cents per gallon. We there- 
 fore pray your honorable committee to take due notice of the relation 
 of castor oil to castor seed in preparing these schedules. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 THE BAKER CASTOR OIL Co., 
 
 100 'William Street, New York City. 
 F. H. MARSH, Secretary and Treasurer. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY S. L. JONES & CO., SAN FRANCISCO, 
 
 CAI. 
 
 S. L. JONES & Co. (!NC.), 
 San Francisco, January 15, 1913. 
 Hon. JULIUS KAHN, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We beg to acknowledge receipt, of your esteemed letter 
 of the 31st of December, 1912, and will endeavor to give you such 
 facts and figures as will be of service to you in putting the question 
 of duties on oils before the Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 In the first place, such oils as kapok seed oil, perilla oil, etc., were 
 practically unknown in this country when the present tariff on oils 
 was drawn up or they would undoubtedly have been placed on the 
 free list as they are only suitable for manufacturing purposes and 
 
 78959 VOL 113 17 
 
258 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 33 CASTOR OIL. 
 
 are not raised in the United States at the present time. There has 
 been no account kept of the importations of these outside oils, as they 
 have been run into the statistics as "all other oils." 
 
 Castor oil (not suitable for pharmaceutical purposes) We would 
 strongly suggest that this oil be placed on the free list, as in this case 
 the American soap manufacturers could use same and turn out a 
 soap which would compete with the large quantities of so-called 
 castile soaps imported from the countries bordering on the Mediter- 
 ranean, i. e., Italy, France, etc. This oil is absolutely of no value for 
 the making of pharmaceutical castor oil, as the latter must be taken 
 from the first cold pressings only, while ordinary commercial castor 
 oil is extracted by the addition of heat, thereby destroying its value 
 for pharmaceutical purposes. This oil is especially adapted for the 
 making of the castile style of soap, and if our soap manufacturers 
 could get hold of this oil cheaply enough they could then compete 
 with the foreign product. It should by all rights be classified simply 
 as a soap stock. The importation of this oil into the port of San 
 Francisco for 1912 was 2,077 gallons, valued at $1,871. This, how- 
 ever, may include some pharmaceutical castor oil, but we think the 
 bulk of the importation was represented by a sample shipment sent 
 here by people in the Orient, who were unaware of the heavy duty of 
 35 cents per gallon now imposed. 
 
 With regard to codfish oil, we beg to draw to your attention the 
 fact that ordinary fish oil (not American caught) bears a duty of 
 8 cents per gallon, but owing to the fact that codfish oil sometimes 
 bears a trace of the cod-liver oil it is subjected to a duty of 15 cents 
 per gallon. Now it is almost impossible when extracting this oil to 
 have all the livers eliminated, and we would like to have this oil take 
 the fish-oil rate of duty oven if it should contain cod-liver oil as it is 
 absolutely unfit for the purpose of making pharmaceutical cod- 
 liver oil, and this is what the duty of 15 cents per gallon is to protect. 
 Furthermore, we would suggest that all fish oils, whether seal, whale, 
 sperm, or other fish oils be placed on the free list as they are suitable 
 only for the manufacturers of soap or lubricating oils, and would in 
 this way cheapen the eost of raw materials for our manufacturers 
 of these 1 products, enabling them to compete better with the foreign- 
 made goods. 
 
 Rapeseed oil. This oil is subject to a duty of 10 cents per gallon, 
 but we respectfully beg to call your attention to the fact that same 
 is only used for the making of lubricating oils and does not compete 
 with any American-made oil. It is one of the few oils which can be 
 "blown," and is almost indispensable to manufacturers of lubricating 
 oils. We therefore think that it is a fit oil to go on the free list. 
 
 Hempseed oil.- -We would also suggest this for the free list as well 
 as sod oil. both of which are only used for manufacturing purposes, 
 the former of which bears a duty of 10 cents per gallon and the latter 
 a duty of S cents per gallon. 
 
 A\ e herewith beg to give you the figures for the San Francisco 
 customhouse for the vear 1912: 
 
SCHEDULE A. 259 
 
 PARAGRAPH 35 LINSEED OIL. 
 
 Oils. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Rapeseed oil 
 
 Gallons. 
 35, 748 
 
 $15, 715 
 
 Castor oil 
 
 2,077 
 
 1,871 
 
 
 
 
 Whale oil 
 
 10,000 
 
 2,756 
 
 
 6,207 
 
 1,929 
 
 Degras or wool grease 
 
 349,265 
 
 8,149 
 
 
 
 
 Trusting that all these facts will be taken into consideration by 
 the honorable committee above mentioned, and thanking you for 
 the interest you have taken in the matter, we remain, 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 S. L. JONES & Co., 
 
 W. C. DUNCAN, Vice President. 
 
 Addenda. Referring again to perilla oil, we would also beg to call 
 your attention to the fact that nut oils, except those especially pro- 
 vided for, are free of duty, and according to all authorities we have 
 consulted perilla is classified as a nut, and therefore should by rights 
 come into the United States on the free list ; but disputes have arisen, 
 and a duty of 25 per cent has been levied on certain importations. 
 We therefore strongly suggest that perilla oil should be added to the 
 list of oils free of duty. 
 
 This oil has been used for centuries by the oriental lacquer makers 
 and is a very important oil in the making of lacquers, and there is 
 no oil in the United States which can entirely take its place. It is 
 therefore essentially a fit oil to be admitted free of duty. 
 
 Another oil which we would also suggest as applicable to be placed 
 on the free list is stillingia or tallow-seed oil, which is a drying oil 
 shipped from China, and which, owing to its not being mentioned in 
 the tariff, would be assessed a duty of 25 per cent ; but had the framers 
 of the present tariff had this oil brought before them they would have 
 undoubtedly placed it on the free list. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 34. 
 
 Cod-liver oil, fifteen cents per gallon. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 35. 
 
 Flaxseed, linseed, and poppy-seed oil, raw, boiled, or oxidized, fifteen 
 cents per gallon of seven and one-half pounds weight. 
 
 LINSEED OIL. 
 
 COMMUNICATION SUBMITTED BY SPENCER KELLOGG & SONS, 
 
 NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 SPENCER KELLOGG & SONS, 
 
 Buffalo, N. Y., January 4, 1913. 
 Mr. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Wo respectfully request that the following communica- 
 tion be made a part of the hearings of your committee of the proposed 
 changes in the chemical schedule and the agricultural schedule of the 
 present tariff: 
 
260 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGBAPH 35 LINSEED OIL, 
 LINSEED OIL AND LINSEED (FLAXSEED). 
 
 There are five points we wish to make : 
 
 (1) Trust. Although stated to be so by at least one Member of 
 Congress, there is no '"trust" in the linseed-oil business. The Ameri- 
 can Linseed Co. probably handles about one-third of the business in 
 this country, which is conducted upon a very competitive basis. 
 
 (2) Profits. These have not been large in this line; in fact, quite 
 the contrary, as shown by the published reports of the above- 
 mentioned company, showing that they have not paid a dividend 
 since 1900, and since then have only accumulated a surplus of $768,000, 
 showing a loss during their last fiscal year of $478,000. 
 
 (3) Tariff on linseed and linseed oil should be adjusted at the same 
 time and upon the same basis, for the one is the raw material of the 
 other. One cent per gallon change in oil is equal to 1\ cents per 
 bushel change in seed. 
 
 (4) Drawback. We urge the retention of the drawback system, 
 for it allows us at certain times to import foreign seed, and to sell 
 abroad both oil and oilcake made from this seed. 
 
 (5) Present duty on linseed should be maintained (consequently, 
 the present duty on oil) for the purpose of giving all possible encour- 
 agement to our farmers to raise this crop. The paint trade, varnish 
 maker, linoleum manufacturers and other interests affected, as well 
 as the linseed-oil crushers, have during the past few years annually 
 raised a fund of thousands of dollars to educate and to encourage our 
 farmers to make a success of this crop. 
 
 Last year and the year before, owing to the poor linseed crops in 
 this country, linseed oil was imported in large quantities, and the duty 
 of 15 cents per gallon paid, showing conclusively that at such times 
 the business is on a competitive basis with European mills, and that 
 our farmers, because of the duty of 25 cents per bushel receive a 
 higher price for their linseed to compensate for the smaller yield per 
 acre. 
 
 Very respectfully submitted. 
 
 SPENCER KELLOGG & SONS (!NC.), 
 HOWARD KELLOGG, Treasurer. 
 
 BRIEF OF WILLIAM GOODRICH & CO., MILWAUKEE, WIS. 
 
 MILWAUKEE, Wis., January 4, 1913. 
 Representative FXPERWOOD. 
 
 Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAK SIR: We understand that the question of reducing or chang- 
 ing the present duty of 15 eents per gallon on linseed oil will come up 
 for discussion before the Ways and Means Committee under the 
 chemical and oil schedule on Monday the 6th inst. 
 
 In the interest of the Unseed crushing industry and of the flaxseed 
 or linseed industry as a whole, we beg to enter an earnest protest 
 against any further reduction in the duty on foreign-pressed linseed 
 
SCHEDULE A. 261 
 
 PARAGRAPH 35-LINSEED OIL. 
 
 oil. At the present time both chiua-wood oil and soya-bean oil are 
 admitted free of duty, and both are competitors of linseed oil. Under 
 the Payne-Aldrich tariff the duty on linseed oil was reduced 25 per 
 cent, and now stands at 15 cents per gallon. The removal of this 
 duty would, we think, permit the importation of foreign oil at all 
 times and necessitate a heavy reduction in the price of domestic 
 flaxseed. 
 
 Owing to a gradual reduction hi the area devoted to flaxseed and 
 the consequent curtailment of the crop the linseed crushers and paint 
 manufacturers of this country have for some years been contributing 
 generously to an educational fund for the purpose of encouraging the 
 growing of the flaxseed and of educating the farmer in the proper 
 treatment of the soil and on the sowing of the seed. Our efforts have 
 met with considerable success, and this year for the first time in several 
 years we have raised a crop sufficient for the country's needs and one 
 that has been profitable and satisfactory to the grower. Now, if 
 through the removal of the protection given to Unseed oil the price of 
 seed is forced to considerably lower levels, the farmer, we believe, 
 will not find it profitable to sow flax, and in consequence the linseed-oil 
 industry of this country (which at present represents a business of 
 sixty to seventy-five millions annually) would be very seriously crip- 
 pled, if not entirely ruined. We would draw your attention to the 
 fact that the duty on oil is in no sense a bonus to the crusher. There 
 is widespread competition and over providing capacity sufficient to 
 keep a considerable number of presses idle all the time. Aside from 
 the benefit to the grower the duty on oil only serves to equalize the 
 values as between this country and Europe. 
 
 In this country the oil is the principal product and the oil cake the 
 by-product, while abroad the reverse is the case, the value of oil cake 
 abroad being nearly twice that of the oil cake in this country. Under 
 these conditions we can not compete with the European manufac- 
 turers of linseed oil without protection. The present duty on linseed 
 oil is only just sufficient to meet these conditions, and in consequence 
 we believe that any reduction of the present duty would be a serious 
 menace to the life of the industry in this country, if not, indeed, its 
 complete undoing. 
 
 As we can see no commensurate gain to any class of Americans by 
 lowering or removing the duty, we earnestly pray your committee to 
 recommend the same for retention. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 WM. O. GOODRICH, 
 Chairman Linseed Oil Committee, 
 National Paint, Oil, and Varnish Association. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 36. 
 
 Fusel oil, or amylic alcohol, one-fourth of one cent per pound. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 37. 
 
 Hemp-seed oil, ten cents per gallon; rape-seed oil, ten cents per gallon. 
 See S. L. Jones & Co., page 258. 
 
262 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38. 
 
 Olive oil, not specially provided for in this section, forty cents per gallon; 
 in bottles, jars, kegs, tins, or other packages, containing less than five gallons 
 each, fifty cents per gallon. 
 
 See Park & Tilford, page 67; F. S. Bright, page 267; Antonio Zucca, page 274; 
 C. A. Mariana, page 278; Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 105; La Manna, 
 Azema & Farnan, page 286. 
 
 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 STATEMENT OF DR. I. J. HUFF, OF IOS ANGELES, CAI., ON THE 
 SUBJECT OF OLIVE OIL. 
 
 Dr. HUFF. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have been delegated by 
 the olive growers, nurserymen, and olive-oil manufacturers of Cali- 
 fornia to appear before you representing their interests in the matter 
 of a proposed reduction in the tariff on olive oil of 20 cents per gallon. 
 We request that this duty be allowed to remain, as it is for the best 
 interests of those concerned; and we believe that after you have 
 thoroughly examined our statement and investigated our conditions 
 you will agree that to preserve that industry the duty must be left 
 intact. 
 
 The proposed reduction of 20 cents a gallon, as far as we can see, 
 will in no way reduce the cost of olive oil to the consumer for this 
 reason: Ninety per cent of the olive oil sold to the consumer in the 
 United States is sold in bottles and small cans called sixes (6 to the 
 gallon) and contain 20 ounces of oil each. The average selling price 
 in the United States is 80 cents per can or bottle. A reduction of 20 
 cents per gallon would be 3J cents per bottle. It is very obvious that 
 the retailer would not sell at 75 cents and lose 1J cents per bottle of 
 his profit, which profit is small enough at the present time. Neither 
 would lie make a 76 cents price. 
 
 We claim that the proposed reduction on an average annual import 
 of 4,000,000 gallons, or 8800,000, would go to the importer alone, 
 and the Government would lose this revenue and not help the con- 
 sumer, and work a very serious hardship on the olive-oil industry of 
 California. Twenty cents a gallon reduction on 4,000,000 gallons 
 would be a line plum for the importer and absolutely no benefit 
 for the consumer. The importer's argument has been that a 20-cent 
 reduction would increase the sale and thereby increase the revenue. 
 If j'oii will follow the European markets you will find that all of the 
 olive oil being manufactured is readily sold, and that each year the 
 supply is far below the demand, and especially so on the better grades 
 of oil which come in competition with the California products. 
 
 There was imported in the United States during the year ending 
 June 30, 1912, 3,050,322.06 gallons of olive oil, valued at $4,335,294.25, 
 on which a duty of 1.525,101 .58 was paid, a value of $1.42 per gallon. 
 Tliis was in packages containing less than five gallons. There was 
 also imported 1,700,023.07 gallons, valued at $1,729,491, on which 
 a duty of S6S3.WW.44 was paid, a value of $1.01 per gallon. This 
 was in packages larger than five gallons. There was also 702,565 
 gallons of denaturized oil, on which no duty was paid. 
 
 In 1!)()S we were represented here before the Wavs and Means 
 Commit tee. and at that time we asked that the dutv be retained on 
 
SCHEDULE A. 263 
 
 PABAGBAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 olives and olive oil, and it was. Note the result in four years: With 
 the very small protection we have had we added 6,000 acres more 
 olives, and of the 12,000 acres then growing and 50 per cent bearing 
 3,000 acres of these have come into bearing and we have planted 
 6,000 acres more, making at the present time a total acreage in the 
 State of 18,000 acres, from which we are securing at the present time 
 8,000 tons for oil and 4,000 tons for pickles, a total of 12,000 tons. 
 Four years ago the average net income was only $17 an acre. This 
 year the average net income is $36.88 an acre not a very large 
 income, but still it shows what we can do with protection to this 
 industry, and all of this would be lost if the duty on olive oil were 
 removed. In 1908 the olive industry of California represented 
 $4,500,000. To-day it represents over $7,500,000. There is in 
 California to-day 375,000 acres available for olive trees, and, with 
 proper protection, the time will come when we can nearly supply our 
 own country with oil and olives. 
 
 The total coM of harvesting and delivering olives in Europe to the 
 factories rarely exceeds $7 per ton, while our cost is seldom under $20 
 per ton. 
 
 The average cost of California olive oil in the tanks is $1.85 per 
 gallon, and the average selling price is $2 per gallon, giving the 
 manufacturer a profit of 15 cents a gallon. 
 
 We use only the best sanitary mechanical methods for extracting 
 oil, while in Europe a large percentage of the oil is extracted in the 
 most crude and filthy manner imaginable, a large portion of it being 
 done by the orchardist himself, and in many instances with only the 
 use of the feet and hands. 
 
 Labor is a matter which enters largely into the California product. 
 The entire labor pertaining to all the olive industry in Europe, in- 
 cluding field laborers, manufacturing laborers, office help, etc., is 
 $1.04 per day. In California, including the same help as mentioned 
 above, it is $2.47 per day. 
 
 Heretofore the by-products have been more or less wasted. Now 
 we have started to extract from the pomace the foots oil. This oil 
 is what is termed mechanical oil, used to a large extent by soap fac- 
 tories and silk manufacturers, and its extraction heretofore has been 
 done only in foreign countries. 
 
 Another serious handicap that we have is the matter of freight. 
 Olive oil can be laid down in New York or Chicago from Europe for 
 7 cents a gallon. It costs us 15 cents a gallon to deliver it to any 
 point from Denver east, and 18 cents to 20 cents a gallon to deliver 
 it from California to what is known as the Northwest ; that is, through 
 Montana and Idaho. 
 
 I have a detailed schedule here, which I will ask to have made a 
 part of my statement. 
 
 The schedule referred to by Dr. Huff is as follows : 
 
 Average land value per acre, 9,000 acres of bearing olive trees all varieties, $250. 
 Low value here caused by mountain and low land with orchards not cultivated or 
 properly taken care of. 
 
 Average land value per acre, 9,000 acres growing but not bearing, $325. Higher 
 value of land caused by quality of soil, higher state of cultivation with water facilities. 
 
 Average yield of olives per acre in California, 1 tons. Low average yield is brought 
 about by approximately 3,000 acres bearing, but not yet under full state of cultivation. 
 
264 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 Average price received by grower for three years, 1909-1912, 9,000 acres, oil olives 
 on trees, $22 per ton. . 
 
 Average cost irrigation, cultivation, fertilization, and pruning, 18,000 acres bearing 
 and notbearing, $8.50 per acre. Low average caused by large amount of early planted 
 acreage not being cultivated or irrigated. 
 
 Net average receipts to grower per ton for oil olives, $13.50. 
 
 Average' price received by grower, 1909 to 1912, for pickling olives on trees, $62 
 per ton. Forty per cent of all olives produced in State are pickling olives, balance 
 oil olives. 
 
 Net average receipts by grower for pickling olives, $53.50 per ton. 
 
 Net average receipts by grower for both oil and pickles per acre, $36.88. 
 
 Average cost of picking, 9,000 acres, $17.50 per ton. 
 
 Average cost shipping expense per ton, $3.50. 
 
 Net amount paid to grower for approximately 12,000 tons produced in 1911, $442,560. 
 Of this tonnage, 4,000 tons were pickles representing 1,200,000 gallons and 8,000 tons 
 of oil olives representing 280,000 gallons of oil. 
 
 Average cost of manufacturing olive oil for past three seasons including cost of fruit, 
 manufacturing (not including selling expense or other expense pertaining thereto), 
 $1.85 per gallon. Based on annual output of five largest factories, 90,000 gallons per 
 
 Average cost of curing and canning ripe olives including cost of fruit (not including 
 selling expense or other expense pertaining thereto), $0.617 per gallon. Based on 
 annual output of five largest factories, 409,998 gallons. 
 
 Average paid for labor field work including farm help and olive pickers, $2.17 per 
 day. 
 
 Average paid for manufacturing including packing, shipping, selling, operating 
 and office help, $2.76 per day. 
 
 Average paid for European labor, including field labor, where any paid, manufactur- 
 ing plants and shipping stations, $1.04 per day. Covers, Italy, France, and Spain, 
 approximately 400 orchards and 30 mills. Average labor in Greece is 84 cents per day. 
 
 Average cost of manufacturing California olive oil for past three seasons (1909, 1910, 1911). 
 
 [Five factories.) 
 
 
 Cost of oil 
 fruit de- 
 livered to 
 factory, per 
 ton. 
 
 Average 
 yield of oil 
 per ton, 
 gallons. 
 
 Average 
 cost of fruit 
 per gallon 
 of oil 
 pressed. 
 
 Manufac- 
 turing, 
 expense, 
 labor, ma- 
 terial, etc. 
 
 Taxes. 
 
 Repairs. 
 
 Season 1909 
 
 S46. 10 
 
 34 4 
 
 $1 342 
 
 $0 3858 
 
 $0.0091 
 
 $0.02 
 
 Season 1910 
 
 45.57 
 
 37.0 
 
 1.231 
 
 .256 
 
 .014 
 
 .05 
 
 Season 1911 . 
 
 45.00 
 
 34 
 
 1 33 
 
 269 
 
 009 
 
 .048 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 13G 73 
 
 105 4 
 
 3 8% 
 
 9108 
 
 0321 
 
 .118 
 
 Average for last :> seasons 
 
 45.58 
 
 35.13 
 
 1.299 
 
 .3036 
 
 .0107 
 
 .0393 
 
 
 Interest. 
 
 Insurance. 
 
 General ex- 
 penses. 
 
 Other 
 miscella- 
 neous ex- 
 penses. 
 
 Total cost, 
 Eer gallon, 
 ulk oil in 
 tanks. 
 
 Gallons 
 manufac- 
 tured. 
 
 Season 19n'.i 
 
 SO 0558 
 
 so 0248 
 
 SO 0760 
 
 SO Oil 
 
 $1 9245 
 
 75 000 
 
 Season I91n. . ... 
 
 . (KH 
 
 039 
 
 185 
 
 012 
 
 1 848 
 
 85 000 
 
 Season 1911 
 
 04 
 
 015 
 
 07 
 
 
 1 779 
 
 110 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 . 156X 
 0523 
 
 . 07SS 
 
 . 3310 
 
 .028 
 
 5. 5515 
 
 270. 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SCHEDULE A. 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 265 
 
 Average cost of pickling and canning California ripe olives for past three seasons (1909, 
 
 1910, and 1911). 
 
 [Per quart case of 2 dozen.] 
 
 
 Cost of - 
 fruit de- 
 livered, at 
 factory. 
 
 Manufac- 
 turing ex- 
 pense,labor, 
 material, 
 etc. 
 
 Taxes. 
 
 Repairs. 
 
 Interest. 
 
 Insurance. 
 
 Season 1909 
 
 $1.570 
 
 $1.312 
 
 $0.0224 
 
 $0.0493 
 
 $0.137 
 
 $0.0612 
 
 Season 1910 
 
 1.586 
 
 1.494 
 
 .041 
 
 .084 
 
 .171 
 
 .109 
 
 Season 1911 
 
 2.059 
 
 1.242 
 
 .022 
 
 .044 
 
 .098 
 
 .037 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 5.215 
 
 4.048 
 
 .0854 
 
 .1773 
 
 .406 
 
 .2072 
 
 Average per year for last 
 three seasons (24 qt. cans). . 
 Per gallon (4) 
 
 1.738 
 .289 
 
 1.349 
 .225 
 
 .0285 
 .0047 
 
 .0591 
 .OC9S 
 
 .135 
 .0225 
 
 .0691 
 .0115 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 General 
 expenses. 
 
 Other mis- 
 cellaneous 
 expenses. 
 
 Total cost 
 per case. 
 
 Cases 
 packed. 
 
 Total pack 
 five facto- 
 ries, cases. 
 
 Season 1909 
 
 
 $0.187 
 
 SO. 0271 
 
 $3.366 
 
 36,129 
 
 75,000 
 
 Season 1910 
 
 
 .311 
 
 .0159 
 
 3. 955 
 
 21,578 
 
 50,000 
 
 Season 191 1 .. 
 
 
 .171 
 
 .115 
 
 3.788 
 
 41,701 
 
 80,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 .CC9 
 
 .1580 
 
 11.109 
 
 99,408 
 
 205 000 
 
 Average per year for last th 
 (24 qt. cans) 
 
 ree seasons 
 
 .223 
 
 .053 
 
 3.703 
 
 33,136 
 
 68,333 
 
 Per gallon (4) 
 
 
 .037 
 
 .009 
 
 .617 
 
 1 198,816 
 
 1 409,998 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 In gallons. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. It has been frequently stated before this commit- 
 tee that California produces about 5 per cent of the olive oil con- 
 sumed in the United States. If that is so, you want a tax on the other 
 nineteen-twentieths of the olive oil to protect that 5 per cent ? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. We claim that if the tax which is now upon olive oil 
 were removed that it would not affect the consumer at all. 
 
 Mr. HARBISON. Is not this an endeavor on the part of these small 
 producers in California to make the people in the East pay their 
 freight rates, through, the tariff? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. I do not think it is. I think it is an endeavor on the 
 part of the people of California to build up a business that is young 
 and has shown that it can be built up. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. At the expense of the rest of the United States ? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. I do not see how the expense would figure, because I 
 do not think the consumer could get his oil for any less. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. California produces about 10 per cent of the con- 
 sumption in this country, instead of 5 per cent. 
 
 Dr. HUFF. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. How much has your investment in the olive busi- 
 ness increased since the Payne law was enacted ? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. From four and a half to seven and a half million dollars. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. Is there enough land in the States of California 
 and Arizona to produce ultimately enough olives and olive oil to 
 meet the home demand ? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. I think there is. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. Has the price of olives gone up in recent years, or 
 tho price of olive oil ( 
 
266 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 Dr. HUFF. The price of olive oil? 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. Yes. 
 
 Dr. HUFF. No; the price of olive oil remains about the same, but 
 the prices of the manufactures of olives has gone up, and thereby 
 benefited the grower. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What is the market price of olive oil in bottles 
 now? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. On the 20-ounce basis, about 80 cents. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What is the market price per gallon of the other 
 olive oil ? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. Which do you mean ? 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. The tariff divides the importations into two differ- 
 ent classes. How is it imported otherwise than in bottles ? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. Well, in packages of 5 gallons or under, and also over 
 that in casks and barrels. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What is the market price per gallon of that oil? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. I presume it is the same as the other. It is the oil 
 that is brought in here to be bottled. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. There is a great difference between the unit of 
 value of the two in the Treasury report. 
 
 Dr. HUFF. From $1.01 to $1.42 per gallon a difference in the duty. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Dr. Huff, do you know any reason why cottonseed oil 
 should be on the free list and olive oil not on the free list ? They are 
 both a food product. 
 
 Dr. HUFF. Xo; I do not. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Would you approve a general policy which would make 
 the duty large enough to pay transportation and prevent competi- 
 tion in any part of the United States ? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. Xo. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You would ? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. Xo, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Then why do you ask a duty here that will enable you 
 to control the market on the Atlantic coast in olive oil? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. We do not ask a duty to enable us to control the 
 market. We ask a duty to protect a voung industry. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Will it ever get to be old ? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. Yes; as time goes on. 
 
 Mr. HILL. It is a food product ? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. It enters largely into food. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Do you not think it would be a wise policy to have food 
 products free in this country >. Would you justify a duty of 25 cents 
 a bushel on wheat and 10 cents on corn, and things of that kind that 
 enter into the daily living of the American people "? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. I do not think olive oil enters into the daily living of 
 the American people. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I think it enters into a very large proportion of the 
 daily living O f the people of the Atlantic coast. The foreign popu- 
 lation there is very large. Would you be in favor of putting a cor- 
 responding duty on meat? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. Xo; I would not. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Why not on meat as well as on olive oil? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. Bemuse, meat is more generally used than olive oil. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 267 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Would you 011 any food product other than things which 
 are produced in California ? Would you favor, for example, the appli- 
 cation which was made here three years ago to increase the duty on 
 peanuts 15 cents a bushel or from a half of a cent a pound to two 
 cents a pound in order to give the peanut growers of the Atlantic coast 
 a virtual control over the San Francisco market ? Would you think 
 that a wise policy ? 
 
 Dr. HUFF. No ; I would not. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I do not believe you would, and I do not approve of it 
 with regard to olive oil. 
 
 STATEMENT OF F. S. BRIGHT, ON BEHALF OF THE POMPEIAN 
 CO., OF WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. I rep- 
 resent the Pompeian Co., whose sole business is the importation of 
 olive oil in bulk for redistribution in packages. 
 
 The Pompeian Co.'s plant is located in the city of Washington, and 
 this is probably the only subject that will come before your committee 
 which can be seen right here. It is situated on Thirteenth Street SW., 
 next to the Bureau of Chemistry, and my clients chose that location 
 in order that they might be subject to the most searching super- 
 vision as to the quality of their product. 
 
 I shall address myself only to the subject of olive oil, section 38 
 of the Payne bill, and the latter part of section 50 of H. R. 20182. In 
 the Payne bill " olive oil not specially provided for in this section" 
 pays 40 cents per gallon; "in bottles, jars, kegs, tins, or other 
 packages containing less than 5 gallons each, 50 cents per gallon." 
 In H. R. 20182 it is provided- 
 Olive oil, not specially provided for in this act or in the act cited for amendment, 
 twenty per centum ad valorem; olive oil, in bottles, jars, kegs or other packages con- 
 taining less than five gallons each, thirty cents per gallon. 
 
 My clients are interested in not having the duty on their raw 
 material placed on an ad valorem basis, but think that if an ad valorem 
 duty is to be placed it should be put at 15 per cent ad valorem. The 
 reason for the imposition of the specific duty on the oil in bulk, rather 
 than the ad valorem duty, is the constant fluctuation in the price 
 of olive oil which is imported at the present time. The price runs 
 well toward $1.30 per gallon on the other side now. It has increased, 
 as I will show you in a few minutes, well on to 80 per cent in the last 
 five years. That is the first reason for a specific duty, because you 
 can better estimate, w r ith a specific duty, what the revenue will be 
 and you can further induce the importer to bring in the highest grade 
 of olive oil, if you pay the specific duty, rather than an ad valorem 
 duty. You further protect your revenue by the fact that the oil, 
 when it bears a specific duty, needs only to be measured ; it requires 
 no appraisement, and with the variations in the prices abroad , an 
 ad valorem duty may lead to difficulty in appraisement. 
 
 We are in no w r ay interested in the importation of olives as a food, 
 but only in the olive oil itself. The existing difference of 10 cents 
 per gallon between oil in bulk and oil in jars and bottles is changed 
 
268 TABIFF HEAKINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 38-OLIVE OIL. 
 
 in the proposed bill, by my present figures, to only 4 cents per 
 gallon; that is, it comes in in bottles, under the bill, at 30 
 cents per gallon, while at a 20 per cent ad valorem rate, 
 on the basis of cost of $1.30 a gallon on the other side, the bulk 
 product would pay 26 cents a gallon. My client is interested in the 
 preservation of as wide a differential between the olive oil in bulk 
 and olive oil in packages as it is fair should be maintained. 
 
 In this connection I desire to present to the committee a very 
 brief compilation of the duty on olive oil in Canada, France, Ger- 
 many, Mexico, Spain, Italy, and Greece, giving to you both the pro- 
 ducing countries and the distributing countries. These statistics are 
 prepared by the Division of Foreign Tariffs of the Bureau of Foreign 
 and Domestic Commerce, of the Department of Commerce and Labor, 
 and I thought they would be of convenience to the committee. It 
 shows the present duty in Canada, a nonproducing country, of 15 
 per cent ad valorem. The present duty in Germany, a nonproducing 
 country, is not quite 8 cents a gallon. That is on the bulk. In 
 Germany the difference between the oil in bulk and the oil in jars 
 and receptacles, ready for distribution, is 2 to 1; in Greece the dif- 
 ference is 3 to 1 . 
 
 We think it is fair that the duty should be less in the United States. 
 I would say as a fair proposition that the duty on the oil should be 
 placed at a specific duty of 20 cents a gallon, which would be a present 
 ad valorem duty of about 15 per cent. The specific duty on the 
 finished product is 30 cents per gallon, as provided in the bill. We 
 think that we have some justification in talking to you because in 
 the year just concluded the Pompeian Co. imported and packed not 
 quite half a million gallons of olive oil, and we think the duty on the 
 finished product should be 40 cents per gallon. 
 
 I have here the statistics of growth in the importations of olive oil 
 in the last few years, from 1907 to 1911, compiled by the Bureau of 
 Statistics. They arc left from the brief, and I will ask to incorporate 
 them in the record. 
 
 These show that the price is rising much more rapidly than the 
 quantity imported. I do not think anybody can honestly promise a 
 continuance of the present prices, even if the duty is reduced as pro- 
 posed by this bill, because the demand all over the world is growing 
 enormously, and the length of time that is required to bring an olive 
 grove into bearing is such that we can not foresee any very great in- 
 crease in the production of olive oil in the immediate future" 
 
 Congress has at all times recognized this difference in the duty be- 
 tween the bulk and package, and still continues to recognize it in the 
 pending House bill. 
 
 There is another phase of this question which I wish to bring to your 
 attention, and that is of the 500,000 gallons imported by the Pompeian 
 Co. in the last year, half of it, or 250,000 gallons, were distributed 
 among the drug trade of the United States. There is a very largely 
 increasing use of olive oil as a medicine and as an emollient, and we 
 think that unless we can get the committee to help us maintain this 
 lower duty the American people will eventually have to pay a higher 
 price for their olive oil. and that if the duty is maintained as provided 
 
SCHEDULE A. 269 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 in this bill, amended as I have suggested it, the present price of olive 
 oil can probably be maintained 
 
 I do not want to make an} 7 misrepresentations by saying that the 
 price can be materially reduced even if the duty is reduced, because 
 the price of the raw product seems to be rising all over the world, and 
 has steadily progressed in the last five years. 
 
 I do not" know that it is necessary to take the time of the commit- 
 tee to discuss the California situation, but if my information is cor- 
 rect, the entire product of California is only 300,000 gallons, and 
 within the last year the Pompeian Co. has shipped 30,000 gallons 
 into the State of California, so that the product of the State of Cali- 
 fornia is not sufficient for the Pacific coast region alone. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. Is not that because your oil is a much cheaper 
 grade ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. No; we think our oil is the best in the world. We 
 pay the highest price for it abroad, and we think it is better than the 
 California oil. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. Is it not universally conceded that the California 
 oil is the best oil in the world ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. Yes, sir; but we do not believe that conception is cor- 
 rect. We have spent a great many thousand dollars trying to per- 
 suade the American people that a product packed as our product is 
 packed, under the most absolutely sanitary conditions conceivable, is 
 as good as a product bearing a foreign label. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. Is your product a pure product ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. Is it not mixed with cottonseed oil ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. Absolutely not a fraction of a tenth of 1 per cent of 
 cottonseed oil. We are next to the Bureau of Chemistry, and they 
 will tell you they can discover a fraction of one-half of 1 per cent of 
 cottonseed oil. Olive oil formerly was adulterated at Porto Franco 
 and shipped into this or any other country, but our olive oil is abso- 
 lutely pure. That is our pride. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. You can not get the same price as California, can 
 you ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. We are not trying to get the high prices. We are 
 not aiming at the high price California gets.' We are aiming to 
 make as cheap a product as possible. That is our purpose. The 
 Pompeian Co. handled last year, if our figures are correct, five gal- 
 lons for every three gallons produced by the State of California. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. Do you think that if olive oil were put on the free 
 list it would reduce the price to the consumer? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. I do not really know whether it would for any very 
 long time. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. Do you think it would reduce it for the present, for 
 the moment ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. I think probably it would. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. How much of the duty is added to the price, which 
 you add to the price? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. I can not answer that question. The supply varies 
 so it is hard to tell. We keep our product at a fixed price. We dis- 
 
270 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 tribute it at wholesale. The increased demand is such that individu- 
 als to whom we distribute have been erasing the price that is printed 
 on the package and charging a higher price for it. 
 
 Mr. HILL. How do you do that keep your price at a fixed price 
 with a varying supply ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. The company has done it up to this time. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is there any agreement among the dealers to do it ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. No, sir. We do not know anybody that operates in 
 the olive-oil business except the foreign grower and the American 
 consumer whom we reach through our distributers. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You must make the price high in the beginning, to cover 
 all the short supply, and then keep it up when the supply is greater. 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. The time will come whe'n the price will have to be 
 changed if conditions are not changed in the production of olive oil 
 on the other side. If we had several years of bad season in the olive- 
 growing countries the price of olive oil, our price, would have to be 
 put up. But we have been able to maintain it largely because of the 
 great quantities that we handle. We made a great deal of money to 
 begin with. We did not make so much per gallon, because the price 
 has risen not quite 80 per cent in the past five years 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. What per cent of the olive oil consumed in this 
 country do you import ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. The United States imported last year, in 1911, 
 altogether 4,400,000 gallons. We imported about 300,000 of those. 
 Last year our business grew so enormously that we imported 500,000 
 gallons, half a million gallons of olive oil. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. There are a great many other competitors with you ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. There is constant competition. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. How is it you have all been able to fix and maintain 
 this same identical price for the last four years ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. We have maintained the price ourselves without any 
 consideration for anybody else. I can not tell you what the prices 
 are at which other companies sell their products. There are a great 
 number of importers who import and put up the product. We have 
 maintained our price- because it is good business to maintain that 
 price. The wide distribution of the product and the wide adver- 
 tisement of the product at that price is good business. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What proportion of the imports are in bulk as you 
 import it ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. Every ounce. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What proportion of the total imports into this 
 country? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. 1 can not give you those figures, but we have at this 
 time 1.200 casks of olive oil right hi the plant here in Washington 
 in hulk. 
 
 Mr. PALMKI;. There are other concerns in the country engaged in 
 the same business as you are? 
 
 Mr. BRK;HT. 1 think there are other concerns that import the bulk 
 
 oil, but 1 know of no other concern that has the same business as 
 
 Tluit is only a part of other businesses. But we 
 
 have no business whatever except the importation of olive oil in 
 
 hulk and ils redistribution in packa 
 
 es. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 
 
 271 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. In the process of refining this olive oil what 
 materials are combined to increase its volume ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. Nothing. The olive oil that is imported is placed in 
 the plant here, packed under sanitary conditions in tins, and dis- 
 tributed. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Cottonseed oil is not combined with it ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. Absolutely not the fraction of an ounce. I have said 
 that before. We are immediately next door to the Bureau of Chem- 
 istry and we are subject, of course, to the pure food and drug act. 
 Every bit of olive oil packed in the United States is subject to it. 
 We would be liable to be caught up immediately if we did adulterate 
 our product in the slightest and called it olive oil. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Is there not a product on record called olive 
 oil that has in it a combination of cottonseed oil ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. I can not answer that question. I do not know of 
 any. But cottonseed oil is used very largely as a food product, and 
 is a very good food product. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Is it true, as reported, that cottonseed oil is sent 
 from this country to one of the States of Italy, bottled there, and 
 sent over here as olive oil ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. I have heard of it, but I can not verify it, and under 
 the pure food and drug law I don't believe it possible. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Which is the better of the food products olive oil 
 or cottonseed oil ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. I have never tasted cottonseed oil, when I knew it, 
 and I can not, therefore, answer your question from personal 
 knowledge. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. What is your firm ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. The Pompeian Co. You have seen the advertise- 
 ments in the street cars in Washington, and we would be delighted 
 to have any of you see the plant, if you are interested in seeing it, 
 at any time. 
 
 I thank you very much. 
 
 BUREAU OF FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC COMMERCE. 
 
 Tariff 
 No. 
 
 
 British preferen- 
 tial tariff. 
 
 General tariff. 
 
 262 
 278 
 
 Canada: 
 Olive oil . ail valorem 
 
 15 per cent. . 
 
 20 per cent. 
 Free. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Olive oil for manufacturing soap, tobacco, and can- 
 ning fish, ad valorem. 
 United Kingdom: 
 Olive oil 
 
 Free 
 
 
 
 
 
 General tariff. 
 
 Minimum tariff. 
 
 France (franc, 19.3 cents): 
 Ex 110. Pure olive oil 
 For sonn making ("TOO kilos'). 
 
 10 francs 
 
 3 francs. 
 10 francs. 
 
 
 Other (100 kilos) 
 
 2o francs . 
 
 
 
 NOTE. Tte general tariff applies to imports from the United States. 
 
272 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 BUREAU OF FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC COMMERCE Continued. 
 
 General tariff. Conventional tariff. 
 
 Germany (marks, 23.8 cents): 
 
 166. Olive oil, pure, in casks (100 kilos) 10 marks Free. 
 
 Pure olive oil, officially denatured (100 kilos) 2 marks . 
 
 ' 167. Olive oil in receptacles other than casks (100 kilos) ..... 20 marks 10 marks. 
 
 NOTE. The conventional tariff applies to imports from the United States. 
 
 Peso. 
 
 Mexico (peso, 49.8 cents): 
 
 123. Olive oil, in jars or cans per kilo.. 0.17 
 
 124. Olive oil, in glass vessels do .22 
 
 NOTE. There is a surtax of 5 per cent of the duty. 
 
 First tariff. Second tariff. 
 
 Spain (peseta, 19.3 cents): 
 
 644. Olive oil (100 kilos) 40 pesetas 30 pesetas. 
 
 The second tariff applies to imports from the United States. 
 
 General tariff. Conventional tariff. 
 
 Italy (lira, 19.3 cents): 
 
 7. Olive oil (100 kilos) 15 lire . 
 
 Greece (drachma, gold, 19.3 cents: oko, 2.8 pounds): 
 
 42. Olive oil in bottles or other vessels, except barrels, skins, 
 
 and the like j per 100 okos 100 drachmas. 
 
 Olive oil in barrels, skins, and the like do 30 drachmas. 
 
 XOTE. The fluty is payable in paper drachmas at the rate of 1.4") drachmas paper to 1 drachma gold. 
 The value of the paper drachma is now practically equal to that of the gold drachma, and the actual duty, 
 therefore, amounts to 145 per cent of the rates given above. 
 
 [The Roesslor & Hasslacher Chemical Co., 100 William Street, New York.] 
 
 Imports of merchandise years ending June 30. 1907-1911. 
 OIJVK 01!,, KXCKPT FOR MANUFACTURING OR MECHANICAL PURPOSES (DUTIABLE). 
 
 Imported from 
 
 Europe: 
 
 Austria-Hungary 
 
 Azores, and Madeira Islands 
 
 Belgium 
 
 France 
 
 Gorman v 
 
 Gibraltar... 
 
 Grr 
 
 Italy 
 
 Malta, Go7.o, etc 
 
 Netherlands 
 
 Norway 
 
 Portugal 
 
 Spain 
 
 Sweden 
 
 Turkey in Kun>|><'. . 
 United Kingdom - 
 
 England. 
 
 Scotland 
 
 Ireland 
 
 North America: 
 
 Canada 
 
 Mexico 
 
 West Indies -Cuba. 
 
 i, isii 
 10 
 14 
 
 29,922 
 
 fi 
 
 1 , .SOS 
 
 Gallons. 
 15,507 
 
 3 
 
 875.537 
 10, 793 
 
 153,776 
 2,604,546 
 
 1,670 
 
 35,215 
 202, 158 
 
 11,695 
 
 7,046 
 
 6 
 
 982 
 
 Gallons. 
 16,858 
 
 1,646 
 
 773,267 
 
 8.220 
 
 158,350 
 2,356,086 
 
 117 
 213,641 
 
 24,305 
 
 43,031 
 40 
 
 1,753 
 135 
 
 2, 895 
 
 Gallons. 
 5,358 
 10 
 
 295 
 858,691 
 
 4.287 
 
 185,895 
 2,959,638 
 
 (i 
 
 1,223 
 
 83 
 
 215,169 
 
 92,893 
 
 23,689 
 38 
 
 3,777 
 
 623 
 
 3,680 
 
SCHEDULE A. 
 
 273 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 Imports of merchandise years ending June 30, 1907-1911 Continued. 
 
 OLIVE OIL, EXCEPT FOR MANUFACTURING OR MECHANICAL PURPOSES (DUTI- 
 ABLE) Continued. 
 
 Imported from 
 
 1907 
 
 1908 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1911 
 
 South America: 
 Argentina 
 
 Gallons. 
 6 
 
 Gallons:. 
 
 Gallons. 
 
 Gallons. 
 
 Gallons. 
 
 Chile .. 
 
 41 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 Asia: 
 Chinese Empire 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 Hongkong 
 
 50 
 6 
 224,930 
 
 
 
 
 Japan 
 
 3 
 111,316 
 
 24 
 2,092 
 
 3 
 132,664 
 
 1 
 100,953 
 
 
 Turkey in Asia 
 
 48,414 
 
 Oceania: 
 British Australia and Tasmania 
 Africa: 
 French Africa 
 
 544 
 1,429 
 
 110 
 50 
 
 18,561 
 9,187 
 
 2 
 18 
 
 258 
 
 43 
 1,639 
 
 Morocco 
 
 Turkey in Africa- 
 Egypt.. 
 
 
 
 Tripoli 
 
 2,014 
 
 104 
 
 376 
 
 Total 
 
 3,449,517 
 
 3,799,112 
 
 4,129,454 
 
 3,702,210 , 4,405,827 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Europe 
 
 3,333,161 
 896 
 6 
 111,324 
 24 
 4,106 
 
 Dollars. 
 5,501 
 
 3,563,900 
 8,052 
 41 
 224,986 
 
 3,960,985 
 8,034 
 
 3,596,105 
 4,783 
 6 
 100,954 
 
 4,347,275 
 8,080 
 
 North America 
 
 South America 
 
 Asia 
 
 132,667 
 
 48,414 
 
 Oceania 
 
 Africa -... 
 
 2,133 
 
 Dollars. 
 860 
 100 
 1,998 
 1,082,020 
 12,796 
 11 
 39,318 
 2,416,583 
 
 27,768 
 
 Dollars. 
 16, 196 
 
 362 
 
 Dollars. 
 15,033 
 
 2,058 
 
 Dollars. 
 6,526 
 15 
 472 
 1,477,284 
 6,758 
 
 Europe: 
 Austria- H,ungary 
 
 Azores, and Madeira Islands 
 
 Belgium 
 
 517 
 1,087,641 
 9,385 
 
 5 
 1,383,873 
 11,561 
 
 1,258 
 1,320,959 
 10,116 
 
 France .. . 
 
 Germany 
 
 Gibraltar 
 
 Greece ... . 
 
 48,524 
 2,100,557 
 11 
 14 
 
 146,486 
 3,118,737 
 
 125,207 
 3,034,622 
 
 167,953 
 3,955,614 
 
 Italy 
 
 Malta, Gozo, etc 
 
 Netherlands 
 
 63 
 
 1,643 
 
 292 
 
 6 
 1,576 
 113 
 215,262 
 
 Norway 
 
 Portugal 
 
 242 
 127,135 
 1 
 12,154 
 
 1 56,546 
 
 452 
 82 
 580 
 
 8 
 
 102 
 129,934 
 
 23,310 
 172,750 
 
 169 
 196,800 
 
 Spain 
 
 Sweden 
 
 Turkey in Europe 
 
 2,054 
 52,764 
 
 6,788 
 14 
 1,797 
 
 8,141 
 | 70,046 
 1 " 
 
 16,915 
 
 67,010 
 90 
 
 77,686 
 
 48,005 
 83 
 
 United Kingdom- 
 England 
 
 Scotland 
 
 Ireland 
 
 North America: 
 Canada 
 
 8,320 
 15 
 1,044 
 
 2,175 
 84 
 3,256 
 
 5,041 
 407 
 4,251 
 
 Mexico 
 
 West Indies Cuba 
 
 South America: 
 Argentina 
 
 Chile 
 
 73 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 Asia: 
 Chinese Empire ... 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 Hongkong 
 
 60 
 9 
 126,281 
 
 
 
 
 Japan . 
 
 2 
 71,930 
 
 35 
 1,405 
 
 5 
 92,001 
 
 2 
 74,819 
 
 
 Turkey in Asia 
 
 45,642 
 
 Oceania: 
 British Australia and Tasmania 
 Africa: 
 French Africa 
 
 352 
 
 2,800 
 
 85 
 39 
 
 8,604 
 6,840 
 
 2 
 11 
 
 203 
 
 46 
 1,149 
 
 Morocco 
 
 Turkey in Africa- 
 Egypt 
 
 
 
 Tripoli 
 
 998 
 
 96 302 
 
 Total 
 
 3,523,725 
 
 3,876,901 
 
 3,738,603 
 8,599 
 73 
 126,350 
 
 5,069,655 
 
 4,869,114 6,014,191 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Europe . 
 
 3,448,228 
 1,114 
 8 
 71,937 
 35 
 2,403 
 
 4,952,813 
 9,379 
 
 4,788,471 
 5,515 
 8 
 74,821 
 
 5,957,353 
 9,699 
 
 North America 
 
 South America 
 
 Asia 
 
 92,006 
 
 45,642 
 
 Oceania 
 
 Africa... 
 
 3,276 15.457 
 
 299 1,497 
 
 78959 VOL 113- 
 
 -18 
 
274 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 STATEMENT OF ANTONIO ZTJCCA, REPRESENTING ZUCCA & CO. 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. I present myself before this honorable committee as a 
 veteran merchant selling pure olive oil, never having sold a package 
 of other than the pure article. 
 
 Forty-two years ago I commenced to sell said product, at which 
 tune I was disposing of only a few hundred cases a year; at present I 
 sell about 30,000 cases and several thousand barrels annually. 
 
 Although the duty of about 50 per cent of the cost of olive oil is 
 heavy, its consumption has steadily increased, on account of the 
 increase of the Latin immigration; in view also of the fact that the 
 American people find the use of oil a healthy and excellent condiment 
 and its employment for cooking, illness, cleanliness unsurpassed. 
 
 Olive oil is really a necessity of life that should be sold at prices 
 within the reach of the masses. 
 
 I supported the passage of the "pure-food law," preventing the 
 entry and selling in this country of other than the pure olive oil when 
 so branded. Before the passage of said bill much of the olive oil 
 sold to the public was a mixture of cottonseed and other vegetable 
 oils, which, although perhaps not injurious to the health, on the 
 other hand, was not beneficial. The law is very strict as regards the 
 importation of the pure product; nevertheless the masses are not 
 protected by it, as adulterated olive oil is packed and sold in this 
 country by simply branding the bottle or can containing the same 
 with very attractive labels and names sufficiently deceiving to keep 
 the unscrupulous dealers within the law, while in small type the 
 word "compound" is placed on the labels. The quantity of this kind 
 of oil sold is far in excess of that of the pure. The package and price 
 is attractive to the consumer, and the seller realizes a much larger 
 profit than he could ever make by dealing in the pure article, with 
 the advantage of being able to give a much higher percentage to the 
 selling agent. The pure-food commissioners are helpless in taking 
 any action in the matter, as the package is branded "compound" or 
 is bearing such other misleading phrases. 
 
 In my opinion, there is but one way to restrict the selling of this 
 "compound oil," which is actually an adulterated food product, and 
 that is by reducing the tariff on pure oil to a rate that will not yield 
 any profit by selling a compound oil, such duty to be 20 or 25 cents 
 per gallon on packages and in bulk: for this reason, that the present 
 lower rate of 10 cents per gallon on oil imported in bulk, when it is 
 put into packages here, is mixed with a cheaper grade of olive oil, but 
 is sold to the public as a finer quality than it actually is. By such a 
 measure the strictly pure olive oil can be sold to the masses at just 
 as low a figure as the adulterated, making it unprofitable to anybody 
 who tries to adulterate the article and sell it for pure. 
 
 Tru;-, California produces some olive oil, but in such a small quan- 
 tity as to be insufficient to supply the demand of the State, or even 
 of OIK; city. 
 
 Flie importation of olive oil in California is quite large, and a lower 
 tariff would be an advantage to California, even when the State pro- 
 duces a larger quantity, and that will take some time, as olive trees 
 l>ear fruit only after having been planted many years, a tree 50 years 
 old being considered a full-bearing tree. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 275 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 Let the people have olive oil at reasonable prices. It should not be 
 considered a luxurv, but a necessity of life. Dyspepsia is unknown 
 illness in oil-producing countries, and is due in a great part to the free 
 use of pure olive oil. 
 
 In conclusion, I sincerely hope this honorable committee will con- 
 sider it important for the good of the masses to reduce the tariff on 
 olive oil, that the same may be obtainable in every home at a moderate 
 cost. 
 
 I will say this, gentlemen of the committee, that I am in favor of a 
 specific duty, for the reason it is good for the Government and good for 
 the merchant. With the ad valorem duty we always have had 
 trouble, on account of differential prices on the other side. 
 
 Another thing I will say : As far as revenue is concerned the con- 
 sumption of olive oil in the United States is about 10,000,000 gallons 
 a year, of which four and a half millions come from Italy, France, 
 and Spain, and some from Greece. California produces about 800,000 
 galloni. The other 5,000,000 or less than 5,000,000 gallons that is 
 sold is only this compound oil. It is not bad oil; it is cottonseed oil, 
 or peanut oil, probably; but certainly it is not very beneficial to the 
 health. 
 
 If you reduce the duty, say, one-half of what it is to-day, from 50 
 cents to 25 cents, I am pretty sure they will have to drop business in 
 this compound oil or they will fail. And then, instead of the im- 
 portation of four and a half million gallons, there will be nine or ten 
 million gallons of oil, which will give the same revenue to the United 
 States Government. The cottonseed-oil merchants probably will 
 complain, but there are a lot of countries where they nave no pure- 
 food laws, and they will not prohibit the cottonseed oil produced in 
 such countries. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. I want to ask you a (question. I believe you are one 
 of the best-known Italian-Americans in our city. Is it not true that 
 among the people of Mediterranean birth, who live hi the big cities of 
 the East, olive oil is a common substitute for butter ? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. And it is known as Italian butter among these 
 people ? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. I eat three eggs every morning, and they are fried in 
 oil. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. It is a matter of general consumption in the families 
 of these people in all eastern cities? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. Yes, sir. I like steak in butter, but other things we 
 fry in oil. In our family of four or five we use from a gallon and a 
 half to 2 gallons of oil every week. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. You do not consider it a luxury, do you? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. No. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. My distinguished opponent who defeated me in 
 the last campaign said that olive oil was a luxury, and under the 
 Democratic theory they would increase the duty if they were 
 elected. You do not agree with him ? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. I do not know anything about the theory. And I am 
 not a prophet. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. I presume you have had opportunities to observe 
 the manufacture of the oil ? 
 
276 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. What have you to say about it ? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. The gentleman from California is wrong in what he 
 stated. They have a perfect way in Italy and in Spain for making 
 the oil: even in Africa that is the case. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How about the cleanliness of their methods in mak- 
 ing it? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. It is very clean. I have been in Lucca, and through- 
 out tlie Riviera, in northern Italy. It is very clean indeed. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Have you seen them making olive oil in California? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. What is the difference in the method ? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. I do not believe there is any. I believe California has 
 the latest methods. But the best methods are also used hi the best 
 places in Italy. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Which is the better, the California oil or that imported 
 from Mediterranean countries ? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. I think there is no difference whatever between that 
 which is made at the best places. It is well done in California, and it 
 is well done in Italy and France and Spain. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. Did you notice any difference in its manufacture ? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. No, I do not believe so. Not in the first-class houses. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Somebody stated something here about pressing out 
 olive oil in the hands, or something of that kind. 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. Oh, no. It is all done by machinery, in bags. First 
 they pick out the bad olives: take them out. Then the olives are put 
 into bags, and then the first grade of oil is abstracted, then the second 
 grade, and then they put hot water on it and get the third-class oil, 
 which is machinery oil. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. Is there a kind of government supervision over there? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. Do they look after cleanliness ? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. Oh, yes. Xo package of oil goes away from the city 
 of Lucca which has not a certificate from the board of health given 
 with the invoice. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. Is the oil they export as good as that which they keep 
 for homo consumption '. 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. They are not so particular about machinery oil. There 
 is a lot that comes for machinery purposes. They neutralize the oil. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. For what they send over to us, do they require the 
 same sort of health certificate as at home? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. I guess not; I do not think so. They are putting 
 some sulphur there. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. They are not so careful about what we eat as they 
 aro about what they eat over there? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. They are very clean, as far as I saw. I go quite often 
 to Italy, and T have been in Spain and in Greece, and in the best 
 places they use very clean methods. I guess the gentleman from 
 California must have been there possibly 50 years ago. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Do not they require the same stamp on the oil they 
 ship to us, which is required for that which they use amoncr the people 
 at home? 
 
SCHEDULE A. 277 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. Yes; the board of health supervises that. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. When it comes out of the factory, the same stamp is 
 required if it is to be exported as if it is to be used over there ? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. Not the same, because there the board of health certi- 
 fies they have a hundred cases of oil from Lucca which has been 
 shipped to Zucca & Co., New York, or to somebody else, and attached 
 to the invoice is a certificate from the board of health stating that 
 the supervisor has been there and examined the oil, as to how they 
 make it, how they pack it, and everything else, which is in that 
 certificate from the board of health. 
 
 Mr. Dixox. How about the quality of the oil in California and 
 there 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. It is the same in the best places. California oil is very 
 fine. Some of it has a strong taste, the same as the California wine, 
 because the imported wine is more fine, because the soil has been 
 worked more. It is the same about the California oil. I tasted it, 
 and some of it has a little of that soil taste. That is probably because 
 the soil is too rich. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. Suppose those Italian boards of health should refuse 
 to stamp a lot of oil manufactured because it was not up to the 
 standard. What would thev do with it? How would they dispose 
 of it ? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. They would dispose of it there, I suppose. They do it. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. They could not dispose of it there, could they ? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. Olive oil, you know, is not sent only to the United 
 States. Down in Central America they use it in large quantities, and 
 they have no pure-food law. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. Then it is sent out of the country, what they can not 
 use there ? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. Yes. They send it to South America, and they send 
 it to South Africa; all places. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. They are just as likely to send it over here, are they 
 not? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. They can not do that, because the oil is examined by 
 the pure food commissioners every lot of oil received. When we 
 get an invoice of a lot of oil we find two or three cans that have 
 been taken from the cases and examined by the pure food people. 
 If they find anything mixed with it, they do not allow it to enter into 
 the country, and it has got to go back. They send it back to the 
 other side. 
 
 Mr. PETERS. The Italian olive oil imported here is examined as to 
 its condition, both in Italy and in this country ? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. It is; not only the Italian, but every oil, except 
 machinery oil, which is examined. They neutralize it in such a 
 way that it could not be used for eating purposes. 
 
 Mr. PETERS. Will you tell us whether the Italian olive oil sent 
 here for consumption is subjected to the same examination in Italy 
 as if it was to be consumed there ? 
 
 Mr. ZUCCA. Yes; by the board of health, the local board of health. 
 It is a local law for the benefit of the honest producer there. 
 
278 TAEIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 STATEMENT OF C. A. MARIANI, REPRESENTING THE E. MARIANI 
 CO., NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mariana, I understand, wants to appear before 
 the committee. Give your name, Mr. Mariana, to the stenographer. 
 
 Mr. MARIANI. C. A. Mariana, of the E. Mariana Co., 29 Broadway, 
 New York City. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this honorable committee, 1 want 
 to thank you for this opportunity given me, especially as this brief 
 that I am reading from was published as a part of yesterday's pro- 
 ceedings. I had a special motive, however, in asking the privilege 
 of speaking before you, and that was to advise you that I could not 
 appear before your committee as a special representative of the 
 Italian Chamber of Commerce (as I had previously advised the mem- 
 bers of your committee I would), because they have presented their 
 brief direct, and because, as a result of conversation with certain 
 official gentlemen in Washington, I was advised that I could not 
 appear as their representative officially anyway, as they were sub- 
 sidized by the Italian Government. I therefore had to present a 
 new brief myself under my own name in order to properly get before 
 your committee. 
 
 I want this committee to know I regard this brief as not my own 
 personal views, and that is why I asked to come before you this after- 
 noon. If it represented my own personal views, as I start off in my 
 brief, I state that I am in favor of olive oil being absolutely free for 
 the very obvious reasons which I cover in my brief. But I wanted 
 this committee to know that this brief that I have presented repre- 
 sents the opinions of practically half the importation of Italian olive 
 oil as a result of testimony that I had taken as chairman of that com- 
 mittee in the last three weeks. That is one point. 
 
 Another point I wanted this committee to know, which certainly 
 is important, is that I made a statement in my brief that one clause 
 of the last bill that was passed was vicious. 1 did not mean that in 
 a personal way. That is, I meant by that it would result viciously 
 for the Government. That to which I had reference was the ad 
 valorem clause in connection with the duty on olive oil. 
 
 I say in my brief, and I think I can be borne out in my statement, 
 that there are very few, if any, experts in the United States at the 
 present time capable of deciding on the quality of olive oil. The 
 subject of the quality of olive oil is one of the few features of olive 
 oil that has not been given consideration by the Federal Government. 
 For your information in to-day's market in France, Italy, and Spain, 
 between the first and last grade of olive oil, there is a difference of 
 some 51 cents a gallon in the price there. 
 
 I contend, as 1 have expressed in my brief, as the result of con- 
 sultations 1 have had with others that a separate, specific duty on oil 
 containers, whether they be half-pint bottles or 5 or 50 gallon 'barrels, 
 will result in the Government obtaining one principal feature that 
 they are trying to obtain, outside of the revenue end, and that is to 
 get to the consumer the best product obtainable at the least possible 
 cost. A specific duty of 25 per cent will encourage the exportation 
 to the l"niled States of a higher <rrade of olive oil. 
 
.tt A. 279 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. You mean 25 cents i 
 
 Mr. MARIANI. Twenty-five cents per gallon. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. You said 25 per cent. 
 
 Mr. MARIAXI. I meant 25 cents per gallon; thank you. I want 
 to state for the benefit of this committee that with a normal crop in 
 Europe of olive oil, with a specific duty of 25 cents a gallon, it will 
 be retailed at $2 or $2.10 per gallon, which will bring it in its smaller 
 containers within the reach of the entire public. 
 
 There are two other features in my brief to which I want quickly 
 to call your attention, and I know you have to get away. One is 
 the labeling of the country of origin on the package be made a part 
 of the law. That is a protection to the purchaser. It has been cus- 
 tomary in the past by usage, which is the rule, to label the name of 
 a city and call the brand after the name of that city. But it has 
 fallen into such usage that other cities ship oil to that city and then 
 reship it to this and other countries, carrying the name of the city, 
 which is false. For instance, I have in my mind Nice, Bordeaux, 
 and Lucca. As a matter of fact there is not enough Lucca olive oil 
 produced in the Province of Lucca to take care of the people of that 
 Province. And I dare say there is not a gentleman on this com- 
 mittee who, if he asked his wife what brand of olive oil she used, 
 she would say "Lucca olive oil," when as a matter of fact there is 
 not one in a hundred that is using it. 
 
 I therefore ask, as a protection to the housewife, the one who is 
 most affected by this olive-oil proposition, especially as it is becoming 
 so important from a medicinal standpoint, that the labeling of the 
 country of origin "Made in Italy," "Absolutely pure olive oil made 
 in Italy," "Absolutely pure olive oil made in France," be made a 
 part of the act, compelling them to carry the same on the original 
 container. 
 
 The last feature that I bring to your attention, and it is very im- 
 portant, especially for the consumer and many of these features will 
 harass the houses on the other side, and therefore I am working for the 
 consumer alone in this contention is the fact that by usage, especially 
 in Italy, which I will take for a basis, it has been customary to quote 
 prices in lires for a case of 12 so-called gallons or 24 so-called half gal- 
 lons, or 48 so-called quart this. As those packages have become a 
 sort of universal thing, the unscrupulous buyer in this country to-day 
 imports those 12 tins with 32 kilos to the case. As a matter of fact, 
 if they were full gallon, half gallon, or quart they would be pretty near 
 41 kilos to the case, which means that the unscrupulous buyer of olive 
 oil on to-day's market has 13 cents leeway by importing short of meas- 
 ure more than he would have if he w r as compelled by law to mark 
 the absolute contents on the package, on the box, or container. I 
 do not contend that a short container should not be brought into 
 this country, but I do contend that in the interest of fair competition 
 and in the interest of the retail buyer, that container should have 
 marked on it what it contains, absolutely. 
 
 First. That will assist the appraisers of the port in appraising the 
 duty, especially if it is a specific duty. 
 
 Second. It will encourage healthy competition. 
 
280 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 Third. It will give the consumer to-day one-tenth more olive oil 
 than he has been in the habit of getting from certain houses. 
 
 I thank you very much. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You say you represent the Italian Chamber of Com- 
 merce ? 
 
 Mr MARIANI. I say I can not officially represent them. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I understood you to say that was an institution sub- 
 sidized by the Italian Government ? 
 
 Mr. MARIANI. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What do you mean by that ? 
 
 Mr. MARIANI. In all foreign countries practically the chambers of 
 commerce of those countries receive a revenue from the Government 
 for the maintenance of commerce between the two countries. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. The Italian Government maintains the institution in 
 New York? 
 
 Mr. MARIANI. To an extent only, and therefore I was advised J 
 could not appear officially before the committee as a representative 
 of the Italian Chamber of Commerce; first, for the above reason, and 
 second, because their board of directors did not formally pass a reso- 
 lution authorizing me to appear before this committee, which is the 
 reason that I am presenting my personal brief, which I wanted this 
 committee to know is not my personal brief as far as my personal 
 ideas are concerned, but is the result of the testimony that I have 
 taken in the last three weeks, and that is why I am here this afternoon 
 to make this statement. 
 
 The witness filed the following communication, respecting olive 
 oils, with the committee: 
 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and ^feans, Washington, D. C. 
 
 HONORABLE SIR: In appealing to your committee for your consideration of the 
 following views suggestive of what principal features pertaining to olive oils imported 
 from foreign countries, should have the consideration of your honorable committee, I 
 beg to advise that in filing with your committee the following enumerated facts, I have 
 not taken a decision as chairman of the tariff committee of the Italian Chamber of 
 Commerce, whose memorial has been submitted to your committee, neither have I 
 taken alone my personal views and wishes on this very important subject, but I have 
 endeavored in colaborating the following data to keep foremost in my mind the inter- 
 ests of the five potent factors that are directly affected by any legislation affecting the 
 tariff on olive oils. These five factors considered are as follows: 
 
 First and foremost, the Government and its necessity to raise revenue; 
 
 Second and quite as important, the interests of the consumer in this country; 
 
 Third, the effect of any legislation on the American producer; 
 
 Fourth, the importer, who gains his livelihood by bringing olive oils into this country; 
 and 
 
 Fifth, the exporter, who looks to this country for a market for his products. 
 
 Had I appealed to your committee from my own viewpoint, my brief would contain 
 but five words, namely: "Olive oils should be free." But rather I have endeavored 
 to bring to your committee suggestions that in my opinion would benefit the greatest 
 number of the American public. 
 
 From 20 to 25 years ago either the importation of olive oils or the production of 
 olive oils in this country was a very small and insignificant item. As a matter of fact, 
 as lale as 1902 the importations of' edible olive oils totaled only a little over 700,000 
 gallons from all countries, and in J911 these figures were increased to nearly 4,500,000 
 gallons. The consumption of foreign olive oils and of olive oil in general must steadily 
 increase, especially if the same (imported olive oils) are placed within the reach of 
 the average consumer. In 1911, when the consumption of foreign olive oils reached 
 nearly 4.. r )0o ) ()(i(i nallons, the prices in foreign countries were very high for two reasons: 
 
SCHEDULE A. 281 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 First, the increased demand in North and South America; and, second, the ex- 
 ceptionally small crop produced, owing to adverse agricultural conditions. 
 
 This enormous total at the high prices existing in 1911 was reached notwithstanding 
 the fact that this product is produced in California, and it might be well for your com- 
 mittee to recognize the fact, in listening to this application for a reduction in the tariff, 
 that despite the adverse conditions in 1911 California was unable to compete with 
 foreign olive oils in either price or quality, even when the price of foreign olive oils 
 was so high, and it might be well for your committee to consider the fact that in 1911 
 more foreign olive oils were consumed in California than California olive oils, the reason 
 for this being that the olive-oil industry in California is at the present time in its in- 
 fancy. It has had a varied career. The planting of olive trees has taken place in 
 sections where the climatic conditions were unsuited to the proper production of olive 
 oil, and it is a matter of history that in many places the planting of olives has been 
 suspended and olive trees previously planted have had to be rooted out. 
 
 Your committee should also consider the fact that California is said to have pro- 
 duced less than 1,000,000 gallons of olive oil in 1911, which can be seen by your com- 
 mittee to be nowhere enough to take care of the local demands. Your committee 
 should also consider the fact that in listening to this application for a reduction in 
 the tariff on olive oil, they must remember that this reduction asked is not for all 
 time, and should labor and local conditions in California warrant a further considera- 
 tion of your committee in the future, that the same can be taken into consideration 
 at that time, as we must bear in mind that no tariff bill that is practical to-day that is 
 passed by Congress will be practical in its entirety 5 or 10 years from now, owing to 
 the changed conditions that must exist both in this and other countries 5 or 10 years 
 from now. 
 
 My understanding of the present revision of the tariff is that it is to get to the con- 
 sumer especially necessities of life if possible at a lower initial cost to them. In 
 instances where the local product is not jeopardized and as it is impossible for Cali- 
 fornia to produce olive oils at the present time in competition with foreign olive oil 
 in price, notwithstanding the present high duty, then it is the duty of the Government 
 to take in hand the interests of the consumers and reduce the duty, therefore the cost 
 to the consumer. 
 
 I would recommend a straight specific duty on olive oil, no matter what the size 
 of its container may be, at 25 cents a gallon. And if this recommendation is accepted 
 by your honorable committee you will find that it will result in an increased revenue 
 for the Government. I say this advisedly and I am in a position to show my books 
 for the last 10 vears, which will prove to your committee that a difference of 25 cents 
 in the price of imported olive oil has in the past affected my annual output more 
 than 100 per cent one way or another. As an illustration of this, owing to the very 
 bad condition of the present crop in Italy, the price this year, in December, ranges 
 from 30 to 40 cents a gallon higher than in December, 1911, and my sales for this 
 December are at least one-sixth of what they were for last December. I therefore 
 contend that on the subject of olive oils that not only the consumer but the Gov- 
 ernment itself will be the gainer by a reduction in the tariff. There is another and 
 very strong and commendable reason why the tariff on olive oil should be reduced. 
 Your committee should take into consideration that every day the physicians of this 
 country are prescribing olive oils for medicinal purposes and, strange as it may seem, 
 the oidinary working man, per capita, shows a greater percentage in the population 
 in general to whom advice is being given by physicians to use olive oil for medicinal 
 purposes and this is the man who finds olive oil outside of his financial reach to-day 
 and can not follow the advice of his physician to use olive oil after his ailment is reme- 
 died (for culinary pui poses) because he can not afford the same. It might be well 
 for your committee to consider that even though a self-sustaining nation, we are still 
 young in years, and there are still left many things that we can learn from the mother 
 countries from which our ancestors came, and principal and foremost above all items 
 of instructions that we should heed from the mother countries is "to learn how to 
 eat." In this respect, through the influence of our immigrant class, we are rapidly 
 learning the importance of the daily use of olive oil as a necessary food product and 
 were its use made possible by the reduction we seek, your honorable body will very 
 soon learn two things: First, that this industry is in its infancy, partially owing to 
 its present high cost, and secondly, that there is one item in the tariff bill whereby 
 the revenue of the Government can be greatly increased by a reduction in the tariff. 
 
 I ask for a universal specific duty on all containers of 25 cents per gallon, because 
 the recent bill passed and vetoed contained, under the item of olive oil, a vicious 
 feature, inasmuch as it prescribed an ad valorem duty of 20 per cent on all containers 
 
282 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OH*. 
 
 over 5 gallons. I say that this feature is vicious advisedly. In the first place there 
 are very few, if any, experts in the employ of the Government who could absolutely 
 determine the cost of olive oil; there are so many grades that an ad valorem duty 
 would subject the Government to continual fraud. Consular invoices abroad would 
 contain misstatements, and the cost to the Government for procuring experts to 
 ascertain on every individual importation information as to whether the consular 
 invoice has properly stated the value of the product or not would greatly jeopardize the 
 revenue thus received. ^This proposed ad valorem duty would further open up 
 illegitimate competition, inasmuch as the unscrupulous would endeavor to make 
 misstatements on their consular invoices. This is a very important factor for your 
 committee to consider, especially when you consider the fact that between the highest 
 and lowest grades of olive oil in Italy and France there is a difference in the foreign 
 cost of approximately 50 cents a gallon. 
 
 Another reason why I ask for a specific duty this duty being the same (25 cents a 
 gallon) on all containers is because at the present time, under the present tariff 
 bill, where the duty on small containers is 50 cents and on large containers 40 cents, 
 a channel for illegitimate competition is opened up. The small dealer who has a 
 relative abroad, with a small farm, and the chances are inexperienced in producing 
 the oil from the olives, is enabled by the difference of 10 cents a gallon to import 
 small quantities of oilve oil in bulk of questionable grade and deal the same out to 
 his local friends as the finest product obtainable, being satisfied with little or no 
 profit except the glory of delivering olive oil from his own relatives to his friends, 
 which, as above stated, is as a rule of inferior quality, and this in competition with 
 the legitimate importer, with enormous capital at stake. On the other hand, if 
 your honorable committee will make a universal specific duty of 25 cents per gallon, 
 it will be to the general benefit of the public at large, inasmuch as it will be a bar to 
 the importation of the cheaper grades of olive oil for edible purposes, as these oils 
 are only used in the foreign countries for blending purposes, but at the present time 
 under the present duty are imported into this country in bulk and are used in their 
 original form and also for blending with cottonseed or compound oil, and when 
 used in their original form invariably hinder the progress of the industry, inasmuch 
 as they are what we term olio grasso, or greasy oil, which physicians declare is unfit 
 for medicinal use, inasmuch as the greasy oil is nauseating to the sick stomach. 
 
 I would further ask your committee to do away with the present ad valorem duty 
 on glass containers or jugs, which are at present subjected to an ad valorem duty, 
 but which I claim should be exempted from any duty when said containers, bottles, 
 or jugs bear the brand or mark of the manufacturer in such manner that it can not 
 be removed without destroying the containers, thus rendering such containers unfit 
 for further commercial use. 
 
 This last request will result in the public becoming acquainted with specific brands 
 and will greatly encourage the use of the better grade of olive oils, inasmuch as all 
 containers coming into this country under the pure-food regulations must have a 
 complete statement in English on them stating exactly what they contain, and inas- 
 much as this is practically a Government guaranty that the statement contained 
 on the container is authentic. 
 
 While your honorable body is revising this item of Schedule A, I believe it would 
 be practical and I know that it would be to the general benefit, especially of our 
 English-speaking public, were you to decide on an item regarding the proper labels 
 of olive oils imported into this country. Practically the first olive oil imported from 
 Italy came from the city of Lucca, and at that time the demand for olive oil was 
 limited and the other Provinces of Italy producing oil did not enter into exportation 
 of this product to the United States. The same tiling is true of Nice and Bordeaux, 
 in France, which resulted in the retail merchant only knowing oil produced in these 
 places and as the demand increased the supply very soon became exhausted and the 
 dealers in these places found it necessary, as they do to-day, to buy the largest per- 
 centage of their olive oil for exportation purposes from other Provinces, both in Italy 
 and France and other countries, where they have gone in for the exportation of olive 
 oil. In many and in nearly all instances the oil from these various Provinces became 
 so popular in the public mind in this country and South America that the trade on 
 the oils from these special Provinces became practically the only ones that were 
 marketable. This resulted in a demand, as above stated, many times larger than the 
 output and further resulted in capital being brought from other Provinces to take 
 care of the olive oil produced in their own Provinces at the popular point of exporta- 
 tion, as it was not possible for them to export from their own Provinces for the above 
 reasons. Fur illustration, olive-oil houses in the Rivieras of Genoa opened up 
 
SCHEDULE A. 283 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 branches in the city of Lucca, shipped their Genoa oil to Lucca, and exported the 
 same from Lucca to the United States and South America and other countries as 
 "Lucca olive oil." To illustrate the injustice of this, there is not one in 10 Ameri- 
 can families using Italian olive oil to-day who will not tell you that they only UM- 
 Lucca olive oil, when as a matter of absolute fact there is not one in a hundred Ameri- 
 can families who ever obtained Lucca olive oil, because there is not enough of this 
 type of olive oil produced to supply the demands of the Province of Lucca. This 
 same thing holds good in Nice and Bordeaux, France, and in other countries, and has 
 only been made possible in this country by the ruling of the Government, or usage 
 into which the Government has fallen by habit, of allowing olive oil from Lucca, 
 Bordeaux, or Nice to be labeled "Lucca, Nice, or Bordeaux olive oil." 
 
 It is not possible to-day for a house in Genoa. Torino, or Naples, Italy, to ship oil 
 to the United States and mark it "Lucca olive oil." This ruling would be just if the 
 products actually came from these special provinces, but inasmuch as the Govern- 
 ment reports show that there is not enough oil produced in these special provinces 
 to take care of local demands, it is my request and urgent prayer to your honorable 
 body that you rule in your tariff bill that all olive oil coining into this country 
 that is, pure olive oil and is so stated on consular invoice shall be labeled on original 
 container, in plain English, "This container contains pure olive oil. product of Italy," 
 or "This container contains pure olive oil, product of France," or the same statement 
 from any other country from which the oil may come. This ruling will not only give 
 all producers of olive oil a fair chance, but will do away with a great injustice that has 
 existed and will also do away with the uses of olive oils of other countries by the coun- 
 tries shipping the oil to the United States, unless so speciiied on the container, and 
 will give the American consumer the character of olive oil that he requires and will 
 stimulate legitimate competition. 
 
 The last feature that I ask the indulgence of your committee on is the compulsory 
 marking of containers as to their contents. This is a very serious item in the industry 
 to-day, and without any regulations to cover this clause at the present time a housewife 
 goes to her grocer and buys ''a tin of oliveoil." If it is the quart size she wants, she pre- 
 sumes that she is purchasing a quart. The universal standard in Italy to-day recog- 
 nized by usage is a case of 12 ''so-called "gallons, 24 half gallons, or 48 quarts, and accord- 
 ing to this usage they contain approximately 40 kilos of olive oil, when as a matter of 
 fact if they contained 12 full gallons the same would contain nearer 41 kilos of oil. As 
 a matter of fact for competition purposes the same 12, 24, or 48 tins are shipped to this 
 country containing as low as 37 kilos of oil to the case, which means four kilos of oil or 
 thereabouts less than full measure, making a difference on to-day's market in Italy 
 or France of about 13 cents a gallon, giving the unscrupulous importer this much lee- 
 way and cheating the consumer out of a tenth of the oliveoil that he supposes he has 
 purchased and paid for. I do not protest and object to these importers who follow this 
 custom, importing the olive oil in reduced size containers, but I do say in the 
 interest of legitimate competition that your honorable body should include in the 
 olive-oil schedule a clause compelling the importer to have marked on every container 
 in plain English the amount of oil the receptacle contains. This will improve the im- 
 portation of this product in three distinct ways: First, it will be of great assistance to 
 the Government appraisers in deciding upon the duty to be assessed; second, it will 
 do away with unscrupulous competition; and third, it will protect the consumer, 
 inasmuch as he will know exactly what he is purchasing, thereby working to the 
 benefit of all parties concerned. 
 
 In the beginning of this recommendation I told your committee that I would write 
 advisedly, and that my request would be based accordingly. In verification of this I 
 wish your committee to know that I represent an exporter of Italian olive oil and an 
 exporter of French olive oil , and that as a broker for these houses I bring into the United 
 States approximately 250,000 gallons of olive oil anmially. Furthermore, I am finan- 
 cially interested in an olive oil importing company, who import approximately 75,000 
 gallons of olive oil annually. Furthermore, through this company, I am doing business 
 with about 1,500 retailers, and finally, through advertising plans that lam carrying out, 
 I am in touch annually, by correspondence, with possibly 10,000 consumers, amongst 
 whom physicians form an important factor, and therefore in coming to the following 
 conclusions I feel that I ask your honorable body for changes in the present tariff bill 
 that are for the benefit of the greatest number concerned. Deductions from the above 
 are as follows: 
 
 (a) That the present duty on olive oils is excessive and should be reduced. 
 
 (6) That my proposed reduction will not unfavorably affect any American industry. 
 
 (c) That my proposed reduction will result in increased revenue for the Government. 
 
*AEIFF HEARINGS. 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 (d) That the proposed reduction will work directly to the benefit of the consumer. 
 
 (e) That the proposed reduction will necessarily increase the importation of this 
 
 (/) That the proposed reduction should be to a specific duty of 25 cents a gallon on 
 all-sized containers. 
 
 (a) That an ad valorem duty is to the disadvantage of all parties concerned. 
 
 (h) That there should be no duty on containers bearing the brand or name of the 
 manufacturer in such a manner that it can not be removed. 
 
 (i) That the country of origin only shall be marked on container, along with a state- 
 ment as to the purity of the product imported ; and finally 
 
 (?') That all containers should state plainly their contents. 
 
 Regarding the above recommendation, the writer wishes to advise your honorable 
 committee that he holds himself in readiness at all times to bring any of the above 
 features to a successful conclusion in any way that he may assist your committee, or any 
 other features that may be recommended that are for the improvement of this feature 
 of the tariff. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 C. A. MARIAN i, 
 President of the E. Marlani Co., 
 
 29 Broadway, New York City. 
 
 PROTEST OF ITALIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RESPECTING 
 CERTAIN STATEMENTS MADE TO THE COMMITTEE. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 15, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on l,Yays and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: In view of certain statements by Mr. C. A. Mariani, of New 
 York, before your honorable committee at the hearing of January 7, 
 in connection with tariff schedule A (olive oil), as appear from the 
 stenographic report of the said hearing No. 2, pages 282 and 284, and 
 which refer to this Italian Chamber of Commerce, this chamber begs 
 leave to protest against such statements, as they are contrary to truth. 
 
 The Italian Chamber of Commerce in New York is an association 
 of merchants and was incorporated under the laws of the State of 
 Now York in 1887. Its members are for the majority Americans, 
 or American citizens, whose business is directly connected with the 
 import and export trade between the United States and Italy, in 
 both directions, as well as with domestic industries and commerce of 
 the United States. This chamber has therefore all legal and moral 
 lights and requirements for appearing or being represented as an 
 American trade organization before any Federal, State, or municipal 
 authorities in this country, while its importance in the foreign trade 
 of the United States is well demonstrated by statistics showing 
 yearly trade exchanges between the United States and Italy amount- 
 ing to nearly $130,000,000. 
 
 The reasons for which Mr. C. A. Mariani could not represent this 
 chamber at that hearing were therefore other than those stated by 
 him. In fact, he wanted to appear before your honorable committee 
 as representative of the Italian Chamber of Commerce in New York, 
 and having appointed himself as such, proceeded to spread the new r s, 
 which we understand reached you as well, that he was the chairman 
 oj die tariff committee of this chamber and had various newspapers 
 publish such news, while as a matter of fact he was not and is not even 
 a member of our tariff committee. The board of directors of our 
 
SCHEDULE A. 285 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 chamber did not see fit to ratify his ?elf-appointment, which was 
 also contrary to the dispositions contained in the bv-laws of our 
 chamber. These were the reasons, and you certainly understand 
 now that it would have been hard for Mr. Mariani to explain why he 
 could not appear as the representative of our chamber before your 
 honorable committee, if true explanations should have followed his 
 previous statements. 
 
 Trusting that your honorable committee will give our declarations 
 its kind consideration, we beg to offer our sincere thanks in advance. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 THE ITALIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN NEW YORK, 
 
 LUIGI SOLARI, President. 
 
 BRIEF OF NEW YORK METAL CEILING CO., NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 NEW YORK, February 1, 1918. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: It has been brought to our notice that an effort is now being 
 made before your committee on behalf of some importers of olive oil 
 from Italy, France, and other points, to equalize the differential of 
 
 10 cents per gallon which now exists in the duty collected on olive 
 
 011 when brought in in small containers of less than 5 gallons each. 
 We understand that the present dutv is 40 cents per gallon when 
 
 brought in in bulk, and 50 cents per gallon when brought in in small 
 cans, bottles, etc., in which the oil is retailed. We are informed that 
 the majority of importers, if their convenience an:l interest alone are 
 consulted, would very much prefer to import olive oil in the con- 
 tainer in which it is to be finally sold, for the reason that the work 
 of packing the oil as well as the manufacture of the containers can 
 be done much cheaper abroad than here. 
 
 We think it safe to say that the immediate effect of leveling this 
 differential would be to at once cause a complete cessation of all 
 imports in bulk. The result of this would be that thousands of Amer- 
 ican workmen now engaged not only in packing this oil in the pack- 
 ages in which it is to be distributed, but also engaged in the work of 
 making the containers themselves, bottles, cans, etc., would be imme- 
 diately thrown out of work. A very considerable percentage of the 
 oil imported in containers comes in m tin cans, and a very considera- 
 ble portion of our own business here is the printing of the lables and 
 decorating the tin plate itself, out of which the olive oil cans are made. 
 
 The artists and lithographers that we employ are paid much higher 
 rates of wages than the corresponding rates existing in France, Italy, 
 or any of the countries where such work is done. We desire particu- 
 larly to call your attention to the testimony given by Mr. Geo. R. 
 Meyercord, representing the National Association of Employing 
 Lithographers, before your committee a week or two back, as to the 
 comparative cost of lithography in this country and in Germany. All 
 that Mr. Meyercord testified to with regard to the difference in cost 
 and difference in wages with respect to this country and Germany 
 is true in conjunction with the lithograph work on the tin plate used 
 for these cans, and the competition we would be subject to from 
 
286 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 38 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 lithograph workers in Italy would be worse even than the lithogra- 
 phers of Germany, for the reason that the wages paid in Italy where 
 most of this work is done, is lower even than that paid in Germany. 
 We have been at considerable cost and some years of labor in work- 
 ing up this business, and even under the differential which now favors 
 us wfth wages in Italy one-quarter of what they are here we find it 
 difficult to meet the Italian competition, and even to-day large quan- 
 tities of oil is brought in hi decorated tin cans direct from Italy, all 
 of which work could be as well done here. All that we have stated 
 is equally true with regard to the manufacture of the glass bottles 
 and everything else that enters into this trade. 
 
 You will observe from the foregoing that we are not specially inter- 
 ested in the amount of duty so collected, but would like to urge upon 
 your committee the importance of maintaining or even increasing 
 the differential to which we have referred. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 NEW YORK METAL CEILING Co., 
 LEE McCALLUM, President. 
 
 LA MANNA, AZEMA & FARNAN, ET. AL., ASK FOR REDUCTION 
 OF CERTAIN DUTIES. 
 
 XEW YORK, January 4, 1913. 
 Hon. O. W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: Kef erring to revision of the present tariff and to Schedule A, 
 covering olive oil, the undersigned respectfully submit the following: 
 
 Edible olive oil. The bill as passed last year, and which was 
 vetoed by the President, called for olive oil in bottles, jars, kegs, or 
 other packages containing less than 5 gallons at 30 cents per gallon. 
 \o exception is taken to this. 
 
 The same bill stated: Olive oil, not specially provided for in this 
 act. 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 This would cover packages covering 5 gallons or more. 
 
 We earnestly and strongly protest against an ad valorem duty on 
 olive oil for the following reasons: 
 
 It is impossible for even an expert to correctly appraise the value 
 of this article, owing to the numerous qualities, shading from infe- 
 rior to superior, resulting in a gradation of values that can only be 
 approximated. 
 
 Also, the wide fluctuating character of the market, depending upon 
 crops, supply and demand, and even possibilities of the following 
 crop. 
 
 Also, that with the honest declaration of the importer as to actual 
 cost and the sincere desire and best efforts of examiners and appraisers 
 to establish true value, there could but result disagreement, annoy- 
 ance, and possibly unpleasant controversy and a corresponding 
 dilliculty in detecting undervaluation. 
 
 In addition, an ad valorem duty would entail great hardship upon 
 America n dcaleis in olive oil. owing to the fact that purchases are 
 usually made when the crop is gathered, said purchases are carried 
 
SCHEDULE A. 287 
 
 PARAGRAPH 40 FISH OILS. 
 
 abroad and shipped during the year according to contracts made at 
 time of purchase. 
 
 With an ad valorem duty the American importer could not make 
 sales for gradual delivery during the year, as the question of dutiable 
 value would remain open. 
 
 The average value of the olive oil in packages over 5 gallons is 150 
 francs per 100 kilos f. o. b. steamer at the foreign port. 
 
 The proposed rate of 20 per cent on 150 francs would amount to 
 30 francs, or $5.79 per 100 kilos. (100 kilos equals 29.15 gallons; 
 $5.79 divided by 29.15 gallons equals 19.86 cents per gallon.) 
 
 We pray the duty on packages of 5 gallons or more be made 20 
 cents per gallon, which is the equivalent of 20 per cent on olive oil 
 at 150 francs per 100 kilos. 
 
 This would give the United States Treasury the same revenue; 
 would enable business to be continued as it has been for many years, 
 and prevent undervaluation and the very serious annoyances cited 
 above between importers and United States appraisers. 
 
 This duty of 20 cents per gallon on olive oil hi bulk would be in 
 keeping with the duty of 30 cents per gallon on small packages. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 LA MANNA, AZEMA & FARNAN, 
 
 (And 20 others.) 
 
 PARAGRAPH 39. 
 
 Peppermint oil, twenty-five cents per pound. 
 See Verona Chemical Co., page 71. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 40. 
 
 Seal, herring, whale, and other fish oil, including sod oil, not specially 
 provided for in this section, eight cents per gallon. 
 
 For fish oils, see Robert Badcock, page 288; Capt. N. Hibberd, page 294; Black 
 Horn Leather Co., page 296; W. & S. Job & Co., page 298. 
 
 FISH OILS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM S. GREENE, OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Mr. GREENE. I hope there will be no precedent established by what 
 I do. I want to speak in regard to the sperm-oil industry. It is an 
 industry that is in the district I represent and represented largely by 
 New Bedford capital on the Pacific coast as well as New Bedford itself 
 in the sperm-oil industry. 
 
 There is quite a difference between sperm oil and whale oil. Under 
 the present duty they are both covered alike, 8 cents per gallon. I 
 think most people who are not acquainted with the whale-oil industry 
 seem to class them both alike. It is more in competition with foreign 
 capital than most any other industry in the oil line. The crews are 
 paid in shares of catches obtained by joint company of owners and 
 crew. We think that is a fair method, the owners paying all expenses. 
 The business has decreased of late years, and if the duties do not stop 
 importations now, lesser duties will enable foreign capital to supply 
 our markets at the lower price of foreign labor. It would be no more 
 than justice to rank sperm oil by itself at a rate of duty for goods of 
 no more value. Olive oil is very much more protected than even 
 sperm oil. There is a shore whaling station to be granted bv the 
 
288 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 40 FISH OILS. 
 
 Mexican Government on the Pacific coast, which will no doubt seek 
 a market here as easy of access. And the British vice consul of Bos- 
 ton has recently made a request for statistics of the whaling business 
 in Massachusetts. It looks as if he were making this inquiry for the 
 purpose of a market for large quantities of wnale oil obtained at 
 Norwegian stations located all over the world, and they wish to obtain 
 a market here. In justice to the sperm whale men of my section, I 
 think there should be more consideration given to the sperm-oil 
 industry as distinct from the industry as made now under the line of 
 whale oil alone. 
 
 I recollect in my early boyhood days when sperm oil and whale oil 
 were used for lighting purposes, that my folks used whale oil because 
 sperm oil was too high for use. It has been reduced greatly hi price 
 since, but it is still an industry that needs to be preserved and to be 
 cared for, 
 
 I trust that the committee will take into consideration the impor- 
 tance of the sperm-oil industry by itself as a distinct industry that 
 should be considered. I may submit later, from some of the people 
 interested that are not here to-day, some facts that I would like to 
 place before you for the information of the committee. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to have them if they come in 
 before the printed hearings are closed. 
 
 Mr. GREENE. I will see that they do. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ROBERT BADCOCK, JR., REPRESENTING W. & S. 
 JOB & CO. (COD OIL), NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. liobert Badcock, jr., 
 representing W. & S. Job & Co. Is Mr. Badcock here ? 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK. If the committee please, I am addressing myself 
 to fish oils, contained in paragraph 40 of Schedule A; cod oil imported 
 from Newfoundland and not especially paragraphed, but listed under 
 fish oils, paragraph 40, bearing the trade name "Newfoundland cod 
 oil," and distinguished from domestic cod oil by its name. 
 
 The removal of the present duty of 8 cents per gallon on this article 
 is recommended for the following reasons: 
 
 First. Because to produce the best results, cod oil is required by 
 tanners of leather in certain tannages, such as domestic chamois, 
 patent leather, lace leather, harness leather, and belting leather. 
 (See Exhibits A, B, C. etc.) 
 
 Second. Because this oil can not be produced in the United States. 
 (See Exhibits A, B. C, etc.) 
 
 Third. Because there is no duty on this oil going into the United 
 Kingdom, therein- giving that country, which is a large user of this 
 oil in similar tannages, a distinct advantage over the American manu- 
 facturer in competing for export business. (See Customs Tariff of 
 United Kingdom.) 
 
 Fourth. Because the present duty of 8 cents per gallon, added to 
 the primary cost of cod oil, makes it a very expensive oil, and when 
 the price advances beyond a certain figure 'the tanners are obliged to 
 use other oils not so good for their purpose, and it tempts unscrupulous 
 dealers to adulterate pure Newfoundland cod oil, to the tanners' 
 detriment. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 289 
 
 PARAGRAPH 4O FISH OILS. 
 
 Cod oil imported from Newfoundland is an oil rendered by natural 
 heat solely from the livers of the cod and is not made from any other 
 part of the codfish and can not be produced in the United States, as 
 there are certain peculiar properties contained therein which are not 
 found in domestic cod oil. Further, the amount of domestic cod oil 
 is very insignificant compared with the quantity of cod oil required 
 by the leather trade. 
 
 It is quite impossible to estimate the increase in imports which 
 would result from the removal of the present duty, but it should be 
 noted that Newfoundland ships to the United Kingdom alone, where 
 there is no duty, about 525,000 gallons per year, and a large per 
 centage of this would be imported into this market were it not for 
 the excessive tariff. The total revenue received from the whole im- 
 portation is very small, and by removing the duty the public in 
 general would benefit, as it would lessen the cost of production of all 
 leathers in which cod oil is used. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. Pardon me; I would like to know your business. 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK. I am in the oil business; an importer. 
 
 Mr. LONG WORTH. You are an importer of oil ? 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK. Yes, sir. 
 
 The importations into the United States for consumption and the 
 assessed duties on cod oil for the years ending June 30, 1910, 1911, 
 1912, from all countries, are as follows: 
 
 
 Gallons. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 Year ending June 30 
 1910 
 
 658,640 
 
 $167,803 
 
 $52 691 20 
 
 1911 .. 
 
 596,847 
 
 182,238 
 
 47, 747. 77 
 
 1912. . . 
 
 463,961 
 
 172,842 
 
 37,116.94 
 
 It is not possible to get records of previous years, as prior to August 
 6, 1909, cod oil was in the general classification of fish oil, and was not 
 given special mention. (See Table No. 15, Department of Commerce 
 and Labor, 1910-11.) 
 
 By comparing the imports in the years 1910, 1911, and 1912 it will 
 be noted that whereas in 1910 there were 658,640 gallons imported, 
 valued at $167,803, in 1911 there were 596,487 gallons, or 61,793 
 gallons less than 1910, with a valuation of $16,435 more than the 
 imports of 1910. 
 
 Again, in 1912, the quantity was reduced still further by 132,886 
 gallons and less than 1910 by 184,679 gallons, the value of which was 
 $172,842, or $5,039 more in value than the 1910 imports, although the 
 quantity imported in 1912 was 184,679 gallons less than the quantity 
 imported in 1910. 
 
 These figures are extracted and compiled from Table 15 of the 
 Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, as compiled 
 by the Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Statistics. 
 
 It is suggested that cod oil be specifically listed or paragraphed as 
 cod oil (inedible) for leather-manufacturing purposes only, and made 
 solely from cod livers, instead of at present, under the paragraph of 
 "Whale, seal, and other fish oils." 
 
 We have no suggestions to make as to the betterment of the ad- 
 ministrative features of the present law as relating to Schedule A 
 and are quite satisfied with and approve of the present methods. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 19 
 
290 
 
 TABLET HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 40 FISH OILS. 
 
 We would add that the value of imports into Newfoundland from 
 the United States for the year ending June 30, 1911, were valued at 
 $4,604,382. The total exports from Newfoundland to the United 
 States 'for the same period amounted to but $1,380,935. Further, 
 during this same period the imports from the United States to New- 
 foundland were very much greater than those from Great Britain to 
 Newfoundland. 
 
 Imports into Newfoundland from the United States were as follows : 
 
 [Department of Commerce and Labor of the United States, 1910-11, p. 1101.] 
 
 Year ending June 30 
 
 1907.. i $2,920,349 
 
 1908 3,587,748 
 
 1909 3,939,643 
 
 1910 - 4,074,802 
 
 1911 4, 604, 382 
 
 1912 4, 586, 422 
 
 Exports to the United States from Newfoundland were as follows : 
 
 [Department of Commerce and Labor of the United States, 1911, pp. 204-207.J 
 
 Year ending June 30 
 
 1907 $1,478,259 
 
 1908 1, 169, 060 
 
 1909 1,148,075 
 
 1910 1, 229, 688 
 
 1911 1, 380, 935 
 
 The principal imports into Newfoundland from the United States 
 for the following years are as follows: 
 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Flour: 
 1907 l>bls. 
 
 98,916 
 98, 758 
 
 $393. 125 
 499,544 
 341,543 
 323, 740 
 398,814 
 188, 493 
 
 69, 207 
 68.229 
 40. 929 
 95,261 
 54,804 
 92,305 
 
 45, 575 
 77, 259 
 59,725 
 81,950 
 89,814 
 90,814 
 
 125,911 
 114.882 
 95, 807 
 115,519 
 115,695 
 129,423 
 
 23,021 
 27, 980 
 39, 423 
 50,044 
 71,322 
 85,324 
 
 260, 880 
 313, 140 
 320.580 
 347.922 
 401 , 898 
 347,400 
 
 Bacon, ham, and pork: 
 1907 pounds.. 
 1908 do.... 
 1909 do 
 
 4,190,243 
 7.133,252 
 5, 618, 937 
 4,672,453 
 5.688.917 
 6,979,044 
 
 427,184 
 850,847 
 551.800 
 316.106 
 457,545 
 773,703 
 
 1,081,431 
 1,324,296 
 1,127,183 
 1,323.603 
 1,486,206 
 1,484,477 
 
 22,912 
 49,230 
 13,830 
 86, 405 
 147, 384 
 116,807 
 
 3,899,250 
 5, 599, 773 
 5,213.723 
 6,532,214 
 6, 678, 770 
 6, 580, 103 
 
 515,315 
 408,472 
 390,091 
 156,551 
 453,047 
 506,435 
 
 $352,514 
 597,365 
 437,969 
 479,096 
 597,882 
 652,321 
 
 40.426 
 78,720 
 54,958 
 38,508 
 53,033 
 75,863 
 
 89, 103 
 103,574 
 110, 530 
 137, 184 
 129,075 
 134, 625 
 
 1,730 
 3,390 
 855 
 6,069 
 11,229 
 7,620 
 
 145,891 
 221,475 
 193,036 
 296, 407 
 287,850 
 292,811 
 
 47,467 
 44,261 
 35,349 
 17, 545 
 62,165 
 78,169 
 
 1908 do 
 
 1909 do.... 
 1910 do 
 
 72, 214 
 61,927 
 72, 895 
 36,718 
 
 20. 388 
 17.510 
 12.040 
 25. 325 
 
 1910 do 
 
 1911 do 
 
 1911 do 
 
 1912 do.... 
 
 1912 do 
 
 Coal: 
 1907 tons.. 
 190* do.... 
 
 Lard: 
 1907 do 
 
 1908 do 
 
 190'J do... 
 
 1900 do 
 
 1910 do 
 
 1910 do 
 
 1911 po 
 
 13,980 
 23, 173 
 
 476,321 
 889,403 
 704, 583 
 919,200 
 974,458 
 1,015,730 
 
 030, 584 
 592, 013 
 495.009 
 504,552 
 554.397 
 595, 445 
 
 21,985 
 
 23, 117 
 32, 099 
 41.033 
 58. 349 
 
 1911 do 
 
 1912 do... 
 
 1912 do 
 
 Cotton cloths: 
 1907 . . vards 
 
 Kerosene oil: 
 1907 gallons.. 
 1908 do 
 
 190S do.,.. 
 
 1909 do.... 
 
 1909 do 
 
 1910 do.... 
 
 1910 do 
 
 1911 do... 
 
 1911 do 
 
 1912 do 
 
 1912 do.... 
 
 Cottonseed oil: 
 1907 pounds.. 
 1908 do.... 
 
 1909 do 
 
 Leathers: 
 1907 poii i Is.. 
 1908 do 
 
 1909 do.... 
 
 1910 do.... 
 1911 do.. 
 
 1910 do 
 
 1911 do 
 
 1912 do 
 
 1912 do.... 
 Sugar: 
 1907 do.... 
 
 Bools and shoos: 
 1907 pairs.. 
 190S do 
 
 1908 do... 
 1909 do 
 
 1909 .|, .... 
 
 1910 ,\( 
 
 1910 do... 
 1911 do 
 
 1911 di 
 
 1912... ,!, 
 
 07.808 
 .5, 274. 470 
 
 1912 do.... 
 
 Tobacco: 
 1907 do 
 
 Beef: 
 
 1907 pounds 
 
 190S , (i 
 
 4,749.770 
 
 4. c,i;:i. 300 
 
 1908 do... 
 1909 do 
 
 1: 111:1 i o 
 
 I'.'lfl till'.'.'. 
 
 5.oos.333 
 
 ">. V>0. V50 
 5,077,404 
 
 1910 do 
 
 I'.H 1 < o 
 
 1911 do... 
 1912 do.... 
 
 1"|J ,jn 
 
SCHEDULE A. 291 
 
 PARAGRAPH 40 FISH OILS. 
 
 Furthermore, on the free list of Newfoundland is noted the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 Flour, cottonseed oil, boracic and acetic acid, many lines of ma- 
 chinery, hides, corn, kerosene oil, lines and twines, motor-boat 
 engines, wheat, and many other articles, all of which are exported to 
 Newfoundland from the United States. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Badcock, do you believe bv reducing the duty 
 as proposed in this bill from 8 cents to 5 cents a gallon the importations 
 would increase only to 659,000 pounds, as we stated in our caucus 
 copy? 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK. I did not see that. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Or do you think the imports would increase still 
 more? 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK. Yes, sir; I am quite sure they would. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. A reduction in the tariff from 8 cents to 5 cents 
 would increase the imports far more than shown in our estimates ? 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK. It would, because the chief trouble we have in the 
 matter of this oil is adulteration, and we know for a fact that unscrupu- 
 lous dealers, of which there are many in this country, have adulterated 
 this oil and sold it at the same price as the imported. The tanner 
 has no way of finding it out until he dresses his leather with it, when 
 it is too late in many cases. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I would like to know a little more about your 
 business. Do you import oil to sell to tanners? 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK. Yes, sir; we import oil to sell to tanners. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. At what price do you sell it ? 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK. You mean the market to-day ? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Yes. 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK. Forty-three cents. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Are you advocating that this shall be put on the 
 free list ? 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK. We are, with the help of the tanners. The tanners 
 have asked us as importers to see what we could do to have this tariff 
 reduced. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You idea is to reduce the price at which you 
 sell it ? 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK. It certainly is. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. How much ? 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK. To the extent of the duty, 8 cents per gallon, if the 
 reduction be that much. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. How will you be any better off ? 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK. We will not be any better off except we will get a 
 very much larger trade. That is our main point. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You are acting with the tanners in this 'matter ? 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK. I have presented exhibits here from several of the 
 tanners. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. All I want to know is why you are here. 
 
 Mr. BADCOCK. These exhibits from the tanners, together with my 
 statement, will show. 
 
 The testimony of the witness was furnished in the shape of a brief 
 signed by tlu following firms: W. & S. Job & Co., per Kobert Bad- 
 cock, jr.; Bowring & Co., Chas. W. Bowring, Director; New York, 
 Newfoundland & Halifax Steamship Co. (Ltd.); Harvey & Outer- 
 
292 
 
 TABIFF HEAEINGS. 
 PABAGBAPH 40 FISH OILS. 
 
 bridge, per R. Harvey; National Oil & Supply Co., Arthur Phillips, 
 President; Dooner & Smith Co., James J. Dooner, President; New- 
 ark Chamois Works, F. P. Chapot, Manager; National Red Oil & 
 Soap Co., C. P. Gulick, Treasurer; Max Hertz, per Hass; Stengel & 
 Rothschild; National Oil Products Co., R. Bambinger, Secretary; 
 Blanchard Bro. & Lane, by M. T. Gay, President. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 [Stengel & Rothschild, tanners and manufacturers of patent enameled and fancy leather.] 
 
 NEWARK, N. J., December 26, 1912. 
 W. & S. JOB & Co., 68 Broad Street, Jfew York City. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: We understand that there is to be a hearing in Washington on the 
 6th of January before the Ways and Means Committee regarding duties on oils and 
 chemicals such as enter into the manufacture of leather. We are especially interested 
 in the duties on Newfoundland cod oil, such as we have been purchasing from you. 
 We would like very much to have you use your best efforts to have this duty reduced 
 as much as possible. It is impossible for us to use domestic cod oil on the class of 
 leather which we manufacture, as we have tried it over and over again without success, 
 there being certain properties in it which makes it unsuitable for our work. We con- 
 eider this oil in the nature of a raw material which we use in the manufacture of our 
 leather, and have always believed that such goods as enter into the use of any product 
 manufactured in this country should be taxed as little as possible. Furthermore 
 there are times when the domestic catch is a failure or limited in quantity, and at 
 such times the opportunity is used to drive prices up to the highest point. We hope 
 you will use your best efforts to have the duty on this oil reduced, and trusting that 
 you will meet with success, we remain, 
 
 Very truly, yours, STENGEL & ROTHSCHILD. 
 
 EXHIBIT B. 
 
 [F. S. Walton Co., oil manufacturers, importers, exporters, and jobbers.] 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, December 31, 1912. 
 
 Messrs. W. & S. JOB & Co., 
 
 68 Broad Street, New York. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: There are four reasons which we can cite why the duty on Newfound- 
 land cod oil for commercial uses should be abolished, these reasons being as follows: 
 First. It is the only pure cod oil on the market. 
 Second. It is used by the best and largest tanners. 
 
 Third. It does not conflict with a domestic cod oil, as it is greatly superior. 
 Fourth. It would compel receivers of domestic oil to sell their oil pure, instead of 
 it being the product of livers of several other fish, as at present. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 F. S. WALTON Co.. 
 GEORGE T. EDGE, Treasurer. 
 
 Increase in exports United States to Newfoundland, years ending June SO, 1907 and 1912. 
 
 Articles. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Increase. 
 
 1907 
 
 1912 
 
 Agricultural implements 
 
 $228 
 12.761 
 45. 354 
 64.121 
 So'. 528 
 32,984 
 123.411 
 92.507 
 23. 021 
 266. 880 
 352.514 
 40.426 
 46.753 
 145. 891 
 42,355 
 103,536 
 
 $2,320 
 23,365 
 74,430 
 149,043 
 207, 507 
 81,078 
 431,832 
 187, 166 
 85,324 
 347.460 
 652. 321 
 75, 863 
 156, 653 
 292.811 
 83,911 
 225, 858 
 
 $2,092 
 10,604 
 29,086 
 84,922 
 121,979 
 48,094 
 308,421 
 94,659 
 62,303 
 80,580 
 299,707 
 35,437 
 119,900 
 136,920 
 41,556 
 122,312 
 
 Cars, carriages, and vehicles 
 
 Chemicals, drugs, fives, mi'! medicines 
 
 Wearing appurel 
 
 Cotton manufactures (all other j 
 
 Fruits and nuts 
 
 Machinery 
 
 Other machinery 
 
 Hoots and shoes 
 
 Beef, salted 
 
 Bacon, hams, and pork . . . 
 
 Lard 
 
 Other meat and dairy product-; 
 
 Refined sugar 
 
 Manufactures of wood 
 
 All other articles 
 
 
SCHEDULE A. 293 
 
 PARAGRAPH 40 FISH OILS. 
 
 EXHIBIT C. 
 (Newark Chamois Co., manufacturers of oil-tanned washable chamois leathers.] 
 
 NEWARK, N. J., Januarys, 1913. 
 Messrs. DOONER & SMITH Co., Newark, N. J. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: We understand there is to be a hearing before Congress relative to a 
 change in the duty on leather manufacturers' products, and would respectfully ask that 
 you use your best endeavors to have the duty on Newfoundland cod oil removed 
 entirely or reduced materially, as we firmly believe that we should have our cod oil 
 free from duty. It is our sole tanning material in the manufacture of chamois skins. 
 This business has met with very little success in the United States on account of 
 the great competition we are obliged to meet from abroad. The cost of labor here has 
 been fully three times what it is in England, France, and Germany. 
 
 Thanking you for any interest you might take in this matter in our behalf, we re- 
 main, 
 
 Yours, truly, NEWARK CHAMOIS Co., 
 
 Per FRANK P. CHAPOT, Manager. 
 
 EXHIBIT D. 
 
 MILWAUKEE, Wis., January S, 191S. 
 BOWRING & Co., New York, N. Y. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: Your letter of December 28 at hand inquiring why we use Newfound- 
 land oil. We find this oil to be more pure and that it does not oxidize as readily as 
 the domestic product. It penetrates the leather better and does not spew. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 PFISTER & VOGEL LEATHER Co., 
 JOHN W. MAPEL. 
 
 EXHIBIT E. 
 
 CLEVELAND, OHIO, January 4, 191S. 
 BOWRING & Co., New York, N. Y. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: Replying to yours of the 28th relative to cod oil. we wish to state that 
 it is impossible for us to use the domestic oil, owing to its impurities. 
 
 In the manufacture of patent leather it is necessary to have an oil that has a low 
 cold test, otherwise the leather will bloom. 
 
 The Payne-Aldrich tariff bill removed practically all of the duty on leather. This 
 was done with the supposed understanding that duties would be lowered on every- 
 thing that went into the manufacture of leather. This, however, was not done, as 
 on some articles, namely, quebracho extract, the duty was raised. 
 
 We do not believe, however, the foregoing is any argument, the only thing being 
 that it is impossible for us to use any but Newfoundland cod oil in our business. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 THE CLEVELAND TANNING Co., 
 H. N. HILL, General Manager. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CAPT. N. HIBBEED, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. 
 
 Mr. HIBBEKD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 am here as the representative and part owner of the Tyee Co., of 
 San Francisco. This company is owned entirely by a number of 
 merchants in that city, and is the pioneer concern in America to 
 engage in catching three species of whales commonly called sulphur 
 bottoms, finbacks, and humpbacks, which, until we commenced 
 operations in 1908, had never been taken l>y the people of this 
 country. Therefore, the establishment of our plant represented an 
 entirely new American industry. 
 
294 TAETPF HEABINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 4Q FISH OILS. 
 
 The oil which we get from these whales is not the whale oil of com- 
 merce, because it has no lubricating value, and therefore has to be 
 used for a different purpose. The English and Norwegians have 
 been engaged in this business for many years, and knowing these 
 whales were very numerous along the Alaskan coast, after mature 
 deliberation our company was organized and $450,000 invested in 
 our shore station and floating plant. We were aware that our equip- 
 ment would cost us more than double what our foreign competitor 
 had to pay for his. As an illustration, our first whaler cost $60,000, 
 while our competitors on Vancouver Island, about 200 miles away, 
 only have to pay $22,000 for their steamers, which they have built 
 for them in Norway; and hi addition to the first cost, the wages paid 
 to our employees, including their maintenance will average $100 per 
 month each as against $40 without maintenance by the owners of 
 the foreign plant. But we felt confident that the duty, which 
 amounts to practically $3 a barrel, would enable us to compete with 
 them. 
 
 Unfortunately, we found there was no sale for our product hi this 
 country, for, as stated above, it has no lubricating value and the 
 soap makers and tanners were afraid of it because of the odor, and 
 we were therefore compelled to sell our oil the first year in Glasgow, 
 Scotland, in competition with the English and Norwegian whaling 
 companies, at a price which meant- a loss to us of $100,000 for the 
 season's operation. All this loss was not due to the price which we 
 could have obtained for the oil had we sold it in America at the 
 English price plus the greater part of the duty. Some of it was 
 caused by the fact that we were new at the business and had much 
 to learn before we could compete successfully with our foreign com- 
 petitors, who had had many years' experience; but we did realize 
 that even after we had mastered the details of the business we could 
 not hope for success until we could sell our products at home, and 
 before we could do this it was necessary for us to educate our possi- 
 ble customers. We therefore started m on a campaign of educa- 
 tion, which cost us about $50,000 in money and took a great deal of 
 care and trouble. But we finally succeeded in convincing the soap 
 manufacturers and tanners they could use our oil as a substitute for 
 tallow. 
 
 The second year we succeeded in selling about one-half of our catch, 
 which amounts to about 9,000 barrels per year, in this country. We 
 did a little bettor the next year, and last year we succeeded in selling 
 our entire output here in this country, and have therefore devel- 
 oped an entirely new business. 
 
 The past year is the first time we have made any profit, and this 
 profit, even with the protection afforded us by the duty of 8 cents 
 per gallon, amounted to but $9,000. Surely not an excessive return 
 on an investment of 450,000, especially when you consider that 
 there was nothing written off for depreciation and there was an oper- 
 ating loss in the first three years of $150,000 in addition to our origi- 
 nal investment. 
 
 But wo have boon gradually working ahead, and two other Amer- 
 ican concerns who have watched our progress, and who, perhaps, 
 have not been fully posted as to the financial returns of the venture, 
 have put in similar plants, one of which has been in operation two 
 
SCHEDULE A. 295 
 
 PARAGRAPH 40 FISH OILS. 
 
 years and the other one expects to commence work next year. One 
 of these concerns has four steamers, which were built in Seattle at a 
 cost of $60,000 each, while their competitor, 200 miles away on the 
 coast of Vancouver Island, is using 12 steamers built in Norway at a 
 cost of $22,000 each; and in addition all the American concerns are 
 importing lines and other fishing gear from Norway, paying a heavy 
 duty thereon (which the customs regulations of this country provide 
 for) because these articles are not manufactured and can not be 
 bought in this country, although some of the rope manufacturers are 
 now endeavoring to make lines which we can use and thus avoid the 
 necessity for this outlay; and if we can continue in business there is 
 no doubt but that the American rope manufacturers will finally suc- 
 ceed in producing an article which will be satisfactory for our pur- 
 poses, and thus we are indirectly helping another American industry. 
 
 Now, does it seem fair or right when we have invested our money 
 in these plants, feeling safe in doing so because the duty gave us this 
 protection, and then had energy and pride enough to develop an en- 
 tirely new industry, that you gentlemen should take it away from us ? 
 Because if you reduce the duty on these oils you will absolutely 
 destroy our investment, for we could not possibly hope to operate in 
 competition with our foreign competitor just across the border who 
 has such advantages in the cost of his plant and the wages paid his 
 workmen, and thus the $60,000 a year which we are paying out for 
 wages and provisions to Americans would be entirely lost to this 
 country and would go to the foreign workmen in their home countries. 
 
 We have just about developed markets enough for our own output, 
 and if other American concerns come into the field we will all have 
 to continue our campaign of education so as to have a market for our 
 goods at home, for none of us can hope to compete with our foreign 
 competitors while they have such an advantage in the cost of their 
 plants and wages to their employees, and we respectfully urge you 
 not to make it impossible for us to continue but to give us the help 
 necessary for us to go on and build up this trade, especially in view 
 of the fact that in doing so you are helping several American indus- 
 tries, while on the other hand a reduction in the duty would be a 
 benefit to the foreigner only and a handicap which would put your 
 own countrymen out of business and mean a direct loss to American 
 labor of $60,000 a year from this one plant. And I am convinced 
 that the other two plants, one of which is now in operation, are in 
 exactly the same situation, and their figures can safely be added to 
 purs as showing the loss which must come to this country if this 
 industry is to be wiped out, while at the same time there is no one 
 to be helped but the foreigner, in whom I presume you are not 
 especially interested, and whose interests you are not anxious to 
 protect, particularly when in so doing you are working such a great 
 hardship on a struggling industry which is trying to develop a new 
 trade in this country . 
 
 I trust that when you come to consider this question you will bear 
 these facts in mind and give us the protection we ask for, to which 
 I feel sure you will decide we are entitled. Thank you, gentlemen. 
 
 Mr. HULL. What is the average cost of one of those plants ? 
 
 Mr. HIBBERD. I know exactly what purs cost us $100,000. 
 
 Mr. HULL. What proportion of that is embraced in the machinery ? 
 
296 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 40 FISH OILS. 
 
 Mr. HIBBERD. That would be a very difficult question to answer. 
 For instance, we have a very large factory or plant for reducing the 
 blubber after it is taken off the whale and converting it into oil and 
 converting the flesh into fertilizer and grinding the bones, and we 
 have our whaler and a tug to go out and tow the whales into the 
 station. I do not think I could tell you exactly the different propor- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. HULL. Where are your materials manufactured ? 
 
 Mr. HIBBERD. In this country, all except some particular parts, for 
 instance the gun, which we use on the bow of the whaler, and our 
 harpoons and our lines and bombs, and some other specialties which 
 the Norwegians have developed. 
 
 Mr. HULL. Is the machinery complicated in the main, or is it more 
 or less simple ? 
 
 Mr. HIBBERD. There is nothing about it different from other 
 machinery. There are many plants which have been installed which 
 have much more complicated machinery. 
 
 Mr. HULL. You do not know about what proportion the cost of the 
 machinery would comprise ? 
 
 Mr. HIBBERD. No, Ido not know; but I could give you the detailed 
 cost of everything. I happened to be in the East, and when these 
 hearings were announced my partners telegraphed me and asked me 
 to come here and state our views on the matter; so I am not very 
 well posted as to the details. 
 
 Mr. PETERS. What is the total production of your firm and of the 
 other firms that you have referred to? 
 
 Mr. HIBBERD. Our output is 9,000 barrels, and I am under the 
 impression that theirs is about the same. 
 
 Mr. PETERS. Barrels? 
 
 Mr. HIBBERD. Barrels. 
 
 Mr. PETERS. How much does that amount to in gallons? 
 
 Mr. HIBBERD. There are about 50 gallons to a barrel, and that 
 would make 450,000 gallons. 
 
 Mr. PETERS. What proportion of the total consumption do you 
 produce ? 
 
 Mr. HIBBERD. At first we produced all that was used in this 
 country. When we commenced, wo could not sell a barrel here. 
 It was all shipped abroad. There may have been some shipments 
 that I do not know anything about, but I do know that we went to 
 all the principal users of that sort of product, and they would not 
 touch it. There may have been some of it used in a way that I have 
 no knowledge of, but, so far as I know, there was not any of it used. 
 
 Mr. Dixox. What is the proportion of your labor cost 'to the total 
 value of your output ? 
 
 .Mr. HIBBEHD. Just about 60 'per cent. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN*. That is all. 
 
 Mr. IIiBBKi'.n. Thank you. 
 
 BRIEF IN BEHALF OF THE BLACK HORN LEATHER CO. 
 ( CHAMOIS MANUFACTURERS), OF GREAT BEND, PA. 
 
 ilack I lorn Leather Co. is interested in the maintenance of the 
 existing duty on these oils. It is a purchaser and consumer of fish 
 
SCHEDULE A. 297 
 
 PARAGRAPH 40 FISH OILS. 
 
 and cod oils which are required in the production of chamois leather; 
 and is a producer of sod oil, moellon, and degras, as a necessary 
 sequence in the oil tannage of chamois. All these oils under the exist- 
 ing tariff carry a duty of 8 cents per gallon. Chamois leather tannage 
 requires fish or cod oil. Cod oil oxidizes a little more slowly than 
 otner fish oils, and hence is less likely to burn skins in tanning, and 
 for that reason it is extensively used in all oil tannage. 
 
 Newfoundland cod oil, whicli is the chief competitor of the domestic 
 cod oil, is controlled almost exclusively by London importing houses 
 whose American representative has appeared before your committee 
 in advocacy of placing Newfoundland cod oil on the free list. 
 
 It is admitted that Newfoundland cod oil has maintained a more 
 uniform standard of quality than has the domestic oil, but there has 
 been a marked improvement in domestic oil in the last few years, 
 with result that the Newfoundland cod oil has fallen off hi importa- 
 tion. 1 
 
 It was urged before the committee by the representative of the 
 English importing houses that Newfoundland cod oil, because of its 
 acknowledged superiority, did not come in competition with domestic 
 productions. This statement is in error. The improvement in the 
 quality of the domestic cod oil in the last few years has been marked. 
 Mr. Orth, of Harden, Orth & Hastings, of Boston, large distributors 
 of domestic cod and fish oil, is now offering domestic cod oil which he 
 guarantees to be equal to any Newfoundland cod oil on the market, 
 and the experience of the Black Horn Leather Co. in- the use of domestic 
 cod oil has been exceedingly satisfactory. The reason the Black Horn 
 Leather Co. as purchasers and consumers oppose the removal or low- 
 ering the present duty on cod and fish oil rests in the belief that such 
 removal would dimmish, if not eliminate, the domestic production, 
 and then with no competition from the domestic article the control of 
 prices of Newfoundland cod oil would be lodged with the English 
 importers. If their suggestion should be adopted to remove all duty 
 from Newfoundland cod oil and retain it on any other fish oils the 
 importers' control would be complete 
 
 The National Association of Tanners, who appeared before this 
 committee through Mr. Vogel, made no request whatever to have 
 the duty on cod oil removed. On the contrary, the firm of Drueding 
 Bros. & Co. and the Black Horn Leather Co., manufacturing substan- 
 tially all of the chamois made in the United States, do not favor 
 the lowering of the existing duty on fish and cod oils. 
 
 Inasmuch as sod oil, moellon, and degras are necessary products 
 of oil tannage, and enter so largely into the financial side of the sale 
 of oil-tannage products, it is necessary to ask for thorn the same 
 protection that is accorded to cod and fish oils. 
 
 Chamois production in the United States has not as yet been 
 developed to any great extent, and only the two concerns mentioned 
 have thus far engaged in the manufacture of chamois leather, and 
 they require, hi order that they may continue in business, that 
 their products be protected against the well-established foreign 
 producers. 
 
 1 See brief of Mr. Badcock in behalf of W. & S. Job Co.. London. 
 
298 TAKIFP HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 40 FISH OILS. 
 
 The Black Horn Leather Co., with most of the other oil-tannage 
 people, believe that the best and proper method of pioviding them- 
 selves with an assured and safe supply of cod and fish oil is to develop 
 the American industry. They know of no reason why under the 
 present duty domestic cod oil will not continue to improve in quality. 
 There are no mechanical or local reasons why such improvement 
 should not take place until the American product becomes as uniform 
 as the Newfoundland product, and they are content to bear any 
 burden, if it be considered a burden, in the way of a reasonable 
 duty In order to aid the American fisherman to establish himself 
 where he will be safe from the destructive competition of foreign 
 fishers and English importers. We respectfully urge the retention 
 of the 8-cent duty on all fish and cod oil, and on sod oil, moellon, 
 and degras. 
 
 NOTE. The term "degras" has frequently been limited in legis- 
 lative measures to wool grease, whereas it has as frequently in trade 
 been applied to oils resultant from oil tannage. 
 
 BLACK HORN LEATHER Co.. 
 
 NORMAN H. PARKE, General Manager. 
 
 ADDITIONAL BRIEF OF W. & S. JOB & CO. 
 
 Objection is made to statements by Black Horn Leather Co. through 
 brief submitted and presented by Norman H. Parke, general manager, 
 to revising duties in Schedule A, paragraph No. 40. For the reason 
 that said statements in brief of Black Horn Leather Co. are not correct 
 and the existing conditions are not as stated, and further, that com- 
 ments thereon are inclined to mislead, rather than place facts before 
 this committee. 
 
 First. Newfoundland cod oil is not a competitor of domestic cod 
 oil, as they are materially different, and proof of this statement is con- 
 firmed by exhibits contained in brief of W. & S. Job & Co. from direct 
 users. 
 
 Second. Newfoundland cod oil is not controlled by any London 
 importers, nor has any London house a branch office in United States 
 for sale of cod oil, and the statement made to this effect in brief of 
 Black Horn Leather Co. is in error. 
 
 Third. The result of the falling off in the importations is due solely 
 to high prices and not to any improvement in the manufacture of 
 domestic cod oil. 
 
 Fourth. Reduction or removal of the duty on cod oil will not 
 eliminate or diminish the domestic production for the reason that cod 
 oil is a by-product of the codfish, and it is only reasonable to assume 
 that the American fishermen will not forsake the fishing industry if 
 this duty is removed. 
 
 Fifth. Importers do not control the price of Newfoundland cod oil, 
 they never did, have never tried, and never shall be able to accom- 
 plish this, as there is as much competition in the primary market as in 
 the selling market, moreover, some American firms have their repre- 
 sentatives located in Newfoundland who buy direct from the fish- 
 ermen, and this in itself establishes the fact that the control of the 
 market is not in the hands of the importers. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 299 
 
 PARAGRAPH 40 FISH OILS. 
 
 Sixth. The National Association of Tanners, who appeared before 
 the committee, through Mr. August Vogel, of Milwaukee, did make 
 mention of the duty on this oil and recommended readjustment of the 
 duty on cod oil. (See brief of August Vogel.) Further, the attached 
 exhibit from Mr. Vpgel's firm clearly explains the position and empha- 
 sizes the fact that it should be free of duty and that his firm (Pnster 
 & Vogel Leather Co.) find the oil more pure, it does not oxidize as 
 readily as domestic, it penetrates the leather better, and does not 
 spew. Further, the Cleveland Tanning Co. state it is impossible for 
 them to use anything but the Newfoundland cod oil and will not use 
 domestic, owing to its impurities. (See letters under statement of 
 Robert Badcook, jr., representing W. & S. Job & Co., p. 288.) Fur- 
 ther, Stengel & Rothschild state it is impossible for them to use do- 
 mestic cod oil, and they have tried it over and over again without 
 success, there being certain properties in it which makes it unsuitable 
 to their work. (See letter.) The Newark Chamois Works, manufac- 
 turers exclusively of chamois and competitors of Black Horn Leather 
 Co., state it is their sole tanning material and that they should have 
 their cod oil free of duty. (See letter.) 
 
 Seventh. It is further stated in brief of Black Horn Leather Co. 
 that, together with Drueding Bros. & Co., they manufacture sub- 
 stantially all the chamois made in United States. 
 
 Eighth. It is pointed out to your committee that no statement or 
 signature of Drueding Bros. & Co. substantiating brief of Black Horn 
 Leather Co. showing authority for quoting this firm is found in brief 
 of Black Horn Leather Co. 
 
 Ninth. The tanners, to the extent of 90 per cent or more, are in 
 favor of the readjustment of this duty, and the protest of only one 
 concern should not have any adverse bearing as to the retention of 
 this duty. (See brief of August Vogel, representing National Asso- 
 ciation of Leather Manufacturers.) 
 
 Tenth. The Italian Chamber of Commerce in their brief advocate 
 the relief of fiscal burdens from all tanning materials, one of which 
 pure cod oil plays a most important part, as manufacturers of certain 
 leathers must use it. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 41. 
 
 Opium, crude or unmanufactured, and not adulterated, containing nine 
 per centum and over of morphia, one dollar and fifty cents per pound ; opium 
 of the same composition, dried, powdered, or otherwise advanced beyond 
 the condition of crude or unmanufactured, two dollars per pound; morphia 
 or morphine, sulphate of, and all- alkaloids of opium, and salts and esters 
 thereof, one dollar and fifty cents per ounce; cocaine, ecgonine, and all salts 
 and derivatives of the same, one dollar and fifty cents per ounce; coca leaves, 
 five cents per pound; aqueous extract of opium, for medicinal uses, and tinc- 
 ture of, as laudanum, and other liquid preparations of opium, not specially 
 provided for in this section, forty per centum ad valorem ; opium containing 
 less than nine per centum of morphia, six dollars per pound; but preparations 
 of opium deposited in bonded warehouses shall not be removed therefrom 
 without payment of duties, and such duties shall not be refunded: Pro- 
 vided, That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to repeal or in 
 any manner impair or affect the provisions of an act entitled "An act to 
 prohibit the importation and use of opium for other than medicinal pur- 
 poses," approved February ninth, nineteen hundred and nine. 
 
 For opium, etc., see Merck & Co., page 30; Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, page 49. 
 
300 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 42 BABYTES. 
 PARAGRAPH 42. 
 
 Baryta, sulphate of, or barytes, including barytes earth, unmanufac- 
 tured, one dollar and fifty cents per ton; manufactured, five dollars and 
 twenty-five cents per ton. 
 
 BARYTES. 
 
 STATEMENT OF H. J. KREBS, PRESIDENT OF THE KREBS 
 PIGMENT & CHEMICAL CO. 
 
 Will you give your name and address to the stenographer, please ? 
 
 Mr. KREBS. H. J. Krebs, president of the Krebs Pigment & Chem- 
 ical Co. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Krebs, we have allowed you 15 minutes. 
 
 Mr. KREBS. I beg your pardon, sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I say we have allowed you 15 minutes hi which to 
 make your statement. 
 
 Mr. KREBS. Yes; I will be brief. 
 
 On behalf of the Krebs Pigment & Chemical Co., of Newport, Del. ; 
 the Grasselli Chemical Co., of Cleveland, Ohio; and the Beckton Chem- 
 ical Co., of Newark, N. J., who are among the principal lithopone 
 manufacturers of this country, the following brief is submitted, 
 referring to paragraph 55, lithopone, and paragraph 42, baryta: 
 
 The principal raw materials used in producing lithopone are crude baryta and zinc 
 ores, or other forms of zinc, although zinc ore is naturally the basic material. In 
 addition to the above, numerous other chemicals are also required, the costs of which 
 are higher in this country than abroad. Also in considering the crude materials we 
 call your special attention to baryta, on which there is now a duty of $1.50 per ton, 
 and which we are obliged to import principally from Germany, owing to there being 
 no reliable home supply; also zinc ores, on which a varying duty must be paid, accord- 
 ing to the zinc contents. 
 
 Lithopone is purely a chemical product which contains barium sulphate as a com- 
 ponent. This barium sulphate must not be confounded with native ground baryta, 
 which is also used in the paint trade. Lithopone is extensively used in the manufac- 
 ture of flat coat paints, linoleum, oilcloth, and the rubber industries. 
 
 Labor is a factor which must be considered in the manufacture of lithopone, and we 
 earnestly request your consideration of this item. For the comparative differences) 
 existing here and abroad we refer you to House Report No. 326, pages 305 and 370. 
 
 Xo conditions have arisen since the enactment of the present rate to warrant any 
 change in the rate of duty and we therefore urge that no change be made, and that the 
 existing rate of 1J cents per pound be continued. It is suggested to place an ad 
 valorem duty instead of a specific rate, and we earnestly urge your careful considera- 
 tion before allowing such a change. With a specific rate of duty both the manufactur- 
 ers and consumers know exactly what rate must be paid, whereas an ad valorem rate 
 open? the question to endless discussion and consequent annoyance on account of the 
 continually fluctuating change in the selling prices both here and abroad. 
 
 There was imported into this country during the year ending June, 1911 (notwith- 
 standing the present rate of 1} cents per pound), 5,409,520 pounds of lithopone. 
 
 Special reference is made to this fact to show that even under the present rate of 1J 
 cents per pound the foreign manufacturers, especially the German^, are able to com- 
 pete successfully in this country, and we believe that should any reductions be made 
 in the present rate it will seriously affect our home production. It is a well-known 
 facMhat the markets of this country are often used as a dumping ground for surplus 
 foreign stocks, especially from Germany, and we further feel that any reduction in the 
 present rate will only afford foreign manufacturers a better opportunity to demoralize 
 our home markets at the expense of the industry in this country and with the natural 
 disastrous effect on the labor employed. 
 
 In view of the foregoing we earnestly request that the present rate of 1| cents per 
 pound be continued. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN'. Does any member of the committee desire to ask 
 the witness any questions? That is all. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 301 
 
 PARAGRAPH 42 BARYTES. 
 
 STATEMENT OF WM. A. BTTDDECKE, PRESIDENT OF THE POINT 
 MILLING & MANUFACTURING CO., MINERAL POINT, MO. 
 
 We venture to submit to you the following brief statement of facts 
 in relation to the production of barytes in this country. 
 
 This material is mined almost entirely in the Southern States, 
 there being operations in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, North 
 and South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia. As you know, in Wash- 
 ington County, Mo., it is the principal industry, and over 50 per cent 
 of the barytes mined in the united States comes from Washington 
 County. The employees there do little else; the men work in the 
 mines and their families clean and prepare the ore for factory uses. 
 
 This company has a factory at Mineral Point, Mo., right at the mines 
 and employs a full force of men in the production of this material for 
 market, the operations being of a character that requires the factory 
 to be run night and day, or to shut down completely. 
 
 The competition on this material comes almost exclusively from 
 Germany, where there are very large mines, and with their cheap 
 labor it is possible to produce at a lower price than we can here hi 
 this country under present conditions. 
 
 We attach herewith a letter recently received by one of our friends 
 in East St. Louis, and inclosing samples, which we are sending to 
 you hi the original covers, and from these is evident the competition 
 which exists in this industry. 
 
 We would say further that 75 per cent of the consumption of ba- 
 rytes is in the Atlantic seaboard cities, and for years the price on the 
 American product in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston has been 
 at a figure that the German producers were willing to accept, and it 
 has been a constant effort of the American producers to meet this 
 price. 
 
 You will note that with the letter from Holland is attached a sheet 
 showing the prices worked out into tons of 2,000 pounds, adding the 
 duty as at present, and showing the net price, delivered Atlantic 
 ports, as per quotation. 
 
 Now our situation is as follows: The average price for the tiff, 
 which is the local name for barytes ore in Washington County, is 
 $7 per net ton at the railroad to which must be added a small loading 
 charge and freight to our factory, averaging 30 cents per ton. The 
 ore in manufacturing shows a loss of 5 per cent, or 35 cents per ton. 
 The freight on the manufactured product from Mineral Point to New 
 York is $4.65 per ton, A fair estimate of cost is $5.50 per ton, mak- 
 ing $17.80 per ton delievered New York as against $17.90 on the 
 foreign product. This shows an extremely small margin, as at pres- 
 ent, and on that we are working. 
 
 To reduce the tariff means that every ton of foreign ore that comes 
 into this country does not simply mean ore ton more used but dis- 
 places a ton of American mined and manufactured goods, and every 
 ton means the employment of at least six men in the mining, hauling, 
 and manufacturing. We therefore ask you to use your good offices 
 to prevent damage to an industry that while not large it is a very 
 valuable one and can be made still larger if properly protected, and 
 on the other hand there is no demand made by any consumer of this 
 material for a reduction in tariff, and that the only real benefit hi 
 
302 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 42 BARYTES. 
 
 having the tariff reduced will be to some importing brokers at the 
 seaboard. 
 
 We would also state that the mining and manufacturing of this 
 material is entirely free from any consolidation or understanding; 
 that competition is very active, there being a greater factory produc- 
 tion than the consumption requires; also that the present duty is not 
 prohibitive, as import records show that every year a considerable 
 quantity of the German product is brought to this country. 
 
 We would also suggest that the railroad companies recognize the 
 foreign competition, and have been willing to maintain a rate of 
 freight which works out about 40 cents per ton per mile, and is as 
 low as we can hope to obtain, and, unlike the German competition, 
 we have no water route from this section to the Atlantic seaboard. 
 We therefore trust you will do what you can to help the producers 
 in this section, and prevent the mining and manufacturing of this 
 material being obliterated by bringing into this country more of the 
 foreign production. 
 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 POINT MILLING & MANUFACTURING Co., 
 WM. A. BUDDECKE, President. 
 
 [Inclosure.] 
 
 ROTTERDAM, January 9, 1913. 
 Messrs. GEO. S. MEPHAM & Co., 
 
 East St. Louis, III. 
 
 DEAR SIRS: We have pleasure in drawing your attention to a product for which we 
 are very well posted for export to your country and we will be glad if you will give the 
 present your very best attention. This product is heavy spar ; or barytes. 
 
 We know that a fair amount of business is already done in this product on your side. 
 They have up to this date been buying from Hamburg, but as the sources of supply 
 are situated nearer to Rotterdam, we are in a position to make you very advantageous 
 offers for shipment via our port, and we trust that you will not fail to avail yourselves 
 of this opportunity. 
 
 The largest use of the above-named articles is made by manufacturers of lithophon, 
 white lead, and carpet manufacturers. On account of its very heavy weight, it serves 
 to add weight to the products in which it is mixed. It is also used by various other 
 chemical works. 
 
 For your guidance we have sent you a sample of this product and we can but advise 
 you to follow up the sale of this stuff which \ve know to have already found a market in 
 the States. 
 
 We beg to quote without engagement: 
 
 Price per 1,000 kilos (2,200 pounds) c. i. /., at New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and 
 
 Baltimore. 
 
 
 
 
 Value per ton 
 
 
 
 
 (United States 
 
 
 
 
 currency). 1 
 
 Grade. 
 
 In bags. 
 
 In casks. 
 
 
 Includ- 
 
 
 
 
 Without 
 
 ing duty 
 
 
 
 
 duty. 
 
 of $5.25 
 
 
 
 
 
 per ton. 1 
 
 
 Mark*. 
 
 Marks. 
 
 
 
 No. 1... 
 
 58 
 
 60 
 
 $12 65 
 
 $17 90 
 
 No. 2... 
 
 48 
 
 50 
 
 10 47 
 
 15 72 
 
 No. 3 
 
 45 
 
 47 
 
 9 82 
 
 15 07 
 
 No. 4 
 
 41 
 
 43 
 
 8.94 
 
 14.19 
 
 
 1 Ton of 2,000 pounds. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 303 
 
 PARAGRAPH 44 BLANC FIXE. 
 
 This heavy spar contains 97 to 98 per cent BaS0 4 . 
 
 The price, in bags is charged in the gross weight; when packed in casks an allow- 
 ance of 3 per cent is made for tare on the gross weight. 
 
 Our conditions of payment are net cash against documents, and we will be glad 
 to hear from you in regard to the above offer. 
 Meantime we are, dear sir, yours, truly, 
 
 RUEB & GLEICHMAN. 
 PARAGRAPH 43. 
 
 Blues, such as Berlin, Prussian, Chinese, and all others, containing 
 ferrocyanide of iron, in pulp, dry or ground, in or mixed with oil or water, 
 eight cents per pound. 
 See Arthur Somers, pages 335, 344. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 44. 
 
 Blanc fixe, or artificial sulphate of barytes, and satin white, or artificial 
 sulphate of lime, one-half of one cent per pound. 
 
 BLANC FIXE. 
 
 BRIEF OF T. S. TODD & CO., CUSTOMHOUSE BROKERS AND 
 FORWARDERS, NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 4, 191S. 
 WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: Blanc fixe and satin white are made in this country 
 from a foreign raw material not found here. 
 
 The price of blanc fixe during the past 10 years has been reduced 
 from $55 to $39 per ton. 
 
 The imports or about 6,000,000 pounds amount to about 50 per 
 cent of the total consumption, therefore quite removed from a 
 monopoly. 
 
 The present duty is one-half cent per pound and provided for hi 
 paragraph 44. 
 
 Blanc fixe and satin white are made from a natural product known 
 as witherite spar, found principally in England, although other 
 sources of supply are found in Germany; this material is imported 
 in the rough state from the mine in bulk, but not in sufficient quantity 
 to admit of any reduction hi the ocean freight, so that the raw mate- 
 rial and the finished article, blanc fixe, pays practically the same 
 freight. This raw material goes through an elaborate process of 
 manufacture, and is reduced to its commercial product by grinding 
 and successive treatment with muriatic acid and sulphuric acid, 
 both of which acids cost considerably more in this country than they 
 do abroad; as an illustration, in England muriatic acid is sold at 
 70 to 75 cents per 100 pounds, as against $1.20 to $1.25 per 100 
 pounds here. In Germany sulphuric acid can be purchased at 40 
 cents per 100 pounds, as against 80 to 85 cents per 100 pounds here. 
 
 Actual production figures taken from our manufacturing records 
 show the following: Cost of raw material, $19.50 per ton; labor, $7 
 per ton; acids and treatment, $7.50 per ton; packing, $2.50 per ton; 
 total, $36.50 per ton; and the finished material sells for from $39 
 to $40per ton. 
 
 In House bill 20182, paragraph 56, provision is made for duty on 
 blanc fixe and satin white at one-fourth cent per pound, equivalent 
 
304 TABJFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 45 LAMPBLACK. 
 
 to $5.60 per English ton of 2,240 pounds; the price of blanc fixe in 
 England is 5 per ton, ocean freight 25s. per ton, total, $36 per ton, 
 or $1.61 per 100 pounds, which is less than the American cost of 
 production. 
 
 The present duty of one-half cent per pound does not admit or any 
 abnormal profit to the manufacturer, the above figures indicating it 
 to be less than 7J per. cent, from which it is manifest that a duty of 
 one-fourth cent per pound under present conditions, under which we 
 are entirely dependent on England and Germany for our raw 
 material, would force the American manufacturer to discontinue its 
 production. 
 
 The present duty has been in force since 1897, and the American 
 producer has voluntarily reduced his cost to the consumer 30 per cent, 
 which should commend him to your committee as justly worthy of 
 consideration in fixing a rate of duty which will enable him to con- 
 tinue a business representing a very considerable amount of labor and 
 capital. 
 
 We have the honor to be, yours, respectfully, 
 
 T. S. TODD, 
 
 For Providence Drysalters Co., Providence, R. 1. 
 
 JOHN D. LEWIS, 
 
 Providence, R. I. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 45. 
 
 Black, made from bone, ivory, or vegetable substance, by whatever name 
 known, including boneblack and lampblack, dry or ground in oil or water, 
 twenty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 
 LAMPBLACK. 
 
 BKIEF SUBMITTED BY WILCKES, MARTIN WILCKES CO., NEW 
 
 YORK CITY. 
 
 Brief appealing on the reduction of the duty on lampblack from 25 
 per cent to 15 per cent under report on Schedule A, chemicals, oils, 
 and paints. 
 
 (1) Labor. Germany is the largest producer of lampblack in the 
 world, and their wages are from 50 per cent to 75 per cent lower in 
 that country than they are here. For instance, our common laborers 
 get- $2 a day, and our cooperers get $3 a day, and our foremen get $20 
 per week, as against the German wages for a common laborer of 3 
 marks, which equals 75 cents, 4 marks, which equals $1, for cooperers, 
 and 38 to 40 marks a week, which equal $9.50 to $10 for foremen. 
 
 (2) Raw material. Germany is also the largest producers of coal 
 tar and coal-tar products, which are the base of the raw materials for 
 the manufacture of lampblacks. They therefore have cheaper coal 
 tar and coal-tar products than the American manufacturers. 
 
 (3) Marketing the product. American manufacturers have to de- 
 pend on the American market exclusively, as not a pound can be sold 
 outside of the United States on account of the German competition. 
 They all have the South American trade, for the reason that they are 
 not only in a position to produce cheaper, but they transport their 
 lampblack at ridiculously low-ocean freights right to South America 
 
SCHEDULE A. 305 
 
 PARAGRAPH 46 LAMPBLACK. 
 
 in their own bottoms. The same holds true in Russia, England, and 
 Austria. 
 
 (4) No change can be made in the tariff without injuring to some 
 extent the American industry. 
 
 (5) We are perfectly familiar with the above-mentioned facts for 
 the reason that we are well posted on manufacturing conditions on 
 the other side. 
 
 (6) The Germans can deliver lampblack here on the basis of only a 
 15 per cent duty at a lower price than the goods can be manufactured 
 for in this country. We would be glad to give exact figures proving 
 our contention if you will give us an opportunity. 
 
 (7) The evidence submitted is so clear, however, when you take 
 into consideration the selling price of lampblack in this market, which 
 to-day is as low as 2 cents a pound for the majority of it, as against 
 the tremendous advantage which the Germans have in their labor and 
 raw materials that very little further argument or figures is necessary. 
 
 (8) The Germans are exporting lampblack to practically every 
 country where there is a market for it, whereas there is not a pound of 
 lampblack exported from this country to any point. 
 
 (9) The 25 per cent duty barely kept them out of this market 
 which they have had their eyes on for years. 
 
 (10) You will see from the knowledge which the Ways and Means 
 Committee already have on the raw material and the labor condition 
 and the price at wlu'ch the majority of lampblack sells in this market 
 that the duty should not be reduced from 25 per cent. 
 
 (11) Please do not get this article confused with carbon gas black 
 which is all produced in this country and exported abroad nor 
 ivory, bone, or drop blacks. 
 
 (12) Of course, these blacks are all made from entirely different 
 raw materials, viz, carbon gas black from natural gas, and the other 
 blacks from bone and vegetable matter, and they can not, any of 
 them, be used for the same purpose as lampblack. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 WILCKES, MARTIN WILCKES Co., 
 By L. MARTIN. 
 
 BRIEF OF H. B. CARPENTER, OF THE LISTERS A. C. WORKS, 
 
 NEWARK, N. J. 
 
 NEWARK, N. J., January 17, 1913. 
 The Chairman. Hon. BOIES PENROSE, and 
 
 MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, 
 
 V. S. Senate, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: We respectfully urge upon you to consider carefully 
 the question of removing the present auty from "animal charcoal*' 
 and pray you to leave it undisturbed, as serious consequences are 
 likely to result to many thousands of persons whose labor and living 
 are dependent upon the production of this article. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 20 
 
306 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 45 LAMPBLACK. 
 
 "Bone black," "animal charcoal," or "ivory black" is made from 
 bones and is used for decolorizing purposes by sugar refiners, oil re- 
 finers, blacking manufacturers, and others. 
 
 The collection of raw stock is a slow and difficult matter in this 
 country, as labor will not engage in it without being paid much higher 
 price than in foreign countries. 
 
 The collection of bones furnishes occupation for thousands of per- 
 sons. Every town of any size has one or more men engaged in the 
 collection of bones, which are shipped to the nearest manufacturers. 
 The following statement shows the wages here and abroad: 
 
 Under conditions abroad, labor is paid as follows: Common labor, 
 $6 per week; skilled labor, $7.50 per week; while in this country the 
 rates are, common labor, $10 per week; skilled labor, $12 per week, 
 which is equivalent to 66 per cent and 60 per cent, respectively, in 
 favor of American workmen. Of the total expense of manufacturing 
 bone black more than 50 per cent is labor. Bones being refuse, their 
 value arises from the labor employed in collecting, handling, and 
 conveying to the different factories. Removal of the duty from 
 bone black will result in the reduction of the price of bones, which 
 must be borne by the laborers engaged in the collection and sale of 
 bones. 
 
 For the period of eight years ending December 31, 1911, the profit 
 to the Listers Works in the manufacture of bone black shows an aver- 
 age of 0.09-54/1 00 per cent on the gross sales. For a manufacturing 
 business employing a large amount of capital it would appear that 
 this is a small profit. If the duty is removed the profit will un- 
 doubtedly disappear altogether, as sugar refiners are the principal 
 users in this country, and the duty on bone black, such as they use, 
 as' at present levied, would be from $12 to $13 per ton. The profits 
 of 0.09-54/100 per cent represent less than $5 per ton of product, 
 therefore, it is self-evident that the bone-black business will be de- 
 stroyed if the duty is removed and foreign competition allowed with- 
 out protection in this country. 
 
 The business of the Listers Works in bone black has decreased 
 about 33 per cent during the past eight years as compared with the 
 years 1898 and 1894, and if the duty is removed will be wiped out 
 entirely, thus depriving a large number of employees in the bone- 
 black works of their livelihood and leaving a larger number of bone 
 gatherers through the country with no employment. 
 
 We therefore pray that your honorable committee will carefully 
 reconsider your action and permit the duty on "bone charcoal" to 
 remain undisturbed and as at present provided. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 (Signed) LISTERS A. C. WORKS, 
 
 By J. F. KEHOE, President. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 307 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 46-47 DRY COLORS. 
 PARAGRAPH 46. 
 
 Chrome yellow, chrome green, and all other chromium colors in the manu- 
 facture of which lead and bichromate of potash or soda are used, in pulp, 
 dry, or ground in or mixed with oil or water, four and three-eighths cents per 
 pound. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 47. 
 
 Ocher and ochery earths, sienna and sienna earths, and umber and umber 
 earths, not specially provided for in this section, when crude or not powdered, 
 washed, or pulverized, one-eighth of one cent per pound ; if powdered, washed, 
 or pulverized, three-eighths of one cent per pound; if ground in oil or water, 
 per cent per pound. 
 For sienna earths, see Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 111. 
 
 DRY COLORS. 
 
 BRIEF OF C. K. WILLIAMS & CO., OF EASTON, PA., ON DRY 
 COLORS AND MINERAL FILLERS. 
 
 C. K. WILLIAMS & Co., 
 Easton, Pa., January 6, 1913. 
 Hon. A.^IITCHELL PALMER, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: As manufacturers of dry colors and mineral fillers, we 
 wish to refute articles covered by paragraphs Nos. 47 and 56 of pres- 
 ent tariff. Venetian red, red oxides, mortar colors, ocher, umbers, and 
 siennas are largely produced from the natural resources of our land. 
 The labor costs commence from the time they are first moved from 
 the earth, and constitute fully 80 per cent of the cost of the finished 
 product. From our knowledge of frequent visits to the mines and 
 works abroad, with which we compete, can say that the cost of labor 
 abroad for this kind of work is less than one-half what it is in the 
 United States. Thus the present duty of 30 per cent is not excessive 
 and does not prevent these products being imported in large propor- 
 tions; and we earnestly request that you lend your support to the 
 maintenance of present tariff applying to them. As you know, this 
 is an important industry in Pennsylvania, especially in your district, 
 and needs the protection. 
 
 Very truly, yours, C. K. WILLIAMS & Co., 
 
 C. K. WILLIAMS, Treasurer. 
 
 BRIEF OF F. A. REICHARD, NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 4, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Oiairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: We wish to place before you a few facts regarding the tariff 
 on those dry colors in which we are particularly experienced through 
 importation for the past 60 } 7 ears. 
 
 Ochers, umbers, and siennas (covered by par. 47, customs tariff 
 act of Aug. 5, 1909). There are no qualities suitable for paint 
 manufacturers, which branch of the countrj 7 's industries is the largest 
 user of these colors produced in this country. It is readily apparent, 
 therefore, that three-eighths cent per pound duty is unjust, because 
 the ultimate consumer is taxed with this unfair duty. So long as 
 
308 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 46-47 DBY COLOBS. 
 
 suitable quantities are not produced here, we think the manufac- 
 turer and ultimate consumer should receive the benefit of free entry. 
 
 The few American mines produce vastly inferior grades and really 
 do not enter into competition with the imported products to any 
 appreciable degree. . 
 
 We would refer you to a very, comprehensive brier submitted to 
 the Committee on Ways and Means of the Sixtieth Congress, which 
 appears on pages 413-452 of the publication "Tariff Hearings," Six- 
 tieth Congress, Schedule A. This brief goes into greater detail than 
 we do here, and also gives you the opinions of many leading paint 
 makers on these items. 
 
 Oxide of iron (Covered by -par. 56 customs tariff act of Aug. 5, 
 1909) . There are two classes, natural, which is mined, and artificial, 
 which is made by the calcination of copperas. 
 
 These natural oxides are in exactly the same position as ochers, 
 umbers, and siennas the qualities mined here are so greatly inf erior 
 to those produced abroad that it seems to us a shame to tax the 
 American consumer 30 per cent by the American consumer we mean 
 the entire population of the country, for every person is a more or less 
 user of paint for the benefit of a few firms engaged in the production 
 of this material. 
 
 It is recognized bv the trade that the present duty of 30 per cent 
 on the artificial oxides is inequitable particularly on the lower 
 grades. Copperas is plentiful in this country and we believe pur- 
 chasable at a much lower price than in England, which country is the 
 acknowledged producer of the best qualities of red oxide. 
 
 It does not seem right to us that the hundreds, nay thousands, of 
 users of copperas red oxide in this country should be compelled to 
 stand a tax of 30 per cent for the benefit of to the best of our 
 knowledge three manufacturers. We would suggest a rate of 15 
 per cent ad valorem, which we are sure would amply protect the three 
 American makers and vastly benefit the thousands of consumers. 
 
 The brief mentioned above also treats of these items in greater 
 detail. 
 
 While on this red oxide subject we want to call your attention to a 
 grievous wrong perpetrated under the present tariff: There is a crude 
 oxide of iron mined abroad and well known to the trade under the 
 caption of "Persian Gulf red" this is largely used by paint makers. 
 
 It is being imported by one house, whom the trade believes to have 
 the sole agency, at a rate of 15 cents per ton duty, although the 
 tariff specifically provides that all colors, whether crude or powdered, 
 should pay 30 per cent. This importing firm brings it in under the 
 '' Iron ore for smelting purposes" clause, which you can readily see is 
 entirely wrong because every particle of it is used as a coloring agent 
 01- paint. Now, to further accentuate the injustice, other iron ores are 
 compelled to pay a 30 per cent duty. As both classes go for the same 
 purpose, we are sure you will agree with our contention that the 
 crude iron oxide designated herein as Persian Gulf should pay the 30 
 per cent duty. In order to eliminate such an unjust discrimination 
 in the tariff' which your committee will draft, we respectfully suggest 
 that you specifically provide for occurrences of this nature this can 
 easily be done by specifying that all crude iron oxides when intended 
 for use as a paint or color should pay the rate of duty which your 
 
SCHEDULE A. 309 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 46-47 DRY COLORS. . 
 
 committee thinks just. A proviso of this nature will prevent dis- 
 crimination in favor of certain importers. 
 
 Principal uses of ochers and oxides of iron. These colors are used 
 principally in the cheaper classes of paints mixed paints, barn 
 paints, freight-car paints, structural paints, etc., and therefore you 
 can readily see that a duty on these items materially affects the 
 selling price to the American consumer of a necessity such as the 
 paints described have become. 
 
 Lead products (covered by par. 48, orange mineral; 49, red lead- 
 customs tariff act of Aug. 5, 1909). We speak only of orange mineral 
 and red lead. 
 
 The tariff on these items is exorbitant and seems to have been cre- 
 ated solely to benefit the National Lead Co. the so-called Lead 
 Trust. 
 
 There is no reason for the existence of separate duties on these 
 items orange mineral is only a high grade of red lead. The exist- 
 ence of distinct duties renders it easy for the entering of the superior 
 red lead (orange mineral) at the lower duty the red-lead duty. One 
 tariff on these items would render this impossible. 
 
 We firmly believe a duty of If cents per pound on red lead and 
 orange mineral would be ample. Such a duty would take excellent 
 care of the Lead Trust and still benefit the consumer. 
 
 A reference to the brief mentioned above will give you further 
 information on these items. 
 
 Ultramarine Hue (covered by par. 50, customs tariff act of Aug. 5, 
 1909). This is another product very largely used by paint manu- 
 facturers, paper manufacturers, and several other industries which 
 is in the hands of a trust and which is protected to a greater extent 
 than it is rightfully entitled. 
 
 We would refer you to pages 413-452 of the above-mentioned pub- 
 lication which will give you full information as to what large con- 
 sumers think is a proper duty. 
 
 We also wish to refer you to pages 459 to 468 of the publication 
 mentioned herein which will prove conclusively the absolute monop- 
 oly enjoyed by the Ultramarine Trust. 
 
 We can not urge you too strongly to provide a duty on ultramarine 
 blue, which will permit of importation and thus break the monopoly 
 in this country. Such a procedure would greatly benefit many indus- 
 tries employing thousands upon thousands of workmen, because free 
 competition in ultramarine blue would then be enjoyed by the con- 
 sumers. 
 
 Talc, sulphate of lime, and china clay (covered by pars. 481, talc; 
 88, sulphate of lime; 90, china clay, customs tariff act of Aug. 5, 
 1909). We would refer you to pages 413-452 of the publication 
 hitherto mentioned. 
 
 Talc pays 20 per cent duty as an article not specifically provided 
 for. 
 
 We might add that there is no talc mined in this country equal to 
 that which is mined abroad, and the retaining of a tariff upon an 
 article placed such as this entails considerable hardship upon the 
 manufacturers whose needs demand the better qu ah' ties. The same 
 is true of sulphate of lime and china clay. 
 
310 TABIFP HEADINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 50 ULTRAMARINE BLUE. 
 
 We would respectfully suggest a duty of, say, 5 per cent upon talc; 
 this would greatly benefit the consumers and would very likely 
 increase revenue. 
 
 We will be very glad to advise you upon any points not mentioned 
 herein upon which you desire information, for it is our one desire to 
 place in the possession of your committee true facts regarding the 
 tariff situation upon those items with which we are acquainted. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 F. A. REICHARD. 
 By J. W. BOSSERT. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 48. 
 
 Orange mineral, three and one-fourth cents per pound. 
 
 See F. A. Reichard, page 309. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 49. 
 
 Red lead, two and five-eighths cents per pound. 
 See F. A. Reichard, page 309. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 50. 
 
 Ultramarine blue, whether dry, in pulp, or mixed with water, and wash blue 
 containing ultramarine, three cents per pound. 
 See F. A. Reichard, page 309. 
 
 ULTRAMARINE BLUE. 
 
 BRIEF OF THE HELLER & MERZ CO., ON ULTRAMARINE BLUE. 
 
 NEWARK, N. J., January 3, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C.: 
 We wish to submit to you and your committee the following facts 
 
 for consideration in deciding on the duty to be put on "Ultramarine 
 
 blue, * * and wash blue containing ultramarine," paragraph 
 
 50, Schedule A. 
 
 The duty on these items under the Payne- Aldrich Act is 3 cents per 
 
 pound, specific. In filing with you our protest against any change 
 
 we will discuss the subject under three heads: 
 
 (1) The duty should be specific, and not ad valorem. 
 
 (2) The production of maximum revenue. 
 
 (3) Relations of wages paid in, and duties levied by, the United 
 States compared with wages paid in, and duties levied by, foreign 
 countries. 
 
 THE DUTY SHOULD BE SPECIFIC, AND NOT AD VALOREM. 
 
 Ultramarine is used in paints, oil enamels, printers' inks, paper 
 making, wash blue, and for other purposes. Each trade requires 
 its own speciality, and the prices vary between very wide limits. The 
 external appearance, and even the chemical analysis, gives no clue to 
 its adaptability for a given use. It is therefore apparent that an ad 
 valorem duty, involving an appraisal, is uncertain, unreliable, and 
 fraught with difficulties in application. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 311 
 
 PARAGRAPH 50 ULTRAMARINE BLUE. 
 THE PRODUCTION OF MAXIMUM REVENUE. 
 
 The caucus print, published in connection with H. R. 20182, shows 
 that the imports of ultramarine have steadily increased since 1905. 
 The slight falling off in 1911, as compared with 1910, when 709,726 
 pounds were imported, is no more than one carload, which was 
 undoubtedly compensated for in 1912. Following the statistics 
 further back, we find that the imports in 1900 were estimated at 
 350,000 pounds per year, and 1898 at 275,000 pounds per year, 
 showing that the imports have increased 250 per cent in a period of 
 13 years. 
 
 A further reduction of the duty will result in an increased impor- 
 tation expressed in pounds. It is not probable, however, that the 
 increased importations, under a reduced duty, will be sufficient to 
 maintain the revenue collected in 1910 and 1911. In fact, the caucus 
 print shows that in the estimate of its compilers the revenue will fall 
 30 per cent under an ad valorem duty of 20 per cent and a 2-cent 
 minimum. 
 
 AMERICAN WAGES AND DUTIES COMPARED WITH EUROPEAN WAGES AND 
 
 DUTIES. 
 
 Our unskilled and semiskilled labor is paid from $10 to $15 per 
 week. Skilled labor is paid from $3 to $4 per day, or $18 to $24 per 
 week. 
 
 German laborers in ultramarine factories are paid but 50 per cent of 
 the American wages. French laborers in ultramarine factories are 
 paid 63 cents per day, or 37 per cent of the lowest American wages. 
 Belgian laborers in ultramarine factories are paid 43 cents per day, or 
 25 per cent of the American wages. 
 
 The duty levied on ultramarine under the German tariff law, 
 though but 15 marks per 100 kilos, is prohibitive of imports into that 
 country. Official statistics show that the German imports are less 
 than 1 per cent of the German production of ultramarine. The 
 French manufacturer has the benefit of a protective duty of 30 francs 
 per 100 kilos, or 2f cents per pound. 
 
 In view of the protective duties levied by European countries, 
 export from America into those countries is impossible ; in view of the 
 wage difference between American and European countries, it is 
 impossible for the American producer to send ultramarine even into 
 free-trade countries in competition with France, Germany, and 
 Belgium. 
 
 The American employer pays his workmen from two to four times 
 as much as is earned by the European laborer. We trust that the 
 duty you will see fit to put on our products will not place the American 
 manufacturer of ultramarine in the position to make him choose 
 between conceding his market to the foreign manufacturer by going 
 out of business, or offering an American workman the European wage 
 scale. 
 
 Respectfully, THE HELLER & MERZ Co., 
 
 By EUGENE MERZ, Treasurer. 
 
312 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAOBAPH 61 VABNISHES. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 51. 
 
 Varnishes, including so-called gold size or japan, twenty-five per centum 
 ad valorem; enamel paints made with varnish, thirty-five per centum ad 
 valorem; spirit varnish containing five per centum or more of methyl alcohol, 
 thirty-five cents per gallon and thirty-five per centum ad valorem; spirit 
 varnish containing less than five per centum of methyl alcohol, one dollar and 
 thirty-two cents per gallon and thirty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 For varnishes, see also Pomeroy & Fischer, page 350. 
 
 VARNISHES. 
 
 STATEMENT OF A. H. WASHBTJEN, EEPEESENTINO J. A. & W. 
 BIED & CO., OF NEW YOEK AND BOSTON. 
 
 Mr. WASHBURN. I appear, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the 
 committee, in behxlf of Messrs. J. A. & W. Bird & Co., of New York 
 and Boston, importers of enameled paints. The paragraph affected 
 is 51, I think, of the present act. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Will you state your name, please, sir 1 
 
 Mr. WASHBURN. Washburn. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Washburn? 
 
 Mr. WASHBURN. Yes, sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What are the initials 1 
 
 Mr. WASHBURN. A. H. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. A. H. ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBURN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. What paragraph did you say ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBURN. Paragraph 51. I think it is 51, of the Payne Act. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Fifty-one ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBURN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Varnishes also come in under that ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBURN. Yes, sir; it is in the varnish paragraph, and the 
 clause to which I want to direct your attention for just a moment 
 provides for enamel paints made with varnish. Now, enamel paint 
 is a specialized article, containing zinc oxide as a base uniformly, I 
 think. The zinc oxide is ground in oil, and usually not always a 
 certain percentage of varnish is added to impart a gloss, and because 
 of that fact, I suppose, enamel paints are provided for in the varnish 
 provision. Under the old act of 1897 they were held to be dutiable 
 as zinc-oxide paints, the courts saying that the addition of varnish 
 did not change the character of the article as a zinc-oxide paint. That 
 duty was If cents per pound. The present rate is a very great addi- 
 tion to the old rate. The importations under the present act have 
 been comparatively slight. I have not the figures for the last year, 
 but the amount of duties paid on these enamel paints entered for 
 consumption during the years 1910 and 1911, ending June 30, in 
 no one year hardly exceeded $3,000. The revenue from this source 
 is very slight. 
 
 The suggestion we make is that the present duty of 35 per cent, 
 which by the way is, I think, the highest duty assessed upon any paint 
 (even under the old Dingley Act the highest rate of duty was 30 per 
 cent) that that be materially reduced; that the old phraseology 
 preferably be reestablished ' 'zinc-oxide paint"; but if the committee 
 prefer to retain the present language the dominative provision for 
 enamel paints, that it strike out the provision "made with varnish," 
 
SCHEDULE A. 313 
 
 PARAGRAPH 51 VARNISHES. 
 
 and the reason for that is this : These enamel paints are made both 
 with and without varnish and it has been very difficult for chemists 
 the Government chemists to determine by an analysis whether 
 varnish is or is not added to impart the gloss. Some gums, acting 
 as a varnish substitute, are sometimes added, and the result is a 
 certain amount of confusion. You have enamel paints made with 
 varnish assessed at 35 per cent, and you have enamel paints proven 
 in some cases not to be made with varnish, but accomplishing 
 precisely the same purposes, taking another rate of duty. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What is the total product of this article of enamel 
 paint in the United States ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBUBN. In the United States ? 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. WASHBUKN. I have not the domestic figures. The total 
 amount entered for consumption for the year ended June 30, 1910, 
 beginning, of course, August 5, 1 909 that would be about 1 1 months 
 was only 3,334.5 gallons, and those were valued at $6,485, and for 
 the next year the total amount of imports entered for consumption 
 as shown by the official statistics was 4,584 gallons. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. No ; but I asked you about what was the value of the 
 output in the United States. 
 
 Mr. WASHBUBN. The domestic output, Senator James, I am not 
 advised with respect to that. It is difficult to get any figures. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Could you not approximate it ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBUBN. No ; I can not. I have not been able to get any 
 figures about that. 
 
 Mr. KAINEY. Are there many factories making it ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBUBN. Oh, I could say there are perhaps hah* a dozen 
 factories making these enamel paints. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Is the consumption large or small ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBUBN. It is growing. It is, as I said at the outset, a 
 specialized article, which has come into vogue during the last 10 
 years, but under the present conditions, as they now exist, it can not be 
 imported to any very great extent. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. You are in favor of the reduction proposed hi our 
 bill to 25 per cent ad valorem ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBURN. Certainly, sir ; and even lower. We think a duty 
 of approximately 20 per cent would yield a much larger revenue and 
 permit these people to do a competitive business. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Just what is the business or firm that you 
 represent ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBURN, They are importers of paints and oils. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. They are not manufacturers? 
 
 Mr. WASHBURN. No; they are not manufacturers, Mr. Longworth. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. To whom do they sell? 
 
 Mr. WASHBURN. They sell to the American consumers. 
 
 Mr. HILL. For whom do they sell? Whom do they represent on 
 the other side ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBURN. I think they buy it from various sources. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Do you not know? 
 
 Mr. WASHBURN. I only know one name. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Well, what is that? 
 
 Mr. WASHBURN. That is the Repolin Co. (Ltd.), I think, Holland. 
 
314 TABIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 51 VARNISHES. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Are they agents or are they buyers in the world's 
 
 market ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBUBN. They are buyers in the world's market; yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. And not agents for any particular concern ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBUBN. I think they are agents for that particular 
 concern. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Well, for what other concern ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBUBN. I do not know of any others. 
 
 Mr. LONGWOBTH. Their interest is simply to get the importation 
 as cheaply as possible? They have no interest in the industry in 
 this country ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBUEN. They are perfectly willing that the domestic 
 industry should continue to nourish. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You represent two concerns, do you ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBUEN. No; just J. A. & W. Bird. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Have they any money invested in the production of 
 this article in this country ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBUEN. Not in this country. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Do they import any other paints than enamel 
 paints made with varnish ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBUEN. I think they do. They are not interested, how- 
 ever, so far as I am advised, in the tariff rate on any others. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. They would not have much of a (business, if that 
 were the whole business. 
 
 Mr. WASHBUEN. They are interested in other paints and oils. I 
 know they import other varieties, but how largely I am not advised. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Are there anv enamel paints exported from the United 
 States ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBUEN. I am not advised about that. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. This figure here of 35 per cent is practically pro- 
 hibitive, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. WASHBUEN. It is almost prohibitive. It has not resulted in 
 yielding much revenue, as you can see from the official figures. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. The revenue received in the year ending June 30, 1912, 
 is $2,689.90? 
 
 Mr. WASHBUEN. Yes, sir; and yet it is quite an important article 
 of commerce. I will file my brief. 
 
 BOSTON, MASS., January 2, 1913. 
 COMMITTEE ON T WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: We address you as dealers in enamel paints. Enamel paints as a 
 group have a zinc oxide base and usually are ground in oil and varnish added to 
 impart a gloss, or the zinc oxide may be ground in varnish itself. Because varnish 
 is so generally employed in their manufacture, no doubt, enamel paints are included 
 in a clause of the varnish paragraph (51) of the present tariff act providing for "enamel 
 paints made with varnish, 35 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 Lnder the Dingley tariff act there was no eo nomine provision for these paints as 
 such, and they were assessed by collectors of customs under the general "basket 
 clause " paint provision as paints "not otherwise specially provided for." The courts, 
 however, on two different occasions held white enamel paints to be otherwise specially 
 provided for under the more exact descriptive language found in paragraph 57 of the 
 act of 1897 as "Zinc, oxide of, and white paint or pigment containing zinc, but not 
 containing lead ground in oil, one and three-quarter cents per pound." Colored 
 enamel paints were not affected by this ruling. 
 
 The view adopted by the Federal courts was that the merchandise was in fact a 
 white paint containing zinc, but not containing lead, and ground in oil, and that the 
 addition of the varnish did not under established rules of interpretation change the 
 
SCHEDULE A. 315 
 
 PARAGRAPH 51 VARNISHES. 
 
 character of the mixture as a paint. The decisions and the reasoning upon which 
 they were based will be found in United States v. Bird, Circuit Court of Appeals, 
 Second Circuit (167 Fed. Rep., 319). 
 
 Enamel paint is largely a specialized article, the demand for which has been worked 
 up chiefly during the past decade. It is used where enamel surface is especially 
 desired, as in painting golf balls, bathtubs, and the like. During the latter part of 
 the lifetime of the Dingley Act the importations, while not on an extensive scale, 
 were sufficiently large to yield considerable revenue to the Government. No sta- 
 tistical figures are available of the volume of importations under the old law, nor, as 
 far as we are aware, none are available now showing the total importations. It appears, 
 however, from statistics published by the Department of Commerce and Labor that 
 from August 5, 1909, the date of the Payne-Aldrich Act, to June 30, 1910, 3,334.50 
 gallons of enamel paints, valued at $6,485, were entered for consumption, yielding, at 
 35 per centum, Government revenue of only $2,269.75. 
 
 For the year ending June 30, 1911, 4,584.50 gallons valued at $8,782.88 were entered 
 in the same way, upon which duties amounting to $3,074.01 were collected. The 
 amount of revenue under present conditions is thus seen to be inconsiderable at 
 best. Under existing conditions handicapped by the present extensive duty we 
 can not compete with the domestic aritcle which is able to undersell us regularly. 
 With a reasonable tariff rate, speaking for ourselves, we could get our fair share of 
 the business, and which is all we ask, and incidentally insure a larger Government 
 revenue from this source. We have no doubt other dealers are similarly situated. 
 
 In our opinion this tariff rate to yield a satisfactory revenue should under no con- 
 ditions exceed 20 per cent ad valorem, if your committee prefers ad valorem rates to 
 the specific rate of If cents per pound levied under paragraph 57 of the act of 1897. 
 The corresponding paragraph (55) in the act of 1909 retains the same rate of If cents 
 per pound, but the paragraph was amended by striking out the provision for "white 
 paint" (under which these enamel paints had been classified) found in paragraph 57 
 of the act of 1897. The highest ad valorem rate assessed upon even the most expen- 
 sive varieties of wet paints does not exceed 30 per cent under the present tariff act. 
 This is the rate also assessed upon various hign-grade dry colors. The discrimina- 
 tion against enamel paints found in the present act in indefensible. 
 
 The present provision is for "enamel paints made with varnish." This has been 
 productive of some litigation, inasmuch as some varieties of enamel paints have been 
 shown not to be made with varnish and have accordingly been held not to be dutiable 
 at 35 per cent ad valorem as "enaniel paints made with varnish" but at 30 per cent 
 ad valorem as paints "not otherwise specially provided for." (G. A. 7324, T. D. 
 32243.) Inasmuch as many varieties of enamel paints are either made with varnish 
 or contain varnish as an ingredient, enamel paints take one rate or the other accord- 
 ing as they are shown to be made with or without varnish. Whether varnish is used 
 or some substitute for varnish is used in the process of manufacture to impart a gloea 
 is difficult if not impossible to determine by analysis. If your committee, therefore, 
 desire to continue to make a special provision for enamel paints, we would suggest 
 that the words "made with varnish" be omitted. A specific provision for "enamel 
 paints " followed by the rate of duty would, we think, be unambiguous and embrace 
 enamel paints both white and colored. If your committee should prefer to eliminate 
 the special provision for enamel paints and return to phraseology similar to that 
 employed in the acts of 1894 and 1897, this result would be accomplished, in our opin- 
 ion, by amending the present paragraph (55) so as to read: 
 
 "Zinc, oxide of, and paint or pigment containing zinc but not containing lead, 
 dry, per pound; ground in oil, per pound." 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 J. A. & W. BIRD & Co., 
 
 By COMSTOCK & W T ASHBURN. 
 
 STATEMENT OF P. H. CALLAHAN, OF LOUISVILLE, KY. 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have the articles in question 
 here, and perhaps some of the members would like to see them. [Mr. 
 Callahan thereupon submitted to the members of the committee 
 some samples. 1 
 
 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have appeared 
 here as a member of and delegate for the National Varnish Manuf ac- 
 
316 TABUT HEADINGS. 
 
 PAHAGBAPH 61 VABNISHES. 
 
 turers' Association, which represents about 80 per cent of the entire 
 industry. We have already submitted to the chairman of your 
 committee a brief that relates to the proposed duties on varnish 
 gums, China nut oil, and soya bean oil, whicn have never been taxed 
 and which have never had any duty upon them in the past. 
 
 I understand this is not a matter of protection, and my remarks 
 will therefore be upon the subject of revenue. I came here, not with 
 the purpose of arguing the justice or injustice of the act, or the pro- 
 posed act, but to perhaps furnish you with some information which 
 we possess as manufacturers of these goods and consumers of this 
 raw material; to show you the ramifications of the business, the chan- 
 nels in which these goods go, so that you will know who eventually 
 pays the bills and who will have to pay this tax. 
 
 Varnish is in no sense a luxury. Next to food and clothing, it is 
 perhaps now one of the common necessities of life. There is no arti- 
 cle of such general use, with the exception of iron and wood perhaps, 
 that enters into the composition of different manufactures. You 
 can go into the most humble home, and you will see varnished 
 chairs, varnished beds, varnished tables, and varnished cradles. 
 YoXi can go anvwhere and you will see varnished work. Perhaps 
 next to soap, it is now more generally used than anything else for ordi- 
 nary necessities. It is a preservative ; it is absolutely necessary that it 
 should be used for the preservation of wood and also on iron to pre- 
 vent rust. I will just enumerate a few things on which varnish is 
 used, varnish that is made from the materials that I have submitted 
 to you. It is used on moldings, radiators, bathtubs, furniture of all 
 kinds, including tables, chairs, dressers, school desks, and office fur- 
 niture, stoves and stovepipes; linoleum; and floor varnishes, oil 
 cloths, bedsteads, hardware, including locks, hinges, bolts, etc.; 
 washing machines, brooms, dusters, wallpaper, concrete floors, chil- 
 dren's toys, wood and metal; books, pencils, rulers, etc.; tin cans, 
 labels, bicycles, baby carriages, automobiles, agricultural imple- 
 ments, including wagons, trucks, plows, rakes, shovels, and harrows; 
 sewing machines, buttons, buckles, eyelets, trunks, valises, talking 
 machines, hats, shoe buttons, rubber shoes and boots, patent leather, 
 coat hangers, bobbins, loom harness, coffins, rubber cloth, all classes 
 of insulated electric fixtures, transformers, motors, insulated wires, 
 pianos and organs, sanitary wall finishes, refrigerators, ships, yachts, 
 motor boats, rowboats, canoes, railway and tramway cars, freight 
 cars, fireproof doors and trims, fiber products, pails, tubs, etc.; 
 willow ware, wood-turned articles, and machinery of all classes. 
 
 Those are some of the few things in which varnish is used. It is 
 the opinion of all manufacturers and the opinion of good judges of 
 economics, that articles of a general beneficial character and com- 
 modities of that kind should be purchased at the lowest price, as they 
 go to the masses, and not to the classes. 
 
 It is proposed on the basis of the 1911 importation to raise the tax 
 to $803,000 ; that is on last year's importations of these products, the 
 largest up to date. Now, it must occur to you gentlemen that this 
 tax of $803,000 will ultimately go down to the lines of goods that I 
 have enumerated, which go into the houses and into the homes of 
 middle and humbler classes in particular. It is the trend of the 
 times, I believe, to reduce the cost of living. But it must occur to 
 
SCHEDULE A. 317 
 
 PARAGRAPH 61 VARNISHES. 
 
 you gentlemen that this tax of $803,000 will increase the cost of living 
 at least that much, and perhaps $1,000,000, with the additional 
 investment, and therefore would bring about the opposite result from 
 that which the committee desires to bring about. 
 
 Now, talking of our own business. We are, as varnish manufac- 
 turers, a remnant of the old style of competitive business. We have 
 not the semblance of any connection with each other. We have 
 no combination in prices or anything of that kind. We compete 
 with each other, we nave our separate selling forces, we have sales 
 managers, and we have an extensive research department. We go 
 out with our chemists and we develop new things altogether, so that 
 we will have a better price than our competitors. We make a lower 
 price and give the benefit of that research and of our investigations to 
 the public, with the result that varnishes to-day, regardless of the fact 
 that materials are twice as high as 10 years ago, are twice as good at 
 the same price. That benefit has been brought about by the extremely 
 fierce competition that exists between us. Every one of us has our 
 own salesmen, who solicit personally, and who Keep in touch fre- 
 quently with every buyer in the country. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Are you interested in the manufacture of spirit var- 
 nishes or oil varnishes ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. Oil varnishes, mostly. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. The proposed bill reduces the duty on oil varnishes 
 and other materials also. 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. I understand it does. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What is the total of the American consumption of 
 varnish ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. $18,000,000. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What was the largest amount imported in any 
 recent year ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. In 1911 there was about $9,000 worth of varnish 
 imported. You had $9,000 worth of imports in the total American 
 consumption of $18,000.000 worth. For what concern do you appear ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. The National Varnish Manufacturers' Association. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Does that include among its membership an im- 
 portant concern of which former Gov. Franklin Murphy, of New 
 Jersey, is president? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. I believe they are members. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Do you recognize him as an authority on the manu- 
 facture of varnish ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. Do I recognize him as an authority on the manufac- 
 ture of what ? 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. On the manufacture of varnish ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. Perhaps so, on the quality of varnish; not on an 
 economical question. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Do you know what statements he made before the 
 Finance Committee of the Senate last year? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. HARRISQN. He was asked some question by the Senators, and 
 he said that the varnish industry, in his opinion, could stand alone 
 without any duty. Do you agree with that f 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. I rather believe so. 
 
318 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 51 VARNISHES. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. So that your complaint is as to the imposition for 
 revenue of a duty upon these noncompetitive products. If your raw 
 materials were left upon the free list, you would be willing to see 
 varnish upon the free list also ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. So far as I am concerned; yes. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Then in that respect you agree with Mr. Murphy ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. I make about $800,000 worth of varnish, and none 
 of that is in competition with England. I do not make automobile 
 varnish, and I make very little piano varnish. Everything I make 
 is in the cheaper line of goods for the great middle classes. Mr. 
 Murphy's line, perhaps, goes into piano varnish. If he made that 
 statement, perhaps he is pretty nearly correct. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. If your materials of manufacture were not taxed 
 as proposed by this bill, do you believe your industry could stand on 
 a free-trade basis ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. I believe so. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You are exporting over $1,000,000 worth a year in 
 competition with all the world and importing less than $50,000 ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. We have had the benefit, you understand, of free 
 materials all the time. We have had the benefit of extreme com- 
 petition, bringing out the best that is in us in the development of 
 our business. Our business is constituted of men who own their own 
 business, like myself; I am the proprietor of my company. We are 
 always active in it. I represent, as I say, a remnant of the old-style 
 competitive business, which political parties are trying to reestablish 
 in this country. I hope, therefore, that, coming from an association 
 like ours, our remarks will have some favorable consideration at your 
 hands. 
 
 We say that this tax of $803,000 that is proposed to be assessed 
 will be paid by the consumer. I am trying to tell you gentlemen who 
 that consumer is that is going to pay the tax. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You are not asking for any protection? 
 
 Mr. CALLAIIAX. I am not asking for protection. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You are merely asking that the raw materials be 
 admitted f roe- 
 Mr. CALLAIIAX. I am telling you just who is going to pay that 
 $803,000. Mr. James personally knows me and knows my position 
 on different topics. I say that the removal of the tax on sugar and 
 putting it on this does not improve the situation in the least. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Let me ask you a question for my own information. 
 Suppose, after imposing this revenue upon the raw materials we 
 reduce the duty upon the finished product from 65 to 25 per cent. 
 
 Mr. CALLAIIAX. Has there been a duty of 65 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. That is upon the ad valorem equivalent. Do you 
 believe that will permit any extensive importations from abroad ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAIIAX. I do not" think so. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. If that is true, then your position is correct. The 
 manufacturers would bo able to hand down the small tax that we 
 impose upon the raw materials. If the enormous reduction in duty 
 from 65 to 25 por cent would permit extensive importations and 
 competition would set in, how would you be able to hand down that 
 tax levied on you ( 
 
SCHEDULE A. 319 
 
 PARAGRAPH 51 VARNISHES. 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. The Treasury reports will show that the profits 
 that have been made in the varnish business have been very meager 
 \yhen compared with the investments, owing to this old-line compe- 
 tition. Self-preservation in business is the same as self-preservation 
 in life. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. The varnish manufacturers that I have the pleasure 
 of knowing are among the richest men of my acquaintance. 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. I am not one of your acquaintances. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. I am sorry to hear that. 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. I would not come hi that class. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. I think Mr. Harrison was looking at the wrong sched- 
 ule. Instead of being 65 per cent it was 25 per cent. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. That was spirit varnish. 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. The importations are mostly oil varnish. We have 
 developed our business and we have gone abroad, owing to this 
 research work 
 
 Mr. JAMES. The duty is 25 per cent. 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. It is that particular duty that applies to most of 
 the imports. On that particular point, perhaps, Mr. Murphy, whom 
 you quote, is very good authority. 
 
 If the general purpose is to greatly reduce the tariff on common 
 necessities, and I understand it is, I just want to bring that point 
 out again as to w r ho will pay this tax. I have tried to make it plain 
 who will pay this tax. We are of the opinion that it w r ould be a mis- 
 take. We will pass it on, and the great common people will have to 
 pay for it. 
 
 Mr. LONG WORTH. You make a distinction between articles of neces- 
 sity that are produced in this country and those which can not pos- 
 sibly be produced here ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. I have made no distinction. My only point is 
 w*ho pays this tax 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH (interposing). You claim that, where an article 
 is not produced in this country and is imported, necessarily the duty, 
 whatever it may be, is added to the price. 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. To the consumer; that has been settled, that the 
 consumer pays the duty. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Not at all. It has been settled with reference 
 to articles which can not be produced in this country, but by no means 
 settled as to articles which may be produced in this country. That 
 is the reason I asked you if you did not make a distinction. 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. These articles are not produced or even found in 
 this country, and we have to pay for those articles an additional sum 
 of money eight hundred and some odd thousand dollars. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What are those articles? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. Varnish gums, China nut oil, and Soya bean oil. 
 The proposed duties or tax on them, on last year's basis, would come 
 to $800,000. My point is this, that we varnish manufacturers will 
 certainly add that onto our selling price, and the consumer will have 
 to pay for it. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. They are the raw materials that go into these products 
 which you sell? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes. 
 
320 TAEIFF HBABINGS. 
 
 PARAGBAPH 61 VABNI8HES. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. And can not by any possibility be produced in 
 this country ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. They can not. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. They must be imported ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Then you make that distinction between foreign 
 articles of necessity and articles of necessity that can be produced in 
 this country, do you not ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. I do not remember referring to bringing in articles 
 that could be produced. Do you mean varnish ? Perhaps you can 
 assist me ? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Raw wool, which is an article of daily necessity. 
 Do you think wool should be on the free list ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. I do. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You think that any article which is a daily 
 necessity, whether it can be produced in this country or not, should 
 be on the free list ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. "Any article" may be very broad, but if it is of 
 extreme necessity, I should say so. That is my personal opinion. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Of course finished varnish ought to be on the 
 free list, too ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. I would not object to it, if Mr. Murphy says it is 
 all right. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Any article of necessity used in daily life. 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. Of general necessity; common necessity; used by 
 the common people. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Should be on the free list? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Provided you can get a revenue sufficient to run the 
 Government. 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes; but not confined to these things. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You do not believe in a revenue on wool? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. I would not believe in a revenue on wool. Those 
 are just my points, gentlemen. We took the matter up with the 
 Senate, and the Democratic members of the committee agreed with 
 us and brought in a minority report, striking those items from the 
 dutiable list. I hope I have made it plain to you now, just where 
 those goods are used and who eventually will nave to pay the bill. 
 That is my only object in coming here. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Would a reduction in the duties on varnish result in 
 any increased importation of varnish ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. Well, that is questionable. It might. There is a 
 proposed reduction, is there not, Mr. Harrison? 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. On spirit varnishes, but not on oil varnishes. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. That means that competition with the foreign maker 
 of varnish would be increased ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. That being so, how could you pass on the duties on 
 the raw materials, thus increasing the price on your finished material ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. Well, we would either do that or go out of business. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What is that ? 
 
SCHEDULE A. 321 
 
 PARAGRAPH 51 VARNISHES. 
 
 Mr. C ALLAH AN. We would either do that or go out of business. 
 That is another case of self-preservation. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Is it not a fact that the varnish people think that 
 the reduction of the duties on varnish would result in a large increase 
 in the imports of varnish ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. I believe they think that way. Of course, to my 
 mind, we are in advance of the world in the scientific development 
 of the varnish business. Germany, within the last few years, has 
 given us a very hard race. It is because of the scientific develop- 
 ment of our business that we do not fear competition so much. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Do you not have confidence in your ability to com- 
 pete with the foreign manufacturer by the reduction of your price 
 to some extent, if necessary, to so compete with him ? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. We can not make any further reduction in our 
 present prices. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Is not that Gov. Murphy's idea? 
 
 Mr. CALLAHAN. I do not think so, for we can not make any 
 reduction in our present prices. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I am very much obliged to the committee. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY BERRY BROS. CONCERNING 
 CHANGES IN VARNISH SCHEDULE. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 9, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR : Confirming my brief conversation with you when intro- 
 duced last Monday by a letter from Mr. Edwin Sefton, I wish to put 
 in writing our strenuous objection to any change being made in the 
 varnish schedule, and particularly so in what is known as spirit var- 
 nishes ; for if the duty is taken off of these articles, it will be impossible 
 for us to compete with the German manufacturers, as they have no 
 internal-revenue tax, and we have to pay $2.10 per gallon revenue 
 for every gallon taken out of the bonded warehouses. Please give 
 this your very careful consideration. 
 
 We are also very much opposed to a duty being put on china wood 
 oil and soya-bean oil, as it is impossible to raise it in this country, 
 and it is absolutely a raw material. 
 
 If there is any information I can give you from a technical stand- 
 point, please do not hesitate to call upon me. 
 
 Thanking you for the courtesy extended me on Monday at 1 
 o'clock, I remain, 
 
 Yours, very truly, BERRY BROS., 
 
 Per H. P. STEPHENSON. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 52. 
 
 Vermilion reds, containing quicksilver, dry or ground in oil or water, ten 
 cents per pound : when not containing quicksilver but made of lead or con- 
 taining lead, four and seven-eighths cents per pound. 
 See Arthur Somers. page 343. 
 78959 VOL 113 21 
 
322 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 53 WHITE LEAD. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 53. 
 
 White lead, and white pigment containing lead, dry or in pulp, or ground 
 or mixed with oil, two and one-half cents per pound. 
 For white lead, see also Pomeroy & Fischer, page 349. 
 
 WHITE LEAD. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY R. S. HTJBBARD, REPRESENTING THE 
 PAINT MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED 
 STATES. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, January 7, 1913. 
 
 To the COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: As chairman of the tariff committee of the Paint 
 Manufacturers' Association of the United States, I beg leave to present 
 the following brief on the subject of proposed tariff revision as it may 
 affect the interests of the members of our association. 
 
 I do not desire at this time to make any specific recommendations 
 on behalf of our association as to changes in the duty on any special 
 item. Briefs and arguments were presented, both by our tariff com- 
 mittee and by a number of the individual members of this association, 
 at the hearings before the Finance Committee of the Senate last year, 
 when the proposed Underwood bill was under consideration. We 
 venture to express the hope that the arguments and briefs then sub- 
 mitted will have due weight in any further consideration of changes 
 in the present tariff. 
 
 We do wish to file an urgent request that in making revision of the 
 tariff careful consideration be given to the relation between raw mate- 
 rials and the finished products of our industries. 
 
 We submit that in justice to the manufacturing industry in this 
 country any reductions in duties on the finished product should be 
 accompanied by an equitably adjusted reduction of duty on the 
 articles entering into the manufacture of that product as raw material. 
 
 For instance, we contend that the duty on paints, white lead, etc., 
 of Schedule A can not be fairly and equitably apportioned without 
 intelligent and careful consideration at the same time of the proposed 
 duty to be levied on pig load and lead ores ; Schedule C. 
 
 We urge further that due consideration be given to the fact that the 
 subject of chemicals and allied manufactures is necessarily highly 
 technical in its nature. We believe, therefore, that this should be the 
 subject of expert investigation, and that the duties levied upon such 
 products should be based upon the findings of a nonpartisan board or 
 commission. 
 
 We also beg to urge that, so far as possible, all duties be made spe- 
 cific and not ad valorem. There appear to us to be many objections 
 to the ad valorem method of assessing duty. In the first place, the 
 ad valorem duty is more difficult to determine and collect fairly. It 
 makes it more difficult for the manufacturer to figure his cost in 
 advance, and therefore unnecessarily increases his risk of doing busi- 
 ne^s An ad valorem duty automatically decreases when a foreign 
 manufacturer is (lumping his surplus product here at low prices, and 
 is automatically increased when such products are scarce and com- 
 mand a high price. Thus, it produces to the Government a minimum 
 revenue when imports are plentiful and tends to decrease imports 
 
SCHEDULE A. 323 
 
 PARAGRAPH 54 WHITING. 
 
 when prices are high, because of the rapidly increasing load of duty 
 added onto the higher price. 
 
 Finally, I wish also to say that the tariff committee of the Paint 
 Manufacturers' Association will be only too glad, at any time, to 
 render any assistance they may be able to give in expert investigations 
 to insure equitable and scientific readjustment of the present tariff. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 R. S. HUBBARD, 
 
 Chairman Tariff Committee Paint Manufacturers' 
 
 Association of the United States. 
 
 GRIFFIN DRUG CO., OF PEEKSKILL, N. Y., URGES REDUC- 
 TION OF DUTY ON WHITE LEAD. 
 
 PEEKSKILL, N. Y., January 10, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 DEAR SIR: Won't you please look into the tariff on white lead? 
 We understand the Smelters' Trust, controlled by the Guggenheims, 
 make the price on all the lead made in the United States, and Mr. 
 Guggenheim has been in the Senate voting on the tariff on goods 
 he controls. Reduce the tariff on lead and give the poor man a 
 chance to paint his house, which he can't do now. 
 
 We are paying $7 per hundred pounds for lead, and we are told 
 they (the Lead Trust) are selling the same thing in London for $4. 
 We are Progressives, but we hope you and President Wilson will 
 make good, so there will be no need of a Progressive Party. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 GRIFFIN DRUG Co. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 54. 
 
 Whiting and Paris white, dry, one-fourth of one cent per pound; ground 
 in oil, or putty, one-half of one cent per pound. 
 
 For Paris white, see also Frederick N. Tirrell, page 131. 
 
 WHITING. 
 
 THE HIGGINSON MANUFACTURING CO., OF NEWBURGH, 
 N. Y., SUBMIT BRIEF ON WHITING AND PARIS WHITE. 
 
 To the WATS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIRS: We, as manufacturers of whiting and Paris white, wish to 
 enter a protest against the proposed reduction in duty on whiting 
 and Paris white, and respectfully request that the present tariff on 
 these commodities be maintained and for the following reasons: 
 
 First. There are no chalk deposits in this country from which the 
 American manufacturer can draw his supply of raw material, hence 
 all chalk and cliff stone must be imported from England and France, 
 and ocean freight paid on the same. The advantage to the foreign 
 manufacturer is at once apparent; he has his whiting factory adjoin- 
 ing his chalk quarry. 
 
 Second. There is" no demand from the American consumer for a 
 reduction in the duty on whiting and Paris white. The present 
 
324 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGRAPH 54 WHITING. 
 
 prices are low, and the freight rate usually determines the market 
 in which the buyer places his order. There is no combination or 
 or trust to maintain prices, and competition is and always has been 
 keen. 
 
 Third. The yearly importations of chalk and cliff stone amount to 
 about 100,000 tons, which is manufactured into whiting and Paris 
 white, the industry furnishing employment to laboring men of the 
 United States and pays them, in the aggregate, approximately 
 $500,000 per annum. The daily wage ranges from $1.75 to $3, as 
 against less than one-half of this sum in the same industry in England. 
 
 Fourth. The crude chalk, from which whiting is manufactured, 
 contains a very large percentage of moisture, sand, and flint, which is 
 eliminated in the process of manufacture and will average about 25 
 per cent; in other words, a ton of crude chalk produces only three- 
 quarters of a ton' of whiting. The amount so lost the manufacturer 
 in this country is obliged to pay for, both cost f. o. b. shipping point 
 in England or France and cost of ocean freight on the same. 
 
 Fifth. During the last half of the year 1912 the cost of ocean freight 
 has advanced to such an extent the delivered price of the crude chalk 
 to the manufacturer in the United States has advanced approxi- 
 mately 35 per cent to 40 "per cent. 
 
 Sixth. The industry as a whole is not a large one, and if the entire 
 quantity of whiting and Paris white consumed in this country was 
 imported the revenue to the Government would be small, and to 
 obtain this would mean the sacrifice of approximately $500,000 
 yearly which is paid to labor. 
 
 We have endeavored to put before you, in a brief way, the main 
 facts in connection with the industry, and sincerely hope wou will 
 retain the present duty of one-fourth of 1 cent per pound. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 THE HIGGINSON MANUFACTURING Co., 
 T. H. MILLSPAUGH, President. 
 
 NEWBURGH, N. Y., December 18, 1912. 
 
 BRIEF OF M. EWING FOX & CO., NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 NEW YORK CITY, January 9, 1913. 
 Hon. STEVEN B. AYRES, 
 
 Congressman, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: Referring to proposed changes in tariff and the hearings on 
 Schedule A (paints, oils, and chemicals) by the Ways and Means Com- 
 mit fee of the I>ouse of Representatives: 
 
 We manufacture calcimines, paints, and varnishes, in which some 
 ofjhe materials that will be considered arc used in large quantities. 
 We urge your consideration of the following statement and its presen- 
 tation to the committee if you think best: 
 
 Chalk (crude or him]); now on free list). Is only found in Europe, 
 is very cheap, and is used in great quantities for the manufacture of 
 whiting and Paris white. Any duty placed upon it would result in 
 considerably higher prices for the materials made from it, reduced 
 consumption by the public, loss of business to American manufac- 
 
SCHEDULE A. 325 
 
 PARAGRAPH 54 WHITING. 
 
 turers, and loss of employment to their men. We strongly protest 
 against any tariff being imposed on this material. 
 
 Chalk (ground or powdered; now on protected list). Some of this 
 is simply the crude chalk passed tlirough ordinary separating and 
 grinding processes, the cost of which is considerably more in America 
 than in Europe. We estimate this manufacturing cost to be at least 
 50 per cent more in United States than abroad, and believe that such 
 a duty should be imposed. 
 
 Whiting and Paris white (now on protected list) . These two mate- 
 rials are practically alike, the latter being made from a slightly harder 
 kind of chalk and by a more elaborate method. The chalk is dug 
 from hillsides and pits adjoining certain European waterways, is then 
 crushed, washed, refined, graded, dried, recrushed or ground, packed, 
 and shipped direct from adjoining wharves to various American sea- 
 ports, particularly those in Canada, Central and South America. 
 Very little of it is sold in United States because the present tariff is 
 sufficient to protect our manufacturers. Most English manufactur- 
 ers of Whiting and Paris white are also owners of chalk mines, so 
 that if the tariff is lowered sufficiently to enable them to compete 
 with United States manufacturers <to whom they are now simply 
 selling their crude chalk) the latter wih 1 be simply eliminated, their 
 investments ruined, and their employees thrown out of work. 
 
 We made a careful investigation of English chalk, whiting, and 
 Paris white mines and plants in 1911, and found the cost of .produc- 
 tion there much lower than in United States. English labor was 
 plentiful, intelligent, and industrious, the average workman received 
 $10 per week of 60 hours (about 17 cents per hour). The same man 
 could not be duplicated over here for less than $15 per week of 54 
 hours (about 28 cents per hour). 
 
 The English building, machinery, clerical, and sales costs were also 
 much lower than ours, so that we do not see how it would be possible 
 for the United States manufacturers of whiting and Paris white to 
 compete, unless protected by a tariff of at least \ cent per pound, 
 which is, we believe, the present duty on such material. 
 
 Shellac (dry gum in flakes ; now on free list). This is made princi- 
 pally in the Orient and is imported in large quantities. It is the crude 
 material from which many other materials, varnishes, and lacquers 
 are made in the United States, and has hitherto been admitted free. 
 The only effect of placing a tariff upon it will be an increase in the 
 price of materials made from it to the public and an increase in 
 revenue to the Government. There are practically no American 
 substitutes for shellac. We protest against any duty being imposed. 
 
 Summary. We believe that to as large an extent as the necessities 
 of the national finances permit, all raw or semiraw materials should 
 be admitted free, but all manufactured materials should be taxed, 
 particularly those competing with American industries already 
 established, unless the latter are members of a trust or similar com- 
 bine. There are no trusts, combines, or anything of a similar nature 
 manufacturing whiting, Paris white, powdered chalk, or shellac 
 varnishes. All American manufacturers of these materials are and 
 always have been competing keenly for trade. 
 
826 TABIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 55 SULPHIDE OF ZINC. 
 
 In conclusion. We do not manufacture powdered (ground) chalk, 
 whiting or Paris white, but use these materials in very large quanti- 
 ties in the making of calcimines, water-paints, etc. Our statements 
 are thus unprejudiced. 
 
 If the present duties are reduced, we will simply buy the whiting 
 and Paris white from various European manufacturers. We believe 
 this course will be also adopted by our various competitors and will 
 only result hi injury to the present American manufacturers and their 
 employees. 
 
 The difference in cost to the calcimine and paint manufacturers 
 will be so small (possibly 10 cents per 100 pounds) that it will be ab- 
 sorbed by us or by the dealers to whom we sell our products. It will 
 not reach the general public because the average person does not buy 
 more than 1 pound annually. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 M. EWING Fox & Co. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 55. 
 
 Zinc, oxide of, and white pigment containing zinc, but not containing lead, 
 dry, one cent per pound ; ground in oil, one and three-fourths cents per pound; 
 sulfid of zinc white, or white sulphide of zinc, one and one-fourth cents per 
 pound; chloride of zinc and sulphate of zinc, one cent per pound. 
 See J. H. Krebs, page 300. 
 
 SULPHIDE OF ZINC. 
 
 BRIEF OF GRASSELLI CHEMICAL CO. 
 
 CLEVELAND, OHIO, January 2. 1918. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: The Grasselli Chemical Co. respectfully submits the 
 following in support of its belief that no change should be made in 
 the present tariff rates on the following items: 
 
 Paragraph 62. Acetate of lead, white and brown. 
 
 Paragraph 60. Sulfide of zinc, or white sulphide of zinc (lithopone). 
 
 Paragraph 67. Chloride of zinc. 
 
 Paragraph 71. Hyposulphite of soda sulphide of sodium-silicate 
 of soda. 
 
 This company manufactures and sells the above chemicals. 
 
 It is an Ohio corporation, originally started in 1839, at Cincinnati, 
 Ohio. 
 
 In ISSo the company was incorporated under the Ohio laws. 
 
 The company lias manufacturing plants, warehouses, and dis- 
 tributing stations in many of the large cities of the country, all of 
 which represent a very heavy investment and give employment to 
 many thousand men. 
 
 The company is familiar with the manufacture of heavy chemicals 
 both here and abroad, and from its experience knows that Germany 
 is becoming more and more aggressive, in the distribution of its 
 products. 1o foreign countries, especially the United States. 
 
 The reason for this is that Germany lias two great advantages: 
 
 First, the dill'erence in wages, which naturally decreases the cost 
 of production (see 11. Kept. No. 326, pp. 305 and 370); and second, 
 
SCHEDULE A. 327 
 
 PABAGRAPH 55 SULPHIDE OF ZINC. 
 
 the protection afforded by their "Syndicates," "Cartels," "Selling 
 associations," etc., which are fully defined in House Report No. 326, 
 page 379. 
 
 These associations are united for their common good, have the 
 approval of the Government, and prevent individual competition. 
 
 A careful consideration of this absolute control of the industry hi 
 the principal competing country must lead to the conclusion that it 
 would be an easy matter for the German producers to jointly export 
 into this country any quantity of goods, even at a small individual 
 loss, for the purpose of dumping their surplus production and thereby 
 causing a general demoralization of our markets. 
 
 From the above it is also evident how impossible it is to export 
 similar chemicals from this country into Germany. 
 
 We therefore feel that any reductions in the existing rates on the 
 articles mentioned would result in an increased production abroad 
 and a greater exportation to this country, with the natural disastrous 
 result of probably forcing the American manufacturers either to dis- 
 continue or curtail their operations. . 
 
 In either event, a large number of American workmen would be 
 deprived of employment and the foreign producers and workmen 
 would reap the benefit. 
 
 In our opinion, and we earnestly ask your consideration of it, the 
 present rates on the above items should be continued without change. 
 
 No conditions have arisen since the enactment of the present tariff 
 which will justify any reductions. 
 
 Having especially in mind the conditions existing abroad, as above 
 set forth, we submit the following list of chemicals, all of which are 
 manufactured by this company, and none of which now carry a pro- 
 hibitive dutv, tieing freely imported, as the customs statistics will 
 prove, and therefore request that no changes be made, and that the 
 present rates be allowed to continue, and with special reference to 
 paragraph 62, acetate of lead, which has had a differential rate 
 between white and brown, and also paragraph 71, sulphide of soda, 
 in which special distinction is made between the product containing 
 a percentage over and under 35 per cent of sulphide of soda, as more 
 fully explained later. 
 
 Paragraph 62. Acetate of lead, white and brown. The present duty 
 of 3 cents per pound on the white and 2 cents per pound on the brown 
 should remain unchanged, especially the differential of 1 cent as be- 
 tween the two grades, for the reason that the white is more refined and 
 expensive to manufacture. 
 
 The average selling price of the acetate of lead and the average cost 
 do not permit of more than a fair manufacturer's profit as the duty 
 stands to-day, and by reason of the cheaper material supply and 
 cheaper labor conditions of the foreign manufacturers the manufac- 
 ture of these articles in this country would greatly suffer if the present 
 duties were lowered. A domestic overproduction also exists in this 
 country, and which fact should be taken into consideration. 
 
 Paragraph 66. Sulphide of zinc (lithopone). Even under the pres- 
 ent duty the importations have largely increased in 1910, 2,300,000 
 pounds 'and in 1911, 5,400,000 pounds^ It will therefore be seen that 
 the duty is not at all prohibitive and that the foreign manufacturer 
 is an active competitor in this market. In view of these large 
 
328 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 55 SULPHIDE OF ZINC. 
 
 importations any further reduction is unnecessary and the Govern- 
 ment is now receiving a substantial revenue from the article. It is 
 also proposed to change the specific duty to an ad valorem duty. 
 We earnestlv urge that this be not done, but that a specific rate of 
 duty be continued. Under an ad valorem rate, by undervaluation, 
 the Government is often deprived of its legitimate revenue, which 
 can not occur under a specific rate of duty. At best, the operation 
 of an ad valorem rate is very unsatisfactory and often leads to endless 
 disputes. Also under the specific duty all parties concerned know 
 always what rate of duty must be paid, whereas under the ad valorem 
 duty the rate must constantly fluctuate with the ruling selling prices. 
 
 Paragraph 67. Chloride of zinc. The principal crude material of 
 this article is zinc. A review of the market prices of spelter (which 
 can be obtained from the mineral industry) shows a constantly rising 
 price for spelter. The value of spelter governs the price of the zinc 
 required for the manufacture of this article. On this account the 
 American producer has paid more for his crude material during the 
 past few years than ever before. The present duty is not prohibitive 
 and permits the foreign manufacturer to compete with the American 
 market, and he is, as a matter of fact, a very strong and active com-, 
 petitor, importing during 1910, 1,200,000 pounds, and in 1911, 
 1,300,000 pounds. 
 
 Paragraph 71. Hyposulphite of soda. Statistics show that large 
 quantities of this article have been imported during the past years. 
 During recent years there has been a falling off of importations, due 
 to severe domestic competition, which has reduced the average sell- 
 ing price to practically cost, the domestic consumer naturally having 
 the benefit of these low prices. Nevertheless, under these extremely 
 low prices during 1911, 29,000 pounds were imported. The duty has 
 enabled the American manufacturer to successfully compete with the 
 foreign manufacturer, and any reduction would seriously interfere 
 with the domestic production of this article. 
 
 Paragraph 67. Sulphide of soda. The present tariff provides a 
 rate of three-eighths cent per pound for the article containing less 
 than 35 per cent of sulphide of soda, and three-fourths cent per pound 
 for all containing over 35 per cent of sulpliide of soda (otherwise 
 known as concentrated). The reason for that action was because 
 the foreign manufacturer had perfected the process of fusing and 
 concentrating the product, so that it contained from 60 to 62 per cent 
 of sulphide of soda, as against 30 to 35 per cent of the then commer- 
 cial article, and was importing the concentrated under the old rate 
 of duty, which netted the Government only one-half what it shou ! 
 have received, for there was practically being imported 2 pounds 
 instead of 1. The imports show in 1910, 596,000 pounds, and in 
 1911, 456,000 pounds. The duty is now being paid according to 
 the strength, and if the two qualities are not differentiated the 
 revenue, instead of being greater than it now is, will be considerably 
 less, for the foreign manufactuer will export all his product in the 
 concentrated form, and it would also work a serious hardship on the 
 domestic producers if this were permitted, and we strongly urge the 
 differential be maintained as it now is. Government statistics have 
 been computed during the last two years on the two grades, and if 
 
SCHEDULE A. 329 
 
 PARAGRAPH 55 SULPHIDE OF ZINC. 
 
 only one duty, regardless of strength, is adopted it can readily be 
 seen that the revenue would be materially decreased. 
 
 Paragraph 71. Silicate of soda. Under the present tariff there WHS 
 imported during the past year 1,200,000 pounds, which will show 
 that the present duty is not prohibitive, and the lowering of this 
 duty, it seems to us, is unnecessary, and will not give increased 
 revenue to the Government. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 THE GRASSELLI CHEMICAL Co., 
 E. R. GRASSELLI, Treasurer. 
 
 BRIEF OF BECKTON CHEMICAL CO., NEWARK, N. J. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., February 6, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: Referring to our recent com^ersation in regard to an article 
 known as lithopone, I beg to state that lithopone is a compound 
 of the chemical products in which are used barytes and sulpnid of 
 zinc. It is not known eo nomine in the tariff act, but is a well 
 known article of commerce both in this country and abroad, and 
 when imported into this country it is classified as sulphid or sulphide 
 of zinc under paragraph 55 of the present tariff act and pays duty 
 of \\ cents per pound. The barium sulphate in the form of barytes, 
 when properly mixed with zinc sulphide produces this pigment 
 which is commonly sold under the name of lithoppne, and it is 
 extensively used in the manufacture of flat coat paints, linoleum, 
 oil cloth, and the rubber industries. The importation of this arti- 
 cle into this country is in increasing quantities, and for the year 
 ending June, 1911, 5,409,520 pounds of lithopone were imported 
 into the United States, paying a duty of 1J cents per pound. This, 
 I am told, is about one-eighth of the total amount of lithopone 
 produced per annum in the United States. The rate of 1} cents 
 per pound was equivalent to an ad valorem rate in 1890 of 43 per 
 cent, in 1905 of 48 per cent, in 1910 of 41.85 per cent, and while I 
 have not the figures for the last year, I presume the ad valorem 
 equivalent would be about 40 per cent. The barytes entering into 
 the manufacture of lithopone pays a duty of $1.50 per ton under 
 paragraph 42 of the present act, and sulphid of zinc, or white sul- 
 phide of zinc, pays \\ cents per pound as stated above, under para- 
 graph 55 of the present act, and as I have already stated, lithopone, 
 when imported, is classified under paragraph 55 by similitude. 
 
 The manufacture of lithopone in this country is a comparatively 
 new industry, and has been established within the last fifteen or 
 twenty years, and it is substantially upon a competitive basis with 
 the European article, as is shown by the increasing importations 
 into this country, and it w r ould seem that the industry would not 
 bear a much lower rate of duty. We would, however, suggest 
 that sulphid of zinc, or white sulphide of zinc, pay a duty of I cent 
 per pound, and in as much as you and your committee are in favor 
 of ad valorem rates, may I suggest that the rate be made 30 per 
 
330 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 cent ad valorem, but not less than 1 cent per pound. This, as you 
 will notice, will be a reduction of 20 per cent ad valorem from the 
 present duty. 
 
 In this connection I desire to draw your attention to the briefs 
 which have already been filed and have become a part of the printed 
 record of the hearings upon the chemical schedule, 
 Believe me to be, with very great respect, 
 
 CHARLES P. SEARLE, 
 Counsel for Beckton Chemical Co., Newark, N. J. 
 
 PABAGBAPH C6. 
 
 All painiJ, colors, pigments, stains, lakes, crayons, including charcoal 
 era ns or fusains, smalts and frostings, whether crude or dry or mixed, 
 cr ground with water or oil or with solutions other than oil, not otherwise 
 specially provided for in this section, thirty per centum ad valorem; all 
 glazes, fluxes, enamels, and colors used only in the manufacture of ceramic, 
 enameled, and glass articles, thirty per centum ad valorem ; all paints, colors, 
 and pigments, commonly known as artists' paints or colors, whether in 
 tubes, pans, cakes, or other forms, thirty per centum ad valorem. 
 For ceramic colors, see H. J. Krebs, page 300; C. K. Williams & Co., page 307; and 
 
 F. A. Rcichard, page 308. 
 
 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ME. ARTHUR S. SOMERS, NEW YORK. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am here on behalf 
 of the manufacturers of dry colors of the United States, and I want 
 to say at the outset that, in order that the committee may under- 
 stand it from our point of view, we consider the manufacture of dry 
 colors as the last step in the chemistry of the manufacture of paint 
 and printing ink. The dry color manufacturer assembles the various 
 ingredients, the chemicals and aniline dyes, and pigments of various 
 kinds, and, by a chemical process, combines them and turns out the 
 finished product, which, from his point, requires just the skill of the 
 manipulator to mix them in certain vehicles for the purpose of making 
 paint, printing ink, or wall-paper color. So that we represent the 
 last step in the chemistry of paint and ink making, and we believe that, 
 because of this unique position, any consideration tending toward a 
 revision of the tariff on dry colors should take into consideration at 
 the same time a revision of the various items leading up to and 
 through these channels, the acids, the coal-tar dyes, and other pig- 
 ments; and that when the committee desires to reduce the tariff on 
 dry colors, if that be the principle and policy of the Congress and I 
 assume it is that they take into consideration the effect that the duty 
 levied upon acids, coal-tar dyes, and other pigments entering into the 
 manufacture of dry colors will have upon the dry color industry of 
 this country. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. All of those have been reduced in the bill, have 
 they not ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. No. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Well, substantially all of them? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Yes. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 331 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Ninety-nine per cent of all the materials you see 
 in the manufacture of colors have been substantially reduced by the 
 bill, have they not? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. They have been reduced, but not altogether sub- 
 stantially. I will try to point that out briefly. I have prepared a 
 brief, which I will not read, but will file it with the committee, and 
 just direct your attention to some of the important features of it. 
 
 Answering Mr. Harrison's question: In section 56 of the proposed 
 tariff and I assume you have under consideration H. R. 20182, and, 
 in the absence of any more definite information to the contrary, I 
 will proceed on the assumption that that is the bill that is in the 
 minds of the majority of the committee, and probably may form the 
 basis of your conclusion when you present your bill for consideration 
 in the House and in the Senate in section 56 of the present tariff 
 law, that is, the Payne law, the law of 1909, is imposed a duty of 30 
 per cent ad valorem on all paints, colors, pigments, etc., not other- 
 wise specuied. 
 
 Section 68 of H. R. 20182 reduces the duty from 30 to 20 per cent 
 ad valorem. The colors included in section 56 for the most part 
 contain considerable quantities of coal-tar dyes, at present dutiable 
 in paragraph 15 of the law of 1909 at 30 per cent ad valorem. Para- 
 graph 21 of H. R. 20182 proposes a reduction of 5 per cent, making 
 the duty 25 per cent ad valorem. I submit that is not, when con- 
 sidering the reduction in duty on dry colors as comprehended in 
 section 56 of the present law, a substantial reduction in coal-tar 
 dyes, from our viewpoint. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What do you think the reduction should be in 
 coal-tar dyes ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I am not arguing for a reduction, but we ask in the 
 brief for an equalization, whatever may be the judgment of the 
 committee. If it is 20 per cent on coal-tar dyes, all right; we will 
 be satisfied with 20 per cent on dry colors. We make no protest 
 against the tendency or policy of this committee toward a revision 
 of the tariff downward, and, personally, I could not take that atti- 
 tude; I would not be here were I not in sympathy with a sane and 
 equitable revision of the tariff downward, because I expect on next 
 Monday, in my State, to vote for the man as an elector who will be 
 called to sign whatever bill is presented. 
 
 That is my position. I want to be perfectly fair, and I want to 
 have it understood that I am not coming here seeking protection for 
 an industry that does not require a prohibitive tariff. 
 
 That is our position; so 'I submit that it is unfair to reduce the 
 tariff on our manufactured product from 30 per cent to 20 per cent, 
 and reduce the tariff on the materials that we are compelled to use, 
 many of which are imported, as indicated from the report here, 
 something like $6,000,000, I think, under the same law during 1911, 
 while it is estimated that it will be something like $7,000,000 under 
 H. R. 20182, to 25 per cent, 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. How large a proportion of the materials that you 
 use are made up of these coal-tar dyes and colors, which are reduced in 
 the present bill from 30 to 25 per cent? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Probably 50 per cent. 
 
332 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 66 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What do the rest of the materials used in your 
 manufacture consist of? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Chrome colors, chrome greens and chrome yellows, 
 all of which are reduced in this proposed bill; but we make no protest 
 against that. I call your attention to that in my brief, because the 
 committee have taken into consideration the lead pigments and salts 
 and potashes and other things that we use, and they have corre- 
 spondingly reduced the tariff on those materials. But we make no 
 complaint whatsoever. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Most of those reductions have been more than the 
 reductions in your finished products ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. I think, if you will read the bill, you will find that 
 some of them are reduced from 60 to 15 per cent. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I have read the bill and have studied it very carefully 
 and I have in mind now the reduction on pig lead, for instance, 
 which is not at all commensurate with the reduction which has been 
 made on the product into which pig lead enters as a basis, all of those 
 things which we use as a basis for our chrome colors. We can live 
 under that, because these things are very cheap in price, and we do 
 not fear competition from abroad on the cheap colors we manufacture. 
 It is on the fancy goods and the high-priced goods that we have the 
 most competition. We have competition to-day, and we are not 
 asking you to exclude competition. We invite competition. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. The committee really would like to know what 
 would be, in your opinion, a fair rate upon coal-tar dyes and colors, 
 in view of the proposed reduction from 30 to 20 per cent on dry colors. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. That is so. I shall insist upon asking for a reduction 
 in coal-tar dye from 30 to 20 per cent, if the committee desires to 
 adhere to the appeals made on behalf of the coal-tar dye manufac- 
 turers of this country and reduce the duty to 25 per cent from 30 per 
 cent; that is, to treat us just exactly the same. In that event, we 
 shall have no complaint. I think that is a fair attitude for a manu- 
 facturer to assume. I do not know of anything that I can state that 
 would be more reasonable than that. 
 
 Again, I want to say that you have taken alizarine, paranitrani- 
 line and alpha naphthylamine, which enter very largely into the 
 manufacture of these finished products, such as are printed in para- 
 graph 56 of the Payne bill. You propose to take them from the 
 free list and put a 10 per cent dut}' on them. There you are hitting 
 us again; so we are getting it both coming and going; we are whip- 
 sawed both ways. You take the raw material that we use and put 
 it on the dutiable list with a tariff of 10 per cent. You reduce some 
 of the materials that we use from 30 to 25 per cent, but you hit us 
 by reducing others from 30 to 20 per cent. I do not know for what 
 reason : but we are not quarreling with the duty of 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. Don't you realize that it is a Democratic tariff 
 that you have before you ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I realize it. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You say you are a Democrat, and still you are 
 objecting to it. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. No. We realize that the committee is not devoid of 
 all reason. Some time ago I made up my mind that when the next 
 
SCHEDULE A. 333 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 House came into power, we manufacturers could appear here, and 
 such arguments that we might present would be listened to carefully 
 and considered, and we would get our just due. We still have hope. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Don't you think it would be fair for other manu- 
 facturers to ask for the same thing that you are asking for ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Don't you realize that throughout this entire 
 chemical schedule the manufacturer in every case is getting just 
 what you are getting in your case the double-cross ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I am afraid 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. That his raw materials are being increased, and 
 his finished product reduced ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I am afraid that is true. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. How can you as a Democrat, come here and ask 
 that the Democratic tariff policy be changed as to your particular 
 business ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Because I have. not lost faith in the Democratic 
 Party. I still believe that the majority of this committee will come 
 to our way of thinking. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Then, when you voted the Democratic ticket 
 this fall, you knew what had been done in this chemical bill ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Exactly. And I might state that I do not think for 
 one moment that, even though the bill may pass both Houses, the 
 President will sign it. He has previously vetoed a similar bill. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Has not the President elect expressed his approval of 
 all these bills? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. As I understand it, and one of the reasons why I 
 supported him is, that he has expressed approval of the policy 
 
 Mr. HILL. No; but of this individual legislation? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I do not know, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Would you like to have me read his statement, so far as 
 one of them is concerned ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I do not want to take up the time of the committee 
 for that. I have read Mr. Wilson's speeches and I have heard his 
 speeches and I have made speeches on the same platform myself. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Did you make speeches that were any different from 
 the policy which this committee is following now ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. None whatever. I am in sympathy with the policy 
 of tariff revision downward, but I want equitable revision; that 
 is all. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You do not want to be hurt yourself ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I am perfectly willing to be hurt, if you put me on a 
 competitive basis with the foreigners. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTII. You supported this Democratic policy on the 
 theory that Mr. Wilson and this committee would be open to receive 
 suggestions if you got a chance to talk to them ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Yes. sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Somers, I would be very glad, if you have 
 not alreadv included it in }T>ur brief if it is in there it is all right, 
 and we will consider it when we reach it, but if it is not in there I 
 would be glad if you will file with your brief a statement making a 
 relative comparison showing how it would cut your raw materials. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I have included that, Mr. Chairman. 
 
334 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 56 PAINTS, COLOBS, ETC. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We will consider it. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. All that we ask for is an equalization; that is all. 
 
 Now, we pass on to the question of the vermilion red, containing 
 quicksilver. That carries a reduction of from 10 cents per pound to 
 7.5 cents per pound. I think I made myself perfectly clear at the 
 hearings before the Senate Finance Committee on this very bill, when 
 I said: "If you pass this paragraph we ask you to take into considera- 
 tion at the same time the duty on quicksilver, which is included in 
 that other schedule." Quicksilver is in the metal schedule, and I was 
 informed at that time that it was expected to reduce the tariff on 
 quicksilver in the metal schedule. If that be true, then we have no 
 quarrel with it; but we want to keep that in mind, for the reason that 
 to put under 10 cents per pound duty a great proportion and by a 
 great proportion I do not mean 10 or 15 per cent or any small pro- 
 portion but a great proportion of the quicksilver vermilion, so called, 
 that is used in this country, is imported from Europe, even though 
 there is a duty against it of 10 cents.per pound. So, if you reduce it 
 still further, without giving us some reduction in the duty on quick- 
 silver, you wipe us out completely. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. You will observe that there is a reduction in ver- 
 milion red containing quicksilver from 17.5 per cent to 15 per cent. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Yes; that is about what it amounts to, from 10 cents 
 per pound to 7.5 cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. PETERS. Quicksilver was reduced from 14 per cent to 10 per 
 cent under the bill that passed the House. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I suppose you have heard the evidence here that the 
 policy of this committee is to put a tariff on these articles going into 
 your manufactures, like quicksilver, in order to tax the manufacturer. 
 You have heard that, I suppose ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I have not heard it, but I do not question that it has 
 been stated. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. It was stated yesterday. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I was not here yesterday. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE . Are von in harmony with such a policy as that to put 
 a tax upon all of those materials you use that enter into the manu- 
 facture of your goods? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Xo; I am not wholly in sympathy with that policy, 
 and I do not think that it tends to the best interest of the country. 
 However, I am not prepared to discuss that now, although I would 
 like very much to discuss it. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I am afraid you are a victim of misplaced confidence. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I am not so certain about that, Mr. Payne. Perhaps 
 I have made some mistakes in my time, but I am young yet, and 
 have an opportunity to correct them. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. On coal-tar dyes the duty has been reduced to 20 per 
 cent. Do you know the cost of manufacturing these dyes here and 
 abroad ? 
 
 Mr SOMEKS Not the slightest. I have no knowledge of it. 
 
 Mr PAYNE. You want to have that done for your special accom- 
 modation, and not because you think it is necessary to reduce that 
 duty, and still preserve that competition between our people and the 
 people abroad that are manufacturing coal-tar dyes? 
 
SCHEDULE A. 335 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I believe it is perfectly equitable to comprehend the 
 both materials, the coal-tar dye and the finished product, as being 
 closely related to one another. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Well, that is an addition to your business? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You are departing from your view. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Naturally, as other men do, I guess. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I thought it would result in a change in your opinion 
 as to their being able to manufacture here when they get this sched- 
 ule into effect. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Of course, I am not not arguing for another man's 
 business, nor do I want to attack any other industry in this country; 
 but I wish to emphasize the point that with every reduction you 
 make in our colors, you give us just the same reduction in the ma- 
 terials that we can use. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Are the duties on this article that you are here talking 
 about under the present law prohibitive? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. They are competitive, are they not? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. So far as your industries are concerned, the present 
 law meets your definition of a competitive duty ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Exactly, sir. I have no quarrel with the present 
 law. We have been getting along under it very well indeed. I have 
 studied the Payne law, and have lived under the Payne bill, and 
 expect to live even under this bill, if it is equitably adjusted. That 
 is all. 
 
 Now, I am sorry to have taken so much time, and I do not want to 
 exceed my limit, gentlemen, but I would like to say a word about 
 blues Chinese, Berlin, and Prussian blues which are also included 
 in this bill. They carry a reduction from the present tariff of 8 cents 
 per pound to 20 per cent, or not less than 3 cents per pound. 
 
 Now, the chief article that we use in the manufacture of blues is 
 prussiate of potash. It is proposed to reduce prussiate of potash 
 from 4 cents per pound to 1.25 cents per pound; and I call your atten- 
 tion to the fact mat while that may appear to be a reduction of 2.75 
 cents per pound on raw materials, it is not, for the reason that a larger 
 quantity of prussiate of potash is required for the manufacture of blue 
 than you really get back. For instance, we require 120 pounds of 
 prussiate of potash to make 100 pounds of blue, so that in considering 
 the change in the tariff on our prussiate of potash it is well to bear in 
 mind that there is always an excess quantity used that does not come 
 back to a manufacturer of Prussian blue. 
 
 I call your attention, further, to the fact that under the Payne law 
 a volume of 200,000 pounds of this blue was imported during 1911. 
 That is a considerable part of the consumption of blues in the United 
 States. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Taking them generally, there was more exported than 
 imported, was there not ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I am speaking of blues, now. I do not believe any 
 blues could be exported: but certainly 200,000 pounds was imported. 
 We have again imported 200,000 pounds, which is a considerable por- 
 tion of the total quantity consumed in America under the 8-cent 
 
336 TABLET HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 clause, and I will leave you to judge how much more would be 
 imported under the 3-cent clause and how little opportunity the 
 American manufacturer would have to compete. 
 
 When the Wilson bill was in effect, years ago, under the Cleveland 
 administration and some reference has been made to it this morn- 
 ing W6j as manufacturers of blue, imported bronze blue, which is a 
 certain kind of Paris blue, because it was far more to our advantage to 
 import blue than it was to manufacture it. That gave us a duty of 
 3 cents per pound, and we might get back to that same condition; so 
 that we hope you will reconsider your determination in this matter, 
 and not make the cut quite so severe. Instead of reducing it to this 
 extent, if you should reduce it about 25 per cent of the present tariff, 
 and carry with it the same reduction that you have proposed in prus- 
 siate of potash, then we would be pretty nearly right, and be on the 
 same competitive basis as we are to-day. 
 
 We enjoy no monopoly of the market, as is indicated by the fact that 
 a large percentage of the consumption in this country has been 
 imported. 
 
 Now, the last article to which I wish to draw your attention and 
 I want to say here in passing that, coming bac to the statement I 
 made earlier, as far as chrome colors are concerned, we make no pro- 
 test against the reduction in these, because you have suggested reduc- 
 tions in the lead products that form the basis of these colors, and we 
 have no quarrel whatever with that this last article to which I wish 
 to draw your attention is Paris green. 
 
 We have taken Paris green and London purple and have com- 
 bined the two. Let me ask the committee to divide these two 
 insecticides, for the reason that they bear no relation to each other. 
 Paris green is made the world over. It is made in America very 
 extensively; several million pounds annually are made and sold to 
 the farmers in this country. There is not a pound of London purple 
 made in America. I believe that is exclusively made in England, 
 and by but one concern. London purple does not come in competi- 
 tion with Paris green at all. London purple has some advantage 
 over Paris green, as a spray for certain kinds of cotton worms. Paris 
 green has an advantage over London purple as an insecticide in other 
 directions; so wo would ask you to divide the two. Paris green is 
 the only insecticide that is not on the free list. Now, a large quantity 
 of Paris green is made in Canada, just across the line. Canada has 
 imposed a duty of 10 per cent on Paris green, and we have tried to 
 go there, and have been excluded absolutely from the Canadian 
 market. We can not go there and sell our goods. The Canadian 
 does not come here, except in a very limited way. There has been 
 some imported; as a matter of fact, I remember that there was a 
 quarter of a pound package of Paris green that was made in Canada. 
 If you put Paris green on the free list, you are going to wipe out this 
 pipe dream, and you are going to wipe out every Paris green factory 
 in the United States. So that we are complaining to you, and I am 
 telling you something that is absolutely a fact, for the reason that 
 the Canadian importer is but a few miles north of us, and there are 
 concerns manufacturing Paris green in Detroit, in Indianapolis, in 
 Chicago, and in Cleveland, and it is a very easy matter for them to 
 step across the border, because these concerns have plants already 
 
SCHEDULE A. 337 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 in Canada making other lines of goods, and enjoying a share of the 
 Canadian markets, and coming into the States with their surplus 
 products and selling their green here against the home manufacturer, 
 who can not compete, unless he has some duty that will represent 
 just about the difference in the cost of labor not the difference in 
 the cost of materials, because we do not know that there is any 
 difference. 
 
 You are putting blue vitriol on the free list. Arsenic is on the free 
 list; acetic acid is on the free list. That would not be imported, any- 
 way, because it contains so much water that nobody could afford to 
 pay the freight on the water. But you are keeping soda ash on the 
 dutiable list, one-eighth of a cent per pound, which amounts to 
 probably 20 per cent of the cost; but I shall not press that as a 
 reason. However, we do ask that you give us at least as much pro- 
 tection in the matter and I hate to use the word but as much 
 protection in the matter as Canada is giving to her manufacturers. 
 That is ah 1 I ask for. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much is the Canadian tariff on Paris green? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Ten per cent. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Where is it made? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. It is made in Toronto by the Canada Paint Works. 
 Sherwin-Williams have a factory over there. I believe they ab- 
 sorbed the Canada Paint Co v and are manufacturing Paris green in 
 Canada. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do we export any into Canada ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Not a pound to my knowledge; not a pound in the 
 last 10 years. I have not been able to trace a single pound. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Does England export any there ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. To Canada? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. That I do not know. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Do you not get your raw materials just as cheap 
 as the Canadians get theirs ? Do we not export immense quantities 
 of sulphate of copper ? That shows that we are able to produce the 
 raw materials for the manufacturer 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Do you know at what price ? 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. The mere fact that we export it satisfies me that 
 the Americans can get their raw materials cheaper than the manu- 
 facturers of other countries. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. But that does not satisfy the man who pays the 
 freight. He pays 4J cents a pound for blue vitriol to be used in 
 this country, while he can buy that blue vitriol for 3f cents if he 
 signs a bill of lading and manifest to have it shipped out of the 
 country. I say that is our viewpoint, and I say we want to take 
 into consideration the price at which it is exported. The mere 
 fact that it is exported and brought back into this country and sold 
 at the same rate shows that they must export it at a price far below 
 the price they ask the American manufacturers. That is one of the 
 things that hurts. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How large is the American output of Paris green ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I should say from five to seven million pounds. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 22 
 
338 TARIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETO. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much is that in dollars and cents, about ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I am a little hazy on mathematics. The price is 13 
 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How many million pounds ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. About 6,000,000 pounds, average, and that would be 
 about $800,000, would it not ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. $800,000 ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you know how much we imported last year into 
 this country from abroad ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Very little. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. About $4,000 worth. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And you are scared to death of this little $4,000 
 worth ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I am scared to death of it; yes, sir. I will tell you 
 why. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much did we export last year ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I do not believe we exported any. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Did we not export a great deal more than we im- 
 ported ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Yes; to the southern countries, to Cuba and the West 
 Indies; but none to Europe, that I have been able to trace. I do not 
 know; I am simply telling you of my own experience. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Yet when you exported into the southern countries, 
 you exported in competition with Canada and Germany, did you not ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You did not sell it to those people any cheaper than 
 you sold it to your own people ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Not a cent. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Have you looked into the labor cost in Canada and 
 America? Have you looked into the labor cost around about 
 Toronto ? 
 
 Mr. SOMEES. I have never investigated it personally, and I am not 
 prepared to make any statement with reference to the difference in 
 labor. I understand that when the reciprocity act was under con- 
 sideration that matter was investigated by Congress, and you prob- 
 ably have definite information on that subject. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. If you will investigate the subject you will find out 
 that labor is just about as high, and in many places higher, in the 
 United States than in Canada. I am afraid that they are fooling you 
 folks on this labor proposition. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. They are not fooling us. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. They have scared you, rather. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I have in mind a statement made by the Sherwin- 
 Williams Co., who manufacture in Cleveland and Toronto. They 
 figured out that the difference in cost of labor was approximately 12 
 to 15 per cent. I think that is a matter of record before the Senate 
 Finance Committee. The statement was prepared by one of their 
 representatives. 1 am not sure who. 
 
 But we do insist that it is a serious matter, though it may not ap- 
 pear so to you gentlemen. Ten per cent seems like a very small mat- 
 
SCHEDULE A. 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 ter for this association to come here and ask for, but I want to say 
 that it represents to-day our profits 
 
 Mr. LONGWORHTH (interrupting). You surely do not want your 
 profits protected ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. No; but we do not want to be forced to do business 
 for nothing, Mr. Longworth. 
 
 Mr. LONG WORTH. Then you are not a real Democrat. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. You do not know how good a Democrat I am. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You are a man that comes before this committee 
 and says that he hates to use the word "protection," but that he likes 
 the f eeling of it ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. No, sir. I challenge anybody to assert that I have 
 appeared here in the attitude of a protectionist. I am simply asking 
 for an equitable adjustment of this tariff. That is all I am asking for. 
 I am asking for no favors; we do not want any favors; we do not nave 
 any need for special favors. Put us on a competitive basis and we will 
 battle with the world. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. It is better than a competitive basis now, because 
 you only have imports of $4,000 to contend with. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. We will have a great deal more if you put Paris green 
 on the free list, because the American manufacturer will abstain from 
 going as extensively into the manufacture of Paris green as he does 
 to-day. He buys material in the summer tune and he begins the 
 manufacture in the spring. He manufactures all through the sum- 
 mer and he stores up his material through the winter. He enjoys a 
 market for three months on stuff that it has taken him nine months 
 to manufacture, and his money is tied up, and I submit that he is 
 entitled to some consideration. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Right there on that line: Are you aware that the 
 authors of this bill had in mind only raising revenue from these 
 schedules while holding in view the interests of the consumers ? They 
 have not considered you in the matter. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I am trying to pomt out to them where the con- 
 sumers' interests should be considered, even more deeply than it is 
 by this bill. I am coming to that now. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Would you be satisfied to have the rates made on the 
 basis of the difference in the cost of production here and abroad ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Putting you on an equal basis of competition with your 
 foreign competitors ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Are not we the largest producers of paints in your line 
 in the world ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Are we not shipping abroad far more than we are 
 importing ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. That point I can not answer. I ani not in the paint, 
 business. 
 
 Mr. HILL. No; but in dry colors? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. No; we are not. 
 
 Mr. HILL. But we are the largest producers of paint and pigments 
 in the world. We produce 50 per cent more than Great Britain, 
 which is the next largest; we are shipping them all over the world. 
 
340 TAEIFP HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 Now, would you not be satisfied if this committee fairly investigates 
 tie question, or if a nonpartisan tariff board thoroughly investigates 
 the question, as to the difference in the cost of production here and 
 abroad ? Would you not accept that ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Absolutely. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Without knowing what the results of their conclusions 
 would be ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Absolutely; but I can not live on that. I have got 
 to get out of the business 
 
 Mr, HILL. You have got to get out of business because you say 
 that this bill does not consider your interests at all ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Again I repeat that they do. My interests are going 
 to be considered 
 
 The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Gentlemen, there are other witnesses 
 here, and I would like to have you return to the real subject before 
 the committee. This political discussion can come up at a later 
 date. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Let us presume that you put Paris green on the free 
 list. I want to be serious on this. The manufacturers hesitate to 
 manufacture a year in advance. If they do not prepare themselves 
 to meet the demand there may be a demand and there may not 
 be a demand. We can not tell when the bugs are going to appear. 
 If the bugs do not come and the crops are all right, we sit there with 
 Paris green in our hands. If the bugs do come, it is a question of 
 having sufficient Paris green to supply the needs of the farmers. 
 
 Last year, when I was up before the Finance Committee of the 
 Senate, Senator Williams protested against the statement I made. 
 I said that the manufacturer was getting approximately 15 cents a 
 pound for his Paris green from year to year. He said, "I have paid 
 75 cents a pound." I told them that I wanted that committee and 
 I want this committee to understand who gets the profit; how much 
 the farmer is going to be benefited if you put Paris green on the free 
 list. He is not going to be benefited one single iota, because the 
 fellow who has the Paris green that the farmer needs is going to get 
 all the money ho can get out of the farmer. If he does not get it, he 
 is going to carry it over, and it isn't worth house room, because we do 
 not want that kind of poison lying around. If there is a demand for 
 it and the farmer must have it, he' will get a dollar a pound for it. I 
 have shipped a carload of Paris green from New York to Texas by 
 express, because they had to have it. We paid enormous express 
 rates on a carload 30,000 pounds of Paris green to get it down 
 there to meet an extreme situation. If Senator Williams had to pay 
 75 cents for a pound of Paris green, I wish I were a dealer rather than 
 a manufacturer. We are getting approximately 13 cents a pound for 
 it, and it costs us about \'2 cents a pound, I think, at the present time 
 to make it. We are making about a cent a pound profit. It costs 
 more than 12 cents a pound if I have to go into the market now and 
 buy my materials at the present market price and sell it at 13^ cents 
 a pound \"2l cents a pound, which is the price it is being sold for, to 
 be exact about the matter. It will have to go very much above 13 
 cents Then- is too close competition. We are satisfied with a small 
 ju-oiit, but it you wipo it out we are not going to take any chances. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 341 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 What would be the result if we had no Paris green here ? You can 
 readily see what would become of the crops. We think we are bene- 
 factors in a sense. We think we help the development of agriculture 
 in this country. 
 
 Mr. HILL. The general opinion is that you are robber barons. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I would like to know why, Mr. Hill. Will somebody 
 please let me know why? There is no combination. There is not 
 even a gentleman's agreement. There is no connection between us; 
 no connection one with the other; absolutely nothing. It is an open 
 business, with the keenest kind of competition that you can conceive 
 of. I am representing other people here, but they will tell me no 
 more about their business than they will tell Beelzebub. They say 
 to come down and make a protest, and I do it in their behalf, because 
 it is my bread and butter, as it is theirs. I am only fighting for a 
 situation that will enable us to do business as we have been doing it. 
 We do not ask that you give us 15 per cent, as at present, but that 
 you give us at least as much as Canada gives her manufacturers. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Have there been any large quantities of it sold at 50 
 or 75 cents ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I know of large quantities sold at 40 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. The same article that you sell at 13 cents a pound? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. If we take this tariff off and that profit of yours should 
 go glimmering, if you sell your goods at eleven and a hah* cents a 
 pound can the farmer save anything? If it goes through the mid- 
 dleman they would save one and a half cents a pound, perhaps, or 
 on a hundred pounds a dollar and half ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Or less. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. And that would amply compensate him I want you 
 to understand this theory that would amply compensate him for 
 taking the tariff duty off on all his products, to the ultimate benefit 
 of the consumer in your line. That is the theory, and you ought to 
 square off your Democratic politics with the theory of this com- 
 mittee and the prevailing theory of the Democratic Party. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I have not altogether agreed with that theory. I 
 appreciate it. I have listened to-day very carefully, and I appre- 
 ciate it, but at the same time it does not meet the situation that I 
 am trying to describe. We are in this position: You are going to 
 take Paris green off of the dutiable list and put it on the free list. 
 You are going to open the doors to the Canadians who are protected 
 from any other countries. We could not go there. They have 
 closed their doors against us. You open the doors to them here and 
 make it impossible for us to do business under legitimate conditions. 
 You are going to create a situation that will put the farmer in the 
 hands of the foreigner, who may or may not buy Paris green, as he 
 pleases. That is the situation. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Where do the Canadians get the materials from which 
 they manufacture ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I think in Canada. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Where do they get blue vitriol ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. They get it from the Northwest and export it. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do they not have to send to the United States to get 
 their materials ? 
 
342 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. They buy it cheaper than we can. They pay no duty 
 on it there. They buy it at a price less than ours. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Is this not heresy, to say that one manufacturer sells 
 cheaper aboad than at home ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I do not know whether it is heresy or not. If it is, I 
 don't care. I am willing to stand on my position, however I may be 
 regarded. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. If Canada did not have this 10 per cent tariff against 
 Paris green, you could ship to Canada and sell there ? 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. Yes, sir; we could go into Canada and give them a run 
 for the trade, particularly if they had free access to our markets. We 
 will be satisfied to have them come to meet us on the same basis. All 
 we want is to meet {hem on the same platform. I do not believe that 
 you ought to build a higher platform for one and a lower platform for 
 the other. We want an equal chance. This is a serious matter, and 
 I do not know anything in the whole business that we are more con- 
 cerned with than we are with the duty on Paris green. 
 
 We submit, in conclusion, that you ought to at least give us the 
 same consideration that Canada gives to her manufacturers, and that 
 is at least 10 per cent on Paris green. 
 
 I want to thank the committee for indulging me and allowing me 
 to take up so much time. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. The only thing that surprises me is that you did not 
 appear here four years ago and argue as to the fact that as we were 
 putting 15 per cent on Paris green that we ought to put 15 per cent 
 on all colors, because you seem to make that same argument in regard 
 to coal-tar dyes. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. I appeared before the committee four years ago. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. But you did not make any such suggestion as that. 
 
 Mr. SOMERS. If you will remember, Mr. Payne, I was one of the 
 first witnesses called on the first. I suggested that I did not know 
 what was in the minds of the committee, and you very frankly said 
 that you were in the same attitude, that the committee scarcely knew 
 what they expected to do with the tariff. I had nothing upon which 
 to base my argument, as I have here. I argued generally before the 
 committee before. I have before me now House bill No. 20182, and 
 I had an idea of the points in the minds of the majority of this com- 
 mittee, and that is why I addressed myself specifically to those items. 
 
 1 thank you very much. 
 
 The brief above referred to by Mr. Somers is as follows: 
 
 COMMITTEE ox WAYS AND MKANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: Assuming that your committee is considering changes in the tariff 
 along the lines proposed in H. R. 20182, we beg to present herewith a few important 
 facts showing why the changes suggested in certain paragraphs would discriminate 
 against the color manufacturers of the United States. 
 
 Section 56 of the present tariff imposes a 30 per cent ad valorem duty on all paints, 
 olors, pigments, etc., n. o. s. Paragraph 68 of H. R. 20182 reduces the duty from 
 30 per cent to 20 per cent ad valorem. The colors included in section 56 for the most 
 part contain considerable quantities of coal-tar dyes, at present dutiable in paragraph 15 
 of the law of l!'u;t at 30 per cent ad valorem. Paragraph 21 of H. R. 20182 proposes a 
 reduction of 5 por cent, making the duty 25 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 There is also used in the manufacture of the colors above referred to considerable 
 quantities of alizarin, p_aranitraniline, and alpha aaphthylaruine, all of which are at 
 present free of duty. Under paragraph fi of H. R. 20182 'it is proposed to put a 10 per 
 
SCHEDULE A. 343 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 cent ad valorem duty on alizarin, and under paragraph 24 of H. R. 20182 it is proposed 
 to put a 10 per cent duty on paranitraniline, alpha naphthylamine, and other similar 
 anilines, many of which are used in the manufacture 01 dry colors, but \\hich are now 
 on the free list. The situation presented to us is that it is proposed to reduce the duty 
 on poods we manufacture in competition with Europe from 30 per cent to 20 per cent, 
 while imposing a duty of 10 per cent on many of the anilines that we use in the manu- 
 facture of these colors, and which are now free; also by reducing the duty on other 
 coal-tar dyes from 30 per cent to 25 per cent only. 
 
 This is a clear discrimination against the manufacturer of dry colors in the United 
 States. If it is desired to reduce the duty on dry colors from 30 per cent to 20 per 
 cent the duty on coal-tar dyes should be reduced from 30 per cent to 20 per cent, and 
 alizarin, paranitraniline, and alpha naphthylamine should remain free of duty, inas- 
 much as they are not manufactured in this country, and must be imported from 
 abroad . This seems to us a conclusive argument. 
 
 VERMILION RED CONTAINING QUICKSILVER. 
 
 Under the law of 1909 paragraph 52 imposes a duty of 10 cents per pound on 
 this material. In H. R. 20182, paragraph 64, it is proposed to reduce this duty to 
 15 per cent ad valorem, or not less than 7$ cents per pound. We ask that when con- 
 sidering this reduction the duty on quicksilver be taken into account, as unless the 
 duty is reduced on quicksilver in proportion to the reduction made in the duty on 
 vermilion red containing quicksilver, we will be entirely excluded from our home 
 market. 
 
 We pointed out in a former brief, submitted to the Committee on Finance of the 
 United States Senate on March 19, 1912, that during the year 1911 about 90,000 
 pounds of vermilion red, carrying a duty of 10 cents per pound, were imported. 
 This is a very large percentage of the total amount consumed in the United States, 
 and any further reduction in the duty that did not carry with it a corresponding 
 reduction in the metal from which the vermilion is made would simply turn the 
 business entirely over into the hands of the foreigners. We submit this for your 
 earnest consideration. 
 
 PARIS GREEN. 
 
 Under paragraph 57 of the law of 1909, Paris green is dutiable at 15 per cent ad 
 valorem. H. R. 20182 proposes to put the article on the free list. We pointed out 
 in a brief submitted to the Senate Finance Committee in March, 1912, that there was 
 the keenest competition among the manufacturers in this country on this article. 
 We also called attention to the fact that we were discriminated against by Canada, 
 who imposed a duty of 10 per cent on American Paris green, thus keeping us out of 
 that market. If you put Paris green on the free list, you will invite the Canadian 
 manufacturer to sell his goods in this country at a price lower than that at which the 
 American manufacturer can compete, and his Government protects him in the exclusive 
 enjoyment of the home trade. 
 
 This does not seem a reasonable attitude for your committee to take toward the 
 manufacturers in this country. In the discussion before the Senate Finance Commit- 
 tee in March, 1912, it developed that there was a feeling that the manufacturers were 
 asking an exorbitant price from the farmers for Paris green. The fact is that Paris 
 green has been selling for approximately 13 to 15 cents per pound for several years. 
 We know that in some cases retailers have charged 30 cents and as high as 50 cents per 
 pound for Paris green to farmers when they needed it, but the manufacturers never 
 got above 15 cents, so if an exorbitant price has been exacted from the consumer, it 
 has been exacted by the small dealer, and not by the manufacturer: and if the removal 
 of the 10 per cent duty now on Paris green would flood the market with imported green, 
 it is fair to assume that the dealer would ask just as high a profit at a time when the 
 farmer actually needed the green, and, consequently, the latter would enjoy no benefit 
 of this apparent reduction in the first cost. Fifteen per cent is approximately our 
 profit. If you take it away, you wipe out our business. We believe that we are 
 entitled to at least as much consideration as is the Canadian manufacturer, and that 
 at least a 10 per cent duty should be maintained. 
 
 The raw materials used in manufacturing Paris green are blue vitriol, arsenic, 
 soda ash, and acetic acid. It is out of the question to think of importing acetic acid, 
 because of the large content of water, so that putting it on the free list means noth- 
 ing. Soda ash, which costs about five-eighths cent per pound, is made dutiable 
 under paragraph 21 of H. R. 20182 at one-eighth cent per pound. Arsenic is free and 
 blue vitriol is also made free. The latter article is largely exported, and the only 
 
344 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 56 PAINTS, COLOBS, ETC. 
 
 importations that we have been able to trace in recent year*- have been importations 
 of American-made blue vitriol sent abroad and shipped back to this country, so that 
 while it appears that the material costs us no more than it costs the foreigner, it is a 
 fact that the difference in labor is more than the 10 per cent asked for by the manu- 
 facturers. This is something that we do not care to discuss exhaustively, as you have 
 information on the subject that is perhaps more conclusive than any we could bring 
 to you. We ask, therefore, for at least 10 per cent on Paris green. 
 
 Permit us to respectfully ask whether it be a good policy to produce such a condition 
 that the farmers must wait upon the pleasure of English and German manufacturers 
 for 7,000,000 pounds of their most important insecticide? When the "bugs" begin 
 to appear the farmer sends out urgent appeals for quick deliveries of Paris green. We 
 buy our chemicals in the autumn, make our green in the winter and wait until early 
 summer to sell it. Sometimes, the "bugs" don't appear to any extent and we have 
 to carry over a large stock of green to the next season. 
 
 If the farmer has to rely upon foreign green, a shortage of it would often send prices 
 up to fabulous figures. 
 
 The demand for green from the farmers depends entirely on the number of "bugs" 
 which appear during the season. This makes the manufacture of green a speculative 
 business and even under present conditions, we makers are apathetic in regard to 
 producing it. 
 
 Again, elaborate Federal and State laws exist to-day as to the proper method of 
 making the green; the preventing of its being in any way adulterates; the restricting 
 of the amount of soluble arsenic which it may contain; the way in which this poison 
 may be distributed; the kind of package it shall be put in, with its net weight of 
 contents. The law makes us state on every label that the amount of arsenious oxide 
 combined with copper is not less than 50 per cent. We have to pay for a license in 
 most States before we can offer these goods for sale. The retailer in these States can 
 be arrested and fined if the green he sells does not conform to all the laws of his State. 
 The law on these subjects varies in the various States. Let us suppose that a steamer 
 brings in 50 tons of green and it is found that it doesn't exactly conform in composi- 
 tion to the Federal laws and also that the farmers are crying for green. Would the 
 Government reject this lot and let the "bugs" eat up the crops, or would they let the 
 farmer have any kind of green that Europe might please to send us? Then would 
 the various States permit the sale of a green that did not comply with their State 
 laws? 
 
 BLUES. 
 
 Blues, such as Berlin, Prussian, Chinese, etc., are now dutiable under paragraph 43 
 of the law of 1909 at 8 cents per pound. H. R. 20182 proposes, in paragraph 57, to 
 make the duty 20 per cent, or not less than 3 cents per pound, or a reduction of about 
 62 per cent in the duty. The Ways and Means Committee report No. 325 sho.rs that 
 190,000 pounds of these blues were imported in 1911, having an average value of 
 18 T % cents per pound. The proposed duty of 20 per cent would therefore be 3f cents 
 per pound. This brings the duty paid cost to 22 cents per pound, which is below the 
 cost of making these blues in this country. The chief ingredient of these blues is 
 prussiate of potash, now dutiable at 4 cents per pound, which it is proposed to reduce 
 to 1J cents. This is an apparent reduction in our favor of 2f cents per pound. But it 
 must be borne in mind that it takes 120 pounds of prussiate of potash to make 100 
 pounds of Prussian blue. On this basis, the reduction amounts to only 2J cents per 
 pound. 
 
 There is only a very small amount of pruspiate made in this country, approximately 
 75 per cent of it being imported from Europe. The normal average price which we 
 have paid for prussiate for the past few years has been about 13 cents per pound. The 
 powerful chemical trust in Europe has now advanced the price to 16 \ cents per pound, 
 and we are wholly at their mercy. There are but few agencies in this country from 
 whom we can buy the foreign-made prussiate, and when we make a contract we do 
 not know whether we are to receive German, Belgian, or English prussiate. On account 
 of foreign competition, even at the duty of 4 cents per pound, the largest manufacturer 
 in this country has been forced recently to go out of business. A reduction in the 
 duty on blue means an increased importation, with a very much reduced revenue to 
 the Government, whereas it is clear to us that the present importation of blue, paying 
 a duty of 8 cents per pound, nets the Government a much higher revenue than would 
 possibly be expected under the proposed order of things. At the same time it does 
 not give the American manufacturer control of the home market but keeps him in 
 sharp competition with his competitors abroad. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 345 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 We therefore ask for such consideration as an American manufacturer is entitled to. 
 We do not ask for protection, nor for a tariff that will prohibit competition. We 
 invite competition, but would ask to be permitted to enjoy a share of the trade on the 
 same platform with outsiders. 
 
 We do not believe that we are getting this consideration under H. R. 20182, but, on 
 ' the contrary, are being seriously discriminated against. We do not oppose the reduc- 
 tion in other colors that we manufacture, because corresponding reductions seem to 
 have been made in the pigments used in their manufacture, but in the particular cases 
 that we have pointed out it seems to us that the committee has not been fully informed 
 of the effect of the proposed changes. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 We believe that the maximum revenue will be produced by equalizing the duty 
 between coal-tar dyes, etc., and the dry colors made from the same. 
 
 We also believe, with respect to Paris green, that placing the article on the free list 
 will wipe out whatever revenue the Government now enjoys, and there is Paris green 
 imported even at the present duty of 15 per cent. 
 
 With respect to Berlin, Chinese, and Prussian blue we believe that the duty on these 
 articles should not be lower than 8 cents per pound, if the revenue-producing principle 
 is to be maintained. 
 
 The principle of tariff reduction is not lost by the adoption of our suggestion, as there 
 are many reductions in other items that we manufacture against which we make no 
 protest, because of the reasons pointed out. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 ARTHUR S. SOMERS, 
 Representing Dry Color Manufacturers. 
 
 JANUARY 6, 1913. 
 
 BRIEF OF THE ROESSLER & HASSLACHER CHEMICAL CO., 
 ON CERAMIC COLORS. 
 
 NEW YORK, January S, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: We respectfully petition that the present rate of duty on 
 ceramic colors, 30 per cent ad valorem, be retained and remain 
 unchanged. 
 
 For the reason that these colors are metallic and vitrifiable prepa- 
 rations and substances, in powder and liquid form, composed of metal 
 oxides with fluxes, to assist their melting. 
 
 The ceramic colors are also used by amateur artists for china and 
 glass painting, and put up in vials and tubes separately or mixed 
 with oil. The rich color elfects being principally obtained by the use 
 of precious metals, which limit their consumption to beautifying 
 china and glassware, etc., making them more a luxury than a neces- 
 sity of life. 
 
 CLASSIFICATION UNDER PAYNE- ALDRICH TARIFF ACT, 1909. 
 SCHEDULE A. Chemicals, oils, and paints. 
 
 Paragraph 56 : Ceramic colors proper, 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 Imports, 1910-11, S16,334; 1911-12, $12,323. Artists' paints or 
 colors (in bottles, packages, tubes, pans, cakes, etc.), 30 per cent ad 
 valorem. Imports, 1910-11, 880,130; 1911-12, $106,940 (75 per 
 cent ceramic colors and 25 per cent water-color paints). 
 
346 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 SCHEDULE B. Earth, earthenware, and glassware. 
 
 Paragraph 110 : Fusible enamels, 25 per cent ad valorem. Im- 
 ports, 1910-11, $15,511; 1911-12, $14,604. 
 
 FREE LIST. 
 
 Paragraph 576 : Glass enamel white for watch and clock dials, duty 
 free. Imports, 1910-11, $21,702; 1911-12, $17,981. 
 
 White glass enamel, known as a color rather than an enamel, and a material for 
 making color, rather than an enamel itself, heretofore duty free, according to recent 
 decisions of the United States Court of Customs Appeals, Treasury Decision 32983, 
 November 21, 1912, is now dutiable as ceramic colors at 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 SCHEDULE M. Pulp, papers, and books. 
 
 Paragraph 412 : Decalcomanias in ceramic colors, weighing per 1,000 
 sheets, 20 by 30 inches, under 100 pounds, 70 cents per pound and 15 
 per cent; over 100 pounds, 22 cents per pound and 15 per cent; all 
 others (except toy), 40 cents per pound. Imports, 1910-11, $176,481 ; 
 1911-12, $171,838. 
 
 Description of ceramic colors. The ceramic colors are a distinct 
 article of commerce, comprising a great variety of vitrified prepara- 
 tions, commonly known as stains, color bodies, fluxes, fusible enamels, 
 enamels (over and under glaze), glazes, etc., only suitable in coloring 
 and decorating metal, porcelain, glass, pottery, and other earthen and 
 clay wares. 
 
 The ceramic colors differ essentially from all other kinds of pig- 
 ments, paints, colors, and dyes used for house painting and in the 
 textile industries, since their application to develop the colors, 
 bringing out the rich color effects and fix the same permanently on 
 the ware, requires a firing process at a high temperature ranging from 
 900 to 3,000 F. 
 
 (Exhibit A, price list ceramic materials No. 12, recently issued.) 
 
 The manufacturing and marketing of these ceramic colors is more 
 difficult than other lines of trade, since with the change of fashions in 
 shades and colors, the matching of shades requires a well-trained and 
 competent staff for research work, meaning considerable expense in 
 time and money. Their manufacture necessitates experiments with 
 costly raw materials before the desired shade effects are obtained. 
 Large stocks of both raw materials and finished products are con- 
 stantly kept on hand, which with the change of fashions do not find a 
 ready sale. 
 
 Tariff. This industry, although established by us in this country 
 nearly 30 years ago, has made only slow progress, due to the fact 
 that the customs duty has at no time been adequate to equalize the 
 advantage which centuries of experience give to the products manu- 
 factured in England, Franco, Germany, etc. 
 
 The present duty of 30 per cent on ceramic colors is too low a rate 
 of duty considering the duty carried by their raw materials, being 
 generally the same and in some instances considerably higher, there 
 
SCHEDULE A. 
 
 347 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLOBS, ETC. 
 
 being no counterbalance for the higher cost of skilled labor, apparatus, 
 machinery, materials, and supplies in general. 
 
 In all previous tariffs ceramic colors have been dutiable at 30 per 
 cent ad valorem. Under the Dingley Tariff Act, 1897, litigation arose 
 on account of some of the ceramic colors containing chrome, lead, 
 and zinc, to have the same classified under the low paint and color 
 schedule at a few cents per pound, not at all consistent with their 
 value, when some of the more expensive colors, like maroons, purples, 
 rubies, etc., the basis of which are the precious metals, are worth up 
 to $20 per pound. 
 
 A manifest error of the Dingley Act was recognized and rectified in 
 the Pavne- Aid rich Act of 1909 by specifying that the ceramic colors 
 be made dutiable at the proper rate by making special provision for 
 ceramic colors according to the enactment of the following paragraph: 
 
 "All glazes, fluxes, enamels, and colors used only in the manufac- 
 ture of ceramic, enameled, and glass articles, thirty per centum ad 
 valorem." 
 
 The white glass enamel, for watch and clock dials, duty free, having 
 been held to be untenable, and fusible enamels enumerated under the 
 glass schedule, continued from previous tariffs, dutiable at 25 per 
 cent ad valorem on scientific principles, as both these materials contain 
 metallic oxides, should in fact be listed as ceramic colors and be 
 dutiable at 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Approximate duty revenue (average 2 years' imports). 
 [Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act, 1909.] 
 
 Ceramic colors. 
 
 Values. 
 
 Duty rates. 
 
 Ceramic colors proper 
 
 $14,329.00 
 
 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Artist's paints *or colors (75 per cent eers>tiiic colors) 
 
 70, 152. 00 
 
 Do. 
 
 Fusible enamel ... 
 
 15, 058. 00 
 
 25 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Glass enamel, white.... 
 
 19,842.00 
 
 Free, now 30 per cent. 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 119,381.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 Approximate revenue. .. 
 
 34,911.40 
 
 
 Artist's water-color paints (25 per cent artist's paints) 
 
 23,483.00 
 
 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Approximate revenue . 
 
 6,344.90 
 
 
 Decalcomanias in ceramic colors, total 
 
 172,661.25 
 
 Various rates. 
 
 Approximate revenue . 
 
 67, 418. 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 Suggested modification of duties. 
 
 Ceramic colors proper: Artist's ceramic colors in tubes, etc.; fusible 
 enamels, glass enamel white, $119,381 (30 per cent ad valorem). 
 Approximate revenue, $35,814.30. 
 
 Artist's water-color paints (25 per cent artist's paints), $23,483 (30 
 per cent ad valorem). Approximate revenue, $6,344.90. 
 
 Although the ceramic color item is not very large, the same offers a 
 good opportunity for revenue, since the ultimate consumer is per- 
 fectly willing to pay for the luxury of beautifully decorated china, 
 tableware, and vases. From a revenue point of view any reduction 
 in duty would not be counterbalanced by an increase in the imports, 
 and as the ceramic colors are used primarily in the fine arts, for deco- 
 
348 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 rative purposes, which are a luxury, the question of duty can there- 
 fore be regarded more as a revenue-bearing proposition. 
 
 We therefore petition that the present duty of 30 per cent ad 
 valorem on ceramic colors be retained. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 THE ROESSLER & HASSLACHER CHEMICAL Co., 
 Louis RUHL, Assistant Secretary. 
 
 POMEROY & FISCHER, NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 NEW YORK, December 23 ,.191 2. 
 Hon. OSCAR UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Replying to yours of December 5, we present our view 
 on the tariff rates for paints, colors, and varnishes under Schedule 
 A. We have arranged the matter as far as possible under the head- 
 ings suggested in your letter. 
 
 In general the present average rate of duty is 32.22 per cent (1). 
 On the other hand, this class of goods is produced with a minimum 
 of labor, which the United States census places at 7 per cent (2). 
 Certainly a duty of more than four times the total labor cost is 
 absurd. 
 
 Our total exports are over seven million and our imports but two 
 million dollars (3). A study of the Government report cited will 
 sho\v that our exports are growing fast, having more than trebled 
 between 1900 and 1910, whereas imports have increased but 25 
 per cent in the last five years. In other Words, domestic makers 
 compete with ease in the world's markets and are gradually forcing 
 foreign goods out of the home market. Our total consumption of 
 this class is $200.000 (4). of wliich foreign goods comprise but 2 per 
 cent. Tims it is evident that the present duties do not simply 
 protect, they prohibit. 
 
 That the American manufacturers do not desire such grossly 
 unfair conditions is amply proven by the reports of the hearings 
 before the Payne committee (5) as well as by the statement of ex-Gov. 
 Murphy before the Senate Finance Committee early this year. 
 
 From the volume of imports and average rate of duty already 
 given it is clear that this great industry furnishes a revenue of less 
 than 8700,000. A lower duty would produce more revenue, put a 
 wholesome and much-needed restraint upon the price and quality 
 of American goods, and yet deprive the domestic manufacturer of 
 no legitimate profit. 
 
 Our experience of 25 years leads us to believe that paints, colors, 
 and varnishes need no duty as a protection, but that an average 
 rate of 10 per cent would produce the greatest possible revenue. 
 Free entry might possibly increase the present insignificant imports 
 by tenfold and a 10 per cent duty by fivefold, thus nearly doubling 
 the present revenue. A reduction of the present average rate of 
 2 per cent to 25, 20. or 15 per cent would have little effect on 
 imports or revenue. The 10 per cent rate is needed to produce 
 any competition worthy the name. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 349 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 Price control of at least four items in this group is exercised by 
 trusts, pools, agreements, etc. We refer to white lead, zinc, Englisn 
 or quicksilver vermilion, and ultramarine blue. To prove this 
 generally recognized fact would carry us far beyond the limits of 
 this article, and we leave it with the suggestion that your committee 
 most carefully investigate the matter. 
 
 Packages and containers now enter free when containing free or 
 specific duty goods, but pay the same rate as their contents when 
 holding ad valorem goods. This is so manifestly unfair as to need 
 no comment. Ad valorem package should be free as well. 
 
 The trade data concerning a number of articles of this schedule 
 furnishes a stronger argument for lower rates than the general 
 figures given. We will now touch briefly on a few items with which 
 we are familiar from long experience. 
 
 WHITE LEAD. 
 
 White lead, dry or in oil, paragraph 53. 
 
 We believe this article and its associated products, red lead and 
 orange mineral, should enter free. 
 
 Lead is the most highly protected of the industrial metals and its 
 derivative. 
 
 White lead is equallv burdened. Its present duty of 2\ cents per 
 pound is 51 per cent of to-day's London price and averaged 42.44 per 
 cent upon the goods imported in 1911 (6). 
 
 Our present domestic production is 132,612 tons (7), whereas our 
 imports are but 330 tons (8) or O.OOJ per cent as much. Records of 
 exports of white lead have only been kept since last July, but they 
 indicate them to be at the rate of 8,500 tons annually (9), or 26 times 
 the imports. 
 
 These records do not separate dry lead from that ground in oil, so 
 it is impossible to compare the export price with that charged the 
 American consumer. To our minds there is no doubt, however, that 
 the export rate is lower by a considerable per cent. This belief is 
 supported by a letter just received from a correspondent in Holland, 
 who says, "As for prices, we beg to point out that American white 
 lead in oil in Holland as a rule is f. 2.50 to f. 3 per cent kilos cheaper 
 than the true Dutch white lead in oil." 
 
 The trade is undoubtedly controlled by the National Lead Co., 
 which probably produces 65 to 70 per cent of the country's output. 
 This company in turn is said to be owned by the American Smelting 
 & Refining Co. interests, which again, we believe, controls the metallic- 
 lead market. Recently the press announced that this group had 
 formed an international pool or trust, whose power was immediately 
 manifested. We had hardly learned of this pool before we received 
 the first of a series of cables from the English corroder we represent, 
 announcing increases in the price of white lead. 
 
 A further and most startling evidence of the great power of this 
 company was a statement made by one of its officials to the writer to 
 the effect that they regularly export dry lead in large quantity to 
 the English factory above mentioned and that they similarly sell 
 every corroder in England. When our manufacturers can lay their 
 
350 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAQBAPH 56 PAINTS, COLOBS, ETC. 
 
 product down at the doors of their foreign competitor so much 
 cheaper than he can make it as to lead to large and steady sales, is a 
 protection of 40 to 50 per cent needed? 
 
 The National Lead Co. is supposed to make about 65 per cent of 
 our output, or 86,198 tons. Were this material imported, the duty 
 would be $4,309,900. Thus we see at a glance the height of the pro- 
 tecting wall erected by a kindly Congress to shield an infant nidus try. 
 
 Nothing but free entry will have any effect upon this situation, as 
 is amply proven by the fact that the lower duty of 1 cents per pound 
 under the Wilson law only increased the annual imports to 814 tons. 
 
 Red lead (par. 49) and orange mineral (par. 48) are similar in 
 appearance and identical in chemical composition. They differ only 
 in minor physical respects, and their identification is all but impos- 
 sible to any but experts. This naturally leads to false classification 
 and much trouble. The two articles should bear the same duty. 
 
 VARNISH. 
 
 Varnish (par. 51, duty oil varnish, 25 per cent). 
 
 Pure oil varnishes contain but three major ingredients Unseed oil, 
 fossil gums, and turpentine. The last two enter free, and the first is 
 produced here in quantities sufficient for our needs. As in the case of 
 the other articles mentioned, our imports of varnish are small and 
 declining, whereas our exports are large and growing rapidly. Even 
 the reduction of the duty from 35 per cent to 25 per cent under the 
 present law has not stimulated imports. All these facts are shown 
 at a glance from the following figures (9) : 
 
 
 1903 
 
 1907 (35 
 per cent). 
 
 1910 (25 
 per cent). 
 
 
 SI 25 479 
 
 $65 483 
 
 i$57 156 
 
 
 667 475 
 
 961 291 
 
 1 050 200 
 
 
 
 
 
 'Oil. 21911. 
 
 Dom&stic production, 1905, 823,561,099. 
 
 Surely a duty that allows entry to but one-fourth of 1 per cent of 
 the country's consumption is prohibitive, and little revenue can be 
 expected from it. To produce income the rate must allow of com- 
 petition. 
 
 The United States census reports tell us that the labor cost for pro- 
 ducing varnish is but 5.1 per cent of its value (10). This does not 
 warrant a duty five times as great. 
 
 The average declared values of imports and exports must give 
 quite an approximate idea of manufacturing costs. Judged by this 
 standard, foreign goods cost nearly double as much as domestic, the 
 figures being SI. 92 per gallon for the former and 98 cents for the 
 latter (11). 
 
 These figures are borne out by our own experience, which we will 
 illustrate by two cases. 
 
 The Navy was recently quoted a quantity of varnish, under the 
 most rigid of specifications, for -?1 .09 per gallon (12), whereas our cost 
 
SCHEDULE A. 351 
 
 PARAGRAPH 68 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 in London for a similar grade is $1.82. Our cheapest carriage- 
 finishing varnish costs us over $2.25 in London, whereas we have 
 absolute proof that at least one of the railroads centering in New York 
 buys for $2.05. 
 
 That the domestic manufacturers do not feel the need of a duty is 
 amply proven by their testimony before your committee at various 
 tunes. Mr. N. B. Arnold, representing the Varnish Manufacturers' 
 National Association, said at the hearing in 1907 : "All varnish in this 
 country is a great deal lower in price than the foreign varnish to-day-" 
 and also, "We go into the foreign countries and compete with the 
 world the goods being sold at a profit." Ex-Go v. Murphy, of New 
 Jersey, one of our largest manufacturers, said to the Senate Finance 
 Committee on March 15 last that so far as he could speak for the 
 industry, as representing one of the largest plants, he would have no 
 objection to the removal of the duty on varnishes. 
 
 It is thus quite clear that no duty on varnish is needed unless it be 
 to produce revenue. Speaking as the oldest importing house, we 
 believe that a rate of 10 per cent, with packages free, would produce 
 the greatest income. Such a rate might possibly in crease imports by 
 tenfold and the present revenue by fourfold. Even at that imports 
 would be but 1\ per cent of our production and no harm could come 
 to the infant industries. 
 
 READY-MIXED PAINTS. 
 
 Ready-to-use paints constitute one of the largest items of domestic 
 production; but they are not specifically covered by the tariff, and 
 if imported would enter under the " basket clause," paragraph 56, 
 at 30 per cent. Records of imports are not to be had; but it is 
 generally known in the trade that they are nil. Data covering 
 exports have only been kept since July last; but it shows shipments 
 at the rate of over 1,000,000 gallons per year (13). 
 
 It is not pleasant to speak ill of any branch of our industries; but 
 it is well known that adulteration of paints is easily accomplished 
 and with difficulty detected by the consumer. As a result, the 
 practice has become very general and was first exposed in a convinc- 
 ing way by the agricultural experiment station of North Dakota in 
 Bulletins Nos. 70,^86, and others (1906-1909). These reports showed 
 that many large and well-known firms were putting into their paints 
 from 16 to 100 per cent of inert pigments, 5 to 40 per cent of water, 
 and giving short measure at that. These revelations resulted in 
 the enactment of much needed pure-paint laws by a number of 
 States, and the situation is now somewhat improved. 
 
 On the other hand, our experience is that foreign paints of all 
 classes are prepared much more carefully and with greater regard for 
 the makers' future reputation. We therefore submit as a conclusion 
 that a rate of duty which would permit of some real competition 
 would be of the greatest benefit to the consumer and to the ultimate 
 gain of the domestic maker. 
 
352 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, BTO. 
 ENAMEL PAINTS. 
 
 The rate of duty on enamel paints has been in almost continuous 
 litigation since the enactment of the Dingley Tariff Act in 1897. This 
 has placed a great hardship on both importers and consumers of this 
 article, and we hope your committee will so word your proposed bill 
 that no doubt can exist, either as to the rate of duty or as to whether 
 enamels made without varnish and those made with varnish are to be 
 assessed alike or differently. It is also desirable to make it clear 
 whether or not colored enamels are to carry the same rate as white 
 enamels of their respective classes. 
 
 Enamels made with varnish consist simply of oxide or zinc ground 
 in varnish, and it seems to us that it should carry the same rate as 
 varnish, its most expensive ingredient. 
 
 Enamel made without varnish, on the other hand, is oxide of zinc 
 ground in a drying linseed oil and thinned with turpentine. It is, of 
 course, a cheaper product, and it would seem as if it should carry the 
 lesser rate always accorded linseed oil. If an ad valorem rate is de- 
 sired, we believe that nothing above 10 per cent will produce any 
 revenue of moment. 
 
 At present enamels made with varnish enter at 35 per cent under 
 paragraph 51, and enamels made without varnish, imder the basket 
 clause Xo. 56, at 30 per cent. 
 
 Comparative records of exports and imports are not to be had so far 
 as we can find. 
 
 Few American enamels now sell at above $2.50 per gallon, and the 
 Navy Department recently purchased under most rigid specifications 
 for SI. 52 per gallon (14). On the other hand, our own landed costs 
 run from about S2.50 to nearly $4 per gallon according to quality. 
 In closing we would remind you that, though importers, we are loyal 
 American citizens. We desire no advantage over any domestic com- 
 petitor, but simply a chance to meet them on equal terms. Regulated 
 competition is me life of trade, and customs tariffs, to be productive, 
 must permit and not prohibit imports. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 POMEROY & FISCHER, 
 By CHAS. B. GRIMES. 
 
 REFERENCES. 
 
 (1) Commerce and Navigation of United State?, Department of Commerce and 
 
 I. at or, volume 1911,' pages 993 and 994. 
 
 (2) Census 1910, Bulletin Manufactures of New York State, pages 84-85: 
 
 Total value of products. 1909 $28, 559, 474 
 
 Total wages paid to produce 1, 863, 339 
 
 < 'ensus United State?, 1905, volume "Manufactures." 
 
 (3) Commerce and Navigation of United States, 19] 1. pages 29, 841, 59, 
 
 and 473: 
 
 Exports paints, pigments, and colors, 1911 $6,294,746 
 
 Exports varnish, 1911 1,074, 264 
 
 7, 369, 010 
 
 2, 045, 548 
 57, 156 
 
 2, 102, 704 
 
SCHEDULE A. 858 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 (4^ Mineral Resources of United States, bulletin issued November. 1912. 
 
 (5) Tariff hearings before Committee on Ways and Means, Sixtieth Congress, Sched- 
 
 ule A, pages 413-468. 
 
 (6) Commerce and Navigation of United States, 1911, pages 993 and 994. 
 
 (7) The Production of Mineral Paint in 1911, page 16. 
 
 (8A) Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance for October, 1912, page 26. 
 
 (8) Commerce and Navigation of United States, 1911, pages 993 and 994. 
 
 (9) United States Census, 1905, Manufactures, part 1, page ccc. 
 United States Census, 1905, Manufactures, part 1, page 350. 
 United States Census, 1905, Manufactures, part 1, page clxxii. 
 Commerce and Navigation of United States, 1911, pages 473 and 841. 
 
 (10} United States Census, 1905, Manufactures, part 1, pages 336-337. 
 
 (11) Commerce and Navigation of United States, 1911, page 473 foil varnish). 
 Commerce and Navigation of United States, 1911, page 841 (all varnish). 
 
 (12) Class 94, opening November 14, 1912. 
 
 (13) Monthly Summary, Commerce and Finance, advance sheets for October, 1912, 
 
 page 26. 
 
 (14) Schedule 4715, class 36, opening of August 13, 1912. 
 
 BRIEF OF J. W. COULSTON & CO., NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 NEW YOEK, January 8, 19 IS. 
 Hon. Mr. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Paragraph 56 of tariff act of 1909: Under this para- 
 graph of paints, colors, and pigments, etc., a duty of 30 per cent is 
 paid. 
 
 Paragraph 117: Under this, iron ore pays duty of 15 cents per ton. 
 
 Under Treasury Summary 29074 (119 Fed. Rep., 470, and 162 
 Fed. Rep., 880), oxide of iron in lump form is permitted to enter the 
 United States on duty as iron ore at 15 cents per ton. Not a particle 
 of this iron ore is used for smelting purposes but solely to make 
 powdered oxide of iron. On oxide of iron we pay duty of 30 per 
 cent, or $6 per ton, while the importer of crude material pays only 
 15 cents per ton. 
 
 We respectfully ask that in some manner importations of iron ore, 
 used in paints, be assessed at the same rate as the powdered iron ore. 
 V ery respectfully, yours, 
 
 J. W. CotHLSTON & Co. 
 
 BRIEF OF THE PAINT MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION OF 
 THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 ACME WHITE LEAD AND COLOR WORKS, 
 
 Detroit, Mich., January 10, 1913. 
 
 MY DEAR MR. DOREMUS: Referring to our recent conference cover- 
 ing the matter of proposed revisions in Schedule A of the tariff and 
 the effect that said revisions would have upon pur industry, wish to 
 say that when this matter was under consideration last March a com- 
 mittee, appointed by the Paint Manufacturers' Association, prepared a 
 statement or brief to be presented in connection with a hearing before 
 the Finance Committee of the Senate. You will, perhaps, remember 
 that no opportunity was given for hearing on this schedule by the 
 Ways and Means Committee of the House. This statement, which 
 
 78959 VOL 113 23 
 
354 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 was prepared with considerable care, is applicable in every way to 
 conditions as they exist at the present time. Hence, it occurred to 
 me that it might be as well to send you a copy of same. 
 
 As our conference was necessarily limited in time and the proposi- 
 tion, as a whole, gone over rather hurriedly, the statement I am send- 
 ing herewith will probably make some matters more clear to you. 
 
 Trusting that we may have your best cooperation in the way of 
 bringing aoout an equitable adjustment of the tariff, as it affects this 
 industry, along the lines of our conversation, I beg to remain, with 
 kindest regard!, 
 
 Yours, most sincerely, 
 
 WM. L. DAVIES, President. 
 Hon. FRANK E. DOREMUS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington. D. C. 
 
 GENERAL STATEMENT REGARDING PAINTS IN SCHEDULE A. 
 
 [Paragraph 68, relating to ready mixed paints; paragraph 60, earth paints for all painting purposes; 
 paragraph 63, enamel paints made with varnish; paragraph 50, soya oil, china nut oil and linseed oil: 
 paragraph 37, varnish gums.] 
 
 Hon. BOIES PENROSE, 
 
 United States Senate. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Last fall the Paint Manufacturers Association, which I represent to-day, 
 unanimously passed the following resolution: 
 
 "Whereas in the opinion of the Paint Manufacturers Association of the United States 
 tariff legislation requires careful and expert investigation in order to insure equitable 
 and adequate protection, and to avoid undue favor through lack of full comprehen- 
 sion of the details of the industry involved; and 
 
 "Whereas the Paint Manufacturers Association of the United States have already 
 gone on record as approving such investigation and revision of the Tariff Schedule, 
 based on the findings of the Tariff Board: Now therefore 
 "Resolved, That the Paint Manufacturers Association of the United States tender 
 
 ite cooperation in the event of any possible tariff revision by Congress, and that a 
 
 copy of this resolution be sent to the President, the members of Congress, and the 
 
 Tariff Board." 
 
 No request for any information has been received from those in charge of the prepa- 
 ration of Schedule A, before it passed the House and no opportunity was given us 
 there for a hearing, nor lias the Tariff Board apparently made any investigation into 
 production cost here and abroad, as shown by the absence of any figures of this sort 
 from Appendix C, entitled ''Glossary on Schedule A." 
 
 It is no wonder, therefore, that the lower duties proposed show lack of familiarity' 
 with the intricacies of The paint business, and to the relation between what are raw 
 materials to the paint grinder, but which are finished products to the dry color maker, 
 from whom he buys; and in like manner raw materials to the dry color maker are in 
 many instances the finished product of the chemical manufacturer, who in turn 
 derives his raw material from the output of the mines bearing the necessary ores; 
 or in the case of the vehicles employed in the making of prepared paints, principally 
 linseed oil, which in turn is the finished product of the crusher of flaxseed, who takes 
 for his raw material the flax, the product of the farmer. 
 
 ^e notice also the omission of any mention of flaxseed, or of zinc and lead bearing 
 ores, in the preparation of this schedule, though they are directly connected with our 
 line of industry. 
 
 It is impossible, therefore, to make changes in the tariff on any of these materials 
 without having due regard to the others, and this is why we protest against them, 
 until due consideration can be given to these facts, and data can be procured that will 
 show the costs of production here and abroad. 
 
 In the short time since the passage of Schedule A by the House we are unable 
 ourselves to furnish any data other than to state that from investigations made the 
 committee of our association reported in 1909, at the time the Payne bill was being 
 considered, as follows: 
 
SCHEDULE A. 355 
 
 PARAGRAPH 56 PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. 
 
 "From investigations made your committee is not far wrong in stating that the 
 wages paid in this country are from two and a half to three times greater than are paid 
 for similar labor in most foreign countries. This being true, then to reduce the tariff 
 to any appreciable extent would necessarily mean a proportionate reduction in the 
 wage scale of the people employed in the paint factories, etc." 
 
 We are able, however, from the Tariff Board's glossary on Schedule A, to observe 
 that the English statistics for 1907 give in round numbers a total cost of $27,000,000 
 for raw materials of paint and varnish and of $40,000,000 for the value of the product, 
 showing the raw materials to be in the proportion of two-thirds to the value of the fin- 
 ished product, which almost exactly accord with the proportion in this country for 
 1905, when the cost of raw materials was $60,000,000 and the value of the product 
 $90,000,000, and again in 1910 when the cost of the raw materials was $80,000,000 and 
 the value of the product $124,000,000. This, we think, shows how much care has 
 previously been exercised in preceding tariff measures, including the one under which 
 we are now operating, and that by reason of the present tariff our manufacturers are 
 not selling their product at any higher percentage on ita cost than in England. Yet 
 we are paying higher wages and more for all the expenses of a manufacturing business. 
 
 The present tariff has produced no trust,pool, or agreement on prices. Internal 
 competition to use the words of another, "Has reduced the price or the article to a 
 minimum of a reasonable profit on the capital employed." 
 
 In our judgment it is radically wrong to reduce the tariff on paragraph 68, when 
 applied to our particular line of industry, because our products contain a large per- 
 centage of linseed oil, now paying a tariff of 15 cents a gallon which it is proposed to 
 reduce to 13 cents a gallon, equivalent to but 3 per cent ad valorem. Meanwhile, two 
 flax crop failures prevent our buying linseed oil on a world's market basis, as hereto- 
 fore, and thus handicaps us by this proposed 13 cents a gallon. If 2 cents a gallon on 
 oil, then 5 cents a bushel should be taken off flaxseed. It, therefore, to our minds, 
 furnishes no excuse for a reduction of from 30 to 20 per cent on the mixed paints, colors 
 in oil, etc., mentioned in this paragraph, for in these products the price of oil and the 
 tariff thereon determines more largely the cost of the products than any other item. 
 
 We do not wish to be understood as complaining about the tariff on linseed oil. We 
 believe the farmer should have protection, and have backed that belief by furnishing 
 through voluntary contribution collected by members of our association many thou- 
 sands of dollars for putting into effect methods devised by Prof. Bolley, of the North 
 Dakota Agricultural College, that would produce a higher rate of yield per acre and 
 prevent rust. We believe it is to the interest of the United States that the flax planter 
 should not be discouraged by the prospect of any lower duty on either the seed or the 
 oil which is pressed from it in order that we may again be independent in this respect 
 of foreign countries. 
 
 Great strides have been made in the scientific preparation of paint, especially during 
 the higher prices of linseed oil, and a use has been found for the soya bean oil to the 
 extent of 5,500,000 gallons imported during 1911, where a few years prior there was 
 practically none imported. Yet it is proposed to transfer this from the heretofore free 
 list and impose a tariff of one-fourth cent a pound. 
 
 In like manner Chinese wood oil, of which 5,800,000 gallons were imported during 
 1911, and of very recent use in our industry heretofore free, it is now proposed to tax 
 5 cents per gallon. 
 
 We also oppose the very unusual change from the free list to an average duty of 1 
 cent a pound on all the gums used in the manufacture of varnish. This proposed 
 change, together with the tariff on china wood oil, will increase the cost of perhaps 50 
 per cent of all the varnishes used, so we are told by the varnish makers. So closely 
 connected are the paint and varnish industries that the line between them can not be 
 drawn, and this will manifest itself in increased cost of many of the preparations made 
 by the paint manufacturers. 
 
 Paragraph 63, among other things, relates to enamel paints made with varnish. The 
 proposed tariff of 25 per cent is a reduction from 35 per cent, this in spite of the pro- 
 posed changes which increase the cost here, as above stated, of all varnishes, thus in- 
 creasing the cost of enamel paints made from varnish. 
 
 The paint industry is a large and growing one, having increased 40 per cent in five 
 years and showing sales in 1910 of $124,000,000. We dislike to see any changes made 
 that would jeopardize this growth, and we believe the changes proposed will effect 
 not only the manufacturers of paint, but clear along the line until it reaches the farmer 
 who raises the flax and the miner who produces the ore as well as the laborer employed 
 by them all. 
 
356 TAEIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 56 PAINTS, OOLOBS, ETC. 
 
 In the limited time in which this matter has come up there have been passed reso- 
 lutions by local bodies in our line of industry in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, 
 and also the principal cities, protesting against these changes, and a thorough canvass 
 of the entire trade has shown that the position here taken is unanimously endorsed. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 PAINT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 HERBERT W. RICE, Chairman, Tariff" Committee* 
 
 BSIEF OF GEO. S. MEPHAM & CO., EAST ST. LOUIS, ILL. 
 
 EAST ST. Louis, ILL., January 2, 1913. 
 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We are advised that hearing on Schedule A present 
 tariff will be held January 6 next and that brief statements of facts 
 and suggestions will be welcomed. 
 
 We are interested in the mining and manufacturing of colors and 
 have a factory at this point. 
 
 Our principal competition comes from England though on some 
 items we have strong competition from France, Germany, and Spain. 
 
 The writer during four visits to Europe has carefully looked into 
 the manufacture and production of paints and colors, and finds first 
 that factories in this country are equipped with better machinery than 
 any European factory he visited, but that American factories pay from 
 three to six times as much for labor than is paid in England, Germany, 
 France, or Spain. In England machinery used in the manufacture of 
 paints and colors because of cheap labor cost may be bought at prices 
 which, added to duty and freight, makes the machinery laid down here 
 at East St. Louis at a lower cost than local manufacturers are able to 
 produce, which makes cost of machinery in factory in England about 
 one-half the cost of equipping over here and repairs, an important 
 item, equally as low. 
 
 The snipping facilities enjoyed by English producers is in itself an 
 important item. As an instance the present rates less than carload 
 on colors from English port to Atlantic seaboard from $2 to $2.50 per 
 ton. Freight on same items from here to seaboard range from $7 to 
 S8.60 per ton, which tells its own story and shows the necessity for 
 protection if American factories are to be operated. 
 
 We would say that with present duties we purchase considerable 
 quantity of goods from all of the countries named above because they 
 can be laid down at less than they can be produced here and shipped 
 to seaboard and finally the English producer has in colonies of England 
 and great purchasing markets of the world to which British producers 
 are admitted by preferential duties at lower rates than from this 
 country. Is it wise to turn over a still larger share of the trade in the 
 United States to foreign manufacturers by permitting them to dispose 
 of their surplus products in this country to the extinction of American 
 industry and the employment of American labor? We would add 
 that our crude material comes from Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Arkan- 
 sas, Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Michigan, and Wis- 
 consin. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 357 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 PHOSPHORUS. 
 
 We close with the statement that there is no request for reduction 
 in tariff on items covered by paragraphs No. 42, barytes; No. 47, 
 ocher, sienna, and umber earths; No. 54, whiting, etc., and No. 56, 
 paints and colors of all kinds, and a reduction in tariff would only 
 reduce revenue on the material already coming into this country, and 
 permit of bringing into the cheaper grades which now are made in 
 the United States. 
 
 Yours, very truly, GEO. S. MEPHAM & Co. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 57. 
 
 Paris green, and London purple, fifteen per centum ad valorem. 
 See Arthur Somers, page 336. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 58. 
 
 Lead : Acetate of, white, three cents per pound ; brown, gray, or yellow, two 
 cents per pound ; nitrate of, two and one-fourth cents per pound ; litharge, two 
 and one-half cents per pound. 
 For acetate of lead, see Grasselli Chemical Co., page 327. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 59. 
 
 Phosphorus, eighteen cents per pound. 
 
 PHOSPHORUS. 
 
 LAMAR CHEMICAL WORKS WRITES CONCERNING 
 PHOSPHORUS. 
 
 NEWARK, N. J., January 16, 1918. 
 Hon. OSCAR UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: In reference to the item "Phosphorus" in the proposed 
 new chemical schedule. 
 
 We respectfully request your committee to report all varieties of 
 phosphorus on the free list in the new chemical schedule. Under 
 the existing tariff, the duty on phosphorus is 18 cents per pound. 
 
 The manufacture and sale of phosphorus is practically monopo- 
 lized in this country by an English concern, who have their American 
 plant at Niagara Falls. In making phosphorus, labor is an insignifi- 
 cant item in the cost. The necessary raw materials, phosphate rock, 
 charcoal, and limestone, are very cheap and abundant. The main 
 cost is electrical power in the shape of heat. The electric furnace is 
 employed in manufacturing phosphorus, and the Niagara Co. are 
 fortunate in having secured, years ago, cheap power contracts from 
 the electrical power plant at Niagara Falls. The patents on the 
 electric-furnace method of making phosphorus have expired. 
 
 This Niagara Co. are also joint owners with one of the large chem- 
 ical concerns of the country in a company for manufacturing the 
 compounds of phosphorus. This company for manufacture of 
 phosphorus compounds have a practical monopoly of the manufac- 
 ture in this country of sirupy phosphoric acid and the hypophosphite 
 salts of sodium, potassium, and calcium. Phosphorus is the main 
 ingredient and item of cost in the manufacture of sirupy phosphorus 
 acid and the three above-named hypophosphites ; and without a 
 process for the manufacture of phosphorus here, or without the 
 
358 TABIFF HEABINQS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 59 PHOSPHOBTJS. 
 
 removal of the duty on phosphorus it is impossible for any concern 
 to enter in the manufacture of sirupy phosphoric acid or hypophos- 
 phites. It would be more than foolhardy to set up a plant for the 
 manufacture of these compounds of phosphorus, counting on a 
 continuous supply of the raw material phosphorus from those who 
 control the American market, both with regard to phosphorus and 
 its compounds. 
 
 Furthermore, the American manufacturer of phosphoric acid, 
 by the membership of its parent house in European price conven- 
 tions, has control of the phosphoric acid that is imported into this 
 country. 
 
 Here we have the usual order of things reversed; with the high 
 prohibitive tariff on the raw material, phosphorus, and no duty on 
 its derivative, phosphoric acid. The duty on phosphorus was 
 undoubtedly placed thereon at the time when its use was so large 
 in the match industry, but as this use is now a thing of the past, the 
 duty ought to be removed from this raw material, phosphorus. 
 Rather, there ought to be a duty on phosphoric acid, which is the 
 manufactured article. 
 
 Phosphoric acid is being used in ever-increasing amounts for the 
 refreshing acidulous fruit drinks which are so popular and so refresh- 
 ing. Hypophosphites are used in medicine very largely as tonics. 
 
 Our company, the Lamar Chemical Works, wish to engage in the 
 manufacture of sirupy phosphoric acid and hypophosphites. For 
 these articles we have developed economical processes, but it would 
 be poor business policy to commercially develop these processes 
 before the duty is removed from phosphorus. We are a young 
 concern, only a few years old, and to take up the manufacture of 
 phosphoric acid and hypophosphites under these conditions would 
 precipitate a war with the old established concerns which would 
 not be otherwise than disastrous to ourselves, a newcomer in this 
 field. 
 
 The amount of tariff revenue that is derived from the importation 
 of phosphorous at the present time is very slight indeed. The pre- 
 vailing tariff arrangements on this raw material simply perpetuate 
 practical monopoly in this country. So far as revenue is concerned, 
 it would be much better to admit phosphorus free and to charge a 
 slight duty of several cents per pound, for example, on phosphoric 
 acid. This would remove the duty from the raw material and 
 place it upon the finished material and at the same time increase 
 the revenues derived therefrom. 
 
 Trusting that this request will receive favorable consideration at 
 your hands, and offering our services in case we can supply you 
 with any further information, we beg to remain, 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 LAM AH CHEMICAL WORKS, 
 Per iS. TRIPP, Secretary. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 859 
 
 PABAOBAPH 60 POTASH. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 60. 
 
 ' Bichromate and chromate of potash, two and one-fourth cents per pound. 
 
 POTASH. 
 
 BRIEF OF NATUEAL PRODUCTS REFINING CO. 
 
 NATURAL PRODUCTS REFINING Co., 
 
 Jersey City, N. J., January 2, 1913. 
 
 The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: We manufacture bichromates which are used for 
 tanning, dyeing, color making, etc. 
 
 The present duty on bichromate of soda is If cents per pound (par. 
 71 of Schedule A). 
 
 The present duty on bichromate of potash is 2J cents per pound 
 (par. 60 of Schedule A). 
 
 The Underwood bill of last session proposed a tariff of only three- 
 fourths of a cent per pound on bichromate of soda and 1 cent per 
 pound on bichromate of potash. 
 
 Unless we have adequate protection, our business will be seriously 
 threatened by an influx of foreign-made goods, as we will not be able 
 to compete owing to a difference in cost of manufacture of about 
 SI .28 per 100 pounds. 
 
 This higher cost of manufacture in our country is due primarily 
 to the better rate of wages paid employees and is gone into in detail 
 in tabulation of costs attached. 
 
 The European manufacturers operate under a trust or pool known 
 as a "carts!" and command a uniform price of 5 cents per pound 
 on bichromate of soda, whereas the price in this country, owing to 
 keen competition is 4f cents to 4| cents per pound. 
 
 Without sufficient tariff protection the European trust will be 
 enabled to dump their goods in this country even at less than our 
 cost of manufacture owing to their ability to stand an actual loss 
 here by pooling their interests and selling at their own high prices 
 in their markets, thus forcing the American manufacturer out of 
 business and gaining control of the market. 
 
 It is generally understood that they are enlarging their works in 
 view of the anticipated tariff reduction here with the deliberate 
 purpose of using our market as a dumping ground as above set forth. 
 
 We respectfully submit the above facts for your consideration and 
 plead for a schedule rate of not less than 1 cents per pound on 
 bichromate of soda and not less than 2 cents per pound on bichromate 
 of potash. 
 
 The following is an analy- sis of the difference in cost of manufacture 
 of bichromates in the United States as compared with cost in the 
 German Empire. 
 
 
 
 United 
 States. 
 
 Germany. 
 
 Labor 
 
 per 100 pounds. . 
 
 SI. 00 
 
 80.40 
 
 Sulphuric acid 
 
 do 
 
 .33 
 
 .15 
 
 General expenses (clerk hire,- chemists, superintendent) 
 
 do.... 
 
 1.00 
 
 .50 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total difference . 
 
 
 2.33 
 
 1.05 
 
 
 
 
 
360 TAEIFF HBABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 61 REFINED CAUSTIC POTASH. 
 
 Showing an advantage of $1.28 per 100 pounds in favor of the 
 German manufacturer. 
 
 These figures were obtained from facts supplied us by a German 
 expert, and also by one of our own representatives who studied con- 
 ditions in Germany before we engaged in this business. 
 
 Our average wage per man per day in the manufacture of bichro- 
 mates is $2.25, wnereas the average per diem rate in the German 
 Empire is 90 cents. 
 
 It may be added that rate of freight from points on the Rhine to 
 western cities via Canadian route is practically the same as rates in 
 force from Jersey City to the same points. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 NATURAL PRODUCTS REFINING Co. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 61. 
 
 Caustic potash, or hydrate of, refined, in sticks or rolls, one cent per pound; 
 chlorate of, two cents per pound. 
 
 REFINED CAUSTIC POTASH. 
 
 BRIEF OF NIAGARA ALKALI CO. REGARDING PROPOSED DUTY 
 ON REFINED CAUSTIC POTASH. 
 
 NIAGARA FALLS, N. Y., January 4, 1918. 
 The WATS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIRS: Section 61 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, in 
 Schedule A is as follows: 
 
 "Caustic potash, or hydrate of, refined, in sticks or rolls, 1 cent 
 per pound; chlorate of, 2 cents per pound." 
 
 Our request is that this section be so amended that the words 
 "refined, in sticks or rolls," be stricken put, and the words "containing 
 over 75 per cent true caustic potash" inserted in their stead. 
 
 We are reliably informed that the underlying reason for the form 
 of the old law was that a large part of the crude caustic potash used 
 in the United States, showing about 65 per cent caustic potash and 
 the balance soda and other impurities, came from the wood ashes of 
 the Canadian lumber camps, and it was intended to allow this to come 
 in free of duty; but the refined or high-grade potash, which practi- 
 cally all came from Germany and was always packed in sticks or 
 rolls, was expected to pay the duty of 1 cent per pound. 
 
 In recent years the electrolytic process for making caustic potash 
 makes it possible to manufacture high-grade caustic potash of from 
 90 to 96 per cent direct, arid this, being packed in barrels and drums, 
 evades the duty. 
 
 The insertion of the words "containing over 75 per cent true 
 caustic potash" would still admit free of duty the crude potash 
 provided same be not a chemical mixture of potash and soda. 
 
 Thus the proper effect of this change will be to force the present 
 large importations of almost pure caustic potash, packed in drums 
 and barrels, to pay the legitimate revenue to the United States Gov- 
 ernment, which they have been evading in recent years, and at the 
 same time afford the Americ'an manufacturer the incidental pro- 
 tection necessary to his continuing in this business. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 361 
 
 PARAGRAPH 61 REFINED CAUSTIC POTASH. 
 
 That he is justly entitled to this consideration we think is shown 
 conclusively in the following pages. 
 
 That the Government is entitled to the revenue of nearly $100,000 
 yearly which this duty would produce goes without saying. 
 
 That no hardship would accrue to the American consumer of caustic 
 potash is plain, from the fact that within the past four years the 
 wholesale price has been reduced by the importers from $120 per ton 
 to around $80 per ton, in their effort to drive the American manufac- 
 turer out of business, and the duty asked would in no case increase 
 the price to more than $100 per ton, whereas the forcing of the 
 Americans out of business will allow the importers to restore the old 
 price of $120, which is really very little lower than the present prices 
 in Europe, protected as they are from American competition by 
 import duties, high freights, and discriminating attitudes of steam- 
 ship lines. 
 
 As a further guaranty to American consumers, we understand that 
 the importers have assured their customers that they would see that 
 no duty is imposed by Congress, and if one be imposed, the importers 
 will pay same. All the contracts the Niagara Alkali Co. have made 
 provide that there will be, no increase of the contract price on account 
 of duty. 
 
 Even in case the importers fail to live up to this contract agreement, 
 what with our productive capacity and that of American caustic 
 soda producers who can also produce caustic potash, there will be no 
 possibility of American consumers suffering from the duty. 
 
 A short statement of the development of the Niagara Alkali Co. 
 will doubtless suffice to put plainly before you the situation so as to 
 demonstrate the fact that the American manufacturer is fully entitled 
 to the incidental protection that would be afforded by the small duty 
 asked. 
 
 For a number of years previous to 1907 the Roberts Chemical Co., 
 possessed of one of the pioneer electrolytic processes for the manu- 
 facture of caustic potash, operated a small plant in Niagara Falls, 
 using 500 horsepower and producing about 200 tons of 90 per cent 
 caustic potash per annum. 
 
 The raw material, muriate of potash, which was then and still is 
 used for manufacturing caustic potash, is found only in the vicinity 
 of Stassfurt, in Prussia, and its production is controlled by the German 
 Potash Trust, or Kali-Syndikat of Berlin, Germany, under the 
 auspices of the German Government. 
 
 The competitors of the Roberts Chemical Co. were the agents of the 
 Griesheim Caustic Potash Trust, some of the members of which also 
 owned mines belonging to the general potash trust mentioned above. 
 
 The Roberts Co. was warned that it must not attempt to sell its 
 product to the soap or woolen trades, which consumed over 95 per 
 cent of the caustic potash used in America. Should they do so, the 
 importers threatened the price of raw material muriate would be 
 increased and the price of manufactured caustic potash would be 
 decreased until the Roberts Co. was driven from business. 
 
 Therefore the Roberts Co. confined itself to the small trade obtain- 
 able at around $140 per ton and allowed the impression to be created 
 by the importer that only imported caustic potash could be used by 
 tne soap and woolen trades. 
 
362 TAEIPP HEAE1NGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 61 REFINED CAUSTIC POTASH. 
 
 Even with this high price, with such a small factory, and with such 
 a high price for raw material, the company could make no money, and 
 gradually went from bad to worse, until at the end of 1907 the plant 
 was shut down for lack of funds to go further. 
 
 At the end of 1908 some parties holding a mortgage on the property 
 leased the plant and ran it during the year 1909 under the trade name 
 of the Niagara Alkali Co., not incorporated, with the result that a 
 heavy loss was sustained. 
 
 During the year 1909 the Kali Syndikat was temporarily dissolved 
 and one of the mines belonging to same was purchased by American 
 fertilizer people, who had at the same time purchased considerable 
 phosphate-rock holdings in Tennessee, among which were those 
 belonging to the writer, who is a native of Nashville, Tenn., and who 
 was one of the pioneers in the development of the large phosphate- 
 rock business in that State. 
 
 Among other interests taken over at the same time was the mort- 
 gage and lease on the old Koberts Chemical Co. 
 
 The writer was asked to make an investigation of the possibilities 
 of this old business, as a result of which he reported that the old 
 plant was practically worthless, entirely obsolete, and could not be 
 profitably operated. 
 
 He further advised, however, that with the low-price contract held 
 by the Niagara Alkali Co. for raw material, and with a new plant 
 using an up-to-date German process which would make caustic 
 potash that could compete with the German product in the soap and 
 woolen trades, a profitable business could be established. 
 
 Negotiations thereupon began with the German owners of one of 
 the best processes for making caustic potash; the old Roberts Chem- 
 ical Co., the American lessees and the mortgage holders, which re- 
 sulted in the formation of the Niagara Alkali Co. (Inc.), ah 1 the old 
 American stockholders of the Roberts Co., becoming stockholders of 
 the new company, the management being placed in the writer's hands. 
 
 The old plant was put in shape to work to better advantage pending 
 tlae construction of a new plant, and active and vigorous efforts were 
 made to enter the soap and woolen trades. 
 
 In May, 1910, the first bomb exploded in the new business was the 
 passage by the German Reichstag of the celebrated potash law, which 
 had the effect of raising the price to all American contract holders on 
 raw material muriate of potash almost 100 per cent. 
 
 Being sure of the fact that the American Government would not 
 permit such discrimination, we proceeded with our work, and in 
 January, 1911, put our new plant in operation and demonstrated our 
 ability to compete in quality with the best German product. 
 
 In the meantime, at the end of 1909, true to their threat, the 
 importers reduced wholesale prices on caustic potash to the soap and 
 woolen trades to S102.50 per ton, making the new price apply on old 
 contracts, thus preventing our securing any large part of this business 
 for 1910. 
 
 Similar tactics were pursued in the last part of 1910, the reduction 
 this time being to S95 per ton and again applying to unfilled portions 
 of old contracts. 
 
 Again in 1911 similar reductions with similar application to old 
 contracts brought the wholesale price to $90 per ton. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 363 
 
 PARAGRAPH 61 REFINED CAUSTIC POTASH. 
 
 By January 1, 1911, we became convinced that nothing would be 
 done by the United States Government, and compromised our con- 
 tract with the German Potash Trust at about an 80 per cent increase 
 above our old contract price for raw material muriate of potash. 
 
 In the meantime we secured a considerable amount of the American 
 business by meeting the prices of the importers, and of course having 
 to go slightly lower to induce users to change. 
 
 Congress being in session we presented our case, and a bill passed 
 the House in which was imposed a duty of $12 per ton, and fearing 
 this would become law, the foreign manufacturers offered to let us 
 have 40 per cent of the business and raise the price to $110 per ton 
 if we would withdraw our request for duty. This we positively 
 declined to consider, and after the bih 1 failed to pass the Senate, a 
 further reduction w r as made by the foreigners, applying to remainder 
 of 1912 and all of 1913, putting wholesale prices down to as low as $80 
 per ton. 
 
 Thereupon we decided to again enlarge our plant to treble its 
 present capacity, using the excess capacity for making caustic soda 
 and trusting to securing a duty from the next Congress on caustic 
 potash. 
 
 We will have invested by July, 1913, about $800,000 in this country, 
 in excess of cost of process, patents, etc., purchased in Germany, and 
 will have 150 American laborers, clerks, etc., with nearly 40 American 
 stockholders, whose interests we must protect. 
 
 If we can secure our reasonable share of the American business at 
 prices around $100 per- ton, we can pay the necessarily high American 
 wages, pay the increased price for raw material necessitated by the 
 laws of the German Government, and still pay a reasonable dividend 
 to our stockholders on their large investment. 
 
 If the original contract price still held, it would amount to a differ- 
 ence to us of nearly $24 per ton of finished product, so that the duty 
 we ask of $20 per ton would not give us back even the advantage of 
 which we were deprived by the German Government. 
 
 Unless we secure the protection asked we must go out of the caustic 
 potash business and leave the field to our German competitors, con- 
 fining our manufacture to caustic soda, except for the few American 
 consumers who have contracted with us. 
 
 If we are thus forced out, the American consumers will be made 
 to pay the old high prices again, and hence it can not be to their 
 interest to oppose the duty named. 
 
 Under ordinary circumstances we would neither need nor ask for 
 protection from anybody's competition. 
 
 When, however, an American industry is threatened with extinc- 
 tion by the competition of manufacturers working under the wing of 
 a Government which has passed laws forcing that American industry 
 to pay nearly double for its raw material, it is manifestly pioper that 
 the article manufactured from this raw material should be made to 
 pay its just revenue to the United States Government and at the 
 same time afford incidental protection to the American industry. 
 
 We append hereto various exhibits giving detailed statistics o? pos- 
 sible interest to your committee as bearing upon the subject. 
 
364 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 61 REFINED CAUSTIC POTASH. 
 
 We respectfully urge the recommendation on your part that the 
 duty of 1 cent per pound be pJaced on caustic potash and one-half 
 cent per pound on carbonate of potash. 
 
 We also ask that the present auty of $4 per ton on bleaching pow- 
 der, which is a by-product of our industry, be retained, in view of the 
 fact that there are still more than 50,000 tons of foreign bleaching 
 powder imported into the United States each year and the present 
 American manufacturers can not afford any reduction of prices. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 H. D. RUHM. 
 Vice President and General Manager Niagara Alkali Co. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 [Brief of Niagara Alkali Co. Statistics.] 
 
 The selling price of caustic potash has gradually decreased from 7.52 cents in 1907 
 to 4.3 cents in 1912, as shown by the following table: 
 
 [Average selling price of caustic potash per 100 pounds.] 
 
 1907 $7. 52 
 
 1908 7. 25 
 
 1909 5. 91 
 
 Jan. 1 to June 30, 1910 5. 38 
 
 July 1 to Dec. 31, 1910 5.17 
 
 Jan. 1 to June 30, 1911 (large sale of liquid held price up) 5. 26 
 
 July 1 to Dec. 31, 1911 4. 89 
 
 January and February, 1912 4. 30 
 
 Last of 1912 4. 15 
 
 The increase in price of our raw-material potash over that originally contracted for 
 at the organization of the Niagara Alkali Co. amounts, for the 95 per cent grade, to $17 
 per ton. 
 
 As it takes 1.4 tons of raw-material muriate of potash to make 1 ton of 90 per cent 
 caustic potash, this amounts to increase in our cost of $23.80 per ton of caustic potash, 
 or 1.19 cents per pound. 
 
 The duty asked for by us of 1 cent per pound could not possibly advance the price 
 beyond the 1910 figures, which are very much lower than the prices paid before we 
 started business. 
 
 Failure to impose such a duty will destroy this industry and again place the American 
 consumer at the mercy of the German manufacturer. The present price is below even 
 the German cost and their American pales are now made at a loss. They can do this 
 indefinitely, because they sell only one-fifth of their production in this country and 
 receive the old high prices in Europe. 
 
 We are prevented from getting this advantage by the high freight rates, and in addi- 
 tion the principal markets of Europe i. e., Germany, Austria, Italy, Sweden, and 
 Switzerland all charge an import duty on caustic potash, as shown below: 
 
 Austria, 0.95 cent per pound; Germany, 0.5 cent per pound; Italy, 0.2 cent per 
 pound; Sweden, 0.25 cent per pound; Switzerland, 0.10 cent per pound. 
 
 Tho.se countries charging a low duty have correspondingly high freight rates. 
 
 (Exhibit A 2 omitted in printing and placed in the files of the committee.) 
 
 EXHIBIT A 3. 
 
 A. KLIPSTEIN & Co., 
 New York, December 18, 1912. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: The bill which was introduced in the last Congress and passed by the 
 House, but vetoed bv the President, making changes in Schedule A, chemicals, "will, 
 it appears, be again introduced in practically the same form in the new Congress, 
 which will undoubtedly be railed in extra session about March 15 next. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 365 
 
 PARAGRAPH 61 REFINED CATJSTIC POTASH. 
 
 This bill proposes to place a duty of three-fifths cent per pound on caustic potash 
 and one-half cent per pound on carbonate potash, both of which articles have been 
 on the free list for a number of years. 
 
 They are used by the woolen industry as a raw material, and it seems to us that 
 they should continue to come in free, so as not to increase the price of these raw mate- 
 rials unnecessarily. There will be public hearings on this bill, we understand, on 
 January 6, and we would recommend that already before this time you take steps so 
 that the matter can be properly explained to the Committee of Ways and Means, and 
 especially to Mr. Underwood, the chairman. 
 
 It will be necessary to act promptly in the matter. If we can be of any assistance 
 to you in giving you any information or points, we shall be very glad to have your 
 inquiries, and beg to remain, 
 
 Yours, very truly, A. KLIPSTEIN. 
 
 EXHIBIT B. 
 [To brief of Niagara Alkali Co.] 
 
 Following invoices show comparison of prices of raw material under 
 
 (1) Old contract before tax was imposed: 
 
 INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, 
 
 New York, November 18, 1910. 
 
 Sold to Niagara Alkali Works, Niagara Falls, N. Y., steamship George Washington, 
 at New York: 
 
 V. P. 250 bags muriate of potash, 56,000 pounds, 99.1 per cent 69,370 
 pounds, 80 per cent; $1.05 per hundredweight $728. 39 
 
 (2) After tax imposed: 
 
 INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, 
 
 New York, February 10, 1911. 
 Sold to Niagara Alkali Works, Niagara Falls, N. Y., steamship Roon, at New York: 
 
 Z. U. 250 bags muriate of potash, 56,000 pounds, 95.3 per cent=66,710 
 
 pounds, 80 per cent; 66,710 pounds, at $1.05 per hundredweight $700. 46 
 
 (Duty levied by German Government pursuant to authority contained in 
 bill passed by Reichstag on May 10, 1910), 303.58 dz., 80 per cent=152.99 
 dz.,K20; 152.99 dz., at M18.60=M2,845.61 680.29 
 
 1, 380. 75 
 
 (3) Under present compromise contract: 
 
 GERMAN KALI SYNDIKAT, G. M. B. H., 
 
 Berlin, SW., 11., August 20, 1912. 
 Sold to Niagara Alkali Works, Niagara Falls, N. Y., steamship Patricia, at New York: 
 
 V. S. 1,120 bags muriate of potash, min. 95 per cent, weighing gross 102,256 
 Kos., net 101,600 Kos., testing 97.7 per cent= 124,079 Kos., at 80 per 
 cent=273,560 pounds, at $39.65 per 2.000 pounds, c. i. f . New York $5, 423. 33 
 
 Less freight payable at New York at 9 marks per 1,000 Kos. =46.4= 
 M20.40.. 223.50 
 
 5, 199. 83 
 Less 1^ per cent for cash 78. 00 
 
 5, 121. 83 
 Less rebate on consc. salts, 6| per cent on $5,423.33 366. 00 
 
 4, 755. 83 
 
 EXHIBIT C. 
 [Brief of Niagara Alkali Co. Explanatory.] 
 
 There is perhaps need of some explanation regarding the distinction to be drawn 
 between the various forms of potash. 
 
366 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 61 BEFINED CAUSTIC POTASH. 
 
 As found in the earth in the potash section of Germany, potash exists as muriate or 
 chloride of potassium, just as common salt is the muriate or chloride of sodium. The 
 various forms of this muriate or chloride of potassium mixed with sulphate of magne- 
 sium and chloride of sodium or common salt make up the various raw material potash 
 salts called muriate, carnallite, kainit, sulphate, double manure salt, etc., which are 
 concentrated to varying degrees of purity and sold for use in fertilizers and as the raw 
 materials for the manufacture of different chemical products of potash, such as chro- 
 mate of potash, bichromate of potash, iodide of potash, iodate of potash, chlorate of 
 potash, tartrate of potash, prussiate of potash, citrate of potash, ferrocyanide of pot- 
 ash, and hydrate, or hydroxid of potash which is commonly known as caustic potash. 
 
 This latter article is the product in the manufacture of which the Niagara Alkali Co. 
 is now engaged and for the production of which this company has a plant at Niagara 
 Falls. 
 
 The only other American manufacturer ever engaged in the electrolytic production 
 of caustic potash was the Roberts Chemical Co., of Niagara Falls. 
 
 Under the existing tariff law the various manufactured potash compounds named 
 above are dutiable as follows: Cents 
 
 Bichromate and chromate of potash per pound . . 2 J 
 
 Chlorate of potash do 2 
 
 Hydriodatc, iodato, and iodide of potash do 25 
 
 Nitrate of potash do $ 
 
 Prussiate of potash, red .do 8 
 
 Prussiate of potash, yellow ' do 4 
 
 Cyanide of potash ad valorem.. 12J 
 
 Bitartrate 4 
 
 EXHIBIT D. 
 [Brief of Niagara Alkali Co. Letter from E. M. Sergeant.] 
 
 NIAGARA ALKALI Co., 
 Niagara Falls, N. Y., March 18, 1912. 
 Mr. IT. D. RTJHM, 
 
 Vice President and General Manager Niagara Alkali Co., Niagara Falls, N. Y. 
 DEAR SIR: Beg to advise that the business of the old Roberts Chemical Co. was 
 managed by me during the year 1909, under lease from the Roberts Chemical Co., to 
 Mr. T. C. Meadows, and during this year there was a loss incurred of between forty 
 and forty-five thousand dollars, due to the reduction in the selling price of caustic 
 potaslv and the high cost of raw material. 
 
 Very truly, yours, E. M. SERGEANT, Factory Manager. 
 
 EXHIBIT E. 
 [Brief of Niagara Alkali Co. Letter from F. O. Geyler.] 
 
 NIAGARA ALKALI Co., 
 
 Niagara Falls, N. Y., March 18, 1912. 
 Mr. TT. D. RUHM, 
 
 Vice President and General Manager Niagara Alkali Co., Niagara Falls, N. Y. 
 DEAR SIR: I beg to advise that we had a five-year contract with the International 
 Agricultural Corporation for our supply of raw material, namely, muriate of potash 
 at price of $21 (basis, 80 per cent) per ton f. o. b. New York. 
 
 After the German Government passed the new law placing an export duty on muriate 
 of potash we were forced 1o surrender our contract and enter into a new one with the Ger- 
 man Kali Syndicate at price of $38.05 (basis, 80 per cent) per ton f. o. b. New York. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 F. 0. GEYLER, Secretary and Treasurer. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 367 
 
 PARAGRAPH 61 REFINED CAUSTIC POTASH. 
 EXHIBIT F. 
 
 [Brief of Niagara Alkali Co. Statement of C. H. MacDowell. Extract copied from address before Chicago 
 Division of the American Chemical Society.] 
 
 SHARP PRACTICE CHARGED. 
 
 In January the German and the American Governments were negotiating their 
 commercial treaties in accordance with the provisions of the Payne-Aldrich Act. 
 The proposed potash law was not introduced into the Reichstag, and Washington 
 was given to understand it had been dropped. Germany was then given our mini- 
 mum tariff rates. On February 3, 1910, the bill was introduced into the Reichstag, 
 referred to a committee, reported out May 10, and passed May 25, the United 
 States Government protesting vigorously against any action which would impair the 
 American contracts. The debate in the Reichstag shows clearly that the American 
 contracts were the cause of the new legislation. Minister Sydow states: 
 
 "The starting point for myself and for the United States Government, which rec- 
 ommends you to raise the charge mentioned in paragraph 26 of the law also for the 
 older contracts the so-called Schmidtmann contracts are principally and in first 
 rate at stake," etc. 
 
 "In the contracts a clause is contained wherein it has been stipulated that any 
 governmental charges would be borne by the purchasers. If, therefore, the parties 
 had to count upon this possibility, if, furthermore, the price has been fixed at an 
 exceedingly low rate and one of the parties undertook to pay any charges in excess, 
 we do not violate, in the opinion of the united governments, in any way the princi- 
 ples of fairness and justice, if we now take the expected measures with regard to 
 these contracts" in other words, gunning for the American contracts through the 
 governmental charge feature of the contracts, and yet they claim there is no dis- 
 crimination against America. Neither Schmidtmann nor the Americans are natu- 
 rally mentioned in the law, but the debates and newspaper articles all show that 
 the syndicate and the Government had resolved to rid themselves of these contracts 
 through hostile legislation. Members of the Reichstag making inquiry were given 
 clearly to understand that the bill would not cause trouble with the United States. 
 The day the legislation was passed, Ambassador Hill was assured by the German 
 minister of foreign affairs that the law as modified would in no way impair or invali- 
 date the American contracts, and Ambassador Hill advised his Government by 
 cable to this effect. The law was promulgated and it became effective May 28. 
 
 GERMANY KNEW ABOUT SCHMIDTMANN CONTRACTS. 
 
 Before the law was passed the German Government was in possession of copies of 
 the American contracts, and the official letter returning them is in the possession of 
 our Department of State. 
 
 EXHIBIT G. 
 [Brief of Niagara Alkali Co.] 
 
 A paragraph which appeared in a recent issue of a German paper, Zeitung fuer 
 Angewandte Chemie: 
 
 AMERICAN COMPETITION AGAINST GERMAN CAUSTIC POTASH. 
 [Translation.] 
 
 "The Niagara Alkali Co., successors of the Roberts Chemical Co., tries hard to com- 
 pete with the German caustic potash products which are mainly sold by the chemical 
 plant of Griesheim Elektron. The company tries to induce the United States Gov- 
 ernment to levy an import duty upon caustic potash. This duty would seriously 
 affect the competition of the German manufacturers. It appears advisable that the 
 German manufacturers, including Neustassfurt and Westerregeln, which forms a part 
 of Kali Syndicate, as well as the German Government, give this matter their timely 
 attention," 
 
368 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PAHAQKAPH 61 REFINED CAUSTIC POTASH. 
 
 EXHIBIT H. 
 [To brief of Niagara Alkali Co.J 
 
 STATEMENT. 
 
 In order to show the extent to which the German manufacturers are going in their 
 efforts to put us out of business, I beg to call your attention to the fact that, inasmuch 
 as we were forced to sell at the present ruinously low prices in the United States in 
 order to meet the competition brought about by German manufacturers, we decided 
 we would attempt to sell at these same prices in Germany, where they were holding 
 up the old-time high prices. 
 
 We found that with the prices quoted we could get a better price in Germany than 
 we had to sell this material in the United States to meet competition, even adding 
 the freight. 
 
 The first discovery we made was that we had to pay duty to get our material into 
 Germany, which put us in about the same position, leaving us the same price on our 
 German sales as we would realize here at home. 
 
 We then found out that the German steamship lines had been instructed by their 
 German offices to refuse any caustic potash shipments offered them for Germany and 
 Mediterranean ports. In this way we are debarred from the foreign market by the 
 protection afforded German manufacturers by the German Government and also by 
 the refusal of steamship lines to transport our product to German ports, and we are 
 forced to sell here at home at the sacrifice price which the Germans have made in 
 order to put us out of business. 
 
 EXHIBIT I. 
 
 [Brief of Niagara Alkali Co.] 
 Imports of caustic potash. 
 
 
 
 Revenue lost 
 
 
 
 by United 
 
 
 Tons. 
 
 States at 1 
 
 
 
 cent per 
 
 
 
 pound. 
 
 1909.... 
 
 8,163 128 
 
 $81,631.28 
 
 1910 
 
 8 304 696 
 
 83 046 96 
 
 1911 
 
 7 069 837 
 
 70 698.37 
 
 1912 (first 10 mont hs) 
 
 7,685,003 
 
 76, 850. 03 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 312, 226. 64 
 
 Totnl 1912 basis, first 10 months, estimated, $92,220. 
 
 Owing to rapid increase in use of caustic potash in the United States there will 
 probably be no decrease in above imports if duty of 1 cent be imposed. 
 
 EXHIBIT J. 
 
 [To brief of Niagara Alkali Co. Letter to Representative Simmons.] 
 
 NIAGARA ALKALI Co., 
 Niagara Falls, N. Y., July 29, 1911. 
 Hon. JAS. S. RIMMOXS, 
 
 Member of Congress, Washington, D. C. 
 
 MY DEAR MR. SIMMONS: I have for acknowledgment your kind forwarding of the 
 Daily Consular and Trade Reports for July 25, 19li, containing marked copy of report 
 from the Brunswick consul headed "Peace in the German potash industry." A 
 careful reading of this statement will doubtless convince anyone that the "peace" 
 referred to consists merely in the American purchasers of potash having given up in 
 despair of securing the benefit of low-priced contracts which they had made, and of 
 having accepted the terms of the German potash syndicate, with the hope that they 
 may be able to now overthrow the contracts which they have been for so long at- 
 
SCHEDULE A. 369 
 
 PARAGRAPH 61 REFINED CAUSTIC POTASH. 
 
 tempting to defend, and on the strength of which they made every effort to secure 
 American intervention in preventing the German potash law from being applied to 
 said contract. You can readily see that this does not relieve OUR individual situation 
 in the least, but leaves us held to pay the syndicate price, which is practically equiv- 
 alent to our having to pay the tax. That is, if we carry out our present contract made 
 in good faith with the independent mines, we must pay the German tax. If we join 
 with other American interests and claim that these contracts are void, we must then 
 pay a price to the syndicate practically equal to the independent contract price plus 
 the tax, so that the actual result is to leave us within a very few dollars of where we 
 have been all the time since the situation complained of was inaugurated. 
 
 We are therefore in the same position as to needing relief and feel that the only 
 adequate relief which can be afforded us is the imposition of the 1-cent duty, now 
 applying to refined potash, on all caustic potash imported 85 per cent or over in grade. 
 
 While it is true that the German manufacturers of caustic potash also purchase 
 their raw material, muriate of potash, from the syndicate, they receive special prices 
 for this raw material used in chemical manufacture, and, being themselves members 
 of the syndicate, have the advantage of the special rebate allowed to such syndicate 
 miners who have chemical plants. 
 
 In this way they secure their raw material at practically the price we had expected 
 to secure ours from the independent miners, manufacture their caustic potash with 
 cheap labor and under thoroughly established conditions, ship same into the United 
 States, where they have long been established in the market, and we are forced to 
 meet this competition. 
 
 The matter of price charged for the caustic potash does not enter into the question, 
 as we are perfectly satisfied with the present prices, provided we can secure our share 
 of the business. You can readily see that to do this we must be in position to offer 
 some inducement to American manufacturers who have long been using the imported 
 product, and if with the other adverse conditions already set out we have to still further 
 reduce the price to secure the business we can not make both ends meet. If, however, 
 the imported material is placed at a disadvantage, we can secure the business, the 
 American consumer will pay no more for his goods, and we will be able to meet the 
 German competition regardless of the unfair conditions imposed by the German law. 
 
 We trust that a thorough realization of these conditions will induce Congress to 
 afford us the relief desired and so eminently justified. 
 
 Thanking you for past favors and for your further kind consideration of the matter, 
 I am, 
 
 Very truly, yours,. H. D. RUHM, 
 
 Vice President and General Manager. 
 
 ROBERT S. WADDELL, OF PEORIA, ILL, ENTERS PROTEST 
 AGAINST TARIFF ON CHLORATE OF POTASH. 
 
 BUCKEYE POWDER Co., 
 
 Peoria, IU., January 8, 1918. 
 CHAIRMAN WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR : I desire to file the following brief on the chemical 
 schedule : 
 
 I respectfully protest against any tariff on chlorate of potash, 
 because it will not produce an adequate revenue to justify a protec- 
 tive tariff. 
 
 There are three plants in the United States manufacturing this 
 chemical by the electrolytic process, located at Niagara Falls, in Ver- 
 mont, and in the Sagmaw-Bay City, Mich., fields. 
 
 The entire output of these plants is controlled by J. L. and D. S. 
 Riker, 46 Cedar Street, New York City, who, because of such monop- 
 oly, require the public to pay exorbitant profits. 
 
 The present tariff of 2^ cents a pound enabled J. L. and D. S. Riker 
 to make an agreement with the chemical pool of Europe by the terms 
 
 78959 VOL 113 24 
 
370 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 61 REFINED CAUSTIC POTASH. 
 
 of which the said American monopolists shall not export any chlorate 
 of potash to foreign countries and foreigners shall not sell or quote 
 prices to the American trade. 
 
 This agreement prohibits a revenue from all the large manufactur- 
 ers of Europe and nullifies the tariff laws of this country. Will Con- 
 gress legislate to create and foster this conspiracy by continuing the 
 tariff on which it is founded ? 
 
 Remove the tariff and there would remain no inducement for for- 
 eigners to enter into an agreement to close the markets of this country 
 to themselves. 
 
 Chlorate of potash costs to manufacture abroad 3 cents per pound 
 in Sweden, 3| cents per pound in France and on the Continent. The 
 Hikers sell at 9 cents, and it costs less than 4 to manufacture it. 
 
 The Hikers are not innocent violators of the law. John L. Riker 
 was the largest stockholder of the Laflin & Rand Powder Co., and 
 took part in the conspiracy that formed the Du Pont Powder Trust, 
 and his successors will profit by the dissolution that the court has just 
 entered. 
 
 From one little distribution of the usufruct in that case I extract 
 the following from the record: 
 
 Delaware investment stock (exchanged) issued to: 
 
 J. L. Riker. $140, 889. 44 
 
 M. J. Riker 11, 300. 54 
 
 D. S. Riker 3, 896. 75 
 
 J. C. Riker 3,896.75 
 
 Samuel Riker 9, 118. 37 
 
 W. J. Riker 3, 896. 75 
 
 J. J. Riker 1, 169. 02 
 
 E. B . Riker 779. 35 
 
 S. R. Riker, jr 779. 35 
 
 Balance to the Du Pont Trust. 
 
 The record in The Government v. Du Pont Powder Trust shows that 
 the Laflin & Rand Powder Co., of which John L. Riker was a director, 
 was a party to the "world agreement," dividing the markets of the 
 world between the American and foreign trusts. 
 
 That agreement prohibited foreign manufacturers from quoting or 
 selling powder to " the Government of the United States of America." 
 
 I urgently recommend that the tariff law contain a provision that 
 if it be proved to the satisfaction of the President that should any 
 individual, firm, or corporation, protected on any article by a tariff, 
 enter into a conspiracy or agreement dividing markets, or otherwise 
 defeating this Government in the collection of the revenue provided 
 by the act, or shall make an agreement with foreigners to manufac- 
 ture foreign brands in this country, then, in either case, the President 
 shall place such article on the free list. 
 
 I suggest this as a rebuke to those who, for private gain and to 
 create a monopoly to rob the public, deprive the National Treasury of 
 its just dues. 
 
 Soliciting the kind consideration of your committee, I remain, 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 ROBERT S. WADDELL. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 371 
 
 PARAGRAPH 64 POTASSIUM CYANIDE. 
 PEOTEST AGAINST ANY DUTY ON CHLORATE OF POTASH. 
 
 THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 
 
 Troy, Ohio, January 24, 1913. 
 Hon. J. D. POST, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: The undersigned hereby respectfully protests against 
 any tariff upon imports of chlorate of potash for the following reasons: 
 
 1. The present tariff of 2 cents a pound has resulted in an illegal 
 agreement between the American monopolists who control the Ameri- 
 can production of chlorate of potash and the European chemical pool, 
 the effect of which is that the American monopoly is not to export 
 any chlorate of potash to foreign countries and the European 
 monopoly shall not sell or quote prices thereon to the American trade. 
 
 2. From this agreement it results that there are no importations, 
 and therefore no revenue to the United States from that source; and 
 the American monopoly charges consumers 9 cents a pound for a 
 product that costs less than 4 cents a pound to produce. 
 
 3. A brief that has been filed with the chairman of the Committee 
 on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives by Mr. R. S. 
 Waddell, of Peoria, 111., gives the details of the foregoing statements 
 and also additional reasons why this article should be placed on the 
 free list. 
 
 You are respectfully urged to use your influence and vote to secure 
 the placing of chlorate of potash on the free list in the interests of the 
 American manufacturers who use that product, and who, by reason of 
 this tariff, are obliged to pay an exhorbitant price therefor, without a 
 cent of incidental benefit to the Government of the United States. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 JNO. H. DRURY. 
 
 (A communication identical with the above was filed by Harry C. 
 Downey, on behalf of W. C. Downey & 9., Springfield, Ohio.) 
 
 PARAGRAPH 62. 
 
 Hydriodate, iodide, and iodate of potash, twenty-five cents per pound. 
 See also Mallinckrodt Chemical Works et al., page 50. 
 PARAGRAPH 63. 
 
 Nitrate of potash, or saltpeter, refined, one-half of one cent per pound. 
 PARAGRAPH 64. 
 
 Prussiate of potash, red, eight cents per pound; yellow, four cents per 
 pound; cyanide of potassium, twelve and one-half per centum ad valorem. 
 
 POTASSIUM CYANIDE. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY THE ROESSLER & HASSLACHER CHEM- 
 ICAL CO., NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 4, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: We respectfully submit that the two principal commercial 
 
 cyanide salts be dutiable according to their intrinsic value, as follows: 
 
 Potassium cyanide, at 2 cents per pound; present duty, 12 per 
 
 cent = 2 cents per pound. Sodium cyanide, at 2| cents per pound; 
 
372 TAKIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 64 POTASSIUM CYANIDE. 
 
 present duty, 25 per cent = 4 cents per pound. Or if, for revenue 
 purposes, a uniform rate of duty be desired, that both potassium 
 cyanide and sodium cyanide be dutiable at 2| cents per pound. Even 
 at the higher rate of dutv, cyanide of potassium can not now be 
 profitably made here, so that an actual increase hi revenue should 
 result. 
 
 The first proposed duties on cyanides gives the opportunity for a 
 scientific revision, proportioned to their intrinsic values, both as to 
 quality and price. 
 
 Uses of cyanides. Both the potassium and sodium cyanide are 
 extensively used for electroplating, case hardening, fumigation (the 
 generation of hydrocyanic-acid gas being the best means of destroy- 
 ing scale insects on citrus and other fruit trees), and principally for 
 the extraction of the precious metals from ores and tailings by what 
 is known as the modified MacArthur-Forrest cyanide processes. 
 
 Value comparisons. Theoretically 100 per cent potassium cyanide 
 contains 40 per cent cyanogen; 100 per cent sodium cyanide, equiva- 
 lent to 132^ per cent potassium -cyanide, 53 per cent cyanogen. 
 
 The available cyanogen in both salts being the valuable active 
 principal of the cyanide, the potassium and sodium ingredients 
 simply acting as carriers for holding the cyanogen, the molecule of 
 sodium having a larger carrying capacity for cyanogen than the 
 molecule of potassium. 
 
 Commercially. Potassium cyanide. The highest test for this 
 product is 95/96 per cent, with cyanogen contents of 38.4 per cent. 
 Sodium cyanide, equivalent to 130 per cent cyanide of potassium, 
 has a cyanogen content of 52 per cent. 
 
 The comparative values of the sodium and potassium salts hence 
 are as 130 per cent is to 95 per cent. 
 
 Therefore in order to place sodium cyanide on an equal basis with 
 potassium cyanide the duty on the sodium salt should be as 95: 
 2 cent = 130 :X, making potassium cyanide 2 cents per pound specific, 
 equal to 12^ per cent ad valorem; sodium cyanide, 2f cents per pound 
 specific, equal to 12^ per cent ad valorem; or should revenue be the 
 object in view, a uniform rate for both potassium and sodium cyanide 
 of 2| cents per pound. 
 
 History. Any reduction in sodium-cyanide duty below 12^ per 
 cent ad valorem would threaten the abandonment of the manufacture 
 of sodium cyanide, same as the enactment of the Dingley tariff act 
 of 1897, making a reduction in the rate of duty from 25 per cent to 
 12 per cent ad valorem, caused the manufacture of potassium 
 cyanide to be abandoned in this country, and compelling at the same 
 time the ultimate closing down of several prussiate of potash factories 
 supplying the raw material. 
 
 CLASSIFICATION UNDER THE PAYNE-ALDRICH TARIFF ACT, 1909. 
 
 Potassium cyanide, paragraph 64, 12^ per cent ad valorem. 
 Present market value, S pence per pound, equal to 16.22^ cents 
 United States currency, f. o. b. European seaport. Twelve and one- 
 half per cent is equivalent to 2 cents per pound specific. 
 
 Sodium cyanide, paragraph 3, 25 per cent ad valorem. Present 
 market value, 7 pence per pound for 100 per cent, equal to 9^ pence 
 
SCHEDULE A. 373 
 
 PABAGBAPH 64 POTASSIUM CYANIDE. 
 
 per pound for 130 per cent, equal to 18.45 cents United States cur- 
 rency, f. o. b. European seaport. Twenty-five per cent equivalent 
 to 4 1 cents per pound specific. 
 
 Import records under potassium cyanide, which include all cya- 
 nides imported, do not give a true and correct idea of importation or 
 values per unit after deduction of nondutiable charges. For the 
 past six years the identity of cyanides of potassium was in dispute; 
 various sodium cyanide mixtures adjusted to 98-99 per cent cyanide 
 (39 per cent cyanogen) were claimed for entry under the low 12 
 per cent duty rate. 
 
 The difference between the various cyanides was finally recognized 
 and definitely fixed by a recent General Appraisers' decision, T. D. 
 326801, abstract 29108, June 27, 1912, so that under the present 
 laws the import records will hereafter give a true record, enumerating 
 separately the potassium and sodium cyanide salts. 
 
 According to a second ruling of the Board of Appraisers, T. D. 
 32823, September 17, 1912, abstract 29723, the mixtures of both 
 cyanide salts in various proportions were also classified as falling 
 under the higher rate of oluty. 
 
 SUGGESTED MODIFICATION OF DUTIES. 
 
 Average imports of the last six years, 2,665,775 pounds, $48,603.25. 
 
 We therefore estimate a revenue as follows: All as potassium 
 cyanide, 2,500,000 pounds, at 2 cents per pound, $50,000; 50 per 
 cent each potassium and sodium cyanide, 1,250,000 pounds, at 2 
 cents per pound; 1,250,000 pounds, at 2| cents per pound; total, 
 $59,375. 
 
 All as sodium cyanide, 2,500,000 pounds, at 2f cents per pound, 
 $68,750. _ 
 
 Or uniform rate for both potassium and sodium cyanide, at 2f 
 cents per pound, $68,750. 
 
 Witn the proper adjustment of the duty of the two cyanide salts 
 on scientific principles, ample revenue will be provided for the Gov- 
 ernment, and the producer and consumer will be encouraged to 
 develop their opportunities. 
 
 We therefore petition that the rates of duty for these salts be fixed 
 for potassium cyanide, at 2 cents per pound specific; sodium cya- 
 nide, at 2f cents per pound specific; or on a revenue basis, at a uni- 
 form rate for both potassium and sodium cyanide, at 2f cents per 
 pound. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 THE ROESSLEK & HASSLACHER CHEMICAL Co., 
 Louis RUHL, Assistant Secretary. 
 
374 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 65 MEDICINAL PREPARATIONS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 65. 
 
 Medicinal preparations containing alcohol or in the preparation of which 
 alcohol is used, not specially provided for in this section, fifty-five cents per 
 pound, but in no case shall the same pay less than twenty-five per centum, ad 
 valorem; calomel, corrosive sublimate, and other mercurial medicinal 
 preparations, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; all other medicinal prepara- 
 tions not specially provided for in this section, twenty-five per centum ad 
 valorem: Provided, That chemicals, drugs, medicinal and similar sub- 
 stances, whether dutiable or free, imported in capsules, pills, tablets, lozenges, 
 troches, or similar forms, and intended for medicinal purposes, shall be duti- 
 able at not less than the rate imposed by this section on medicinal preparations. 
 
 For medicinal preparations n. 8. p. f., etc., and calomel etc., see also Mallinckrodt 
 Chemical Works, page 50; Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 108; John F. Queeny, 
 page 82; Verona Chemical Co., page 72. 
 
 MEDICINAL PREPARATIONS. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY BAITER CHEMICAL CO., NEW YORK 
 
 CITY. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 7, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR UNDERWOOD, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. O. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We understand that in the contemplated revision of 
 the tariff your committee is about to consider the chemical schedule. 
 
 In this connection we would respectfully urge: 
 
 First. That the 25 per cent ad valorem duty on medicinal prepara- 
 tions and chemical compounds be wholly eliminated or reduced by 
 at least 50 per cent. 
 
 Second. That the duty per pound of 55 cents on medicinal prepara- 
 tions in the manufacture of which alcohol is used be abolished. 
 
 Naturally the effect of such changes on wages is of primary impor- 
 tance. A revision of the tariff that will in any appreciable degree 
 disturb economical conditions or furnish a pretext for certain classes 
 to dictate terms of employment tending to lower the standard of 
 living can scarcely be viewed with favor. On this point we submit 
 that the manufacture of medicinal preparations in this country is no 
 more expensive than in the principal European countries, Germany 
 and England, for instance. In this cost me item of labor is rela- 
 tively very much smaller than in the case of shoes, clothing, machin- 
 ery, etc. The principal cost lies in the raw materials and expert 
 knowledge, together with the sales cost. Automatic machinery, 
 generally recognized as having reached a higher degree of efficiency 
 and a larger capacity in the United States, thanks to American 
 ingenuity and enterprise, enables the manufacture of such prepara- 
 tions here at a cost as low if not lower than in the Old World. 
 
 In the trade it is a matter of common knowledge that a large num- 
 ber of American manufacturers of medicinal prepararions annually 
 transact an extensive export business. Many of them maintain 
 branch offices in nearly all European countries; in Australia, South 
 America, and sections of Asia and Africa, successfully competing 
 with similar articles of European manufacture. 
 
 Placing medicinal preparations and chemical compounds on the 
 free list would not cause or stimulate serious competition by Euro- 
 pean products. This is particularly true of articles protected by 
 
SCHEDULE A. 375 
 
 PARAGRAPH 65 -MEDICINAL PREPARATIONS. 
 
 letters patent, where the exclusive right of manufacture is vested in 
 the patentee. Where the patented article is manufactured in 
 Europe the cost to the American consumer is unnecessarily 25 per 
 cent higher through the present rate of duty. In such a case 
 obviously the consumer pays the duty and can obtain the article 
 only from the patentee, as no one in this country can legally manu- 
 facture it. 
 
 As a matter of fact, the duty of 25 per cent is in actual practice 30 
 per cent, as no importer wouJd care to handle foreign-made articles 
 on a margin of less than 5 per cent. The result is that American 
 manufacturers can and do keep their prices more than 30 per cent 
 above European parity. 
 
 A reduction of the rate to even 10 per cent would still be ample 
 protection to the American manufacturer, and would also discourage 
 many of them from advancing their prices more than 15 per cent 
 over those of Europe. It is confidently believed that under an 
 average rate of 10 per cent the Government would derive more 
 revenue than it does at present, and it would seem reasonable to 
 expect that such a reduction in the tariff would result in lower prices 
 on American-made articles and will leave a handsome margin of 
 profit. Here, again, the consumer will be the gainer. 
 
 With regard to the rate on preparations in the manufacture of 
 which alcohol is used, it is important to remember that the internal- 
 revenue tax on denatured alcohol was abolished some time ago. 
 Hence the present customs duty on preparations of this character 
 would seem to be as unnecessary as it is antiquated. Surely no 
 competition need be feared, inasmuch as denatured alcohol is pro- 
 duced in this country at a lower cost than in Europe. 
 
 We thoroughly appreciate the diffculty of adjusting tariff duties 
 upon a basis that will meet the approval of all commercial interests 
 without discriminating against any particular industry or geographical 
 section of the countiy. 
 
 When the rate of duty can be lowered without the probability of 
 profitable foreign competition, without danger of reducing wages, 
 but, on the contrary, to lower the cost to the consumer, plain busi- 
 ness principles, simple justice, and the welfare of the public, aside 
 from any political advantage that might reasonably be expected, 
 would seem to demand that that change be made. 
 
 Please accept our high appreciation of your courtesy in considering 
 the suggestion herein set forth, and believe us, 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 BAUER CHEMICAL Co., 
 By T. W. HEHMEYER, Resident Manager. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY JACOB WEIL, NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 DECEMBER 21, 1912. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: As chairman of the committee on public health in the 
 board of aldermen in this city, New York, I kindly request you and 
 your honorable body, in connection with the chemical schedule in the 
 
376 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 65 MEDICINAL PREPARATIONS. 
 
 proposed tariff bill, to put medicinal malt preparations containing no 
 alcohol on the free list. All medicinal malt preparations that con- 
 tain no alcohol are used in marasmus and atrophy cases in infants. 
 These diseases exist principally amongst the poorer classes through 
 malnutrition. Most of these preparations are used in children's hos- 
 pitals supported by benevolent and charitable organizations. There- 
 fore, I ask you and your honorable body in the name of these institu- 
 tions not to tax them or the sick infants for an article that can not be 
 obtained here, and which does not conflict or compete with any goods 
 manufactured in this country. 
 
 These malt preparations containing no alcohol have been in use as 
 infant food for about 14 years in the United States with such good 
 results as you yourself can see from the report of Dr. W. H. Guufoy, 
 registrar of the department of health of the city of New York. 
 
 Deaths and rates per 1,000 children living under 1 year of age: 
 
 Year. 
 
 Deaths. 
 
 Rate. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Deaths. 
 
 Rate. 
 
 1898 
 
 16,070 
 
 203 
 
 1905 . . 
 
 16,522 
 
 163 
 
 1899 
 
 15,381 
 
 182 
 
 1906 . . 
 
 17,188 
 
 164* 
 
 1900 
 
 16,640 
 
 192 
 
 1907 
 
 17, 437 
 
 160 
 
 1901 
 
 15,467 
 
 173 
 
 1908 
 
 16,231 
 
 144 
 
 1902 
 
 15,526 
 
 168 
 
 1909 
 
 15,976 
 
 137 
 
 1903. 
 
 14,413 
 
 151 
 
 1910 
 
 16,212 
 
 134 
 
 1904 
 
 16, 125 
 
 164 
 
 1911 
 
 15,030 
 
 120 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 If we compare the rate of 1898 with that of 1911, we obtain a 
 decrease of slightly over 40 per cent. If we compare the rate of 351 
 per 1,000 for the months of July, August, and September, of the year 
 1898, with the rate of 145 per 1,000 for the corresponding months of 
 the year 1911, we find a decrease of almost 60 per cent. 
 
 Now, if you and your honorable body will consider the mortality 
 of infants before these medicinal malt preparations containing no 
 alcohol were imported, you readily can realize what great good has 
 been accomplished through the use of them. And as they are mostly 
 consumed by the poor and by charitable institutions, you can clearly 
 see what a true humane act it would be to allow these medicinal malt 
 preparations containing no alcohol to be admitted duty free. 
 
 As I have stated before, as I am chairman of the committee on 
 public health and a member of the committee on public charities, 
 besides being interested in many charitable institutions, I am in a fit 
 position to see what a great public benefit it would be. Therefore, 
 gentlemen, I pray that you will give this your favorable consideration. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 JACOB WEIL. 
 
 BRIEF OF YAHR & LANGfi DRUG CO., MILWAUKEE, WIS. 
 
 MILWAUKEE, Wis., January 30, 1913. 
 Hox. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We wish to call your attention to a proposed change 
 in the tariff on chemicals, and to supplement the facts presented 
 to the Ways and Means Committee by Mallinckrodt Chemical Works 
 
SCHEDULE A. 377 
 
 PARAGRAPH 65 MEDICINAL PREPARATIONS. 
 
 of St. Louis. The present duties of 25 per cent ad valorem are not 
 sufficient to overcome the lower cost to foreign manufacturers, and 
 if these rates are reduced, the importation of foreign chemicals, 
 principally from Germany, which has been steadily increasing for 
 years, will compel American manufacturers to discontinue the 
 manufacture of many articles they now produce. 
 
 We believe that a reduction on medicinal chemicals would not 
 benefit the ultimate consumer, the sick, as the cost of the ingredients 
 in physicians' prescriptions bears little relation to the price charged 
 for compounding the same. The purity of American-made chemicals 
 we believe to be vastly superior, as a rule, to that of like chemicals 
 imported from abroad. American manufacturers of chemicals 
 employ a large number of chemists and skilled workmen, to whom 
 good wages are paid. A reduction of the present duties would 
 probably inflict a material loss not only on the manufacturer, but 
 would cause a reduction of wages and throw a good many workmen 
 out of employment. 
 
 To our mind, apparently nothing can be gained by a reduction in 
 duties on medicinal and fine chemicals, and we believe a retention 
 of present duties is both rational and hi the general interests of the 
 public. We submit this statement for your careful consideration, 
 believing that you are interested in the prosperity of our own people, 
 rather than to discourage home manufacturers, and to cause them a 
 loss, and to inflict a loss (through their being thrown out of employ- 
 ment), upon our own people also, the American workers. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 YAHK & LANGE DRUG Co., 
 By L. A. LANGE. 
 
 BRIEF OF THE J. W. CROWDUS DRUG CO., DALLAS, TEX. 
 
 DALLAS, TEX., January 81, 1913. 
 The Chairman and Members Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: As large distributors of medicinal and fine chemicals, 
 we take the liberty of submitting the following in connection with 
 the pending revision of the tariff: 
 
 We assume that the object of the revision is, first, to secure revenue; 
 second, to reduce the cost of necessities to the general public and ulti- 
 mate consumers; third, to protect American workmen and, as far as 
 consistent, invested capital, and to encourage the development of 
 American industries. 
 
 The duties paid on importations of chemicals in the year 1911 
 amounted to $834,494. The importation of medicinal and fine 
 chemicals has steadily increased for years, and we believe will con- 
 tinue to increase under present rates of duty. We believe that a 
 reduction of the present rates of duty, particularly of the general 
 clause of 25 per cent ad valorem, while stimulating importations and 
 curtailing the manufacture in this country to the detriment of 
 American interests, would not materially, if at all, increase the 
 revenue. 
 
378 TARIFF HEAKINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 66 PLASTERS. 
 
 A reduction of duty on medicinal chemicals would not benefit the 
 ultimate consumer,the sick, as the cost of the ingredients hi physi- 
 cians' prescriptions bears little relation to the price charged for com- 
 pounding the same by the pharmacist. The purity of medicinal 
 chemicals is of far greater importance to the patient than any possible 
 small advance in cost, and we believe the American manufacturers 
 offer a greater security and protection to the jobbing druggist, phar- 
 macist, physician, and patient than could be expected from foreign 
 importers or representatives of foreign manufacturers. 
 
 American manufacturers of medicinal and fine chemicals have 
 large investments in plants and employ a large number of chemists 
 and skilled workmen. The industry hi this country is still backward 
 compared with foreign countries, notably Germany. A reduction of 
 present rates would probably inflict material losses on American 
 manufacturers, cause a reduction of wages, and throw many workmen 
 out of employment, whereas a continuance of the 25 per cent ad 
 valorem rate and other special duties would doubtless tend to further 
 development, increased employment, and the promotion of prosperity. 
 As apparently nothing can be gained by a reduction of duties on 
 medicinal and fine chemicals, a retention of present duties would 
 seem rational and in the general interest. 
 
 Submitting the above for your careful consideration, we are, 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 THE J. W. CROWDUS DRUG Co., 
 GEO. M. WELLIAMS, Vice President. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 66. 
 
 Plasters, healing or curative, of all kinds, and court-plaster, twenty-five 
 per centum ad valorem. 
 
 PLASTERS. 
 
 BRIEF OF JOHNSON & JOHNSON, BRUNSWICK, N. J., ON 
 PLASTERS, ETC. 
 
 Plasters. Paragraph 66, tariff act of 1909, imposes a duty upon 
 plasters, healing or curative,of all kinds, including court-plaster, of 
 25 per cent ad valorem. We presume this also covers adhesive 
 plaster, the use of which is very largely mechanical, whether used in 
 the arts or by the surgeon. 
 
 The duty under former acts has been as high as 35 per cent. Under 
 the so-called Underwood bill H. R. No. 20182, paragraph 55 
 plasters, healing or curative, of all kinds, and court-plaster, 15 per cent 
 ad valorem. A reduction of 10 per cent. 
 
 By the Underwood bill, paragraph 19, pills, tablets, lozenges, 
 troches, or similar forms of medicine are to be made dutiable at not 
 less than 2o per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Our contention is that plasters, pills, tablets, ointments, fluid ex- 
 tracts, tinctures, etc., should bear the same rate of duty. 
 
 That the Underwood bill, making this difference, puts the manu- 
 facturer of medicinal plasters at an unfair disadvantage; that is 
 to say, the maker of a belladonna ointment, or belladonna pill, or 
 belladonna extract would be protected by a duty of 25 per cent, but 
 
SCHEDULE A. 379 
 
 PARAGRAPH 66 PLASTERS. 
 
 the maker of belladonna plasters would have a duty of only 15 per 
 cent. 
 
 It would simplify matters if the word "plasters" was to be inserted 
 in paragraph 55 of H. R. No. 20182, introduced February 15, 1912, 
 or in similar tariff bills. 
 
 There is no good reason why plasters should have ever been sepa- 
 rated from other preparations of the same character. 
 
 In considering the rate of duty the following should be borne in 
 mind : 
 
 In a number of countries in introducing plasters, medicinal and 
 otherwise, we are confronted by a heavy protective duty. For 
 example, Germany. In Germany there are some 30 maKers of 
 medicinal plasters of fairly respectable size, and about 100 small and 
 large. The duty upon our own plasters in Germany ranges from 25 
 to 60 per cent. 
 
 By the Underwood tariff the German manufacturers could intro- 
 duce their plasters into the United States at 15 per cent duty. Our 
 plasters in Germany would be subjected to a minimum rate of 25 per 
 cent. 
 
 The German manufacturer would also have an advantage in the 
 way of certain kinds of raw material used in the preparation of these 
 articles, and a great advantage in the way of labor. 
 
 Hospitals. We understand that an effort will be made to revive 
 the movement of 1909 whereby medicinal and surgical instruments, 
 appliances, and apparatus imported by and for the use of hospitals 
 and other institutions shall be admitted free. 
 
 One great objection to this course is the fact that a great number 
 of hospitals throughout this country are private or semiprivate insti- 
 tutions charging fees for treatment given. Only a minor number 
 give treatment without pay, the latter being municipal or State 
 institutions supported from city or State funds derived from the 
 American taxpayer. 
 
 Under the proposed amendment they would be able to import all 
 supplies free of duty. 
 
 Many physicians and surgeons obtain their medical and surgical 
 supplies for use in private practice from hospitals with which they 
 are connected. 
 
 Should foreign goods for hospital use secure entry free of duty, this 
 would have a serious effect upon American industries. 
 
 The American factories devoted to the preparation of medicinal 
 and surgical apparatus, utensils, instruments, and preparations have 
 been built up by large investments, supplemented by devotion to 
 scientific study, expert knowledge, mechanical and chemical skill, and 
 have attained the nighest development in the art of preparing these 
 supplies. 
 
 These industries are of great importance to the municipal, State, 
 and Federal governments in time or peace and of utmost importance 
 in the tune of war. 
 
 This alone should urge that they were entitled to a consideration. 
 
 JOHNSON & JOHNSON. 
 
 NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J. 
 
380 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMERY. 
 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Being manufacturers of items in paragraphs 66, also surgical dress- 
 ings, we respectfully protest against reduction or removal of present 
 duty on medical and surgical apparatus, appliances, utensils, instru- 
 ments, and preparations imported by or for hospitals and institutions. 
 They are mostly private or semiprivate institutions, are largest cus- 
 tomers of our industry, which would be ruined by duty-free foreign 
 competition. 
 
 SEABUBY & JOHNSON, 
 Manufacturing Chemists, New York. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67. 
 
 Perfumery, including cologne and other toilet waters, articles of per- 
 fumery, whether in sachets or otherwise, and all preparations used as appli- 
 cations to the hair, mouth, teeth, or skin, such as cosmetics, dentifrices, 
 including tooth soaps, pastes, including theatrical grease paints and pastes, 
 pomades, powders, and other toilet articles, all the foregoing; if containing 
 alcohol, or in the manufacture or preparation of which alcohol is used, sixty 
 cents per pound and fifty per centum ad valorem ; if not containing alcohol, 
 or in the manufacture or preparation of which alcohol is not used, sixty 
 per centum ad valorem ; floral or flower waters containing no alcohol, not spe- 
 cially provided for in this section, twenty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 For perfumery, see also Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 109; for toilet prepara- 
 tions, see also Park & Tilford et al., page 67. 
 
 PERFUMERY. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THEODORE RICKSECKER, OF THE MANUFAC- 
 TURING PERFUMERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. I am chairman of the legislative committee of 
 the Manufacturing Perfumers' Association of the United States, and 
 represent them. 
 
 Gentlemen, let us get into an atmosphere of flowers this morning. 
 We respectfully submit the following in behalf of the Manufacturing 
 Perfumers' Association of the United States : 
 
 This association embraces a membership from the Atlantic to the 
 Pacific. The proposed changes in our paragraphs are not for tariff 
 revision downward, but for increasing the revenue by taxing all our 
 raw materials 20 per cent, which are now free, and have been for 
 many years. This proposed new tax, apparently unintentionally, 
 shows lack of proper information and strikes a severe blow to our 
 industry. 
 
 Its depressing influence would also be felt by the auxiliary indus- 
 tries, bottle and box makers, lithographers, etc. This injustice 
 would be well-nigh disastrous, and should be corrected for reasons 
 below. 
 
 In the formation of the Wilson bill, in 1893, for revenue, under 
 President Cleveland, at which time I appeared on behalf of our in- 
 dustry, this question was thrashed out, resulting in giving us free 
 raw materials in that law, which was agreed to by members of both 
 sides in the Senate and House when they learned the facts. I could 
 name some of the most distinguished Democratic Senators we had in 
 
SCHEDULE A. 381 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMERY. 
 
 that day whom I positively know voted in our favor on this propo- 
 sition. 
 
 So also in the tariff of 1909, after the House had unexpectedly 
 passed a bill proposing a duty on our raw materials ; when the facts 
 became known, the law retained them on the free list, paragraph 639. 
 
 The very natural misapprehension is that these articles are luxuries, 
 and should be taxed. 
 
 They are not luxuries until American labor, capital, and skill make 
 them such, just as raw silk is not a luxury until manufactured, and 
 is free as a raw material, and has been for many years. 
 
 These items are used in toilet goods for teeth, hair, skin, and 
 mouth, and other articles of therapeutic value which have now grown 
 into general use by our intelligent laboring people and have become 
 household necessities. 
 
 They are our first raw materials. They are used in every State in 
 the Union. Some are also used in flavoring extracts, in medicine, 
 etc., and by the 48,000 druggists in the United States. 
 
 These raw materials are not made in the United States. To prove 
 the truth of our position, we had Dr. True, of the Plant Industry, 
 Department of Agriculture, before our association, with samples of 
 distilled oils, at one of our recent annual meetings. I asked him the 
 point-blank question, "Doctor, is it now feasible and possible for us 
 to commercially produce these oils V 1 His stations were in the South 
 and Southwest, and he answered point blank "No." He had studied 
 the question. 
 
 Why single out our industry and tax our raw materials, which must 
 be imported ? 
 
 Our industry is now paying a revenue tax estimated at one and a 
 half million dollars a year on refined alcohol. I took the best means 
 at my command to ascertain from alcohol men the best estimate I 
 could get, one that would be fairly true and square, and I have esti- 
 mated that it would be between a million and a million and a half 
 doUars revenue, and this alcohol man said, "No; it is nearer two 
 millions." I said, "Would I be safe in making the assertion that it 
 is a million and a hah* dollars?" He said, "Absolutely, in my 
 judgment." 
 
 To our knowledge no other industry contributes so large a propor- 
 tion of its total volume of business to the support of the Government. 
 
 Denatured alcohol can not be and is not used in our business. 
 
 To load us with this additional tax is unfair and unjust and would 
 seriously handicap and blight the business. 
 
 Don't put additional duty on goods that pay so large a revenue 
 tax. 
 
 The revenue the Government might receive from this unprece- 
 dented tax would be too small a price to throttle a national industry 
 which is a struggling one. 
 
 Nearly aU of our manufacturers are making very modest incomes. 
 
 I know that definitely from personal contact and personal confi- 
 dences on the part of many of the members of our association. I am 
 clearly within the absolute fact when I make this statement. 
 
 Paragraph 53 continuing the present duties on manufactured goods 
 is eminently wise. It yields a fine revenue, although the increase of 
 
382 TAEIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMERY. 
 
 importations of manufactured perfumery and toilet goods for 1911 
 was 28 per cent over the previous year. 
 
 To secure additional revenue, we ask you to insert in this para- 
 graph after the words "all the foregoing," line 10, "wholly or partly 
 manufactured, " which will yield the Government double the revenue 
 on imported goods partly manufactured. 
 
 It will yield the Government double the revenue on imported goods. 
 These alcohol goods come into customs from abroad, consigned to 
 agents here, to complete the manufacture, and they are now classified 
 under the 25 per cent clause, whereas they should be classified under 
 the 60 cents a pound and 50 per cent ad valorem. That would give 
 double the revenue from this increasing line of importations. 
 
 We realize this bill was not intended to handicap our industry, but 
 for revenue, which object might also be defeated hi the coming year, as 
 big supplies would be cabled for by importers in fear of adverse 
 legislation. 
 
 President Elect Wilson has just written: "American enterprise is 
 not free; the man with only a little capital is finding it harder to get 
 into the field," etc. 
 
 The large majority of our manufacturers are in this class. 
 
 This bill, if enacted, would make it still harder by increasing the 
 necessary capital to go into our business by 20 per cent. 
 
 A 20 per cent duty on our raw materials would compel us to either 
 debase our present formulas or increase the cost to consumers; either 
 is impracticable. Our popular priced goods at 25 and 50 cents are 
 sold at a minimum profit, are leaders, reaching the great middle class, 
 and fierce competition compels rigid price, quantity, and value. 
 
 A misconception is in the minds of a great many men, that these 
 are luxuries for the rich only. The fact is, one of the best markets 
 in the United States for goods of this type, for toilet goods, embracing 
 the consumption of these oils and materials, are the factory towns of 
 New England. 
 
 The laborers have very little compensation in life in the way of 
 pleasure and enjoyment; and wherever you go, you find an increasing 
 consumption, due to higher standards of living, even amongst the 
 wage earners. I have known of typewriters to pay the equivalent 
 of two days' labor for a bottle of perfume, tooth paste or powder, 
 talcum, and soap, which is always perfumed with these materials. 
 
 The cost of these materials was never so high as now. As an 
 example, attar of rose cost us $5 an ounce three years ago. To-day 
 it costs $15 an ounce. AYe must ask the same price for our goocfs 
 or else we lose sales. To emphasize this restraint of trade, I may 
 say that when attar of roses, for instance, jumped to such fearful 
 proportions, we put up the price of our rose. Immediately the sales 
 fell off. With an additional 20 per cent duty, it would make the 
 cost of attar of rose $18 per ounce, which is prohibitive. Attar of 
 rose must come from only one source, Bulgaria. In my nine trips 
 to Europe I have studied these questions. This one has been deter- 
 mined by the fact that in Germany, around Leipzig, they trans- 
 planted the rose bushes from Bulgaria and tried to make attar of rose. 
 It was a failure commercially. There is something in the soil and 
 climate, the cost of labor, etc.. that would not allow them to make a 
 competitive article. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMERY. 
 
 The revenue the Government would receive from import duty on 
 fine oils might be considerably minimized by the dishonest importer. 
 
 Valuable oils mixed or combined at a cost of, say, $20 a pound 
 might be invoiced at $3 a pound. The appraisers could scarcely 
 determine value, and might receive 60 cents instead of $4, as was 
 expected, as mixed oils are very difficult to appraise. 
 
 I had an interview with the chief appraiser of our customs in New 
 York, and tried to get points bearing upon the classification, the 
 appraisement, or the adjudication of the questions that came up. 
 
 Our entire industry most respectfully, but most earnestly, protests, 
 and urges the return to the free list of the items named in paragraph 
 51, and all of paragraph 54, which are our raw materials on the free 
 list; avoiding repression or restraint of trade, which is sure to follow 
 if a duty is levied on them. 
 
 Confident that you will realize the justice of our position, and appre- 
 ciating your laborious task, and relying upon your fair interpretation 
 of the vital needs of our industry, we bespeak your effective influence 
 to this end. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. I would like to state to Mr. Ricksecker that, in 
 preparing this bill, the committee left the duties at 60 and 70 per cent 
 upon the finished product, because we considered that perfumery is 
 really a luxury, and, according to our theories, the proper subject of 
 a high tax ; and in view of that fact, that those high duties were left 
 upon the finished product, the committee thought it wise to recom- 
 mend a 20 per cent ad valorem tax on these essential oils and materials 
 for the manufacture of perfume which were not grown in this country, 
 by which means we estimated that we would raise one-half a million 
 dollars' worth of revenue. We thought it was fair to the manufac- 
 turers that perfume should bear that tax in view of the high duty 
 which has been left on their finished product. It is entirely a revenue 
 proposition. 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes. We understand that, and I have gone into 
 the matter and have classified and totaled the amount of revenue 
 you could derive from it, and our figures are just a little short of that 
 sum ; but the reasoning above the question at issue, together with the 
 fact of our big alcohol-revenue tax, offset that issue. In the original 
 bill prepared by Mr. Payne they also took the same ground in 1909. 
 When they saw the issue in the House and Senate, as presented by 
 our industry, they saw its fairness. 
 
 Now, it may be pertinent to the question to state that, at different 
 times, the question of alcohol tax has come up in our industry and 
 in the arts, and in an interview with an old friend, Senator Allison, 
 in his room, I said to him that "It seems hard that the industry 
 should be taxed as much as liquor." He said to me, "If you will 
 prepare a bill which will hold water as to a tax on alcohol hi the arts 
 and manufactures, I will do what I can to support it." 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I thought in your perfumery you used a good deal 
 of methyl alcohol? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. No. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I see that every now and then some person takes 
 a drink out of a bottle of perfume and is poisoned. 
 
384 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMERY. 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes; that is a rare thing. I know of only one 
 instance where a certain house sold some toilet water with denatured 
 alcohol. It went to North Dakota and killed seven Indians. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. We have provided for the 60 cents a pound in 
 addition to the ad valorem duty to take care of that alcohol propo- 
 sition. 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Well, the trouble is that is not enough; free raw 
 materials are imperative for successful business. 
 
 Now, I have been called the oldest perfumer in the United States, 
 and I have studied the question from every standpoint, and am pretty 
 well tired of having to come down to Washington every few years to 
 defend the position which we have been accorded in the past for so 
 many years in the Dingley law, in the Wilson bill, and in the Payne 
 law from the opposition on both sides of the House. The Senate 
 has seen the justice of our position. 
 
 The consumption of these oils is a part of civilized life to-day. 
 Toilet goods are used liberally even by the working people. The 
 standards are higher to-day. Eliminate these things, and you take 
 out a slice of happiness that we are all entitled to, on the part of the 
 girls and women, who get very little else in the way of luxuries, except 
 such few things as they can buy of this character. They do not buy 
 liquor and cigars like men do; but they do buy these things. The 
 consumption falls not upon the rich, but on the great middle class. 
 Intelligent laborers are all consumers of the goods in which we use 
 these materials. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Mr. Ricksecker, are you president of and represent the 
 Manufacturing Perfumers' Association ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. I am the chairman of the committee and repre- 
 sent the association. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I understand that you have no criticism of this bill, 
 which is printed as a part of the tariff handbook here, so far as the 
 duties are concerned, where they are continued the same as they 
 were, in the finished products. What your criticism is, is as to the 
 addition of 20 per cent duty on the noncompeting raw materials which 
 enter into the finished product ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is not your association perfectly aware that this bill, 
 representing the true principle of a tariff for revenue only, was adopted 
 twice by Congress in its former session, and ratified by an overwhelm- 
 ing majority of the people last November? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. That does not disturb the soundness 
 
 Mr. HILL. You mean that does not alter your views or mine, but 
 is the fact that it is clearly before us that the Democratic majority in 
 the House was more than doubled; the Senate was made Democratic; 
 the President elect has approved this legislation in express terms con- 
 cerning one bill, and that the country has overwhelmingly indorsed it. 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. I admit 
 
 Mr. HILL. The theory and principle 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Let him answer that. I do not believe he would agree 
 with you. 
 
 Mr. HILL. The theory of putting a revenue duty on raw materials, 
 noncompeting. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 385 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMERY. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. The majority of the people of the country did not elect 
 the House and Senate and the President, but the minority did. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I don not alter my question at all. My theory is that the 
 voter intelligently understands what he is doing, and that if he votes 
 for a third party, he puts the first party in power. 
 
 Mr. KICKSECKER. I shall answer that by referring to a little inci- 
 dent that occurred on New Year's Day. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Your association was familiar with the terms of this bill 
 before the election, was it not ? 
 
 Mi\ RICKSECKER. I was going to answer you question in a moment. 
 I met one of our manufacturers in New York, and he spoke of the 
 hearings, and I asked him if he knew that raw materials were proposed 
 to be taxed 20 per cent hereafter. He said no; he did not. That 
 gentleman travels all over the country, and I was surprised to find 
 that, although a member of our association, he did not know the fact. 
 I think that is the case with a great many. They are so absorbed in 
 their business that they do not watch congressional proceedings as 
 they might, and they rely upon a few of us to take care of that. 
 
 Mr. HILL. But your association was before the Senate after this bill 
 had passed the House and went over there ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. And they understood it ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is there any reason to doubt that the association at least 
 understood then that the duty of 20 per cent was going on raw 
 materials ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. And that policy of revenue duty on raw materials was 
 the policy of the bills generally that were introduced and would be 
 introduced, not all probably along that line, in case the result of the 
 election was favorable to them ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. There is where I found some of the members were 
 lame. They did not notice the bill had been passed, and they did not 
 take enough interest to inform themselves. 
 
 Mr. HILL. They must not plead their own default now, it seems 
 to me. 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Well, I am simply representing them. I cer- 
 tainly have no right to speak for each one's knowledge of what has 
 happened. I only know that I met this gentleman that I speak of 
 on the street, and I found that he, a manufacturer who has traveled 
 all over the country, and an intelligent man, did not know that we 
 were up against a possible 20 per cent increase of duty on our raw 
 materials. 
 
 Mr. HILL. What percentage on the cost of the finished product 
 would this 20 per cent on the raw material probably make ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Mr. Hill, I like to answer all questions as closely 
 to fact as I possibly can, and I am not informed. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Well, it would amount to more than 5 per cent on the 
 finished product ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes. In most instances it would amount to 
 more; perhaps 10 or 15 per cent. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 25 
 
386 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMERY. 
 
 I want to say right here that the working people, who get a few 
 luxuries in their lives once in a while, will pay 25 or 50 cents for a 
 bottle of perfume or a cake of soap, or a box of talcum powder, etc., 
 and if we increase our price to the retailer he will have to increase his 
 price, and the consumer would say, "Why 30 cents for a 25-cent 
 article?" It would be a blight on the retail man's reputation. It 
 would be the same way if he charged 55 cents for the 50-cent article. 
 The prices of some of these goods are so close that if we had to sell 
 them alone, we could not come out even. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Are you aware of the fact that the changes in this bill 
 from the Payne law will take forty-odd million dollars from the 
 present free list, or that the free list of the Payne bill was double as 
 much as H. R. 20182 ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. I have not heard the total. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I would like to make a part of my question, Mr. Chair- 
 man, the exact figures. The clerk will put them in the record as a 
 part of my question, showing the difference between the free list in 
 the two propositions and the dutiable lists hi the two propositions. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Before that is done, I suppose you ask that question 
 with the understanding that you acquiesce in the verdict of the 
 people ? 
 
 Mr. HILL. I have always believed that the people should rule. 
 These figures are taken from the Democratic report, and so vouched 
 for their correctness, so far as the report is concerned. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. As a good patriotic citizen you are going to support our 
 bill? 
 
 Mr. HILL. I have announced my policy. 
 
 The figures referred to by Mr. HiU are as follows: 
 
 Schedule A Chemicals. 
 
 Payne bill classification at Payne rates: 
 
 Imports, 1911 $117, 092, 655 
 
 Dutiable 48, 869, 368 
 
 Free 68, 223, 287 
 
 Duties collected 12, 609, 456 
 
 Rate on all per cent. . 10. 7 
 
 Under Democratic rates in the last session bill and classification (from 
 Democratic report). 1912: 
 
 Total estimated importations $122, 921, 793 
 
 Dutiable 96, 742, 850 
 
 Free 26, 178, 943 
 
 Duties to be collected 16, 101, 595 
 
 "Rate on bill percent.. 13. 1 
 
 RESULTS. 
 
 Finished products greatly reduced. 
 Raw materials largely increased. 
 Result, importation of finished products. 
 No revenue from increase on raw materials. 
 
 Revenue must come from increase of imported finished products, which means a 
 transfer of industry or reduction of wages. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Of course we have a great deal of latitude in these 
 hearings, gentlemen, but as we have a large number of witnesses this 
 morning, and as it is the last day, I would like, as far as we can, to 
 confine the questions to the bill and not wander into the realm of 
 political discussion. Is that all, Mr. Kicksecker? 
 
SCHEDULE A. 887 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMERY. 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. I have twice in my commercial life suffered from 
 legislative action on tariff matters. 
 
 I started in as an importer of toilet goods and began a business 
 which was successful. I soon saw that the trend was toward perfec- 
 tion of industries, and I went into the manufacture of toothbrushes 
 in Brooklyn. I started a factory and got English and French work- 
 men and made a success of it. One morning in 1884 I read in the 
 morning paper that the duty on toothbrushes was reduced from 40 
 to 30 per cent. It floored me. It killed my industry and it killed 
 those in Newburyport, in Florence, Mass., in Brooklyn, N. Y., 
 and in different places. It killed the toothbrush industry, and it has 
 been dead ever since. 
 
 I had to gird my loins. I lost considerable and I had to try some- 
 thing else, so I went into this business. Then in 1893 the menace 
 of the change in the tariff you must bear in mind our industry is 
 a very sensitive one ; it is a regular barometer to tariff changes. 
 
 Under President Cleveland's proposed tariff for revenue only the 
 menace to our industries was so potent that I lost one-half of my 
 business. 
 
 Mr. KITCHEN. Dp you know the difference between the tariff under 
 the Cleveland administration, the Wilson bill, and the tariff of the 
 Payne Act or the Dingley Act on your products ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. I know that there was and is no tariff on our 
 raw materials. 
 
 Mr. KITCHEN. Do you know the difference as to the finished prod- 
 ucts? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. I 
 
 Mr. KITCHEN (interposing) . I know what it is, but you said it killed 
 you; but were not raw materials of your products on the free list 
 under Cleveland ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes; but they do not cover the requirements of 
 our industry alone. 
 
 Mr. KITCHEN. Were not those same raw materials on the free list 
 under Cleveland ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And did you not practically have the very identical 
 tariff you have now ? ' 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes, sir; nearly the same. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How then could the tariff under Mr. Cleveland have 
 affected you ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. It was the menace in the minds of the public 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. (continuing). That broke up confidence and 
 destroyed order. 
 
 Mr. KITCHEN. Then it was not the tariff that affected you, but this 
 menace ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Just the fancy of the people ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes, sir. "Menace" is the word I used. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much of this perfumery is exported, if you 
 know? 
 
388 TABIFF TTKABTNGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 67 PEBFT7MEBY. 
 
 MF. RICKSECKER. I secured from the Bureau of Statistics figures 
 on the exports of perfumery, cosmetics, and similar toilet articles from 
 the United States in the fiscal year ended June 30, 1912, which were 
 $1,147,000. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. That is a great deal more than the imports ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. The imports 
 
 Mr. KTTCHIN. All these materials have alcohol in them ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. No; the imports are about the same. 
 
 Mr. KTTCHIN. They are a little less, are they not ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. $1,064,000. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. That is for all kinds ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. That is all kinds, too. 
 
 Mr, KrrcmN. Are you exporting this perfumery ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Somewhat so; yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Are you selling it cheaper to the foreigners than you 
 are to your own home people ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. No, sir; not generally. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Then why do you fear competition, if you can ship 
 perfumery across the water and pay the freight on it and then sell 
 it to the foreigners at just the same price you are selling it to the 
 Americans? Why do you fear competition, then? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. One reason is that we can now get a drawback. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. It must pay freight? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. One reason is that we can now get a drawback 
 on our alcohol shipped for export. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. But your raw material is on the free list now. You 
 do not get any drawback now ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. But the alcohol drawback is considerable. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Well, you have the same; you do not lose anything 
 by that. 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. We did not have an alcohol drawback previously. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You had that all the time, had you not ? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. No, sir; we had to buy alcohol under the old 
 law in Europe. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And then you could compete with the foreigner. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. He has not had a drawback on alcohol since the 
 Dingley bill. 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. May I say that I 
 was partly instrumental in bringing about this present drawback in 
 1909. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. This Congress or the next Congress or any other 
 Congress would have the same drawback. 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. We did not have it until this last bill. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. But you will have it; I think we can assure you of 
 that. 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. We are satisfied, as manufacturers, for the sake 
 of the prestige it gives us to accept a less profit on exporting goods. 
 It is an advantage to our salesmen to be able to say that we have 
 sold these goods in London, in St. Petersburg, and in Berlin. We 
 sold a bill of goods in Berlin amounting to $300. A member of the 
 Reichstag passed that store and noticed it, and within a few days 
 they voted to increase the duty on American perfumery. I was inter- 
 viewed by the New York papers on the subject, because the German 
 
SCHEDULE A. 389 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMERY. 
 
 consul told them that I was the man who shipped the goods. It was 
 only $300 worth, and yet they voted to change our duty. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. If you had this tariff, could you continue to ship 
 in there? 
 
 Mr. RIOKSEOKEB. No; the German duty intervenes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. But you have already shipped goods under the same 
 tariff? 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. We had sold that one bill of $300. 
 
 The alcohol tax on our industry is severe, and we have been told 
 that the alcohol people could make it more so, if they chose. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is that all, Mr. RickseckeH 
 
 Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes, sir. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MAURICE LfiON, REPRESENTING ROGER & 
 GALIETT, NEW YORK. 
 
 We believe that an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent on toilet and 
 medicinal soaps and of 40 per cent on alcoholic and nonalcoholic per- 
 fumery shoula be adopted as part of the present revision. 
 
 We are hi the business of importing and selling perfumery, alco- 
 holic and nonalcoholic, and soaps. Under the present rates it has 
 been our experience that it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to 
 compete on our market for the class of goods which goes into the 
 homes of people in medium circumstances. The existing tariff 
 compels us to restrict our activities to the kind of goods which only 
 well-to-do people can afford for the reason that the existing tariff 
 rates make it impossible for us to import and sell merchandise of 
 average good quality at prices low enough to be within the means 
 of the average citizen. 
 
 As to soaps, the present rate is 50 per cent ad valorem and it is 
 proposed to make it 40 per cent ad valorem with a proviso that it 
 shall not amount to less than 20 cents per pound. The average 
 weight of a cake of soap being 4 ounces, the proposed change 
 would make the duty on soap not less than 5 cents a cake. Tliis 
 duty is prohibitive with respect to the kind of soap used by persons 
 in moderate circumstances and also amounts to a discrimination 
 against them as is shown by the obvious fact that a cake of soap 
 worth 20 cents abroad will pay on entering the United States 
 8 cents, whereas a cake of soap selling abroad for only 3 cents would 
 pay 5 cents. 
 
 Altogether, the fairest duty is an ad valorem duty only, because to 
 such duty each one contributes his just share according to his means. 
 As shown by your records, the information gathered for the Finance 
 Committee of the Senate states the value of the domestic soap output 
 to be over $68,888,000, while on the other hand, the value of toilet 
 and medicinal soaps imported in 1907 is given at $520,000, that 
 imported hi 1910 at $240,000, and that imported in 1911 at $380,500. 
 These figures tell their own story and establish beyond dispute not 
 only that the industry, which is so largely in the control of the Beef 
 Trust and its friends, is not in need of protection, but that the public 
 on the other hand does not get the benefit of competition in the matter 
 of prices and quality. 
 
390 TABIPF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMERY. 
 
 We are satisfied that our competitors who sell goods manufactured 
 in this country make upon some of their most popular grades at least 
 300 per cent profit, yet find ourselves unable to compete against them 
 for those grades on account of the protection they now receive. 
 
 We submit therefore that the proposed change in the tariff should 
 be restricted to fixing the ad valorem duty at 25 per cent only, without 
 any fixed minimum valuation such as has been proposed. 
 
 As to alcoholic perfumery, the present rate is 50 per cent ad valorem 
 plus 60 cents per pound. This often involves, in practice, a quad- 
 ruple tax, namely, 50 per cent on the value of the merchandise at the 
 United States customhouse, 50 per cent for domestic alcoholic tax 
 in the country of manufacture, 60 cents per pound on the liquid con- 
 tents whether their alcoholic strength is 10 per cent or 90 per cent, 
 and, finally, 10 per cent ad valorem on the bottles and stopper. In 
 many cases this quadruple duty has been found to amount to about 
 140 per cent ad valorem, thus closing the American market to any 
 but the very expensive grades which the rich use and giving to do- 
 mestic manufacturers a protection amounting to virtual prohibition 
 in the case of the grades of goods used by the enormous majority of 
 consumers. This enables the domestic manufacturers to sell to the 
 American consumer inferior goods at the prices for which high-grade 
 goods sell abroad. This is not a competitive tariff; it amounts prac- 
 tically to a prohibitive tariff. 
 
 The specific duty has been said to be an excise duty on the alcohol, 
 but the fact is that the domestic excise duty on alcohol is equivalent 
 to 28 cents per pound, while imported alcoholic perfumery pays 60 
 per cent per pound, no matter how low the percentage of alcohol. 
 
 It would seem, therefore, that the interests of the Treasury and 
 those of the average consumer will be equally promoted by having 
 only an ad valorem tax not exceeding 40 per cent. 
 
 Likewise that duty should be reckoned on the liquid and the bottle 
 or other container altogether, which should be treated for the purposes 
 of duty as one thing, which they in fact are, being sold as one thing 
 and not otherwise. It is this piling up of duties, each one seemingly 
 small, that destroys general competition. 
 
 Nonalcoholic perfumery. The present rate is 60 per cent ad valorem. 
 It is believed that a reduction of it to 40 per cent would lead to a sub- 
 stantial increase of revenue. 
 
 The American industry is very large and flourishing and, as shown 
 for instance by the enormous development of talcum powder manu- 
 facture, is plainly not in need of any protection. A reduction in the 
 rate of duty herein asked will not only serve to increase the revenue, 
 but will also serve to protect the consumer from poor quality and 
 high prices. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 MAURICE LEON, 
 Representing Roger & Gallet. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 391 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMERY. 
 
 STATEMENT OF FRANCIS R. ARNOLD, ON BEHALF OF F. R. 
 ARNOLD & CO., IMPORTERS, NEW YORK. 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 wish to refer to what I call fancy tailet soaps. 
 
 There is a wide distinction in certain classes of soaps. Soaps like 
 castile soap, which are traded in by the pound, are made by numerous 
 manufacturers where there is a market. There is a vast difference 
 between soaps of that kind and toilet soaps. Each manufacturer 
 owns his own soap, which is usually wrapped, sometimes inclosed 
 in an expensive outer wrapper and packed either in cartons or in 
 small quantities, and it is difficult to obtain the correct weights. 
 There is always a variation in weight of a number of single pieces; 
 therefore, I think that soaps of this class should be subjected only to 
 an ad valorem duty. 
 
 A specific duty weighs more heavily on the lower priced articles 
 than on the higher priced articles. Therefore the imposition of a 
 specific duty on such articles places the pyramid on its apex; it puts 
 the lower articles at a higher rate and the articles that really ought 
 not to have reduction pay a lower rate. In that respect the Payne 
 tariff was in the right direction. The pyramid was placed on its 
 base, although the base was a very heavy one a 50 per cent 
 taxation. 
 
 Under that tariff we have been able to recommence the importa- 
 tion of moderate-priced soaps intended for general consumption by 
 people of moderate means who are entitled to moderate luxuries. I 
 have prepared a table, Table A, which is annexed to my brief, giving 
 the exact figures, showing that the imposition of 20 cents per pound 
 would raise the duty on the low-priced soaps set out in my table from 
 50 to 130 per cent. Under the Payne tariff we have been able to 
 recommence the importation of the low-priced soaps; but if you put 
 a duty of 130 per cent on them they are cut off. In 1 912 we imported 
 from one house about $2,700 worth of soap, which paid a duty of 50 
 per cent. That is bound to increase. It is difficult to introduce new 
 articles under that duty. Under a 40 per cent duty the importations 
 should be still larger, and it would enable us to reduce the retail price 
 2 cents. Under 20 cents per pound these prices will have to go up 
 25 per cent to pay the retailer a profit and also pay a moderate profit 
 to the importer. Our profits ought to be 20 per cent at least. The 
 expenses due to the business are Yl\ per cent, and the expense of 
 distributing the goods in small quantities is very heavy. If we get 
 7$ per cent out of it we are lucky. Our chief opponents, and I think 
 those who favor the tax of 20 cents a pound are those to whom soap 
 is a by-product, are Chicago manufacturers. They have been our 
 heav}- competitors. As to alcoholic perfumery 
 
 Mr. HARRISON (interposing). Before leaving the subject of soap, 
 will you inform the committee whether the change in the wording of 
 the existing law from "fancy and perfumed toilet soap" to simply 
 "toilet soap" will change the character of soaps imported under that 
 head. In other words, are there any toilet soaps that have not 
 some perfumery in them ? 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. I think they would all go under the head of fancy 
 toilet soaps. 
 
392 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMERY. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. In the proposed law, in regard to toilet soaps, we 
 have eliminated the words fancy or perfumed." Are there any 
 toilet soaps which are not perfumed ? 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. There are some few low-priced toilet soaps that 
 have no perfumery to speak of. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. The effect of this change would be to raise the 
 duty on those soaps ; is that the idea ? 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. To 20 cents per pound ? 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. To 40 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. I have prepared a table showing certain soaps 
 which are typical. It would raise the duty from 50 to 130 per cent, 
 which is virtually a crushing tax and which means cutting off a 
 source of revenue. 
 
 In regard to alcoholic perfumes, owing to the heavy specific tax, 
 it stands very much on the same basis. The specific duty of 60 
 cents per pound means an increase over the former rate of $2, or 
 over 100 per cent it is virtu ally $4. 05 a gallon, or double the amount. 
 The result is that low-priced articles, such as lavenders, colognes, 
 and dentifrices, of which there is large volume, are under an 
 enormous tax. I have left with the clerk of the committee a sample, 
 which, under the 60 cents per pound and 50 per cent ad valorem, 
 paid a tax of 201 per cent. The importation of these articles would 
 be crushed out. There is also a very large demarcation in alcoholic 
 perfumery preparations intended for the hair, teeth, and skin; 
 hair lotions, dentifrices, lavenders, and cologne are not perfumery in 
 the strict sense of the word; not high-priced extracts. I am in- 
 formed by one of my confreres, who imports chiefly high-priced 
 extracts, that the rate of duty is only 56 per cent ad valorem at 
 present. I have an example of a very interesting article which 
 shows that the tax is 201 per cent under the specific duty. 
 
 Up to the time of the Dingley tariff certain of these articles paid 
 only 40 per cent as nonalcoholic perfumery. Thus eau de quinine, 
 which is largely used in this country, paid only 40 per cent until the 
 Dingley tariff. Under 60 cents a pound the importations have 
 entirely ceased. There are not over 12 dozen a year imported, and 
 they arc for people who want it at any price. I have prepared a 
 statement of importations from one house, chiefly articles of that 
 kind, cologne, lavender. I have submitted a table, Table C, which 
 shows that the actual cost of perfumery imported from Darrasse & 
 Colmant was 81,073, which paid out $1,478.30, or 137* per cent. 
 With such a duty as that the committee is closing the- doors to a 
 source of revenue. If the committee will adopt a line of demarca- 
 tion and state that those articles which are evidently intended only 
 for outer application should como in as nonalcoholic, as they used 
 to, the importation will be gradually recommenced and gradually 
 reestablished. The pyramid will then stand on its base and not on 
 its apex. I believe a great many of the articles we import are 
 articles of foolish luxury. I do not believe a woman who pays $6 
 for a bottle of perfumery or two or three dollars for a cake of soap 
 is doing the wise thing, but I do believe in this country that the 
 well-to-do middle class who like a little luxury should have the 
 opportunity to indulge it. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 393 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMERY. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Did I understand you to say that the effect of 
 this bill which passed the House will be to reduce the duties on the 
 very high priced perfumed soaps and increase the duties on the very 
 low priced ones ? 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. You have the table before you, Mr. Longworth. 
 It shows my exact figures, and I think they are correct. I can give 
 you one article here I do not know whether Mr. Roper has laid the 
 sample before you or not. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. The only soaps that can be affected are toilet soaps 
 which are not perfumed soaps. 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. They are all perfumed hi a way. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. He said that under the paragraph "Toilet soaps 
 40 per cent ad valorem, but not less than 20 cents per pound," the 
 duty on certain perfumed toilet soaps of the very cheapest kind 
 would be very largely increased. In other words, an increase on the 
 low-priced articles and a decrease on the high-priced articles. 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. Exactly. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. In other words, the minimum provision of 20 cents 
 a pound would amount to a great deal more than 20 per cent ad 
 valorem. 
 Mr. ARNOLD. Much more 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. That is what is called a "joker" in a tariff bill. 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. I think the tariff was made sincerely. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I do not charge these gentlemen with any such inten- 
 tions, but I have been charged with it before. 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. That soap costs $1.89 under the present tariff. 
 Fifty per cent would be about 94 cents. I am speaking of a soap that 
 has been largely imported for years; it is a soap made by Coudray. 
 That soap weighs 3 pounds. Twenty cents a pound would be 60 
 cents 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Have you submitted similar criticisms on all the 
 other classifications of soap in our proposed paragraph, or only on 
 toilet soaps ? 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. Only on toilet soaps. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. You will observe that the duties are very much 
 reduced on all other kinds of soap. 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. I am not interested in any other kind of soap, and 
 therefore I did not take the matter up. Fancy toilet soaps are very 
 different articles from these other soaps, in the way they are handled 
 and in the way they are put on the market. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Do you manufacture at all ? 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. No, sir. Some years ago we experimented with 
 some soap, but we found that it did not pay us. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Do you know of any reason why this [indicating powder 
 puff] should have a preferential rate over 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD (interrupting). The duty is not very large on those 
 items. They are little articles. 
 
 Mr. HILL. The question is whether you think it should have a 
 preferential rate over other productions of wool. 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. That is used as a brush for powder. 
 
 Mr. HILL. It is purely a luxury in the sense in which it is used. 
 The average man does not use that wool brush. 
 
394 TABIFJf HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMERY. 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. I think it is very largely used. The ladies use it very 
 largely. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Why would not that be a good reason for making the 
 duty higher, on the real Democratic, Republican, and Progressive 
 rule of a tax on luxuries ? 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. I should not object to a higher ad valorem duty 
 
 Mr. HILL (interposing) . I suppose the ordinary workingman m the 
 United States does not have much use for this, does he [exhibiting 
 article] ? 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. How about that small one [indicating article] ? 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. I do not think that is used either by the working- 
 man. They are articles of luxury to a certain extent. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Arnold, the committee has allowed you 20 
 minutes, if you have any other matters to present. 
 
 Mr. AJRNOLD. I have not, unless there are some more questions. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 2, 191S. 
 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives Office Building, Washington, D. C. 
 
 1. Francis R. Arnold, No. 7 West Twenty-second Street, New York; Washington 
 address, New Willard. 
 
 2. Representing F. R. Arnold & Co., New York, N. Y. 
 
 3. Schedule A, paragraph 53, perfumery; schedule A, paragraph 70, soaps; schedule 
 N, paragraph 463, dressing combs; schedule K, paragraph 397, wool pads. 
 
 ADMINISTRATIVE CLAUSES. 
 
 4. Attitude as to tariff. Such revision as will afford relief from overtaxation and 
 such correction in the incidence of the tax as will insure the easy execution of the 
 law, saving the time not only of the importer but also of the Government employees. 
 
 5. Experience of 47 years as a prominent importer of such articles. 
 
 6. Time, probably half hour or so. Schedule A, paragraph 70, fancy toilet soaps. 
 First. While a specific duty on soaps which are traded in by the pound such as 
 
 castile, is not objectionable, it would seem incorrect to apply a specific duty to so- 
 called fancy toilet soaps, which are ususally wrapped, sometimes inclosed in an ex- 
 pensive outer wrapper, packed either in cartons of small quantity, or even in single 
 cartons. The difficulty under these conditions of ascertaining the correct weight and 
 the inevitable variation in weight of a number of single pieces entail much extra 
 labor and differences in result. The only fancy toilet soaps imported in quantity are 
 made by well-known manufacturers, whose price lists are in the hands of the custom- 
 house officials, so that there can be no difficulty in ascertaining the actual value as 
 the basis of taxation. It would seem, therefore, that soaps of this class should be sub- 
 jected only to an ad valorem duty. 
 
 Second. It is evident that a specific duty based on weight must be a much lighter 
 tax on high-priced soaps which are really luxuries than on the medium, and espe- 
 cially on the lower-priced soaps, which are suitable for general consumption. There- 
 fore, the change in the proposed tariff from "50 per cent to 40 per cent ad valorem, 
 but not less than 20 cents per pound." while reducing considerably the tax on high- 
 priced soaps, would increase it enormously on lower-priced ones, as shown in Table A, 
 which gives the value of certain low and medium priced soaps currently imported, 
 with the duties at 15 cents per pound. 20 cents per pound, and 50 per cent ad 
 valorem, and showing that on the latter soaps a duty of 20 cents per pound would 
 substitute for the present duty of 50 per cent one of 130 per cent. 
 
 Third. In the ''Estimated revenues," prepared for the Committee on Ways and 
 Means, the value of all imported toilet soaps (including medicinal) is given for the 
 year ending June 30, 1000. as less than 8478,000. In synopsis prepared for the Finance 
 Committee of the Senate the value of the domestic product is given as over $68,888,000. 
 
 In the comparison of the Senate tariff bill (S. 128, H. R, 1438, July 13, 1909), page 7, 
 the value of toilet and medicinal soaps imported in 1907 is given as $520,000. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 
 
 395 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMER Y. 
 
 In the report in Schedule A, House of Representatives Sixty -second Congress, 
 second session, Report No. 326, the value of imported toilet soaps in 1910 is given as 
 only $240,000; in 1911, $380,500, this latter increase being undoubtedly owing to the 
 larger amount of low-priced soaps imported. Therefore it is evident that no protec- 
 tive duty is needed. 
 
 Fourth. It would not be in accordance with the declared intention of Congress to 
 reduce the burdens of the present tariff, to impose upon soaps suitable by their price 
 for popular consumption, an increase of duty from 50 per cent to in some cases 130 per 
 cent, as shown in Table A. 
 
 Fifth. Therefore it would seem that in any case the proviso of 20 cents per pound 
 should be omitted from the proposed duty in paragraph 70. And there should be 
 little doubt that a reduction of the ad valorem duty to 35 per cent, the rate under the 
 Wilson bill, would result in a large increase in importation of this class of soaps. This 
 should be the result judging from the writer's experience under the Payne bill where 
 the 50 per cent ad valorem duty is an actual reduction on this class of soaps from the 
 former rate of 15 cents per pound, and he can not conceive that it would be the intent 
 to impose on this class of soaps a duty, in some instances 130 per cent, which must pre- 
 vent their importation, because in spite of their low foreign cost the addition of such a 
 crushing tax would so increase the cost of laying them down as to prevent their use 
 by consumers of moderate means, which has been rapidly increasing. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 F. R. ARNOLD & Co. 
 
 TABLE A. 
 
 
 Prices 
 net per 
 dozen. 
 
 Custom- 
 house 
 value. 
 
 Weight. 
 
 Duty 
 15 cents. 
 
 50 per 
 cent ad 
 valorem. 
 
 40 per 
 cent ad 
 valorem. 
 
 20 cents per pound. 
 
 No 35 . 
 
 Francs. 
 3.00 
 
 $0.58 
 
 Pounds. 
 2.34 
 
 $0.35 
 
 $0 29 
 
 $0 232 
 
 $0 47 =80 per cent 
 
 No. 226 
 
 6.75 
 
 1.30 
 
 2.25 
 
 .331 
 
 .65 
 
 .520 
 
 .45 35 per cent 
 
 No. 295 
 
 9. CO 
 
 1.85 
 
 3.00 
 
 .45 
 
 .92i 
 
 .740 
 
 . 60 =32J per cent. 
 
 No 336 
 
 12.00 
 
 2.32 
 
 3.16 
 
 .47J 
 
 1.16 
 
 .928 
 
 . 63J 28 per cent 
 
 No 333 
 
 14.40 
 
 2.78 
 
 3.16 
 
 .47* 
 
 1.39 
 
 1.112 
 
 . 63i=22| per cent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Prices 
 net per 
 dozen. 
 
 Custom- 
 house. 
 
 Weight. 
 
 15 cents 
 per 
 pound. 
 
 50 per 
 cent. 
 
 40 per 
 cent. 
 
 20 cents a pound 
 ad valorem. 
 
 No 305 
 
 Ru. 
 0.80 
 
 $0. 412 
 
 2.65 
 
 $0. 3975 
 
 $0.206 
 
 $0.1648 
 
 $0 53 130 per cent 
 
 No 304 
 
 1.20 
 
 .618 
 
 4.00 
 
 .6000 
 
 .309 
 
 .2472 
 
 80 = 130 per cent. 
 
 No. 303 
 
 1.60 
 
 .824 
 
 5.30 
 
 .7950 
 
 .412 
 
 .3296 
 
 1.06 129 per cent. 
 
 No 439 
 
 1.20 
 
 .618 
 
 2.38 
 
 .3470 
 
 .309 
 
 .2472 
 
 476= 77 per cent 
 
 No. 452 
 
 1.60 
 
 .824 
 
 2.65 
 
 .3975 
 
 .412 
 
 .3296 
 
 .53 65 per cent. 
 
 No. 523 
 
 1.60 
 
 .824 
 
 3.00 
 
 .4500 
 
 .412 
 
 .3296 
 
 .60 = 73 per cent. 
 
 No 531 
 
 6.00 
 
 3.090 
 
 2.71 
 
 .3865 
 
 1.545 
 
 1.2360 
 
 .542 17 per cent 
 
 No. 10202 
 
 3s. 4d. 
 
 .810 
 
 4.875 
 
 .7300 
 
 .405 
 
 .3240 
 
 .975=120 per cent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, BRIEF OF F. R. ARNOLD & Co., ON PERFUMERY, 
 ALCOHOLIC AND NONALCOHOLIC. 
 
 F. R. ARNOLD & Co., 
 
 New York, January 4, 191S. 
 
 Report on Schedule A (Report No. 326, par. 53). 
 
 The present duty on alcoholic perfumery, 50 per cent ad valorem and 60 cents per 
 pound, actually involves in many cases the payment of duty on four different items: 
 
 First, 50 per cent on the actual cost; second, 50 per cent on alcoholic tax the foreign 
 manufacturer is obliged to pay on goods not exported; third, 60 cents per pound on 
 the actual contents, sometimes containing not over 65 per cent alcohol; fourth, an addi- 
 tional 10 per cent ad valorem where the bottles are cut, or where the bottles are molded 
 and have only a polished stopper. 
 
 The result is a crushing overtaxation on lavenders, colognes, hair washes, articles of 
 low price, frequently of a low alcoholic percentage but of a large volume, and the ulti- 
 mate result has been that the importation of such has been either entirely prevented 
 or reduced to a very small quantity. 
 
396 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMERY. 
 
 Until the passage of the Dingley bill alcoholic preparations intended for application 
 to the hair, articles of low price and large volume, were taxed at 40 per cent. Since 
 the imposition of the specific duty of 60 cents per pound the importation has been 
 virtually suspended, and that of similar articles intended for application to the teeth 
 or skin, as dentifrices, lavenders, and colognes, similar articles, not intended to be used 
 as what are properly called perfumes, has been reduced to a small quantity which is 
 gradually diminishing. We append Table B to give striking examples of this over- 
 taxation. 
 
 Table C, showing the actual duty paid on our importations of alcoholic goods from 
 the manufacturers, Darrasse & Colmant, consisting entirely of such goods and amount- 
 ing to 137 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 The Canadian tariff imposes a tax of 50 per cent ad valorem on alcoholic perfumery, 
 contents not exceeding 4 ounces, and only adds a specific duty where the contents is 
 greater, $2.40 per gallon, plus 40 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 This specific duty of 60 cents per pound means an increase from the former rate of 
 $2 of over 100 per cent ($4.05 per gallon). This is simply overtaxation, the results of 
 which are shown in the total suspension of or decrease in importations. The imposi- 
 tion of any specific rate, unless an exceedingly low one, must overtax the low-priced 
 articles of great volume stated above. It would seem that such articles should be 
 differentiated from the extracts which are actually used for perfuming the handker- 
 chief or person, and tne duty imposed on such articles should be the same as on non- 
 alcoholic perfumery unless the duty is to be virtually prohibitive. In any case it 
 would seem just that the duty should be reduced to a specific rate of not over $2 per 
 gallon and 50 per cent ad valorem and that duty on the containers should be the 
 same as that of the contents. The increase shown in importations is accounted for 
 by the fact that under the present rate of taxation even low-priced extracts can not 
 be imported to advantage and that therefore the importations consist almost entirely 
 of high-priced extracts on which the specific duty virtually amounts to not over 
 2^ per cent or 3 per cent in addition to the ad valorem duty. 
 
 Perfumery, nonalcoholic. The imports of this class of perfumery have increased very 
 largely, owing to the increase of the country in wealth and population, and because 
 many of the articles are low priced and can not be retailed at 25 cents to 40 cents apiece, 
 in spite of the heavy rate of duty, 60 per cent ad valorem. It would seem that the 
 ad valorem rate in all classes of perfumery should be the same, not over 50 per cent, 
 and that this reduction in duty will lead to increase of importations. 
 
 The important English and French manufacturers of alcoholic perfumery publish 
 catalogues, showing clearly the price for export, and higher prices charged the do- 
 mestic consumer for the alcohol tax. This addition is therefore not a drawback 
 allowed by the Government, but simply an addition to the export prices, and should 
 not be included in the market value, where the export price is clearly shown and is 
 open to all buyers. In any case, if the importer is obliged to pay an ad valorem 
 duty on this foreign alcohol tax, he should not be obliged 'to pay a further specific 
 duty to offset the United States internal tax on alcohol. 
 
 In a word, under the present and proposed tariff on alcoholic perfumery, the higher 
 the price of the foreign article, and therefore the more decidedly an article of luxury, 
 the lower the rate of duty. This is the reverse of what should be demanded under 
 democratic government. 
 
 Schedule "N," paragraph 463, dressing combs: The increase of the duty under 
 the Payne tariff on horn dressing combs from 30 to 50 per cent, and on celluloid combs 
 from 25 per cent and 60 cents per pound to 30 per cent with 65 cents per pound, re- 
 spectively, will seem to have been made simply in order to give more protection to 
 hard -rub her combs. 
 
 The compound duty on celluloid combs is one which causes great labor to the im- 
 porter and to the customhouse officials, with continually varying results as to cost. 
 There would seem no reason why all dressing combs should not be classified unripr th 
 title "Combs" with a uniform duty, say not over 40 per cent. 
 
 Schedule "K," paragraph 397, wool pads: These are now classified as manufactures 
 of wool, value over 70 cents per pound, duty 55 per cent ad valorem, and 44 cents per 
 pound. They are disks of woolen velours, varying in diameter from 1 inch to about 4 
 inches, the weight running from about 1| pounds per gross upward, and always varying 
 with each importation. In this weight is included in many cases weight of the handles, 
 padding, and in many cases wooden handles, weighing more than the pad itself. In 
 use, they are to all intents similar to brushes, being used as puffs to apply toilet powder. 
 There is therefore no reason why they should not be taxed at the same rate as brushes 
 as the case with all powder puffs, not over 40 per cent. 
 
 Respectfully, R. F. ARNOLD & Co. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 67 PERFUMERY. 
 TABLE B. 
 
 397 
 
 
 Actual 
 cost per 
 dozen. 
 
 Custom- 
 house 
 value. 
 
 Added to 
 cover for- 
 eign alco- 
 holic tax. 
 
 So-called 
 market 
 value. 
 
 Weight per 
 dozen. 
 
 Total 
 duty. 
 
 Percentage 
 of total 
 duty to 
 actual cost. 
 
 Lavender, No. 1593 . . 
 Cologne, No. 1496.... 
 
 Francs. 
 7.20 
 
 0.60 
 
 $1.39 
 1.86 
 
 Francs. 
 3. 20 ($0.62) 
 
 2.80 ($0.54) 
 
 $2.01 
 2.39 
 
 Pounds. 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 ($2.01) at 
 60 per 
 cent. 
 (3 pounds) 
 at $0.60. 
 
 ($2.39) at 
 60 per 
 cent. . 
 (3 pounds) 
 at $0.60. 
 
 1 01 per cent. 
 $1.00 
 
 1.80 
 
 2.80 
 ItS per cent. 
 $1.19 
 
 1.80 
 
 2.99 
 
 The sale of both the above numbers has decreased to an insignificant amount, owing 
 to the heavy increase in specific duty, as above. 
 
 TABLE C. Importations, 1912, Darasse & Colmant, Paris. 
 
 To merchandise. 
 
 Soap. 
 
 Perfumery, 
 nonalcoholic. 
 
 Perfumery, 
 alcoholic, 
 actual cost. 
 
 Additional 
 alcoholic tax. 
 
 Pounds, 
 alcoholic. 
 
 Rate of duty 
 
 50 per cent, 
 
 60 per cent, 
 
 50 per cent, 
 
 50 per cent, 
 
 60 per cent, 
 
 Duty.. 
 
 $3,857. 
 $1,928.50 
 
 $2,187. % 
 $1,312.20 
 
 $1,073. 
 $536.50 
 
 $287. 
 $143.50 
 
 pounds, 
 1,330*. 
 $798.30 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Actual cost alcoholic perfumery, $1,073 (137J per cent). 
 Total duty alcoholic perfumery, $1,478.30 (137J per cent). 
 
 GEORGE BATTEN CO., NEW YORK, N. Y., REGARDING 
 PERFUMERY. 
 
 NEW YORK, N. Y., January 22, 1913. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN OF THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We have noticed the discussions as presented in the 
 newspapers as to who buys perfumery, and whether or not it is a 
 luxury. 
 
 Having had some experience in this direction, we felt that possibly 
 it might be of interest to your committee, which is the reason why 
 we are writing this letter. 
 
 We represent, as advertising agents, one of the large perfumers 
 of this country, Paul Rieger & Co., of San Francisco. Mr. Rieger is 
 often in New York and we discuss the problem of selling perfumes 
 and the best method of advertising it through the magazines and 
 public print. 
 
 We notice that Theodore Ricksecker, of New York, a manufacturing 
 perfumer, appeared before your committee and stated that he regarded 
 it as a mistaken notice that perfumery was a luxury, and that he 
 
398 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 had known of working girls who spent much of their wages for it. 
 He stated that perfumery was virtually a necessity of the servant 
 girl as well as womankind generally. 
 
 In this connection we wish to say that Rieger & Co. manufacture 
 a perfume of very good grade, not cheap perfumery, and that they 
 find that their best demand for perfume ranging as high as $1 to 
 $1.50 per ounce is among the working girls, shop girls, stenographers, 
 etc. The factory district, such as the New England district, is among 
 the best users of perfume in this country. 
 
 It is the observation of Rieger & Co. that the woman of the better 
 class, the woman who could spend money for luxuries, pays $1.50 
 or $2 for a bottle of French perfume once a year and hangs on to that. 
 Domestic perfumes are almost entirely consumed by the working 
 class. 
 
 We thought that this information coming from us, unconnected 
 as we are with the definite making of perfumes, might be of interest 
 to your committee. We think that further investigation would show 
 the great consuming population for perfumery is the ordinary shop 
 girl class. The Rieger advertising at any rate has for a long time 
 been directed to the working class, and the fact that we are continu- 
 ing to direct it to this class shows that the results must come from 
 this class. Such magazines as the Blue and Green Book, etc., are the 
 class of mediums we use to reach the consuming perfume public. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 GEORGE BATTEN Co., 
 F. H. LITTLE, 
 
 Second Vice President. 
 
 PAEAGEAPH 68. 
 
 Santonin, and all salts thereof containing eighty per centum or over of San- 
 tonin, fifty cents per pound. 
 For suggested phrase, see also Park & Tilford et al., page 67. 
 
 PAEAGRAPH 69. 
 
 Castile soap, one and one-fourth cents per pound; medicinal or medicated 
 soaps, twenty cents per pound; fancy or perfumed toilet soaps, fifty per 
 centum ad valorem; all other soaps not specially provided for- in this section, 
 twenty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 For soaps, see also Park & Tilford et al., page 67; for castile soap, see also Italian 
 Chamber of Commerce, page 108. 
 
 SOAPS. 
 
 BRIEF OF COLGATE & CO., SOAP MAKERS AND PERFUMERS, 
 
 NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 NEW YORK, December 26, 1912. 
 Mr. EUGEXE F. KINKEAD, 
 
 Gommittee on Appropriations, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR : We wish to thank you for your letter of December 20, 
 offering to bring before the proper parties any statements which we 
 may desire to make before the Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 We are informed that the chemical schedule, in which we are inter- 
 ested, comes before the committee on the 6th and 7th of January. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 399 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 It is physically impossible for the committee to begin to hear all the 
 parties who will be present at Washington at that time. We, there- 
 fore, have deemed it expedient to write our wishes in a short and 
 compact manner, and we herewith send them to you, trusting that 
 you will use what influence you can to see that they are carried out 
 in the new tariff. 
 
 We do not ask for higher protection. All we desire is that the 
 articles which are already on the free list through a number of 
 successive tariffs remain untouched, for they are raw materials in 
 our business. Can you not use the following arguments with your 
 committee ? 
 
 Laundry soap is a household necessity, and is used practically in 
 every family in the United States. Anything which adds to its price 
 must increase its cost to the consumer, and on that ground anything 
 which makes the raw materials more expensive ought to be avoided 
 by your committee. 
 
 All laundry soaps contain to a greater or less extent the following 
 articles, which at present are all on the free list: 
 
 Palm oil, palm kernel, copra, cottonseed and coconut oils, vege- 
 table and nut oils, vegetable wax, and rosin. 
 
 The 400 or more soap manufacturers in this country are a unit in 
 desiring that these articles continue on the fre'e list. Also, that 
 tallow, on which a duty is now placed, be put upon the free list. 
 We do not know of any industry which objects to placing tallow on 
 the free list. The large packing houses and soap manufacturers so 
 desire it. 
 
 As one of the largest manufacturers of laundry soap in this country 
 (by all odds, the largest in New Jersey) we sincerely hope that you 
 may be able to assist us in carrying out these very reasonable wishes, 
 for we do not ask for any increase of duty, but ask that the present 
 free raw materials continue. 
 
 The revenue placed upon these raw materials would not be as large 
 as anticipated. If placed on an article like palm oil, it would prac- 
 tically prevent its being imported into this country to any large 
 extent, and only because it is on the free list is it possible to import 
 it in large quantities. 
 
 The duty derived from tallow is too insignificant to be considered, 
 as practically little or none comes to this country. As cattle become 
 more and more scarce, it will become a necessity for us to import 
 this article from South America and Australia, and we sincerely hope 
 that the present duty may be taken from it. 
 
 As regards perfume and flavoring extracts, we believe in the 
 general principle that the raw materials used in manufacturing 
 should be allowed to come in free of duty, or at a considerably lower 
 rate than articles manufactured from them. It is desirable that the 
 natural perfuming materials now on the free list in paragraph 639 
 should remain free, especially the following oils: 
 
 Citronella, cassia, aspic or spike lavender, thyme, lemon grass, 
 lavender, bergamot, and lemon. 
 
 Unground clove buds and stems in paragraph 679 should remain 
 on the free list, also seeds mentioned in paragraph 668. 
 
 Oils of geranium, rosewood, and lanolin, now assessed 25 per cent 
 under paragraph 3, should be admitted free of duty. 
 
400 TABLET HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 It is desirable that all synthetic or compounded perfume materials 
 should be assessed for not less than 25 per cent duty over the raw oils 
 enumerated above. 
 
 We would be pleased to carry out any suggestions which you may 
 make in regard to our bringing these arguments before the proper 
 committee, and if you deem it advisable, we can send a representa- 
 tive to Washington. 
 
 Thanking you for the interest you have taken in this matter, we 
 remain, 
 
 Yours, very truly, COLGATE & Co. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED IN BEHALF OF LAUNDRY SOAP 
 
 MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., January 6, 1913. 
 
 To the Chairman and Members Committee on Ways and Means, House 
 
 of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: This statement is submitted on behalf of laundry 
 soap manufacturers of the United States representing over 75 per 
 cent of the production of common laundry soaps. 
 
 The item and paragraph concerning which this brief is submitted 
 are Schedule A, paragraph 69, item, All other soaps not specially 
 provided for in this section, 20 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 Xo change in this item is requested or desired by the laundry soap 
 manufacturers. They do not, however, object to the reduction to 
 15 per cent ad valorem, as was proposed in H. R. 20182, provided 
 the raw materials used by them are allowed to remain on the free 
 list and are not taxed as was proposed in H. R. 20182. (See brief 
 on behalf of laundry soap manufacturers relative to free list, dated 
 January 31, 1913.) 
 
 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS. 
 
 The laundry soap manufacturers are not opposing a revision of the 
 tariff downward. 
 
 The laundry soap business has been built up in a highly competitive 
 industry scattered throughout the United States. 
 
 FACTS RELATING TO THE SOAP INDUSTRY. 
 
 Number of soap factories in the United States, according to United 
 
 States census, is 436. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 
 
 401 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 Locations: There are soap factories in all sections, and nearly 
 every State in the Union has one or more factories, as follows: 
 
 California 27 
 
 Colorado 4 
 
 Connecticut 14 
 
 Delaware 1 
 
 District of Columbia 1 
 
 Georgia 3 
 
 Illinois 34 
 
 Indiana 15 
 
 Iowa... 7 
 
 Montana 
 
 1 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 4 
 
 Nevada 
 
 1 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 7 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 14 
 
 New York 
 
 67 
 
 Ohio 
 
 43 
 
 Oklahoma 
 
 1 
 
 Oregon 
 
 3 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 60 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 8 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 1 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 4 
 
 Texas 
 
 8 
 
 Utah 
 
 1 
 
 Vermont 
 
 2 
 
 Virginia 
 
 1 
 
 Washington 
 
 5 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 16 
 
 Kentucky 5 
 
 Louisiana 4 
 
 Maine 3 
 
 Maryland 4 
 
 Massachusetts 36 
 
 Michigan 11 
 
 Minnesota 5 
 
 Mississippi 1 
 
 Missouri 10 
 
 CHARACTER OF ESTABLISHMENTS. (OUT OF 436.) 
 
 Individual ownership 146 
 
 Firma 108 
 
 Corporations 182 
 
 INVESTED CAPITAL. 
 
 Less than $5,000 101 
 
 $5,000 but less than $20,000 103 
 
 $20,000 but less than $100,000 140 
 
 $100,000 but less than $1,000,000 79 
 
 $1,000,000 and over 13 
 
 There is no soap trust. There is no combination of soap manufac- 
 turers. 
 
 There is keen competition in all sections of the country. This 
 competition compels each manufacturer to give the largest possible 
 cake or the best possible quality or the lowest possible price, or all 
 of these; otherwise his volume of business can not be increased or 
 even maintained. The prices to consumers of the common and 
 Jaundry soaps we are discussing run between 2J cents and 5 cents 
 per cake or bar. 
 
 While there have been large and almost universal advances in the 
 cost of other essentials of life, the retail price of laundry soap has 
 shown no substantial change during a long period of years. 
 
 COMPARATIVE IMPORTANCE TO THE SOAP INDUSTRY OF THE COST OF 
 LABOR AND THE COST OF RAW MATERIALS. 
 
 The labor employed in the soap factories is principally unskilled. 
 The cost of raw materials is a more important item in the cost of 
 soap than is the cost of labor. According to the figures furnished 
 by the Thirteenth Qensus, all establishments engaged in the manu- 
 facture of soap paid, during the year 1909, for both salaries and 
 wages the sum of $11,733,000, while the cost of raw materials is 
 given as $72,179,000. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 26 
 
402 TARIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 The industry has been buiJt up relying upon free raw materials. 
 
 These materials have been upon the free list under all tariffs, and 
 if a reduction on the manufactured article is contemplated it should 
 only be made upon condition that they remain upon the free list. 
 
 This condition is peculiarly proper in view of the fact that common 
 laundry soap is used not only for laundry but also for personal and 
 genera] household purposes by the great mass of people. With food 
 and shelter, soap is fairly classed as a necessity. 
 
 It is not the purpose of the tariff revison to increase the cost of a 
 necessity of life, but on the contrary to reduce the cost of living. 
 The revision of the tariff downward should not be coupled with a new 
 tariff upon ingredients which enter into the manufacture of a necessity 
 which is now sold at a low price and manufactured by an industry 
 conducted without combination but competing in all markets. If 
 to raise revenue it is necessary to impose a tariff upon some articles 
 now upon the free list, it is respectfully submitted that such tariff 
 should not be imposed upon the raw materials heretofore on the free 
 list used in making laundry soap, because: (1) It is a necessary of 
 life; (2) it is sold under highly competitive conditions; (3) it is the 
 product of an industry which has been developed relying upon free 
 raw materials; (4) it is sold at a price which has not contributed to 
 the high cost of Jiving. 
 
 At the proper time we will present more iully the facts and argu- 
 ments against the imposition of a tax upon the raw materials now on 
 the free list and we refer the committee to our briefs on the item of 
 tallow in Schedule G, dated January 20, 1913, and on the items of 
 oils, gum resin, etc., on the free list schedule, datod January 31, 1913, 
 which will be filed with the committee. 
 
 We have deemed it advisable while stating our attitude with respect 
 to a reduction of the tariff on laundry soaps to make it clear that 
 such reduction should not be coupled with an imposition of duty 
 upon raw materials now on the free list and which are used in the 
 manufacture of Jaundry soaps. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 H. W. Brown, of The Procter & Gamble Co., chairman; 
 W. H. Wadhams, of B. T. Babbitt, secretary; L. H. 
 Waltke, of Wm. Waltke & Co., J. R. Collingwood, of 
 Pels & Co.: F. II. Brcnnan, of The N. K. Fail-bank 
 Co., committee of National Conference of Laundry Soap 
 Manufacturers. 
 
 TELEGRAM PRESENTED BY REPRESENTATIVE LONGWORTH, OF 
 
 OHIO. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. Before we adjourn I would like to read into the 
 record a telegram. The other day a member of the committee said 
 lhat he understood that the Procter & Gamble Co., a large soap- 
 maniiiaeUiring company in Cincinnati, dictated retail prices at 
 which soap should be sold. I telegraphed to the Procter & Gamble 
 Co., asking them if that was true, and received this telegram, which 
 I would like to have read into the record. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 403 
 
 PABAQBAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That will be incorporated in the record, Mr. 
 Longworth. 
 
 The telegram referred to by Mr. Longworth is as follows: 
 
 CINCINNATI, OHIO, January 7, 1918. 
 Hon. NICHOLAS LONGWORTH, 
 
 Washington, D. C.: 
 
 Replying to your telegram, we have before us only press reports of statements made 
 yesterday in Committee on Ways and Means. We wish to state positively that this 
 company has never attempted to fix the prices at which its soaps are sold by the 
 retail dealers, and so far as we know no laundry soap manufacturers ever have done so. 
 We will appreciate it if you will present this denial to the committee. 
 
 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE Co. 
 
 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. WADHAMS, REPRESENTING 
 LAUNDRY SOAP MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wadhams, you have 15 minutes. Give your 
 name and address to the stenographer. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. William H. Wadhams, 31 Nassau Street, New York 
 City. I notice on the calendar that I am stated to appear for B. T. 
 Babbitt. That is correct, but only in so far as B. T. Babbitt is one 
 of the manufacturers of laundry soap. I appear on behalf of 75 per 
 cent of the common laundry soap manufacturers of the United States. 
 The attitude which we take is this: We were notified by the card 
 which was prepared by the committee that we were requested to 
 state the item concerning which we wished to be heard and also our 
 recommendation. The item is Schedule A, paragraph 69. We have 
 no recommendation. The present tariff is 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 In H. R. 20182 it was proposed to reduce this tax to 15 per cent ad 
 valorem. Our trade has no objection to such reduction. We do not 
 appear here in opposition to the reduction of the tariff, fully realizing 
 the pledge which has been given to the people by the election to 
 reduce the tariff, to revise it downward. We do, however, in our 
 recommendation suggest this proviso: That there be no reduction 
 upon the manufactured article, unless the raw materials used in the 
 laundry soap industry remain upon the free list. 
 
 We appreciate fully the situation which the committee finds itself 
 in, committed to a revision downward, with a large free list carrying, 
 perhaps I know it has been stated some 53 per cent in value of 
 merchandise coming over our docks; that this merchandise must be 
 looked over; and in order to make up the necessary revenue, certain 
 items now found on the free list must bear the burden of the tax. 
 Therefore it is a question of the relative burden. Now, the laundry- 
 soap industry has peculiar reason to appeal to vou for the reason 
 that it is not a trust. It is highly competitive. There are, according 
 to the census, some 436 concerns scattered throughout the Union in 
 the several States. The laundry soap catalogue makes it six hundred 
 and odd; but we have relied here entirely upon the official figures as 
 reported. 
 
 We have given a list of the States in which this business is con- 
 ducted, and I think that the personal knowledge of the representa- 
 tives from other States will suggest to them that there are small 
 manufacturers of common laundry soap in every State of the Union. 
 
404 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 These laundry soap concerns are divided : One hundred and forty-six 
 of them are individual manufacturers, 108 of them are firms, and 182 
 of them are corporations. Their invested capital ranges from less 
 than $5,000 to over $1,000,000; and I have given the divisioh: One 
 hundred and one less than $5,000, 103 less than $20,000, 140 less 
 than $1,000,000, and 13 over $1,000,000. There is no one concern 
 that is dominant, but the highest competitive conditions exist in the 
 trade. 
 
 It has been a common phrase that "cleanliness is next to godli- 
 ness." It is also, perhaps, something that the committee may take 
 judicial notice of, that one thing that distinguishes our American 
 people from other races is that we are the best washed people in the 
 world. Now, the soap that is used is not the highly perfumed and 
 fancy article imported from France. The soap that is used in the 
 household of the United States is common laundry bar soap. Cut a 
 piece off and use it for personal use in washing, use it for laundering, 
 use it from cellar to attic, for every purpose. That is the staple 
 article. There are approximately 20,000,000 families in the United 
 States, and the experience of the soap manufacturers shows that the 
 average family uses 100 pounds a year. Therefore, there are 
 2,000,000,000 pounds of common laundry soap consumed in the 
 United States. We think it fair to state, under these circumstances 
 and in view of the standard of living which we set for ourselves and 
 the standard of cleanliness which we require of our people, that com- 
 mon laundry soap may fairly be classed as a necessity of life, coming 
 next to food and shelter and necessary clothing. 
 
 Now, what is proposed? We have been accorded time by this 
 committee to appear on the 31st, when the free list is taken up, and 
 we propose, with your permission, at that time to go at greater 
 length into the various items that enter into the manufacture of 
 common laundry soap, which are and have been under all tariffs, 
 Republican and Democratic, from the earliest time upon the free list. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. Is that what is called Castile? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. It is not what we call Castile. This is the kind oi 
 soap which you may know, perhaps, if it is used in your household, 
 as Colgate's Octagon or Babbitt's Best, or as one of the common 
 laundry soaps which are used either in bars or cakes of a large size. 
 They are sold two for 5 or 5 cents apiece. That is the custom of the 
 grocery trade which has been established and which can not very 
 well be varied. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Would Procter & Gamble's Ivory soap come under this 
 heading ? 
 
 Mr. WADIIAMS. Ivory soap is accepted as a common laundry soap, 
 I think. In that connection, I might say that all these soaps, includ- 
 ing Procter & Gamble's Ivory soap, have used these oils which are 
 placed upon the dutiable list to increase the quality. The great 
 advance in the art has been adding to the basic tallow an oil. which 
 gives a greater lather, makes the soap serviceable in hard-water 
 districts, and has advanced the art so that our soap is the best soap. 
 We produce it largely by the admixture of these oils, making a 
 standard of quality. Xow. if we have established the proposition, 
 that this soap is a necessity of life, then should not the committee, 
 
SCHEDULE A. 405 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 in looking over the list of articles upon the free list, not select the 
 entire catalogue of articles which we use in the manufacture of soap 
 to bear the burden of a tax which is to be placed upon that list by 
 reason of reduction on the manufactured article, particularly when 
 this trade come before the committee, in sympathy with its purpose, 
 and state that they have no objection to the reduction on the manu- 
 factured article? 
 
 This is the situation: At present there is a duty of one-half a cent 
 per pound on tallow, the basis of the soap. It is not mentioned in 
 H. R. 20182, therefore there is no reduction upon that, although it is 
 generally conceded that that has been gathered up in the hands of a 
 few who make and control the market. 
 
 All the other items, running through them, gum, resin, the oils, coco- 
 nut oil, palm oil, palm-kernel oil, soya-bean oil, olive oil (not edible), all 
 now upon the free list, are to be taxed one-quarter of a cent per pound, 
 with the exception of olive oil (not edible) , which is three-eighths of a 
 cent per pound. The essential oils, used to overcome the odor of 
 tallow, citronella, rosemary, aspic, caraway, thyme, lemon grass, lav- 
 ender, bergamot, mace, palma rosa, geranium all except the latter 
 two now upon the free list are all taxed 20 per cent ad valorem, under 
 H. R. 20182. 
 
 So that the basic tallow, the basic resin, the basic oils, the common, 
 cheap perfumery oils to overcome the tallow, all these ingredients 
 which go in to make up this necessity of life, have been removed from 
 the free list and a burden placed upon them. 
 
 It is submitted that this will directly affect the cost of living. We 
 are not here, of course, holding a brief for the people. We appreciate 
 that business is business. This will disturb our business, ana the net 
 result will be that, although, by reason of conditions in the grocery 
 trade, the price of a cake of soap can not be changed, because you 
 can not charge fractions of cents, the net result will be that the 
 size of the cake will have to be changed, because the manufacturer 
 could not manufacture at a profit under the burden which it is pro- 
 posed to place upon him. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. What per cent of the raw material you have just 
 mentioned constitutes your finished product ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Practically our entire finished product. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. No: suppose you have $1 as the cost of manufacture 
 of the soap, or the finished product. What per cent of these articles 
 that you have said have been put upon the free list constitute the 
 finished product ? 
 
 Mr. \\ ADHAMS. You mean, what will it increase the cost of a cake 
 of soap ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. No; what part or per cent of the finished product is 
 the raw material. You have some labor, too, have you not ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. You have some overhead charges? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. What part of these materials, which you say have 
 been transferred from the free list to the dutiable list by this pro- 
 posed bill, or the bill passed last year 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS (interposing). Exactly. I have those figures, and 
 have placed them in the brief in this way. 
 
406 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 It appears from the Thirteenth Census that the raw materials are 
 much the largest item. For example, salaries and wages combined 
 are shown to have been, in the year 1909, $11,733,000, whereas the 
 cost of raw materials was $72,179,000; in other words, that the cost 
 of our raw materials is very nearly seven tunes the cost of wages and 
 salaries. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Have you in your brief a full statement of all the 
 materials of manufacture you use? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. We have in the brief, which we will submit at the 
 hearing on the 31st. This is merely the brief with respect to the 
 proposed reduction of duty on the manufactured article. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Does it also contain a specific statement of the 
 reductions of duty on articles in our bill, or only those noncom- 
 petitive products upon which a revenue tax is to be levied ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. No; we give the comparative duties of the present 
 Dill and H. R. 20182 for all items. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Even though we have reduced the duty on raw 
 materials ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. I do not know of any on which you have reduced 
 the duty, except the two most expensive and highly desirable essential 
 oils, known as Palma Rosa and geranium, which are used to some 
 limited extent where the duty was reduced from 25 per cent to 20 
 per cent ad valorem, and in which we recommend they be placed on 
 the free list. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Have you made a complete statement of all your 
 raw materials used in the manufacture 01 soap ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. We have. Just in closing, I wish to call to the atten- 
 tion of the committee this general, and perhaps political, condition, 
 which, nevertheless, seems to me to bear upon this situation in deter- 
 mining what shall bear the burden: One is that soap is a necessity of 
 life. The second is that the industry is conducted under highly com- 
 petitive conditions. The third is that it has been built up in this coun- 
 try and developed, relying upon free raw material under all tariffs, 
 Democratic and Republican. The fourth is that it is sold at a price 
 which lias not contributed to the high cost of living. The price of 
 soap to the public has not changed during the last 10 years in any 
 material degree. There may have been some slight fluctuations to the 
 jobber or the middleman, but the cost to the consumer has remained 
 steady. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What is the amount of export trade in soap to-day ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. I have here, under date of January 2, a table pre- 
 pared by the Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign 
 ;uid Domestic Commerce, which gives a comparison, in pounds and 
 dollars, of the imports for consumption and of the domestic exports. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. How many times greater are the exports of soap 
 than the imports ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. For a period of six years, on both sides of the sheet, 
 they have remained substantially steady. They are approximate, 
 varying from 120,000 to $53,000, the lowest year, 1909, of imports, 
 as compared with $2,695,000, exports, of domestic soap. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. Two millions what, of exports? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. That is in dollars: I am giving dollars. 
 
 Mr. KITCIIIX. Do we export 2,000,000 worth of soap? 
 
SCHEDULE A. 407 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. We do. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And import less than $100,000? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Yes, sir. This is common laundry soap. I am 
 not talking about the fancy soaps or perfumed soaps. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I understand. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. I am not talking about castile soap, which is, of 
 course, a soap largely imported, a special soap made of olive oil. I 
 have attempted to analyze the figures, to make the comparison fair. 
 
 Mr. DIXON. If the raw materials are kept on the free list, how about 
 reducing the duty on the finished product? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. We have stated that we have no objection to a 
 reduction of the duty as proposed. 
 
 Mr. DIXON. Below even 15 per cent? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. It seems to us that is adequate. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You spoke about the census figures a while ago, 
 giving the proportion of raw material? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. .Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And the cost of labor. What about your business? 
 You can tell more about that than the census. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. That is about correct; it is about 7 to 1. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Why should you not take the business in which 
 you are engaged; that is, your own individual business? Then you 
 can tell better than by the census figures. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. That gives a review of the traffic. Our business, as 
 I say, is about the same. The raw materials are far above any other 
 item of expense. They are our greatest item of expense. They bear 
 about that proportion of 7 to 1 so that the placing of the burden 
 on the raw materials is a very serious matter to the industry. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Tell me what this castile soap is. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Castile soap, as I understand it, is a soap which is 
 largely made from olive oil. I think Mr. Harrison will be, perhaps, 
 able to give you better figures than I can on that. But it is produced 
 largely in Italy, and although it is used in competition with laundry 
 soaps, it is a more expensive soap; it is not used in the families of the 
 poor the way that laundry soap is. I think that every household 
 which can afford to buy a variety of soaps has a certain amount of 
 castile soap. We are talking, however, or a household that has only 
 one kind. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. That is the only soap for household use that is 
 imported into this country ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. That castile is the only kind imported ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. No. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. For your information, if I may be permitted to put 
 it on the record, the value of castile soap imported during the year 
 1911 was $364,200; medical and medicated soaps, $15,663. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. For 1912 it is $338,000. I do not suppose you have 
 that there. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The value of perfumed soaps was $380,472, and 
 all other soaps amounted to $68,000. Now, Mr. Witness, "all other 
 soaps" covers your soap. 
 
408 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. That is what I am getting at, that very little of 
 your kind of soap is imported. How much did you say was exported 
 last year ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. These different reports seem to vary slightly. 
 This is the official report. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. All kinds, according to the estimate here. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Exported ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. I appreciate that that argument would perhaps be 
 against me. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I just want to see whether this trade report is right 
 in its figures. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. I notice that we get some variation in the reports, 
 and for that reason I fortified myself with this report, which comes 
 from the department. This is a report from the Bureau of Foreign 
 and Domestic Commerce, in the Department of Commerce and 
 Labor, dated January 2, 1913, and shows the figures which I have 
 stated. It is not contended by us that the tariff on soap should not 
 be reduced on the manufactured article. We are hi sympathy with 
 the general attitude of this committee to reduce the tariff on the 
 manufactured article, but our position is that in doing so the raw 
 materials should not bear the burden of the new tax, for the reasons 
 I have stated: The condition of the trade, the fact that it is com- 
 petitive, the fact that this is an article that is a necessity of life, the 
 fact that the industry has been built up upon this raw material, and 
 the fact that we have not contributed to the high cost of living, 
 because the price of our soap remains the same. 
 
 Now, it seems to us that, of all the industries that you might take 
 up, you could not find one that can come here with such clean hands, 
 that can come here and say, "Do not put the burden on us; we have 
 not put the burden on the people; we will accept a reduction on pur 
 manufactured article: but do not put the burden on our raw materials 
 which we use in this common soap that goes into the homes of the 
 poor, and which is a necessity under modern standards of living." 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. The exports for 1912 of other soaps, except toilet 
 and fancy soaps, amount to 82,084,000. What I want to ask you is 
 this: You export this in competition with all other countries, do you 
 not, this industry this two or three million dollars? You export 
 that in competition with all other countries, do you not? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. We do. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And do you sell it cheaper abroad than you do at 
 home { 
 
 Mr. WADIIAMS. No. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. So, then, it' these articles called by you raw materials 
 arc kept on the free list that arc now on the free list, you do not need 
 any tarifl' at all, do you ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. We should have some tariff, and it should not be 
 changed all at once. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. ^ ou do not need it. You are exporting, in compe- 
 tition with all the world, and selling it as cheaply abroad as at home, 
 and no cheaper. Do you need it? 
 
SCHEDULE A. 409 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Perhaps I can answer by saying that in France and 
 Germany there is a tariff on soap; in England, as I understand it, 
 there is none. Take the great house of Leber Bros. They had a 
 factory in England. They found they could not sell soap here, so they 
 came over here and opened a factory in this country, and they are 
 making soap here now in large volume. If we are going to compete 
 with the countries of the world, we, of course, would prefer that there 
 should be some tariff upon the manufactured article. If we are going 
 to have a sudden change, the result will be that we are going to nave 
 at once the competition of all Europe; we are going to nave the 
 concentrated governmental aid of Germany in that competition 
 against us. Although not opposing a little reduction we do not 
 know; we can not say positively we fear that a complete removal 
 of the duty would jeopardize the business. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Let us see whether it could: If you can manufacture 
 it here, ship it across the waters, pay the freight, ship it into Germany 
 and France 
 
 Mr. WADKAMS (interposing). There is very little into Germany? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Or into England, how in the name of common sense 
 can they manufacture it there and ship it over here, paying the freight, 
 and come in competition with you ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. The answer is the same answer which has always 
 been made. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Which is the tariff ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Which is. the tariff, and the answer is the difference 
 in cost of labor, as one item. It is a smaller item with us than with 
 most industries, because ours is unskilled labor. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. But you do, with your high-priced labor, undersell 
 Germany, France, and England, by exporting this $2,000,000 worth 
 in competition with them, and you say you are making it just as 
 cheaply and selling there no cheaper than you sell to our people at 
 home; and I believe you are right about it. I believe you can do it. 
 I know you are doing it. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. We do not deny that we are doing it; I am glad we 
 are doing it. We wish that every industry in the country could do 
 the same. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Therefore you do not need a tariff to protect it, if 
 you can do that. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. We do not need a high tariff to protect it; no. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You do not need any to protect it, do you ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. You can not speculate; I mean, you can not 
 change abruptly. For me to give an assurance to this committee 
 that we could continue to do it would be an absurdity. I can not 
 tell. Whether or not the other countries of the world, taking ad- 
 vantage of that situation, would not be so stimulated in their business 
 that we would suffer the loss of all our export trade is something 
 that can not be stated with definiteness. It is highly probable that 
 it would occur. I think it would be a dangerous thing. 
 
 I understand that it is the purpose of this committee not to take 
 wholesale action at once, but to proceed moderately and by degrees. 
 
 Mr. NEEDHAM. How do you understand that ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Well, perhaps I should not understand it except 
 that I take it that this committee is proceeding in good faith to do 
 
410 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 what it can to readjust the burden of the tariff with the least dis- 
 turbance of business possible; and I assume that they are working 
 in good faith. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that probably the witness has read the 
 bill which was sent to the House last year, which was a reasonable 
 reduction. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Yes; as far as the manufactured goods were con- 
 cerned; but as far as our trade was concerned, we seriously urge 
 upon this committee to reconsider the disposition of the duty on the 
 raw materials, bearing in mind the character of the industry. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Just one question: Of course, when you export the 
 soap, the manufacturers are entitled to a drawback of 99 per cent 
 of the duty paid on the raw material, and I assume they do that. 
 Do you know whether or not they do ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. I do not, because as a matter of fact the particular 
 company which I represent does not export soap in large quantities. 
 At the last hearing befoie the Senate committee I spoke from my 
 personal knowledge of my own company, and said there was very 
 little exported. Since then I have looked up the figures. I find, and 
 other members of the industry have called my attention to the fact, 
 that I was incorrect in my statement. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. The assumption is that they do take advantage of 
 that, to put them on more of an equality, on raw materials, with 
 nations manufacturing abroad that they do get this drawback. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Of course, the raw materials are now upon the free 
 list, Mr. Payne. 
 
 Air. PAYNE. All of them? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Oh, yes; practically all, except tallow. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. That is a different thing, then. I thought some of 
 them were dutiable. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Does your concern fix the prices at which the goods shall 
 be retailed ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Each individual manufacturer does. There is no 
 association of soap manufacturers at ah 1 . 
 
 Mr. HILL. Then, why do you want a tariff at all? Does not Procter 
 & Gamble fix the price at which Ivory soap shall be retailed to the 
 consumer ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. They make it and they fix the price. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Does not Babbitt do the same thing? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. 11 ILL. Why do you want any tariff at all, then, if you abso- 
 lutely control the price, from the manufacturer down to the ultimate 
 consumer "'. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Because this is a highly competitive business, and 
 unless we keep up the standard and keep the price right we are going 
 immediately to have competition at home and abroad. 
 
 Mr. II ILL. You have met the competition and fixed your own 
 prices clear through to the consumer? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. That price has never been changed since B. T. 
 Babbitt, who was the pioneer soap manufacturer, started out. 
 Everybody knows it is a fixed thing. You go to a grocery store and 
 you know what you are going to pay for a bar of soap. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 411 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Do you see any consistency between a manufacturer 
 making an article, fixing the price at which it shall be sold, eliminating 
 it from competition, and then coming before the Ways and Means 
 Committee, and asking for a protective duty on the article? Do 
 you see any consistency in those two things ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. My less experience than yours does not enable me 
 to get your question. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I have had no experience in the soap business, but I 
 can see inconsistencies. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. What is the question ? I did not get the question. 
 I would like to answer the question if I can understand it. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I asked you whether there is any consistency in a man- 
 ufacturer making an article, fixing the price at which it is wholesaled, 
 fixing the price at which it is retailed, fixing the price which the 
 consumer shall pay for it, and then coming before a congressional 
 committee and asking for protection on the article. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. We do not fix the price in the sense in which you 
 use the word, where the manufacturer fixes an arbitrary price. The 
 price is fixed by the trade, by what the traffic will bear. We have 
 to take the price we can get for it. We do not fix the price in the 
 sense you used the word. The sense you use is fixing the price where 
 there is a monopoly. This is a highly competitive business. There 
 is not even an association in our business. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Can a wholesale grocer in New York City sell Babbitt 
 soap at any price he pleases ? Can the retailer, to whom he sells it, 
 sell at any price he pleases ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Absolutely; he can sell it at any price. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Can he get another invoice if he does ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. Yes, sir; and he does it all the time. If you will 
 go into a department store every once in a while you will see, as an 
 advertising feature, in order to boom their business, a sale of Bab- 
 bitt's soap at seven cakes for a quarter. That is done right along. 
 
 Mr. HILL. And they can make any price they please ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. They can make any price they please. 
 
 Mr. HILL. And without conflict with the contract under which they 
 bought it from the manufacturer ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. There is no contract. We take orders and sell 
 goods. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is that true of Procter & Gamble ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. As far as I know, it is. 
 
 Mr. HILL. As far as I know r it is not. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. There is not an} 7 business in which there is more, 
 open, free, and honest competition than there is in this laundry- 
 soap business ; absolutely none. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Brother Hill had these same facts before him when 
 he helped write the Payne bill, did he not ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. May it please the committee, I can not act as an 
 arbitrator. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And he gave you these high-protection duties under 
 the same conditions which he is now complaining about, did he not? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. I am here, not for the purpose of in any way 
 taking part hi any political difference as to method. 
 
412 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Nor am I. 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. I am here for the purpose of answering such 
 questions as I can and, I think, showing that in this business of 
 common laundry soap although not objecting to a reduction of the 
 tariff, it should be reduced without taking the raw materials we 
 use off the free list and putting the burden of bearing the new tax, 
 which must be raised for revenue, upon a necessity of life, by 
 puttingit upon the free raw materials used in this business. 
 
 Mr. PETERS. Did I understand you to say that raw materials are 
 now on the free list ? 
 
 Mr. WADHAMS. All raw materials are now on the free list, except 
 tallow, upon which there is a duty of one-half cent a pound. There 
 is a separate brief filed on the subject of tallow, which comes up 
 under Schedule G, and in order to keep the various things in the 
 classes in which the hearings are held, we put the tallow item under 
 Schedule G on that brief. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C M January 6, 1913. 
 To the Chairman and Members Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: This statement is submitted on behalf of laundry soap manufacturers 
 of the United States representing over 75 per cent of the production of common laundry 
 soaps. 
 
 The item and paragraph concerning which this brief is submitted are: Schedule A, 
 paragraph 69, item "All other soaps not specially provided for in this section, 20 per 
 cent ad valorem." 
 
 No change in this item is requested or desired by the laundry soap manufacturers. 
 They do not, however, object to the reduction to 15 per cent ad valorem, as was pro- 
 posed in H. R. 20182, provided the raw materials used by them are allowed to remain 
 on the free list and are not taxed, as was proposed in H. R. 20182. (See brief on 
 behalt of laundry soap manufacturers relative to free list, dated Jan. 31, 1913.) 
 
 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS. 
 
 The laundry soap manufacturers are not opposing a revision of the tariff downward. 
 The laundry soap business has been built up in a highly competitive industry 
 scattered throughout the United States. 
 
 FACTS RELATING TO THE SOAP INDUSTRY. 
 
 Number of soap factories in the United States, according to the United States 
 census, is 43(J. 
 
 Locations: There are suap factories in all sections, and nearly every State in the 
 Union has one or more factories, as follows: 
 
 California 27 Minnesota 5 
 
 Colorado 4 Mississippi 1 
 
 Connecticut 14 Missoun 10 
 
 Delaware 1 Montana 1 
 
 District of Columbia 1 : Nebraska 4 
 
 Georgia 3 Nevada ".'.'.'. I 
 
 Illinois 34 New Hampshire 7 
 
 Indiana.. 15 New Jersey 14 
 
 Iowa.. 7 New York 67 
 
 Kans as 4 Ohio 43 
 
 Kentucky 5 Oklahoma 1 
 
 Louisiana 4 Oregon. . 3 
 
 Maine 3 Pennsylvania... 60 
 
 Maryland 4 Rhode Island 8 
 
 Massachusetts 36 . South Carolina 1 
 
 Michigan 11 i Tennessee 4 
 
SCHEDULE A. 
 
 413 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 Texas 
 
 Utah 
 
 Vermont. 
 
 Virginia 
 
 Washington . 
 Wisconsin.. 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 16 
 
 Character of establishments (out of 436). 
 
 Individual ownership 146 
 
 Firms 108 
 
 Corporations : 182 
 
 Invested capital. 
 
 Less than $5,000 101 
 
 $5,000 but less than $20,000 103 
 
 $20,000 but less than $100,000 140 
 
 $100,000 but less than $1,000,000 79 
 
 $1,000,000 and over 13 
 
 There is no soap trust. There is no combination of soap manufacturers. 
 
 There is keen competition in all sections of the country. This competition com- 
 pels each manufacturer to give the largest possible cake or the best possible quality 
 or the lowest possible price or all of these; otherwise his volume of business can not 
 be increased or even maintained. The prices to consumers of the common and laun- 
 dry soaps we are discussing run between 2$ and 5 cents per cake or bar. 
 
 While there have been large and almost universal advances in the cost of other essen- 
 tials of life, the retail price of laundry soap has shown no substantial change during a 
 long period of years. 
 
 COMPARATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE SOAP INDUSTRY OF THE COST OF LABOR AND THE 
 
 COST OF RAW MATERIALS. 
 
 The labor employed in the soap factories is principally unskilled. The cost of 
 raw materials is a more important item in the cost of soap than is the cost of labor. 
 According to the figures furnished by the Thirteenth Census, all establishments 
 engaged in the manufacture of soap paid during the year 1909, for both salaries and 
 wages, the sum of $11,733,000, while the ccst of raw materials is given as $72,179,000. 
 
 The industry has been built up relying upon free raw materials. 
 
 These materials have been upon the free list under all tariffs, aad if a reduction on 
 the manufactured article is contemplated it should only be made upon condition 
 that they remain upon the free list. > 
 
 This condition is peculiarly proper in view of the fact that common laundry soap 
 is used not only for laundry but also for personal and general household purposes by 
 the great mass of people. \Vith food and shelter, soap is fairly classed as a necessity. 
 
 It is not the purpose of the tariff revision to increase the cost of a necessity of life, 
 but on the contrary to reduce the cost of living. The revision of the tariff downward 
 should not be coupled with a new tariff upon ingredients which enter into the manufac- 
 ture of a necessity which is now sold at a low price and manufactured by an industry 
 conducted without combination but competing in all markets. If to raise revenue 
 it is necessary to impose a tariff upon some articles now upon the free list, it is respect- 
 fully submitted that such tariff should not be imposed upon the raw materials hereto- 
 fore on the free list used in making laundry soap, because: 
 
 First. It is a necessary of life. 
 
 Second. It is sold under highly competitive conditions. 
 
 Third . It is the product of an industry which has been developed relying upon free 
 raw materials. 
 
 Fourth. It is sold at a price which has not contributed to the high cost of living. 
 
 At the proper time we will present more fully the facts and arguments against the 
 imposition of a tax upon the raw materials now on the free list, and we refer the com- 
 mittee to our briefs on the item of tallow in Schedule G, dated January 20, 1913, and 
 on the items of oils, gum resin, etc-., on the free list schedule, dated January 31, 1913, 
 which will be filed with the committee. 
 
 We have deemed it advisable while stating our attitude with respect to a reduction 
 of the tariff on laundry soaps to make it clear that such reduction should not be coupled 
 
414 TARIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69 SOAPS. 
 
 with an imposition of duty upon raw materials now on the free list and which are used 
 in the manufacture of laundry soaps. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 H. W. BROWN, Chairman 
 
 (Of the Procter & Gamble Co., Cincinnati, Ohio;, 
 W. H. WADHAMS, Secretary 
 
 (Of B. T. Babbitt), 
 L. H. WALTKE 
 (Of Wm. Waltke & Co.), 
 
 J. B. COLLINGWOOD 
 
 (Of Fels & Co.), 
 F. H. BRENNAN 
 
 (Of the N. K. Fairbank Co.), 
 Committee of National Conference of Laundry Soap Manufacturers. 
 
 TELEGRAM SUBMITTED BY HON. A. G. ALLEN. 
 
 Mr. Allen presented the following telegram, and asked that it be 
 inserted in the record: 
 
 CINCINNATI, OHIO, January 7, 191S. 
 Hon. ALFRED G. ALLEN, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 We have before us only press reports of statement made yesterday in Committee on 
 Ways and Means. We wish to state positively that this company has never attempted 
 to fix the prices at which its soaps are sold by the retail dealers, and so far as we know 
 no laundry soap manufacturer has done so. In response to telegram from Mr. Long- 
 worth, have also wired him as above. Will appreciate effort on your part to correct 
 wrong impression. 
 
 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE Co. 
 
 LOCKWOOD, BRACKETT & CO., NEW YORK, N. Y., WRITE 
 CONCERNING CASTILE SOAP. 
 
 NEW YORK CITY, January 28, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD. 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: With reference to proposed revised tariff, the alteration 
 in duty on castile soap, at present 1J cents per pound, proposed 
 change to read "15 per cent ad valorem." This change means a flat 
 increase in duty, particularly on the better grades. 
 
 We respectfully petition you not allow this change to be made, and 
 give the following reasons: 
 
 The change is uncalled for. Castile soap manufactured in this 
 country sells regularly with satisfactory profits for a much lower price 
 than imported castile soap. Therefore the domestic soap needs no 
 additional protection. The present duty is ample and the proposed 
 increase amounts to undue protection. 
 
 At the same time may we call your attention to the proposed de- 
 crease in the duty on olive oil. which is the chief article entering into 
 the manufacture of castile soap, amounting to a still further benefit to 
 the manufacturers of castile soap in this country. 
 
 Imported castile soap is an everyday article of use in most of the 
 homes of this country. It is therefore a common necessity and not a 
 luxury. The advance 4 would have to be borne by the consuming pub- 
 lic and explanation rendered in every drug, grocery, and department 
 
SCHEDULE A. 415 
 
 PARAGRAPH 69- SOAPS. 
 
 store that this Congress had advanced the duty when the whole coun- 
 try has been looking for downward revision. 
 
 If it is desired to increase the total revenue through this proposed 
 increase, that object would fail utterly, because the aggregate import 
 of castile soap would decidedly decrease, resulting in considerably 
 decreased total revenue. 
 
 A large sum has been paid to this Government each year by im- 
 porters of castile soap. Imported castile soap is sold so closely by 
 the importers that the proposed increase will be a decided hardship. 
 The consumer is paying enough to-day for imported castile soap, 
 which is desired because of its peculiar qualities not existent in domes- 
 tic goods. The increase would drive the consumer to put up with 
 something he or she does not want. 
 
 Interests controlling the larger soap manufacturing plants of this 
 country need absolutely no additional protection, and those interests 
 are the only interests that would be benefited. This duty has not 
 been disturbed for many years. Very few know this time an increase 
 is proposed. The advance would meet with a clear disapproval in 
 every part of the country. 
 
 We wish to most seriously bring this to your attention and respect- 
 fully ask that the proposed change in the tariff be withdrawn and that 
 the present duty of 1J cents per pound continue as in the past. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 LOCKWOOD, BRACKETT & Co. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 70. 
 
 Bicarbonate of soda, or supercarbonate of soda, or saleratus, and other 
 alkalies containing fifty per centum or more of bicarbonate of soda, five-eighths 
 of one cent per pound. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 71. 
 
 Bichromate and chromate of soda, one and three-fourths cents per pound. 
 See Natural Products Refining Co., page 359. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 72. 
 
 Crystal carbonate of soda, or concentrated soda crystals, or monohydrate, 
 or sesquicarbonate of soda, one-fourth of one cent per pound; chlorate of 
 soda, one and one-half cents per pound. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 73. 
 
 Hydrate of or caustic soda, one-half of one cent per pound; nitrate of soda 
 and yellow prussiate of soda, two cents per pound; sulphide of soda con- 
 taining not more than thirty-five per centum of sulphide of soda, and hypo- 
 sulphite of soda, three-eighths of one cent per pound; sulphide of soda, 
 concentrated, or containing more than thirty-five per centum of sulphide of 
 soda, three-fourths of one cent per pound. 
 For hyposulphite of soda, etc., see Grasselli Chemical Co., page 326. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 74. 
 
 Sal soda, or soda crystals, not concentrated, one-sixth of one cent per 
 pound. 
 
416 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGBAPH 75 ARSENIATE OF SODA. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 75. 
 
 Soda ash, one-fourth of one cent per pound; arseniate of soda, one cent 
 per pound. 
 
 ARSENIATE OF SODA. 
 
 BEIEF OF W. H. BOWKER, BOSTON, MASS., CONCERNING 
 ARSENIATE OF SODA. 
 
 To the WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: I am aware that hearings on Schedule A have been 
 closed, but I hope it is not too late to call the attention of the com- 
 mittee to two items in the schedule which are of vital importance in 
 the preparation of insecticides and fungicides for agricultural pur- 
 poses by farmers and manufacturers. They are blue vitriol and 
 arseniate of soda (pars. 81 and 71, H. R. 20182). 
 
 You are doubtless aware that the production and sale of insecti- 
 cides and fungicides for the protection of crops, as well as for the 
 protection of shade trees and shrubs, has enormously increased in 
 this country in the past 10 years. It is believed that but for certain 
 insecticides and fungicides the fruit and potato industry of this 
 country would have been wiped out in certain districts, while in the 
 protection of shade trees and shrubs, especially in New England, 
 from the gypsy moth, and brown-tail moth, they have been of very 
 great assistance. Messrs. McCall and Peters, of your committee, will 
 bear me out in this statement. 
 
 The company which I represent manufactures insecticides and fun- 
 gicides, and for that reason it is interested in having the raw mate- 
 rials which enter into its products admitted duty free. 
 
 The essential destructive agents of the efficient insecticides and 
 fungicides are arsenic, sulphur, and copper. 
 
 Arsenic (par. 77) is now on the free list, and it is proposed to retain 
 it in H. R. 20182. 
 
 Sulphur (par. OS) is now on the free list, and it is proposed to con- 
 tinue it in the new bill. 
 
 Copper (par. 81) in the form of blue vitriol carries a duty of one- 
 fourtn per cent per pound under the Payne Act. and in the new bill 
 it is proposed to make it free, to which we subscribe, and therefore 
 we urge it for the reason that wo use it extensively in the manufac- 
 ture of fungicides, but we do not manufacture it. 
 
 Paris green and london purple (par. 91) now carry a duty of 15 per 
 cent, and it is proposed to put mom on the free list, to which the 
 farmer certainly will not object, and we do not, but I should add that 
 wo do not manufacture thorn. 
 
 But the particular article to which I want to call your attention 
 is soda, arseniate of (par. 7]), which carries a duty under the Payne 
 Act of 1 cont per pound, but in H. R. 20182 it is proposed to make 
 it one-half cont a pound. While this proposed reduction is a step in 
 the right direction, yet 1 would respectfully request that this article 
 be admit I od duty froo for the following reasons: 
 
 To most manufacturers of insecticides, and to all farmers who man- 
 ufacture their own, arseniate of soda is the initial source of arsenic 
 
SCHEDULE A. 417 
 
 PARAGRAPH 76 SILICATE OF SODA. 
 
 and therefore more essential than arsenic, which is admitted duty 
 free, and which is the destructive poison in all insecticides used for 
 killing leaf-eating insects. 
 
 It may be urged that arseniate of soda is a manufactured product, 
 which is true; so likewise is blue vitriol, which is the initial source of 
 copper, the destructive fungicidal agent in the preparation of Bor- 
 deaux mixture by farmers and by many manufacturers. Since both 
 are initial sources, one of copper and the other of arsenic, both should 
 be admitted free. 
 
 Arseniate of soda does not materially contribute to the revenue 
 (only $1,684 in 1911) and it never will, but the duty on it serves to 
 keep up its price in this country, and thus the price of insecticides of 
 which it forms a component part. 
 
 I therefore respectfully request that before H. R. 20182 is submit- 
 ted in its revised form that arseniate of soda (par. 71) be put on the 
 free list, instead of at one-half cent per pound as proposed, and that 
 blue vitriol (par. 81) be put on the free list as proposed. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 W. H. BOWKER, 
 President Bowker Insecticide Go. 
 
 43 CHATHAM STREET, BOSTON, MASS., January 29, 191S. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 76. 
 
 Silicate of soda, or other alkaline silicate, three-eighths of one cent per 
 pound. 
 See Grasselli Chemical Co., page 329. 
 
 SILICATE OF SODA. 
 
 BRIEF OF MECHLING BEOS. MANUFACTTTKING CO., 
 CAMDEN, N. J. 
 
 CAMDEN, N. J., January 4, 1918. 
 The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. G. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: When your honorable committee considers a reduc- 
 tion in the duty on silicate of soda, we would like to call your atten- 
 tion to the fact that there are a number of grades of silicate of soda 
 manufactured abroad, and that if you form a new tariff bill let your 
 committee specifically name the various grades. The present tariff 
 bill makes the rate of duty on all grades of silicate of soda the same. 
 Silicate of soda glass which contains 100 per cent of silicate of soda 
 takes the same rate as a common solution which tests 40 Baume" 
 and contains about 38 per cent of silicate of soda. The other grade 
 imported tests 60 Banine" and contains about 52 per cent of silicate 
 of soda. We request that your honorable committee in forming your 
 bill specify the percentage of silicate of soda on which duty .is to be 
 paid. 
 
 We further protest on the ground that a reduction of the tariff on 
 a low-priced article is manifestly unfair to manufacturers located on 
 the Atlantic coast, as it opens competition from abroad, which they 
 
 78959 VOL 113 27 
 
418 TAKIFF HEABTNGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 76 SILICATE OF SODA. 
 
 alone feel. The interior manufacturers are not affected, because the 
 imported goods can not come into their territory on account of the 
 freight rate from the seacoast. 
 
 The object of a reduction in the tariff is therefore defeated, inas- 
 much as prices are not reduced excepting along the Atlantic coast. 
 
 Trusting that your committee will give the foregoing their consid- 
 eration, we beg to remain, 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 MECHLING BEOS. MANUFACTURING Co., 
 BENJ. S. MECHLING, Secretary. 
 
 BRIEF OF THE PHILADELPHIA (PA.) QUARTZ CO. ON SILI- 
 CATE OF SODA. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, PA., January 7, 191$. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 ESTEEMED FRIEND: Referring to i: Notice of tariff hearings, 1913," 
 dated December 11, 1912. 
 
 When Schedule A was under consideration last year by the Senate 
 Finance Committee we addressed a letter to Senator Boies Penrose, 
 as chairman of said committee, under date of March 6, 1912, and take 
 the liberty of submitting a copy of the same as representing our views 
 on the subject: 
 
 Under the existing tariff bill 60 Baume 1 silicate of soda is being imported and 40 
 Baum6 is not. It is, therefore, evident that the foreign producers are able to pay 
 the present rate of duty on silicate of soda selling approximately at double the price 
 of the ordinary 40 silicate. 
 
 In the proposed chemical schedule now under consideration silicate of soda is 
 reduced from three-eighths of 1 cent per pound to one-eighth of 1 cent per pound, 
 while the duty on soda ash (which is one of the two raw materials from which silicate 
 of soda is made) is reduced from one-quarter of 1 cent per pound to one-eighth of 1 
 cent per pound. 
 
 When the present tariff was prepared the existing relative rates on soda ash and 
 silicate of soda undoubtedly received careful consideration, and it seems to us rea- 
 sonable that the same proportion should be maintained in the proposed tariff, whereas 
 there has been a reduction on soda ash of 50 per cent and on silicate of soda 66$ per 
 cent. If the foreign producer should be able to save 25 cents per 100 pounds on his 
 present American cost he would be in a position to name a price which should enable 
 nim to take much, if not all, of the trade using the alkaline silicates and probably 
 much of the tonnage more neutral than the 60, that sells at a higher price than 
 the 40. 
 
 Owing to the variation in the quality and gravity of the silicate of soda now being 
 used it would seem reasonable, in fact' right and proper, that the difference in value 
 should be recognized and the rate per pound van- with the Baum6 test; otherwise 
 the rate should be sufficiently high to meet all conditions. 
 
 We believe as great a reduction in duty as was proposed in the bill 
 referred to will prove a hardship, and we would appreciate thy calling 
 the attention of the Ways and Means Committee to the variation in 
 value and gravity of silicate of soda as stated above. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 PHILADELPHIA QUARTZ Co. 
 WM. T. ELKINTON, President. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 419 
 
 PARAGRAPH 79 SPONGES. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 77. 
 
 Sulphate of soda, or salt cake, or niter cake, one dollar per ton. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 78. 
 
 Moss and sea grass, eel grass, and seaweeds, if manufactured or dyed, 
 ten per centum ad valorem. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 79. 
 
 Sponges, twenty per centum ad valorem; manufactures of sponges, or of 
 which sponge is the component material of chief value, not specially provided 
 for in this section, thirty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 SPONGES. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ALBERT HART, REPRESENTING LEOUSI, 
 CLONNEY & CO. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hart, will you give your name and address to 
 the stenographer ? 
 
 Mr. HART. Albert Hart, 3941 Walker Street, New York. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The committee has assigned to you 15 minutes. 
 
 Mr. HART. Before commencing my address I desire to state that 
 through a clerical error Nassau, N. P., was omitted from my brief in 
 connection with imports, and that said imports amount to about 
 $100,000. That is in connection with imports from the Mediter- 
 ranean and Cuba. 
 
 I appear before you as an American manufacturer asking to have 
 the entire duty removed, not only from the raw material of my in- 
 dustry but from the manufactured product. I do this because ex- 
 perience has demonstrated that the duty on the manufactured 
 product is not necessary in order to permit or to maintain an Ameri- 
 can industry, and the duty on the raw material prevents us from 
 expanding an American manufacturing industry. This is particularly 
 important just on the eve of the opening of the Panama Canal. If 
 you will remove the duty from raw sponges, we American manufac- 
 turers can compete with Great Britain, which is our chief rival for 
 the South American trade, as well as for the trade of Australia, Can- 
 ada. Japan, and other countries. 
 
 The duty is not needed to protect any American industry producing 
 the raw material of our manufacture. Practically all the sponges of 
 the United States are produced upon the coast of Florida. They are 
 of a very high quality and the demand for them always exceeds the 
 supply. " The industry only employs about 100 boats of 10 tons each 
 and 1 ,000 men. The sponges which we import both from the Medi- 
 terranean and from Cuba can not be substituted for the American 
 sponge; consequently if we American manufacturers concede that 
 we do not need any measure of protection for our finished product, 
 there is no question of protection to any American industry involved. 
 
 The duty ought to be abolished because it is a direct and entire tax 
 added to the foreign market value of the product and paid by the 
 consumer. To illustrate: If the foreign market value of an imported 
 sponge is a dollar a pound, and we sell it in this country without 
 adding to its value by any process of manufacture, we add to the 
 dollar 25 per cent to cover the duty and charges, and this sum the 
 American consumer pays in addition to our profit. If the tariff is 
 
420 TABTFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 79 SPONGES. 
 
 taken off sponges, the price to the consumer of the ordinary bath and 
 toilet sponge, which is a necessity, will be immediately reduced 20 per 
 cent. This will be accomplished because the competition in America 
 between importing firms is very keen, and no firm or firms will con- 
 tinue the prices based on the present tariff if that tariff were removed. 
 Also, if the tarn? was reduced, we could continue to pay the same rate 
 of wages in our factories that we are now paying, so there is no 
 question of mamtaining the American rate of wage in our industry. 
 We chiefly desire the abolition of this duty so we could increase the 
 volume of our manufactured product, which would, of course, 
 increase the number of men employed in the various establishments, 
 and we believe that this extension of an American industry would be 
 of far greater permanent value to the country than the inconsiderable 
 duty now collected. 
 
 We set out in detail in our brief the reason why we can not for our 
 export trade avail ourselves of the drawback provisions of the existing 
 tariff law. 
 
 In conclusion, I call the attention of the committee to the fact that 
 no tariff will foster this particular American industry, because a 
 sponge is an animal product, but it is of a low organism, and no 
 scheme which is commercially practicable has as yet been devised 
 for increasing the product. On the other hand, the Government has 
 been compelled to adopt stringent regulations to prevent the destruc- 
 tion of the domestic industry through the gathering of the entire 
 Florida crop at one time (see ch. 3342 laws of 1906, 34 Stat. L., 
 p. 313) and makes an annual appropriation to protect the sponge 
 fisheries, which appropriation for the current year is $3,500. If 
 anything, therefore, the importation and use of foreign sponges 
 wherever they can be substituted for the American sponges saves and 
 protects our American industry from destructive exploitation. 
 
 Air. PAYNE . As I understand you, the only effect of this duty is to 
 bring in a revenue of $43,000 ? 
 
 Mr. HART. I think it is about $59,000. 
 
 Air. PAYNE. Sir ? 
 
 Air. HART. I think it is about $59,000. 
 
 Air. PAYNE. The only effect, as far as benefits are concerned, is to 
 bring you a revenue of 843,000 ? 
 
 Air. HART. Somewhere around $40,000 or $50,000. 
 
 Air. PAYNE. You are aware that this committee is making a tariff 
 for revenue only, and you are making an argument because it is not 
 protective 
 
 Air. HART. We are making; the argument because the amount of 
 duty that is collected is so very inconsiderable as against 
 
 Air. PAYNE. It is not protective at all? 
 
 Air. HART. Sir ? 
 
 Air. PAYNE. It does not protect any industry, you say? 
 
 Air. HART. It does not protect our manufacturing industry. 
 
 Air. PAYNE. It simply brings in a revenue of $43,000? 
 
 Air. HART. It brings in a revenue somewhere in that neighborhood. 
 
 Air. PAYNE. As I understand it, this committee is looking for just 
 such tilings ;is that a tariff for revenue. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 421 
 
 PARAGRAPH 79 SPONGES. 
 
 Mr. HART. But the country is also looking to the expanding of 
 American manufacturing industries, which will help us to capture the 
 export trade. 
 
 At the present time we are totally unable to capture that export 
 trade. Great Britain has aU the advantage of the duty, and we are 
 not able to go to a foreign country, into Canada, Australia, or Japan, 
 and compete with the British houses. 
 
 We have found that out from experience. We have sent a man to 
 South America and we have also sent a man to Australia at a loss, as 
 we found that our prices, with the duty, are higher than the prices of 
 our British competitors; and if we should have this duty removed, it 
 would enable the expansion of this export trade; it will largely in- 
 crease the number of men we will be able to employ and make the 
 business a far larger one than it is at the present time. 
 
 Gentlemen, what is the sponge business at the present time ? It is 
 of very small volume. The output of American sponges is only 
 worth $700,000, and that is not sufficient to supply our demands. 
 The production of $700,000 worth of sponges is as nothing against 
 the enlarging of the foreign trade and the expansion of the manu- 
 facturing interests of our country. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I will read into the record, hi connection with 
 your statement, the Treasury report of the importations with refer- 
 ence to this article. I find from this report that for 1911 the total 
 importations were valued at $256,479; the duties amounted to 
 $48,371, and the average tax was 18.86 per cent ad valorem. That 
 was on raw sponges 
 
 Mr. HART. And manufactured sponges 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Allow me to finish. 
 
 Mr. HART. I beg your pardon. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That was the value of the raw sponges. Of 
 manufactured products, the importations amounted to only $61; 
 the duties were $18 and the tax was 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. HART. The record is not correct. With due respect to your 
 Honor, the record is not correct. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I suppose the committee will have to take the 
 Treasury report on that, but if you have anything further to say 
 about it 
 
 Mr. HART. With due respect to the committee, the Treasury 
 report is entirely inaccurate. The volume of manufactured sponges 
 imported into the United States, that is chemically bleached, will 
 be considerably more than that sum mentioned by you many many 
 tunes. I know one house alone which imports a considerable quan- 
 tity of chemically bleached sponges, running up into the thousands 
 of dollars not a fewpaltry dollars, but thousands of dollars. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. What is a manufactured sponge ? 
 
 Mr. HART. A sponge that is chemically bleached. It is the differ- 
 ence between the raw material (that is, a sponge in its natural state, 
 after it has been cleaned or freed of its animal matter) and the 
 bleached sponge. The raw material is the sponge in its natural state 
 as shipped from the fisheries, trimmed from its roots and untreated 
 by chemicals. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. My purpose in reading this into the record is 
 simply to show that the present duty on manufactured sponges was 
 
422 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 79 SPONGES. 
 
 prohibitive and that practically none was coming in; that only the 
 raw material was coming in. It was not against your argument. 
 But I want to say this, that of course the committee will be bound to 
 accept the Treasury figures, unless you can produce evidence contro- 
 verting them. If you wish, you may file, hereafter, a statement 
 showing on what evidence you base your statement. 
 
 Mr. HART. Yes, sir ; the Treasury statement is absolutely incorrect. 
 
 Mi. KITCHIN. As I read it, in 1912 the Treasury report shows only 
 $58 coming in. 
 
 Mr. HART. It is absolutely ridiculous. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. We want to know how they got in here without 
 being put on the customhouse books. 
 
 Mr. HART. The reason may be that there is no specific duty for 
 the raw material and the bleached. The duty on the raw material 
 and the manufactured product is one and the same. There is no 
 reason whatever for an importei 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN (interposing). You mean, they might have to class 
 them at the customhouse as raw ? 
 
 Mr. HART. If they bad classified that 20 per cent duty on raw 
 material and 30 per cent duty on manufactured sponges, we would 
 have been in duty bound to have entered them as such and classify 
 them as such, whether raw or bleached. The law only says 20 per 
 cent on sponges ad valorem. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no; let me read you the law. 
 
 Paragraph 79 of the Payne law reads as follows: 
 
 Sponges, twenty per centum ad valorem; manufactures of sponges, or of which 
 sponge is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this sec- 
 tion, thirty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. HART. That refers to such sponges as antiseptic sponges, 
 which are put up in bottles, and sponges that are specially put up 
 for medical uses, such as operations, and so forth, and used oy the 
 medical profession, but not sponges that are used in commerce. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. In other words, the bleached sponge, which you call 
 the manufactured sponge, comes in under the 20 per cent ad valorem 
 duty ? 
 
 Mr. HART. Absolutely; and if the record of the Treasury is other- 
 wise, then there is not an importer in the country, who is importing 
 sponges, chemically bleached, that is entering them other than at 
 the low rate. We would like to have a separate duty on all chemi- 
 cally bleached sponges. We would be very well satisfied if you 
 would admit the raw material free and put a duty on the chemically 
 bleached sponges. We think that ought to be done. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Your definition of a manufactured sponge is a 
 chemically bleached sponge ? 
 
 Mr. HART. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. And that is not accepted by the Treasury Depart- 
 ment as their definition of a manufactured sponge? 
 
 Mr. HART. Evidently not. They only classify those for the med- 
 ical profession. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Is that just the custom of the trade? 
 
 Mr. HART. Just the custom of the trade. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 423 
 
 PARAGRAPH 79 SPONGES. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What are the materials of manufacture that you 
 use in bleaching your sponges ? 
 
 Mr. HART. Permanganate of potash, hydrochloride, muriatic acid, 
 and sal soda. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Of course, you realize in trying to arrange a tariff 
 the question would arise, in putting sponges on the free list, whether 
 all the materials of manufacture were also on the free list ? 
 
 Mr. HART. Yes, sir; some are and some are not, I presume; but 
 if some of the materials are not paying a duty we think that would 
 be all the more reason why the chemically bleached should pay a 
 higher duty than the raw material. 
 
 Air. HARRISON. But it does pay a duty. 
 
 Mr. HART. Yes; but the raw material also pays a'duty at the same 
 rate, gentlemen, as chemically bleached. Why should not the raw 
 material have a benefit over the chemically bleached ? 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. I think there has ben a misreading of that 
 section of the law, and I think that the text of the law will corroborate 
 the witness enthely. We have in all the schedules a saving clause 
 covering things not otherwise provided for, but I think bleached 
 sponges are provided for, and that applies only to manufactured 
 sponges or articles of which sponge constitutes the component ma- 
 terial of chief value. I think the text of the law is in accordance 
 with what the witness has stated. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I do not think there is any provision with ref- 
 erence to bleached sponges in the tariff. 
 
 Mr. HART. I do not think it mentions raw materials 
 
 The CHAIRMAN (intei posing). There is no reference to bleached 
 sponges. 
 
 Mr. HART. The bleached sponges and the raw material come in at 
 the same rate of duty. That is not fair. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. The trade considers a bleached sponge a manu- 
 factured sponge, but the Treasury Department does not so consider it. 
 
 Mr. HART. It only provides for sponges. Consequently bleached 
 sponges and raw material come m at one and the same duty, which is 
 not fair. We want to expand the manufacturing end of it and to be 
 able to go into foreign countries and to capture tneir trade, which we 
 can not do at present. It cost us $5,000 last year to send a man to 
 Australia to try to sell manufactured products, just to find out that 
 we were too high. I wanted to put a letter in as a matter of record, 
 but my attorney thought it would be of no material importance. We 
 had a letter from one of our customers, telling us that our prices were 
 higher than the prices of our competitors. The statement was made 
 verbally to our Australian agent, "Oh, well, your firm has to pay a 
 duty of 20 per cent on sponges, and there is that much difference. 
 We can, of course, buy cheaper in England, and we do not have to 
 pay that duty on the manufactured product." If we did not have to 
 pay that duty, Jack would be as good as his master. We should be 
 given an opportunity to expand our manufacturing industry; we 
 should be permitted to get our raw materials free, and that would 
 enable us to manufacture sponges cheaper and employ a larger num- 
 ber of men, and we would be able to pay the same rate of wages as 
 we do at the present time. If we were enabled to increase by two 
 or three times our manufacturing business it would be far more 
 
424 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 79 SPONGES. 
 
 important, gentlemen, than the forty or fifty thousand dollars in duty 
 that would be collected. 
 
 Look at the small contracted business that it is ; $700,000 worth in 
 in Florida and $400,000 worth imported; $1,100,000 worth of sponges. 
 Are you not suprised at the smallness of our business ? Can't you do 
 something to help us to increase it ? Are we to remain small people 
 all the time ? There are only about 13 real importers in the business, 
 yet there are about 40 firms, that is to say, ordinary firms, who share 
 m that small volume of business. At the present time, gentlemen, 
 we have a representative in Japan. We are spending our money try- 
 ing to get the export business. We have sent a man to South Amer- 
 ica. He has been down there for two years, and we are in hopes and 
 are spending a lot of money that we can make a success of it. If we 
 do not make a success of it the first year, we will make a success of it 
 the second year, and if we do not make a success of it the second year 
 we are still going to try until we capture it. And we are going to 
 do it if you will give us the necessary assistance. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Is it your view that the system that makes the 
 cost of manufacture higher in the United States then elsewhere tends 
 to limit our foreign trade ? 
 
 Mr. HART. The duty is the thing that is the drawback to us. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. I say, the levying of the duty in this country is 
 the thing that tends to increase the cost of manufacture, and do you 
 think that limits your foreign trade ? 
 
 Mr. HART. That is true. It entirely tends to prevent our success- 
 fully competing in price with our British competitors, who have in 
 their control 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. The manufacturer would do just as well if he 
 had a higher profit on his American trade ? 
 
 Mr. HART. No; but the American manufacturers would increase 
 their home business as well as the export, because the American 
 material is sj very short of the supply that, if we can reduce the cost 
 of the imported goods, we will bring them within reach of the populace 
 in general. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Do you think to take this tariff off the raw material 
 would cheapen the product to the consumer of the finished product? 
 
 Mr. HART. Absolutely so. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Would it encourage your industry ? 
 
 Mr. HART. Absolutely so. If we had raw material free and 20 per 
 cent duty on chemically bleached sponges, it would expand our 
 business. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. And expand the market ? 
 
 Mr. HART. Expand the market. I think it would tend to increase 
 and expand the manufactures to a great extent and put us in touch 
 with the Australian, South American, China, and Japan trades. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. This is a protective tariff, then, that does not protect ? 
 
 Mr. HART. Absolutely a protective tariff, which retards our expan- 
 sion, the expansion of our manufacturing industry, and it is of quite 
 serious importance to us. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. By reason of the fact that there is a tarff on the raw 
 material ? 
 
 Mr. HART, There is at the present time a tariff on the raw material 
 and on the manufactured material at one and the same rate. 
 
SCHEDULE A. 426 
 
 PARAGRAPH 79 SPONGES. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You say that if sponges are put on the free list 
 you will reduce the price 20 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. HART. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Then, why will you be better off than you are 
 now? 
 
 Mr. HAKT. As a firm, we do not expect to reap the benefit from 
 the 20 per cent, except by the expansion of our trade. We will not 
 make any more. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You make the positive statement in your brief 
 that you have to add 20 per cent to the price because of the tariff cost. 
 
 Mr. HART. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You then say that if the tariff is taken off you 
 will immediately reduce your price 20 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. HART. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. How are you better off ? 
 
 Mr. HART. In the first place, the public at large will receive the 
 greater benefit from the reduction in price. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. No; but you pay 20 per cent more by virtue of 
 the tariff, you say, and you say the moment the tariff is taken off 
 you will reduce your price 20 per cent. 
 
 Mr. HART. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. How are you better off ? 
 
 Mr. HART. We are better on by reason of the expansion of our busi- 
 ness. We hope to double and treble our business by reason of having 
 raw material free, to enable us to manufacture and sell at a reduction 
 of 20 per cent. We hope that will be the means of our doubling or 
 threefolding the present volume of the business that we already have; 
 and, of course, naturally, the same applies to all other importers 
 who are with me in this movement. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I can not see how there is any difference whether 
 you add 20 per cent to your original cost or take it off the price. 
 
 Mr. HART. If we are able to take it off our raw material, our manu- 
 factured product will cost us that much less. Consequently, we can 
 go into the foreign markets and sell to foreign countries 20 per cent 
 cheaper than we are to-day. Must not that be of benefit to this 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I can not see how it is of benefit to you. 
 
 Mr. HART. We are unable to get into the foreign markets now, 
 and is it of no benefit to expand the trade of these countries ? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I am talking about your business. 
 
 Mr. HART. We are looking to the business as a whole, and not our- 
 selves personally. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I thought you were. 
 
 Mr. HART. With this exception: We do look in the long run 
 to expand our business to such an extent as to get the benefit of it. 
 We are not looking to the benefit of the general public in the long run 
 alone. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HART. But we do not think that will come before 6 or 9 or 12 
 months. It will take some time to feel the benefit of it, whereas 
 the public at large will receive the immediate benefit of this reduction. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Under the Dingley law, the duty was 40 per cent on 
 the manufactured product and 20 per cent on the raw material. 
 
426 TARIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 79 SPONGES. 
 
 Mr. HART. I beg your pardon. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I say, under the Dingley law the duty on the finished 
 product was 40 per cent and on the raw product 20 per cent, and the 
 duty was reduced by the Payne bill to 30 and 20 per cent. What is 
 the objection you have in regard to the raw material, where there is 
 no change from 20 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. HART. We have not been able to expand our export business, 
 nor to increase our manufacturing business by it. 
 
 Mr. HILL. But what you want now is the duty taken off entirely 
 from the raw material ? 
 
 Mr. HART. Yes; to enable us to expand the manufacturing end. 
 
 Mr. HILL. That is really an increase in duty of 20 per cent, if you 
 leave the manufactured product the same. 
 
 Mr. HART. But we are going to protect ourselves hi this country. 
 
 Mr. HILL. On the finished product, and raw material, too. 
 
 Mr. HART. We are going to manufacture the finished material 
 ourselves and give labor a chance to make many times more than 
 at present. We will increase the amount of wages we are to pay 
 and will reap the benefit of it in the long run through the expansion 
 and doubling of our business, besides giving the general public at 
 large the benefit. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. How many do you employ now ? 
 
 Mr. HART. We employ at the present time about 18. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. About 18? 
 
 Mr. HART. Eighteen. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Eighteen American laborers ? 
 
 Mr. HART. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. How long do you work them a day? 
 
 Mr. HART. How long what, sir ? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. How long do you work them; how many hours 
 a day do they work ? 
 
 Mr. HART. They work from 8.30 in the morning until 5.30 in the 
 afternoon. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Nine hours. 
 
 Mr. HART. Yes, sir; nine hours. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Are they all men ? 
 
 Mr. HART. Mostly married men, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Eighteen of them ? 
 
 Mr. HART. Eighteen of them about 18. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Now, you want to expand this industry? 
 
 Mr. HART. We would like to employ 36. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. As many as that ? 
 
 Mr. HART. Yes, sir; we hope to. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Do you produce the manufactures of sponges, or do 
 you manufacture a sponge by bleaching it, etc. ? 
 
 Mr. HART. We manufacture a sponge by bleaching, trimming it, 
 and assorting it, casing it, and sending out salesmen to sell the 
 sponges. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Then your completed product comes in at 20 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. HART. The manufactured product comes in at a rate of 20 
 per cent, and the raw material comes in at the same rate. 
 
 Mr. HILL. This bill which passed the House at the last session pro- 
 posed to reduce your raw-material rate to 15 per cent, but left the 
 
SCHEDULE A. 427 
 
 PARAGRAPH 79 SPONGES. 
 
 duty- on your finished product at 20 per cent, making a margin of 
 5 per cent as against the Payne bill of 12 per cent. 
 
 Mr. HART. A margin of 5 per cent. We would just as leave the 
 Government put the entire duty of 20 per cent on. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Why should not the duty be taken off both ? 
 
 Mr. HART. We have no objection whatever to having it taken off 
 both the raw material and the manufactured material. Then Jack 
 is as good as his master as against England, and we in the United 
 States would be perfectly able to take care of ourselves as against 
 the English salesman. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You say you just employ 18 men. Then this is really 
 an infant industry. 
 
 Mr. HART. The whole industry is an infant one, from the stand- 
 point of size, and from the number of years it has been in existence, 
 and it is for you gentlemen to help to expand it. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. These tariff rates are levied for two purposes 
 one is to get revenue and the other is to protect the laboring man. 
 
 Mr. HART. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. To protect American men, including these 18 
 men- 
 Mr. HART. Yes, sir; I might remind you that Mr. Longworth did 
 not ask me the number of men employed as a whole, because that 
 question I could not correctly answer. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Longworth, 
 seemed to ridicule the fact that you employed only 18. 
 
 Mr. HART. I did not take it as such. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. I am sympathizing with his ambition to expand 
 to 36. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. I say this tariff is levied for the benefit of the 
 laboring men, even if there are only 18 of them. 
 
 Mr. HART. But the revenue is too small to be considered as against 
 the laboring man. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. How many firms are there engaged in this same 
 business ? 
 
 Mr. HART. I am speaking for 95 per cent of the importers in the 
 United States. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. How many are engaged hi this same business besides 
 your own ? 
 
 Mr. HART. I should say about 20. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. About 20 ? 
 
 Mr. HART. That we recognize. There are a good many smaller 
 concerns also who are, of course, entitled to the same consideration, 
 but I figure only the general average of firms with which we come into 
 fair competition. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. How many men are engaged in this work in the United 
 States ? 
 
 Mr. HART. That I could not exactly say, because, of course, I have 
 not been permitted to go into our competitors' factories. There are 
 six firms that certainly employ as many men as we do and one firm 
 that probably employs more than we do, but there are more firms 
 than that. They employ a certain number of men. There are two 
 or three hundred men actually employed. It is a small, mconsider- 
 
428 TABIPF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 79 SPONGES. 
 
 able business. It is a business that if anything can be done t help 
 it expand, its benefits can be very clearly seen at a glance. 
 
 We shall appreciate it very much if you can see your way clear to 
 accomplish that end. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir. 
 
 Mr. HART. Thank you very much. 
 
 The witness filed the following papers with the committee: 
 
 BRIEF OF LEOTJSI, CLONNEY & Co. ET AL, ADVOCATING THE REPEAL OF JTHE DUTY 
 
 ON SPONGES. 
 
 PRESENT RATE. 
 
 The present duty on sponges is found in paragraph 79 of the Payne law, and is 20 
 per cent ad valorem, which is the same rate as under the act of 1897. 
 
 GENERAL INFORMATION. 
 
 Until 1852 nearly all the sponges used in the United States were imported from 
 the Mediterranean. In that year Florida commenced to supply sponges. The 
 Florida supply is largely made up of what is known as the sheep's wool sponge, which 
 is as high priced as any sponge in the market. The industry has been a variable 
 one, aa the sponge is an animal of a low order, and a system of sponge culture capable 
 of extending the industry has not yet been devised, although the Bureau of Fisheries 
 believes that it has a system to perpetuate the industry, which is commercially 
 feasible and profitable. 
 
 From 1900 to 1905 the sponge fishery seemed on the whole to be on the decline. 
 It was revived in 1905 by resorting to diving, which was done by Greeks, who before 
 that had been engaged in the sponge fisheries in the Mediterranean. In 1906 these 
 Greeks took four or five times the normal quantity of sponges. This large crop was 
 felt to be destructive and was followed by legislation in Congress restricting the use 
 of the diving machines and forbidding the use of sponges less than 4 inches in diam- 
 eter. (Stat. L., vol. 34, p. 313.) As a result of these measures, the product of the 
 fishery has fallen to about normal. The Bureau of Fisheries figures from May 1, 
 1911, to April 30, 1912, are $631,032.74 (partly estimated). 
 
 The price of these American sponges is fixed by demand and supply and without 
 any reference whatever to the tariff, because the imported sponges do not compete. 
 
 During the fiscal year 1912 the import of sponges from the Mediterranean was valued 
 at $218,954, dutiable at 20 per cent, while the imports from Cuba were $92,535, dutiable 
 at 20 per cent less 20 per cent, making a total duty collected of $58,596.40. The 
 importations other than from the Mediterranean are almost entirely of a grade not 
 equal to the Florida sheep's wool, and therefore do not compete with that American 
 product. 
 
 There is never enough of the American product to supply the demand for it. 
 
 Sponges are imported into the United States in two forms, absolutely raw material 
 and chemically bleached, and the manufacture of sponges in this country consists in 
 their chemical bleaching, which is necessary for their use for bath and toilet purposes. 
 The Government makes an annual appropriation to patrol and protect the fisheries. 
 For this year the appropriation is 83,500. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 There is no justification for the duty on sponges from any point of view. It is not 
 needed to protect American industry, as a sponge is an animal, though of a low organism, 
 and no way has as yet been found to increase its production. The imported sponges 
 do not compete with the American sponges, because the American sponge, being of a 
 high quality, is in great demand for carriage and auto purposes and, being conceded ly 
 superior to the imported sponges, the use of the latter is also eliminated in the particular 
 lines of manufacture and sale where the American sheep's wool is in demand. 
 
 The duty can not be justified as a revenue measure, as the rate is low, the foreign 
 importation small, and the resulting duty inconsiderable. 
 
 The duty can not be justified as one imposed upon luxuries. The sponges used in 
 connections with carriages and automobiles are the American sheeps wool, while the 
 
SCHEDULE A. 429 
 
 PARAGRAPH 70 SPONGES. 
 
 distinctive use of the Mediterranean and Cuban sponges is for bath and toilet purposes, 
 which are not luxuries. 
 
 The duty is indefeasible in that it is concededly a tax paid by the consumer. The 
 price of the imported article is not kept down at all by the compettition of the do- 
 mestic production, because the domestic production, being almost entirely of a higher 
 grade, does not compete. Less than 25 per cent in value of the American product is 
 other than sheep's wool. 
 
 EXPORT TRADE. 
 
 The imposition of the duty hampers an American manufacturing industry in its 
 export branches. The principal competitor of the United States in the manufacture 
 of sponges is Great Britain. There is no import duty on sponges in Great Britain; 
 consequently the British manufacturer gets his raw material at least 20 per cent less 
 than his American competitor, besides usually having the advantage of a lower 
 freight rate, and on exportations to Canada and the Colonies the added advantage of 
 a preferential tariff in those British Colonies. The American manufacturers of sponges 
 are willing to have the tariff entirely taken off manufactured sponges if at the same 
 time it is taken off raw sponges, as they know the result of that will be to permit them 
 to increase their trade with South America, Australia, and other places. But they 
 can not compete while they have to pay a 20 per cent duty, and their British com- 
 petitor pays none. 
 
 DRAWBACK INEFFECTIVE. 
 
 The drawback provisions in the tariff act are impracticable so far as the sponge 
 industry is concerned for the following reasons: 
 
 1. It is difficult and almost impossible to identify a chemically bleached sponge 
 with the raw material from which it was made, owing to changes in size and apparent 
 structure. 
 
 2. Even if this could be done, the process would be so difficult as to increase the labor 
 cost 300 per cent. 
 
 3. It is impossible to establish a standard of loss of weight as each and every sponge 
 varies in loss of weight, depending upon the manner in which the fisherman cleans 
 each sponge at the fishery. Many different degrees of cleanness are found in one 
 boatload of sponges, also some sponges are naturally heavier than others even of the 
 same grade. These and other difficulties make the drawback system inoperative so 
 far as the industry of chemically bleached sponges is concerned. 
 
 It being shown by this brief statement that the tariff on sponges does not protect 
 any American industry, but, on the contrary, hampers the manufacturing end of 
 the industry, that it is not justified as a revenue measure because of the low duty, 
 the smallness of the importations and the consequently inconsiderable sums col- 
 lected, and it being further shown that the duty is a tax payable by the consumer 
 of a necessity, to wit, bath and toilet sponges, there is no justification for the duty 
 remaining, and it ought to be entirely removed. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 ALBERT HART, 
 Of LEOUSI, CLONNEY & Co. 
 
 SPONGES SHOULD BE ADMITTED INTO THE UNITED STATES FREE OF DUTT FOR THE 
 
 REASONS STATED. 
 
 First. The coast of Florida is the only sponge-producing center in the United States. 
 Its average yearly yield being under $300,000, and the past and present output has been 
 and is now inadequate to supply the demand. 
 
 Second. The chief American sponge, i. e., sheep's wool, differs so materially from 
 the imported grades in that its quality and strength are vastly superior that its 
 staple value is assured. 
 
 Third. Inasmuch as there is not enough American sheep's wool ever to supply the 
 demands, and as it always commands a very high price, almost equal to some grades 
 of Mediterranean honeycomb sponges, it does not require any protection. 
 
 Fourth. The American sheep's wool for carriage and auto purposes, and for other 
 lines of manufacture, is generally conceded to be so far superior to the imported sponge 
 that the latter's use in those particular lines is almost eliminated. 
 
 Fifth. The value of sponges is determined wholly and solely by supply and demand, 
 and sponges being a product of nature short crops invariably occur from time to time, 
 
430 TARIFF HEAEINQS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 79 SPONGES. 
 
 due largely to weather conditions during the fishing season; but also to the using up 
 of former fishing grounds. It will thus be seen that the American sheep's wool, by 
 reason of its superiority to any other grade, is purely a distinctive article and needs 
 no tariff protection. 
 
 Sixth. The Florida market is controlled by the fishermen, who refuse to sell their 
 wares unless a satisfactory price is obtained; and as the market can not withhold from 
 buying, due to the inadequacy of supply to demand, prices are always held to a profita- 
 ble basis. 
 
 Seventh. Sheep's wool sponges from the West Indies, being of inferior quality and 
 shape, have distinctive uses apart from American sheep's wool. 
 
 Eighth. Mediterranean sponges have a distinctive use, mainly for bath and toilet 
 purposes. 
 
 Ninth. The annual importation of sponges for the past six years averages only 
 $442,000; therefore the revenue derived by the Government is of little importance. 
 
 Tenth. The duty on foreign goods retards commercial progress in that it prevents 
 the free use of the article by the multitude. 
 
 Eleventh. The import trade could be largely increased by the removal of the duty, 
 without in the least degree interfering with the product of the United States. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 BLUMAUER FRANK DRUG Co. 
 
 (And 58 others). 
 
 For the attention of Mr. Acker. 
 
 JANUARY 7, 1913. 
 GENERAL APPRAISER, 
 
 Washington Street, New York City. 
 
 DEAR SIR: The writer appeared yesterday before the Ways and Means Committee 
 with reference to the tariff on sponges. During the course of his examination before 
 that body the honorable chairman, Congressman Underwood, read into the record 
 paragraph 79 of the tariff act of 1909, which has reference to sponges, and he interpreted 
 same that manufactured sponges referred to chemically bleached products used for 
 bath and toilet, and that the duty levied on them was 30 per cent; also that Govern- 
 ment statistics showed that but $69 worth of manufactured sponges were imported 
 into the United States during the past year. 
 
 These statements the writer at once refuted, claiming that the $69 worth of goods 
 referred to were medicated sponges and similar products used by the medical profes- 
 sion, and that chemically bleached sponges used for bath and toilet purposes were 
 entered under the 20 per cent duty, as sponges in general, and not as manufactured. 
 
 The honorable chairman accorded the writer permission to submit proof of these 
 facts. I shall therefore esteem it a favor if you would kindly inform me on these 
 points in order that I may be able to transmit your reply to Congressman Underwood. 
 
 If possible, will you kindly give an approximate value of chemically bleached 
 sponges annually imported into the United States, and which are used for bath and 
 toilet purposes. Also kindly state the duty that is levied on same, so that I may have 
 the matter entered as a record on the minutes of the committee. 
 
 Appreciating an early reply, I remain, with thanks for your courtesy, 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 ALBERT HART. 
 
 JANUARY 10, 1913. 
 The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, 
 
 New York, A r . Y. 
 
 SIR: The accompanying letter from Messrs. Leousi, Clonney & Co. (Albert Hart), 
 dated January 7, 1913, concerning a question of statistics connected with manufac- 
 tured sponges is referred to you for reply direct, the following being stated for your 
 fnformation : 
 
 It is the opinion of this office that the item of S69 for manufactured sponges quoted 
 from the statistical record of imports for the United States refers to sponge tents or 
 fancy figures, Avhich are occasionally made from sponges, and not to bleached or 
 cleaned sponges, as all sponges, whether natural, cleaned, or bleached, are returned 
 as sponges at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 79, and would probably be 
 included in the same item for statistical purposes. Regarding the request for an 
 
SCHEDULE A. 431 
 
 PARAGRAPH 79 SPONGES. 
 
 "approximate value of chemically bleached sponges annually imported," it is impos- 
 sible for this office to give the information desired. The rate of duty on these would 
 also be 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 79. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 (Signed) F. A. HIGGINS, 
 
 Appraiser. 
 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 
 UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE, 
 
 New York, January IS, 191S. 
 Messrs. LEOUSI, CLONNEY & Co., 
 
 39-41 Walker Street, New York City. 
 
 SIRS: Your letter of the 7th instant (Albert Hart), addressed to the General Appraiser, 
 relative to the classification of chemically bleached sponges for duty, and the annual 
 importations of such sponges into the United States, has been referred to my office 
 by the United States appraiser, accompanied with a letter from his department 
 covering all the points of your inquiry excepting the statistics of chemically pleached 
 sponges imported. 
 
 I take pleasure in forwarding to you herewith a copy of the appraiser's letter referred 
 to, and in relation to the statistics of chemically bleached sponges, I have to report 
 that no distinction is made of the character or condition in the statistics of gponges 
 dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 79. All sponges dutiable at the 
 said rate and under the said paragraph, whether natural, cleaned, or bleached, are 
 grouped in a single class, and it is impossible for me to furnish the statistics of any 
 particular class of sponges thus imported. 
 
 Respectfully, H. C. STUART, 
 
 Special Deputy Collector. 
 
 BRIEF OF ALBERT DAVIS, NEW YORK, N. Y., CONCERNING 
 
 SPONGES. 
 
 The MEMBERS OF THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. 
 
 GENTLEMEN : Having been unavoidably prevented from appearing 
 before you, I desire to submit the following sworn affidavit relative 
 to paragraph 79, which I think should be included in the free list. 
 
 Present rate. The present duty on sponges is found in paragraph 
 79 of the Payne law, and is 20 per cent ad valorem, which is the same 
 rate as under the act of 1897. 
 
 First. Because the American waters are totally unable to produce 
 sufficient sponges to supply even domestic demands. 
 
 Second. The American product being superior to the imported 
 grades for automobile, carriage, and all other washing purposes, is not 
 affected by foreign products, which are mainly used (the better grades) 
 for bath and toilet purposes, and the inferior ones by painters, glass- 
 workers, and general lines of manufacturers, who can not afford to 
 pay the high prices of the domestic sheep's wool. 
 
 Third. The Florida fishermen regulate their prices by supply and 
 demand, without respect to the imported article. And they have 
 adopted the method of withdrawing their goods from the market 
 whenever the prices bid are not satisfactory. The present prices 
 average about $4 per pound, and this means about $5 per pound for 
 the most desirable sizes, packed and landed in New York. 
 
 Fourth. Due to the inadequacy of supply and consequent high 
 prices at the fisheries many dealers resort to the pernicious practice 
 of adulterating sponges by means of washing them in a solution of 
 glucose, salt, salts, sand, and other substances, thus increasing the 
 
432 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 79 SPONGES. 
 
 weight and consequently reducing the cost. This enables sponges to 
 be apparently sold to the general trade at from 50 to 75 per cent 
 below the regular market quotations. As for instance : An unadulter- 
 ated sponge that is worth from $5.50 to $6.50 per pound in New York 
 (representing an advance of 50 per cent within the last three years) is 
 sold adulterated all over the country at from $3 to $4.50 per pound, 
 the price depending upon the quantity of loaded substance injected 
 into the sponge. 
 
 Fifth. The American sponge-fishing industry needs no protection, 
 neither does the manufacturing or bleaching industry, provided the 
 raw sponges are admitted free. But with a duty on the raw material, 
 we can not compete with the foreign houses in export trade. 
 
 Sixth. It is manifestly against Democratic and Republican prin- 
 ciples to allow a manufactured article to be admitted into the United 
 States at one and the same rate as raw material, when an American 
 industry employs laborers at a good wage to turn the raw material 
 into a manufactured article. 
 
 Seventh. Thirty per cent duty on chemically bleached sponges will 
 protect our American industry and at the same time produce a revenue 
 almost equal to that proposed by a duty of 15 per cent on all grades 
 of sponges as provided in the Underwood bill. 
 
 In conclusion, we trust that we have clearly shown that nature 
 already protects the Florida industry, enabling the Florida fisher- 
 men to obtain high prices for their products without respect to 
 imports, therefore we hope you will favorably consider our plea, 
 either by admitting all sponges free of duty or by placing a 30 per 
 cent duty on chemically bleached sponges and admitting unbleached 
 sponges free, as outlined herein. Either provision will afford us an 
 opportunity to successfully compete for the export trade, expand the 
 home industry, and enable us to reap a benefit from the opening of 
 the Panama Canal. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 ALBERT DAVIS, 
 (Of D. Davis & Sons, 45 Warren Street, New York City, N. Y.) 
 
 PARAGRAPH 80. 
 
 Strychnia, or strychnine, and all salts thereof, fifteen cents per ounce. 
 For strychnia, etc., see Mallinckrodt Chemical Works et al., page 51. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 81. 
 
 Sulphur, refined or sublimed, or flowers of, four dollars per ton. 
 For refined sulphur, see Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 110. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 82. 
 
 Sumac, ground, three-tenths of one cent per pound. 
 See Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 104. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 83. 
 
 Vanillin, twenty cents per ounce. 
 
 See Mallinrkrodt Chemical Works et al., page 51; John F. Queeny, page 82; 
 and Verona Chemical Co., page 72. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN-, This completes the hearing on Schedule A, and 
 the committee will stand adjourned until to-morrow morning. 
 
 Thereupon the committee adjourned until Wednesday, January 8, 
 1913, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 28 433 
 
SCHEDULE B EARTHS. EARTHENWARE, AND 
 
 GLASSWARE. 
 
 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AXD MEANS, 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 January 8 and 9, 1918. 
 
 The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Oscar W. Underwood 
 in the chair. 
 
 Present with the chairman: Messrs. Harrison, Shackleford, Kitchin, 
 James, Rainey, Dixon, Hull, Peters, Palmer, Ansberry, Payne, Dal- 
 zell, Hill, Needham, and Longworth. 
 
 THE CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 84. 
 
 Fire-brick, weighing not more than ten pounds each, not glazed, enam- 
 eled, ornamented, or decorated in any manner, one dollar and twenty-five 
 cents per ton; glazed, enameled, ornamented, or decorated, thirty-five per 
 centum ad valorem; weighing more than ten pounds each and not specially 
 provided for in this section, not glazed, enameled, ornamented, or decorated 
 in any manner, thirty per centum ad valorem; glazed, enameled, orna- 
 mented, or decorated, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; magnesite brick, 
 chrome brick, and brick other than fire-brick, not glazed, enameled, painted, 
 vitrified, ornamented, or decorated in any manner, twenty-five per centum 
 ad valorem; if glazed, enameled, painted, vitrified, ornamented, or deco 
 rated in any manner, thirty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 85. 
 
 Tiles, plain unglazed, one color, exceeding two square inches in size, four 
 cents per square foot; glazed, encaustic, ceramic mosaic, vitrified, semi- 
 vitrified, flint, spar, embossed, enameled, ornamented, hand painted, gold 
 decorated, and all other earthenware tiles and tiling, by whatever name known, 
 except pill tiles and so-called quarries or quarry tiles, valued at not exceeding 
 forty cents per square foot, eight cents per square foot; exceeding forty cents 
 per square foot, ten cents per square foot and twenty-five per centum ad 
 valorem; so-called quarries or quarry tiles, forty-five per centum ad valorem; 
 mantels, friezes, and articles of every description, composed wholly or in 
 chief value of tiles or tiling, sixty per centum ad valorem. 
 For tiles and quarries, see W. S. Pitcairn, page 584. 
 
 TILES. 
 
 THE ATLAS ROOFING CO. SUBMIT BRIEF ON ROOFING TILES. 
 
 ATLAS ROOFING Co., 
 Newburgh, N. Y., January 20, 191S. 
 WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIRS: We desire to call your attention to paragraph No. 85 of Schedule B. as 
 it relates to roofing tiles. 
 
 This section fixes the tariff oil roofing tiles at 4 cents per square foot, and so far as it 
 applies to what is known as shingle tile it is an unreasonably exorbitant tariff. 
 
 For instance, we have been importing some shingle tile, each piece of which is 6\ 
 inches by 1(H inches, making a total area of 68J square inches. The tariff applies to 
 the whole surface of this tile, although 4 inches by 6^ inches is exposed to the weather 
 only. This requires a duty to be paid on 68 J square inches for every 26 square inches 
 
 435 
 
436 TAEIFF HEABESTGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 85 TILES. 
 
 which is actually exposed to the weather on the roof. In other words, the duty is 
 actually $10.50 per square of 100 square feet on the roof. This is about twice what the 
 American tile are sold for at the factories. 
 
 The only advantages of the English tile are the better range of color and shades, and 
 this makes these tile desirable for a certain class of buildings and considerable revenue 
 could be derived from importers of this tile if the duty was reduced to a reasonable 
 price. 
 
 The price of the English tile at port of exportation is about the same as the price of 
 the American shingle tile at the factories in this country. To the export price of the 
 English tile must be added the heavy freight rate and the tariff of 10.5 cents per 
 square foot of roof covered, the breakage which is sometimes nearly 50 per cent, and 
 the cost of handling at the import point. 
 
 This brings the price of this material, when delivered to the railroad station nearest 
 the building on which it is to be used, when same is within 100 miles of the point of 
 import, to about $30 per square, whereas the American tile can be delivered to the 
 same point for from $9 to $12 per square. 
 
 Considering the expensive freight to this country, the breakage, which is often exces- 
 sive, the expense of handling at the import point, there should be no protection 
 needed for the domestic manufacturer; but if it is considered advisable to maintain 
 a tariff on this material, it should be reduced to a reasonable figure, and it would be 
 more nearly fair to the roofers of this country if the tariff were based on the amount 
 of roof which the tile would cover. 
 
 You will note by referring to paragraph No. 85 that the 4 cents per square foot 
 applies also to other tile which lay the full amount of surface on which duty is placed, 
 as floor tile, wall tile, and tile for other similar purposes that lay without any lap, 
 and 100 square feet of tile cover a little more than 100 square feet of surface, but with 
 the roofing tile mentioned in this letter, 262 square feet are required to cover 100 
 square feet of surface, and for that reason the present method of fixing the tariff is 
 unfair to this particular industry. 
 
 That you may better understand the material involved, we are sending you by 
 parcel post one sample of American shingle tile and one sample of the imported. 
 You will note that the American shingle tile is one solid color over the whole surface, 
 while the imported tile has a certain mottled effect which softens the color and takes 
 away the checkerboard effect produced on the roof by the domestic tiles when they 
 are laid in several different shades of color. 
 
 The domestic tile can be secured of various shades of red continuing through shades 
 of brown to a tile that is almost black. The same shades are obtained in the imported 
 tile, but there is enough variation of the surface of each tile to soften the coloring and 
 make it look better on the roof. 
 
 It is more than probable that reducing or removing the duty would cause the 
 American manufacturers to make a tile similar in coloring to the imported, but at 
 present they require the roofers to use what they make or substitute some other 
 material, as they are averse to increasing the variety of tile now on the market. 
 
 If you desire any further information in regard to this matter, we will be very glad 
 to furnish same so far as we may be able. We are, 
 
 Very respectfully, ATLAS ROOFING Co., 
 
 H. A. DANIEL, President. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY THE MEYER CO., NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 85. 
 
 Assesse_s duty on quarries or quarry tiles 45 per cent ad valorem and in accordance 
 with section 18 the same duty is assessed on the crates, barrels, etc., containing same, 
 in which they are packed for protection from injury during transportation^ The 
 sizes _of these quarries are 9 by 9 by 1| and 6 by 6 by 1. They are used for flooring, 
 interior and exterior work. It is impossible to bring these goods forward from the 
 works loose, as the breakage and damage by handling is excessive, and furthermore the 
 transportation lines, railroad and steamship, will not handle them loose. 
 
 Bringing them forward in large crockery crates which weighed from 1,000 to 1,500 
 pounds demonstrated that breakage through jarring was a large percentage. Packing 
 in barrels, it was also found, did not overcome thisT breakage, and finally experiment 
 proved that packing 16 pieces of the 9 by 9 in a little crate and 48 to 54 pieces of 
 fi by 6 overcame the difficulty; that the breakage was insignificant, and these packages 
 many years ago became the unit of sale. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 437 
 
 PABAGRAPH 85 TILES. 
 
 It is necessary to make this statement to prepare you for the following: 
 
 The average cost of the 9 by 9 and 6 by 6 is $15.50 per thousand. The average cost 
 of packing same in crates, carriage from the manufacturers' works to Liverpool, and 
 freight by steamer from Liverpool to New York, Philadelphia, and Boston is $19.50 
 and irrespective of any United States duty is 126$ per cent of the cost of the quarries 
 at the manufacturers' works. The average rate of duty which is paid on the quarries 
 and the packing is over 67 per cent of the value of the goods at the manufacturers works. 
 
 The American manufacturer of similar goods, if made, is therefore protected to the 
 extent of 193$ per cent on the basis of said American manufacturer delivering his goods 
 on rails or by boat from his works at the initial competing point, an Atlantic port. To 
 all points west of the seaboard the American manufacturer is further protected to the 
 extent of the freight from the Atlantic seaboard. 
 
 By the excessive duty imposed by the Payne- Aldrich bill the purchasing power of 
 the dollar of the ultimate consumer is greatly reduced. 
 
 We appeal for an abolition of the assessment of duty on the value of the crates or 
 coverings to protect these goods from injury during transportation, and a reduction of 
 the duty from 45 per cent ad valorem to either a specific duty of one-half to three- 
 fourths cent per square foot or an ad valorem duty of 20 to 25 per cent. 
 
 We submit the above. We wrote asking to be heard by the Committee on Ways 
 and Means, on January 6, 1913, but received no reply. 
 
 THE MEYER Co., 
 2 53 Broadway, New York City. 
 
 JANUARY 9, 1913. 
 
 BRIEF OF ADOLPH GRANT & CO., NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 ADOLPH GRANT & Co., 
 
 New York, December 27, 1912. 
 The CLERK OF THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 MY DEAR SIR: We desire to submit to your honorable body the following brief, 
 regarding duties on tiles which will come up for your consideration on January 8. 
 
 There is at the present time a combination among the tile manufacturers of the 
 United States. These manufacturers being the following: Alhambra Tile Co., New- 
 port, Ky.; American Encaustic Tile Co., Zanesville, Ohio; Architectural Tile Co., 
 Maurer, N. J.; Beaver Falls Tile Co., Beaver Falls, Pa.; Cambridge Tile Co., Cov- 
 ington, Ky.; Grueby Tile & Faience Co., Boston, Mass.; Mosaic Tile Co., Zanesville, 
 Ohio; The Empire Floor Tile Co., Zanesville, Ohio; National Tile Co., Anderson, 
 Ind.; Robertson Art Tile Co., Trenton, N. J.; Matawan Tile Co., Matawan, N. J.; 
 Old Bridge Tile Co., Old Bridge, N. J.; C. Pardee Works, Perth Amboy, N. J.; Star 
 Encaustic Tile Co., Pittsburgh, Pa.; Trent Tile Co., Trenton, N. J.; United States 
 Encaustic Tile Works, Indianapolis, Ind. 
 
 This combination was formed about four months ago, for the purpose of regulating 
 the price on tiles made in this country. Prior to this combination we could buy a 
 satisfactory white glazed wall tile at 15 cents a square foot; but since the combination, 
 we are charged 18 cents a square foot. Prior to the combination we bought the vit- 
 reous floor tiles, known as ceramics, sizes being 1 inch and 1J inch, shapes being 
 square, round, and hexagon, for the sum of 10 cents a square foot. To-day we are 
 charged 14 cents for the same tiles and 15 cents per square foot for the 1J inch. Prior 
 to the combination, we bought 2-inch in size vitreous tiles at 16 cents a square foot, 
 and to-day we are paying 22 cents for the same tiles. 
 
 I have found, upon investigating, no advance in the cost of material, nor has labor 
 advanced. The present duty on glazed tiles, less than 40 cents per square foot, is 
 8 cents a foot, which makes the cost of tile brought into this country, buying the tile 
 at the cheapest possible market in Europe, and including the duty, 24 cents a foot. 
 These tiles compare with the tiles sold by the American manufacturers, as above 
 stated, at 18 cents a foot and are known as Standards. The American manufac- 
 turers have also made a tile known as selected tile at 22 J cents a square foot. 
 
 It is my contention that the American manufacturers can make tiles in this country 
 as cheap as they are made in England, as tile sold formerly (before this last combina- 
 tion of the manufacturers) at 15 cents a square foot compared favorably with the tile 
 bought in England at 16 cents a foot, on which we had to pay 8 cents duty as well as 
 freight. 
 
 The tile industry in this country would not suffer in the least if the entire duty 
 were removed . The only sufferers would be the excessive profits to the manufacturers. 
 
438 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 I further believe that if the duty could be reduced to 2 or 3 cents per square foot on 
 tiles that cost less than 25 cents a square foot in Europe, that importation would be 
 greatly increased. This argument holds good with the rest of the tiles above 
 referred to. 
 
 In addition to the pool formed by these manufacturers to sell their wares at a given 
 price (and it is impossible to get either one of them to deviate from it) they also have 
 made their rules for payment, and should a tile dealer purchase tiles from either 
 manufacturer and not pay within the prescribed time, no tile manufacturer in the 
 United States is allowed to sell this individual tile until he has paid his bill, even 
 though the tile dealer may have a just cause for refusing to pay the bill. 
 
 These manufacturers have their headquarters in Beaver Falls, Pa., where the 
 books of every tile manufacturer in the United States are kept, and they are kept 
 complete in every detail. The expense for paying this is born by the manufacturers. 
 The amount of payment toward supporting this undertaking is dependent upon the 
 amount of business done by the various manufacturers, those whose sales are largest 
 paying the greatest fee into the pool. 
 
 It is not my purpose to discuss the merits of this pool or combination, because if 
 it is an unlawful one the Government can decide it; but I am interested in having 
 the duties on tiles lowered or completely abolished, because I believe it will be to 
 the best interests of our Government and to the advantage of the greatest number of 
 American people. 
 
 I hold myself in readiness to substantiate orally before your honorable body any 
 statement made by me in the above brief, and beg to remain at your command. 
 
 Very respectfully submitted. 
 
 ADOLPH GRANT. 
 
 PAEAGEAPH 86. 
 
 Eoman, Portland, and other hydraulic cement, in barrels, sacks, or other 
 packages, eight cents per one hundred pounds, including weight of barrel or 
 package; in bulk, seven cents per one hundred pounds; other cement, not 
 otherwise specially provided for in this section, twenty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 CEMENT. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. LESLEY, ESQ., REPRESENTING THE 
 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFAC- 
 TURERS. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have a brief here 
 which I would like permission to file. First, I do not want to appear 
 under false colors. Mr. Wilson is the secretary of the association 
 in whose behalf I appear. I am the president of the American 
 Cement Co. 
 
 The brief you have before you explains very fully the position of 
 this industry with relation to the tariff. In dealing with the matter 
 1 want to call your attention to the fact that this is one of the great 
 mineral industries of the United States, of the nonmetallic minerals 
 that rank up near copper and salt. It is a large employer of labor 
 and a large producer of materials. It produced last vear about 
 79, 000, 000 barrels. There is a capital of $150,000,000. It employed, 
 according to 1909 statistics, about 35,000 people about 30,000 then 
 and now about 35,000 to-day and in all there are close to 175,000 
 to 'JOOjOOO people dependent on the industry. 
 
 As a matter of fact, it is a national industry; it is not localized; it 
 is all over the United States. Practically every State in the Union 
 has cement works. Cement can be made almost any place where 
 clay and limestone is found. In looking over the list of your hon- 
 orable committee when 1 came in to-day I found out that out of 
 21 members, 17 have cement works in tHe States which they repre- 
 
SCHEDULE B. 439 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 sent. So it speaks very fairly for the general distribution of the 
 industry. 
 
 In reference to the duty on this material, it has been maintained 
 practically uniformly for a number of years. It has a very low duty, 
 ranging to-day about 20 per cent. I have had the pleasure of appear- 
 ing before almost every Ways and Means Committee since the prepara- 
 tion of the Mills tariff in 1886. In that tariff as prepared, in the Mc- 
 Kinley bill as prepared, in the Wilson bill as prepared, and adopted 
 in the Dingley bill and in the Payne bill, this duty has been main- 
 tained practically uniformly all the way through. 
 
 My argument is to this point, that a duty to be proper and right 
 must be just and must be fair. To test tnat, if you will take the 
 trouble to look at just two or three figures in the little pamphlet that 
 I have given you, you will find this duty rather conforms to three 
 important elements. 
 
 First , has it increased the industry ? I have been connected with 
 the industry since an output of 50,000 barrels was made, and for the 
 year 1912 there has been an output of practically 80,000,000 barrels. 
 
 Mr KITCHIN. How many pounds ? 
 
 Mr LESLEY. Three hundred and eighty pounds to the barrel, of 
 Portland cement, which is practically to-day the only cement 
 recognized. 
 
 The industry, in its growth to that extent, has spread all over the 
 United States, and, as I have already stated, it is a national industry. 
 
 The next test, I think, in considering a duty, is, has the consumer 
 been injured, and has the result of the duty tended to increase or to 
 lower prices? 
 
 If you will kindly turn to the diagram on the outside of the pam- 
 phlet, you will see a chart that has practically meant disaster to a 
 very important industry. The tariff has enabled us to grow, but, 
 unfortunately, as you will see, the prices have gone down year after 
 year, until the table there shows practically the lowest prices in the 
 history of the business. 
 
 The third test, it seems to me, is the test of what has happened to 
 the laboring man. The labor in the industry, in the face of this 
 enormous reduction in price, has been constantly increasing, so that 
 the figures for 1890, where lime and cement workers are grouped, 
 show $430 a year, while the figures for 1909, the last obtainable, 
 show S576. In the Lehigh district, where I am particularly inter- 
 ested, the labor was $1.10 per day in 1890 and to-day it is from 
 $1.40 to $1.50. I claim, therefore, that on these three big broad 
 principles this duty is fairly justified and fairly sustained and is a 
 very reasonable and just duty. 
 
 The next question is what would result in taking off the duty. I 
 am frank to say that in a great many of the works located in the 
 center of the United States they would not be affected because 
 cement is a commodity weighing 380 pounds to the barrel, and 
 foreign cement would not reach the great inland markets of the 
 country. They would reduce the prices of those work, by lessening 
 the ultimate distribution of cement from eastern works as it goes 
 west, but it would not immediately destroy the industries of the 
 Middle West. 
 
440 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 On the other hand, the great industries of the Southern States 
 would be vitally injured by the importation of this heavy commodity 
 in vessels coming to seaports in ballast to get cargoes of cotton; that 
 is, in other words, seaports which are not importing cement per se 
 but are great outbound seaports in the shipping of cotton. Those 
 ports would receive a shipment of cement, and I think it would 
 seriously injure the industry in the South. 
 
 I believe at the same time that results on the Pacific coast would 
 be analogous where the great grain shipments would furnish out- 
 bound cargoes to vessels on return trips around Cape Horn. 
 
 As to the question of what enters into cement, if you will take the 
 trouble to IOOK on page 5 you will find there it is practically all labor. 
 What is not labor is coal, which in turn represents other labor. I 
 should say in the manufacture of a barrel or cement very nearly 90 
 per cent is labor or coal. Practically it is a labor proposition and 
 labor is the element that will be injured by any change in the duty. 
 
 As to the result to the industry as a whole from its great growth 
 and by this great reduction in prices, if you will turn to page 7 you 
 will see a series of sad monuments to the cement industry. There 
 are about 32 failures out of 110 works, and I think 1 or 2 failures have 
 been recorded since this little pamphlet was prepared. 
 
 In other words, the industry while it has had this remarkable 
 growth and furnished this remarkable material, has been most 
 unsuccessful and most lacking in prosperity, so far as the money 
 return has been concerned, in the last few years. 
 
 The advantage to the community at large of the development of 
 this industry under this equitable duty has been to make school- 
 houses fireproof, theaters fireproof, buildings fireproof, houses for 
 cheap rents fireproof; to make old streets safe with good paving, 
 instead of wooden pavements and brick pavements; to develop to-day 
 the great modern road on which motors travel and which has come 
 to mean a very great aid to health; the development has enabled us 
 to replace old bridges with permanent material. I believe all in all 
 the development of this great industry under this duty has been of 
 the greatest advantage to the country. 
 
 I leave this matter in the hands of this committee with the same 
 feeling of confidence, the same feeling of fairness and justice with 
 which it has been left with every committee that has dealt with it, 
 and I feel perfectly confident that you will consider the recommen- 
 dations. 
 
 There is a little loose memorandum in reference to white cement, 
 which is produced in a small way, but which is a growing industry 
 in connection with Portland cement. I trust you will consider that 
 paragraph and enable them to grow as has grown this great big 
 industry which I represent here. 
 
 I thank you verv much. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. How much capital do vour companies represent? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. About $150,000,000, I would say. They have not 
 beon summarized of late. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What is the production for 1912? What was the 
 American production ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. The American production was about 79,000,000 of 
 barrels. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 441 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Worth how much? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Worth about $66,000,000. You will find that on 
 page 6 of my brief. 
 
 Mr. KITCHEN. How many companies are engaged in this business ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I think the American Association of Portland Cement 
 Manufacturers, which I represent here, represents some 70 companies, 
 between 60 and 70 companies. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. A few years ago something appeared in the papers 
 to the effect that the Standard Oil Co. owned a large part of the 
 stock of the cement industries. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I do not know of any ownership of that kind. Many 
 years ago John Rockefeller, jr., owned an interest in the Northampton 
 Portland Cement Co., but I am sorry to say that appears among this 
 list of bankrupt companies. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. But do not some of the large stockholders, some of 
 the largest stockholders in the Standard Oil Co., own large blocks of 
 stock in the cement companies ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I do not know of any except this one interest and the 
 interest of the Lockharts of Pittsburgh in the Alpha Cement Co., 
 up on the Delaware River, near Easton. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Are there not directors of the Standard Oil Co. 
 who are directors of the cement companies ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. None that I know of. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much capital stock is outstanding in these 
 companies, do you know ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. That I would be unable to give you. They are mostly 
 under State charters and would appear there. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. To which company do you belong ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I belong to the American Cement Co. of New Jersey. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. When was it organized ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. It was organized in 1899, I think, or 1900. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What was the paid-in capital when it was first 
 organized ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. $2,100,000. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What is the paid-in capital now ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. It is the sarre, and I am sorry to add that it is in the 
 hands of receivers. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. After it gets out of the hands of the receivers what 
 company are the stockholders going in then? What company do 
 they contemplate organizing? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. They are going to reorganize this company with an 
 additional capital. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. Sometimes it is a pretty -good thing to go into the 
 hands of receivers, to reorganize. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I am awfully sorr^ to say I am the principal stock- 
 holder, and I wish I could agree with you. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I do not say that as to your company, but some- 
 times it is profitable to get in the hands of receivers and to reorganize, 
 is it not? 
 
 You produced, you say, 866,000,000 worth of cement last year 
 that is, the manufacturer's price last } T ear? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. That is the report to the Geological Survey. 
 
442 TABIIT HEABOTGS. 
 
 i 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. There was not imported a half of 1 per cent of Ameri- 
 can consumption. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I agree with you. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. The imports to this country were less than $125,000. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. That is right. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You produced $66,000,000 worth? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. That is right. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You exported in competition with all the nations of 
 the world more than $5,000,000 worth? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I am going to correct you right there. We exported 
 about three millions, and the great part of tnat went to the Panama 
 Canal; but we are an exporting nation. I want to agree with you 
 there. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. According to the Treasury figures, you exported last 
 year over $5,000,000 worth. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I do not want to disagree with you, and I will take it 
 for granted you have the right figures. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You probably mean you exported three millions out- 
 side of the Panama Canal contract. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I do not think so. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How can you export this in competition with all the 
 nations if the other nations make it cheaper and sell it cheaper ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. The answer to that is, cement is a very heavy com- 
 modity and it is largely a freight question. In other words, take a 
 ship sailing from Hamburg to get a cargo of cotton at Savannah. It 
 might not get any outbound cargo, and would therefore have to go in 
 ballast. It therefore gets a cargo which loads and unloads itself, 
 this heavy cement, instead of ballast. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. But a barrel of cement weighs just as much going 
 across the water as coming. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Quite right, and that is met in this way. For instance 
 suppose a shipment from here to South Africa or to one of the South 
 American countries. Our exports to these countries are light in 
 weight. In other words, we are exporting commodities that take up 
 room, but do not weigh heavily like agricultural implements or auto- 
 mobiles, or hardware, various tools, typewriters, and that sort of 
 thing. They take up ship room, but do not weigh heavily. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. They w T eigh as much coming back as they do going. 
 "What country exports cement to this country? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Belgium, and Germany some. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. Which is the greatest exporting country? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I would say Germany is the greatest to-day. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. Which is the next ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. England is next. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. A weight of 100 pounds will weigh as much coming 
 from Germany here as it does going from here to Germany. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Quite right. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. Do not we ship some to England? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Xo; we do not ship any there. Maybe I am 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX (interposing). I expect you are mistaken about 
 that. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Xo. I want to be perfectly fair with you. I agree 
 with you on the question of weight. But let me make this clear. If 
 
SCHEDULE B. 443 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 a ship was starting from Hamburg to get a cargo of cotton, that ship 
 figures on the round trip. If the rates outbound on cotton for Ham- 
 burg are good, that ship can afford to go over in ballast. If at the 
 time she is starting in ballast somebody offers her a cargo of cement, 
 which loads and unloads itself, the ship will carry that. That is 
 the answer as to the 100 pounds from the other side. 
 
 On the other hand, let us take a ship in the regular trading com- 
 panies, going to Brazil or South Africa it has a cargo of bulky 
 things such as I say, automobiles, agricultural implements, and so 
 forth, which are bulky, but do not weigh heavily, and that ship 
 wants ballast. That ship in turn will pick up a cargo of cement for 
 the same reason as did the Hamburg ship. And while 100 pounds 
 is the same, it has a lot of trade difference. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I see. But. you American cement producers seem to 
 strike it lucky. You are more luckv about these ships than these 
 foreigners, because you exported 40 times more than they imported. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. That is quite right. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. So that you really get an advantage in imports over 
 the foreigners. Of course you get these advantageous ships. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. We do, and I hope to see the exports grow. I am 
 very frank about it. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You do not really sell this cement cheaper to 
 foreigners than you do to our own home folks ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Not to my knowledge. I do not believe it could be 
 sold lower than it was sold last year. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Is it not a fact that you ship to Canada; that you 
 export a great deal to Canada ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Not so much now. We have gone there in years 
 gone by. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You have shipped to Canada in competition with 
 England, which has a third preferential duty rate over us. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. That is true. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You overcome that 33| tariff preferential in favor 
 of England, and then undersell England in Canada? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. That is true. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. If you can do that, what fear do you have of England 
 or Germany or any other country shipping across the water this heavy 
 article and coming into competition with you and running you out of 
 business here in your own home market if we put cement on the 
 free list ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. The point I want to meet you on is this: It is a great 
 big geographical question. Let us imagine a man out at Winnipeg 
 wanting cement. There are works in Iowa and works out in Spokane 
 and in that territory. Those people have a great deal lower rate into 
 Winnipeg. As the price to the consumer is the mill price plus the 
 freight, he would get that cheaper from America, plus the duty, at a 
 lower rate than he would get cement coming from England, which 
 would come into Quebec or Montreal and have to pay the rates across 
 the continent. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. But we are exporting cement to eastern Canada. 
 Would the advantage be in our favor to the extent of the freight 
 and also to the extent of this reduction in the tariff rates which 
 England has over us ? 
 
444 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 Mr. LESLEY. In many cases- 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN (interposing). I mean in cement cases. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. In cement, yes; that is what I am talking about. 
 In many cases the rate on a barrel of cement to somewhere in many 
 parts of our country represents, taking a dollar as the unit, a dollar 
 for cement and a dollar for freight; the freight rates are so high on 
 this heayy commodity that the most of it is freight. For that reason 
 these mills have been located in different centers. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you know what the tariff is on cement in Canada ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I think it was reduced lately. My recollection is 
 that it is about 40 cents. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Was it not recently entirely suspended ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. No; I think it was a reduction owing to a shortage. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. The tariff rate is higher in Canada than here on ce- 
 ment, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And yet you can sell to her consumers there, paying a 
 higher tariff rate than we have, selling in competition with England, 
 which has a 33 per cent preferential in her favor actually under- 
 selling England in Canada. Do you really think you will need any 
 protective tariff to protect you against England coming here in your 
 own territory I 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I would answer you this wise 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN (interposing). Will you answer it yes or no? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I will answer you no and then I will say yes, on the 
 seaboard. I said at the beginning of my remarks I did not think the 
 interior of our country was threatened by this importation. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. All right. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. And as to this Canadian importation, if you will 
 pardon me for a minute, where we have been able to get cement into 
 Canada has all been far oil' from the seaboard and in the interior of 
 the continent. I want to meet you perfectly fairly. In the interior 
 I think you are dead right; I do not want to qualify it. But on the 
 seaboard I think conditions are different. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. All right. On the seaboard do you not sell, out of 
 every $100, more than $99 of cement which is used on the seaboard; 
 899 out of every S100 worth of cement that is consumed on the 
 seaboard ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Yes; with reference to the north, but not with refer- 
 ence to the south. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. The whole United States did not consume more than 
 S12o. 000 worth of cement from the foreigners in 1912. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. If you will look at this table you will see in a panic 
 year, when times were hard, as in 1903 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN (interposing). How about 1912? I have the figures 
 here. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. You have some very good figures. I am glad to talk 
 it over with you. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. The American Cement Association gave you your 
 figures ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. No. All our figures are official, from Government 
 reports. I did not deem it fair to take any figures which were not 
 official in coming before you. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 445 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. You say the foreigner makes it cheaper than 
 you. Suppose you have no freight to pay; how could you sell it? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I think on this heavy commodity it is absolutely a 
 question of freight. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. I say, suppose you have your freight for noth- 
 ing. If it be true they could manufacture cheaper than you could do 
 it, how did you sell your products in foreign countries in competition 
 with the foreign products that are made cheaper than you make yours ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. The answer to that would be this : We had a par- 
 ticular freight rate at this particular point, and their freight rate at 
 that particular point might be another one entirely. I think it is 
 purely a freight question. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Canada used to be one of our competitors ? Is it 
 any longer a competitor in the American market ? 
 
 'Mr. LESLEY. I do not think so, except right up north, in the Lake 
 Champlain district. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Not much now, probably, but you made it so cheap 
 you ran Canada out of business. Last year she only exported here 
 about three or four hundred dollars' worth. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I do not think she had any business to come over the 
 line here. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. To be accurate, she only exported into this country, 
 in competition with your $66,000,000 worth of cement last year, 
 $261 worth; and up to three or four years ago she used to export 
 here several thousand dollars' worth. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Yes; but it was a drop 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN (interposing) . And you ran her out of the American 
 market. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. It is but a drop in the bucket. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. That is right; I do not blame you. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. The point I am trying to argue is that in bad times, 
 in panicky years, then this i used as a dumping ground for foreign 
 cement. And with the advantages they have in cargoes in ballast, 
 at a great many seaports, I believe it would be a serious injury to 
 the industry. But I do not want to disguise the fact it is a pretty 
 lusty industry; it has grown and is growing. But a good many 
 have gone broke in connection with it, mj'self included. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. Some people would grow poor in the cement industry 
 if they ran up against American competition, with a tariff of $2 in- 
 stead of 20 cents. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I am the oldest manufacturer in the business and I 
 thought I knew my business; but I could not compete with the low 
 prices that have been made for the last several years. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. You represent this bankrupt concern ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And this association of successful concerns got the 
 bankrupt concern to come here to represent them? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I do not think that is a fair argument. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. I am asking you. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. The answer to that is that I had been before this 
 committee previously, and they felt that, knowing a number of the 
 gentlemen here and having appeared before, I might be more familiar 
 
446 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 with the subject. And I really felt complimented in being asked to 
 appear, in the face of my adversity. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. But the truth about the business here is that this 
 rate of 8 cents per 100 pounds did not have anything to do with your 
 company going into bankruptcy? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I would not say that. I want to be fair. I think it 
 is American competition which has had a great deal to do with it. 
 I think it would be even more severe if foreign cement were permitted 
 to come in as ballast at seaport points. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Did the United States buy all the cement for the 
 Gatun Dam, on the Panama Canal, from American manufacturers? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Practically all. We supplied some. The balance 
 was supplied by the Atlas Cement Co. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Operating along the Mississippi River? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. No; operating at Northampton. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. It comes from my district. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Was any supplied by the company at Hannibal, Mo. ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I do not think so. They are connected with the same 
 company. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Did the Government get machinery from foreign 
 companies ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Yes, sir: very much cheaper. I think the best illus- 
 tration of the sort of rates that have been made in this industry is 
 exemplified in that contract, and it absolutely answers any question 
 of collusion. On the basis of bids being for 4,500,000 bushels, the 
 difference between the bid of the company that got the contract and 
 the next lowest American bidder was about SI, 000, 000. So there was 
 quite a big room for guessing, because on about 4,000,000 bushels the 
 difference was $1,000,000. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Were there foreign bidders on that contract? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I think a few. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Were there many American bidders? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. My recollection is there were four or five American 
 bidders, and this big difference existed. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. The contract was originally for four and a half million 
 barrels, and was afterwards increased to about 6,000,000 barrels? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. From the same company? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What was the price per barrel under that contract? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I can only give you newspaper reports of the contract. 
 It was somewhere about 65 cents at the mill. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What is the present prevailing price for the cement? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. The price last year was around 55 to 60. It has now 
 gone up to 80. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What was the prevailing price at the time the con- 
 tract was made with the Government '( 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. The prevailing price then was about 80 cents. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. So it was about 15 cents more. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You state that importations increased in panicky 
 times. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 447 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What year in recent times illustrates that increase in 
 importations ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I think in 1903 there was quite a large importation, 
 and that it has continued off and on. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. How large an importation was there in 1903 ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. My recollection is there were about 3,000,000 barrels. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Do you call that a large importation? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. It was a large importation in proportion to the out- 
 put at that time. It was about ten or eleven millions, something of 
 that kind, as I recollect. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. In 1905 the output was about 26,000,000 as against 
 imports of about 1,000,000. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Yes; but things began to mend a little then. 
 
 Mr PALMER. But they have been coming down steadily since 1905 ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Absolutely. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. The present importation amounted to something 
 over $200,000, coming from where? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I would say as a general proposition that the Germans 
 supplied the largest quantity at the present time. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Where does it go to ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. It must necessarily, except in special cases, go to 
 seaports like Savannah or Charleston, or some of the ports which have 
 outbound cargoes. Some may go to the Pacific coast. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. There is nothing special about a foreign cement 
 which would take it inland, over the American cement? Cement 
 is cement, in other words. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I should say that is so, except hi very rare cases. I 
 know of some German brewers who a few years ago used a certain 
 German brand; they still adhere to their first love, and we can not 
 convince them they are wrong. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Does that condition exist inland and on the seaboard ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Inland to some extent, but the occasions are excep- 
 tional. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What is the prevailing foreign price in cement 
 to-day ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I think in Germany it is between 5 and 6 marks. I 
 would not like to give you the present quotation. Their prices to-day 
 are based on the wooden package, and ours are based on the bag 
 package. We base it really on bulk. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Their prices are higher than ours, as a rule. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I think the same conditions prevail in the cement 
 industry as in the steel industry. The trade has had a very good 
 year and prices are higher. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Has that not been generally true for four or five years 
 in the cement business ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. No. Some years ago we could buy it cheaper there 
 than here. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. That was hi 1903. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. No; since then. I think along in 1907 and 1908 we 
 could buy it cheaper. Things were very hard over there and there 
 was a great surplus. 
 
448 TARIFF HE A KINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Is not the real reason why there is no importation of 
 the foreign article that it sells over there for more money than it sells 
 over here, and that even aside from the freight proposition it could 
 not come in unless they shipped it below their usual prices ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I think that is a fact. As I have saia before, I think 
 it is in panicky years, when we would need the labor most and need to 
 give men employment most, that it would be more serious. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. We are not going to have any more panics for at least 
 four years. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You refer to the continuing panic from 1907 to 
 about 1911. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Do I what ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You refer to the panic that continued from 1907 to 
 1911? 
 Mr. LESLEY. I just hate to think about it. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. From November, 1907, to 1910 was the panic to 
 which you refer ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. There was a panic along there. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. It was a very serious panic, was it not ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I have great hopes you will agree with all these other 
 committees to give us a chance, to give the community at large a 
 chance, all to be very prosperous without any more of these panics. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. This bidding which recently occurred in connection 
 with the Panama Canal contract was real competitive bidding? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I understand so. The Government got it very ad- 
 vantageously. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. Between manufacturers here and manufacturers 
 abroad ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Of course, manufacturers here were compelled to 
 disregard the tariff to bid against manufacturers abroad ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I think that is a free zone in Panama for our cement. 
 I think there is no duty on this cement going into Panama. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. I am not talking about that part of it. Of course, 
 there is no duty on it when it is shipped into the Panama Canal 
 Zone. But I say, when competing with German firms, or other for- 
 eign firms, you disregarded the tariff and competed with them on 
 the basis as if there were no tariff wall between this country and 
 Germany against foreign manufacturing competition, and in that 
 competition the American manufacturers won without the assistance 
 of the tariff at all ? Is not that true ? And the largest sale made in 
 the last hundred years was made as the result of that free competitive 
 bidding by American manufacturers, who went in and who could 
 not have been protected in that bidding by the tariff at all. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I am going to answer that in this way: In the free- 
 zone belt. American goods intended for use in the canal, went in free, 
 and goods from abroad paid a duty. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. But YOU were trying to sell to this Government and 
 foreign manufacturers were trying to sell to this Government. There- 
 fore you met on a iield with no tariff wall between you and you bid 
 the lowest and secured the greatest cement contract ever made. Is 
 not that true ? 
 
SCHEDULE B. 449 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Maybe I have not got the thing quite right in my 
 mind. I want to see if I am right. We bid without any duty on 
 the commodity. The foreigner bid, having to pay a duty on the 
 commodity. We beat him out by reason of that advantage which 
 we had. 
 
 Mr. RAINET. Did the Government compel foreigners furnishing 
 cement to the zone to pay a duty to the Government ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Yes; that is the law. I think that law came out in 
 some of these Scotch dredges that came in. I think they wanted a 
 special act admitting them. I think that answers your question, 
 and I am very sure I am right about the law, because I remember 
 the clause very well. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. With reference to these dredges, is it not true that 
 the President of the United States threatened to purchase the dredges 
 abroad and disregard our navigation laws and everything else ? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I think he did. I think they passed a special act 
 exempting it, as I recollect. But the general law covering the 
 Panama ('anal Zone does give a preferential to American manufac- 
 turers. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. With quality and cost considered? That is the law? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Yes, sir; that is my recollection about it. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Was it the result of the preferential that you got the 
 cement contract? 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. I think there was a little difference in cost, I think 
 only a few cents in cost, between the American bid and the lowest 
 foreign bid; and the quality was fully equal. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Are there any further questions? If not, that 
 will conclude your statement, Mr. Lesley. 
 
 Mr. LESLEY. Thank you very much for your attention. 
 
 ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PORTLAND CEMENT 
 
 MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 [On Schedule B: Earths, earthenware, and glassware. Subheid, paragraph 86. " Cement, lime, and plaster." 
 "Roman, Portland, and other hydraulic cement, in barrels, sacks, or other packages, 8 cents per hun- 
 dred pounds, including weight of barrel or package; in bulk, 7 cents per hundred pounds; other cement, 
 20 per cent ad valorem."] 
 
 Your petitioner, the Association of American Portland Cement Manufacturers, 
 which is a voluntary association for the dissemination of information in connection 
 with the uses of Portland cement, and which represents in its membership nearly 90 
 per cent of the output of the United States, presents the following argument in support 
 of the retention of the present rate of duty on Portland cement. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE DUTY. 
 
 In connection with the duty on Portland cement it will be noted in the paragraph 
 above quoted that the rate of duty upon cement not enumerated is on the basis of 
 20 per cent, and the following table, showing the importation?, the values, the duty 
 collected, and the rate of duty in percentages, shows the average percentage of duty 
 upon Portland cement for the last nine years to have been about 22 per cent. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 29 
 
450 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 Cement tariff statistics, 1903-1911. 
 
 Calendar year. 
 
 Official statistics. 
 
 Calculated results. 
 
 Pounds im- 
 ported. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Total duty 
 collected. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 1903 
 
 927.180,235 
 418,.%!, 431 
 338,630,739 
 882, 284, 967 
 802,491,371 
 331,850,000 
 171,034,800 
 109,760,000 
 62,113,600 
 
 $3,027,111 
 1,382,913 
 1,102,041 
 2,950,268 
 2,637,424 
 1, 178, 105 
 636,085 
 371,550 
 240,163 
 
 $741, 744. 18 
 334,849.14 
 270,904.59 
 705,827.97 
 641,993.10 
 265, 480. 00 
 136, 827. 84 
 87,808.00 
 48,690.88 
 
 24.4 
 24.2 
 24.5 
 23.8 
 24.3 
 22.5 
 21.5 
 23.4 
 20.3 
 
 1904 
 
 1905 
 
 1906 
 
 1907 
 
 1908 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1911 
 
 
 By reference to the Tariff Commission of 1882, to the proposed Mills bill, to the 
 Wilson bill, and to the McKinley and Dingley bills, it will be noted that the duty on 
 cement has been considered more as a revenue than as a protective duty, and that in 
 all the period referred to the rate has been practically maintained at or near 20 per cent 
 ad valorem, thus indicating that in the minds of those who had to do with the prepara- 
 tion of tariff bills in the past twenty-odd years the duty on cement was considered 
 reasonable and proper, and one which had as its basic reasons its fairness, its modera- 
 tion, and its revenue-raising powers. In considering the question of the duty on 
 Portland cement, it is respectfully urged that 
 
 THIS INDUSTRY IS A NATIONAL ONE. 
 
 In this connection, by a reference to the " Cement Industry in the United States in 
 1911," Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, prepared by Mr. 
 Ernest F. Burchard, it will be noted that there were in existence during the past 
 year cement works in Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, 
 Ohio, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia, Colorado, Texas, 
 Utah, California, Washington, Kentucky, Iowa, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maryland, and 
 Montana. In addition to this, in the 1910 report, in referring to the occurrence of 
 raw material for cement making, it Ls shown that the materials for the manufacture 
 of Portland cement can be found in every State and Territory of the Union. This table 
 illustrates clearly the national chaiacter of the industry, and the fact that in asking for 
 its preservation and maintenance in its present condition no geographical lines nor 
 geographical interests are making the request, but a national association of practically 
 all the manufacturers of the United States representing an industry capable of develop- 
 ment in every State and Territory of the Union. 
 
 In view of the consideration shown at the hands of your honorable committee it 
 would seem necessary to show the operations of the Dingley Act in connection with 
 the present rate of duty as tested under reasonable economic conditions, fair to both 
 producer and consumer. Therefore the arguments are grouped under several heads, 
 as follows, showing the operation of the present law: 
 
 (a) The growth of the American cement industry. 
 
 (b) The reduction of prices to the consumer. 
 
 (c) The continuous importation of foreign cements. 
 
 (d) The labor conditions in the cement industry. 
 
 (e) The general benefits to the country. 
 (/) No "trust" in the cement industry. 
 
 THE GROWTH OF THE AMERICAN CEMENT INDUSTRY. 
 
 The following table shows the growth of the American Portland cement industry 
 since the passage of (lie Dingley bill, together with the value of the production in 
 dollars. These figures are from the reports of the United States Geological Survey. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 451 
 
 Year. 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 Value. 
 
 1897 
 
 2, 677, 775 
 
 $4,315,891 
 
 1905 
 
 35, 246, 812 
 
 $33, 245, 867 
 
 1898 
 
 3, 692, 284 
 
 5,970,773 
 
 1906 
 
 46,463,424 
 
 52,466,186 
 
 1S99 
 
 5,652,266 
 
 8,074,371 
 
 1907 
 
 4S. 7S5.390 
 
 53,992,551 
 
 1900 
 
 8, 482, 020 
 
 9,280,525 
 
 1908 
 
 51.072,612 
 
 43 547 679 
 
 1901 
 
 12,711,225 
 
 12,532,360 
 
 1909 
 
 64,991,431 
 
 52,858,354 
 
 1902 
 
 17,230,644 
 
 20,864,078 
 
 1 1910 
 
 76,549,951 
 
 68,205,800 
 
 1903 
 
 22, 342. 973 
 
 27,713,319 
 
 , 1911 
 
 78 528 637 
 
 66 248 817 
 
 1904 
 
 26, 505, 881 
 
 23,355,119 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 THE REDUCTION OF PRICES TO THE CONSUMER. 
 
 The appended table, showing the average prices of Portland cement as gathered 
 by the I nited States Geological Survey from 1870 to 1911, is most instructive, and shows 
 that since the year 1890 the price has been practically cut in half. Since the year 1897, 
 the date of the passage of the Dingley bill, the price has fallen over 47 per cent, or from 
 $1.61 to $0.844 per barrel. 
 
 Average prices of Portland cement, 1870-1911. 
 
 Average price. 
 
 1870-1880 $3.00 
 
 1881 
 
 1882 
 
 1883 
 
 1884 
 
 1885-1888 1.95 
 
 1889 
 
 1890 
 
 1891 
 
 1892 
 
 1893 
 
 1894 
 
 1895 
 
 1896 
 
 1897 (year of Dingley bill) 1.61 
 
 THE CONTINUOUS IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN CEMENT. 
 
 It will be noted that during the last few yeare the importation of foreign cements 
 ha& been materially decreased . 
 
 This is due to the fact that we have here in the United States a productive capacity 
 of at least 20 per cent over and above the capacity for consumption. Under these 
 conditions 32 mills have gone through receivers' hands in the last four years and 
 have either reorganized in such a way as to cause their stockholders great loss or 
 are idle. 
 
 They are as follows: 1, The Alabama Portland Cement Co.; 2, Alma Cement Co.; 
 3, The Alpena Portland Cement Co. ; 4, American Cement Co. of New Jersey; 5, Buck- 
 eye Portland Cement Co.; 6, Buckhorn Portland Cement Co.; 7, Castalia Portland 
 Cement Co.; 8, Egyptian Portland Cement Co.; 9, Elk Cement & Lime Co.; 10, Em- 
 pire Portland Cement Co.; 11, Hecla Portland Cement Co.; 12, Marengo Portland 
 Cement Co.; 13, Wayland Portland Cement Co.; 14, Northampton Portland Cement 
 Co.; 15, Omega Portland Cement Co.; 16, Western Portland Cement Co.; 17, York 
 Portland Cement Co.; 18, Atlantic Portland Cement Co.; 19, Atlantic & Gulf Portland 
 Cement Co.; 20, Blanc Stainless Cement Co.; 21, Bonner Brand Portland Cement Co.; 
 22, Great Western Portland Cement Co.; 23, Lily White Cement Co.; 24, Monarch 
 Portland Cement Co.; 25, Norfolk Portland Cement Corporation; 26, Penn-Allen Ce- 
 ment Co. ; 27, Piedmont Portland Cement & Lime Co. ; 28, Santa Cruz Portland Cement 
 Co.; 29, Standard Portland Cement Corporation; 30, United States Cement Co.; 31, 
 Altoona Portland Cement Co.; 32, Tola Portland Cement Co. 
 
 price. 
 .3.00 
 
 1898 
 
 Average price. 
 $1 62 
 
 2.50 
 
 1899 
 
 1 43 
 
 2.01 
 
 1900 
 
 1 09 
 
 2.15 
 
 1901 
 
 99 
 
 2.10 
 
 1902 
 
 1. 21 
 
 1.95 
 
 1903 
 
 1 24 
 
 1.67 
 
 1904 
 
 88 
 
 2.09 
 
 1905 
 
 96 
 
 2.13 
 
 1906 
 
 1 13 
 
 2.11 
 
 1907 
 
 1 11 
 
 1.91 
 
 1903 
 
 85 
 
 1.73 
 
 1909 
 
 813 
 
 1.60 
 
 1910 
 
 891 
 
 1.57 
 
 1911 
 
 844 
 
 1.61 
 
 
 
452 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 ' 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 LABOR CONDITIONS IN THE CEMENT INDUSTRY. 
 
 For the information of the committee the process of manufacturing Portland cement 
 should be briefly explained. Limestones and clays, limestone, marls and clays, or 
 other similar argillaceous or calcareous materials are mined or quarried and trans- 
 ported to heavy crushing and grinding machinery, where, under the process most 
 commonly in use (the dry process), they are ground to powder of a fineness so great 
 as to practically pass a 100-mesh sieve. This fine powder is subsequently fed into 
 rotary kilns from 60 to 150 feet in length, where it is calcined to incipient vitri- 
 faction by means of pulverized coal, gas, or oil flames entering the kiln at the oppo- 
 site end to that in which the powder is fed. The material which is thrown from the 
 kiln is in the shape of small nodules of great hardness and is called Portland cement 
 clinker. This clinker is again crushed and ground in various forms of iron ball or 
 tube mills to a fineness of from 90 to 95 per cent on a 100-mesh sieve. It is then put 
 into bags or barrels and is the Portlana cement of commerce. To produce a single 
 barrel of Portland cement very nearly 1,100 pounds of material have to be ground, 
 of which between 600 and 700 pounds is the raw material from which the carbonic- 
 acid gas is expelled in the kiln, and 380 pounds is the Portland cement of commerce. 
 In addition to this, nearly 200 pounds of coal are used, of which one-half has to be 
 ground to an equal fineness for the calcination and production of every barrel of 
 cement. 
 
 From the above statement it should need no argument to convince this committee 
 that the manufacture of Portland cement is essentially a labor proposition. It is labor 
 in the quarry, labor in the raw material, labor in the coal-grinding plant, labor in the 
 finishing mill, and labor in the packing house, and what is not actual labor in and 
 around a cement mill is practically labor in coal, which represents so large a proportion 
 of the weight of the finished product; in point of fact, nearly 50 per cent thereof. 
 
 For the most part the labor in and around cement mills is ordinary day labor and 
 compares with the labor in and about the manufacture of pig iron. It averages, so far 
 as ordinary day labor is concerned, from $1.40 to $2 per day, according to the section 
 of the country where mill is located. The higher-priced men get from $3 to $5 per 
 day, according to ability. 
 
 Comparisons of labor cost in this country and in Europe have been repeatedly made, 
 and as a broad proposition it can be safely stated the labor in Europe is on an average 
 from 30 to 40 per cent less than the labor cost per barrel of Portland cement in the 
 "United States. Coal, on the other hand, is cheaper here than abroad. 
 
 The labor employed in the Portland cement industry is scattered all over the coun- 
 try, there being nearly 100 works in operation, in almost every State of the Union, and 
 any action your committee will take to destroy so important an industry as this by any 
 radical reduction of duty will affect labor conditions seriously in many States of the 
 Union, especially in the State of Pennsylvania, where a large proportion of the Port- 
 land cement of the country is made. This is also the case in the State of Kansas, 
 which is another large producer, and in some of the Southern States, where the industry 
 is just beginning to find a foothold. 
 
 THE GENERAL BENEFITS TO THE COUNTRY. 
 
 A reference to almost any scientific magazine, an examination of almost any news- 
 paper, will show the growth of the American Portland cement industry under the 
 present law and the development of many new uses of cement. From the erection of 
 the skyscraper of from 15 to 20 stories in height, constructed entirely of concrete, to 
 the building of the small house of the workingman. concrete is finding a field of the 
 greatest value and use to the American public. Apart from its permanent character, 
 its fire-resisting qualities make it the ideal building material. In sanitary qualities 
 and in its economical virtues in reducing fire risk concrete is becoming recognized as 
 the building material of the future. Not only, however, is this material coming into 
 use in the matter of dwellings and office buildings, but also for factory construction, 
 the building of railway stations, the fabrication of silos, grain elevators, and other 
 work, such as telegraph poles, railway ties. etc. In addition, it has found many uses 
 of great value for both farmer and manufacturer. While the fence post, the hitching 
 post, the motor foundation, the silo, the pigsty on the farm, owe their permanence 
 and strength to concrete, so also the ornamental garden seat, the decorated pergola, 
 the font in the public and private gardens and parks have the same origin. Necessity 
 certainly was the mother of invention when, with the rapidly approaching failure of 
 the lumber supply of the United States, as indicated by the forestry reports, the de- 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 453 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 velopment of this great Portland cement industry was made possible by the laws that 
 have governed the importation of foreign cements. Thus, by the introduction and 
 development of the uses for this new building material, the deforestation of the United 
 States has possibly been postponed for many years. 
 
 One of the newer uses of concrete is in road construction. Not only do most engi- 
 neers recognize concrete as the best known material for foundations, but during the 
 last few years no top surfacing is used, the concrete taking the wear. The first cost is 
 very little greater than macadam, and the fact that little or no repairs are necessary 
 permits money ordinarily expended for repairs to be used in improving more miles of 
 road. 
 
 In concluding this branch of the argument, it may be stated that the American 
 cement industry is also finding foreign markets. The table of production, imports, 
 and exports (below), covering the last 11 years, indicates clearly that the industry, BO 
 far as the world's markets are concerned, is not being stifled. 
 
 The danger of admitting foreign cement at any reduced duty is a danger to pros- 
 perity. In times of world panics America is made the dumping ground of Portland 
 cement by European nations, and this is particularly the case in view of the fact that 
 Portland cement forms one of the most important articles of ballast for foreign -vessels 
 coming to this country for cargoes of the products of the soil. The points of heaviest 
 imports of foreign cement are Charleston, Savannah, Pensacola, Mobile, New Orleans, 
 and Galveston, where foreign vessels come for outbound cotton cargoes. The same 
 applies to the Pacific coast, where not only Belgian, German, and English cements 
 come in in ballast in vessels coming for grain cargoes, but also Chinese and Japanese 
 cement made by the cheap labor of the Orient; and all this in the face of the fact that 
 within a few miles of San Francisco there are four cement works in actual operation. 
 
 Two other plants have lately been built in Washington, north of Seattle, and these 
 plants have also felt the inroads of foreign cement. 
 
 About two years ago 10 of the largest cement plants in the Dominion of Canada 
 were consolidated under a single management. A lowering of cement duty might 
 enable them to dump cement into the northern border States at prices ruinous to the 
 United States mills now supplying that district. The mills in New York, New Jersey, 
 Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Washington would be seriously 
 affected, and as the mills in these States produce to-day 67 per cent of the output of 
 the whole country, it can be readily seen what a detrimental effect such a reduction 
 would have on the entire industry. 
 
 Table showing production, imports, and exports, in barrels. 
 
 
 1902 
 
 1903 
 
 1904 
 
 1905 
 
 1006 
 
 Domestic production 
 
 17,230,644 
 
 22,342,973 
 
 26,505,881 
 
 35,246,812 
 
 46,463,424 
 
 Imports 
 
 1,903,023 
 
 2,251,969 
 
 968,410 
 
 896,845 
 
 2,273,493 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total available supply 
 
 19,193,667 
 
 24,594,942 
 
 27,474,291 
 
 36,143,657 
 
 48,736,917 
 
 Exports 
 
 340, 821 
 
 285,463 
 
 774,940 
 
 897,686 
 
 583,299 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Apparent consumption 
 
 13,852,846 
 
 24, 309, 479 
 
 26,699,351 
 
 35,245,971 
 
 48,153,618 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1907 
 
 1908 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1911 
 
 Domestic production 
 
 48,785,390 
 
 51,072,612 
 
 64,991,431 
 
 76,549,951 
 
 78,528,637 
 
 r mports 
 
 2,033,403 
 
 842, 121 
 
 443, R88 
 
 300,863 
 
 164,679 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total available supply 
 
 50, SIS, 853 
 
 51,914,733 
 
 65,435,319 
 
 76,856,814 
 
 78,693,307 
 
 Exports 
 
 900,550 
 
 846,528 
 
 1,056,922 
 
 2,475,957 
 
 3,135,409 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Apparent consumption 
 
 49, 918, 303 
 
 51,068,205 
 
 64, 378, 397 
 
 74,380,857 
 
 75,557,898 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NO 'TRUST ix THE CEMENT INDUSTRY. 
 
 In conclusion, it is but fair to say to the committee that there is no trust in the 
 Portland cement industry, and the course of prices during the last few years indi- 
 cates this very clearly. The best, reason for this is stated by Mr. Edwin C. Eckel, 
 in his report on the cem%nt industry for 1906, Department of the Interior, United 
 States Geological Survey, where, on page 11, he states: 
 
454 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 " Perhaps the most marked feature of American economic history during the last 
 decade has been the manner in which industry after industry has become consoli- 
 dated in control, so as to approach more or less closely to monopoly. This has been 
 particularly well marked in the iron and steel industries, and it is worth consider- 
 ing how far a similar evolution is likely to affect the cement industry. At present 
 the cement industry is the most individualistic of the larger branches of manufacture . 
 No 'trust,' nor even any approach to a monopoly, is now in existence, newspaper 
 statements to the contrary notwithstanding, and, in the writer's opinion, the nature 
 of the cement industry renders it impossible that any such large degree of consoli- 
 dation of interest can take place as to result in permanently or unfairly high prices 
 for the product. 
 
 "When the history of both successful and unsuccessful 'trusts' is examined, it 
 will be seen that the only way in which a permanent monopoly can be secured and 
 retained by any consolidation is by the control of the supply of raw material, by 
 the absolute control of basic patent!, or by the control of transportation. Any trust 
 which disregards this history, and is content with simply consolidating all or most 
 of the existing manufacturing plants, is in line for disaster; for supplies of raw mate- 
 rials being still available for outsiders, the first advance in prices will be the signal 
 for the erection of competitive plants. If, on the other hand, the raw materials 
 can be cornered, or processes can be monopolized, or transportation can be controlled, 
 there is no possibility of competition. This experience, though unobserved or dis- 
 regarded a decade ago, is now generally borne in mind. 
 
 "The bearing of these facts upon the future of the cement industry is obvious 
 enough. If there is any possibility that one large cement corporation can acquire 
 control of most of the available deposits of cement material in the United States, it 
 will be possible to form a real American 'cement trust,' to defy competition, and 
 to raise prices to an unwarranted level. If, on the other hand, it is impossible to 
 form such a corner in cement rock or in cement-making processes, or permanently 
 to control transportation, it will be impossible for any consolidation to raise prices 
 permanently above the normal. 
 
 "On careful consideration of the matter, it will be seen that only one answer is 
 possible. It is safe to say that more than 20 per cent of the entire area of the United 
 States is underlain by raw materials out of which cement could be made if prices 
 were forced high enough. The Standard Oil Co., the United States Steel Corpora- 
 tion, and the United States Government could not, by combining their financial 
 resources, hope to acquire control of any large fraction of this immense reserve of raw 
 material. 
 
 "Since the supply of limestone and clay can not be cornered, since no essential 
 parts of the processes of manufacture are covered by exclusive patents, and since 
 transportation companies will seek freight, it is reasonable to believe that no cement 
 combination can succeed in permanently raising prices to unfair rates. Ae already 
 stated, there is nothing in existence at present even remotely approaching a cement 
 trust. The trouble is rather in the other direction. The prosperity of the last few 
 years, with reports of enormous profits earned by existing companies, has led to the 
 building of many new cement plants. A fair proportion of these are either too small, 
 badly located, faulty in design, or badly managed; and with the first general business 
 depression and the commencement of falling prices such plants will necessarily 
 become a danger to the entire industry. The condition at present is therefore marked 
 by excess rather than lack of competition." 
 
 In other words, the impossibility of "trust" ownership, due to the immense amount 
 and wide distribution of the raw material from which cement is made, predicted 
 by Mr. Eckel in 1907, has been borne out by the development of the industry during 
 the last four years. 
 
 In conclusion, we respectfully ask the retention of the present rate of duty. 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 In connection with the duty on Portland cement, your petitioner desires to call 
 your attention to a small but important branch of the industry, that being the manu- 
 facture of white nonstaininc* Portland cement. 
 
 Cement of tlas character has been manufactured in this country for about six 
 years. Prior to 1908 the production was very small and was confined to three com- 
 panies. Two of these companies have since gone out of business, and one has been 
 added, the production of the country at present being by two companies only. The 
 principal reason for the small number of producing factories in this country is the 
 known high cost of production and the steady importation of cements of foreign 
 
SCHEDULE B. 455 
 
 PABAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 manufacture at prices which make competition without profit. The production fig- 
 ures prior to 1908 are not available, but from that date are as follows: 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 1908 60,000 
 
 1909 67, 749 
 
 1910 72, 743 
 
 1911 135, 775 
 
 Figures for 1912 are not available at this time. 
 
 This product being white in color and nonstaining, by which is meant that when 
 used as a mortar for setting, pointing, and backing fine-textured stones that they are 
 relieved from the staining which occurs when brought into contact with ordinary 
 Portland cement of commerce, is growing in demand but much more costly to pro- 
 duce on account of the scarcity of proper raw material and the more expensive manu- 
 facturing process. 
 
 Ordinary gray Portland cement is burned with coal, while in the manufactuie of 
 white Portland cement the burning process must be accomplished by the use of fuel 
 oil, which is a very substantial factor in the cost of white Portland cement. The 
 advance in the price of this commodity being 33 per cent in 1912 over 1911, and 
 contracts made for the year 1913 are at an advance of 55 per cent over the price at 
 which fuel oil was sold in 1911. 
 
 Prior to the manufacture of white nonstaining Portland cement in the United 
 States the demand in this country was supplied by importation from foreign countries 
 and sold at a price largely in excess of the prices prevailing to-day. The advent of 
 American white nonstaining Portland cement has materially reduced the price of 
 cements of this quality, at prices, however, which have been established by the 
 American manufacturers. 
 
 The prices at which white nonstaining Portland cements are being sold by American 
 manufacturers have provided only a reasonable margin of profit, and the rapidly 
 increasing cost of production, as shown herewith, will at an early date make the 
 manufacture of these grades of Portland cement unprofitable, and we feel that a 
 protection for the purpose of fostering a growing industry should be accorded through 
 the medium of an ad valorem duty which will be more in proportion to the value of 
 the commodity than exists at present. 
 
 We fear that unless the protection is accorded American manufacturers will be 
 forced out of business and that the higher prices to American consumers in effect 
 prior to the manufacture of this commodity in the United States will be restored. 
 
 It is shown in this brief that between 1903 and 1911 the duty on Portland cement 
 has ranged from 24.4 per cent to 20.3 per cent. 
 
 The average selling price of white nonstaining Portland cement is $2.75 per barrel 
 of 400 pounds at the mill, including the value of the package, the present duty of 
 8 cents per 100 pounds, or 32 cents per barrel, being equivalent to but 12 per cent 
 ad valorem. 
 
 Your petitioner therefore respectfully submits that an increase in the duty to 25 
 per cent ad valorem on white and nonstaining Portland cements, by reason of the 
 facts and figures herewith submitted, can be consistently asked for, and it is respect- 
 fully urged that such be enacted. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ME. H G. MOULTON, OF ROCKLAND, ME. 
 
 Mr. MOULTON. I represent the New England Portland Cement 
 Company, which owns a deposit of clay and limestone at Rockland, 
 Me., and hopes to develop in New England a cement industry 
 where none now exists. Tnere is not any cement plant nearer New 
 England than the Hudson River. The nearest plant is on the Hud- 
 son River, the Atlas and the plants of the Lehigh Valley, and that 
 leaves all of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and that portion of the 
 country is either dependent on them or on foreign importations. 
 They are not at present dependent upon foreign importations because 
 statistics show that the trade movement is the other way on cement. 
 
 We think there is an opportunity to manufacture about a million 
 barrels of cement right in Aew England. Furthermore, at Rockland 
 
456 TABIFP HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 we would have the only cement plant on the Atlantic seaboard, and 
 it would be in a position to ship by water all the way down the coast, 
 through the Panama Canal, and compete on the Pacific coast and in 
 South America. 
 
 We are willing to meet any kind of fair and square competition. 
 We expect to go after the business, but we will nave to get lower 
 prices than prevail at present to get the business, because we will 
 have to meet the established companies. We do not think that we 
 should in the future have to meet the dumping of surplus stocks from 
 Germany. At the present time conditions are very active abroad 
 and very prosperous. People are fully employed and cement prices 
 are high and there is a big demand, so that we would not meet com- 
 petition there at the present time. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. The statistics show that we are doing the dumping 
 on the other countries. 
 
 Mr. MOULTON. Yes; because of conditions that now exist and be- 
 cause of high prices abroad. But, by the way, we are not dumping; 
 we are simply exporting legitimately wherever we can export on an 
 even freight rate basis. Where the freight rate was the same, we 
 would probably export to Cuba, perhaps, and to parts of South 
 America. But suppose there should come a depression, a sudden 
 depression in Europe, on account of war or anything that might spring 
 up. Suppose a depression of that kind would come, which would cur- 
 tail by half or by a quarter, the European consumption or demand. 
 Then Germany and Belgium and England could afford to let go of a 
 good deal of cement at a very much less price than prevails now. 
 
 Furthermore, the freight rates from Europe to the United States 
 are at the highest level in my knowledge. You all know of the recent 
 phenomenal increase in freight rates, due to the immense growth of 
 traffic and of commerce. What would happen to this freight rate 
 should the European depression spring up, or a depression of com- 
 merce ? It would cut the freight rate down so low that a duty of 
 30 cents a barrel, which is what the present duty amounts to, would 
 just about protect our manufacturing cost. It seems to me that 
 that argument alone justifies the maintenance of the duty, if the 
 New England Portland Cement Co. has a valid right to go into 
 existence. 
 
 In other words, I think if the New England Portland Cement Co. 
 has a valid right to go into existence in New England; if it serves 
 the public interest and it is to the best interests of this country that 
 the company should go in there, then we are justified in having just 
 such a dutv as might prevent wrongful and hurtful competition in 
 times of depression abroad. An investor coming in to establish a 
 cement plant in a new district can not look to present conditions 
 alone; IK; must look ahead and see what might happen tc his invest- 
 ment a few years hence. I think the establishment of that cement 
 plant in New England will be serving a very laudable public aim. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Your company is going to be a company that is 
 going to fight what is known as the Portland Cement Trust? 
 
 Mr. MOULTOX. There is no Portland cement trust, as shown by 
 the result of my investigations. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. There has always been considered one. If there is 
 a trust, you people are going to be right in wnth them. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 457 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 Mr. MOULTON. If there is any trust we can fight them tooth and 
 toenail. We stand on our own feet and go into that district inde- 
 pendently 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN (interposing). You had better be prepared to Tight 
 those Portland cement fellows in the United States, because they 
 are fighting. 
 
 Mr. MOULTON. We have considered that, and we have every 
 opportunity to fight them. We have certain districts that we can 
 legitimately serve and can be in a position, as I say, to fight any 
 competition that might exist in the United States. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Have you already invested your money ? 
 
 Mr. MOULTON. To some extent. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I was going to say if you had not you could come 
 down to Alabama and we would pretty nearly give you all the cement 
 rock you want, and you can be protected by the freight rate, and be 
 where they could not come after you. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I would suggest that you get this foreign competition 
 scare out of your mind and begin to fix your plans to fight the fellows 
 inside of the United States. 
 
 Mr. MOULTON. That is what we have been doing, and I think it is 
 no more than fair to give us protection against possible future dump- 
 ing. That is all we ask. You know an investor putting his money 
 into a new proposition looks to the future and asks all sorts of ques- 
 tions. I would not be afraid to put my money in and tackle them any- 
 where. I think we have got the skill and the courage and the knowl- 
 edge of it, and I am not afraid to go up against any foreign technical 
 man on such a question. But when you are asking an investor to 
 invest his money, he looks ahead and asks as to the future, as to 
 what conditions might be. And I think you ought to consider his 
 future also. 
 
 Mr. DIXON. You want the duty left just as it is ? 
 
 Mr. MOULTON. Yes, sir; that is it. It is not an exorbitant duty. 
 It is only about 20 per cent. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. It looks very much like Mr. Hill, of Connecticut, 
 and Mr. Payne, of New York, have just simply excited your fears 
 unnecessarily about this tariff and the foreigners. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Moulton, your time is up. 
 
 Mr. DIXON. Is there anything else you want to present? 
 
 Mr. MOULTON. I was simply going to state that the putting of the 
 tariff duty down would not, under present conditions, reduce the 
 price of cement. It might do it in some years. We think that the 
 establishment of that plant there, on an average over a term of 
 years, would mean lower prices for the Atlantic seaboard, with the 
 duty as it is now, than a reduction of the duty would give. That is 
 my argument. 
 
 I thank you. 
 
 The witness filed the following brief with the committee: 
 
 THE NEW ENGLAND PORTLAND CEMENT CO. AND THE TARIFF. 
 
 The New England Portland Cement Co. owns deposits of limestone and clay at 
 Rockland, Knox County, Me., and is developing these deposits with the intention 
 of erecting at Rocklaud a plant for the manufacture of Portland cement. In the 
 beginning the New England Portland Cement Co. hopes to supply cement to the 
 
458 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 New England market, and ultimately, to the entire Atlantic coast and, by way 
 of the Panama Canal, to the Pacific coast of the United State?, Mexico, and South 
 America. 
 
 Located on the Atlantic seaboard, the New England Portland Cement Co. would 
 feel the full effect of any European competition, present or future. At the present 
 time this competition would not be severe for the reason that the demand for cement, 
 and as a result, its price, ia at a very high level in Germany, Belgium, and England. 
 Also, the freight rates between European and United States points are at record 
 levels, due to the recent boom in the world's commerce and shipping. The New 
 England Portland Cement Co., however, must look to the future as well as to the 
 present in considering the investment of capital at Rockland. Should there come a 
 depression and period of low prices in Germany, Belgium, and England, European 
 manufacturers of cement would be very glad to sell a part of their product for export 
 at no more than the actual labor, material, and repair costs of production and thus 
 keep intact their organizations. Under such conditions the mills of Germany and 
 Belgium (in which labor receives only half the wages which the New England Port- 
 land Cement Co. must pay) would no doubt feel justified in selling their surplus 
 product at 40 cents or even at 30 cents per barrel. At the same time, under the con- 
 ditions which would exist in the shipping trade, freight rates on Portland cement 
 to the United States would decline from the present figures of 30 cents per barrel to 
 15 cents or less per barrel, as it is a well-known fact that ships going to the United 
 States for cotton and foodstuffs would be very glad to handle so bulky a product as 
 Portland cement on the outbound voyage at a figure little above the actual cost of 
 handling rather than go in ballast. The New England Portland Cement Co. respect- 
 fully submits to your honorable committee that under such conditions a duty of 30 
 cents per barrel (8 cents per 100 pounds) would do no more than protect its actual 
 operating and depreciation costs, allowing nothing for interest on the investment. 
 
 On page 220 of the Daily Consular and Trade Report of January 13, 1913, Vice Con- 
 sul General Poole, of Berlin, gives detailed statistics of the German cement industry. 
 In these it is shown that during 1911 the average yearly wage of cement workers in 
 Germany was $280 per year and that the average value of the cement produced was 
 85.3 cents per barrel. A comparison of these figures with corresponding statistics for 
 the United States shows that in 1909 the average wage of cement workers in this coun- 
 try was $576 (census data) and that in 1911, according to the records of the United 
 States Geological Survey, the average mill price of Portland cement was 84.4 cents 
 per barrel. It is plain from this that the demand for cement in Germany was so great 
 that the operations of the mills was very profitable and that higher prices were obtained 
 than those prevailing in the United States in spite of the fact that labor costs are 100 
 per cent higher in the latter country. In these figures is found the explanation for the 
 large exports of cement from the United States and the small imports into this country 
 from abroad . The figures also show clearly that under different conditions in Germany 
 the relative position of the two countries in the cement trade would undergo a decided 
 change, for the labor costs are twice as great here. 
 
 The honorable chairman of your committee on January 10, 1913, stated that your 
 committee has to legislate on facts and conditions as they are to-day and that the tariff 
 bill can not be written for what is going to happen. As investors in the industry we 
 can not nrglect the future probabilities for the reason that the value of our invest- 
 ment in future years will be determined by the conditions prevailing in those years. 
 But even if consideration is given only to present conditions, what is there in them to 
 require a reduction in the present tariff on cement? If cement now sells in the United 
 States at lower prices than those quoted abroad, and if we are exporting to foreign 
 countries in the face of German competition, then a reduction in the tariff rate would 
 have no effect on the present price of cement in the United States, nor would it increase 
 the revenue of the Government through increasing imports. There is nothing in 
 present conditions to warrant a reduction of this tariff rate, either from the standpoint 
 of increasing competition or from the standpoint of increasing revenue. If the com- 
 mittee, in considering this tariff schedule, has in mind the possibility of higher cement 
 prices here and the introduction of a competitive tariff rate, then it must necessarily 
 look to the future, and in that event the future position of the New England Portland 
 Cement Co. should also be given due and just consideration. Present conditions make 
 any reduction in the present tariff on Portland cement ineffective and inconsequential, 
 but the conditions which we may expect in the future do justify its maintenance. 
 
 While we, located on the seaboard and on the firing line of competition, would have 
 to bear the brunt of German dumping under future probable conditions we would not 
 be the only sufferer. The plants in Alabama, which are now able to supply the cement 
 necessary for the great harbor improvements at Mobile, Pensacola, New Orleans, and 
 
SCHEDULE B. 459 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 other Gulf ports would be undersold in these cities by the European plants, which could 
 ship their cement as ballast in vessels returning for cargoes of cotton. The cement 
 market in gulf ports is now kept at reasonable levels by competition between the Ala- 
 bama plants and those of New York and Pennsylvania. Surely the citizens of Alabama 
 would not wish their plants to meet additional competition through unfair dumping 
 of European surplus stocks in periods of depression, nor do we believe that the cement 
 users of the North Atlantic seaboard would prefer the opportunity of obtaining foreign 
 cement at low figures in occasional years to the establishment of a new all-American 
 enterprise on the Atlantic seaboard. 
 
 Now, if the New England Portland Cement Co. is engaged in a legitimate, proper 
 attempt to develop an hitherto latent resource of the New England States it has the 
 right to ask at the hands of your committee such protection as will prevent undue 
 and unfair dumping of foreign surplus stocks during periods of depression abroad pro- 
 vided that the protection which it asks will not in the long run place an undue burden 
 upon the consuming public. It is our contention that the cement users of the Atlantic 
 seaboard will in the long run in the average year receive their cement at lower prices 
 by virtue of the existence of the New England Portland Cement Co. under the present 
 duty than those that would prevail without the New England Portland Cement Co. 
 and with no duty. 
 
 The argument on which this statement is based is, first, that the New England Port- 
 land Cement Co. by introducing additional competition in the coastwise cement trade 
 of the United States will keep cement prices at reasonable levels at levels lower than 
 would be made by imports of foreign cement during periods of prosperity in Europe. 
 It would only be during occasional periods of European depression that imports of 
 European cement could lower appreciably the prices of cement on the Atlantic sea- 
 board. Therefore, the total gain to consumers in years of European prosperity would 
 more than offset the total loss to them in years of European depression, and the tariff 
 in this case would actually result in a saving to the cement users of the Atlantic seaboard. 
 
 In the second place, we have no hesitation in saying that the present duty is a very 
 reasonable one, amounting as it does to only 20 per cent of the average import value 
 of Portland cement during the past calendar vear. It is our understanding that this 
 is less than half of the average rate of duty collected on imports during the past year. 
 As to the effect of a duty of 30 cents per barrel on the ultimate consumer, even in a 
 year when prices in some localities might be reduced to the extent of such a duty, it 
 may be said that the average cost of a cubic yard of mass concrete is about $5 and 
 that this amount of concrete requires only one barrel of cement, on which the tariff 
 protection would be 30 cents, or 6 per cent of the total cost of the concrete. In reen- 
 forced concrete buildings, etc., the cement used accounts for a far smaller percentage 
 of the value of a complete job than in the case of mass concrete, and it is doubtful it 
 the ultimate effect of 30 cents per barrel addition to or deduction from the price of 
 cement would affect the cost of constructing an office building or manufacturing 
 plant as much as one-half of 1 per cent, an amount too small to be reflected in rent. 
 
 We therefore maintain that we are not asking to have a burden put upon the con- 
 sumers in this country to enable us to establish a plant at Rocklaud, for we believe 
 that the establishment of our plant there will result in a substantial gain to them. We 
 further believe that in establishing at Rockland a plant manufacturing 1-,000,000 
 barrels of cement per annum, employing 300 American workingmen, consuming 
 annually over 100,000 tons of American coal, requiring the investment of $2,000,000 
 American capital, and providing new tonnage for shipment in American coastwise 
 vessels, we would be engaged in the highest and most praiseworthy type of industrial 
 development and that our attempt to expand the industry and commerce at New 
 England is entitled to the very kindest treatment at the hands of the Government 
 especially since the treatment that we ask involves in no way a special privilege or 
 over a term of years a taxation of the consumer for our benefit. 
 
 We feel that we are especially entitled to consideration in this matter for the reason 
 that we are pioneers in the field of cement manufacture in the New England States 
 and also on the Atlantic seaboard, and if we are willing to take the risk of developing 
 these deposits and expending capital in their exploitation we feel that we are entitled 
 to all the protection which can be given us without taxing others for our benefit. 
 
 There is a further question to be considered in this connection; it is that of dis- 
 crimination. In years of depression, with surplus production and low freight rates, 
 the manufacturers of Europe will be able to place cement at the Atlantic seaboard at 
 prices 30 cents per barrel below those which could be made by the American plants. 
 Under such conditions the Atlantic seaboard would receive its cement at very much 
 lower prices than those that could prevail 300 miles back from the coast line, for the 
 reason that a haul of 300 miles inland will cost on the average more than 30 cents per 
 
460 TARIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PABAGRAFH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 barrel in freight rates and therefore use up all of the tariff protection. Since the 
 natural protection of freight rates makes prices independent of the tariff, excepting 
 on a very narrow belt along the coast line, a reduction in price in any year through 
 a removal of duties would constitute an actual discrimination by the Government 
 against the entire interior territory and in favor of a very narrow strip along the coast. 
 The question also arises as to whether or not foreign competition is necessary to 
 prevent undue increase in cement prices as a result of combination among American 
 
 Eroducers. In reply, it may be stated with full confidence that there is not, has not 
 een, and never will be, a cement trust in the United States; that there has not been, 
 and is not now, any agreement among leading producers of cement looking to the 
 restriction of output, restriction of territory, or maintenance of the price of Portland 
 cement; the very conditions of occurrence of the raw materials of Portland cement 
 in the United States makes it impossible that a cement trust should ever develop. 
 In an industry of this sort, control of the output could be obtained only through a 
 control of the raw materials and these occur so widely distributed over the United 
 States that no man or set of men can ever monopolize them. The largest interest 
 now engaged in the manufacture of Portland cement is the Atlas Cement Co., which 
 makes about 15 per cent of the total production of the United States. The next 
 largest is the United States Steel Corporation, which manufactures the so-called 
 Universal Cement from blast furnace slag and limestone and accounts for 10 per cent 
 of the entire production of the country. The remaining 75 per cent of the production 
 come from widely scattered, small, independent companies in all parts of the United 
 States. The very course of cement prices and production in recent years shows that 
 there has been no combination in the industiy. If combination in the industry 
 would have the effect of increasing the total production of cement in the United 
 States from 5,800,000 barrels in 1899 to 78,528,000 barrels in 1911, and at the same 
 time decreasing its price from $1.80 per barrel at the mill in 1899 to 84 cents in 1911, 
 it would seem to be to the interest of the Government to foster combination of that 
 sort. Such is not the result of combination, however; it is the result of free, inde- 
 pendent competition, such as now exists and which has, incidentally, brought the 
 price of Portland Cement to a level so low that its manufacture is profitable only at a 
 few plants which have such locations that freight rates give protection. 
 
 In conclusion, we respectfully ask, that your honorable committee, when consider- 
 ing the question of tariff rates on Portland cement, take into consideration the aims 
 of the New England Portland Cement Co., and look to the future rather than to the 
 present in considering the possible effect of foreign competition, remembering always 
 that we ask for protection not on a basis of what now exists but on a basis of what may 
 exist under certain probable conditions in Europe; and if you agree with us that the 
 New England Portland Cement Co. in this attempt to develop a latent but hitherto 
 unexploited resource of the New England States, is doing a proper and valuable 
 service to the New England States and to this country as a whole, we respectfully 
 ask that you retain the present reasonable rate of duty of 8 cents per 100 pounds on 
 Portland cement. 
 
 IMPORTS INTO CANAL ZONE. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR, 
 BUREAU OF FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC COMMERCE, 
 
 Washington, January 25, 191S. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 MY DEAR SIR: In reply to your telephone inquiry to-day I beg to inform you that 
 imports into the Canal Zone are subject to the customs treatment prescribed by the 
 laws of the Republic of Panama, and no distinction whatever is made between imports 
 from the United States and those of other countries. All articles imported by the 
 Isthmian Canal Commission or by the Panama Railroad are admitted free of duty 
 independent of their country of origin. 
 
 In tliis connection your attention is invited to an article on the tariff system of 
 Panama herewith inclosed (from Foreign Tariff X^tes, No. 7, pp. 195-200). 
 Very truly, youra, 
 
 A. H. BALDWIN, Chief of Bureau. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 461 
 
 PABAORAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 MAJ. F. C. BOGGS TKANSMITS DATA ON CEMENT FURNISHED 
 ISTHMIAN CANAL COMMISSION. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. The question was raised yesterday as to whether or 
 not the bids made by foreign manufacturers of cement were lower 
 than bids made by domestic manufacturers of cement for the work 
 on the Panama Canal. I have addressed some inquiries to the 
 Isthmian Canal Commission, and I have an answer to-day, which 
 was that 14 bids were submitted by foreign manufacturers or cement, 
 and every one of them without exception was higher than the bids 
 submitted by the Atlas Cement Co., to whom the contract for 4,500,000 
 barrels was awarded. The foreign bids ranged from $1.25 up to $2.10, 
 and the contract was awarded to the Atlas Cement Co. for $1.19, and 
 the letter of the Isthmian Canal Commission to me contains this 
 statement: "The bids for foreign cement were all higher than the bid 
 of the Atlas Portland Cement Co." 
 
 I ask permission to insert this letter into the record. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The stenographer will insert the letter in the 
 record. 
 
 ISTHMIAN CANAL COMMISSION, 
 
 PURCHASING DEPARTMENT, 
 Washington, D. C., January 10, 1913. 
 Hon. HENRY T. RAINEY, 
 
 House of Representatives, United States, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: Referring to your letter of January 9, 1913, asking certain questions relative 
 to cement contracts for the Panama Canal, I would advise as follows: 
 
 It is understood that your request concerns the large contracts for furnishing cement 
 for the locks on the canal and for other purposes, it being noted that very little cement 
 is used in the Gatum Dam or other dams on the canal. It is also noted that the infor- 
 mation given below does not include a few small orders for cement which were placed 
 before the request for the large amount required. In connection with the larger con- 
 tracts, which include practically 95 per cent of all the cement used, it is noted that 
 two requests for bids have been issued: 
 
 1. Under Isthmian Canal Commission Circular 420, which was opened June 1, 1908, 
 and under which contract was awarded for 4,500,000 barrels of cement, with authority 
 for the commission, at its option, to increase or decrease this amount by 15 per cent. 
 The cement called for was to be delivered over a period of approximately three years. 
 
 2. Circular 721, which was opened on September 3, 1912, called for 1,000,000 bar- 
 rels of cement and was issued on account of the need for cement in addition to the 
 material called for under Circular 420. 
 
 The information you ask in your letter will be given below and will be indicated 
 for each circular separately. 
 
 INFORMATION UNDER CIRCULAR 420. 
 
 Who let the contract? 
 
 All bids were forwarded to the authorities on the Isthmus, where they were can- 
 vassed and contract was awarded in accordance with instructions from the chairman 
 and chief engineer, Col. Goethals, in his letter of August 14, 1908. 
 
 How much were they to furnish and what was the price? 
 
 The contract was awarded to the Altas Portland Cement Co., of Northampton, 
 Pa., for the total amount called for under the circular, viz, 4,500,000 barrels, there 
 being two alternative prices covered in the contract. 
 
 (1) For material delivered in wooden barrels, $1.19. 
 
 (2) For material delivered in double sacks, which, at the rate of four sackfuls of 
 cement to the barrel, was contracted for at $1.60. The contract provided, however, for 
 a rebate of 8J cents for each of the eight sacks returned which made the net price of 
 the cement $0.92. 
 
 Where do the contractors deliver the cement under the contract? 
 Within reach of ship's tackle, Jersey City or Hoboken. 
 
462 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 86 CEMENT. 
 
 Were there any bids from foreign contractors? 
 
 Yes. 
 
 What were the bids? 
 
 Foreign bids were received as indicated in the table attached hereto. 
 
 If the contract had been awarded to foreign factorieSj would the foreign manufac- 
 turers have been compelled to pay any duty to the United States Government? In 
 other words, was the tariff a factor at all in the bidding between American and foreign 
 firms for cement? 
 
 As a matter of fact the bids for foreign cement were all higher than the bid of the 
 Atlas Portland Cement Co. However, if there had been any lower bids, the question 
 of duty would have been considered on the following account: 
 
 "Joint resolution providing for the purchase of material and equipment for use in 
 the construction of the Panama Canal was passed by the Senate and House of Repre- 
 sentatives, and approved on June 25, 1906, as follows: 
 
 "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
 in Congress assembled, That purchases of material and equipment for use in the con- 
 struction of the Panama Canal shall be restricted to articles of domestic production 
 and manufacture, from the lowest responsible bidder, unless the President shall, in 
 any case, deem the bids or tenders therefor to be extortionate or unreasonable." 
 
 In order to permit a decision as to what was meant by extortionate or unreasonable 
 prices, inquiry was made of the President by the chairman of the commission under 
 date of September 20, 1906, and the chairman of the commission was advised as follows: 
 
 ' ' Your letter of the 17th instant has been received, and in reply the President directs 
 me to say that he approves your recommendations as to making awards where bids 
 submitted on material of foreign production are lower than on material of domestic 
 production or manufacture, after adding to the bids received on foreign materials such 
 duty as would have to be paid on same if brought into the United States; and where 
 bids on material manufactured in the United States are the lowest, although some or 
 all of the raw material used in manufacturing them may have been of foreign origin." 
 
 In accordance with this instruction it would have been necessary to have added to 
 the foreign bid the duty per barrel on cement which was in existence at that time for 
 cement brought into the United States. The resulting figure would then have been 
 compared with the domestic bid. As indicated above, however, all foreign bids were 
 higher than the domestic bid, and therefore the duty did not enter as a factor in the 
 award. 
 
 If the contract had been awarded to foreign factories where would they have been 
 expected to deliver the cement. 
 
 The circular asked for alternative propositions permitting delivery at seaports in 
 various countries or at Colon. The table attached indicates that most bidders sub- 
 mitted bids on material delivered at Colon. 
 
 Why was the contract awarded to the American bidders? 
 
 Because they were the low bidders on a well-known Portland cement which was per- 
 fectly satisfactory to the authorities on the Isthmus, and whose bid was strictly in 
 accordance with our specifications. 
 
 INFORMATION UNDER CIRCULAR 721. 
 
 The details of the awarding under Circular 721 are clearly set forth in the memoran- 
 dum addressed to the Acting Secretary of War under date of September 12, 1912, copy 
 attached hereto. The recommendation contained in this memorandum was approved 
 by the Acting Secretary of War and the contract has been let accordingly. 
 
 No bids were received from foreign bidders under this circular, although requests to 
 bid were sent out as usual. If there had been any foreign bids under this circular the 
 same rule relative to duty would have applied. 
 
 Trusting that the above gives you the information that you desire, I am, 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 F. C. BOGGS, 
 Major, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, 
 
 General Purchasing Officer. 
 
 SEPTEMBER 12, 1912. 
 
 Memorandum for the- Acting Secretary of War: 
 
 Our contract with the Atlas Portland Cement Co., Washington, Order 15517, calls 
 for 4.500,000 barrels of cement, with authoritv to increase or decrease this amount by 
 15 per cent. When this contract was originally let, it was anticipated that the varia- 
 tion allowed would cover all the cement needed in the construction of the canal. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 463 
 
 PARAGRAPH 8C CEMENT. 
 
 However, due to change of plans and new work, it has been found that additional 
 cement will be needed and Isthmian Canal Commission Circular 721 was accordingly 
 issued, asking for bids on an additional million barrels. Under this circular only two 
 bids were received, as follows: 
 
 Alpha and Lehigh Portland Cement Cos., combined; barrels $1.51; bags, $1.91, 
 with rebate of 10 cente per bag, making the net price in bags $1.11, delivered Jersey 
 City. 
 
 Santa Cruz Portland Cement Co., no bid in barrels; in bags $1.97, with rebate of 19 
 cente per bag, making the net price $1.17 delivered San Francisco. 
 
 The specifications under Circular 721 referred to are practically the same as under 
 the contract with the Atlas Portland Cement Co. and in fact the Atlas Co. are supply- 
 ing materials in addition to their contract which would practically make the carrying 
 out of their work agree with the requirements of Circular 721. 
 
 The bids on this cement were opened on September 4. Previous to the opening, a 
 letter was submitted by the Atlas Portland Cement Co., dated August 31, in which 
 they state that subject to our acceptance before September 20, they would extend 
 the contract to cover all the additional quantity of cement required to complete the 
 work on the Canal Zone under the terms of the contract now in force. They also stated 
 personally that they did not intend to submit a bid under the new circular. 
 
 Under the contract with the Atlas Co. we were purchasing cement delivered at 
 Jersey City at $1.19 in barrels and $1.60 in bags, with a rebate of 8$ cents per bag, 
 making the net price of cement in bags 92 cents. Comparing the low bid received 
 under the present circular with the price now in force under the contract with the 
 Atlas Portland Cement Co., it is noted that there would be a saving per barrel of cement 
 delivered in wood of 32 cents, or assuming that all bags were returned, a saving per 
 barrel when delivered in bags of 19 cents. In other words, if the bid in bags were 
 accepted, the total price under the low bid on the circular for 1,000,000 barrels 
 would be $1,110,000, whereas the total cost under the present contract with the Atlas 
 Portland Cement Co. would be $920,000, or a saving of $190,000. 
 
 Under date of September 5, I cabled to the Isthmus the results of the opening of the 
 Circular, as indicated above, and also advised that I had in hand the proposition from 
 the Atlas Portland Cement Co., as indicated above. In reply to this cable I received 
 cablegram dated September 9 as follows: 
 
 " Circular 721, referring to your cable of the 5th instant, reject all bids and provide for 
 continuing contract with Atlas Portland Cement Co. to furnish cement to complete 
 all work in connection with the canal." 
 
 On receipt of this cable, I replied as follows: 
 
 " Circular 721, referring to your cable of the 9th instant, directing continuation con- 
 tract Atlas Portland Cement Co., presume matter should be referred to Secretary for 
 final authority. Advise." 
 
 And am now in receipt of the following cablegram: 
 
 "Referring to your cable of the 10th instant, Circular 721. Get Secretary's ap- 
 proval, if it is necessary." 
 
 After consulting with the assistant examiner of accounts in this office, I am of the 
 opinion that your approval is necessary for the above transaction. In addition to the 
 above and for your information, I would invite attention to the following telegram 
 received from the Hon. Julius Kahn, Member of Congress. 
 
 " I understand eastern bidders on cement for canal only 6 cents per barrel lower 
 than Pacific coast bidders. As large quantity of the cement is to be used on Pacific 
 coast side I strongly urge that Pacific coast cement producers be given a fair propor- 
 tion of the contract. This will avoid cost to railroad company for transportation of 
 cement across the Isthmus and will also give encouragement to development of the 
 cement industry on the Pacific coast. Kindly advise me of your action." 
 
 In reply to this telegram Mr. Kahn was advised that all bids had been referred to 
 the Isthmus. Mr. Kahn apparently cabled Col. Goethals in the same tenor, as under 
 date of September 7 we received the following cable from Col. Goethals, which was 
 immediately wired to Mr. Kahn: 
 
 "Wire Julius Kahn, San Francisco, Cal., referring to his cable of the 7th instant, 
 Pacific coast highest bidders cement, and award can not be made to them." 
 
 I am to-day in receipt of the following additional telegram from Mr. Kahn: 
 
 "Your telegram 10th regarding cement received. Cement manufacturers here are 
 working earnestly to develop industry. The Government ought to help them, for 
 occasion will arise when Government will need plant output. Awarding a portion 
 of the cement requirements to Pacific coast bidders will encourage them and will be 
 no additional expense on cement used on Pacific side of Isthmus. Can a portion of 
 this be awarded to Pacific coast bidders? " 
 
464 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 P ABA GRAPH 87 LUCE. 
 
 To which no reply has as yet been made. If approved, the following will he sent 
 him: 
 
 "Commission has, with approval Secretary of War, rejected all bids under Circular 
 721 and accepted offer Atlas Portland Cement Co. continue old contract, $1.60 barrel, 
 rebate 8 cents per bag. This offer filed before opening bids, Circular 721." 
 
 In view of all the above I would therefore request your approval of the recommenda- 
 tion from Col. Goethals to cancel all the bids under Circular 721 and continue with 
 the Atlas Portland Cement Co. at the figures in their old contract, with the result in 
 saving to the Government of approximately 20 per cent. 
 
 Approved as above: 
 
 Major, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army 
 
 General Purchasing Officer. 
 
 Acting Secretary of War. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number 
 barrels 
 quoted on. 
 
 Place 
 delivery. 
 
 Con- 
 tainer 
 (bags or 
 barrels). 
 
 Rebate 
 on ship- 
 ment. 
 
 Net price at point 
 of delivery, per 
 barrel. 
 
 In bags. 
 
 In barrels 
 
 Breitenburger Portland Cement 
 Fabrik, Hamburg, Germany. 
 East Asiatic Co., Copenhagen, Den- 
 mark. 
 Martin Earle (Ltd.), London, 
 England. 
 J. Menrin, Andernach, Germany... 
 Rheinisch - Westfalisches Cement 
 Svndikat, Bremen, Germany. 
 Suddeutsches Cement Export 
 Kontor, Mannheim, Germany. 
 
 Do. 
 
 150,000 
 500,000 
 1,000,000 
 
 1,500,000 
 1,000,000 
 
 100,000 
 
 100,000 
 216,000 
 
 4,500,000 
 
 4,500,000 
 900, 000 
 
 gtin.ono 
 4, 500, 000 
 
 (') 
 
 Colon 
 ...do 
 
 Barrels. . 
 
 
 
 $1.82 
 1.70 
 1.60 
 
 ...do 
 
 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 
 
 ...do... 
 . .do 
 
 Bags.... 
 Barrels. . 
 
 $0.40 
 
 $1.56 
 
 2.00 
 1.15 
 
 1.70 
 2.08 
 
 1.55 
 
 2.10 
 1.76} 
 
 Antwerp 
 or Rot- 
 terdam. 
 Colon 
 
 ...do 
 
 
 
 ...do.. . 
 
 
 
 Sussex Portland Cement Co. (Ltd.), 
 England. 
 Weydert & Saur, Strassburg, Ger- 
 many. 
 Do 
 
 . .do 
 
 .do .. 
 
 
 
 New York 
 Colon 
 
 .do. .. 
 
 
 
 . .do. . . 
 
 
 
 The \\ouldham Cement Co. (Ltd.), 
 England. 
 The Wouldham Cement Co. (Ltd.). 
 " Bouwmaterialen " Voorheen M. 
 Luiiten. 
 Portland Cement Works, Antwerp. 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 
 
 ...do 
 Amsterdam 
 
 Antwerp 
 
 Bags 
 Barrels 
 
 .16 
 
 I. SOJ 
 
 1.3O 
 1.25 
 
 .do 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Uncertain. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 87. 
 
 Lime, five cents per one hundred pounds, including weight of barrel or 
 package. 
 See also argument of American Portland cement manufacturers, page 449. 
 
 LIME. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HERMAN W. HUKE, ESQ., REPRESENTING THE 
 ROCKLAND & ROCKPORT LIME CO., OF MAINE. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. I hike what paragraph do you desire to speak 
 to? 
 
 Mr. IlrKE. Paragraph 87, Schedule B. My name is Herman W. 
 ITuke: address, Torrington, Conn. 
 
 Mi*. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here represent- 
 ing the Rockland & Rockport Lime Co., of Rockland, Knox County, 
 Me., to submit the following memoranda of facts relating to its busi- 
 
SCHEDULE B. 465 
 
 PARAGRAPH 87 LIME. 
 
 ness and to the manufacture and sale of its product, and I do this in 
 respectful but earnest protest against the removal of the present duty 
 of 5 cents per hundred pounds of lime. 
 
 This corporation has an investment of $3,700,000, representing an 
 honest acquisition of property without bonus or watered stock. 
 
 It does not own or operate all the limekilns and limerock quarries 
 in Knox County, but it does own and operate a large number of them, 
 and consequently manufactures and sells a very considerable propor- 
 tion of all the lime produced in that section of Maine. Its average 
 annual output, based upon the standard unit of 200 pounds of lime 
 to the barrel, is 1,500,000 barrels, and its capacity, if market could be 
 found, is easily 2,500,000 barrels per annum. 
 
 Its product is used almost entirely for building purposes, and its 
 market is confined practically to the New England States and the 
 city of New York. 
 
 The cost of labor is the principal single factor in the cost of a barrel 
 of lime. This labor cost to the Rockland & Rockport Lime Co., up 
 to the tune of shipment, is 37 cents on every dollar expended, and 
 by the operation of this corporation there is distributed to the wage 
 earners in a community of about 12,000 people a sum amounting 
 annually to $325,000. 
 
 Limerock is abundant in the Province of New Brunswick, and the 
 markets in the northern part of the State of Maine are now being 
 supplied with lime from that source. This provincial lime is manu- 
 factured either on or in close proximity to the seaboard, and a removal 
 of the existing duty, coupled with the lower wage prevailing there 
 and more favorable water freights, would enable that lime to secure 
 the New York and New England markets now supplied with lime 
 from Maine and other American States. 
 
 The lime business generally in the East has been far from profitable 
 in recent years, and this corporation, organized originally in 1900, 
 has earned and paid no dividends on its stock since 1901, and was 
 forced to reorganize in 1911 on a basis by which the shareholders 
 were assessed for $300,000. 
 
 During a period of eight years, including the year 1912, the aver- 
 age annual net profit has been less than 4 cents per barrel. 
 
 The shareholders feel that the removal of the duty of 5 cents per 
 hundred pouncls of lime, or a little more than 10 cents per barrel 
 in itself a sum in excess of any profit yet shown will impose a burden 
 that is bound to make failure inevitable and that will ruin the industry 
 without good cause or reason. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That is all. 
 
 The witness presented the following brief: 
 
 THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE OF THE SIXTY-SECOND CONGRESS, 
 
 Washington, D. C.: 
 
 The Rockland & Rockport Lime Co., of Rockland, Knox County, Me., submits the 
 following memoranda of facts relating to its business and to the manufacture and sale 
 of its product, and does this in respectful but earnest protest against the removal of 
 the present duty of 5 cents per 100 pounds of lime: 
 
 Capital invested. This corporation has an investment of $3,700,000, representing an 
 honest acquisition of property without bonus or watered stock. 
 
 Extent of operations. It does not own or operate all the limekilns and limerock 
 quarries in Knox County, but it does own and operate a large number of them, and 
 
 78959 VOL 113 30 
 
466 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 87 LIME. 
 
 consequently manufactures and sells a very considerable proportion of all the lime 
 produced in that section of Maine. Its average annual output, based upon the 
 standard unit of 200 pounds of lime to the barrel, is 1,500,000 barrels, and its capacity, 
 if market could be found, is easily 2 ; 500,000 barrels per annum. 
 
 Products and markets. Its product is used almost entirely for building purposes, and 
 its market is confined practically to the New England States and the city of New 
 York. 
 
 Labor. The cost of labor is the principal single factor in the cost of a barrel of lime. 
 This labor cost to the Rockland & Rockport Lime Co., up to the time of shipment, is 
 37$ cents on every dollar expended, and by the operation of this corporation there ia 
 distributed to the wage earners in a community of about 12,000 people a sum amounting 
 to annually $325,000. 
 
 Conditions in New Brunswick. Limerock is abundant in the Province of New 
 Brunswick and the markets in the northern part of the State of Maine are now being 
 supplied with lime from that source. This provincial lime is manufactured either 
 on or in close proximity to the seaboard, and a removal of the existing duty, coupled 
 with the lower wage prevailing there and more favorable water freights, would enable 
 that lime to secure the New York and New England markets now supplied with lime 
 from Maine and other American States. 
 
 Conditions in New England. The lime business generally in the East has been far 
 from profitable in recent years, and this corporation, organized originally in 1900, 
 has earned and paid no dividends on its stock since 1901, and was forced to reorgan- 
 ize in 1911 on a basis by which the shareholders were assessed for $300,000. 
 
 During a period of eight years, including the year 1912, the average annual net 
 profit has been less than 4 cents per barrel. 
 
 Conclusion. The shareholders feel that the removal of the duty of 5 cents per 
 100 pounds of lime, or a little more than 10 cents per barrel in itself a sum in excess 
 of any profit yet shown will impose a burden that is bound to make failure inevita- 
 ble and that will ruin the industry without good cause or reason. 
 
 ROCKLAND & ROCKPORT LIME Co., 
 By H. A. BUFFUM, Assistant Treasurer. 
 
 ROCKLAND, ME., January 6, 1913. 
 
 A SUPPLEMENTARY BRIEF CONCERNING LJME. FILED BY THE ROCKLAND & ROCK- 
 PORT LIME Co., OF ROCKLAND, ME., FEBRUARY, 1913. 
 
 First. The American tariff on lime is 5 cents per 100 pounds, including weight of 
 barrel or package. (See par. 87, tariff act of 1909.) 
 
 Second. The Canadian tariff on lime is 12$ cents per 100 pounds, including weight 
 of barrel, bag, or cask. (See Canadian customs tariff 1907, item 290.) 
 
 Third. The American tariff is not prohibitive. Example: 
 
 (A) Bangor, Me., is 55 miles from Rockland, Me., the center of the lime-manufac- 
 turing industry of the North Atlantic States. 
 
 (B) Bangor, Me., is 205 miles from St. John, New Brunswick, the center of the 
 lime-manufacturing industry on the Canadian coast. 
 
 (C) Freight by rail from St. John to Bangor, 205 milee, per barrel, 20 cents; duty 
 (including weight of barrel), per barrel, 11 cents; total freight and duty, St. John to 
 Bangor, 31 cents. 
 
 (D) Freight by water, Rockland to Bangor, 60 miles, per barrel (no duty), 6 cents; 
 differential in favor of Rockland, per barrel, 25 cente. 
 
 (E) Notwithstanding this differential, St. John is an active competitor for and 
 does business in Bangor. Houlton. and other parts of Maine. In the Bangor district 
 over 800,000 pounds (4.000 barrels) were imported last year, besides the importations 
 in other ports of entry in Aroostook County, viz, Fort Fan-field, Caribou, and Vance- 
 boro. In addition to the imports in the Bangor and other districts in northern Maine, 
 there were also imported last year through the Portland customs district over 8,000,000 
 pounds MO, 000 barrels). 
 
 Fourth. The high rate of the Canadian tariff absolutely prevents the American lime 
 manufacturers getting trade in the maritime Provinces, and gives the St. John manu- 
 facturers a monopoly of the trade. 
 
 Fifth. With any change in duty (American tariff is now 60 per cent lower than the 
 Canadian tariff, being 5 cents American as against 12| cents Canadian per 100 pounds), 
 
SCHEDULE B. 467 
 
 PARAGRAPH 88 -GYPSUM. 
 
 the Canadian lime manufacturers will extend their trade zone and gain absolute con- 
 trol of the Atlantic-coast trade, as well aa of the trade of the States bordering on the 
 Canadian line, and also of some of the Middle States a long distance therefrom. 
 
 Sixth. The Canadian lime manufacturers in the maritime Provinces, being in a for- 
 eign country, have a serious advantage over their American competitors in the matter 
 of freight by water. They can ship their product in foreign bottoms to all the principal 
 consuming points on the Atlantic coast, whereas the American manufacturers must 
 use (and rightly so) American bottoms for this coastwise trade. 
 
 Seventh. In view of the facts herein stated, your petitioner, the Rockland & Rock- 
 port Lime Co., of Rockland, Me., a lime-manufacturing company organized in 1901 
 with $3,700,000 paid in, reorganized in 1911 and $300,000 more cash paid in, upon 
 which no dividend has been paid since 1901 except one of 3$ per cent on $587,000 of 
 preferred stock, a company giving employment to over 500 people, having a pay roll 
 in excess of $350,000 per year, distributed among a community of 12,000 people, 
 earnestly protest against the lowering of the present duty, for if it is lowered it will 
 without doubt cause our company to suspend business, thus entailing a complete loss 
 not only to our stockholders, but also to uie local community, by throwing out of work 
 a large number of loyal workmen who are dependent upon us for livelihood for them- 
 selves and their families. 
 
 Ninth. We conclude with the following: 
 
 (A) No single individual company or group of companies control the American 
 lime trade. Lime is manufactured in all parts of the United States. The sharpest 
 competition exists in this commodity, so much so that lime is now sold and has been 
 sold for a number of years at prices too low to allow a fair margin for profit, and there 
 have been large losses to persons and companies engaged in this line of business. 
 
 (B) The Canadian tariff, 12$ cents for 100 pounds, is protective, and, so far as the 
 American Atlantic coast lime manufacturers are concerned, it is an absolutely pro- 
 hibitive tariff. 
 
 (C) The American duty of 5 cents per 100 pounds (only 40 per cent of the Canadian 
 'duty) is not prohibitive. It is a tariff for revenue only. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 ROCKLAND & ROCKPORT LIME Co., 
 By HENRY S. LYONS. 
 PARAGRAPH 88. 
 
 Plaster rock or gypsnm, crude, thirty cents per ton; if ground or calcined, 
 one dollar and seventy-five cents per ton; pearl hardening for paper makers', 
 use, twenty per centum ad valorem ; Keene's cement, or other cement of which 
 gypsum is the component material of chief value, if valued at ten dollars per 
 ton or less, three dollars and fifty cents per ton; if valued above ten dollars 
 and not above fifteen dollars per ton, five dollars per ton ; if valued above fifteen 
 dollars and not above thirty dollars per ton, ten dollars per ton; if valued 
 above thirty dollars per ton, fourteen dollars per ton. 
 For sulphate of lime, see F. A. Reichard, page 309. 
 
 GYPSUM. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. FRANK A. WILDER, PRESIDENT OF THE 
 SOUTHERN GYPSUM CO., NORTH HOLSTON, VA. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wilder, what paragraph do you wish to 
 refer to ? 
 
 Mr. WILDER. Paragraph 88, section A, in connection with the duty 
 on crude gypsum, of 30 cents per ton. 
 
 I wish to speak briefly ana merely to correct certain erroneous 
 impressions that may have been made by the first speaker before this 
 committee yesterday morning. This speaker said, if I understood 
 him correctly, that importations of crude gypsum were decreasing; 
 that the imported gypsum was used for purposes quite different from 
 
468 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 88 GYPSTJH. 
 
 those to which domestic gypsum is applied; and that imported gyp- 
 sum does not come in competition with the domestic gypsum; and 
 on these grounds he asks a reduction of tariff on crude gypsum from 
 30 to 20 cents, the duty before the act of 1909 having been 50 cents. 
 
 As a matter of fact, figures given me yesterday by the Bureau of 
 Statistics show that the importations of crude gypsum are steadily 
 increasing. Standing at about 190,000 tons in 1901, they arose to 
 288,781 in 1909, 340,359 in 1910, 342,517 in 1911, 426,500 in 1912. 
 
 A reduction of the duty of 10 cents a ton might increase imports 
 100,000 tons and reduce domestic production by the same amount, 
 but if this should be done it would be at the expense of the revenue 
 derived from gypsum importations and to the injury of certain of 
 the younger gypsum companies, which felt very severely the 20-cent 
 cut in the duty on crude gypsum in 1909. 
 
 Practically all of the imported gypsum is used in the manufacture 
 of wall plaster of just the same nature that the mills using domestic 
 gypsum make. The imported article is quarried easily directly on 
 the coast in Nova Scotia, is brought to the coast cities by cheap barge 
 freight where it is milled, and then again transported by low water 
 rates for distribution all along the Atlantic coast., for use in the coast 
 cities and for shipment inland. 
 
 By way of illustration, the freight rate on wall plaster from New 
 York and Virginia producing points to the city of Washington is 
 $2.60 per ton, and as a consequence plaster made from domestic 
 gypsum competes with great difficulty here against plaster made from 
 Nova Scotia gypsum, milled at Chester, Pa., and New York City. 
 
 For 500 miles inland mills using domestic gypsum feel the competi- 
 tion severely. Farther inland, on account of increasing freight rates, 
 this competition is not felt. 
 
 The domestic gypsum mines and mills within this radius of com- 
 petition are located in central and western New York and in south- 
 western Virginia. Six or seven of the 50 or more mills in the United 
 States are within this zone of competition. 
 
 The Southern Gypsum Co. (Inc.), built its mill in southwest Vir- 
 ginia five years ago, counting on the market in the Southeastern 
 States, as those markets stood under a 50-cent tariff. It felt severely 
 the 20-cent reduction in 1909. During the past four years the pro- 
 duction of gypsum in Virginia has grown from practically nothing to 
 90,000 tons in 1912, 55,000 tons of which were produced by the 
 Southern Gypsum Co. and the balance by a neighboring mill. 
 
 This tonnage is not sufficient to permit of economic operation and 
 we have been striving for a yearly output of 80,000 tons. The effect 
 of a slight change in competitive conditions will be realized when I 
 state that the business is handled on the narrow margin of 30 to 40 
 cents a ton, and our markets are crowded back from the coast at 
 every slight change in this competitive condition. 
 
 I believe that you will agree with me that it was proper and de- 
 sirable that the statement made yesterday to the effect that domestic 
 production would not be affected by further reduction in the tariff 
 on crude gypsum should not go unchallenged. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 469 
 
 PARAGRAPH 88 GYPSUM. 
 
 The cut of 40 per cent made by the act of 1909 seemed to be 
 about our full share in the matter of tariff reduction for some time to 
 come at least. 
 
 Mr. HULL. From what section do you get your chief competition ? 
 
 Mr. WELDER. Competition from American producers is strong and 
 active. Take the State of Alabama, as an illustration. Mills in cen- 
 tral Oklahoma and Texas and central Kansas ship into Alabama on 
 a freight rate about as good as ours. In the city of Atlanta, we meet 
 the competition of this Nova Scotia material milled in New York and 
 coming down by barge, landed at Brunswick, and shipped inland. 
 We meet also western competition there. 
 
 Mr. HULL. What does it cost per ton to mine gypsum in Nova 
 Scotia ? 
 
 Mr. WILDER. They do not mine. The mineral lies on the surface, 
 and our material is all underground, and we have mining difficulties 
 in connection with our ventilation, and so on. Their cost of putting 
 the material on the barge is small. Their cost of handling and bagg- 
 ing down and rehandling twice putting the crude material into the 
 mill at New York and Chester and again loading it onto the barges 
 is something less than our freight rate into Washington, D. C., I 
 would say, judging by the competition that we meet. That rate 
 is $2.60. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions ? [After a pause.] 
 That is all, Mr. Wilder. 
 
 Mr. WILDER. I thank you. 
 
 SOUTHERN GYPSUM Co. (INC.), 
 North Holston, Smyth County, Va., January 2, 191t. 
 Hon. CAETER GLASS, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Within the last five years the gypsum industry in Virginia has been 
 making rather notable growth, so that for 1912 the total output of gypsum and gypsum 
 products from the two mills in Virginia will be close to 100,000 tons. 
 
 The industry in Virginia can hardly be said to be on a paying basis yet, though pros- 
 pects for the future are encouraging if no unexpected factors are introduced into the 
 trade problem. 
 
 The mill of Southern Gypsum Co. was erected five years ago and last yar the mill 
 of the United States Gypsum Co. was completed. 
 
 These mills were constructed on the supposition that trade conditions might be 
 counted on as reasonably permanent and that no new factors in the way of competi- 
 tion were probable. 
 
 The Payne-Aldrich tariff bill, however, made a considerable reduction in the duty 
 of 50 cents a ton which had previously existed on gypsum, and in consequence nar- 
 rowed the market for the Virginia mills. 
 
 Large quantities of Nova Scotia gypsum are imported into the United States, same 
 being milled at Norfolk for land plaster and in New York City for wall plaster, and by 
 cheap barge freight this material is scattered all down the coast and snipped inland. 
 
 _The production conditions in Nova Scotia are exceedingly favorable while those in 
 Virginia are difficult. In Nova Scotia the mineral is quarried on the surface easily, 
 while in Virginia it is mined under severe difficulties in the way of water and impuri- 
 ties that must be sorted out. 
 
 Cheap barge transportation moves the Nova Scotia material as against heavier rail- 
 road freights on the part of the Virginia mills. 
 
 A further reduction in the tariff will be felt severely by the Virginia mills, pushing 
 the farther inland their market and so restricting it as to render doubtful the profitable 
 operation of the mills, unless indeed prices are arbitrarily raised in the restricted ter- 
 ritory near the mills that now receive finished gypsum products at moderate prices. 
 
470 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 88 GYPSTTM. 
 
 Our competitors, especially those located in New York City, will doubtless endeavor 
 to make it appear that no American industry will be especially affected by further 
 tariff reduction, and this letter is written so that you may be informed of the facts. 
 
 The writer believes in the principle of tariff reduction and the general tariff policy 
 of the Democratic Party and at the same time thinks it proper to point out that within 
 two years there has been a considerable reduction in the gypsum tariff, and that if 
 ever the argument for infant industry has existed in connection with the tariff the 
 argument applies at every point right now to the Virginia gypsum. 
 
 The question of tariff on gypsum will be considered by the proper committee in 
 Washington on January 7 or 8, 1913. Your assistance in seeing to it that the fact 
 that Virginia as a large producer and has important interests at stake is not over- 
 looked will be very greatly appreciated. 
 
 Very truly, yours, SOUTHERN GYPSUM Co. (!NC.), 
 
 FRANK A. WILDER, President. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MONTAGUE LESSLER, ESQ., OF NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 Mr. LESSLER. Gentlemen of the committee, I represent practically 
 the same men, importers and manufacturers, that I did three years 
 ago at the hearing. I represent the men on the seaboard who import 
 plaster rock and crude gypsum from the two Provinces in Canada, 
 and manufacture it into the material which, as brought out hi the last 
 hearing, is around us here. 
 
 In the little memoranda which I will file, and which I would like to 
 have printed with these few remarks, I have not attempted to elabo- 
 rate the argument which was very thoroughly gone into at the hearing 
 in 1909. The reasons which obtained then for placing this article on 
 the free list obtain to-day. 
 
 The comment that I would make to the committee is this: That it 
 has been demonstrated the reduction to 30 cents per ton instead of 
 the 50-cent rate has in no way interfered with the domestic produc- 
 tion at all. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What is the number of the paragraph to which you 
 refer ? 
 
 Mr. LESSLER. Paragraph 88. The domestic production has gone 
 up by leaps and bounds, and the last figure that I obtained was in 
 1910. I notice, however, in your tariff handbook that the domestic 
 production in 1910 was about $12,000,000. Curiously enough the 
 importations seem to have fallen off a bit. 
 
 The point I care to elaborate is simply this, that it is as true to-day 
 as it was then that the imported material is a local proposition only 
 and comes in contact with the domestic production not at all. -The 
 farmers' free list as enacted in the bill passed by this House and the 
 Canadian reciprocity act provided for gypsum. 
 
 What I supposed would interest the committee a bit was the ques- 
 tion of comparative price under the reduction to 30 cents. It has 
 remained pretty steady both in the domestic and imported articles; 
 that is, the manufactured articles made of the domestic and imported 
 rock. This is notwithstanding the fact that all the material, the coal, 
 the machinery, and the labor involved has to some extent, in fact, to 
 a great extent, grown up very much on the seaboard. 
 
 A question asked me at the last hearing was on the subject of the 
 income, as to this being a revenue producer to the Government. As 
 the committee ran see that 50 cents a ton on the importation of 1907 
 
SCHEDULE B. 471 
 
 PARAGRAPH 88 OYPSTJM. 
 
 brought a revenue to the Government of about $195,000, which, of 
 course, under the reduced 30 cents per ton, has gone down in the 
 neighborhood of from $102,000 to $111,000 a year. 
 
 It is to be brought before the committee, however, that very little 
 of this remains to the Government, for the reason that the costs of 
 inspection are of course very large and very great. There is this 
 to be added, that we as importers have helped the Government very 
 mightily, and have saved the Government many thousand of dollars 
 of expenses by our system of weighing and looking after these things 
 for the inspectors put there by the Government. 
 
 I feel in the very short time that the committee wants to hear me, 
 and in view of the elaborate argument made three years ago, which 
 is so handy to the committee, that there is very little to say except 
 to point out to you that with that argument as a basis, with the other 
 side, the opposition, fully represented (and I believe there is no op- 
 position to-day), the committee reduced that to 20 cents, and in 
 conference it was put at 30. 
 
 I would respectfully ask that it be placed on the free list. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions ? 
 
 That is all, Mr. Lessler. 
 
 MEMORANDUM TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS OP THE HOUSE OP REP- 
 RESENTATIVES, REQUESTING THAT PLASTER ROCK OR GYPSUM, CRUDE, BE 
 PLACED ON THE FREE LIST. 
 
 A duty of 30 cents per ton is levied on all importations of plaster rock or gypsum, 
 crude, in section 88 of the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act. It is respectfully urged that the 
 time has come to place this article on the free list. 
 
 A very full hearing was had on November 24, 1908, before the Ways and Means 
 Committee, at which it was urged to reduce this produce from 50 cents per ton, the 
 rate fixed in section 91 of the tariff act of 1897. The argument, the examinations, 
 and the letters concerning gypsum will be found in volume 1 of Tariff Hearings, 
 pages 634 to 692. Based on this hearing and these arguments, the Committee on 
 Ways and Means made the rate 20 cents per ton, which, in conference, was finally 
 made 30 cents per ton and enacted into law as section 88. 
 
 The reasons advanced at that time by those in favor of the reduction obtain to-day, 
 and the arguments against it are no stronger than those urged and advanced by the 
 opposition. 
 
 The native mining of gypsum has not suffered because of the reduction of the duty, 
 but has shown a gradual and healthy increase, both in the tonnage of the product and 
 its value. 
 
 In 1909 the latest figures available of the domestic ton were those of 1907. The 
 following is a table of the number of short tons mined and the value as given in the 
 article "Gypsum" in Mineral Productions of the United States for the Year 1911: 
 
 Year. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Value. 
 
 1906... 
 
 1,540,585 
 
 $3,837,975 
 
 1907 
 
 1,751,748 
 
 4,942,264 
 
 1908 
 
 1,721,829 
 
 4,075,824 
 
 1909 
 
 2,252,785 
 
 5,906,738 
 
 1910 
 
 2,379,057 
 
 6,523,029 
 
 
 
 
 It may also be noted that the census report of the Bureau of Manufactures on the 
 gypsum industry shows an increase of 3 mills in the United States calcining the 
 crude product. "At the time of the hearings there were 79 mills and there are now 82. 
 
 It would seem, therefore, that the domestic production has not been affected by the 
 lowering of the rate per ton (20 cents) either in quantity or value, and that there is a 
 healthy natural growth to the domestic industry. As a matter of fact, the importa- 
 
472 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 88 GYPSTTM. 
 
 tion of the crude gypsum is so small in proportion to the domestic product mined that 
 its competition is really negligible. It might also be added that the use of the im- 
 ported crude gypsum seems really a local proposition, with the railway freight rates 
 considered and the differential against the seaboard manufacturers. 
 
 Just one word further as to the domestic product calcined. The price per ton to 
 the consumer has kept pretty firm and nearly stable throughout the years intervening 
 since 1909. 
 
 There has been no increase in the number of plants calcining the crude gypsum 
 imported from Nova Scotia, Cape Britton, and New Brunswick. The crude gypsum 
 is brought to the Atlantic seaboard to ports between the extreme points of Portland, 
 Me., and Norfolk, Va. 
 
 The following table shows the tons imported and their value, with the amounts 
 ind duties paid from 1906 to date. These figures are taken from the Government 
 publication, Imported Merchandise Entered for Consumption in the United States 
 and Duties Collected Thereon. (See also, Imports and duties 1894 to 1907.) 
 
 Year. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Duties. 
 
 1906 . . 
 
 383,712 
 
 $446, 769 
 
 $191,856 
 
 1907 
 
 390,065 
 
 457,047 
 
 195, 032 
 
 1908 . 
 
 300,158 
 
 314,845 
 
 150 078 
 
 1909 
 
 288,740 
 
 341, 309 
 
 144, 370 
 
 1910: 
 Tariff act 1897 
 
 52,984 
 
 63,435 
 
 26,492 
 
 Tariff act 1909 . ' 
 
 287,355 
 
 344,470 
 
 86 206 
 
 1911 
 
 342, 528 
 
 408,151 
 
 102,758 
 
 1912 
 
 363,658 
 
 426,394 
 
 109 197 
 
 
 
 
 
 On the amount imported during the year 1912, 264,382 tons arrived at the port of 
 New York, valued at $303,538, and paying a duty of $79,314. From July 1, 1912, to 
 November 30, 1912, there arrived at the port of New York 148,500 tons, valued at 
 $170,560, and paying a duty of $44,550. 
 
 It would seem from these figures that there has not been a gain in the tonnage 
 imported, while the domestic producer has gained largely. 
 
 It might be added, and it is to be hoped, that this tonnage may become larger, as 
 it involves the use of American ships, barges, and lighters and the employment of 
 more men to carry the product. 
 
 At the hearing in 1908 it was urged that in addition to an absence of reason based 
 on the protection theory for the placing of this duty, that it was not even a real revenue 
 measure. At that time it was figured that the gross return to the Government was 
 about $195,000 a year based on an importation in 1907 of 390,000 tons of crude gypsum. 
 
 It must be remembered that the Government had to expend an appreciable part 
 of this money to inspect and oversee the tonnage. Were it not for the fact that the 
 importers aid the Government by the use of patented machinery, hoists, lefts, etc., 
 in the weighing and inspection, there would be nothing left for the Government from 
 this duty. 
 
 Based on the 1912 figure with the importation of 363,658 tons of unground gypsum, 
 the gross revenue to the Government was $109,197; hardly a revenue producer of any 
 importance to the Government, when the cost of inspecting and weighing is taken 
 therefrom. 
 
 The 1S97 tariff placed a duty of 50 cents per ton on crude gypsum (sec. 91), which 
 was. as ha.s been slated, reduced to 30 cents per ton in the 1909 oill. (See sec. 88.) 
 
 The act of July 2(i, 191 1, chapter 3 (Canadian reciprocity act), placed plaster rock 
 or gypsum, crude, on the free list, probably on the theory of a general reduction on 
 the raw material. 
 
 The figures and estimates as to production, coste in Canada and the United States 
 of the mined product, as well as those concerning labor, freight rates (both water and 
 railway! have maintained about the same parity as 1909, when adduced before this 
 committee at the hearing on November 28 of that year. 
 
 It should be remembered, and it is true now as it was then, that your petitioners 
 are situated in a large community, that their plants represent large investments, that 
 they employ some thousands of laborers, skilled and unskilled, whose wages have 
 advanced; that their plants are permanent, stable, solidly built mills, that each pays 
 a Inree amount of taxes, to sav nothing of the restriction? imposed by the authorities 
 regulating the safety of the buildings and the health of the workers. All this means 
 
SCHEDULE B. 473 
 
 PARAGRAPH 88 GYPSUM. 
 
 large gums of money, and the industry does need a lowering or abolition of the duty on 
 the crude rock to maintain ita stability in the face of a larger and larger domestic 
 output, which has the advantage of cheaper initial coat, very much cheaper running 
 expense, a decided differential in its favor in railway freight rates, and endless and 
 bottomless pits with undeveloped areas as a source of supply of their raw material. 
 
 It is respectfully submitted that plaster rock or gypsum, crude, be placed on the 
 free list. 
 Dated, New York, January 8, 1913. 
 
 J. B. KING & Co., 
 
 17 State Street, New York City. 
 KEYSTONE PLASTER Co., Chester, Pa. 
 HIGGINSON MANUFACTURING Co., 
 
 Newburgh, N. Y. 
 ROCK PLASTER MANUFACTURING Co., 
 
 New York City. 
 CONNECTICUT ADAMANT Co., 
 
 New Haven, Conn. 
 WOTHERSPOON PLASTER MILLS (!NC.), 
 
 Long Island City, N. Y. 
 
 (Counsel, Montague Lessler, 31 Nassau Street, Borough of Manhattan, New York 
 City.) 
 
 BRIEF OF THE NEWARK LIME & CEMENT MANUFACTURING CO., 
 
 NEWARK, N. J. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 6, 19 IS. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: In considering the rearrangement of the tariff, I urgently recommend 
 that crude gypsum be placed upon the free list. This is the raw material used in the 
 extensive manufacture of plaster of Paris along the Atlantic coast of the United States. 
 For many years until the present tariff was instituted it was on the free list. The 
 duty brings the Government very little revenue, and in addition to the direct handi- 
 cap which it imposes upon the manufacturing business here, it entails other dis- 
 astrous consequences upon plaster manufacturing concerns on the eastern seaboard. 
 I do not believe in any instance the Government weigher actually weighs the cargo 
 as discharged. Physical conditions are such to make necessary that the material 
 should be weighed on the scales of the consignee, by his employees; the customs 
 inspector only oversees the procedure in a general way. As a consequence, very 
 unsatisfactory disputes as to quantities and settlements are continually arising. 
 
 In 1908, before the present tariff law was enacted, there were nine plaster manu- 
 facturing concerns in operation along the coast using Canadian rock four in New York, 
 one in New Jersey, one in Maine, one in Pennsylvania, one in Connecticut, and one in 
 Boston. Now the number has been reduced to five, there being three in operation in 
 New York, one in New Jersey, and one in Connecticut. This is due largely to the 
 competition of plaster from the interior of the United States, which is, even at the 
 seaboard, driving out of use that made from Canadian gypsum. It is only for the higher 
 grades of product that the plaster made from Canadian rock is used throughout the 
 interior of the country; and it is very unfair that this tariff discrimination should be 
 made between the citizens of the same country. There is no foreign plaster imported, 
 and the only effect of the duty is to give some United States manufacturers, who 
 already have great natural advantages, an unfair advantage over their competitors. 
 
 An indirect effect of the duty is also to impose an unnecessary tax upon the users 
 of plaster of paris, who necessarily require this grade of goods. In conformity with 
 the effect of duties on raw materials, the final cost to the consumer is reflected in a 
 much higher price than that indicated by the tariff exaction itself. The argument! 
 for aiid against this duty were set forth in the tariff hearings before the then Committee 
 of Ways and Means, under date of November 24, 1908, copy of which I inclose herewith. 
 I would especially call your attention in this pamphlet to the information regarding 
 the gypsum combination of interior manufacturers. The evidence clearly showi 
 artificial control of prices and a desire to control competition through tariff impositions. 
 
474 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 89 PUMICE STONE. 
 
 Trusting that gypsum will be placed upon the free list, and offering no objection 
 to a corresponding reduction in the duty on manufactured plaster. 
 I remain, youre, respectfully, 
 
 CALVIN TOMKINS, 
 President Newark Plaster Co. 
 (Successors to Newark Lime & Cement Manufacturing Co.) 
 
 PARAGRAPH 89. 
 
 Pumice stone, wholly or partially manufactured, three-eighths of one cent 
 per pound; unmanufactured, valued at fifteen dollars or less per ton, thirty 
 per centum, ad valorem; valued at more than fifteen dollars per ton, one-fourth 
 of one cent per pound ; manufactures of pumice stone or of which pumice stone 
 is the component material of chief value not specially provided for in this sec- 
 tion, thirty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 
 PUMICE STONE. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ELMER R. MURPHEY, PRESIDENT OF JAMES 
 H. RHODES & CO., CHICAGO, ILL., AND NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. My name is Elmer R. Murphey, president of James 
 H. Rhodes & Co., of Chicago, 111., and New York. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What paragraph do you appear in reference to? 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. Paragraph 87, with reference to pumice stone. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. What is your business ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. We are in the pumice-stone business. 
 
 Mr. LONG WORTH. Are you an importer? 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. We are grinders. We import our grinding rock 
 and grind it here. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The paragraph you are interested in is 89. 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. That is my mistake. 
 
 Pumice stone unmanufactured (pezzame), valued at $15 per ton or less, at 30 per 
 cent ad valorem, per ton of 2,240 pounds, which, at 32 shillings per ton f. o. b. point 
 of shipment, which is Oanneto, Italy, is equivalent to a duty of $2.35 per ton. 
 
 Pumice stone wholly or partially manufactured (or powdered pumice), three-eighths 
 cent per pound, or $8.40 per ton. 
 
 Net protection: Is the difference between $8.40 on the manufactured, which we 
 use for grinding purposes, and the manufactured or powdered, or $6.05 per ton. 
 
 Lump pumice, one-fourth cent per pound: But under this wording the customs 
 authorities have been assessing three-eighths cent per pound on any lump pumice 
 which had the corners filed off, claiming it was partially manufactured. 
 
 Manufactures of pumice stone, or of which pumice stone is the component mate- 
 rial of chief value, not especially provided for, 35 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 TARIFF DESIRED. 
 
 Pumice, unmanufactured, valued at $15 per ton or less, should be admitted free, aa 
 it is our crude material for grinding purposes. 
 
 Pumice stone wholly or partially manufactured should remain at three-eighths cent 
 per pound. 
 
 Lump pumice stone should be admitted free. It should also include lumps which 
 have been filed or rolled which is done for convenience in packing and to save break- 
 age in transit and for no other purpose. 
 
 Manufactures of pumice stone or of which pumice stone is the component material 
 of chief value not specially jarovided for, 35 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Reasons for free items. Is one of this product is produced in the United States. 
 
 Reasons for duty of three-eighths of a cent on manufactured. -Pumice stone manufac- 
 tured in Italy is being sold in bags f. o. b. docks New York at $18.50 per ton of 2,000 
 pounds (that is, after the United States duty has been paid). 
 
 Thus, the United States custom records demonstrate that the Italians can grind, 
 pack, and deliver at the dock at New York ground pumice stone at $11 per ton. We are 
 willing to produce invoices, quotations, and refer to importations at this figure. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 475 
 
 PARAGRAPH 89 PUMICE STONE. 
 
 American cost of production of powdered Italian pumice stone. In 1908 was $23 per 
 ton, but since that time is higher because of the grinding rock costing more in Italy, 
 ocean freight rate being 75 cents per ton higher (with a further advance scheduled for 
 1913), and the duty being over $1 per ton more, so that our present cost of producing 
 is over $25.51 per ton. 
 
 Conclusion as to the facts. If the unmanufactured pumice, which is our grinding rock, 
 came in free it would reduce our cost of production $2.35, which would give us a net 
 cost of $21.15 per ton, as compared to the cost of pumice ground in Italy of $18.50 per 
 ton f. o. b. New York, which we are obliged to compete with. 
 
 The present ocean freight rate from the Lipari Islands to New York on Italian ground 
 pumice stone is 14 shillings per ton or $3.45 in American money per long ton. On the 
 unmanufactured or pumice in small lumps which we grind the rate is 18 shillings 6 
 pence or $4.56 per ton, owing to its greater bulk, thus putting us to an additional disad- 
 vantage of $1.11 per ton in ocean freight alone. 
 
 Wages in Italy. With which we compete in selling American ground powdered 
 pumice. The women and girls who work in the pumice get 20 cents per day and the 
 men get from 60 cents to $1 per day of 11 net hours in the summer and 10 hours in the 
 winter. This is from personal knowledge of the writer gathered during his several 
 visits to Italy and information gathered by our buyer in Italy, and is supported by 
 the statistics at the Washington, D. C., Department of Commerce and Labor as to the 
 average daily wage in Sicily. 
 
 The difference in their co&t of production is made up largely of labor and wages, . 
 rent, etc. We append a schedule as to the wages in Lipari in 1912, where all the 
 pumice stone is ground, and the wages we pay: 
 
 Common labor: Per day. 
 
 Italy $0. 50 
 
 New York 2. 00 
 
 Carpenter or engineer: 
 
 Italy 80 
 
 New York 4. 00 
 
 We have no advantage of the Italian grinder because of any labor-saving machinery, 
 for we both use practically the same kind of a plant. 
 
 Wages in our Brooklyn, N. Y., mill. In Brooklyn we pay from $2 to $3 per day of 
 10 hours' work and close half a day on Saturday. 
 
 Our rent in Brooklyn is $3.150 per year. In Italy our warehouse of practically the 
 same dimensions costs us $300 per year. 
 
 Furthermore, this pumice is ground by prison labor who are paid 10 cents per day 
 by the Government and thereby forced to work in the mills in order to*exist. The 
 Government has held they were technically not convicts because locked up only at 
 night. 
 
 Letter No. 90178 of December 13, 1912, from the Treasury Department, Washington, 
 D. C., written after the personal investigation of United States Consul Garrels on a 
 visit at the Lipari Islands in August, 1912, reads in part as follows: 
 
 "Part of the product of the pumice stone mills at Canneto, Lipari, is manufactured 
 by criminal convicts who are undergoing the fourth degree of punishment prescribed 
 by the Italian penal. They are furnished lodging at lire 0.50 ($0.096) by the Govern- 
 ment, which is not enough to keep them, and they work in the pumice mills, etc., to 
 make a living. About 70 are employed in various grades of labor in the pumice-stone 
 mills, where they earn from 2 lire (40 cents) to 4 lire (80 cents) per day, and this is the 
 scale of wages for common labor and is in keeping with that obtained generally in 
 Sicily in the districts more remote from the larger manufacturing and industrial 
 center. 
 
 "It is the opinion of the department that the term 'convict labor' as used in 
 section 14 applies only to the enforced labor of convicts and does not include labor 
 voluntarily rendered to individuals. 
 
 "For adequate compensation under sentences similar to those mentioned it is 
 therefore also of the opinion that the manufacturer 'of pumice stone under the con- 
 ditions cited above is not convict labor within the meaning and intent of the said 
 section 14 and the pumice stone so manufactured is not prohibitive importation 
 under this section." (J. F. Curtis, Assistant Secretary.) 
 
 Therefore, we may not expect relief from the law prohibiting the importation of 
 merchandise manufactured by convict labor. 
 
 Estimate of increase or decrease in imports. These changes in duty would make 
 no difference whatever in gross imports of all grades, as the article is such an unim- 
 portant one. The average buyer purchases from one to five barrels and less than 
 
476 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 89 PUMICE STONE. 
 
 $100 worth a year, and we are obliged to draw all of our supply from Italy. The 
 change asked would enable American grinders to more successfully compete with 
 the cheap foreign labor. 
 
 Free competition in United States. We might add that there is in the United States 
 no association nor agreement among pumice grinders, nor is one possible, as any 
 grinding mill could, with the same plant, reduce pumice to a powder, providing the 
 market price would allow him a profit. 
 
 .'i' f ---' JAMES H. RHODES & Co., 
 
 ELMER R. MURPHEY, President, 
 
 Chicago and New York. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I notice on this line of assignment that you are 
 defined as being "favorable." Favorable to what? 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. I do not know anything about that. This is my 
 brief. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Favorable to the reduction of the duty, or what ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. We want a reduction in our raw materials that we 
 use for grinding. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. What you want is increased protection ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. More than you are getting now ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I was not sure whether you were unfavorable to 
 a reduction in duty generally or to an increase. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Do you want an increased duty on the finished product ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. He wants free raw materials, and the same 
 duty on the finished product. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Do you want to take the tariff off of the raw materials ? 
 
 Mr. MURPIIRY. Yes, sir; outside of 30 per cent. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. Would you lower the price of the manufactured 
 goods to correspond to the reduction in the duty on raw materials? 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. Yes; we would reduce the price of our manufac- 
 tures. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. You want the duty on manufactured products 
 under the present law reduced to correspond with the reduction on 
 free raw materials ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. No, sir; we ask for the same duty of three-eighths 
 of a, cent on material which is ground in Italy. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Did you appear before the committee four years ago? 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. We did not; no, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. One gentleman appeared here asking for an increased 
 duty on pumice stone. I did not know whether you were the gen- 
 tleman or not. 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What is the total output of that product in the United 
 States ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. A little over 5,000 tons, Mr. James. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What amount is imported? 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. Of the material we ground, 3,900 tons came in in 
 1911 and 3,100 tons in 1912. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions ? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTT T How many men do you employ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHEI. About 35. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Reisinger. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 477 
 
 PARAGRAPH 89 PUMICE STONE. 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. I have another brief here which I would like to file 
 in relation to paragraph 89, covering pumice stone, where the duty is 
 35 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Relative to paragraph 89, covering pumice stone, part of which reads as follows: 
 "Manufactures of pumice stone, or of which pumice stone is the component article of 
 chief value, not specially provided for in this section, 35 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 How applied. We herewith hand you some small shapes of pumice stone mainly 
 used for toilet purposes, which properly come under this neading. 
 
 But the appraisers have been assessing an imitation pumice brick which contains no 
 pumice at all, but which is made entirely out of clay and flint, at 35 per cent, using this 
 paragraph as their authority. 
 
 I hand you a sample of this brick known as Bimsstein Fabrik, or imitation pumice 
 brick. 
 
 Changes desired. We quote an extract from paragraph 90. as follows : ' ' Clays or earths 
 wrought or manufactured not especially provided for in this section $2 per ton." 
 
 We ask that part of it be changed to read as follows: "Clays or earths, wrought or 
 manufactured, including rubbing, scouring, or polishing bricks or powders. In this 
 way there would be no question about this brick being properly classified. 
 
 Whatever duty your committee finally determine shall apply on this clause as to 
 "Clays and earth wrought and manufactured," we would ask apply to this imitation 
 pumice brick. 
 
 I personally have at several times visited the factory in Germany where this brick 
 is manufactured, and know that 65 per cent of the brick is made of a special clay, 
 with 35 per cent of flint added. 
 
 Increased importation. It is our opinion that there will be little or no change because 
 of properly classifying this article under paragraph 90, as suggested. 
 
 Not produced here. Some years ago we endeavored to find the same crude material 
 in the United States to enable us to manufacture the brick here, but nothing of the 
 same character could be found. 
 
 American labor. There never has been one pound of this made in America to date. 
 Therefore, any changes in the tariff are in no way competing with or supplanting Ameri- 
 can labor. 
 
 The raw material could not be imported and manufactured into these brick forms 
 with the present duty or a higher duty and compete with the foreign-made article. 
 
 Therefore, the present duty is protecting no one but only operates as a tax on the 
 American manufacturer. 
 
 Yours, very truly, JAMES H. RHODES & Co., 
 
 ELMER R. MURPHEY, President, 
 
 Chicago and New York. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We will give your suggestion consideration when 
 the matter comes up. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Where is the pumice stone produced in this country ? 
 
 Mr. MURPHEY. TKere is none producea in this country. There is a 
 volcanic ash, which is produced in the West. 
 
 Under date of January 15, 1913, the following additional com- 
 munication was filed: 
 
 NEW YORK, January 15, 191S. 
 Subject: Paragraph 89. 
 OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 HONORABLE SIR: Referring to our brief, in further explanatin, would say that the 
 customhouse have in many cases been assessing this bimsstein on paragraph 95, which 
 is a catchall for anything not specified in the other paragraphs and which carries a 
 duty of 35 per cent. 
 
 It was our idea that paragraph 95 was to cover such manufactures of clay as retorts 
 and vessels of that kind but was not intended to cover a manufacture of clay in the 
 form of a scouring or rubbing brick. 
 
 There has never been any contention by the custom authorities during the later 
 periods but what there was no pumice stone whatever in this brick, and that it was 
 
478 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 89 PTTMICE STONE. 
 
 entirely of a clay and flint combination and is baked in a kiln the same as any ordinary 
 brick. 
 
 Yours, very truly, JAMES H. RHODES & Co., 
 
 E. R. MURPHEY, President. 
 
 BRIEF OF R. J. WADDELL & CO., NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 R. J. WADDELL & Co., 
 
 New York, January S, 1913. 
 
 SCHUMACHERSCHE FABRIK OR GERMAN RUBBING BRICKS. 
 
 Under the present tariff of 1909, we have been obliged to pay duty on the above as 
 classified under the last clause of paragraph 89. 
 
 We have protested against this, as we believe it is not properly classified and should 
 not come in under this heading. Previous to the Din^ley tariff these German bricks 
 were admitted free, and in our opinion they should still be on the free list, and cer- 
 tainly 35 per cent is an excessive duty. 
 
 These bricks can not be manufactured in the United States. They are made from 
 disintegrated clay and baked, and the material from which these bricks are made 
 has never been found in this country. 
 
 If not on the free list they should be classified under paragraph 90, and this para- 
 graph should be changed to read as follows: 
 
 "Clays and earths un wrought or unmanufactured, $1 per ton; wrought or manu- 
 factured, including rubbing, scouring, or cleaning bricks, $2 per ton." 
 
 HONES AND WHETSTONES. 
 
 We are importers of the Tarn O'Shanter and Water of Ayr hone stones found in Scot- 
 land. Under the 1909 tariff hones and whetstones are on the free list. 
 
 "\Ve import these hones in various sizes and various shapes. Previous to the Dingley 
 tariff all hones were on the free list no matter in what shape or size they were 
 imported. Recently the Board of Appraisers has made a distinction, claiming that 
 some hones were dutiable and others free, and the matter has been in controversy 
 during the last seven or eight years, and we never know what duty we shall be obliged 
 to pay. Decisions have varied from putting them on the free list to 20 to 35 per cent. 
 
 It will at once appear evident to your committee how unjust this is to the importer, 
 and we would ask that the paragraph be changed to read : 
 
 "Hones or whetstones of whatever size or shape, whether for sharpening or other 
 purposes, free." 
 
 This would not interfere with any American product, or, in our judgment, conflict 
 with any other interest. We have been unable to tell since the last tariff went into 
 effect what duty we would have to pay, and we have frequently sold the hones at a 
 loss, thinking they were coming in under the free list, and in several months we would 
 receive an additional duty notice. 
 
 Can not the paragraph be made clear, so as to avoid this trouble to the importer? 
 
 CUSTOMS TARIFF OF AUGUST, 1909, PARAGRAPH 89. 
 
 "Pumice stone, unmanufactured, under $15 per ton, 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 " Lump pumice stone, over $15 per ton, at one-fourth of 1 cent per pound. 
 
 "Manufactured ground pumice stone at three-eighths of 1 cent per pound." 
 
 Under the above tariff, our small lump pumice stone for grinding, called pezzame, 
 pays a duty of $2.05 per thousand kilos, or 2,20(^pounds. 
 
 At three-eighths of 1 cent per pound the duty on the Italian ground pumice stone 
 is $8.25 per thousand kilos, or 2,200 pounds, which shows nominally a protection of 
 $6.20 per 2.200 pounds, which is not sufficient to offset the difference in the cost of 
 manufacturing. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 479 
 
 PABAGBAPH 89- PUMICE STONE. 
 
 The lowest price at which we can manufacture our ground pumice stone in our fac- 
 tory in Brooklyn, from the imported lump, is as follows: 
 
 Per ton. 
 The cost of pumice stone for grinding, including freight to New York, 2 7s.. $11. 47 
 
 Duty on pumice stone, at 30 per cent (less freight) 2. 05 
 
 Lighterage from steamer dock to Brooklyn dock 88 
 
 Cartage from Brooklyn dock to factory, at 2 cents per bag .34 
 
 Cost of grinding, including kiln drying, loss of weight, wages, power, bolting 
 
 cloth, etc 8.00 
 
 About six barrels required for each ton, at 30 cents each 1. 80 
 
 24.54 
 
 The total net cost of $24.54 per ton is as low aa we can possibly turn out our product. 
 
 The Italian ground pumice stone can be imported into this country, including the 
 payment of three-eighths of a cent per pound duty, at a cost under 1 cent per pound. 
 
 From the above figures it must be perfectly clear that the nominal protection of 
 $6.20 per ton, as stated above, is not sufficient to protect the American manufacturer, 
 and we would request, as due us as American manufacturers, that the above para- 
 graph 89 be changed to read as follows: 
 
 "All lump pumice stone should be admitted free. Foreign ground pumice stone 
 should remain at three-eighths of a cent per pound . ' ' 
 
 The above change would benefit the American manufacturer or grinder of Italian 
 lump pumice stone and would not interfere with any grinder of any domestic material. 
 
 There has never been any pumice stone found in the United States that could be 
 substituted for use in the arts, and it is necessary to import this article from Italy. It 
 is a raw material, and the manufacturer is entitled to have his raw product free. 
 
 Also consider the difference in cost, which an American manufacturer has to con- 
 tend with. Our plant represents an investment of fully $60,000. The wages paid are 
 from $2 to $3 per day, with a half day on Saturday. The hours of labor are much longer 
 in Italy and the wages less than a third of what we have to pay. 
 
 We desire the following changes in Schedule B, paragraph 89, for reasons stated 
 below: 
 
 All lump pumice stone free. 
 
 Ground pumice stone at three-eighths of 1 cent per pound. 
 
 This leaves the duty on the ground pumice stone the same as before. 
 
 We are importers and grinders of small lump pumice stone, which we must import 
 from Italy, ae there is no genuine pumice stone found in the United States. We can 
 not import and grind pumice stone ready for the market under $24.76. We figure our 
 cost as follows: 
 
 The cost of pumice stone for grinding, including freight to New York, $11.69 per ton; 
 duty on pumice stone at 30 per cent (less freight), $2.05 per ten; lighterage from 
 steamer to Brooklyn dock, $0.88 per ton; cartage from Brooklyn dock to factory, at 
 2 cents per bag, $6.34 per ton; cost of grinding, including kiln-drying, loss of weight, 
 wages, power, bolting cloth, etc., $8 per ton; about 6 barrels required for each ton, at 
 30 cents each, $1.80 per ton; total, $24.76 per ton. 
 
 The net cost of $24.76 per ton is as low as we can possibly turn out our product 
 ready for the market. 
 
 The Italian ground pumice stone can be imported into this country, including the 
 payment of three-eighths of 1 cent per pound duty, at a cost to us of $19 per ton on 
 dock. This gives the foreign goods an advantage of $5.76. At the present rate of 
 duty 30 per cent on our small-lump pumice stone our duty is about $2.05 per ton. 
 The duty on ] ton of the Italian ground pumice is $8.25. This would seem to give 
 a nominal protection of $6.20, but notice the above statement that with the duty 
 paid on the Italian ground, they can still offer it in this market at $5.76 under our cost. 
 
 \Ve are not asking anything unreasonable when we request that the duty on our 
 raw material be taken off, which would give us $2.05, making our cost $22.71, and 
 leaving the Italian st'll $3.71 under our cost. We are able to partially offset this 
 advantage in the Italian grinding by giving a better and more uniform product; this 
 is the only advantage we have. The cost of labor here is fully three times as much as 
 it is in Lipari, and other costs of maintaining a plant in America in proportion. 
 
 We trust the members of your committee will not be unduly influenced because 
 certain interests in the United States may have in the past been unduly protected, 
 and conclude that all business can be maintained against unfavorable advantages. 
 Pumice stone is only a small business. The consumer will never suffer from any 
 
480 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 89 PUMICE STONE. 
 
 changes we have asked for in the tariff, and it would enable us as manufacturers to 
 exist. 
 
 Shall be glad to furnish your committee any additional information desired. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 R. J. WADDELL & Co. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF THE ITALIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, NEW 
 
 YORK CITY. 
 
 Hon. O. W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: This chamber desires to submit to the consideration of this honorable commit- 
 tee the following observations on the revision of the herein-stated articles, included 
 in Schedule B (earth, earthenware, and glassware). 
 
 Pumice stone. Unmanufactured pumice stone, viz: Pumice stone in lumps is 
 practically all imported in this country from the Lipari Islands, located not far off 
 the northeastern snore of Sicily. 
 
 Although deposits of pumice stone exist in Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, and Nevada, 
 only of late years have they begun to be exploited, and domestic production is yet 
 carried on on a small scale, and to all practical purposes the Lipari Islands remain the 
 only source of supply of this article possessing the qualities required for its use. 
 
 Pumice is used as an abrasive by manufacturers of furniture, carriages, and other 
 wooden articles, metals, glass, bone, and other manufactures, and more extensively 
 as a filler for scouring, cleaning, and polishing material, and for paint. 
 
 The imported unmanufactured pumice does not enter into competition with the 
 American article for the reason that the latter can not conveniently replace the im- 
 ported in the manifold purposes in which it is utilized. 
 
 The lump pumice imported from Italy in fiscal year 1911 to the amount of 5,681 
 tons, valued at $54,613 is now taxed with an import duty of 30 per cent if valued at 
 not more than $15 per ton, and with a duty of one-fourth of 1 cent per pound if valued 
 at more than $15 per ton. In the Dingley tariff it was rated at 15 per cent ad valorem 
 irrespective of value, and previous to 1897 was admitted free of duty. 
 
 Its grinding in this country is the object of an industry, which needs this raw mate- 
 rial. Increased freights (at present of about 22 shillings per ton, instead of about 19 
 shillings, as four years ago on lump pumice in bags) have made the increase of duty 
 burdensome to the grinders, so that in order to counteract the higher cost of freight, 
 the duty should be reduced to its former figures of 15 per cent were it not possible to 
 return this article entirely to the free list. 
 
 Pumice stone is also imported in a powdered condition (in fiscal year 1911 to the 
 amount of about 3,474 tons), and when it is considered that its present duty of $8 
 equivalent to about 80 per cent of its value on an article which, although partly manu- 
 factured is a necessary material to other industries, such as the soap and paint manu- 
 factures, that wages have increased of late years in the country of origin, that freights 
 have increased at least 75 cents per ton, which increase acts as a protection to the 
 domestic grinders of the imported lump pumice, that the higher freight on lump than 
 on ground pumice would be counterbalanced by the proposed lowering of the duty on 
 lump pumice to its former rate of 15 per cent it is evident that the duty on ground 
 pumice stone could be reduced without injustice to domestic grinders to its former 
 figure of $fi ("equivalent to about 60 per cent), which is ample protection to the mil- 
 lers in this pountry. 
 
 For the above stated reasons this chamber respectfully recommends that the duty 
 on pumice stone in lumps, valued at less than $15 per ton, be reduced from 30 to 15 
 per cent ad valorem, and that the duty on manufactured pumice stone valued at more 
 than $15 be reduced from one-fourth to one-eighth of 1 cent per pound; and finally 
 that on powdered pumice stone the present rate of $8 per ton be lowered to $6 per ton. 
 
 Limestone rock asphalt. This article, of much lesser value than bituminous or West 
 Indian asphalt, contains no more than 15 per cent, usually only about 12 per cent, of 
 bitumen. 
 
 It is imported chiefly from Hanover, Germany (in fiscal year 1911, 2,091 tons) and 
 from Sicily (Ragusa) (in fiscal year 1911, 6,099 tons) in increasing quantities (now 
 almost treble the quantity imported five years ago) owing to its increased use in the 
 paving of floors subject to concussions, for which purpose it is especially suited because, 
 provided it is laid 2 inches thick over a good concrete foundation, it does not crack, 
 and provides a flooring of long duration, impervious to water, which permits of being 
 abundantly washed with water without injury. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 481 
 
 PARAGBAPH 89 PUMICE STONE. 
 
 Owing to the antiseptic qualities of this material, and signally to the property of not 
 cracking and thus eliminating the accumulation of dirt, that usually takes place in the 
 crevices of other kinds of flooring which are apt to crack, it is preferred for hygienic 
 reasons in the paving of toilet rooms, stables, slaughter houses, factories, parkways, 
 bridges, etc. 
 
 Although deposits of rock asphalt are said to exist on the Pacific coast, they are 
 hardly exploited, because the product can not economically be hauled to the eastern 
 markets owing to the high freights, a situation which the opening of the Panama 
 Canal, and the lower rates thereby obtainable, can and will remedy better than any 
 artificial protection through the tariff. 
 
 This material at present is subject to a duty of 50 cents per ton, equivalent to about 
 16 per cent. With the increased cost of transportation, freights from Sicily have 
 increased of late to about 45 cents per ton; even a duty of 50 cents per ton is anything 
 but low. As it may, however, be necessary for revenue purposes to maintain it, this 
 chamber recommends that it remain unchanged, as this is a line of asphalt importa- 
 tions which has proven satisfactory from a revenue standpoint, the present rate of 
 duty being the most convenient as a revenue yielder without interfering much with 
 its increasing industrial use. 
 
 Bottles, fdied. This chamber desires to call the attention of this honorable com- 
 mittee to one of the most fiscal features of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, viz, that 
 provision charging duty on bottles imported filled with certain merchandise, such 
 as olive oil, fish, olives, etc., which is by itself subject to duty and, not infrequently, 
 to very high rates. 
 
 To charge duties on the containers in such cases, as if the container represented a 
 value which it has not, either for the importer or the consumer, is not fair, considering 
 the already higher cost for packing materials (bottles, caps, labels, etc.) and the higher 
 cost of transportation to which the merchandise put up in such containers has to stand 
 by reason of this fractional form of packing; but it is manifestly unjust in the case 
 of merchandise contained in bottles bearing the brand or the name of the manufac- 
 turer in such manner that it can not be removed, thus rendering the containers unfit 
 for further commercial use. 
 
 It might, moreover, be stated that the duty on bottle containers, or the fiscal regu- 
 lations which impose a duty in certain cases (as, for instance, in beans, peas, mush- 
 rooms, and truffles imported in bottles, a form of packing already handicapped by a 
 higher cost and greater liability to breakage and loss), on the basis of their weight, 
 including that of their immediate coverings, discriminates in favor of other forms of 
 packing, instead of encouraging packing in bottles, which in the case of certain prod- 
 ucts, such as the above stated, may be advisable not only from the standpoint of the 
 better appearance of the article, but also for hygienic reasons, the packing in glass 
 being certainly more healthful than other forms of packing. 
 
 This chamber therefore respectfully recommends that if, for revenue purposes, it is 
 unavoidable to maintain the duty on bottles used as containers of merchandise already 
 subject to duty, at least it be removed from bottles bearing the brand or name of the 
 manufacturer in such manner that such brand or name can not be removed; and 
 further, that the duty on bottle containers, from the present high rate of 40 per cent, 
 be reduced to a more reasonable rate of specific duty. 
 
 Marble. Developed as is to-day the quarrying of marble in the United States, espe- 
 cially in Vermont and Tennessee, the most important centers of this industry, it is 
 certain that, owing to the constant increase in the demand of this commodity brought 
 about by the wonderful development of American architecture (which, in line with 
 the improving artistic education of pur people, continuously finds new application for 
 the employment of this noble building material), the future will witness an even more 
 notable increment in the quarrying ol marble in this country, where marble deposits 
 of great variety and of greater or lesser value are to be found in most of the States, so vast 
 is the wealth of the United States in this mineral, fairly distributed throughout its 
 area, marble being quarried from Vermont to California and from Alabama to Colorado. 
 
 Marble has passed long ago the stage when its use might have been considered a 
 luxury. It has become to-day a commodity, or, to be more exact, a necessity, not 
 only for decorative but often also for sanitary and economic purposes, fully appre- 
 ciated by architects and builders who resort to its use freely, with the -result that 
 marble is to be considered to-day a growing necessity. There is no other country 
 where marble is used as it is here. 
 
 Such being the case, it is important that, ample as is the source of supply for the 
 domestic article, which for obvious reasons, not excluding that of the enormous pro- 
 
 78959 VOL 113 31 
 
482 TABIFP 
 
 PARAGRAPH 89 PUMICE STONE. 
 
 tection accorded to it in the past, practically controls the market for the grades of this 
 commodity consumed in the largest quantity, viz, the cheaper varieties, it should not 
 be restricted, as it has been in the past, by not only superfluous but prejudicial high 
 rates of duty on those finer grades of marble destined to special purposes, which are not 
 yet produced in this country and have therefore to be imported from abroad. 
 
 Italy supplies about 80 per cent of all the marble importations in this country, of 
 which about 70 per cent is represented by marble in blocks, subject to a duty of 65 
 cents per cubic foot. 
 
 Marble is imported from Italy because of its special qualities, more suited to certain 
 purposes than the domestic, and chiefly for statuary, and not because it enters into com- 
 petition with American marble, for, as it is visible "a priori," the great difference in 
 the primary cost of production, estimated for the Vermont marble at about 65 cents 
 per cubic foot at the quarry and even less for marbles from other States, against $1.50 
 per cubic foot for the Carrara marble f . o. b. Leghorn, this would be absolutely impos- 
 sible, aside from any duty consideration. 
 
 Why a protection as great as the cost of production on the unmanufactured form of 
 marble was ever allowed is, this chamber believes, accountable to the exaggerated 
 importance given to the often-repeated and abused argument of the lower cost of labor 
 in Italy than here, which is, however, not as low as reported by interested competitors. 
 From $1 to $1.60 is paid in Italy to labor working in the quarries for six hours actual 
 work, equivalent to $1.33 to $2.13 for an eight-hour day. The labor employed in the 
 quarrying districts of the United States is paid on the average from $1.50 to $2 per day 
 of 10 hours, equivalent to from $1.20 to $1.60 per day of 8 hours, or about the same as 
 in Italy. 
 
 At any rate, wages paid to labor are only one of the factors in establishing the cost of 
 production, the disadvantage of the higher cost of labor, if any, in this country, being 
 more than offset by the wide application of labor-saving machinery in the process of 
 extraction, an application which, through peculiar geographical and geological condi- 
 tions, is not possible abroad, where the work of quarrying requires a complicated sys- 
 tem of hauling of the material quarried, which increases the cost of production. It is 
 safe to state that labor in Carrara is, proportionately to the amount of material quarried 
 by a single hand, higher than in the marble-quarrying districts of this country. Add 
 to this the difficulties of transportation, which has to oe done by means of animals to 
 shipping port at a cost of 58 cents per cubic foot, to be added to the cost of the marble 
 at the quarry, viz, $0.92, and you see why the cost price of the Carrara marble at the 
 shipping port of Leghorn ia more than twice the cost of the marble at the quarry in 
 this country. 
 
 Neither is the statement exact that the American marble quarryman does not 
 derive any protection from the maritime freight, because the average freight from 
 American quarries to the principal distributing points in the United States will average 
 less than from Italy. The freights on American railroads for either domestic or im- 
 ported marble are equal, and comparisons in the cost of freight in the two instances of 
 imported and domestic marble should be made for the same destination and for an 
 average of several differently located places, when it will be seen that the advantage is 
 greater on the side of the American product. 
 
 Even in the case of New York, which can b reached by the imported marble at a 
 greater advantage than other destinations, i. e., at a freight of 45 cents per cubic foot 
 plus 11 cents per cubic foot, marine insurance and other contingent expenses, or, say, 
 at a total cost of 55 cents, the advantage is notably on the side of the Vermont marble, 
 which can reach the same destination at a cost of 25 cents per cubic foot. 
 
 It should, moreover, be stated that maritime freights on this commodity have 
 increased lately 10 per cent per cubic foot and further increases seem to be in con- 
 templation, while freights in the case of the American marble have not changed. 
 
 It will therefore be seen that American marble, in comparison to the imported, 
 enjoys already a natural protection equal to about 100 per cent by reason of the lower 
 cost of production and freight, taking New York as destination, besides the duty pro- 
 tection of 65 cents per cubic foot, in total a protection of nearly 200 per cent. 
 
 It follows that while the cheapest imported marble, selling usually at $2.85 per 
 cubic foot, leaves a profit to the importer of only 10 per cent, the Vermont marble, 
 selling at $2, leaves to the quarryman a profit of more than 100 per cent. 
 
 Other advantages are usually associated with the quarrying of American marble 
 in comparison to the imported, and these are the manufacturing of the marble into 
 slabs, or pieces ready for operation, carried on in connection with the quarrying, 
 which, by the protection enjoyed against the marble imported in blocks, makes com- 
 petition impossible from the manufacturer in this country of Carrara marble, who has 
 to pay duty on the marble in block. 
 
SCHEDULE B, 483 
 
 PARAGRAPH 89 PT7MICE STONE. 
 
 The present high protective tariff on marble in blocks does not benefit either Ameri- 
 can labor, the employment of which is reduced to a minimum by the equipment of 
 the quarries with modern labor-saving machinery and appliances, nor does it benefit 
 the manufacturers of marble in this country, of whom there are about 100 scat- 
 tered in the States, doing annually a business conservatively estimated at from 
 $15,000,000 to $20,000,000, and who can not compete with the quarryman manufac- 
 turer. It is not to the interest of revenue, as the importation of foreign marble in this 
 country, on account of the exorbitant rate of duty charged, does not keep pace with 
 the demand for marble, and the advantage deriving from the increased demand goes 
 to the total benefit of the domestic article. 
 
 If the present rate on block marble were reduced to a more reasonable figure, say 
 to 35 cents per cubic foot, as this chamber respectfully recommends, Carrara marble 
 would secure some share of the increased demand, and notwithstanding the reduced 
 rate the revenue would get a greater income than at present, because of increased 
 importations, while the increased use of marble of better quality would add to the 
 value of the buildings in which it is used; would advantage American labor employed 
 in the manufacture of marble and promote artistic improvement. 
 
 On marble mosaics a duty is at present assessed of 20 per cent ad valorem and one- 
 fourth of a cent per pound. It is the opinion of this chamber that this duty is too 
 high and should be reduced by eliminating the one-fourth of a cent per pound. 
 Mosaic cubes are not made in this country. 
 
 There is therefore no need of protection. The duty being justifiable only from the 
 standpoint of raising revenue, this chamber believes that if it were reduced as it 
 respectfully recommends, to 20 per cent ad valorem, eliminating the one-fourth of a 
 cent per pound, it would help to increase the sales, which have not developed on 
 account of the prohibitive rates imposed by the tariff act of 1897, preventing the 
 consumer from using an excellent material for which no substitute, equal in quality, 
 can be found in this country. 
 
 At the last tariff revision some reduction was granted in the duty on mosaics, which, 
 however, has not proven adequate to enable this commodity to attain that extensive 
 use which it certainly would at a more reasonable rate. By granting the reduction 
 recommended there is no doubt that the revenue to the Government would be higher 
 than it has been for the last few years. 
 
 Granito or terrazzo. It is the opinion of this chamber that granito should be placed 
 on the free list, and that the item "granito" should be specifically stated in tariff 
 nomenclature. 
 
 About five or six years ago this material, which has been the cause of repeated con- 
 troversies between importers and the Government, was, in consequence of the various 
 decisions rendered, at first admitted in exemption of duty for about one year, and then 
 again returned to the dutiable list on the basis first of 10 per cent and then of 20 per 
 cent duty. 
 
 Granito is produced, to a certain extent, in this country, at Lee, Mass., and in Georgia, 
 but the domestic product is sold at less than half the prices of the imported article. 
 
 Granito is worth in Italy about 14 francs per ton, equal to $2.77; it costs $2 per ton to 
 convey it from Carrara to Genoa, and from $3.50 to $4 per ton to bring it to New York. 
 A further 10 per cent addition should be made for waste, which, with the presentduty, 
 at the rate of $0.66 per ton, brings the total cost of the article in New York at $10.30, 
 against $4 per ton, selling price of the domestic article at the quarry. 
 
 Even with the granito placed on the free list, domestic production could still be 
 sold considerably below the imported, as the steamship companies have lately raised 
 considerably their rates. 
 
 As the present duty assessment of this commodity at the rate of 20 per cent has 
 helped to limit the importation of an article which should be supplied to the build- 
 ing industry of this country at the smallest possible outlay, this chamber recommends 
 that it be exempted from duty, and that the item "granito" be made one of the cus- 
 toms classification. 
 
 Botticino, which is a limestone and not a marble, as witnessed by competent tech- 
 nical authority, is now charged at the rate of 65 cents per cubic foot as marble in 
 blocks. 
 
 This article, also, has been the subject of tedious controversies between the im- 
 porters and the Government, the former having protested against its being assessed 
 at 65 cents, because it is not marble but a limestone, and because it is worth in Italy 
 only from 80 'cents to $1 and even less per cubic foot, which shows conclusively that 
 it is an article of much lower value than the cheapest grade of marble, actually costing 
 at the shipping port $1.50 per cubic foot. 
 
484 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 89 PT7MICE STONE- 
 
 The case of the importers, who rightly claim that it should be assessed duty as 
 stone i. e., at the rate of 10 cents per cubic foot was won in all the courts, only to be 
 defeated by the Customs Court at Washington established by the tariff act of 1909. 
 
 From the facts above stated, it is manifest that the present duty charged on this 
 material is untenable, both from the standpoint of the technical character of the 
 material in question, which is that of a limestone and not that of marble, as well as 
 from the standpoint of equity, it being unfair to charge on a material of much less 
 value than marble the same duty of marble. 
 
 Therefore, for reasons of justice, equity, and in the interest of revenue, which, were 
 this material allowed to come in at a lower assessment, would benefit by the increased 
 importation, this chamber respectfully recommends that botticino and similar lime- 
 stones, bearing the denominations of Tavernelle, Rosato, Pietra di Trani, etc., be 
 specifically classified, under the paragraph 114, as "unmanufactured limestone," 
 and assessed a duty of 10 cents per cubic foot. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 [SEAL.] LUIGI SOLARI, President. 
 
 G. R. SOHROEDER, Secretary. 
 
 BRIEF OF CHARLES B. CHRYSTAI, NEW YORK, N. Y., IN RE 
 
 PTJMICE STONE. 
 
 NEW YORK, February 5, 19 IS. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Not knowing whether the duty on pumice stone has had consideration 
 as yet or not, I desire to call your committee's attention to the excessive duty on this 
 article, covered in paragraph 89, tariff act of August 5, 1909, "Pumice stone manufac- 
 tured wholly or partly, per pound, three-eighths cent. ' ' This paragraph covers ground 
 or powdered puanice stone, and I am inclosing copy of consular invoice recently 
 received, duly sworn to, showing the value of the pumice stone both at the point of 
 production and at New York, including all charges. The duty on this shipment, as 
 on all shipments of pumice stone, was three-eighths cent per pound. The amount of 
 the inclosed consular invoice in dollars is $615.84 mine value, including cost of bags, 
 and I paid a duty of $855, making the percentage of duty 138.8 per cent. The value 
 of this shipment at New York, adding freights, insurance, etc., duty not paid, 
 $1,194.51, making percentage of duty on this valuation 75.5 per cent. 
 
 From the fact that there is no pumice produced in the United States excepting a 
 so-called pumice, used in cheap soaps, cleansers, etc., this duty is very excessive. 
 The American pumice BO called, can not be used for most purposes for which pumice 
 is required, such as in the manufacture of silver-plated and solid silver ware, for 
 rubbing down varnished surfaces, and for numerous purposes; in fact, the so-called 
 American pumice is useless for any other purpose, as has been repeatedly demon- 
 strated by practical tests. 
 
 I would respectfully suggest a duty on pumice stone, manufactured wholly or 
 partly, of $2.50 per ton, and in my opinion, which is based on nearly 20 years' expe- 
 rience in this business, this duty would bring a greater revenue than the present duty 
 does by largely facilitating the importation of pumice. 
 
 Trusting that this matter will have consideration at the proper time, and feeling 
 certain that your investigations will show that the duty on this material is unduly 
 large, and that due to it the cost of pumice to the consumer is much greater than it 
 should be, I am, 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, CHAS. B. CHRYSTAL. 
 
 [Inclosure.] 
 
 CANNETO, LIPARI, January 2, 191S. 
 
 Invoice of 1,034 bags powdered pumice stone purchased by Charles B. Chrystal, of New 
 York, from V. & A. di Angelo D'Ambra, of Canneto, Lipari, to be shipped per steamship 
 " Moncenisio." 
 
 POWDERED PUMICE STONE. 
 
 FF 400 bags, net kilos 40,000, at 48 Istg . ..' 96.00.00 
 
 F 100 bags, net kilos 10,000, at 46 Istg 23. 00. 00 
 
 O 150 bags, net kilos 15,000, at 46 Istg 34.10.00 
 
 O } 150 bags, net kilos 15.000, at 48 Istp 36. 00. 00 
 
SCHEDULE B. 485 
 
 PARAGRAPH 89 PTJMICE STONE. 
 
 * 50 bags, net kilos 5,000, at 50 Istg 12. 10. 00 
 
 G 1 125 bags, net kilos 12,500, at 50 Istg 3L 05. 00 
 
 G 59 bags, net kilos 5,015, at 46 Istg 1L 10. 08 
 
 Consular certificate 0. 10. 00 
 
 Lstg 245. 5. 80 
 
 Less freight at New York 84. 11. 50 
 
 160. 14. 30 
 E. and E. E. 
 
 SPECIFICATION. 
 
 Lltg. 
 
 Bags cost 25. 9. 3 
 
 Pumice cost 101. 0. 
 
 Shipping expenses 5. 10. 
 
 Municipal duty 28. 15. 
 
 Freight cost 84. 1L 5 
 
 245. 5.8 
 Total amount of export duty paid, Istg. 28.15.0. 
 
 STATE OP NEW YORK, 
 
 County of New York, as: 
 
 Charles B. Chrystal, being duly sworn, says that he is an importer and dealer in 
 pumice stone and has his place of business at No. 11 Cliff Street, in the Borough of 
 Manhattan, New York City, N. Y.; that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of 
 consular invoice filed by him in the United States customhouse in New York City; 
 that the prices noted therein are the present market prices and have been the approx- 
 imate market prices for the past five years. 
 
 CHAS. B. CHRYSTAL. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, February 5, 1913. 
 [SEAL.] ANDREW WOELFEL, 
 
 Notary Public, Richmond County. 
 
 Certificate filed in New York County, No. 56, New York County register's office, 
 No. 4161. 
 
 BRIEF OF F. W. THURSTON CO., CHICAGO, ILL. 
 
 Pumice Stone and Imitation Pumice Brick. 
 
 CHICAGO, January 4, 191S. 
 Mr. OSCAR UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Referring to the tariff on pumice stone, paragraph 89, that part which 
 refers to "Manufacture of pumice stone or of which pumice stone is the component 
 article of chief value not especially provided for in this section, 35 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 How applied : We are interested in the importation of a German imitation pumice 
 brick, which is not made from pumice; in fact, is entirely made from clayey and flinty 
 substances, and which the customs appraisers have been assessing at 35 per cent ad 
 valorem, using the above paragraph for their authority. 
 
 Changes desired : The commodity to become dutiable in accordance with paragraph 
 90, which reads as follows: "Clays or earths wrought or manufactured not especially 
 provided for in this section, $2 per ton." 
 
 In order that this pumice brick receives a proper classification we request that you 
 recommend a change in the paragraph to read as follows: "Clays or earths, wrought or 
 manufactured, including rubbing, scouring, or polishing bricks or powders." In this 
 way there would be no question about this brick being properly classified. 
 
 Whatever duty your committee finally determine shall apply to the importation 
 listed as "Clays and earth wrought and manufactured," we request you also apply to 
 this imitation pumice brick. 
 
 Increased importation: A reduction in the tariff should increase the importation of 
 this article, as it will decrease the cost, as under the present ruling the rate of duty is 
 excessive, as the uses to which this brick is put are simply for the purposes of scouring 
 and rubbing. 
 
486 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 ASFHALTTTM. 
 
 Is not manufactured here. The component parts of this brick have been found by 
 analysis to consist of silica and other mineral substances, but does not contain any 
 pumice. The crude material entering into manufacture, we understand, is native 
 to the country in which it is produced, and none of the exact character has been 
 discovered here to profitably make the brick in this country. 
 
 American labor: The raw material could not be imported into this country and then 
 manufactured into a similar article with the protection of the present duty or even a 
 higher one and compete with the foreign-made brick, as it is only produced by a few 
 firms who have specialized on this commodity by many years of manufacture. It 
 does not come in competition with American labor; in fact, it will benefit American 
 labor to this extent, that we understand in some of the shops where this material is 
 used the laborer buys his own bricks under contract or piece system. Therefore a 
 reduction will operate as a benefit and not a tax to the American laborer. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 F. W. THXTRSTON, President. 
 PARAGRAPH 90. 
 
 Clays or earths, tmwrought or unmanufactured, not specially provided for 
 In this section, one dollar per ton; wrought or manufactured, not specially 
 provided for in this section, two dollars per ton; china clay or kaolin, two 
 dollars and fifty cents per ton; limestone rock asphalt, fifty cents per ton; 
 asphaltum and bitumen, not specially provided for in this section, crude, if 
 not dried, or otherwise advanced in any manner, one dollar and fifty cents 
 per ton; if dried or otherwise advanced in any manner, three dollars per ton; 
 bauxite, or bauxite, crude, not refined or otherwise advanced in condition 
 from its natural state, one dollar per ton; fuller's earth, unwrought and un- 
 manufactured, one dollar and fifty cents per ton; wrought or manufactured, 
 three dollars per ton; fluorspar, three dollars per ton. 
 
 For clays and earths, etc., see R. J. Waddell & Co., page 478; for asphaltum, see 
 Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 480; for fluorspar, see Worth Bros. Co., par. 151, 
 Schedule C; for bauxite, see Merrimac Chemical Co., page 96. 
 
 ASPHALTUM. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ARTHUR W. SEWALL ON BEHALF OF THE 
 BARBER ASPHALT PAVING CO. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Arthur W. Sewall. 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. If you please, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the 
 committee, there are three points to be considered in connection with 
 the item of tariff on asphaltum and bitumen to which I would like to 
 call your attention. They are: 
 
 First. Why was asphaltum and bitumen, crude and refined, placed 
 on the dutiable list in the first instance; and was this step wise or 
 justifiable? 
 
 Second. Have conditions changed since the tariff on asphaltum was 
 created ? 
 
 Third. Should asphaltum and bitumen be removed from the duti- 
 able to the free list ? 
 
 As to the first question, the asphalt tariff is unique in that it was 
 created to protect not an infant but an unborn industry. 
 
 Contrary to prevailing belief and assertion, the Dingley duties were 
 not established for the protection of asphalt manufactured from 
 petroleum, but for the benefit of California miners of an asphaltic 
 sandstone, which through extraction of the bitumen it contained, 
 by mechanical processes, was expected to have great commercial possi- 
 bilities. But the scheme commercially was a failure. 
 
 There was no oil asphalt industry worth talking about at the time 
 of the passage of the Dingley bill in 1897. In that year, according 
 
SCHEDULE B. 487 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 ASPHALTTJM. 
 
 to the 1900 edition of "The Mineral Resources of the United States," 
 page 655, the total production of hard asphalt of all kinds was 3,940 
 tons, and this production decreased to 1,876 tons in 1898, the year 
 after the bill was passed. 
 
 Since 1900, however, first in a small way and later hi a rapidly 
 increasing degree, the oil asphalt producers had benefited by the 
 tariff that was imposed to protect an industry that commercially 
 never came into being, and they asserted, when the Payne- Aldrich tar- 
 iff bill was being prepared, that they would be ruined unless the tariff 
 was not only retained but materially increased. One applicant even 
 asked that the duty be increased to $10 per ton. 
 
 There was not and is not now any domestic product which needs 
 to be protected by a tariff, even the asphalt made from petroleum. 
 As already shown, this product was insignificant at the time of the 
 creation of the present duties, and the price charged for California 
 asphalt up to 1901 was $35 a ton, delivered on the Atlantic seaboard 
 (as shown by Exhibit A, a contract between the Alcatraz Co. and 
 the Southern Asphalt Paving Co., filed with our brief). It was 
 not until three or four years after the passage of the Dingley Act that 
 the production of crude petroleum in California unexpectedly and 
 rapidly reached enormous proportions with the opening up of the Kern 
 River oil fields. In the distillation of part of this largely increased 
 supply of oil the vast bulk of which was used and continues to be 
 used for fuel purposes by railroads, steamships, and otherwise there 
 was made a large and increasing volume of by-product asphaltum, 
 followed by a fall of prices, until it is now sold in the New York 
 market at as low as $16.50 a ton hi cargo lots. 
 
 These developments, together with a decrease hi freight rates to 
 $12 per ton all rail, and $11 by rail and Gulf, and $6 by Cape Horn, 
 have made it possible for California asphalt to be sold in the East at 
 prices as last named, which are much below those that must be 
 charged for the imported asphalts, because the latter are costly to 
 mine, transport, and refine, represent a very large capital investment, 
 and pay the tariff duties originated in the Dingley Act. 
 
 I might state for the information of the committee that our plant 
 investment in Trinidad and Venezuela and near Perth Amboy, N. J., 
 is over $7,000,000. 
 
 The McKinley and Wilson tariffs ignored asphalt, and when, with 
 the inspiration already mentioned, the asphalt duties which have 
 ever since been maintained were proposed in the law of 1897, Senator 
 Chilton, of Texas, made this protest, which is as sound to-day as it 
 was 15 years ago, when the only California asphalt on the market was 
 Alcatraz, the product covered in the original selling contract re- 
 ferred to as our Exhibit A. 
 
 Senator Chiltori said: 
 
 It seems to me that this is a case where the American industry is clearly able to 
 stand alone. It needs no protection. This is an unnecessary charge upon the tax- 
 payers of a large section of the country and can do no possible good. The product is 
 one that can not be locally developed by a protective duty, and being so largely 
 used in the work of municipalities, it is not an appropriate subject for revenue duty. 
 
 It is important to consider that the residual or by-product asphal- 
 tum forms an insignificant part of the petroleum industry as a whole. 
 Of the total California crude-oil production in 1911, 81,134,391 bar- 
 
488 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 ASPHALTUM. 
 
 rels, not more than 3 per cent (see detailed memorandum illustrative 
 of this field with the committee) was necessary in the manufacture of 
 the amount of California asphalt produced in that year. This product, 
 therefore, can not be an important factor affecting the welfare of 
 California oil producers, so far as the tariff is concerned. 
 
 Their immense oil-refining capacity, primarily provided for the pro- 
 duction of distillates, results in an amount of oy-product or residual 
 asphalt that has always been far in excess of market demands. The 
 existence of this opportunity in the course of obtaining distillates 
 for producing a vast quantity of residual asphalt is the inspiration of 
 the demand for tariff protection. This demand persists in spite of 
 the fact that its sponsors are asking for protection for a by-product 
 created with the full foreknowledge that the market could not normally 
 absorb it. The most extreme protectionist would hardly claim that 
 it is incumbent upon Congress to rescue deliberate overprotection 
 from its natural economic fate certainly not when the commodity 
 is not a principal product, but one that occurs as an incident in an 
 industry that is made sufficiently profitable by its main products. 
 
 One hundred and forty thousand dollars was all that should have 
 been paid in 1911 for labor employed in producing that year's output 
 of 139,000 tons of asphalt from California oil, and this is the measure 
 of the extent to which American labor is interested in this matter. 
 
 I say, "should have been paid." I say that advisedly. For more 
 than 10 years the Barber Asphalt Paving Co. has owned and operated 
 in Los Angeles a refinery for the making of asphaltum out of crude 
 oil. Prior to the rapid development of the petroleum industry in 
 California t*his company had shipped Trinidad Lake asphalt as far 
 west as Portland, Oreg., but it was not commercially possible to do 
 this after the development of petroleum refining in California with 
 its resultant by-product of asphaltum. The refinery referred to was 
 acquired to enable the company to compete in point of price in ob- 
 taining asphalt street-paving contracts on the Pacific coast. That 
 plant nas a capacity of, and does actually produce, 1,400 tons of 
 asphaltum per month. The pay roll, details of which will be filed 
 with the committee, amounts to SI, 397 per month. Thus you will 
 see that the labor cost per ton of asphaltum produced is $1, if the 
 entire labor charge is placed against the asphaltum product, and no 
 part of it against the gasoline, engine, and fuel distillates, which are 
 driven off in the refining process and which constitutes three-fourths 
 of the volume of the petroleum put through the stills. Certainly it 
 would be more accurate to make a pro rata portion of the labor 
 charge against the distillates, they being in bulk and value the prin- 
 cipal products. 
 
 The plant, at 1,400 tons per month, has a capacity of 16,800 tons 
 per annum. Xine such plants, running full time, could make a pro- 
 duction of asphalt equal to the output of 139,000 tons produced in 
 1911, as shown in "Mineral Resources of the United States." But 
 there are many more than nine such plants in California, with a 
 great overcapacity of manufacturing ability, and if the overhead 
 charges of tliis excess capacity were added it would increase the cost 
 for labor above Si per ton. 
 
 In view of these facts, there seems to have been and to be now no 
 justification for the imposition of the tariff on asphalt, a tariff that 
 
SCHEDULE B. 489 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 ASPHALTTJM. 
 
 has directly and indirectly taxed the many for the benefit of the few, 
 and even these few do not appear to need the protection uninten- 
 tionally given them. 
 
 Secondlv, have conditions changed since these products were placed 
 on the dutiable list ? 
 
 Not only have conditions changed, as already described, since the 
 enactment of the Dingley law, but a further and more radical change 
 has come about in consequence of the removal of the countervailing 
 duty on petroleum at the tune of the passage of the Payne- Aldrich 
 law. 
 
 Since petroleum was by it admitted free, there have come to our 
 markets large quantities of Mexican asphaltic oil, which is similar to 
 the California oil, and from which asphalt is being made by the great 
 eastern refining companies at far below the delivered prices of Cali- 
 fornia oil asphalt, no more, in fact, than the rail freight charges on the 
 latter product. 
 
 This is the real competition that the California producers have to 
 meet; and with the appearance of the Mexican oil, the last vestige of 
 a reason for a tariff on lake asphalt has disappeared. 
 
 Prior to the removal of the countervailing duty the very high 
 import rates on petroleum and petroleum products in Mexico oper- 
 ated automatically, of course, and they were very high in fact, 
 such as would have been prohibitive on Mexican petroleum if then 
 shipped to the United States. 
 
 The imported asphaltum from Trinidad and Venezuela or else- 
 where can not possibly compete in price with the residual asphalts 
 made from Mexican and California petroleum; but the lake asphalts 
 have qualities of their own that make them supremely valuable, and 
 of which those who pay for streets and roads should be permitted to 
 take advantage without the additional cost imposed by the tariff. 
 
 The reasons that led to the removal of the duty on petroleum are 
 equally applicable to asphalts. The Mexican oil, already mentioned, 
 like California oil, is raw material, from which residual asphalt is 
 made. In a similar sense crude lake bitumen is the raw material 
 from which paving and road asphalt is made, and with petroleum 
 it should be placed on the free list. The reasons for placing refined, 
 as well as crude, asphalt on the free list are mainly that this would 
 not menace any considerable interest of American labor, while it 
 would enable producers, American producers, to ship the refined 
 product to points nearest the consuming markets and thus save the 
 cost of freight from main refineries to cities in certain sections, nota- 
 bly hi the Southern States, remote from them. 
 
 For the information of the committee I would state (by way of 
 parenthesis) that, having such an immense investment of capital in 
 its plant at New Jersey, as heretofore referred to, the Barber Asphalt 
 Paving Co. could not undertake to build and operate additional 
 refining plants at other points along the Atlantic seaboard or on the 
 Gulf coast. From our small refinery at Trinidad there has been 
 imported in 1912, up to the end of November, 16,260 tons of refined 
 asphaltum, of which about one-half is landed at Mobile and the other 
 half at New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Are there any by-products manufactured from the 
 Trinidad asphalt? 
 
490 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGRAPH 90 ASPHALTUM. 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. None whatever. 
 
 In shipping refined lake asphaltum from Trinidad to the Gulf ports 
 for consumption in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida we 
 have to pay the higher import rate wnich applies to refined asphalt; 
 but, per contra, this higher tariff on the refined is less in amount than 
 railroad freight rates on the same article when shipped from our works 
 in New Jersey to the Southern States mentioned. From the stand- 
 point of fairness to the consumers in those sections, I think it would 
 be most just and proper if the duty on imported refined asphalt were 
 removed. 
 
 As a matter of fact, American labor has but a very small interest 
 in this matter, either as to the refining of United States oils or im- 
 ported native asphalt. 
 
 The amount of labor used in refining crude lake asphalt is nearly 
 three times as great as in manufacturing asphaltum by distillation 
 from crude oil, because the crude asphaltum when placed in the hold 
 of a ship amalgamates into a mass and must be dug out by mattocks 
 at destination. It has then to be hoisted from the ship, moved on 
 cars, and placed in bins, again dug from the bins and refined; so that 
 American labor is more interested in this than in the other case. 
 
 The company that I represent is not asking for a removal of the 
 duty on refined asphalt with the expectation, in case the tariff is 
 removed, of refining a larger percentage of its imported asphaltum 
 at its place of origin. It has, as shown, a very great investment in a 
 refining plant in this country and will continue to operate it always 
 to its fullest capacity. The direct benefit of the removal of the tariff 
 would inure to the consumer in the form of lower prices not to the 
 importers of asphalt and these lower prices would not be obtained 
 at the expense of American labor. 
 
 Finally, should asphaltum and bitumen, crude and refined, be 
 removed from the dutiable list to the free list ? 
 
 Without doubt there will be strenuous opposition to the removal 
 of the duty from manufacturers of asphaltum from crude oil in 
 California and those who manufacture asphalt therefrom. There will 
 be opposition from the great refining companies in the East, who 
 are making asphaltum out of the Mexican commodity from oil, but, 
 Mr. Chairman, I assure you you will never receive any protest from 
 any disinterested taxpayer anywhere in the United States if asphal- 
 tum is put on the free list. Without doubt, the reasons why the 
 tariff on asphalt should be removed are: 
 
 First. Because the present duties of $3 per ton on refined asphalt 
 and $1.50 per ton on crude are a tax on good roads and streets, and 
 in this connection I have a paper which will be filed with our brief, 
 which contains information from the United States Department of 
 Agriculture, Office of Public Roads, in which is given the figures that 
 have been expended in the various States during the current year 
 under State appropriations and other appropriations which have 
 
 fone hand in hand with and supplemental to the State appropriations. 
 t states, in summing up, that in addition to the amounts already 
 given, a summary of the statistics received from 30 States shows that 
 $72,458,716 has been expended by the counties and other municipal 
 units for highway construction during the last fiscal year. I venture 
 to say that never in the history of our country has a nonpolitical 
 
SCHEDULE B. 491 
 
 PABAGBAPH 90 ASPHALTTJM. 
 
 question swept amongst pur people with such tremendous force and 
 absorbed so much of their attention as the present problem of good 
 roads and how to get them. Of course we are aware that an effort 
 is being made to obtain Federal aid, enlist Federal interest, and to 
 what extent that may materialize in results of that sort, of course I 
 do not know. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. We would advise you to be hopeful. 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. Well, I am hopeful, and I desire to express the 
 thought that with that possibility latent, potential, the continuation 
 of the tariff would seem to indicate that the Nation must, hi con- 
 tributing to the cost of good roads, pay out to a certain extent from 
 one pocket the funds that it has collected into another. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Of course, if we are going to have Federal aid 
 in road building, we won't be able to reduce the tariff. I want to 
 ask you what assurance we would have that the consumer would get 
 the benefit of putting asphalt on the free list. 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. He would get the full reduction in the tariff. We 
 would make a corresponding reduction in our selling price immedi- 
 ately, as soon as the removal of the duty goes into effect. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. How much cheaper would that make it, suppos- 
 ing that we did put asphalt on the free list to go into effect the 1st of 
 July? What would be the quotation of your prices? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. If the tariff is taken off, a proportionate reduction 
 in the selling price of Trinidad Lake refined asphalt at our works at 
 Perth Amboy, N. J., would operate to lower the selling price by 
 SI. 77, or from $20, the present price, to $18.23, on asphalt refined at 
 that point. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Then it would not lower it $3 on the refined ? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. No. Because the bulk of our asphalt is imported in 
 the crude state, and therefore does not pay the $3 rate assessed on 
 asphalt when imported in the refined state. 
 
 Mr. HILL. The question the chairman asked you was, whether, if 
 the duty of $3 on refined asphalt was taken off, the consumer would 
 get the benefit of it the 1st of July. 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. He would get the benefit of the duty we are paying 
 at the present time, if you please, namely, $1.77 per ton on such 
 asphalt as we produce at Perth Amboy, N. J., from crude; and 
 $2.52 per ton on such asphalt as we import in its refined state 
 through Gulf ports. 
 
 It should be remembered that the duty is levied on a long ton of 
 2,240 pounds of asphalt, but the weight of packages is deducted there- 
 from. All refined asphalt is sold in the United States, however, in 
 short tons, consisting of about 1,880 pounds of asphalt and about 120 
 pounds of barrels, so that for every unit upon which we pay duty 
 there are not only 2,240 pounds of asphalt, but 143 pounds of barrels 
 additional, a total of 2,383 pounds of asphalt and barrels, or about 
 1.19 commercial short tons for each $3 paid in duty; in other words, 
 that duty per long ton is equivalent to $2.52 per commercial short 
 ton. This accounts for the difference of 48 cents between the $3 per 
 long ton packages weighed out and the $2.52 per commercial short 
 ton packages weighed in. By this latter amount we agree to reduce 
 our selling price for asphalt imported from Trinidad in its refined 
 state. The import rate is assessed on the long ton, disregarding the 
 
492 tARIFP 
 
 PABAQBAPH 90 ASPHAI/TOM. 
 
 weight of the containing packages, while all sales in the United States 
 are on the short ton, with packages included in the weight sold, and 
 we therefore are not paying $3 on the short ton. 
 
 Mr. HELL. But the duty of $3 per ton is intended to fully compen- 
 sate for the shrinkage and loss and all that sort of thing, so that it 
 would seem to me that the duty of $1.50 on the crude would show no 
 shrinkage in the commodity ? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. I believe the facts and figures that I have been offer- 
 ing make it clear that the import rates on the refined and crude are 
 not proportionate, the duty on refined being proportionately higher 
 than the duty on crude. From them it would appear that the rate 
 of $3 per ton on the refined was put on under a supposition that it 
 would require 2 tons of crude to manufacture 1 ton of refined, and 
 that the crude asphalt was therefore only half as valuable as the 
 refined for tariff purposes, but such is not the case. 
 
 Each commercial ton of refined asphalt, manufactured from im- 
 ported crude, represents only 1.18 tons of crude, and not 2 tons. Each 
 commercial ton, as already stated, contains 1,880 pounds of asphalt 
 and 120 pounds of barrels, and to make the 1,880 pounds of refined 
 asphalt so produced there are required 2,648 pounds of crude asphalt, 
 the duty j>aid on which is $1.77. 
 
 When imported as refined, however, the long ton with its packages 
 becomes converted for commercial purposes into 2,240 pounds of 
 asphalt and 143 pounds of packages, or about 1.19 commercial short 
 tons, upon which $3 duty is paid, or $2.52 per commercial short ton. 
 The crude that was used to make this refined asphalt was about 3,155 
 pounds and were the rates of duty proportionate, the duty coUected 
 would be equivalent to that on 3,155 pounds of crude asphalt at 
 $1.50 per 2,240 pounds, or about $2.10 instead of $3. 
 
 Summarizing the foregoing, the customhouse receives payment on 
 on the importation of crude asphalt at our works at a rate equivalent 
 to $1.77 per short ton of United States commercial output while, 
 when the refined article is imported at Gulf ports, the customhouse 
 receives payment at a rate equivalent to $2.52 per short ton of 
 United States commercial output, which in both cases is 2,000 
 pounds, that is, 1,880 pounds of asphalt and 120 pounds of packages 
 
 Mr. HILL. Now 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. Xow. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Then you do not pay $3 on that which is imported as 
 crude ? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. Xo, we pay $3 only when importing refined, and that 
 payment of S3 per long ton is equivalent only to $2.52 when applied 
 to the unit in which asphalt is sold in the United States, i. e., 2,000 
 pounds, packages weighed in. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Well, Mr. Sewall, have you not competition now which 
 you did not have before in your business ? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. Certainly; but not immediately, as the result of the 
 putting on of the duty. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You have more competition, have you not? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. We have, since some years after the passage of the 
 DingJey tariff, though, not at the time the duty was created. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 493 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 ASPTTAT.TTJM. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Have they not developed more independent com- 
 panies, and do the cities not get more of a chance hi competition, in 
 making their contracts for pavements since that duty was put on? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. If you please, Mr. Payne, as heretofore stated, the 
 duty was created to support an undertaking for the mining of bitu- 
 minous sandstone in California. The rock was to be put through a 
 crushing mill and the ground product washed in a closed tank filled 
 with naphtha, which dissolved the particles of bitumen contained in 
 the sand. The solvent, with its load of bitumen, flowed 20 miles 
 through a 4-inch pipe to the seacoast and was there redistilled, the 
 naphtha (which was the solvent) being then pumped back to the 
 quarry on the mountain. The redistillation resulted in a product of 
 refined asphaltum. The operation was expected to cost $7 per ton 
 for the asphaltum produced, but it actually cost $16 and proved a 
 commercial failure. That was the condition at the time the tariff 
 was put on and not until three years thereafter did the oil fields of 
 California commence to yield their large output. There was then 
 a considerable development, and later on a still more extensive output 
 of California asphalt made from oil. Since this production was 
 started on a wholesale scale its introduction into the market has 
 affected our selling prices, but it has not been the only influence 
 which has lowered prices. For 15 years paving-brick factories have 
 come into operation from Pine Grove, Pa., to Coffeyville, Kans., 
 and from Galesburg, 111., to Birmingham, Ala., and at very many 
 intermediate cities. The paving-brick manufacturers have sought 
 popularity with the public, and the struggle which has resulted 
 between them and the makers of asphalt pavement has brought 
 about the lowering of the cost of both types and of the commodities 
 that enter hi to the laying thereof. It would seem not to be accurate 
 or fair to credit the California oil asphalt industry with being the 
 only factor that has caused a downward trend of prices. It had an 
 effect, undoubtedly. 
 
 Mr. HELL. Is the Mexican product brought in as refined or crude ? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. It is brought in in the form of crude petroleum since 
 the removal of the countervailing duty. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFOKD. Your contention is that one form of asphalt 
 comes in free and another form that is not free has to bear the duty ? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. Precisely. 
 
 It is a settled fact that some form of bituminous binder is necessary 
 to hold roads together. With asphalt on the free list the materials 
 best adapted for this purpose could be used at decreased expense. 
 Good pavements and roads are costly enough without the addition of 
 a tariff tax. 
 
 Second. Because the existing tariff would be saved by the com- 
 munities now paying it hi the form of increased costs and put into 
 much-needed additional construction. 
 
 That imported asphalts would be reduced in price if the tariff were 
 removed is certain, since these products are now necessarily higher in 
 price, owing to their greater cost, than asphalt made from oils, and it 
 would be to the advantage of all the importers to reduce their price 
 by at least the amount of the tariff tax. 
 
494 TARIFF HBAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 ASPHAI/TTTM. 
 
 Third. Because no lake asphalt is found in the United States and 
 no duties are necessary to protect this product or the labor engaged 
 in its production. 
 
 No industry or product so located that it must pay heavy freight 
 rates to a part of the market should ask Congress to maintain a tax 
 on the whole country in order to overcome the disadvantages of the 
 product's location. Especially is this true of a product like California 
 oil asphalt, which has demonstrated that it can overcome the draw- 
 back of a high transportation charge even if no tariff existed. 
 
 Fourth. Because in the face of an increase in asphalt imports from 
 115,000 tons in 1906 to 168,000 tons in 1911, or 53,000 tons, the pro- 
 duction of California oil asphalt in the same period increased 77,000 
 tons. 
 
 This proves that the California industry can prosper hi spite of the 
 increasing use of imported asphalt. All that the Dingley duties have 
 done is to make the imported product cost more and enabled the 
 California producers to charge more than they might have charged 
 for all asphalt had no 'duties been imposed. 
 
 In support of these statements, I respectfully call your attention 
 to a pamphlet issued by the Union Oil Co. of California, Exhibit B, 
 prior to 1912, the largest producer of asphalt in California, which 
 says: 
 
 The production of California asphalt now exceeds the entire amount imported from 
 all foreign sources. Note the phenomenal growth of the industry. 
 
 I might, for the information of the committee, state that from 
 1900 until January, 1912, the Standard Oil Co., which has the largest 
 refinery in California, made no asphalt. It distilled the oil to a 
 much lower point. Instead of selling the residue at the consistency 
 of asphalt it distilled it down to coke, recovering a larger percentage 
 of distillates, and sold the coke on the Pacific Coast for use in foun- 
 dries and brass works. While California, prior to the discovery of 
 fuel oil, had been extraordinarily handicapped in its lack of fuel for 
 manufacturing purposes, the opening up of its oil fields enlarged its 
 opportunities for manufacturing enormously. 
 
 Statistics printed in the said pamphlet of the Union Oil Co. (which, 
 however, do not agree with those in Mineral Resources of the United 
 States), assert that the production of California asphalt has increased 
 from 27,000 tons in 1901 to 180,000 tons in 1911, while in the same 
 time importations of asphalt have grown only from 139,047 tons to 
 174,234 tons. (The first statement shows for California asphalt an 
 increase of 153,000 tons, or nearly 600 per cent, as compared with 
 an increase in importations of asphalt of 35,187 tons, or 26 per cent.) 
 It is in that pamphlet claimed that the paving efficiency of California 
 Union asphalt is 90 yards per ton, while that of Bermudez Lake is 
 85 yards, and of Trinidad Lake 58 yards. All of the foregoing is not 
 convincing proof of the need for tariff protection to the California 
 material. 
 
 There are two factors in the price of asphalt, one the price per ton 
 at wliich it is sold and the other the number of yards of pavement 
 got ten out of a ton. It is very important to remember that. 
 
 By way of illustration, as shown in a tabulation which we will file 
 with the committee, Trinidad Lake asphalt at $20 a ton, laying 58 
 
SCHEDULE B. 495 
 
 PABAGBAPH 90 ASPHAI/TDM. 
 
 yards to the ton (which is the figure given in the aforesaid competi- 
 tor's pamphlet, and which is correct) makes a pro rata cost of 34 cents 
 per square yard of pavement. 
 
 But California asphalt, sold at the same price, namely $20 per ton, 
 alleged to lay 90 square yards of pavement to the ton, as claimed by 
 the maker, shows a pro rata cost of 22 cents per square yard of pave- 
 ment. Reversing the illustration, if Trinidad refined Lake asphalt 
 were to be sold at 22 cents per square yard of pavement (which is the 
 cost per square yard of California asphalt if laying 90 square yards of 
 pavement to a ton when sold at $20 per ton), thus being put on a 
 parity with the paving value of the California product, the selling 
 price per ton of tne Trinidad article would have to be $12.76. Thus 
 the bitumen contents of a ton of refined asphalt is a controlling feature 
 in determining its relative value as well as the price. 
 
 Crude Trinidad Lake asphalt, as mined at the lake, contains 33 
 per cent of water, invisible to the eye, but which can be dried out in 
 stills in 24 hours' treatment. It also contains 28 per cent of sand as 
 fine as the grains of Portland cement, held perfectly in suspension 
 and so ultimately associated with the bitumen that it can not be 
 settled out mechanically, even though the asphalt be heated to several 
 hundred degrees temperature Fahrenheit. To recapitulate, 33 per 
 cent of water plus 28 per cent of sand makes a total of 61 per cent of 
 the contents of the crude Trinidad Lake asphalt, with 39 per cent of 
 bitumen remaining. Let us apply these facts in considering the 
 tariff. Instead of using 39 per cent bitumen, for a quick mental cal- 
 culation, we may use round numbers, or 40 per cent. If this 40 per 
 cent bitumen pays, as it does, an import duty of $1.50 per ton, 100 
 per cent of bitumen upon the same import rate would pay $3.75 per 
 ton. That is really what the duty amounts to when considered with 
 reference to the bitumen value, which is the test which should be 
 applied. Per contra, the California asphalt, distilled from petroleum 
 and that which is distilled from Mexican petroleum, is practically 
 100 per cent bitumen. 
 
 It is further stated in the pamphlet of the Union Coal Co. : 
 
 The combined capacity of the company's asphalt refineries is at present 5,500 tons 
 per month, or 66,000 tons per annum. Construction to increase refining facilities now 
 under way will give the company a total production of over 100,000 tons per year, 
 equivalent to approximately one-fifth of the present total consumption of asphalt in 
 the United States, 
 
 which statement is a notable expression of faith in the ability of 
 the California producers of residual asphalt to do an increasingly 
 large business under any and all circumstances. 
 
 1 think it is pertinent to call the attention of the committee to 
 this fact also that, while the California producers of asphalt are 
 not giving credit to the Barber Asphalt Paving Co. for what it has 
 done beneficially for their industry, the Barber Co. has placed them 
 tinder obligations that they should never forget. Tie Barber Co. 
 procured, as I have said, a refining plant at LOB Angeles in which 
 to manufacture asphalt for use in paving contacts on the Pacific 
 Coast. It is the custom of the company to maintain a chemical 
 laboratory in connection with its refining plants. In refining in 
 California the chief chemist of the company discovered that there 
 were results possible when heating petroleum to very high tem- 
 
496 TABIFP HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 9O ASPHAI/TTJM. 
 
 peratures that were distinctly injurious to the viscosity, or stick- 
 iness, so to speak, of the aspnalt. Anyone who has stirred a mess 
 of porridge or gruel knows that if the fire is hot there must be care- 
 ful stirring to prevent burning, which will show, if not controlled, 
 in the dissemination of little brown or black particles throughout 
 the mass. Quoting from "Mineral Resources of the United States" 
 for 1905, page 1165: 
 
 Expert chemists state that the refiners are handicapped by the absence of a pro- 
 cess of manufacture which will economically produce an asphaltum free from carbenes 
 (deleterious products of the "cracking" process which goes on in the stills during 
 the distillation of the heavier oils), with a uniform and suitable penetration and 
 possessing stability on heating. 
 
 A scientific paper by the chief chemist of the Barber Co. was the 
 first to call public attention to this dangerous feature in the making 
 of asphalt from petroleum by distillation. The facts had been dis- 
 covered by him in the laboratory of the company after exhaustive 
 experiments. When, at times, the company had paving contracts on 
 the Pacific coast greater than could be served by the capacity of its 
 oil refinery, it bought asphalt made at other California refineries, and 
 in so doing found that the practice was very irregular in those other 
 refineries, and that the burnt atoms, or " carbenes," sometimes ran as 
 high as 15 to 20 per cent of the asphaltum. Apart from the fact that 
 this had not been previously called to their notice, the reason for the 
 varying quality was that the different refineries were primarily inter- 
 ested in producing distillates, such as gasoline, engine distillates, and 
 fuel distillates, all of them being the major products bringing the 
 higher prices which could be obtained in the refining of petroleum. 
 The chemist of the Barber Co. made use of a solvent called "carbon 
 tetrachloride," in which the carbenes would not dissolve. He was 
 thus enabled to instruct our chemical laboratory in Los Angeles that 
 they should purchase asphalt under specifications that the asphalt 
 obtained should not have over 2 per cent of carbenes, or atoms that 
 could not be dissolved in the carbon tetrachloride solution. An 
 assistant chemist representing the company was placed in the refiner- 
 ies from which we were purchasing. There was trouble at first to 
 lead the manufacturers to recognize the necessity for and abide by the 
 stipulations, though finally they did doso. The resultof that education 
 was a marked improvement in the quality of the product and in its 
 reliability. Thus the rapid growth m the business of the California 
 refineries has been contributed to in a great degree by information 
 obtained from the Barber Co. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Is there any competition of foreign asphalt with your 
 company ? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. Not very much. About 14,000 tons last year. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. It does not amount to anything? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. Practically. 
 
 Mr. PAYNL. You control all the foreign asphalt? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. Ho. We control two asphalt lakes, one in Trinidad 
 and one in Venezuela. There are foreign asphalts which we do not 
 control. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. They art not available? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. They are Available if anyone chooses to get them. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 497 
 
 PABAGBAPH 9O ASPHAI/TTTM. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. The Trinidad asphalt has a peculiar quality which 
 makes it valuable ? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. Yes; largely because it has not been subjected to 
 very great heating, as in artificial distillation of crude petroleum. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Those other asphalts you speak of they never yet 
 have been able to make any terms with those countries, have they? 
 
 Mr. SEWAIJL. They are not extensively imported. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. They have been driven out of there, have they not? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. Been driven out of where? 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Out of the country where this other asphalt is pro- 
 duced. 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. No; there are asphalts in Cuba, in western Venezu- 
 ela, on the Magdalena River in Colombia, on the west coast of Africa, 
 and in Turkey. The reason that consumers purchase the Trinidad 
 Lake asphalt and the Venezuelan asphalt is the same that would 
 apply, for instance, if you or I were to go into a clothing store and 
 select the more costly of two suits of clothes because we had learned 
 to recognize additional value in clothes of a certain make and quality. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. If we should take all this duty off of asphalt would it 
 result in closing up that California supply? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. No, Mr. Payne; first, because they can sell and are 
 selling at as low as $16.50 per ton an article of high bitumen content. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. The superior quality of your asphalt would drive them 
 out? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. It has not driven them out, according to their own 
 pamphlet. May I illustrate with the same figures I gave before ? 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. There is no use of giving those. I have those in my 
 mind. I ought not to ask you any questions. It is getting very 
 late. I ought not to interrupt you at all. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Let me make this suggestion: What would you think 
 about a proposition to put a revenue tax, import tax, of 50 cents 
 per ton on bitumen contents of asphalt and then put an internal- 
 revenue tax on the asphalt that was made from that in the United 
 States? Could we not get a good deal more revenue than we get 
 now from simply an import dutv, and wouldn't it cause an increase 
 in the production of Mexico coming in? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. You see it is not refined in Mexico, and I am afraid 
 you would find it pretty difficult to follow through in collecting 
 revenue. 
 
 Fifth. Because, free of duty, imported asphalt could be supplied 
 in refined form by direct shipment to southern cities. This would 
 save heavy rail freight charges from refineries located at northern 
 seaboard points. New Orleans, Mobile, and other cities similarly 
 situated should be able to buy asphalt as cheaply as New York 
 can buy it. 
 
 Sixth. Because the increasing use of heavy oils for road treatment, 
 for fuel, and other purposes is resulting in constant advances in the 
 price of these materials. 
 
 The Barber Asphalt Paving Co. will lower its prices to correspond 
 with a removal of the tariff immediately when such reduction goes 
 into effect. The situation was, I think, absurd enough up to 1909. 
 But now that the Mexican oil can come in free of duty it seems per- 
 
 78959 VOL 113 32 
 
498 
 
 TABJFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 90 ASPHALTTJM. 
 
 fectly ridiculous that a tariff on asphalt should be retained for pur- 
 poses of protection; and as to putting on a duty as suggested by 
 Mr. Hill begging your pardon for differing with you, Mr. Hill I 
 think that when the people of this whole country are attempting to 
 improve roads and when the cost of the roads falls so generally and so 
 evenly upon such a large number of people, it is a tax that might con- 
 sistently better be dispensed with, and the same amount of revenue 
 raised hi some other way. 
 
 Mr. HELL. It occurred to me as I was sitting here we might get in 
 revenue by putting a corresponding internal-revenue tax on the 
 American production and not on the Mexican production ? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. I should tliink that the correct practice would be to 
 make asphaltum, crude and refined, free of duty and thus permit 
 those who prefer these products because of then* quality to get them 
 at a proportionately reduced price. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I thank you. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Can you tell us generally what effect the reduction 
 which you suggest would have in the expense of building a half mile 
 of road ? 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFOKD. Or on a square yard ? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. At 58 yards to the ton, $1.77 lower per ton at the 
 present market price; or about 3 cents a yard. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. A saving of 3 cents a yard ? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. Yes. Tliis year there has been new construction of 
 city streets approximating 10,000,000 yards, not inclusive of what 
 are known as good roads'" which would vastly increase the total. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is that all, Mr. Sewall? 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. Yes; thank you. 
 
 Trinidad refined asphalt imported into iht United States in 1912. 
 
 Date of shipment from Trinidad. 
 
 Name of ship. 
 
 Tons of 2,240 
 pounds each. 
 
 New 
 
 Orleans. 
 
 Mobile. 
 
 Peb 21 
 
 
 Republic 
 
 1,166 
 
 
 Mar 12 
 
 
 Three Marys 
 
 1,465 
 
 
 May 16 
 
 
 Smith . 
 
 426 
 1,394 
 
 
 May 25 
 
 
 Matador 
 
 
 June 8 . . 
 
 
 Frednes 
 
 
 1,005 
 1,016 
 
 June 20 
 
 
 Trvm 
 
 
 July 17 
 
 
 Malwa 
 
 1,005 
 
 Aug. 7 . . 
 
 
 Trvm 
 
 
 998 
 2,023 
 2,017 
 
 Sept. 19. 
 
 
 Frednes 
 
 
 Sept. 25 
 
 
 Trym 
 
 
 Oct. 18.. 
 
 
 Amanda 
 
 1,012 
 
 
 
 Trym 
 
 
 991 
 
 To 
 
 To 
 
 
 
 
 6,468 
 8,050 
 
 8,050 
 
 
 14,518 
 
 
 
 
 
 16,260 
 
 
 
 
 
 COST OF BARRELS. 
 
 The cost of barrels to October 31 at Trinidad was $1.81 per ton of 2,000 pounds. 
 The production shows that 4.6 barrels were used per ton, making the cost of barrels 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 499 
 
 PARAGBAPH 90 ASFHALTDM. 
 
 about 40 cents each. Triniday Lake asphalt at $20 per ton, 58 yards, $0.34 per yard. 
 California asphalt, at $20 per ton, 90 yards, $0.22 per yard. 
 
 If Trinidad Lake asphalt were to be sold at $0.22 per square yard, with 58 yards 
 per ton, its selling price would have to be $12.76 per ton. 
 
 PROPERTY INVESTMENT. 
 [Real estate, plant, and equipment.) 
 
 The New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Co. (Ltd) $3, 467, 657 
 
 New York & Bermudez Co 1,592,401 
 
 The Barber Asphalt Paving Co. (Maurer, N. J.) 2, 181, 769 
 
 7, 241, 827 
 
 The New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Co. pays a royalty on crude asphalt exported of 
 40 cents per ton, also an export duty of $1.20 per ton. 
 
 The New York & Bermudez Co. pays an export duty of 4 bolivars per ton, which 
 equals 77 cents per ton. 
 
 [Reprinted from the Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry, Apr. 15, 1905. No. 7, Vol. XXIV.] 
 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE AND ITS USE AS A SOLVENT FOR DIFFERENTIATING BITUMENS. 
 
 By Clifford Richardson and C. N. Forrest. 
 
 Carbon tetrachloride has attracted of late very considerable attention owing to the 
 fact that it has been made available at a lower price and in a purer form than here- 
 tofore, and it has been suggested as a substitute for carbon bisulphide as a solvent. 
 Tetrachloride, as is well known, is made by exposing a mixture of the vapor of the 
 bisulphide and chlorine to a red heat, forming thereby carbon tetrachloride and 
 sulphur chloride. If the heat is too low, carbon bisulphide remains in the tetra- 
 chloride, and if too high, carbon trichloride (C 2 C 6 1) is formed. As a result of this, 
 or because of insufficient purification, much of the tetrachloride that has been on the 
 market heretofore has contained from 1 to 2 per cent of bisulphide, thus impairing 
 its suitability for certain purposes. 
 
 The physical properties of the two solvents may be compared with interest: 
 
 
 CC1 4 
 
 CS, 
 
 Odor. . 
 
 Aromatic 
 
 Rank. 
 
 Inflammability 
 
 Noninflammable, nonexplo- 
 
 149 P,. vary inflammable 
 
 Specific gravity 15/15 C 
 
 sive. 
 1.604 
 
 explosive, 
 1.270. 
 
 Vapour tension 
 
 Low 
 
 High. 
 
 Specific heat 
 
 High 
 
 Low. 
 
 Index of refraction 
 
 1.464 
 
 1.628. 
 
 
 76. 6 C 
 
 46 C. 
 
 Toxic effect 
 
 None 
 
 Poisonous. 
 
 
 
 
 The early supplies of carbon tetrachloride which came into the writers' hands had 
 a specific gravity of 1.593 and a pale straw color. On distillation, this material began 
 to boil below 43 C. showing the presence of some substance of even lower boiling 
 point than carbon bisulphide. On continuing the distillation through an 18-column 
 Young dephlegmator the following results were obtained on a common tetrachloride 
 of specific gravity 1.593: 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Below 43 C 0. 13 
 
 43 to 47.. .31 
 
 47 to 50. 
 50 to 60. 
 60 to 70. 
 70 to 75. 
 
 10 
 
 31 
 
 22 
 
 05 
 
 75 to 76.5.. .61 
 
 Total. 
 
500 TARTPP HEAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 ASPHALTTJM. 
 
 It appears that 1.73 per cent of the tetrachloride distilled below the boiling point of 
 the pure tetrachloride. On further fractionation 1.5 per cent of pure carbon bisulphide 
 was obtained from the lower fractions, while the residue boiling above^? C. left, on 
 spontaneous evaporation, a substance which sublimed, very readily into quite pure 
 crystals of carbon trichloride, C 2 Cle. 
 
 More recently a tetrachloride has been put upon the market by the Acker Process 
 Co., of Niagara Falls, N. Y., which has been found to be much purer than the ordinary 
 commercial supply. On distillation under conditions similar to those followed in the 
 examination of the earlier sample, the most volatile constituent was found to come 
 over between 70 and 75 C., and amounted to but 0.8 per cent. It contains a small 
 amount of bisulphide. The boiling point then ran up rapidly to that of pure tetra- 
 chloride, the entire distillate in the first fractionation below that point amounting to but 
 2.7 per cent. The material as supplied to the trade by the Acker Co. is practically 
 pure tetrachloride, having a specific gravity as shown of 1.604 at 15 C. The solvent 
 leaves no residue on evaporation, although it contains a small amount of trichloride, 
 and is consequently an extremely pure article, at least from a commercial point of 
 view. 
 
 Considered merely as a standard for extraction on a commercial scale, it is the 
 equal in its solvent power of almost all other solvents, exceeding them to some degree 
 with certain substances. It is miscible with all other solvents of the same class, 
 resembling in this respect carbon bisulphide, and, like the latter, it dissolves but a 
 trace of water. 
 
 The greater advantage in the use of tetrachloride aa a solvent lies in the fact that 
 while bisulphide is inflammable at 149 C., In consequence of which it takes fire when 
 its vapor comes in contact with a heated steam pipe, and is explosive when mixed 
 with three volumes of air, it is not only quite uninflammable, but imparts this prop- 
 erty to other inflammable substances, such as benzol, turpentine, and naphtha, when 
 mixed therewith. Sixty parts by volume of tetrachloride to 40 of naphtha, 40 vol- 
 umes to 60 of benzol, and equal parts with turpentine prevents ignition of these 
 otherwise inflammable substances. The vapor of tetrachloride is not unpleasant, nor 
 does it appear to have any toxic effect, both of which properties make this materjal 
 preferable to bisulphide in this respect. Tetrachloride has a much higher specific 
 gravity, boiling point, and specific heat than carbon bisnlphide, but a lower vapor 
 tension and index of refraction. Owing to its high specific gravity its volume weight 
 is much greater, and a much larger amount of it must be employed to obtain the 
 same volume of solvent as can be seen from the following figures: 
 
 [Volume of 1 kilometer in liters.] 
 
 62 naphtha 1.366 
 
 Benzol 1. 131 
 
 CS 2 788 
 
 CC1 4 6231 
 
 Water 1.000 
 
 It appears that a pound of bisulphide will go as far as 1.3 pounds of tetrachloride, 
 while a pound of naphtha has the same volume as nearly 2.25 pounds. 
 
 Experiments have also shown that its solvent action, upon bitumens at least, is not 
 as prompt as that of carbon bisulphide, probably the lower rate of diffusion being due 
 to its greater density. 
 
 The value of carbon tetrachloride as a solvent in the examination of bitumens lies 
 in the fact that it exercises a selective action on the hydrocarbons and their derivatives 
 composing many of the native bitumens, residual pitches, and tars, while the true 
 asphalts are dissolved thereby to the game extent as by carbon bisulphide. The same 
 may be said in regard to gilsonite, but such native bitumens as grahamite are not 
 soluble in tetrachloride at air temperatures to the same extent as in carbon bisulphide, 
 as much as 75.3 per cent of an insoluble nature having been found in a grahamite from 
 Colorado, although the type of grahamite from West Virginia contained but 1.3 per 
 cent in this form. The value of the solvent for differentiating the extent to which any 
 native bitumen has been weathered and condensed is, therefore, apparent. 
 
 It is of additional value in another way in revealing any changes which may be 
 brought about in a bitumen which, althoug'h quite soluble in tetrachloride in its native 
 state, has been injured by treatment at excessively high temperatures in industrial 
 processes. For example, residual pitches carefully prepared from California and Texas 
 petroleums having an asphaltic base, are entirely soluble in tetrachloride at air tem- 
 peratures, but as they are prepared industrially they contain from 1 to 7 per cent of 
 bitumen in a form not soluble in tetrachloride, very conclusive evidence that the 
 original bitumen has suffered a change in character at the high temperature to which 
 
SCHEDULE B. 501 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 ASPHALTUM. 
 
 it has been submitted, this often reaching 700 to 900 F. In the same way, in the 
 careless refining of asphalt for industrial purposes, the bitumen may become more or 
 less altered and insoluble. If this has taken place it can be readily detected by 
 determining if anything is present insoluble in tetrachloride which is soluble in carbon 
 bisulphide. As an example, an asphalt recently introduced on the market the facil- 
 ities for refining which were inadequate, showed 17 per cent of bitumen insoluble in 
 tetrachloride, but with improvement in the process of refining this form of bitumen 
 gradually disappeared. 
 
 That carbon tetrachloride is a solvent of value in determining the character of 
 bitumens seems, therefore, to be assured. It must for this purpose, however, be 
 employed at a temperature not exceeding 25 C.,. and should be free from carbon 
 bisulphide, and, as used in this way, the writers can cordially recommend it to those 
 interested in the examination of native bitumens. 
 
 TELLS OF MEXICAN OIL SITUATION. 
 [California Oil World, Dec. 26, 1912.] 
 
 Los ANGELES, December 25, 1912. 
 
 Californians will be interested in the following interview published in the National 
 Petroleum News with A. B. Chamberlain, formerly manager of the Indian Refining 
 Co. 'a road-oil department and now a broker for heavy oils in New York: 
 
 "Mexico, with its enormous production and no local consumption to speak of, 
 offers the logical supply of heavy oils and asphalt to this country," said Mr. Cham- 
 berlain. "The only trouble now is we can not get the boats. There are plenty of 
 them being built, but not enough of them will be finished to permit of any great 
 improvement in the situation until next fall. The high prices of crude and finished 
 petroleum products in this country will force this country to use Mexican and Cali- 
 fornia oil for road and asphalt purposes. The next season will be a bigger road-oil 
 season than any other we have experienced." 
 
 The Standard Oil interests are reported to have cut the asphalt market in California 
 $5 a ton, making it $17.50 delivered at eastern ports. The Union Oil Co. had been 
 sticking consistently to $22 until the cut came in November. Mexican asphalt can 
 be placed in this country at between $16 and $17 a ton, and it is reported that the 
 Standard interests have reached such an understanding with all other interests oper- 
 ating in Mexico, that they will handle substantially the entire output of that country 
 to the United States, running the crude by tank boats to their Atlantic coast refinery, 
 and there splitting it for what little ends it may have and putting the rest out for 
 road oil and asphalt. 
 
 ASPHALT YIELD FROM CALIFORNIA CRUDE OIL, 
 
 From Kern River field 50 per cent out turn. 
 From southern California 25 per cent out turn. 
 They each furnish about one-half the product. 
 The two averaged at half and half 37 per cent. 
 
 Asphalt tonnage 139,275 tons, requiring at 37 per cent 371,864 tons of oil, at 6.5 
 barrels per ton 2,417,116 barrels. 
 Crude oil production, 1911, 81,134,913 barrels, of which 2,417,116 is 3 per cent. 
 
 Capacity per month 1,400 tons of 2,000 pounds, labor list. 
 
 [Los Angeles refinery of Barber Asphalt Paving Co.] 
 
 Per month. 
 
 One superintendent $170 
 
 One assistant superintendent 110 
 
 One head still man 110 
 
 Two assistant still men, at $100 each 200 
 
 Two engineers, at $100 each 200 
 
 One barrel foreman 97 
 
 Six barrel laborers, at $60 each 360 
 
 One yard laborer 75 
 
 One night watchman 75 
 
 Total, 16 employees 1, 397 
 
TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 ASPHALTTJM. 
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
 
 OFFICE OF PUBLIC ROADS, 
 Washington, D. C., January 6, 1912. 
 Hon. WILLIAM M. HOWARD, 
 
 Hotel Walton, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Replying to your letter of January 1, asking for information concerning 
 recent road legislation and expenditures made by several States, I am herewith 
 inclosing a brief digest of the principal features of the state laws in force at the present 
 time and such information on expenditures as is obtainable. 
 
 The States of California, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 
 Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, and Utah have voted or author- 
 ized road bond issues amounting to $136,763,000. A bond issue of $50,000,000 will 
 come before the Pennsylvania Legislature for its third passage during the present year. 
 Ohio voted against a $50,000,000 oond issue in 1912, and Colorado also voted against 
 a $10,000,000 bond issue in the same year, the latter being defeated by a very small 
 margin. 
 
 According to statistics compiled in this office the State appropriations for State-aid 
 roads in the several States available for expenditure in 1912 were as follows: 
 
 Alabama $270,000 
 
 Colorado 8,300 
 
 Connecticut 1,000,000 
 
 Delaware 30,000 
 
 Georgia 1,543,800 
 
 Idaho. 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kansas. .. . 
 Kentucky. 
 Louisiana. 
 
 Maine 
 
 Maryland . 
 Michigan. 
 
 193,000 
 100,000 
 
 10,000 
 6,500 
 
 25,000 
 130, 000 
 250,000 
 200,000 
 250,000 
 
 Missouri $80,000 
 
 Nevada 20,000 
 
 New Hampshire 68,000 
 
 New Jersey 750,000 
 
 New York 23,000,000 
 
 North Carolina 5,000 
 
 Ohio 660,000 
 
 Oklahoma 5,000 
 
 Pennsylvania 1,000,000 
 
 Utah 240,000 
 
 Vermont 315,000 
 
 Virginia 310,000 
 
 Washington 1,093,400 
 
 Wisconsin 250,000 
 
 The State appropriation available for expenditure on trunk lines for construction 
 during 1912 were as follows: 
 
 California $135, 000 
 
 Connecticut 2, 000, 000 
 
 Maryland 3, 170, 000 
 
 New Hampshire 385, 000 
 
 New Jersey $10, 000 
 
 New Mexico 87,820 
 
 Pennsylvania 3, 000, 000 
 
 Rhode Island 940, 000 
 
 The above figures are not in every case additional to the State bond issues, but are 
 given to show the funds available for State aid during the year 1912 and represent 
 revenues derived from several sources, including bond issues, direct taxation, auto- 
 mobile licenses, and so forth. 
 
 In addition to the amounts already given, a summary of the statistics received from 
 30 States shows that $72,458,216 have been expended by counties and other 
 municipal unite for highway construction during the last fiscal year. 
 
 This office is now preparing a statement of the amount and value of convict labor 
 performed in the various States upon highways and also information concerning road 
 maintenance, which is one of the most important features of the road problem. 
 
 It is very probable that since the legislatures of 42 States convene during the present 
 year, considerable road legislation will be passed. 
 
 Very respectfully, PAUL D. SARGENT, 
 
 Acting Director. 
 
 Alabama. A highway law was passed in 1911 providing for five commissioners to 
 serve without pay and a State highway engineer at a salary of $4,000 per annum. The 
 annual appropriation is $154,000, and the State pays 50 per cent 01 the cost of con- 
 struction. County and road district bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount to 
 $3,261,500. 
 
 Arizona.- Road laws were passed and the office of State engineer created in 1912. 
 The State engineer is subordinate to the board of control. Hifl principal duties are 
 to give advice to county road officials. The State road tax fund is $250,000, and road 
 district bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount to $35,500. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 303 
 
 PARAGRAPH OO ASPHALTT7M. 
 
 California. In 1911 the highway commission was appointed, composed of three 
 members who report to the department of engineering. The office of State highway 
 engineer was created and a State bond issue of $18,000,000 is being expended. The 
 State participates only in trunk line construction and pays the whole cost of the same. 
 The total State, county, and road district bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount 
 to 24,251,600. 
 
 Colorado. The State highway commission is composed of three members appointed 
 for six-year terms, with a civil engineer secretary. One of the principal provisions 
 of the highway law is the preparation of maps showing all roads for purposes of clas- 
 sification, etc. No money can be expended within the corporate limit* of any city, 
 town, or county unless the commissioners provide by taxation for an amount equal 
 to twice the amount appropriated to State, city, town, or county, and in case of failure 
 to BO provide, its apportionment shall be distributed among the other counties. The 
 State s proportion is one-third and the counties' two-thirds on State roads. The total 
 amount of county bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, is $682,600. The State 
 bond issue was defeated by a small margin November 5, 1912. 
 
 Connecticut. The State highway department consists of one commissioner, one 
 deputy, and one division engineer. The State aid biennial appropriation is $1,000,000. 
 The trunk line appropriation is $2,000,000. Automobile license revenues amount to 
 approximately $252,000 annually. 
 
 Delaware. The road affairs of each of the three counties are administered by the 
 levy court of each county. The 1912 State aid appropriation amounts to $30,000. 
 
 Florida. County, township, and road district bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, 
 amount to $1,216,000. 
 
 Georgia. County, township, and road district bonds issued prior to January 1, 
 1912, amount to $474,000, and the estimated value of statute labor is $750,000 annually. 
 Road funds are expended by the county commissioners of each county. The value 
 of convict labor is estimated at $543,800. 
 
 Idaho. A State highway commission was established in 1911, composed of the 
 governor and two other State officials who serve without pay. Special appropriations 
 are made for roads and bridges, the total amount of which for 1912 was $193,000. 
 County bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912 amount to $308,526. Special commis- 
 sipners, of which the State engineer is always a member, have superseded the State 
 highway commission for the expenditure of each appropriation made by the State. 
 
 Illinois. The State highway commission is composed of three members who serve 
 without pay. They appoint a State highway engineer. The annual appropriation 
 is $100,000. It is usea principally for administration and advice. The State main- 
 tains a crushing plant operated by convicts and furnishes crushed stone free to towns. 
 County, township, and road district bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount 
 to $1,310,181. 
 
 Indiana. The county commissioners and the township trustees have control of 
 highways. County and township bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount to 
 $9,454,847. 
 
 Iowa. The State highway commission is composed of two members appointed by 
 the trustees of the State College. They employ a highway engineer and other assist- 
 ants, and furnish competent highway builders free to each county. County bonds 
 issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount to $3,459,000. 
 
 Kentucky. The governor appoints a State highway commissioner for a term of four 
 years. The estimated value of statute labor is $1,000,000, and county, township, and 
 road district bonds amount to $1,623,600. 
 
 Louisiana. The State board of engineers appoints a highway engineer and assist- 
 ants and furnishes plans, specifications, and advice to the various parishes, cities, 
 towns, and villages. Not more than $50,000 annually may be apportioned to each 
 parish. County bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount to $183,256. The 
 estimated value of statute labor is $421,250 annually. 
 
 Maine. The State highway department consists of a State highway commissioner 
 and assistants. The annual appropriation for State aid is $250,000. The automobile 
 license revenue amounts to approximately $100,000 and is expended on trunk-line 
 roads. Bond issue of $2,000,000 has been authorized, which will be financed by the 
 revenue derived from automobile licenses. 
 
 Maryland. The highway commission is composed of the governor and six other 
 members. The commission appoints a chief engineer. The State pays the whole 
 cost of trunk-line construction and 50 per cent of the cost of State-aid roads. State 
 bond issues amount to $6,000,000 and county and road district bonds issued prior to 
 to January 1, 1912, amount to $383,500. 
 
504 TAETPP HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 ASPHALTTJM. 
 
 Massachusetts. The highway commission is composed of three members, who 
 appoint a chief engineer. The State pays three-fourths of the cost of construction. 
 The State bond issues amount to $2,500,000, $500,000 of which were expended in 
 1912. The total State and county bond issues, prior to January 1, 1912, amount to 
 $4,234807. 
 
 Michigan. A State highway department was established in 1909 for the purpose of 
 giving instruction in road building, etc. A State highway commissioner is appointed 
 for a term of four years. The State pays a reward on certain types of roads of $250 to 
 $1,000 per mile. County, township, and road district bonds issued prior to January 
 1, 1912, amount to $3,101,762. 
 
 Minnesota. The State highway commision is composed of three members, with a 
 State engineer-secretary. The State pays 50 per cent and the county 50 per cent of 
 the cost of construction. The estimated value of statute labor is $652,500. County, 
 township, and road district bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount to $1,806,164. 
 
 Mississippi. County, township, and road district bond amount to $2,940,472. 
 
 Missouri. A State highway engineer is appointed by the State board of agricul- 
 ture. The nature of the work performed is principally educational. County and 
 road district bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount to $819,100. 
 
 Montana. The estimated value of statute labor is $90,124. County bonds issued 
 prior to January 1, 1912, amount to $2,214,600. 
 
 Nebraska. County commissioners have supervision of highways where township 
 organization does not exist and they may appoint a highway commissioner. The 
 State and county each pay 50 per cent of the cost of bridges, to which State aid is 
 granted. The county, township, and road district bonds issued prior to January 1, 
 1912, amount to $763,000. 
 
 Nevada. County and road district bonds amount to $234,000. 
 
 New Hampshire. The State highway board is composed of the governor and council 
 and the State engineer designated as superintendent of highways. Aid is appor- 
 tioned to towns on the basis of appropriations made by the towns. State bonds 
 issued prior to January 1, 1912, amounted to $1,000,000, and county, township, and 
 road district bonds amounted to $245,135. 
 
 New Jersey. The State highway commission is composed of the governor, the 
 president of the senate, the speaker of the house, the State treasurer, and the State 
 commissioner of public roads. A State highway engineer and four division engineers 
 are appointed. The State pays the total cost of the State roads and beginning in 
 1912 will pay 40 per cent of the cost of State-aid roads, the counties paying 50 per 
 cent and the townships 10 per cent. The total county, township, and road district 
 bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount to $2,494,428. 
 
 New Mexico. The highway commission is composed of the governor, the commis- 
 sioner of public lands, the attorney general, the State auditor, and the State engineer. 
 The State bond issue of $5,000,000 was authorized in 1912. County bond issues pre- 
 vious to January 1, 1912, amount to $293,800. 
 
 New York. The State highway commission organization is composed of a State 
 superintendent, two deputies and secretary, and a chief engineer. The cost of State 
 highways is paid wholly by the State. The cost of county and State aid highways 
 is paid by the State and county and the cost of town highways by the State, county, 
 and town. A State bond issue of $50,000,000 has been expended and another issue 
 of the same amount was authorized during 1912, making the total State, county, and 
 township bonds issued $106,630,896. 
 
 North Carolina. The State geological board acts as the State highway department. 
 The State geologist is the active member, and a State highway engineer is appointed. 
 The estimated value of statute labor is $640,249. County , township, and road dis- 
 trict bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount to $3,272,300. 
 
 North Dakota. The estimated value of statute labor is $105,000, and the total county 
 and township bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount to $108,500. 
 
 Oklahoma. The laws of 1911 created a State highway department composed of a 
 State highway commissioner, a chief engineer, and assistants, whose duties are prin- 
 cipally educational aud advisory. The total amount of county and township bonds 
 issued prior to January 1, 1912, are $1,316,000, and the value of statute labor is esti- 
 mated at $731,120 annually. 
 
 Oregon. A 5 per cent fund derived from the sale of United States public land and a 
 direct fund, due the State upon compliance with the laws of Congress are apportioned 
 among the several counties on the basis of area and are administered by the county 
 board. 
 
 Pennsylvania. The State highway department is composed of a State highway com- 
 missioner, two deputies, and a chief engineer. State aid is apportioned according to 
 
SCHEDULE B. 505 
 
 PARAGRAPH 9O ASPHAI/TOM. 
 
 the mileage of township and county roads, the State paying one-half and the county 
 and township one-half. The State pays the whole cost of State roads. The total 
 county, township, and road district bonds prior to January 1, 1912, amount to 
 $19,513,328. 
 
 Rhode Island. The State board of public roads is composed of five members. An 
 engineer is appointed. The State pays the whole cost of State roads and one-fifth the 
 cost of State-aid roads, towns paying four-fifths. State bonds issued prior to January 1, 
 1912, amounted to $1,800,000, and township bonds issued amounted to $125,000. 
 
 South Carolina. The estimated value of statute labor is $456,088. County and 
 township bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount to $492,000. 
 
 South Dakota. Statute labor is estimated at $202,500 annually and township bonds 
 issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount to $10,000. 
 
 Tennessee. In 1909 a State commission of public roads was created to make an 
 investigation and report to the succeeding legislature with recommendations. County, 
 township, and road district bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount to $6,127,000 
 and statute labor is estimated at $720,000. 
 
 Texas. County, township, and road district bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, 
 amount to $11,146,032. Statute labor is estimated at $750,000 annually. 
 
 Utah. The State road commission is composed of the governor and four other 
 members. State aid is apportioned equally among the counties. The State pays 
 from 80 to 50 per cent, and the county from 20 to 50 per cent of construction. State 
 bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount to $260,000 and county bonds amount to 
 $272,500. 
 
 Vermont. The governor appoints a State highway commissioner and the commis- 
 sioner appoints a supervisor for each county. The State and town each pay one-half 
 the cost of construction, but aid is also given at the discretion of the commissioner. 
 
 Virginia. The governor appoints a State highway commissioner for a term of six 
 years, who with four other members, appointed from the different colleges in the State, 
 constitute the highway commission. State aid is given both in the form of convict 
 labor and in money 2 the State appropriation being one-half the cost. County, town- 
 ship, and road district bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount to $2,557,500. 
 
 Washington. The State highway board is composed of the governor, the State audi- 
 tor, the State treasurer, a member of the railroad commission, also the highway com- 
 missioner. State aid was formerly given to roads, but this provision has been repealed 
 and a permanent highway fund or 1 mill tax is now levied, the State nominally 
 and the county indirectly paying the total cost of construction. Assessment districts, 
 however, may pay 15 per cent of the coet. County bonds issued prior to January 1, 
 1912, amount to $1,277,000. 
 
 West Virginia. The office of public roads was established in 1909 and abolished in 
 1911. West Virginia is the only State which has taken a backward step in regard to 
 centralized authority. County, township, and district road bonds issued prior to 
 January 1, 1912, amount to $205,900. 
 
 Wisconsin. A State highway commission was created in 1911. The duties are prin- 
 cipally advisory and supervisory. The commission is composed of five members; an 
 engineer of roads and an engineer of bridges are appointed. The State pays not more 
 than one-third of the cost of State highways. The estimated value of the statute labor 
 tax is $375,000 annually and county bonds issued prior to January 1, 1912, amount to 
 $658,000. 
 
 ADDITIONAL BRIEFS SUBMITTED ON ASPHALT. 
 
 DENNY & WRIGHT, 
 Rome, Ga., December 23, 191t. 
 Hon. W. G. BRANTLEY, 
 
 Member of Congress, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR BRANTLEY: Being one who is vitally interested in the rapidly growing good 
 roads movement throughout our whole section of the South, and having been inti- 
 mately connected with street improvements as county official, I am writing you in the 
 interest of a tariff reform appertaining to natural asphalts. My information is that 
 at present there is no duty on residuum oils. They come in free and in direct com- 
 petition with natural asphalt, upon which there is a duty of $3, according to my 
 information. With the good roads improvement matter so close to the interest of our 
 people, it seems to me that the natural asphalts should be admitted into our country 
 on a parity with residuum oils, thereby increasing competition, and to the pronoun- 
 cedly betterment of our people. Will you not kindly give your attention to this mat- 
 
506 TABIPF HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 ASPHALTTJM. 
 
 ter, and see whether our good roads improvement can not be advanced by relieving 
 the people of the duty on these natural asphalts, which is very pronouncedly better 
 than oil residuum products that can be furnished by the Standard Oil Co. and other 
 concerns? 
 
 Thanking you for your kindly interest and study of this matter, and wishing for 
 you a merry Christmas and a glad New Year, and with assurances of my continued 
 fealty and friendship in all matters that may appertain to your success and advance- 
 ment, believe me, 
 
 Sincerely, your friend, R. A. DENNY. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, 
 
 Milwaukee, January 2, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: It has been brought to the attention of the undersigned that a move- 
 ment is under consideration looking to the removal of the present import duties on 
 natural lake asphalts. 
 
 As commissioner of public works of the city of Milwaukee I feel that it is my duty 
 to express to you and through you to the Congress of the United States my views as 
 to the desirability of removing these import duties. 
 
 I have been more or less directly associated with the use of asphaltic materials in 
 connection with street pavements and road work for over 25 years and have seen and 
 followed closely the development of the use of asphaltic materials in this country, 
 comprising both the natural or lake asphalts and the so-called residuum asphalts, 
 and acting at the present time in the capacity of commissioner of public works of the 
 city of Milwaukee, and in that capacity being to a great degree responsible for the 
 special taxes assessed against the taxpayers in this city for the paving of the roadways, 
 I feel that any governmental action which may be taken looking to the reduction of 
 the costs of these materials will be a boon to a very large number of taxpayers through- 
 out the entire United States, and will be particularly appreciated by the smaller 
 taxpayers paying taxes on their little homes throughout a vast number of cities in 
 this country. 
 
 I can not see that the removal of these import duties will effect an undue hardship 
 upon anyone, as it is my personal belief, from such knowledge as I have acquired in 
 this particular material, that the manufacturers of the so-called petroleum residuum 
 or blown-oil asphalts are simply enabled at the present time to charge and secure an 
 undue amount of profit from their business. 
 
 I agree with many of the experts of the country in the belief that the natural or 
 lake asphalts produce a better and more lasting type of asphaltic pavement than do 
 the pavements based on the residuum products, and if the removal of the import 
 duties from these natural or lake asphalts will tend to decrease the price of that mate- 
 rial, this decrease being reflected in the cost of the asphaltic pavements as laid on 
 the streets, undoubted benefits will accrue to the taxpayers of the United States, 
 on whom falls the burden of expense in these paving matters. 
 
 This letter is therefore written for the express purpose of assuring you that the 
 undersigned, in view of whatever degree of knowledge he has been able to obtain on 
 this subject, is unqualifiedly in favor of the removal of the import duties upon both 
 the crude and refined asphaltic materials and would be glad to go into this matter 
 more fully and in greater detail at any time in the future when a further and more 
 complete investigation of the merits of the subject was in progress. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 FRED G. SIMMONS, 
 Commissioner of Public Works. 
 
 SOUTHERN ASPHALT & CONSTRUCTION Co., 
 
 Birmingham, Ala., December 19, 1912. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 MY DEAR MR. UNDERWOOD: I note that the question of the removal of the duties 
 on asphalts is listed for discussion before your committee during the first week in 
 January. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 507 
 
 PARAGRAPH 00 ASPHALTTJM. 
 
 At present the duty is $3 per ton on refined asphalt and $1.50 per ton on crude 
 asphalt. These duties were put on asphalts in 1897 at the instigation of the pro- 
 ducers of the California asphalts and were kept on under the tariff bill of 1909 for the 
 benefit of and at the request of producers of residual asphalts, which are by-products 
 of asphaltic petroleums. 
 
 I think the duties on asphalts should be removed, for the following reasons: 
 
 Asphalt has come into general use as a material for the successful construction of 
 city streets and the better classes of country roads, and the present tariff tax means 
 nothing more or less than an additional tax on such improvements. This additional 
 tax is particularly obnoxious at this time, when there is such a widespread movement 
 for the betterment of streets and roads. The cost of pavements in which asphalt is 
 used would naturally be decreased if the tariff is removed, as the imported asphalts 
 could be bought at a lower price, and this would have an effect on the price of every 
 form of pavement. 
 
 The tariff on imported asphalts, while not only increasing the cost of such asphalts, 
 iindoubtedly has its effect also upon the price paid for the by-product asphalts, so 
 that a reduction in the price of the imported asphalts would undoubtedly enable 
 cities and communities to secure much needed highway improvements at a lower 
 cost than now prevails, which would probably mean that much more extensive im- 
 provement projects would be taken up for the betterment of our streets and country 
 roads. 
 
 As you know, I am greatly interested in the paving business, my company, The 
 Southern Asphalt & Construction Co., makes a specialty of laying asphalt pavements. 
 As we use the imported natural lake asphalts we are vitally interested in having the 
 duty upon the importation of said asphalts removed. 
 
 In view of the above, I trust that you can have asphalts, both crude and refined, 
 placed on the free list when the time comes for preparing the next tariff bill. Any- 
 thing you may be able to do along this line will oe greatly appreciated by us. 
 
 With kindest personal regards, I am, 
 
 Your friend, EUGENE FIES, President. 
 
 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OP SUGGESTION THAT ASPHALTUM BE PLACED ON THE FREE LIST 
 SUBMITTED BY THE HASTINGS PAVEMENT Co. AND OTHERS. 
 
 NEW YORK, January SI, 191S. 
 
 The Hastings Pavement Co. respectfully requests that the duty on crude and 
 refined asphaltum be removed and that both be placed upon the free list. 
 
 "Crude asphalt" is the material just as it comes from the asphalt lakes, where 
 centuries of exposure to atmospheric conditions has caused it to lose many of its lighter 
 and more volatile oils. "Crude asphalt" from Trinidad Lake contains about 33 per 
 centum of water; and the so-called process of "refining" consists merely of boiling 
 out that 33 per centum of water. In other words, "refined" asphalt is nothing more 
 than the "crude" asphalt with the water boiled out by the operation of heat. 
 
 The Hastings Pavement Co. is and for 30 years has been engaged, at Hastings-on- 
 Hudson, N. Y., in the manufacture of that form of roadway pavement known as 
 asphalt block pavement. Its business consists of making the asphalt blocks and sel- 
 ling them to municipalities for street paving, or in laying the pavement itself under 
 contract with municipalities. During all that period it has used and now uses 
 Trinidad Lake asphalt exclusively as the binding material in its asphalt blocks. 
 The long experience of the company in the use of Trinidad Lake asphalt has demon- 
 strated that of all known bituminous materials it possesses the qualities of adhesive- 
 ness and cohesiveness to the greatest degree, and therefore best serves the purpose 
 in making a substantial and durable form of pavement. There are other competing 
 materials, such as Venezuelan asphalt, Cuban asphalt, and the so-called artificial 
 asphalt made from oil. The presence of a high degree of cementitiousness in the 
 bitumen is particularly desirable in the form of pavement made by the Hastings 
 Pavement Co. Briefly stated, the asphalt block consists of asphaltic cement and 
 crushed stone, compressed under high pressure; the bitumen contents of the mixture 
 constituting the cement which holds the materials together. 
 
 The bitumen in the Trinidad Lake asphalt is, in the opinion of this company, 
 superior in all respects to that of any other asphalt, whether natural or artificial, and 
 for that reason this company has for many years made exclusive use of this particular 
 variety of asphalt. 
 
508 
 
 PARAGRAPH OO ASPHALTTJM. 
 
 The company imports its asphalt direct from Trinidad in what is called the crude 
 state, just as it comes from the Trinidad Lake, and, at the company's plant at Hastings- 
 on-Hudson, prepares the crude asphalt for use by driving from it, by means of heat, 
 the 33 per centum of water contained in the crude asphalt as imported. In other 
 words, the company has to thus "refine" its own asphalt, the so-called process of 
 "refining" causing it to lose 33 per centum of its weight before being suitable for use 
 in the manufacture of an asphaltic cement. 
 
 Until 1897 no duty was levied on this raw material; since then a duty of $1.50 a 
 ton has been assessed upon the "crude" asphalt, which means to this company a 
 duty of $2.25 per ton upon that part of the material which is available for use; this 
 company paying in addition thereto the labor and factory cost.of treating the material 
 as above described. 
 
 In other words, in order to prepare its raw material for use in the construction of a 
 roadway for a city or village, it has to import the crude material, and pay a duty thereon 
 based upon a bulk which ultimately furnishes but 67 per centum of that bulk in a 
 condition ready for use in the manufacture of its pavement. 
 
 The imposition of this duty not only does not protect any American industry, but 
 in fact actually operates to impose an onerous and unjust burden upon a long estab- 
 lished and successful industry, as well as to impose a wholly unnecessary tax upon 
 the construction of modern roadways. 
 
 There does not exist in the United States any commercial form of natural asphalt 
 that competes in any way with the foreign deposits. It is a fact, however, that in 
 the process of refining petroleum oil, having an asphaltic base, a by-product or waste 
 is obtained, which is sometimes called an artificial asphalt, principally because it can 
 be and is used in connection with the construction of roadways. That is to say, the 
 oil refiner distills his oil for the purpose of obtaining and selling the light, volatile 
 oils which have great value; to obtain them is the purpose of the refining of the crude 
 oil. 
 
 What is finally left is a waste which may be used in some way as an asphalt is used; 
 but the oil is not refined for the purpose of obtaining that waste and, obviously, the 
 imposition of a duty upon crude or refined asphalt was not intended to nor does it in 
 fact furnish protection to the oil refiner. One might as well say that the imposition 
 of a duty upon timber was intended to furnish protection to the saw mill owner in 
 respect to the sawdust resulting from the manufacture of the timber into commercial 
 forms of lumber. 
 
 Moreover, it is now the declared policy of this Government to allow crude oil to 
 enter free of duty; and it so happens, in respect to Mexican oil, for instance, that the 
 importation of the crude oil free of duty also allows the importation without duty 
 of BO much of the artificial asphalt as is contained in the Mexican crude oil. The 
 result is that the refiners of Mexican oil actually get, as incident to refining that oil, 
 an artificial asphalt which has paid no duty, thereby working a grievous hardship 
 upon the American manufacturer who is not engaged in the oil-refining business but 
 who brings in the crude natural asphalt, paying duty upon it, refining it here with 
 American labor, and then finding himself in competition with the oil refiner who has 
 avoided all duty. 
 
 We respectfully submit that both the crude and so-called "refined" asphalt should 
 be placed upon the free list. 
 
 As to the crude asphalt, it is typical in a striking degree of a raw material, for it 
 is invariably a natural deposit existing in consequence of the lapse of ages of time and 
 the slow processes of chemical change. 
 
 It is taken from the lake by the simplest possible kind of labor, that of plain ordi- 
 nary digging, and it is brought to the United States in such a condition of crudeness 
 that on arrival it has again to be dug out of the hold of the vessel. 
 
 If imported as so-called "refined" asphalt, the process of refining is in fact nothing 
 more than boiling out of it the water which it contains in its crude state, and thus 
 making its bulk less expensive to ship. 
 
 But, however imported, its principal use is an important and essential component 
 of modern roads. 
 
 A customs duty upon it is, therefore, not only an unjust tax upon a raw material, 
 but is in fact a tax upon a tax, because he who pays for the modern roadway is the 
 taxpayer, and in paying his tax he is also subjected to the tax levied by the customs 
 duty on the asphalt in that roadway. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 509 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 ASPHALTTJM. 
 
 We are authorized to say that the following companies, likewise engaged in the 
 manufacture of asphalt blocks, join with this company in urging that asphaltum be 
 placed upon the free list: Asphalt Block Pavement Co., Toledo, Ohio; Washington 
 Asphalt & Tile Co., Washington, D. C.: New Castle Asphalt Block Co., New Castle, 
 Pa.; Railway Asphalt Block Co. (portable plants). 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 THE HASTINGS PAVEMENT Co., 
 HENRY W. RUDD, of Counsel. 
 
 OFFICE OP MAYOR, 
 Kansas City, Mo., December 28, 191t. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: As chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, I respectfully ask that, 
 in your revision of the schedules in conjunction with tariff revision by the present 
 House, you should take notice of the effect of the present tariff of $1.50 per ton on 
 crude and $3 per ton on all refined asphalt imported into the United States. 
 
 It is undoubted that some form of bituminous binder is necessary to hold good 
 roads together, and stone is the natural material to use. With asphalt on the free 
 list, material best adapted for this purpose could be used at greatly decreased expense. 
 Good roads and pavements are costly enough without the addition of a tariff tax. 
 
 The existing tariff could be saved by the communities now paying it in the form of 
 increased costs, which could be put into much needed construction. That imported 
 asphalts would be reduced in price if the tariff were removed is certain, since these 
 products are now much higher in price (owing to the greater cost of production) 
 than the pretended kinds of asphalt made from blown oil. 
 
 Because the present duty on asphalt was imposed and is retained solely for the 
 benefit of the far western producers of so-called blown oil, which is a by-proauct from 
 the distillation of heavy petroleum. No lake of natural asphalt is found in the United 
 States, so that no duties are necessary to protect this product or the labor engaged in 
 its production. The product of California or Texas must pay heavy freight rates 
 to market and should not ask Congress to maintain a tax on the whole country in order 
 to overcome the disadvantages of the product's location. 
 
 Because, in the face of an increase in asphalt imports from 115,000 tons in 1906 to 
 168,000 tons in 1911, the production of California oil asphalt in the same period 
 increased 77,000 tons. This proves that the California industry can prosper in spite 
 of the increasing use of imported asphalts. All that the Dingley duties have done 
 is to make the imported product cost more and probably enable the California pro- 
 ducers to charge more than they would for oil asphalts had no duties been imposed. 
 
 Because, free of duty, imported asphalt could be supplied in refined form by direct 
 shipment to all eastern and southern cities, saving heavy rail freight charges. New 
 Orleans, Mobile, and cities similarly situated, and Kansas City with her water trans- 
 portation, should be able to buy asphalt as cheaply as New York can buy it. 
 
 Because, the increasing use of heavy oils for road treatment, for fuel, and other 
 purposes, is resulting in constant advances in the price of these materials. This 
 movement will be retarded if imported asphalt, whether crude or refined, is placed on 
 the free list along with products like the Mexican oils, which are admitted free under 
 the tariff act of 1909. 
 
 Because, the increasing use of the Texas and California blown oil, passing under 
 the name of asphalt, has furnished Kansas City and all this western country, for some 
 years, with the most despicable paving products that has ever been put on our streets. 
 
 This suggestion is in the interests of all the road -making authorities in this country; 
 in the interest of every man who pays a paving tax in Kansas City and cities similarly 
 situated. 
 
 Because this product, whether from Trinidad or Bermudez, in Venezuela, will 
 make better paving, more durable, worth more in every way, than that made with 
 either California or Texas blown oil. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, HENRY L. Josr. 
 
510 TARTFF HEABINQ8. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 BAUXITE. 
 
 IOWA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, 
 
 Ames, Iowa, January 21, 191S. 
 Hon. OSCAR UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: I understand that your committee will consider, among other matters, 
 the present tariff on crude and refined asphalts. 
 
 It seems apparent that much of our permanent road improvement will require 
 some form of asphalt and asphaltic oil in construction and maintenance. We have 
 even had in a few instances, under special conditions, reasonably successful improve- 
 ment by means of the application of asphaltic oil to common earth roads properly 
 graded. I believe that the whole Mississippi Valley will use asphalt in various forms 
 in road improvement during the next few years. 
 
 I would suggest that you consider very carefully the reduction of the present tariff 
 to reduce the cost of these materials. 
 
 Very truly, yours, IOWA HIGHWAY COMMISSION, 
 
 By THOS. H. MACDONALD, 
 
 Highway Engineer. 
 
 CITY OF MOBILE, BOARD OP COMMISSIONERS, 
 
 Mobile, Ala., December 23, 1912. 
 Mr. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: In regard to the duty on asphalts which is to come before your com- 
 mittee early next month: Our city has recently let contracts for paving many blocks 
 of our streets and a large proportion of the work will be done with asphalt, which 
 material meets with the approval of our board and when well laid and of the proper 
 type is generally satisfactory. 
 
 The present duty on imported asphalts, which appear to be the most desirable for 
 street pavements, not only increases the price we must pay for the streets and roads 
 improved with this material but also eeems to affect the price of all paving materials; 
 and this curtails the amount of improvement work that we are able to do. 
 
 Mobile has shown a decided increase in population during the past few years and 
 we anticipate a greatly accelerated growth following the opening of the Panama Canal, 
 which will make necessary the paving of many more miles of our streets. If Con- 
 gress removes the duty on asphalts, I think the city will secure a material reduction 
 in the cost of its street improvement work. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, LAZ SCHWARZ, Mayor. 
 
 BAUXITE. 
 
 STATEMENT OF WINTHROP C. NEILSON, ESQ., REPRESENTING 
 THE REPUBLIC MINING & MANUFACTURING CO. 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. I represent the Republic Mining & Manufacturing Co. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. To what paragraph do you refer ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Schedule B, paragraph 90, the bauxite items. 
 
 I represent the oldest and one of the largest bauxite mining com- 
 panies in this country. We have been mining bauxite since 1889. 
 During that period we have had a protective duty of $1 a ton on 
 bauxite during the time that most of our shipments have moved. 
 During that period we have shown less than $1 a ton profit on our 
 books. I simply make that statement to show the benefit the 
 tariff has been to us, and I want to add that the present arrange- 
 ment of SI per ton is bringing in a nice little revenue from this 
 industry. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I do not think your article is in this schedule, is 
 it bauxite? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Yes; it is in the schedule. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 611 
 
 PABAGBAPH 90 BAUXITE. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. I think it is in the metal schedule. 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. It is in paragraph 90 of Schedule B. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Very well; proceed. 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. I am asking for the retention of this present duty. 
 I have prepared a brief in which I give the reasons which lead us to 
 believe this duty should be retained, both as a benefit to the industry 
 in this country and as a source of revenue to the country. As long 
 as I have gone into the matter pretty fully in the brief, I will not say 
 very much here except that I want to bring out the fact that recently 
 we became affiliated with the Aluminum Co. of America. That 
 made no change at all in our personnel or in our corporate existence 
 or in our identity. 
 
 We are still selling to the trade as we did before, and this move 
 was made largely because with all of our mining operations we get 
 into some hign-iron bauxite, which the regular trade we work with 
 does not use, and the Aluminum Co. can make use of this grade of 
 ore, and it gave us a market for this high-iron bauxite. 
 
 Within the last day I have heard that I had agreed to recommend 
 the removal of the duty on one of the different grades of bauxite. 
 I simply want to say that is an error, because I have always advo- 
 cated a duty on all the bauxite. The different grades to me look all 
 alike, and a ton of bauxite is a ton of bauxite. 
 
 I would like to file this brief, to appear in the record. If there 
 are any questions, I will be very glad to endeavor to answer them. 
 
 Mr. HULL. What have you to say as to the rates in this bill and as 
 they were in the bill last year ? What do you say about those rates ? 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. What was that rate ? 
 
 Mr. HULL. Fifteen per cent, as I recall. 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. I understand you now. I think if we have that 
 put into effect it will cripple us tremendously. We can ship a good 
 deal more than we can get a market lor. The French or foreign 
 materials are cutting us out to a very large extent. At the same 
 time we have developed a pretty nice business, and we are increasing 
 it. The present arrangement is all we can hope for. 
 
 Mr. HULL. You say your business has recently become allied with 
 the American Aluminum Co. ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Yes; with the Aluminum Co. of America. 
 
 Mr. HULL. Your bauxite business is a portion of the business of 
 the American Aluminum Co. now? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Yes; but my company, the Republic Mining & Man- 
 ufacturing Co., still retains its individual identity, and we have not 
 changed our policy in any way at all. They are simply taking over 
 part of their materials that we have heretofore thrown away, for this 
 aluminum industry. 
 
 Mr. HULL. The import price of this raw material has increased, 
 has it not, during the past 12 months? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. No; I think not. I think the import price of this 
 raw material is as it has been, in the rough, for many years. 
 
 Mr. HULL. What do you understand it to be now ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. I understand you can buy this foreign material for 
 between $8.25 and $9, laid down in New York. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Does it come into competition with your own 
 product ? 
 
512 TAEUT HEAKLffGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 90 BAUXITE. 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Yes; I thought I made that clear. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Excuse me, but I could not hear what you were 
 saying. I have been informed that French bauxite is a different 
 material from that which is found in the Southern States, and that 
 there is no real competition between the two. Is that correct? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. No; that is incorrect. It is a different ore in a 
 way. It has about two parts of water and six and a half or seven 
 parts of alumina. The American bauxites have practicaUy three 
 parts of water and only six parts of alumina, five and a half to six 
 parts of alumina, on the average. They have a natural advantage 
 of a little bit more alumina, which is one of the reasons why I have 
 asked for the retention of the duty. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. The Aluminum Co. of America uses bauxite as its 
 raw material, does it not ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. And still it is in favor of having the duty retained 
 upon the raw material ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. I presume they would feel that way about it. Thev 
 have their own mines for the most part, and we only ship a small 
 
 Eart of our total to them. I presume they are perfectly willing to 
 ave the duty stay on. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Where are the mines ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. The mines are in Arkansas, Georgia, and Tennes- 
 see, and very large mines in Alabama. The^ are ah 1 in the South. 
 They are all a very great distance from the points of manufacture. 
 
 Our business from 1889 to the present time is really a white alum 
 trade business. We ship to the chemical manufacturing people, 
 and I presume this statement which you make arises from the fact 
 that we have not done very much business with the other people, 
 the people that would use the high iron bauxites, similar to the 
 French bauxites. But I can answer that by saying we have a great 
 deal of this red bauxite lying hi the ground which we have been 
 unable to put on the market. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. You mean the red bauxite similar to the French? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Well, red bauxite, possibly not of the same natural 
 character; a little inferior in alumina, putting them to a little bit 
 more disadvantage than the other. But we have great quantities 
 of red bauxite in the South, which we have never been able to mine 
 and market at all. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I was not here when you began. What is your rela- 
 tion to the bauxite trade? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. My relation to the bauxite trade is that my com- 
 pany is the oldest and one of the largest mining companies in the 
 bauxite industry. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You are a miner of bauxite? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. We mine and sell bauxite to the trade. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You are engaged in that business exclusively? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Exclusively, and have been since 1889. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Your company is now owned or controlled by the 
 Aluminum Co. of America? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. And that company owns or controls practically all 
 of the bauxite beds in America, does it not, at the present time ? 
 
SCHEDULE B. 513 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 BAUXITE. 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. No; you are mistaken on that point. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I did not say that was my opinion. I am asking 
 you about it. 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. No. My opinion is they do not control anywhere 
 near all the bauxite. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What proportion of it dp they control ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. That really is a question which I do not like to 
 answer, because I do not know. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. The Aluminum Co. of America, as far as the manu- 
 facture of aluminum is concerned, enjoys an absolute monopoly in 
 this country, does it not ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. I think not. I am not posted as to that. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Is it not the onty concern in America which is en- 
 gaged in the manufacture of aluminum articles ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. I am sorry I can not answer you on that point, but 
 I really know very little about the aluminum end of it. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. It does own or control a sufficient quantity of bauxite 
 for all of its own uses, does it not ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Yes, I think it does, for a time at least ; but not for 
 an indefinite period. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Then if it should turn out to be true that it has a 
 practical monopoly of the aluminum business, of which bauxite is the 
 raw material, and it has sufficient of this raw material for its own 
 uses 
 
 Mr. NEILSON (interposing). For a certain time. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Well, for a long period, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Not for a very long period. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Then it practically controls all the bauxite which is 
 used in the aluminum trade? Did you ever sell to anybody else 
 except the Aluminum Co. of America ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. I presume that we have not shipped over 2 or 3 per 
 cent of our tonnage to the Aluminum Co. of America. Even now 
 the great bulk of our business is with the chemical people. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Have you shipped bauxite to any other concern for 
 the manufacture of aluminum than the Aluminum Co. of America? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Xo, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Has anybody else sold any for the purpose of manu- 
 facturing aluminum articles to any other concern than the Aluminum 
 Co. of America ? 
 
 Mr. XEILSON. I think not. I think, however, that some French 
 bauxite has been imported into this country for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Does the Aluminum Co. of America own your com- 
 pany outright ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. They do. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. That is, they own the stock of your company? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. When was it bought? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. It was bought in 1909. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Have they been engaged lately in buying the control 
 of other beauxite companies? 
 
 78959 VOL 113 33 
 
514 TAEIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 BAUXITE. 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. None that I know of. I have bought one or two 
 properties myself, which I would have bought anyway in the natural 
 course of our own growth. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Were those you bought rival concerns? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. No; they were from individual farmers. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You bought those for the Aluminum Co. of America ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. I bought those for pur regular trade. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. How big a concern is your company? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. $100,000 capital. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. How long has it been in business ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Since 1882; we discovered bauxite first along about 
 1886 or 1887, and made the first shipments in 1889. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Where is your bauxite? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Our bauxite is in Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, and 
 Tennessee. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. In selling out to the Aluminum Co. of America, did 
 you take the Aluminum Co.'s securities, so that your people are part 
 of that company ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. No; not a dollar's worth of it. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You got cash, did you ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. We just sell to them this by-product we make, for a 
 regular price, just as though they were another customer. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You sell a by-product to them; what is that? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. I thought I made that clear a moment ago, that in 
 our regular mining operations for the chemical trade we get into 
 bodies of bauxite which the chemical trade can not use, and which 
 the aluminum people can use. One of the inducements which led us 
 into this affiliation with them was the fact that they could make use 
 of this by-product . 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Then as I understand you now, the furnishing of 
 bauxite for the purposes of manufacturing aluminum is simply a side 
 issue with you ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Absolutely. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. And the supply of bauxite for the purpose of the 
 alum manufacture is your main business ? 
 
 Mr. XEILSOX. Absolutely. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. And the Aluminum Co. of America, which is engaged 
 exclusively in the business of manufacturing aluminum products, has 
 bought you out and now controls your company? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PALMER (continuing). And other companies of the same 
 
 IT- i 7-1 /-] 
 
 xYllJAl 
 
 Mr. NEILSOX. I do not know about that. 
 
 Mr. PALMER (continuing). Engaged in furnishing bauxite for your 
 trade and for the alum trade ? 
 
 Mr-. NEILSOX. Yes. We have raised no prices since we began. 
 
 Mr. HARRISOX. The Aluminum Co. of America, which now 
 controls the bauxite fields in America, desire the retention of this 
 duty on bauxite to make it impossible for any other future manu- 
 facturer of aluminum to compete with them, is that the case ? 
 
 Mr. XEILSOX. I would like to answer that by saving, even if they 
 did have all tlio bauxite in the country, which they have not got 
 
SCHEDULE B. 515 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 BAUXITE. 
 
 by a great deal, although I know they have been reported as having 
 a great proportion of it, even if they owned all of it, they could stifi 
 import bauxite from France and pay $1 duty on it, and lay it down 
 in New York, or any eastern seaport, for two or three dollars a ton 
 less than they could mine this bauxite in the South and lay it down 
 at the seaports. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. They could not carry it very far inland and com- 
 pete with American bauxite ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. No. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. So that a reduction in the rate of duty on bauxite 
 would simply somewhat extend the zone of competition with foreign 
 bauxite, bring it a little farther in from the Atlantic seaboard. 
 
 Mr. NEILSOX. It would probably bring it far enough in to put us 
 out of business. There is already so much bauxite coming into the 
 alum manufacturers of this country from foreign countries that we 
 have to rely a great deal on our western and northern chemical 
 companies' plants. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You do not fear about always having a customer for 
 your product now that the Aluminum Co. of America has bought you 
 and owns you; they will buy your product, will they not? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. No; they probably could not buy their products at 
 their different plants nearly as readily as these chemical manufactur- 
 ing concerns can buy it. We would lose a great part of our trade, I 
 expect, and I might also say that the kind of ore wnich they use is not 
 similar to the kind of ore which the chemical people use. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Let us assume that the bauxite is used by the alumi- 
 num people for a moment. Their plants are all out in the middle 
 western country, are they not? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Yss. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Their plant is at East St. Louis? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. East ot. Louis, 111. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. There is not any possibility of foreign bauxite, even 
 with a duty one-half of what it is now, successfully competing with 
 southern bauxite at East St. Louis, is there ? Would not the freight 
 rates more than use up the reduction in duty if we cut the rate on 
 bauxite one-half ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. We ship nothing from the Georgia- Alabama field to 
 East St. Louis on account of the freight rate; therefore I assume that 
 would hold. It would almost keep the foreign ore out of St. Louis, 
 no matter what the duty is. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Where is your plant, in Tennessee? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. We have mines in Georgia, Alabama and Tennes- 
 see. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You can not even compete from Georgia and Ten- 
 nessee at East St. Louis with other bauxites nearer to East St. Louis; 
 is that right ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. We can not. We only send a very small quantity 
 of this by-product material to East St. Louis. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Then it follows that foreign bauxite, as far as it 
 being a raw material for aluminum is concerned, would not be a 
 serious competitor at East St. Louis, would it ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. No. 
 
516 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 BAUXITE. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. It is only you fear foreign competition when it comos 
 to the alum trade ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. When it comes to the alum trade and when it comes 
 to the future field of other bauxites which we hope some day to 
 develop and use these red bauxites which we have. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Where are the alum plants in this country ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Buffalo, Chicago, 
 and a small one in Cincinnati. But mostly they are in the large 
 eastern cities. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Have you named them all ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. I have named every important one. Did I say 
 Buffalo ? 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Yes. As far as Buffalo, Cincinnati, and Chicago are 
 concerned foreign bauxite could not compete with the American 
 bauxite, could it ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. It has gone as far as Buffalo in some instances. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Under the present rates ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Yes; but not in large quantities, however. It stops 
 mostly now at the seacoast. Whereas they used to send all the 
 chemical companies' ore to these seaport towns, they are now getting 
 some of the French ore and still using practically 75 per cent or more 
 of their product from Georgia. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Your proposition here now is that the present bauxite 
 duty permits some competition at the Atlantic seaboard ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. It does. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. And allows you to have a monopoly inland? You 
 want to destroy that competition on the seaboard and have an abso- 
 lute monopoly all over the United States ; is that it ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. No; I would not put it just that way. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I expect you would not, but that is the proper way 
 of putting it, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. I would like to ship our material in a little larger 
 quantity to these seaboard towns, but we are very willing to let the 
 present arrangement stand as it is. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You are willing to leave it as it is at present? 
 
 Mr. XEILSON. Yes. We want the duty retained as at present, 
 which lets us ship practically 150,000 or 160,000 tons of ore per 
 annum against 150,000 tons of ore coming in. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. The retention of the duty at present is in the interest 
 of a decreased competition along the Atlantic seaboard. You want 
 to prevent competition along the Atlantic seaboard ? 
 
 Mr. XEILSOX. We would like to prevent further competition. If 
 it goes a little further we are ruined in this country. That is, we feel 
 if the duty is taken off the Frenchman would have all of those eastern 
 seaboard cities. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Can not he get them all now ? If he can get one 
 can not he get all of them ? 
 
 Mr. XKII.SOX. No. 
 
 Mr. PALMKK. Why not' 
 
 Mr. NKII.SOX. Because the SI duty gives us just that balance of 
 power which lets us ship enough further in to keep us going. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 517 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 BAUXITE. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You moan the $1 duty makes the French article and 
 your article along the Atlantic seaboard at about the same price, so 
 that now and then you can get customers; is that it? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. No; we more than now and then get customers. 
 I suppose we control 75 or 80 per cent of this seaboard custom. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You control 75 or 80 per cent of the seaboard towns 
 and all of the inland business ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Practically. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. And you want to continue that or get more ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Yes; that is the idea. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Do you not know that there has been, recently, a 
 storm of popular opinion in this country in favor of a reduction of 
 duties to permit some competition in this country? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. When you consider there is already a good deal of 
 competition, when the imports are coming in as fast as they are, and 
 when our industry is held down to the point it is held down 
 
 Mr. PALMER. If you ask me my opinion, I would say that any con- 
 cern which has a monopoly of all the country in the United States 
 away from the seacoast and is able to get 80 per cent of the business 
 in the seaboard towns does not present a condition which I would call 
 competitive. 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Now, we not only have the Frenchman to compete 
 with in the seaboard towns, but whenever we sell a pound of bauxite 
 to anybody we have a good many local people to compete with. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Are they also concerns which are owned by the 
 Aluminum Co. of America? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. Not that I know of. Most of these concerns I am 
 sure are not owned by them. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. So far as aluminum is concerned there is no compe- 
 tition, because the Aluminum Co. of America buys from its own 
 people entirely, does it not ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. I am not really posted on the aluminum end of it. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Do you refine any bauxite ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. No, sir; we do nothing but mine the raw material 
 and sell it to the trade. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. You probably are aware that at the last session of 
 this Congress a bill passed the House reducing the duties on refined 
 bauxite from 24 per cent to 15 per cent? 
 
 Mr. HULL. Ten per cent. I was in error. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. In view of that proposed reduction of duty in the 
 refined article, do you not believe a reduction in duty on the raw 
 material would be only fair ? 
 
 Mr. NEILSON. I think that that is a little beyond the mining com- 
 panies' scope. If the duties are lowered we know that we will not 
 have as much market for our ore as we have had in the past. We 
 do know that our market has only been a part of what we would like 
 to have it. Moreover, the way it has been has not enabled us to go 
 very deep into the ground for these bauxites. We could have done 
 better mining if we had had a little bit more chance to go deeper into 
 the ground. In other words, when we reach the point that we have 
 got to stop, we leave a good deal of ore underneath us. We simply 
 can not afford to take it put. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That is all. 
 
518 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 BAUXITE. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY REPUBLIC MINING & MANUFACTURING Co., A CORPORATION 
 ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA. 
 
 BAUXITE SCHEDULE B, PARAGRAPH 90. 
 
 To the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives of the Sixty-second 
 
 Congress: 
 
 There is at present a duty of $1 per ton on bauxite. We respectfully ask that this 
 duty of $1 per ton be allowed to stand.. 
 
 The Republic Mining & Manufacturing Co. is the oldest bauxite mining company in 
 this country. Chartered in 1882 for the purpose of developing mineral properties in 
 the South, it made the first discovery of American bauxite shortly thereafter, and it 
 made the first shipment of American bauxite in the year 1889. Since the beginning 
 of the industry in that year until the present time we have never stopped mining 
 bauxite. There have been many companies and there have been many individuals 
 operating during this period, but statistics show that the Republic Mining & Manu- 
 facturing Co. has mined and shipped practically 25 per cent of all the bauxite which 
 this country has produced. The largest part of our business has been done with the 
 various chemical companies who manufacture sulphate of alumina, better known as 
 alum. We have sold small quantities to the other users of bauxite, but our business 
 has been, primarily, an alum business. And the profits on our business for 23 years 
 have averaged less than $1 per ton. This statement is made to show our actual need 
 for the duty during this period, and we believe that other American producers have 
 needed this protection fully as much as ourselves. 
 
 Bauxite is a hydrate of alumina, containing oxide of aluminum, water, and impuri- 
 ties. It is practically a clay in which the oxide of aluminum has replaced a part of 
 the silica. Commercial American bauxite contains approximately 55 per cent oxide 
 of aluminum, 30 per cent of water, and 15 per cent impurities. It is, properly speak- 
 ing, a trihydrate of alumina, as there are about 3 parts out of 10 of water of combination. 
 
 The bauxites of the United States are found in the State of Arkansas, west of Little 
 Rock; also in the States of Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee. The Georgia-Alabama- 
 Tennessee bauxite field runs in a northeast-southwesterly direction from a point near 
 Bristol, Tenn., down through Chattanooga, into Georgia, through Rome, and on into 
 northeastern Alabama. Also a territory of considerable importance in Georgia, south- 
 east of Macon, has been opened up within the past few years. It will be noted that 
 all of these American mines lie at great distances from the centers of chemical manu- 
 facturing, which are, for the most part, in the large eastern cities, and in Buffalo, 
 Niagara Falls, and Chicago. 
 
 Since its small beginning in the year 1889, the industry has shown steady growth 
 and development. To-day practically 1,000 men are employed regularly; large num- 
 bers of farmers also find temporary employment in the mines after crops are laid by. 
 According to statistics published by the United States Geological Survey, there have 
 been mined and shipped in the United States, from the beginning of the industry 
 until the close of 1911, some 1,025,594 tons. Some 85 per cent of this total shipment 
 moved while there was a protective duty of $1 per ton on foreign bauxite. Had it not 
 been for this duty the business would undoubtedly have been much smaller than it 
 lias been. Even with the duty in force, great quantities of French bauxite have been 
 coming into this country, and only the protective duty has enabled the American 
 industry to reach its present stage of development. According to statistics issued by 
 the United States Geological Survey 15,669 tons were imported in the year 1910, and 
 43,222 tons were imported in the year 1911. American production, according to the 
 same authority, increased from 148,932 tons in the year 1910 to only 155,618 tons in 
 the year 1911. Were the duty removed, or even lowered, American production 
 figures would undoubtedly recede and the import figures would correspondingly 
 increase. Therefore we ask for the retention of the present duty. 
 
 American bauxites all lie inland, and the rail freight rate to the point of manufac- 
 ture averages not far under so per ton. Include the rate from the Arkansas mines 
 to the Eastern chemical plants, and the average rate is considerably above $5 per ton. 
 Against this, the bauxites of France have a water rate of practically S2. In some 
 instances, cargoes for ballast have been brought over for 6 shillings. Moreover, the 
 French mines are all very near seaport. The deposits lie along the coast from Mar- 
 seille to Nice, and it is a matter of few miles only to reach a port, like Cette, Mar- 
 seille, Toulon, or St. Raphael. This freight rate 'difference in favor of French ore 
 would alone seem to justify the retention of the present duty. 
 
 It has been shown above that domestic bauxite is a trihydrate, containing some 
 three parts of combined water. Foreign bauxite, on the other hand, is a duohydrate, 
 
SCHEDULE B. 519 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 BAUXITE. 
 
 containing only about two parts out of ten of combined water, with the alumina con- 
 tent replacing the third part of water. This approximate 10 per cent increase in the 
 oxide of aluminum in foreign ore is a natural advantage that we can not overcome. 
 
 A comparison of the mines also favors the foreign bauxites. The American mines, 
 for the most part, are heavily overburdened and the ore lies deep in the ground. 
 Surrounded by clay and cut by clay barriers, we can do very little underground 
 work. Our open quarrying is followed by great slides, and as we frequently take out 
 ore from a depth of 100 feet even a light rain causes serious delay and cost. The 
 French ores lie mostly in huge bluffs, beautifully situated for mining. Where the ore 
 dips it is for the most part surrounded by rock, so that regular underground mining 
 can be carried on with safety. 
 
 Again, we believe that French labor for this class of work does not average much, 
 if any, above 80 cents per day. We have had two members of our company make a 
 personal study of this point during several trips to the French mines. In the United 
 States the average labor cost is a full $1.60 per day. And here is a case where labor 
 costs can properly be compared for the total cost of putting bauxite on to cars is almost 
 a hand -lab or cost. A steam shovel here can rarely be used on account of the depths 
 of the deposits, and on account of the clay pockets and different grades being badly 
 mixed. French ore runs more uniform and much more free of clay and grit. With 
 us, the pick and the shovel must be relied on, followed by hand sorting, frequently 
 hand passing into washers, almost always hand passing into cylinder driers, and 
 hauled by wagon to the railroad. Royalty charges and fuel and depreciation on 
 hoisting and drying machinery constitute only a small part of the cost labor con- 
 stitutes far more than all the other costs. 
 
 Imports of bauxite have so far been chiefly from France. Italy and Hungary are 
 likewise great bauxite-producing countries, each with low-priced labor and plenty of 
 it. Italy and Hungary will send in bauxite, and the tonnage from France will in- 
 crease greatly if the present duty is removed. 
 
 Under the present arrangement of $1 per ton import duty in the year 1911 some 
 $43,222 in duty was realized from an industry which used some 200,000 tons of bauxite 
 in that year. We presume this ratio fully held in the year just past, and if the present 
 duty is undisturbed there will still be at least an equivalent proportion of American 
 consumption yielding duty. 
 
 On account of the foreign ore be'ng by nature higher in oxide of aluminum than 
 American ore; on account of foreign labor costing less than American labor; on account 
 of the French deposits being better situated for low-cost mining and close to seaport; 
 on account of the foreign ore carrying a low-water freight rate against our high rail 
 freight rate; and on account of the present duty making large returns on the already 
 established import business, we trust that our request for a retention of the present 
 duty of $1 per ton on bauxite will be found to be in order. 
 
 WINTHROP C. NEILSON, President, 
 1111 Harrison Building, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 JANUARY 6, 1913. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY THE MERRIMAC CHEMICAL CO. 
 
 JANUARY 1, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: On behalf of the Merrimac Chemical Co. I beg to submit the following 
 brief for the consideration of your committee in connection with its investigations 
 regarding the tariff. 
 
 BAUXITE. 
 
 Under section 90 of ihe act of 1909 bauxite is assessed a duty of $1 a ton, the 
 language of the act being as follows: "Bauxite, or beauxite, crude, not refined or 
 otherwise advanced in condition from its natural state, SI per ton." * * * 
 
 Bauxite is distinctly a raw material, and it is our contention that it should be placed 
 on the "free list." 
 
 There are two distinct kinds of bauxite, one of the character of the American 
 bauxite, commonly known as "white" bauxite, and containing less than 10 per cent 
 of iron oxide, and the other known as "red" bauxite, containing more than 10 per 
 cent of iron oxide, and mined almost exclusively in foreign countries, particularly 
 France. 
 
520 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 BAUXITE. 
 
 The "white", or American, bauxite contains 47 per cent to 57 per cent alumina, 
 iron oxide not exceeding 10 per cent, and from 6 per cent to 20 per cent of silica 
 The better qualities of this bauxite are used in the manufacture of sulphate of alu- 
 mina, in title manufacture of which a high percentage of silica is not objectionable, 
 while a high percentage of iron is very detrimental. 
 
 The ordinary "red" bauxite contains 58 per cent to 60 per cent of ahimina. 18 per 
 cent to 22 per cent iron oxide, and 2 per cent to 4 per cent silica. This "red " bauxite 
 is used principally in the production of alumina, which is the principal source of alu- 
 minum used in the manufacture of the metal aluminum. In the refining process 
 of this "red" bauxite "the high percentage of iron is not objectionable, while a high 
 percentage of silica contents is almost fatal to economical manufacture. Thus it is 
 apparent that the American, or "white, " bauxite and the "red" bauxite, which con- 
 stitutes the greater portion of the foreign importation, being distinct in their character 
 and purpose, are not in serious competition with each other. 
 
 An effort was made at the last tariff revision in 1908-9 to have the duty on bauxite 
 increased from $1 a ton to $2 a ton on the ground that the American mines could not 
 compete with the foreign mines. 
 
 We do not believe that importations of bauxite interfere in the slightest with our 
 American mines, nor do we believe that the output of our American mines would be 
 affected if bauxite were placed on the free list. The following are our reasons for this 
 opinion: 
 
 (1) As already stated, the "red" bauxite, which constitutes the bulk of the foreign 
 importation, is used for different purposes than the "white" bauxite, which is mined 
 in this country The only important exception to this statement that we know of is 
 the Arkansas bauxite used by the Aluminum Co. of America in their works near 
 St. Louis. The Arkansas mines in question are, we understand, owned and operated 
 by the Aluminum Co. of America, and it is most improbable that their operations 
 would be in the least curtailed by the removal of the duty because the inland freight 
 on the imported ore would be prohibitive. 
 
 (2) Our American mines have shown a steadily increasing output, and there is no 
 indiciation that the development of these mines has been or is likely to be retarded by 
 the importation of foreign bauxite. 
 
 According to the Mineral Industry for 1911, which is the most accurate and 
 official estimate of mineral productions published in the United States, there were 
 produced in the United States in 1911, 155,618 tons of bauxite. This is somewhat 
 larger than the output in 1910 and 1909 and three times the output in 1908. In 1911 
 there were imported into this country 43,222 tons of bauxite, but the major portion 
 of this importation was "red" bauxite, which, as already explained, is not really 
 in conflict with our American ore. 
 
 It is submitted that, when due consideration is given to the fact that the American 
 output of bauxite has tripled since 1908, and when it is considered how small has been 
 the importation of "white" bauxite under the present duty, it will be apparent that 
 our American producers of bauxite do not require the protection of this $1 duty. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 To place bauxite on the free list would surely stimulate the aluminum industry, 
 and would not, in our judgment, seriously affect our American mine owners, because, 
 as already explained, the American markets for the imported and domestic ore are to 
 a large extent separate and distinct. 
 
 Furthermore, should it be deemed advisable to maintain a duty on our American 
 bauxite, a distinction may be made between the "red" and the "white" bauxite, 
 and the duty removed on the former. This may be effected by providing that bauxite 
 containing in excess of 10 per cent of iron (FeoOg 1 ) shall be entered free, and bauxite 
 containing less than 10 per cent iron shall pay a duty of $1 a ton. 
 
 BRIEF OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SALT MANUFACTURING CO., 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, PA., December 2, 1912. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD. 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: \Ye have the honor to present herewith a brief of facts in the matter of 
 the crude article bauxite, which is now subject to a duty of $1 per 2,240 pounds. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 521 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 CHINA CLAY. 
 
 Bauxite is in Schedule B, paragraph No. 90, act of August 5, 1909. 
 
 The importation this year will amount to about 30,000 tons. The consumption in 
 the United States is estimated at 150,000 tons during 1912. 
 
 We respectfully ask that it be transferred to the free list, where for many years it 
 was incorporated. The article imported does not come in competition with the 
 domestic article, by reason of its wide difference in composition. The foreign article 
 contains 60 per cent of alumina and over 20 per cent of iron, whereas the domestic 
 article contains from 50 to 55 per cent alumina and is very low in iron. On account 
 of the iron the foreign red bauxite is not adapted for making alum direct, whereas the 
 domestic article is particularly so; therefore the foreign does not compete, as stated. 
 
 The selling price of domestic bauxite is about $6 per ton at the mines, compared 
 with $3.60 per ton for foreign at shipping point in Europe. The importation com- 
 prises only about 20 per cent of the total bauxite consumed in the United States. 
 
 As the bauxite is distinctively a raw material of the crudest character involving a 
 minimum of labor, we submit that it should be placed on the free list. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA SALT MANUFACTURING Co., 
 THEODORE ARMSTRONG, President. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS OF BENTON (ARK.) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. 
 
 Whereas the largest deposit of bauxite in America is situated in Arkansas, near the 
 city of Ben ton; and 
 
 Whereas three corporations are engaged in the mining and shipping of this bauxite; 
 and 
 
 Whereas these companies have made very heavy investments in mining plants and 
 building railroads and equipment for mining this bauxite; and 
 
 Whereas the pay rolls of these companies amount to from $15,000 to $20,000 a month, 
 and that this money is paid to the laborers, who spend it in this community; and 
 
 Whereas one of these mining plants has built the second largest town in this county, 
 some miles of first-class public roads, erected a $12,000 schoolhouse for the benefit 
 of the children of the community, a, hospital costing over $6,000, a free bathhouse 
 for the use of their employees; all this, where a few years ago there was a wilderness; 
 and 
 
 Whereas the existing tariff under the Payne-Aldrich bill enables foreign bauxite and 
 aluminum to be shipped into America in free competition with the American man- 
 ufactured articles; and 
 
 Whereas should the tariff on bauxite and aluminum as contemplated by the Under- 
 wood bill now before Congress be passed, in our judgment would close down this 
 the largest industry in our county: Therefore be it 
 Resolved, That the Benton Chamber of Commerce, of the city of Benton, Ark., in 
 
 chambers assembled, pray that you use your influence to prevent the tariff being 
 
 removed on bauxite, aluminum, and alumina as contemplated by the Underwood 
 
 bill; And be it further 
 
 Resolved, That the secretary of this organization send a copy of these resolutions to 
 
 each of our representatives in Congress. 
 
 The foregoing is a true copy of the resolutions adopted by the board of directors of 
 
 the chamber of commerce on the 30th day of January, 1913. 
 
 M. F. SCOTT, President. 
 
 CHINA CLAY. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOHN RICHARDSON, ESQ., REPRESENTING THE 
 JOHN RICHARDSON CO., OF BOSTON, MASS. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is the John Richardson Co. 
 The committee has assigned to you, Mr. Richardson, 10 minutes. 
 Please give your name and address to the stenographer. 
 Mr. RICHARDSON. John Richardson, of Boston. 
 Mr. DIXON. What section of the bill will you speak about? 
 Mr. RICHARDSON. Paragraph 90. 
 
522 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 CHINA CLAY. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I want the duty on china clay 
 removed. I emphasize two points: 
 
 First, the damage done by the duty to the great paper industry, 
 employing over 65,000 men. 
 
 Second, the comparatively insignificant damage by removal of the 
 duty to the southern clay industry. 
 
 As to the first point, paper making is among the largest industries 
 of the United States. Our makers of the better grades of paper must 
 have English clay. The duty on this raw material is now over 36 
 per cent. From this tax the United States Government receives 
 annually a revenue of over half a million dollars. That revenue is in 
 the end paid by the paper makers. Canada's facilities for the manu- 
 facture of paper excel those of the United States. China clay is 
 admitted free into Canada; her paper comes here free. Already a 
 number of American paper makers have bought land there. Each 
 dollar collected as duty means a gain of $1 to the paper maker who 
 goes to Canada. 
 
 Now, for the second point, the comparatively insignificant damage 
 to the domestic clay industry. The total value of domestic paper 
 clay produced in 1909 was less than $400,000. Under 1,500 men 
 were employed. From 1905 to 1910, in spite of the duty, the increase 
 of English clay imported over the increase of domestic clay produced 
 was 938 per cent. 
 
 This duty, which is borne by the paper makers, of over half a 
 million dollars a year protects an industry with a total annual output 
 of less than $400,000 and employing under 1,500 men. 
 
 I am ready for questions. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Do gentlemen of the committee desire to ask Mr. 
 Richardson any questions ? 
 
 That is all. 
 
 PETITION TO REMOVE THE DUTY o\ CHINA CLAY. OR KAOLIN. 
 
 {Brief of John Richardson Co.] 
 STATEMENT OF FACTS. 
 
 The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS. 
 
 House of Representatives, Sixty-second Congress: 
 
 In 1908 the John Richardson Co. was represented at the hearings before the Ways 
 and Means Committee on a petition similar in its purport to this brief, namely, the 
 removal of the duty on china clay, or kaolin. Xow. as then, your petitioner is acting 
 at the suggestion of several paper makers. In 1908 the petition was dismissed after 
 a rather brief hearing. Since 1908 the new Canadian tariff has been put into effect, 
 thereby admitting from Canada one of the finished products of china clay, paper, free 
 of duty. 
 
 This brief deals first with the subject in the light of the new Canadian tariff, and, 
 second, attempts to explain, more fully than was possible at the hearings before the 
 committee, the effect of the present duty on china clay. 
 
 EXPLANATION OF TERMS. 
 
 China clay and kaolin are different names for the same article, and this article is a 
 raw material used in the manufacture of paper, pottery, bleaching, and ultramarine. 
 In this brief the term china clay will be used, except iri the case of the North Carolina 
 clay, where by force of custom the name kaolin has always been applied to the clay 
 there. 
 
 In spite of the fact that oil imported clay is really of one kind, there are many 
 different grades of cost. This is due to the facts which will be explained later. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 523 
 
 PARAGRAPH 00 CHINA CLAY. 
 
 THE DIFFERENT COSTS OF ENGLISH CLAY. 
 
 The cost of English clay in hulk f. o. b. Cornwall, England, varies from 15 shillings 
 to 32 shillings per ton. Add about 9 shillings and you have the price at New York with- 
 out the duty. These clays, though varying in cost, are in fact all of one kind , the reason 
 for the difference in cost being that the more expensive clays are more thoroughly 
 washed when taken from the mine and are of a whiter color. The expensive clays are 
 used in the finished paper by the coating manufacturers, potters, and to a limited 
 
 into the United States. This is only $6.76 per ton at port of shipment. (United 
 States Bureau of Statistics, No. 15, imports entered for consumption years ending June 
 30,1909-10, p. 965.) To this must be added 9 shillings for ocean freight and $2.50 per 
 ton duty, making the average value at United States seaboard $11.42 per ton. English 
 clays sold in 1909, Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, at prices ranging from $11 
 per ton to $18 per ton. Thus there can not be much expensive English clay imported, 
 or the average would be higher. 
 
 Inasmuch as the importation of the more expensive English clays is comparatively 
 small, and, furthermore, as there are no American clays of sufficient whiteness to be in 
 competition with these English clays, we shall say no more about them in this brief. 
 We think they do not alter our conclusions in either direction, and therefore at once 
 proceed to the lower grade English clays, of which so large a bulk is imported. 
 
 We shall then give evidence showing a comparison of the cheaper English clays 
 and domestic paper clays, starting with the clay in its natural state, then showing 
 the analyses of the domestic and English, then the uses, the tariff, the size of the 
 domestic-clay industry, and the competition existing among American paper 
 manufacturers. 
 
 IN ITS NATURAL STATE. 
 
 China clay, or kaolin, may be divided into two classes, viz, residual and sedimentary. 
 
 Residual days. Beds of china clay occurring in or very close to their place of origin 
 are known as residual clays. All English clays are residual, and the deposit is decom- 
 posed granite. The method of mining is by sending a stream of water down the side 
 or stope of the pit, and this stream takes up and carries with it feldspar, mica, and 
 sand. This material is pumped, strained, and settled, then dried in kilns. (See 
 photographs attached of English mines, showing this method.) 
 
 The residual clays of the United States do not concern us, since they would not be 
 affected by removal of the duty, as hereinafter explained. 
 
 Sedimentary clays. In the erosion of the earth's surface residual clay is washed 
 down into tlie lakes and seas, where it is deposited in the form of a sediment, with 
 the addition of many impurities. This latter is known as sedimentary clay. 
 
 The clay deposits of Aiken, S. C., are sedimentary, and in this area are most of the 
 so-called paper clays produced in the United States which could be affected by the 
 removal of duty on English clay. 
 
 The mining of these clays is simple. The overburden, or earth on top, is removed, 
 and from the solid mass of clay lumps are separated by pick and shovel. These are 
 roughly assorted into grades, determined by color, and stains pared off. 1 The clay 
 is then dried in an open shed, is casked, and ready for market. In some instances 
 the clay is washed with good results. (Attached are cuts from photographs of some 
 of the principal domestic mines. ) For samples of the deposits of English and American 
 clay see Exhibits "A" and "B." 
 
524 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 CHINA CLAY. 
 
 ANALYSES. 
 
 We here present a table of an average test of English clay and a test of clay from two 
 mines in South Carolina and one in North Carolina. As explained, the North Caro- 
 lina clay is called kaolin: 
 
 
 Medium 
 English 
 china clay. 
 
 Paper clay, 
 South 
 Carolina. 2 
 
 Paper clay, 
 South 
 Carolina.' 
 
 North 
 Carolina 
 kaolin.' 
 
 Silica 
 
 46.62 
 
 45.02 
 
 44.23 
 
 45.70 
 
 Alumina . . . , , 
 
 38.98 
 
 38.98 
 
 38.92 
 
 40.61 
 
 Ferric oxide 
 
 .81 
 
 .77 
 
 2.31 
 
 1.39 
 
 Lime ... 
 
 .69 
 
 
 
 1.39 
 
 Magnesia 
 
 .10 
 
 .07 
 
 Tr. 
 
 .09 
 
 Moisture. . . . 
 
 
 
 
 .35 
 
 Ignition or total water 
 
 12.30 
 
 13.58 
 
 12.90 
 
 8.98 
 
 Alkalies 
 
 .50 
 
 
 
 2.82 
 
 Titanic oxide 
 
 
 .85 
 
 1.21 
 
 
 Zinc. 
 
 
 .03 
 
 .12 
 
 
 Potash 
 
 
 .26 
 
 .30 
 
 
 Soda 
 
 
 .55 
 
 .26 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 100.00 
 
 100.11 
 
 100.25 
 
 100.39 
 
 i South Carolina Geological Survey, series 4, Bulletin 1, 1904, p. 62. 
 - South Carolina Geological Survey. 
 3 North Carolina Geological Survey. 
 
 Now as to test by analysis: 
 
 "There are, however, many physical properties which the ultimate analysis does 
 not explain, because they are dependent largely on the mineralogical composition." 1 
 
 Two clays might show practically the same chemical analysis and one be much 
 whiter than the other, enough so as to make the one commercially valuable where the 
 other could not find a market. The accompanying exhibits will relieve from all 
 doubt that there is a difference, for practical purposes, between the English and 
 American clay. 
 
 Exhibit shows 10 grains of ordinary English clay in a certain quantity of distilled 
 water. Exhibit D shows 10 grains of high-grade domestic paper clay in the same 
 condition. On shaking these bottles it is apparent that the English clay is held in 
 suspension to a far greater degree than the domestic. This goes to show, first, that the 
 English clay is finer in grain than the domestic; second, it has less grit or free silica. 
 The same experiment tried with washed domestic clay as against the English still 
 shows the English is far superior. 
 
 Exhibits E and K. samples of English and domestic paper clay, respectively, further 
 show that the domestic clay is harder, shorter, leaner, more yellow in color. The 
 sample of English clay is better color, and is termed by the miners fat, long, or greasy, 2 
 and possesses a higher degree of plasticity than domestic. Plasticity is an important 
 feature in clay for paper making. Thus it is apparent that no expert knowledge is 
 necessary to distinguish the difference between the two kinds of clay. 
 
 By far the largest use of china clay is for paper making. Twenty-five years ago 
 paper was made chiefly from rags and old papers. There was not then the need of the 
 china clay, as the papers were easily finished. 'When ground wood and sulphite, on 
 account of their lower cost, began to replace rags, a new need arose for china clay, to 
 fill and finish these papers made from wood.' Without china clay the surface' was 
 harsh and not printable. So that, while china clay was used to a small extent with 
 the old rair papers, it lias now become an abs< >lu1e necessity for much of the paper made. 
 
 Of all the china clay used in the United States in the year June 30, 1909-10, there 
 were imported 240.881 short tons, of the value of $1.505, 779. 3 There was produced in 
 the United States in the year 1909 paper clays 81 ,58C, short tons, of the value of $386,764. 
 From these two sources practically all the clay used in paper making was derived. 
 
 Of the kaolin there was produced in Xortli Carolina and other States 31,227 short 
 tons, of the value of $241, 000. 4 It mav be well to state here that the North Carolina 
 
 1 North Carolina Geological Survey Bulletin No. 13, by Heinrich Hies, 1897, p. 30. 
 
 2 Rudolph V/au'ner. 1'h. I.)., professor of chemical technology at the University of Wurzburg. 
 
 ' Statistics of the Clay-working Industries of the United States, 1990, U. S. Geological Survey, p. 67. 
 Statistics of the Clay-working Industries of the United States, 1909, U. 8. Geological Survey, p. 65 
 
SCHEDULE B. 525 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 CHINA CLAY. 
 
 kaolin and other kaolin, the residuary clay, of an average value of $7.72 per short ton 
 at the mine, is used almost wholly in potting, and is far superior to the average paper 
 clay, which sells for only $4.74 a short ton at mine. This domestic kaolin, owing to its 
 ability to stand being fired by intense heat, has no equal for potting. English clays 
 have to be fired much more slowly. To show that there is no competition between the 
 kaolin and English clays in pottery, we have the added fact that it is advantageous to 
 use the two different kinds of clay. In other words, the English clay is combined with 
 the North Carolina kaolin to make the proper mixture. 
 
 The following table is inserted with the idea of ascertaining how far the English clays 
 are in competition with the domestic clays: 
 
 (Estimated, 1909.) 
 
 
 English 
 clay, short 
 tons. 
 
 American 
 paper clay, 
 short tons. 
 
 Book and coating 
 
 184,785 
 
 
 Potterv 
 
 29,566 
 
 
 Bleacheries . . 
 
 17,247 
 
 
 News paper 
 
 12,319 
 
 
 Ultramarine 
 
 2,464 
 
 
 News wall paper, and low-grade book 
 
 
 81,586 
 
 
 
 
 In book paper an average of 20 per cent of the furnish or raw material is English 
 clay, in cover paper 20 per cent, in plate lithograph paper 25 per cent, in cardboard 
 Bristol, 10 per cent. In coated paper 25 per cent additional weight of English clay 
 is placed on the surface, besides the amount in the body of the paper. 
 
 As was explained before, the ordinary paper is filled with English clay. The 
 coated paper is also covered with English clay by means of rotary brushes, thereby 
 giving it a fine finish, peculiarly adapted to the better class of woodcuts and other 
 processes in printing. Take, as an example, the frontispiece or illustrated pages of 
 our weekly or monthly magazines. 
 
 Bleachers use this clay for filling, in flour sacks made of a coarse cotton, table oil- 
 cloths, carriage covers, curtains, and for filling and whitening cloth. In this the 
 quality needed in plasticity, freedom from grit and oxide of iron, and clay should be 
 of good color. 
 
 In ultramarine the requisite for a clay is that it should be highly aluminous, con- 
 tain no ferric oxide, and be free from lime. 
 
 The quantity of English clay imported in 1871 as compared with 1910 shows an 
 increase from 13,081 tons in 1871 to 230,634 tons in 1910. 1 
 
 The present duty on this article is $2.50 per ton of 2,240 pounds. This is a tax on a 
 raw material of 36.97 per cent ad valorem. From this tax the United States Govern- 
 ment received a revenue of $578,086 in 1909-10. 2 With the present agreement with 
 Canada, however, the Canadian finished product, paper made from wood grown on 
 private lands, costing 4 cents a pound and under, is admitted free into the United 
 States. Canada pays no duty on raw material. 
 
 COMPETITION. 
 
 In the hearing before the Ways and Means Committee in 1908 the committee made 
 much of the point that if the duty were taken off china clay the clay importers and 
 the paper manufacturers and not the consumer would profit. This is^ improbable. 
 In the first place there is competition among the paper makers in the United States, 
 as evidenced by the yearly bids on Government contracts for paper, 3 viz: Early in 
 1910 thirty-six concerns, embracing practically all the leading paper makers in the 
 United States, or their agents, tried to secure these contracts. Second, and even 
 more conclusive, is the competition with the finished product of Canada, now admit- 
 
 i Department of Commerce and Labor, U. S. Bureau of Statistics. 
 
 - Department of Commerce and Labor, U. S. Bureau of Statistics. Imports entered for consumption, 
 years ended June 30, 1909 and 1910, p. 965. 
 Taken from United States advertisement for bids on paper. 
 
526 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 CHINA CLAY. 
 
 ted free. With her forests of spruce and unlimited water power running through the 
 same forests and with French Canadian labor, Canada is considered the most advan- 
 tageous country in the world for the manufacture of paper. Already two of our 
 largest paper-making concerns have made purchases in Canada in preparation of 
 manufacturing there. 
 
 AMERICAN CLAY AND PAPER INDUSTRIES. 
 
 True it is that the American clay industry is a large one, if stoneware clay, brick 
 clay, slip clay, paper clay, etc., are included. The total quantity mined (1909) was 
 2,159,647 tons of the value of $3,449,707; average value per ton, fl.60. 1 The paper- 
 clay production of 81,586 tons and the kaolin mining of 31,227 tons of the total value 
 of $627,824 is, however, a small part of the whole United States clay industry. Fur- 
 thermore, clay is reduced from its native state by comparatively few workmen, so 
 that the total amount of labor involved in the United States paper-clay and kaolin 
 industries is small. In 1905, 2,128 men were employed, with wages of $898,700, in 
 the industry, all kinds kaolins and earths included, 2 whereas the number in the paper 
 industry for the same year was 65,964, with wages of $32,019, 212. 3 The total value 
 of paper products in 1909 was $267,869,000, 4 and the total number of wage earners was 
 75,998 for 1909. 5 Of this total value the following are some of the items. 
 
 [Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Census, pp. 4 and 5, Apr. 27, 1911.] 
 
 Book paper $42, 803, 000 
 
 Cover paper 1, 761, 000 
 
 Plate lithograph 821, 000 
 
 Cardboard 'bristol 3, 352, 000 
 
 Coated paper 9, 414, 000 
 
 It is therefore apparent that the United States china-clay industry is of small 
 account in comparison with the paper industry. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 We shall make a comparison from the point of view of public policy of the probable 
 injuries and benefits that will arise from the removal of the duty. 
 
 There is no substitute for English clay in the better classes of paper. Exhibits, and 
 the fact that American paper manufacturers have paid the duty to use English clay 
 to such a large extent, are proofs of this. 
 
 The possible injury to domestic clay is limited to its use in low-grade papers. The 
 lowest grade English clay at our seaboards, duty free, costs but little more than the 
 best domestic paper clays, but the size of the total output, the value involved, and 
 the amount of labor in our paper clay are insignificant when compared with the 
 injury to nvr paper industry. 
 
 The probability of such injury to the domestic clay industry is a reason that must 
 be met. A seco.ul reason against removal is that the United States can not afford to 
 lose an annual revenue of $578,086. This reason is in theory indefensible, since the 
 revenue is derived from a duty on a raw material. 
 
 The practical answer to both of the above reasons is the chief argument for removal 
 of duty, viz: The free admission of the Canadian finished product, coupled with the 
 present United States duty on raw material, will drive our paper makers to Canada. 
 The natural advantages of Canada for paper making are considerable. Our paper 
 makers already buy a large amount of Canadian wood pulp. The streams there are 
 well located. French Canadian labor is cheap. The combination of the natural 
 advantages of Canada and the artificial disadvantage of the United States paper makers 
 caused by a duty on a raw material has already forced two of our largest paper makers 
 to purchase lands in Canada for manufacturing purposes. Public policy demands the 
 immediate removal of the duty on china clay. 
 
 i U. S. Geological Survey. Statistics of the Clay-working Industries in the United States in 1909, p. 65. 
 > Department of Commerce and Labor, Census of Manufactures 1905, United States, p. 84. 
 
 Department of Commerce and Labor, Census of Manufactures 1905, United States, p. 87. 
 
 Department of Commerce and Labor, Paper and Wood Pulp Statistics, published Apr. 27, 1911, p. 5. 
 
 * Department of Commerce and Labor, letter from Acting Director W. H. Hathaway. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 527 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 CHINA CLAY. 
 
 Finally, and in behalf of the paper makers, appeal is made that, in the drawing of 
 the bill to go before the next House, you will not tax a raw material, while admitting 
 finished product free. That is the hardship now being imposed on our paper makers, 
 and we ask relief from this situation. 
 
 JOHN RICHARDSON. 
 JOHN RICHARDSON, Jr., 
 
 Attorney. 
 BOSTON, MASS., November 17, 1911. 
 
 [Supplementary brief of John Richardson Co., John Richardson, John Richardson, jr., 201 Devonshire 
 
 Street, Boston, Mass.] 
 
 This supplementary brief is filed in reply to the following requests for information 
 made by Hon. O. W. Underwood, chairman, in notice of tariff hearings, 1913, dated 
 Washington, D. C., December 11, 1912: 
 
 (1) State by items and paragraphs the changes in duties recommended, assigning 
 in each instance reasons for recommendations: 
 
 Paragraph 90, act of 1909, Payne-Aldrich bill removal of duty from China clay 
 or kaolin. 
 
 Reasons: First, the damage done by the duty to the great paper industry, employ- 
 ing over 65,000 men; 1 second, the comparatively insignificant damage by removal 
 of the duty to the southern clay industry. 
 
 As to the first point, paper making is among the largest industries of the United 
 States. Our makers of the better grades of paper must have English clay. The 
 duty upon this raw material is now over 36 per cent. From this tax the United States 
 Government receives annually a revenue of over half a million dollars. 2 That revenue 
 i? in the end paid by the paper makers. Canada's facilities for the manufacture of 
 paper excel those of the United States. China clay is admitted free in Canada, her 
 
 Eaper conies here free. Already a number of American paper makers have bought 
 ind there. Each dollar collected as duty means a gain of $1 to the paper maker who 
 goes to Canada. 
 
 Now, for the second point the comparatively insignificant damage to the domestic 
 clay industry. The total value of domestic paper clay produced in 1909 was less than 
 $400,000. 3 Under 1,500 men are employed. 4 From 1905 to 1910, in spite of the duty, 
 the increase of English clay imported over the increase of domestic clay produced 
 was 938 per cent. * 
 
 This duty, then, borne by the paper makers,' of over half a million dollars a year, 
 protects an industry with a total annual output of less than $400,000, and employing 
 under 1,500 men. 
 
 For additional reasons, see original brief filed herewith. 
 
 (2) Estimate the increase or decrease in imports by paragraphs and items, which 
 would result from suggested modifications of duties: Since 1907 the world -wide demand 
 for English clay has exceeded the supply. Makers of fine paper can not get enough 
 now. In the near future removal of duty will not increase importation beyond the 
 present rate of increase, which is less than needed by the growing paper industry. 
 The old mines are being developed and new ones opened. The removal will probably 
 ultimately accelerate the increase of output and of importation. We are unable to 
 estimate when, if ever, the supply will overtake the demand. 
 
 (3) Explain methods or experience relied upon in making estimate: Thirty years' 
 experience in the china clay business. 
 
 (4) Suggestions as to changes in phraseology of present tariff law: China clay or 
 kaolin free. 
 
 (5) Suggestions as to the betterment of the administrative features of the present 
 law: We shall not make any suggestions, in view of the fact that we think the whole 
 duty ought to be removed 
 
 JOHN RICHARDSON. 
 JOHN RICHARDSON, Jr. 
 
 1 Department of Commerce and Labor. Census of Manufactures, 1905, United States, p. 87. 
 
 3 Department Commerce and Labor, United States Bureau Statistics, Imports entered for consumption, 
 years June 30, 1909-10, p. 965. Also our original brief, p. 11. 
 
 8 Geological Survey Statistics of the Clay- Working Industries for 1910, p. 45. 
 
 Department of Commerce and Labor, Census of Manufactures 1905, United States, p. 84. Two thousand 
 one hundred and twenty-eight men includes all kinds of kaolins and ground earths. Our figures, 1,500, are 
 high. 
 
 * The figures for these two items are to be found on, respectively, pp. 45 and 50, United States Geological 
 Survey for 1910, Statistics of the Clay- Working Industries of the United States. 
 
528 TARIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 CHINA CLAY. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. PETEE W. MORGAN, ON BEHALF OF THE 
 AMERICAN CLAY PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION, MACON, GA. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Morgan., what section do you appear in refer- 
 ence to ? 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. Schedule B, paragraph 90. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I wish to read what I have to say, because I am not 
 accustomed to public speaking. [Reading:] 
 
 I represent the American Clay Producers' Association. This association is not 
 organized for the regulation of prices, the division of territory, or for any unlawful 
 purpose, but simply for the purpose of taking united action in such matters as may 
 affect the general welfare of the constitutent members and the china clay industry. 
 
 We are all engaged in the china clay or kaolin industry. Our properties and works 
 are located in the States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, North and South 
 Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. 
 
 There is a duty of $2.50 per gross ton charged on imports of clay classified under 
 Schedule B, paragraph 90. 
 
 The deposits of clay from which our industries make their material are known as 
 sedimentary clays and are found under surface overburdens ranging from 10 to 50 
 feet, every ounce of which has to be removed. No practical method of underground 
 mining for this material has been found. The thickness of the clay beds vary from 
 10 to 20 feet, and it may be calculated that about 4 cubic yards of surface has to be 
 moved for each yard of clay mined. 
 
 Some of these clays are sufficiently pure to be shipped crude after slight prepara- 
 tion, selection, and drying, but the great majority have to be refined by levigation in 
 water, and in a number of cases a careful blending of materials is required to produce a 
 merchantable commodity. 
 
 The industry is a comparatively young one and has involved a considerable invest- 
 ment of money and an exhaustive amount of energy in every department for the pur- 
 pose of developing the most economical methods of producing the clays suited for the 
 different commercial uses. 
 
 The members of our association have all gone through exasperating experiences, 
 have devoted much time and capital to the working out of the numerous problems 
 connected with their business. Few of them have reached the point where the re- 
 turns are commensurate with the investment of time or money, and we therefore urge 
 that your committee allow the duty to remain as it stands at present. Several good 
 reasons may be presented for your favorable consideration of our request: 
 
 First. This is, comparatively speaking, an infant industry in the United States, 
 and has been instrumental in developing natural resources in various sections of the 
 country, particularly in the South. 
 
 Second. The domestic production of Kaolin, or China clay, has materially reduced 
 the price of the imported article. It is within the memory of men still engaged in the 
 business that domestic china clay has sold for as much as $15 per ton at the mines. 
 The present price for the same articles is from $4 to $5 per ton. The miners and re- 
 finers of this country are compelled to fix their prices to a large extent on what the 
 foreign clays of similar qualities are offered at. The paper makers, who are our largest 
 customers, will, in all probability, ask for the removal of the duty on clay, and they 
 or the importers will not suggest to your honorable committee that the domestic 
 production has been the means of reducing the cost of both American and foreign 
 clays. The present price of our product ranges from $4 to $6 per ton at the mines, 
 and the members of this association beg to submit for your consideration the fact that 
 if the duty of $2.50 is removed and it should appear that our prices have to be reduced 
 to meet the reduction in cost, we should inevitably have to go out of business, there being 
 no such margin of profit as would permit us to operate. 
 
 Third. Our mines are located at points quite removed from the places of utilization, 
 and while we have no ground for complaint regarding cost of transportation, we are 
 at, a marked geographical disadvantage as compared with our trans-Atlantic competi- 
 tors who can ship from Cornwall to New York, Philadelphia, or Portland at lower 
 freight rates than have to be paid by us. The two first-named cities are both large 
 markets for clay, and Portland is the gateway to the paper mills of the State of Maine. 
 
 Fourth. By reason of the heavy movement of produce to the seaboard and in con- 
 sequence the number of empty cars available to be returned west, the railroads have 
 
SCHEDULE B. 529 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90- CHINA CLAY. 
 
 made special rates for imports to be carried from abroad to western consuming points, 
 and foreign clay seems to have been especially favored in th.s respect. Our repre- 
 sentations to the Interstate Commerce Commission for relief in this regard are met by 
 the response that their duty does not seem to lie in the direction of advancing rail- 
 road rates. We cite as example that from New Orleans to Chicago a rate as low as 7 
 cents per 100 pounds has been quoted on imported clay, while from our mines, which 
 are several hundred miles nearer Chicago, the rate is 21 cents per 100 pounds. For 
 your further information we may say that clays can be shipped from Fowey in Corn- 
 wall to Chicago via Philadelphia, Boston, or Portland for approximately the same 
 freight rate which we have to pay from Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida. To 
 some other consuming points the difference in favor of the importer is even greater. 
 
 Fifth. The cost to us of fuel, engine supplies, tools, etc., are all higher than are 
 paid for similar things abroad, while for labor we have to pay negroes higher wages 
 than are paid to first-class unskilled laborers at the English mines. For superintend- 
 ents and foremen we pay nearly twice the price paid in England. The disadvantage 
 at which we are placed in regard to labor is not diminishing by any means, and in 
 respect of this one item at the present moment the English miners can get labor at 
 prices 50 per cent less than we nave to pay. We find it difficult to secure sufficient 
 labor with an advancing scale of wages. Labor constitutes at least 80 per cent of the 
 cost of this product. 
 
 Sixth. The Government at the present time derives an annual revenue of approxi- 
 mately $600,000 from the duty on this commodity, and we believe that if this duty 
 were removed entirely, or in part, that such a reduction would produce so infinitesimal 
 a diminution in the cost of articles into the manufacture of which it enters as to give no 
 benefit to consumers. 
 
 We would further submit for your consideration in our favor that we believe that in 
 the clays of this country we will and are striving to find all the qualities of material 
 necessary to supply the home market; that the initial expenses of investigation and 
 test are all very costly, and with prices at the present low level there is little margin of 
 profit, while if we are compelled to submit to a reduction the enterprises must be 
 inevitably strangled and abandoned. 
 
 The foregoing is subscribed by the Georgia Kaolin Co., Mclntyre Kaolin Co., Ameri- 
 can Clay Co., Albion Kaolin Co., the Edgar Bros. Plastic Kaolin Co., the Harris Clay 
 Co., Atlanta Mining Clay Co., Edgar Bros. Co., Immaculate Clay Co., and Philadel- 
 phia Clay Co. 
 
 BRIEF OF PERKINS GOODWIN CO., NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 4, 1913. 
 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: We desire to invite your attention to the discrimination existing in 
 paragraph 90 of the present tariff (Schedule B Earths, earthenware, and glassware) 
 between clays or earths wrought or manufactured provided for at $2 per ton, and china 
 clay or kaolin provided for at $2.50 per ton. 
 
 The term "china clay," we believe, was first used in connection with certain grades of 
 clay found in England, largely in Cornwall and Devonshire, which were discovered 
 to be especially adapted for making pottery or china. The term "kaolin," as we under- 
 stand it, was originally given to clays having similar uses, found in Austria. By an 
 extension of the trade understanding there are now English kaolins as well. The only 
 unwrought or unmanufactured clays, which are also provided for in the same para- 
 graph, of which we have any knowledge, are what are technically known as 'ball 
 clays." These are crude, inferior pottery clays usually imported in lump form and 
 always unwashed. Clay which has been washed, dried, and ground in other words, 
 advanced beyond the crude, unwrought condition in which it is taken from the earth 
 has always been held to be dutiable as a wrought or manufactured clay. The Treasury 
 Department so ruled many years ago before the Board of General Appraisers was estab- 
 lished (see Treasury Decisions, 9249), and this ruling has never been reversed. In 
 consequence all clays, including china clay and kaolin, excepting ball clay, are in fact 
 wrought or manufactured clays. To be used as a china or pottery clay the clay must 
 possess certain burning qualities. 
 
 If the clay does not possess these qualities which specially adapt it for pottery pur 
 poses (and this frequently happens with clays coming from the same district and the 
 locality), it ran ho used for other purposes, such as paper making, filling of 
 
 78959 VOL 113 34 
 
530 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 CHINA CLAY. 
 
 cotton cloth, or linoleum manufacture. To apply the term china clay to such clays is 
 a misnomer. The grade of wrought or manufactured clay or kaolin used in making 
 high-grade papers, but nevertheless not possessing the burning qualities for pottery 
 uses, is frequently superior to china clay or kaolin used for pottery purposes. There 
 is no sound reason for tariff discrimination between these articles, and it tends to 
 confusion. Prior to the Dingley law such discrimination did not exist. We append 
 the pertinent provisions of the tariff laws of 1883, 1890, 1894, 1897, and 1909 for the 
 information of the committee. 
 
 1883. 98. All earths or clays, wrought or manufactured, not specially enumerated 
 or provided for in this act, three dollars per ton; china clay, or kaoline, three dollars 
 per ton. 
 
 1890. 98. Clays or earths, unwrought or unmanufactured, not specially provided 
 for in this act, one dollar and fifty cents per ton; wrought or manufactured, not 
 specially provided for in this act, three dollars per ton; china clay, or kaolin, three 
 dollars per ton. 
 
 1894. 82. Clays or earths, unwrought or unmanufactured, not specially provided 
 for in this act, one dollar per ton; wrought or manufactured, not specially provided for 
 in this act, two dollars per ton; china clay or kaolin, two dollars per ton. 
 
 1897. 93. Clays or earths, unwrought or unmanufactured, not specially provided 
 for in this act, one dollar per ton; wrought or manufactured, not specially provided 
 for in this act, two dollars per ton; china clay or kaolin, two dollars and fifty cents 
 per ton. 
 
 1909. 90. Clays or earths, unwrought or unmanufactured, not specially provided 
 for in this section, one dollar per ton; wrought or manufactured, not specially pro- 
 vided for in this section, two dollars per ton; china clay or kaolin, two dollars and 
 fifty cents per ton. 
 
 Inasmuch as there is a little real competition between foreign clays and domestic 
 clays by reason of the great difference in quality, and inasmuch as English wrought 
 clays are the raw material especially of paper and linoleum manufacturers, we would 
 urge a reduction in duty to stimulate importation and lead to increased revenue. 
 Whatever the rate fixed by the honorable committee and by Congress, we especially 
 urge a return to the principle found in the Wilson Act of 1894 and prior tariff acts, 
 and that the same rate be imposed upon wrought clays and china clay, or kaolin. A 
 clause providing: 
 
 Clays or earths, unwrought or unmanufactured, not specially provided for in this 
 section. per ton; wrought or manufactured, including china clay, or kaolin, not 
 specially provided for in this section, per ton. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 PERKINS GOODWIN Co., 
 By S. GOLDMAN, Secretary. 
 
 PROTEST AGAINST RATE OF DUTY ON CHINA CLAY. 
 
 THE CHAMPION COATED PAPER Co., 
 
 Hamilton, Ohio, January 4, 1913. 
 Hon. Mr. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington. D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We are advised that you will have a hearing on Wednesday next regard- 
 ing the duty on English china clay. 
 
 There is no substitute in this country for this clay. It is a decomposed granite and 
 it is entirely different from the clays in this and other countries. We are paying a very 
 high tax on our largest raw materials, while the finished product comes in free of duty 
 from ( 'anada. 
 
 We therefore hope that you will use your influence to see that this duty is eliminated. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 THE CHAMPION COATED PAPER Co., 
 By PETEH G. THOMSON, Vice President. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 531 
 
 PARAGRAPH 9 O FLUORSPAR. 
 
 FLUORSPAR. 
 
 STATEMENT OF C. S. NUNN, ESQ., IN BEHALF OF THE 
 FLUORSPAR INTERESTS. 
 
 Mr. NUNN. If the committee please, you have been good enough to 
 assign to several fluorspar producers an opportunity to be heard before 
 you, but to conserve your time they have agreed I may present the 
 matter, feeling that a short tune will suffice. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. To which paragraph do you desire to address 
 yourself? 
 
 Mr. NUNN. Paragraph 90, the last phrase of it, with reference to 
 fluorspar. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. 
 
 Mr. NUNN. For the information of the committee I will say that 
 fluorspar is a mineral product, commercially mined in America in 
 southern Illinois and western Kentucky, a relatively small district. 
 It is a small industry. I think perhaps 150,000 tons will cover the 
 total American consumption. Some 85,000 to 100,000 tons is the 
 American production. The other is imported from Great Britain 
 Durham and Derbyshire. Over 80 per cent of this American con- 
 sumption is used in the manufacture of steel by the open-hearth 
 process. It is the only method of steel manufacture in wnich fluor- 
 spar is used. It takes about 8 to 10 pounds of fluorspar to make one 
 ton of finished steel. Prior to the Payne bill there was no tariff on 
 fluorspar. Until 1904 we needed no tariff on fluorspar. The fact is 
 that was really the beginning of what we call the industry on a large 
 scale. 
 
 The growth of the open-hearth steel process and the supplanting 
 of the Bessemer process has increased the use of fluorspar, and to 
 supply that there was a concern named Blackwell & Co. which dis- 
 covered that in Great Britain there were immense dumps of waste 
 fluorspar piled up there at old abandoned lead mines. It was a 
 waste proauct at the tune the lead was mined. There are millions 
 of tons of it, as we are informed. The mining of it was paid for 
 years and years ago. Blackwell & Co. bought the dumps at an 
 insignificant sum. It is close to the coast. They began to load it in 
 vessels and bring it over here as ballast, free of duty; the prices at 
 Baltimore and Philadelphia being $3 a ton, whereas unless we could 
 get $6 a ton for it aboard the cars in Kentucky and Illinois we could 
 not live. 
 
 From that time, 1905, until 1909, the production of American 
 fluorspar decreased from 50,000 to about 30,000 tons per annum, 
 and trie importation of British fluorspar increased proportionately. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What are the importations ? 
 
 Mr. NUNN. In 1911, which are the last figures I have, the importa- 
 tions were 33,000 tons, producing to the Government a revenue of 
 a little over $99,000. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. About 50 per cent ad valorem? 
 
 Mr. NUNN. No; a specific rate of $3 a ton. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. But the ad valorem equivalent? 
 
 Mr. NUNN. That is the equivalent; yes, sir. 
 
532 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 90 FLTTOBSPAB. 
 
 . Mr. HARBISON. The ad valorem equivalent of your American price, 
 and about 100 per cent of the value of it the foreign price at the 
 customhouse? 
 
 Mr. NUNN. It was first sold in the United States to the steel people, 
 at $5 per ton for the flux fluorspar aboard the cars, when we could 
 sell it at all. The fact is our trade had diminished until we were 
 really not in the market. My company had practically suspended. 
 I am president of the Kentucky Fluorspar Co., and we were the largest 
 of the Kentucky producers. 
 
 The effect of this tariff has been to increase the price $1 per ton. 
 We sell it on board the cars at Marion, Ky. , at $6 per ton. That increase 
 of $1 per ton in the price of fluorspar has increased the cost of steel in 
 the sum of one-half cent per ton to the steel manufacturer. It takes 
 a pretty high-power glass to discover what increase that is in the cost 
 of finisned steel products to the final consumer. 
 
 As we see it, the imposition of that duty hurts no one. It has been 
 the means of saving the industry in America. It has had this fur- 
 ther effect: There are some 600 or 700 men employed in our county 
 and in that district. Before 1909 they were getting from $1.50 to $2 
 per day wages. The average wage there now, not counting foremen, 
 is about S2.50. It had the further effect of increasing the production 
 of American fluorspar from 35,000 tons in 1908, 1 think, to 87,000 
 tons in 1911. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What is the total amount of output of fluorspar in the 
 United States? 
 
 Mr. NUNN. In 1911 the American production was 87,000 tons. 
 The American consumption was some 130,000 or 140,000 tons, there 
 having been 30,000 to 50,000 tons of fluorspar imported annually 
 since the Payne Tariff Act, producing a revenue to the Government 
 of from $90,000 to $130,000, or $140,000 annually. 
 
 Feeling that the imposition of this duty does not materially injure 
 anyone and is of great value to us, we hope the committee will find it 
 consistent with their view of the facts and conditions to leave that 
 duty remain as it is. 
 
 Having thus briefly presented the matter in this way, I desire to 
 present it more in detail in the form of a prepared statement. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You may dp that. 
 
 Mr. NUNN. The statement is submitted in support of the present 
 duty of $3 per ton fluorspar, as established by the last item in section 
 90 of Schedule B of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, in the following 
 words: "Fluorspar, S3 per ton." 
 
 The Department of me Interior, United States Geological Survey, 
 issued reports on the production of fluorspar for the years 1910 and 
 1911. An earlier report was issued in 1905. The report for the year 
 1912 has not yet been published. These reports show 42,488 tons of 
 fluorspar imported in 1910 and 32,864 tons imported in 1911. On 
 this basis the revenue to the Government was $127,464 in 1910 and 
 $98,292 in 1911. 
 
 This statement is submitted on behalf .of the producers of fluorspar 
 in the States of Illinois and Kentucky, who have been engaged in the 
 mining of fluorspar for an extended period of time in these States. 
 The main purpose of the argument is to convince the committee, if 
 
SCHEDULE B. 533 
 
 PARAGRAPH 00 FLUORSPAR. 
 
 possible, first, that any change in this tariff would not reduce the cost 
 of living; second, that while the revenue comparatively is not large, 
 the duty is a clear application of the principle of a revenue tariff ; 
 third, that any change m the tariff would destroy in this country the 
 business of mining fluorspar, an essential ingredient in the process of 
 making steel by the open-hearth method; fourth, that there is no real 
 demand for such a change, since financial benefit from such a change 
 would flow into the pockets of the foreign producer or importer. 
 
 In regard to the nature and commercial uses of fluorspar, the fol- 
 lowing quotations are taken from the bulletin of the Department of 
 the Interior for the year 1911 : 
 
 Fluorspar or fluorite, chemically calcium fluoride (CaF ? ), consists of calcium and 
 fluorine in the proportions of 51.1 to 48.9. The mineral is crystalline, only slightly 
 harder than calcite. Fluorspar, associated with other minerals, has a broad distri- 
 bution geographically and a wide range geologically. The deposits thus far ex- 
 ploited in the United States are, however, confined to the States of Arizona, New 
 Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, Tennessee, and New Hampshire. 
 
 Fluorspar is a mineral of relatively low value as compared with metallic ores mined 
 under similar conditions. Under the most favorable conditions, therefore, the margin 
 of profit can never be expected to be large, and it requires exceptionally good man- 
 agement to conduct any spar mining operations profitably, unless the veins are thick 
 and of uniformly good quality. 
 
 Fluorspar is used in the manufacture of glass and of enameled and sanitary ware, in 
 the electrolytic refinmg of antimony and lead , the production of aluminum, the manu- 
 facture of hydrofluoric acid, and in the iron and steel industries in which it is used as a 
 flux in blast furnaces, and in basic open-hearth steel furnaces. It is estimated that 
 about 80 per cent of the American fluorspar output, namely, in the form of gravel spar, 
 is consumed in the manufacture of basic open-hearth steel. The use of fluorspar is 
 increasing in practically all of these industries. The western market for fluorspar ia 
 more limited than that of the Central and Eastern States, but it is nevertheless in- 
 creasing. Recently the iron and steel works of Irondale, Wash., and in Shasta 
 County, Cal., have been enlarged. 
 
 Supplies of spar mined in the West have heretofore not been sufficient to supply 
 the western market for more than a few months at a time . This has been due to several 
 conditions, the most important of which is that most of the western spar thus far pro- 
 duced has not been of so high a grade as that produced in the Illinois-Kentucky dis- 
 trict. Fluorspar for iron and steel making should carry at least 85 per cent calcium 
 fluoride, and preferably it should be purer. For most other chemical uses it should 
 contain from 95 to 98 per cent calcium fluoride. 
 
 There are two main grades of fluorspar sold on the market. The 
 first is known as "ground" fluorspar, and contains 96 per cent or 
 more calcium fluoride. This grade is sold to be used principally in 
 the manufacture of glass, of enameled and sanitary ware, the pro- 
 duction of aluminum, and the manufacture of hydrofluoric acid. 
 The second grade of fluorspar is known as "gravel" fluorspar, and 
 is sold almost entirely to the steel mills and used as a flux in the 
 open-hearth furnaces. This grade should contain 85 per cent or more 
 in calcium fluoride. Gravel fluorspar amounts to more than 80 per 
 cent of the production, and the average price for domestic fluorspar 
 of all grades in 1911 was only $7.02. It is therefore manifest that 
 the fluorspar business can not be successful unless this grade can be 
 marketed at a profit. 
 
 As a flux fluorspar when applied even in small quantities to the 
 metal charge in the furnace liquefies the charge, renders it readily 
 fusible, and thus allows the impurities to escape. According to 
 our information, the chemists 01 the steel companies have never 
 
534 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 FLUORSPAR. 
 
 found a practicable substitute for fluorspar as a flux in the process 
 of making steel in an open-hearth furnace. 
 
 In regard to the domestic production, its source and conditions, 
 the Government report for the year 1911 contains a table showing 
 the sources of fluorspar production for the years 1910 and 1911, which 
 is as foUows : 
 
 Tons. 
 
 1910. Illinois..... 27,302 
 
 Kentucky 17,003 
 
 Other States 5, 122 
 
 . Total 69,427 
 
 1911. Illinois 68,817 
 
 Kentucky 12,403 
 
 Other States 5, 828 
 
 Total 87,048 
 
 As shown by the foregoing table, the mines of Illinois and Ken- 
 tucky produce more than 92 per cent of the fluorspar produced in this 
 country. These mines are located in Crittenaen and Livingston 
 Counties in western Kentucky and in Hardin and Pope Counties in 
 southern Illinois. The district is divided by the Ohio River. 
 
 It is a mining industry which requires extensive and costly develop- 
 ment and an intricate equipment of mining, crushing, and sorting 
 machinery. No industry of this class offers a more precarious or 
 uncertain investment. The same necessity for the imposition of the 
 duty of S3 per ton against the importation of foreign fluorspar, which 
 rate was established in the so-called Payne-Aldrich tariff act, exists 
 to-day even more emphatically than it did at that tune. Encour- 
 aged by the imposition of this duty, very large capital investments 
 have been made to develop this new mining industry, especially in 
 the States of Illinois and Kentucky. 
 
 In 1905, prior to the imposition of the duty, the domestic produc- 
 tion of fluorspar amounted to 47,170 tons. Just about this time the 
 industry was struggling to establish itself, the imported fluorspar 
 coming from England and Germany, in which countries it existed 
 in large quantities, having been mined for from 100 to 200 years 
 as the gangue or country rock in lead-mining operations in Durham 
 and Derbyshire in England and in Saxony in Germany. Only 
 since the adoption of the open-hearth or Bessemer-steel practice 
 has fluorspar become an important article of commerce; that is to 
 say, during the last 15 years. This accounts for the newness of the 
 industry. The foreign- product was the waste of the lead mines, and 
 as such was purchased by speculators for a mere trifle per ton and 
 was shipped to this country as ballast until the passage of the Payne- 
 Aldrich Act. and so successfully competed that in 1908 the domestic 
 production did not exceed 3S.7S5 tons annually, a decrease of about 
 20,000 tons per year in three years. Meanwhile, large investments of 
 capital had been made in the hope of so reducing the cost of production 
 as to enable successful competition with the foreign product. These 
 investments increased the burden on the production itself. The 
 struggle was hopeless. Unsuccessful efforts were made to have the 
 Treasury Department correct the classification of fluorspar, placing 
 
SCHEDULE B. 535 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 FLUORSPAR. 
 
 it in the list of manufactured or treated earths, which were subject to 
 a duty. Had it not been for the duty of $3 per ton imposed by the 
 present tariff law the industry in this country would have undoubtedly 
 become extinct, and all the money invested therein would have been 
 lost to the investors. As it is to-day, the industry can not be said 
 to be on its feet. In the case of the Rosiclare Lead and Fluorspar 
 Mines, encouraged by the protection it was assumed the duty would 
 offer to the industry, new investments have been made to the extent 
 of about one-third of a million dollars. It has been estimated that 
 approximately $2,000,000 of new money has been spent in the devel- 
 opment of this industry generally since the passage of the present 
 tariff law. This is in addition to the original cost of the property 
 and equipment at the time the dutv was imposed. 
 
 It will be seen and readily understood that in no other mining 
 industry, in which a bulky product such as fluorspar is mined, are so 
 many difficulties met with, and if to these conditions are added the 
 loss of any part of the present duty of $3 per ton it would not be 
 possible to operate the mines except at a loss. This is due to a number 
 of reasons, prominent among which are the following: 
 
 (a) The character of the deposits and the great uncertainty as to 
 the quantity available from any mine opening. After extensive 
 shaft development and underground work, it is very frequently 
 found that trie vein of fluorspar runs out, or in the language of the 
 miners, "pinches out," or narrows down to such proportions that 
 mining the product under such conditions is economically impossible, 
 forcing the owner or lessee to seek the mineral in some other location, 
 or subject himself to an immense expense in following up the 
 "pinched out" vein in an effort to find the mineral in paying quan- 
 tities at some more remote point. This condition of course is expe- 
 rienced in gold and silver mining, but in these instances the value of 
 the mineral sought offsets the cost of the extension work, a condition 
 which does not obtain in the mining of fluorspar, a coarse material of 
 relatively small value as compared to gold and silver. Unlike coal 
 mining, again, it is impossible to estimate in advance what quantity 
 of the mineral the property may contain. In the fluorspar districts 
 of Kentucky and Illinois are numerous examples of fluorspar mines 
 the working of which was economically impossible for the reasons 
 stated. 
 
 (6) The mines are generally located remote from railway transpor- 
 tation facilities, necessitating all equipment being brought to the 
 property at the highest cost of transportation and the product to be 
 shipped at the same disadvantage. The precarious condition of the 
 industry is so well known to the transportation compares that up 
 to the present time none of them have been assured of a sufficient 
 continuous supply to warrant the construction of tracks to the mines. 
 This necessitates in the case of the Rosiclare Lead & Fluorspar 
 Mines the operation of an expensive electric tram to the Ohio River 
 and the use of a line of barges to transport the fluorspar from Rosi- 
 clare to Shawneetown on the north, a distance of 38 miles, or to Gol- 
 conda, 12 miles, and Joppa, 50 miles, on the south, along the Ohio 
 River. In the case of the Fairview Fluorspar & Lead Co. the mill 
 and mines are connected with the river by a standard-gauge railroad 
 
536 TABtPP HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 FLUORSPAR. 
 
 track. Railroad cars are loaded at the mill, moved to the river, taken 
 over a railroad cradle, and placed on railroad track barges. These 
 barges and cars are transported by water 12 miles to Golconda, 111., 
 where they are delivered to the Illinois Central Railroad Co. The 
 same method is used to bring in railroad cars for loading. Since the 
 tariff act of August 5, 1909, the railroad track has been extended to 
 three of the four shafts. In other sections of Illinois and Kentucky 
 the hauls are made by wagon from the mines to the nearest railway 
 stations at a cost varying from $1.25 to $2 per ton. 
 
 (c) The expense of eliminating the by-products, such as lead and 
 zinc ore, which deposits occur in varying quantities throughout the 
 veins, also impurities such as silica and calc-spar (calcium carbonate), 
 is very costly and requires elaborate machinery and skilled labor. 
 The lead that is recovered offsets only in a small per cent the cost of 
 its elimination. The spar must be freed of these impurities before 
 it is of any economic value. Lead entirely destroys the value of 
 fluorspar as a flux in the manufacture of steel, and as these impurities 
 occur in varying quantities the cost of production is never constant, 
 but varies between wide limits. 
 
 (d) Fluorspar occurs in veins running almost perpendicular, and 
 as the mine is developed the product must be brought from the lower 
 levels at a greatly increased cost, and here again the varying width 
 of the vein, from 12 to 15 feet in thickness to nothing, and the fre- 
 quent occurrence of pinches, make it impossible to compute in 
 advance the cost of production in any shaft or opening. 
 
 (e) Many of the veins are below the level of the Ohio River, which 
 flows from one-fourth of a mile to three-fourths of a mile from the 
 different shaft openings on the Rosiclare and Fairview properties. 
 The seepage of water through the overlying strata, at the time of the 
 flooding of the Ohio River, forces a complete suspension of operations 
 and requires all available energy to keep the mines from flooding. This 
 condition is of regular annual occurrence, but it frequently happens in 
 addition, during a wet season, that the breaking through of a water- 
 course into the soft overlying earth formation causes the mine to 
 become flooded to a very serious extent. 
 
 (jO Extensive areas of the vein lie between mud or earth walls, 
 which, becoming saturated with water through seepage, bursts through 
 the thin vein walls, and causes what is known as "mud runs," which 
 occur with such frequency as to constitute one of the greatest dan- 
 gers in operating fluorspar mines. It has taken, in many instances, 
 weeks and sometimes months to recover from a mud run, and has 
 entailed very heavy money loss, besides great damages to the mines 
 and machinery. 
 
 (g) The precarious transportation via the Ohio River, from the 
 loading tipple of the mines to the railway terminals at Golconda, 
 Joppa, and Shawneetown, is due to two causes: 
 
 First. The lack of suflicient water in the river channel during the 
 dry season in the summer months to permit the transportation of 
 heavily laden barges over the shallow river bars between the shipping 
 point and the railway terminal, a condition which varies in duration 
 from a few weeks to two or more months each year. Owing to the 
 effort of the Rosiclare mines to operate under these conditions, heavy 
 
SCHEDULE B. 537 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 FLUORSPAR. 
 
 losses are sustained by the sinking of barges through fouling on the 
 river bars. 
 
 Second. The impracticability of shipping fluorspar during the 
 winter months of January and February, when the Ohio River is at 
 tunes frozen and impassable to navigation. 
 
 (Ji) The difficulty of maintaining a sufficient number of skilled 
 mechanics, miners, and laborers to insure the regular operation of 
 the mines is a serious problem. In order to keep a sufficient force at 
 the mines it is necessary to insure to the miners continuous work, 
 regardless of the condition of the water hi the mines and the interrup- 
 tion of transportation, or the fluctuations in the supply and demand 
 for fluorspar. This serious labor condition is due to the isolated 
 location of many of the mines and to the fact that there is no other 
 industry in the neighborhood other than the fluorspar mines. In 
 connection with the labor problem the following statement should be 
 given full consideration: The labor used in the handling of the 
 English fluorspar deposits, from which the foreign supply used by 
 American consumers is derived, is of the lowest grade and is paid at 
 a wage of from 3 \ to 4 shillings per day. No skilled labor is employed 
 in the handling of the foreign product. In the case of the domestic 
 industry the conditions are different. The lowest scale of wages paid 
 at the Rosiclare and Fairview mines is $1.65 per day, or twice as 
 much as that paid to the English laborers, whereas over 50 per cent 
 of the employees at these mines receive wages of from $2.50 to $5 
 per day as skilled laborers. The English spar, being a waste product, 
 is treated in no other way than by being thrown with shovels against 
 an inclined screen, after which the separated product is shoveled 
 on board cars and dumped into the holds of the vessels to be trans- 
 ported to this country as ballast at the very lowest freight rate. 
 
 The foregoing facts will give the committee an indication of the 
 hazardous character of this mining and the extraordinary expenses 
 and difficulties attendant thereon. This fact is fully recognized by 
 the Interior Department at Washington. In the report for 1910 it is 
 stated as follows : 
 
 Under the most favorable conditions, therefore, the margin of profit can never be 
 expected to be large, and it requires exceptionally good management to conduct any 
 spar-mining operations profitably, especially in the Western States. 
 
 Conclusions. The exploration for and the development of fluorspar deposits under 
 present conditions in. the Western States can not be said to offer attractive profits. 
 Nevertheless the market for fluorspar is growing, and where deposits are found so situ- 
 ated that the freight rates do not hold down the price to a profitless level and the cost 
 of haulage does not further wipe out all chances of gain the development of such 
 deposits should be encouraged. 
 
 The milling of fluorspar offers rather difficult problems, for, unlike most ores, the 
 bulk of the product must be saved, and the waste which must be eliminated consti- 
 tutes relatively a small percentage. In addition, the separation of the lead and zinc 
 from the fluorspar is difficult, particularly where such small percentages of the former 
 minerals are present. Yet it is essential that they be almost completely removed, 
 since the presence of sulphide ores renders the fluorspar of little value as a flux in steel 
 making. 
 
 On the other hand, the methods of mining are efficient and modern. 
 Compared with the cost of mining other ores under somewhat similar 
 conditions in the Western States, the cost of mining is not high. 
 Local labor is employed entirely. The mines of the Fairview Lead 
 
538 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 FLUORSPAR. 
 
 & Fluorspar Co. and the Rosiclare Lead & Fluorspar Mines together 
 employ about 500 men. 
 
 As to the sources and conditions of foreign production I would say 
 that imported fluorspar is of the unground-gravel grade, is sold 
 entirely to the steel companies as a flux for open-hearth furnaces, 
 and comes from Durham and Derby in England, where it is found in 
 waste dumps of abandoned lead mines. This imported fluorspar is not 
 mined, but is screened from these old dumps, transported a short 
 distance to the coast, transferred to steamers, and is brought to this 
 country as ballast at a nominal freight rate. The cheap conditions 
 of producing and transporting English fluorspar are shown by the 
 fact that in 1910 the total fluorspar produced in England was valued 
 at only $1.63 per ton, and in 1911 the value of this English fluorspar 
 on our seacoast was only $2.46 per ton. 
 
 The facts are stated in the last report of the Interior Department 
 for 1911, and are as follows: 
 
 The production of fluorspar in England has an important bearing on the industry 
 in the United States, for practically all the competing material is imported from 
 that country. ' * According to the Official Report of Output of Mines and 
 
 Quarries, issued by the British Home Office, at London, in 1910, there were 61,621 
 long tons produced, valued at 20,678 ($100,629), or $1.63 per ton, as compared with 
 42,483 tons, valued at 16,029 ($78,005), or $1.84 per ton, produced in 1909. * * * 
 
 As is well known, a large proportion of the fluorspar produced in England is ob- 
 tained by screening from waste dumps of old lead mines. * * * 
 
 In view of the close correspondence between the estimated cost of production of 
 spar from mine waste and the value of the output given by the British official reports, 
 it is evident that the greater part of the fluorspar produced at present in England is 
 obtained from mine dumps. 
 
 4. In regard to the competitive conditions without a tariff: Fluor- 
 spar presents, therefore, not a case of competition between American 
 and foreign labor, but presents a case where the domestic product, 
 produced under the usual mining labor cost, is compelled to com- 
 pete against a similar foreign product where no labor at all is required 
 to mine it or put it on the market and no cost incident except mere 
 loading and transportation. Under such circumstances it is easy 
 to understand why the domestic product could not compete with the 
 English product in the Pittsburgh field or east thereof. The market 
 was in the hands of the foreign producer. 
 
 The situation was described briefly by the Department of the 
 Interior in the report for 1911, as follows: 
 
 Before August, 1909, fluorspar was imported into the United States duty free, and 
 the full statistics of importation were not given before that date. Large quantities 
 of gravel spar, produced at a low cost from the tailings of lead mines and from the 
 gobs in abandoned mines in England, have been shipped to this country as ballast 
 at a very low freight rate. The material thus produced is high in silica and is almost 
 entirely consumed by open-hearth steel makers. Before 1909 spar from England 
 competed with American fluorspar as far west as Pittsburgh and practically fixed the 
 market price at that point. 
 
 5. Taking up the matter of foreigner's profit without a tariff: The 
 American consumers, to wit, the steel companies, did not receive the 
 real benefit of such conditions. The English producer or importer 
 pushed the price to a point just below a figure which could profitably 
 be met by the domestic producer. In view of these competitive 
 conditions, the difference in cost of production and transportation, 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 539 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 FLUORSPAR. 
 
 the foreign product was sold in and east of the Pittsburgh field at an 
 abnormal profit. 
 
 6. Situation of domestic producer without a tariff. Under such 
 circumstances there was no profit in producing domestic fluorspar. 
 The result was a complete failure to develop domestic resources. 
 There was no increase in domestic output during the seven years prior 
 to 1909. Domestic production amounted to only about two-fifths of 
 domestic consumption in 1909. 
 
 The following table is taken from the report of the Department of 
 the Interior, 1911, and shows the annual production of fluorspar 
 since 1905: 
 
 1904 . 36,452 
 
 1905 57,385 
 
 1906 40,796 
 
 1907 49,486 
 
 1908 38,785 
 
 1909 50,742 
 
 1910 69,427 
 
 1911 87,048 
 
 1895 4,000 
 
 1896.. 6,500 
 
 1897 5,062 
 
 1898 7,675 
 
 1899 15,900 
 
 1900 18,450 
 
 1901 19,586 
 
 1902 48,018 
 
 1903 42,523 
 
 About 10 years ago, as the open-hearth method began to be more 
 widely used by the steel companies, in preference to the Bessemer 
 method, there arose an increased demand for fluorspar. This caused 
 a large investment of money in developing fluorspar properties, and 
 resulted in the large increase in domestic production in 1902, as 
 shown by the foregoing table. This same increased domestic demand 
 induced certain English firms, particularly Blackwell & Sons, of 
 Liverpool, to secure control of the waste dumps of fluorspar in 
 England, and unload the product on the American market. This so 
 depressed the domestic fluorspar industry that practically all efforts 
 to mine it ceased in Tennessee, Colorado, and Arizona. In the 
 Kentucky-Illinois district, some of the producers had made large in- 
 vestments and, because of that fact, continued work in a limited way, 
 in the hope of relief from some source. The effect of the importation 
 was, however, so disastrous that many properties were entirely 
 abandoned. According to our information, in Kentucky alone the 
 number of mines decreased from 150 in 1906 to 4 in the summer of 
 1909. 
 
 As shown by the foregoing table, the domestic production from 
 1902 to 1908, inclusive, while slightly fluctuating, did not increase. 
 In fact the production for 1908 was about 10,000 tons less than the 
 production for 1902. This reveals a total failure to deveiop the 
 natural resources of this country in a commodity essential to the 
 production of steel by present accepted methods. 
 
 Taking the figures given in the report for 1911, the average price 
 of domestic fluorspar of all grades prior to the tariff act of 1909 was 
 as follows : 
 
 Per ton. 
 
 1906 $5. 87 
 
 1907 5. 81 
 
 1908 5. 82 
 
 1909 5. 75 
 
 During these years the price of gravel fluorspar was less than 
 $5 per ton at the rail shipping point. 
 
540 TABTPF HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 FLUORSPAR. 
 
 In view of the expensive character of domestic mining, the unfavor- 
 able location of the domestic properties, and the hazards attending 
 the business, no domestic producers ever succeeded in making any 
 profit at such prices. The Fairview Lead & Flyor Spar Co. and its 
 predecessor, the Fairview Fluorspar Co., lost very heavily every year, 
 and only the hope of ultimate protection through a fair tariff induced 
 the parties interested to continue operation of the properties. 
 
 The losses of this company for the three years prior to 1910 were 
 as follows : 
 
 Net loss. 
 
 1907 $22, 146. 78 
 
 1908 11, 712. 15 
 
 1909 12, 283. 32 
 
 7. Situation of domestic consumer without a tariff. Prior to 1909 
 the steel mills of this country were forced to depend for an essential 
 ingredient in the process of steel making upon an uncertain supply of 
 foreign fluorspar. They were compelled to carry very large reserve 
 stocks to protect against interferences with the foreign supply or a 
 sudden increased demand for finished steel. In 1908 the requirements 
 of the steel mills of the United States were about 100,000 tons of 
 fluorspar. The total domestic production of fluorspar of all grades 
 was 38,785 tons. The domestic production of gravel fluorspar was 
 about 30,000 tons, or less than one-third of the demands of the steel 
 mills in this country. 
 
 8. Effect of present tariff on domestic production. In the Kentucky- 
 Illinois district some of the large operators who had made substantial 
 investments carried the properties and continued work in a limited 
 way, hoping for some relief. After the passage of the tariff act of 
 1909, these investors on the faith of the tariff expended large sums in 
 improving their properties and increasing their outputs. The do- 
 mestic output of all grades in 1911 was 87,048 tons. No statistics 
 for 1912 have yet been published. The domestic production for 
 1912 will reach 100,000 tons, but does not yet equal domestic con- 
 sumption. 
 
 As stated in the department report for 1910, the price of domestic 
 fluorspar of all grades under the influence of the tariff advanced the 
 first year from So. 75, in 1909, to S6.20, in 1910. Gravel fluorspar 
 during 1910 advanced perhaps 25 cents per ton. Even at this price 
 the Fairview Fluorspar & Lead Co. lost heavily during that year; 
 at this advance there was still no profit for domestic producers, and 
 this company finished the year 1910 with another net loss. 
 
 In 1911 the price of domestic fluorspar made another slight ad- 
 vance under the influence of the tariff, and, as shown by the depart- 
 ment reports, advanced to an average price of S7.02 per ton for fluor- 
 spar of all grades. 
 
 The average price per ton of domestic gravel spar was $6.03 in 1911, as compared 
 with 5.43 in 1910. 
 
 As shown by the foregoing figures, it is impossible for domestic 
 producers to make any profit unless the average price of fluorspar 
 of all grades is approximately $7, and the average price of gravel 
 fluorspar is approximately $6. The present duty will just about 
 
 maintain these prices. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 541 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 FLUORSPAR. 
 
 The average price of domestic fluorspar of all grades in 1912 re- 
 mained practically the same as in 1911, but it is believed by the 
 domestic producers that there is a slight profit at the present prices, 
 although, as stated by the Department of the Interior, the profit is 
 not "attractive." The report for 1911 summarizes the situation 
 as follows: 
 
 Under the most favorable conditions, therefore, the margin of profit can never be 
 expected to be large, and it requires exceptionally good management to conduct any 
 spar-mining operations profitably, unless the veins are thick and of uniformly good 
 
 quality. 
 
 The present duty will continue to stimulate an increased domestic 
 production. The producers will attempt to increase profits slightly 
 by larger production and a more economical distribution of cost. As 
 the Bessemer plants are changed into open-hearth plants, and as 
 new open-hearth plants are built, the requirements of the steel busi- 
 ness of the country will increase, and the fluorspar production should 
 be permitted to keep pace with the steel business. 
 
 9. Effect of present tariff on domestic consumer Has not increased 
 cost of living. The amount of fluorspar used to produce a ton of 
 finished steel varies slightly, in accordance with the character of the 
 scrap iron or the character of the iron ore used in the furnace. Be- 
 tween 800 and 1,000 pounds of gravel fluorspar are used on every heat 
 of 55 tons. At most, therefore, the cost of fluorspar is less than 5 
 cents to the ton of finished steel. Under the influence of the tariff 
 the price of gravel fluorspar to the steel companies in this country 
 has advanced less than $1 per ton. The increase in cost of fluorspar 
 to the ton of finished steel is approximately one-half of a cent. 
 Fluorspar is the smallest item entering into the production of steel. 
 An increase hi its cost of one-half of a cent per ton of finished steel is 
 insignificant and has no effect to raise the price of steel. The tariff 
 on fluorspar has no effect on the ultimate consumer of finished steel. 
 The steel industry as a whole are entirely satisfied with conditions 
 under the present fluorspar tariff. With the possible exception of a 
 few mills at or near our eastern seacoast, the steel industry of the 
 country has no desire to have the duty removed or even reduced. 
 The ordinary steel company prefers to pay one-half of a cent addi- 
 tional for the fluorspar used in producing a ton of steel, in order to 
 be able to rely upon an increased accessible dependable production 
 of a standard grade of fluorspar. 
 
 10. Competitive conditions under the present tariff. The last avail- 
 able quotation of foreign fluorspar was $7.65 per long ton, f. o. b. 
 cars Philadelphia, including duty. Adding the freight rate of $1.60 
 per long ton, or $1.20 per short ton, the basis on which domestic spar 
 is sold. The freight rates on gravel fluorspar from the Kentucky and 
 Illinois districts to the Pittsburgh field are $2.30 and $2.10 per ton, 
 respectively. Under this competition the price of domestic fluorspar 
 in the Pittsburgh field can not exceed approximately $6 per ton at 
 the rail shipping point. As recognized by the Department of the 
 Interior, there is small profit to the domestic producer at this figure. 
 The steel mills east of the Pittsburgh field can still purchase then- 
 requirements of fluorspar at lower prices than the mills in the west 
 
542 TABIFF HEADINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 90 FLTJOBSPAB. 
 
 of that field, and the eastern field is still entirely in the hands of the 
 foreign producer. 
 
 11. Conditions under present tariff satisfactory to both domestic con- 
 sumer and domestic producer. While the present duty does not enable 
 the domestic producer to compete with the English product east of 
 the Pittsburgh field, and while it holds prices in that field for gravel 
 fluorspar to a level of about $6 per ton, still the domestic producer 
 believes that under present conditions there is hope for a fair profit, 
 particularly as the production is extended and developed. Develop- 
 ment of production in turn will bring better transportation facilities 
 to many of the fluorspar properties hi the Kentucky and Illinois 
 districts. 
 
 The steel companies in turn have found conditions more satisfac- 
 tory for them during the past two years than ever before in the history 
 of the fluorspar business. Any possible exception to such expression 
 will be confined to a few steel companies east of the Pittsburgh field, 
 and will be due undoubtedly to the agitation of the importer. The 
 domestic consumption of the mills east of the Pittsburgh field amounts 
 to considerably less than 10 per cent of the total domestic consumption. 
 
 12. Effect of removal or reduction of present tariff. As the complete 
 removal of the duty would only reduce the cost of fluorspar to the 
 steel companies about one-half of a cent per ton of finished steel, it 
 will not reduce the price of steel to the ultimate consumer. The 
 money invested on the faith of the tariff in the past two years to 
 improve domestic properties and to open new properties will be 
 entirely lost. Extension of railroad facilities now under contem- 
 plation to certain of the fluorspar properties will be abandoned. 
 Domestic production of fluorspar will decrease at once. One of the 
 most fundamental industries in the country, to wit, the steel business, 
 will be left wholly dependent for an absolute essential upon an 
 uncertain foreign supply. The Government will suffer a loss of 
 revenue. 
 
 13. Revenue tariff- Loss in revenue will benefit tne foreigner alone. 
 The loss in revenue to the Government will not result in a propor- 
 tionate reduction of prices of fluorspar. Prices will drop to a figure 
 just below the price at which domestic fluorspar can be profitably 
 marketed. It will only be necessary for the importer to drop the 
 price about SI per ton below the present price to drive the domestic 
 producer out of business. The conditions existing prior to 1909 will 
 return. Two-thirds of the amount of the revenue lost to the Govern- 
 ment will go into the pockets of the foreign producer or importer. 
 In view of the fact that the foreigner alone will substantially benefit 
 by the removal or reduction of the tariff, it is submitted in conclusion 
 that the duty of S3 per ton on fluorspar is an eminently fitting appli- 
 cation of the principle of a revenue tariff. 
 
 In the earnest hope that the present duty on fluorspar may remain 
 undisturbed, at least until it has received a longer trial, these facts are 
 respectfully submitted. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 543 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 FULLER'S EARTH. 
 FLUORSPAR INTERESTS OF ROSICLARE AND FAIRVIEW, ILL. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., February 1, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In connection with the statement made by Mr. C. S. Nunn, 
 on behalf of the fluorspar people, I wish to make the following statement and request 
 that it be made an adendum or appendix to hearings which have already been filed 
 and printed. 
 
 During the early part of January, the rise of water in the Ohio River, due to the con- 
 tinuous and heavy rains in the Ohio watershed, so flooded the country, in and about 
 Fairview and Rosiclare, 111., that the mines of the Rosiclare Lead & Fluor Spar Mines 
 and the Fairview Lead & Fluorspar Co. were entirely filled with water. It is impos- 
 sible to estimate the exact quantity of water in the shafte of the mines and workings, 
 but the water in the shafts is within 5 or 10 feet of the mouth of the mines. The shafts 
 are, as stated in the brief filed with the committee, perpendicular, so that the mines 
 are filled just as a bottle would be standing on its bottom. The water flowed into the 
 Rosiclare mines at the rate of 10,000 gallons per minute, and it is impossible to state 
 1 1 > what extent the mines have been injured by the drowning, owing to the fact that 
 the breaking in of the water was at a point 200 feet below the surface, having broken 
 1 hrough the soft underlying strata. This is the most serious disaster that has happened 
 to our property during the last five years, and accentuates the precarious character of 
 fluorspar mining. It will cost in money to dewater the mines and put them in con- 
 dition for successful operation again as much or more than we can expect to make out 
 of the operation during a year's run on an ordinary basis of profit. With these con- 
 ditions confronting us, any reduction in the tariff at the present time would make 
 economic mining of this material impossible. 
 
 On behalf of the mining interests located at Rosiclare and Fairview, in Hardin 
 County, 111., I beg that the committee will take into consideration the effect of this 
 great disaster which has come upon us and through which at the present time we can 
 not clearly see our way. It will be impossible to begin pumping out the mines until 
 the Ohio River has receded to a point where it will receive the ejected water. There 
 is no measure of how much pumping will be necessary to empty the mines, owing to 
 the saturated condition of the soil for 300 feet below the surface and the seepage into 
 the mine being impossible of computation. 
 
 On behalf of these interests, I therefore pray that the present duty of $3 per ton on 
 imported fluorspar be not changed. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 ROSICLARE LEAD & FLUOR SPAR MINES, 
 By COLIN H. LIVINGSTONE, Manager. 
 
 FULLER'S EARTH. 
 
 THE AMERICAN CLAY CO., AKRON, COLO., WRITE CONCERNING 
 
 FULLER'S EARTH. 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 Washington, February 5, 1913. 
 The WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: Please find inclosed a letter from Mr. J. A. Hensler, and also one from 
 Attorney E. E. Armour, both of Akron, Colo, (on file), to which is attached a commu- 
 nication addressed to the Senators and Congressmen from Colorado, both elect and in 
 office, all of which are self-explanatory. 
 
 I will only add that this mine is in my district. I am fully acquainted with the 
 plant and the struggle of the owners to make it a success ; and I cheerfully indorse what 
 is said about this industry, as so ably presented in the inclosuxes. 
 
 Respectfully, A. W. RUCKER. 
 
544 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 90 FTJLLEB'S EABTH. 
 
 AKRON, COLO., January 9, 191S. 
 Hon. Simon Guggenheim, Hon. John F. Shafroth, Hon. Charles S. Thomas, Hon. 
 
 Edward T. Taylor, Hon. Edward Keating, Hon. George J. Kindel, Hon. H. H. 
 
 Seldomridge, Hon. Addison W. Rucker, Hon. John A. Martin, Senators and Con- 
 gressmen of Colorado, elect, and in office. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: The undersigned desire to call your attention to a Colorado industry 
 which possibly may not have come to your notice, and which should have tariff 
 protection to aid in its development. We refer to the mining and treatment of fuller's 
 earth, and particularly that actually under way near Akron. 
 
 The American Clay Co., of which we are the principal stockholders, owns a quarter 
 section of land 3 miles northwest of Akron, in this State, containing very extensive 
 beds of high-class fuller's earth, and has mined, treated, and marketed it, as best it 
 could under prevailing conditions, for several years. During that time continuous 
 and systematic effort has been made by the company to bring it to the attention of 
 packers and other consumers with the purpose of getting it on the market, and with 
 the result that its superior merit has been invariably acknowledged by the packing 
 companies and others that have used it. This means many of the principal packing 
 companies of the United States, and other concerns. 
 
 It has been marketed to some extent in Omaha, St. Joe, Kansas City, New Mexico, 
 Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver, and other places, and long ago would have been exclu- 
 sively used by the' main consumers in this country had it not been for the very low 
 duty on the foreign product. The duty, we believe, is only $2 and $3 per ton on the 
 raw and the treated material, respectively, and this merely nominal duty is further 
 lightened by being reckoned upon the long, or English, ton. 
 
 Our principal competition comes from the English producers, who, by the excel- 
 lence of our clay proved by the United States Government analysis and acknowl- 
 edged by the packers have been compelled to reduce the price from as high as 
 $39 per ton to as low as $9 and $10 per ton, in order to hold us out of the market; 
 
 Our factory for treating the earth was first located at Omaha, but later was moved 
 to the mines. The progress of the company was temporarily checked by fire destroy- 
 ing the factory, a loss of approximately $10,000. 
 
 A new and better factory was immediately constructed, and the company has con- 
 tinued its efforts to manufacture and market the product to the present time, but has 
 been so hampered by its successful foreign competitors under the protection given 
 to them by the light duty upon their product that profitable business for the Ameri- 
 can Clay Co., or for any other home producer, has been rendered impossible. The 
 development of an industry, valuable to the community and the State and to other 
 localities throughout the country, has thus been not only crippled, but almost entirely 
 prevented. This condition can not improve under the present tariff. 
 
 This company has practically an unlimited quantity of fuller's earth, and could 
 supply the American market for many years under suitable tariff protection; but 
 with the present rate of duty, here is the difficulty. The packers and other important 
 consumers will not change their contracts from the foreign producers to us even at 
 the same or a lower price without the assurance that we can and will promptly fill 
 their orders; but this assurance we can not give without first increasing our facilities 
 for mining and treatment, which we are not warranted in doing at the meager and 
 precarious profit now obtaining. We say meager, because foreign competition has 
 already cut the price nearly to the cost of production; and precarious, because the 
 same competition is able to cut it still more, thus leaving the American producer 
 with nothing save his mines and factories, silent and lifeless property, representing 
 loss of money and wasted efforts. 
 
 It is not the purpose of this company should the duty be raised on the foreign prod- 
 uct to materially increase l price of its clay, if at all, over what the packers now 
 pay the English and other foreign producers, for we can manufacture and market it 
 to some profit even at the price which they are now getting; but we want and need 
 sufficient duty imposed to justify and make safe an adequate increase in our facilities 
 for mining and manufacture to supply the market demands and to protect us against 
 further reduction in prices by the foreigner whereby profit to us will be rendered 
 impossible. We ask only such protection as will make it reasonably safe to proceed 
 with the development of our properties and the increase of our facilities for supplying 
 the market. 
 
 We submit that the interest of the principal consumers in this case should not be a 
 matter of very heart-rending concern. For who and what are they? Nothing less than 
 the great packing concerns of the country. Even though an increased duty should 
 add a trifle to the price which the product now costs them, would this cripple their 
 
SCHEDULE B. 545 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 FULLER'S EARTH. 
 
 business? Surely there ia nothing there to worry about. Would they raise the price 
 of meat, etc., and thus strike the public another blow? Not so, for willing as they are 
 to do the like, if they have not already gone the limit in that direction, they certainly 
 do not need this trifling matter as a pretext for raising prices. 
 
 But the tariff which we ask would hurt neither the packers nor the people. On the 
 contrary, it would tend to help both of them. Why? Because, if granted, the prices 
 of fuller's earth would remain practically unchanged, thereby eliminating that influ- 
 ence, at least, from the trust price-fixing of packer products; whereas, to deny the 
 increase of duty asked, would dectroy American production, of which ours is the most 
 active and promising, and leave an open field to the foreign producers for supplying 
 the American market at advanced prices. 
 
 By reason of the competition and threatened competition, which this company has 
 created, they, the foreign producers, now supply it, for the most part, at from $9 to 
 $10 per ton, the prices at which we can furnish it if protected by adequate duty against 
 further reduction by them. With that competition removed as it must be under a 
 continuance of the present duty will the foreigner hold down the price to its pres- 
 ent figure? The question is an idle one. Freed from our efforts and the consequent 
 menace to his business, he will advance the prices to their former heights of $39, and 
 more, a ton. The packing house companies will have to pay the advance and the 
 people follow suit. 
 
 The present nominal duty affords no protection. It is wholly useless, save for a 
 little revenue to the Government. But this revenue would be increased rather than 
 diminished by a reasonable increase of duty, for such increase would not keep out the 
 foreign product. Its effect would be to encourage and increase home production, and 
 especially production in this State and by this company. 
 
 If the duty be not increased, only the foreign producer, German and English prin- 
 cipally, will be benefited. The American consumers, be they packers or others, 
 and all who are affected by higher prices to them, would be injured; the writers 
 hereof and their associates would be losers. Their business in question would be 
 ruined; and an enterprise of great value to the community and to the State of Colo- 
 rado would be destroyed. 
 
 A tariff of $10 per ton, or more, and possibly less, on the foreign product would give 
 the American product a chance to get into the market and not cost the consumer any 
 more than he now pays (or at most but little more), which, in any event, would be 
 much less than he would be compelled to pay under a continuance of the present duty. 
 And thereby further, as the paramount consideration and result of it all, the American 
 producer would be afforded a living profit. 
 
 With such a duty we can confidently assure you, at least, that a thriving business 
 would be speedily developed at Akron, Colo., which would greatly benefit the com- 
 munity and be of very material value to the State. 
 
 You will do a substantial and merited service to this quarter and to this State, as 
 well as to others, by raising the duty on fuller's earth, as herein suggested and requested. 
 We earnestly hope that you will give the matter careful consideration and favorable 
 action. 
 
 Further elaboration by us is superfluous in addressing gentlemen of your extended 
 experience, sound judgment, exalted capacities, and conscientious concern for the 
 put) lie good. 
 
 With high regards and the wish that you may all be eminently successful in the 
 discharge of your several trusts, and with strong confidence that you will, we have 
 the honor to be, 
 
 Very respectfully yours, E. E. ARMOUR. 
 
 AUGUST MUNTZING. 
 J. A. HENSLER. 
 A. R. ARMOUR. 
 F. MUNTZINO. 
 
 BEIEF SUBMITTED BY NEW YORK FIEMS. 
 
 NEW YORK, December SO, 1912. 
 The WATS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIRS: The undersigned two firms, L. A. Salomon & Bro., 216 Pearl Street, New 
 York, and Hammill & Gillespie, 240 Front Street, New York, importing about two- 
 
 78959 VOL 113 35 
 
546 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 FTTI/LER'S EARTH. 
 
 thirds of all the fuller's earth that is brought to this country, petition your com- 
 mittee to reduce the duties on fuller's earth to the folio-wing level: 
 
 Unwrought or unmanufactured to 75 cents, or not to exceed $1 per ton, 2,240 pounds. 
 
 Wrought or manufactured to $1.50, or not to exceed $2 per ton, 2,240 pounds. 
 
 At present fuller's earth is classified under paragraph 90 as follows: 
 
 "Unwrought or unmanufactured, $1.50 per ton, 2,240 pounds. 
 
 "Wrought or manufactured, $3 per ton, 2,240 pounds. 
 
 The specific duty now assessed would be equivalent on the wrought article, which 
 constitutes about fifteen-sixteenths of the total importations, to from 36 per cent to 
 50 per cent ad valorem, according to quality. 
 
 The article is principally employed in refining cottonseed oil for edible purposes 
 and for compound lard. 
 
 The total importation of fuller's earth amounts to about 15,000 tons per annum; 
 therefore the loss in revenue would be insignificant. On the other hand, the reduc- 
 tion in price consequent to the reduction in duty would help the sale of it and would 
 also slightly reduce the cost of edible cottonseed oil and compound lard, which are 
 consumed altogether by the poorer classes in this country. 
 
 The saving to the individual if the duty on fuller's earth should be reduced may 
 be insignificant, but if 100 or 1,000 or more articles should be reduced in duty in a 
 similar manner the saving to the individual will become an important item. In 
 other words, we believe that the reduction in duty asked for by us is in line with 
 the policy to revise the tariff downward. 
 
 The production of domestic fuller's earth is more than twice as great as the importa- 
 tion of the foreign article, but the domestic article is principally used for refining 
 oils that are not used for edible purposes; therefore there is practically no com- 
 petition between the domestic and foreign article, as they are different in character. 
 
 Besides, the domestic article sells for at least $3 to $4 per ton less than the imported, 
 so that the reduction in the duty asked for by us on the imported would not affect 
 the sale of the domestic product. 
 
 Respectfully, L. A. SALOMON & BRO. 
 
 HAMMILL & GILLESPIE. 
 
 COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING KIESELGUHR. 
 
 THE STANDARD DIATOMITE Co., 
 
 Eustis, Fla., January 8, 19 IS. 
 
 S. M. SPARKMAN, Esq., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Rivers and Harbors, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 MY DEAR SIR: In reply to your esteemed favor of the 5th instant, for which please 
 accept my thanks, I beg to say the quantity of kieselguhr (diatomite) imported into 
 this country is about 3,000 tons per annum. I am of the opinion, however, that con- 
 siderably more than that amount arrives under the name of dried or burnt clay, or 
 even crude clay. 
 
 The consumption of kieselguhr in New York alone is over 3,000 tons per year, and 
 
 would be much greater if the foreign producers could supply the quantity required. 
 
 Trusting I may have a favorable report from the Ways and Means Committee, and 
 
 again thanking you for the interest you have taken in the matter and the courtesy 
 
 shown, I remain. 
 
 Yours, very truly, CHAS. R. GOSTLING. 
 
 THE STANDARD DIATOMITE Co., 
 
 Eustis, Fla., January 16, 1913. 
 The Hon. S. M. SPARKMAV. 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ricrrs arid Harbors, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D, C. 
 
 MY DEAR SIR: In reply to your favor of the 13th instant, the average price for the 
 highest grade of kieselguhr (diatomite) in Xew York City is about $80 per ton. There 
 are many inferior grades sold for prices ranging between' $30 and $40 per ton. Eighty 
 dollars per ton seems a high price, but when one considers that it requires the handling 
 of about 20 tons of raw material to produce one ton of kieselguhr it is explained. 
 Yours, very truly. 
 
 CHAS. R. GOSTLINO. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 547 
 
 PARAGRAPH 91 MICA. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 91. 
 
 Mica, unmanufactured, or rough trimmed only, five cents per pound and 
 twenty per centum ad valorem; mica, cut or trimmed, mica plates or built-up 
 mica, and all manufactures of mica or of which mica is the component mate- 
 rial of chief value, ten cents per pound and twenty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 MICA. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CHAELES P. STORES, OF OWEGO, N. Y. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Charles P. Storrs. We 
 have assigned to you 10 minutes. 
 
 Mr. STORES. Gentlemen, I want to ask a reduction in paragraph 
 91, relative to mica. The raw material is used by about 10 concerns 
 whom I represent, who use it as a basis for tneir manufacturing 
 products. Some of these concerns are importers and dealers, but 
 a majority of them are manufacturers. 
 
 The reason for asking a reduction on the raw material is that the 
 (Duality of the mica imported is different from anything produced 
 in this country. The amber mica of Canada and the India mica is 
 softer and of better cleavage and suitable for use in electrical insu- 
 lation, in making mica lamp chimneys, and in various other lines. 
 The American mica can not be used to produce as satisfactory a 
 product for these purposes. 
 
 For that reason we feel that the present ad valorem rate, which 
 amounts to about 35 or 37 per cent on the raw material, is an undue 
 burden on this raw material. We ask to have a reduction made on 
 the raw material, making the duty 3 cents a pound and 10 per cent 
 ad valorem. 
 
 We ask further to have that apply to both uncut and cut mica, 
 the cut mica that is imported being only a small percentage about 
 15 per cent of the total importation. From that difference hi 
 the present act there is a great deal of confusion and a great deal of 
 argument between importers and the customs authorities as to the 
 proper classification. 
 
 Our proposed amendment would simplify that and would introduce 
 all mica under the same classification. Our proposed duty would 
 amount, figured on an ad valorem basis, to 19.4 per cent on uncut and 
 15 per cent on cut mica. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You propose to change the classification ? 
 
 Mr. STORES. Simply introduce the unmanufactured mica under the 
 same classification. I am making the point of putting the cut mica 
 under a lower classification. It makes little difference in the revenue, 
 from the fact that comparatively little cut mica is imported. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The proposition is to leave the cut mica as it is? 
 
 Mr. STORES. No; leave the uncut mica. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. As it is ? 
 
 Mr. STORRS. Yes; the cut mica grouped together and a lower duty 
 on both of them. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Does your statement include ground mica? 
 
 Mr. STOEES. That would probably be considered as manufactured 
 mica. We do not ask to change the last part of the paragraph that 
 applies to manufactures. If the ground mica were considered a manu- 
 
548 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 91 MICA. 
 
 factored mica it would come under the present rates 10 cents a pound 
 and 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I understand you to say that most of the importa- 
 tions come under the manufactured mica. 
 
 Mr. STORES. No; I have not said anything about the manufactured 
 mica. The cut mica is not considered as manufactured mica. It is 
 considered as raw material; but it now takes the same rate as manu- 
 factured mica, and that is one of the points troublesome to us, because 
 the difference between the tariff on the raw material now and the 
 manufactured product is so slight that German manufacturers and 
 English manufacturers of mica board are now in a better position here 
 than the domestic manufacturers. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What is mica used in the manufacture of ? 
 
 Mr. STORRS. Making insulating material, which is largely used in 
 electrical machinery. There is no other material that can take the 
 place of it in many cases. It is molded into various forms for electri- 
 cal insulation of all kinds, and' those are built up of scales or films of 
 mica, fastened together with an adhesive material, which is then 
 pressed, molded, and is used in various electrical machinery. 
 
 Air. JAMES. Whom do you represent ? 
 
 Mr. STORRS. My own concern manufactures lamp chimneys of 
 mica, and our friends are representatives of the electrical insulating 
 manufacturers and the importers. The names are signed to the brief 
 which we submit. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What is the tariff that applies to that in which you are 
 interested ? 
 
 Mr. STORRS. That comes under the 10 cent a pound rate and 20 
 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. On the finished product ? 
 
 Mr. STORRS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You want that reduced ? 
 
 Mr. STORRS. We do not ask to have that reduced. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You would allow that to remain ? 
 
 Mr. STORRS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. But you want this raw material that goes into the 
 manufacture reduced ? 
 
 Mr. STORRS. Yes. sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The figures that you submit this morning do not 
 differentiat? between the raw mica and the finished product. How 
 much importation is there of the finished product ? 
 
 Mr. STORES. I have not any figures on that; I do not think there 
 are any figures. There is very little of it introduced. I am not 
 familiar with that. It comes under the electrical end of it. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Then it would be very proper to make some re- 
 duction on the finished product, if we give you this reduction on the 
 raw material ? 
 
 Mr. STORRS. Personally, speaking for my own company, they 
 would not object to that, but some of our friends would feel the 
 competition of the English and German importers. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Would they be willing to have competition? 
 
 Mr. STORRS. They have competition. There is absolutely free 
 competition in all this line in this country. There is quite bitter 
 
SCHEDULE B. 549 
 
 PARAGRAPH 91 MICA. 
 
 competition in our line and in the electrical insulating line. The 
 local competition will take care of that end of it. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. So far as you are concerned you are willing to have 
 the tariff reduced on the finished product if a reduction is- made on 
 the raw material ? 
 
 Mr. STORES. Not speaking for our friends. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. But speaking for yourself ? 
 
 Mr. STORKS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. How many friends do you include in that ? 
 
 Mr. STORRS. About 10 different concerns. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. You speak for 1 in favor of reduction and for 10 
 against it. 
 
 Mr. STORRS. I am not advocating reduction on the finished product. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. I say you are against a reduction on the finished 
 product, and the 10 others are in favor of it. 
 
 Mr. STORRS. No; they are against it. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. You are against it also ? 
 
 Mr. STORRS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. Then you are all of one mind. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I understood the witness to say as far as he per- 
 sonally was concerned he had no objection to a reduction on the 
 finished product, but he could not speak for his friends. Is that 
 correct ? 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. I understand; 1 out of 11. 
 
 Mr. STORRS. If the committee will allow me, I would like to give 
 some of my time to Mr. Jefferson, who can speak in regard to that. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Do you import any mica ground? 
 
 Mr. STORRS. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, while this matter is under consideration, 
 and for your information in the consideration of the bill, I want to 
 call attention to and ask the gentleman's opinion about a matter. 
 There is somewhat of a misconstruction of this paragraph. After 
 this law was passed in 1909 ground mica made from scrap, worthless 
 in the dump neap, was made dutiable as a manufacture of mica, just 
 the same as the finished piece of mica for a stove, automobile, or any- 
 thing of that kind. Just the ordinary waste scrap, which was ground 
 up and shipped in here as a manufacture of mica. The Treasury 
 Department made a ruling on it, and ruled adversely against that, and 
 admitted it at a lower rate, as in my judgment it should be. 
 
 But I think the language should be now corrected hi some way, so 
 that it should not be construed at least with the highest grade of an 
 article made from sheets of mica. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. There does not seem to be any trouble about that. 
 Ground is imported at 20 per cent. 
 
 Mr. HILL. On the manufactured article ? 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. No. 
 
 Mr. HILL. That is the way it comes in 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. The ground is imported at 20 per cent. 
 
 Mr. HILL (continuing). Because the Treasury Department have 
 ruled arbitrarily upon the manufactured article. 
 The CHAIRMAN. Your suggestion is 
 
550 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 91 MICA. 
 
 Mr. HILL, (interposing). I have not any suggestion to offer. I sim- 
 ply desire to call it to the attention of the committee, and for that 
 reason I asked the gentleman if he imported any ground mica. 
 
 Mr. STORKS. No; but I understand that ground mica is imported 
 under the general division of scrap materials. 
 
 Mr. HILL. No; that is not right. Some consideration should be 
 given to placing it somewhere, so that there would be no doubt 
 about it. 
 
 Mr. STORKS. Very likely that would be held to come under the lan- 
 guage proposed by us, "Mica, unmanufactured, cut or uncut." It 
 certainly is unmanufactured. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree with what Mr. Hill has said about 
 ground mica being the same as raw material, that there is no real ad- 
 vance in manufacture ? 
 
 Mr. STORKS. That is a legal point about which I am not prepared 
 to argue. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. As a business point, are you familiar with ground 
 mica ? 
 
 Mr. STORKS. We do not have anything to do with it. Mr. Chair- 
 man, could I give the balance of my time to Mr. Jefferson ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You have not any time left. 
 
 Mr. PETERS. One moment. What would you think of changing 
 the duty from a compound duty to an ad valorem duty ? 
 
 Mr. STORRS. I am afraid serious objection to that would be raised 
 by the miners of American mica, because they need the specific duty. 
 They feel that they do, in order to keep the market upon the American 
 mica. 
 
 Mr. PETERS. If the duties were changed from a compound duty, do 
 you think it should rather be a specific duty ? 
 
 Mr. STORRS. I think the specific duty would be more equitable. 
 
 Mr. PETERS. I notice the importations have decreased under the 
 Payne bill from 8768,000 in 1910 to $540,000 in 1912. Could you 
 enlighten us as to any reason for that ? 
 
 Mr. STORES. I do not understand the figures that way. The 
 figures we have for the last three years show that importations have 
 increased over 1908 and 1909. Exhibit A in our brief is taken from 
 House Document 1504, and from later information furnished by the 
 Department of Commerce and Labor. If these figures are correct, 
 they show a marked increase in importations since the reduction in 
 the Payne bill. 
 
 Mr. : J ETEES. I am referring to table 26 of our handbook. 
 
 Mr. STORES. May I not submit a memorandum to you on that 
 point later rather than take up the time of the committee ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have you do that, and if you 
 will submit it before 5 o'clock to-morrow night it will go into the 
 hearings. Of course, it can go in at any time before the general 
 hearings are closed, but it would be published with some other 
 schedules and probably be lost if you do not get it in before 5 o'clock 
 to-morrow night. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. W. E. Wells. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Burgess and I are both here for 
 the same purpose, representing the same people. Would it be 
 agreeable to you to have him present his argument first ? 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 551 
 
 PARAGRAPH 91 MICA. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. As a general thing, we can not let witnesses swap, 
 but in this case as you both come right together, and as Mr. Burgess 
 follows you, you may swap places with him. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Thank you. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY MICA ASSOCIATION. 
 
 JANUARY 8, 1913. 
 Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIRS: The above association, comprising persons, firms, and corporations engaged in 
 business relating to mica as manufacturers, importers, dealers, and miners, whose 
 names are subscribed hereto, respectfully petitions that the above-mentioned para- 
 graph be amended to read as follows: 
 
 91. "Mica, unmanufactured, cut or uncut, three cents per pound and ten per 
 centum ad valorem; built up mica, and all manufactures of mica, or of which mica is 
 the component material of chief value, ten cents per pound and twenty per centum 
 ad valorem. ' ' 
 
 This paragraph in the act of 1909 reads as follows: 
 
 91. Mica, unmanufactured or rough trimmed only, five cents per pound and 
 twenty per centum ad valorem; mica, cut or trimmed, mica plates or built-up mica, 
 and all manufactures of mica, or of which mica is the component material of chief 
 value, ten cents per pound and twenty per centum ad valorem." 
 
 The changes asked are reductions of the duty as follows: 
 
 
 Present duty. 
 
 Proposed duty. 
 
 Unmanufactured or rough trimmed 
 mica. 
 Cut mica 
 
 $0.05 per pound and 20 per cent 
 ad valorem. 
 $0.10 per pound and 20 per cent 
 
 f 0.03 per pound and 10 per cent 
 ad valorem. 
 $0.03 per pound and 10 per cent 
 
 
 ad valorem. 
 
 ad valorem. 
 
 REASONS FOR PROPOSED REDUCTION OF DUTY. 
 
 Much of the mica used in the various branches of industry is required to possess 
 special characteristics which do not pertain to any mica mined in the United States. 
 Especially is this true in the case of electrical machinery, which furnishes the largest 
 field for the use of mica, there being no insulating material that can be substituted for 
 mica in many electrical appliances. For instance, in 'commutators for motors and 
 dynamos it is necessary to use either the amber mica of Canada or the India mica 
 because of their being softer than the American mica and therefore wearing down 
 uniformly with the alternate layers of copper. 
 
 The larger proportion of the mica consumed by the electrical industry is used in 
 making built-up or reconstructed mica in the form of plates, boards, rings, segments, 
 and special forms. This is an insulating material of vital importance to the industry, 
 made of mica films molded together with an adhesive material into various forms. 
 The greater softness, superior cleavage, and elasticity of the Canadian amber and the 
 India mica make it requisite to use these grades to supply a product of the necessary 
 quality. 
 
 In making mica lamp chimneys it is necessary to import the clear India mica, as no 
 other mica can be obtained that possesses all the three requisite qualities as follows: 
 Absolute clearness, perfect cleavage, and pliability, such that it can be rolled into 
 cylindrical form without cracking. 
 
 "The mica mined in the United States has its own field, chiefly for use in stoves, 
 washers for spark plugs, etc. 
 
 Attached hereto and marked "Exhibit A," and printed on page 8, is a statement 
 obtained from the Department of Commerce and Labor, showing importations of mica 
 for 5 years ending June 30, 1912, which includes the period during which the act of 1909 
 has been in force, with the average value per pound of the mica imported and average 
 ratio of the entire duty paid, figured on an ad valorem basis. From this it will be seen 
 that the duty collected under the present act on mica imported during the 3 years 
 
552 TAEIPF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 01 MICA. 
 
 ending June 30, 1912, averaged 35.87 per cent ad valorem on the rough-trimmed mica 
 and 37.12 per cent on the cut mica. 
 
 It seems to the petitioners that this is too high a rate of duty on raw material, the 
 bulk of which is of a quality radically distinct from any similar native product and 
 which must be imported regardless of the amount of the home product available. 
 
 Your petitioners respectfully submit that the present rate of duty on raw mica adds 
 an unnecessary and unreasonable burden of cost to the price the American consumer 
 must pay for those articles that must be made of the grades of mica that are not pro- 
 duced at home. 
 
 Attached hereto and marked " Exhibit B," printed atpage 9, is a statement show- 
 ing the actual imports of misa for the past 6 years, as in Exhibit A, but figured at the 
 proposed rate of duty. Our proposed duty, figured on the importations of the last 3 
 years would average 19.45 per cent on the uncut, and 15.12 per cent on the cut mica. 
 The price of amber and India mica has advanced continually for the past 5 years and 
 very rapidly for the last year on account of the limited supply of this material and the 
 increasing demand for same. 
 
 That the reduction of duty asked for on this schedule will not injuriously affect the 
 production of American mica is shown by the fact that the home production increased 
 in the years 19K) and 1911 over that of 1909 in spite of the reduction of $0.01 per pound 
 on uncut and $0.02 per pound on cut mica provided for by the tariff act of 1909. This 
 is shown by the statement annexed hereto and marked "Exhibit C," taken from the 
 " Production of Mica in 1911, " by Douglas B. Sterrett, published by the United States 
 Geological Survey. 
 
 In recommending the change in wording, which puts cut and uncut mica under 
 the same rate of duty, we desire to effect a simplification of this provision and to 
 eliminate the existing confusion in classifying imports, which frequently arises because 
 of the varying methods of preparing mica for shipment in the various foreign markets, 
 and to prevent the frequent discussion as to whether mica should be classified as 
 "rough trimmed " or "cut," which is continually arising between the importers and 
 the customs authorities and which has often resulted in litigation. Of the 7,276,312 
 pounds of mica imported in 5 years, as shown by Exhibit A, 84.6 per cent was unmanu- 
 factured or rough trimmed only and only 15.4 per cent cut or trimmed, so this pro- 
 posed change in classification will affect only a small percentage of the total im- 
 portation. 
 
 It will be noted that your petitioners do not ask for a reduction on built-up mica 
 and manufactures of mica but respectfully urge that the phraseology of the latter part 
 of this paragraph remain as in the present act. The foreign manufacturer of built-up 
 mica or mica board, who pays no duty on his raw material, can export his product to 
 the United States and pay the present duty at a lower cost than that at which the 
 American manufacturer can turn out his product. 
 
 Under the present act the American manufacturers of built-up mica pay a duty on 
 their raw mica of 5 cents per pound and 20 per cent. Therefore, on a basis of 14 cents 
 per pound valuation for raw India mica films, the total duty amounts to an ad valorem 
 rate of 55 per cent. The foreign manufacturer imports built-up mica board on an ap- 
 proximate valuation 54 cents per pound and pays a duty of 10 cents per pound and 
 20 per cent ad valorem, equivalent to an ad valorem duty of 40 per cent. 
 
 Thus the American manufacturer of mica products pays a higher rate of duty on the 
 raw material which he must necessarily import than his foreign competitor pays on 
 the competing finished product. This difference is further accentuated by the lower 
 labor costs favoring the foreign competitor. We feel that it would be a serious 
 injury to those of your petitioners who are engaged in manufacturing to reduce the 
 rate of duty on manufactures of mica as comprised in the last part of the mica para- 
 graph. It is stimated that well over 5,000 people are employed in working up mica 
 into manufactured products in the United States, while not more than 350 or 400 are 
 employed in mining American mica. 
 
 ESTIMATE OP EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANGE ON IMPORTS. 
 
 As to probable decrease or increase in the imports likely to be brought about by the 
 proposed reduction, it is difficult to estimate the effect of this change with any degree 
 of certainty. 
 
 If business conditions continue as favorable as at present, it is fair to assume an in- 
 creased importation, as it is shown by Exhibit A that after the reduction of $0.01 and 
 $0.02 a pound in the tariff act of 1909 the importations for the three following yeara 
 showed considerable increase. 
 
SCHEDULE 8. 
 
 553 
 
 PARAGRAPH 01 MICA. 
 
 Further, the prevailing upward tendency of the price of Canadian and India mica 
 will tend to keep up the revenue from this source. 
 
 PROPOSED CHANGES IN PHRASEOLOGY. 
 
 Our suggestion as to change in phraseology applies only to classification as between 
 "rough trimmed" and "cut" mica and our reasons for suggesting this change are set 
 forth in a previous paragraph. 
 
 SUGGESTIONS AS TO ADMINISTRATIVE FEATURES. 
 
 This same change that we have recommended in regard to classification will tend 
 to simplify the administration of the tariff act as regards the paragraph in question. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 THE MICA ASSOCIATION, 
 
 Comprising Chicago Mica Co., Valparaiso, Ind., by A. W. Pickford, presi- 
 dent; Joseph Huse & Son, Boston, Mass., by Fedr. R. Huse; The 
 Macallen Co., Boston, Mass., by Louis McCarthy, treasurer; Mica 
 Insulator Co., Schenectady, N. Y., by E. C. Wood, vice president; 
 Eugene Munsell & Co., New York City, by Lewis W. Kingsley, presi- 
 dent; North Carolina Mica Co., Boston Mass., by F. R. Huse, treasurer; 
 The Palermo Mica Co., New York City, by W. H. Steinmuller, presi- 
 dent; A. O. Schoonmaker Co., New York City, by A. 0. Schoon- 
 maker, president; Storrs Mica Co., Owego, N. Y., by A. P. Stores, 
 president; Watson Bros., Boston, Mass., by F. L. Watson. 
 CHARLES P. STORRS, 
 
 Secretary, Owego, N. Y. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. Mica Imports and duties. 
 
 [From H. Doc. No. 1504 and later information furnished by Department of Commerce and Labor.) 
 UNMANUFACTURED OR ROUGH TRIMMED ONLY. 
 
 Fiscal year ended 
 June 30 
 
 Rate of duty. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Duty 
 col- 
 lected. 
 
 Value 
 per 
 unit 
 Quan- 
 tity. 
 
 Ad va- 
 lorem 
 rate of 
 duty. 
 
 1908 
 
 6 cents per pound and 20 per 
 
 Pounds. 
 873,961 
 
 $360,874 
 
 $124,613 
 
 $0.414 
 
 Perct. 
 34.53 
 
 1909... 
 
 cent. 
 do 
 
 922,686 
 
 358,457 
 
 127,053 
 
 .388 
 
 35.44 
 
 1910 
 
 5 cents per pound and 20 per 
 
 1,891,749 
 
 586,268 
 
 213,918 
 
 .309 
 
 36.48 
 
 1911... 
 
 cent. 
 do... 
 
 1, 128, 705 
 
 359,868 
 
 128,409 
 
 .318 
 
 35.68 
 
 1912 
 
 .. .do 
 
 1, 343, 695 
 
 434,254 
 
 154,036 
 
 .323 
 
 35.47 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 6, 160, 796 
 
 2, 099, 721 
 
 748,029 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CUT OR TRIMMED. 
 
 1908 
 
 12 cents per pound and 20 
 
 77,560 
 
 $59,280 
 
 $21,163 
 
 $0.764 
 
 35.70 
 
 1909... 
 
 per cent. 
 .. ..do 
 
 66,723 
 
 51,285 
 
 18,264 
 
 .768 
 
 35.61 
 
 1910 
 
 10 cents per pound and 20 
 
 380,028 
 
 180,859 
 
 74,513 
 
 .476 
 
 4L20 
 
 1911... 
 
 per cent, 
 do 
 
 480,378 
 
 250,010 
 
 98,040 
 
 .524 
 
 39.21 
 
 1912 
 
 do 
 
 110,827 
 
 101,032 
 
 31,289 
 
 .911 
 
 30.96 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 1,115,516 
 
 642,466 
 
 243,269 
 
 
 
 Grand total 
 
 
 7,276,312 
 
 2, 742, 187 
 
 991,298 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
554 
 
 TABIPF HEARINGS. 
 PARAGRAPH 91 MICA. 
 
 EXHIBIT B. Estimated duty on mica imported for five years ended June SO, 1912, 
 figured at proposed new rate, S cents per pound and 10 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 UNMANUFACTURED OR ROUGH TRIMMED ONLY. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Esti- 
 
 
 
 
 
 Esti- 
 
 mated ad 
 
 Fiscal year ended June 30 
 
 Proposed rate of duty. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 mated 
 
 valorem 
 
 
 
 
 
 duty. 
 
 rate of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 duty. 
 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 
 
 Percent. 
 
 1908 
 
 3 cents per pound and 10 per 
 
 873, 961 
 
 $360,874 
 
 $62, 306 
 
 17.26 
 
 
 cent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 1909... 
 
 ...do... 
 
 922,686 
 
 358,457 
 
 63,526 
 
 17.72 
 
 1910 
 
 . .do 
 
 1, 891, 749 
 
 586,268 
 
 115,379 
 
 19.68 
 
 1911... 
 
 ...do... 
 
 1,128,705 
 
 359, 868 
 
 69,848 
 
 19.41 
 
 1912 
 
 . ..do 
 
 1,343,695 
 
 434,254 
 
 83,736 
 
 19.27 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 
 
 394,795 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CUT OR TRIMMED. 
 
 1908 
 
 3 cents per pound and 10 per 
 
 77,560 
 
 $59,280 
 
 $8,255 
 
 13.92 
 
 1909 
 
 cent. 
 . ..do 
 
 66,723 
 
 51,285 
 
 7,130 
 
 13.90 
 
 1910... 
 
 ...do... 
 
 380,028 
 
 180,859 
 
 29,487 
 
 16.33 
 
 1911 
 
 ..do 
 
 480,378 
 
 250,010 
 
 39, 412 
 
 15.76 
 
 1912 
 
 do 
 
 110,827 
 
 101,032 
 
 13,428 
 
 13.28 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 
 
 97, 712 
 
 
 Grand total 
 
 
 
 
 492,507 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EXHIBIT C. Production of mica in the United States, 1909-1911. 
 
 [From "The Production of Mica in 1911," by Douglas B. Sterrett, Department of the Interior, United 
 
 States Geological Survey.] 
 
 Rough trimmed and 
 cut mica. 
 Year. 
 
 Scrap mica. 
 
 Total 
 values. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Pounds. 
 1909 1, 809, 582 
 
 $234, 482 
 283, S32 
 310, 254 
 
 Short tons. 
 4,090 
 4,065 
 3,512 
 
 $46,047 
 53,265 
 45,550 
 
 $280,529 
 337,097 
 355,804 
 
 1910 2, 476, 190 
 
 1911 1,887,201 
 
 
 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF SUBMITTED BY THE MICA ASSOCIATION JANUARY 9, 1913. 
 
 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AXU MEANS, House of Representatives. 
 
 SIRS: Referring to the comment of Mr. Peters during our hearing on January 8 as 
 to quantity of imports of mica during the last three years, we beg to call your attention 
 to the fact that the comparison made in our original brief is based on the fiscal years 
 ending June 30, 1908 and 1900. As compared with those two years, the imports of 
 mica for each fiscal year since the reduction in tariff made by the Payne bill have 
 been larger than the imports in either 1908 or 1909. Figures given in our original 
 brief. Exhibit A. are divided under the headings " Unmanufactured or rough trimmed 
 only" and "Cut or trimmed." 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 THE MICA ASSOCIATION, 
 CHARLES P. STORRS, Secretary. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 555 
 
 PARAGRAPH 91 MICA. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. S. H. BROWN, ON BEHALF OF THE ASHE- 
 VILLE MICA CO., ASHEVILLE, N. C. 
 
 Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vance Brown, who requested per- 
 mission to make a statement before you to-day, has been detained 
 at home on account of sickness, and he has requested me to either 
 read or present this brief in his stead, with your permission. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You may do so. What is your name ? 
 
 Mr. BROWN. Hubbard D. Brown. I am a brother of Mr. Vance 
 Brown. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are you informed about the question which is 
 being presented ? 
 
 Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir; I am a practical mica man. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. All right. 
 
 Mr. Brown thereupon read the statement of Mr. Vance Brown, as 
 follows: 
 
 ASHEVILLE, N. C., January 8, 191S. 
 CHAIRMAN WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We have been given to understand that the importers of mica, both the 
 dealers and large users, expect to take advantage of the declared intention of the 
 Democratic majority to lower the tariff, and at this time ask a substantial reduction 
 on pure mica, and that built-up mica be left as it is. They will ask either that mica 
 be put upon a straight ad valorem basis instead of as now a specific 5 cents and 10 cents 
 per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem, or for such a change in the wording that either 
 way there will be a very substantial reduction in the amount of duty collected on what 
 they import, but not on what they manufacture. 
 
 While we are also importers of mica, we are the largest handlers of the domestic 
 product, and the miners of this section rather look to us to put forward their protest 
 against any change in the present schedule on this article. 
 
 The Payne-Aldrich bill, on the request of the importers, made a reduction of 20 per 
 cent on the specific duties, so that it is felt that at this time it is not necessary to again 
 lower it. 
 
 The production of mica in this section has gradually increased. The United States 
 report for 1912 is not yet available, but it will show a substantial increase from this 
 section over 1911, possibly 25 per cent. This mica is principally produced by hundreds' 
 of small miners and bought from them by several dealers who manufacture it into 
 various shapes for the consumer. The wage paid at the mines is from $1.25 to $2 per 
 day. In the dealer's factory, where it is worked up, the wages are from 75 cents to 
 $2.50 per day. On the whole the average in both would be somewhere near $1.50 per 
 day. 
 
 Practically all the mica imported that comes in competition with this product is 
 received from India, much of it by way of London. 
 
 In India the wage scale, in the production and working up of the raw material into 
 the various grades for sale to the importer in this country, runs from 10 to 20 cents per 
 day, so that in a free market it is certain that the production of this section ceuld not 
 compete with this Indian production. While it is true that at the present time, 
 because of the demand being greater than the visible supply, the price of this Indian 
 product has advanced very considerably in the past year, this condition will be bound 
 to increase the output both there and here, and such advance should be taken into 
 consideration only over a series of years the same as a tariff act would effect. 
 
 In reference to the request that the specific duty be removed: Taking the 1911 
 figures of the United States Geological Survey report, the specific duty should have 
 been about $78,000 and the ad valorem $100,000, and it might be argued that the plac- 
 ing of ad valorem at 40 per cent would raise even more revenue, but inasmuch as the 
 greater bulk in weight is of the small, less valuable pieces, even allowing nothing for 
 undervaluation that might be practiced, it would be found that 40 per cent ad valorem 
 duty would neither raise nearly so much revenue nor would it give nearly so much 
 protection to the domestic producer as the present schedule. 
 
556 TABTFF HBABING8. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 91 MICA. 
 
 In respect to any change of wording: It might be changed to make it conform more 
 to actual conditions, although the practices of the customs authorities are now well 
 fixed on the meaning of the present wording. If any change is made it should leave 
 it so that without any question cut or very closely trimmed mica should pay about 
 twice as much specific duty as the uncut or roughly trimmed does, because in cutting 
 to shape or size, or even trimming closely to expected pattern, there will be removed 
 about naif the weight from the roughly trimmed sheets. If both cut and uncut were 
 to pay the same specific duty, most of the cutting would be done in India or Europe 
 where the labor is the cheapest, and the net result in revenue from duty collected of 
 the importer would be practically one half the present duty. Any change in the pres- 
 ent wording, except it be in respect to the raising or lowering of the specific or ad 
 valorem duty, might easily make a great difference in the amount of duty collected 
 and, therefore, should only be done after fully advising with those who understand 
 the preparation of mica for the market and who thus can best judge the effect of any 
 new wording both in respect to revenue to the Government and protection to the 
 domestic producer. Most of the importers and largest users of mica are manufacturers 
 of built-up mica. Of this very little is imported. The specific duty on built-up 
 should be more than on the unmanufactured, because of the difference in the cost of 
 labor in building up, but as this material contains considerable binder (shellac or 
 like material) the duty has to be paid on this weight of binder also and thus the pro- 
 tection is greater to the mica in this form than is the case with the cut form, which 
 is pure mica like the uncut. 
 
 The cost of producing mica in India should be from one-fifth to one-eighth of the cost 
 in this country. The present duty gives protection to only a small part of this differ- 
 ence in cost. If protection was used as a basis on which to draw a tariff on mica, the 
 present rate would be multiplied many times. If revenue is to be the basis, there 
 could with reason still be an increase on the present schedule. We as importers our- 
 selves are not particularly anxious for an increase, but we do know that the domestic 
 producer is already poorly enough prepared to meet the competition he already has, 
 without any part of the slight protection now afforded being taken away. 
 
 We ask, therefore, that any change of wording be closely investigated and that there 
 be no further reduction made either in the specific or ad valorem duties, the 20 per cent 
 reduction that was made two years age being all the domestic producers should be asked 
 to stand. 
 
 Trusting that you will give serious attention to the claim of our domestic producers, 
 we are, 
 
 Respectfully, ASHEVILLE MICA Co., 
 
 Per W. VANCE BROWN. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? [After a pause.] That 
 is all. 
 
 Mr. BROWN . Mr. Chairman, I have with me a couple of pamphlets 
 which I do not desire to read, but I would like to have them submitted 
 for the attention of the committee. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Do you want them printed hi the record? 
 
 Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. All right; they will be printed. 
 
 STATEMENT OF \V . VANCE BROWN, OF THE ASHEVILLE MICA Co., AND OP B. C. 
 GRINDSTAFP, OF THE GREAT SOUTHERN MICA Co., OF ASHEVILLE, N. C. COM- 
 PARATIVE COST OF MINING AND PREPARING MICA IN INDIA AND IN THE UNITED 
 
 STATES. 
 
 [Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Finance Committee of the United States Senate, 
 
 April, 1909.] 
 
 We have each had about 20 years' experience in the mica industry in the United 
 States. 
 
 The mica-bearing veins or deposits are about the same in the two countries, both 
 producing the Muscovite species of mica, and they produce practically all the world's 
 supply of this species. 
 
 The blocks of mica are found in veins of feldspar irregularly, both in distance 
 apart from one another and in size, and as the size controls the value, the value of 
 production i- irregular. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 557 
 
 PARAGRAPH 91- MICA. 
 
 The domestic mica is equal in quality with the India varieties, both for use in stoves 
 and for insulation. Splittings made from it are as good for built-up plate as the split- 
 tings made from India mica. 
 
 India has the advantage of larger developed mines, which means a relatively lower 
 operating cost. 
 
 The average price of labor in India is 15 cents per day; in the United States the 
 average price is $1.50 per day for this class of work. 
 
 Dividing the production of mica at the mine into two classes: 
 
 (1) Unsound pieces that are only fit for grinding purposes and which is worth $8 
 per ton at the mine. 
 
 (2) Small and large untrimmed sheets varying from what will cut in sound mica 
 a 1-inch disk to that large enough to cut upward of 48 square inches. 
 
 This will divide the production into about two equal parts in weight. 
 
 It is sold by the miner in several grades classed according to size that can be cut 
 out of it in sound material, the small being worth less than the average price of the 
 output, while the larger sheets are worth very much more than the average. There is 
 more in weight of the smaller sheets than of the larger. 
 
 Allowing as mining expense the labor of splitting the blocks and sorting the pieces 
 into various grades, according to their size. We can state that the average cost of 
 producing the untrimmed sheet mica class will be 12 cents per pound in the United 
 States. 
 
 Seventy-five per cent of this 12 cents per pound cost is paid for labor alone. Thus 
 9 cents per pound is the labor cost. 
 
 We have no data on which to base the total cost of mining per pound in India of 
 untrimmed sheet. But allowing that 75 per cent of their cost was labor, as it is here, 
 and their labor at one-tenth the cost of the same labor in the United States, as it is, 
 and granting that its efficiency is only one-half, we have the fact that their labor 
 cost per pound will be one-fifth of 9 cents, i. e., 1$ cents per pound, and the total 
 mining cost, 2| cents per pound, for untrimmed sheet mica mined and split ready 
 for the preparation it will get before it gets to the consumer. 
 
 This is a difference in labor cost alone of over 7 cents per pound, and in total cost 
 of mining, of over 9 cents per pound, in favor of the India producer. 
 
 The cost of preparing the untrimmed sheet into the shape or condition the con- 
 sumer requires it is another operation, taking another set of hands and not subject 
 to the irregularities of producing the mica from the mine. 
 
 It means cutting, punching, or trimming the untrimmed sheet to any iregular shape 
 or pattern required by the consumer, or splitting it to less than five one-thousandths of 
 an inch in thickness. None of this preparation changes the character of the mica itself, 
 nor does it put any other substance or material to it. It only removes a part because 
 it is unsound, or removes what is necessary to shape the piece to such pattern as is 
 required by the consumer. The act of splitting only opens up the natural laminations. 
 
 Some of this preparation may be done by machinery, but no machine has yet been 
 invented that will prevent the further spending of 12 cents per pound average on 
 each pound of mica prepared for the consumer. In doing this preparation it will 
 take on an average 3 pounds of untrimmed sheet to make 1 pound of net mica as 
 the consumer requires it, so that in the United States we have an average cost of 
 preparing mica as follows: 
 
 12 cents per pound average cost of mining. 
 
 30 cents for waste in preparation 3 pounds for 1. 
 
 12 cents per pound for labor doing it. 
 
 Making 54 cents the total cost of 1 pound of prepared mica. 
 
 Whereas under the conditions in India we have: 
 
 2$ cents per pound average cost of mining. 
 
 6 cents for waste in preparation 3 pounds for 1. 
 
 1\ cents per pound for labor \ of United States labor. 
 
 Making 11 cents the total cost of 1 pound of prepared mica. 
 
 A difference in average cost of mica, prepared for the consumer, of 43 cents per 
 pound in favor of India. 
 
 Manufacturing mica plate is entirely a separate operation again, and is not consid- 
 ered in the cost hereinbefore stated. The thinly split laminae are laid flat with edges 
 overlapping, and on this surface a mixture of shellac is spread. More of the split 
 laminae are placed on this, and again more shellac, and so layer upon layer, until a 
 thick sheet is built up, 36 inches square, which when pressed heavily and baked makes 
 a solid piece of insulating material . This is built-up plate, known under several names, 
 as micanite, micabeaton. etc. 
 
558 TARIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 01 MICA. 
 
 As a fact the miner in India has nearly prepared his mica for the consumer as well 
 -s mining it. And yet on nearly all the imported mica there has been o/ily paid 6 
 cents specific and 20 per cent ad valorem under the Dingley bill. . See United States 
 report for 1907. 
 
 The average valuation of imported mica in 1907 was 37 cents per pound, so that the 
 average cost to the importer for his mica, duty paid, was 51 cents per pound, against 
 the cost of the domestic of 54 cents per pound. 
 
 The average selling price of the India mica (duty not paid) being 37 cents per 
 pound as per United States report, 1907 and their cost 11 cents, the miner in India 
 has had an average profit of 26 cents per pound. 
 
 It is no wonder that the domestic miner has been only able to work in a small way, 
 or if larger operations were attempted they were unsuccessful, except in extraordinary 
 rich veins. 
 
 The India miner has always had plenty of margin in which to develop his mines, 
 and thus lessen his cost, while the United States miner, with exactly as good mica, 
 has been strangled. 
 
 If the domestic miner were put on equal terms with the India miner by a higher 
 specific duty per pound on all mica that has been prepared for the consumer beyond 
 the untrimmed state, the domestic mines would soon be put in such shape that they 
 could stand as well as any other industry. And with the machinery and larger oper- 
 ation, lower the cost of mining much below what it is now, and give the consumer hia 
 product at about the present market rates. 
 
 Some protection is needed against the phlogopite species of mica (Canadian amber), 
 because it is mined from soft rock and is a soft mica, therefore less costly to work than 
 the muscovite species. 
 
 An equal duty should be put on built-up plate as on- thin split sheets, so that the 
 building up will be done in this country rather than in Europe or India. 
 
 With these differences in cost between the production of foreign mica and the 
 domestic as shown, and asking only that the domestic miner be put on the same basis 
 as the foreign miner, we insist that we must have a very much higher specific duty 
 than heretofore on muscovite mica that has been prepared for the consumer beyond 
 the untrimmed sheet stage. On the phlogopite species mined in Canada we do not 
 require any higher duty than we have heretofore had. 
 
 The Dingley Act made two classes of mica, using the words "rough trimmed" for 
 the class on which 6 cents per pound specific was imposed, and the words "cut or 
 trimmed " for the class on which 12 cents per pound specific was imposed. This has 
 caused the Treasury officials and the domestic miners much trouble, for it has been 
 difficult to determine where rough trimmed ended and cut or trimmed commenced. 
 The India miner trimmed his mica closer and closer to get rid of the more weight, and 
 yet there was practically none coming in under the higher classification. Then the 
 Treasury officials took notice, and a case was tried lately in New York (decision No. 
 20677), and the importer lost. But further litigation must be gone into if the same word- 
 ing is used and step by step the question decided. What constitutes rough trimming 
 and what cut or trimmed? The word "thumb" should be substituted for the word 
 ''rough," and thus make a clear distinction between the classes. 
 
 For these reasons we suggest the following wording for the mica schedule in the 
 tariff act: 
 
 "Mica, unmanufactured or thumb trimmed only, 6 cents per pound and 20 per cent 
 ad valorem. Muscovite species of mica, when trimmed or cut or split to less than five- 
 thousandths of an inch in thickness, 25 cents per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 Phlogopite species of mica, when trimmed or cut or split to less than five-thousandths 
 of an inch in thickness. 10 cent? per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem. Mica plate 
 or built up mica, and all manufactures of mica or of which mica is the component 
 material of chief value. 25 rents per pound and 30 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 If this were done scores of mines will be started at once mining mica in this country. 
 Thousands of hands will be employed in mining and as many more will be put to 
 work trimming, cutting, and generally preparing the product for the consumer. 
 
 W. VANCE BROWN. 
 B. C. GRINDSTAPP. 
 
 MICA. 
 
 To tie roU./i-tnrs of tie. sivtrnl ports irJxre mica is being entered for importation: 
 
 We report fully a?k that: you revise the system of classing mica for duty as it has 
 for sonic timo IMHMI practiced, and for your assistance we lay before you the following 
 tacts and argument: 
 
SCHEDULE B. 559 
 
 PARAGRAPH 91 MICA. 
 
 Generally speaking, mica is being imported in the following forms: 
 
 (1) Variously trimmed with sickle knife, shears, or machine, irregular in shape, 
 sometimes nearly rectangular. 
 
 (2) Splittings or films. 
 
 (3) Cut to rectangular or some other definite shape. 
 
 (4) Built-up plate in various forms. 
 
 There are some other forms in which mica is being imported, but these will cover 
 the bulk of it and they are all we now wish to call your attention to. 
 
 The trimming of mica has been carried to such a point during the past few years 
 that there is now practically no "unmanufactured" nor "rough trimmed only" mica 
 imported into the United States. 
 
 The Dingley Act read: "Mica, unmanufactured or rough trimmed only, six cents 
 per pound and twenty per centum ad valorem; mica, cut or trimmed, twelve cents 
 per pound and twenty per centum ad valorem." 
 
 The new act reads: "Mica, unmanufactured, or rough trimmed only, five cents per 
 pound and twenty per centum ad valorem; mica, cut or trimmed, mica plates or 
 built-up mica, and all manufactures of mica or of which mica is the component mate- 
 rial of chief value, ten cents per pound and twenty per centum ad valorem." 
 
 So that the wording is practically the same in both laws for the "unmanufactured 
 or rough trimmed only" class. 
 
 The practice has been to put under the lower classification all imported mica except 
 such as was cut to some definite size or shape. Under this rule there was even yet 
 much evasion of the higher classification by mixing a great number of sheets cut to 
 various sizes and packing them loosely in the case, or by marking on the edge of 
 each piece a line to indicate it would yet be cut again to make it a size mentioned 
 in standard lists that are used by the trade. This matter came before the Board of 
 General Appraisers in case No. 20677 Protest No. 315568 and was decided against 
 the importers. But this only settled a very extreme case, and we claim that there 
 is yet much mica coming in that is so trimmed and manufactured that it should pay 
 the highest rate of duty. To better explain this we describe briefly the process of 
 manufacturing mica. 
 
 When mica is first mined put it is in rough blocks of various shapes, size, and thick- 
 ness. These blocks are split to about one-sixteenth of an inch in thickness and the 
 sheets sorted according to what size can be cut out of each piece in sound glass-like 
 material. On the edge of each piece is some unsound material that is only fit for 
 grinding into ground mica, and it is usual for the miner to at least roughly trim this 
 off the piece before it is packed for sale to the dealer in or the consumer of the mica. 
 Some miners further advance their product to the condition used by consumer before 
 they dispose of it. Understand that this trimming is first of all done to get rid of the 
 unsound material on the edge, but the closer it is trimmed to any desired or expected 
 pattern the less waste there will be in cutting it to the desired pattern, and the less 
 specific duty there will be to pay on it. And, therefore, very properly in both the 
 new and old tariff law the lower classification read ' ' unmanufactured or rough trimmed 
 only," and tie higher classification "cut or trimmed," not "cut and trimmed," as 
 the appraisers worded it in their decision in case No. 20677. So, then ; the difficulty 
 lies in distinguishing between what is "rough trimmed only" and what is "trimmed." 
 It may be difficult for the inexperienced to draw the line closely between them 
 under certain conditions, but as the bulk of the imported mica is now prepared, it is 
 easy to see it is much more closely trimmed than could be termed "rough trimmed 
 only." 
 
 We claim that practically all the Indian, and much of the Canadian that is imported, 
 is closely trimmed; very far beyond what could reasonably be called "rough trimmed 
 only. ' ' And this is the case whether it has been trimmed with the sickle knife, shears, 
 or machine. In every case they are trimming it so closely that there is little waste 
 getting it to any desired shaped pattern or rectangular size, and it should be classed as 
 "trimmed' ' and pay the highest rate of duty. Imported trimmed mica is not sold in 
 the United States as rough trimmed, but as closely knife trimmed or closely shear 
 trimmed; the importers' catalogues usually state "closely trimmed." In the London 
 markets, where much of the Indian product is sold for export to the United States, it is 
 usually called ' ' uncut' ' when sickle trimmed ; but also ' ' trimmed. ' ' "square trimmed,' ' 
 "Calcutta trimmed," "circular trimmed," and other terms to designate the kind of 
 trimming that has been done. But it is all "trimmed" until it reaches the United 
 States customs, where it now passes as "rough trimmed only." The distinction 
 between roughly trimmed and trimmed is well known and recognized among both the 
 domestic and foreign producers, and why should it not be recognized when classing 
 mica for duty? 
 
560 TABIFF HEARINGS. . 
 
 PABAGBAPH 91 MICA. 
 
 We ask that all this trimmed mica (embraced under (1) on first page) as now pre- 
 pared, be placed in the higher class and pay 10 cents per pound and 20 per cent ad 
 valorem duty, until the foreign producer leaves his mica in a less advanced condition. 
 
 The next step in the manufacture of mica is to take these trimmed pieces and either: 
 
 (a) Split them with a hand knife to less than two-thousandths of an inch in thickness 
 into what are termed "films" or "splittings." Several machines have been tried for 
 this work, but so far they have not been so satisfactory as the hand work, and the bulk 
 of it is yet done with hand. Understand, it is trimmed first and then split. Before 
 good marketable splittings can be manufactured from the sheet, it is essential that 
 each piece be closely not roughly trimmed. The law says "rough trimmed only" 
 (notice the word "only") or "unmanufactured" in the lower classification, and 
 "trimmed" and "all manufactures of mica" in the higher classification. So here 
 we have a case where there can be no question of how much trimming has been done, 
 for it is also manufactured (split). The material (films or splittings) is not "unmanu- 
 factured " nor "rough trimmed only," and it is "trimmed," and it is "manufactured." 
 Some years ago trimming before splitting was not demanded by the trade, and we 
 imagine it was then the evasion first began. They used to take sheets that had been 
 trimmed very little, if at all, in fact were roughly trimmed if at all, and split them thin 
 to films. And as it is more difficult to notice the trimming after the mica is split to 
 films than before, no doubt the difference was overlooked until the custom was estab- 
 lished. Our attention was not called to it until we were called as witnesses in case 
 No. 20677, above mentioned. 
 
 We may state that the labor cost of doing; this splitting in the United States is 10 
 cents and 11 cents per pound, and there is about 10 per cent wastage of the mica in 
 manufacture. 
 
 We ask that all films or splittings (embraced under (2) on first page) be placed in the 
 higher class and pay 10 cents per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem, as they should 
 properly do. 
 
 (b) Or the sheets may be cut to definite size or pattern embraced under (3) on first 
 page. These sizes or patterns are innumerable. The term is "cut" (not "trimmed") 
 to size or pattern. It would be a stretch of the word to say trimmed to size or pattern. 
 To get a pattern out of sheet mica it is cut with either a die or shears. It can be 
 trimmed closely to the pattern or size desired, but to get cut mica as the trade demands, 
 it must be cut, and then it is known as "cut mica"; and while considered generally 
 as a finished product it is sometimes again cut down or changed in shape, so that it is 
 difficult to determine what is a finished product in mica. 
 
 For the purpose of assessing duty, cut mica is now put in the highest class, but until 
 case No. 20677, above mentioned, was decided, quantities of it came in under the 
 lower classification; and the same thing may occur again, and is in fact, we believe, 
 now being done, by so closely trimming the sheet that there would be, or is, but a small 
 loss of weight to cut the pattern required. It is easy to determine "cut mica," and 
 that is the reason we say case No. 20677 was an extreme one, and easy to decide. But 
 as the law is worded "cut or trimmed," there is no more reason why closely trimmed 
 mica, as now prepared by the foreign producer, should pay only the lower duty, than 
 there is for the better known and determined cut mica. We ask that mica that has 
 been trimmed closely to rectangular or some other definite shape be classed in the 
 higher class the same as "cut" mica. 
 
 Another step in the manufacture of mica is to take the films and build them up, 
 layer upon layer, with some binder like shellac between the layers, until any desired 
 thickness and size is formed. This is used in innumerable ways, shapes, and patterns, 
 and is called by several trade names, or in general "built up mica." Cut mica is also 
 used for building up, but not so generally as the films. Both are sometimes used with 
 paper or other sheet material for making insulating material, any of which would be 
 classified in the highest class under the new law. 
 
 We, therefore, respectfully request that you have this matter investigated, and if 
 necessary try a case on films first, and another on trimmed mica as now being imported. 
 We will be glad to further post you on any facts in regard to the matter so that our 
 contention can be settled on its merits. 
 
 Yours truly, ASHEVILLE MICA Co., 
 
 Per W. VANCE BROWN. 
 
 THE GREAT SOUTHERN MICA Co., 
 By H. F. SEYMOUR. 
 
 SEPTEMBER, 1909. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 561 
 
 PARAGRAPH 91 MICA. 
 BRIEF OF WATSON BEOS., BOSTON, MASS. 
 
 WATSON BROS., 
 
 Boston, Mass., February 14, 191t. 
 0. W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee -on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Yours of January 20 received. In regard to duty on mica, all that 
 needs to be said can be said in a few words. 
 
 As we are importers and also miners in this country, we are quite able to see both 
 sides of the question. Undoubtedly a duty is necessary to protect domestic mining, 
 not so much on account of difference in cost of labor as owing to the fact that in this 
 country there are no mines that produce large quantities. Most of the product is 
 the result of many small operations. Speaking for ourselves, we do not object to the 
 present ad valorem duty, out we do object strongly to the specific duty of 10 cents 
 per pound on cut and 5 cents per pound on uncut mica. As most of the mica produced 
 is small in size, and the smaller the size the less the price, you can see that the specific 
 duty will mean anywhere from a small per cent to one of 100 or 200 per cent, as con- 
 siderable mica is bought and sold as low as 10 cents, 5 cents, and even less, per 
 pound. Should your committee, in its wisdom, think that some compensation should 
 be made for the specific duty, the ad valorem duty might be increased. 
 
 There is great difficulty in classifying mica under the present specifications. We 
 submit that these classifications are needless; that the ad valorem duty covers it all. 
 As the price of cut mica is in proportion to its quality, the waste and labor is paid 
 for in the higher rice. For instance, a pound of uncut mica costing $1 would pay 
 20 per cent and 5, or 25 cents per pound in all. Whereas a pound of cut mica, owing 
 to the fact that usually half is wasted in cutting, would pay double the price, or $2. 
 This at 20 per cent and 10 cents is 30 cents. As against this slight difference in favor 
 of cut mica is the great difficulty of drawing the line between cut and uncut mica, 
 as it comes from some sections roughly trimmed in square shapes. As this is generally 
 trimmed over imperfections, the waste is somewhat less, but the first cost is higher, 
 and in the additional price pays its proper duty. 
 
 We respectfully ask that there should be one rate of duty, and that ad valorem, and 
 but one description, and that the word "mica"; that anything in the shape of mica 
 pay, say, 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Yours, truly, WATSON BROS. 
 
 LETTER OF THE M. & G. MICA CO., PYRITON, ALA. 
 
 PYRITON, ALA., January 21, 1913. 
 Hon. J. THOMAS HEFLIN, 
 
 LaFayette, Ala. 
 
 DEAR SIR: The importers of mica are asking for a large reduction of the tariff on 
 mica, while the Ashville Mica Co., in common with us and other domestic producers, 
 are anxious that the present tariff thereon should be maintained. We insist that 
 the tariff on mica should not be reduced for the very good reason that domestic pro- 
 ducers of mica can not possibly compete with India mica if the present tariff were 
 removed, or even reduced. The India mica, which is mined with labor that costs 
 only from 10 to 20 cents per day, and even aside from the cost of labor is much more 
 easily mined and less expensive to mine than mica in this country, would, if allowed 
 to come in here without proper tariff restrictions, simply put every mica miner in 
 the United States out of business and close every mica mine in this country. We 
 have spent a large amount of money in your State and district in an effort to develop 
 our property here and to pave the way for putting Alabama in the front rank as a 
 mica-producing State. As fine mica as there is in the world is in the State of Ala- 
 bama, and if the tariff is let alone the mining of mica will certainly become one of the 
 prosperous industries of this State. Otherwise, it will be impossible to produce it 
 here except at a great loss, and as you know that is not what men go into business for. 
 
 We have what is said to be the best mica-mining plant in the United States, and 
 we are operating it on a good mine that we have just opened up after two or three 
 years of hard development work. So far we have not had a dollar in return for our 
 large outlay, but if let alone we will pull through all right; but if the tariff on mica is 
 reduced or removed it will simply mean that our expenditures here go for naught; 
 
 78959 VOL 113 36 
 
562 TAEIFP HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 91 MICA. 
 
 that our lose is complete and our property worthless, because under such conditions 
 we could not operate it. 
 
 We will greatly appreciate your consideration of this matter and anything that you 
 may see fit to do for us, or rather to protect the interests of domestic mica producers from 
 injury, or we may say ruin, from such drastic legislation as the importers of mica are 
 asking for. Such a reduction of the tariff on mica as they haye demanded, considered 
 strictly from an economic standpoint, or more properly as an economic question, with- 
 out reference to the interests of any particular class of people interested in the mica 
 business, compels the conclusion, first, that the consumers of mica would not be bene- 
 fited in the least if this reduction were made, because the present combination of 
 importers could and doubtless would depress the price of domestic mica to the point 
 where domestic production would be impossible and then put the price wherever 
 they pleased and make the consumer pay it; secondly, it would decrease rather 
 than increase the revenue to the Government derived from the importation of mica; 
 and lastly and in a nutshell the mica-mining industry in this country would be com- 
 pletely destroyed, and without benefiting anybody whatever except the combination 
 of mica importers. 
 
 Thanking you in advance for any suggestions or advice you may care to offer us 
 in regard to the subject herein referred to, we beg to remain, 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 M. & G. MICA Co., 
 By EDWIN J. FORREST, Superintendent. 
 
 BRIEF OF THE KEENE MICA PRODUCTS CO., KEENE, N. H. 
 
 KEENE, N. H., January 18, 191S. 
 The WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: We understand that there was recently a hearing before you regarding 
 the tariff on mica, and that the importers have appeared before you with a request to 
 have the tariff reduced on raw mica. 
 
 We beg leave to state that we are producers of domestic mica in a somewhat large 
 measure and anticipate extending our operations considerably along this line in the 
 near future, and desire to have at least the protection against the foreign product that 
 already exists, as on the last revision of the tariff the duty was lowered 20 per cent, 
 and is at the present as low as the domestic miner can stand. In fact a further reduc- 
 tion would, in all probability, make it impossible for us to continue producing mica in 
 this country at all in a profitable manner. 
 
 We have discovered large deposits of mica in this State, and if we can retain the pres- 
 ent protection, or even a little more, against the foreign product it will become, within 
 a short time, a very large industry. 
 
 A large proportion of the mica used in this country has heretofore been imported, 
 and the chief reason for this is that the largest users of and dealers in mica have sent 
 the men best posted on preparing mica for its various uses to India and Canada, which 
 has resulted in the foreign mica becoming the best selected and prepared for the 
 various uses, whereas the domestic miner, as a rule, is unfamiliar with the various uses 
 his product is put to, and is not so well posted in preparing it for use. 
 
 However, the producers in this country are gradually becoming better posted on the 
 selection and preparation of their products, which will shortly result in the change of 
 these conditions, as we think the users will readily buy the domestic as the Indian 
 mica, which will give the production of the domestic mica a new impetus. 
 
 Trusting that you will find it advisable to avoid a further reduction of the tariff, and 
 will give us the protection that is absolutely necessary for our welfare, we beg to remain, 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 KEENE MICA PRODUCTS Co., 
 DONALD WALING, Treasurer. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 563 
 
 PARAGRAPH 92 POTTERY. 
 PARAGRAPH 92. 
 
 Common yellow, brown, or gray earthenware, plain, embossed, -or salt- 
 glazed common stoneware, and earthenware or stoneware crucibles, all the 
 foregoing not decorated in any manner, twenty-five per centum ad valorem; 
 yellow earthenware, plain or embossed, coated with white or transparent vit- 
 reous glaze but not otherwise ornamented or decorated, and Rockingham 
 earthenware, forty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 POTTERY. 
 
 EXCESSIVE DUTY ON POTTERY IMPORTS. 
 
 ST. Louis, April 4, 1918. 
 Hon. 0. W. UNDERWOOD, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: In regard to excessive duty on imports, I beg to call your attention to 
 one classification on which, even to me, a Republican, the duty seems absurd. I 
 refer to cheap, bulky, unglazed pottery, such as flower pots; also to cheap, bulky, 
 glazed pottery, such as jugs and earthenware bottles and receptacles of many shapes 
 and sizes. 
 
 Now, these goods are all very bulky. They hold a great deal of air, being "empties." 
 Being so bulky and clumsy to pack and ship the freight is very high in proportion to 
 the low prices at which they must be sold, which in itself is sufficient protection 
 against sharp competition by foreign labor. To protect them from breakage in long 
 voyages and repeated transshipments by rail with so much handling and rehandling, 
 thev must also be packed with extra care and heavy crating or cases, all of which adds 
 to the freight cost. It is ridiculous to think that American labor, even at high wages, 
 is not sufficiently protected in this case by the great distance and high freights. 
 
 It has been our need to import an article of unglazed cheap brown pottery, which 
 the potters in this country are not skillful enough to make, but which those of Europe 
 can make, and the duty of 25 per cent and the high freights make it difficult to do the 
 business at all. Yet the article must be sold at a low price, owing to its cheap fabric 
 and cheap appearance. If it was admitted duty free it would not be a hardship to 
 American labor. 
 
 Yours, truly, H. B. SCAMMELL, President. 
 
 TARIFF ON STONEWARE. 
 
 AKRON, OHIO, December 26, 191t. 
 Hon. 0. W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We note that the congressional committee, of which you are chairman, 
 is to hold a hearing to consider matters pertaining to the question of tariffs on Jan- 
 uary 8, 1913, and as we are especially interested in Schedule B, covering chemical 
 stoneware, we beg to say that this industry, being now protected, as we understand 
 it, by 25 per cent only ad valorem, would be in case of a reduction so seriously crippled 
 that 'it would in all probability result in a cessation of this industry in the United States. 
 Our skilled American workmen in this industry are now earning an average of $3.50 
 per day, whilst the wages paid by our foreign competitors is considerably less than 
 one-half of this amount. 
 
 You will therefore see that the imported article can be and, in fact, is shipped into 
 this country in large quantities, and is the most formidable competition with which 
 we have to contend . 
 
 In view of these facts and in the interest of the chemical stoneware manufacturer and 
 his employees we trust that your honorable body will deliberate against any further 
 reduction in the present rate of tariff. 
 
 Obediently, yours, in the interest of America and Americans. 
 
 THE U. S. STONEWARE Co., 
 Per J. M. WILLS, President. 
 
564 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94^-POTTERY. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 93. 
 
 China, porcelain, parian, bisque, earthen, stone, and crockery ware, includ- 
 ing clock cases with or without movements, pill tiles, plaques, ornaments, 
 toys, charms, vases, statues, statuettes, mugs, cups, steins, and lamps, all 
 the foregoing wholly or in chief value of such ware ; painted, colored, tinted, 
 stained, enameled, gilded, printed, or ornamented or decorated in any man- 
 ner; and manufactures in chief value of such ware not specially provided 
 for in this section, sixty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 94. 
 
 China, porcelain, parian, bisque, earthen, stone and crockery ware, plain 
 white, plain brown, including clock cases with or without movements, pill 
 tiles, plaques, ornaments, toys, charms, vases, statues, statuettes, mugs, 
 cups, steins, and lamps, all the foregoing wholly or in chief value of such 
 ware, not painted, colored, tinted, stained, enameled, gilded, printed, or orna- 
 mented or decorated in any manner ; and manufactures in chief value of such 
 ware not specially provided for in this section, fifty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 
 STATEMENT OF W. S. PITCAIRN, IMPORTER OF CHINA AND 
 EARTHEN WARE, NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The next speaker on the list is Mr. William S. 
 Pitcairn. 
 
 To which paragraph do you address yourself, Mr. Pitcairn? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Paragraphs 92, 93, and 94. 
 
 I represent the importers of English china and earthen ware in the 
 city of New York. 
 
 Earthenware with the present duty of 55 per cent and 60 per cent 
 is one of the highest-protected industries on which ad valorem rates 
 are imposed. 
 
 Under the present tariff American earthenware is protected by a 
 nominal duty of 55 per cent on the white and 60 per cent on the 
 decorated ware, whicn does not represent the full burden levied upon 
 this commodity. 
 
 The exorbitant character of the present tariff on earthenware can 
 be best illustrated by a comparison of the selling prices of the English 
 and domestic products. Tne comparison is simplified by the fact 
 that the American factories adopted the English sterling scale at an 
 established ratio of 88 per pound. In the illustrations which I shall 
 give quotations are those of the best makers in each country, stand- 
 ard brands of ware, in usual wholesale quantities. The figures rep- 
 resent actual transactions at current prices in 1912. 
 
 I wish to submit to you, gentlemen, a plate manufactured by 
 Johnson Bros., of England, white granite, a common everyday white 
 ware that goes into use by millions of people. 
 
 I also offer in comparison a plate of Knowles, Taylor & Knowles, 
 of the United States, white ware, and sold to the same class of con- 
 sumers. 
 
 The landed price of Johnson Bros.' product at the port of entry 
 represents for a 100-piece dinner set, which is what you have been 
 considering, $4.80. The selling cost, without a cent of profit, is 
 $4.80 on the dock. 
 
 The selling price of the Knowles, Taylor & Knowles product, a 
 similar class of ware, is $3.36 per set. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 565 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 I also offer for your consideration a sample of a product of another 
 prominent English manufacture, this plate being white and gold, 
 the class of decoration that is very popular at the present time. 
 This costs, duty included, landed at a port of entry like New York 
 or similar port, $8.48 per 100 pieces, wliile the American company, 
 who have complimented them by copying the decoration which I 
 show to you now in their book, have a price for the same set of $6 
 per 100 pieces. 
 
 There is a difference of 42 to 44 per cent. The English ware 
 costs that much higher than the American selling price of goods 
 that now stands before you, the same class, going to the same people, 
 and the same production. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. If it will not interrupt, I would like to ask a ques- 
 tion right there. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I would like to see a competitive tariff all along 
 the line, and I will reserve the right to change my mind if any tes- 
 timony comes before me to change it. It looks to me like this 
 schedule on paragraphs 92, 93, and 94 is quite a competitive affair, 
 more competitive than most of the paragraphs and most of the 
 items we have to deal with. If there is any block in that competi- 
 tion along certain lines, of course when you get to that point, we will 
 be glad to have it pointed out. When we see the large amount of 
 importations as compared to the American consumption, I believe 
 we can ah 1 concede it is competitive as regarded from top to bottom 
 of these two paragraphs 93 and 94. If there is a block along the 
 line where certain articles are not competitive, I would be glad for 
 you to point out to me if you can where that block exists. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Paragraph 92 is a dead letter, as your figures in the Treasury De- 
 partment show. It is impossible for us to-day, with that class of 
 merchandise, to pay the freight across the Atlantic Ocean without any 
 duty at all. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about paragraph 92. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Paragraph 92 is important also, if you do not mind. 
 We used to sell those goods to you, and I am still importing them. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I am inclined to agree with you that paragraph 
 92 is not competitive like the other two. But what I was talking 
 about is this which comes under paragraphs 93 and 94. That strikes 
 me as quite competitive. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. These which I have shown you are under 93 and 94. 
 The American potter sells this identical proposition, as I said before, 
 costing $6 per set, against the foreign merchandise $8.48. It is no 
 marvel, Mr. Chairman, that the imports from old England, of the 
 class of goods which I have submitted to you here as representing 
 the earthenware, have gone from $4,500,000 to $2,000,000. 
 
 Mr. PETERS. At the same time, have not the importations from 
 Germany increased ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I am speaking of the matter of earthenware, and 
 specifically the English earthenware, because it most directly comes 
 in contact with productions of the American factories. Xinety per 
 cent of that, approximately, is this class of ware, and when we did 
 
566 TARIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 $4,500,000 of business, we were doing a pretty good business, with a 
 great deal of courtesy to the American consumer. The American 
 factories progressed, and they have all the advantages over us, but 
 that is no reason why a prohibitive tariff should be put on, so we could 
 not compete at all. If this thing goes on very mucn further, schedule 
 94 will be in the same class with schedule 92. We will be put out 
 altogether, and then they will have the market to themselves but I 
 presume that is all right. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I am interested in this proposition because I want 
 to get the facts. 
 
 I notice that in 1896 there were $8,000,000 imported and in 1895 
 $8,000,000. In 1910 the imports increased to $10,000,000 and in 
 1911 to $10,900,000, and last year fell down to $9,615,000. It appears 
 from our figures that the total consumption of articles under this 
 paragraph was $34,000,000. You say that importation is over 25 
 per cent of the imports on these two paragraphs as compared with 
 the American consumption. 
 
 I do not know whether you are familiar with the tariff schedule or 
 not, but that is a very large importation in comparison to the aver- 
 age paragraph in the tariff schedule, and taking it as a whole it strikes 
 me as quite competitive, reserving the right to change my opinion if 
 you gentlemen can convince me. That is what I want to draw out. 
 I want to see where there is a block, if at all. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. In the total importations I ask if you will kindly 
 think of the matter of the English earthenware, because that is the 
 bulk of all earthenware that reaches this country. The Americans 
 do not make china, except incidentally. Of their $17,000,000 they 
 do not produce more than $2,000,000 of china. I think those are 
 about the figures; I am not speaking in exact dollars and cents. So 
 that earthenware has gone down from $4,500,000 of English alone to 
 $2,000,000 in English alone. 
 
 As I said before, if the tariff remains as it is, English ware or any 
 earthenware I say English because it is the bulk will be greatly 
 eliminated from the market, and it will be, as I said before, in the 
 same position as paragraph 92. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Do you contend that most of these importations 
 are in china, and not earthenware ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Your figures on that will prove that to you. They 
 are 4 to 1, I believe, viz, $2,000,000 earthenware against $8,000,000 
 china. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Where do you make the distinction between 
 earthenware and chinaware ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. We formerly had that distinction; before 1883. 
 They were classified together again afterwards as one proposition, and 
 in the schedule we present to you to-day we ask you once more to 
 divide between earthenware, as it goes to most of the consumers, and 
 chinaware. We ask you to separate china and earthenware. 
 
 Mr. PETERS. What rate do you suggest on earthenware under this 
 division ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I should like to present that matter to you fully. I 
 should like to suggest the competitive figures we are dealing with. 
 The landed cost we are dealing with as against the American market 
 should be brought to your attention. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 567 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Here, for instance [indicating], is a white and gold plate that cost 
 $8.48. Here [indicating] is the same identical production that they 
 sell at $6 per set. They are 40 per cent higher on the cost of the ware 
 on the dock in New York than the same merchandise is sold for in 
 East Liverpool. 
 
 We want to be quite as generous as possible and still remain in the 
 business of old English earthenware. We suggest a tariff rate at not 
 to exceed 30 per cent. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That is, on earthenware ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 These gentlemen, Mr. Burgess and Mr. Wells, appeared before you 
 yesterday representing the "infant industry," and, with all its frail- 
 ties, I have always noticed in the last 20 years it has a pretty lusty 
 voice. This committee was informed yesterday morning by Mr. 
 Burgess and Mr. Wells, representing these American potters, that 
 their profits were restrained to about 7 per cent because of compet- 
 itive conditions with foreign ware. 
 
 These [indicating] are the wares they compete with directly. 
 Earthenware is then* product. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. 1 may be wrong about this, but let me ask you 
 this question. You refer to the English earthenware. I heard 
 there was a good deal of competition in this class of earthenware 
 coming from Austria? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. There is no earthenware from Austria. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. It is all china? 
 
 Mr. PITCAJRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. There is no earthenware ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No. I think I may say safely that 90 per cent of 
 the importations of earthenware are from Great Britain, and always 
 have been so. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That which comes from Austria is china ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. That is the thing we suggest differen- 
 tiating. 
 
 As I say, these gentlemen informed this committee yesterday that 
 their profits were restrained to about 7 per cent because of the com- 
 petitive condition with reference to foreign wares. As a matter of 
 fact, these are their prices, and there is a difference of 44 per cent 
 between their selling price and our cost price, and I do not quite see 
 the evidence of restraint. 
 
 Mr. Burgess took occasion to mention that a very important 
 English competitor, Johnson Bros., a few years ago, declared a divi- 
 dend that he considered large. Johnson Bros, are one of the largest 
 sanitary manufacturers in England. Mr. Burgess carefully omitted 
 to mention the fact that they were the largest sanitary manufac- 
 turers in England, and that in the year he referred to they had had a 
 very successful year, and that the bulk of their large profit came 
 from the sale of that sanitary product, which is absolutely prohibited 
 from importation into this market at 55 per cent duty, and I doubt 
 if there nas been any importation of it in 10 years. So when you 
 come to consider those alleged large profits, kindly refer to the lact 
 that it is on sanitary ware, in which the American market holds 
 practically a monopoly. 
 
568 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 In addition to the present tax of 55 and 60 per cent, we wish to 
 emphasize the substantial protection afforded by the heavy expenses 
 of bringing earthenware to this country from England. The freights 
 from Staffordshire to Liverpool and sea freight to an American port, 
 such as New York, Baltimore or Philadelphia, amount to approxi- 
 mately 15 per cent in the value of the cheaper grades of ware and 10 
 per cent on the best grades. The Atlantic sea freight alone has been 
 increased in the last three years over 200 per cent, and the sea freight 
 on a crate has advanced from 80 cents to $2.50. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask another question at this point. 
 
 How much do you say is the amount of the American consumption 
 of that class of earthenware that you have before you; that is, all 
 that will be classed in schedules 93 and 94 as earthenware ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. You are speaking of consumption ? You are speak- 
 ing of the table wares which we are discussing, and you are not refer- 
 ring to the sanitary ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The sanitary wares are all under schedule 92, are 
 they not ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. It is not, as a matter of fact. There is none in 
 there. I do not believe No. 92 covers sanitary ware. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I think it is in 93 or 94; that is, to the best of 
 my knowledge and belief. They produced $15,000,000. We im- 
 ported $2, 000, 000, approximately, we will say. That is $17,000,000 
 lor the two. You think the total consumption of that class of earth- 
 enware is $17,000,000? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I am speaking now of selling values. I do not 
 know what the consumption price would be, but there is $15,000,000 
 of theirs and $2,000,000 of ours. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about the wholesale or import prices. 
 Would not that be correct ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. If you are trying to reach the consumption, you 
 would have to add our factory cost and the freights and the duties 
 at the port. That would make our importations about $2,500,000 
 and the domestic production approximately $15,000,000 for that class 
 of ware. 
 
 Is that clear, sir? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I think so ; yes. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yesterday some reference was made to the matter 
 of geographical protection as a sort of myth. There is no myth about 
 the price that we pay to-day for freight to Liverpool and these other 
 charges which accrue. For instance, Mr. Burgess stated yesterday 
 that the sea freight from Liverpool to Baltimore was 8 cents per hun- 
 dred pounds. The fact is the rate is 25 cents per hundred pounds 
 quite a difference. These transportation charges alone constitute a 
 big protection against foreign goods. Under such conditions a duty 
 of 30 per cent on earthenware would be more than generous protection. 
 
 These freights represent actual money that we pay out, and amount 
 to approximately 10 per cent on the highest class of ware and 15 to 20 
 per cent on the cheapest classes of ware. 
 
 If you will go to paragraph 92, Mr. Chairman, I can give you an 
 example. I imported to the Philadelphia port 12 crates of stoneware 
 for retorts for the use of chemical manufacturing people, on which I 
 paid 38 per cent freight of the total value of the goods. The invoice 
 
SCHEDULE B. 569 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 value is 54, and the freight we paid on the Philadelphia bill was 21 
 or 38 per cent. 
 
 The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Longworth) asked this morning 
 about freight from Philadelphia. I pay 20 shillings per ton cubic 
 measure, equivalent to 50 cents per hundred pounds on similar crates. 
 I paid that amount on that particular crate. 
 
 I was in England last month trying to make arrangements for 
 freight for another year, the rates of which have been steadily 
 advancing. There is coalition of these steaming companies, with 
 which I think we are all familiar. I went into every steamship 
 company in Liverpool and London, and I could not get separate 
 quotations from any one of them different than any other from any 
 port there to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Newport News, or 
 New Orleans, and when the canal is opened they will control the 
 same proposition up to the Pacific coast ports, and you can not get 
 a differential of a penny. We are paying to-day, sir, 25 cents per 
 100 pounds for every crate containing the earthenware that we 
 bring into the United States, and if that is not substantial protec- 
 tion, as I have said before, I do not know what is. It causes a 
 mighty big freight bill, and costs us a great deal of money. To 
 insure safe transportation these packages have to be very substan- 
 tial, and are very expensive. The ordinary crate costs at the factory 
 $4.10 net, and plus the 60 per cent duty costs $6.55. It is very 
 readily seen that this item is a very heavy burden on the common 
 grades of ware, a crate containing $60, duty paid, of ware, and is 
 inequitable because it rests most heavily upon the cheaper ware 
 which goes to the mass of the consumers. Crates and casks are 
 produced in America fully as cheaply as in England and are not 
 entitled to duty at the same rate as the contents. 
 
 There is another item I want to call attention to in regard to the 
 English ware. The conditions of manufacture in England have been 
 steadily growing against them. 
 
 The Government takes a great deal of interest in the working people. 
 They have established industrial commissions and this insurance 
 legislation; and that, in addition to the cost of labor and coal, has 
 forced them in the past few years to advance their selling price in the 
 markets of the world, of which this is one, from 12^ to 22 per cent. 
 
 Consequently, as I have said, we are paying 60 per cent additional 
 duty on that advance. It is true our friends in the United States 
 have issued a notice of advance effective January 1, 1913, of 5 per 
 cent on the $17,000,000, which will give them another $800,000 profit 
 to add to the $300,000 or $400,000 they mentioned the other day. 
 But there is the matter of 22 per cent additional value as represented 
 in your customs house, on which we are paying the somewhat extraor- 
 dinary charge, so far as this is concerned, of 60 per cent. 
 
 When the 60 per cent duty first took effect away back in 1888 or 
 1890, as I remember, it was assessed on the ware, assessed on the 
 contents, and not on the package. A little after that they worked 
 in that old "joker," as we term it, and taxed the outside package at 
 the same price as the ware. You know, and we all know, it is inequit- 
 able if you have these wares in a package that costs $4.50, whether 
 the package contains this cheap-priced ware to which I have referred 
 or whether the package contains a set worth $500. The duty on the 
 
570 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 $550 crate is the same as on the $50 crate, and that fact alone is one 
 that we think is iniquitous. The American manufacturer produces 
 his crate just as cheaply as we do in England. There is no question 
 about that. When we get our crates and casks here into the port of 
 New York and unpacked, we give them to the drayman, because he 
 is there to carry them away for the sake of the straw. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That is in the administrative feature of the law. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIEN. Yes; but I would like to have it considered. We 
 hope some day you will not forget this is a most onerous tax. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I think the administrative features of the law will 
 probably come up with this bill, so if you have anything to say on 
 that proposition, we will be glad to have you file it with your brief. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Thank you. 
 
 We are recommending, Mr. Chairman, a division of schedule of 
 earthenware and china. We strongly advocate a division of this 
 schedule separating these classes of ware and favoring the earthen- 
 ware products for many reasons. 
 
 No. 92 has been obliterated so far as the importation proposition 
 is concerned and so far as the revenue proposition is concerned or so 
 far as even ordinary justice to the consumer is concerned. There is 
 no competition; that has been eliminated. 
 
 We have imported 1,000 worth of stoneware for these chemical 
 and powder manufacturers, who still insist they want the old British 
 quality to which they have been accustomed for so many years, and 
 in spite of those disadvantages they still take some of that; but other- 
 wise the importation of the common grades of ware, common yellow, 
 brown, and brown stoneware have all been eliminated, and that is in 
 the possession of the American manufacturer with no competition. 
 The only thing we fear is that you shall bring paragraph 94 into the 
 same condition. If we have gone from $4,500,000 to $2,000,000, as 
 I have explained it to you, it will not be very long before we wipe out 
 the rest, so far as competition is concerned. 
 
 As I say, we urge the separation of earthenware from china. The 
 sale of earthenware has been almost eliminated by reason of the high 
 prohibitive rates of 55 and GO per cent duty in force. English earthen- 
 ware imports have decreased fiom $4,500,000 in 1892 to $2,000,000 
 iu 1912, as I have previously stated. In the same period the domestic 
 production increased from '8, 800,000 to approximately $17,000,000. 
 
 We think the domestic industry would be helped and not injured 
 by allowing competition with English ware, and that without this 
 stimulus and incentive would deteriorate both in quality and effi- 
 ciency. We advocate it on both grounds. The American manufac- 
 turers themselves advocated it several years ago. They said then that 
 there is no reason why they should be put together any more than 
 silks and woolens, and we rather agree with them. 
 
 We claim finally that the American potter has practically solved 
 the problems in the matter of earthenware manufacture so far as such 
 problems ever will be solved. He is no longer an infant, but has 
 passed into the stage of full maturity and no longer requires the pro- 
 tection that is almost prohibitive to us. We therefore ask relief from 
 the. exorbitant, unnecessary duty of 55 and 60 per cent and urge a 
 rate of 30 per cent on earthenware and 35 per cent on china as abun- 
 
SCHEDULE B. 571 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 dant, fair, and equitable, both to the manufacturer and to the con- 
 sumer. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I can see the force of your argument on this 
 earthenware proposition, but why do you advocate a lower rate of 
 duty on china when you say that is where all this competition lies ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No, sir; I say all the competition lies in earthen- 
 ware. They are manufacturers of earthenware, just as we are. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. But I am talking about the great bulk of these 
 imports that are coming in, as I understood you, which are in the 
 china portion of the schedule, and that it was not in earthenware. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. That is correct. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Therefore there ought to be a reduction on earthen- 
 ware, but if your argument is correct that would show that the com- 
 petition on chinaware has made it even more competitive than my 
 figures would show, when they are all classed together. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. How will they compete if they do not produce the 
 goods ? They are not producing chinaware, except hotel china. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Who are not ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. The Americans. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean there is no chinaware made in this 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. There is about $1,700,000, according to the last 
 figures they quoted. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. And chinaware is largely a luxury, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. There is a great deal of very moderate priced china, 
 from the continental countries particularly. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The competition I am talking about is the com- 
 petition that comes from other countries, not competition here at 
 home. I am talking about your competition witn the American 
 manufacturers. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I have shown that we are not in a position to com- 
 pete. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. On your earthenware; but there must be a very 
 considerable competition on chinaware ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Competition with the American product ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Yes. What do you say is the amount of impor- 
 tation of chinaware, and how much do the American manufacturers 
 produce ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. The importations last year, I believe, "were about 
 $10,000,000. Two million dollars of that, I think, was earthenware. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about china. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I am getting down to that. Eight million dollars 
 of it was china. About $4,000,000 of that, I should assume, or one- 
 half of that product, was noncompetitive goods that are not pro- 
 duced in this country at all. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Those are in the noncompetitive articles and in 
 the class of luxuries ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I do not know how far it would be in the nature of 
 luxuries. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That is what I am trying to draw out, to find if 
 you do know. 
 
572 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I am totally interested in the British ware. So far 
 as the English china is concerned, we concede it is a luxury. It is 
 well made, carefully made, and is very costly. We therefore think 
 the tariff on that is not material. People that have the money will 
 buy it, and probably will be glad to pay for it. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. And they are the class of people that can well 
 afford to pay the tax ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I think that is Democratic doctrine. 
 
 I submit the separation of the classification for you gentlemen to 
 consider, if you will kindly consider it. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Will you kindly read it ? 
 
 Mr. PrrcAiRN (reading) : 
 
 Paragraph 92. Common yellow, brown, red, or gray earthenware; brown stoneware; 
 plain, embossed, or salt-glazed stoneware and crucibles, all the foregoing not decorated 
 in any manner, ten per centum ad valorem. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You offer that as a substitute for portions of 92, 
 93, and 94 ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No, sir; we offer that by itself in substitution for 
 the present 92, as against 25 per cent. It was the feeling of our 
 committee that we could not go very far. Personally I would 
 advocate that it should be wiped out entirely. As I say, the geo- 
 graphical protection has prohibited it from coming into America at 
 all. I should like to see the competitive conditions restored. I think 
 it is good for the men here, as it is good for us, and for the consumer 
 also. 
 
 We are suggesting merely a reduction from 25 to 10. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You do not change the classification on that? 
 
 Air. PITCAIRN. Xo, sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are you proposing a change of -classification in 
 paragraph 93 ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Separating china from earthenware. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Have you it there ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. We suggest as to paragraph 93 the following: 
 
 China, porcelain, bisque, and parian ware, composed of a nonabsorbent and trans- 
 lucent body, not specially provided for, including clock cases with or without move- 
 ments, and all other articles composed wholly or in chief value of such ware, all of the 
 foregoing, plain, embossed, or decorated in any manner, thirty-five per centum ad 
 valorem. 
 
 That is to say, the suggestion would be on our part that the old 
 differential between white and decorated should be eliminated, and 
 they should both go in for one. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That is to cover earthenware ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. That is china. 
 
 On the earthenware we suggest as covering the whole of the im- 
 portations of that class, the following: 
 
 Earthenware, stoneware, crockery, white granite, and semiporcelain, whether or not 
 vitrified in whole or in part, or whether or not composed of a hard opaque but porous 
 body capable of absorbing moisture, including plates, cups, saucers, and other articles 
 or pieces such as are commonly used in breakfast, dinner, tea, and similar table sets, 
 toilet sets, hotel ware, Pill tiles, clock cases, with or without movements, placques, 
 ornaments, toys, vases, statues, statuettes, mugs, steins, and lamps, together with all 
 other articles composed wholly or in chief value of such ware, all of the foregoing, plain, 
 embossed, or decorated in any manner thirty per centum ad valorem. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 573 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Rockingham, yet, and Samian ware, plain or decorated, thirty per centum ad 
 valorem. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Do you contend the classification as you have 
 written it there covers all the articles that are now included in 
 paragraphs 92, 93, and 94? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIBN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWOBTH. I do not think I understand any better than 
 the chairman does why you should not be recommending a lower 
 duty on china. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I personally would, owing to the fact merely that 
 the prices of all merchandise have been pretty high, and I think the 
 American competitor has shown by his prices that the finer ware is 
 not interfering with his product, that tne restriction of competition 
 is not coming from this class of merchandise. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You do not agree with Mr. Jones, who spoke 
 here this morning ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I agree very much with him. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. He said there was a strong, active competition 
 between American chinaware and English chinaware. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I think perhaps there is a confusion of terms in 
 that matter. English chinaware is in a class by itself. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I see you do not agree with Mr. Jones on that, 
 do you ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I defer always to a gentleman his age, and I would 
 not offer to disagree with him 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Do you think that if paragraph 93 reduced 
 china 50 per cent the Government revenue would be increased ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. You mean whether the increased importation would 
 equalize the present revenue? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Or would more than equalize it? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. That is always problematical. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You are not interested in the revenue question? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. You are speaking of revenue? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I should think that a reduction in selling price 
 always mean a wider clientele. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. That is not what I am asking you. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. That is the only way I can argue, to show how much 
 more you will increase your sales. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. We are talking about a reduction of duty. You 
 advocate a reduction of duty from 60 to 35 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Is it your theory the Government revenues will 
 be increased ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No, sir. * 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You do not think they would ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You simply do not know ? 
 
 Mr. PrrcAiRN. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You are not interested in the question ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Very much interested, but I do not know. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Then why do you advocate it, if you do not 
 know? 
 
574 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 92-94 POTTEBY. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Because I am importing the merchandise, and 
 should like a wider market; because I do know that at a more reason- 
 able price I can sell more goods. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. All that would come in would mean displace- 
 ment of a corresponding amount of American ware ? 
 
 Mr. PITCATRN. If the Americans made similar goods, that would be 
 so; but they do not make them. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Again you disagree with Mr. Jones ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I do not know that. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. He said there is active American competition. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I do not know about that. I am not going to go 
 into that. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You had better confine yourself to earthenware, 
 had you not ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I do pretty much. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Then why can not you leave china alone ? You 
 say you do not know anything about it ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I am still importing china, and in the old days I 
 used to enjoy this differential. That was back in the old days before 
 the gentlemen you represent came in control, that I enjoyed this 
 differential. We would like to go back to the old days. However, 
 we are keeping just as cheerful as we can under adverse circumstances. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I have been looking over your draft somewhat. You 
 purport to give some actual transactions, one with Johnson Bros. 
 English, and the other with Knowles, Taylor & Knowles, American. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Those were actual transactions, were they? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir; representing Johnson Bros.' importations. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You are mistaken in saying that it was an actual 
 transaction. It was not imported, was it? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. '-Vho imported it? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX. Johnson Bros.' customers. When our committee 
 got together we supplied each other with figures, and the class of 
 ware Johnson Bros, make is the same as the factories here make, of 
 about the same prices, as I have explained. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Were these goods of a similar quality? Were the two 
 transactions, English and American, of a similar character? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. There they are [displaying two earthenware plates]. 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. I do not know anything about quality. I am asking 
 you as an expert. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX. I should think they are very similar, visually, 
 visually similar and actually similar. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Were they high-class goods? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX. Xo, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. Low-class goods ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX. Low-class white ware goods, on everybody's table. 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. And invoiced for $8 per pound sterling ? 
 
 Mr. PrrcAiRx. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. Did you ever know of any goods sold at that rate? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I said the basis of $8 per pound sterling was the 
 established ratio for the adjustment of American manufacturers' 
 selling prices. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 575 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94^POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. That is the average, is it not? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No, sir; it is an absolute arbitrary ratio that they 
 established for themselves. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. $8 per pound sterling? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. And they are bought and sold at that rate? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. They are sold at that here, with a discount of 66 
 and 5 and 1 , as that paper shows. 
 
 Mr PAYNE. You finally sum up and make the cost of the English 
 transaction for a similar amount of goods for $388.70 laid down in 
 New York? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir; that is correct. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. That is without any duty? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. That is without any duty. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. 'And the American selling price for the same class of 
 goods you show to be $401.29? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. That is a difference of something over $12 ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir; that is correct. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. And you still say these goods were imported from 
 England ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. And the duty on that, if it had been honestly paid at 
 55 cents, would have been how much ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. $187. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. And were they sold on the American market? 
 
 Mr. PrrcAiBN. Yes, sir; they were. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Does any firm do such business as that as a usual 
 thing? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Every American wholesale merchant is doing just 
 that thing. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Everv importing house is doing that thing? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. All others that transact a general business are doing 
 it, doing that same thing; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. How long have they been doing it? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Forty or fifty years, I think. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Have tnere been any evidences or cases of bankruptcy 
 in that business during that time ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. We have had our disasters, like all other trades. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. But there has been an ordinarily successful business, 
 has there not ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I do not think we can boast. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I say ordinarily successful. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. What do you call "ordinary" ? 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. If you are an ordinary business man you ought to 
 know, without asking the question, whether you are in an ordinary 
 successful business or not. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. It is such a variable one. At times it is prosperous; 
 at tunes it is not. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do you want this committee to believe that the thing 
 has been done paying $167 more for the goods than the selling price 
 of the same kind of American goods successfully in this market ? 
 
576 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. PrrcAiRN. Not successfully. I said we were being gradually 
 and very quickly eliminated, but we are doing that very thing. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I understood you to say that there were $2,000,000 
 left? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Not of the white ware. We fell down on the white 
 ware from $585,000 in 1903 to $300,000 last year; so you can see the 
 gradual downhill movement. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. It has been running along for 50 years on that same 
 line? 
 
 Mr. PrrcAiRN. Oh, no; you did not always have that 55 and 65 
 per cent hanging over our heads. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You do not mean to say the American goods cost less 
 40 years ago ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIEN. They were not making any, practically speaking. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You have had the same discrepancy, have you not ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Oh, no. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. With that duty and competition I do not know why 
 we should not increase the duty and make it easier for you. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. If you want to eliminate our goods from America, 
 go right along if you want to eliminate the goods as you did in para- 
 graph 92. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I do not think it will eliminate them, according to your 
 story. We do not seem to be able to eliminate it at all. It is my 
 opinion, if you were telling the truth about these two bills, we woulcl 
 eliminate your entire industry in 30 days. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX. Do you question the statement I have made? 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. That is my opinion of it. % 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX. I am sorry. 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. I want you to tell us how you can succeed in making 
 money on such terms as that? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX. Mr. Payne, are you questioning the integrity of that 
 invoice ? I will produce the figures. 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. I am only questioning your statement. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX. I will bring the figures from the United States Treas- 
 ury Department. 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. I want to know the business you are doing. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX. I will bring the entry from the Treasury Depart- 
 ment and show that is what we are doing every day of our lives. 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. You had better get some figures for the committee 
 besides that if you want me to believe it. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX. I am sorry you do not believe it. 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. I do not think the Treasury Department can bring any 
 such remarkable showing as that. But aside from that 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX. But I do not want to step aside from that at all. 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. What firms are you connected with ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX T . I am myself in business in New York, importer and 
 buyer for others. 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. Are you also connected in any way with Dolton? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX. Yes. sir: I am agent for them. 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. What other firm? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX. I buy in the open markets from all the rest, what 
 ever I find. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 577 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94^POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. How large a business do the Doltons do ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Bless you, I do not know. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. A million dollars? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. You mean in this market or some other? 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. In selling crockery ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. The Dolton firm is pretty large. They have 5,000 
 people doing business there. I have not the figures of their produc- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You have not any idea what business they do ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Certainly not. I would tell you if I had. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Tell us why? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I haven't it. It does not concern me at all. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. How much do you sell for them as agent ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. We are selling about 50,000 a year. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. What is your business in selling goods as agent for 
 crockery people ? How much is it in dollars ? Let the pounds go. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Duty-paid value ? 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I mean your firm as agent. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. My firm as agent is not separate from my firm as 
 importer. I am doing business both ways. I am selling goods for 
 people and I am buying. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. How much is the entire business you are interested in ? 
 Answer the question, and do not try to answer something else. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. If I can get a clear idea of what you mean, I will 
 answer. I am doing an agency business and my own of, perhaps, 
 100,000. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. How much ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Half a million dollars. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. What percentage of commission do you receive? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Two and one-half per cent on the staple goods. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. On these goods you have beon describing ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. What do you receive on china ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Five per cent. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do you sell any goods except imported wares? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You deal in those exclusively? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do you sell china? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Oh, yes; a little. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I thought you said you were not interested in 
 china ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I said I sell English china, which does not enter 
 into competition with American goods. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do vou import any French china? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No, sir; I am dealing in English goods. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You are only agent for those people who sell? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I am agent and importer. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You sell for other merchants on commission? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No, sir; I do not sell for any merchants. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. But do they import direct from France? 
 
 78959 VOL 113 37 
 
578 TAEIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I do not know anything about their business. I 
 have lots to do to attend to my own business. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You do not know whether they import direct from 
 France or not ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Who do you mean? 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. The people for whom you do business. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. The people for whom I do business ? 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Dolton, for instance. Do they import direct from 
 France ? Why do you not answer my question ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. My dear friend, Dolton, is a manufacturer of con- 
 siderable standing and does not buy goods from anybody. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. They manufacture in France? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No, sir; they manufacture in England. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. And they do not buy any goods? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. They buy the materials, of course. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. They do not buy any imported goods? Do you 
 understand the question? I want you to answer this: Do you sell 
 imported china? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do you sell any that is imported direct, either by 
 yourself or your clients or your principals, from France ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. It is all bought of the New York house connected with 
 the French house ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX. I have nothing to do with the French china at all. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do you not sell French china? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX. I only sell English china. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Exactly; I understand you now. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. It took a long while. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You suggest a new paragraph here putting in certain 
 other wares with Rockingham ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You tried to do that under the present law, did you 
 not? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. At the customshouse you tried to do that under the 
 present law ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. We tried to do it before the Payne committee in 
 190S. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You tried it before the appraisers, did you not? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. We tried to substantiate our record of 1908 before 
 tlio appraisers, because we had the understanding before the com- 
 mittee beforehand. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. What committee ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. The Senate committee, when we were present. We 
 presented Senator Allison's letter, and Mr. Aldrich sat there and said 
 we could get a duty of 40 per cent. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You tried it on an understanding with Mr. Aldrich 
 to put it in the same schedule ( 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. We tried it on representations 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You knew the language in that paragraph did not em- 
 brace these words, did you not? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. 1 know the intention was 
 
SCHEDULE B. 579 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You know the language of that law did not embrace 
 those words, do you not? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I know it has been sp construed, but I did not know 
 that was the intention when we put it up. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Did you sp construe it? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I certainly did, originally. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Did the other importers with whom you do business 
 agree with you ? Did they agree with you ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Sure; of course, they did. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Did not some of them protest against putting in that 
 clause and say that it was ridiculous ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No; you have the wrong idea. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You attempted it before the Board of Appraisers and 
 went into the Customs Court and were heard on it ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir; and we are still fighting. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do you know of any association of French importers? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You never heard of such a thing? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. An association ? 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. An association for the purpose of aiding the United 
 States commission, who are trying to ferret out alleged customs 
 frauds ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. The only help I ever heard of the United States 
 commission getting was from Mr. Burgess's visit in Paris. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. The association that had for its object the alleged 
 assistance of the United States in getting at the correct valuation of 
 French china or any imported china ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. You will have to kindly excuse me. I am only 
 interested in English ware. I do not know anything about the other 
 except in a general way. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You do not know anything about such an association ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You do not know anything about whether an associa- 
 tion or any importers of French china offered to open their books to 
 the United States commission if thev wanted to send people over 
 there ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I wonder if England sent a commission over here, 
 whether our people would open their books ? 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Will you answer my question? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. That is all; I really do not know. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Why not say so? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I beg your pardon. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You do not know anything about it? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. It may turn out you do. You do not know anything 
 about imdervalutaion, I suppose ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You have heard of it? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I have heard the word; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You have not even got as far as Mr. Jones in the 
 matter of suspicion about it. 
 
 These English factories have advanced their goods recently, have 
 they not ? 
 
580 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. And are still selling them? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. How much did they advance? It was about 10 per 
 cent, was it not? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Two and one-half per cent on gross or 5 per cent 
 on the net list. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. If the advance is 5 per cent, how are they able to sell 
 at American prices and still import and pay an honest duty ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. They do not sell at the American prices by 40 per cent. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. They sell at how much more than the American price ? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Fifty per cent, average. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. And still quality is substantially the same? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No; the products are better. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. These presented here you said were the same, did you 
 not? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. No; I said they were substantially. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I did not say identically the same; I said substantially, 
 too. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. All right. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. They are substantially the same? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. They are ^substantially the same. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. How are you able to sell goods substantially the same 
 as the American goods at 50 per cent more than then* price? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. I think we are better salesmen. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Are you an American citizen? 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I am very glad to hear it. 
 
 Mr. PITCAIRX. I have been for 30 years. 
 
 I desire to submit a brief, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You may do so. 
 
 The brief is as follows: 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., January 9, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives. 
 
 DEAR PIR: I represent the importers of English china and earthenware in the city 
 of New York. 
 
 Earthenware, with the present duty of 55 per cent and 60 per cent, is one of the 
 highest protected industries on which ad valorem rates are imposed. 
 
 Under the present tariff. American earthenware is protected by a nominal duty of 55 
 per cent on white and 60 per cent on decorated ware, which does not represent the full 
 burden levied upon this commodity. The outside packages, which are costly in 
 themselves abroad, costing $4 each, are dutiable at the same rate as the contents, and 
 this cost, with the items of shipping charges and ocean freight, amounts to 82 per cent 
 on decorated, and from 90 to 94 per cent on white ware. 
 
 The exorbitant character of the present tariff on earthenware can be best illustrated 
 by a comparison of the selling prices of the English and domestic products. The 
 comparison is simplified by the fact that the American factories adopted the English 
 sterling scale at an established ratio oi *S per pound sterling. In the following illus- 
 trations quotations are those of the best makers in each country, standard brands of 
 ware, in usual wholesale quantities. The figures represent actual transactions at 
 current prices, 1912. 
 
 Take, for example, an importation of white granite tableware. The plain white 
 ware is daily used by millions of consumers. 
 
 Exhibit A is Johnson Bros., English. 
 
 Exhibit B is Knowlcs, Taylor tk Knowles, American. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 581 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 /- 
 
 ENGLISH No. 1. 
 
 . d. 
 
 10 crates assorted white granite, 16 160 
 
 Discount, 57J per cent 92 
 
 68 
 Discount, 5 per cent 380 
 
 64 12 
 Discount, 5 per cent 3 4 6 
 
 61 7 6 
 
 a. d. 
 
 10 packages, 16s. 9d 876 
 
 Value at factory, 69 15s., at 4.88 $340. 38 
 
 s. d. 
 
 Freight to Liverpool, 800 pounds 2 13 4 
 
 Dock and town dues and commission. . . 84 
 
 Consular fee 
 
 10 
 
 4 
 
 
 Bill lading 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 Sea freight to New York, 510 feet, 10s. ton 
 
 6 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 AO OO 
 
 
 
 
 
 Value at New York port 
 
 
 
 388 70 
 
 $340 duty, at 55 per cent 
 
 
 
 187 00 
 
 Customs entry. ; 
 
 
 
 1 50 
 
 
 
 
 
 577. 20 
 (100-piece dinner set, $4.80.) 
 
 Same assortment K. T. K. American, 160 in bulk at factory, $8 per pound, 
 
 sterling $1, 280. 00 
 
 Discount 66| per cent 853.' 33 
 
 426. 67 
 Discount 5 per cent 21.33 
 
 405.34 
 Discount 1 per cent \ 4. 05 
 
 401. 29 
 
 (100-piece dinner set, $3.36.) 
 
 This shows that the English ware costs 40 per cent more than the American selling 
 price. 
 
 ENGLISH No. 2. 
 
 Taking the same 10-crate lot and comparing the prices without any duty the result 
 is as follows: 
 
 10 crates English at factory $340.38 
 
 Expense to New York 48. 32 
 
 388. 70 
 
 Cost before any duty 388. 70 
 
 American selling price 401. 29 
 
 From which it is easily demonstrated that a duty of 4 per cent would equalize the 
 cost of English white granite with the selling price of American ware of the same 
 grade. 
 
 ENGLISH No. 3. 
 
 It will be both illuminating and interesting to carry this example a step further, 
 using the same 10-crate lot as specified, and compare the percentage of labor, mate- 
 rial, etc., between the foreign and domestic costs. The percentages quoted for England 
 
582 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 are those claimed and conceded by the most prominent English potters. Those for 
 American are the official figures quoted by Mr. Burgess, the United States potters' 
 representative. (Tariff hearing, Sixtieth Congress. First Print, No. 28, December 7, 
 1908, pp. 4008, Table X.) 
 
 English. American. 
 
 Factory $340.38 $401.29 
 
 Fuel and materials 45 per cent.. 153.19 38 per cent 152.48 
 
 Labor and salaries . 45 per cent.. 153.19 52 per cent 208.80 
 
 Interest and profit 10 per cent.. 34.00 10 per cent 40.01 
 
 The total difference in labor cost is $56, the duty paid at present tariff is $187, which 
 is about 233 per cent more than the difference in labor costs, as above proved. The 
 conclusion is irresistible, the tariff on earthenware is exorbitant, excessive, and 
 unjustifiable. As stated at the beginning, it is practically prohibitive. English 
 imports in 1892 were 100,000 crates. In 1912, 35,000 crates. 
 
 The difference in cost of production at home and in England (from which country 
 90 per cent of the earthenware coming into the United States is imported) can not be 
 fairly shown by the weekly wage scale paid -to labor, and such reckoning is without 
 value, for the unit cost of ware made by potters earning $20 per week may be less than 
 that produced by workmen making the same article and earning $10 per week. 
 Labor cost of an article depends on the relation between labor and output. Undoubt- 
 edly the inequalities in the wages of the English and domestic operatives are more 
 than equaled by the increased production by, and greater efficiency of, the latter. 
 
 DECORATION 
 
 It is to be specially noted that the characteristic of decoration in earthenware to-day 
 is the gold treatment finishing each article. The gold used by potters is the same 
 value in the United States and England, so that on this preponderating item of all 
 decoration 60 per cent duty on gold is a terrific tax. Here is a white granite 
 plate from Johnson Bros., England, and this other is white ware from Knowles, 
 Taylor & Knowles, East Liverpool. The English ware cost at the port of entry, duty 
 paid, $4.80 for a 100-piece dinner set. The domestic factory sells the same set at 
 $3.36. Here is a white and gold decoration from the factory of W. H. Gridley & Co., 
 England. It cost, duty paid, at the port of entry $8.48 for a 100-piece dinner set. 
 The same identical decoration was reproduced by Homer Laughlin Co., as shown in 
 this illustration, and is sold by that firm for $6 for a 100-piece set of the same 
 composition . 
 
 In both these examples the white and the decorated the English costs on the 
 dock, duty paid, 40 per cent more thanthe domestic selling price at factory. And 
 yet this committee was informed yesterday morning by Mr. Burgess and Mr. Wells of 
 the American potters that their profits were restrained to about 7 per cent by virtue 
 of the competition of the foreign wares. 
 
 Mr. Burgess took occasion to mention that a very important English competitor 
 Johnson Bros. declared a few years ago a dividend of 66,000. He carefully omitted 
 to mention that Johnsons are the largest sanitary manufacturers in England, and the 
 bulk of their large profit came from the sale of that product, which is excluded abso- 
 lutely from the American market by the prevailing tariff. 
 
 GEOGRAPHICAL PROTECTION IS NOT A MYTH THE DISADVANTAGE OF DISTANCE. 
 
 In addition to the present tax of 55 and 60 per cent, we wish to emphasize the sub- 
 stantial protection afforded by the heavy expense of bringing earthenware to this 
 country from England. The freights from Staffordshire to Liverpool and sea freight 
 to an American port amount to approximately 15 per cent in the value of the cheaper 
 grades of ware and 10 per cent on the best grades. The Atlantic sea freights alone 
 have been increased in the last four years over 200 per cent, and the sea freight on a 
 crate has advanced from 80 cents to $2. Mr. Burgess stated yesterday that sea freight 
 from Liverpool to Baltimore was 8 cents per 100 pounds. The fact is the rate is 25 
 cents per 100 pounds quite a difference. These transportation charges alone con- 
 sJitute a big protection against foreign goods. Under such conditions a duty of 03 
 per cent on earthenware would be more than generous protection. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 583 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 SELLING PRICES. 
 
 During the past few years the conditions of manufacture in England (the chief 
 country exporting earthenware here) have changed tremendously, owing to increased 
 cost of coal and materials and to industrial legislation . The English factories have been 
 compelled to advance their prices very substantially, varying on the different classes 
 of ware from 12J per cent to 22 per cent, as follows: 
 
 
 Old dis- 
 count. 
 
 New dis- 
 count. 
 
 Increase. 
 
 White granite 
 
 Per cent. 
 60 
 
 Per cent. 
 55 
 
 Per cent. 
 12 i 
 
 Transfers, gilt edge 
 
 27J 
 
 17J 
 
 131 
 
 Prints: 
 Best. 
 
 45 
 
 35 
 
 17* 
 
 Common grade 
 
 55 
 
 45 
 
 22 
 
 
 
 
 
 During the same period American prices have remained practically unchanged, so 
 that this increased cost of foreign ware, with 60 per cent duty added, constitutes a 
 very heavy extra burden on the imported products. 
 
 OUTSIDE PACKAGES. 
 
 We earnestly protest against the unfair and onerous tax of 55 and 60 per cent on 
 the crates, casks, and packages in which earthenware is packed and shipped. To 
 insure safe transportation these packages have to be very substantial and are very 
 expensive. The ordinary crate costs at the factory 16/9 net ($4.10), and plus the 60 
 per cent dutv, $6.55. It is readily seen that this item is a very heavy burden on the 
 common grades of ware, a crate containing (duty paid) $60, and is inequitable because 
 it rests most heavily on the cheaper ware which goes to the mass of the consumers. 
 Crates and casks are produced in America fully as cheaply as in England and are not 
 entitled to duty at the same rate as the contents. We urge the abolition of any tax 
 on outside packages. 
 
 I will not attempt to go into details on the various costs of production further than 
 to note that when Mr. Burgess claims to put 66 per cent of the selling price in the pay 
 envelope his figures do not agree with his own table of production and wages, which 
 show only 52 per cent in the pay envelope. 
 
 I might also refer to the discrepancy in his claim that in the United States pottery 
 industry 100 males are employed to 19 females. Mr. Wells, in his statement before 
 this committee in 1908, stated that his factory employed 794 people, namely, 508 
 males and 288 females, which is a very different ratio 100 to 57. 
 
 DIVISION OF SCHEDULE OF EARTHENWARE AND CHINA. 
 
 We strongly advocate rates of duty separating these classes of ware and favoring 
 the earthenware products for many forcible reasons. 
 
 First. The sale of earthenware has been almost eliminated by reason of the high 
 prohibitive rates of 5o and 60 per cent duty in force. English earthenware imports 
 have decreased from $4,500,000 in 1892 to $2,000,000 in 1912. In the same period do- 
 mestic production increased from $8,800,000 to approximately $17,000,000. 
 
 Second. The domestic industry would be helped rather than injured by the compe- 
 tition with good English ware, and without this stimulus and incentive would deterio- 
 rate both in quality and efficiency. The American potters themselves strongly advo- 
 cate this division of this schedule as being in the interest of the industry. Mr. Wells, 
 representing the United States Potters' Association, said (tariff hearing, 60th Cong., 
 first print, No. 15, Nov. 24, 1908, p. 1748): "There is as much reason why China and 
 earthenware should be assessed in separate paragraphs, and at separate rates as there 
 is that plate glass and window glass should be assessed separately, or that silks, woolens, 
 and linens should be covered by separate paragraphs." Mr. Burgess representing the 
 domestic potters (first print, No'. 28, pp. 3999^000): "We believe the tune has arrived 
 when these classes of merchandise should be separately classified and different rates 
 fixed on China and earthenwares. They differ in many particulars as greatly as do 
 cotton and silk. 
 
584 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-9-1 POTTERY. 
 
 TO SUMMARIZE. 
 
 We claim that the American potter has practically solved the problems of earthen- 
 ware manufacture; that the domestic industry has passed completely out of the stage 
 of infancy to full adult maturity, and no longer requires or is entitled to the prac- 
 tically prohibitive tax now existing. We ask relief from the exorbitant unnecessary 
 duty of 55 and 60 per cent and urge a rate of 30 per cent on earthenware and 35 per cent 
 on china as abundant, fair, and equitable, both to the manufacturer and the consumer. 
 
 N. B. We think it should be prominently noted that sanitary ware, common yellow 
 ware, and common salt-glaze stoneware are practically excluded from this country 
 by the present rates of duty. The freight alone on such heavy bulk is sufficient 
 protection. 
 
 On a shipment of 12 crates by the steamship West Point to Philadelphia, December, 
 1912, the factory value was 54 16s. and the sea freight alone was 20 18s., amounting to 
 38 per cent of the value of the goods. We therefore recommend that the duty on these 
 lines should not exceed 10 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 SCHEDULE B, PARAGRAPHS 92, 93, 94. 
 
 92. Common yellow, brown, red, or gray earthenware; brown stoneware; plain, 
 embossed, or salt-glazed stoneware and crucibles, all the foregoing not decorated in 
 any manner, 10 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 93. China, porcelain, bisque, and Parian ware composed of a nonabsorbent and 
 translucent body, not specially provided for, including clock cases with or without 
 movements, and all other articles composed wholly or in chief value of such ware, 
 all of the foregoing plain, embossed or decorated, in any manner, 35 per cent ad 
 valorem. 
 
 94. Earthenware, stoneware, crockery, white granite, and eemiporcelain, whether 
 or not vitrified in whole or in part, or whether or not composed of a hard opaque but 
 porous body capable of absorbing moislure, including plates, cups, saucers, and other 
 articles or pieces, such as are commonly used in breakfast, dinner, tea, and similar 
 table sets, toilet sets, hotel ware, Pill tiles, clock cases, with or without movements, 
 placques, ornaments, toys, vases, statues, statuettes, mugs, steins, and lamps, to- 
 gether with all other articles composed wholly or in chief value of such ware, all of 
 the foregoing, plain, embossed or decorated in any manner, 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Rockingham, jet and samian ware, plain or decorated, 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 SCHEDULE B. Section 85, tiles and quarries. 
 
 We submit that the present rate of 8 cents per square foot is excessive and should be 
 reduced to 4 cents per square foot, and quarries should not exceed 15 per cent ad 
 valorem. 
 
 We append examples showing that the duty on tiles at 8 cents per square foot is 
 equivalent to more than 60 per cent ad valorem, and on quarrie? the sea and ocean 
 freight alone are equivalent to 160 per cent ad valorem, without any duty added what- 
 ever. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 1. 
 
 s. d. 
 20 casks containing 200 square yards (1 ,600 square feet), unselected quality, 
 
 white earthenware tiles. , 6 by 6 or 6 by 3, at 5/9 per square yard 57 10 
 
 Less 10 and 5.. .869 
 
 49 3 3 
 
 At $4.88 per pound $239. 71 
 
 Duly is 8 cents per square foot (1,800 square feet) 144. 00 
 
 Equal to more than 60 per cent No. 2. 
 
 QUARRIES. 
 
 The cheapest kind of red flooring tile, 9 by 9 size. 
 Present rate of duty is 45 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost at factory 100/ per 1,000 
 
 Freight from factory to Liverpool 101/ per 1,000 
 
 Ocean freight to New York GO/ per 1,000 
 
SCHEDULE B. 585 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 From the above example we show that the freight alone to Liverpool is more than 
 100 per cent of the cost of the goods at the factory and that the sea freight to New York 
 is equal to 60 per cent of the goods at the factory. We, therefore, submit that the 
 geographical protection is more than abundant and we ask a reduction on this class to 
 15 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 W. S. PITCAIEN. 
 
 G. B. JONES. 
 
 The following telegrams were also submitted by the witness: 
 
 CLEVELAND, OHIO. 
 W. S. PITCAIRN, Washington, D. C. 
 
 We most heartily indorse suggested new tariff rates china 35 and earthenware 25, 
 considering both fair and equitable. 
 
 THE KJNNEY & LEVAN Co. 
 
 CHICAGO, January 7, 19 IS. 
 W. S. PITCAIRN, Washington, D. C. 
 
 We just wired the Hon. Oscar Underwood as follows: As extensive handlers of both 
 foreign and domestic earthenware and French and German china, we strongly recom- 
 mend a duty as follows: Earthenware 25 per cent, and china 35 per cent. We author- 
 ize you to advocate the above rates in our behalf. 
 
 BURLEY & TYRILL. 
 
 ST. JOSEPH, Mo., January 7, 191S. 
 G. B. JONES or W. S. PITCAIRN, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Thirty-five cents on china and 25 on earthenware is a fair and equitable rate of duty. 
 We handle both American and imported china and earthenware. 
 
 REQNIER & SHOUP CROCKERY Co. 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO, GAL., January 7, 19 IS. 
 WM. PITCAIRN, Washington, D. C. 
 Think 35 on china and 25 on earthenware reasonable duty. 
 
 DORHMANN COMMERCIAL Co. 
 
 INDIANAPOLIS, IND., January 7, 1913. 
 WM. S. PITCAIRN, Washington, D. C. 
 We fully indorse your request. HOLLWEO & REESE. 
 
 TOLEDO, OHIO, January 8, 1913. 
 W. S. PITCAIRN, Washington, D. C. 
 We indorse 25 on both china and earthenware. 
 
 DAUDT GLASS & CROCKERY Co. 
 
 PORTLAND, OREO., January 7, 1913. 
 W. S. PrrcAiRN, 
 
 Washington. D. C. 
 
 We are in favor of reduction of duty on china and earthenware, and indorse your 
 proposed new rates of 35 on china and 25 on earthenware. 
 
 PRAEL HEGELE & Co. 
 
 MILWAUKEE, Wis., January 7, 1913. 
 GEO. B. JONES, Washington, D. C.: 
 We indorse the request of new rates mentioned in your telegram. 
 
 WILD & ROHN. 
 
586 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94^POTTERY. 
 
 PORTLAND, OREG., January 7, 1913. 
 GEO. B. JONES, Washington, D. C.: 
 
 Fully indorse proposed rates earthenware. Will cheerfully give all assistance pos- 
 sible. 
 
 M. SELLERS & Co. 
 
 KANSAS CITY, Mo., January 7-8, 1913. 
 G. B. JONES, Washington, D. C.: 
 
 We fully indorse your request for new rate of duty china 35 per cent, earthenware 
 25 per cent. We believe these rates to be fair alike to American manufacturers, 
 to dealers, and to consumers. Goods in bond should be subject to new rates of duty 
 when released. 
 
 T. M. JAMES & SONS. 
 
 ADDITIONAL BRIEF OP W. S. PTTCAIRN ET AL. 
 
 A FEW ILLUMINATING FACTS AND FIGURES. 
 
 Domestic productions and importations, 1912. 
 
 - 
 
 Domestic. 
 
 Imports. 
 
 Par. 92, common yellow and brown earthenware kitchen utensils, salt-glaze 
 
 $14,000,000 
 
 $150,000 
 
 Pars 93 and 9<i earthenware table and toilet ware, etc 
 
 15,000,000 
 
 1,850,000 
 
 
 
 
 Total earthenware 
 
 29,000,000 
 
 2,000,000 
 
 Pars. 93 and 94, china, tea, and table ware, bric-a-brac, and fancy ornaments. 
 
 2,000,000 
 
 8,000,000 
 
 The foreign value of earthenware imported is only 7 per cent of the domestic pro- 
 duction and decreasing each year. 
 
 Of China the domestic production is practically all hotel china, as the domestic 
 potter (except Lennox of Trenton) has never seriously attempted to manufacture 
 china dinner ware, which must therefore be supplied from the foreign factories. It 
 is true a large quantity of domestic ware is sold and misbranded "china," but is 
 actually and only earthenware. 
 
 FACTS VERSUS STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM BURGESS. 
 
 In the brief presented January 8. 1913. to the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. 
 William Burgess, representative of the United States Potters Association, quotes a 
 mass of statistics so flagrantly erroneous as to merit flat contradiction. He states 
 that his figures were obtained while he occupied the position of United States 
 consul at Tunstall. England. That was in 1890, over 20 years ago, and every intelli- 
 gent man knows that industrial conditions have vastly changed in that period. His 
 quotations for English labor and material are identically the same as he quoted 
 before the Payne committee in 1908 (Print 28, pp. 4000-4008), and represented earn- 
 ings during a period when English factories were working about three days a week. 
 Mr. Burgess is careful to quote advances since 1908 in American labor, but entirely 
 ignores similar material advances in the English market, and present wages under 
 full time. 
 
 Coal a Ittary item of cost. 
 
 
 Mr. Bur- 
 gess's 
 figures. 
 
 Actual 
 prices, 
 December, 
 1912. 
 
 English coal, Staffordshire. . 
 
 $2.56 
 
 $3.60 
 
 English slack 
 
 1.38 
 
 2.56 
 
 
 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 587 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94^POTTERY. 
 
 Labor in England per week of 50 hours. 
 
 
 Mr. Bur- 
 gess's 
 figures. 
 
 Actual 
 figures, 
 1912. 
 
 
 $6.90 
 
 $19.85 
 
 
 8.42 
 
 18.50 
 
 Dish maker (man) 
 
 7.22 
 
 11.69 
 
 
 5.94 
 
 15.80 
 
 
 4.94 
 
 9.24 
 
 Cup maker (woman) 
 
 4.06 
 
 7.79 
 
 
 
 
 On page 372 (Underwood Tariff Hearing No. 3, p. ), Mr. Burgess compares 
 the total cost of an American and English factory output, in a vain attempt to prove 
 that the domestic white ware costs 78 per cent more than English. Here again Mr. 
 Burgess's figures of 1913 are identical with those of 1908, although he claims to be 
 paying about 20 per cent higher for labor and materials. 
 
 Here are the actual selling prices of this output based on 1912 quotations of standard 
 brands: 
 
 
 Mr. Bur- 
 gess's fig- 
 ures. 
 
 Actual 
 figures. 
 
 English product, packed at Staffordshire factory . 
 
 $64,649.19 
 115,263.28 
 
 $86,459.63 
 101,937.63 
 
 Domestic product, in bulk, at East Liverpool, Ohio 
 
 
 The difference is 18 and not 78 per cent, and if the expense of freights, etc., be 
 added, there would be practically no difference in cost whatever. The English ware 
 at the port of entry, without any duty, would be almost on a parity with the domestic 
 selling price. 
 
 We submit that the tariff of 55 and 60 per cent on earthenware is excessive and 
 prohibitive. We urge a separate classification of paragraphs 93 and 94 for china and 
 earthenware, with a duty not exceeding 30 per cent on earthenware. 
 
 WM. S. PITCAIRN. 
 
 GEO. B. JONES. 
 
 JOHN B. MILLER. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. CASEY, ESQ., REPRESENTING THE 
 GUERNSEY EARTHENWARE CO. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 93. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. As to what paragraph do you speak ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Paragraph 93, Schedule B. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Proceed. 
 
 Mr. CASEY. I am here, gentlemen, representing the Guernsey 
 Earthenware Co. and its employees, of Cambridge, Ohio. We ask 
 that we be continued under the same classification with a duty of 60 
 per cent as now obtains by paragraph 93, Schedule B, of the act of 
 1909, and protesting against any reduction of the present duty. 
 
 There are many reasons for us doing so. We are manufacturing 
 a very complete line of earthenware cooking utensils, sold under the 
 trade name "Guernsey," consisting of brown earthenware outer body, 
 white enamel lining inside, with a clear glaze over the whole surface. 
 This product we have been manufacturing some 10 years, starting in a 
 very small way along with other wares that we were manufacturing 
 
588 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 92-94 POTTEBY. 
 
 on so close a margin that we were fortunate to stay in business, so 
 much so that it was simply a question of doing something, developing 
 a new industry; in other words, a new line of earthenware in this 
 country. 
 
 We are the first American producers of the casserole, and we 
 believe, gentlemen, you appreciate what we have done along the 
 lines of good cooking. In fact, to some extent we have cheapened 
 the high cost of living, you might say, by making cheap cuts of meat 
 more tender and delicious. 
 
 At the beginning, and for the first six years, our business grew 
 very slowly from a few thousand dollars annually along to $45,000 
 in 1908, this being a period of six years strenuous hard work and 
 discouraging results, notwithstanding the fact of paying the closest 
 attention to details and applying modern methods, not alone in 
 manufacturing but also finding a market and selling our product. 
 There were many reasons for discouragement, perhaps the principal 
 one after we had successfully mastered the manufacturing end being 
 the classification of similar wares on import. Just about this time a 
 decision was given by the Board of Appraisers, Customhouse, New 
 York City, giving similar wares a classification under 55 per cent 
 duty, and at the last hearing of the Ways and Means Committee in 
 1909 they gave us the benefit of an extra 5 per cent, making the 
 present duty 60 per cent. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, during the past four years we have increased our 
 production, we have given our labor the benefits of 20 per cent to 25 
 per cent increase of wages, and at the same time the consumer, the 
 American merchant, the benefit of a reduction in price, running 
 through the whole line from 10 per cent to 20 per cent in his cost or 
 purchasing price. To-day he can buy our wares, or those of a simi- 
 lar kind on import, from 40 per cent to 50 per cent less than 10 
 years ago. 
 
 For instance, a custard cup, similar to the one I hold in my hand, 
 would have cost him 72 cents per dozen duty paid on import, f . o. b. 
 New York City, 10 years ago. To-day the same thing can be pur- 
 chased on import for 47 cents per dozen, duty paid, f. o. b. New York 
 City. Our price, f. o. b. Cambridge, Ohio, is 49 cents per dozen. 
 
 We also wish to call your attention to a few exhibits, all being 
 standard shapes and sizes, which we have filed along with our brief, 
 showing the difference in price on all items in favor of ike foreign 
 manufacturer or importer. Through our whole line, gentlemen, there 
 are no exceptions. The foreign manufacturer, or, in other words, the 
 importer, can and does undersell us from 5 per cent to 25 per cent, 
 in some instances more, and after paying a duty of 60 per cent. 
 
 Notwithstanding these conditions, we are satisfied to meet them 
 as competitors and ask that the present duty of 60 per cent be con- 
 tinued. We will file our brief and honestly ask your careful con- 
 sideration of the same. 
 
 Our factory, located at Cambridge, Ohio, is open for the inspection 
 of your committee. We will be very glad to show you our methods 
 that you may see what we have and what we are doing. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Are .you willing to accept a rate on the article that is 
 imported here by this underselling? 
 
SCHEDULE B. 589 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. CASEY. We are perfectly content to meet them as a competitor, 
 for the reason that we have one advantage of being able to deliver 
 goods promptly. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. And notwithstanding the fact they undersell you, you 
 are still willing to meet them in the market where that is done ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Yes, sir; the quality of the ware entering into it as a 
 consideration. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. That comes in under the 60 per cent duty? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you have any idea how much of that class 
 you produce is imported into this country ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Four years ago there was something like $120,000. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much do you think the American production 
 was last year ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. How much the American production was? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Yes; about? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. I do not know as to that; we sold hi the vicinity of 
 $180,000 to $185,000 last year. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You do not sell all of it, do you? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Oh, no. In the last few years possible six to seven or 
 eight factories are manufacturing lines similar to ours, but not 
 exclusively. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you suppose there is as much as a million dollars 
 of that kind of goods produced hi this country ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. No. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I wish in your brief you would get up the statistics 
 of the American production of that class of articles, and also what 
 amount you think of the $8,000,000 imported under that clause, 
 under the 60 per cent duty, constituted this class of goods. You 
 think about $120,000, you say? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. I should say $125,000 to $150,000. It would be hard 
 to say without looking it up. 
 
 Mr KITCHIN. I say, look it up, and include it in your brief, if you 
 will. 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Very well. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What amount of goods are imported of the character 
 where they undersell you? 
 . Mr. CASEY. Really, I do not know. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You have no idea at all ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. When did you begin this business ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. I have been in the business about 12 years, and manu- 
 facturing this particular line something like 10 years. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Are you engaged hi the business of manufacturing 
 this line of ware exclusively, and doing nothing else ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. And you have been doing that exclusively for 12 
 years ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Oh, no; just the last three years. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Was there anybody else in the business of the manu- 
 facture of this kind of ware before 12 years ago ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. No, sir. 
 
590 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What was the duty on the article at that i;ime ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. It was rather a peculiar condition that faced me in this 
 business. It was to get something, to do something 
 
 Mr. PALMER. That is what we all go into business for. 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Yes, sir! It developed after investigation that some- 
 thing had to be done. The business was on so close a margin. I 
 took up the manufacturing of this particular class of ware, and after 
 we had developed our business and experimented on it for years, and 
 were becoming a contender on the market with the importers, for- 
 eign manufacturer, then the price was cut. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. The price where was cut ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. What ware was cut ? 
 
 Mr. PALMER. At what point was the price cut ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. All over the country. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What was the reason for that ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. They probably wanted to put me out of business. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Oh, they were organized against you ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. I do not know that they were organized, but it was 
 simply a question of getting the business. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Because these other people who had been in business 
 cut the price to the consumer, you asked the Ways and Means Com- 
 mittee three years ago to increase the duty, which they did. 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Five per cent. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Were you able to make some money after 1909? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Not very much. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. That is a very unsatisfactory answer, I do not know 
 what "very much" means in your mind. 
 
 Mr. CASEY. We really are not entirely out of debt at this time, if 
 that will answer the question. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. How big an investment have you got ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. I should say in the neighborhood of $140,000. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Do you own it all yourself ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Not all of it; no, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You were making a profit on your ware before the 
 Payne bill was passed ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. No, sir; it was simply an uphill fight from year to year, 
 to make ends meet. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. The 5 per cent additional duty which you received 
 under the Payne bill made it possible for you to make a profit ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. The increase in. my production and in volume of busi- 
 ness, which I was able to do by creating a demand for my particular 
 line, gave me some profit. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTII. To-day there is a substantial importation of 
 your class of goods. 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Yes. There is not a city you can go into without find- 
 ing this foreign ware at a lower price than we are selling. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What is the technical the commercial name for this 
 class of goods ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. It is brown, white-lined enameled earthenware. 
 
 Mr. LONG WORTH. It comes in under paragraph 93 ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Yes. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 591 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. In order to make your business successful, you have 
 added tjje tariff of 60 per cent to the foreign price and this makes 
 your price ? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Yes, sir. If you were to cut the duty here a very few 
 per cent, I question very much if we could do business at all. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. At 60 per cent there is substantial competition? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Yes, sir. To-day there is not a city in the United 
 States you can not go into and see the foreign-manufactured ware, 
 competing with ours. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You make yours as good as the foreign? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. And a little better? 
 
 Mr. CASEY. I think it is a little better. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE, OHIO, January 1, 191$. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C.: 
 
 The Guernsey Earthenware Co. herewith submits in as condensed and compact a 
 form as possible its application for the retention of the present rate of duty upon one 
 line of earthenware, to wit: 
 
 "Earthenware cooking utensils, brown, white-lined, enameled, provided for by 
 paragraph 93 of Schedule B of the present act of 1909, 60 per cent. 
 
 The plant is at Cambridge, Guernsey County, Ohio. 
 
 Production is strictly limited by the fact that the potter's wheel and hand labor 
 must be depended upon. Labor-saving machinery in this respect is unattainable. 
 We can not hope, therefore, to reduce our labor cost below 55 per cent to 60 per cent. 
 
 This industry falls strictly within the definition by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States of one entitled to protection, namely: It is new in this country; it is an infant 
 industry; it is desirable to be established; and it is handicapped by foreign com- 
 petition. 
 
 Ought not this "world power" to make its own stewpans? What we make is 
 cooking ware and that only. 
 
 We simply can not do this business unless we can be adequately protected against 
 European competition, that of Germany in particular. 
 
 We present the following statements of fact, and shall be glad to amplify them, or to 
 furnish proof of any or all of them: 
 
 This is a new industry; because it is only 12 years old; because it makes earthenware 
 cooking utensils (brown, white-lined, enameled), heretofore successfully made only in 
 France and Germany. 
 
 This is an infant industry; because it is new, as stated; because this is the only fac- 
 tory in the United States making this particular line of earthenware in such quality 
 as can compete for quality with foreign-made ware of this class. Other factories, how- 
 ever, are trying. 
 
 This is a native industry; because it is located in Ohio, and its earthenware is made 
 of Ohio clays in an original and secret mixture; because much of its labor it must 
 educate and train out of native material. 
 
 This is a weak industry because it is profitless except upon a large volume of busi- 
 ness, and because a large volume of business is impossible with American labor unless 
 there is substantial protection against European labor. Because importing houses 
 in this country, not being manufacturers, can temporarily cut prices and destroy this 
 industry, and then raise prices at will, except for adequate protection. 
 
 This is a growing industry. From an investment of about $55,000 in the year 1900 
 to a present investment of a'bout $185,000. From about 12 to 18 employees in 1900 to 
 155 at present. From an original pay roll of about $560 per month to a present pay 
 roll of $8,000 per month. From sales of this ware of about $45,000 in 1908 to about 
 $185,000 for 1912. 
 
 But without this protection this growth would have been impossible, if, in fact, 
 the industry could have survived. 
 
 This is a helpful industry because it employs, for the most part, skilled labor. Be- 
 cause it employs women also at better wages than they ordinarily get. 
 
 This is a fair industry because the present duty of 60 per cent is no more than neces- 
 sary. Because there are steady importations notwithstanding this duty. Because 
 
592 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 under this protection, it has increased the rate of wages paid from 20 per cent to 25 per 
 cent, thus sharing with the wage earner. Because, at the same time, it has reduced 
 its selling prices to the trade and is thus sharing with the consumer. ^ 
 
 If this protection is to be reduced, or removed, and this industry destroyed, what is 
 to become of these many employees and of this investment? 
 
 OUR PRICES POUR YEARS AGO AND NOW. 
 
 On page 1053 of the tariff hearings, Schedule B, of the Sixtieth Congress, appears 
 our prices of certain staples of our manufacture at that time, 1908. We have materially 
 reduced our prices to the trade for those particular lines as is shown below : 
 
 
 
 1908 
 
 1912 
 
 Keduc- 
 tion. 
 
 "Guernsey" custard, No. 2, Exhibit G6 
 
 gross.. 
 do 
 
 $7.13J 
 11.62 
 
 $5.88 
 10.08 
 
 $1.25J 
 1.54 
 
 
 d ozen . 
 
 7. 73J 
 
 7.20 
 
 .531 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Having thus, under this protection, reduced prices as well as increased wages, have 
 we not given a square deal? 
 
 FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC PRICES. 
 
 We have within the past few days, after much effort, obtained prices in the open 
 market in this country, from importers, without their knowledge, and file herewith 
 as exhibits what we bought, and also our own corresponding ware, and also submit the 
 following comparison of prices. The wares shown are staples in this line, representa- 
 tive throughout, and the comparisons of prices are for same sizes throughout. All 
 prices are by the dozen. 
 
 Utensil. 
 
 "Guernsey." 
 
 "Luxemburg" (Germany). 
 
 No. 
 
 Domestic 
 price. 
 
 Exh. 
 
 No. 
 
 Exh. 
 
 Import 
 price. 1 
 
 Stock 
 price.* 
 
 Round casserole. 
 
 67 
 6S 
 1 
 3 
 1 
 2 
 
 $3.86 
 4.80 
 1.05 
 .95 
 .37 
 .49 
 
 Gl 
 G2 
 G3 
 G4 
 Go 
 G6 
 
 4a/3 
 
 4a/2 
 87/2/8 
 235/2/7 
 10/8 
 10/7 
 
 LI 
 L2 
 L3 
 L4 
 L5 
 L6 
 
 $2.61 
 3.78 
 .84 
 .79 
 .34 
 .47 
 
 $3.05 
 4.45 
 .96 
 .90 
 .40 
 .58 
 
 Do... . 
 
 Oval baker 
 
 Pudding dish 
 
 Custard cup 
 
 Do 
 
 
 1 "Import" is the price of the foreign ware f. o. b. factory abroad with duty paid. "Stock" is the price 
 of the same ware in stock at the importer's in New York Oity ready for his trade with duty paid. 
 
 !. We do it here, not 
 id charge the loss, to 
 
 2 These custards are the only article in which we offer ware below the foreign price. We" do it here, not 
 because we get enough for the ware, but to use these as a "leader" in the trade, and 
 
 advertising, as it were. 
 
 THE PRESENT LEGISLATION. 
 
 This company was formerly known as the Chambridge Art Pottery Co., its corporate 
 name having been changed to The Guernsey Earthenware Co. It appeared under 
 its former name before the Committee on Ways and Means of the Sixtieth Congress. 
 Its president was heard by that committee, its brief and sundry exhibits were filed, 
 and the report of all appears on pages 1049 et seq. of tariff hearings, section B. 
 
 Prices then obtained by foreign makers, duty paid, appear upon page 1053. 
 
 This company was then paying about double the wages paid in this line in Great 
 Britain, and about three time's the wages paid in Germany, as shown by Daily Con- 
 sular and Trade Reports Xo. 3304, October 14, 1908. An effort has been made since 
 notice of these hearings to obtain a later showing from the Department of Commerce 
 and Labor on this point without developing any increase abroad except in one instance. 
 This is an increase of less than 10 per cent to some of the wage earners at Stoke on 
 Trent in Great Britain, reported in Daily Consular and Trade Reports, issue of Feb- 
 
SCHEDULE B. 593 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 ruary 21, 1912, page 770. Manifestly any increase abroad must be negligible in com- 
 parison. Meanwhile, as is matter of common knowledge, wages in this country have 
 materially increased. 
 
 This company has meanwhile increased the average rate of wages paid in ite factory 
 by 20 per cent to 25 per cent. 
 
 Therefore its argument really favors an increase of the rate of duty, though all it 
 asks is a retention of the present rate. 
 
 This company is sharing with its employees the benefits of this protection. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 With a growing industry, a sharing of the protection with the public, a sharing with 
 the wage earner also, why should it be crippled or destroyed? If that is done, where 
 will Congress provide support for these employees? 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 THE GUERNSEY EARTHENWARE Co., 
 By CHARLES L. CASEY, President. 
 
 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BURGESS, OF TRENTON, N. J., REP- 
 RESENTING THE UNITED STATES POTTERS' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Mr. BUEGESS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 within the few minutes allotted to me I can not do more than men- 
 tion a few facts in connection with the pottery industry, the one in 
 which we are so vitally interested, and about wnich we are so anxious 
 at this time. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What paragraph do you have reference to ? 
 
 Mr. BUEGESS. Paragraphs 92, 93" 94, and 95. 
 
 In considering the pottery schedule, you are confronted with the 
 following summary of facts: 
 
 The pottery industry is one which requires more capital invested 
 in proportion to the amount and value of its annual production than 
 any industry in this country. 
 
 It is one which employs more labor, in proportion to the capital 
 invested, than almost any other. 
 
 On account of the character of the materials and the processes of 
 manufacture, machinery can be used to only a very limited extent 
 hand labor is indispensable. 
 
 Fully 90 per cent of the total cost of pottery ware represents labor, 
 66 per cent actually going out in our pay envelopes. 
 
 Wages to the pottery employees are among the highest paid in any 
 industry in this country and far exceed, in difference of wages at 
 home and abroad, the present rate of duty imposed on pottery ware. 
 
 It is an industry in which capital and labor are in friendliest rela- 
 tions, having learned that arbitration is better than war and friendly 
 converse than strike. All disputed questions are settled biannually. 
 There has been no strike in 20 years. 
 
 Since the establishment of the industry in the United States com- 
 petition has reduced the cost almost two-thirds to the consumer, at 
 the same time greatly improving the quality of the ware. 
 
 Through all the recent history of high and advancing prices Ameri- 
 can pottery has not advanced and is sold to-day cheaper than ever in 
 the nistory of potting. 
 
 We are to-day supplying less than two-fifths of the total consump- 
 tion of pottery ware in the United States. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 38 
 
594 TAEIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 The average net profits of the business are less than 6 per cent on 
 the actual cash invested. 
 
 There is no trust or combination in restraint of trade in any form 
 whatsoever; competition is free and extremely keen. 
 
 The business is absolutely dependent upon some measure of pro- 
 tection. 
 
 We have proof to substantiate every statement we make and will 
 welcome a thorough and complete investigation of our claims on 
 your part. Our factories and books are at your command and will 
 
 be gladly opened to your authorized representative. We will also be 
 glad to render any further assistance within our power. 
 
 I beg the opportunity of submitting more at length and in detail 
 the facts concerning our industry in the form of a brief. In what I 
 have to say to-day and in the brief it will be my purpose to give you 
 a conservative statement of the facts and conditions surrounding our 
 industry without exaggeration or embellishment, for I am satisfied 
 that a mere statement of the truth is the most potent argument I 
 can use for the preservation of our industry. 
 
 The purposes publicly expressed by your chairman and the state- 
 ment of President-elect Wilson, to the effect that honest and legiti- 
 mate business need fear nothing from the new administration, gave 
 us great encouragement and put new heart into pur endeavors. 
 
 We class ourselves among the honest and legitimate businesses of 
 the country, and have a right to continue to live. We have taken 
 you at your word. The business has developed under a policy of 
 protection, but has never made a fortune for anyone. Those who 
 nave made a competency have been extremely fortunate. Every 
 penny of such protection has gone to the wage earner, who now 
 stands forth as one of the best paid artisans in the United States; 
 at the same time we have reduced the value of pottery ware to the 
 consumer; for example, a given assorted crate of English tableware 
 was sold at wholesale in this country in 1852, when there was no 
 domestic competition, for $95.30; in" 1864, on account of the high 
 gold premiums, the same crate was sold for $210.75, and incidentally 
 enabled the industry to get a start. The same assortment of ware, 
 of vastly superior quality, now made in America, is sold for $37.59. 
 
 While this has been accomplished, it has not in any way seriously 
 interfered with competition from abroad. Statistics show that impor- 
 tations of 1SS4 were $4,945,813, and in 1912 they were $10,062,203. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 595 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 9-94 POTTERY. 
 
 China and earthen ware imports from 1885 to 1912. 
 
 
 England. 
 
 Germany. 
 
 Austria- 
 Hungary. 
 
 Japan. 
 
 Total 
 imports. 
 
 1885.... 
 
 $3,048,101 
 
 $808,327 
 
 $183,427 
 
 $75,902 
 
 $4,837,782 
 
 1886 
 
 3, 192, 146 
 
 781,612 
 
 253,829 
 
 97,224 
 
 4,947,621 
 
 1887... 
 
 3,530,444 
 
 858,359 
 
 804.830 
 
 68,893 
 
 5.716,927 
 
 1888 . 
 
 3,941,670 
 
 985.329 
 
 471. 340 
 
 181,257 
 
 6.410 871 
 
 1889 
 
 3,845,620 
 
 1,087,156 
 
 519,587 
 
 204,461 
 
 6, 476, 299 
 
 1890 
 
 3,954,004 
 
 1,165,827 
 
 543,385 
 
 Z',i\ S40 
 
 7.030 983 
 
 1891 
 
 4,325,413 
 
 1,390,018 
 
 624,000 
 
 286,201 
 
 8,381,388 
 
 1892 
 
 4,511,210 
 
 1,681,961 
 
 637,730 
 
 337,839 
 
 8,708,588 
 
 1893... . 
 
 4,765,774 
 
 1,852,718 
 
 808,194 
 
 407,109 
 
 9,509,431 
 
 1894 
 
 3,248,165 
 
 1,518,607 
 
 564, 112 
 
 335,461 
 
 6,879,437 
 
 1895. 
 
 4,651,275 
 
 1,910,263 
 
 702,335 
 
 195,931 
 
 8,956,106 
 
 1896 
 
 4,847,337 
 
 2,692,110 
 
 782,903 
 
 387,591 
 
 10,605,861 
 
 1897 
 
 4,017,233 
 
 3,033,661 
 
 658,816 
 
 429,052 
 
 9,967,297 
 
 1898 
 
 2, 709, 757 
 
 2,089,762 
 
 509,310 
 
 313,712 
 
 6,687,658 
 
 1899 
 
 2,933,234 
 
 2,252,236 
 
 501,097 
 
 290,121 
 
 7,603,959 
 
 1900... 
 
 3,235,388 
 
 2, 787, 163 
 
 548,013 
 
 373 269 
 
 8,646,223 
 
 1901 
 
 3,186,969 
 
 3,392,825 
 
 622,086 
 
 459,518 
 
 9,350,920 
 
 1902 . 
 
 2,928,391 
 
 3,651,215 
 
 696, 172 
 
 469,707 
 
 9, 680, 156 
 
 1903 
 
 2,995,975 
 
 3,961,501 
 
 714, 131 
 
 519,390 
 
 10,512,052 
 
 1904 
 
 3,212,471 
 
 4, 815, 848 
 
 856,262 
 
 711,226 
 
 12, 005, 008 
 
 1905 
 
 2,804,811 
 
 4, 770, 443 
 
 909.929 
 
 957,020 
 
 11,659,723 
 
 1906 
 
 2, 758, 696 
 
 5,131,974 
 
 1,002,254 
 
 ,530,400 
 
 12,877,528 
 
 1907 
 
 3, 147, 840 
 
 5,153,943 
 
 944,498 
 
 ,976,153 
 
 13, 706, 790 
 
 1908 
 
 3,147,310 
 
 5,287,267 
 
 991,341 
 
 ,452,156 
 
 13,427,969 
 
 1909 
 
 2,406,718 
 
 3, 527, 920 
 
 855,842 
 
 ,083,735 
 
 10, 096, 954 
 
 1910 
 
 2,777,571 
 
 4,018,561 
 
 827,356 
 
 ,257,197 
 
 11,183.974 
 
 1911 
 
 2, 608, 333 
 
 4, 662, 604 
 
 706,345 
 
 ,245,613 
 
 11,431.652 
 
 1912 
 
 2, 179, 489 
 
 4, 102, 13* 
 
 672,584 
 
 1,231,426 
 
 10,062,203 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 By comparison of the importations of 1885 and of 1912 we find as follows: 
 Importations from England have decreased 20 per cent. 
 Importations from Germany have increased 410 per cent. 
 Importations from Austria have increased 266 per cent. 
 Importations from Japan have increased 1,523 per cent. 
 
 I have here some little charts, which I passed to the gentlemen 
 of the committee, prepared by us, which bring this scale down to 
 date, showing in the first place, on chart I, 1 the importations from 
 the various countries, showing how England practically had the 
 market of this country in 1884. Germany, with very little importa- 
 tion, about six million. To-day Germany has far outstripped Eng- 
 land. England is less than she was 25 years ago. Japan has become 
 a very serious factor, and Austria has also increased very largely. 
 
 On the other chart, No. 2, 1 you will see the relative growth of the 
 industry as compared with the importations, the upper line indicating 
 the American value of the imported ware, giving it only 100 per cent 
 advance over the foreign value, which is extremely low and conserva- 
 tive. So that the importation value in 1890 was about $14,000,000, 
 say; that is, the American selling value of the imported stuff. To-day 
 that is up in the neighborhood of $28,000,000. The American im- 
 portations in 1890 were about $8,800,000; to-day they run up above 
 the chart figures, near to the fifteen million mark. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking of china there, are you not 
 earthenware ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Earthenware and china combined. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You have not them separated ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. No; there is no way of separating them. 
 
 1 Omitted. 
 
596 TABTFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94^-POTTERY. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The Treasury figures have them separated. They 
 are separated under the schedules total importations of earthen- 
 ware and total importations of chinaware. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Running all the way back? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We have them for the last year. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Oh, for the last year. But I do not think you have 
 them running back 25 years. Recently they have been separating 
 them more carefully. Therefore we have no data for accurate com- 
 parison. 
 
 In chart No. 2 I would like to call special attention to the lower 
 left-hand corner to show the very disastrous effect that befell the 
 American industry at the time of the last reduction. Our product 
 in 1892 was about $8,800,000. In 1893 it fell to $3,500,000. At the 
 same time the imports went up over a million. They immediately 
 dropped after the depression in trade, but very promptly rose to the 
 ten-million mark, whereas the American industry simply rose very 
 gradually, amounting to a million dollars or thereabouts in the four 
 years. 
 
 Mr. PETERS. What were the reduced rates at that time? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. From 55 and 60 to 30 and 35. 
 
 From that time, from the enactment of the Dingley bill, there has 
 been a steady advance in importations and in domestic production. 
 
 Mr. Dixox. Did the Payne bill reduce the rates from the Dingley 
 bill the rates on chinaware ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. The Payne bill left the china and earthenware as a 
 whole just where it was, changing the wording of the schedule slightly, 
 but making no difference in the rate. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Is it a fact, that outside of the chinaware, we export 
 a great deal more of earthenware and stoneware than we import, 
 and that we export this in competition with all the world ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Wo do not export any earthenware, sir the class 
 that I represent. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. Are you sure of that? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. You have not seen the Treasury statistics, have you ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Yes; I have seen the Treasury statistics. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. You overlook the fact that we exported in 1912, in 
 earthenware and stoneware, 1,824,000. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Not one piece of it is included in the ware I rep- 
 resent. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I said outside of chinaware. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. It is china and earthenware. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. And the imports were a good deal less than the 
 exports, outside of chinaware. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Your figures, Mr. Burgess, do not correspond with 
 the figures the Treasury Department has furnished to the committee. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Somebody has furnished you with the wrong figures. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. No; I am not segregating them. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. It will be conceded, I think, that so far as china- 
 ware^ concerned, there is a very good competition at a free com- 
 petitive rate now. at least, it appears to be so from the figures 
 furnished by the Treasury Department. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 597 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 When it comes to stoneware, if their figures are correct, you have 
 less than 1 per cent importation. The committee is considering 
 these different paragraphs, and we are not going to consider them 
 grouped together. 
 
 I think it will be conceded there is a very reasonable competition 
 in chinaware, but when you come to earthenware it looks like there 
 was a tariff block on the wall, and if you care to, we will be very glad 
 to hear from you on the earthenware proposition. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. What do you mean by earthenware? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The classification of the lower grades. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. A million dollars was imported last year. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. That is chinaware. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE (reading) . " Plain white, plain brown, not painted" 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. It is the common yellow and brown clay, and all 
 stone and earthenware, except the chinaware, this yellow stuff that 
 you see there [indicating]. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. They are the general line of stoneware. They come 
 in with porcelain, parian, plain white, and common yellow, a total of 
 $9,615,000 of importation. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Head all the paragraph. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Why is not that the larger item ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Because that is chinaware. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Common yellow, brown, or gray is chinaware. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Yes, that may be considered chinaware, but not china. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. And plain white and plain brown is earthenware, too ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I think you will find that million is plain white and 
 plain brown. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Witness, to make it clear to you, so that you 
 may take the matter up if you care to, I desire to call your attention 
 to the fact that in paragraph 92, designated in the bill as common 
 yellow, brown, and gray earthenware, and so forth, the Treasury 
 Department's figures that we have, show for the year 1912 total 
 importations only to the value of $144,000. The estimated con- 
 sumption, as given us by the Census Bureau, of this article, under this 
 paragraph, is over $14,000,000, and the exports amount to $802,000. 
 
 You can see that there is hardly 1 per cent of importation under 
 that paragraph. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. That comes in under 25 per cent. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Yes. But I am trying to make him differentiate 
 between these two paragraphs. Under paragraphs 93 and 94, which 
 you class as chinaware. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Earthenware, fine stoneware, and chinaware. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I am merely calling your attention to these figures. 
 There the value of the imports amounts to $10,000,000 out of a total 
 consumption of $34,000,000 
 
 In other words, there is nearly one-third of the articles that were 
 consumed in the United States, under paragraphs 93 and 94, that are 
 imported, and I can agree with you m your argument. But when 
 you come down to paragraph 92 there seems to be a block in the 
 tariff wall. We would be glad to hear from you if you have anything 
 to say as to that. 
 
598 TARIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Burgess, I think perhaps you can enlighten the 
 chairman as to what that $10,000,000 includes. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, the whole difficulty lies in a misun- 
 derstanding of what we are talking about. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about paragraph 92. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Paragraph 92 is the paragraph that enters very 
 little into the consideration of what I am saying just now, because 
 that refers to a grade of ware that is of the commonest kind, that is of 
 a low order, that has a low rate of duty set against it. We are pro- 
 ducing in this country without any question a very large proportion of 
 that group of commodities. But to say that everything under para- 
 graphs 93 and 94 is chinaware is a misunderstanding of the trade's 
 use and meaning of that term. 
 
 Here we have two articles. This [indicating] is earthenware. The 
 paragraph reads, as I remember it, earthen, stone, porcelain, 
 parian 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I think, Mr. Burgess, that we can concede you 
 have a competitive tariff in paragraphs 93 and 94. It looks that way 
 from the figures that are before us. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. The wording of 93 and 94 is 
 
 China, porcelain, parian, bisque, earthen, stone, and crocker ware. 
 
 There [indicating] is a high grade of earthenware. There [indi- 
 cating] is a high grade of chinaware. Those are the subjects I am 
 speaking about this morning, and those are the subjects which we are 
 at present interested in. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Your testimony, then, does not relate to para- 
 graph 92. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. No. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. It is not to be regarded as relating to paragraph 92 ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. No. The industry is entirely free from anything in 
 the form of combination or trust in the making of selling prices or in 
 restraint of trade. Competition is absolutely free and is extremely 
 keen. 
 
 As a revenue producer, Schedule B stands tenth in importance of 
 all the schedules in the tariff law. 
 
 The industry is a very precarious one. The possibilities of loss are 
 unusually great, and the proportion of profits have never been com- 
 mensurate with the great risk in manufacture. Out of 30 factories 
 that were in operation in the city of Trenton when I began business 
 some 34 years ago but 4 of those factories have weathered the storm. 
 
 The pottery industry is and has been the special object of govern- 
 mental consideration in foreign countries. The Royal Worcester of 
 England, the Sevres of France, the Royal Copenhagen of Denmark, 
 the Royal Meisen of Dresden, Germany, to say nothing of the Em- 
 peror's own pottery plant at Berlin, the Royal Japanese Factory, are 
 examples of such fostering care. These factories are not supposed 
 to produce profit, but are established for the benefit of the industry. 
 Experiments are made, materials tested, and methods of operation 
 tried out for the benefit of the national industry. The American 
 potter has none of these advantages, but must work out his own 
 salvation with fear and trembling. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 599 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92 -94 POTTERY. 
 
 Few, if any, industries have so large a percentage of labor cost in 
 the total cost of their production. The raw materials in the ground, 
 viz, clay, quartz, and feldspar are worth from 25 cents to 50 cents per 
 ton. Labor enhances these raw materials to an average value of $10 
 per ton by the tune they are prepared and delivered at the pottery. 
 The actual wages paid the portery workmen in one form or another 
 enters into the finished cost approximately to the extent of 90 per 
 cent. 
 
 COST OF PRODUCTION. 
 
 Our whole case rests upon the difference in the cost of production 
 at home and abroad. The following indicates the difference in the 
 several elements entering into the cost of ordinary pottery table and 
 toilet ware in England and America: 
 
 I. Capital investment for plant and working capacity, 37 per cent 
 greater in the United States than in England. 
 
 II. (1) Materials entering into composition of ware, such as 
 clay, quartz, feldspar, etc., 31 per cent greater in the United States 
 than in England. 
 
 (2) Materials not part of composition, but used in the process 
 of manufacture, 35 per cent greater in the Ignited States than in 
 England. 
 
 III. Labor. (1) Producing help, average weekly earnings of skilled 
 journeymen potters, or those who form the ware, and those who place 
 the ware in the kilns, 173 per cent greater in the United States than 
 in England. 
 
 (2) Nonproducing help all other help employed in or about the 
 factory, skilled and unskilled, 145 per cent greater in the United 
 States than in England. 
 
 TOTAL DIFFERENCE IN COST OF PRODUCING A GIVEN QUANTITY OP 
 
 WARE. 
 
 . Take a given quantity of ware produced in one year, and consider- 
 ing the proportion in which each element enters into the total, you 
 have 
 
 1. The total labor cost to be 111 per cent greater in the United 
 States than in England. 
 
 2. The total material cost t be 43 per cent greater in the United 
 States than in England. 
 
 3. The grand total cost, including labor, materials, interest on 
 investment, insurance, taxes, etc., to be 78 per cent greater in the 
 United States than in England. 
 
 DIFFERENCE IN CONDITIONS. 
 
 Wages in both countries are based on piecework prices, and what- 
 ever benefit may accrue from better conditions are of no advantage 
 to the manufacturer, so far as the cost of production is concerned. 
 This is seen from the fact that although the total difference in the 
 rate of wages is 111 per cent, the weekly earnings differ to the extent 
 of 173 per cent. These figures are all based on journeymen's wages. 
 
600 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-04 POTTERY. 
 
 Other advantages are enjoyed by English manufacturers: 
 
 1. Female labor. Female labor is employed in England in the ratio 
 of 80 females to 100 males, and in the United States 19 females to 
 100 males. Women do the work in England that only men do in the 
 United States. Allow me to quote from the English board of trade 
 report 
 
 It appears that women and girls are very largely employed in the pottery industry. 
 In some branches of the trade they are being employed to an increased extent upon 
 work which a few years ago was performed almost exclusively by men. They are 
 now active in competition with male labor, and as they are able to do similar work 
 for lower wages they are gradually driving men from certain sections of the trade. 
 The reason given for this is the usual one women do the work as satisfactorily as men, 
 and the cutting of prices in trade competition drives the employer to low-paid labor. 
 
 2. Method of paying wages. In England the ware is paid for "good 
 from kiln," or after it has passed through the first firing, the work- 
 man having to stand the loss; in America the ware is paid for "good 
 from hand," or as it leaves the potter's hands, the manufacturer 
 standing the loss in the process of firing. 
 
 3. The English apprentice system secures to the manufacturer more 
 skilled workmen and gives them the benefit of long years of service 
 at very low wages. In the United States the benefits derived from 
 our so-called apprentices are insignificant. 
 
 CONTINENTAL EARTHENWARE. 
 
 On the Continent the difference in labor cost is still greater. The 
 average wages being 220 per cent greater in the United States than 
 on the Continent, and the total cost of production 95 per cent greater 
 in the United States than on the Continent. 
 
 CHINA AND PORCELAIN. 
 
 When we consider the difference in the cost of china and porcelain, 
 we find it to be still greater; so much so that the difference is almost 
 insurmountable. In Germany the labor cost is 218 per cent greater; 
 the material cost 33 per cent, and the total cost of production 125 
 per cent. In Austria the labor cost 246 per cent, material cost 47 
 per cent, and total cost 140 per cent. In France the labor cost is 
 175 per cent, material cost 31 per cent, and the grand total difference 
 is 110 per cent. 
 
 The difference in the continental conditions are still greater than 
 those between England and the United States. In Germany and 
 Austria similar labor is employed in many factories in the ratio of 300 
 females to 100 males, and where the female does the work of the male, 
 she receives but half the compensation; whereas, in the United States 
 if a woman does the work of a man, she receives the same rate of 
 compensation. 
 
 JAPANESE WARE. 
 
 One of the most alarming conditions that confronts us is the 
 increased importations from Japan, and the greatly Americanized 
 character and quality of the ware; that is, the ware made specially 
 for toe American market. It is hardly necessary to call your atten- 
 
SCHEDULE B. 601 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 tion to the fact of the enormous difference of labor cost of any article 
 in which labor constitutes an important factor. 
 
 The following figures ara a summary of comparisons of average in 
 rate of wages reduced to an hourly basis. These figures are the 
 averages of all classes of labor, including men, women, boys, and girls: 
 
 Average rate of wages per hour: 
 
 United States $0. 2483 
 
 England 11 
 
 Germany .' 0913 
 
 Austria 086 
 
 France 0825 
 
 Belgium 0693 
 
 Holland 065 
 
 Japan 025 
 
 Time will not permit me to touch on several other questions which 
 are of decided importance, and about which you should have full in- 
 formation, such as the assessment of duty on packages and packing 
 charges; the myth of so-called geographical protection, etc. 
 
 I desire also to submit a separate brief on the subject of the adminis- 
 trative features of the law, with which I have had some years of 
 experience. 
 
 Before closing, however, I desire to call attention to the following 
 samples, which I herewith present. First, to show you that it is 
 possible for the American manufacturer to make the very best of 
 pottery ware, I show you a sample or two made in Trenton, N. J., 
 by the Lenox (Inc.). 
 
 I wish also to show you how advantage is taken of the American 
 dealers and consumers along lines with which we have been unable 
 to compete commercially. 
 
 I show you a plate of Theodore Haviland's make, which is invoiced 
 at about SI 1 , on which value duty is paid. The American representa- 
 tive of Haviland sells this set to the trade at $28.50. The price the 
 consumer has to pay for this 100-piece set at such stores as McCreary 
 & Co., of New York, is $50, the duty actually paid being about 12 
 per cent of the consumer's price. 
 
 I show you a plate of a pattern well known as the Blue Willow 
 Ware, with which the American potter competes directly. The 
 manufacturer's price to the department store is $7.02; the cost of the 
 imported article laid down in New York is approximately $6.90. 
 The consumer, however, has to pay lass for the imported article than 
 for the domestic. He can buy the English set at $12, whereas the 
 American set is sold for $12.75. 
 
 We have been accused by the importers of selling our product too 
 cheaply. We can assure you, in a word, that we have not sold our 
 goods at one cent less price than foreign goods and domestic com- 
 petition compelled us to sell. 
 
 It is a remarkable fact that through past 20 years of increasing 
 higher prices the American potters' product has not advanced. 
 This might be considered poor business policy, but open and free 
 competition has not otherwise permitted. 
 
 The cheapest grades of foreign goods can be sold here under the 
 present rate of duty* at less than we can produce them. This is 
 true, also, of the highest grades. We are, therefore, confined to 
 
602 TAKIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94^POTTERY. 
 
 the middle grade, upon which competition is very keen and on 
 which there is an average profit of less than 6 per cent. 
 
 I have the sworn statements of 20 of our large manufacturers 
 showing a net profit of $304,554 during the year on an actual cash 
 investment of $5,698,613, or 5 per cent. 
 
 I also have the published statements of a few foreign concerns: 
 Porcelain factory at Kahla, actual dividends declared, 25 per cent; 
 Baucher Bros., 20 per cent; Philip Kosenthal, of Germany, 18 per 
 cent; and Johnson pros., of England, capitalized at 250,000 ster- 
 ling, declared a dividend of 66,000, or 26f per cent. The English 
 manufacturers have recently advanced their price. 
 
 Gentlemen, in facing the pottery schedule, you are confronted 
 with these facts: An industry on which about 50,000 persons are 
 directly dependent, paying high wages to its employees far in excess 
 of the present rate of duty, earning less than legal rate of interest 
 on the investment, supplying less than two-fifths of the pottery con- 
 sumed in this country, which, by its establishment in tins country, 
 reduced the cost to the consumer almost two-thirds, at the same 
 time improving the quality of the goods, is absolutely unrestricted 
 in competition, which requires large investment in plant in com- 
 parison to the value of the output, which has a greater number of 
 persons employed when compared with the capital invested than 
 any industry of which I know of, and is an industry absolutely 
 dependent upon some measure of protection. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. Have you included in that statement the capital of 
 your company and the dividends of your company ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. The 20 factories I speak of have an actual cash capi- 
 tal investment of $5,698,613. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. That is, your company? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. That is for the 20 companies, from whom I have a 
 sworn statement. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. The 20 companies ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. Are you one of the stockholders or directors of any 
 of these companies, or are you just a representative of those com- 
 panies ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. No; I am a stockholder in one of the companies. 
 
 Mr. KITCIIIX. Do you know how much actual capital is paid in of 
 that 85,698,000? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. This is the actual cash capital in operation not cap- 
 ital stock or any inflated value, but the actual money that was 
 invested and in operation in that year. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. How much dividend did you say you paid on that 
 last year ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. It was about 5-J per cent. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. How much have you carried to the surplus? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Not any that I know of. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. Nothing to a sinking fund? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Nothing that I know of. These are not the divi- 
 dends. These were the profits that were made, the net profits. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. After paying salaries ? 
 
SCHEDULE B. 603 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. After paying salaries. These matters are all 
 subject 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Your business needs a good deal more of a tariff 
 than 55 per cent and 60 per cent, does it not ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. If we developed active competition with this class 
 of chinaware. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I am talking about the other class, for the moment. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. No; we do not claim that we need more. We are 
 on a basis now that enables us to manufacture this general class of 
 goods. It does not exclude the foreign product of the same general 
 class. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You are satisfied, then, without taking into con- 
 sideration the depreciation of your plant, or any surplus, with this 6 
 per cent profit ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. No; we are not satisfied. We would like more. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I understood you to say awhile ago that the cost of 
 your product was about 78 per cent more than that of the foreign 
 product with which you come hi competition ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. It is ; yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How does the 55 per cent tariff counteract that ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. For several reasons. The trade does not carry the 
 amount of stock of American goods they do of foreign goods. The 
 American manufacturer acts as a warehouseman for the American 
 dealer to a large extent. A New York merchant, for example, will 
 telegraph to Trenton for certain goods; the same will be delivered 
 next day to him in New York. I think you will find this true if you 
 step into any department store and look over their stock. You will 
 see very few American goods either on sample or in stock. Again, 
 the small American dealer throughout the country who has to buy 
 through an importer has to pay the importer's profit, whereas buying 
 direct from the American manufacturer, he can buy at practically 
 the same price that the large metropolitan dealer buys at. Then, 
 again, the American jobber can have his customers' orders packed 
 and shipped direct from the factory to his customer without any 
 expense to him. The American manufacturer has some advantages 
 of this character which enables him to compete for certain class of 
 business. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What is the face value of your shares of stock ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. That depends on what concern you are speaking of. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Well, take the largest concern in that group of 20. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. I am not prepared to answer that. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much is the stock worth now, how much above 
 the face value the stock in the company of which you are a stock- 
 holder ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. The one I am engaged in ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Yes; how much is that worth more than par? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. If the stock could be sold to-day hi the company 
 that I am engaged in for 100 cents on the dollar we would be glad to 
 get it. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you know what the stock in the largest company 
 which you represent here is worth ? 
 
604 TAKIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95^-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. The largest company that is enumerated in the list 
 referred to, I believe would be willing to sell out at the same rate. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Well, the Payne Act has not helped you people very 
 much, then, has it ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Yes; we have been helped. We have increased our 
 output since the Payne Act considerably. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You have not increased your profits, though, have 
 you? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. No; the profits have not been increased materially, 
 but that has not been so much from the rate that was fixed as from 
 the changed features in the administrative law that our industry got 
 the benefit of. The duties have been collected a little more thor- 
 oughly and a little more carefully under the Payne Act than they 
 were before. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The duty, so far as this class of china that you 
 are talking about is concerned, under the Payne Act and under the 
 Dingley Act remained unchanged; there was no change ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. There was no change. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What kind of stuff was this $1,492,000 worth of 
 exports of earthenware and stoneware? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. I am not very familiar with that class of stuff, but 
 as far as I know 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Well, do you know what it was ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Yes; I know some of it. Some of it was sewer pipe, 
 and there were some stone crocks and jugs, and goods of that class. 
 As to the tableware, I do not know of any, except possibly here and 
 there an individual dinner set going over to a friend. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. Where did those products go to, Mr. Burgess ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. They went to Canada, mostly. There have been 
 some electrical goods going into South America, and some into Canada. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. And some to the islands, I suppose, the neighbor- 
 ing islands ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Yes; some. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. All near at hand ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Yes; nearby. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Is there any difference between the freight rate 
 on the English product and on the American product ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Very decidedly. I have not the most recent figures. 
 There has been some advance, but, according to the figures I have in 
 mind, the rate from Liverpool, England, to Philadelphia was 8 cents 
 a hundred; the rate from Trenton, 30 miles, to Philadelphia was 9 
 cents a hundred. The rate from Liverpool, England, to Baltimore 
 was 8 cents a hundred; from Trenton to Baltimore, 140 miles, it was 
 18 cents a hundred; the rate from Liverpool to St. Louis formerly 
 was 27 cents a hundred; from Trenton, it was 47 cents a hundred. 
 Those things have changed, but may have some interest in connec- 
 tion with the question of the gentleman. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this : The amount of importations 
 under this schedule seems to be about one-third of your American 
 production. Do you think your industry can thrive and succeed 
 with that amount of importations against you ? 
 
SCHEDULE B. 605 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. That statement, as you make it, Mr. Chairman, is 
 not a fair comparison, because you include in that question American 
 value, a great many articles tnat we do not include in our industry. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Of course, I included the products in the two 
 paragraphs, and I would like to have you state to me what, in the 
 actually competitive line, is the per cent of competition that you 
 meet? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. In round figures, I should say about $15,000,000 
 of American product as against almost $11,000,000 of imported 
 product; that is, foreign value of imported product. Now, the only 
 fair way to compare that competition is by taking the landed price 
 here, which would possibly be $22,000,000 as against our fourteen or 
 fifteen million dollars that is, the American wholesale dealer is 
 paying over $22,000,000 for the foreign ware he uses, as against, say, 
 $15,000,000 of the domestic goods. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Then, you have an excess on the total consumption 
 of competitive product of something between 55 and 60 per cent of 
 product imported as against 40 or 50 per cent of domestic production ; 
 is that correct? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Yes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You think, under those circumstances, your 
 industry can face the fight ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Well, yes. We do not feel that it is an opportune 
 time to ask for any additional protection at all. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The reason I asked you that question is that a 
 great many gentlemen have come here representing industries whose 
 imports amount to less than 1 per cent of the American consumption, 
 and they have contended that they can not hold their own if the rate 
 is cut, and I was very glad to see a gentleman appear before this com- 
 mittee, as to whose industry there was real competition, and say that 
 he was satisfied and willing to face the market and fight. I was not 
 reflecting on your business, but I just had in mind the fact that you 
 had over 50 per cent competition, but thought you could hold your 
 own, while men representing industries with only 2 or 3 per cent 
 competition say that if there was a cut they would be ruined. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Yes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Now, what I want to ask you to do, if you will be 
 good enough to do it for the benefit of the committee, is to differ- 
 entiate between the class of goods contained in paragraphs 93 and 94 
 and 92. Will you explain to me the difference between the classes of 
 goods contained in those paragraphs ? In other words, what class of 
 goods is there in paragraph 92, and then I wish you would describe 
 the class of goods in the other paragraphs. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. In the brief, do you mean? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. No; I would like you to do so now. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. In paragraph 92 we have common yellow ware 
 that is, the ordinary cheap cooking ware of a very low grade. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Is that a sample of it [indicating ware in Mr. 
 Burgess's hand] ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. No; that is high grade. 
 
 Mr. LONG WORTH. Is that the higher grade? 
 
606 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 92-94 POTTEBY. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. That is the higher grade. This common yellow 
 ware is made of crude yellow clay, without any admixture. It is 
 thrown together in a rough way by a cheaper class of labor. Common 
 brown ware is the same. We do not have any common gray ware 
 that I know of. Plain and embossed, of course, refer to the shape of 
 the goods. Salt-glazed common stoneware is what is known as the 
 common vinegar jug or crock. That is made of a clay that is vitri- 
 fiable. It becomes like that stone [indicating], without any other 
 admixture. In the firing the salt is introduced, and the fumes of the 
 salt attach to the silica of the body and form a glaze, which is another 
 cheap product. Then, earthenware, stoneware, and stoneware cruci- 
 bles are similar, and so on. That is of a cheap, common grade of 
 stuff. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is that such tableware as is used by the plain peo- 
 ple of the country ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. No. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. It is not tableware ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. No; it is nothing at all. The common yellow ware 
 is made into cooking vessels of various kinds, pie plates, and common 
 yellow bowls, and articles of that kind, that are used in every house- 
 hold, in the kitchen, for culinary purposes largely, and they could 
 use one of those pie plates to eat from, if they wanted to do so, 
 as there is nothing to hinder them, but it does not come hi as a table 
 article at all. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What is the very low-grade class of tableware; 
 is there much competition in regard to that to-day ? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. From abroad ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. There is not so much competition on the cheapest 
 grade of stuiF, which is known as CC ware. That is a ware of a 
 cheaper grade than this [indicating]. "CC" stands for cream color. 
 That is an old name. They now put stain in it, and it is almost as 
 white as the best ware, but it is of a cheap quality of clay. That line 
 is included in paragraphs 03 and 94 as earthenware, but there is no 
 way of differentiating between that and this article [indicating] and 
 the others from that up. There is no possible way, because one sim- 
 ply merges into the other. 
 
 Mr. LONG WORTH. Have you anything here that would come under 
 paragraph 92 '. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. No, sir; I have not. 
 
 Mr. Dixox. Are you the same gentleman who appeared here four 
 or five years ago. when the Payne bill was under consideration? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Dixox. I notice that you gave the price of labor abroad at that 
 time at about the same figure as you give it now. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Dixox. Have you made an investigation at the present time? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Yes" 
 
 Mr. Dixox. Since the hearings before? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Yes. I had my figures corroborated by the man- 
 ager of one of the English manufacturers. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 607 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94r-POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. DIXON. You will observe that many of the figures you give 
 to-day are the same as they were before. 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. I have not compared them, because I made this 
 report up independently from 
 
 Mr. DIXON. The hearings before? 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. No; from an investigation since that tune. 
 
 Mr. DIXON. That is all. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That is all, Mr. Burgess. We are much obliged 
 to you. 
 
 STATEMENT OF E. H. PITKIN, OF CHICAGO. 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I consider myself lucky 
 to have anybody to talk to. 
 
 I represent and am a member of a committee of the largest whole- 
 sale dealers of pottery and crockery and earthenware and china in 
 the United States. I have had the pleasure of appearing before this 
 august body at the time of the consideration of the Dingley bill, at 
 the time of the Payne bill, and now this bill, and the situation having 
 changed a little, it is our hope that our plea may possibly receive a 
 little more consideration. 
 
 I wish to emphasize a few things and to correct, possibly, a few 
 statements that were made by our chairman, Mr. Jones, who was, 
 perhaps, not fully posted on all the things that the gentlemen of the 
 committee asked him about. Mr. Jones is the Nestor of our trade. 
 He is a most able man. He is 75 years old. Necessarily some of the 
 details he does not attend to quite as closely as he used to. I am 
 not so very much younger myself, but I am still in the ring and am 
 familiar with all that goes on in my own business. I have to be, as 
 I am the only partner. 
 
 I have been in the business forty-one years, and I am not a free 
 trader. I believe in the protection of American industries. I be- 
 lieve they should be protected. I believe those that have been built 
 up under a protective tariff should be protected and the duty not 
 unnecessarily reduced. But I also believe and have believed for some 
 time that the duty on earthenware, particularly, is unnecessarily 
 high, and for this reason. The American potters, by reason of their 
 proximity to the trade, their ability to ship in carload lots, avoid the 
 necessity of expensive packages. English earthenware is brought in 
 in very expensive packages. Entry, including the cost of the pack- 
 age in crates you nave all seen the crates and know what they are 
 with 60 per cent duty added to it, and the freight and so on, costs 
 almost $7 apiece. All you can use them for practically is to sell 
 them to ship cabbage in at 50 cents' apiece, and very often we cut 
 them up and burn them. 
 
 It adds really a considerable percentage to the actual tariff. The 
 tariff is 60 per cent, and we figure that the tariff instead of being 60 
 per cent often comes up to 80 per cent on different lines of goods, on 
 more bulky goods. 
 
 I am a merchant. I am not a manufacturer, except that I am a 
 manufacturer of cut glass, and I had to smile at some things I heard 
 
608 TAEIFF HEABITSrGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94^POTTERY. 
 
 here yesterday. I buy in the cheapest market. I buy for cash. I 
 buy domestic goods. I am not prejudiced against domestic goods. 
 As a matter of fact, I can make more money on domestic goods than 
 I can on the English earthenware. But I have sold English earthen- 
 ware, man and boy, for 50 years, and it is somewhat better finished 
 than the American ware, and there is a demand for it, and I think 
 that it must be allowed to come in at a reasonable price. 
 
 I was just figuring over as I sat here. I have not made any brief. 
 Mr. Jones made our brief, but I can furnish any figures that anybody 
 wants. I can dig them up. I was just figuring here on a cup and 
 saucer. Everybody knows what a cup and saucer is. The ordinary 
 cup and saucer, white cup and saucer, that every mechanic uses, the 
 poorest families the trouble up in Chicago is they want to buy them 
 so cheap that we can not make anything on them but I can buy a 
 good quality of American full-sized cup and saucer for 50.4 cents a 
 dozen. Where is that white plate that was here? Has that been 
 carried off ? If I can just look at that a minute. 
 
 I have four minutes left. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We will allow you a reasonable time. 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. Mr. Pitcairn will agree with me that this is the best 
 granite made in the world, so far as I know. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Which piece is that ? 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. That is the English piece. 
 
 Now, that is K. T. & K. This is one of the best Americanproducts. 
 Isn't that so, Burgess ? And we use K. T. & K.'s goods. Ihave got 
 a little something I want to say about that a little later if I have the 
 time. We do not use this firm's white ware, but we use white ware 
 that is, perhaps, not as good as this. I don't think this is quite as 
 good, but it is a very good white ware and answers the purpose very 
 well, and the ordinary user probably does not know the difference. 
 
 I can buy those American cups and saucers for 50.4 cents a dozen, 
 and the cups and saucers from this factory landed will not be 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The same class of ware ? 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. Well, they are white ware. One is English and the 
 Dther is American. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I mean it is the same class of ware ? 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. The same class of ware; yes. They cost me landed 76 
 cents. They cost me 50 per cent more than the other. I would like 
 to know how anybody can defend Mr. Burgess or Mr. Wells, who are 
 awful smart men, or anybody else how they can claim that they need 
 so much duty. Why make the consumer pay for the English article 
 based on a cost of 76 cents, where they are willing to sell the American 
 article, and I have got them in my store to-day, and get them by the 
 carload. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Seventy-six cents duty paid, or 76 cents net? 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. Duty paid, 3.75 pounds sterling. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. How much more will they sell for in this market? 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. Well, sir, we have continued to sell and we are selling 
 to-day these cups and saucers for 5 pounds sterling a dollar a 
 dozen. We sell them for a dollar a dozen. We have been selling these 
 [indicating] for Go cents a dozen. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. State what you mean so that it will appear in the 
 record. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 609 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. We have been selling the English for a dollar a dozen, 
 and we have been selling the domestic for 65 cents, but we are going 
 to ask more for them. Why? Because the domestic people have 
 advanced their price, according to their statement, because they have 
 not made money enough, so they have advanced their price about 5 
 per cent within 60 days. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. What is there better about the English article than the 
 other, to the average American citizen, in what way, for eating 
 breakfast on ? 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. That is best answered, I think, in this way: The 
 importation of the English ware has declined from 120,000 crates 
 down to 35,000. It had declined from four million and a half in 1893 
 or 1894 or 1890, along there, to about 2,000,000 in 1912. The Ameri- 
 can public have found out that they could buy the American goods 
 so much cheaper that they are buying them, and they will not pay 
 us the difference. You know, Mr. Payne, that there is a certain trade- 
 mark in everything. There is a difference in the minds of the public. 
 They do not always know what stuff is worth. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. But why really should they not pay the difference ? 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. In the nrst place the goods are somewhat better. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. How are they better? Do they last longer? Are 
 they tougher, or do they look any better, or how are they better ? 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. That is the reason why the sale of English ware has 
 so declined, because people are not experts; they do not see much 
 difference, and so they buy them. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Yet they keep on talking about the high cost of 
 living. I should think they would buy American ware, if they want 
 the cheaper. 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. My tune is up. 
 
 The sale of English goods is declining, and has declined more rapidly 
 in 1911 and 1912. We are one of the largest importers of earthen- 
 ware, china, and glass in the United States. We have got a large 
 stock, and we are like Jones, you know, and Kinley, of Cleveland. 
 My business in English earthenware has declined a great deal more 
 rapidly in 1911 and 1912 than ever before. When we sell a pattern 
 of English earthenware to a country merchant we sell him in the 
 crate. It is a stock pattern. It is something that he puts in and 
 sells, a dozen cups or sells the whole set, a little set, or a larger set, 
 to a woman, and she likes it, and she comes back for it, and there is a 
 demand for it for years to come, and for that reason we like to sell 
 the English ware, because it is good, and because people come back 
 to get it. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. If people are foolish enough to pay that difference 
 I do not see why they should not pay it, and pay the revenue on the 
 foreign goods. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. You said a moment ago that the American 
 ware had been advanced in price. Do you think that they were able 
 to make that advance because of the tariff against the English goods ? 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. No ; I think it is because they did not take advantage 
 of the tariffs that they had, and they were foolish enough to sell it 
 too cheap. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 39 
 
610 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94r POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You know there is a large line of goods where people 
 buy foreign goods in preference to American goods at the same price ? 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. So much so that in 1890 the manufacturers came here 
 and asked Congress to compel them to put a brand on their goods, 
 because they said they were getting hurt in their trade by the selling 
 of foreign goods instead of domestic goods, and that has been kept 
 in the tariff ever since, and was put there at the request of Amer- 
 ican manufacturers on a showing before the committee in 1890. 
 This seems to be a monopoly of the trade. 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. Yes. 
 
 There is another gentleman here whose time I want him to have. 
 I want to correct just one or two things said this morning. Mr. Long- 
 worth told me yesterday, when I met him in the hall and asked 
 him a question. He said, "Don't ask me; ask the Democrats; 
 they have got it all their own way." But he said on freights you 
 claim, you merchants, that the American manufacturer is at a disad- 
 vantage in freights, and that is not so. They spoke about the ocean 
 freights being 8 cents a hundred. That is past history. Ocean 
 freights are 25 cents a hundred. 
 
 Another thing, there is no through import rate as there used to 
 be, I am sorry to say, on English goods from Liverpool to Chicago. 
 
 I used to bring a car of English ware to Chicago, weighing 1,000 
 pounds, for $1.80. Now it costs me $4.50. So that this through 
 rate that Mr. Burgess speaks of is done away with. It is not there. 
 And now, mind you, it costs me about I believe I am not sworn 
 but the freights from Liverpool to Chicago are about 45 cents a hun- 
 dred now. I can buy the same kind of earthenware from Liver- 
 pool 
 
 Mr. BURGESS. Do you know what the rate is from Liverpool to 
 Chicago? It is about 41 cents. It costs me about 41 cents from 
 Liverpool to Chicago. It costs me about 21 cents from New York to 
 Chicago, and 41 cents from Liverpool to Chicago, and in crates, 
 whereas there is no package charge, so you see that the bugaboo is 
 played out. It is not true. 
 
 Mr. HILL. According to your statement you can buy a dozen cups 
 and saucers, American make, at 50.4 cents, and it costs you 76 cents 
 for the English ? 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. As a matter of fact, they are substantially of the same 
 quality? 
 
 Mr. PITKIX. I say the English is somewhat better. 
 
 Mr. HILL. As a matter of fact, then, in consequence of this tariff 
 the American people are only paying 3 cents advance instead of 
 26 cents, and the other is practically a revenue duty, according to 
 your own figures. The American manufacturer is not taking ad- 
 vantage of that duty if he is selling you that dozen cups and saucers 
 at 26.6 cents less than you can buy the English? 
 
 Mr. PITKIX. He certainly is not. 
 
 Mr. HILL. It is simply a question of how much revenue the Govern- 
 ment will get out of these people who prefer to buy the English goods. 
 The American manufacturer is not taking advantage of this cut, 
 according to your statement ? 
 
SCHEDULE B. 611 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94^-POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. No. 
 
 Mr. HILL. It is simply a revenue proposition ? 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. "U hy should the Government want to put all the rev- 
 enue onto a little industry and compel the people to pay a much larger 
 price than they need to pay, or shut the entire product out of the 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. HILL. They do not pay any more than if there was no duty, 
 and the industry is carried on in this country, and it is simply the fad 
 of having the English product, and let those who have the fad and 
 want to cultivate it, to educate it, pay the 26 cents. 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. I think they do Mr. Hill, and if the duty was lower they 
 would not have to pay so much. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Has the ^Englishman raised his price because of the duty 
 here or lowered it ? 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. There has been very little change in the English price. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Then they do not pay any more ? 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. For some time, but they have recently, within 60 days, 
 raised their price on account of the increase of the price of material 
 over there. I do not always believe what a manufacturer told me 
 about raising the price of materials. I like to judge that myself. 
 I am pretty well acquainted with the firm of Johnson Bros., and 
 there is not a better firm on earth. They assured me, and I am sure 
 they told the truth, that the increase in gold and in all kinds of ma- 
 terial had obliged them to raise the price. Do you suppose they would 
 have raised the price in the face of American competition if tney had 
 not had to ? They are not such idiots as that ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is that all ? 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. May I just say one word on French china? There was 
 a little talk about French china here this afternoon. I am an im- 
 porter of French china. I buy direct. I buy of one firm from 
 50,000 to 100,000 francs, my total purchase of French china. I 
 buy it as cheap as I can land it in New York. If I can say one more 
 word, I think that the French manufacturers are being persecuted. 
 I know them personally. I have not the slightest doubt but what 
 they are honest men. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Would you not feel a little better if you knew they 
 were paying duty on fair valuation all of them ? 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. I do not believe that 1 per cent of the French china 
 coming into the United States does not pay a proper duty, and the 
 United States Government has not got a single case against a French 
 manufacturer not one. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Thev have had many cases. 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. And got beat. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. They were running away from indictment, you know. 
 
 Mr. PITKIN. Only one man ran away from indictment, and if he 
 had stayed here his la\yyer said he would have cleared him, and that 
 was not French china; it was German china or Austrian china. They 
 are all in the same boat. 
 
612 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JEROME JONES, OF BOSTON, MASS. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What paragraph do you refer to, Mr. Jones ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Paragraphs 92, 93, and 94. 
 
 The committee, of which I am one, consisting of Mr. Pitkin, of 
 Chicago, and Mr. Kinney, of Cleveland, Ohio, represents the whole- 
 salers of earthenware, china, and glass in this country, representing 
 about $25,000,000 invested, and embracing every trade center from 
 the Atlantic Coast to the Pacific and the Gulf. They sell imported 
 ware and American-made ware, and they come in contact through 
 their commercial travelers with every retail and wholesale center in 
 the United States. Therefore they feel the pulse of the consumer, 
 without exception, in all of these trade centers, and therefore we feel 
 that what we have to say and have go on record is worthy of consid- 
 eration of any one in authority who has the interest of the consumer at 
 heart. 
 
 Within the last few weeks there has been a decided advance in the 
 selling value of American pottery and also of English pottery. Sea 
 freights have nearly doubled since I testified before your committee 
 previously, and we feel that the revenue of the country is an impor- 
 tant matter and without considering the revenue, what would be 
 a fair protection ? They go hand in hand. We think with a reason- 
 able protection the revenue will be increased and the American con- 
 sumer will have the benefit of competition. We think the retail 
 dealer and the consumer have a right to fair competition, and without 
 taking up further time I will simply read the brief we have prepared 
 and signed, and will hold myself subject to answer any question that 
 may solve any doubt, upon which we are able to throw light. 
 
 A committee of three of us have been authorized by a convention 
 of delegates to represent those experienced in importing, wholesaling, 
 and retailing earthenware, china, and glass in all the States of the 
 Union. Their experience, however, is not confined entirely to im- 
 ported wares, as all of us deal largely in American wares for the same 
 use, which gives us the experience as to the comparative value and 
 desirability of both products. Our committee have appeared before 
 the Ways and Means Committee at hearings four years ago and prior 
 to that, all of which are on record. None of those we represent are 
 biased because of any ownership in either foreign or American pot- 
 teries. We feel that the measures of protection provided for in the 
 act of August 2S, 1894, known as the Wilson Act, to wit, 30 and 35 
 per cent, were ample for the purpose of securing that measure of pro- 
 tection which is demanded by reason of the difference in the cost of 
 labor and materials with a reasonable profit added. 
 
 Crockery is a necessity to every family in the land. None so poor 
 that it can do without it; the farmer, the artisan; in brief, every- 
 body. We feel that relief by means of a substantial reduction of 
 tariff duties should be seriously considered on behalf of the American 
 consumer. The high cost of living will be reduced by giving the con- 
 sumer the benefit of competition. As dealers we continually feel the 
 pulse of the consuming public, and we believe that unnecessary tariff 
 burdens are being imposed. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 613 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 The manufacture of American wares in our line has ceased to be 
 an infant industry. It is now able to compete even without any 
 protective tariff on the common lines of earthenware. In fact, more 
 than two-thirds of the product used in this country is American 
 made. On some of the higher grades they are not yet able to com- 
 pete with the more skillful makers abroad, who have had longer 
 experience. 
 
 English earthenware is now dutiable at 55 per cent on white and 
 60 per cent on decorated, but adding the costly outside packages neces- 
 sary to the conveyance of fragile wares, and dutiable at the same rate 
 as contents, together with the inland freight to the foreign port and 
 sea freight to the American port, marine insurance, etc., brings what 
 appears to be 55 and 60 per cent duty to 75 and 95 per cent. If the 
 tariff were reduced to 30 per cent instead of 55 and 60 per cent, the 
 consumer would enjoy the benefit and a substantial revenue be pro- 
 duced for the Government. 
 
 The pottery industry in the United States is growing rapidly; new 
 kilns are being added in several of the pottery centers, notwithstand- 
 ing the prospect of a reduction hi the tariff tax. We have the evi- 
 dence or the American potters themselves that their business is 
 f rowing rapidly, and they expect to meet the competition of Europe, 
 will quote the words of Mr. W. E. Wells on the occasion of the annual 
 session of the United States Potters' Association, convened at the 
 Raleigh Hotel, Washington, in December, 1905, to wit: 
 
 It should be a source of much satisfaction to the officers and members of this asso- 
 ciation that we are just about to close a business year in which the volume of produc- 
 tion of the general ware potteries has considerably exceeded that of any previous 
 year. In view of the low prices prevailing, especially during the first few months, 
 this showing should be considered remarkable. 
 
 Again he said: 
 
 We can hardly determine at this time just how much of this increase may be the 
 result of stimulation from low prices, and how much may be due to the greatly 
 improved business conditions of the country as compared with 1904. While there 
 are some who still express dissatisfaction at prevailing conditions, there is unques- 
 tionably a much better feeling throughout the industry than there was a year ago 
 and a considerably increased number of firms will close the business of this year 
 with a showing on the right side. 
 
 He also said: 
 
 The British importation in total of $3,800,000 is 33J per cent less than the importa- 
 tion from that country for the year 1895, 10 years ago and it would seem from these 
 statistics that the American potter is in a fair way to win the home market for W. G. 
 wares and P. G. wares, plain and decorated. 
 
 Then he said: 
 
 The French china will doubtless continue to hold its place in the affections of the 
 American people for many years to come, but the domestic pottery is rapidly becom- 
 ing a competitor of the German on the fancy goods. The improved facilities for 
 decorating introduced in recent years have revolutionized the product and the pos- 
 sibilities in commercial pottery and our people are beginning to realize that they 
 are able to produce fancy goods in a style and at a price 
 
 Mind you 
 
 to fairly compete with anything from Europe. 
 
614 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94^-POTTERY. 
 
 These were the words of the president of the United States Pot- 
 ters' Association, Mr. W. E. Wells, again president of the associa- 
 tion in 1906, who made the following remarks: 
 
 If volume of business alone means prosperity to the American potter, the members 
 of this association have abundant reason for feeling satisfied with the results of the 
 year just closing. 
 
 While these quotations from Mr. Wells at the annual convention 
 was several years ago, no one can doubt but what the volume of 
 business has largely increased, and many new kilns are being built. 
 
 Mr. H. D. Wintringer, of Steubenville, Ohio, president of the 
 United States Potters' Association, at their annual meeting at Pitts- 
 burgh in November last, said: 
 
 As an organization we have grown steadily and safely over a period of more than a 
 third of a century until now we are producing in our own lines probably seventeen 
 millions worth of finished product. A study of the Government's statistics for the 
 past three years reveals some satisfactory information, chief of which is the authentic 
 report of the total importations for the last Government fiscal year, which were 
 $9,997,689 as compared with $11,411,665 for the previous period. 
 
 An attempt was made some years ago, when the Dingley bill was 
 pending, to ingraft an absurd provision in the form of a compound 
 duty. The effect would have proved confusing and prohibitive, but 
 it failed when scrutinized in the Senate. At that time telegrams were 
 rushed in upon Senators and Members of the House from the various 
 potteries in Ohio and New Jersey, saying that unless compound duty 
 were provided, raising the tariff above the rates finally adopted "the 
 pottery industry in this country would be paralyzed and the smoke 
 from the tall chimneys would cease to rise." The crusade to ingraft 
 specific or compound duties so much per hundred pounds, avoirdupois, 
 and also an ad valorem attached, would have been impracticable and 
 absurd. The compound duty was eliminated, and what happened? 
 No paralysis of the pottery industry, the smoke continued to rise 
 from the tall chimneys, many new kilns have been built and the 
 industry has progressed. 
 
 We believe in a simple ad valorem duty, understood by all, that 
 will be fully and fairly collected. 
 
 The rate* of duty has been increased 10 per cent in 1784-1794, 20 
 per cent in 1816-1842, 24 per cent in 1857-1861, 40 per cent in 1864- 
 1883, 55 por cent to 60 per cent under present law, plus the duty on 
 the cost of outside packages and the geographical protection given by 
 bringing goods from such distant points justifies our making for a 
 substantial reduction in the tariff tax. 
 
 Let me mention the fact of the steady diminution in the importation 
 from Liverpool for the last 10 years and more, for example: 
 
 In 1895, 121,374 crates and 'casks; 10 years later, in 1905, 45,896 
 crates and casks: 1911, 35,620 crates and casks. 
 
 During the last 10 years the importations of French, German, and 
 Austrian china have, on the whole, remained about stationary, in some 
 years showing a slight increase, in others a decrease. It is from the fact 
 that they make a class of translucent china in tableware that satisfies 
 the pride of the farmer's wife and daughter. A plate held up to the 
 light shows its translucency, and, while it is really china, it is made 
 in such quantities and so attractively that it has its place in the pride 
 of those who want something better than the ordinary opaque ware. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 615 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 In reference to the sale and use of English pottery, it is observed 
 that the importations in 1911 were practically the same volume in 
 Canada as to the United States, $2,000,000 to each country in value. 
 In the United States these $2,000,000 paid a duty of 60 per cent plus 
 freights and expenses, while into Canada the duty was only 15 per 
 cent, thus saving the Canadian consumer more than a million dollars. 
 
 We have formulated with great care a reclassification of what should 
 be assessed at the low rate and that which should be assessed at the 
 higher rate, recommending duty on the commonest, of which there 
 is very little imported, as follows : 
 
 Paragraph 92. Common yellow, brown, red, or gray earthenware, brown stoneware; 
 plain, embossed, or salt glazed. Stoneware and crucibles, all the foregoing, not deco- 
 rated in any manner, 10 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Page 93: China, porcelain, bisque, and Parian ware composed of a nonabsorbent 
 and translucent body, not specially provided for, including clock cases with or without 
 movements, and all other articles composed wholly or in chief value of such ware, 
 all of the foregoing plain, embossed, or decorated in any manner, 35 per centum ad 
 valorem. 
 
 Page 94: Earthenware, stoneware, crockery, white granite, and semiporcelain, 
 Rockingham, jet, and Samian ware, whether or not vitrified in whole or in part, or 
 whether or not composed of a hard opaque but porous body, capable of absorbing 
 moisture, including plates, cups, saucers and other articles or pieces, such as are 
 commonly used in breakfast, dinner, tea, and similar table sets, toilet sets, hotel 
 ware; pill tiles, clock cases, with or without movements, plaques, ornaments, toys, 
 vases, statues, statuettes, mugs, steins, and lamps, together with all other articles 
 composed wholly or in chief value of such ware, all of the foregoing, plain, embossed 
 or decorated in any manner, 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 We recommend a somewhat higher duty on translucent china, 
 believing that, in adhering to the ad valorem duty, it is a fair tax, 
 readily understood by all. For example, a cheap china dinner set 
 of 130 pieces, if it cost $10, at 35 per cent the duty would be $3.50. If 
 it is a richly decorated service, costing $100, the duty would be $35, 
 as against $3.50 for the cheaper one, which figures out the ad valorem 
 method logically. 
 
 This reclassification between china and earthenware would elimi- 
 nate ambiguities which often lead to litigation and long delays in 
 liquidating an entry. We have talked with those who are familiar 
 with the appraiser's work, and it is agreed that this would be a 
 reasonable and desirable change in assessing duties. 
 
 We can give you any necessary statistics on the comparative cost 
 between products of earthenware and china in this country, and also 
 of foreign wares which compete, and will supply them, if you desire it, 
 over pur signature. 
 
 This is signed by Mr. E. H. Pitkin of Chicago, Mr. George W. 
 Kirmey of Cleveland, and myself. We have all been in the whole- 
 saling of ware, both American and foreign, for our lifetime. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions, gentlemen ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. I would like to asK a question or two. 
 
 What is the import price of dinner sets of 100 pieces that retail here 
 for $25 ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, there are so many different kinds and different 
 makes. I should say that a dinner set that would wholesale for $15 
 would retail for $25. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. On that $15 wholesale price dinner set what is the 
 import price ? 
 
616 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94^-POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. JONES. I think if the wholesaler is able to make 10 to 12.5 per 
 cent he is satisfied. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What are the cheapest dinner sets that are imported ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. That depends, of course, on how many pieces. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Say a dinner set of 100 pieces. 
 
 Mr. JONES. One hundred and thirty pieces is rather large. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I say 100 pieces. 
 
 Mr. JONES. Will you let me get your question better ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I say how cheap is the cheapest class of dinner sets 
 of 100 pieces that are imported? 
 
 Mr. JONES. You mean with some decoration ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. No; not decorated. 
 
 Mr. JONES. That would be white ware. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. White ware; yes, under paragraph 92. 
 
 Mr. JONES. I should say $4.80. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. $4.80. I mean the cost of the white. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Under paragraph 94, china porcelain, white and 
 plain brown, comes in at 55 per cent. Of that class of goods some are 
 imported as low as how much? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I should think, for an offhand answer, $4.80 would be 
 the cheapest. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Under paragraph 94, including the white and plain 
 brown, there were imported in 1912 one million eleven thousand and 
 some few hundred dollars' worth. What proportion of that would 
 you say would be dinner sets of 100 pieces on which the import price 
 would not be in excess of 10 ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Do you mean under paragraph 94 ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Ninety-four that is. plain white and plain brown, 
 not decorated and not painted. In 1912 we imported a little over a 
 million dollars' worth, a million and eleven thousand dollars. What 
 proportion of that would be dinner sets of 100 pieces, the import price 
 of which would not exceed $10 ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I would say your figures there would be my answer 
 about a million dollars worth, or a million and a half dollars perhaps. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. So that practically all of that which came in, in your 
 opinion, would be dinner sets the import price of which would not 
 exceed S10? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, in that classification. Some lines are verv cheap 
 and others are better. Some are double the lowest price, I mean. 
 It varies, according to decoration. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. These are undecorated. 
 
 Mr. JONES. Oh; plain white? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. The plain white; yes. We imported, as I say 
 SI, 01 1,000 worth last year. What proportion of that would you say 
 cost under $10 a set, import price? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Nearly half of it, 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What proportion cost not to exceed $5? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I could not classify that so as to give an answer that I 
 would feel was intelligent. I never have seen it classified. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Is there any considerable portion of those dinner 
 sets that come in the import price of which would be four and five 
 dollars ? 
 
SCHEDULE B. 617 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. JONES. Oh, yes; I think there is a considerable portion of 
 them. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Of the plain white? 
 
 Mr. JONES. No; not the plain white. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What do you mean when you say a considerable 
 portion ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I mean what would be called the lower grade of deco- 
 rated ware. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Decorated ware ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is decorated ware cheaper than plain white ware ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes, and no. Decorated ware is made cheaper because 
 on the pieces that are selected for decoration oftentimes they decorate 
 over blemishes. In the hard firing of pottery, little blemishes, little 
 bits of blisters, which you might not detect, but which I should 
 detect, occur, and they can print right over those little blemishes; 
 so that they can produce decorated ware oftentimes cheaper on that 
 account, because they cover up some of the little imperfections. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I see in 1912 we imported of decorated china, 
 chinaware, decorated, painted, etc., about $8,000,000 worth. What 
 proportion of that would be dinner sets whose import price would not 
 be in excess of $25 ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, that would involve the whole decorated output, 
 I suppose. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. JONES. That runs all the way from sets that would cost $15 
 to $30 to $40 and upward. In that case "the punishment to fit 
 the crime" no matter how high the cost of the set, the ad valorem 
 duty would reach 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN (interposing). I understand that. What I am get- 
 ting at is this: Was all of this $8,000,000 worth of imports high-priced 
 china? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Not necessarily. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What proportion would you say of that was dinner 
 sets that exceeded $25 import price ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I should think it was a third of it. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. About a third ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Or a quarter of it, I should say, because the great mass 
 that comes in is for the middle class the class that can not afford 
 high-priced sets. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You think the greater proportion of that is china 
 that is imported for the middle classes ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Surely. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do the manufacturers in this country make any high- 
 class china ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. , 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do they make china that would wholesale to exceed 
 $50 a set ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. It is made by several potters. I have in mind a potter 
 that makes ware up on the level of the high-cost decorations, and they 
 are successful. They do not have a large output, but they are suc- 
 cessfully competing and have an output that satisfies the customer 
 who wants a high-class decorated set. They are successfully com- 
 peting now, but only two or three potteries. 
 
618 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94^-POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How are those sets classified? They are composed 
 of how many pieces 75, 100, 112, or 115? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, the answer to that is that where we import a great 
 many sets we have to import an open stock, so that a customer can 
 buy anything he wants to. He is not obliged to confine himself to a set. 
 You could hardly find a woman customer who would want exactly the 
 same combination of pieces, so that the class of dealers to which I 
 belong have to have an open stock. We carry an open stock to satisfy 
 any retail customer or wholesale customer. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You do not always buy them in sets ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Not necessarily; not one-half are imported in sets. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. But what is the rule, that they do or do not ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Oh, a good proportion of them will buy dinner sets. 
 Then they patch them up afterwards 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN (interposing) . What are the wholesale classifications in 
 this country of dinner sets and tea sets ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, it may be 100 or it may be 110 or it may be 130. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. They have a regular number of pieces for different 
 sets, do they not ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. As a rule; yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What is the general rule ? What is the number of 
 pieces ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, plates, cups, saucers, and meat dishes 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN (interposing) . I know, but how many in a set ? You 
 see them advertising a dinner set of 100 pieces or 115 pieces or 130 
 pieces ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, it is according to the fancy of the dealer and the 
 fancy of his customer. There is no absolute formulae as to what a 
 dinner set should be. Some think it ought to be larger on plates and 
 some less; some think it ought to be larger on platters and less on 
 pitchers, and so forth. There is no cookbook rule about it. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Do you deal in any of the articles in paragraph 
 92? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes, sir: but we do not import any, because they are 
 made cheaper here. You take the common yellow ware and things 
 that go into the kitchen and the American market has had those for 
 years. We can not import. Any importer that would import those 
 lines and pay the duty, they would want him in a dime museum 
 as a curiosity. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH, Are any of the articles enumerated in paragraph 
 92 a substantial part of your business ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I beg your pardon ? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Are any of the articles enumerated in paragraph 
 
 92 a substantial part of your business ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Oh, yes; we get them by the carload from the Ohio 
 potteries, and have for several years. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. What you import all comes in under paragraphs 
 
 93 and 94 ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Do you buy in the open market abroad ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 619 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Do you represent any particular firms, any 
 English firms ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. No; we buy where we can buy cheapest. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You do not act as agent for any firms ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. No; and never have. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. What proportion of those articles in paragraphs 
 93 and 94, dinner sets and things of that sort, of the amount that you 
 sell do you import ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. That might be answered in two ways. It might be in 
 dinner sets or it might be in what we call open stock, from which to 
 make up dinner sets, according to the fancy of the retailer we sell to. 
 There is no formula for dinner sets except according to the fancy of 
 the dealer or his customer. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Do you sell mostly American ware or foreign 
 ware ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I think the majority of the ware we sell is foreign ware, 
 although we deal largely in American ware. We get American ware 
 at the potteries by the carload. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You buy direct from the potteries ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. On the average, which do you get the most for in 
 the market, the American or the foreign ware, of the same quality ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I should say we get most for the foreign ware. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. In other words, does not the foreign ware, the 
 same thing, if made abroad, sell for a greater price here than the 
 American ware ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes, sir; because it is better ware, better potting, and 
 it sells on its merits. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You think it is better ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I know it is. I have been in the business 50 years. 
 Why, a blind man could take a plate, for example, of American ware 
 and feel around the edge or feel the face of it, and he can find the 
 roughness of it, while with the best foreign potteries a blind man can 
 feel around the edge and he would say that that was a good article. 
 There is no doubt about the merit of the manufacture of it, although 
 there is some American ware made here very well. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Then the American manufacturer has not learned 
 to do it as well as the foreign manufacturer ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I think he is largely in the hands of the potters. I 
 think they control it. They say, "You make so and so or we will 
 lay down our tools and quit." 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You mean the potters' union? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Are there any unions abroad? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I think there are unions abroad, but not under any 
 such iron rules. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You think the American potters are at a disad- 
 vantage on account of union labor ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. In that respect I do. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. So that the American potter is at a disadvantage 
 not only in the size of wage that he has to pay, but is also at a dis- 
 advantage on account of the union rules ? 
 
620 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94r POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. JONE. Yes, sir; we call it the oligarchy of labor, if you please, 
 or tyranny of labor, whatever that may be. If I was an American 
 workman I would want to get all that I could, and I would want to 
 get the shortest hours I could. I recognize that, and I would be so 
 if I was an American workman. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Then, of course, under those circumstances, 
 without a substantial duty, it would be utterly impossible for any 
 American manufacturer to exist? 
 
 Mr. JONES. No; I think they are getting along with it. They 
 have a market for their product. We are among their customers. 
 Those things right themselves. The American workingman will see 
 his duty and his interest, the longer he lives, and it is going to be a 
 question of master against labor, finally. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You think the unions will modify the strictness 
 of their rules ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I do. I think they are intelligent enough to do that. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. What I asked you was if, under those circum- 
 stances, the American industries could exist without a substantial 
 duty. 
 
 Mr. JONES. I think that is so in many lines. In many of the other 
 lines they do not need any duty whatever. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I am speaking of the fairly high-grade lines 
 which compete. 
 
 Mr. JONES. I think they need reasonable protection. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. How much of the American consumption of 
 to-day, let us say, of dinner sets, is imported and how much of it is 
 homemade ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I could answer that better from statistics; however, I 
 know we deal largely in both, and more particularly in the foreign 
 ware, because it suits the trade better. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. As a matter of fact, there is a great deal more 
 foreign dinner ware sold here than there is American ware ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I think so, excepting the poorer classes. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. A little while ago you spoke of reducing the duty 
 in order to restore competition. 
 
 Mr. JONES. Surely. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Do you not think there is competition here now, 
 where a majority of the American consumption is imported? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I do not think the majority of the American consump- 
 tion is imported. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You just said it was. 
 
 Mr. JONES. Then you misunderstood me. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. lie said of the high-class articles. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. What do you call high class ? At what price ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. That is difficult to answer. You take the cheaper 
 grades for family use and you could not import anything more 
 salable. There are cheap lines in foreign ware. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Yes. In other words, there is competition right 
 through, is there not ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. There is competition right through and there always 
 will be. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You spoke of restoring competition. Now, you 
 are admitting that there is competition. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 621 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 952-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. JONES. Of course there is competition. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Then why should you want to restore it ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. A large part of the foreign ware that we deal in would 
 come in anyway, because it is made much cheaper and the American 
 potters have a great advantage in freight. I am glad you brought 
 that out. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Yes. I would like to hear what you have to say 
 about it. 
 
 Mr. JONES. For example, we buy in East Liverpool in carload lots. 
 They pack that in a box car without any packing whatever, except 
 just the straw. That box car will hold, we will say, 60 crates. That 
 comes to our warehouse and is unloaded without any cost of packing. 
 Now compare that with the foreign article which must be packed ia 
 costly outside packages, because of the fragile nature of its contents, 
 and the duty is the same on that costly outside package as it is on 
 the contents. You will see the advantage the American potter has 
 in selling us where the packages are of no value and of no cost to him. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Do you mean to say as a general thing that the 
 rate on American pottery is less than the rate on English pottery ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. The freight ? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Yes. 
 
 Mr. JONES. When you take into consideration the fact that they 
 pack it in carload lots, decidedly so. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. We have had testimony precisely to the contrary, 
 to the effect that the rate on English pottery from Liverpool to points 
 inland is less, the whole entire rate, than the rate on American pottery 
 for one-tenth of the distance. 
 
 Mr. JONES. That existed several years ago. The rate, for example, 
 to Baltimore was very much less than it is now. Sea freights have 
 advanced very much. The rate of freight that has been alluded to 
 here ceased to exist. It is a high rate now. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I think I can turn to that testimony now. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. In Mr. Wells's testimony. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I think I can find that. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do you deal in both foreign and domestic pottery? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. What is the amount of your sales, annually ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. About a million dollars. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. What is the average per cent of profit on your sales ? 
 Do you have any objection to stating that to the committee ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. On our sales ? 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Yes. 
 
 Mr. JONES. If we can make 6 per cent net we are contented. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Six per cent profit ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You sell French pottery? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do you buy from the agent in France directly? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. From whom do you buy directly? 
 
 Mr. JONES. There are several potteries we buy from directly. I 
 can not name them offhand. I can supply the names. 
 
622 TAKIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Why can you not name them offhand ? Is it because 
 the amount you buy from those potteries is so small ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. No; it is because I have grown to be 75 years old, and 
 I am not so familiar with the details of our business as I was 10 
 years ago. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do you not handle considerable Haviland china ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do you buy any of that directly from Haviland hi 
 France ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. No, sir; we do not. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do you buy any china in France directly, where you 
 buy a large line of it ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes, sir; we do. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. From whom do you buy it ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I will have to supply the names of the potteries. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. What is that ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I will have to supply the names of the potteries. As 
 Mr. Wells said yesterday, our books are open to you if you want to 
 see them. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You are not able to name any one ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Xot at this moment. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Is not the bulk of the china you handle Haviland 
 china ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I think the larger part of it. We import a" great deal 
 of German china 
 
 Mr. PAYNE (interposing). But of the French china the bulk of it 
 is Haviland. is it not ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Where do you buy that ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. If we are in Limoge we leave our order there 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. What is that ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. If our buyers happen to be in Limoge they leave an 
 order there. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Where do you regularly buy your Haviland china? 
 
 Mr. JONES. We give an order when their agent comes along. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Well, you buy it in New York of then- agent, do 
 you not? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Sometimes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You do almost universally, do you not? 
 
 Mr. JONES. No. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Does not all that you buy come there? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I think it comes through New York; yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Why do you buy it in New York instead of importing 
 it directly from France } 
 
 Mr. JONES. Because wo are satisfied to buy it in that way. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. What is that ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Because we are satisfied to buy it in the usual way. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Have you not applied to the Haviland house in France, 
 directly, to buy it, 3-011 yourself time and again? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, years ago I used to be the foreign buyer. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. How many years ago ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I began in 1866 and went over there every season for 
 15 years. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 623 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Is it not a fact, Mr. Jones, that you can buy it duty 
 paid in New York considerably cheaper than you can buy it in 
 France at the prices paid there and pay the duty on it to land it ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You do not know ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Have you any suspicion on that subject? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, my suspicions were never aroused. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Your suspicions were never aroused? 
 
 Mr. JONES. My suspicions were never aroused on that subject. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. They never have been aroused on that subject at all ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. No. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Are you not satisfied that the duty that they pay is at 
 a lower valuation than the price they ask in France ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Are you not satisfied that the duty you pay is on a 
 lower valuation for those goods than they sell for in France ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Inasmuch as we buy of other Limoges factories I can not 
 say. We buy it from competing factories. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You can not say that you are satisfied of it. 
 
 Mr. JONES. I do not know what you mean by "satisfied." 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Can you say that your suspicion has never been aroused 
 on that subject? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I never had occasion to have it aroused. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Is there any association of importers of this kind of 
 china, or wholesalers, that, when one of them has some trouble with 
 the customhouse, it is referred to a committee of this association or 
 organization, or whatever you call it ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I am not a party to any such association. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You are not positive about that ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I am not a party to any such association. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You are not in touch with any such association? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I am not a party to it. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You are not a party to it? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I do not know- 
 Mr. PAYNE. You do not belong to any kind of association, or a 
 party to it ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Not of parties; no. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Of importers, I mean. Of course, when you buy 
 direct in New York, you do not have trouble in the customhouse, 
 yourself, do you ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. No. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You are not a party to any of these cases? 
 
 Mr. JONES. No. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I suppose you never heard of them? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Oh, yes; I have heard about them. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Have you ever heard about any of the importers being 
 indicted and disappearing? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Are you active in the business? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You do not leave that to the younger men I 
 
624 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 92-94 POTTEBY. 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, I know pretty well what is going on in our store. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE, I am glad to nnd out that you do. 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Now, you must know, as a matter of fact, that your 
 china duty paid to the New York house is at a less price than as 
 though the honest duty was paid on a fair valuation in France. 
 
 Mr. JONES. I do not know that, as you state it. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Have you not had some suspicion about that ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, Thave heard this talk, this gossip; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Why is it you try to buy direct, instead of buying 
 through the agent ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, because it is more convenient to us to give 
 orders as we give them. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Is there any other branch that you import from 
 abroad, where you buy from the agent in New York instead of buy- 
 ing from abroad ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. In some instances; yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. What part of the world is that in? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, we will suppose that an English party has an 
 agency here and the agent came in and showed us samples, and gave 
 us his prices, and we will give him an order. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. What firm is that ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I can not give you the name at this moment. But 
 there are those. I know that my partners give orders to them. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You are in touch with the business. Are there any 
 members of your firm who would be able to give offhand the names 
 of the firms you buy from ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. We would be glad to show you our books. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Your books, of course. 
 
 Mr. JONES. But I do not remember. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Could the younger men give the names of the cus- 
 tomers offhand without the books ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You sell English earthenware? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You represent it as better than the American earthen- 
 ware ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. 1 think so. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Have you advanced the price 10 per cent of the English 
 earthenware within two months? 
 
 Mr. JONES. We have advanced our prices within a few weeks. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You have advanced it 10 per cent? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I should say rather less than 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Well, did you advance your prices near 10 per cent, 
 or what '( 
 
 Mr. .IONES. Between o and 10 per cent, I should say, because the 
 increase in sea freights has necessitated it, 
 
 Mr. PAYNF.. Well, vou made a substantial advance? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes. ' 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. 1 suppose that is in the interest of the low cost of living 
 that you were so anxious about a few moments ago. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 625 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. JONES. I suppose the English parties have increased their 
 prices because of the cost of the labor and material. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. They were able to fix their price, notwithstanding this 
 duty? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Of course they are. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. And put it higher ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. They nad to fix their price in order to live. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You recommend that the English pottery is better 
 than the American. Have you any interest that would lead you that 
 way, or might tend to dp so? I do not say it does. 
 
 Mr. JONES. As I said hi my brief, the dealers that I represent have 
 no interest in anv American or foreign pottery whatever. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Oh, no. Let me suggest something. The American 
 potters serve retailers, do they not ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Largely so ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. At about the same terms they sell to you? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Very near it. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. And the English allow you a wholesome profit. They 
 do not sell to the retailers as cheaply as they sell to you, in other 
 words ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Probably not. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Well, you know that, don't you? 
 
 Mr. JONES. That goes without saying. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. It is to the interest of your firm to sell English goods 
 and not the American goods ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Not necessarily so. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You get a larger percentage of profit, don't you? 
 
 Mr. JONES. We bring our goods in in carload lots of American 
 ware that gives us an advantage as distributors of that product 
 so that we sell a large amount of American pottery alongside of and 
 in the same day as foreign pottery, because we can make a profit on it. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Does not nearly all of the French china come in, and 
 is it not sold by agents in New York, and not by the French house ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. As I said, there are several 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Now, is it not a fact that it is impossible for the other 
 houses to compete here and receive any profit, with these New York 
 branch houses ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I know that some of the Limoges potters sell direct, 
 and we buy of them direct. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. But to no great amount ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Not so great as the class you speak of. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Well, no great amount is it? It is a small percentage 
 of what comes in. 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes; a small percentage -plenty of it. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. That is for special lines, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. No; general Lines. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Yes ; but the special goods that have some advantage 
 in the market ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. No particular advantages. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 40 
 
626 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Is it not impossible for a French house to send their 
 goods and sell it direct to you and compete with these agencies ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. They do. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Not to any alarming extent, do they ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, I know there are several potters in Limoges, 
 from which we buy direct, right alongside of the other potters. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. What percentage would you say of your French 
 china is sold direct from France without the intervention of any of 
 their agents ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I want to couple with that my answer on the cheaper 
 grades of French china and the cheaper grades of German china. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I was speaking about the French china. 
 
 Mr. JONES. I have not the figures to answer that. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do you know of any French china coming in in that 
 way? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Oh, yes; we import it. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. But not to any great extent. 
 
 Mr. JONES. Not to any great extent, comparatively. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. The Government had a commission examine into 
 these matters in the past year, did they not ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. And that commission went to Haviland and these 
 other dealers, in order to see their books, did they not ? 
 
 Mr. JOXES. I have heard so; I do not know. 
 
 Mr PAYNE. And they would not allow them to see their books ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. That is what you heard is it not? 
 
 Mr. JONES. That is what I heard; yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. They do not take the same position that the American 
 potters do; that their books are open to inspection? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I presume so. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Did that arouse your suspicions? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Not necessarily. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Not necessarily. Well, that is all. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Mr. Payne asked you about the undervaluation of 
 those imports at the customhouse, Mr. Jones. Could that be done if 
 the officers were efficient and capable? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Let me get your question a little more definitely. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. He askod you about the undervaluation of imported 
 articles ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. I say, if such things exist, it is because the officers 
 there in charge fail to perform thoir duty properly, is it not? 
 
 Mr. JONES. ^ es, in part; that is so; but there is a morbid deter- 
 mined ellort made to cast suspicion on any importer of pottery, 
 china, or glass, and all the obstacles that it is' possible to imagine are 
 set up in order to thwart the importation of foreign wares m this line. 
 1 do not want to speak of it in any boastful way, but I have been in 
 our firm for 50 years boy and man and we have never been charged 
 with or suspected of fraud by undervaluation. 
 
 [ might be arrested before I get back to Boston, but I do not think 
 so. Y\e have never been suspected; we have never been charged, 
 
SCHEDULE B. 627 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94^-POTTERY. 
 
 and we have often been called in in consultation to give our judgment 
 about the value of imports. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. I simply asked the question to suggest that, if Mr. 
 Payne's ideas were well founded, the officers were not properly per- 
 forming their duty there by allowing goods to be smuggled in and 
 undervalued, and perhaps that might be remedied after the 4th of 
 March. 
 
 Mr. JONES. Possibly. 
 
 Mr. HULL. You say there has been a recent increase in the ocean 
 freight rates. 
 
 Mr. JONES. An increase in the ocean freight rates ? The rates have 
 been about doubled in several years. 
 
 Mr. HULL. How much of an increase was this recent one ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. As I remember it, it has gone up to either 10 or 12 
 shillings per ton, cubic measure. 
 
 Mr. HULL. Does that apply to your line of goods ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes; entirely. 
 
 Mr. HULL. It is different as to different lines. 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes; earthenware is something that can be stowed 
 anywhere in the hold of the ship. They are not afraid of the steam 
 or the smoke or the wet, and therefore it is taken at a very low rate. 
 I think it is 10 or 12 shillings now, and I think it has more than 
 doubled what it was several years ago to Baltimore. 
 
 Mr. HULL. This increase has been uniform, has it, by all ship lines ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I presume so. There are several of those lines that 
 come to Boston, and then there is a line coming from the north Ger- 
 man ports to Boston. Those rates have been increased. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. What is the rate from Liverpool to Philadelphia, 
 if you know ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I should say, 10 shillings, 40 feet. It may be 12. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. For how much? 
 
 Mr. JONES. For a measurement of 40 cubic feet. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. How much is it per hundred pounds ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. It is never done that way. I can guess. Take an 
 average crate of ware. That will measure, say, 50 cubic feet, and at 
 10 shillings a ton, that would be a little over $3. I think that crate 
 would weigh on an average of a thousand pounds. That would be 
 30 cents a hundred, would it not? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Well, that is rather beyond me for the moment. 
 It was testified yesterday that the rate on English pottery from 
 Liverpool to Philadelphia was 8 cents a hundred. 
 
 Mr. JONES. The man who said that did not know. That is 
 absurd. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. What is the rate from Trenton to Philadelphia? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I could not answer that. It must be very little. It 
 is only 30 minutes or 40 minutes run. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Well, do you deny that the rate from Liverpool 
 to Philadelphia is less than the rate from Trenton to Philadelphia on 
 American pottery ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I do not Jcnow. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. But you just said it was absurd. Now, do you 
 know that that is a fact ? 
 
628 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. JONES. I do not know what the rate is from Trenton to Phila- 
 delphia. That is all I can say. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Do you know what the rate is from Liverpool to 
 St. Louis ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. That has occasioned considerable discussion. They 
 give a through rate from Liverpool, we will say, to an interior point, 
 and that is done because they are sure of filling the ship, and that 
 goes through under an understanding between the all-rail line and the 
 sea carrier. Now, I can imagine why a railroad man should agree to 
 a lower rate of freight on through freight than he would from a local 
 point, for example. If those trainloads of grain came into Philadel- 
 
 Ehia to be discharged for a steamer to take it to Europe, they would 
 ave those empty cars right on the sidings and they could afford to 
 fill those empty cars which had just come in laden with grain, with 
 an import line going to the interior, at a less rate than they could 
 after having the cars wait on the siding at East Liverpool or Trenton. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I am not asking you about that, and I am not 
 trying to bring out the question as to whether the railroads have the 
 right to do that or not; but it has been stated as a fact that the rate 
 on the Liverpool or English product to St. Louis is just about half 
 of the rate from Trenton to St. Louis. You stated a little while ago 
 that the American potters had a great advantage in the freight rate, 
 and I say this testimony shows they have not an advantage, but a 
 very great, most substantial disadvantage. 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, you lose sight of the fact that the American potter 
 can ship in carload lots, without any cost per package, as against the 
 foreign competitor having to pay a large percentage 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I am not talking about the convenience of the 
 package, but I am directing my question to the fact that you stated 
 that the freight rate was to the advantage of the American potter. 
 
 Mr. JONES. Is it not fair for you to consider the carload feature 
 when you are considering the question of the cost ? I think so. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I am speaking of the freight rate. That was 
 your statement. Now, it was stated to us two years ago I do not 
 know whether it was so or not that the rate from Liverpool, England, 
 to points inland in this country, say to points in Iowa, was substan- 
 tially less than the rates from East Liverpool, Ohio, to those same 
 points. Is that true or not? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I do not know. I presume it was then, but I may add 
 that what was true as to through rates two years ago is not so now. 
 Through rates have nearly doubled from foreign points to our interior 
 points. In closing I might say if you have room for it that while 
 the word _" chin a" or "porcelain" sounds as if it were a luxury, a 
 large portion of that \vhich comes from Germany and Japan is made 
 at so low a cost, that they are in a class by themselves, and I might 
 say are noncompetitive at present, as the landed cost is as low as 
 much of the decorated opaque English earthenware, and, therefore, 
 should not be regarded as in the class of the more luxurious porcelain 
 imported. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. And in spite of that, you-say that the American 
 potter had an advantage over the English potter? 
 
SCHEDULE B. 629 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. JONES. I am certain of it. You lose sight of the carload 
 advantage. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I do not lose sight of the carload advantage or 
 of anything else; but when somebody tells me that the rate from 
 Liverpool to Des Moines, Iowa, is less than the rate from East Liver- 
 pool, Ohio, to Des Moines, Iowa, I want to know why it is. You 
 can talk all you want about carload lots; but it is utterly absurd to 
 say that the English potters have not an immense advantage under 
 those circumstances. Now, I would like to ask you another ques- 
 tion. You stated the revenue is substantially increased if the rate 
 is reduced from 60 to 30 per cent. 
 
 Mr. JONES. I think it would be somewhat increased. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You mean the importations would be more than 
 double ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. No; I do not think they would be more than double. 
 I think approximately they would be more. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Well, they would have to double, would they 
 not, in order to come out even ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes; on those figures. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I ask you whether, in your judgment, they 
 would more than double? 
 
 Mr. JONES. No; I do not think they would. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Then the revenue would diminish instead of 
 increase ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I think it would hold good. I do not say it would 
 diminish or increase. 
 
 Mr^LoNGWORTH. You advocated this because you said it would 
 increase the revenues; you advocated specifically the reduction of 
 the duty from 60 to 30 per cent because it would diminish the cost to 
 the consumer and not diminish the revenues? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Perhaps that would be the working out of it. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. And you just now say that it would not increase 
 the revenues. 
 
 Mr. JONES. Don't ask me something that I can not answer. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. But you come here and advise us to reduce the 
 duties one-half in order to increase the revenues? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Have you any idea as to whether or not it will 
 increase the revenues? 
 
 Mr. JONES. In my paper I said it would be substantially the 
 same. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Why do you advise it? On what ground? 
 
 Mr. JONES. On common sense grounds. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Where is the common sense, unless it will more 
 than double the importations ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. That has to be left to the future entirely. I am here 
 more in the interest of the retailer and those who come in contact 
 with the consumer, and I think the consumer has a right to the benefit 
 of competition. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. But you just stated that there was plenty of 
 competition. 
 
 Mr. JONES. I do not get your point. 
 
TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 PABAGBAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. LONGWOETH. You stated a while ago, in response to some ques- 
 tions that I asked you, that there was abundant competition. 
 
 Mr. JONES. There is. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Exactly. 
 
 Mr. JONES. But we want more. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You want more; you want to more than double 
 the imports, do you not ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. No; I would be satisfied if the revenue was substan- 
 tially the same under 30 and 35 per cent as against 55 and 60. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Then, I will ask you again and this is a simple 
 mathematical proposition that, in order to make the revenues the 
 same, if you reduce the duty one-half, you will have to double the 
 imports, will you not ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Logically; yes. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Not logically, but absolutely. 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, have it your way. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I hardly know how to ask you a question, 
 because you 
 
 Mr. JONES. You ask me impossibilities. When you nail me down 
 to exact figures, I can not answer, and nobody can. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You come before this committee as an expert, 
 and you state that you appear in your own interest and in the inter- 
 est of the ultimate consumer, and you want to increase the revenue. 
 You specifically advocate that the duties be fixed at certain figures, 
 on the ground that it will increase competition and increase the 
 revenue, and I ask you a perfectly simple question as to whether 
 the reduction of the duty one-half will double the importations, and 
 you say you do not know. 
 
 Mr. JONES. I do not. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Then I do not want to ask you any more ques- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I understand that within the last lew weeks you 
 have increased the price of your articles about, say, 10 per cent? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, approximately 10, not fully. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Between 5 and 10, and that was on account of the 
 sea freight having been advanced, you say? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Xo; the foreign cost is more. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Have the American pottery makers increased their 
 prices ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. They have. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Was it on account of the increase in the foreign 
 article > 
 
 Mr. JONES. Well, it was their opportunity to get more, and, as 
 customers, we agreed to it and gave them orders. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. When the foreign price goes up, do the American 
 potters take advantage of that price and put their price up instead 
 of coining in competition with them and holding the foreign prices 
 down '( 
 
 Mr. JONES. They want all that is coining to them. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. When the foreign price goes up, the American price 
 of pottery goes up too, does it not 2 
 
 Mr. JONES. 1 beg your pardon. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 681 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I say, when the foreign price goes up for any cause, 
 whether due to sea freights or for any other cause, the American man- 
 ufacturer of pottery puts up his price, too, does he not ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I do not accuse them of that. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. No; you do not accuse them; but they do it, do they 
 not? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I would if I were in their place. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I believe you stated awhile ago that they advanced 
 their price ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. They have. You are right. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. All of that followed the advance in the foreign price of 
 10 per cent? 
 
 Mr. JONES. I presume so. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Then it is a matter of conjecture whether or not that 
 was the cause of it ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. This is not the first case that that has taken place in. 
 They advanced their prices as the foreign price was advanced a couple 
 of weeks ago, did they not ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions ? That is all, Mr 
 Jones. 
 
 STATEMENT OF FRANK H. HUTCHINS, ON BEHALF OF THE 
 BROTHERHOOD OF POTTERS. 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent the work- 
 ingmen who are employed in making whiteware, In this tariff on 
 pottery ware there seems to be a great deal of confusion. It is 
 applied to all classes. We have to compete with the foreign work- 
 men. In England the wages are 100 per cent lower than hi this 
 country. In German}' they are 20 per cent lower than in England. 
 In France and Holland they are 30 per cent lower than in England. 
 In Japan they are about 45 per cent lower than in England. 
 
 The tariff schedule as the percentage of protection is based on pos- 
 sibly what England pays, and the result is these other countries have 
 taken the place of England as the greatest importer of goods into 
 America, and some of the English manufacturers have found it to 
 their advantage to go over to Germany to establish factories and have 
 their wares made there. The German manufacturers import their 
 ware into England and undersell the English manufacturers in their 
 own market. You would think that it would be impossible for Eng- 
 land to continue in the pottery business, but the only salvation for 
 England is its colonies. 
 
 The condition of the pottery worker in England is awful. It is 
 more like the conditions that exist among the mill employees in Law- 
 rence, Mass., than anything I know of . People are in misery, want, 
 and next door to starvation. They take their clothes and furniture 
 to the pawnshops and pawn them to get enough to maintain body 
 and soul together until they can get a little work to do. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Have you seen the conditions of Lawrence, Mass. ? 
 
 Mi 1 . HUTCHINS. Xo; I say from what I have read. 
 
632 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. From the hearing that was before the committee ? 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. .From the hearing that was before the committee; 
 
 yes. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, our experience has been in 1894 that a reduction 
 in the tariff affected the men employed in this industry. We went 
 on strike at that time against a reduction. We believed that the 
 manufacturers were making fortunes, and we struck six months, and 
 finally submitted to a 12 per cent reduction, and not one-half of the 
 potters worked during the continuation of the tariff schedule. When 
 it was restored, in 1897, the wages were immediately raised by the 
 manufacturers the 12 per cent. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Why does not the tariff have that effect upon the 
 laborers in Lawrence, Mass. ? They are working in a highly pro- 
 tected industry over 100 per cent. 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. I can not answer that, but any industry 
 
 Mr. JAMES (interposing). They are protected over 100 per cent; 
 yet you liken their condition to the condition of the potters in 
 England. 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. In England. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Which is true, and they under free trade. 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Under free trade; yes. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. I would like to have you tell us how it is that this 
 highly protected industry has such poorly paid labor ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. In England ? 
 
 Mr. JAMES. No, in Lawrence, Mass., if the tariff is the thing that 
 causes good wages. 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Well, now, I was just going to explain to you that 
 there is not any industry on the face of the earth now I am saying 
 that on the face of the earth that I believe gives a larger portion of 
 the receipts from the manufacture of its goods than the pottery 
 manufacturers do. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. To which portion of the laborers do you refer? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. The labor, the men who make the ware, and the 
 skilled mechanics. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. So in some cases these protected industries divide up, 
 and in other cases they do not? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Yes, sir; and we have come before you to-day, 
 believing that the President-elect Wilson said that industries of this 
 kind have nothing to fear, honest industries, industries that put a 
 fair portion of the profits into the envelopes of the wage earners, and 
 we know from past experience that there can be no retrenchment 
 in the cost of manufacturing pottery ware except that it comes out of 
 the wa.ue earners. 
 
 Mr. JAMES 1 on spoke of Germany. Is there any protective tariff 
 on manufacturers of pottery in Germany? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Not that I know of. 
 
 We are not competent to talk on tariff schedules, as they pertain 
 in foreign countries, but in our dealings with the manufacturers we 
 meet every two years in conference, and in an effort to regulate 
 wages and conditions of work, and we try to get an increase in 
 wa<res. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 633 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92^94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Did you not speak about the sale of pottery manu- 
 factures in Germany and England? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Yes. We will come to that. 
 
 And in our efforts to get an increase in wages, we have got to con- 
 sider the cost of production of other countries, where the ware is 
 imported into this country in competition with the home-made ware. 
 Naturally, we can not go beyond a certain figure. We have found 
 from these investigations that the wages are just as we state. 
 
 In the last two years at least 250 foreigners from Germany, Hol- 
 land, S n gl an( l, an d some few other foreign countries have come to 
 this country and engaged in the pottery business. They are members 
 of our organization. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. How many ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. 250 potters. And they engage hi the pottery busi- 
 ness; workingmen. They substantiate what we have ascertained by 
 investigation. 
 
 In view of the fact that the manufacturers are so liberal with the 
 workingmen, we feel that they can not afford to submit to any 
 reduction. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What do they pay you a day the ordinary worker in 
 this business ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. The pottery business is all piecework. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do the workers in the pottery business belong to the 
 union ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. They belong to the union. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you consider your high wages due to the tariff or 
 to your organization ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. I consider them due to the tariff. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And not to the organization ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHIXS. Xot to the organization. In spite of our organ- 
 ization, in 1894, we submitted to a 12^ per cent reduction. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. This is piecework, you say ? That is the character of 
 work they do ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Yes; this is all piecework. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What is the ordinary laborer able to make per day ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS, Well, of course, on different classes of work it 
 varies, but the average wage of every employee in the pottery works, 
 girls, boys, men, and everything, is about $15 a week. The girls in 
 this country receive as much wages as the men employed in the old 
 country. That is, the girls employed in this country do the work 
 which they follow and receive as much wages as the men employed 
 in the old country doing the same class of work that the men do in 
 this country. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. How old are the boys that work there ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Where ? In the old country 1 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Xo; here. 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Here? Not under 14 in any State. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You say they make as much as $15 a week? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. I say that is the average wage of all the employees, 
 the skilled mechanic and all. The skilled mechanic makes $20 and 
 $25 a week. 
 
634 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How many times since 1897 has your organization 
 got together and asked the pottery manufacturers for an increase of 
 wages? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Every two years we have a conference. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And how many times have you got your increase 
 since 1897 ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Why, there has not been any increase in the piece 
 price, or the price per dozen since the restoration of the \1\ per cent 
 that was taken off, due to the tariff reduction in 1894. 
 
 The men have been enabled to make better wages by the kuilding 
 of more modern plants or the introduction of better machinery and 
 greater efficiency, and the men have been given the benefit of that, 
 and not only that, but the general public have benefited by that to 
 the extent that the ware is being sold cheaper to-day .than it was 
 before then. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. So that 7 or 8 or 10 years ago you were making $15 a 
 week on an average, the average laborer ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. The average laborer. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. How does that compare with the price of living ? Has 
 not that increased greatly since then ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Yes; the price of living has increased. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Yet the wages have stood still ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. No. I was just saying that the skilled mechanic, 
 you understand 
 
 Mr. JAMES. But you were talking about the wages of the average 
 laborer. You said they had not been increased since they got the 
 12i per cent reduction that was taken off on account of the Wilson 
 tariff law, and that was restored, and since that time it has remained 
 the same. Then I asked you how that compared with the price of 
 living since then. Do you find that your wages buy as much ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Our wages have not increased with the cost of 
 Jiving; they have not kept pace with the cost of living. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. They have stood still? So you are not getting as 
 much, then, so far as being able to save something, as you got several 
 years ago, are you ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Why, yes. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. How is that? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Why, wo are having steadier employment. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You did not have steady employment before? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. We did not have the steady employment for a 
 long time after the restoration of the 12i per cent duty. It took the 
 potters some time to regain thoir lost trade, and it was a gradual 
 increase, and it was a gradual resumption of steady employment, and 
 of course while that was taking place the increased cost of living came 
 along. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. 1 thought you stated just before the tariff was reduced 
 you got $15 a week. 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. No, I did not; no, sir. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What was your pay then? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Why, I do not know. I am not in a position to 
 say. 1 was not connected with the organization at that tune. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Well, were you a laborer there? 
 
 Mr. Ih T< in. vs. Yes, sir; 1 was a laborer. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 635 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Do you work there now? 
 
 Mr. HUTCIIINS. I do not work in the factory now. 
 . Mr. JAMES. What do you do ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCIIINS. 1 am an odicor of their labor organization. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You do not do any of the actual labor at all? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Not now; no. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. And you were not familiar with it, then, before the 
 Wilson bill was passed ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. Yes, sir; I was working at the trade then. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What did they get on an average per week then ? 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. I was not hi a position to know. I can tell you 
 what I earned. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Well, I wanted the average. 
 
 Mr. HUTCHINS. I was not in a position to know. The pottery 
 trade was not organized along the same lines as it is now in those days. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. All right; you are excused. 
 
 BRIEF OF NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF OPERATIVE POTTERS. 
 
 The WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: In view of the fact that your committee is meeting at this time for 
 the purpose of determining the wisdom of revising the tariff schedules on pottery, 
 and mindful of the further fact that such revision if it be downward, judging from past 
 experience, would undoubtedly prove a serious blow and setback to the American 
 pottery industry, we herewith submit for your information and careful thought a few 
 facts which we trust may be of some meager assistance to you in reaching a fair and 
 equitable conclusion. 
 
 Should the present tariff schedules on pottery be cut so as to require a reduction in 
 the present selling price of the American pottery manufacturers' goods, we have 
 been given assurance by no less an authority than Mr. W. E. Wells himself, an official 
 of and spokesman for the United States rotters' Association, that there must and 
 inevitably will follow a reduction in the wages of the employees of such industry, in 
 proportion to and as a consequence of such tariff revision. 
 
 In confirmation of the foregoing statement, we herewith submit, in part, Mr. Wells'e 
 public declarations to the press: 
 
 "If the rate of duty on pottery is reduced it will mean that the selling price must be 
 reduced. The owners will not, and can not, sell their output on a closer margin than 
 they are doing to-day, and if they must reduce prices they must either close their 
 plants or reduce wages. Just as surely as the workmen are getting every dollar of the 
 protection to-day, they will have to stand every dollar of any reduction made. This 
 is no threat nor bluff, but is the deliberate statement of one who knows precisely what 
 he is talking about. This result occurred in 1894, and there is more reason for it now 
 than there was at that time. 
 
 "At present, one-half of the pottery used in this country is made abroad, which is 
 fairly good evidence that the protective tariff has not made a monopoly in this par- 
 ticular line. We are fighting with the importer every day to hold our ground, and 
 still pay American wages. The owner can not take another dollar put of his pocket to 
 hold his present proportion of the business, and it will bear repeating, that if the new 
 administration should invite pottery to this country at a lower price, that difference 
 will have to be met right out of the workingman's pocket." 
 
 It will be remembered , perhaps, by the older members of your committee, that when 
 the Wilson bill was enacted into law, back in 1894, materially reducing the tariff and 
 thereby inviting greater foreign competition, many of the potteries closed down 
 entirely and few, if any of them, were operated much better than half time. The 
 employees were not only forced against their wishes to accept irregular employment, 
 but were obliged as well to work at a 12 per cent reduction. These conditions, 
 too, obtained throughout the life of the Wilson law. 
 
 Following the enactment of the Dingley law in 1897, which materially increased 
 the tariff, the trade of the domestic pottery manufacturer in a comparatively short 
 time assumed a more normal and prosperous condition, steadier work was furnished 
 
636 TAETPP HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92^94 POTTERY. 
 
 thrt employees, and the wage scale which prevailed prior to the 12^ per cent reduction 
 was restored. No attempt has since been made on the part of the United States Potters 
 Association to reduce wages. On the contrary, in many branches of the industry mate- 
 rial wage increases have been conceded to the workmen, which, in effect, have enabled 
 them to surround themselves with more of the necessaries and comforts of life. 
 
 In view of the expressed declarations of the United States Potters Association as to 
 what the workmen may expect should the present tariff schedules be lowered, and in 
 view of what actually did happen between the years 1894 and 1897, when the schedules 
 were lowered, we say to you frankly, gentlemen of the committee, and with the 
 utmost sincerity, that if the present schedules are reduced and the growth of the 
 pottery industry is impaired or retarded, or if the wages of our men are jeopardized or 
 lowered, we should consider it an act of retrogression a step backward. 
 
 As prosperous as the country now is, and as considerate as our employers have been 
 on questions affecting wages, our men to-day, with all of these things in their favor, 
 have an exceedingly difficult mathematical problem on their hands to meet the every- 
 day obligations of life. They assuredly do not want to take a step backward, and 
 believing, as they do, that if the present schedules are lowered it unquestionably means 
 a step backward, we, as their representatives, do urge upon you, Mr, Chairman and 
 gentlemen of the committee, that the present schedules on pottery be not disturbed. 
 
 FRANK H. HUTCHTNS, 
 MICHAEL KENNEDY' 
 EDWIN JAMES WHITEHEAD, 
 SAMUEL B. BURGESS, 
 WILL T. BLAKE, 
 Representatives of National Brotherhood of Operative Potters. 
 
 STATEMENT OF W. E. WELLS, EAST LIVERPOOL, OHIO. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Mr. Chairman, in order to avoid any misunderstand- 
 ing as to precisely the class of goods that Mr. Burgess and I repre- 
 sent, I want to say, in the first place, that we know nothing of the 
 goods covered by paragraph 92. Our people do not make that class 
 of goods. We know nothing officially of them, as to the home con- 
 sumption, as to the importations, or as to the exportations. Those 
 goods are the old milk crocks that are gray. 
 
 The yellow wares, old brown or Rockingham teapots, a very few 
 Rockingham teapots, and things of that sort, and yellow dishes are 
 made by some of the potteries that also make our class of goods, but 
 they are very unimportant. The thing we are talking about here, 
 and the thing we are representing, is the white tableware, either 
 plain or plain white, overlaid with a decoration like that [indicating], 
 the dishes that everybody uses every day on the table. In that line 
 we manufacture in this country somewhere between $15,000,000 and 
 816,000,000 per year. The importations, I believe, are in the 
 neighborhood of $10,000,000, foreign value. To get the competing 
 value it is obviously correct that you should designate the laid-down 
 price of those foreign goods at the American ports. That means the 
 addition to the foreign value of the duty and the freight laid down 
 to our ports. We can not say precisely what that competing value 
 
 , but I do not think that Mr. Burgess's estimate is far wrong; that, 
 m competing values, we make from fifteen to sixteen million dollars' 
 worth of dishes earthenware and china in this country a year, 
 and the competing value is in the neighborhood of twenty-two 
 million; so that the foreigner has now, as he always has had, the 
 better part, the larger part, of the American market. 
 
 The subject is so complicated and there are so many technicalities 
 in it that it is almost impossible in the time allotted to anyone to 
 explain all those things to the committee so that the committee 
 
SCHEDULE B. 637 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92~94 POTTERY. 
 
 might grasp all of these things and the significance of all the details. 
 However, if the facts are wanted, there is only one way to get them, 
 and that is to have some one authorized by this committee to make 
 a thorough investigation right at first sources, and it is in connection 
 with such an investigation that I have drawn this brief that I desire 
 to read. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wells, do you cover the same subject matter 
 as Mr. Burgess did? We allowed Mr. Burgess to run considerably 
 over his time. Although the committee wants to get a full statement, 
 we think we understand that very well. I do not want to cut you off, 
 but if that brief covers the same subject, I would be glad to have you 
 file it, and the committee will give it careful consideration. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. No, Mr. Chairman; it is not exactly the same, and 
 with your permission I would like to read it, abbreviating it as much 
 as possible. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. All right; proceed. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Almost 80 per cent of all the earthenware dishes pro- 
 duced in the United States are made in the eighteenth congressional 
 district of Ohio and the territory immediately surrounding it. 
 
 Hon. J. J. Whitacre, Representative in Congress from that district, 
 recently addressed a circular letter to many of his manufacturing con- 
 stituents, including the potters, a complete copy of which is attached 
 to this brief but which will not be read by me. 
 
 After calling attention to the fact that the Ways and Means Com- 
 mittee will grant hearings to those desiring to be heard, he says, in 
 the second paragraph: 
 
 Personally I do not know whether the present rates on your products are too high 
 or not. I would favor a proposition from you to the Ways and Means Committee to 
 throw open your books and factories to the experts selected by the committee to ascer- 
 tain the exact conditions that obtain in your industry as regards all matters which 
 enter into your cost. 
 
 The Pottery, Glass, and Brass Salesman, a journal of the pottery 
 and glass trades, published in New York, in commenting upon this 
 letter in the issue of December 26, 1912, says: 
 
 Representative Whitacre consulted with members of the Ways and Means Com- 
 mittee before framing his address to the manufacturers, then laid it before a caucus 
 of the Democratic members of the Ohio delegation. 
 
 Now. I do not know whether that newspaper story was correct, 
 and I asked Representative Whitacre this morning. He said he did 
 lay this letter and his proposition before the members of the Ohio 
 delegation, but he did not submit it to the members of the Ways and 
 Means Committee. 
 
 I will now continue with my statement. 
 
 Obviously, I have no means of knowing whether this newspaper 
 statement is correct that some members of your committee were 
 cognizant of the proposition made by Mr. Whitacre, nor do I know 
 whether it has your approval, but believing we all agree that whatever 
 action you may take in adjusting the rate of duty upon pottery 
 should be based upon an intimate knowledge of the exact facts, I 
 desire now to extend to you an urgent invitation, upon behalf of the 
 American potters, to do the precise thin: suggested by Mr. Whitacre. 
 
 We will cheerfully throw our factories and our hooks open to 
 examination by any expert or any commission that you may designate 
 
638 TAEIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 for that purpose, and we will dilligently and without reservation 
 assist in developing every fact and all statistics that may have any 
 bearing upon the question at issue. 
 
 As the result of having sent an expert representative abroad fre- 
 quently during recent years to study competitive conditions in 
 Europe, and from systematic work in gathering together the essential 
 facts concerning home production, we have an accumulation of 
 accurate data covering every phase of the industry, more complete 
 perhaps than the information available concerning any other in- 
 dustry that will come before you for consideration. Everything we 
 have will be cheerfully submitted to your representatives. 
 
 Should you determine to make this investigation and the results 
 should not convince any impartial individual or commission of the 
 following facts, then we will surrender our case and willingly accept 
 any rate of duty the wisdom of Congress may impose upon pottery. 
 
 1. That there is more money spent every year by the American 
 "ultimate consumer" for pottery made abroad than for pottery made 
 at home. 
 
 2. That the full equivalent of all the protection American pottery 
 has ever enjoyed has gone into the pay envelope of the workmen 
 and has not stuck in the office. 
 
 3. That the average wages paid to American pottery workpeople 
 is more than 100 per cent greater than the average wages paid in 
 competing factories abroad. 
 
 4. That the average wages paid American pottery workpeople are 
 at least as good as those paid in any other industry of equal impor- 
 tance in this or any other country. 
 
 5. That the profits of the American pottery industry at large for 
 the last three years did not exceed 6 per cent upon the actual 
 capital invested. 
 
 6. That the profits to the manufacturer, of the importer, of the 
 wholesaler, and the retailer are greater upon imported than upon 
 domestic pottery. 
 
 7. That any reduction in selling price of American pottery result- 
 ing from a tariff reduction must be followed by a corresponding 
 reduction of wages if our potteries are to continue in business. 
 
 8. That the quality has steadily improved and the cost to the 
 ultimate consumer has steadily decreased during the growth of the 
 American industry, retail prices being now materially lower than 
 under the Wilson bill. 
 
 9. That the American pottery manufacturer holds no monopoly 
 upon any part of the trade, but through difference in labor cost the 
 foreign manufacturer holds a practical monopoly upon the market 
 for high-class rhina.. 
 
 Obviously, 1 can not prove all these assertions within the time 
 allotted, but, acting upon another suggestion embodied in the letter 
 of Mr. Whitacre, which extract I quote below, I desire to submit a 
 sworn statement covering certain vital facts. 
 
 The following is the extract from Mr. Whitacre's letter: . 
 
 It" you are coming to Washington to ask any rate as necessary to your industry you 
 should at least now come to a showing of exact facts, free from general denunciation and 
 claptrap statements. This is a time when sound horse sense should be applied and 
 wild statement discarded. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 639 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Following that suggestion within the past week sworn statements 
 have been given to me by 21 pottery firms, with the exception of 1 
 small concern, which include every firm in actual operation in the Ohio 
 Valley, between East Liverpool, Ohio, and Wheeling, W. Va. These 
 represent more than 50 per cent of the total production of this country 
 in earthenware. 
 
 The sworn statements set forth: 
 
 First. The actual capital invested. 
 
 Second. The actual "sales, separately, for each of the three years, 
 1909, 1910, 1911. 
 
 Third. The actual profits or losses, in dollars and cents, for each of 
 these three years. 
 
 Now, while I shall not expose for publication the intimate facts 
 shown by these individual statements, I have attached to this brief 
 a sworn statement of my own, showing the aggregate facts for these 
 21 factories; and, further, I stand ready to submit and have here the 
 individual statements to any person the chairman of this committee 
 might care to designate for that purpose. I showed a part of them to 
 Mr. Whitacre this morning, but it would not be fair to publish these 
 individual things, unless you gentlemen care to make that suggestion. 
 I have a list in the brief of the 21 pottery firms, from which I have 
 these figures, but which I will not read. 
 
 This tabulation shows the following facts: That the total capital 
 invested was $6,521,000. The total profits of 17 firms in 1909 were 
 S46 1,452. 62. Four of the firms lost money that year amounting to 
 $33,883, leaving the net profits that year $427,569. In 1910 the net 
 profit was $523,107.41. In 1911 the net profit was $356,977.48. I 
 did not get the figures for 1912, because a lot of these people had not 
 completed their inventories for 1912 yet last week. 
 
 In percentage these profits show as follows: In 1909, 6.5 per cent; 
 in 1910, 8 per cent; and in 1911, 5.5 per cent; a total for the three 
 years of 20 per cent almost precisely, an average per year of 6 per 
 cent. 
 
 Now, I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, tjiat these figures should 
 be taken into account in considering a pottery tariff, ana should any 
 doubt exist as to their fairly representing conditions in the pottery 
 trade, then the facts should be investigated at first sources by your 
 own representative. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I will say to you, Mr. Wells, that the Treasury 
 statistics as to these paragraphs that we are talking about seem to 
 sustain your position, that your industry is a highly competitive one. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That is the main point that we want to know. I 
 do not care to speak for anyone but myself; but if the other members 
 of the committee desire to accept vour offer or if there is anything in 
 the minds of the committee that they may want to bring out we will 
 take advantage of your offer. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Thank you, sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. As far as the chairman is concerned the Treasury 
 reports seem to sustain what your statements show in reference to 
 that. 
 
 We are most anxious that you should get the truth about our in- 
 dustry in all its details. 
 
640 TARTFJ HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. With reference to this $6,521,000 capital invested 
 in your business, is that represented by your stock, or does that rep- 
 resent more than the stock issued by your companies ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. That sum represents the actual cost value in dollars 
 and cents. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much stock is outstanding for that $6,521,000 ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I have not the least idea, because I did not ask these 
 people to give me the amount of their capital stock. I asked them 
 only for the capital invested in dollars and cents. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I wish you would find that out and let us have it, if 
 you can. I would like to know how much stock is out to represent 
 that $6,521,000. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I think I am perfectly safe in saying that it is less than 
 $6,500,000, because I do not know of a single pottery concern in the 
 Ohio Valley, not one, that is capitalized at more than its actual 
 investment. I do not know of a single penny of water in an^ pottery 
 firm in the Ohio Valley. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Mr. Wells, I am greatly interested in the expression you 
 have made in regard to an examination of your industry." Do you 
 know of any other industry in the United States that is not willing to 
 submit the facts under the same conditions, and to base the duty which 
 they have asked for on the actual facts hi the case? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. The representatives of many industries, Mr. Hill, have 
 bold me they would be glad to do it that way. 
 
 Mr. HILL. And it is your judgment that every industry in the 
 United States would be willing to have the same treatment ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. There may be a few exceptions, but they ought to be 
 forced to accept those conditions. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I agree with you most heartily. This duty was about 
 60 per cent under the Dingley law and under the Payne law, and 
 you would ask for its continuance? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I understand the gentleman who represents the district 
 in which those factories arc located also asks for a continuance. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. He suggested to the potters that we invite the Ways 
 and Means Committee to make an examination. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Very well. Every industry in the United States asks 
 the same treatment at the hands of the American Congress? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yos. 
 
 Mr. HILL. And he asks for that treatment, does he not? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir; ho does not, but he indorsed what I stated 
 
 Mr. I TILL. Did ho vote for that policy in this Congress? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Mr. Wliif.-ikor, T think, is here, and he had better 
 answor (lint question. 
 
 Mr. HILT.. Yory well. It is an important matter, Mr. Chairman, 
 and I have tlio riu'ht to ask for this information. Did he not vote 
 for tho Democratic froo-list bill, putting five billions of other manu- 
 factured products on the free list? 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFOHD. T would liko to ask the witness here if he 
 knows. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I want to know 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Tho records of Congress will show that. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 641 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92~94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. HILL (continuing). Whether your Member here voted protec- 
 tion for this industry because it is located in a district which is now 
 represented by those who are in favor of a protective policy. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. I think that brings up the Bull Moose convention. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Very well. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Is it any part of your mission here to make 
 political capital for or against any political party ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Absolutely such a thing never suggested itself to me. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Has it been suggested to you 
 
 Mr. HILL. I will yield hi a moment, Mr. Shackleford. 
 
 I would like to know whether, in your judgment, Mr. Wells, the 
 pottery industry is entitled to any different treatment before Congress 
 from that of other respectable and legal industries in the United States? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I would not be a loyal American citizen if I did not 
 think they should all be treated alike. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is not your pottery industry, which I am heartily in 
 favor of protecting, an industry that is sustained to-day by the prop 
 of a tax? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. You mean by that, of course, protection? 
 
 Mr. HILL. That it could not exist without a tax? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. It could not exist unless our workmen were placed in 
 the condition of competitive workmen in Europe, which is a condition 
 of squalor and want. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You stated a moment ago that you had made a 
 careful investigation of the potterv industry abroad. I want to ask 
 you whether your labor is more efficient than labor is abroad ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Mr. Longworth, well-fed, well-housed, well-educated 
 men are always more efficient, and that is the difference between 
 our workmen and the workmen abroad. Ours are fed and housed 
 and clothed and schooled, and, of course, they are more efficient. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Do you think, Mr. Wells, in representing this industry, 
 as asking for a continuance of the duty as it is under the present 
 law and that it be sustained by a tax as it is, that it should be treated 
 any differently from the shoe industry or the metal industry or any 
 other industry in the country ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Certainly not. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. However, if you were shipping several million dollars' 
 worth abroad in competition with all the world, like the shoe manu- 
 facturers in Mr. Hill's country, with no importations, you would not 
 be here asking for any tariff at all, would you ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I do not know. That is a hypothetical condition that. 
 I have never gone into. I can not answer that. 
 
 Mr. HILL. That has nothing to do with this case, Mr. Wells. It 
 is not a question of whether there is any shipping abroad or whether 
 there is any importing. The whole question is whether a tariff 
 should be laid upon this industry purely for revenue or whether it 
 should be laid for protection. The question which the gentleman 
 from North Carolina asked, of course, has a bearing upon that issue, 
 but do the pottery companies of Ohio, represented by a gentleman 
 who b?lieves in a' tariff for revenue only, come here and ask for a 
 protective tariff or do they come and ask' for a tariff for revenue only 
 upon the products of this industry ? 
 78059 VOL 11 :.', 41 
 
642 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGRAPHS 92-94^-POTTEBY. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I- 
 
 Mr. HILL. Let me supplement that. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. We had a gentleman here yesterday who was a Demo- 
 cratic presidential elector, who said that ne had stumped this country 
 in opposition to the protective policy, and yet he came here and said 
 if the rates provided in the bill which passed Congress at the last 
 session were enacted into law, it would destroy his industry, and he 
 would be driven out of it. Do you come here under the same condi- 
 tions ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I represent only the manufacturers. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I know; but do they come here asking that? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Our manufacturers have always consistently advocated 
 a protective policy, and they do yet; and they believe everv other 
 American industry should receive the same treatment as their own. 
 
 Mr. HILL. That is a question which is beyond the manufacturers. 
 It is a question for all the people of your district. Do your people 
 come here to ask for protection, the people of your district ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. The voters in the part of the district in which the pot- 
 teries are located voted strongly for protection. 
 
 Mr. HILL. How did it happen that they send a man here who votes 
 against protection ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Unfortunately the district is not all a pottery district. 
 There is a large part of it where iron is manufactured, and a large 
 part of it is agricultural, and a part of it is devoted to other industries; 
 but that part of the district 
 
 Mr. JAMES. But you do not believe that, in justice to these tariff 
 rates, it is proper for the Ways and Means Committee to base the 
 rates on the fact of whether a man voted for or against them? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I would not like to pass upon the prerogatives of the 
 Ways and Means Committee, Mr. James. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Can you see how the fact that any man voted in a par- 
 ticular way is material when the committee is trying to properly 
 adjust the tariff rates ? 
 
 Mr. HILL. Let me ask you this question. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. I should like to know 
 
 The CHAIRMAN.- We want to allow as much leniency as possible to 
 the members of the committee, but I do not think it is exactly fair to 
 grill a witness on his political principles. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I think the witness came here with a full understanding 
 of the conditions which obtain. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I will state, and I think I state correctly the judg- 
 ment of the committee, that the real issue is whether the present rate 
 is competitive or not, and that is what the gentleman from Connecti- 
 cut is trying to bring out from Mr. Wells. I think the witness has 
 clearly shown competition of a large percentage on the products 
 involved in this industry. That is the governing reason, from our 
 standpoint, in fixing a revenue tariff, because, without competition, 
 we can not have revenue; but 1 do not think it is well for the com- 
 mittee to grill witnesses as to their political beliefs, although the 
 Chair will be glad to allow any member of the committee to express 
 his view at any time. 1 think we had better excuse the witness. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 648 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92 94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I do not suppose Mr. Wells cares whether you call it 
 protective or this new term "competitive," that has lately been put 
 in the vocabulary, so long as he gets his 60 per cent. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. The word "competitive" is no new term. It was 
 under your tariff bill. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. If I may revert for a moment, I do not think the 
 potters are voting for the tariff for revenue principle or for the tariff 
 for revenue candidate. They voted the other way. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Of course, I do not care how they voted; it is a matter 
 of indifference to me. The question I want to know is whether this 
 industry was sustained by the prop of a tax, and you stated that you 
 requested an examination made of conditions. I ask you frankly 
 whether you know of any industry in the United States that would 
 not gladly submit to that same examination, if it involved the car- 
 rying out of protective principles and the equaling of competition. 
 Now, do you know of any sucn industry ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I do not. 
 
 Mr. HILL. As a matter of fact, has not the legislation of Congress 
 during the past two years utterly ignored the question as to the con- 
 ditions which you ask them now to agree to ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. The records of Congress will speak for themselves. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Very well. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I have my opinion on that, of course. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Do you think there is any industry in this country 
 that is engaged in an attempt to monopolize the price of articles sold 
 to the people of this country ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. In this industry? 
 
 Mr. JAMES. No, you have answered the general question that, in 
 your judgment, all of the industries of the United States were willing 
 to make a formal showing of their books to this committee. Now, I 
 ask you if you are able to tell us that there are any industries in this 
 country that are attempting to monopolize and control the price to 
 the injury of the consumer? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Personally, I know of none, although I do not deny 
 the fact that they may exist. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Do you suppose they would be willing to come before this 
 committee and show that, when our courts are trying to prosecute them, 
 and have to wring from them by the hand of the law every fact and cir- 
 cumstance connected with their business ? Do you believe that charac - 
 ter of business would be willing to open their books to the committee? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. In my reply to the gentleman from Connecticut, I 
 stated that I believed a great majority of them would be willing to 
 lay open all their books, but there may be a few that are not, and 
 they ought to be compelled to. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Who are they? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I say there may be. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You stated all the industries of the country. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I do not know that there are any. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. We had the representative of an industry before us 
 the other day who refused to lay open the books of his company. He 
 was one of Mr. Hill's friends. 
 
 Mr. HILL. No; the gentleman is entirely mistaken. You will 
 find that the gentleman yesterday submitted a letter answering the 
 
644 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92 94 POTTERY. 
 
 question, and saying that he misunderstood the question of the 
 member of the committee. 
 
 Mr JAMES. It was the man who was talking about the phonograph. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. He would not tell us whether his company had 
 actually invested $1,000,000 or $500,000 or $300,000. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We have a large number of witnesses here, and I 
 would like to have you confine the statements to the facts. 
 
 The complete brief of Mr. Wells is as follows : 
 
 Almost 80 per cent of all the earthenware dishes produced in the United States are 
 made in the eighteenth congressional district of Ohio and the territory immediately 
 surrounding it. 
 
 Hon. J. J. Whitacre, Representative in Congress from that district, recently addressed 
 a circular letter to many of his manufacturing constituents, including the potters, a 
 complete copy of which is attached to this brief. 
 
 After calling attention to the fact that the Ways and Means Committee will grant 
 hearings to those desiring to be heard, he says in the second paragraph: 
 
 "Personally I do not know whether the present rates on your products are too high 
 or not. I would favor a proposition from you to the Ways and Means Committee to 
 throw open your books and factories to the experts selected by the committee to 
 ascertain the exact conditions that obtain in your industry as regards all matters 
 which enter into your cost." 
 
 The Pottery, Glass and Brass Salesman, a journal of the pottery and glass trades, 
 published in New York, in commenting upon this letter in the issue of December 
 26, 1912, says: 
 
 "Representative Whitacre consulted with members of the Ways and Means Com- 
 mittee before framing his address to the manufacturers, then laid it before a caucus 
 of the Democratci members of the Ohio delegation." 
 
 Obviously I have no means of knowing whether this newspaper statement is correct 
 that some members of your committee were cognizant of the proposition made by 
 Mr. Whitacre, nor do I know whether it has your approval, but believing we all agree 
 that whatever action you may take in adjusting the rate of duty upon pottery should 
 be based upon an intimate knowledge of the exact facts, I desire now to extend to 
 you an urgent invitation, upon behalf of the American potters, to do the precise 
 thing suggested by Mr. Whitacre. 
 
 We will cheerfully throw our factories and our books open to examination by any 
 expert or any commission that you may designate for that purpose, and we will dili- 
 gently and without reservation assist in developing every fact and all statistics that 
 may have any bearing upon the question at issue. 
 
 As the result of having sent an expert representative abroad frequently during 
 recent years to study competitive conditions in Europe, and from systematic work 
 in gathering together the essential facts concerning home production, we have an 
 accumulation of accurate data covering every phase of the industry, more complete 
 perhaps than the information available concerning any other industry that will come 
 before you for consideration. Everything we have will be cheerfully submitted to 
 your representatives. 
 
 Should you determine to make this investigation and the result should not con- 
 vince any impartial individual or commission of the following facts, then we will 
 surrender our rase and willingly accept any rate of duty the wisdom of Congress may 
 impose upon pottery. 
 
 1. That there is more money spent every year by the American "ultimate con- 
 sumer" for pottery made abroad than for pottery made at home. 
 
 2. That the full equivalent of all the protection American pottery has ever enjoyed 
 has gone into the pay envelope of the workmen and has not stuck in the office. 
 
 3. That the average wages paid to American pottery workpeople is more than 100 
 per cent greater than the average wages paid in competing factories abroad. 
 
 4. That the average wages paid American pottery workpeople are at least as good 
 OP those paid in any other industry of equal importance in this or any other country. 
 
 -3. That the profits of the American pottery industry at large for the last three 
 years did not exceed (><f per cent upon the actual capital* invested. 
 
 (i. That the profits of the manufacturer, of the importer, of the wholesaler, and the 
 retailer are "renter upon imported than upon domestic pottery. 
 
 7. That any reduction in selling price of American pottery, resulting from a tariff 
 reduftion. must l>e followed by a corresponding reduction of wages if our potteries 
 are to continue m business. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 645 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92^94 POTTERY. 
 
 8. That the quality has steadily improved and the cost to the ultimate consumer 
 has steadily decreased during the growth of the American industry, retail prices being 
 now materially lower than under the Wilson bill. 
 
 9. That the American pottery manufacturer holds no monopoly upon any part of 
 the trade, but through difference in labor cost the foreign manufacturer holds a prac- 
 tical monopoly upon the market for high-class china. 
 
 Obviously, I can not prove all these assertions within the time allotted, but acting 
 upon another suggestion embodied in the letter of Mr. Whitacre, which extract I 
 quote below. I desire to submit a sworn statement covering certain vital facts. 
 
 The following is the extract from Mr. Whitacre's letter: 
 
 "If you are coming to Washington to ask any rate as necessary to your industry, 
 you should at least now come to a showing of exact facts, free from general denunciation 
 and claptrap statements. This is a time when sound horse sense should be applied 
 and wild statements discarded." 
 
 Within the past week sworn statements have been given to me by 21 pottery firms, 
 which, with the exception of one small concern, include every firm in actual operation 
 in the Ohio Valley, between East Liverpool, Ohio, and Wheeling, W. Va. These 
 represent more than 50 per cent of the total production of this country in earthenware. 
 
 The sworn statements set forth: 
 
 First. The actual capital invested. 
 
 Second. The actual sales, separately, for each of the three years, 1909, 1910, 1911. 
 
 Third. The actual profits or losses in dollars and cents for each of these three years. 
 
 While I shall not expose for publication the intimate facts shown by these indi- 
 vidual statements, I have made an accurate tabulation, showing the aggregate facts 
 for the 21 factories and have attached to this brief a sworn statement that this tabu- 
 lation is a correct transcript from the individual statements. 
 
 Further, I stand ready to submit the individual statements to any person your 
 chairman may care to designate for that purpose. 
 
 The reports were made by the following firms: D. E. McNicol Pottery Co., East 
 Liverpool, Ohio; Knowles, Taylor & Knowles Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; Standard 
 Pottery Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; Vodrey Pottery Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; Hall 
 China Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; Globe Pottery Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; Cartwright 
 Bros. Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; Colonial Pottery Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; Potters 
 Cooperative Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; Smith-Phillips China Co., East Liverpool, 
 Ohio; Trenle China Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; West End Pottery Co., East Liverpool, 
 Ohio; C. C. Thompson Pottery Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; Harker Pottery Co., East 
 Liverpool, Ohio; Edwin M. Knowles China Co., .Chester, W. Va.; Taylor, Smith & 
 Taylor Co., Chester, W. Va.; Homer Laughlin China Co., Newell, W. Va.; Wellsville 
 China Co., Wellsville, Ohio; United States Potteries Co., Wellsville, Ohio; Steuben- 
 ville Pottery Co., Steubenville, Ohio; Warwick China Co., Wheeling, W. Va. 
 
 The tabulation develops the following facts, and since the list of firms includes the 
 recognized best profit makers in the trade, the result may be accepted as a fair show- 
 ing of the percentage of earnings of all the potteries of the country: 
 
 Ayyregate results taken from the sworn statements of the 21 firms named above cover- 
 ing their business for the years 1909, 1910, and 1911. 
 
 Total capital invested $6, 521, 772. 22 
 
 Total sales, 1909... 6,234,029.61 
 
 Total sales, 1910. . . 6, 983, 990. 18 
 
 Total sales. 1911 - - 6, 982, 429. 05 
 
 Total profits, 1909, 17 firms. . 461, 452. 62 
 
 Total losses, 1909, 4 firms _ 33, 883. 09 
 
 Net profits. 1909 427, 569. 53 
 
 Total profits, 1910, 18 firms 546, 559. 84 
 
 Total losses, 1910. 3 firms 23, 452. 43 
 
 Net profits, 1910 523, 107. 41 
 
 Total profits, 1911, 16 firms 409, 458. 19 
 
 Total losses, 1911 , 5 firms _ 52, 480. 71 
 
 Net profits, 1911 356, 977. 48 
 
646 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Percentage of net profits to capital stock: ** cent. 
 
 1909 6i 
 
 1910 8 
 
 1911 5J 
 
 Total net earnings, 3 years 20 
 
 Average per year 6J 
 
 Small fractions have been dropped in this percentage calculation, but an examina- 
 tion of above figures will show the average earnings of 6 per cent per annum to be 
 almost precisely correct. 
 
 I respectfully submit that these figures should be taken into account in consider- 
 ing a pottery tariff, and should any doubt exist as to their fairly representing condi- 
 tions in the pottery trade, then the facts should be investigated at first sources by your 
 own representative. 
 
 It may be proper to add that I have not included in this calculation the returns from 
 one firm in the Ohio Valley that has gone out of business and three that have failed 
 during the past two years. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 W. E. WELLS. 
 
 SWORN STATEMENT. 
 
 I, W. E. Wells, of Newell, W. Va., being first duly sworn, upon my oath say that 
 the tabulation appended below represents the correct aggregate taken from the sworn 
 statements (with exceptions as noted) of the following 21pottery firms: D. E. McNicol 
 Pottery Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; Knowles, Taylor & Knowles Co., East Liverpool, 
 Ohio; Standard Pottery Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; Vodrey Pottery Co., East Liver- 
 pool, Ohio; Hall China Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; Globe Pottery Co., East Liverpool, 
 Ohio; Cartwright Bros. Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; Colonial Pottery Co., East Liver- 
 
 Eool, Ohio; Potters Cooperative Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; Smith-Phillips China Co., 
 ast Liverpool, Ohio; Trenle China Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; West End Pottery 
 Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; C. C. Thompson Pottery Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; Harker 
 Pottery Co., East Liverpool, Ohio; Edwin M. Knowles China Co., Chester, W. Va.; 
 Taylor, Smith & Taylor Co., Chester, W. Va.; Homer Laughlin China Co., Newell, 
 W.'Va.; Wellsville China Co., Wellsville, Ohio; United States Potteries Co., Wells- 
 ville, Ohio; Steubenville Pottery Co., Steubenville, Ohio; Warwick China Co., Wheel- 
 ing, W. Va. 
 
 Aggregate results taken from the sworn statements of the 21 firms named above covering 
 their business for the years 1909, 1910, and 1911. 
 
 Total capital invested $6, 521, 772. 22 
 
 Total sales, 1909 6, 234, 029. 61 
 
 Total sales, 1910 G, 983, 990. 18 
 
 Total sales, 1911 6,982,429.05 
 
 Total profits, 1909, 17 firms 461, 452. 62 
 
 Total losses, 1909, 4 firms 33, 883. 09 
 
 Net profits, 1909 427, 569. 53 
 
 Total profits, 1910, 18 firms 546, 559. 84 
 
 Total looses, 1910, 3 firms 23, 452. 43 
 
 Net profits, 1910 523, 107.41 
 
 Total profits, 191 1, 16 firms 409, 458. 19 
 
 Total losses, 1911. 5 firms 52, 480. 71 
 
 Net profits, 1911 356, 977. 48 
 
SCHEDULE B. 647 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 IVrcontage of net profits to capital stock: Per cnt. 
 
 1909 ........................................................... 6i 
 
 1910 ........................................... g 
 
 1911 ......... 5 
 
 Total net earnings, 3 years ................................... 20 
 
 Average per year ...................... . ..................... 6f 
 
 W. E. WELLS. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed in my presence at Washington, D. C., this 8th day of 
 January, A. D. 1913. 
 [SEAL.] EUSTACE C. OWEN, 
 
 Notary Public. 
 
 Exceptions: Sales of the Harker Pottery Co. not sworn to. Sales and profits of the 
 C. 0. Thompson Pottery Co. not sworn to. 
 
 COPY OF CIRCULAR LETTER BY MR. WHITACRE. 
 
 It is definitely announced that the Ways and Means Committee of the House of 
 Representatives will take up the tariff-revision program early in January. Hearings 
 will be granted those who desire to be heard. 
 
 Personally, I do not know whether the present rates on your products are too high 
 or not. I would favor a proposition from you to the Ways and Means Committee to 
 throw open your books and factories to the experts selected by the committee to ascer- 
 tain the exact conditions that obtain in your industry as regards all matters which 
 enter into your cost. 
 
 You could also furnish for the benefit of the committee such information as you 
 undoubtedly have with respect to prices of foreign articles entering into competition 
 with you; that is, prices at which foreign articles are actually offered for sale in the 
 country of production. Knowing, then, your cost and foreign actual sale price, it 
 seems to me that a rate could be fixed which would at once be fair to the consuming 
 public, yourself, and your employees. 
 
 Generalities will no longer be accepted. Exact truths must be ascertained and 
 stated. The cry of "ruin" has been so overworked that men no longer give credit to 
 your statements. It is unfortunate that this is the case, but so it is. The reports of 
 the present Tariff Board on the paper and woolen schedules demonstrate that exact 
 conditions at home can be ascertained, and certainly these exact home conditions 
 ought to be compared with the prices at which foreign-made goods are actually sold 
 in the market of the country of production. 
 
 If you are coming to Washington to ask any rate as necessary to your industry you 
 should at least now come to a showing of exact facts, free from general denunciation 
 and claptrap statements. This is a time when sound horse sense should be applied 
 and wild statement discarded. 
 
 You are entitled to fair treatment, and so also is the public who uses your goods. 
 You should not be destroyed by unfair competition, and your customers should not be 
 robbed by any unfair killing of competition on your part. To keep yourself from 
 unfair foreign competition you should now lay yourself open to examination for exact 
 facts in your industry. If you disclose the actual condition, you can rest assured of a 
 fair rate. 
 
 I want to impress upon you that the time is past when tariff rates will be fixed by 
 you alone without regard to others. I take no stock in the statement of some that your 
 interests shall not be considered, and am equally certain that yours is not the only 
 interest to be regarded . 
 
 You are entitled to have a rate fixed on the basis of truth as to your conditions of 
 production and sale, but you should not be permitted to exclude foreign competition 
 by tariff rates fixed by you to the end that your industry may have this market at your 
 terms of sale, on the principle of the "public be damned." The public will not "be 
 damned." The public has determined to take a hand in fixing the rates, and the 
 danger now is that you will "be damned." 
 
 Hence the necessity of moderate statements on the part of all . Common sense should 
 prevail and fair rates" should be established. I shall be glad to aid you in this respect, 
 but I am a Congressman for all the people, you included. I am ready to cooperate 
 with you along the lines above indicated. 
 
 J. J. WHITACRE. 
 
648 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 DETAILED STATEMENT. 
 POTTERY WARE. 
 
 The term pottery or pottery ware embraces all wares made of earthy materials, 
 of which the silicate of aluminum is the chief ingredient, and embraces products 
 differing widely in character and in value, ranging from the cooimon brick to the 
 most elaborate and artistic piece of chinaware, worth many times its weight in gold. 
 Few, if any, industries have so large a percentage of labor cost in their production; 
 the crude materials entering into the body of material ware are of nominal value as 
 found in nature, being worth from 25 cents to 50 cents per ton in the ground. A 
 dozen of the ordinary white china plates selling at $1.50 per dozen wholesale con- 
 tains about 12 pounds or less of the combined materials. This amount of material 
 is worth about one-tenth of a cent in the ground. The difference between one-tenth 
 of a cent and $1.50 indicates the labor cost from start to finish. 
 
 MATERIALS. 
 
 A great variety of materials enter into the composition of a piece of decorated 
 pottery ware, chief of which, however, are clays, quartz, and feldspar. In the glaze 
 we have the addition of borax or boracic acid, lead, zinc, and paris white. In deco- 
 rating we have the whole range of metallic colors and various oils. The production 
 of the lithographer's art is largely in use. 
 
 The clay comes largely from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Maryland, Dela- 
 ware, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Texas. The large quantities of china clay and 
 ball clay are imported from England. 
 
 The flint or quartz is produced in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massa- 
 chusetts, and some of our Western States. 
 
 The feldspar of the quality required is found in limited quantities in Delaware, 
 Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, and Canada. The borax and 
 boracic acid comes from California. 
 
 Coal, principally from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia. 
 
 The decorating materials are produced to an extent in this country, but are largely 
 imported. 
 
 CLASSES OK POTTERY WARE. 
 
 There are two main general divisions of earthy products, technically known as 
 earthenware and china, the chief difference being in the character of the body. A 
 general definition of earthenware being ''wares of opaque and nonvitreous character," 
 the body of the ware being to a greater or less degree porous or absorbent to liquids, 
 whereas china is of a vitreous or glassy nature, owing to a larger proportion of fusible 
 or vitrefiable material in its construction. When broken it displays a glassy fracture, 
 and is generally translucent. 
 
 In the manufacture of the earthenware the materials bear a larger ratio of value to 
 labor in the total cost than is the case in the manufacture of chinaware. In conse- 
 quence of this fact, the American pottery has been able to develop more rapidly in 
 earthenware business in this country, owing to- the smaller proportion of labor cost. 
 For the same reason the manufacture of chinaware has not progressed with any rapidity. 
 
 In the production of tableware little machinery can be used, and where it is appli- 
 cable the human hand is indispensable in connection therewith. The same is true 
 in relation to the building of articles for sanitary purposes. In the making of por- 
 celain for electrical purposes, and in the manufacture of tiles, machinery in the form 
 of presses and dies is used to a considerable extent, but when machinery is used to 
 the limited possibility, then labor must be applied in the finishing, handling, burn- 
 ing, and decorating before the article is ready for market. 
 
 PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE. 
 
 Materials are delivered to the potters in a state ready for mixing. 
 
 When the materials are brought into a liquid combination, which is simply a mix- 
 ture and not. a chemical solution, the product is very carefully sifted and forced through 
 filtered presses, after which it is cut up and forced through a compressing mill, so as to 
 produce a density without losing elasticity. It is then ready for the potter's use. 
 The various processes through which the material must pass and the manipulations 
 it must .1:0 through are numerous before it is ready for the burning process. After 
 being formed and thoroughly dried, while still in an extremely fragile condition, it 
 
SCHEDULE B. 049 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 92-94 POTTEBY. 
 
 must go through the first firing process, after which it is inspected, brushed, dipped 
 in a liquid glass, and again put into the kiln for a second burning. The ware is then 
 sorted, carefully inspected, and is in a marketable condition. The process through 
 which the ware must pass is slow and the turn over of the money invested is corre- 
 spondingly slow, so that if a manufacturer can turn his investment one and one-half 
 times in the year he is doing extremely well. The average, however, would not be 
 more than one and one-fourth times the invastment; for example, a pottery invest- 
 ment of $100,000 would do well to produce $125,000 in the year. 
 
 COST OP PRODUCTION. 
 
 In considering the cost of production we have a number of elements to be con- 
 sidered, each of which when compared with conditions abroad show to the great 
 advantage of our foreign competitors. In considering the cost of production of pottery 
 ware the following elements must be taken into consideration: 
 
 First. The relative amount of capital investment necessary. 
 
 Second. The relative cost of materials. 
 
 Third. The relative cost of labor. 
 
 Fourth. The relative fixed charges, and overhead expenses. 
 
 Fifth. Trade conditions. 
 
 Under these heads I have subdivided the various subjects as follows: 
 
 CAPITAL. 
 
 I. Plant. 1, Land; 2, building; 3, machinery; 4, tools and implements; 5, blocks, 
 casks, and molds; 6, saggers, or firing cases; 7, wareboards. 
 
 II. Working capital. 1, For carrying merchandise and stock in the process of manu- 
 facture; 2, for carrying book accounts and credits. 
 
 MATERIALS. 
 
 I. Materials used in the construction of the ware itself, and in decorating the same. 1, 
 China clays; 2, ball clays; 3, quartz; 4, feldspar; 5, Cornwall stone; 6, carbonate of 
 lead; 7, oxide of zinc; 8, soda; 9, borax; 10, boracic acid; 11, paris white; 12, deco- 
 rating colors; 13, liquid bright gold; 14, coin gold; 15, decalcomania, chrome, or trans- 
 fer sheets. 
 
 II. Materials used in the process of making, but not part of the ware itself. 1, Coal; 2, 
 wood; 3, plaster of Paris; 4, sagger clay or marl; 5, wad clay. 
 
 I. Wages paid to the producing help all those through whose hands the ware passes in 
 the process of making. 1, For preparing the body and glaze; 2, potters, or those who 
 form the ware; 3, kiln or oven workers; 4, biscuit and glost warehouse workers; 5, 
 decorators. 
 
 II. Wages paid to the nonproducing help all other help necessary in operating the 
 plant. 1, Modeling and mold making; 2, sagger making, etc.; 3, engineers and fire- 
 men; 4, superintendents, foremen, etc.; 5, office help; 6, teamsters, stable help, and 
 odd labor. 
 
 FIXED CHARGES AND OVERHEAD EXPENSES. 
 
 1, Taxes; 2, insurance; 3, interest and discount; 4, repairs, etc. 
 
 TRADE CONDITIONS. 
 
 1, Proportion of male and female labor; 2, age limit of child labor; 3, hours of labor; 
 4, apprenticeship regulations; 5, trades-union regulations: 6, government regulations. 
 
 As in all other lines of industry, the cost of production varies according to the 
 country in which the goods are produced. We must therefore consider the cost in 
 the various countries, comparing the same with the cost of similar articles made in 
 the United States. 
 
 The wages paid in England being the highest of European countries, we will first 
 consider the various items of cost from the English standpoint. Permit me to state 
 that such a thing as an exact comparison of cost in many respects is an absolute impos- 
 sibility, and the best I expect to accomplish is to give you a clear and fair statement of 
 facts and figures as they exist, adjusting differences in conditions and money 
 value to bring the comparison as far as possible to a uniform basis. 
 
650 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92~94 POTTERY. 
 
 COMPARATIVE COST OF PRODUCING EARTHENWARE IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA. 
 
 The methods used in producing earthenware in England and America are almost 
 identical. Very accurate comparisons can therefore be made. The figures following 
 are based upon information secured by me officially while occupying the position of 
 American consul in the great pottery center of England. These figures were con- 
 firmed in some cases by examination of the books of the factories. To further verify 
 the figures I submitted the completed report to one of the leading manufacturers of 
 England, who pronounced it accurate and fair in all its details. 
 
 I have since verified my original figures on two separate occasions, making such 
 alterations as had occurred during the interim. 
 
 AMOUNT OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT. 
 
 I. Plant investment. 
 
 From actual valuations of land similarly situated, and from builders' estimates on 
 the same plans, I have found that a plant costing $60,000 in England would cost 
 $80,000 in the United States. These figures include fixtures and machinery. 
 
 In addition to the above, it is necessary to have certain additional implements for 
 the operating of the plant, which properly go into plant investment, viz: Saggars (or 
 fire-clay cases), molds (plaster of paris), and ware boards. 
 
 As these items are made piecework, the exact difference can be ascertained and are 
 shown in following table: 
 
 Plant investment. 
 
 
 England. 
 
 America. 
 
 Land machinery buildings fixtures 
 
 $60,000 
 
 $80,000 
 
 Molds. .. .. .. ... 
 
 4,680 
 
 8,660 
 
 Saggars 
 
 1,260 
 
 2,814 
 
 Ware boards 
 
 2,000 
 
 2,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 67,940 
 
 93,464 
 
 II. Working capital investment. 
 
 In making the following statement, I do so based on the factories doing business 
 with the United States, or for such part of their business as they do with the United 
 States. 
 
 The necessary investment is considerably greater in the United States for the follow- 
 ing reasons: 
 
 (1) The greater cost of materials and labor necessitates a greater cash outlay. 
 
 (2) The foreign manufacturers make their goods largely on order for immediate 
 shipment, whereas the American manufacturers have to carry large stocks of finished 
 ware ready for immediate demand. The American manufacturer has to warehouse 
 his merchandise for the great majority of his customers. This, of course, necessitates 
 the locking up of a much greater amount of capital. 
 
 (3) Many of the foreign manufacturers receive prompt cash for their shipments upon 
 presentation of invoice and bill of lading to the foreign banker, whereas the American 
 manufacturer as a rule has to carry large book accounts. 
 
 (4) In considering the additional investment required in the American manufac- 
 ture, we must also consider the greater rate of bank interest prevailing in America 
 than in Europe, interest in England being from 4 to 5 per cent, whereas in America 
 it is from 5 to 6 per cent generally 6 per cent. 
 
 (~>) The fire insurance rates are enormously different in the two countries. In 
 England the usual pottery rate is 3s. 6d. per hundred pounds sterling, or about 17 cents 
 per hundred dollars. The minimum rate for the best risks in America is 75 cents per 
 hundred dollars, whereas the underwriters inform me that the average risk is $1.50 
 per hundred. 
 
 MATERIALS. 
 
 The following table indicates the relative cost of the several materials laid down at 
 the factories in Staffordshire, and in Trenton, N. J., based on 2,000-pound tons, with 
 the exception of coal, which is based on the long ton, 2,240 pounds. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 651 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Materials. 
 
 - 
 
 
 England. 
 
 America. 
 
 China clay: 
 England 
 
 per ton 
 
 $7.87 
 
 (12.00 
 
 Florida 
 
 do 
 
 
 10.75 
 
 Georgia 
 
 .. do... 
 
 
 14.42 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 do 
 
 
 14.78 
 
 Ball clay, England 
 
 do .. 
 
 5.75 
 
 8.80 
 
 Quartz: 
 Ground flints 
 
 ...do... 
 
 11.75 
 
 11.76 
 
 Ground rock 
 
 . do 
 
 
 8.40 
 
 Ground sand 
 
 ...do... 
 
 
 11.76 
 
 Cornwall stoue 
 
 ...do... 
 
 10.08 
 
 13.44 
 
 Feldspar 
 
 do . 
 
 12.96 
 
 11.76 
 
 Saggar clay: 
 England 
 
 ...do... 
 
 .90 
 
 
 Mixed American 
 
 do.... 
 
 
 2.75 
 
 Wad clay, England 
 
 .... do .. 
 
 .96 
 
 
 Wad clay, American 
 
 do 
 
 
 1.62 
 
 Coal, English: 
 Cockshead... . . 
 
 do . 
 
 2.56 
 
 
 Cobbles 
 
 . do... 
 
 2.10 
 
 
 Slack 
 
 do 
 
 1.38 
 
 
 Maryland 
 
 do.... 
 
 
 3.45 
 
 Wood, for kindling 
 
 per cord. . 
 
 4.88 
 
 4.00 
 
 Plaster. 300 pounds 
 
 per barrel. . 
 
 1.32 
 
 1.90 
 
 White iead " . 
 
 per pound. . 
 
 .047 
 
 .051 
 
 Zinc oxide 
 
 do 
 
 .062 
 
 .12 
 
 Borax 
 
 do.... 
 
 .034 
 
 .06 
 
 Boracic acid . . . 
 
 ...do... 
 
 .043 
 
 .06} 
 
 Soda 
 
 do.... 
 
 .008 
 
 .04 
 
 Paris white 
 
 per 100 pounds.. 
 
 .43 
 
 .65 
 
 The argument has been set forth that the western pottery manufacturers have great 
 advantage in the use of natural gas. This was true when gas was first introduced, but 
 to-day the gas is metered at a cost exceeding the cost of coal, the price being 13 cents 
 per 1,000 feet, or a cost of $45.81 per kiln for the first or biscuit firing of a 16 foot 6 
 inch kiln, and $37.70 for a glost 16 foot 8 inch kiln. 
 
 LABOR. 
 
 Under this head we have two groups: 
 
 I. The producing help. By that I mean the actual makers and placers of the ware. 
 
 II. Nonproducing help, or those who have some part in the process of manufacture 
 and the placing of goods in condition ready for market. 
 
 Producing help. The wages to producing help will be considered under two headings: 
 
 (1) A comparison of amount of wages earned by the various trade branches under 
 similar conditions. 
 
 (2) By comparing in detail the piecework prices. 
 
 The following figures are based on journeymen's wages. Where blanks occur 
 opposite the wages of women, they indicate that women are not employed in America. 
 
 The figures indicate the net earnings to the operative, having deducted therefrom 
 the amount paid by him to his assistants. 
 
 Average net weekly earnings of the operatives in their respective branches. 
 
 
 England. 
 
 America. 
 
 
 $6.90 
 
 $27.31) 
 
 
 8.42 
 
 29.01 
 
 
 7.22 
 
 24.60 
 
 Cup makers: 
 Men 
 
 7.48 
 
 28.80 
 
 
 4.94 
 
 None. 
 
 Saucer makers: 
 Men 
 
 8.10 
 
 27.00 
 
 
 4.06 
 
 None. 
 
 
 8.60 
 
 24.60 
 
 
 5.94 
 
 18.59 
 
 
 5.82 
 
 18.90 
 
 
 2.60 
 
 10.72 
 
 
 9.96 
 
 30.22 
 
 
 7.70 
 
 26.00 
 
 
 9.12 
 
 28.01 
 
 
 C.68 
 
 30.00 
 
 
 6.44 
 
 27.23 
 
 Handlers: 
 
 6.76 
 
 29.41 
 
 
 3.50 
 
 None. 
 
 Kilnmen 
 
 7.20 
 
 23.89 
 
652 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Confirming the above figures, the report of the English Board of Trade gives the 
 following general statement of the weekly earnings paid to the potters of Staffordshire. 
 
 Potters, clay workers, per week, 25s. to 35s. ($6.08 to $8.51). 
 
 Oven men, kiln placers, per week, 30s. ($7.29). 
 
 Painters, gilders, and decorators, per week, 30s. to 40s. ($7.29 to $9.72). 
 
 Laborers, per week, 18s. ($4.37). 
 
 The piecework prices have been reduced to a common basis of American currency, 
 and to dozens, counting 12 to the dozen, for each item. 
 
 The average percentage of difference considering the proportion of each item ordi- 
 narily manufactured is about 111 per cent. 
 
 Comparative piecework prices. 
 PRESSING. 
 
 
 England. 
 
 America. 
 
 Increase. 
 
 Brush vases 
 
 $0.219 
 
 $0.30 
 
 Percent. 
 37 
 
 Butters, covered 
 
 .578 
 
 .64 
 
 10 
 
 Chambers, covered: 
 6-inch . . . 
 
 .472 
 
 .97 
 
 105 
 
 9-inch 
 
 .472 
 
 .88 
 
 86 
 
 Comports: 
 7-inch 
 
 .299 
 
 .51 
 
 70 
 
 8-inch 
 
 .299 
 
 .55 
 
 84 
 
 9-inch 
 
 .339 
 
 .60 
 
 77 
 
 Cuspidors: 
 2s. unhd 
 
 .758 
 
 1.29 
 
 70 
 
 Is. unhd 
 
 .958 
 
 1.47 
 
 53 
 
 Covered dishes: 
 7-inch . 
 
 .658 
 
 1.01 
 
 53 
 
 8-inch 
 
 .718 
 
 1.11 
 
 54 
 
 9-inch .... . . . 
 
 .778 
 
 1.24 
 
 59 
 
 10-inch 
 
 .837 
 
 1.38 
 
 65 
 
 Covered casseroles: 
 7-inch 
 
 .658 
 
 .97 
 
 47 
 
 8-inch 
 
 .718 
 
 1.06 
 
 47 
 
 9-inch 
 
 .778 
 
 1.20 
 
 54 
 
 10-inch 
 
 .837 
 
 1.33 
 
 71 
 
 Creams: 
 24s 
 
 .259 
 
 .45 
 
 74 
 
 30s 
 
 .239 
 
 .42 
 
 70 
 
 Ewers: 
 Gs. cable 
 
 .058 
 
 .92 
 
 40 
 
 9s. cable 
 
 .598 
 
 .82 
 
 37 
 
 Mouth 
 
 .252 
 
 .45 
 
 78 
 
 Jugs: 
 4s 
 
 .504 
 
 .85 
 
 69 
 
 OS 
 
 .441 
 
 .70 
 
 56 
 
 12s 
 
 .346 
 
 .55 
 
 59 
 
 24s 
 
 .294 
 
 .50 
 
 70 
 
 30s ... 
 
 .252 
 
 .46 
 
 82 
 
 36s 
 
 .252 
 
 .40 
 
 58 
 
 Salads: 
 7-inch 
 
 .309 
 
 .65 
 
 111 
 
 8-inch 
 
 .369 
 
 .75 
 
 103 
 
 9-inch 
 
 .459 
 
 .85 
 
 85 
 
 10-ineh 
 
 .518 
 
 .95 
 
 83 
 
 Sauce boats . . .... 
 
 .279 
 
 .42 
 
 51 
 
 Sauce tureens 
 
 .658 
 
 1.00 
 
 52 
 
 Sauce stands . 
 
 .219 
 
 .33 
 
 51 
 
 Sauce ladles 
 
 .099 
 
 .25 
 
 152 
 
 Slop jars, No. 1 
 
 2.159 
 
 2.58 
 
 20 
 
 Soaps, covered and drs 
 
 .438 
 
 .CO 
 
 37 
 
 Soup tureens: 
 9-inch 
 
 1.67 
 
 2.76 
 
 64 
 
 10-inch 
 
 1.91 
 
 2.99 
 
 56 
 
 Soup ladles 
 
 .18 
 
 .34 
 
 89 
 
 Parlor spittoons . . . 
 
 .239 
 
 .69 
 
 189 
 
 Sugars: 
 24s 
 
 .438 
 
 .64 
 
 46 
 
 30s 
 
 .399 
 
 .60 
 
 50 
 
 30s 
 
 .359 
 
 .56 
 
 56 
 
 Teapots, 24s 
 
 .598 
 
 1.00 
 
 67 
 
 Soup stand: 
 9-inch 
 
 .438 
 
 .55 
 
 26 
 
 10-iuch 
 
 .438 
 
 .64 
 
 46 
 
 
 
 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92 94 POTTERY. 
 
 Comparative piecework prices Continued. 
 
 JIGQERING AND JOLLYING. 
 
 653 
 
 
 England. 
 
 America. 
 
 Increase. 
 
 Bowls: 
 24s 
 
 |0 0346 
 
 SO 06 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 30s 
 
 0277 
 
 055 
 
 100 
 
 36s 
 
 0231 
 
 05 
 
 
 42s 
 
 0197 
 
 05 
 
 156 
 
 Butters, individual : 
 
 0126 
 
 0275 
 
 114 
 
 Basins: 
 Outside 
 
 21 
 
 35 
 
 66 
 
 6 inches inside 
 
 21 
 
 30 
 
 43 
 
 9 inches inside 
 
 189 
 
 25 
 
 32 
 
 Cups, sponged 
 
 0147 
 
 0325 
 
 121 
 
 Saucers: 
 Tea 
 
 0168 
 
 03 
 
 78 
 
 Coffee 
 
 0189 
 
 03 
 
 58 
 
 A. D 
 
 0126 
 
 03 
 
 138 
 
 Toy .x 
 
 0126 
 
 03 
 
 138 
 
 Fruits, all sizes 
 
 0168 
 
 03 
 
 78 
 
 Ice creams 
 
 .0168 
 
 03 
 
 78 
 
 Nappies: 
 3-inch 
 
 0633 
 
 08 
 
 26 
 
 4-inch 
 
 0633 
 
 08 
 
 9fi 
 
 6-inch 
 
 084 
 
 10 
 
 19 
 
 6-inch 
 
 .084 
 
 10 
 
 19 
 
 7-inch 
 
 0945 
 
 10 
 
 g 
 
 8-inch 
 
 .0945 
 
 10 
 
 g 
 
 9- inch 
 
 .1155 
 
 12 
 
 4 
 
 Plates: 
 4-inch, plain 
 
 .0168 
 
 0325 
 
 93 
 
 6-inch, plain 
 
 .0189 
 
 .0375 
 
 93 
 
 6-inch, plain 
 
 .0215 
 
 0425 
 
 98 
 
 7-inch, plain 
 
 .026 
 
 .0475 
 
 82 
 
 8-inch, plain 
 
 .0304 
 
 .055 
 
 81 
 
 6-inch, plain, deep 
 
 .0189 
 
 .045 
 
 128 
 
 6-inch, plain, deep 
 
 .0215 
 
 .05 
 
 133 
 
 7-inch, plain, deep 
 
 .0262 
 
 .055 
 
 110 
 
 8-inch, plain, deep 
 
 .0304 
 
 .0625 
 
 106 
 
 6-inch, festoon 
 
 .024 
 
 .05 
 
 108 
 
 7-inch, festoon 
 
 .03 
 
 .055 
 
 83 
 
 8-inch, festoon 
 
 .033 
 
 .625 
 
 89 
 
 6-inch, festoon, deep 
 
 .024 
 
 .06 
 
 150 
 
 7-inch festoon deep . . . . 
 
 .03 
 
 .065 
 
 117 
 
 8-inch, festoon, deep 
 
 .033 
 
 .0725 
 
 119 
 
 HANDLING. 
 
 Cups: 
 Coffee block 
 
 $0.0168 
 
 $0.04 
 
 132 
 
 A. D. block 
 
 .0147 
 
 .035 
 
 138 
 
 Tea block 
 
 .0147 
 
 .035 
 
 138 
 
 Toy block 
 
 .0147 
 
 .035 
 
 138 
 
 Mugs: 
 24s block . 
 
 .0315 
 
 .6 
 
 90 
 
 30s block 
 
 .0252 
 
 .6 
 
 138 
 
 36s block . 
 
 .021 
 
 .6 
 
 185 
 
 42s block 
 
 .0179 
 
 .6 
 
 230 
 
 
 
 
 
 DISH AND BAKER MAKERS. 
 
 Bakers: 
 
 $0.0698 
 
 $0.09 
 
 29 
 
 
 .0898 
 
 .10 
 
 42 
 
 5-inch 
 
 .0798 
 
 .11 
 
 38 
 
 6-inch 
 
 .0798 
 
 .12 
 
 50 
 
 7-inch 
 
 .09 
 
 .13 
 
 44 
 
 8-inch 
 
 .0997 
 
 .15 
 
 50 
 
 
 .1097 
 
 .16 
 
 46 
 
 10-inch 
 
 .1197 
 
 .18 
 
 50 
 
 Dishes: 
 3-inch 
 
 .0698 
 
 .09 
 
 29 
 
 
 .0698 
 
 .10 
 
 43 
 
 5-inch 
 
 .0798 
 
 .11 
 
 38 
 
 6-inch 
 
 .0997 
 
 .12 
 
 20 
 
 
 .0997 
 
 .13 
 
 30 
 
 8-inch 
 
 .0997 
 
 -15 
 
 50 
 
 
 .1107 
 
 .16 
 
 34 
 
 10-inch 
 
 .1197 
 
 .18 
 
 50 
 
 
 .13 
 
 .20 
 
 54 
 
 12-inch 
 
 .13 
 
 .22 
 
 69 
 
 14-inch. 
 
 .1795 
 
 .29 
 
 62 
 
 16-inch... 
 
 . 1995 
 
 .37 
 
 85 
 
654 
 
 TAEIFF HEABING8. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTEBY. 
 
 Comparative piecework prices Continued. 
 
 THROWING. 
 
 
 England. 
 
 America. 
 
 Increase. 
 
 Bowls: 
 24s 
 
 SO. 0315 
 
 10.05 
 
 Percent. 
 
 59 
 
 30s 
 
 .0252 
 
 .04 
 
 59 
 
 36s 
 
 .021 
 
 .035 
 
 67 
 
 42s 
 
 .0179 
 
 .035 
 
 96 
 
 Mugs: 
 24s 
 
 .0315 
 
 .055 
 
 74 
 
 30s 
 
 .0252 
 
 .045 
 
 78 
 
 36s 
 
 .021 
 
 .04 
 
 90 
 
 42s 
 
 .0179 
 
 .03 
 
 67 
 
 Sugars' 
 24s 
 
 .0787 
 
 .12 
 
 52 
 
 30s 
 
 .0787 
 
 .12 
 
 52 
 
 
 
 
 
 TURNING. 
 
 Bowls: 
 24s out or mold 
 
 $0.319 
 
 $0.06 
 
 88 
 
 30s out or mold . .... 
 
 .0255 
 
 .055 
 
 115 
 
 36s out or mold 
 
 .021 
 
 .05 
 
 119 
 
 42s out or mold 
 
 .0182 
 
 .05 
 
 174 
 
 Mugs: 
 24s 
 
 .0319 
 
 .085 
 
 166 
 
 30s 
 
 .0255 
 
 .075 
 
 194 
 
 36s 
 
 .021 
 
 .07 
 
 233 
 
 42s 
 
 .0182 
 
 .06 | 
 
 229 
 
 Sugars: 
 24s with cars complete ... 
 
 .159 
 
 .195! 
 
 23 
 
 30s with ears complete ,_ 
 
 .159 
 
 .185 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 
 
 Nonproducing help. The following table gives a fair average of the wages paid to 
 the nonproducing help. Individual ability and consequent worth necessarily differ 
 greatly both in England and America. In some branches, however, the rates of wages 
 are accurately fixed under the day-wage-piecework system, there being a fixed 
 rate of wages per day with a certain amount of work to be performed for that amount 
 of wage. 
 
 Comparative wages per week, nonproducing help. 
 
 
 England. 
 
 America. 
 
 Bookkeepers 
 
 $7.75 
 
 $20 79 
 
 Clerks 
 
 4.70 
 
 13 75 
 
 Boys 
 
 1 50 
 
 6 00 
 
 Teamsters 
 
 6.00 
 
 12 00 
 
 Engineers 
 
 8 80 
 
 18 00 
 
 Laborers . .... 
 
 5.20 
 
 11 99 
 
 Kiln firemen.. 
 
 12 00 
 
 20 00 
 
 1 learl biscuit brushers 
 
 2.26 
 
 S 00 
 
 Head glost dressers. .. 
 
 2 26 
 
 9 oo 
 
 Biscuit brushers 
 
 1 52 
 
 6 82 
 
 Glost dressers. 
 
 1 52 
 
 7 94 
 
 Olost warehousemen 
 
 7.50 
 
 15 00 
 
 Selectors 
 
 3.35 
 
 9 00 
 
 Slip-makers 
 
 6 48 
 
 16 50 
 
 Pugmill men 
 
 4.74 
 
 12 00 
 
 Dippers help: 
 Women ... 
 
 2.26 
 
 7.42 
 
 Bovs 
 
 1 68 
 
 4 73 
 
 Watchmen . . . 
 
 6 48 
 
 15 00 
 
 Superintendent . 
 
 14.40 
 
 25 00 
 
 
 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 655 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92 94 POTTERY. 
 
 OUTPUT OF ONE POTTERY PLANT FOR ONE YEAR. 
 
 To give a still more accurate idea of the cost of producing earthenware in England 
 and America, I have taken from the books of a factory the actual output of their white- 
 ware production, the comparison being confined to staple goods, and values figured on 
 journeymen's wages. This comparison, however, is extremely favorable to the 
 foreign manufacturer on account of a larger proportion of the goods being produced by 
 apprentice labor than is the case with the American production. These figures leave 
 out of consideration the apprenticeship question entirely. 
 
 Total actual output in one pottery plant, for one year. 
 
 Articles. 
 
 Dozen. 
 
 Articles. 
 
 Dozen. 
 
 Bakers: 
 24-inch . .... 
 
 450 
 
 Casseroles, covered: 
 7-inch 
 
 100 
 
 3-inch 
 
 75 
 
 8-inch 
 
 125 
 
 4-inch 
 
 25 
 
 9-inch 
 
 50 
 
 5-inch 
 
 25 
 
 Comports, 8-inch... 
 
 100 
 
 5-inch, single 
 
 200 
 
 Cuspidors, 2s 
 
 100 
 
 6-inch 
 
 300 
 
 Covered dishes: 
 
 
 7-inch 
 
 850 
 
 7-inch 
 
 200 
 
 8-inch 
 
 550 
 
 8-inch. . ... 
 
 800 
 
 9-inch . 
 
 375 
 
 Creams, 30s 
 
 700 
 
 lOJ-inch 
 
 500 
 
 Coffees: 
 
 
 Bowls: 
 
 
 Unhd 
 
 4,000 
 
 30s., oyster 
 
 800 
 
 Hand 
 
 10,000 
 
 24s . 
 
 1,000 
 
 Teas . . . 
 
 20,000 
 
 30s 
 
 3,500 
 
 Dishes: 
 
 
 36s . 
 
 1,000 
 
 4-inch. . 
 
 125 
 
 Plates' 
 
 
 5-inch 
 
 300 
 
 4-inch . . . . . . ... 
 
 500 
 
 6-inch 
 
 130 
 
 5-inch 
 
 5,000 
 
 7-inch 
 
 400 
 
 6-inch . 
 
 1,000 
 
 8-inch 
 
 275 
 
 7-inch 
 
 1,500 
 
 9-inch 
 
 450 
 
 8-inch 
 
 10,900 
 
 10-inch, 
 
 450 
 
 6-inch deep 
 
 1,000 
 
 11-inch 
 
 450 
 
 7-inch, deep 
 
 8,000 
 
 12-inch.. 
 
 400 
 
 8-inch deep 
 
 1,000 
 
 13-inch 
 
 275 
 
 5-inch, festoon 
 
 1,500 
 
 14-inch 
 
 400 
 
 6-inch, festoon ." 
 
 5,000 
 
 16-inch 
 
 250 
 
 7-inch, festoon 
 
 7,500 
 
 Ice creams: 
 
 
 
 7 500 
 
 3J-inch 
 
 1,500 
 
 
 500 
 
 
 1,000 
 
 8-inch festoon deep 
 
 3,000 
 
 Jugs: 
 
 
 Cake 
 
 1,000 
 
 4s 
 
 25 
 
 Cup 
 
 500 
 
 6s.. 
 
 300 
 
 Sauce boats 
 
 500 
 
 12s 
 
 625 
 
 Saucers: 
 
 
 24s 
 
 1,500 
 
 Coffee 
 
 10,000 
 
 30s.. 
 
 700 
 
 Coffee festoon 
 
 3,000 
 
 36s 
 
 1,000 
 
 Tea festoon 
 
 12,000 
 
 Mugs: 
 
 
 Tea 
 
 22, 000 
 
 24s. . 
 
 300 
 
 Fruit 
 
 
 30s 
 
 2,200 
 
 
 3,000 
 
 36s 
 
 400 
 
 Festoon 
 
 5,000 
 
 Nappies: 
 
 
 
 3 000 
 
 5-inch 
 
 200 
 
 
 
 6-inch .... 
 
 3.50 
 
 24s 
 
 450 
 
 7-inch 
 
 1,200 
 
 30s 
 
 1,000 
 
 8-inch 
 
 1,800 
 
 
 1,000 
 
 9-inch 
 
 400 
 
 
 100 
 
 10-inch 
 
 300 
 
 
 100 
 
 Vases 
 
 1,500 
 
 
 100 
 
 Basins, 9s 
 
 2,000 
 
 
 125 
 
 Chambers, 9s 
 
 1,500 
 
 
 100 
 
 Ewers, 6s 
 
 1,500 
 
 
 100 
 
 Ewers, mouth 
 
 600 
 
 
 1,000 
 
 Slop jars 
 
 150 
 
 Butters: 
 Covered 
 
 400 
 
 
 
 Individual. . . 
 
 4,000 
 
 
 
656 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 PARAGRAPHS 92~94 POTTERY. 
 
 The total cost in England for producing this ware was $13,634.69, while in America 
 the cost was $21,738.95. Adding to these figures the other labor cost, we have the 
 total wage cost, as follows: 
 
 Total wage cost. 
 
 Branches. 
 
 England. 
 
 America. 
 
 Potters' wages .. 
 
 $13,634.69 
 
 $21,738.95 
 
 
 3,477.00 
 
 12, 186. 00 
 
 Mold makers' wages 
 
 1,129.00 
 
 2, 450. 00 
 
 Saggar makers' wages 
 
 861.00 
 
 2, 243. 00 
 
 All other wages 
 
 5,782.50 
 
 14,054.33 
 
 Office and management. . . 
 
 3.018.00 
 
 6.240.00 
 
 Total I 27, 902. 19 
 
 58,912.28 
 
 The material used in the production of the above quantities of ware are given below: 
 
 Material costs. 
 
 Description. 
 
 England. 
 
 America. 
 
 
 $17,910.00 
 
 $22,156 00 
 
 Materials not entering into same ... 
 
 12, 102. 00 
 
 20,840.00 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 30, 012. 00 
 
 42,996.00 
 
 
 
 
 Adding to the above the other elements entering into the cost, we have the following 
 
 comparative total cost of the product: 
 
 Total cost. 
 
 Description. 
 
 England. 
 
 America. 
 
 Labor 
 
 $27, 902. 19 
 
 $58, 912. 28 
 
 Material. 
 
 30,012 00 
 
 42, 996 00 
 
 Interest . 
 
 5, 055. 00 
 
 9, 430. 00 
 
 Insurance. . . 
 
 300 00 
 
 1 500 00 
 
 Taxes 
 
 550.00 
 
 1,450.00 
 
 Gas and water 
 
 830 00 
 
 975 00 
 
 
 
 
 Total . . . 
 
 64.649.19 
 
 115. 263. 28 
 
 CONDITIONS. 
 
 All hough the difference given above appears large, it does not fully indicate the 
 real difference, largely on account of 1he conditions surrounding the manufacture of 
 pottery in England and America: 
 
 (!) The age limit of children working in the potteries under certain conditions is 10 
 years in England, and 14 years in America. 
 
 (2) The ra'.io of male to female labor being 80 females to 100 males in England, while 
 in America the ratio is 19 females to 100 males. The following quotation from the 
 English Board of Trade report would indicate that the American potter need not look 
 for any help in this direction. On page Xo. 141 of said report is the following: 
 
 "It appears that women and girls are very largely employed in the pottery industry. 
 In some branches cf the irade they being employed to an increased extent upon which 
 a few years ago was performed almost exclusively by men. They are now actively 
 engaged in competition with male labor, and as they are able to do similar work for 
 lower wages, they arc gradually driving men from certain sections of the trade. The 
 reason given for this is the usual one- women do the work as satisfactorily as the men, 
 and the culling of prices in Irade competition drives the employer to'resort to low 
 paid lalior." 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 657 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 (3) In England the piecework wages are paid for "good from oven." That is, the 
 workman is paid only for such ware as comes from the kiln in perfect condition. In 
 America the ware is paid for "good from hand," the manufacturer assuming all the 
 loss. The English manufacturer considers this method worth about 5 per cent of their 
 clay shop cost. 
 
 (4) The apprenticeship system is a great help to the English manufacturer on 
 account of his long term of years of apprenticeship, having the use of the boys during 
 that period at very low wages, and the further benefit of having well-trained operatives 
 at the end of their term of apprenticeship, whereas in America the trade-union rules 
 restrict the number of apprentices, limiting the time and consequent efficiency on 
 entering the trade as a joxirneyman. 
 
 DECORATING. 
 
 The difference in cost of decorating is becoming more and more important, because 
 of the fact that from 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the output of the American factory is 
 now decorated. The following tables indicate the difference in cost of decorating 
 materials, and labor cost: 
 
 Decorating materials. 
 
 
 England. 
 
 America. 
 
 Printing paper, per pound 
 
 $0.16 
 
 SO. 33 
 
 Decalcomania sheets, each 
 
 .15-. 20 
 
 .20-. 25 
 
 Decorating colors, per pound: 
 
 1.37 
 
 1 50 
 
 Turkish blue, No. 399 
 
 6.84 
 
 8.44 
 
 Turkish blue No 3 
 
 11.40 
 
 14.09 
 
 French brown, No. 67c 
 
 3.65 
 
 4.50 
 
 Golden brown, No. 25d 
 
 2.28 
 
 3.38 
 
 Gordon green No 1 . ... 
 
 1.83 
 
 2.25 
 
 Olive green No. 158 
 
 2.74 
 
 3.38 
 
 Maroon, No. 3 
 
 9.12 
 
 11.50 
 
 Maroon, No. 321 
 
 13.68 
 
 18.00 
 
 Pink No 6 . 
 
 4.10 
 
 5.07 
 
 Pink No. 25 . ... 
 
 2.74 
 
 3.38 
 
 Red, No. 280 
 
 1.82 
 
 2.40 
 
 Red , No. 8 
 
 1.37 
 
 1.69 
 
 
 
 
 Decorator's weekly earnings. 
 
 
 England. 
 
 America 
 (55 hours). 
 
 Superintendent 
 
 $7. 20-114. 44 
 
 $24.53 
 
 
 3. 60- 4. 80 
 
 12.21 
 
 Printers 
 
 5.82- 7.20 
 
 19.19 
 
 Transferrers (girls) 
 
 2.40- 3.60 
 
 10.89 
 
 
 1.92- 2.40 
 
 6.71 
 
 Cutters (girls) 
 
 1.08 
 
 4.73 
 
 
 2.40 
 
 7.81 
 
 Liners and gilders (women) . 
 
 4.08 
 
 14.52 
 
 Gilders fine work (men) 
 
 7.20- 9.60 
 
 18.42 
 
 
 6.00- 9.60 
 
 18.42 
 
 
 9.60- 12.00 
 
 30.00 
 
 
 4. 80- 6. 00 
 
 
 
 8.40 
 
 21.45 
 
 Decalcomania transfprrers (girls) 
 
 2.40- 3.60 
 
 10.28 
 
 
 $1.80 per kiln. 
 
 3.50 
 
 
 
 
 The decorators' wages, like those of the potters, are based on piecework prices and 
 show a corresponding difference in rate paid, so that in either the production of the 
 white ware or the decorating of the same the question of greater efficiency of the one 
 or the other is of no consequence in considering the cost of production. 
 
 78959 VOL 113- 
 
TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 ENGLISH METHOD OP ARRIVING AT COST. 
 
 I have taken the following table from the English Manufacturing Potters' Associa- 
 tion's book of costs, inserting therein corresponding American costs, which again 
 proves the previous tables showing the cost of production: 
 
 Cost for 20 dozen 7-inch plates. 
 
 
 English 
 cost. 
 
 United 
 States 
 equiva- 
 lent. 
 
 Ameri- 
 can cost. 
 
 Clay, taken in biscuit: 
 168 pounds at 3s. 6d. per hundredweight. 
 
 *. d. 
 5 3 
 
 $1.26 
 
 
 168 pounds, at 1 cent per pound 
 
 
 
 SI. 68 
 
 Making: 
 
 2 6 
 
 .60 
 
 
 Actual wages, 4J cents 
 
 
 
 .90 
 
 
 
 
 
 Biscuit (first fire): 
 6 saggers, at 2Jd. each to cover all cost of biscuit 
 
 1 3 
 
 1.86 
 .30 
 
 2.58 
 
 9 saggers, at 10 cents each to cover all cost of biscuit 
 
 
 
 .90 
 
 
 
 
 
 Loss in biscuit 6J per cent ". 
 
 1 7 
 
 2.16 
 .14 
 
 3.48 
 .22 
 
 Glaze: 
 13 pounds, at ld. per pound 
 
 1 10 
 
 .44 
 
 
 
 
 
 .65 
 
 Glost (second fire): 
 13 saggers at 4d. each . ... 
 
 4 4 
 
 1.04 
 
 
 13 saggers, at 16 cents each 
 
 
 
 2.40 
 
 ptiltSj spnrSj H"fl pins . . . 
 
 1 9 
 
 .18 
 
 .25 
 
 
 
 
 
 Loss in glost, 10 per cent 
 
 16 6 
 1 7J 
 
 3.96 
 .39 
 
 7.00 
 .70 
 
 
 
 
 
 Add for working expenses, 33J per cent 
 
 18 li 
 6 4 
 
 4.35 
 1 45 
 
 7.70 
 2 57 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 24 2 
 
 5.80 
 
 10.27 
 
 American cost 77 per cent higher than English. 
 
 RATE PER HOUR. 
 
 Realizing how largely the actual number of hours worked during a given nominal 
 day enters into the cost of the product, and knowing how greatly the days differ in 
 length in the different countries, I secured from over 20 of our largest manufacturers 
 the actual number of hours worked by the various operatives covering a given length 
 of time. These figures show that 4,967 employees men, women, girls, and boys, 
 skilled and unskilled worked 469,516 hours (actual time being kept) and earned 
 $126,560.74, or an average of 24.83 cents per hour. Segregating these figures, I find 
 the following average: 
 
 Skilled men earn at the rate of $0.405 per hour; unskilled men earn at the rate of 
 $0.225 per hour; skilled women earn at the rate of $0.221 per hour; unskilled women 
 earn at the rate of $0.1:58 per hour; unskilled boys earn at the rate of $0.162 per hour; 
 unskilled girls earn at the rate of $0.086 per hour. 
 
 Not having as accurate data for England and other foreign countries, but knowing 
 that at the low rate of wages every hour of the day must be occupied to produce the 
 meager wages earned by them, I find the following result: 
 
 Average rate of wages in the United States per hour $0. 2483 
 
 Average rate of wages in England per hour 11 
 
 Average rate of wages in Germany per hour 0913 
 
 Average rate of wages in Austria per hour 086 
 
 Average rate of wages in France per hour 0825 
 
 Average rate of wages in Belgium per hour 0693 
 
 Average rate of wages in Holland per hour 065 
 
 A v-praen rat c of wages in Japan per hour 025 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 659 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 CONTINENTAL POTTING. 
 
 Following the same general outline, I give brief comparisons on the Continent: 
 
 HOLLAND. 
 MATERIALS. 
 
 First, earthenware. 
 
 
 Holland. 
 
 America. 
 
 Ballclay 
 
 $5.27 
 
 $8 80 
 
 China clay . .. . . 
 
 7 39 
 
 12 00 
 
 Quartz (ground sand) 
 
 2.40 
 
 7.00 
 
 Cornwall stone 
 
 9 60 
 
 13 44 
 
 Saggar clay 
 
 1.20 
 
 2.75 
 
 Wad clay 
 
 1.20 
 
 1.62 
 
 Coal (English) 
 
 2.60 
 
 3.45 
 
 
 
 
 LABOR. 
 
 Comparative weekly earnings. 
 
 
 Holland. 
 
 America 
 (60 hours). 
 
 Potters . 
 
 $4.80 
 
 $26.10 
 
 
 5.24 
 
 19.98 
 
 
 4.80 
 
 26.16 
 
 
 1.75 
 
 None. 
 
 
 3.60 
 
 13.32 
 
 
 4.80 
 
 33.00 
 
 
 1.80 
 
 None. 
 
 Saggar makers 
 
 4.80 
 
 27.54 
 
 
 
 
 Piecework prices. 
 
 
 
 Holland. America. 
 
 
 per dozen.. 
 
 $0.0144 $0.0475 
 
 
 do 
 
 .0048 .03 
 
 
 do.... 
 
 .0048 .0325 
 
 
 ....do.... 
 
 .0144 .035 
 
 
 do.... 
 
 .48 .90 
 
 
 ...do 
 
 .30 .70 
 
 
 do.... 
 
 .21 .68 
 
 
 
 
 BELGIUM. 
 
 Materials practically the same as Holland. 
 
 LABOR. 
 Comparative weekly earnings. 
 
 
 Belgium. 
 
 America 
 (58J hours). 
 
 
 $5.48 
 7.48 
 4.32 
 5.18 
 2.00 
 
 $25.44 
 29.48 
 17.25 
 25.50 
 None. 
 20.41 
 22.00 
 12. 9S 
 32.17 
 None. 
 26.85 
 
 
 
 
 Kiln placers (women) 
 
 Printers 
 Decorators 
 
 6.72 
 4.32 
 
 Dippers (men) 
 
 f>.02 
 2.52 
 5.02 
 
 Satreir makers ... 
 
660 
 
 TARIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 92-94 POTTEBY. 
 
 GERMANY. 
 Materials. 
 
 The following table will indicate the difference in cost of materials: 
 
 Materials. 
 
 
 Germany. 
 
 America. 
 
 China clay (English) 
 
 $8.11 
 
 $12.00 
 
 Ball clay (English) 
 
 5.98 
 
 8.80 
 
 Cornwall stone 
 
 10.20 
 
 13.44 
 
 Quartz (ground flints) 
 
 9.52 
 
 11.76 
 
 Saggar clay 
 
 3.21 
 
 3.82 
 
 Saggar clay, mixed 
 
 2.62 
 
 2.75 
 
 Wad clay 
 
 1.80 
 
 1.62 
 
 Coal 
 
 2. 62-4. 75 
 
 
 Coal (value as mixed) 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.45 
 
 White lead.... .... 
 
 .04* 
 
 05| 
 
 Zinc oxide 
 
 .06i 
 
 .08} 
 
 B oracic acid . . 
 
 .041 
 
 
 Paris white 
 
 .43 
 
 .65 
 
 Printing paper 
 
 .16 
 
 .33 
 
 Decalcomania sheets 
 
 16.20 
 
 80. 20-. 30 
 
 
 
 
 LABOR. 
 
 Comparative weekly earnings. 
 
 
 Germany. 
 
 America 
 (60 hours). 
 
 Jiggormen . . 
 
 $7.57 
 
 $30.72 
 
 Throwers -. 
 
 7.44 
 
 29.54 
 
 Turners 
 
 7.20 
 
 28.74 
 
 Pressers . . . 
 
 8.09 
 
 20.22 
 
 Castors (men) . . . 
 
 7.68 
 
 23.70 
 
 Casters (women) 
 
 4.86 
 
 18.50 
 
 Dippers (men) 
 
 7.23 
 
 33.00 
 
 Dippers (women) 
 
 3.47 
 
 None. 
 
 Saggar makers 
 
 6.36 
 
 27.54 
 
 Mold makers .. 
 
 8.20 
 
 30 24 
 
 Packers 
 
 5.86 
 
 26.16 
 
 Warehousemen . . 
 
 5.38 
 
 13.08 
 
 Kiln placers (men) 
 
 7.85 
 
 26.16 
 
 Kiln placers ( women) . 
 
 3.47 
 
 None. 
 
 Firemen (skilled) 
 
 5. 86-10. 08 
 
 19.32 
 
 Firemen, decorating kilns .. 
 
 6.48 
 
 28.50 
 
 Printers 
 
 6.56 
 
 20.94 
 
 Hand painters. - . ... 
 
 7.20 
 
 30.00 
 
 Transfcrrers (women) 
 
 2.58 
 
 11.22 
 
 Laborers (men), heavy work . 
 
 5.26 
 
 13.32 
 
 Laborers (men) ordinary 
 
 3.36 
 
 9.50 
 
 Laborers (women) 
 
 3.22 
 
 None. 
 
 Selectors 
 
 4.56 
 
 12.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 Germany. 
 
 America 
 (GO hours). 
 
 Plates, S inch 
 
 $0.0286 
 
 $0. 0625 
 
 Plates, 7 inch 
 
 .0254 
 
 .055 
 
 Plates, (i inch 
 
 .0190 
 
 .05 
 
 Plates, 5 inch 
 
 .017,5 
 
 .045 
 
 Cups, h;m<llei| 
 
 . 0239 
 
 .0675 
 
 Saucers 
 
 . 0165 
 
 .03 
 
 Bowls 24s finished 
 
 .0299 
 
 .06 
 
 Bowls, 30s fini-Oied 
 
 .0299 
 
 .055 
 
 Bowls, 3(U, finished 
 
 .0299 
 
 .05 
 
 Bowls 24s, fmi-ihod. nmiH 
 
 .0588 
 
 .13 
 
 Bowls, 30s, finished tinned 
 
 .0588 
 
 .12 
 
 Bowls, 30s, finished, turned . . . 
 
 . 058* 
 
 . 11 
 
 I'us^eroles, s inch 
 
 .30 
 
 1.06 
 
 Teapots, complete, jiiiiif'd . - . . 
 
 .24 
 
 .68 
 
 Te:ipol ;. i Minplcii', |. jr., I'd 
 
 .44! 
 
 1.00 
 
 ; ; <Hjp tniveii . '.I iin-li n\ ;il 
 
 . 71 4 
 
 2.76 
 
 i >v I<T tiirivii . Hi inch . .. ... 
 
 . 543 
 
 1.50 
 
 i 1] -pid:M .li)|i ';ir-. 
 
 . 7t>7 
 
 1.29 
 
 I 'll IU'1"! .1H1 !<i.i|l . . . . 
 
 .12 
 
 .45 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 661 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTER Y. 
 
 CONTINENTAL CHINA AND PORCELAIN. 
 
 Iii the production of chinaware the labor element enters into the total cost in larger 
 proportions to the materials than it does in earthenware. In consequence of this fact, 
 the ratio of labor cost to the cost of materials is even greater in the American product 
 than has been shown in the earthenware comparisons. 
 
 FRANCE MATERIALS. 
 
 The French manufacturers are furnished with their body and glazed materials mixed 
 ready for use. In the following table the American body and glazed materials have 
 been valued in the same way, viz, the prepared body and glazed. 
 
 Comparative material cost. 
 
 
 France. 
 
 America. 
 
 Chinaclay.. . 
 
 $10 13 
 
 $12 50 
 
 Prepared body ($13.51 to J23.Ui), as used 
 
 19.30 
 
 22.00 
 
 Prepared glaze ($17.37 to $23. 16) as used . .. 
 
 19.30 
 
 35 00 
 
 Prepared saggar clay, as used 
 
 3.86 
 
 5.10 
 
 Coal ($5.02 to $6.75) as used .... 
 
 5.79 
 
 3 45 
 
 Plaster per 300-pound barrel 
 
 1.41 
 
 1.90 
 
 Wood 
 
 7.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 Liquid gold 
 
 8.68 
 
 10.50 
 
 Transfjr sheets (average) 
 
 .14 
 
 .20 
 
 
 
 
 LABOR. 
 Comparative weekly earnings. 
 
 
 France. 
 
 America. 
 
 
 $6.75 
 
 $25.00 
 
 Saucer makers 
 
 6.36 
 
 24.00 
 
 Cup makers 
 
 6.75 
 
 26.50 
 
 
 5.79 
 
 23.00 
 
 Casters (women) 
 
 4.24 
 
 None. 
 
 
 3.08 
 
 None. 
 
 Handlers (men) 
 
 None. 
 
 20.00 
 
 
 6.17 
 
 22.00 
 
 Dish makers 
 
 6.7> 
 
 24.50 
 
 
 8.68 
 
 26.00 
 
 
 8.68 
 
 22.00 
 
 
 5.79 
 
 18.00 
 
 
 4.82 
 
 20.00 
 
 
 4.63 
 
 30.00 
 
 
 2.89 
 
 None. 
 
 
 5.79 
 
 22.00 
 
 Saggar makers 
 
 6.75 
 
 27.50 
 
 
 6.75 
 
 22.00 
 
 
 5.21 
 
 18.00 
 
 
 3.08 
 
 9.00 
 
 
 8.68 
 
 25.00 
 
 
 4.80 
 
 15.00 
 
 
 3. 86 
 
 7.40 
 
 
 9. 05-15. 24 
 
 20. 00-50. 00 
 
 
 
 
662 
 
 TAKIFF HEAKINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Comparative piecework prices. 
 
 FESTOON OR FANCY SHAPES. 
 
 - 
 
 France. 
 
 America. 
 
 Plates: 
 
 $0.081 
 
 SO. 12 
 
 
 .069 
 
 .095 
 
 
 .065 
 
 .08 
 
 
 .072 
 
 .12 
 
 6J inches deep 
 
 .061 
 
 .10 
 
 
 .047 
 
 .05 
 
 Saucers " . 
 
 .047 
 
 .05 
 
 Cups, hand: 
 Teas . . 
 
 .05 
 
 .15 
 
 Dishes: 
 9 inches (pressed) 
 
 .204 
 
 .27 
 
 
 .278 
 
 .30 
 
 12 inches (pressed) 
 
 .36 
 
 .63 
 
 
 .461 
 
 .63 
 
 16 inches (pressed) 
 
 .552 
 
 .75 
 
 
 .324 
 
 .52 
 
 Boup tureens (pressed) 
 
 1.50 
 
 3.75 
 
 Covered dishes (pressed) 
 
 .924 
 
 1.70 
 
 Casseroles (pressed) 
 
 .972 
 
 1.70 
 
 Sauce boat and stand (pressed) 
 
 .924 
 
 1.55 
 
 
 .162 
 
 .33 
 
 Covered butters and drs. (pressed ) 
 
 .336 
 
 .60 
 
 
 .346 
 
 1.12 
 
 Creams (pressed) 
 
 .276 
 
 .75 
 
 
 
 
 PLAIN EDGE OR HOTEL SHAPES. 
 
 SO. 062 
 .051 
 .047 
 .056 
 .043 
 .041 
 
 .074 
 
 .096 
 
 .121 
 
 .137 
 
 .162 
 
 .242 
 
 .30 
 
 .393 
 
 CASTING, FINISHING, AND HANDLING. 
 
 Dishes: 
 9-inch 
 
 $0 112 
 
 $0 27 
 
 10-inch 
 
 .151 
 
 .30 
 
 12-inch 
 
 .198 
 
 .53 
 
 14-inch 
 
 .253 
 
 .63 
 
 16-inch 
 
 .303 
 
 .75 
 
 Bakrr's, SJ-ini'h . . 
 
 .178 
 
 .52 
 
 Soup tureons 
 
 .825 
 
 3 75 
 
 Covered dishes 
 
 .508 
 
 1.70 
 
 Casseroles 
 
 .534 
 
 1 70 
 
 Sauc-p boats 
 
 .508 
 
 1.55 
 
 Pickles 
 
 .089 
 
 33 
 
 Sugars, (U 
 
 .19 
 
 1.12 
 
 Creams, fit 
 
 .151 
 
 75 
 
 
 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 663 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Comparative cost of materials. 
 
 Germany. 
 
 America. 
 
 China clay 
 
 Feldspar 
 
 Quartz (ground flints) 
 
 Quartz (ground sand) 
 
 Saggar clay 
 
 Wad clay 
 
 Sand (raw) 
 
 Coal ............................... 
 
 Plaster of Paris (300-pound barrel) . 
 
 $10.71 
 7.73 
 9.10 
 4.30 
 2.85 
 1.62 
 1.43 
 3.69 
 .45 
 
 $13.25 
 11.70 
 11.70 
 8.40 
 2.75 
 1.02 
 3.70 
 3.45 
 1.90 
 
 OVERHEAD CHARGES AND GENERAL EXPENSES. 
 
 The overhead charges and expenses are calculated at from 26 to 33J per cent of 
 the total cost of materials and labor. These figures correspond very closely with the 
 English method of arriving at cost. 
 
 GERMANY. 
 
 A variety of materials of the same general character are used in Germany, and for 
 comparative purposes I have taken those most closely resembling in kind and quality 
 the materials used in America. For example, German coal can be purchased as low 
 as $2.62 per ton. Coal in Germany ranges from $2.62 to $6.19 per ton. I have taken 
 a grade of coal, or a mixture of coals, which most nearly corresponds with the American 
 coal, valued at $3.69 per ton. 
 
 LABOR. 
 
 The pottery industry is scattered over the entire country of Germany, and the wages 
 vary somewhat in different localities. The figures of the Chamber of Commerce, 
 Sonneberg, confirm my figures and show that I am giving high values. This table 
 is as follows: 
 
 Average weekly earnings by age. 
 
 [Time, 60 hours per week.] 
 
 Males under 16 years: 
 
 Day wage $2. 30 
 
 Piecework 2. 88 
 
 Males, 16 to 20 years: 
 
 Day wage 2.88 
 
 Piecework 4. 32 
 
 Males, over 20 years: 
 
 Day wage 3. 60 
 
 Piecework (maximum) 7. 20 
 
 Females under 16 years: 
 
 Day wage 2. 16 
 
 Piecework 2. 88 
 
 Females, 16 to 20 years: 
 
 Day wage 2. 16 
 
 Piecework 2. 64 
 
 Females over 20 years: 
 
 Day wage 2. 16 
 
 Piecework 3. 00 
 
 Consul General Dillingham's report also corroborates these figures: 
 
 Consul General Dillingham's report: 
 
 Jiggermen and pressers (tableware) $5. 99 
 
 Casters (females) (tableware) 4-39 
 
 Kiln placers and burners 4. 76 
 
 Decorators (tableware and fine china) 5. 62 
 
CG4 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 In the following table I give the range of wages, but for comparative purposes use 
 the maximum figures: 
 
 Comparative weekly earnings. 
 
 
 Germany. 
 
 Maxi- 
 mum. 
 
 America. 
 
 Jiggerers: 
 Men 
 
 $4. 46-$8. 00 
 
 $8.00 
 
 $25.00 
 
 Women. 
 
 2.33- 4.85 
 
 4.85 
 
 None. 
 
 Casters: 
 Men 
 
 4.06- 7.68 
 
 7.68 
 
 23.00 
 
 Women 
 
 2.33- 4.86 
 
 4.86 
 
 None. 
 
 Handlers: 
 Women 
 
 1.93- 2.43 
 
 2.43 
 
 None. 
 
 Men 
 
 None. 
 
 None. 
 
 20.00 
 
 Dish makers 
 
 4.46- 6.78 
 
 6.78 
 
 24.00 
 
 Pressers .... . .. . 
 
 4. 46- 6. 78 
 
 6.78 
 
 22.00 
 
 Throwers 
 
 4. 46- 8. 12 
 
 8.12 
 
 26.00 
 
 Turners 
 
 3.26- 8.12 
 
 8.12 
 
 22.00 
 
 Kiln men 
 
 4.84- 6.24 
 
 6.24 
 
 20.00 
 
 Kiln placers, women 
 
 2.78- 3.47 
 
 3.47 
 
 None. 
 
 Firemen and burners 
 
 5.86-10.08 
 
 10.08 
 
 22.00 
 
 DiP S : 
 
 4. 56- 6. 00 
 
 6.00 
 
 30.00 
 
 Women 
 
 2.78- 3.47 
 
 3.47 
 
 None. 
 
 Saggar makers ... . 
 
 6. 36- 7. 40 
 
 7.40 
 
 27.50 
 
 Mold makers 
 
 8.22-8.42 
 
 8.42 
 
 22.00 
 
 Packers 
 
 4. 86- 5. 75 
 
 5.75 
 
 18.00 
 
 Laborers: 
 Men . . 
 
 3.60-4.50 
 
 4.50 
 
 9.00 
 
 Women 
 
 2.22- 2.38 
 
 2.38 
 
 None. 
 
 Painters: 
 Cheap work 
 
 3.38- 5.26 
 
 5.26 
 
 18.00 
 
 Fine work . . . . 
 
 5.26- 9.60 
 
 9.60 
 
 30.00 
 
 Printers.. 
 
 4.06- 6.56 
 
 6.56 
 
 21.00 
 
 Transferors ' 
 
 1.90- 2.75 
 
 2.75 
 
 7.40 
 
 Gilders: 
 < ; iris 
 
 1.90- 2.57 
 
 2.57 
 
 7.50 
 
 Men (fine work) 
 
 4.06- 6.56 
 
 6.56 
 
 25.00 
 
 Selectors 
 
 3.04- 3.57 
 
 3.57 
 
 9.00 
 
 Foremen ... 
 
 3.57- 6.56 
 
 6.56 
 
 18.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 PIECEWORK PRICES. 
 
 The table following gives the actual piecework prices paid in certain of the Ger- 
 man factories. The price given indicates the net prices paid for the completed 
 article. It is the practice in some, if not all, of the German factories to deduct per- 
 centage for the use of the machinery, steam, etc. In some cases as much as 15 per 
 cent is charged for this service. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Comparative piecework prices. 
 
 665 
 
 
 Qennany. 
 
 America. 
 
 Plates: 
 8-iuch, festoon 
 
 $0.06 
 
 $0.12 
 
 7-i rich, festoon . .. 
 
 .053 
 
 09} 
 
 0-inch, festoon 
 
 .045 
 
 .06 
 
 5-inch, festoon 
 
 .023 
 
 .051 
 
 8-inch, festoon, deep 
 
 .06 
 
 .13 
 
 7-inch, festoon, deep 
 
 .053 
 
 .11 
 
 C-inch, festoon, deep 
 
 .045 
 
 .10 
 
 8-inch, plain 
 
 .048 
 
 .08 
 
 7-inch, plain 
 
 .04 
 
 .07 
 
 6-inch, plain 
 
 .024 
 
 .06 
 
 5-inch, plain . .. 
 
 .019 
 
 .05 
 
 8-inch, plain, deep 
 
 .048 
 
 .09 
 
 7-inch, plain, deep 
 
 .04 
 
 .08 
 
 G-inch, plain, deep 
 
 .024 
 
 .07 
 
 Fruit saucers 
 
 .021 
 
 .05 
 
 Ice creams 
 
 .021 
 
 .05 
 
 Oatmeals 
 
 .024 
 
 .0? 
 
 Cups and saucers: 
 Ordinary 
 
 .06 
 
 .17| 
 
 Thin 
 
 .09 
 
 .20 
 
 Cups only: 
 Ordinary 
 
 .04 
 
 .121 
 
 Thin 
 
 .068 
 
 .15 
 
 Saucers. 
 
 .021 
 
 .05 
 
 Dishes: 
 2 and 2 J inch . 
 
 .019 
 
 .09 
 
 3-inch 
 
 .022 
 
 .09 
 
 10-inch 
 
 .097 
 
 .18 . 
 
 12-inch 
 
 .15 
 
 .22 
 
 14-inch 
 
 .195 
 
 .29 
 
 16-inch 
 
 .245 
 
 .37 
 
 Covered dishes (cast) 
 
 .72 
 
 1.11 
 
 Covered dishes, round (cast) 
 
 .59 
 
 1.06 
 
 
 .80 
 
 2.76 
 
 Sauce boat and stand 
 
 .146 
 
 .98 
 
 Pickles 
 
 .097 
 
 .28 
 
 Salads . 
 
 .117 
 
 .75 
 
 Teapots 
 
 .25 
 
 1.00 
 
 Sugars 
 
 .122 
 
 .60 
 
 Creams . 
 
 .097 
 
 .42 . 
 
 
 
 
 AUSTRIA. 
 
 The following is a comparative table of the materials used in Austria: 
 
 Materials. 
 
 
 Austria. 
 
 America. 
 
 Kaolin: 
 Best 
 
 $12.82 
 
 $14. 78 
 
 Second grade 
 
 12.00 
 
 12.00 
 
 Feldspar 
 
 7.10 
 
 11.76 
 
 
 14.21 
 
 
 Quartz: 
 Austrian . 
 
 6.18 
 
 8.40 
 
 
 9.27 
 
 11.76 
 
 Saggar clay 
 
 1.62 
 
 2.75 
 
 
 .80 
 
 1.62 
 
 Coal: 
 
 1.22 
 
 
 
 2.84 
 
 
 
 3.44 
 
 
 
 2.84 
 
 3.45 
 
 Wood per cord 
 
 4.38 
 
 4.00 
 
 
 04A 
 
 -05i 
 
 Oxide of zinc, per pound . 
 
 .06^ 
 
 .12 
 
 
 04^ 
 
 .06J 
 
 
 9.00 
 
 10.50 
 
 
 .06-$0.10 
 
 . 10-$0. 20 
 
 Plaster of Paris per 300 pounds barrels . . 
 
 .60 
 
 1.90 
 
 
 .43 
 
 .05 
 
 
 
 
666 
 
 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94^-POTTERY. 
 
 Labor Comparative weekly earnings. 
 
 
 
 Austria. 
 
 America. 
 
 Dish makers 
 
 $4.46-47.10 
 
 $7.10 
 
 $24.50 
 
 Jiggerers: 
 Men 
 
 4 06- 6.09 
 
 6.09 
 
 25.00 
 
 Women . .. . 
 
 2. 03- 4. 87 
 
 4.87 
 
 None. 
 
 Casters: 
 Men 
 
 4.06- 6.09 
 
 6.09 
 
 23.00 
 
 Women 
 
 2.03- 4.06 
 
 4.06 
 
 None. 
 
 Handlers: 
 Women 
 
 1.60- 2.03 
 
 2.03 
 
 None. 
 
 Men. 
 
 None. 
 
 None. 
 
 20.00 
 
 Pressers . 
 
 4.46- 7.10 
 
 7.10 
 
 22.00 
 
 Throwers :... 
 
 2.84- 8.12 
 
 8.12 
 
 26.00 
 
 Turners 
 
 3.26- 8.12 
 
 8.12 
 
 22.00 
 
 Kiln placers: 
 Men 
 
 3.26- 6.09 
 
 6.09 
 
 20.00 
 
 Women 
 
 2. 64- 3. 65 
 
 3.65 
 
 None. 
 
 Firemen and burners .. .... 
 
 7.20- 8.00 
 
 8.00 
 
 22.00 
 
 Dippers: 
 Men 
 
 None. 
 
 None. 
 
 30.00 
 
 Women.. . . 
 
 2. 64- 3. 65 
 
 3.65 
 
 None. 
 
 Sagger makers .' 
 
 3.65- 8.12 
 
 8.12 
 
 27.50 
 
 Mold makers ... 
 
 4. 06- 8. 12 
 
 8.12 
 
 22.00 
 
 Packers 
 
 3.25- 4.06 
 
 4.06 
 
 18.00 
 
 Laborers: 
 Men 
 
 2.43-4.06 
 
 4.06 
 
 9.00 
 
 Women 
 
 2.03- 2.44 
 
 2.44 
 
 None. 
 
 
 3 65-10 15 
 
 10.15 
 
 30 00 
 
 Printers 
 
 4.06- 6.09 
 
 6.09 
 
 21.00 
 
 .Tran<?ferrpr<! ........ 
 
 1.60-3.65 
 
 3.65 
 
 7.40 
 
 Gilders: 
 Girls 
 
 1.60- 3.04 
 
 3.04 
 
 7.50 
 
 Men (fine gold work) 
 
 8. 12-12. 18 
 
 12.18 
 
 25.00 
 
 Selectors . . . 
 
 2.03-3.04 
 
 3.04 
 
 9.00 
 
 Foremen 
 
 3.04- 7.10 
 
 7.10 
 
 18.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 Piecework prices -Thin goods. 
 
 
 Austria. 
 
 America. 
 
 Plates: 
 8-inch 
 
 $0 048 
 
 JO 12 
 
 7-inch 
 
 .044 
 
 .091 
 
 6-inch 
 
 039 
 
 06 
 
 5-inch 
 
 .034 
 
 .05* 
 
 8-iuch, deep 
 
 .048 
 
 .13 
 
 7-inch, deep 
 
 .044 
 
 .111 
 
 6-inch, deep 
 
 .039 
 
 .10 
 
 Fruit saucers 
 
 021 
 
 .05 
 
 Icecreams 
 
 .021 
 
 .05 
 
 Oatmeals 
 
 024 
 
 .07 
 
 Cups, h'd: 
 Ordinary 
 
 .044 
 
 .12* 
 
 Thin 
 
 068 
 
 .15 
 
 Saucers: 
 Tea 
 
 021 
 
 .05 
 
 Cofl'ee 
 
 021 
 
 05 
 
 DLshes: 
 10-inch 
 
 097 
 
 27 
 
 12-inch 
 
 .146 
 
 .33 
 
 14-inch 
 
 195 
 
 63 
 
 16-inch 
 
 243 
 
 73 
 
 Covered dishes, 8-inch 
 
 759 
 
 1 70 
 
 Soup tureens, 9-inch 
 
 779 
 
 3.75 
 
 Sauce boats and stands 
 
 .146 
 
 1.55 
 
 Pickles 
 
 039 
 
 33 
 
 Salads 
 
 170 
 
 1 00 
 
 Teapots 
 
 146 
 
 2 00 
 
 Suears 
 
 122 
 
 1 12* 
 
 Creams 
 
 097 
 
 .75 
 
 
 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Piecework prices Ordinary goods. 
 
 667 
 
 
 Austria. 
 
 America 
 
 Plates: 
 8-inch. 
 
 JO 04 
 
 to os 
 
 7-inch. 
 
 039 
 
 07 
 
 6-inch 
 
 034 
 
 06 
 
 5-inch *. 
 
 03 
 
 05 
 
 8-inch, deep 
 
 04 
 
 09 
 
 7-inch, deep 
 
 039 
 
 08 
 
 6-inch, deep 
 
 034 
 
 07 
 
 Fruit saucers 
 
 015 
 
 031 
 
 Ice creams 
 
 015 
 
 Mi 
 
 Oatmeals 
 
 02 
 
 '05 
 
 Cups, h'd, ordinary 
 
 031 
 
 11 
 
 Saucers 
 
 015 
 
 04 
 
 Dishes: 
 2 and 2J inch 
 
 019 
 
 09 
 
 3-inch 
 
 022 
 
 09 
 
 10-inch 
 
 095 
 
 18 
 
 12-inch 
 
 135 
 
 22 
 
 14- inch 
 
 .185 
 
 29 
 
 16-inch 
 
 22 
 
 37 
 
 Covered dishes, 8-inch 
 
 .34 
 
 1 11 
 
 Soup tureens, 9-inch 
 
 .438 
 
 2.76 
 
 Saiiffi boat, and stand 
 
 .146 
 
 98 
 
 Pickles 
 
 .039 
 
 .28 
 
 Salads 
 
 .17 
 
 75 
 
 Teapots 
 
 .146 
 
 1 00 
 
 Sugars 
 
 .122 
 
 60 
 
 Creams 
 
 .097 
 
 .42 
 
 
 
 
 TRADE CONDITIONS. 
 
 On the Continent of Europe pottery is made very largely by female labor. Aa 
 stated before, the American potter employs on an average of 19 females, women and 
 girls, to 100 males, men and boys. England employs 80 females to 100 males, while 
 in Germany in many of the factories 300 females to 100 males are employed. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Briefly summarizing the results of my investigations, I find: 
 
 First. That it is impossible to show with absolute accuracy the actual difference in 
 the cost of production of pottery wares at home and abroad. The figures I have 
 secured represent what would be a comparatively accurate presentation, if the work 
 was all done by journeymen, working under similar conditions, but such is not the 
 case. The difference in cost, represented by the figures contained in this report, is 
 great, but when the difference in conditions is considered, the apprentices, the hours 
 worked, the amount of female and child labor on the one hand, and the regulations of 
 the American trade-unions on the other, a greater difference actually exists than, ia 
 possible to express in figures. 
 
 Second. That the cost of producing pottery ware differs to a great extent in the 
 several European countries, the cost being largest in England, decreasing in the order 
 of the countries named: Germany, Belgium, and Holland, in the production of earth- 
 enware, and England, France, Germany, and Austria, in the order named, in the 
 production of china. 
 
 Third. That the facts and figures relative to the producing cost of English earthen- 
 ware being full and accurate, only as above stated, on a basis of journeymen's wages, 
 indicate that the total cost in America is about 78 per cent higher than the total - 
 English cost. 
 
 Fourth. That by using the several elements of English cost as a basis the costs in 
 the several continental countries can be closely approximated for comparison with 
 the American cost figures. 
 
 Fifth and finally. That in the last analysis is the rate of wages per hour, earned 
 by all the pottery employees in the various countries, is the final comparison of 
 wage cost. The figures of the various foreign countries are based upon the assump- 
 tion that the operatives must necessarily work approximately the full number of 
 hours to constitute a day's work. I have, however, made some allowances for lost 
 time. 
 
 Although the rate of wages and the actual amount of wages earned differs very 
 greatly in the several countries, compared with the United States, these differences 
 
668 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 do not account for the still greater difference in the rate per hour earned. The 
 greater difference is accounted for largely from the fact that women, girls, and boys 
 do much of the work done by men in the United States. 
 The following figures are a summary of the comparisons: 
 
 Average rate of wages. 
 
 Cents per hour. 
 
 United States 2483 
 
 England 11 
 
 Germany 0913 
 
 Austria 086 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 Cents per hour. 
 
 France 0825 
 
 Belgium 0693 
 
 Holland 065 
 
 Japan 025 
 
 WILLIAM BURGESS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF GEORGE KOIB, OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Mr. KOLB. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, Mr. Seigal and I, as chair- 
 man of the committee, would like to present this brief. 
 The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire just to present your brief? 
 Mr. KOLB. I think I would like to read it and present some samples. 
 
 Hon OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. 
 ' Sir: Under the present tariff act and all previous ones back to the Wilson bill of 
 August, 1894, the domestic potteries have been protected by an apparent nominal 
 duty of 55 per cent on white and 60 per cent on decorated china upon importation into 
 the United States, but the plain and incontrovertible fact is that the actual protection 
 amounts to as Mgh as 120.91 per cent. Tables showing just how there figures are arrived 
 at are herewith shown, based on importations of various German china laid down in 
 Baltimore as a central distributing point: 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 One case containing 18 dozen decorated German china cuspidors, at 3.25 marks, 
 equals 77^s cents a dozen. $13.91. 
 
 Weight, 572 pounds; measure, 35 cubic feet. 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 Cost of case 
 
 
 $2.40 
 2.11 
 2.17 
 .35 
 
 9.79 
 
 17.26 
 15.16 
 15.60 
 2.52 
 
 70.37 
 
 
 
 Ocean freight to Baltimore (3s cents per 100 poui 
 Marine insurance, customs entry.! oss 1 month ii 
 GO per rent duty on value of goods 
 
 dsj 
 
 
 $13.91 
 
 CO per cent duty on value of case 
 
 2. 40 
 
 
 
 16.31 
 
 16.82 
 
 120.91 
 
 On the basis of 1912 ocean freight rates, it cost $16.82 to land $13.91 worth of china 
 cuspidors in Baltimore. Attention is called to the fact that in the present year, 
 1913. the ocean freight rates are 31.6 per cent higher than given in this illustration 
 and exhibits. 
 
 Attached hereto and made part of this brief are other illustrations marked "Ex- 
 hibits A to P." 
 
 These illustrations serve to show the exorbitant character of the present tariff on 
 chinaware and how, owing to the value of the cases and packing being dutiable at the 
 rate of the contents plus the geographical protection, the domestic potters have been 
 so favored far and beyond all reason for revenue and all protection of "infant industry " 
 us to steadily drive certain lines of import chinaware entirely from the market. The 
 leading potteries in this country are continually adding to their output and building 
 new and larirer kilns t<> lake care of the enormous business they are absorbing. 
 
 liv reference to the illustration above it will be noted that while the actual value of 
 the merchandise is $13.91, the cost of the case, which is $2.40, is 17.26 per cent of the 
 
SCHEDULE B. 669 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 equal to 15.60 per cent. While the tariff provides a tax of 60 per cent on decorated 
 goods, by the inclusion of the value of the case and packing at the same rate of 
 duty, the actual duty is $9.79, equal to 70.37 per cent. 
 
 Taking into consideration all the various dutiable items as shown by this illus- 
 tration, it costs the importer $16.82 to land $13.91 worth of merchandise, which 
 makes 120.91 per cent actual protection on the cost price at factory. These are 
 startling figures and show beyond cavil or question what, the real protection is 
 that has favored these domestic potteries and is driving the cheaper grades of im- 
 ported ware from the market. 
 
 During the last ten years the importation of decorated china have on the whole re- 
 mained about stationary; in some years showing a slight increase, in others a decrease. 
 This, in spite df the fact that in these ten years the population of the United States has 
 greatly increased, and in the same period the production of domestic goods has in- 
 creased annually, until now it reaches a yearly output of over $16,000.000. Attention 
 is particularly directed to the fact that this growth and increase continued during the 
 period when the duty on decorated china was only 35 per cent. 
 
 A cogent argument in the nature of a concrete proposition which shows clearly the 
 relative positions of foreign and domestic wares are the exhibits we show herewith, 
 giving the actual cost price of certain articles laid down at the port of entry, compared 
 with that of similar merchandise of domestic manufacture. Attention is also directed 
 to the fact that in selling the domestic goods the domestic manufacturer has his profit 
 and selling cost figured in the prices stated and given in the illustrative exhibits, 
 while the prices given for the imported goods dp not include the importer's profit or 
 selling expense, but represent the bare cost of importation laid down at the port of 
 entry. If likewise the importer's profit should be added to the price of the imported 
 article, the difference in percentage would be still more pronounced. The value at 
 which domestic goods are put on the market and the cost of the imported article at the 
 port of entry indicates plainly that the present tariff is highly excessive. These are 
 concrete examples and speak for themselves more clearly than arguments or long 
 tables of figures. 
 
 Difference in percentage of value of imported and domestic articles based on foreign cost 
 
 and domestic selling price. 
 
 EXHIBIT l. 
 
 Austrian dinner plate, costing $1.54^ a dozen. 
 
 Dinner set, represented by Exhibit 1, consisting of 100 pieces 12 plates, 8 
 inches; 12 plates, 6 inches; 12 coupe soups, 6 inches; 12 saucers. 4 inches; 
 12 individual butters, 12 teas and saucers, 2 covered dishes, 1 saueeboat 
 and stand, 1 pickle. 1 baker, 1 covered butter and drainer, 1 covered sugar 
 30s. 1 cream 30s, 1 meat dish, 12 inches; 1 meat dish, 14 inches costs laid 
 down at Baltimore, including all charges, excepting importer's profit and 
 selling expense, $9.69 a set. 
 
 ILLUSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 1. 
 
 Domestic dinner plate, selling at $0.67 a dozen 128. 10 
 
 Dinner set of 100 pieces, same combination as above, represented by Illus- 
 trative Exhibit No. 1, selling at $4.94 a set 96. 1 
 
 EXHIBIT 2. 
 
 Austrian dinner plate, costing $1.32 a dozen. 
 
 Dinner set. represented by Exhibit 2. consisting of 100 pieces, costs laid down 
 
 at Baltimore, including all charges, excepting importer's profit and selling 
 
 expense, $8.37 a set. 
 
 ILLUSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 2. 
 
 Domestic dinner plato. soiling at 71jcentsa dozen... 85 J 
 
 Dinner set of 100 pieces, represented by Illustrative Exhibit, No. 2, same 
 combination as above, selling at $5.21 a set .. 60 
 
 F.XHIRTT I?. 
 
 Austrian dinner plate. cn8iin $2.57 :i dozen. 
 
 Dinner set. represented by Exhibit 3, consisting of [00 piece?, costs laid down 
 
 at Baltimore, including all charges, excepting importer's profit and selling 
 
 expense. $10.21 a set. 
 
670 TARIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 ILLUSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 3. 
 
 Domestic dinner plate, selling at $1.424 a dozen 80J 
 
 Dinner set of 100 pieces, represented by Illustrative Exhibit No. 3, same 
 combination as above, selling at $10.40 a set 56 
 
 EXHIBIT 4. 
 
 Austrian dinner plate, costing $1.54 a dozen. 
 
 Dinner set, represented by Exhibit 5, consisting of 100 pieces, costs laid down 
 
 at Baltimore, including all charges, excepting importer's profit and selling 
 
 expense, $10.11 a set. 
 
 ILLUSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 4. 
 
 Domestic dinner plate, selling at $0.75 a dozen .- 105J 
 
 Dinner set, 100 pieces, represented by Illustrative Exhibit 5, same combina- 
 tion as above, selling at $5.48 a set 84J 
 
 EXHIBIT 5. 
 
 German dinner plate, costing $1.75 a dozen. 
 
 Dinner set, represented by Exhibit 6, consisting of 100 pieces, same com- 
 bination as above, costs laid down at Baltimore, including all charges, 
 excepting importer's profit and selling expense, $11.15 a set. 
 
 ILLUSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 5. 
 
 Domestic dinner plate, selling at $0.75 a dozen 134 
 
 Dinner set of 100 pieces, represented by Illustrative Exhibit 6, same com- 
 bination as above, selling at $5.48 a set 103$ 
 
 EXHIBIT 6. 
 
 German plate, costs laid down in Baltimore, including all charges, excepting 
 importer's profit and selling expense, $0.70 10/12 a dozen. 
 
 ILLUSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 6. 
 
 Domestic plate comparable with Exhibit No. 11. Sold in this market by the 
 domestic potteries at $0.40 J a dozen 74. 9 
 
 It may be claimed that the imported articles for which prices are given above are 
 china, while the domestic articles are earthenware. While this is true, we particu- 
 larly direct attention to the fact that the appearance of both is the same, and that 
 the articles of domestic earthenware above mentioned are sold in this country in 
 direct competition with the imported chinaware. We point out further that many 
 of the articles of domestic earthenware are plainly stamped with the word "china," 
 indicating the intention of the domestic manufacturer to lead the consumer to believe 
 that he is buying china and not earthenware (see Illustrative Exhibits Nos. 4 and 8). 
 Attention is further directed to Illustrative Exhibit No. 8, marked "Dresden china," 
 and No. 9, marked "Limoges china," and Exhibit 7, all of which are earthenware of 
 domestic manufacture. 
 
 Attention is also called to the fact that in making the above comparisons we have 
 used similar classes of decorations. 
 
 Yesterday it was slated here that $15,000,000 worth of tableware was manufactured 
 here against importations of $11,000,000 in foreign value, but this is not correct, because , 
 in this $11,000,000 is included a goodly portion of goods that are not tableware at all, 
 for instance; vases, statuettes, busts, figures, umbrella stands, flower pots, clock 
 cases, steins, plaques, cuspidores, lamps, pedestals, toy tea sets, etc. We have not 
 the figures at our disposal as no separation is made for statistical purposes by the 
 (Jovernment, but we believe there are from 25 to 33J per cent of the total importa- 
 tions of white and decorated chinaware. 
 
 Attention is also called to Ihe fact that while the said $11,000,000 are correct so far 
 as the year 1911 is concerned, during 1912 the importations decreased to $9,997,698. 
 
 In view of all these statements herein made it is respectively submitted that 35 
 per cent duty on decorated as well as white chinaware affords ample protection to 
 (lie domestic potters and the revenue. In addition, it is submitted, that no duty 
 phould be imposed on the outside cases, casks, or crates. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 671 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 EXHIBIT B. 
 
 One case containing 60 dozen decorated German china creamers, at 1 mark, equals 
 23 A cents a dozen, $14.28. 
 Weight, 517 pounds; measure, 44.97 cubic feet. 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 Cost of case 
 
 $2 40 
 
 16 78 
 
 Freight from German factory to European port 
 
 1 90 
 
 13 28 
 
 Ocean freight to Baltimore (38 cents per 100 pounds) 
 
 1 97 
 
 13 77 
 
 Marine insurance, customs entry, loss 1 month interest, cartage 
 
 34 
 
 2 38 
 
 60 per cent duty on value of goods $14 28 
 
 
 
 60 per cent duty on valae of case 240 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 16.68 
 
 10.01 
 
 70.10 
 
 
 16.62 
 
 116.87 
 
 On the basis of 1912 ocean freight rates it cost $16.62 to land $14.28 worth of china 
 creamers in Baltimore. 
 
 EXHIBIT C. 
 
 One case containing 60 dozen decorated German china cups and saucers, at 1.50 
 marks, equals 35^ cents a dozen, $21.42. 
 Weight, 770 pounds; measure, 39.7 cubic feet. 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 Cost of case .. .. .. 
 
 $1.92 
 2.79 
 2.93 
 .50 
 
 14.00 
 
 9.97 
 13.02 
 13.69 
 2.33 
 
 65.35 
 
 Freight from German factory to European port 
 
 Ocean freight to Baltimore (38 cents per 100 pounds) 
 
 Marino iTlsiirV"", niist.r>m<i p.ntry, loss 1 mntjth interfisft;, (tartAgn 
 
 60 per cent duty on value of goo'ds I ." $21.42 
 
 60 per cent duty on value of CPSP 1.92 
 
 
 23.34 
 
 22.14 
 
 103.36 
 
 On the basis of 1912 ocean freight rates, it cost $22,14 to land $21.42 worth of china 
 cups and saucers in Baltimore. 
 
 EXHIBIT D. 
 
 One case containing 12 dozen decorated German china cuspidors, at 4.25 marks, 
 equals $1.01 a dozen. 
 Weight, 440 pounds; measure, 36 cubic feet. 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 
 $1.92 
 
 15.76 
 
 
 1.62 
 
 13.37 
 
 Ocean freight to Baltimore (38 cents per 100 pounds) 
 
 1.68 
 
 13.88 
 
 
 .31 
 
 2.58 
 
 
 
 
 On value of case 1-92 
 
 
 
 14.04 
 
 8.42 
 
 69.47 
 
 
 13.95 
 
 115.06 
 
 On the basis of 1912 ocean freight rates it cost $13.95 to land $12.12 worth of china 
 cuspidors in Baltimore. 
 
672 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 EXHIBIT E. 
 
 One case containing 60 dozen decorated German china cups and saucers, at 1.40 
 marks, equals 33J cents, $20. 
 Weight 770 pounds, measure 39.7 cubic feet. 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Cost of case 
 
 $1.92 
 
 9.60 
 
 Freight from German factory to European port 
 
 2 S3 
 
 14.15 
 
 Ocean freight to Baltimore (38 cents per 100 pounds) 
 
 2.93 
 
 14.65 
 
 Marine insurance, customs entry, loss 1 month interest, cartage 
 
 .49 
 
 2.45 
 
 60 per cent duty on value of goods $20. 00 
 
 
 
 On value of case .. ........................... 192 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 21.92 
 
 13.15 
 
 65.75 
 
 
 21.32 
 
 106.60 
 
 On the basis of 1912 ocean freight rates it cost $21.32 to land $20 worth of china cups 
 and saucers in Baltimore. 
 
 EXHIBIT F. 
 
 One case containing 125 dozen decorated German china plates, at 1 mark, equals 
 
 cents a dozen, $29.79. 
 Weight 686 pounds, measure 29.6 cubic feet. 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Cost of case 
 
 $1.68 
 
 5.64 
 
 Freight from German factory to European port 
 
 2.89 
 
 7 69 
 
 Ocean freight to Baltimore (38 cents per 100 pounds) 
 
 2 60 
 
 8 72 
 
 Marine insurance, customs entry, loss 1 month interest, cartage .. 
 
 .79 
 
 2 64 
 
 60 per cent duty on value of goods $29. 79 
 
 
 
 On value of case 1.68 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 31.47 
 
 18.88 
 
 63.33 
 
 
 26.24 
 
 88.02 
 
 On the basis of 1912 ocean freight rates it cost $26.24 to land $29.79 worth of china 
 plates in Baltimore. 
 
 EXHIBIT G. 
 
 One case containing 60 dozen decorated German china plates, at 1.50 marks, equals 
 35} cents, $21.45. 
 Weight, 599 pounds; measure, 36 cubic feet. 
 
 Value. Per cent. 
 
 Cost of case 
 
 Freight from German factory to Kuropean port ' 
 
 Ocean freight to Baltimore (38 conls per 100 pounds) 
 
 Marino insurance, customs entry, loss 1 month interest, cartage 
 
 fiO per cent fluty on value of goods $21.45 
 
 60 per cent on value (if case 1.92 
 
 23.37 
 
 $1.92 
 
 2.32 
 
 2.27 
 
 .52 
 
 14.02 
 
 21.05 
 
 8.93 
 10.88 
 10.68 
 
 2.42 
 
 65.21 
 
 On the basis o f 1912 ocean freight rates it rost $21.05 to land $21.45 worth of china 
 plates in Baltimore. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 673 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 92-94 POTTEBY. 
 EXHIBIT H. 
 
 One case containing 100 dozen decorated German china oatmeals at 1 mark equals 
 3^ centa a dozen, $23.80. 
 Weight, 737 pounds; measure, 36 cubic feet. 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 Cost of case 
 
 SI 92 
 
 8 07 
 
 Freight from German factory to ?^uropean port 
 
 2 73 
 
 11 47 
 
 Ocean freight to Baltimore (38 cents per 100 pounds). 
 Marine insurance customs entry, loss 1 month interest, cartage . 
 
 66 
 
 2 77 
 
 60 per cent duty on value of goods $23. 80 
 
 
 
 On value of case 1.92 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 25.72 
 
 15.43 
 
 64.83 
 
 
 23.54 
 
 98.91 
 
 On the basis of 1912 ocean freight rates it cost $23.54 to land $23.80 worth of china 
 oatmeals in Baltimore. 
 
 EXHIBIT I. 
 
 One case containing 120 dozen decorated German china fruit saucers, at 90 marks, 
 equals 21-f^y cents a dozen. $25.68. 
 Weight, 647 pounds; measure, 25.4 cubic feet. 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 
 $1.54 
 
 6.00 
 
 
 2.51 
 
 9.77 
 
 
 2.47 
 
 9.61 
 
 
 .59 
 
 2.30 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 27.22 
 
 16.33 
 
 63.59 
 
 
 
 23.44 
 
 91.27 
 
 On the basis of 1912 ocean freight rates it cost $23.44 to land $25.68 worth of china 
 fruit saucers in Baltimore. 
 
 EXHIBIT J. 
 
 One case containing 132 dozen decorated German china fruit saucers, 80 marks, 
 
 equals 19 cents a dozen, $25.08. 
 
 Weight, 544 pounds; measure, 26.6 cubic feet. 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 
 $1.68 
 2.00 
 
 6.70 
 7.97 
 
 
 r reignr irom uerman h ( ior> Q r ion nnnnHci 
 
 
 .58 
 16.06 
 
 2.31 
 
 64.03 
 
 
 
 26.76 
 
 22.39 
 
 89.27 
 
 On the basis of 1912 ocean freight rates it cost 
 fruit saucers in Baltimore. 
 
 22.39 to land $25.08 worth of china 
 
 i\v. ).:!.' -_ VOL L l.'J 43 
 
674 TAEIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 EXHIBIT K. 
 
 One case containing 40 dozen decorated German china salads, at 2.75 marks, 
 equals 65 cents a dozen, $26.20. 
 
 Weight 700 pounds, measure 34 cubic feet. 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 
 $1.92 
 2.55 
 2.66 
 .62 
 
 16.87 
 
 7.33 
 9.73 
 10.15 
 2.37 
 
 64.39 
 
 Freight from German factory to European port 
 
 Ocean freight to Baltimore (38 cents per 100 pounds) 
 
 Marine insurance, customs entry, loss 1 month interest, cartage 
 
 60 per cent duty on value of goods $26. 20 
 
 60 per cent duty on value of case 1.92 
 
 
 28.12 
 
 24.62 
 
 93.97 
 
 On the basis of 1912 ocean freight rates it cost $24.62 to land $26.20 worth of china 
 salads in Baltimore. 
 
 EXHIBIT L. 
 
 One cafe, containing 30 dozen decorated German china salads, at 3.90 marks, equal 
 
 93 cent,? a dozen, $27.90. 
 Weight 810 pounds, measure 45 cubic feet. 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 Cost of case 
 
 $2.40 
 
 8.60 
 
 Freight from German factory to European port 
 
 2.95 
 
 10.57 
 
 Ocean freight to Baltimore (38 cents per 100 pounds) . .... 
 
 3 08 
 
 11 04 
 
 Marine insurance customs entry, loss 1 month interest, cartage 
 
 .67 
 
 2.40 
 
 60 per cent dut v on value of goods $27. 90 
 
 
 
 60 per cent duty on value of case 2.40 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 30.30 
 
 18.18 
 
 65.10 
 
 - 
 
 27.28 
 
 97.77 
 
 On the basL of 1912 ocean freight rates, it cost $27.28 to land $27.90 worth of china 
 ealads in Baltimore. 
 
 EXHIBIT M. 
 
 One rase containing 30 dozen decorated German china salads, at 3.10 marks, equals 
 13| cents a dozen. $22.] 2. 
 
 Weight 70S pounds, measure 34 cubic feet. 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Co^t of rase 
 
 $1.92 
 
 8 68 
 
 Freight from ' ierman factory to European port 
 
 2.60 
 
 11.75 
 
 Ocean freight to Baltimore (38 cent? per 100 pounds) . 
 
 2.69 
 
 12.16 
 
 Marine insurance, customs entry, lo.^s ! month interest, cartage 
 
 .54 
 
 2.44 
 
 60 per rent dut \- on value of goods $22. 12 
 
 
 
 60 per cent duty on value of case 1.92 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 24.04 
 
 14.42 
 
 65.19 
 
 
 22.17 
 
 100.22 
 
 On th" basis <>f 1012 ocean freight rales it cust $22.17 to land $22.12 worth of china 
 ealads in Baltimore. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 675 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 EXHIBIT N. 
 
 One case containing 40 dozen decorated German china salads, at 2.20 marks, equal 
 52 J cents a dozen, $20.93. 
 Weight 715 pounds, measure 42.3 cubic feet. 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 Cost of case 
 
 $1 92 
 
 9 17 
 
 Freight from German factory to Kuropeanport 
 
 2 63 
 
 12 57 
 
 Ocean freight to Baltimore (38 cents per 100 pounds' 
 
 2 72 
 
 13 00 
 
 Marine insurance, customs entrv. loss 1 month interest, cartage 
 
 48 
 
 2 29 
 
 60 per cent duty on value of goods . $20 93 
 
 
 
 60 percent duty on value of case 1 92 
 
 13 71 
 
 
 
 
 
 22.85 
 
 21.46 
 
 102.53 
 
 On the basis of 1912 ocean freight rates it cost $21.46 to land $20.93 worth of china 
 salads in Baltimore. 
 
 EXHIBIT 0. 
 
 One case containing 36 dozen decorated German china cake plates, at 2.70 marks, 
 equals 64} cents a dozen, $23.13. 
 Weight, 616 pounds; measure, 36 cubic feet. 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Percent 
 
 Cost of case 
 
 $1 92 
 
 8 30 
 
 Freight from German factory to European port 
 
 2 26 
 
 9 77 
 
 Ocean freight to Baltimore ("38 cents p*er 100 pounds) 
 
 2.34 
 
 10 12 
 
 Marine insurance customs entry, loss 1 month interest, cartage 
 
 55 
 
 2 38 
 
 60 per cent duty on value of goods $23. 13 
 
 
 
 60 per cent duty on value of case 1.92 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 25.05 
 
 15.03 
 
 64.98 
 
 
 22.10 
 
 95.55 
 
 On the basis of 1912 ocean freight rates it cost $22.10 to land $23.13 worth of china 
 cake plates in Baltimore. 
 
 EXHIBIT P. 
 
 One case containing 24 dozen decorated. German china sugars and creams, at 2 
 marks, equals 71^ rents a dozen, $17.14. 
 Weight, 506 pounds; measure, 40.1 cubic feet. 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 
 $1.92 
 
 11.21 
 
 
 1.86 
 
 10.86 
 
 
 1.92 
 
 11.21 
 
 
 .42 
 
 2.45 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 19.06 
 
 11.42 
 
 66.66 
 
 
 17.55 
 
 102.39 
 
 On the basis of 1912 ocean freight rates, it cost $17.55 to land $17.14 worth of china 
 sugars and creams in Baltimore. 
 
 Attention is called to the fact that in the present year, 1913, the ocean freight rates 
 are 31.6 per cent higher than given in the above exhibits. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 GEO. KOLB, 
 HERMAN SIEOEL, 
 JULIUS ROSENFELD, 
 Committee for the Importers of German and Austrian China, New York City. 
 
676 TARIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. Kolb thereupon exhibited samples of china and earthenware 
 to the committee. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Do you know what they pay for decoration in Ger- 
 many? 
 
 Mr. KOLB. I could not give you any information on that score. I 
 am a manufacturer and not an importer. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I am told it costs $1.50 a week in Great Britain and 
 $8 a week here for the girls who dp that work. 
 
 Mr. KOLB. I think, Mr. Payne, if I would ask a manufacturer with 
 whom I was dealing what he paid for the applying of the decorations 
 or what it cost him he would tell me that was none of my business. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I presume he would, if he was importing into the 
 United States. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are you almost through, Mr. Kolb ? 
 
 Mr. HILL. I would like to ask one question. Really, as a matter 
 between one china and another, is not china to-day a luxury ? 
 
 Mr. KOLB. No, sir; not the class of merchandise we are talking 
 about here to-day. 
 
 Mr. HILL. One will look just as well as the other and wear just 
 as well ? 
 
 Mr. KOLB. Sir? 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is it not a luxury ? 
 
 Mr. KOLB. Xo. sir; you would not call that a luxury [exhibiting 
 plate]? 
 
 Mr. HILL. If I was working for $6 or $8 or $10 or $12 a week, as 
 the average workman in the United States does, it would be a luxury 
 to me. 
 
 Mr. KOLB. I would not say that. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is it not a luxury to the average American citizen? 
 
 Mr. KOLB. Xo. sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. And ought it not to pay a high tax? 
 
 Mr. KOLB. Xo. sir. 
 
 Here is something that I would like to show, to show you that the 
 domestic potter to-day is stamping a good portion of his ware as 
 china. Here, for instance. 1 have a plate that is stamped "Dresden 
 China'' (exhibiting plate); here is another platter marked "Limoges 
 China." 
 
 Mr. PAVXK. He ought to be sent to State prison for life for that. 
 
 Mr. KOLB. That would happen if the importer did it. 
 
 Mi 1 . PAYNE. You couldn't get an importer in State prison when 
 he actually commits a fraud and gets thousands of dollars out of the 
 Government ( 
 
 Mr. KOLB. The Government would have to prove it first, before 
 they could do it. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, that concludes Mr. Kolb's statement. 
 
 (i ];<>. BORGFELDT i Co., 
 
 ('rsTOMs DEPARTMENT, 
 
 Xnr York. X. Y.. January 30, 1913. 
 Mr [>\\]ii ( '. !;.>[ IK. 
 
 C'lrrl: f'miiniitln <DI II ,i; t .< ,i,,<i ~\fni.<, nV/s/);',M//n?i. f>. P. 
 
 M> I>i \i;Mi; Koi'Ki; l'.\ dircciiiui of the committee we beg to hand you herewith 
 ii ci'j'V ui memoranda in rrl/uiial ui L-erlain sUUcineiHs made by Mr. Burgess and Mr. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 677 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Wells in reference to the hearings before the committee on Schedule B, which I will 
 thank you to have printed in the proper place, and oblige, 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 CEO. BORGFELDT & Co., 
 
 JOHN E. DAWSING, Customs Manager. 
 
 MKMORANDA IN REBUTTAL OP STATEMENTS MADE BY WILLIAM BURGESS AND W. E. 
 WELLS, REPRESENTING THE DOMESTIC POTTERY INTERESTS. 
 
 [Before the Ways and Means Committee, Jan. 8, 1913.] 
 
 Mr. Burgess stated that fully 90 per cent of the total cost of pottery ware represents 
 labor and that 66$ per cent goes out in the pay envelope. This is at variance 
 with statement of the other representative, Mr. Wells, where he shows besides wages, 
 the "pay envelope" kind of Mr. Burgess, a small item of over $20,000, made up of 
 "all other wages, $14,054.33, and office and management, $6,240." This represents 
 but one of his factories, and, presumably, the figures are most favorable. This is 
 an expense and can not be considered anything else and certainly does not go into 
 the beneficent pay envelope. 
 
 Also in. this connection Mr. Burgess confuses the figures. He shows of the pro- 
 duction of $115.263 the labor item to be $58,912, or 51$ per cent. Here he reckons 
 interest at $9,430, whereas he states an investment of $100,000 should produce 
 $150,000 of finished product, so that according to these figures, on a production of 
 $115,263 a liberal estimate of investment necessary would be $80,000 with interest 
 of about $5,000. 
 
 Mr. Burgess stated that they are supplying less than two-fifths of the consump- 
 tion of dinner ware. According to his figures the domestic production is $16,000,000 
 or $17,000.000, and the landed cost of importations would be about the same. 
 In the amount of the imported goods represented 25 to 33 per cent of fancy 
 articles, not dinner ware, and high-priced china goods which in no way come into 
 competition with the domestic production and should not be used as a basis for 
 comparison. 
 
 In this connection Mr. Burgess in defending the domestic pottery interests made 
 the sorrowful statement that the business never made a fortune for anyone. While 
 that may merely be regarded as a relative expression, 200 per cent dividends might 
 be regarded as approaching "comfortable conditions." The Onandago Pottery Co. 
 (see recent issue of May 19, 1912, of the Pottery, Glass, and Brass Salesman), which is 
 practically the only pottery company in the United States producing real china, 
 declared a stock dividend of $500,000 on a capital of $250.000, or, in other words, a 
 200 per cent dividend. 
 
 Mr. Burgess's allusion to Royal pottery companies is another misleading state, 
 ment. The Royal Worcester is not a Royal factory of any sort. It is royal only 
 in name and is not subsidized by the Government. There is no such thing as a " Royal 
 Japanese Factory," nor has one existed for the past 50 years. These facts and others 
 of like purport it does not seem probable the domestic interests were ignorant of. 
 
 Mr. Burgess again submits misleading statements. He states the dividends 
 of various foreign factories: Kahla. 25 per cent; Rosenthal, 18 per cent; Jonhson 
 Bros., 26f per cent, etc., when as a matter of fact Kahla pays 25 per cent on about 
 2.000.000 marks ($500.000) of common stock and about 3$ to 4 per cent on about 
 4,000.000 marks ($800.000) bonds, making an actual dividend of 10 or 11 per cent on 
 their capitalization; also these dividends are chiefly derived from electrical goods, 
 such as insulators, etc., not imported into this country. The Rosenthal earnings are 
 based on similar conditions, and the output of Johnson Bros, is practically two-thirds 
 sanitary ware, none of which is imported into this market. His other statements 
 have the same value for accuracy. In comparison of American factories he gives 
 earnings of factories as averaging 6f per cent, which, if submitted, is equal to the 
 factories of any of the pottery centers of Europe. 
 
 In this connection Mr. Wells gives the average earnings of 21 factories as 8 
 per cent. He carefully gives the average. It would be illuminating to have the 
 figures of a few of the most successful. We have shown one. supra, paying a 200 per 
 cent dividend. 
 
 Assuming the statement made by Mr. Wells indicating the average profit of 21 fac- 
 tories to be (i per cent to be correct, this does not necessarily indicate that the Amer- 
 ican factories are entitled to special protection, because o!' the Uct that they do not 
 show large profits, although this is intended to be implied. 
 
678 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 In any industry the dividend returns will vary in different factories making the 
 same merchandise, according to the different degrees of ability displayed by the 
 management. 
 
 It is certain that the inducements of the actual profits, whether declared as divi- 
 dends or in whatever manner received, have been sufficient to cause a large increase 
 in the capital invested and an increase in the number of kilns built, from 239 in 1890 
 and about 1,000 in 1912, and several of the big factories have announced a further 
 increase in the number of kilns. The increase and output has been from $4,000,000 
 to $17,000,000. As the protection enjoyed has been enormous, it appears evident 
 that the normal rate of dividend shown is not an adequate index of the real prosperity 
 of the industry. It seems probable that the well-managed concerns show consider- 
 able profit, and that the figures are only held down to the average of (if per cent by 
 reason of the poor showing of the poorly managed or equipped plants. The figures 
 submitted do not disguise the fact that some of the factories were operated at a loss, 
 but as they do not wish the actual dividends declared making up the average, they 
 are not conclusive, and can not be used as an index of the condition in the industry. 
 
 On page Mr. Burgess gives some figures which he states are based on informa- 
 tion obtained by him while an American consul in the potting district of England. 
 This was 20 years ago (1893) and although he states they have been confirmed he 
 carefully refrained from giving any data on the subject. AM a further index of the 
 misleading character of his statement to the Ways and Means Committee' we quote 
 his figures and what they are actually to-day. It is unnecessary to suggest that this 
 correct information, if not actually in Mr. Burgess' possession, could have been easily 
 obtained. 
 
 The price of coal in England. 
 
 Mr. Burgess' figures: Coal, $2.56; cobbles, $2.10; slack, $1.38. 
 
 Actual prices to-day in England of the grades of coal used by the pottery manu- 
 facturers are an follows: Coal, 14s. lOd. ($3.61); cockshead or burgy from 13s. 15d. 
 ($3.16 to S3. 65i: slack. 10s. 6d. ($2.57); coal, domestic (Mr. Burgess), $3.45 per ton. 
 
 Actually delivered in East Liverpool: Coal, $2.75; slack, $1.75. 
 
 Wages. 
 
 English. 
 
 American. 
 
 Plate makers ("man): 
 
 Present average price 
 
 Includes 3 attendants earnim 
 
 Average net earnini; 
 Mr. Burgess's figures. 
 
 Cup makers (women): 
 
 Present average price 
 
 Includes 3 attendants earnim 
 
 Average net earninc. 
 Mr. Burgess's figures. 
 
 Saucer maker ( women 1: 
 
 Present average price 
 
 Includes 3 attendants earnins. 
 
 f s. d. 
 5 10 
 
 1 8 
 
 300 
 180 
 
 500 
 1 4 
 
 300 
 1 8 
 
 3 10 
 1 2 
 
 $26. 88 
 
 0.81 
 
 20.07 
 6.90 
 
 14. GO 
 6.81 
 
 7.79 
 4.94 
 
 24.33 
 5.83 
 
 18.50 
 8.42 
 
 10. 00 
 0.81 
 
 9.25 
 4.06 
 
 17.03 
 5.35 
 
 11.08 
 7.22 
 
 15.81 
 5.94 
 
SCHEDULE B. 679 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. Burgess made the statement that the cheaper grade of foreign goods can be sold 
 at a less price than they can produce them here and that therefore the American 
 manufacturers are confined to middle-grade goods, upon which the domestic compe- 
 tition is keen, and that therefore profits have not been in excess of 5J per cent. The 
 indisputable fact is that up to 10 years ago the 10-cent stores, which sold the cheaper 
 grades of goods, supplied themselves almost exclusively with imported pottery, while 
 at the present time 75 per cent of their purchases are made in this country. We also 
 refer to our brief, and particularly to Exhibits 1 to 6, in contradiction of 
 Burgess's statement that very few American goods (dinner ware) are sold in depart- 
 ment stores, but that almost all is imported. It is, of course, true that they do not 
 have to be kept in stockj as foreign goods do, because American goods can be pur- 
 chased as wanted, which is in favor of the American goods and a handicap against the 
 imported goods. In other words, a purchaser of foreign goods has to take the risk of 
 currying stock and tie up hie money, whereas he can buy American goods as wanted. 
 
 Freight rates obtained from English manufacturers: In former years from Liver- 
 pool, England, to Baltimore, and from Liverpool to St. Louis show from figures that 
 the published English freight rates now on earthenware are measurement rates. It 
 should be shown now these measurement rates figure out if converted to the 100- 
 pound rate. Mr. J. Jones, as stated to the Ways and Means Committee, seems to be 
 of the idea that it figures out 25 cents on 100 pounds, or three times as much as wan 
 asserted by Mr. Burgess. 
 
 We also desire to direct particular attention of the committee to the false marking of 
 earthenware by the very domestic manufacturers whose representatives appeared 
 before you. We submitted samples of various earthenware which is stamped Limo- 
 ges" china, "Dresden" china for "China." There is a very heavy penalty pre- 
 scribed for the false marking of imported articles, the purpose being, of course, to 
 protect the American consumer. There is, however, no corresponding penalty pro- 
 tecting the American consumer from the false marking and misrepresentations of the 
 domestic manufacturer, as set forth in this instance. It is a matter of common knowl- 
 edge that Limoges china and Dresden china are the very best grades of merchandise 
 manufactured, and the purpose of the false marking by the domestic manufacturers 
 is clearly to deceive the consumer. 
 
 We attach hereto also an advertisement clipped from the Cosmopolitan Magazine, 
 marked "Exhibit A," referring to "Homer Laughlin China" manufactured by Homer 
 Laughlin China Co. These goods are earthenware and not china, nor does this concern 
 manufacture china. Mr. W. E. Wells, whose testimony is herein referred to, is con- 
 nected with this concern and appeared as their representative. 
 
 We also attach hereto an advertisement of "Limoges China Dinnerware," manu- 
 factured by the Limoges China Co. of Sebring, Ohio. (Exhibit B.) We do not deny 
 the right of a company using its incorporated name, but the purpose of stamping 
 earthenware "Limoges china" seems clear and apparent. 
 
 It is respectfully suggested that in giving the necessary consideration and weight to 
 the testimony of the domestic pottery concerns that this committee take due cog- 
 nizance of the many glaring inaccuracies of statements made, of errors of omission aa 
 well as commission. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 GEO. KOLB, 
 HERMAN SIEQEL, 
 JULIUS ROSENFELD, 
 Committee for the Importers of German and Austrian China, New York City. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 HOMER LAUGHLIN CHINA FOR SERVICE. 
 
 For real household service, for real satisfaction, you can not buy better, more attrac- 
 tive, or more serviceable dinner ware than Homer Laughlin china, but you can pay 
 much higher prices than are asked for it. Sold almost everywhere. The trade-mark 
 , "Homer Laughlin," stamped on the underside of each dish is our guaranty 
 
 NOTE. People tell us that "The China Book " is one of the most beautiful and inter- 
 esting brochures recently produced. Send for your copy. It is free. 
 
 THB HOMER LAUQHLIN CHINA Co.. 
 
 Newell, W. Va. 
 
680 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 EXHIBIT B. 
 
 The Limoges china dinner ware equals the best of imported ware at one-eighth of the 
 cost, made in any size set or assortment. We are the recognized leaders on coffee and 
 tea assortments. Our Royal Flow blue and French Flow green treatments are deserv- 
 edly popular. We are constantly creating special plans to stimulate your business. 
 Write us for samples. 
 
 THE LIMOGES CHINA Co., 
 
 Sebring, Ohio. 
 
 STATEMENT OF WILL T. BLAKE, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL 
 BROTHERHOOD OF OPERATIVE POTTERS. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this is just a statement which perhaps 
 will explain itself. 
 
 In view of the fact that your committee is meeting at this time for 
 the purpose of determining the wisdom of revising the tariff schedules 
 on pottery, and mindful of the further fact that such revision if it be 
 downward, judging from past experience, would undoubtedly prove 
 a serious blow and setback to the American pottery industry, we 
 herewith submit for your information and careful thought a few facts 
 which we trust may be of some meager assistance to you in reaching 
 a fair and equitable conclusion. 
 
 Should the present tariff schedules on pottery be cut so as to re- 
 quire a reduction in the present selling price of the American pottery 
 manufacturers' goods, we have been given assurance by no less an 
 authority than Mr. W. E. Wells himself, an official of and spokesman 
 for the United States Potters' Association, that there must and inev- 
 itably will follow a reduction in the wages of the employees of 
 such industry in proportion to and as a consequence of such tariff 
 revision. 
 
 In confirmation of the foregoing statement, we herewith submit 
 in part Mr. Wells's public declarations to the press: 
 
 If the rate of duty on pottery is reduced, it will mean that the selling price must 
 be reduced. The owners will not, and can not, sell their output on a closer margin 
 than they are doing to-day, and if they must reduce prices they must either close 
 their plants or reduce wages. Just as surely as the workmen are getting every dollar 
 of the protection to-day they will have to stand every dollar of any reduction made. 
 This is no threat nor bluff, but is the deliberate statement of one who knows pre- 
 cisely what he is talking about. This result occurred in 1894, and there is more 
 reason for it now than there was at that time. 
 
 At present one-half of the pottery used in this country is made abroad, which is 
 fairly good evidence that the protective tariff has not made a monopoly in this par- 
 ticular line. We are fighting with the importer every day to hold our ground and 
 still pay American wages. The owner can not take another dollar out of his pocket 
 in hold his present proportion of the business, and it will bear repeating that if the 
 new administration should invite pottery to this country at a lower price that dif- 
 ference will have to be met right out of the workinsman's pocket. 
 
 Mr. Wells, I believe, is present in the audience this afternoon, and 
 if that statement is not correct I should be very glad to have him 
 indicate it. 
 
 It will be remembered, perhaps, by the older members of your com- 
 mittee that when the Wilson bill was enacted into law back in 1894, 
 materially reducing the tariff and thereby inviting greater foreign 
 competition, many of the potteries closed oLown entirely, and few, 
 if any, of them were operated much better than half time. The 
 employees were not only forced against their wishes to accept irreg- 
 
SCHEDULE B. 681 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92 94 POTTERY. 
 
 ular employment, but were obliged as well to work at a 12$ per cent 
 reduction. These conditions, too, obtained throughout the "life of the 
 Wilson law. 
 
 Following the enactment of the Dingle v law in 1897, which mate- 
 rially increased the tariff, the trade of the domestic pottery manu- 
 facturer in a comparatively short time assumed a more normal and 
 prosperous condition, steadier work was furnished the employees, and 
 the wage scale which prevailed prior to the 12$ per cent reduction was 
 restored. No attempt has since been made on the part of the United 
 States Potters' Association to reduce wages. On the contrary, in 
 many branches of the industry material wage increases have been con- 
 ceded to the workmen, which, in effect, have enabled them to surround 
 themselves with more of the necessaries and comforts of life. 
 
 In view of the expressed declaration of the United States Potters' 
 Association as to what the workmen may expect should the present 
 tariff schedules be lowered, and in view of what actually did nappen 
 between the years 1894 and 1897 when the schedules were lowered, 
 we say to you frankly, gentlemen of the committee, and with the 
 utmost sincerity, that if the present schedules are reduced and the 
 growth of the pottery industry is impaired or retarded, or if the wages 
 of our men are jeopardized or lowered, we should consider it an act of 
 retrogression a step backward. 
 
 As prosperous at the country now is, and as considerate as our em- 
 ployers have been on questions affecting wages, our men to-day, with 
 all of these things in their favor, have an exceedingly difficult mathe- 
 matical problem on their hands to meet the everyday obligations of 
 life. They assuredly do not want to take a step backward, and be- 
 lieving as they do that if the present schedules are lowered it un- 
 questionably means a step backward, we, as their representatives, do 
 urge upon you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, that 
 the present schedules on pottery be not disturbed. 
 
 This statement is signed by Frank H. Hutchins, Michael Kennedy, 
 Edwin James Whitehead, Samuel T. Burgess, and Will T. Blake, 
 representatives of the National Brotherhood of Operative Potters. 
 
 I desire to yield the remaining portion of my time, Mr. Chairman, 
 to Mr. Frank II. Hutchins, the first vice president of our organiza- 
 tion, of Trenton, N. J., who wishes to make a brief oral statement. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. I desire to ask a few questions. You are a prac- 
 tical potter? 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. A member of the Potters' Association? 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. How many of them are there? 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. In our organization, I should say, Mr. Longworth, 
 there are about 7,000. In the industry which we represent there 
 are perhaps 13,000 or 14,000. But not all those are skilled laborers. 
 We take in all of the skilled branches, with perhaps one exception. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Would your experience as a skilled potter fit you 
 for any other employment in case the pottery industry in this coun- 
 try should be abandoned ? 
 
 'Mr. BLAKE. I think not. unless it would be to publish a trade 
 paper of some character. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. But no trade occupation? 
 
682 TAKIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 92-94 POTTERY. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. No trade occupation. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Menge has already yielded his time to you. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. Yes, sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You have consumed the time allotted to you, -and 
 there are other witnesses to follow. We can hear him when we get 
 through, unless it is a very brief statement. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. Just a brief oral statement. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. How long would he want ? 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. About three or four minutes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I would not want to cut him off; I just do not 
 want to have him go in ahead of other witnesses, but if it is only for 
 a minute or two, I will hear him. If he wants to make a long state- 
 ment we will hear him when we get through with these other wit- 
 nesses. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. Yes, sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I say, if it is only a minute or two we will hear 
 him now. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. Thank you. 
 
 WAGES IN THE POTTERY INDUSTRY. 
 
 CHICAGO, January IS, 191 S. 
 Chairman UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: The Chicago papers have contained accounts during the last few days 
 of hearings before the Ways and Means Committee in which the men interested in 
 maintaining the tariff on earthenware, pottery, tiles, etc., defended the present tariff 
 on these wares. Apparently the arguments used were that a reduction of the tariff 
 would lower the American workman to the level of his European competitor. 
 
 During the past year I have become closely acquainted with the pottery industry 
 and the making of tiles in this country and in England, Germany, and Austria, in 
 the course of a study I was asked to make for the Bureau of Labor. I do not wish 
 to burden you with a long exposition of this subject, but only to call your attention 
 to the fallacy of the arguments of men who claim that the protective tariff raises the 
 wages of our potters and that the conditions under which they work are better than 
 those in foreign countries. 
 
 The white-ware potters of Trenton and East Liverpool are, it is true, well paid. 
 They have short hours and can to a great extent control the conditions under which 
 they work, but it is not the tariff which has achieved these results for them; it is their 
 strong organization, the National Brotherhood of Operative Potters. The women in 
 this same field are unorganized, and they are poorly paid and are not protected at all 
 against the dangers of lead poisoning, as they would be were they working in English 
 or German potteries. 
 
 The "art and utility" pottery trade of the Zanesville district and the tile works of 
 Ohio and other States enjoy, according to our consul in Staffordshire, as much pro- 
 tection from the tariff as does the white-ware branch, but here you will find wages 
 wretchedly low, women working for 85 cente to $1.10 a day; men from $1.35 to $1.65; 
 skilled dippers of many years' experience making less than $2 a day. This is because 
 these branches are unorganized, and in the Zanesville district no other work but 
 this can be obtained. It is not an alien industry; the workpeople are all Americans 
 except in a few tile factories. Their late of lead poisoning is more than twice as great 
 as that of the white-ware potters, owing to the more dangerous glaze which is used 
 and to the poverty of (he workers. 
 
 As for conditions in those potteries and tile works, it seems absurd to talk of lowering 
 American standards to the level of the European, for the latter is so much higher. 
 The Englishman or German works under a system of factory control which eliminates 
 as far as possible, in our present state of knowledge, the danger of lead poisoning. It 
 is recognized that ho is employed in a dangerous trade and that he has a right to pro- 
 tection. Our American potters and tile workers, men and women, work in an atmos- 
 phere of poisonous dust and the barest essentials of sanitary control are wanting. As 
 
SCHEDULE B. 683 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 
 a result, with less than one-quarter of the workers we have almost twice as many cases 
 of lead poisoning in a year. 
 
 The protective tariff does not secure fair wages for the workers in the pottery and 
 tile industry. \Vhere wages are fair, they are the result of trade-unioniam. The 
 unorganized branches are dangerous and a detriment, not an advantage, to the com- 
 munities which harbor them, because of the character of the work, the lack of sanitary 
 control, and the low wages which bring in their train the undernourishment predis- 
 posing to lead poisoning. 
 
 These unorganized potters and tile workers have no spokesman, but there are 
 physicians in the Zanesville district who could speak for them and there are intelligent 
 men and women among them who, if they wore not afraid, could testify to what I have 
 said. If you wish any further details, Bulletin No. 104 of the Bureau of Labor will 
 furnish them. 
 
 Yours, sincerely, 
 
 ALICE HAMILTON. 
 
 TELEGRAM OF BURLEY & TYRELL CO., CHICAGO, ILL. 
 
 CHICAGO, ILL., January 7, 191S. 
 lf< m. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C.: 
 
 As extensive handlers of both foreign and domestic earthenware and French and 
 German china we strongly recommend a duty as follows: Earthenware, 25 per cent 
 and china 35 per cent. 
 
 BURLEY & TYRELL Co. 
 PARAGRAPH 95. 
 
 Articles and wares composed wholly or in chief value of earthy or mineral 
 substances, not specially provided for in this section, whether susceptible of 
 decoration or not, if not decorated in any manner, thirty-five per centum ad 
 valorem; if decorated, forty-five per centum ad valorem; carbon, not specially 
 provided for in this section, twenty per centum ad valorem ; electrodes, brushes, 
 plates, and disks, all the foregoing composed wholly or in chief value of car- 
 bon, thirty per centum ad valorem. 
 For talc, see Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 111. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 96. 
 
 Gas retorts, twenty per centum ad valorem ; lava tips for burners, ten cents 
 per gross and fifteen per centum ad valorem; carbons for electric lighting, 
 wholly or partly finished, made entirely from petroleum coke, thirty-five 
 cents per hundred feet ; if composed chiefly of lampblack or .retort carbon, 
 sixty-five cents per hundred feet ; filter tubes, thirty-five per centum ad valo- 
 rem ; porous carbon pots for electric batteries, without metallic connections, 
 twenty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 CARBON. 
 
 STATEMENT OF J. W. VOORHIS, ESQ., REPRESENTING THE 
 AMERICAN EVER READY CO. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 95. 
 
 Mr. VOORHIS. J. W. Voorhis, representing the American Ever 
 Ready Co. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What is the paragraph to which you will speak? 
 
 Mr. VOORIIIS. Paragraph 95 of the tariff act of 1909. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Proceed. 
 
 Mr. VOORHIS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the item in question 
 as defined in the tariff act of 1909 is ''Carbon not especially provided 
 for in this section is dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem." This is a 
 sort of misnomer, for this article, which is the article in question which 
 I wish to dwell upon, is carbon clinkers. 
 
684 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 -CARBON. 
 
 The paragraph in the act leads as follows: 
 
 Articles and wares composed wholly or in chief value of earthy or mineral substances, 
 not specially provided for in this section, whether susceptible of decoration or not, 
 if not decorated in any manner, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; if decorated, 
 forty-five per centum ad valorem; carbon, not specially provided for in this section, 
 twenty per centum ad valorem; electrodes, brushes, plates, and disks, all the fore- 
 going, composed wholly or in chief value of carbon, thirty per centum ad valorem, 
 
 We pray that this article be placed on the free list as coal gas 
 retort carbon clinkers. Coal gas retort carbon, as its name denotes, 
 is a by-product in the manufacture of illuminating gas where coal is 
 exclusively used. There are two ways in which the manufacture of 
 illuminating gas is carried on in this country one where coal is used 
 exclusively and the other where oil is used and produces what is 
 known as water gas. 
 
 Coal gas retort carbon is a residue which remains in the retorts and 
 is only procured when these retorts are cleaned, which, in accordance 
 with the style of the retort in use by the gas works, is done between 
 three and six times annually. This material, which is nothing 
 but a clinker or slag, is a morpheus carbon, and is formed on the 
 inside of the retort, caused by the distillation of coal in the manufac- 
 ture of illuminating gas. It is not an earthy or mineral substance, 
 and should not be so classified as such in the tariff act. 
 
 The gas works in the United States manufacturing gas exclusively 
 from coal are very limited and are becoming less each year, because 
 it is cheaper to make gas from oil, which is known as water gas. 
 The residue or clinker from retorts making water gas is not the same 
 material as the article referred to in this statement. It will not be 
 many years before the manufacture of illuminating gas from coal 
 is entirely abandoned. 
 
 All manufacturers of electrical apparatus requiring carbon of this 
 nature will be compelled to draw their supplies of this material 
 from abroad, where, owing to the many different and varied uses 
 of the by-products and other conditions both in England and con- 
 tinental Europe, it pays them to manufacture illuminating gas solely 
 from coal, because they derive a large revenue from the sale of these 
 by-products, such as sal ammoniac, coal tar, sulphate of ammonia, 
 and many other articles which are produced in the distillation of 
 coal from which illuminating gas is made. Therefore, it is necessary 
 for the American manufacturers to depend on the production from 
 abroad to keep them supplied. This material when ground is one 
 of (lie principal factors in the manufacture of dry batteries. 
 
 1 lie annual consumption of this material in the United States is 
 approximately between six and ten thousand tons per annum. The 
 domestic production of this material is approximately fifteen hundred 
 tons per annum. It is not nearly sufficient to cover the require- 
 ments, and the result is that importation has to be resorted to and a 
 substitute for (his material has to be used when, for some reason 
 or other, this material can not be procured abroad. The substitute, 
 which is petroleum coke, a residue obtained in the distillation or 
 refining of petroleum, is not equal to coal-gas retort carbon clinkers 
 and has to be mixed with a high-priced graphite to increase its 
 efficiency equal to coal-gas retort carbon, which increases the cost 
 of production of dry batteries. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 685 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 
 With the ever-increasing dry-battery business there should be no 
 restriction in the way of duty or otherwise over this factor, which 
 plays such an important part in the manufacture of these batteries 
 that are a necessity to a large number of our people. 
 
 The revenue derived from the importation of this material at the 
 present time is only a very minor item. In fact, the duty being 
 removed would not be of any moment in the revenue of this Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 It is impossible to-manufacture coal-gas retort carbon commercially 
 in this country. The present duty on this material does not benefit 
 any manufacturer, nor does it protect any American labor. All the 
 efforts of gas manufacturers in this country are directed toward one 
 point, and that is to decrease the accumulation of this clinker in 
 the retorts, which in itself is the best evidence that the duty does 
 not benefit them, as they do not regard any duty placed upon this 
 article any inducement whatever to manufacture this material. 
 
 We respectfully pray that your honorable committee will recom- 
 mend to change paragraph 95 of the act of 1909, eliminating carbon 
 clinkers from "carbon not specially provided for," at 20 per cent 
 ad valorem, and place same on the free list, and that you define this 
 as coal-gas retort carbon clinkers. 
 
 BRIEFS SUBMITTED ON THE SUBJECT OF CARBON BRUSHES. 
 
 ST. MARYS, PA., January $, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We take the liberty of addressing you in regard to a revision of the tariff 
 on carbon brushes. 
 
 The present rate of duty on carbon brushes, carbon electrodes, and carbon plates 
 is 30 per cent. This is not sufficient to protect the American manufacturers, as in 
 the process of manufacture of carbon brushes and electrodes the labor is more than 
 one-half the cost, and as the labor in Germany and France is so much cheaper we 
 feel that a protection of 50 per cent should be given domestic manufacturers to equalize 
 the difference in the cost of production. Every carbon brush, in going through the 
 factory, is handled from 20 to 31 times before it is ready for the consumer. 
 
 The importation of carbon brushes is on the increase right along, although the 
 American product is equal in every respect to the foreign goods, and therefore the 
 duty should be increased on all classes of carbon material for the protection of the 
 American manufacturer. 
 
 We trust that you will give this question your careful consideration. Thanking 
 you, we are. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 SPEER CARBON Co., 
 J. S. SPEER, 
 President and General Manager. 
 
 ST. MARYS, PA., January 4, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Our president, Mr. ,T. S. Speer, wrote you on the 3d instant in regard to 
 the present rate of duty on carbon brushes, electrodes, and other carbon articles 
 (paragraph 95 of the law of 1909V 
 
 He requested me to send you samples of our product to show the amount of labor on 
 fiame. and I am sending under separate cover throe small samples of carbon brushes, 
 showing the hand milling which requires not less than 20 separate operations before 
 the brush is finished. This is a brush that is sold by us at 3.3 cents each, and is equal 
 in every way to the imported brushes. 
 
686 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 
 The importation of carbon brushes and electrodes is very large and is increasing 
 very rapidly, and the present tariff rate does not give the American manufacturer 
 sufficient protection. The rate at present is 30 per cent, and this should be increased 
 to 50 per cent for the reason that this higher rate is necessary to equalize the difference 
 in the cost of production. 
 
 Yours, truly, SPEER CARBON Co., 
 
 G. P. FRYLING, Treasurer. 
 
 BRADFORD, PA., U. S. A., January 6, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: As manufacturers of carbon brushes for electric motors and generators 
 we are interested in the tariff on this class of material. 
 
 Competition at the present time is very keen, as there are a large number of manu- 
 facturers in this country. Under the present tariff, the sale of foreign brushes has 
 increased materially, and we are very apprehensive of the results that might follow 
 from any curtailment of protection. One point which we desire to emphasize is that 
 the cost of production of carbon articles is composed largely of labor. Our pay roll 
 constitutes by far our largest item of expense, and the labor is of a kind that is ex- 
 tremely well paid. 
 
 We feel that the circumstances warrant a tariff of 60 per cent. Our company is 
 engaged exclusively in brush manufacture, and whether we expand to include other 
 carbon materials, for example, electric-light carbons, will depend largely upon what 
 measure of protection we enjoy. It is our firm belief that a reduction from the present 
 tariff will result in forcing out of business at least some of the smaller plants which 
 are now manufacturing carbon. 
 
 Very truly, yours, CORLISS CARBON Co., 
 
 OTTO KOCH, 
 
 President and Manager. 
 
 PROTEST AGAINST REDUCTION OF DUTY ON CARBONS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 95. 
 
 STACKPOLE CARBON Co., 
 St. Marys, Pa., January 9, 1913. 
 CONGRESSMAN TNDERWOOD. 
 
 Chairman of the Tariff Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 HONORED SIR: We wish to enter our protest, as manufacturers of carbon and carbon 
 products, against any reduction of duty on this product. 
 
 "We are obliged to pay $1.75 to 82 for ordinary labor in our works to manufacture the 
 same carbon that the foreign carbon manufacturers pay as low as 35 to 50 cents a day 
 for labor to do the same class of work. 
 
 The writer absolutely knows this to be the case from the fact that several years ago 
 we contemplated manufacturing a grade of carbon that was manufactured by a foreign 
 carbon works, and one of the parties that was interested in this foreign carbon works 
 contemplated taking stock in our company and gave us the manufactured cost of 
 this carbon abroad in their plant and what it would cost to make it in this country; 
 and I consider the present duty on carbons is entirely too low. Even at the present 
 duty on foreign carbons the foreign manufacturers are in a position to undersell us 
 on certain lines of carbon, and one case in particular we quoted our cost price on a 
 particular carbon to find out how low the foreigner could go, and the exporter of this 
 particular foreign carbon went below the price we quoted, which was cost; so this 
 will give you some idea for the reasons that we enter our protest against reduction of 
 the tariff on carbon products and the reason why we ask for an increase. 
 
 If the foreign carbon manufacturers can bring their product here and pay the present 
 duty and undersell us in cases I know of where we have quoted our cost price in 
 order to find out how cheap they could sell their product at a profit, we certainly 
 have just reasons to ask for an increase in duty on this particular product. 
 
 Our books are open to inspection of any committee, and we are not trying to earn 
 dividends on watered stock or inflated valuations. Our investment represents actual 
 cash value and every share of stock that has been issued by this company has been 
 paid for in cash. 
 
 Hoping yon will give this some consideration, we remain, 
 Yours, A- cry truly, 
 
 STACKPOLE CARBON Co., 
 H. C. STACKPOLE, Treasurer. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 687 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 BRIEF OF THE CHAVANT MANUFACTURING CO., JERSEY CITY, N. J. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 95. 
 
 JERSEY CITY, N. J., January 6, 191S. 
 The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: I desire to file this brief in support of a proposed amendment to the 
 pravision in paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909, for articles composed of earthy or mineral 
 substances. 
 
 Following is paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909, as it is desired to have it amended, the 
 words to be omitted being inclosed in brackets and those to be substituted being 
 italicized: 
 
 ''95. [Articles and waresj Manufactures or materials composed or consisting wholly 
 or in chief value of earthy or mineral substances, not specially provided for in this 
 section, whether susceptible of decoration or not, if not decorated in any manner, 
 thirty-five per centum ad valorem; if decorated, forty-five per centum ad valorem; 
 *." (No change suggested for remainder of paragraph, which relates only to 
 carbon articles.) 
 
 The above amendment was drawn in order to accomplish what is believed to have 
 been the original intent of Congress and to restore to said paragraph a wide variety 
 of manufactured articles composed of earthy or mineral substances which have been 
 excluded by judicial construction. The reason for the particular words suggested 
 in the proposed amendment is found in the peculiar history of this paragraph and its 
 prototypes. Probably in no paragraph in the tariff have repeated legislative efforts 
 to broaden its purview met with so little success. 
 
 The provision first appeared as paragraph 86, in the Wilson tariff of 1894, enumerat- 
 ing "all articles composed of earthen or mineral substances, including lava tips for 
 burners." The General Appraisers held that this did not cover putz pomade, a com- 
 pleted article composed of mineral substances and ready for immediate use, being a 
 metal polish put up in small tin boxes in the form of paste. The reason given for 
 this conclusion was that, though it was not questioned that the merchandise being 
 an "article" and "composed of * * * mineral substances " was literally within 
 the language of the provision, yet it should be excluded therefrom and thrown into 
 the catch-all clause for articles not enumerated in the act, on the ground that the 
 paragraph was not intended to "cover a substance without form," such as the paste 
 in question, also because the enumeration of lava tips "would indicate that Congress 
 did not intend the provision to cover everything that was wholly or chiefly of mineral 
 origin." (Ramsperger case, G. A. 3280, T. D. 16584.) 
 
 The law was then amended in a broadening way, "wares" being added to the 
 previous word "articles," "earthen" being changed to "earthy, "composed" 
 being made more definite by the addition of "wholly or in chief value," and the 
 provision for lava tips being omitted. (Par. 97, Dingley tariff of 1897.) But the 
 courts still further narrowed the purview of the paragraph by holding that the pres- 
 ence of the expressions "if not decorated" and if decorated" implied intention to 
 exclude articles not susceptible of decoration. (Dingelstedt v. U. S., 91 Fed., 112; 
 U. S. v. Downing, 201 U. S., 354.) 
 
 The effect of these authoritative adjudications was to give the paragraph a more 
 restricted operation under the act of 1897 than the really narrower paragraph of the 
 preceding act of 1894 had received. In Notes on Tariff JRevisipn, a publication pre- 
 pared for the use of the Ways and Means Committee in drafting the Payne Act of 
 1909, this comment was made (p. 109): 
 
 "These judicial determinations have been followed in hundreds of decisions by 
 the lower courts and by the Board of General Appraisers. The rulings 
 
 cited have all but emasculated paragraph 97 and have undoubtedly caused a tre- 
 mendous loss to the revenue; for the articles excluded from classification under this 
 paragraph, where they would have yielded 35 per cent duty, have, in the vast 
 majority of instances, been relegated to the provision for nonenumerated articles 
 dutiable at only 20 per cent. The remedy is to amend the paragraph so as to provide 
 that such articles of earthy or mineral substances as would otherwise fall within the 
 terms of the paragraph shall not be excluded therefrom because they are not suscep- 
 tible of decoration, but shall be dutiable under the provision therein for such articles 
 when not decorated." 
 
 With this information before it as to the results of its legislation, Congress made 
 another effort to extend the paragraph by adding the words "whether susceptible 
 
688 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 95-96 CABBON. 
 
 of decoration or not." These new words have, of course, been given some effect, 
 but the courts have followed the previous policy of imputing to the paragraph the 
 narrowest possible intendment. For instance, the Court of Customs Appeals held 
 that the law did not cover merchandise which unquestionably was "articles or wares," 
 and was "composed wholly or in chief value of * * * mineral substances." (Salo- 
 mon v. U. S., 2 Ct. Gust. Appls., 92, T. D. 31635; U. S. v. Embossing Co., 3 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., T. D. 32536; Bartley v. U. S., 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., T. D. 32961.) 
 
 As showing the narrow distinctions forced upon the court, it is pointed out that 
 in two of these decisions the merchandise was held to be "articles" within the mean- 
 ing of the catch-all clause of paragraph 480 (under which the court placed them), 
 but not "articles" within the meaning of the paragraph now in question. 
 
 The Salomon case, just cited, related to powdered talc. The reason given by the 
 court for excluding it from the mineral paragraph was that the words "composed of" 
 meant "made up of a mineral substance, and not the substance itself, which the 
 ground talc clearly is." 
 
 In the Embossing Co. case the articles in dispute consisted of so-called plasticine 
 and plastilina, which were concededly of mineral origin and were completed articles, 
 ready for the ultimate consumer, being in small boxes in a form adapting them for 
 their intended use, chiefly by young children for modeling purposes, both at school 
 and as toys at home. It is found at the toy counters of department stores. The 
 reason given for excluding it from the paragraph was that the law was not intended 
 to cover merchandise having no "specific or definite form or shape." 
 
 This decision was followed in the Bartley case, which related to so-called plate 
 powder put up in small boxes for retail, with sealed printed coverings containing 
 directions for use, therefore being in its final condition and completely ready for use 
 by the ultimate consumer in polishing silver. The court said that the paragraph 
 could not be held to cover an impalpable powder like that just described. 
 
 The Board of General Appraisers went even further and held that the word "com- 
 posed" should, by reason of its etymological significance, be construed as relating 
 only to compositions, and not including articles made from a single material; but 
 this ruling was reversed by the Customs Court. (U. S. v. Tamm, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 425. T. D. 32173.) 
 
 The foregoing is not meant as a criticism of the various judicial tribunals concerned 
 in making the rulings referred to, nor as suggesting that strong reasons did not exist 
 for their conclusions. The application of their decisions, however, leaves the law 
 uneven in its practical operation. Suppose the plate powder in the Bartley case had 
 been pressed into cakes, the same as some other well-known articles of similar use, 
 probably it would then have been held to be within the mineral-substance paragraph, 
 because having a specific form. The same is true of the talc involved in the Salomon 
 case, if. instead of having been ground to powder, it had been ground into disks, 
 rubes, or other forms. From the legislative standpoint no reason exists why in the 
 one case the duty should be 20 per cent and in the other 35 per cent. Our purpose is 
 to secure the adoption of a form of words that will result in a uniform rate of duty, 
 whether the merchandise shall have a specific form or otherwise. 
 
 Under the traditional legislative policy that increases duty in accordance with the 
 labor that goes into the production of an article, the rate of 35 per cent would have 
 been much more appropriate on plasticine, plastilina, and plate powder, which are 
 carefully prepared articles, than on some of the much simpler articles of a specific 
 form which the court has held were properly so assessed. 
 
 In order to meet the decisions above cited, to secure symmetry of rate, and to restore 
 i ho effect which it is very likely Congress intended the provision should have from 
 iho very beginning in 1S94, it is necessary to use words not subject to the limitations 
 which the courts have attached to the present form of expression. It is thought that 
 this can surely bo accomplished in the way suggested at the beginning of this brief, 
 namely, by striking out the ineffective words ''articles and wares" and inserting in 
 lieu thereof ''manufactures and materials," as well as adding "consisting." 
 
 The use of the word "manufactures' 1 was suggested by the Customs Court in the 
 Embossing Co. case, where it said: 
 
 "Had Congress intended to change the meaning given to 'articles and wares' by 
 the tribunals whose duty it was to interpret the paragraph, it could have done so 
 very readily by substituting for the words 'articles and wares' the word 'manufac- 
 tures. ' ' 
 
 The word "materials" might not ho necessary were it. not for the strong judicial 
 inclination to give the provision a narrow scope. It is possible, in view of this ten- 
 dency, that the icrni "manufactures," by itself, would be held applicable only to 
 
SCHEDULE B. 689 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 
 articles of substantial structure, that is, in definite and specific forms, and completely 
 ready for ultimate use. So narrow a meaning could not be imputed to "materials. ' 
 
 The new word "consisting" probably would not be necessary in other paragraphs 
 of the act which have not been so narrowly construed, but in view of the disposition 
 to restrict the paragraph, it is prudent to make the provision in question as explicit as 
 possible. That at least can do no harm. 
 
 It may be urged that the suggested amendment, while having the effect of assuring 
 the desired classification, would also include crude articles which ought to be free of 
 duty. This is answered by pointing to paragraph 626, which will presumably be reen- 
 acted, and which places on the free list: 
 
 "Minerals, crude or not advanced in value or condition by refining or grinding, or by 
 other process of manufacture, not specially provided for in this section. 
 
 This specific language would retain within the free list any imports now classified 
 there. The only effect of the proposed amendment would be to place within para- 
 graph 95 articles which by judicial action have been taken out of tnat paragraph. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 CHAVANT MANUFACTURING Co., 
 
 Jersey City, N. J. 
 
 BRIEF OF THE CHAMPION CARBON CO., CINCINNATI, OHIO. 
 
 CINCINNATI, OHIO. January 11, 191S. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 MY DEAR SIR: It was my intention to have appeared. before your committee during 
 the adjustment of the tariff schedule on carbon, and because of unavoidable conditions 
 which prevented my being present, I wish to add my protest to any reduction of the 
 present tariff, and at the same time emphasize to you many reasons why the tariff on 
 carbon products of every description should be increased rather than reduced. 
 
 It is only natural that the importer and domestic manufacturer should be far apart, 
 but in view of the fact that the importations under the present tariff have increased 
 enormously and that home manufactures have been unable to increase their output 
 anything like an apportionate amount, shows conclusively the necessity and justness 
 of further protection for American manufactures of carbon. 
 
 I would say and urge that your honorable committee increase the duty on flaming 
 arc carbons to at least 50 per cent and on brushes, electrodes, plates, disks, and that 
 class of carbons to 50 per cent. Nothing less would be high enough to cover the 
 difference in the cost of manufacture in this country and Germany and France, where 
 most of the imported product comes from. 
 
 No statistics give us the exact consumption of the various forms of carbons, but we 
 who are constantly canvassing the consumers, know and fully understand the tremen- 
 dous increase in the sale of foreign carbons and realize that the importers, because of 
 the German and French labor being fully not more than one-third of our cost of labor, 
 are getting rich, and we feel that the above increase is necessary to give even moderate 
 protection to domestic manufactures. 
 
 Now, in view of the fact that our product is used only by municipalities and large 
 corporations and does not affect the great common people nor the laborer, except as 
 moderate and just protection will permit us to maintain our present scale of wages, 
 may we urge that you increase the duty rather than decrease it? 
 
 Most respectfully submitted by 
 
 THE CHAMPION CARBON Co., 
 By CLAY B. STEELE, 
 
 Vice President and General Manager. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HUGO REISINGER, OF 11 BROADWAY, NEW 
 YORK, ON THE SUBJECT OF ELECTRIC-LIGHT CARBONS, ETC. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Will you kindly state what paragraph you wish to 
 talk about? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. Paragraphs 95 and 96, eJectric-light carbons, bat- 
 tery carbons, and brushes. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 44 
 
690 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Reisinger. 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 had an opportunity of making oral statement to the Committee on 
 Ways ana Means on Monday, November 23, 1908, on the subject of a 
 duty on electric-light carbons, battery carbons, and brushes, and I 
 pointed out at that time that by procuring from the Fifty-fifth Con- 
 gress an enactment of a practically prohibitory duty on this class of 
 goods the trust, known as the National Carbon Co., has been able to 
 prevent the importation of low-grade carbons entirely and to secure 
 such an amount of protection on the high-grade carbons as to enable 
 them to control 80 per cent of the output of this kind. 
 
 After I had spoken, a statement was made by Mr. J. S. Crider, of 
 Cleveland, Ohio, representing the National Carbon Co. (see hearing, 
 pp. 1545 to 1551), and in view of that statement I now beg again leave 
 to respectfully submit in writing a few additional suggestions on this 
 very important subject. 
 
 It will be remembered that my statement made before the Commit- 
 tee on Ways and Means on November 23, 1908, that the carbon busi- 
 ness was in the hands of a trust was not denied. On the contrary, 
 on page 1459, in answer to questions by Mr. Underwood, Mr. Crider 
 conceded that his company was the only concern that made high-grade 
 carbons and that it had a monopoly of the American market. 
 
 It also appears from his testimony on the same page that his com- 
 pany had $4,500,000 of preferred stock (presumably representing the 
 actual capital investment), and $5,500,000 common stock (presum- 
 ably representing expectations or hopes, in fact water) . The National 
 Carbon Co. are paying 7 per cent dividends on the preferred stock and 
 6 per cent dividends on the common, and on November 7, 1910, paid 
 an extra dividend on the common stock of 15 per cent. Besides they 
 have accumulated an enormous surplus. 
 
 The Carbon Trust 1ms been protected by an unreasonably high rate 
 of duty since the Dingley tariff went into effect, and in fact was 
 founded on the strength of this tariff. 
 
 The present administration, as everyone knows, promised a down- 
 ward revision, and I take the liberty to explain to you how this 
 revision, which is always advertised as "downward," looks in reality. 
 
 The duty under the Dingley tariff was 90 cents per 100 carbons. 
 This rate was "reduced" by the Payne- Aldrich tariff to 65 cents per 
 100 feet, but the adding of the wor<d "feet" raised the duty consid- 
 erable, because we paid 90 cents duty on carbons of 2 and 3 feet 
 length and now have to pay 65 cents on carbons of 1 foot length, so 
 while in fact the duty appears at first sight to the general public as a 
 reduction it was materially advanced, which illustrates that mode 
 of tariff making. 
 
 I claim that the present rate of duty on electric-light carbons is 
 exorbitant, and I can prove by my books that the import in the main 
 carbon for inclosed arc lamps has fallen off from 40 to 50 per cent 
 since the new tariff has been in force, because it is now absolutely 
 impossible to compete against the trust. Our business is now solely 
 confined to such special qualities which the trust is not able to manu- 
 facture to the satisfaction of the consumer, and therefore the high 
 duty is just as unreasonable on the special carbons as on the regular 
 inclosed carbons. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 691 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 
 The low grade of carbons, made entirely from petroleum coke, on 
 which the duty is 35 cents per 100 feet, can not oe imported at all, 
 not even if they were entered free, inasmuch as they can, on account 
 of the raw material, be manufactured much lower in this country 
 than abroad. This is probably why the duty was put on that class 
 of carbons comparatively low. 
 
 I claim that electric-light carbons can be manufactured in this 
 country as cheap or even cheaper than abroad, because the raw 
 material is right here, and while the labor is double here what it is 
 abroad, the American workman accomplishes through his intelli- 
 gent and quick work, twice the amount, whereby the difference is 
 equalized. Besides, no skilled labor is necessary, because the manu- 
 facturing is done mostly by machinery. 
 
 The heavy tax on electric-light carbons increases materially the 
 burden of taxation, which must be imposed by cities, towns, and 
 villages on all their taxpayers. It is an unjust tax, which has resulted 
 in the creation of monopoly, and I therefore respectfully request that 
 the duty on electric-light carbons be reduced from 65 cents per 100 
 feet to 20 cents per 100 feet, as already suggested by me before the 
 Committee on Ways and Means on November 23, 1908. 
 
 Paragraph 95, which reads as follows: 
 
 Articles and wares composed wholly or in chief value of earthy or mineral sub- 
 stances, not specially provided for in this section, whether susceptible of decoration 
 or not, if not decorated in any manner, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; if deco- 
 rated, forty-five per centum ad valorem; carbon, not specially provided for in this 
 section, twenty per centum ad valorem; electrodes, brushes, plates, and disks, all 
 the foregoing composed wholly or in chief value of carbon, thirty per centum ad 
 valorem. 
 
 I respectfully request that the portion of this paragraph relating 
 to carbons should be as follows: 
 
 Carbons for electric lighting, wholly or partly finished, 20 cents per 100 feet. 
 
 And that paragraph 96, which relates to various other articles, 
 including manufactures of carbon, be changed so that it will read 
 more specifically as to carbon and carbon products, as follows: 
 
 Carbon and all manufactures of same not specially provided for, of which carbon is 
 the component material of chief value, 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Dynamo, generator, motor, contact, and similar brushes, 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 By changing paragraph 96 to read as above you will have the ad- 
 vantage of covering all manufactures of carbon which are already 
 on the market and anything new in the carbon line which may in 
 future be manufactured. 
 
 I claim that if the tariff on all carbon products for electric pur- 
 poses be accordingly revised and reduced to a reasonable basis, as 
 suggested by me, the consumer will obtain the benefit, and will be 
 able to buy his carbon supplies at much cheaper prices, thereby 
 enabling the central stations, isolated electric light plants, etc., to 
 produce much cheaper light and power, and enable the manufacturers 
 of dry batteries, electrical novelties, etc., to successfully compete with 
 their strongest competitor, and in the interest of the consumer I re- 
 spectfully ask you to give this matter your earnest consideration. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Are you a manufacturer of carbons ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. No ; I am an importer. 
 
692 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 
 Mr. HILL. How many years have you been in the business ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. About 20 years. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I think I misunderstood one statement you made. 
 You said there was a large increase in the duty on carbons under the 
 Payne bill. 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. As a matter of fact, was it not a real decrease ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. No; a real increase. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is it not a fact that the duty under the Dingley law pro- 
 vided for so many carbons at such a rate a carbon, and is it not a 
 matter of fact that the importers doubled the length of the carbons so 
 as to cut the duty in two, and then broke the carbons in two after they 
 got here ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. There is no doubt on the tariff question at all. 
 We import 
 
 Mr. HILL (interposing). I know, it was 90 cents a hundred carbons. 
 How long were those carbons under that duty ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. Two and three feet. We get them here in 1-foot 
 sizes, or whatever size we need. 
 
 Mr. HILL. The duty under the Dingley law was 90 cents a hundred 
 carbons on carbons a foot in length. 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. No. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I know it did not specify that, but was not that the 
 intention of the law ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. I do not know what the intention was. I know 
 it is a fact that the intention was to drive tne importer out of the 
 market entirely. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Oh, no. As a matter of fact you have been in business 
 20 years. Were not the length of the carbons doubled by the importer 
 when that duty was made ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. Yes; even tripled. 
 
 Mr. HILL. The importer cut the duty in two himself in violation 
 of law. 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. How did they get to the size of 1 foot ? We im- 
 ported them 16, 18, and 20 inches, and we are importing them now 
 24 inches; they are the kind that are used in lamps. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is not 90 cents a hundred feet a lower rate of duty than 
 it was under the Dingley law, when you were importing carbons 1 foot 
 in length ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. Xo; it was much higher. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I think you are mistaken. 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. The duties under the Payne law were twice as high. 
 That is the kind of reduction we are getting 
 
 Mr. PAYNE (interposing) . Just a moment. You can not get out of 
 it in that way. In spite of the law, you doubled the length of those 
 carbons, did you not? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. Xo. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Yes; you did, to get around the duty. You got that 
 through the courts. 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. Of course we got it through the courts, because 
 we were ri^ht. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 693 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Then you come here and say that we did not lower the 
 duty, but in fact raised it. It was a lower duty on carbons a foot 
 long 
 
 Mr. REISINGER (interrupting). We imported them longer than a 
 foot. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You imported them a foot long. You did not import 
 them longer than a foot after the Dingley law was passed. 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. That is a mistake. I proved that we imported 
 16 and 18 inches. I gave evidence that we were importing at that 
 time carbons longer than 1 foot. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You never imported them longer than a foot at that 
 time. 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. Of course we did. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You imported them longer than a foot up to that time ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. Yes; we did, before the Dingley tariff, 16 and 18 
 inches. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. That is contrary to the evidence introduced at that 
 tune. 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. The proof of the pudding is the eating. I went 
 out into the United States courts, and I won out. The tariff said 100 
 carbons. You did not state what size carbons. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You think it would be entirely f air, with the tariff speci- 
 fying 95 cents a hundred carbons, for you to import carbons 12 feet 
 long? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. I think so. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The courts sustained your position in that matter? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. Exactly. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. And you are not willing to admit that the court 
 committed a fraud on the tariff ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. By no means. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Is there a Carbon Trust? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. Yes, sir; admittedly so. Mr. Cridler admitted 
 that they had a monopoly of the article. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. What is the name of the trust ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. The National Carbon Co., of Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. There is no competition in this country at all ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. None whatsoever. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How long has the trust been in existence ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. I think ever since the passage of the Dingley 
 tariff I think since 1899. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How many men are employed in the industry ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. I could not tell you exactly. I would say about 
 2,000. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. In this country ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. I would say about that. That is a statement I 
 am not quite sure about. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. What is the total consumption as compared with the 
 amount that is imported? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. I claim that 80 per cent of the whole business is 
 in the hands of the trust. There is 20 per cent imported, and of this 
 20 per cent at least 12 per cent can not be manufactured here. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. The only competition the trust has is competition from 
 abroad ? 
 
694 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. Yes, sir; from the imports. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You know, of course, that there is a trust abroad ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. No; there is none. 
 
 Mr. HILL. None in Germany? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. Absolutely none in Germany. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You are sure there is no trust in Germany? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. None. I am very familiar with business over 
 there. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Who do you represent in this country? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. Myself. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Who do you represent abroad ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. I do not represent anybody. I buy. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You buy in the market? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. No; I buy from one manufacturer. 
 
 Mr. HILL. What manufacturer is that? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. C. Conradty, Nuremberg, Germany, one of the 
 largest manufacturers in the world. It is not a trust. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You still think it would be entirely proper for you to 
 buy carbons 12 feet in length as one carbon, and bring it in here, 
 if the duty had not been changed ? 
 
 Mr. REISINGER. In lengths of 2 and 3 feet, and no longer, could 
 carbons be imported on account of the excessive breakage. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Why not ? 
 
 Air. REISIXGER. The longest carbon which could be imported 
 without excessive breakage is 3 feet. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Then you would cut the duty into three parts ? 
 
 Mr. REISIXGER. There would be no use now in importing long- 
 length carbons with a view of cutting them here into smaller sizes 
 and thereby reduce the duty, because the present rate of duty speci- 
 fies distinctly 65 cents per iOO feet, notwithstanding I am importing 
 carbons as long as from 2 to 2 feet, which are, however, used in 
 the lamps in that length. 
 
 Mr. HILL. If you should happen to find out that there was a 
 foreign trust in carbons- 
 Mr. REISINGER (interrupting). There is no foreign trust. I deny 
 that, and I know what I am talking about. There is no trust what- 
 soever. There are four large competitors in Germany alone, fighting 
 among themselves all the time; and there is some competition in 
 France, too. 
 
 HUGO REISINGER, 
 
 11 Broadway, New York, April 5, 1911. 
 Hon. OSCAH W. UNDERWOOD. 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Ifm??*, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: I had the honor to appear before the House Committee on Ways and Means 
 in DecemVier, 11)08, with reference to electric-light carbons, when the hearings were 
 had before that committee in December, 1908. 
 
 Yon were at that time a member of this committee and showed great interest in 
 the tariff on electric-light carbons. In order to refresh your memory on this ques- 
 tion, I inclose herewith my statement and brief before that committee, as well as the 
 statement of the National Carbon Co., known to the trade as the Carbon Trust. 
 
 AH yon know, the original draft of the Payne bill called fora rate on electric-light 
 carl ions of 35 per cent ad valorem, which was subsequently changed by the Senate 
 committtee to 70 cents per 100 feet, and finally to (as per Schedule JB., paragraph 96): 
 
 "Gas retorts, twenty per centum ad valorem; lava tips for burners, ten cents per 
 gross and fifteen per centum ad valorem; carbons for electric lighting, wholly or 
 partly finished, made entirely from petroleum coke, thirty-five cents per hundred 
 
SCHEDULE B. 695 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 
 feet; if composed chiefly of lampblack or retort carbon, sixty-five cents per hundred 
 feet; filter tubes, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; porous carbon pots for electric 
 batteries, without metallic connections, twenty per centum ad valorem." 
 
 With reference to the 35 cents per 100-foot rate, this does not come into question at all, 
 and really seems to be a "joker," because the high price of petroleum coke in Europe 
 prohibits the importation of these carbons, which are known to the trade as "low- 
 grade carbons." 
 
 The only carbons, therefore, which come into question for importation are high- 
 grade carbons, made chiefly of lampblack, on which carbons the duty is 65 cents per 
 100 feet. 
 
 This rate of duty, figured on ad valorem basis, at the rate of 65 cents per 100 feet, is 
 all the way from 35 per cent to 125 per cent, depending on the type of carbons imported, 
 an average, as near as I can figure out, of between 70 per cent and 80 per cent, which 
 stifles all competition, and which means that the Carbon Trust here has absolutely its 
 own way as regards prices. 
 
 The Carbon Trust has become so strong by buying out every independent carbon 
 factory in the United States and by the protection of the tariff. 
 
 On account of the exhorbitant rate 01 duty, the consumer is compelled to pay much 
 more for his carbons than if there were a reasonable rate of duty on this commodity. 
 
 I claim that a duty of 20 cents per 100 feet would be more than ample protection on 
 carbons, which, figured on an ad valorem basis, means about an average of 25 per cent. 
 
 It is a fact that carbons can be manufactured as low here, if not lower, than abroad, 
 because the raw material is right at hand, while abroad it has to be shipped from great 
 distances. 
 
 For instance, domestic carbons for inclosed arc lamps are sold by the Carbon Trust 
 at from $18 to $24 per 1,000, while their cost of manufacture is only from $7 to $9 per 
 1,000, against the cost to me of my imported carbons, also for inclosed arc lamps, of 
 from $10 to $14 per 1,000, f. o. b. European port; so it will be seen that even if the 
 tariff were taken off altogether, the importers would still be compelled to ask higher 
 prices than for the domestic carbons. 
 
 Moreover, there are certain special carbons imported, of very fine grade, for use in 
 moving-picture machines, flaming arc lamps, etc., which the trust is unable to make 
 at all, and which could be sold to the consumer at much lower prices if there were a 
 reasonable duty on carbons. 
 
 Take, for instance, flaming arc-lamp carbons ; which are used in lengths of 24 inches 
 and cost between $30 and $40 per 1,000 carbons f. o. b. European port, the duty 
 figures $13 per 1,000 carbons, or 1.3 cents each. As two carbons are used in a lamp and 
 they burn only 17 hours, it means that for every trim the consumer has to pay a premium 
 of 2.6 cents for duty alone, meaning per 1,000 pairs of carbons $26 duty. 
 
 You will readily see that this is an exorbitant tax on such a great necessity to the 
 country as light. 
 
 I inclose clipping taken from a newpaper, showing the earnings of the National Car- 
 bon Co. (Carbon Trust) for the year 1910, which speaks for itself. This is certainly a 
 good showing for a company which started out in 1897 with $4,500,000 actual capital 
 and $5,500,000 watered stock. 
 
 It may interest you to go over the discussion on carbons in the Senate on May 21, 
 1909, and I inclose herewith the Congressional Record of that date also. (See pp. 
 2335-2350.) 
 
 I have taken the liberty to report to you in detail, and should you desire further infor- 
 mation I am quite willing to go to Washington and see you at any time regarding the 
 matter. 
 
 I would also be thankful to you if you would let me know whether you are willing to 
 bring the question up yourself or if this has to be done through some other Member of 
 the House or Senate. 
 
 Trusting to be favored with your kind reply, and thanking you in advance, I 
 remain, sir, 
 
 Yours, most respectfully, H. REISINGER. 
 
 BRIEFS SUBMITTED ON THE SUBJECT OF CARBON PRODUCTS. 
 
 WELLSVILLE, N. Y., January 6, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We notice by the public press that there will be hearing this week by 
 the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives on Schedule B, 
 which relates to carbon products. We strongly advocate that No. 95 be 50 or 55 per 
 
696 tABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 
 Cent instead of 30 per cent ad valorem on brushes, plates, disks, and electrodes 3d 
 per cent instead of 20 per cent. No. 96 we feel that there should be 45 cents per 100 
 feet instead of 35 cents; for petroleum coke-lighting carbons, 75 cents instead of 
 65 cents per hundred feet, lighting carbons made chiefly of lampblack or retort coke. 
 
 First, our reason for the above request is that material and fuel are very much higher. 
 
 Second, that labor is a very great item of expense; much lack of appreciation by 
 public on the labor cost of finishing carbon products; close limits on size requires 
 high-class labor, which is very much higher than in Europe. Our books are open 
 at all times for inspection. 
 
 Very truly, yours, PURE CARBON Co., 
 
 R. A. DEMPSEY, President. 
 
 CLEVELAND, OHIO, January 6, 1918. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: It is our understanding that Schedule B of the present tariff bill comes 
 up for consideration in the near future. We, as domestic manufacturers, are vitally 
 interested in paragraph 95 and believe that any reduction in duty would be extremely 
 detrimental to the domestic manufacturer and domestic labor employed in the carbon 
 business. 
 
 In our opinion the present duty should be increased to 40 or 45 per cent and in sup- 
 port of such statement submit the following reasons: 
 
 First. It is a well-known fact in the carbon business that the sale of carbon specialties 
 in this country of French, German, and .English make, such as disks, brushes, etc., 
 as covered by paragraph 95, have increased greatly during the past few years, in fact 
 very much more rapidly than similar domestic items. It is tnerefore very evident 
 that a reduction in the present duty would further handicap the domestic manufacturer. 
 
 Second. Fifty per cent of the cost of manufacturing brushes, disks, etc., is a labor 
 cost, a large percentage of which is of a very highly skilled nature. In the majority 
 of cases the trade demands that this class of material be finished to from one to two 
 thousandths of an inch, and, as you are doubtless aware, labor producing these results 
 must naturally be experienced and demands very much higher compensation than 
 the foreign equivalent. We are sending you under separate cover samples of brushes 
 and disks, showing the high finish and exactness spoken of. Any reduction of duty 
 on articles covered by paragraph 95 would, in our opinion, be dertimental to the best 
 interests of American labor. 
 
 In regard to paragraph 96, while the duty on this section, which includes electric- 
 light carbons, gives more protection than that of products coming under paragraph 
 95, still, in our opinion, it is not sufficient to make up the difference between cost of 
 production at home and abroad, and a slight increase in duty would be only fair to 
 American producers. 
 
 Therefore, as we view it, both from the standpoint of the domestic manufacturer 
 and his employees, the present duties on paragraphs 95 and 96 of schedule B should be 
 maintained, and if possible increased. 
 
 We sincerely trust you will give the foregoing expression of our views favorable 
 consideration. 
 
 Very truly, yours. THE NUNGESSER CARBON & BATTERY Co., 
 
 H. G. ROBBINS, Treasurer. 
 
 CINCINNATI, U. S. A., February 12, 1912. 
 To the Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We are manufacturers of dry cell batteries and use carbon electrodes in 
 large quantities. 
 
 We understand that there is a bill introduced under paragraph 95 to place a duty of 
 20 per cent ad valorem on coal-gas retort carbon. 
 
 This article is a by-product in the distillation of gas from coal. 
 
 We are firmly under the impression that there is not over 15 to 20 per cent of retort 
 carbon (used in making carbon electrodes and carbon brushes) manufactured in this 
 country. 
 
 The production aa above stated of coal-gas retort carbon in this country is a very 
 limited one. 
 
 We are large users of coal-gas retort carbon, and a duty of 20 per cent would not 
 protect home industry to any extent, but the duty would be an absolute hardship on 
 us as well as other manufacturers of dry cell batteries, provided same was imposed. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 697 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 
 We would respectfully and kindly ask of you to recommend to Congress that the 
 crude retort carbon (ground or unground) be placed on the free list. 
 
 We know full well that it is not the intention of Congress or the revenue department 
 to impose a hardship on the American manufacturer of carbon electrodes, dry cell 
 batteries, or carbon brushes. 
 
 Thanking you in advance for any attention you may give this communication, we 
 beg to remain, 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, THE ROCK ISLAND BATTERY Co., 
 
 Per M. S. ROSENTHAL, President. 
 
 ST. Louis, January 4, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We presume in the revision of the tariff that carbon products, covered 
 by section B, which we manufacture, will be considered, and we trust you will 
 pardon us for intruding on your valuable time in writing this letter. 
 
 We kindly ask that the duty now covered by paragraph 95, on carbon brushes, 
 electrodes, plates, and disks be fixed at 45 per cent ad valorem, and we also ask that 
 the present duty covered by paragraph 96, on electric light carbons, be maintained. 
 
 You understand that carbon products are principally manufactured by hand labor, 
 and to illustrate this statement we are sending you under separate cover two brushes, 
 which we trust will reach you in due time. Our worst competition now in the carbon 
 business is from foreigners, and if the tariff is reduced the carbon industry in this coun- 
 try will be badly crippled. 
 
 Carbon products are used almost exclusively by large corporations, and the price ia 
 not a matter of much concern to them, and we believe the Government would realize 
 more revenue on a higher tariff on carbon products than on a lower one, as the per- 
 centage of carbon products now imported in this couutry is in excess to the quantity 
 manufactured. 
 
 We sincerely hope that you will give the carbon industry due consideration and 
 will see that it is protected, as by so doing the cost of living will not be increased and 
 you will protect an industry that needs protection in this country. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 AMERICAN CARBON & BATTERY Co., 
 HENRY MENPE, President. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL CARBON CO., CLEVE- 
 LAND, OHIO. 
 
 NATIONAL CARBON Co., 
 Cleveland, Ohio, January 6, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Since the present tariff law was enacted there have been some important 
 developments in the electrical industry, among which is the advent of a long-burning 
 naming arc lamp, which can be used for either street or interior lighting. This lamp 
 requires a carbon or electrode which is a combination of carbon and various chemicals, 
 and on account of the radical change in the nature of same demands different treat- 
 ment with regard to duty than grades which are enumerated in the present law. 
 
 As near as we are able to estimate, the total annual consumption of high-grade car- 
 bons is 40,000,000 pieces, and we supply about one-half that number, the balance 
 being imported from Germany and France. These carbons are composed chiefly of 
 lampblack, and the present rate of duty as provided in paragraph 96 is 65 cents per 
 hundred feet. We believe our facilities and experience enable us to produce high- 
 grade carbons as cheaply as they can be manufactured in this country, but our opera- 
 tions have not been highly profitable, as is shown by the following table, which covers 
 sales for the calendar years 1910, 1911, and 10 months of 1912: 
 
 Net sales Jan. 1, 1910, to Oct. 31, 1912 $1, 551, 931. 55 
 
 Cost 1, 375, 878. 83 
 
 Profit 176, 052. 72 
 
 Per cent of profit on sales, 11. 34. 
 Less annual depreciation charges, not included in cost of product 83, 414. 55 
 
 Net profit 92, 638. 17 
 
 Per cent of net profit, 5. 97. 
 
698 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-9&-CARBOtf. 
 
 These figures are taken from the sworn statement of Mr. F. D. Lawrence, auditor 
 and assistant treasurer of our company; the depreciation charges are 5 per cent on 
 buildings and 10 per cent on machinery and tools. We think it will be conceded that 
 this is hardly a fair manufacturing profit, especially in a business which must neces- 
 sarily follow the various developments in the field of arc lighting, in consequence of 
 which some of the machinery and equipment may at any time become obsolete. 
 
 In 1909, prior to the adoption of the present tariff law, the average selling price of 
 $ by 12 inch inclosed arc carbons, the size which constitutes over one-half of the 
 total number used, was about $23 per thousand, and the average price to-day is about 
 $18.25 per thousand. If it were not for economies we have been able to effect in the 
 manufacturing processes this branch of our business would show a loss instead of a 
 profit of 5.97 per cent. The increasing cost of labor and raw materials endangers even 
 this small profit, and we hope the facts presented will convince your honorable com- 
 mittee that the present tariff of 65 cents per hundred feet should not be disturbed. 
 Under this tariff, the cost to the consumer has decreased, the importation is larger, 
 being at least 50 per cent of the total consumption of high-grade carbons, and the 
 revenue to the Government has also increased. 
 
 We have frankly stated the actual results from this branch of our business, but, if 
 in the consideration of this subject, with this information before you, a reduction is 
 decided upon, we trust it will not be more than 5 cents per 100 feet, making the duty 
 on electric light carbons made entirely from lampblack or retort carbon 60 cents per 
 100 feet. The use of electric light carbons made entirely from petroleum coke is con- 
 stantly decreasing, and importation has not been large, which is probably due to the 
 smaller supply of petroleum coke abroad, and also to the fact that in Europe lampblack 
 is not much more expensive than petroleum coke. In the event that your committee 
 concludes to reduce the duty on lampblack carbons from 65 cents to 60 cents per 100 
 feet, a similar reduction of 5 cents per 100 feet would naturally follow on the petroleum 
 coke carbons, but, as stated above, we sincerely hope the rate on either will not be 
 changed. 
 
 For many years the carbons used in arc lamps for street and commercial lighting 
 were manufactured with the object of having them as pure as possible, and such car- 
 bons contain less than one-fourth of 1 per cent of ash; i. e.. material other than carbon. 
 The light from carbons of this description comes chiefly from the incandescent points, 
 and not the arc itself. Within recent years the so-called flaming arc lamp appeared, 
 and the carbons used in them contain chemicals either in the soft core in the center, 
 in the shell, or on the outside of it. With such carbons the light comes chiefly from 
 the arc, which is much longer than the arc produced by the other carbons, and is of a 
 flaming nature, hence the name ''flaming arc." This flaming arc, resulting from the 
 chemicals used in the manufacture of the carbon, gives a light which has four or five 
 times the candlepower of that produced by inclosed arc lamps using the pure carbons, 
 previously described. Many inventors were attracted to this promising field with the 
 result that numerous types of lamps are now on the market requiring different kinds 
 and grades of carbon, some of them quite complicated in their nature, and all demand- 
 ing a high grade of labor to produce, on account of the care necessary in the handling 
 of the ingredients. The percentage of chemicals used varies from 5 to 50 per cent, 
 and by placing the minimum at 5 per cent the character of the carbons can be defi- 
 nitely fixed to distinguish them from the ordinary grades, thereby eliminating all 
 chance for error in classifying them for duty. 
 
 We are firmly of the opinion that a specific duty on regular lampblack and petro- 
 leum coke carbons, with 100 feet as the unit, should be continued. They are packed 
 in standard cases, usually containing 1,000 pieces each, and this basis provides for an 
 easy and positive administration by the customs department. The prices of these 
 carbons are confined to very narrow limits, the range being about $8.50 to $11.50 per 
 1.000 feet for petroleum coke carbons and $15 to $25 per 1,000 feet for ordinary lamp- 
 black carbons. 
 
 We do not believe, however, that such a basis is equitable when applied to flaming 
 carbons on account of the wide variation in shapes, sizes, weights, and grades, ana 
 because of the wide range of prices varying from $30 to $160 per 1,000 feet. While 
 the possibilities of development are large, it being claimed by some that the flaming 
 carbon will eventually supersede all other grades, it will undoubtedly be some time 
 before they become standardized to the extent that other grades are at present. It 
 would be difficult to provide specific rates which would properly meet these conditions, 
 and it is, therefore, our recommendation that an ad valorem vasis be applied to all 
 llaming carbons. 
 
 I ndi-r the pn-.-ont law the duty on chemicals used in these flaming carbons is from 
 15 lo -JO pc-r <:>.-nt, on lampblack 25 per cent, and on retort carbon 20 per cent. These 
 
SCHEDULE B. 699 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 
 are raw materials for the carbon industry; and in view of the fact that these materials 
 are much cheaper in Europe than in the United States, also that the cost of labor 
 in the foreign factories is at least 70 per cent less than in the United States, we respect- 
 fully ask that these flaming carbons or flaming electrodes be assessed at an ad valorem 
 duty of not less than 45 per cent. To provide this, we suggest the insertion after the 
 duty on lampblack carbons, in paragraph 96, and preceding the duty on filter tubes, 
 of the following: "flaming or luminous arc-lamp carbons or arc-lamp electrodes having 
 flame-producing chemicals in the core, on the surface or mixed homogeneously into 
 the body thereof, or manufactured in such manner that the weight of any materials 
 other than carbon is more than 5 per cent of the total weight, 45 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 We are confident that the foreign cost of flaming arc carbons plus cost of transporta- 
 tion to this country and a duty of 45 per cent will total an amount considerably less 
 than the cost of manufacture of the same size and grade in this country under the most 
 favorable conditions and that the duty requested will provide a continuance of the 
 abundant foreign competition which has always existed in the carbon industry. The 
 ad valorem rate we have asked to cover flaming arc carbons will provide for a duty in 
 proportion to their value and will result in a reduction of from 10 to 15 per cent in the 
 duty on the styles of flaming arc carbons which have been in use for several years. 
 
 With regard to that portion of paragraph 95 relating to carbons and reading as 
 follows 
 
 "carbon, not specially provided for in this section, 20 per cent ad valorem, electrodes, 
 brushes, plates and discs, all of the foregoing composed wholly or in chief value of 
 carbon, 30 per cent ad valorem" 
 
 we understand that the first clause is intended to cover retort carbon or any other 
 manufactured form of carbon used as raw material, but does not include lampblack, 
 which carries a duty of 25 per cent as provided in paragraph 45. Lampblack and retort 
 carbon are important raw materials in the manufacture of the carbon articles enumer- 
 ated in the second clause, and labor constitutes from 40 to 60 per cent of the cost, and in 
 some of the more highly finished articles it is more than 75 per cent of the cost. In 
 the case of carbon brushes many of them are imported with flexible copper cable 
 terminals commonly called "pigtails" attached, and these copper cables if imported 
 separately would be assessed with a duty of at least 45 per cent. We understand, 
 however, that both carbon brush and copper connection, the latter usually being 
 worth more than the brush, are admitted at 30 per cent duty. 
 
 The first clause of paragraph 95 reads: 
 
 "Articles and wares composed wholly or in chief value of earthy or mineral sub- 
 stances, not specially provided for in this section, whether susceptible of decoration 
 or not, if not decorated in any manner, 35 per cent ad valorem; if decorated, 45 per cent 
 ad valorem." 
 
 While copper coating, tinning, and copper connections may possibly not properly 
 be termed decorations, it is certain that many of these carbon articles are highly fin- 
 ished products and that labor forms a large part of their cost. Developments in electric 
 motors and generators have made the brush business more complicated, so that instead 
 of the plain rectangular carbon block formerly used the demand is for highly finished 
 pieces with bevels, holes and slots and metal connections securely attached thereto. 
 This is also true of other carbon articles used in connection with electrical apparatus. 
 Most of this work is done by hand, and in order to compete with the products of the 
 German and French factories some readjustment is necessary. We believe that the 
 duty on these manufactures of carbon should be at least as much as provided in the 
 paragraph just quoted and respectfully request that the balance of the paragraph 
 be changed to read as follows: 
 
 "Unmanufactured carbon, not specially provided for in this section, twenty per 
 centum ad valorem; electrodes for electric furnace, electrolytic and battery purposes, 
 brushes, plates and disks, all of the foregoing composed wholly or in chief value of 
 carbon, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; if metal plated or having metal attach- 
 ments, forty-five per centum ad valorem." 
 
 We have suggested a slight change in the wording of this clause in order to more 
 specifically describe electrodes and definitely distinguish them from lighting carbons 
 which are frequently referred to as lamp electrodes. 
 
 In conclusion permit us to call your attention to the fact that the French tariff is 
 75 francs per hundred kilos. This" is equivalent to 79 cents per hundred feet on \ by 
 12 inch regular high grade electric light carbons and a correspondingly high ad valorem 
 rate on brushes and similar carbon products. The German tariff is 30 marks per 
 hundred kilos but according to bulletin of the Department of Commerce and Labor 
 entitled Tariff Series No. 7, the German Government imposes an internal-revenue tax 
 
700 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 
 on imports of electric-light carbons which is from two to three times the amount of the 
 customs duty and in addition to it. This is equivalent to an ad valorem duty of about 
 123 per cent on \ by 12 solid carbons and 189 per cent on the same size of cored carbons. 
 The foreign manufacturers of high-grade carbons are located chiefly in Germany and 
 France and supply not only their own countries but all of the balance of the world, 
 with the exception of about 50 per cent of the consumption of high-grade carbons in 
 the United States. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 NATIONAL CARBON COMPANY, 
 JAMES PARMELEE, President. 
 J. S. CRIDER, General Manager. 
 
 The following statement of net sales, cost, gross and net profit on high-grade carbons 
 for the period of 2 years and 10 months ending October 31, 1912, has been by me 
 verified and found correct: 
 
 Net sales Jan. 1, 1910, to Oct. 31, 1912 $1,551,931.55 
 
 Cost 1, 375, 878. 83 
 
 Profit 176, 052. 72 
 
 Less annual depreciation charges, not included in cost of product 83, 414. 55 
 
 Net profit 92, 638. 17 
 
 Per cent of profit on sales 11. 34 
 
 Per cent of net profit 5. 97 
 
 F. D. LAWRENCE, 
 Auditor and Assistant Treasurer. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of January, 1913. 
 
 [SEAL.] HOWARD L. BARKDULL, 
 
 Notary Public. 
 
 MEMORANDUM OF CHANGES SUGGESTED IN DUTIES ON CARBON PRODUCTS, PARAGRAPHS 
 
 NO. 95 AND 96. 
 
 95. Beginning with the word "carbon" strike out balance of paragraph and insert 
 the following: 
 
 "Unmanufactured carbon, not specially provided for in this section, twenty per 
 centum ad valorem; electrodes for electric furnace, electrolytic and battery purposes, 
 brushes, plates, and discs, all of the foregoing composed wholly or in chief value of 
 carbon, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; if metal plated or having metal attach- 
 ments, forty-five per centum ad valofem." 
 
 !)(>. After the words "sixty-five cents per hundred feet" and before the words 
 "filter tubes" insert the following: 
 
 "Flaming or luminous arc lamp carbons or arc lamp electrodes having flame-produc- 
 ing chemicals in tho core, on the surface, or mixed homogeneously into the body 
 thereof, or manufactured in such manner that the weight of any materials other than 
 carbon i.s more than five per centum of the total weight, forty-five per centum ad 
 valorem." 
 
 NATIONAL CARBON Co., 
 Cleveland, Ohio, January 9, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR \Y. ['XDKRWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Wans and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: In view of the statements made at the hearing on the 8th instant by 
 Hugo Reisinger, an importer in New York, relative to the tariff on carbon products, 
 paragraphs 95 and !)(;. and particularly his statement that the National Carbon Co. is a 
 trust and has nearly all of the carbon business in the United States, we beg to state that 
 this company is not a trust, it is not interested in any other carbon company, and it 
 has not a monopoly of the business in this country. 
 
 We manufacture a complete line of carbon products, including electric-light carbons, 
 flaming arc- carl tons, carbon brushes, carbon electrodes, carbon specialties, wet and dry 
 
SCHEDULE B. 701 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 
 batteries. We have less than 50 per cent of the total business, including petroleum 
 coke carbons, high-grade carbons, flaming arc carbons, carbon brushes, electrodes, 
 and batteries. In addition to the National Carbon Co., the following are manufacturers 
 of carbon products in the United States: 
 
 American Carbon & Battery Co., East St. Louis, 111.; Champion Carbon Co., Love- 
 land, Ohio; Ntmgesser Carbon & Battery Co., Cleveland, Ohio; Speer Carbon Co., St. 
 Marys, Pa.; Stackpole Carbon & Battery Co., St. Marys, Pa.; Corliss Carbon Co., Brad- 
 ford, Pa.; Pure Carbon Co., Wellsville, N. Y.; Electrode Co. of America, Niagara Falls, 
 N. Y.; International Acheson Graphite Co., Niagara Falls, N. Y.; Holmes Fibre 
 Graphite Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; Manhattan Electrical Supply Co., New York, Jersey 
 City, N. J., and Ravenna, Ohio;.Jos. Dixon Crucible Co., Jersey City, N. J. 
 
 While dry batteries constitute about 60 per cent of the total annual sales of this 
 company, we supply probably not more than 40 per cent of the dry batteries used. 
 The principal other manufacturers of dry batteries are : 
 
 Manhattan Electrical Supply Co., New York; American Ever Ready Co., New 
 York; Stackpole Carbon & Battery Co., St. Marys, Pa.; Nungesser Carbon & Battery 
 Co., Cleveland, Ohio; Rock Island Battery Co., Cincinnati, Ohio; French Battery 
 Co., Madison, Wis.; American Carbon & Battery Co., East St. Louis, 111.; and a 
 number of smaller manufacturers. 
 
 Reference was also made to cost of labor and raw materials. We pay our labor 
 more than three tunes the wages paid for similar work in France and Germany, and 
 lampblack, an important raw material, costs here almost twice as much as in Europe. 
 On account of its nature the freight rate is high and cost of package very expensive 
 for which reason we do not import it although duty is only 25 per cent. 
 
 In addition to Mr. Reisinger, the following are known to us as importers of carbon 
 products: 
 
 L. Frorup & Co., New York; H. M. Hirschberg Co., New York; E. E. Cary Co., 
 New York; W. J. Jeandron, New York; Morgan Crucible Co., New York; Kiewert 
 & Co., Milwaukee, Wis. 
 
 We know also that carbon electrodes are imported from Sweden and a factory in 
 southern France, but we do not know names of agents here. Electro Metals (Ltd.), of 
 Welland, Canada, also sell electrodes in the United States. 
 
 If Mr. Reisinger's business has fallen off as he intimated, it must mean that other 
 importers have increased their sales, which we believe to be the case, as the Govern- 
 ment statistics show an increase in both value and amount of importations. Since we 
 began making high-grade carbons the price in this country has greatly decreased and 
 the cost of high-grade inclosed-arc carbons, the kind chiefly used for street lighting, ia 
 less than 75 cents per lamp per year. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 NATIONAL CARBON Co., 
 
 J. S. CRIDER, General Manager. 
 
 NATIONAL CARBON Co., 
 Cleveland, Ohio, February 4, 191S. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: In reviewing the testimony submitted at the tariff hearings and in the 
 preparation of a new bill, we ask your consideration of the petition and supplemental 
 letter and statements submitted by us. We wrote on January 2 that we expected 
 to present a statement but in some way our name was not put on your schedule, 
 which was no doubt due to the great amount of work in connection with preparations 
 for the hearings. The writer was present and, when it appeared that there would 
 be no time for appearances other than those on the calendar, filed the statement 
 with Mr. Roper late on January 9, the last day for hearings under Schedule B. 
 
 When the Payne bill was being prepared and during its consideration by Congress 
 many misleading, and in some cases manifestly untruthful, statements were made by 
 importers of carbon products, in circular letters and in the public press, one of them 
 being that if the proposed duty on electric-light carbons was adopted it would mean 
 an increase in cost to electric lighting companies of $9 per thousand, which in later 
 statements was reduced to $3.50 per thousand. Instead of the large increase in price 
 predicted, the prices on high grade electric lighting carbons are now about 20 per cent 
 lower than they were prior to the adoption of the present law, and the statistics appar- 
 ently show that the importers have at least 50 per cent of the total trade in the United 
 States in high grade carbons. 
 
702 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 95-96 CARBON. 
 
 We supply about 50 per cent of the total number of high grade electric light carbons 
 used in this country, and even including the low grade electric light carbons, the 
 use of which is rapidly disappearing, our proportion of the total trade in all kinds 
 of carbons used for lighting is less than 60 per cent of the total value. 
 
 The sworn statement which we submitted shows that our profit on high grade 
 carbons, from January 1, 1910 to October 31, 1912, was but 5.97 per cent, and in view 
 of this we earnestly hope that your committee will make no reduction in the duty 
 on regular high grade electric light carbons. We have suggested an ad valorem duty 
 to cover flaming arc carbons on account of their great range in prices and the uncer- 
 tainty as to what the future may bring forth, but the established prices on regular 
 high grade carbons are within a comparatively close range, and we therefore ask 
 for a continuance of a specific duty on them. 
 
 We manufacture a complete line of carbon products, but our production is probably 
 less than 50 per cent of the total consumption of these products. High grade carbons 
 for electric lighting comprise only about 10 per cent of our total sales, while dry 
 batteries constitute about 60 per cent of our total business, and yet we supply as 
 near as we can estimate not more than 40 per cent of the total number of dry batteries 
 sold. We have very active competition in all branches of our business, the other 
 domestic manufacturers being as follows: American Carbon & Battery Co., East St. 
 Louis, 111.; Champion Carbon Co., Loveland, Ohio; Nungesser Carbon & Battery Co., 
 Cleveland, Ohio; Speer Carbon Co. and Stackpole Carbon Co., St. Marys, Pa.; Corliss 
 Carbon Co., Bradford, Pa.; Pure Carbon Co., Wellsville, N. Y.; Electrode Co. of 
 America and International Acheson Graphite Co., Niagara Falls, N. Y.; Holmes 
 Fiber Graphite Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; Manhattan Electric Supply Co., New York, 
 Jersey City, N. J., and Ravenna, Ohio; Jos. Dixon Crucible Co., Jersey City, N. J. 
 
 In addition to these there are a number of companies which make dry batteries 
 only and it will therefore be apparent to you, despite statements of importers to the 
 contrary, that we do not have a monopoly of any branch of the carbon business in 
 this country. This company is not a trust and is not interested in any other carbon 
 company. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, NATIONAL CARBON Co., 
 
 J. S. CRIDER, General Manager. 
 
 BRIEF OF CORLISS CARBON CO., OF BRADFORD, PA. 
 
 [Carbon (Pars. 95 and 96. Tariff of 1909).] 
 
 CORLISS CARBON Co., 
 Bradford, Pa., January 9, 1913. 
 
 As the representative of one of the independent carbon manufacturers, I beg to state 
 that the company I represent, namely, the Corliss Carbon Co., was organized and incor- 
 porated about three years ago under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania. That the 
 present existing tariff laws have some bearing upon the existence of our enterprise 
 can not be doubted. Our capitalization is $200,000, fully paid in. The stockholders 
 of the company are mostly business men of Bradford, Pa., and Buffalo, N. Y. These 
 gentlemen furnished the capital for this industry with the natural expectation of at 
 least receiving a fair remuneration on their investment, but as yet said remuneration 
 has not been forthcoming. During the period of the operation of this plant, to wit, 
 two years, money has been actually lost. The perfecting and manufacturing of high- 
 grade carbon product is exceeding slow, tedious, and expensive, and with the con- 
 tinued demand and the rapid development in the electrical world for higher efficiency 
 in carbon brushes the cost of operating the plant is growing more expensive. Par- 
 ticularly is the work of experimenting of necessity very costly. 
 
 In the manufacture of carbon products we must employ workmen who are excep- 
 tionally skilled, their wages ranging from $2 to $5 per day, and as a result our pay roll 
 constitutes the largest item of expense. Besides these skilled mechanics, we employ 
 electrical engineers, as well as expert electrical chemists. 
 
 Competition at the present time is very keen owing to the existence of a number of 
 large manufacturers in this country. Under the present tariff the sale of foreign brushes 
 has increased amazingly, and we are very apprehensive of the result from any curtail- 
 ment of protection. In fact, we feel that the circumstances warrant an increase of tariff. 
 Our company is engaged exclusively in carbon brush manufacture, and whether we 
 will eventually expand to include other carbon materials for example, electric-light 
 carbons, battery carbons, etc. will depend largely upon what measure of protection 
 we enjoy. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 703 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 The personnel of our stockholders comprise practically the principal stockholders 
 in an independent oil refinery located in the city of Bradford, Pa. Petroleum coke 
 is one of its by-products which constitutes the base for raw material in the carbon 
 industry. It is an undisputed fact that three years ago this product was a drug upon 
 the market and hard to dispose of, which, together with the fact that fuel oil, another 
 by-product of the refinery was also a drug on the market, the market price of which 
 was 2 cents per gallon at that time. Undoubtedly this condition was the principal 
 reason for this company engaging in the carbon industry. 
 
 I trust this committee will consider all the foregoing facts carefully and before mak- 
 ing any recommendations procure further facts pertaining to this industry. 
 
 CORLISS CARBON Co., 
 OTTO KOCH, President. 
 PARAGRAPH 97. 
 
 Plain green or colored, molded or pressed, and flint, lime, or lead glass 
 bottles, vials, jars, and. covered or uncovered demijohns, and carboys, any of 
 the foregoing, filled or unfilled, not otherwise specially provided for in this 
 section, and whether their contents be dutiable or free (except such as contain 
 merchandise subject to an ad valorem rate of duty, or to a rate of duty based 
 in whole or in part upon the value thereof which shall be dutiable at the rate 
 applicable to their contents), shall pay duty as follows : If holding more than 
 one pint, one cent per pound; if holding not more than one pint and not less 
 than one-fourth of a pint, one and one-half cents per pound; if holding less 
 than one-fourth of a pint, fifty cents per gross: Provided, That none of the 
 above articles shall pay a less rate of duty than forty per centum ad valorem: 
 Provided further, That the terms bottles, vials, jars, demijohns, and carboys, 
 as used herein, shall be restricted to such articles when suitable for use as 
 and of the character ordinarily employed as containers for the holding or trans- 
 portation of merchandise, and not as appliances or implements in chemical 
 or other operations. 
 
 For glass bottles, see Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 481. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 98. 
 
 Glass bottles, decanters, and all articles of every description composed 
 wholly or in chief value of glass, ornamented or decorated in any manner, or 
 cut, engraved, painted, decorated, ornamented, colored, stained, silvered, 
 gilded, etched, sand blasted, frosted, or printed in any manner, or ground 
 (except such grinding as is necessary for fitting stoppers or for purposes other 
 than ornamentation), and all articles of every description, including bottles 
 and bottle glassware, composed wholly or in chief value of glass blown either 
 in a mold or otherwise ; all of the foregoing, not specially provided for in this 
 section, filled or unfilled, and whether their contents be dutiable or free, 
 sixty per centum ad valorem: Provided, That for the purposes of this act 
 bottles with cut glass stoppers shall, with the stoppers, be deemed entireties. 
 
 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HARRY JENKINS, ALTON, ILL. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What do you wish to talk about, Mr. Jenkins? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. The bottle schedule. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. All right; proceed. 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. We ask that this committee do not reduce the tariff 
 on bottles any lower than it is. We have always had the bottle tariff 
 and been protected from the lower-paid workmen of Europe, whose 
 bottles are shipped in here in greater quantities than one would 
 imagine. It has been helpful to us in the years gone by, and we 
 believe we have been able to maintain a living wage by that tariff 
 being on there. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What is the production of bottles in this country? 
 
 Air. JENKINS. I could not say as to that, sir. I do not know. I 
 have not the least idea in the world. I speak from a workman's 
 
704 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 standpoint. I do not know anything about the manufacturing end of 
 it. I am a workman, a member of the union, and only know just 
 exactly what I see in traveling around, and could not tell you what 
 the production of bottles is. 
 
 But we do believe we have perhaps had it drilled into us in years 
 gone by, that as a result of a reduction of tariff on bottles, upon the 
 goods of foreign workmen, we know it to be a fact that there was, in the 
 years gone by, some 10 years ago, perhaps, on the Pacific slope, 
 oottles sent hi there as ballast and used in the wine and water trade. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any bottles coming in on the 
 eastern seaboard at all ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. I could not say that I do know anything about 
 that; no, sir. I could not say that. But there are some that come 
 in that way, there is no doubt, because we hear of that. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is that all ? 
 
 Mr. HILL. Of course, you are an American? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Born here ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Are you acquainted with any of your associates who are 
 working in this industry who are foreigners ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Who have worked on both sides of the water? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is it your judgment that they are any more efficient 
 here, can turn out any more work, than they would on the other side ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. According to the conditions, I think they turn out 
 more work here than they do on the other side. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Are those bottles blown by machinery or otherwise? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. By both. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Both'? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Which method produces the larger profits, machinery 
 or 
 
 Mr. JENKINS (interposing.) I presume the machinery. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is the foreign workman more or less efficient on the 
 machinery or on the individual power than the American workman? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. There is hardly a comparison. They work in a dif- 
 ferent way here. There is a different way they have of working, and 
 when they first come to this country a number of them work the same 
 way as they did in Europe, but it has been gradually discontinued. 
 That is what is known as '''seamless bottles." 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Then the disparity in wages is not compensated 
 for, but the foreigner himself working here, you say, is more efficient 
 than ho is on the other side, to some extent? 
 
 Mr. JEXKIXS. lie makes hotter wages by reason of the fact that the 
 list is higher on this side. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. That is not the question. You misunderstand 
 my question. I do not care for theories. I want to know the facts. 
 
 Mr. JEXKIXS. J am giving you the facts. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. It is piecework, is it? 
 
 Mr. JEXKIXS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SIIACKI.EFORD. Is it piecework on the other side? 
 
SCHEDULE B. 705 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. I believe so. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Then the difference in the question of efficiency 
 does not come in at all, does it ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. How does it come in, if it is piecework ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. If he is not a competent workman he does not make 
 a good day's wage, or does not malte first-class ware. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. If his piece price over there and piece price here 
 were maintained just the same, regardless of how much he does, it 
 would not make any difference? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. Perhaps so. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Consequently it is not a question of efficiency 
 that counts. That does not count at all. 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. No, sir; I did not say that, but the efficiency I told 
 you that he worked the same way hi this country after he landed 
 here until he became acquainted with the American way of working, 
 that he worked the other way. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. The point I w^ant to get at is the cost of the 
 article, whether it is lowered by reason of superior efficiency. Where 
 does that question exist, if it is a question of piecework? If it was 
 by day's labor and a man could do twice as much, the American 
 manufacturer could afford to pay twice as much, but if he pays by 
 piecework there can be no question of efficiency in this trade any 
 more than in any other, so far as the unit cost of the article is con- 
 cerned. 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. Well, the protection according to what we under- 
 stand from our point of view, they do not make much more than two- 
 thirds as much ware on that side of the water as we do. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. And do not get so much product ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. No; not by two and one-half times as much. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. That is what I wanted to find out. In a ques- 
 tion of piecework the question of efficiency does not enter in at all. 
 
 Do you know what prices are paid for labor in foreign countries ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. No; I do not know much about that. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Have you any knowledge on the subject as to 
 what the foreign wages are ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. They get about $2 I think, something like that; 
 something like $1.25 to $2.50 a day. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. How do you get your information? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. From the workmen themselves that told me about 
 it; that they got so many marks. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. You speak for the workmen, do you? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Your plant is at Alton, 111. ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. I work there; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. You are employed in that plant? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. They use machinery largely there in making bottles, 
 do they not ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How many blowers were employed there before they 
 introduced machinery ? 
 
 7S'tol) VOL 1 13 i5 
 
706 TARIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. About 520; perhaps 530. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. And when did they introduce machinery to make 
 bottles? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. How did they come to introduce it ? 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. When; about how many years ago? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. I think it has been about two years ago, perhaps, or 
 three. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. They are now installing a couple or more large 
 machines, are they not ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. No; I think they are done. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. They have just finished installing two new ones ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. Perhaps; but I do not know. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How many machines have they in there with which 
 to blow bottles ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. Eighteen. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How many blowers are employed there now? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. About 315. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. About half as many as you had before the machines 
 were put in ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. A little more than half. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Do they get as much wages now as they did before 
 the machines were put in ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. No; they do not. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Then the competition of the machines brought down 
 wages ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Do they employ children there? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. No; sir. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Has there not been a scandal there two or three 
 times recently, and investigations by the State. 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. What would you call recent? 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Within the last two or three years. Have not chil- 
 dren been smuggled around the place ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. I do not know about that. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Did they not have a system of picketing around the 
 front of the factory there by which warnings were sent inside, and 
 when the State officials approached the children were all hidden in 
 the warehouse? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. You are asking me something I do not know any- 
 thing about. I have never heard that story before. It may possi- 
 bly be true. That would devolve on the company itself. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. I know it does not devolve on you; but I am discussing 
 it in connection with this matter. 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. I do not know anything about that; but I do know 
 that they have had young and middle aged men, and perhaps old men, 
 employed there perhaps 8 or 10 years doing what was formerly done 
 by boys before the passage of the child-labor law. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. I mean in the basket shops, where they do this wicker- 
 work. Is that not done by children ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. I believe it is done by girls. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Little girls, too? 
 
SCHEDULE B. 707 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 9T-9& GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. That I could not say. I do not see that work once in 
 a year or perhaps two years. I am only in the blowing department, 
 where they blow the bottles. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. That is the largest bottle factory in the country ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. I believe so; yes, sir. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY COMMITTEE REPRESENTING NATIONAL 
 VIAL & BOTTLE MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Ways and Means: We, a committee 
 from the National Vial & Bottle Association, an organization whose purpose is the pro- 
 tection of its members from improper railroad rates and classification rulings; the inves- 
 tigation of all legislation which affects the bottle industry; the investigation of all 
 tariff measures; the making of a uniform wage scale once each year with the Glass 
 Bottle Blowers' Association; also the recognized organization with authority to treat 
 with the union of glass bottle blowers and make working rules, etc., which govern 
 the entire trade in union plants, do respectfully protest against any reduction in the 
 present tariff on glass bottles, Schedule B, paragraphs No. 97 and No. 98, for the 
 following reasons: Under the present tariff the price of bottles to the consumer is 
 the lowest in the history of the industry. Almost without exception, every line of 
 ware made in bottle plants has been reduced in price until now the prices to the con- 
 sumer are the lowest ever known. This is due to the sharp competition among bottle 
 manufacturers, to the improved and modern methods introduced into the factories 
 during the last few years, and to the increase of machine-made bottles. 
 
 Again, the present profits to the manufacturer in the bottle business are the smallest 
 by comparison over a long period, the competition being particularly keen between 
 the hand-blown factories. 
 
 Again, the matter of costs in the bottle business has been brought to the lowest 
 point heretofore known. Manufacturers have spent largely of time and money to 
 reduce costs, and in consequence reduced the price of the finished product. If a 
 tariff reduction was made to a point that will admit foreign made bottles, the manufac- 
 turing costs being to the lowest point they can be brought, it would mean inevitably 
 and absolutely a reduction in our labor costs, because this is the only feature of our 
 manufacturing costs which can be reduced. It must be borne in mind that the mate- 
 rial costs in this industry are comparatively small, and that labor is the principal 
 and important item in the cost of production. 
 
 The figures for the following comparison are taken from the Government Consular 
 Reports, from the reports of labor organizations, and from the reports of the Depart- 
 ment of Commerce and Labor. In England the bottle blower earns from $1.50 to 
 $2.50 per day. An average for a large number of blowers, covering several different 
 periods, was $1.61 per day. In Germany the average is almost identical. In the 
 United States the bottle blower receives from $3.50 to $10 per day, the average for 
 several large and representative plants being over $6 per day. In fact, the average 
 over the whole United States, covering all blowers, is given by the officials of the 
 union as $4.60 per day for the entire fiscal year, June 30, 1911, to June 30, 1912. 
 
 If you will look at the figures, you will see quite a large importation of empty and 
 filled bottles; and would also call attention to the larger number of filled bottles 
 which come in duty free because the contents are taxed. These bottles become, soon 
 as they are empty, a menace to the manufacturer and workman alike, as they are sold 
 at ridiculously low prices as second-hand bottles. The Government looses a consid- 
 erable sum in reA-emie. and the American manufacturer and workman loses the 
 opportunity to make many of these bottles. 
 
 It is highly possible that if thorough and reliable information could be obtained as to 
 foreign labor costs, that a slight reduction could be made in Schedule B as applied to 
 bottles, but we most respectfully ask that you do not change the tariff rates on bottles 
 in any manner, that will not give ample protection to our manufacturers, and to our 
 workmen, against the cheap labor in European markets, bearing in mind at all times 
 that we pay"both to skilled and unskilled labor in the bottle industry in the United 
 States, approximately two and one-half times the rate of wages paid to the same class 
 if laborers in foreign markets. 
 
 Our committee "represents directly 38 of the largest bottle factories u the United 
 States, and indirectly 75 additional factories all over the glass-producing States, em- 
 ploying over 35.000 workmen, of which number about 11,000 are skilled men, and the 
 output in the last year had a value of approximately $48.000.000. You will see that we 
 represent one of the important American industries and it is our earnest request that 
 
708 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 in forming this new tariff measure that you will make Schedule B as applied to glass 
 bottles so that it will afford us ample protection against all foreign competition, and 
 afford our workmen an opportunity to earn decent wages. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 GEORGE W. YOST, 
 Bellaire Bottle Co., Bellaire, Ohio; 
 
 JOHN F. PERRY, 
 Cumberland Glass Mfg. Co., Bridgeton, N. J.; 
 
 J. L. CLYDE, 
 The Olean Glass Co., Olean, N. Y.; 
 
 Committee. 
 
 Companies represented: Illinois Glass Co., Alton, 111.; Whitall-Tatum Co., Mill- 
 ville, N. J.; Poughkeepsie Glass Co., Poughkeepsie, N. Y.; Fidelity Glass Co., Taren- 
 tum, Pa.; Burney-Bond Bottle Co., Bradford. Pa.; J. F. & A. Hamilton, Pittsburgh, 
 Pa.; Kerns-Gorsuch Bottle Co., Zanesville, Ohio.; American Bottle Co., Streator, 111.; 
 Swindell Bros, and Carr-Lowry Glass Co., Baltimore, Md.; Old Dominion Glass Co., 
 Alexandria, Va.; Turner Bros. Co. and Root Glass Co., Terre Haute, Ind.; Marion 
 Flint Glass Co., Marion, Ind.; The Williamstown Glass Co., Williamstown, N. J.; 
 Gaynor Glass Works, Salem, N. J.; A. Busch Glass Mfg. Co., St. Louis, Mo.; The 
 North Wheeling Glass Co., Wheeling, W. Va.; N. Baltimore Bottle Glass Co., Terre 
 Haute, Ind.; The Diamond Glass Co., Royersford, Pa.; The Franzen Glass Co., Mil- 
 waukee, Wis.; The Illinois Pacific Glass Co., San Francisco, Cal.; Coshocton Glass 
 Co., Coshocton, Ohio.; The Rhodes Glass & Bottle Co., Massilon, Ohio.; The Star 
 Glass Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; The Morris Glass Co., Point Marion, Pa.; F. E. Reed 
 Glass Co., Rochester, N. Y.; Chattanooga Glass & Bottle Co., Chattanooga, Tenn.; 
 H. C. Fox & Sons, Philadelphia, Pa.; Binghamton Glass Co., Binghamton, N. Y.; 
 O'Bear-Nester Glass Co., St. Louis, Mo.; Sheldon-Foster Glass Co., Chicago Heights, 
 111.; Maryland Glass Corporation, Baltimore, Md. 
 
 BRIEF OF THE CONSOLIDATED LATJSITZ GLASSWORKS CORPO- 
 RATION, NEW YORK, N. Y 
 
 VEREINIGTE LAUSITZER GLASWERKE A.-G., 
 
 (CONSOLIDATED LAUSITZ GLASSWORKS CORPORATION, 
 
 New York, February 3, 1913. 
 Hon. O. UNDERWOOD. 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR: As manufacturers and importers of German glassware, we desire to refer to the 
 existing duty on glass bottles of all kinds, being used as containers on which under 
 the present tariff, according to paragraph 97, a duty of not less than 40 per cent ad 
 valorem is assessed . 
 
 We believe that this rate of duty is not only high but also unjust, inasmuch as on 
 one hand it prohibits the importation of bottles from Germany to compete with the 
 American-made bottle, thereby eliminating the possibility of obtaining revenues; on 
 the other hand this high rate of duty does not protect the skilled glass blower, as in 
 this country the majority of bottles are being made by automatic machines, the appli- 
 ance of which has thrown out a large number of skilled glass blowers. These machines 
 are run and operated by two or three boys or helpers. 
 
 The assessed duty, therefore, does not offer any protection or advantage to the skilled 
 glass blower, as is claimed, but simply helps the manufacturers to keep out all foreign 
 competition, and in spite of the low producing cost of the machine-made bottles over 
 the European lung-blown bottles, he obtains an opportunity to control prices at will. 
 
 I'p to about a year ago. only the larger sixes of bottles were made on the so-called 
 ''Owens bottle machine;" however, this machine has been considerably improved 
 recently and bottles of as small a size as 1 ounce can now be made on this machine. 
 The capacity of this machine is figured from 40 to 00 bottles per minute, according to 
 size of bottle. 
 
 The patentee has formed a company not only to place such machines in glass facto- 
 ries, but they have built a glass factory and will manufacture glass bottles themselves. 
 
 They intend to control prices on the manufactured article by selling the machine to 
 outside factories not outright, but Dimply by leasing same. 
 
 Furthermore, to coin ml the situation even closer, the outside manufacturers will be 
 allmved to u-e the leased machine only for certain individual type bottles, whereas 
 other outside factorie> a train will lie allowed to work a few other special shape of 
 bottles. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 709 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Besides this limitation as to the variety of patterns, each factory is held down to 
 manufacture only up to a certain amount, to limit production. 
 
 You will therefore readily see that such conditions tend in a very high degree to 
 monopolize the market on a product of necessity in numerous trades. 
 
 The present rate of duty, in view of the machine production being detrimental to 
 the skilled glass blowers and not offering any revenue is entirely inconsistent, and we 
 would therefore respectfully suggest that the rate on bottles for use as containers ehou K I 
 be considerably reduced to enable the foreign product to get into this market and com- 
 pete with the American product, which shows a monopolizing tendency. 
 
 The producing cost of machine-made bottles compared even with the lowest wages 
 paid in Germany is still from 20 per cent to 40 per cent lower, and if such bottles can not 
 be put on the free list, the rate of duty, in our opinion, should be lowered to 10 per cent. 
 
 At this rate, there is a possibility to place the imported article in this market and 
 offer the consumer a product at competitive prices. 
 
 The cut in duty wfll not be detrimental to the wage-earners but simply serve to cut 
 down the large profits of the American manufacturers, who, under the present tariff, 
 have held great advantages. 
 
 We respectfully offer the foregoing for your earnest consideration and action. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 VEREINIGTE LAUSITZER GLASWERKE, A. G. 
 (CONSOLIDATED LAUSITZ GLASSWORKS, CORP'N), 
 J. E. BIEBER, Manager, New York Branch. 
 
 PROTEST AGAINST REDUCTION OF DUTY ON GLASSWARE. 
 
 GLASS BOTTLE BLOWERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, PA., Jan. 9, 1913. 
 The SECRETARY OF THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: 
 
 Under the present tariff law the glass-bottle blowers of this country are protected 
 against the products of the lower-paid workmen of Europe, and which is necessary in 
 order to create the opportunity or basis upon which we have been enabled to maintian 
 a living wage. 
 
 There are in this country about 11,000 skilled glass-bottle blowers, whose average 
 wage per day is not in excess of $4.60 as against the lower wage of the foreign blower. 
 The entire membership of our association favors a continuation of the present tariff, 
 and instructed us to make this known to you. 
 
 Dependent upon the glass-bottle industry are about 35,000 unskilled workmen and 
 their families, who would be affected by the importation of bottles into this country 
 in competition with the American bottle blower. 
 
 The necessity for maintaining the present tariff is as great now as at any former time, 
 for work is not as plentiful as it once was, and the effort to maintain wages is harder 
 now than heretofore, especially in view of the fact that improved machinery has come 
 into our trade. This in connection with a lower tariff rate would force the bottle 
 blowers' wages down to such a low rate that they would hardly make a living wage. 
 
 A reduction in the tariff on glass bottles is always followed by a strong demand from 
 the manufacturers for a reduction of wages of the workmen, basing their demand on 
 the importation of bottles from foreign countries filled and unfilled. We would urge 
 that where bottles are sent in filled and no duty is imposed, except on the contents 
 therein, that the same rate of duty be imposed as though they were empty or separate. 
 Much of the ware imported under this guise is again used in other channels. For 
 instance, claret wines imported into San Francisco filled with Apollinaris water are 
 afterwards used for claret wine. 
 
 If these bottles were made in this country and not imported it would furnish employ- 
 ment for several thousand more skilled workmen and a proportionately large number 
 of unskilled workmen. 
 
 Therefore, in view of the facts as above stated, we would urgently request that there 
 be no reduction from the present rate of tariff on foreign-made glass bottles. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 D. A. HAYES, 
 President Glass Bottle Blowers' Association. 
 
 Attest: 
 
 [SEAL.] WILLIAM LAUNER, Secretary. 
 
 Executive board: John A. Voll (vice president), J. E. Daily, James Maloney, E. E. 
 Tharp, J. L. Lanoux, F. M. Edwards, Arthur Muhleman, E. E. Evans, Harry Jenkina 
 (secretary), executive board. 
 
710 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, M. C., 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 HONORABLE SIR: Our attention has been called to the fact that the Ways and 
 Means Committee is now considering a revision of the tariff laws on imported glass 
 wares, and has the subject under consideration known as paragraph 98, Schedule B. 
 We most respectfully call your attention to the fact that a reduced tariff means reduced 
 wages to our members and other sacrifices, such as were experienced under the Wilson 
 tariff law. We therefore beseech you and your committee to not make any reduc- 
 tion on the present tariff rates on imported glass wares, as the present tariff rates do 
 not afford sufficient protection to the American workman, as considerable glassware 
 is now being imported, notwithstanding the extraordinary keen competition pre- 
 vailing in the glass markets of our country. 
 
 There is no monopoly on glass wares in the American trade, and no organization 
 among the flint-glass manufacturers. All are free to sell as they please, and prices 
 are very low. There will be no relief afforded to the citizens of our country if the 
 tariff rates are reduced, as it will only intensify the present deplorable state or affairs. 
 
 Therefore we most respectfully protest against any reduction in the tariff rates, 
 and we trust you will act favorably on our appeal. 
 Sincerely, yours, 
 
 [SEAL.] JOHN A. ROSENBERGER, 
 
 Secretary L. U. No. S. 
 
 ALEXANDRIA, IND. 
 
 (A communication identical with the above and signed by the officers and 61 
 members of Local No. 127 of the American Flint Glass Workers, Lancaster, Ohio, was 
 also filed.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF T. W. HOWE, IN BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN 
 FLINT GLASS WORKERS' UNION. 
 
 Mr. HOWE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent the American 
 Flint Glass Workers' Union of North America. I am here represent- 
 ing the workers. I never had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Carey, and 
 I never met Mr. Dorflinger until yesterday. I am here representing 
 the workers in this industry. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What paragraph do you refer to ? 
 
 Mr. HOWE. Paragraph 98. 
 
 I am here to protest against any reduction in the present tariff 
 rates on all plain glasswares. I represent the men that make the 
 blanks, the men that do the cutting, and the men that do the engrav- 
 ing; I represent the workmen that make everything in the illuminat- 
 ing line, from the incandescent electric bulb up to all the shades and 
 globes; I represent the men who make everything in the pressed line, 
 common ordinary tableware; in fact, everything that is made in the 
 general glass trade in the United States, except window glass. 
 
 We are opposed to any reduction in the present tariff rates, because 
 we have boon obliged to make many, many sacrifices to meet the evil 
 of foreign competition. Our organization has spent an enormous 
 amount of money to investigate this situation. Ten years ago, in the 
 interest of our organization, I toured France, Belgium, Germany, 
 Austria, Bohemia, Italy, Scotland, and Ireland. Last year I attended 
 the International Congress of Glassmen in Berlin, and again toured all 
 the continental European countries and the British Isles. The con- 
 ditions under which the people are employed around the glass works 
 in continental Europe are so horrible that they defy exaggeration. 
 Wages of continental European glassworkers are about one-fourth 
 
SCHEDULE B. 711 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 that paid to American glassworkers, and in addition to that there is 
 female labor and child labor. I saw married women carrying their 
 babies to the factories the manufacturer having provided a nursery, 
 so that when the baby became hungry, the motner could leave her 
 work and go nurse the baby. I visited the large factory at Val St. 
 Lambert, referred to by one of the previous speakers, and I saw young 
 girls wheeling cinders and coal, and carrying boxes that I am sure 
 would tax the strength of an ordinary man. 
 
 Ten minutes is almost too brief a time to cover this matter, in the 
 way I would like to do it, and I believe I had better confine myself 
 to what we have done in the United States as workmen, trying to 
 meet this evil of foreign competition. 
 
 When the tariff was reduced in 1893 or 1894, goods were shipped 
 into this country by the boatload, loaded in cars and laid down in 
 the factory yards in competition with the products of the American 
 workmen, cheaper than the labor cost. A large number of our plants 
 were thrown into idleness. We accepted a 20 per cent reduction in 
 wages. We doubled our production of goods in a large number of 
 lines, particularly the blown stem ware, such as plain tumblers, 
 glasses for wines, cordials, cocktails, and that class or goods. When 
 the tariff was changed the American manufacturer restored that 20 
 per cent reduction in wages, but we have never changed back to our 
 old system of production. That increased production that was granted 
 at tHat time still remains in force. 
 
 Two years ago on chemical lines, or wares used in laboratories and 
 hospitals, which I understand comes in free of duty and on which class 
 of goods I understand there is considerable deception not smuggling, 
 but deception practiced by the importers of this country, we in- 
 creased our production 90 per cent. We removed the limit of pro- 
 duction and reduced the wages on certain lines with a view of enabling 
 the American manufacturer to meet the foreign competitor and at the 
 same time protect the American workman, so as to assure him a little 
 more steady work than he had enjoyed. I am glad to say it has done 
 some good, but that it has not entirely remedied this evil. I want 
 to say that every time the tariff has been touched and there has been 
 a reduction in glassware, it has meant a reduction in wages and in- 
 creased production. It has meant a change hi system and it has a 
 general disturbing effect upon the American glass industry". 
 
 I do not want you gentlemen to think that the American glass- 
 worker receives a very high rate of wage. I am familiar with the 
 general cut-glass industry. I am familiar with the man who makes 
 the blanks and am thoroughly familiar with the general cut-glass 
 industry of this country. The men who cut the glass are the lowest- 
 paid skilled mechanics in the United States of America. The men 
 are obliged to serve five years' apprenticeship in that department of 
 the trade. There are men working in that industry for $9 a week, 
 and they are not the youngest men. The minimum rate for the 
 union glass cutter is $15 a week for 55 hours' work. I do not think 
 anybody will say that is an exorbitant wage. The average wage is 
 just about as Mr. Carey states, at union shops, sixteen to seventeen 
 dollars a week. There are nonunion shops in the State of Pennsyl- 
 vania and in south Jersey that employ boys and girls. The average 
 wage is about $7 a week. 
 
712 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. How much do the blowers get ? 
 
 Mr. HOWE. Gentlemen, I do not want you to be timid about asking 
 me questions. I am familiar with the wage paid in every line, from 
 the small incandescent electric bulb on up. A man starts in at $2.80 
 a day. The blower gets $4.50. The man that blows that little glass 
 globe that covers that electric bulb, when it is done on the American 
 system, gets $4.50 a day, but when it is blown by the German 
 method we have instituted the German method with a view of 
 trying to meet the competition of Austria, Bohemia, and other 
 southern continental European countries the blower of that class 
 of goods receives $6 a day. One of his helpers receives $4 a day ; the 
 next helper receives $3 a day. They are in a graduating period. 
 The youngest man in the shop receives $3; the next man in the 
 graduating period receives $4; and the next man $6 a day. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. They are a very highly paid class of skilled labor? 
 
 Mr. KOWE. That depends upon how you place them. There are 
 about 30,000 skilled glassworkers in the United States. We have 
 approximately 9,000 members in our organization. The average 
 wage of our members for the year is $14 a week. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. For blowers ? 
 
 Mr. ROWE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. The average wage of the blower is $14 a week? 
 
 Mr. ROWE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Does that include helpers and apprentices ? 
 
 Mr. ROWE. No, sir. That includes only the glassworker. The 
 average wage paid members of our organization for the year is $14 a 
 week. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Palmer asked you to confine your statements 
 to the blowers. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You just told me that the wages of the blowers ran 
 from S3 to $4.50 a day. 
 
 Mr. ROWE. From S3 to S6 a day. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Now you say that the average of the blowers in your 
 organization is SI 4 a week. 
 
 Mr. ROWE. That is for the year; the average for the year. You 
 will understand in the glass trade there is such a thing as the ingredi- 
 ents not running properly. The sand may not be in proper shape; 
 the soda may not be in proper shape; the lead may be bad. A man 
 reports to work on Monday morning, and it is found that the glass is 
 bad and he is knocked out of that day's work. That glass is ladled 
 out and remelted. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. It is piecework, is it? 
 
 Mr. ROWE. About 85 per cent of the ware produced in the United 
 States is on the piecework basis. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. There is a certain period of the year when the glass- 
 workers do not work at all, is there not? 
 
 Mr. ROWE. The only period is two weeks in the summer. The 
 only stop is the first two weeks in July. That is the only compulsory 
 stop, and it is the vacation period agreed on between the manufac- 
 turers and the workers. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. Do you represent the same organization that is 
 represented by Mr. Kalkner ( 
 
SCHEDULE fe. 713 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Mr. HOWE. No, sir; he represented the National Window Glass- 
 workers and I represent everything that is made in glass, etc., except 
 window glass. 
 
 Here is a little pamphlet that I wrote, reporting to our convention 
 held at Montreal, Quebec, in July, 1912, giving the conditions pre- 
 vailing in the British Isles, England and Scotland, and particularly 
 in France and Belgium, Holland, Germany, Austria, and Bohemia. 
 I would like to leave a copy of this with the committee, and I would 
 like to mail a copy of this to each member of the committee, if they 
 have time to look it over. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. If you will hand that to the stenographer it will 
 be printed in the record, where everybody will see it. 
 
 Mr. ROWE. I would be glad to leave a copy of our quarterly report, 
 showing that from June 1, 1911, to June 1, 1912, our average unem- 
 ployed membership was 14 per cent. I would also like to leave a 
 copy of the quarterly statement of the Glass Bottle Blowers' Associa- 
 tion, which shows their average number of unemployed men in the past 
 year was 25 per cent. 
 
 We have a large number of idle men in the American glass industries. 
 We have no stone wall around the industry; we teach the American 
 apprentice, and admit him to our organization without any high 
 initiation fee; and we do everything we possibly can. At the same 
 time we try to work in harmony with trie manufacturers, in order 
 to have all glassware used in the United States made by American 
 workmen. 
 
 You can go into any 5 and 10 cent store in this country and you 
 will see there the stem ware from Belgium and Germany. I visited 
 the McAlpine Hotel on Monday and one contract for stem ware 
 alone bar goods such as cordial glasses, wineglasses, goblets, and 
 high-ball glasses, etc., amounted to $30,000 in one order, to be sup- 
 plied through Wanamaker, importers for Val St. Lambert Glass Co., 
 of Brussels, Belgium. 
 
 The chandeliers in this room are not made in this country. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. You say the chandeliers in this room are imported ? 
 
 Mr. ROWE. Yes, sir; they are not made in the United States. 
 They can not compete with the imported article. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. You must remember that they were all put in before 
 the Democrats got control. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rowe, you may file your briefs and they will 
 be printed in the record. 
 
 BRIEFS SUBMITTED BY MR. T. W. ROWE. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., January 7, 1913. 
 
 Hon. O. W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 HONORABLE SIR: In view of the following facts I hereby protest in behalf of the 
 American Flint Glass Workers' Union against any reduction of the present tariff 
 rates placed on imported glasswares. 
 
 First. Approximately there are 125,000 people employed in the American glass 
 industry. Of this number there are, at least. 30,000 skilled mechanics. 
 
 Second. The wages paid the skilled glassworkers in continental Europe are about 
 one-fourth and the unskilled labor about one-third the rate paid in the United States, 
 while the cost of materials essential to glassware production is equal, and the advan- 
 
714 TARIFF SEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 rage, long hours of labc 
 homes and stores, with their independence-destroying systems, all contribute their 
 share toward large importations of glasswares and their accompanying injurious effect 
 to the American workmen. 
 
 Fourth. Due to the aforestated truths, the members of the American Flint Glass 
 Workers' Union reduced wages on certain lines, doubled their day's work with no 
 material increase in wages on other lines, increased production on other lines, and 
 suffered many other sacrifices for the purpose of having glasswares used in the United 
 States, made by American workmen, and steady work, with its attending blessings 
 enjoyed by them and their families. 
 
 Fifth. Notwithstanding the facts cited, 25 per cent of the members of the Glass 
 Bottle Blowers' Association, and 14 per cent of the members of the American Flint 
 Glass Workers' Union were in total idleness during the fiscal year, June, 1911, to 
 May 31, 1912, while the continental European glass workers were steadily employed 
 and their product landed on our shores and distributed among our people. 
 
 Evil competition in the American glass industry, due to the disturbing effect of 
 foreign importations and domestic rivalry, causes blown glasswares to be sold at amaz- 
 ingly low prices, and that fearful fact renders the present American wage and condi- 
 tion insecurable, and aggravates an intensified nonprofitable relation between the 
 employer and employee, which may lead to a terrible conflict if present tariff rates 
 on glasswares are reduced. 
 
 In substantiation of the facts stated, I submit herewith a copy of the report ot 
 the American Flint Glass Workers' Union, delegate to the International Congress of 
 Glass Workers, held in Berlin, September, 1911, and respectfully call your attention 
 to the facts submitted and comparisons in wages, labor cost, cost of living, etc., as 
 printed on pages 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 36, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 
 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63. Please observe that this report was written in June, 1912, 
 and intended only for the enlightenment of the members of the American Flint Glass 
 Workers' Union. 
 
 Therefore, we beseech you not to reduce the present tariff rates on glassware. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 T. W. ROWE, 
 President American Flint Glass Workers' Union, Toledo, Ohio, 
 
 In behalf of said Union. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM REPORT OF T. W. ROWE, DELEGATE TO THE INTERNATIONAL CON- 
 GRESS OF GLASSWORKERS. BERLIN, GERMANY, SEPTEMBER, 1911. 
 
 WORKING HOURS. 
 
 The British flint glass worker toils six turns of eight hours each, or 48 hours a week. 
 The turn generally commences on Tuesday morning and they complete their week's 
 work early Saturday morning. But in some cases they commence at 7 o'clock Mon- 
 day morning and finish their week on Friday night. 
 
 Another surprising feature connected with the British glass working conditions is 
 their lack of uniformity in production. Each department establishes that which 
 they term a move. In some districts they are permitted to make two moves in one 
 turn, in others two and one-quarter, in others two and one-half and in some places, 
 they make three moves in a turn. This, of course, makes their weekly rate of wage 
 different, and it may be pertinent to state all work on a piecework basis. The wages 
 of the very best caster place workmen in the British Isles would run from $13 to $18 
 a week, and in only a few cases do they exceed $15 a week. The servitor's wages 
 would run from *10 to $12 a week, and the foot maker from $7 to $9 a week. The 
 second-class caster place gaffer would average $11 to $12 a week, the servitor would 
 average $8 to $9 a week, and the foot maker $6 to $7 a week. The highest paid wine 
 workmen would run from $12 to 14 a week, the servitor $8 to $10 a week, and the 
 gatherer from SG to 7 a week. A second-class wine shop would average from $10 to 
 $12 a week, oervitor 7.50 to $8.50 a week, foot makers from $5.75 to $6.50 a week. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 715 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 The best pressers in England earn $9 and $10 a week; finishers earn the same amount, 
 and the gatherers earn $6 and $7, and in some cases as low as $5 a week. 
 The aforegoing wages are the very best that are paid. 
 
 APPRENTICE SYSTEM. 
 
 A very peculiar feature connected with the British glass industry is their appren- 
 tice system. When a boy is put on as an apprentice he must work at whatever wages 
 the employer deems it wise to pay until he reaches the age of 21 years in England, 
 in Scotland 23 years, and it is a well-known fact that there are young men serving 
 their apprenticeship blowing paste and iron mold wares at 2 shillings a turn, or about 
 48 cents; and there are apprentices gathering shades and caster place wares for $3.50 
 a week of 48 hours. An exceptionally favored apprentice doea not exceed $5 a week. 
 Secretary Hussellbee informed me that he served in a wine chair for six years at $4 
 a week. Secretary Bradford ser\ed six years and 10 months at the same rate, and 
 several years at $2.50 a week. Small boys gathering handles and doing other small 
 boys' work at a factory receive 1 shilling or 24 cents a turn, and this system has pre- 
 vailed since 1848. 
 
 ELECTRIC-BtJLB CONDITIONS. 
 
 There are two factories located on the Tyne making electric bulbs one at Lem- 
 mington and the other at New Castle. The blower gathers and blows his bulb. On 
 bulbs 2$ inches and smaller they receive Is., or 24 cents, a hundred; from 2f to 3 
 inches in diameter, they pay Is. 2d., or 28 cents, a hundred; on 3 to 3 inches, they 
 receive 32 cents a hundred. On large tungsten bulbs they receive 24 to 34 cents a 
 hundred, and the blower is assisted by one boy, who receives 48 cents a day of 11 
 hours. 
 
 At Ponders End, 12 miles from London, where the Edison & Swan Co. employs 
 38 bulb workers and 8 men on tube shops, the bulb blower gathers and blows his own 
 bulb. On the email sizes they receive 36 cents a hundred and on the larger sizes 
 they receive 40 cents a hundred. They work on a strictly piecework basis. They 
 explain the reason they receive a higher rate of wages per hundred for blowing bulbs 
 than that paid in New Castle is due to the fact that at Ponders End they use a carbon 
 mold that requires no paste or any wetting. They refer to it as being made of plum- 
 bago or black lead and assert that it is a slower method of blowing bulbs. Conse- 
 quently they secure a higher rate of wages. 
 
 TUBE SHOPS. 
 
 The tube shops at this factory work 10J hours a day, and they work with two men 
 on the shop. The gaffer receives $3 a day and the servitor $2 a day. This company 
 operates with two furnaces, an eight pot and a six pot, and has quite a large plant 
 fitting out electric bulbs. 
 
 SUMMER STOP. 
 
 The British glassmakers have no summer stop. 
 
 WAGES IN OTHER TRADES. 
 
 In addition to the wages paid to the glassworkers in England, I inquired about 
 men employed at other trades and I found that the wages of other mechanics are as 
 follows: 
 
 Blacksmiths, 53 hours a week $9. 00-$9. 50 
 
 Carpenters, 49 hours a week 9. 00 
 
 Stonemasons and bricklayers, 49 hours a week 9. 50 
 
 Motormen, 52 hours a week 
 
 Conductors 
 
 Teamsters, 60 hours 
 
 Railway engineers, per day 
 
 Firemen, per day 
 
 Gatemen and guards, a week 
 
 Car cleaners and examiners, a week 1- 85- 4. 50 
 
 Coal miners, 8 hours a day, a week 
 
716 TARIFF HEARINGS'. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 97-9S GLASS AND GLASSWABE. 
 
 Longshoremen, 12 to 16 cents an hour, paid only for time worked. 
 
 Female clerks in department stores, $1 to $1.50 a week, they work from 8 a. m. lo 
 8 p. m. daily, except Saturday, and on Saturday they work from 8 a. m. to 10 and 
 11 p. m. 
 
 COST OP LIVING SEPTEMBER, 1911. 
 
 In discussing the extremely low rate of wages in the British Isles, and expressing 
 surprise as to how the people could exist, they generally try to excuse their position 
 by the difference in the cost of living between their cost and the cost in the United 
 States, but I found very little difference in that respect. At Barnsley Mrs. J. J. 
 Rudge informed me that roast meats were selling at the following prices: 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Roast beef, veal, mutton pound . . 2O-25 
 
 Mutton chops do 25 
 
 Round steak do 25 
 
 Flour do 
 
 Potatoes bushel . . 60 
 
 Cabbage head. . 4 
 
 Kidney beans pound . . 
 
 Tomatoes do 20 
 
 Coffee do. ... 43 
 
 Tea do 45-50 
 
 Bacon do 25 
 
 Eggs dozen . . 37 
 
 Bread 4 pounds. . . 13 
 
 Granulated sugar pound . . 5 
 
 Soft coal in Manchester $5 a ton, and in Barnsley, in the heart of the coal district, 
 $3 a ton. 
 
 1 have the prices of food furnished by Brother Challingsworth. at Birmingham, and 
 by another brother at Ponders End. and they all compare favorably with the prices 
 I quoted above. In the consideration of these prices, you must bear in mind that 
 they prevailed during the latter part of August and the first of September, 1911, 
 while I was in their midst. 
 
 I found as a rule the glassworkers in England paid less rent than the American glass 
 worker, but they live in a smaller and a different kind of a dwelling. Their rents 
 generally run from $6 to $8 per month. As a rule, they pay from $1.50 to $2 for their 
 shoes, from $1.50 to $2 for their hats, from $5 to $8 for their suits or an overcoat. In 
 that respect they live a little more economically than the American glassworker. 
 But in the consideration of these points you must bear in mind t<hat there are cheap 
 shoes, hats, suits, and overcoats to sell in this country, but, as a rule, the members of 
 our organization do not care for that class of goods. 
 
 Our English brethren seemed amazed when I quoted the minimum wage for the 
 first-class caster place gafi'er in our country as $8 a day (33s.), the servitor $6.50 a day 
 (27s.), and gatherer $5 a day (20s.), and for our second-class caster place shops making 
 blanks and wines $7. 10 a day for the gaffer (29s. 1 ), for the servitor $5. 40 (22s.), and for the 
 gatherer $4.30 a day (17s.'). I informed them that there were several workmen in this 
 country who were receiving in excess of that minimum rate as prescribed by our caster 
 place list. I also did my best to impress upon their minds the wages paid to the bottle 
 blower in this country, and told them that if a bottle blower could not earn from $7 to 
 $10 a day he was not considered much of a mechanic. I compared the wages paid to 
 the men working semiautomatic machines with the wages prevailing in this country. 
 It is only a mild expression to say that my remarks were so astounding to them that 
 they could hardly credit the same. I told them that I would send them our printed 
 list on my return home, which I did, and alter their perusal of the same I received 
 letters from each locality that I visited complimenting me on the splendid systematic 
 manner in which we conduct our business affairs and the marvelous accomplishments 
 of our organization as compared to those prevailing in the old country. 
 
 NIGHT WORK. 
 
 The question of night work was reviewed and he declared that we will have to work 
 for years until night work is abolished not only in pot furnaces but in factories having 
 continuous tanks. He declared that the men should not be obliged to work later than 
 10 o'clock at night nor earlier than 5 o'clock in the morning. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 717 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 CHILD LABOR. 
 
 Continuing his report, Secretary Girbig pointed out the flagrant abuse of child labor 
 and the great discredit it was to the capitalists. He asserted that if the children of 
 wealthy people were compelled to work, child labor would long ago have been abol- 
 ished. He advocated the abolition of female employment at work injurious to their 
 health, and urged fraternal cooperation regarding the publication of a periodical 
 international bulletin to be printed in all languages in order that all countries could 
 keep in touch with the international glass-working conditions. 
 
 The reports submitted by Delegates Delzant of France and Rowe of America, also 
 the Austrian and Swedish reports, were referred to in a very complimentary manner. 
 
 HUNGARIAN GLASSWORKERS' CONDITIONS. 
 
 The Hungarian glassworkers, with headquarters in Budapest, reported that the 
 capitalists of Hungary are rapidly organizing to regulate selling prices and to eliminate 
 evil competition among themselves. The Austro-Hungarian "Notenbank" is 
 supplying the money for them. The delegate stated that the State and industry are 
 very closely connected. On account of the glass business being so large, the State has 
 purchased a railroad, and mines, arms, and machine factories, and even a great number 
 of tenement houses. This state of affairs has had a bad effect upon the trade move- 
 ment, as it was obliged to meet organized capital, assisted by the powerful State. On 
 this account the glassworkers are not well organized, as assistance can only be given 
 with ministerial permission, which is granted only to unimportant educational and 
 charitable societies. Where unions are organized it is distinctly understood that no 
 support can be given them in case of lockout or strike. If the leaders of the Govern- 
 ment had their way, there would be no trade union at all in Hungary. 
 
 When glassworkers were first organized they were taken in the building trades' 
 organization. 
 
 In recent years the glassworkers of Hungary have been forming a separate union, 
 and have attempted to establish a system of relief. They adopted the title of "Hun- 
 garian Glassworkers' Union, " and sent a set of rules to the Government, which provided 
 that the union shall not give any relief to their members on strike, yet these rules were 
 not accepted by the Government. It demanded such modification of the laws as 
 would permit the Government to have control of the union. After some time the 
 glassworkers submitted. They now express the hope that later on they will be able 
 to exercise more freedom in the matter. 
 
 The latest trouble is a secession movement among the glassworkers, and they declare 
 their willingness to affiliate with the international movement. They have appealed 
 to continental European workers to assist them in their efforts to organize a Hungarian 
 Glassworkers' Union, and hope to have a large representation at the next convention. 
 
 The Hungarian delegates reported that there are from 8,000 to 10,000 glassworkere 
 iu Hungary, but they are not allowed to hold private meetings. Every meeting that is 
 held by the glassworkers is under the control of the police force, and police officers 
 are stationed in their meetings. This renders matters very difficult. They further 
 state that the Austrian glassworkers arrive in their province, fail to unite with them, 
 and in that respect they are injured. They report that social democracy is increasing 
 and better results are expected . 
 
 HUNGARIAN CONDITIONS. 
 
 In Hungary women are employed as hod carriers and building laborers; they carry 
 the hod, brick, mortar, stone, drag lumber and iron through buildings, and all at the 
 low wage of 2 marks 50 cents in summer, and 40 cents in winter. The French 
 peasant as typified by Millet in his picture The Man with the Hoe, is certainly pre- 
 sented in this industrial condition. 
 
 MEXICO. 
 
 The Mexican glassworkers cabled greetings and expressed regrets at their inability 
 to send a delegate. 
 
 Carl Max, secretary of Toluca, Mexico, reported that in their Republic there are 
 six glass factories, the largest of which is in Toluca, with 37 union members. They 
 pay weekly assessments of 1 peso 50 centavos, equal to 78 cents. The factory at To- 
 luca is a bottle factory. Besides this factory there are five small factories, one each 
 in Puebla, Monterey, Texcoco, and two in other places. With the exception of a few 
 Frenchmen, only a few Mexicans are employed in Puebla at poor wages and poor con- 
 
718 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 ditions. The glass factory in Texcoco began work on December 15, 1909, producing 
 only plate glass. There are 30 glassworkers and journeymen, imported from Germany, 
 now working there. He further reported that wages have been going down, and the 
 union has been obliged to contest some very fierce battles. In some cases the men 
 were fined $50 each for going on strike. When there is any serious trouble on, the 
 workmen are imported from France, Germany, and Belgium, and he asked that care 
 be exercised in this respect. 
 
 FRANCE. 
 
 The French delegate reported that they have a three, four, and five shift system in 
 their glass factories, and they urged Congress to establish an eight-hour-a-day uni- 
 versal rule. 
 
 Child labor seems to be a serious injury to the French workman. The law provides 
 that children under 12 years of age shall not be employed, but the delegate from 
 France stated that the law was violated and that children are terribly exploited. 
 There is a movement among the French workmen fixing the minimum age limit at 18 
 years, but the French employers are strenuously objecting to this change because they 
 assert that if it is adopted their country will be flooded with imported goods from 
 Germany. 
 
 Boys at the age of 15 years are glassworkers in France. The fathers of these boys 
 are responsible for this sad state of affairs, as they take their children to the factory 
 entirely too young and teach them the business. Delegate Delzant declared that the 
 international movement must strive to end that crime. 
 
 The Italian delegate reported that thev work nine hours a day and one day each 
 week they rest. For overtime they get time and half-time and have a two-months 
 summer stop, but the manufacturers complain of this on account of the cheap goods 
 imported from Austria. ^ 
 
 FRENCH LABOR MOVEMENT. 
 
 The glassworkers' conditions in France are poor. There is either a lack of knowl- 
 edge of the proper method of conducting an organization, or they fail to apply their 
 knowledge in establishing the proper form of organization. Their wages are very low, 
 being similar to those prevailing in Belgium. The principal blank manufacturer is 
 in Boccarat, and it is impossible for an American to visit that plant, as the glass factory 
 proper is surrounded by a stone wall similar to the walls that surround an American 
 prison. There is a guard at the entrance protecting it with a gun and a dog, and it is 
 impossible to get into the factory without consent, unless perchance a person may 
 get a ladder and scale the wall, and that would be a very dangerous attempt. 
 
 The French labor movement seems to be in an anarchistic state and dependent more 
 upon futile violent measures than upon efforts to secure justice through effective 
 substantial movement. Their low dues, no defense fund, "sabotage" policy during 
 strikes, their soup houses to relieve hunger and distress, appealing to other unions for 
 financial assistance during strikes all have contributed their part toward the present 
 demoralized industrial state. 
 
 The Bavarian delegate reported poor conditions in his country. People working in 
 the mirror factories earn from 12 to 15 marks a week, that is from $3 to $3.75 a week. 
 They work from 14 to 18 hours a day, and during rush seasons they remain at the 
 factory 24 hours a day. They lay down and sleep while the machines are in operation. 
 They reported that the employers offered a prize to any workman who would invent a 
 machine that would reduce a workman's labor. It was asserted that they would like 
 to see night work abolished, especially night work at home. They stated that they 
 have a 36-hour rest a week, from Saturday G p. m. until Monday morning. 
 
 The Saxonian delegates reported that they have a 12-year age limit for the employ- 
 ment of children, but the law is flagrantly violated, particularly by work done at home 
 at night. He stated that on the work of glass beads, thermometers, glass eyes, pearls 
 ornaments for Christmas trees, and similar work children 3, 4, 5 years and older are 
 engaged at that class of work. They work so late at night that they fall asleep at 
 
SCHEDULE B. 719 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 their school desks the following day. The school commissioners have complained to 
 the Government of the abuses of night work, and they hope to have the law changed 
 from 12 to 14 years and rigidly enforce the same. 
 
 GERMANY. 
 
 Secretary Girbig asserted that German conditions were awful in this respect, but 
 they are swiftly changing matters. He stated that he saw some very young boys 
 employed in Italy, but the Italian delegate took exceptions to this statement and as- 
 serted that they had a 14-year law and if children were employed at night work the 
 employer is fined 1,000 lire (1250), but carrying-in boys can work at the age of 12 
 years. 
 
 Mr. Girbig asserted that in Germany they had a 14-year child-labor law. 
 
 AUSTRIA, SAXONY, ITALY, AND GERMANY. 
 
 The Austrian delegate agreed with the Saxonian representative. They have a 
 law, but it is violated and children work at home, the same as they do in Saxony. 
 They asserted that school teachers reported that children 6, 7, and 8 years old worked 
 at home until midnight and are unable to attend to their school tasks. They seem 
 completely exhausted. The Saxonian delegate asserted that union men must work 
 out the abolition of child labor. 
 
 The Austrian delegate reported that on 12 Sundays only in the year they do not 
 have to work. 
 
 In Italy they have 10 factory inspectors and the law has never had to close a factory. 
 They also have no homework on glass. 
 
 Mr. Horn, of Germany, declared that the German and Italian laws are violated, 
 owing to the insufficient penalty attached. He said that a union glassworker will 
 take his 12-year-old boy to carry in, in violation of the law, and the proper thing to 
 do is to urge upon their own members to obey the law. 
 
 The Italian delegate, Dotzauer, stated that in Savona the Italian union has a law 
 prohibiting members of their union working with boys under 12 years of age, and he 
 thinks other unions should have a similar law. 
 
 SWEDEN 
 
 Delegate Joensson, of Sweden, reported that their law prohibits the employment 
 of children under 16 years of age with the exception that children from 13 to 16 can 
 work from 6 to 10 hours a day, but not before 6 a. m., and they must be examined 
 by a State physician to ascertain whether or not their physical condition permits 
 them to work. He said that factory inspectors enforce the law and there is no viola- 
 tion. There is no home work done. The apprentice laws will be treated at the next 
 legislative session in their country. 
 
 BELGIUM. 
 
 The Belgian laws are violated by workmen hiding the boys when the inspector 
 calls, and the laws will be violated as long as there will be capitalists. He declared 
 in favor of a strong resolution and asserted that union men should demand a strict 
 enforcement of the law. There are 1,347 members in the Belgian Flint Glass Workers' 
 
 Union. 
 
 FRANCE AND BELGIUM. 
 
 I did not spend much time in Belgium, owing to the extreme difficulty in visiting 
 factories in that country. The glassworking organizations are not in very good con- 
 dition and they exercise very little influence with the employer. They have prac- 
 tically no power to assist an American to visit the factory. I found the headquarters 
 at Namur, in Belgium, at which city Val St. Lambert Co., which owns a large factory 
 at Val St. Lambert and Namur, is located. I held a consultation with the editor of 
 the glass-trade journal, Mr. Leon Gris, and their secretary, who was a delegate to the 
 congress. After some talk with him, they promised to send me the wages and con- 
 ditions prevailing in their country, but we regret to state that to date this has not 
 been done. 
 
 The men making blanks for cutting work on an unlimited piecework basis and the 
 highest wage paid to any gaffer does not exceed $2.50 a day. The servitor works 
 for $1.50 to $1.75 a day, and the men gather for $1.25 to $1.50 a day. 
 
720 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 The Val St. Lambert factory at Namur and Val St. Lambert are the principal flint- 
 glass concerns in this country. 
 
 The general trade-union condition in Belgium is in bad shape, as it seems to be one 
 of the poorest organized countries on the continent. 
 
 HOLLAND. 
 
 The representative from Holland reported that their law prohibits the employment 
 of children under 13 years of age, and children are not permitted to work before 5 
 a. m. or after 10 p. m. Night work is prohibited by children under 17 years of age. 
 The labor officials and inspectors are friendly to each other and there is no violation 
 of the law. The flint-glass workers do not work at night in Holland, but the bottle 
 houses do night work. Holland Flint Glass Workers' Union has 1,047 members. 
 The best glassworkers in Holland never earn over $8 a week of 58 hours. 
 
 DENMARK. 
 
 In the flint-glass factories in Denmark boys are prohibited to work under 12 yeara 
 of age, and in bottle factories under 14 years of age. They have a peculiar system of 
 work in Denmark. One shift starts at 6 o'clock in the morning and stops at 1 o'clock 
 at noon, the second starts at 1 o'clock at noon and quits at 8 o'clock. They work six 
 turns a week. 
 
 CHILD-LABOR RESOLUTION ADOPTED. 
 
 1. Considering that the employment of children in the glass industry must be work- 
 ing a great injury to their bodily and mental development, Congress considers it its 
 most important duty to induce all unions at any rate to oppose the admission of chil- 
 dren under 14 years in glass factories, and the work of apprentices from 14 to 16 years 
 of age must not exceed six hours a day. 
 
 2. That employment of child labor at home be abolished. 
 
 FEMALE LABOR. 
 
 The following resolution was adopted with the hope of minimizing the evil effect 
 of female labor and the injustice committed against them by unscrupulous employers: 
 
 1. The international congress declares that female labor in glass factories is in- 
 jurious and decides that work of women and girls in glass factories must be abolished. 
 
 2. That so far as women's work exists in certain branches of the glass industry, namely, 
 in the cutting and glass-blowing departments, thermometers, Christmas-tree ornaments, 
 work must not exceed eight hours a day, and the companies shall pay the same as they 
 pay to male labor, but women shalll not be employed at night work or on Sundays or 
 feast days. 
 
 This resolution excited a long discussion, in view of the fact that female toilers are 
 mercilessly exploited in the British Isles and continental Europe. 
 
 During the hop-picking season in England the entire family goes into the field. 
 After their day's work they sleep under a tree; they practically live in the field during 
 the season. On the Continent it is a common thing to see women employed in fields, 
 cleaning streets, labonng on railroads, and at other laborious industrial occupations. 
 It seems that there are three times as many women as there are men employed at 
 agricultural labor. 
 
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY GHUENZEL ? S ADDRESS. 
 
 Assistant .Secretary (jruen/el read a paper to the convention on the subject. He 
 dwelt at length on the long hours of labor governing female toilers. In many cases 
 mothers carry their baby to the factory, leave it with a nurse until they have finished 
 their day's work, then get their baby and return home. In some factories nurseries 
 are established and children taken care of while mothers are at work. 
 
 This question has become so serious in certain parts of Germany that the medical 
 association is discussing its importance and the necessity of protective laws to regulate 
 the matter. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 721 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 MOTHERS SELLING THEIR CHILDREN. 
 
 I am quite sure that I can not use language that would render you sensitive to the vast 
 difference in the conditions prevailing in Germany as compared with those prevailing 
 in our country, principally as it applies to child labor. 
 
 In certain cases men own or rent a little farm, and may live from 5 to to 10 miles 
 from the factory in which they are employed. They walk to the factory on Sunday 
 night, and sleep and eat at the factory each day and night during the week, returning 
 to their homes on Saturday night. In cases where mothers are obliged to carry their 
 children to the factories they leave them at the nursery, and I am told that many 
 mothers sell their children for 100 marks ($25) to the employer in order that they could 
 be raised and employed at the factory. It was stated that many poor families have so 
 many children and are in such impoverished condition that the children are a drudge 
 upon the mother and they are "glad to dispose of them." 
 
 This statement seemed to be so surprising to me that I made further inquiry in 
 the matter. After observing how the boys employed at the factory, even those 
 whose parents live in the same city, sleep and eat at the factory during their young 
 boyhood days, then when they reach a certain age they are obliged to enlist in the 
 army for a period of three years and are away from home in that manner from their 
 early childhood, I could plainly see that their parents became reconciled. Their 
 struggle for existence is so keen that it is a relief for the employer or government to 
 take charge of their male offspring in this manner. 
 
 CRIME OF BOHEMIA AND AUSTRIA. 
 
 The delegates were bitter in their condemnation of employing women in glass work- 
 ing departments and cutting shops. In Austria the trade is seriously demoralized by 
 the employment of women cutters who work 10 hours a day, 60 hours a week, for 9 
 marks a week ($1 .75) . This is the general rate of wage prevailing for women employees 
 at cutting glass. 
 
 The Bohemian delegate reported that hundreds of women are working in glass- 
 cutting shops and their rate of wage is the same as that paid the men. He declared 
 his constituents would not support a movement entirely abolishing female labor. 
 He stated that glass cutters earn from 2 to 4 marks (48 to 96 cents) a day of eight hours. 
 
 HYGIENIC RESOLUTION. 
 
 The following resolution was unanimously adopted with the hope of improving the 
 sanitary conditions at glass factories : 
 
 "Considering that work in the glass industry is very ruinous to health, and still more 
 injurious through bad ventilation, smoke, dust, gas, impure drinking water, and other 
 uncleanliness, congress requests the organized comrades to demand the abolition of 
 all these evils where they exist and to see to it that better arrangements are made." 
 
 IMMIGRATION OF GLASSWORKERS. 
 
 Considering the fact that in all cultivated parts of the world, the propertied classes 
 claim the right of making the working classes subservient to them, interfering with 
 their human and political rights, oppressing and exploiting them. 
 
 Considering also that modern capitalism combines internationally in order to show 
 its power to the working classes, the congress is of opinion that it is the urgent duty 
 of the working classes also to combine internationally, forming a firm unity, whose 
 power should be equal to that of the capitalistic international organization. 
 
 In order to create such a unity it must be the duty of every comrade to affiliate first 
 with his national union, administrated according to the principles of the modern work- 
 ing-class movement in order to safeguard his rights in the international union. To 
 facilitate this purpose the congress proposes: 
 
 1. Members of a glassworkers' union affiliated with the International Glass^ \Yorkers 
 Secretariat, when moving to another country shall, on demand, be received into 
 respective national or local union without fee of entrance. 
 
 The union booklet will serve to show that they are entitled to such entrance, pro- 
 vided they are not delinquent in their regular contributions. The notification must 
 take place within four weeks after the arrival. After a membership of four weeks 
 the member acquires all rights, if he has worked permanently during this time. 
 
 7S059 VOL 1 13 40 
 
722 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGBAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWABE. > 
 
 2. Work can only be accepted with the consent of the respective national union 
 to which the member seeking work has bejpnged up to that time. In case of emigra- 
 tion the union of that country must apply to the country to which that member intends 
 to move, making inquiries whether there are any objections to his seeking work. 
 Regarding facilities respecting emigration and immigration, the various national 
 unions must mutually agree. 
 
 3. We most emphatically condemn the practice of glassworkers emigrating and 
 accepting work at the glass trade in a foreign country contrary to the principles of 
 this declaration and resolution, and we denounce those who emigrate to accept the 
 places of striking glassworkers as traitors to the working class and humanity's interest, 
 and we hereby pledge our honor to exercise our best efforts to end such injurious 
 habits. 
 
 EMIGRATION QUESTION. 
 
 When this resolution was brought to the attention of the congress in the form of a 
 resolution your -delegate and the Italian representative had the resolution amended 
 to a much stronger degree. We severely criticized glassworkers migrating from one 
 country to another and accepting work regardless of union or nonunion conditions. 
 We cited a number of instances in this country where we were and are now gravely 
 injured and our department affairs seriously jeopardized by injudicious action of 
 this kind. The Italian delegate stated a number of instances where they had been 
 injured by men migrating from various countries to their country during times of 
 strikes and helping the employers to defeat them. 
 
 The impression seemed to prevail among the delegates that we charged a high 
 initiation fee to foreigners. They had our association confused with the $500 foreign 
 initiation fee prescribed by the laws of the Glass Bottle Blowers' Association. I 
 explained our law and the change of our position in this particular respect the past 
 few years, which seemed to satisfy the delegates, except that they were almost unani- 
 mous in their opinion that if glassworkers, members of the union, migrated from one 
 country to another in conformity with the spirit of these resolutions, their cards 
 should be recognized and they should be admitted without any initiation fee. 
 
 There are some countries that now have what they term a "treaty," which pro- 
 vides that if glassworkers migrate from one country to another, through official per- 
 mission from the organization of which they are members, their card is recognized 
 and they are admitted without any initiation fee. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED. 
 WORKING TIME. 
 
 1 . Working time in a week shall not exceed 8 hours a day. 
 
 2. Night work should be reduced to a minimum, work to stop from 10 o'clock at 
 night until 4 o'clock in the morning, with the exception of such as attend to furnaces 
 and the melting. 
 
 3. Sunday work shall be abolished. Firemen and furnace men will attend to 
 furnaces when employed on Sunday, and must, during the week following, have a 
 rest of at least 36 hours. 
 
 4. Intermission for meals and rest during working time of 10 hours must be at least 
 2 hours, and during a working time of 8 hours at least 1 hour. 
 
 5. All extra work, besides the usual work, must be omitted during regular working 
 time as well as after it. 
 
 INTERNATIONAL REPORTS. 
 
 In order to get reliable information regarding the momentary condition respecting 
 employment in the various professional branches in all countries and concerning 
 want of employment in the various branches, and also concerning the current wage 
 and working questions as well as strikes and lockouts and their causes, the congress 
 thinks it useful that the unions affiliated with the secretariat should send reports to 
 the secretariat at regular intervals. The international secretary shall be obliged to 
 arrange the reports and publish them in the principal languages. 
 
 You will note that resolution No. 7 will work in harmony to some degree with reso- 
 lution No. G. This resolution was intended to keep the international glassworkers 
 informed concerning trade conditions in the various countries. If we submit our 
 report to the international secretariat, and thereby keep him in touch with trade con- 
 ditions in this country, it will have a tendency to prevent glassworkers immigrating 
 when trade conditions do not warrant their arrival. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 723 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 FOREIGN COMPETITION AND IMPORTED GLASSWARES. 
 
 In view of the fact that during the discussion on international affairs at the conven- 
 tion it developed that in several countries, Holland and Austria, for example, glass- 
 workers work 20 per cent less than their regular working rate of wages on wares that 
 are to be exported to the United States, I offered the following resolution, which 
 excited quite a discussion and was finally adopted: 
 
 IMPORTED WARES RESOLUTION. 
 
 "The enormous amount of glasswares exported from continental Europe has caused 
 the American glassworkers to suffer many sacrifices and has been responsible for many 
 unjust alterations in our working conditions and has cost the American Flint Glass 
 Workers' Union hundreds of thousands of dollars, and we are obliged to resist the 
 employers' demands for higher production or lower wages each year, their demand 
 being based entirely on 'foreign competition,' and our Government reports show that 
 annually $7,000,000 (28,000,000 marks, 35,000,000 francs, 35,000,000 lires) worth of 
 glassware reaches our shores from continental Europe, principally from Germany, 
 Austria, and Bohemia. 
 
 "This im potation of glasswares has thrown many of our workmen into idleness, as 
 our official reports will prove, and it renders it difficult for us to maintain our present 
 rate of wages and conditions, and we therefore appeal to the continental European 
 workers to do their very best to increase their wages, shorten their hours of labor, 
 abolish child and home labor, and improve their general conditions, and above all 
 not to make further concessions to enable employers to export glasswares to the United 
 States. 
 
 "We beg our comrades on the Continent to send us a schedule of the wages paid in 
 all localities for various classes of glasswork, the hours of labor each day and week, in 
 order that we can intelligently debate this important point with American employers." 
 
 Delegate Sassenbach took the position that there is no trade-union in Germany that 
 ever made a concession to the employers to export their goods cheaper. He said: 
 ''Our unions do their best to improve conditions of life. I give this explanation in the 
 name of the free German trade-unionists." 
 
 I called their attention to that which I had learned from Delegate Baart, of Holland. 
 One of the Austrian delegates arose on the floor and admitted that which I said was true, 
 and they pledged their honor to exercise their best efforts to equalize the wages at 
 home on all goods made regardless of whether or not it is for export purposes. 
 
 GERMAN GLASSWORKERS' WAGES. 
 
 I desire to impress the fact upon the minds of our members that there is no universal 
 rate of wage paid the glassworkers in Germany. I tried to ascertain from Secretary 
 Girbig the prevailing rate of wage, and he said he did not know, as they have no accu- 
 rate way of learning, because their membership does not pay assessments on their earn- 
 ings. They are taxed so much per week per member to defray the expenses of the 
 organization. 
 
 In some factories the men are paid a different rate of wage on account of some being 
 favorites or better workers. Each individual, especially those who are favored, guards 
 his earnings with the utmost secrecy possible, for fear his interest will be injured by 
 divulging the fact to his fellow worker. On this account he was unable to inform me 
 the rate of wage paid in the various departments, except in a general way. He stated 
 that bottle blowers earn about 5 marks ($1.25) a day on a piecework basis, and that 
 they would average about $25 a month. 
 
 Mr. Girbig stated he was a paste-mold blower and that he made large paste-mold 
 bowl-shape electric globes piecework, and he averaged about 24 pieces an hour, and 
 received 2 cents each. From this he paid the gatherer and blocker 10 cents each an 
 hour and paid the boy on the shop 5 cents an hour. The shop was composed of 
 blower, blocker, gatherer, and one boy. 
 
 ENSLAVING SYSTEM. 
 
 The German manufacturers have in vogue the most exact system I ever witnessed 
 to keep their workmen in subjection. It is so firmly established that it will undoubt- 
 edly require years to abolish it, unless some revolutionary incident occurs. When 
 this system is described, I am sure you can realize the cunningness by which the em- 
 ployer has established complete control over the workingmen, and the difficulty it 
 
724 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 will be for the German glass worker to release himself, unless he is possessed of extraor- 
 dinarily strong qualifications. 
 
 A company engages a man that we term a "gaffer"; they term him "manager." 
 This "manager" is boss of the shop and does the blowing, or if it is ware made by 
 hand he is the gaffer of the shop, but he is manager of that shop and the company 
 holds him responsible for the work done by each individual on the shop, for their con- 
 duct in the factory, and out of the factory, and their strict obedience to their masters. 
 The company fixes the rate of wage they will pay the "manager," and he arranges 
 with his blocker, servitor, gatherer, and boys the amount that he will pay them. 
 You can understand that under this system it is the company's interest to get a gaffer, 
 or "manager," as cheap as possible, and the gaffer tries to get the shop as cheap as he 
 can and endeavors to get as much work out of them as possible because they are en- 
 gaged on the unlimited piecework basis, and the manager of the shop is held responsi- 
 ble for the success or failure of his shop. 
 
 In nearly all cases, unless the servitor or gatherer is married, the gaffer agrees to pay 
 them so much an hour while working for him and agrees to board them. Even small 
 boys whose parents reside in the same town are obliged to board with the gaffer. 
 This, you see, gives the gaffer, or the "manager, " as the company terms him, complete 
 control over the shop, and it places him responsible to the company for the quantity 
 and quality of the ware produced, and the general conduct of the men on his shop. 
 
 Another significant feature connected with this system which holds the German 
 worker in subjection and keeps his condition at its present low standard in the glass 
 trade is that in nearly every city in which there is a large factory the company owns 
 the houses in which the workers live. They build a row of brick housed extending for 
 blocks and expect the workers to reside in them. In fact, it is obligatory to live there 
 in order to hold a position with the company. In some cases the employer will state, 
 "We do not force them to live in the company's houses if they do not wish to do so," 
 but men living in those houses who disobey factory rules or render themselves ob- 
 noxious to the company in any way are dismissed from service and evicted from their 
 homes very promptly. This ha? a terrorizing effect on a great many, notwithstanding 
 the fact that they live in two or three rooms and raise a large family. 
 
 At Schreiberaii, in Saxony, the committeeman informed me that he and his wife 
 and two children lived in one small room and a kitchen, and paid $2.50 a month rent. 
 
 At \Yeiswasser the workmen pay $2.50 a month for two rooms and a kitchen, and the 
 company offers to sell these houses to those who desire to buy. 
 
 At Jena, a? a rule, the workers and their families live in two rooms, sometimes three, 
 and a very few have four rooms. In some towns they have two rooms and a "cabin," 
 as they term it. A cabin is a small room for sleeping purposes, and they pay from 
 $3.50 to $5 a month rent. 
 
 Under this system it is extraordinarily difficult for the workers to change their pres- 
 ent condition. As a matter of self-protection and self-interest the gaffer holds his shop 
 in subjection. In that manner it is almost impossible for these men to get relief, in 
 view of the fact that there is such an excellent police and state official control. You 
 can see how difficult it is for organized labor to make much progress, as it is so 
 difficult to get matters started without the employer of the shop knowing all that is 
 transpiring. It is on account of that serious state of affairs that the German workers 
 are depending so largely upon political action, and expect to accomplish more through 
 legislation than through the trade-union movement. 
 
 A VISIT TO WEINBOHLA, GERMANY. 
 
 Accompanied by Secretary Girbig, Comrade George Horn, and an interpreter, I 
 visited Weinbohla. Here they have two large tableware factories; they also make 
 eomo iron mold goods, have a couple of semiautomatic jar machines, similar to our 
 Teeple-Johnson machine. The quality of the ware produced was far inferior to the 
 pressed wares made in this country, the glass being poor and worked very hard, and 
 the ware poorly polished. The average wage of the presser and gatherer is $8 a week. 
 Very few earn $10. The finisher receives 25 cents a turn more than the presser or 
 gatherer. 
 
 A mass meeting of glass workers and their families was held in this city, about 800 
 people attending. The meeting was addressed in German by Brothers Girbig and 
 Horn. 
 
 In a 40-minute. address I explained our conditions and our interest in theirwelfare 
 and encouraged iln-m to tight for improved conditions. The meeting was a very 
 enthusiastic gathering and keen attention was paid to the interpreter explaining my 
 expressions. This \sa.s a grand meeting. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 725 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 SCHREIBEKAU, SAXONY FINE WARES MADE AND TERRIBLE CONDITIONS. 
 
 The glass factory at this city, as well as a hotel and miles of fine land surrounding 
 the factory, is owned by Count Schalfgotsch. It was exceedingly interesting to visit 
 this place and see the fine line of stem wares, vases, and that class of goods made from 
 crystal, ruby, blue, and green colors. In some cases the articles were made by crystal 
 core and the colors covering it, the patterns cut from the colors to the crystal, such as 
 you often see in fancy cut goblets or vases. It was a pleasure to watch them make a 
 fancy goblet in this manner: One man would gather a crystal core, make a crystal 
 ball, let the boy hold the same, then make a ruby core and gather over a core and 
 make a ball, then stick the ruby-covered ball to the flint ball, release it from the pipe, 
 warm it in, shear off the rough edges caused by cracking it off the pipe, then flare 
 the ruby-covered ball back over the crystal ball, block the same, then blow it in a 
 wooden mold. While the gatherer and servitor were doing this work, the gaffer 
 would make a twist leg by hand and block it in a tool, then stick it to the bowl, cast a 
 foot on it, stick it up, warm it in, shear the edge, and finish the article. Their fancy 
 stem ware was made in the same manner, except that the fancy twist leg was made 
 by a tube shop and cut in small pieces, and pieces needed were laid on the breast 
 wall of the furnace, stuck up, warmed in, and drawn out in its proper shape, then 
 stuck to the bowl. 
 
 A very, very surprising feature connected with the excellent class of goods made by 
 this concern was the awfully low wages of the men. Excellent stem-ware workers and 
 gaffers making fancy vases, jugs, etc., were working 60 hours a week for $7, $8, and $9 
 a week. The man who did gathering and serving (they only use two men on the shop) 
 did that class of work for wages averaging from $1.75 to $2.50 a week. The small 
 boy on the shop received from $1 to $1.50 a week. All of the wages were paid to the 
 gaffer, or "manager" as he is called, and he pays the rest of the shop according to the 
 best arrangement he can make with them. Here again the gatherer and servitor, 
 and the small boy on the shop, board with the gaffer, and he takes a certain amount 
 from their wages to pay for their board. 
 
 I urged upon Secretary Girbig, who accompanied me, to explain how the subordi- 
 nate men on the shop had anything left when the gaffer got through' with them, and 
 he only replied that it was a pitkble state of affairs and they were doing their best to 
 overcome the same. 
 
 Glass cutters employed at this factory on this fine class of work, and I assure you it 
 was extraordinarily nice work, earn from 70 to 95 cents a day. 
 
 ELEGANT FACTORIES AND AWFUL CONDITIONS IN WEISWASSER. 
 
 This . city is one of the most, if not the most, important glass centers in Germany, 
 there being 36 furnaces in operation, and three idle. There are 800 union men and 
 1,000 nonunion men employed. The secretary told me that in the district of Ober- 
 lausits, in which Weiswasser is located, there are about 15,000 people engaged at the 
 glass-working industry. There are about 30,000 skilled glass workers employed in 
 Germany, not including the bottle or window glass workers. Including Austria, 
 Hungary, and Bohemia, there are about 80,000 people engaged in glass making. 
 
 At this city 12 furnaces for making electric bulbs were erected in the past eight years. 
 At the Neue Oberlausitzer Glashuettenwerke Actiengesellschaft they have eight fur- 
 naces running on electric bulbs. At this factory the men are paid 20 cents per 100 for 
 gathering, blowing, cracking off, and cleaning off their irons. They have excellent 
 facilities for the men at this place. 
 
 This company has one of the most magnificent glass factories I ever saw. The com- 
 pany is bitterly opposed to organized labor, consequently it is difficult to make much 
 progress toward organizing the men in the factory. The plant is growing at a tremen- 
 dous rate, owing to the great increase in the use of electric bulbs in Germany. 
 
 SYSTEM OF WORK, WAGES, AND SELLING PRICES. 
 
 I visited the Joseph Schweig Glass Co., which has 10 furnaces. I saw them making 
 pressed ware, lamp chimneys, paste-mold wares, electric bulbs, globes, and stem ware. 
 At one furnace there wore' 60 bulb blowers gathering and blowing then- own bulbs. 
 On the small size bulb they made from 600 to 800 a day, and on the large size tungsten 
 they made from 560 to 600 a day, and received 25 cents per 100 for gathering, blowmg, 
 cracking off, cleaning off their own pipe. Some of the best workmen would gather 
 over a stem, as they do in bottle houses, making a certain class of bottles; that is, they 
 would leave a small stem on the end of their pipe and would gather several times over 
 that stem and marver and blow a bulb before they would clean off their iron. They 
 made their bulbs in a wooden mold. 
 
726 TAEIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PAEAGBAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWABE. 
 
 In conversation with a bulb blower, he stated that the very best they could possibly 
 do, working 60 hours a week, was to earn from $10 to $12. They asserted that when 
 trade is dull, the employer tells them not to work fast and not to produce too great a 
 number. They work slow and make about $1 a day. 
 
 IMPORT AND SHADE INFORMATION. 
 
 I watched them make a 10-inch Welsbach shade blown in a wooden mold, one end 
 finished on an iron. Three men and one boy would make 33 dozen in nine hours' 
 time, and the men and company told me that this article sold at wholesale prices 1 mark 
 and 30 pfennig, or 31 cents a dozen. I watched them make a 12-inch dome with a 
 10-inch fitter, Paris top, six men on a shop making 55 dozen a day. In another shop 
 I saw four men and one boy making 38 dozen a day (28 cm.) or 11 inches wide. These 
 articles were blown in a wooden mold with the top down and the top opened up and 
 finished ; the bottom was cracked off and glazed behind the lehr. These articles sold 
 at wholesale price for 2 marks (48 cents) a dozen. I exerted great care to ascertain 
 absolutely the prices of these shades, as you surely can not forget that we have con- 
 tinually felt that the appraised values of these shades in the New York customhouse 
 were wrong. I found that shades from 10 to 12 inch size sold all the way from 32 to 
 48 cents a dozen in Germany. 
 
 Shades made at this factory for export purposes are made 15 per cent less in wages 
 than those for domestic purposes. In conversation with Mr. Schweig^ I learned that 
 they own an extra large pottery works and 25 per cent of its production is exported. 
 When I talked to him of the low selling prices on shades he declared that both the 
 company and workers were dissatisfied with the condition of affairs, but their export 
 trade was essential to keep their factory steadily operating. 
 
 Mr. Joseph Schweig, who recently toured this country, personally conducted me 
 through the factory. He speaks the English language clearly and acted very urbanely 
 to me. He explained the reason for his courteousness was due to the fact that he was 
 treated very kindly by the Americans during his recent trip to this country. When I 
 asked him about the production of any article or the wages, if he was in doubt, he would 
 call the foreman or a workman from the platform and have him answer any question I 
 asked regarding wages and production. When I asked him about the selling price he 
 took me into the office and he phoned to their selling department in order to get the 
 exact rates. 
 
 The factories in Weiswasser, Germany, are undoubtedly the most modern glass 
 factories in the world so far as factory construction is concerned. The Government 
 has passed a law requiring the roofs to be a certain height, proper ventilation, etc., 
 and all the factories now being erected are conforming to the law. 
 
 In the Schweig factory in a number of departments they have revolving electric 
 fans placed above the heads of the workers, fans similar to those used at American 
 cafes. 
 
 The furnaces were down-draft furnaces and artificial gas made from coal pressed 
 in cakes was used. The buildings were made of pressed yellow brick, with high stacks. 
 The cracking off and glazing machines were of the latest type. 
 
 The Schweig company employs GOO glass workers and about 1,500 people in all 
 departments. 
 
 VISIT TO HIRSCH FACTORY. 
 
 I also visited the Hirsch factory, a concern that operates two furnaces making paste 
 mold chimneys, globes, a few chemical wares, and shades. 
 
 A shade shop making a 10-inch shade, with an 8-inch fitter, made from 25 to 30 
 dozen a day. The shop was composed of three men and one boy, and the total shop 
 wages vary from $23 to $25 a week. I watched them make 16-inch shallow opal 
 round and square top shades, and they make 12 do/en a day of nine hours. On this 
 job the shop was paid from i?23 to *27 a week, and the wages per week distributed in 
 the following manner: 
 
 Gaffer $12. 00 
 
 Servitor 6. 00 
 
 Gatherer $4. 00-4. 50 
 
 Boy 2. 00-3. 00 
 
 In a conversation with one of the blowers he said that his wages ran from $7 to $10 
 a week, and if he could average $7.50 a week the year around he would be happy. 
 He stated that he has six children and last year he made a very poor year. The com- 
 pany would not allow him to work fast because business was dull and he didn't want 
 
SCHEDULE B. 727 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 to lay off. During the year he made 788 marks, or about $195. To use his- exact 
 language he declared: 
 
 "We would have starved only for the fact that I got a job selling beer for a brewery, 
 working after I was done each day at the glass factory. I got a commission selling 
 beer at night." 
 
 This man informed me that he paid 180 marks, $45 a year, or $3.75 a month, rent 
 for two rooms and a cabin. He blows paste mold weiss beers, paste mold chimneys, 
 and that class of goods. He further stated that on Friday, September 22, he made 
 heavy bottom weiss beers and after he paid his shop the amount due them for nine 
 hours' work he had left 1 mark 50 pfennig, or about 37 cents. I asked him the cause, 
 and he said the glass was bad, due to bad color; it had turned green and the workmen 
 are paid only for wares packed and shipped. They are held responsible for every- 
 thing. He said they were perfectly satisfied if their loss did not exceed 20 per cent. 
 
 Another nice-looking and well-dressed worker to whom I talked, and who accom- 
 panied us to the depot, said he earned from 25 to 30 marks a week of 60 hours, and he 
 would be satisfied if he could earn 28 marks, or $7 a week. 
 
 Weiswaser Comparison in the cost of production. 
 
 16-inch shallow opal shade, one end finished: 
 Their wages per day 
 
 Gaffer $2. 00 
 
 Servitor 1. 00 
 
 Gatherer 75 
 
 Boy 50 
 
 4.25 
 
 Our wages per day 
 
 Gaffer 6. 00 
 
 Servitor 4. 50 
 
 Gatherer 3. 00 
 
 Boys 3. 00 
 
 16.50 
 
 Their production, 12 dozen 
 
 Our production per day, pieces, new process 124 
 
 Cost per dozen $0. 35 
 
 Our cost per dozen 1. 60 
 
 10-inch dome shade, one end finished: 
 
 Their wages $4. 25 
 
 Our wages $15. 50 
 
 Their production, pieces 
 
 Our production, pieces 
 
 Cost per dozen $0. 17 
 
 Our cost per dozen $0. 62 
 
 10-inch Welsbach, one end finished: 
 
 Their wages $ 4 - 25 
 
 Our wages $15- 50 
 
 Their production, 33 dozen 
 
 Our production, pieces 
 
 Cost per dozen 
 
 Cost per dozen $0- 62 
 
 Paste-mold cost of production : 
 
 Blower * 6 - 
 
 Blocker 
 
 Gatherer 3.00 
 
 Boys 2 - 
 
 16.00 
 
 Sixteen-inch, move double 88, 166 pieces per day. Cost per dozen, $1.16. 
 Ten-inch, move 125 double, 250 single, 500 pieces per day. Cost per dozen, 38 cents. 
 
728 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 New York importers' quotations per dozen on paste-mold shades. 
 
 
 Fenster <fe 
 Rune Co. 
 
 Kirch- 
 berger & Co. 
 
 10-inch ring-top dome, opal, 6-dozen case 
 
 SI. 27 
 
 $1.30 
 
 10-inch bell-top dome opal 6-dozen case . . 
 
 1.42 
 
 1.40 
 
 10-inch Welsbach dome, opal, 9-dozen case 
 
 1.07 
 
 1.10 
 
 
 
 
 FENSTER & RUHE, F. O. B. NEW YORK OR PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 10-inch ring-top dome, less discount for box $1.11 
 
 10-inch bell-top dome, less discount for box 1. 24 
 
 Kirchberger & Co., New York, f. o. b. New York or Philadelphia, net 30 days, 2 
 per cent off if paid in 10 days. 
 
 ESTIMATE OF OUR COST OP PRODUCTION. 
 
 It is careiully estimated that the No. 10 Welsbach, 10-inch diameter, 4-inch deep, 
 167 molds full, including all shop labor, cracking off, grinding, packing, boxing, etc., 
 but not including fixed charges for selling, discounts, etc., costs at least $1.03 a dozen. 
 It is further estimated that the loss attached in handling this ware between the time of 
 selection and selling runs from 15 to 20 per cent. " 
 
 The total cost of the 10-inch ring-top dome, 10-inch diameter, 5-inch high, move 125 
 double. 16-ounce weight, including expenses of all kinds, $1.20 a dozen. 
 
 The total cost of the 10-inch bell-top dome, 10-inch diameter, 5|-inch deep, 17 to 
 18-ounce weight, move 115 double, $1.28 per dozen. 
 
 This city is located close to Weiswasser and has five factories. One factory making 
 electric bulbs employs 250 men. At another factory they make a general line of blown 
 ware. The bulb blowers' wages for 60 hours a week run from $10 to $12. When trade 
 is dull they likewise work slow. The blowers gather and blow their own glass and 
 make about 1 a day. 
 
 The wages of the shade shops average, for the gaffer $15, servitor $6, gatherer $4.25, 
 one boy $3, for a week of 54 hours. 
 
 MAKING STEM WARE AND CHIMNEYS IN GERMANY. 
 
 I watched some excellent stem-ware makers in Germany making various lines of 
 paste-mold stem ware. Of a goblet they make 400 a day, of a champagne 400, a claret 
 600. The gaffer would earn from S2 to $2.50 a day, blower $1.25 to $1.50 a day, and 
 gatherer si a day. The boys' wages were from 30 cents to 50 cents a day. On hand- 
 made wares the men were making 200 goblets, 250 tall champagnes, 200 to 225 on 
 large saucer-shaped champagnes, 350 clarets, 350 to 400 cognac brandies, at the wages 
 quoted above. These were light stem-ware articles and not the heavy ware for 
 cutting. 
 
 FRANCE AND BELGIUM PASTE-MOLD CHIMNEYS. 
 
 On paste-mold chimneys, such as Rochesters, Electrics, Belgium headlights, and 
 that class of goods, they worked under a peculiar system. At some factories they do 
 not have a regularly constructed shop. Perhaps three or four men will work in one 
 mold; they gather and blow their own glass, with a boy to hold the mold, or work a 
 dummy, and have a cleaniiig-off boy and a carrying-in boy, and in that manner 
 they help to keep some of the spare men at work around the factory. If they do not 
 need any of these men working on a paste-mold chimney shop in this manner they 
 can take them from one shop and put them in another in order to keep them at work. 
 Men will gather and blow their own chimneys onan unlimited piece work basis, under 
 the description given above, at wages from $1.25 to $1.50 a day, the cost of production 
 being extremely low. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 729 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Comparison of the cost of raw ingredients for making glass. 
 
 UNITED STATES. 
 
 Sand: Quality No. 1 at mine, $2 a ton; quality No. 2 at mine, $1.15 to $1.25 a ton; 
 McVeightown, ra., or dull sand, $2 a ton; Berkeley, W. Va., $1.75 to $2 a ton; freight 
 rate on the Baltimore & Ohio, $1.20 a ton; freight rate on Pennsylvania Railroad, 
 $1.25 a ton; in Pittsburgh district No. 2 sand totals, $2.50 a ton; Michigan, first 
 quality, $2.50 a ton. 
 
 Lime: At mine, $3.40 a ton; freight rate, 11 cents per 100. 
 
 Soda: 58 per cent quality, $18 a ton. 
 
 Lead: No. 1 lead, present time, not including freight, 7 cents a pound. 
 
 Coal: According to the quality and distance it is hauled. 
 
 GERMANY. 
 
 The German manufacturer enjoys no advantage over the American manufacturer 
 in the cost of raw materials and fuel for making glass. 
 
 Soda costs $20 a ton; sand costs from $1.40 to $1.75 a ton at the mine; coal coats from 
 $1.25 to $3 a ton, and other materials in an equal comparison with prices prevailing 
 in this country. 
 
 INFORMATION ON IMPORTED WARE. 
 
 I found it rather difficult to secure information regarding the local selling price 
 on wares, as the wholesale dealers viewed with alarm the inquiries made by English- 
 speaking people. They seemed to guard their business affairs with the greatest care. 
 
 The jobbers, manufacturers, and some of the workmen felt that it is necessary to 
 hive export trade in order to keep the German manufacturers busily engaged, and 
 : ne of them expressed indignation concerning the "red tape" attached to our 
 custom laws. In discussing this subject with Delegate Sassenbach, he declared, 
 "We must have export trade in order to keep our factories going." 
 
 He seemed to think that the Germans must have work regardless of their low wages 
 and its injurious effect upon the general labor movement, and he expressed the thought 
 that even though we suffered by competition from imported wares, each country should 
 handle matters of that kind in some sort of a protective manner. 
 
 The delegates from the various countries did not seem to be able to tell anything 
 regarding the selling price of glasswares, the cost of sand, coal, lime, soda, lead, etc. 
 They stated that they were kept in complete ignorance on matters of this kind. 
 
 It seems that rivalry among the manufacturers sets up an unsatisfactory state of 
 affairs, and recently they held a meeting and formed an organization. They elected 
 Mr. H. Burger secretary, and established an office at Bischofswerker, Saxony, Ger- 
 many, and me employers agreed to establish a minimum selling price on their goods, 
 but like some American manufacturers, some of them violated the selling price 
 agreement, internal dissension arose, and the organization dissolved. Competition 
 now reigns as heretofore. 
 
 Several of the prominent employers complained of our high tariff laws, particularly 
 the McKinley tariff. They asserted that their export trade to this country had been 
 materially reduced since that law went into effect. 
 
 I am perfectly satisfied that it is to the best interest of the American glassworker 
 that a high tariff on glasswares be maintained to protect ourselves from the low wages, 
 long hours, and inhuman industrial conditions prevailing across the sea. 
 
 Comrade Girbig wrote this company (Glasfabrik Sophienhuette, Richard Bach, 
 superintendent) for permission for me to visit their factory, but he declined to grant 
 the privilege, stating that it would not be good judgment on their part to allow any 
 American to visit their plant. This was one of the chemical-ware factories that I 
 desired to see in operation, so I notified Secretary Henry Miller that I intended to 
 visit there and make an effort to get in, and requested him to arrange to have an 
 interpreter for me. He informed me that there were few English-speaking people 
 there, and they first secured the services of a professor in one of the colleges, but when 
 he learned that I was a representative of organized labor from America he declined to 
 
730 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-9S GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 act as interpreter. They then selected a salesman, and when he learned that I was 
 an American representing organized labor he also refused to act, saying it would not 
 be discreet for him to assist me in my efforts. I was therefore obliged to take an 
 interpreter from Berlin. 
 
 Ilmenau is a small city of about 25,000 people. There are about 200 union glass- 
 workers in the city and 700 in that district. There are 11 furnaces in that district in 
 operation, 6 of these making a specialty of chemical wares, the greatest part of which 
 is exported to England and America. 
 
 GEHLBERG LOCATION. 
 
 Gehlberg is located close to Ilmenau, across the country drive. I did not take the 
 time to go there, owing to the fact that the men work the same system as those en- 
 gaged in Ilmenau. 
 
 The men work at very low wages, long hours, unlimited, and piecework. 
 
 Beakers were blown in a paste mold, sent through the lehr, cracked off by ma- 
 chinery, like cracking off a tumbler or chimney, and then carried back into the 
 factory, warmed in a cup snap and finished by a finisher for 13 cents a hundred for 
 8 and 10 ounce sizes. The finisher informed me that he could finish 1,200 and 1,300 
 a day. 
 
 I have illustrated catalogues with selling prices and discounts from this locality, 
 which I will place in your hands. 
 
 SCHOTT & GENO88EN, JENA THURINGIAN STATES, SAXONY. 
 
 When visiting this factory I was especially favored by Dr. Schott, who personally 
 conducted me through the entire plant, and seemed very anxious to give me all the 
 information I desired. He spoke English fluently and was not at all backward in 
 giving me illustrated catalogues, selling prices, wages paid to the men, production 
 on the different class of work, etc. He further gave permission to the paste mold and 
 caster place workers to visit me at the hotel and give me all the information I wished 
 concerning their system and cost of production. He arranged for me to visit the 
 famous Carl Zeiss laboratory and presented me with a history of the origin of the 
 Zeiss and Schott Glass Works. 
 
 Schott & Co.'s factory is one of the most famous glass factories in the world, and 
 its paste mold, shade, chimney, and optical wares almost flood the world. They 
 have 10 furnaces exclusively making gas chimneys paste mold, and 2 furnaces on opal 
 paste mold shades, 6 to 8 furnaces on tubing, and 2 furnaces on chemical wares. Their 
 furnaces are only 5-pot furnaces, except thoee at which they make optical goods, 
 where they have only one pot in the furnace. This will be described later in my 
 report. 
 
 This company is now erecting a large continuous tank for the purpose of making 
 ordinary gas chimneys and air-hole globes. 
 
 PASTE MOLD SHADES BLOWN DOUBLE AT SCHOTT & CO.'s FAMOUS GLASSWORKS IN JENA. 
 
 Sizes 20 centimeters or 8 inches long, rate of production per hour, 110 for 70 double 
 or 140 pieces, the total shop cost is 1 mark 96 pfennig, or 46 cents. 
 
 Size 25 centimeters or 10 inches, rate per hour double 100, or 200 pieces. For 60 
 double or 120 pieces they receive 1 mark 96 pfennig, or 46 cents. 
 
 Size 30 centimeters, 12 inches, rate per hour 90 double. 180 pieces, 50 double, or 
 100 pieces, they receive 46 cents. 
 
 The shop was composed of one ball maker, two blowers, and one small carrying-in 
 boy. The blowers held the mold with their feet. These shades were made extremely 
 light, in fact the lightest shades I ever saw blown in a mold. The very small boy 
 who gathered the ball on this shop wore knee trousers, and seemed to be extremely 
 young. I doubt if any of these boys were over 11 years of age. They would gather 
 the ball and make and hang it up on a rack on the side of the furnace; the blower 
 would walk to the rack, get the ball, cover it, block and blow it, and crack it off on 
 a stand . The pipes the gathering boys used had wooden handles. The speed at which 
 these men worked was simply marvelous. 
 
 Another very important point in connection with the making of shades at this fac- 
 tory is that all small shades, such as 7 inches and smaller that are crimped, are generally 
 blown double in the yaste mold, cracked off, and marked behind the leer. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 731 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Comparison of systems, production, and cost of production. 
 
 Article. 
 
 Jena, Germany. 
 
 United States. 
 
 Number blown at 
 one tune. 
 
 Single 
 pieces 
 produced 
 per day. 
 
 Total 
 shop cost 
 per 100. 
 
 Our 
 move 
 double. 
 
 Single 
 pieoei 
 
 produced 
 per day. 
 
 Our cost 
 per 100. 
 
 Chimney: 
 6-inch gas 
 
 Quadruple 
 
 3,600 
 2,800 
 5,000 
 2,000 
 
 1,800 
 1,500 
 
 5,100 
 3,600 
 
 Centt. 
 
 9 
 
 12 
 
 25 
 
 25 
 33 
 
 10 
 13J 
 
 400 
 340 
 325 
 325 
 
 325 
 300 
 
 1,600 
 1,360 
 1,300 
 1,300 
 
 1,300 
 1,200 
 
 $0.87 
 1.00 
 1.08 
 1.08 
 
 1.00 
 1.08} 
 
 8-inch gas 
 
 do 
 
 Air-hole gas globe, 4 inches 
 Q globe 
 
 6 at a time 
 
 Double 
 
 Paste-mold shades: 
 6 inches diameter, 3 inches 
 deep 
 
 do 
 
 7 inches diameter, 3 inches 
 deep 
 
 do 
 
 Air-hole gas chimneys: 
 5, 6, 7 inches 
 
 Quadruple 
 
 8 inches 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JETA CHEMICAL WARES. 
 
 I have illustrated catalogues of the Jena Glass Co. on chemical wares and chimneys, 
 with estimate of the numbers produced on the unlimited piecework system, and wages 
 paid on the various articles, which I will place in the hands of the committee who have 
 this matter in charge in order that they can familiarize themselves on the subject and 
 offer such recommendations as they deem necessary. 
 
 The most important feature connected with that which I witnessed is the fact that 
 all their beakers and a large number of beaker flasks are blown in the paste mold, 
 cracked off the pipe, sent through the leer, cracked off behind the leer, and glazed 
 on the edge, and if necessary to be finished in a different shape they were finished 
 behind the leer in a manner similar to the method now used in glazing blown 
 tumblers, except for the beakers they use a Upper shaped like the ring used on a 
 finished pressed lip article. Their work was very nicely done. I saw beakers and 
 flasks up to 1-gallon size finished in this manner. 
 
 MAKING OPTICAL GLASS. 
 
 In making optical glass they use a small open-top pot. When the glass is melted, 
 a mechanical stirrer is inserted in the top of the pot and the glass stirred for hours 
 until all the cords and blisters are removed. The pot is then removed from the 
 furnace and allowed to stand for a period of four to six weeks, when the pot is broken 
 and the glass removed in large lumps and selected preparatory to being sawed in 
 pieces and ground to the proper degree. 
 
 UNSKILLED WORKMEN'S WAGES AT JENA. 
 
 The unskilled men employed at this factory earn from 19 to 25 marks a week; that 
 is, from $4.75 to $6.25. The highest wage paid to any unskilled man in that factory 
 is $6.25 a week, but not until a man has been employed by that concern for a period 
 of 12 years. The unskilled men behind the lehr cracking off shades and chimneys, 
 crimping shades, finishing beakers, and that class of goods, who are working on piece- 
 work basis, are not allowed to exceed 30 marks a week that is $7.50 and they very, 
 very seldom reach that amount. Carrying-in boys at the factory earn $2.50 a week_ 
 
 THEIR HOMES. 
 
 Glassworkers employed at the Jena plant generally live in two rooms, a small num- 
 ber have three, and a very small number four. The third or fourth room at any of 
 these homes is called a "cabin," which is simply a sleeping room. For these homes 
 the men pay 180 to 200 marks, $45 to $50, a year rent. 
 
 HOURS OF WORK. 
 
 They have no regular hours of work except that the week commences Monday morn- 
 ing at 2 o'clock. Each crew of men has a certain number of boys. When the men 
 start to work on Monday morning at 2 they continue at work, except to stop for 
 lunch, until they have worked out the glass in the pot. All articles, you will under- 
 stand, are produced on an unlimited piece-work basis. When the pots are worked 
 out, the men are through for the day and they are permitted to go home. _ But all 
 the small boys at the factory are obliged to sleep in the factory, where there is a large 
 
732 TARIFF HEADINGS. 
 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 dormitory, with iron beds in tiers of one to three berths. In connection with the 
 dormitory is a bath room and dining room, where food is supplied at exact cost. 
 
 Immediately after the pots are worked out they are filled in, and when the glass 
 is again ready to be worked a large bell is rung in the dormitory, which arouses the 
 boys, and they are obliged to get up and go out to call the shop for whom they work. 
 After calling the men they report to the dining-room to get their breakfast and then 
 report for work. Every morning in the week after Monday the men begin work 
 any time from 1 a. m. to 3 a. m. according to the time required in melting the glass, 
 and they continue at work until the glass is completely worked out. 
 
 I enjoyed the privilege of visiting the dormitory and saw the beds, bathrooms, 
 dining-room, and everything seemed to be kept in a very sanitary manner. 
 
 This system of work amazed me, as I realized the great disadvantage in which it 
 placed the men and their families, but in conversation with the men I found they 
 did not mind it. The system prevailed so long that they considered it perfectly 
 satisfactory, as it enabled them to spend their afternoons around the city and the 
 early evening at home. 
 
 There is only one shift at this factory, that which they term "day shift." I ques- 
 tioned the men about how they equalized affairs, as I concluded shops making heavy 
 ware would work out the glass quicker than shops making light ware. They asserted 
 that a greater number of shops making light ware were put in one pot and they worked 
 faster, and in that manner nearly all of the shops engaged at that factory finished their 
 day's work at about the same time. 
 
 You will please understand that when the men finish their work Monday morn- 
 ing, or at noon time, as the case may be, they do not know exactly what hour they 
 will commence on Tuesday morning, as that depends solely upon the time required 
 to melt the glass. Yet that part was quite well arranged and seemed to work satis- 
 factorily to all. 
 
 Three-fourths of the men employed at this plant about 350 are members of the 
 union, and one-fourth are nonmembers. The total number of people employed by 
 this firm on April 1, 1910, was 1,175. 
 
 COST OF LIVING IN BERLIN. 
 
 Beef for boiling per pound . . $0. 20 -$0. 25 
 
 Rump steak with bones do. ... 
 
 Rump steak without bones do 
 
 Mutton do 25 - 
 
 Veal, according to cut do 25 - 
 
 Pork do 25 - 
 
 Eggs, according to season apiece. . . 02$- 
 
 Eggs, second quality do Ol|j- 
 
 This means that eggs sell for 30 cents to 60 cents a dozen. 
 
 Potatoes, according to quality per bushel . . . 48- 1. 56 
 
 Coffee * per pound . . . 30- . 50 
 
 and higher. 
 
 Tea do 50- 1. 25 
 
 Sugar do 05- .07 
 
 Butter (summer) do .26 
 
 Butter (winter). do .35 
 
 Milk quart.. .05- .06 
 
 Bread, 4-pound loaf .12 
 
 HORSE AND DOG MEAT AND HUMOROUS COMPARISON. 
 
 There is no secrecy regarding the fact that horse meat is eaten to some extent, and it 
 sells from 10 to 12 cents a pound. A number of butcher shops advertise horseflesh for 
 sale. According to official figures it is stated that 187.000 horses were slaughtered 
 during the year 1908 for eating purposes, and lately people are consuming dog, as they 
 seem to have a peculiar fancy that dog flesh is good food for certain ailments. In the 
 official report for Chemnitz," for the year 1908, 580 dogs were killed, and during 1909, 
 597, and 1,157 horses. 
 
 It is said that butter is a rare thing in the homes of many of the poor people. Of sub- 
 stitutes for it, there is no end . The most important is known as butter oil, which is sold 
 at 16 to 18 cents per pound. There is also a great variety of margarines sold in the 
 poorer districts. 
 
 As a substitute for coffee, a mixture of coffee and chicory is used and sells for 20 to 25 
 cents a pound. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 733 
 
 QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS' UNION OF MEMBERS 
 EMPLOYED AND UNEMPLOYED FOR THE THREE MONTHS SEPT. 1-Nov. 30, 1912. 
 
 Statement showing the number of members of each department in each local union, total 
 membership, number of employed and unemployed, as far as reported. 
 
 Location. 
 
 1 
 
 "3 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 Chimney. 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 PQ 
 
 Punch tumbler and 
 stem ware. 
 
 Mold making. 
 
 Paste mold. 
 
 <B 
 
 ! 
 
 u 
 
 Iron mold. 
 
 Machine jar and bottle. 
 
 Shade and globe. 
 
 Kngravers. 
 
 Insulators. 
 
 Stopper grinders. 
 
 Total membership. 
 
 Total employed. 
 
 Total unemployed. 
 
 Brooklyn 
 
 
 12 
 
 52 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 26 
 
 10 
 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 
 196 
 
 178 
 
 18 
 
 Alexandria 
 
 
 
 216 
 
 ?n 
 
 
 
 ?1 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 264 
 
 22s 
 
 36 
 
 Pittsburgh 
 
 2 
 
 120 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 126 
 
 100 
 
 26 
 
 do. 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 
 35 
 
 Marion 
 
 
 
 43 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 50 
 
 Millville 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 42 
 
 42 
 
 
 Steubenville 
 
 
 4 
 
 152 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 IS 
 
 q 
 
 6 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 240 
 
 215 
 
 25 
 
 Wheeling 
 
 
 Mi 
 
 
 
 110 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 210 
 
 164 
 
 46 
 
 Moundsville 
 
 
 53 
 
 
 
 70 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 144 
 
 137 
 
 7 
 
 East St. Louis 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 
 Zanesville 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 
 Bellaire 
 
 
 164 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 167 
 
 148 
 
 19 
 
 Niles 
 
 
 
 
 ?4o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 245 
 
 245 
 
 
 Martins Ferry. ; 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 40 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 63 
 
 53 
 
 10 
 
 New MartinsVille 
 
 1 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 
 New Bedford 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 v\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 32 
 
 4 
 
 Corona 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 
 Toledo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 58 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 65 
 
 64 
 
 1 
 
 Pittsburgh 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 34 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 34 
 
 31 
 
 3 
 
 Williamstown 
 
 15 
 
 34 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 58 
 
 56 
 
 ? 
 
 Muncie 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 la 
 
 
 44 
 
 35 
 
 9 
 
 Montreal, Quebec . 
 
 
 18 
 
 58 
 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 110 
 
 110 
 
 
 Rochester 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 5? 
 
 
 10 
 
 48 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 121 
 
 121 
 
 
 Star Citv 
 
 
 
 60 
 
 
 
 
 ?4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 84 
 
 82 
 
 1 
 
 Industrial 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 
 Toledo 
 
 116 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 3 
 
 130 
 
 118 
 
 1? 
 
 Marion 
 
 
 38 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 47 
 
 36 
 
 11 
 
 Newark 
 
 3 
 
 12} 
 
 
 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 160 
 
 147 
 
 13 
 
 Fostoria 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 1 
 
 1Q 
 
 64 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 176 
 
 155 
 
 *>1 
 
 Sanduskv 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ?6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 26 
 
 
 Shirley 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bellaire 
 
 
 27 
 
 3 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 79 
 
 58 
 
 ?1 
 
 Marion 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 32 
 
 32 
 
 
 Monaca . 
 
 
 (i 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 q 
 
 47 
 
 2 
 
 99 
 
 io 
 
 
 
 
 
 102 
 
 70 
 
 3? 
 
 Cincinnati 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 3? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 35 
 
 
 Beaver Falls 
 
 
 29 
 
 
 
 
 fi 
 
 q 
 
 s 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 57 
 
 52 
 
 5 
 
 Weston... 
 
 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 S 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 53 
 
 47 
 
 6 
 
 Charleroi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Millersburg 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Vineland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 64 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 64 
 
 62 
 
 ? 
 
 Toronto, Ontario. 
 
 ] 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 24 
 
 
 Millville 
 
 
 34 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 41 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 75 
 
 67 
 
 8 
 
 Point Marion 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 Brackenridge 
 
 
 4fi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 49 
 
 41 
 
 8 
 
 Fairmont 
 
 9 
 
 167 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 302 
 
 276 
 
 ?6 
 
 El wood 
 
 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 
 ?4 
 
 Kokomo 
 
 
 i9 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 3i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 61 
 
 56 
 
 5 
 
 Swissyale 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 17 
 
 
 99 
 
 
 IS 
 
 
 
 
 75 
 
 67 
 
 8 
 
 Wheeling ... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 42 
 
 ?, 
 
 Brilliant 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 
 Washington 
 
 
 49 
 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 1 
 
 85 
 
 78 
 
 7 
 
 Brackenridge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 
 Philadelphia 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 10 
 
 ? 
 
 Wheeling 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 28 
 
 23 
 
 5 
 
 Moundsville 
 
 J4 
 
 
 
 
 
 q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 1 
 
 38 
 
 38 
 
 
 Lancaster 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 i'S 
 
 
 
 
 
 60 
 
 60 
 
 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 34 
 
 1 
 
 Toledo . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 i" 
 
 2 
 
 Meriden 
 
 47 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ("i 
 
 
 
 53 
 
 53 
 
 
 Philadelphia 
 
 
 -3 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 
 64 
 
 iq 
 
 7 
 
 
 47 
 
 
 
 
 253 
 
 176 
 
 77 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 61 
 
 60 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 IS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 17 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 47 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 47 
 
 47 
 
 
 
 447 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 448 
 
 440 
 
 8 
 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 W 
 
 1 
 
 Toronto, Ontario... 
 
 
 
 4.') 
 
 
 i 
 
 .-, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 51 
 
 49 
 
 2 
 
734 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Statement showing the number of members of each department in each local union, total 
 membership, number of employed and unemployed, as far as reported Continued. 
 
 No. local union. 
 
 Location. 
 
 "3 
 
 t> 
 
 i* 
 
 PH 
 
 Chimney. 
 
 XJ 
 
 "3 
 
 
 Punch tumbler and 
 stem ware. 
 
 Mold making. 
 
 Paste mold. 
 
 <c 
 
 fe 
 
 1 
 t> 
 
 Iron mold. 
 
 Machine jar and bottle. 
 
 1 
 
 M 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 02 
 
 Engravers. 
 
 Insulators. 
 
 Stopper grinders. 
 
 Total membership. 
 
 Total employed. 
 
 Total unemployed. 
 
 71 
 72 
 73 
 
 74 
 77 
 
 7s 
 
 7'J 
 
 Ml 
 
 81 
 
 82 
 83 
 84 
 86 
 87 
 88 
 89 
 90 
 92 
 93 
 94 
 95 
 96 
 97 
 98 
 99 
 li.I 
 103 
 L04 
 L05 
 106 
 107 
 108 
 109 
 lUi 
 11] 
 112 
 L13 
 i!; 
 116 
 117 
 119 
 12 
 126 
 127 
 13fi 
 137 
 
 
 4 
 
 19 
 
 96 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 41 
 
 96 
 156 
 150 
 132 
 94 
 26 
 46 
 462 
 20 
 31 
 30 
 252 
 8 
 
 37 
 91 
 145 
 150 
 131 
 92 
 24 
 46 
 462 
 18 
 28 
 25 
 231 
 
 4 
 5 
 11 
 .... 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 ""2 
 3 
 5 
 21 
 
 8 
 
 "i 
 
 25 
 3 
 
 ""2 
 "26 
 
 '"2 
 2 
 
 "2 
 
 "is 
 
 12 
 
 4 
 2 
 1 
 39 
 4 
 
 North Vernon . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 113 
 
 128 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 22 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 91 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 1?0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Coraopolis 
 
 y 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 12 
 
 i 
 
 17 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 Toledo 
 
 
 
 
 446 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 Toledo 
 
 29 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 Philadelphia 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jeannette 
 
 35 
 
 162 
 
 9 
 7 
 
 
 
 >s 
 
 
 4 
 
 1? 
 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 3 
 
 Tuba 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 61 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 61 
 17 
 44 
 225 
 30 
 110 
 41 
 55 
 21 
 60 
 19 
 6 
 117 
 15 
 35 
 14 
 141 
 48 
 17 
 56 
 104 
 98 
 225 
 18 
 55 
 8 
 36 
 74 
 39 
 53 
 39 
 
 61 
 17 
 43 
 
 200 
 27 
 110 
 41 
 53 
 21 
 40 
 19 
 4 
 115 
 15 
 33 
 14 
 123 
 48 
 17 
 56 
 92 
 98 
 225 
 18 
 55 
 8 
 36 
 70 
 37 
 52 
 
 Cambridge . . . 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 VI 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 22.5 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 29 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Honesdale . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Elrnira Heights 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Corning 
 
 no 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Morgantown 
 Steuhenville. .. 
 
 5 
 14 
 
 31 
 23 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 1 
 
 (i 
 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Buckhannon 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hawlev 
 
 60 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Philadelphia.. 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tiflin 
 
 (i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Grapevine 
 
 20 
 15 
 
 65 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 ?1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ottawa, Ontario 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 St. Charles . 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dunkirk' 
 
 
 126 
 
 
 
 
 f) 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bridgeport, W. Va. . 
 
 
 
 48 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Minneapolis 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cincinnati 
 
 56 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jeannette 
 
 
 8 
 
 52 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 Chicago 
 
 98 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 New Bedford 
 
 195 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 77 
 
 
 3 
 
 Lansing. 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 New York Citv 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Elgin 
 
 8"" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 South Connellsville . 
 Somerville 
 
 30 1 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 74 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wel'.sburg 
 
 fi 
 
 24 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 Lancaster 
 
 
 41 2 
 14 
 
 :-i 
 
 
 5 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 Rochester 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Cumberland 
 Total 
 
 Orand total. .. 
 
 2 12 
 
 
 4S 5 
 
 G 
 
 6. 
 
 
 
 
 
 79 
 
 75 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 637; 356 
 
 102 
 
 
 122 
 644 
 
 46 
 
 24 
 
 74 
 514 
 
 6-5 
 
 2 
 
 14 
 
 28 
 
 67 
 
 46 
 
 3 
 
 1,473 
 
 1,365 
 
 108 
 
 2,011 2.045 1 1,053 767 
 
 593 
 
 476 
 
 393 
 
 60 
 
 136 
 
 14 
 
 8,819 
 
 8.010 
 
 809 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 735 
 
 SECRETARY'S QUARTERLY STATEMENT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING SEPT. 30, 1912, 
 GLASS BOTTLE BLOWERS' ASSOCIATION OP THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. 
 
 Statistical. 
 
 g 
 |St 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 3 
 5 
 
 fi 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 12 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 31 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 42 
 44 
 45 
 46 
 47 
 48 
 49 
 52 
 54 
 55 
 60 
 61 
 63 
 64 
 66 
 72 
 73 
 75 
 76 
 78 
 83 
 85 
 91 
 92 
 93 
 95 
 101 
 102 
 106 
 109 
 110 
 113 
 115 
 120 
 122 
 123 
 
 Location. 
 
 Number of 
 factories. 
 
 Operating. 
 
 
 o 
 
 Journey men 
 employed. 
 
 Apprent Ices 
 employed. 
 
 Total working 
 force. 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 B . 
 >*s 
 |2 
 
 
 
 !- 
 
 Apprent ices 
 idle. 
 
 Total mem- 
 bership. 
 
 Pittsburgh, Pa 
 
 3 
 6 
 5 
 1 
 9 
 18 
 11 
 9 
 3 
 1 
 4 
 3 
 2 
 8 
 5 
 2 
 1 
 6 
 3 
 5 
 8 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 3 
 5 
 5 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 2 
 4" 
 1 
 6 
 8 
 5 
 1 
 2 
 
 82 
 
 220 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 84 
 220 
 2 
 
 30 
 225 
 220 
 153 
 118 
 25 
 337 
 59 
 84 
 2 
 68 
 45 
 3 
 138 
 24 
 9 
 5 
 20 
 33 
 100 
 72 
 5 
 2 
 
 
 112 
 445 
 *>80 
 153 
 210 
 438 
 561 
 309 
 102 
 42 
 68 
 212 
 76 
 138 
 113 
 72 
 58 
 230 
 33 
 122 
 72 
 77 
 82 
 24 
 23 
 47 
 27 
 29 
 137 
 95 
 83 
 27 
 25 
 48 
 50 
 13 
 63 
 48 
 38 
 313 
 182 
 175 
 9 
 99 
 47 
 94 
 24 
 81 
 89 
 89 
 21 
 35 
 61 
 94 
 89 
 120 
 54 
 50 
 61 
 111 
 43 
 22 
 59 
 39 
 94 
 
 Alton, 111 
 
 114 
 
 Streator, 111 
 
 
 St. 1 A) 11 is, Mo 
 
 
 26 
 32 
 5 
 15 
 
 1 
 7 
 
 Salem, N. J 
 
 3 
 
 10 
 6 
 8 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 02 
 413 
 189 
 240 
 18 
 27 
 
 R 
 4" 
 46 
 40 
 6 
 1 
 
 100 
 458 
 235 
 280 
 24 
 28 
 
 Millville, N. J 
 
 Bridgeton, N. J 
 
 Baltimore. Md 
 
 Royersfora. Pa 
 
 Muncie, Ind . 
 
 Woodburv, N. J.. . 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 Milwaukee, Wis 
 
 3 
 1 
 
 167 
 66 
 
 15 
 6 
 
 182 
 72 
 
 Ravenswood,Long Island, N.Y. 
 Massillon, Ohio 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 2 
 
 
 7 
 3 
 
 Montreal, Canada 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 1 
 6 
 
 89 
 52 
 53 
 210 
 
 9 
 9 
 
 7 
 8 
 
 98 
 61 
 60 
 218 
 
 Zanesville, Ohio 
 
 Richmond, Va 
 
 San Francisco. Cal 
 
 
 12 
 
 Belleville, 111 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 Newark, Ohio 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Clayton, N. J 
 
 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 Rochester, N.Y 
 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 72 
 75 
 24 
 8 
 47 
 27 
 29 
 114 
 
 14 
 13 
 6 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 86 
 88 
 30 
 10 
 53 
 27 
 33 
 121 
 
 Reading, Ohio 
 
 
 
 Brockwayville, Pa 
 
 
 
 Hawley. Pa 
 
 1 
 
 15 
 
 1 
 
 Spring City, Pa 
 
 Cofleyville, Kaiis 
 
 1 
 
 
 3 
 
 Lancaster, NY . 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 7 
 
 
 Marion, Ind . 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 75 
 41 
 7 
 1 
 48 
 1 
 13 
 40 
 8 
 
 15 
 5 
 2 
 
 Olean, N.Y 
 
 2 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 42 
 20 
 24 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 3 
 
 50 
 24 
 27 
 
 Allentown, Pa 
 
 Parkersburg, W. Va 
 
 
 Sheffield Pa 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 Wilcox, Pa 
 
 1 
 
 46 
 
 2 
 
 48 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 Brooklyn. NY 
 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 
 8 
 1 
 5 
 1 
 3 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 8 
 3 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 3 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 Medford N J 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 4 
 1 
 5 
 
 40 
 30 
 
 200 
 66 
 93 
 
 8 
 6 
 44 
 
 6 
 17 
 
 48 
 36 
 244 
 72 
 110 
 
 
 McDonald, Pa 
 
 
 
 Terre Haute, Ind 
 
 4 
 
 113 
 116 
 67 
 9 
 53 
 3 
 2 
 
 64 
 32 
 5 
 4 
 9 
 1 
 2 
 
 Gas City, Ind 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 5 
 1 
 2 
 
 44 
 44 
 88 
 22 
 
 73 
 81 
 72 
 
 2 
 5 
 12 
 6 
 8 
 13 
 3 
 
 46 
 49 
 100 
 28 
 81 
 94 
 75 
 
 Smethport, Pa 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 3 
 2 
 
 Sharpsburg, Pa 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 13 
 21 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 East St Louis 111 
 
 Butler Pa 
 
 1 
 4 
 1 
 
 Kane Pa 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 3 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 
 32 
 61 
 77 
 70 
 106 
 42 
 39 
 61 
 92 
 33 
 20 
 47 
 30 
 89 
 
 1 
 9 
 14 
 9 
 18 
 6 
 12 
 7 
 16 
 14 
 4 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 33 
 70 
 91 
 79 
 124 
 48 
 51 
 68 
 108 
 47 
 24 
 54 
 36 
 95 
 
 Alton Park Tenn 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 17 
 16 
 4 
 12 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Columbus Ohio 
 
 7 
 
 
 Cape May Courthouse. X. J 
 
 
 18 
 7 
 2 
 7 
 9 
 5 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Shingle House, Pa 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 Greensburg, Pa 
 
 Total 
 
 203 
 
 110 
 
 93 
 
 4,100 
 
 530 
 
 4.630 2,544 
 
 440 
 
 6,937 
 
 
736 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 ADDITIONAL DATA FURNISHED BY MR. T. W. ROWE, OF THE AMERICAN FLINT GLASS 
 
 WORKERS' UNION 
 
 AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS' UNION, 
 
 P - Toledo, Ohio, January 11, 1913. 
 
 Hon. OSCAR UNDERWOOD, M. C., 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 HONORABLE SIR: In addition to the statements I made before the Ways and Means 
 Committee and the brief on file at the hearing accorded me Wednesday, January 8, I 
 desire to submit the following, with the hope that it will be made a matter of record, 
 in order that our opposition to any reduction in tariff will be clearly understood. 
 
 Regarding the "Average wage," I quote herewith an extract from the annual report 
 of our national secretary, Wm. P. Clarke, as found on page 99, and statistics on "Em- 
 ployed and unemployed," as found on page 101 of the proceedings of the Montreal, 
 Quebec, 1912 convention, a copy of which I send you under separate cover. 
 
 AVERAGE WAGE. 
 
 " In 1895 Secretary Kunzler reported to our Toledo convention that the general 
 average earnings of 7,300 members equaled $8.12 a week, for 52 weeks in the year, or 
 a total of $422.24 earned by each member during the entire year. 
 
 "In 1910 the writer reported that 8,901 members had earned on an average of $10.65 
 a week, for 52 weeks in the year, or a total of $553.80 each. These figures showed an 
 increase of 31 per cent over those reported by Secretary Kunzler 15 years previous. 
 
 "To-day we have the pleasure of reporting that an average of 9,002 members during 
 the past year, earned on an average of $12.42 a week, for 52 weeks in the year, or a total 
 of $645.60 each. This being an increase of 17 per cent over that reported two years 
 ago; or, if you return to the figures of 1895, and make a comparison with the figures 
 herein presented for the past year, you will discover that the earnings of our members 
 have increased 53 per cent in the past 17 years. However, as a matter of justice, I 
 must state that the year of 1895 contains one of the darkest pages in the history of our 
 organization.'' 
 
 Employed and unemployed. 
 
 
 Member- 
 ship. 
 
 Employed. 
 
 Unem- 
 ployed. 
 
 Percent p "* n t 
 employ*. ^ 
 
 Cutting 
 
 1,860 
 
 1,613 
 
 247 
 
 0. 87 ' 13 
 
 Press 
 
 1,929 
 
 1,727 
 
 202 
 
 . 90 : .10 
 
 Chimnev 
 
 1, 150 
 
 788 
 
 362 
 
 .09 ' 31 
 
 Bulb 
 
 S04 
 
 794 
 
 10 
 
 .99 .01 
 
 Punch tumbler ami si em ware 
 
 M ,9 
 
 5S2 
 
 X7 
 
 .87 ' 13 
 
 Mound making .. .. 
 
 5X4 
 
 582 
 
 22 
 
 .96 .04 
 
 Paste mold 
 
 514 
 
 441 
 
 73 
 
 .86 14 
 
 Caster place 
 
 441 
 
 409 
 
 32 
 
 .93 .07 
 
 Iron mold 
 
 354 
 
 >s,s 
 
 66 
 
 M 19 
 
 Machine jar and boille 
 
 170 
 
 167 
 
 9 
 
 .95 .05 
 
 Shade and j;lobe 
 
 145 
 
 110 
 
 35 
 
 76 24 
 
 Engraving 
 
 62 
 
 53 
 
 9 
 
 86 14 
 
 Insulator . . 
 
 41 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 Stopper erinder. . . 
 
 14 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 8,743 
 
 1,154 
 
 .13 
 
 On account of the reduced tariff tinder the Wilson bill, our members were obliged to 
 double their day's work without any increase in wages on duplex globes. In the 
 blown department and stem-ware department, where they make wines, cocktails, 
 Cordials, goblet?, and that class of goods, our members suffered a 20 percent reduction 
 in wages, removed the limit from their day's production, and adopted an unlimited 
 piece-work basis. 
 
 On numerous occasions we have increased our day's work on dome, cone, and flat 
 shades made in opal, <_ r reen, and white plated. Notwithstanding this, many shades are 
 beitiir imported ai the present time. \Ve understand that the Welsbach Light Co. 
 if Gloucester, \. .1 .. briim them to this country by the shipload, and that old reliable 
 concerns operating in Philadelphia. Pa., just across the river from theWelsbach Light 
 Co.. arc unable to meci this evil competition. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 737 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Two years ago our members increased their day's production as high as 40 per 
 cent on what is known as chemical wares, such as beakers, flask beakers, and other 
 wares used in hospitals and laboratories. And they removed the limit from their 
 production so that they could work on a nonrestrictive basis with the hope of com- 
 peting with the imported article. Notwithstanding this great change and sacrifice 
 made by our members, the foreign manufacturer exports wares to this country. 
 
 I respectfully direct your attention to the fact that the new McAlpine Hotel, 
 Thirty-fourth and Broaaway, New York City, was supplied with $30,000 worth of 
 imported bar wares supplied through the Wannemaker & Co. The ware was produced 
 by the Val St. Lambert Co., Val St. Lambert in Belgium. 
 
 Another very important feature connected with this affair is that we understand 
 that all the glass wares used in the United States Navy Department on battleships 
 are of foreign make. In addition to this, the Hudson River boats are furnished with 
 foreign-made goods. We understand they come in duty free because they are used 
 on navigable steamers. Yet this is a grave injustice to the American manufacturer 
 and the American worker. 
 
 A significant feature connected with the importation of chemical wares and wares 
 used in hospitals and laboratories for experimental purposes is, as we understand it, 
 that the wares are admitted free. When a jobber calls at a hospital or laboratory for 
 an order, an order is given for a certain class of goods, and they tell the jobber to 
 double or triple the order; but it will not be necessary for the party ordering to take 
 the ware unless they really want it. The ware can be stocked by the importer and 
 the order thus signed by the party ordering some ware is shown as evidence to the 
 custom officials in New York and elsewhere as a bona fide order, and when the ware 
 is secured, only one-third, or one-half of it, is delivered, and the balance is used in 
 open competition with the product of the American manufacturer. This report was 
 submitted to me by one who made an extensive investigation of the matter, and we 
 believe that something should be done to prevent deceptive practices of this kind. 
 
 In my statement before your committee on Wednesday, January 8, I mentioned 
 electric bulbs. I would like it distinctly understood that I mean electric bulbs with 
 or without filament, that is, sent here to be fitted with carbons or filaments, or sent 
 here complete, as competition between American manufacturers and workers on 
 this line of goods is extremely keen, due solely to the very low wages under which 
 bulbs are produced in Continental Europe. Even with our 60 per cent duty I under- 
 stand that 10,000,000 bulbs arrived on our shores last year. 
 
 The wages of the electric bulb blower are low at the present time, and only recently 
 we succeeded in securing an increase in wages for the gatherer from $2.80 to $3 a day. 
 If the tariff is changed on this line of goods, it will certainly effect the interests of 
 our men and probably cause some great sacrifice to be made by the members of our 
 organization. 
 
 We understand that the Treasury Department has transferred incandescent lamps 
 from paragraph 98, Schedule B, known as "Glass schedule," to the metal schedule. 
 We sincerely believe that these articles should be restored to the glass schedule specifi- 
 cally and placed with blown glassware which includes electric bulbs, because of the 
 fact that the largest proportion of the labor cost, or materials used in incandescent 
 lamps, is composed of glass. We trust your committee will not be misled by this 
 transfer, as any change made on electric bulbs under the metal schedule would be a 
 grave injustice to the members of the American Flint Glass Workers' Union and the 
 employers who are exercising their best efforts to cooperate with us in a harmonious 
 degree consistent with the keen competition prevailing at the present time. 
 
 You will note by the statistics given that while the season 1911-12 was one of the 
 very best seasons, over 13 per cent of our men were unemployed, and it is impossible 
 for us to find employment for these men in the trade, owing to the fact that there is 
 not sufficient work for them. 
 
 I am sure that if the tariff on imported glassware is reduced that the present serious 
 competitive state will be intensified and a great number of our members thrown out of 
 employment. 
 
 In behalf of the American Flint Glass Workers' Union I respectfully request that 
 your committee do not reduce the tariff on blown glassware. 
 
 Please convey to the members of your committee my sincere gratitude for extending 
 the time of your session in order to allow me to present our protest. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 T. W. HOWE, 
 President, American Flint Glass Workers' Union. 
 
 78959 VOL 1- 
 
738 TABIPF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS' UNION, 
 
 Toledo, Ohio, January SO, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, M. C., 
 
 Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 HONORABLE SIR: In connection with the tariff revision on glassware I desire to add 
 the following to that which has been submitted, on behalf of the American Flint Glass 
 Workers' Union, and I sincerely hope that the presentation of the following facts will 
 not consume too much of your time or trespass upon your patience. Owing to the fact 
 that the question of imported glassware is extremely serious to us, we have concluded 
 that it is advisable to present all possible sides to you on the subject, with the hope 
 that judicious legislation will follow. 
 
 The American flint glass trade is in a rather precarious condition to-day, due to the 
 fact that there is no organization among the employers to regulate prices, and competi- 
 tion is extremely intensified on account of a lack of unity and the competitive rivalry 
 and the fact that the present tariff rates do not furnish adequate protection from im- 
 ported articles, our country is flooded with wares from abroad, particularly continental 
 Europe. 
 
 The wages prevailing at glass factories in continental Europe are from one-third to 
 one-fourth the prevailing rate in this country. German glass factories are finely con- 
 structed and all the necessary facilities are supplied in order that quality and quantity 
 can be produced, and this fact with the low wages and long hours prevailing, enables 
 them to ship goods to this country, even though we have a high tariff rate on certain 
 lines. 
 
 Our principal competition in Germany is from the factories at Jena, Gehlberg, 
 Ilmenau, Weiswasser, and Prague. The principal competition in Belgium comes from 
 Val St. Lambert Glass Co., with factories at Val St. Lambert and Namur, and goods 
 produced by this concern can be found in almost any principal city in this country, and 
 we agaiu remind you of the fact that the new McAlpin Hotel, New York City, recently 
 opened, was supplied with $30,000 worth of fine stemware, such as cordials, wines, 
 goblets, and other barware utensils. All supplied by the Val. St. Lambert Co. The 
 principal competition in France is from Baccarac. This concern ships blanks for 
 cutting and cut glass. 
 
 We ask you to remember that the glassware used on naval vessels and on the Hudson 
 River steamboat lines is imported ware, and another significant fact that should require 
 your attention is that all the syphon bottles used in the United States are imported 
 articles, and the firm that formerly made this class of goods, Thill & Co., Brooklyn, 
 X. Y., passed out of existence, due to the competition in this line of ware. It is con- 
 eervately estimated that there are sufficient syphon bottles used in the various cities of 
 this country to keep three large furnaces in operation and several attempts have been 
 made to meet this competition and on each occasion they have proved failures. 
 
 Last year we understand there were 10.000,000 incandescent electric bulbs shipped 
 into this country from Germany and Austria, and we now understand that the importers 
 are trying to have the finished incandescent lamp, which is governed at present by the 
 metal schedule tariff, reduced from 45 to 10 per cent. We certainly consider this one 
 of the deceptive acts resorted to by the importers, as we know that the principal cost in 
 finishing an electric incandescent lamp is in the glass-working department. The con- 
 cern that made this request has its factory in Holland where the glass blowers do not 
 ever get tor regular work more than one-fourth or one-third of the wages paid here, and 
 the living conditions of the workers are very poor. On top of this these Holland glass 
 workers get 20 per cent deducted from their regular wages when the goods they make 
 are for export to this country. (See the extracts from my report on labor conditions in 
 Europe, which 1 filed with you when I appeared before you on January 8. It is 
 printed on page of your hearings on the glass schedule. That investigation was 
 not made for your committee, but was made by our union for it to know what competi- 
 tion it was meeting, and is the most complete collection of actual facts about glass 
 workers that there is.) If there are any serious changes regarding the tariff rates on 
 incandescent lamp bulbs with or without filaments, the members of our union will 
 seriously suffer on that account, and instead of reducing the tariff on the incandescent 
 lamp bulb with filaments, we believe and urgently advise that incandescent lamp 
 bulbs with filaments be taken from the metal schedule and be placed on the blown 
 glassware schedule, which provides for a 60 per cent duty, as there is no doubt in our 
 niinds as to that, being its proper place, and we hope that you will not overlook that very 
 important point. It would lie like giving us something with one hand and taking it 
 away with the other to give us protection on bulbs and then follow the request of these 
 Holland importers to lower the duly on the lamps which is the only article for which 
 the bulbs can be used. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 739 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 In connection with the terrific competition prevailing in this country we desire 
 to state that if you simply visit a few of the large glass dealers or the 5 and 10 cent 
 stores of the principal cities of our country, you can not help but observe that glass 
 is sold extremely low, and on account of the low prices prevailing a number of flint 
 glass factories have been forced to retire in recent years. Chiefly among these are 
 J. J. Murray Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., an old-time manufacturer, manufacturing 
 shades and globes; a concern that thoroughly understood the business and had an 
 excellent crew of men. Welsbach Light Co., Gloucester, N. J., are importing shades 
 by the shipload and laying them down in Philadelphia cheaper than they could be 
 produced in Philadelphia. 
 
 A number of workmen left the J. J. Murray Co. and started a cooperative glass 
 factory at Addison, N. Y., but they lasted only a short period when they had to give 
 ii up. Later, another crew of experienced men started the old Boston-Sandwich 
 Glass Co., Sandwich, Mass., and lasted only about a year when they were compelled 
 to retire. 
 
 Among the recent failures are: Brpnx-Ryal Glass Co., Port Jervis, N. Y.; Solar 
 Glass Co., Owensboro, Ky.; Cheat River Glass Co., Point Marion, Pa.; The Crystal 
 Tumbler Co., Morgantown, W. Va.; C. M. Rodefer Co., Shadyside, Ohio; Ohio Flint 
 Glass Co., Lancaster, Ohio; Eyansville Glass Co., Evansville, Ind.; Millersburg Glass 
 Co., Millersburg, Ohio; Continental Glass Co., St. Louis, Mo.; Pioneer Glass Co., 
 Coffeyville, Kans.; Bartlesville, Glass Co., Bartlesville, Ohio; and I may add that 
 the idle Ohio Flint Glass Co.'s factory at Lancaster, Ohio, and the idle Evansville 
 Glass Co.'s factory at Evansville, Ind., each cost about $700,000 to erect and equip, 
 and are considered two of the best constructed glass factories in this country. 
 
 I again desire to remind you that the average wage of the American flint-glass 
 worker is less than $14 a week for the year, and that there are no glass manufacturers 
 in this country declaring any large dividends. It is estimated that the average 
 dividend will not exceed 4 per cent. 
 
 If the tariff is reduced on any of the illuminating lines of glassware, such as incan- 
 descent electric bulbs, with or without filaments, lamp chimneys, electric shades or 
 globes, or lamp shades or street lights, blanks for cutting or cut glass, stemware, such 
 as cordials, wines, goblets, and other barware goods, it will play serious havoc with 
 the American industry and the present deplorable competitive condition will un- 
 doubtedly do the American flint-glass weaker a grave injustice, because of our experi- 
 ence has proven that when such competition reigns supreme and the employer can 
 no longer profit by his business, that concessions are always demanded and generally 
 granted where the facts are self-evident, as it will certainly be proven in this case. 
 If any tariff changes are to be made they should be made on the very commonest 
 line of glassware, and should not be made on the higher grades. 
 
 Please do not forget that the past year was considered a good season, as far as the 
 quantity of production was concerned, and during that period 14 per cent of our 
 members were idle and vainly sought work. 
 
 Therefore, on behalf of the American Flint Glass Workers' Union of the United 
 States, we must respectfully beseech your committee to not reduce the tariff on 
 pressed or blown glassware, or on goods made and known or recognized in the general 
 glass-working trade as flint glassware or blown glassware, and the goods which we 
 have enumerated in our protest. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, T. W. ROWE, 
 
 President American Flint Glass Workers' Union. 
 
 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. DORFLINGER, REPRESENTING THE 
 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF FLINT AND LIME GLASS MANU- 
 FACTURERS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 98. 
 
 The CHAIBMAX. Mr. Dorflinger, to what paragraph will you refer ? 
 
 Mr. DORFLIXGER, To paragraph 98. The paragraph that covers 
 the articles about which you asked a few moments ago. I represent 
 the manufacturers of the glass. We are also glass cutters, etchers, 
 engravers, and, in fact, all those things which are enumerated in 
 that paragraph. 
 
740 TABIFF HBAEINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 I would like to give you a few facts, if you will bear with me; not 
 figures. I want to tell you some things I do not believe you hear 
 about or know about. In the first place, there is absolutely no 
 question that the fine glass the tableware which is made hi this 
 country, whether plain or cut or etched, is the finest that is made in 
 the world. There is no question about it. The reason for this is 
 t.iat we have the best sand that is knowi to the world. It is a 
 matter of record that the sand for the English exhibit hi Paris, I 
 think hi 1868, was brought over from America. We take prizes 
 everywhere at Chicago, Philadelphia, at the Centennial in Paris, and 
 everywhere first prize for glassware. Under those circumstances 
 you would think there would be no trouble hi selling it here, but 
 that did not seem to count. It is the price that counts. One of the 
 reasons why we co not sell more of it is beacuse the dealers prefer 
 imported ware; and why? Because they make more money on it. 
 They buy cheaper than they can buy domestic ware and they get a 
 bigger price tha . they could get for the domestic ware. Conse- 
 quently, they boom it and push it. You can go into any store in 
 New York or Philadelphia and ask them which is the best glass they 
 have, and they say "English," and the next best is Swedish. I have 
 had that experience within two weeks, When I mildly suggested 
 that there was good glass made in the United States, trie saleslady 
 said, "Well, yes; some, there is some," and our ware was on their 
 shelves at the very time. 
 
 Glass is sand, silica; it is melted sand. We put it into a crucible 
 and apply heat, and it comes out glassware. Of course, there are 
 other ingredients, alkalis, etc., on some of which we pay duty lead 
 and potash. When that glass is melted, or rather the sand is melted, 
 the rest of it is labor, every bit. Everything in the manufacture of 
 glass has advanced in the last few years. I do not mean skilled 
 labor, but the unskilled labor and everything in connection with 
 the works have advanced. All the materials have advanced hi 
 price and prices for the glass have been going down steadily. As 
 my friend said a moment ago, there has never been such a condition 
 in the United States; there have never been such low prices. 
 
 I remarked that the dealer preferred imported glass. Now, let 
 mo illustrate. Tiffany, of New York you all know Tiffany sells 
 domestic American cut glass bought directly from the manufacturer 
 at .33^ per cent advance. I can take you to half a dozen stores 
 within two or three blocks of Tiffany's, where they are selling im- 
 ported glass, and making from 100 to 200 per cent. There is no 
 question about it. It is done every clay. We are not patriotic 
 here. In France you can not give them American glassware. They 
 want French; they do not want anything else, but here we want 
 imported glass. It is a magic word, and as the women buy the glass- 
 ware particularly, that is the word that charms them; and it covers 
 a multitude of defects. 
 
 Fine glassware is a luxury. And yet, when I say it is a luxury, 
 the class of people that you think would buy it are those that go to 
 other side. Let me illustrate. Two or three years ago I was talking 
 with a dealer on Fifth Avenue, a dealer in very high-grade goods. I 
 said to him. "T suppose your trade is confined to Fifth Avenue?" 
 "Xo," he said, "I do not believe you know the class of people I sell 
 
SCHEDULE B. 741 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 to. I do not sell to the very wealthy and fashionable people, the 
 people who go abroad. What do you suppose Mrs. A buys in this 
 country? Her milk and her morning paper. Everything else she 
 gets in Europe." And there is a great deal of truth in that. 
 
 The very people who should buy our glass and who should buy 
 the best quality are the ones who get it from Europe. Every little 
 while we read that Mrs. So-and-so has had an expensive set made 
 in Europe, especially designed and imported to order. Yet the very 
 best glass hi the world is right next door to her. The poor people 
 do not want our class of glass; they can not buy it. If it was given 
 to them they would not know what to do with it; they would break 
 it. Our trade is confined, you might say, to the average well-to-do 
 citizen, who is cultivated and educated. With him it is a necessity. 
 Unfortunately the women buy the glassware, and when the dealer 
 says, "This is imported; it is the latest thing," that settles it. I 
 can assure you that if you take two articles, identical in every way, 
 made at the same place and under the same conditions, and you 
 say to the average woman, "This one is $12, the other one is $15," she 
 will ask you, "Why is that $15?" and you say, "It is imported," 
 and she will take it. She does not know anything about it; she 
 simply relies on what the dealer tells her. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. That is like imported positions. They will not 
 give them to the natives, but have to import. 
 
 Mr. DORFLINGEB. It applies to a great many things. 
 
 I would like to refer to a statement made a few moments ago in 
 regard to the importation of glassware. I am surprised to know 
 that the importation is falling off. You know that statistics are 
 not complete. In fact, the more I look into them the less I know 
 about it. A great many kinds of glassware are bunched together, 
 but we do know that there have been large importations, and I 
 think you will find, if you can get at the data say, for the impor- 
 tations from Sweden in the last five years and you will find a phe- 
 nomenal growth. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. We asked the last witness to tell us whether in 
 his opinion importations under paragraph 98 consisted chiefly of c"t 
 glass and he said that they did. I was proceeding upon that assump- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. DORFLIXGER. I think he is wrong. I do not think the gentle- 
 man is familiar with that subject. That paragraph covers a great 
 many things; it concerns plain ware, etched ware, engraved ware, 
 stained ware, and all that sort of thing. It is very hard to divide 
 those up. The fact is there is comparatively little cut glass im- 
 ported; that is, cut glass as we know it here heavy, rich cut glass. 
 The glassware that we manufacturers afe interested in is tableware, 
 the fine glassware for the table, dishes, and stem ware for table service, 
 that is the kind which is brought in here to such a large extent. For 
 a great many years, off and on, my firm had the contract for the 
 Navy ware. We had it last year. This year we lost it; it has gone 
 to the other side. The contract for 1913 is placed, and the factory to 
 which that order was given is a very large shipper to this country- 
 very large indeed. I do not think the figures that you have are 
 reliable, not that they are wrong, but because they cover too large 
 afield. 
 
742 TABIFP HEABINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWABE. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. So far as the import figures on glassware are con- 
 cerned, it is practically conceded that there could be very little 
 smuggling in glassware and the Treasury figures must be correct. 
 
 Mr. DORFLINGER. You do not refer to undervaluation ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What is that ? 
 
 Mr. DORFLINEGR. You do not refer to undervaluation ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. No; the undervaluation would amount to as 
 much in one year as in another year, and the comparison remains 
 the same. 
 
 Mr. DORFLINGER. Yes; but it is very hard to estimate it. 
 
 I do not believe, gentlemen, that anything is to be gained by 
 lowering the duties on this class of glassware, except the loss of 
 revenue to the Government. A thing is worth what it will bring in 
 the market. If this Swedish ware will bring $15 to $18 for a goblet, 
 when it costs $5 or $6 or $6.50 or $7, what difference is a small 
 decrease in duty going to make ? The only difference it will make, 
 apart from the loss of revenue, will be an increase in the profits of the 
 foreign manufacturers or the importer. I am sure the dealer will pay 
 the same price, and he will ask the same retail price. 
 
 You win find in some of the briefs submitted here figures and state- 
 ments as to conditions on the other side. 
 
 Only yesterday I was told by a gentleman who visited one of the 
 largest factories in BcJgium a year or tw T o ago, a factory that perhaps 
 figures the largest in exports to this country, that about one-half of 
 the force were women and girls; the laboring work was done by 
 women. The coal was handled and the ashes wheeled by women. 
 We do not want that condition here. I do not believe there is a glass 
 manufacturer in this country that would work under those conditions. 
 And if he would, you would not let him. So I ask you gentlemen to 
 protect us in this industry and not benefit those concerns on the other 
 side who do not seem to recognize the benefits and the advantages 
 of present civilization. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., January 7, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 HONORABLE SIR: We, the manufacturers of handmade blown glassware covered 
 by Schedule B, paragraph 98, do hereby enter protest against any revision downward 
 of the tariff now in effect. 
 
 Our reasons for objection to changes are based upon the following facts: 
 
 I. That under present conditions no unreasonable profits have been made by the 
 manufacturers of blown glassware in this country. Careful investigation proves that 
 the average return upon the necessary investment is about 4 per cent. This state- 
 ment is open to investigation. 
 
 II. Under the protection afforded this industry by the present tariff a very marked 
 improvement in quality has been made in production of American blown glassware. 
 The introduction of modern methods has reduced manufacturing costs, but unfortu- 
 nately these advantages have been more than offset by increases in cost of skilled and 
 unskilled labor, advances in prices of materials, and fuel. These increases have all 
 been absorbed by the manufacturers without any increase in selling price; on the 
 contrary prices have gradually declined. 
 
 Blown glassware is now sold in the open market by American manufacturers at 
 about the lowest prices on record. 
 
 Large purchasers of this product are the popular 5 and 10 cent stores. A visit to 
 these stores will easily convince your committee of the fact that the American manu- 
 facturer has small opportunity to make big profits. In these same stores, which im- 
 port foreign goods direct, will be found many lines and items of etched imported blown 
 
SCHEDULE B. 743 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 glassware. These items show that the American manufacturer is not yet in a position 
 to produce at a satisfactory price in competition, notwithstanding the protection 
 afforded under the present tariff law. 
 
 III. In the manufacture of blown glassware an important factor is we are, to a 
 great extent, selling labor and fuel, the average proportion of cost of labor to the total 
 cost of the finished article being from 70 per cent to 80 per cent. 
 
 We ask your full consideration of these facts. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF FLINT AND LIME GLASS MANUFACTURERS, 
 
 Stevenson Building, Pittsburgh, Pa. 
 
 WM. F. DORFLINGER, 
 
 WM. M. ANDERSON, 
 
 E. O. CROSS, 
 
 A. B. HOUOHTON, 
 
 W. H. C ASS ELL, 
 
 N. KOPP, 
 
 A. J. BENNETT, 
 
 W. A. B. DALZELL, 
 
 Committee. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS' UNION. 
 
 COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS, 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES, 
 
 Washington, D. C., January SO, 191S. 
 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 MY DEAR COLLEAGUE : I herewith transmit for your consideration in connection with 
 paragraph B, schedule 98, a communication from the American Flint Glass Workers' 
 Union, which I will be glad to have filed as a brief and printed in the record of the 
 hearings. 
 
 Yours, very truly, WM. D. B. AINEY. 
 
 HEADQUARTERS LOCAL UNION No. 92, A. F. G. W. U., 
 
 Honesdale, Pa., January 25, 1913. 
 
 Hon. W. D. B. AINEY, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 HONORABLE SIR: Our attention has been called to the fact that the Ways and Means 
 Committee is now considering a revision of the tariff laws on imported glasswares 
 and has the subject under consideration known as paragraph B, schedule 98. We 
 most respectfully call your attention to the fact that a reduced tariff means reduced 
 wages to our members and other sacrifices such as were experienced under the Wilson 
 tariff law. 
 
 We therefore beseech you and your committee to not make any reduction in the 
 present tariff rates on imported glasswares, as the present tariff rates do not afford 
 sufficient protection to the American workman, as considerable glassware is now being 
 imported, notwithstanding the extraordinary keen competition prevailing in the glass 
 markets of our country. 
 
 There is no monopoly on glasswares in the American trade, and no organization 
 among the flint-glass manufacturers; all are free to sell as they please, and prices are 
 very Tow. There will be no relief afforded to the citizens of our country if the tariff 
 rates are reduced, as it will only intensify the present deplorable state of affairs. There- 
 fore we most respectfully protest against any reduction in the tariff rates, and we trust 
 you will act favorably on our appeal. 
 
 I am, fraternally, yours, GEO. GRAMBS, 
 
 Corresponding Secretary. 
 
744 TARIFF HBAEINGS. 
 
 PAB-AGBAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 STATEMENT OF H. D. CAREY, PRESIDENT NATIONAL ASSOCIA- 
 TION OF CUT-GLASS MANUFACTURERS, OF SCRANTON, PA. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Carey, what paragraph do you wish to 
 refer to ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Paragraph 98, I believe it is, on cut glass. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That is glassware. Do you wish to refer entirely 
 to cut glass ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. It refers to cut glass, decorated, etc., I believe. I wish 
 to confine all of my statements to cut glass. That is the only thing 
 I know anything about in connection with this line. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Gentlemen, I believe the cut-glass industry is in a 
 different condition than most people realize, and in a different condi- 
 tion from most other manufacturing industries, it being a luxury, 
 and at the same time the price at which it is being sold is on as close a 
 margin as a necessity. I believe that this committee are desirous 
 of gaining actual knowledge of the facts as they exist, and of passing 
 upon them according to those facts; and for that reason I have 
 gone to some little trouble and given it the most careful consideration 
 that I could in the short time which I had, in order to give this com- 
 mittee a good idea of the conditions in the cut-glass business. 
 
 As an introductory statement I will go into the history of the busi- 
 ness a little to show you that there are no trusts and no combinations ; 
 that the business is conducted and managed by men of very moderate 
 circumstances. Nearly all of them that are in the business are men 
 who have been workmen behind the frame, and they are now running 
 the shops ; and in many of the shops all of the workmen in the shops 
 are members of the firm. That is a very common thing. In 1876 
 there were 5 cut-glass factories in the United States. In 1897 there 
 were 18 cut-glass factories, with 1,952 frames, or an average of about 
 108 frames to the shop. By frame we mean that the glass is put be- 
 hind a frame, in the actual cutting of the glass, and there would be an 
 operator for each frame. 
 
 In 1902 there were 80 and I want you to mark this, gentlemen, 
 in 1876, 5; in 1897, 18; and in 1902, 80. In 1902 there were 3,500 
 frames, or an average of 41 frames to the shop. In 1912, at the pres- 
 ent time, there are 139 factories, 4,800 frames, or an average of 35 
 frames to the factory. Those are the frames which are operative. 
 Every factory is equipped I might say nearly every factory, because 
 there might be a very few to which it would not apply but nearly 
 every factory is equipped to operate considerably more than they are 
 now doing. There are at least 1,000 frames at the present time that 
 are inoperative, which would supply a further production of from a 
 million dollars to a million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. 
 
 Our factories during the last year cut and produced and sold in 
 this country about $6,000,000 worth of cut glass. The foreign im- 
 portation, as near as I can get it from the Bureau of Statistics, is 
 over a million dollars, not including the duty, which would make it 
 over a million and a half of dollars, or about one-seventh or over 
 one-seventh of the total amount produced. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 745 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. So that you estimate all of the importations under 
 paragraph 98 are cut glass ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. No, I do not. The importations under paragraph 98 
 in the last year, ending June 30, 1912, was $1,001,542 without the 
 60 per cent duty. The greater portion of that is cut glass. It does 
 not distinguish as to what is cut glass and what is nok With the 
 60 per cent added, I estimate that the value, as laid down in this 
 country, will amount to $1,500,000, and I think that is a conserva- 
 tive estimate, making due allowance 
 
 The CHAIRMAN (interposing) . You mean importations ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Yes, sir; that is the value of the importations, about 
 $1,000,000. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Practically all of the imports under paragraph 98 
 are cut glass ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Yes, sir; practically all are cut glass, as I understand it. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The figures that we have here have come from the 
 Census Department, the Census of 1910, and they show that the 
 American production of this article amounts to $27,000,000. 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Of cut glass ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Covering all these articles: 
 
 Glass bottles and decanters, and all articles of every description, composed wholly 
 or in chief value of glass, ornamented or decorated, cut, engraved, painted, colored, 
 stained, silvered, gilded, etched, sand-blasted, frosted and printed, or in any manner, 
 or ground, etc.; all the foregoing filled or unfilled, and whether their contents be 
 dutiable or free. 
 
 What articles do they refer to there ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. They refer, perhaps, to a good many articles that are 
 not listed in the statistics which I have, or which I know anything 
 about. Ground glass may be a great many things and may be used 
 and included. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You think the imports of those articles are confined 
 solely to cut glass ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Not solely, but nearly so. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. You are basing your argument upon the assump- 
 tion that practically all of the imports are cut glass, and yet only 
 $6,000,000 out of the $27,000,000 of the American production are cut 
 glass. 
 
 Mr. CAREY. I deny absolutely that there is a production of $27,000,- 
 000 worth of cut glass. I have gone over this matter very carefully 
 and I can speak authoritatively on the subject. The amount manu- 
 factured in this country is but $6,000,)00 worth. I can speak more 
 accurately than the Census Bureau can speak on this subject. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The Census Bureau's figures cover the whole 
 paragraph. 
 
 Mr. CAREY. They cover a good many other items, and, including all 
 the other items, it is probably over $6,000,000. But I am confining 
 myself to cut glass or decorated ware. 
 
 The amount that is imported into this country would compare 
 almost equally in proportion to the amount that would be produced 
 by the idle frames which we have in this country to-day. If you will 
 observe, we have 1,000 frames idle in this country to-day and they 
 would just about manufacture the amount of cut glass that is 
 imported into this country. 
 
746 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 As I said before, there is an average of about 35 frames or 35 
 cutters to each shop, so that you can see the matter has gotten down 
 almost to where it is managed and controlled by the workmen in the 
 greater percentage of the shops. I will say that 90 per cent of the 
 cut-glass shops, the cutting shops and it may run higher than that 
 are run by men who have been employed behind the frames, and a 
 great percentage of the workmen in the shops are the men who own 
 the business. That applies to cut glass, but I think it will apply to 
 very few of the other items. You will bear in mind that in starting 
 into the cut-glass business it does not take very much capital. Cap- 
 ital is employed when they grow larger; but with only 35 frames there 
 is not a very large amount of capital employed in any one factory. 
 They are all in the keenest competition with each other. Cut glass 
 to-day is being sold far, far too cheap. You can inquire of any buyer 
 of cut glass in any of the big department stores that you please and 
 they will tell you that cut glass is being sold entirely too cheap. It 
 is common knowledge in the trade, and it has been caused by extreme 
 keen competition, not only at home but abroad. The American 
 manufacturers have attempted to enter into competition with the 
 foreign manufacturers, but even with the 60 per cent duty that is on 
 cut glass to-day it does not make up the difference, as I figure it out, 
 between the cost of production abroad and in this country. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. The imports in 1912 were only a little over 
 $1,000,000 and in 1905 they were nearly $1,800,000? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. How do you account for that ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. I can answer it in this way. There are not one-tenth 
 of the cut-glass factories in the United States to-day that are paying 
 any dividends. Most of them will show a loss. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. You do not believe that is because they have 
 nearly equalized the cost of production in both countries? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. No; but 1 ecause the American manufacturer is at- 
 tempting to meet the competition with the foreign manufacturer. 
 The cost of labor in Europe is one-half or one-third, as I am informed, 
 of the cost that the American manufacturer as to pay for the same 
 class of labor. I can not speak authoritatively on tiat; that is 
 simply the report that has come to me, but I think it is correct. If 
 you gentlemen have any figures on that subject, I think they will 
 bear me out. 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. The imports of 1911 amounted to $1,341,000. 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Yos. 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. They have not been uniform from yeag to year? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Xo, sir; cut glass is a luxury. If the country is pros- 
 perous, if everything is going along well, then you will see cut glass 
 is being sold, because it is a luxury. 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. The following articles are mentioned in paragraph 98: 
 
 Glass bottles and decanters, and all articles of every description composed wholly 
 or in chief value of glass, ornamented or decorated, cut, engraved, painted, colored, 
 stained, silvered, gilded, etched, sand blasted, frosted, and printed. 
 
 And so forth. 
 
 On which of those articles do you have to put the most labor? 
 Mr. CAREY. On cut glass. Every indentation or cut on a piece of 
 cut glass means so much labor. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 747 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. So that the duty being 60 per cent, that would be more 
 apt to affect the cut glass than any of these other articles, because 
 there is more labor used on the cut glass ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. And the difference hi the cost of labor is greater ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You said the difference was a half or a third less in 
 Europe. Do you mean that or did you mean that it is a half or a 
 third of the labor cost in the United States ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. I mean that a man that would receive $12 in the 
 United States would only receive $4 or $6 in Europe. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. It is two-thirds less instead of one-third. I thought 
 you were mistaken about that, because it is different from my infor- 
 mation on the subject. 
 
 Mr. CAREY. I hope you will take me as to what I mean, if I mis- 
 quote myself. 
 
 During the last 10 years, speaking of the production in the cut- 
 glass industry and I am really ashamed to make this statement with 
 regard to any manufacturing industry, and especially one in which I 
 am personally interested during the last 10 years there have been 
 98 firms that have either failed or discontinued. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. And all this under a high-protective tariff' ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Under a high-protective tariff; yes, sir. I say that 60 
 per cent does not cover the difference in the cost of manufacture. 
 The total number in that length of time, considering all those that 
 failed, was 237, or 40 per cent of the total; 70 per cent of the number 
 that was in business at any one tune. One hundred and forty is the 
 greatest number of factories that have been hi business at any one 
 time, and 70 per cent of that number have either discontinued or 
 failed. A number of them discontinued because there was abso- 
 lutely no profit and they could not meet the competition such as we 
 have. This is a rather lamentable state of affairs; but I will state, 
 like some of the former speakers have done, that we are willing for 
 this committee or any committee, or anyone that this committee may 
 designate, to examine the books of any of the cut-glass manufactur- 
 ers, or all of them, because they are open to this committee, and any 
 statements which I have made here will be borne out accurately as I 
 have made them. 
 
 I have made an illustration of the cost figures that may be of 
 interest to you gentlemen. All the representatives that have ap- 
 peared before this committee have been representatives of manufac- 
 turers that have been interested hi both the manufacture of glass 
 and the cutting of glass. The cutting shop does not manufacture 
 any glass. They go out on the market and buy their blanks and 
 thev cut them and do the other work on them. For instance, we 
 will take an 8-inch bowl for illustration. Suppose we pay $9 a 
 dozen for the blanks in this country, and we wnl say we pay &4 for 
 the roughing and $6 for the smoothing; then the breakage and the 
 overhead expense, clerk hire, and all those things going into it will 
 figure 100 per cent on roughing and smoothing, as near as I can get 
 at it, and I think it is very accurate. I have taken percentage fig- 
 ures so as to make it more plain. It would amount to $10, the 
 roughing and smoothing, and it would make the total cost to the 
 
748 TABEBT HEABINQS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 factory for that article of $29. They are paying one-half for labor. 
 The blank would be cheaper without duty. I have taken off 20 per 
 cent, and when you take off 60 per cent you have got about 36 per 
 cent. I have done this to show that I am conservative in my esti- 
 mates. Taking off 20 per cent would leave for the blanks $7.20 a 
 dozen; counting foreign labor at one-third of labor cost in the 
 United States, it would make the roughing $1.33 and the smoothing 
 $2, and it would make an overhead expense of $3.33 granting that 
 there is the same amount of breakage there as here or it would 
 make a difference of 110 per cent in the cost of production. If you 
 take it on the basis of labor costing one-half, you nave a cost abroad 
 of $17.20 against $29, or a difference of 69 per cent. Those are correct 
 figures, and when I say that 60 per cent would not cover the differ- 
 ence in the cost of production, I am speaking accurately and not 
 estimating. 
 
 I have here a letter that may bear a little on this subject, from one 
 of our manufacturers in St. Louis, with reference to the running of 
 a factory by him in England, which reads as follows: 
 
 I was thoroughly familiar with the wages paid there, and we had no difficulty in 
 getting a good glass cutter to work for $7 a week. As you doubtless know, glass cutters 
 in England are paid higher wages than in any other European country. In France, 
 Sweden, and Belgium the wages paid grade lower. 
 
 Then he goes on and mentions an importer that was recently dis- 
 playing a line of samples in St. Louis, and states that judging from 
 the prices which he was asking for those goods that even with the 
 60 per cent duty we could not pay our men $9 a week and get the 
 same articles cut. 
 
 I will say this it may be new to you gentlemen, in spite of the 
 fact that you are very familiar with this subject that the Japanese 
 Government, which, as we know, is very aggressive and progressive 
 in this day in the way of manufacturing, has employed experts from 
 both the United States and from Europe, and is attempting to estab- 
 lish the cut-glass business, with the idea of competing. You all 
 know that they have extremely cheap labor in Japan. So far we 
 have never had any importations of cut glass from Japan and there 
 has never been any cut glass manufactured in Japan to my knowl- 
 edge, but they are now working upon that subject. 
 
 We are one of the very small industries that will appear before you, 
 perhaps one of the smallest although I have heard of some here that 
 were smaller but we employ a great many men in comparison to 
 the amount of our production, and we ask that you gentlemen give 
 this matter the same consideration that you would give to some of 
 the larger affairs. 
 
 While it may not bo important from a governmental standpoint, it 
 is vitally important to the men who have their all invested in the 
 glass-cutting business; just as vitally important to us as though the 
 business were much larger. After you get the facts which give you 
 a knowledge of this business I am satisfied that instead of any reduc- 
 tion or any lowering of the rates there will be a raising of the rates. 
 We are perfectly satisfied to have the rule which has been announced 
 from the platform so many times during this campaign, that the 
 difference in the cost of production abroad and here will be the rate 
 
SCHEDULE B. 749 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 of duty. If that rule is applied we have no complaint; we are satis- 
 fied with that rule. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Do you know anything about the other articles 
 that are covered in this paragraph outside of cut glass? Are they 
 all classed as articles of luxury ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. They are all luxuries; yes, sir. Hand-painted ware 
 would be a luxury, and anything of that kind would be , luxury; 
 they would all be classed as luxuries. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Why do you believe that the revenue is dwindling 
 so under this rate ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Why do I believe that the revenue is dwindling ? 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Yes. The imports are reducing in amount from 
 year to year, apparently. 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Tne American manufacturer, as I say, is attempting 
 to meet foreign competition. In doin<* that they have perhaps made 
 a mistake. They have done it under the 60 per cent duty; they have 
 in vested their money, and they want to make it good. They are 
 selling it entirely too cheap. Most of those that have their money 
 invested are the workmen; it is their business, and they keep per- 
 sistently at it, as one who has got into something bad and wants to 
 make it good. They have given it a great deal of attention. The 
 manufacturer has tried to do everything he can to scientifically pro- 
 duce the articles here in order that he can meet that foreign com- 
 petition. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Prices must have been falling off? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Yes, sir; prices have fallen off 50 per cent. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. In what period of time? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Within six years. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. In cut glass ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. In cut glass; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Was the quantity imported very much greater on the 
 million dollar's worth basis 
 
 Mr. CAREY (interrupting). Oh, yes; very much greater. 
 
 Gentlemen, I thank you for the attention which you have given me. 
 If there are any facts that you wish in connection with this matter, 1 
 will be only too glad to supply them to you if it is within my power. I 
 have means of getting data from the different factories, and I will be 
 glad to supply you with any information desired. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How many factories are there now ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. One hundred and thirty-nine. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. And how many failed in the last two years ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Ninety-eight in the last 10 years. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Have there been any new factories started ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Yes, sir; wherever there has been a failure there is a 
 plant that is absolutely worthless unless it is used as a cut-glass 
 factory; there is the machinery, and where there is a failure, as a 
 rule, some one connected with that shop has started it up again in a 
 smaller way. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. So that the failures have not decreased the number 
 of factories actually in operation? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. No; the factories are as great to-day in number. 
 The production is very much greater, because it is sold so much 
 cheaper. 
 
750 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How old is the industry ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. In 1876 there were five factories. I have named them 
 in my brief. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. About how many men are employed ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. In the cutting there are about 5,000, and then the 
 clerk hire and other employees would probably bring that up to about 
 7,000. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. In the cutting the employees are skilled laborers ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. Yes; they are all skilled laborers. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. And they receive about how much per day ? 
 
 Mr. CAREY. I think in a union shop they receive a minimum of $15 
 a week, and it runs from there on up to $21 and $24 a week, according 
 to skill. They are not all union shops and the wages will run any- 
 where from $12 to $24 per week. Some very skilled labor will get 
 more than that, as high as $30 a week. It will average around $16 
 to $17 or $18 a week, I think. 
 
 BRIEF OF MR. H. D. CAREY. 
 
 To the honorable the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives of the 
 
 United States of America in committee assembled: 
 
 The petition of the undersigned, representing the cut glass manufacturers of the 
 United States, respectfully showeth: 
 
 1. In the year 1876 there was in the United States only 5 cutting shops, to wit: 
 C. Dorflinger, White Mills, Pa.; J. Hoare & Co., Corning, N. Y.; Mount Washington 
 Glass Co.. New Bedford, Mass.; Meriden Silver Plate Co., Meriden, Conn.; and Wilcox 
 Silver Plate Co., Meriden, Conn. 
 
 2. In the year 1897 there was in the United States 18 shops, using 1,952 frames. In 
 the year 1902, 80 cutting shops and 3,500 frames, and in the year 1912 there are 139 
 shops and not less than 4,800 frames in actual use and about 1,000 frames inactive, 
 making a total of 5,800 frames, and about 5,000 glass cutters actually employed besides 
 a large amount of other help necessary around a manufacturing plant. 
 
 3. The average frames per shop in 1897 was 108, and in 1902, 44, and in 1912 less than 
 35. During the past year these shops have produced and sold more than $6,000,000 
 in cut glass. Nearly every shop is equipped for very much larger production, which 
 is limited only by the market demand. 
 
 4. That in the cut-glass trade there are no trusts, monopolies, or large combinations 
 controlling either prices or production, and there is the very liveliest competition 
 among all of the several cut-glass manufacturers. This competition is not only with 
 the factories in this country but also with the factories in Europe. Nearly all of the 
 shops in tliis country are owned, managed, and controlled by men of very moderate 
 means: a very large percentage of the owners being men who have learned their trade 
 in other factories, saved a little money, and started in business for themselves, and 
 with the keen competition at the present time all of the cutting shops have more than 
 their due burden. By reason of this strong competition both at home and abroad, 
 during the last 10 years 98 firms have either discontinued business or failed out of 
 of a total of 237 firms in business showing 40 per cent on a total and a much greater 
 percentage on the number of firms in business at any one time, which perhaps would 
 not exceed 140. but. as firms have failed or discontinued new shops have started to 
 lake their place, composed usually of workmen who have been employed in the old 
 or discontinued shop. Therefore, the number of firms who discontinue business 
 during the last 10 years would equal 70 per cent of the total number of cut-glass manu- 
 facturers iu business at any one time during this period. 
 
 5. In the year 1897 four shops continued more than one-half of all the frames, any 
 one of which were much larger than any of the shops to-day. You will therefore 
 observe that while cut glass has become very popular and the number of firms and 
 the men employed greatly increased that the frames in the shop have decreased from 
 an average of 108 in 1897 to less than 35 in 1912. 
 
 6. Cut glass is a luxury and is now sold much cheaper than any manufacturer in 
 the United Slates can afford to sell it. and if any of you gentlemen are familiar with the 
 cut-glass business you will readily agree that it is a fact that very few cut-glass 
 
SCHEDULE B. 751 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 manufacturers are paying any dividends upon the money invested, and any depre- 
 ciation in- the tariff that would allow stronger competition from European countries 
 would mean ruination to a large number of manufacturers. 
 
 7. We regret exceedingly that we are unable to produce accurate data concerning 
 the cutting shops of Europe and the labor paid in same, but on the best information 
 we are able to get the cut-glass factories in Europe are very numerous, and we believe 
 that statistics from the customhouse will show large importations of cut glass from 
 Austria, Germany, Belgium, France, and England, and particularly in the last five 
 years from Sweden. This class of ware has made deep inroads to the American trade 
 by reason of the very good quality of the ware and the very low prices at which it is 
 Bold. We believe it can be shown that some of this ware is sold in the large stores of 
 this country at three times its cost and at a profit of 200 per cent, whereas the profit 
 on domestic ware is based on selling it for 33J to 50 per cent advance on the costs, 
 and in very rare cases at 100 per cent over cost. 
 
 8. As above stated, this business is owned, managed, and controlled by people who 
 were formerly workmen, and are of only very moderate circumstances. That there 
 is no demand in this country for cheaper cut glass, and in fact it is now being sold at 
 considerably less than the manufacturer can afford to market it. We believe that the 
 present tariff rate of 60 per cent is, if anything, too low, and will not equalize to the 
 American manufacturer the difference in the cost of production. In considering this 
 matter please bear in mind that the American manufacturer is obliged to buy blanks 
 for cutting upon which there is a duty. On practically all the supplies he uses there 
 is a duty, and that these articles are much more expensive in the United States than 
 they are in Europe; that if you will refer to accurate statistics upon the matter of 
 labor you will find that labor in this country is paid much greater wages than the glass 
 districts of foreign countries. When all these matters are taken in consideration and 
 accurate calculations made upon the basis of cost of production in Europe and in this 
 country you will find that the present duty of 60 per cent ia too low to cover the differ- 
 ence in the cost of production. 
 
 9. We are reliably informed that the Japanese Government has in the past two years 
 attempted to establish the cut-glass business in that country, and has employed 
 experts both from Europe and America to teach their help. We believe, gentlemen, 
 that it is unnecessary for us to tell you that it is impossible for the American mechanic 
 to live on the same wages as is paid to European and Japanese labor, and we sincerely 
 trust that you will give this subject your most careful consideration, and will not 
 allow any reduction in the present tariff of 60 per cent. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 WM. F. DORFLINGER, 
 
 H. D. CAREY, 
 Representatives of the Cut-Glass Manufacturers. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF CUT GLASS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 THE CUT GLASS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, 
 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., December SI, 1912. 
 Hon. JOHN J. FITZGERALD: 
 
 Having been informed that there will be a hearing on January 8, 1913, about the 
 matter of the United States customs tariff on cut glass before the Ways and Means 
 Committee of Congress, at Washington, D. C., and having been advised to present the 
 following facts to our Congressman with the request that you kindly present same to 
 the proper authorities, the Cut Glass Manufacturers Association, of Brooklyn, N. Y., 
 at a meeting held December 30, 1912, beg leave to offer the following facts, to wit: 
 
 That the duty of 60 per cent as at present charged on cut glass, which is a luxury, is 
 absolutely necessary to protect this industry in the United States, for the following 
 reasons: 
 
 That the wages paid to the workmen cutting glass in the factories of the undersigned 
 and other factories manufacturing cut glass in the United States average from $16 
 to $23 per week, while in the European factories the workmen doing glass cutting of 
 the same kind receive only from 6 to $12 per week; and even under these conditions 
 we have hard work to compete with the foreign-made cut glass, and any reduction in 
 the present duty of 60 per cent on same would tend to greatly reduce the cut glass 
 industry in the United States and throw many workmen at present engaged in this 
 industry in the United States out of work. 
 
 At present, and for some years past, we have been employing about 750 men in this 
 industry in Brooklyn, and there are many more factories in our line throughout the 
 
752 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGBAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 United States who will probably offer similar facts and petitions through their Repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 We should be very pleased to give you any further information which you might 
 desire about the foregoing matter. 
 
 Trusting that you will give this matter your kind attention, and hoping to hear 
 from you about same in due course, we are, 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 CUT GLASS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF BROOKLYN, N. Y. 
 By THOS. B. CAMPBELL, President. 
 J. H. HERRFELDT, Secretary. 
 
 STATEMENT OF G. P. ALTENBERG, PRESIDENT OF THE 
 "ICY-HOT" BOTTLE CO., CINCINNATI, OHIO. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Longworth, I believe you desired to have 
 some one from Cincinnati make a brief statement ? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Altenberg of Cincin- 
 nati desires to present something to the committee. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We will hear from him at this time. 
 
 Mr. ALTENBERG. If the committee please, I manufacture vacuum 
 bottles, jars, and carafes, used for keeping food and drinks hot or 
 cold. 
 
 These are usually sold in their metal casings. Sometimes they are 
 sold without the casing. This is an entirely new industry hi this 
 country. It is less than five years old. The American output is 
 now about 8600,000 a year. It is produced by five concerns, the 
 largest of which is an offshoot of the largest German company. Ger- 
 many still produces most of the vacuum bottles made in the world. 
 Recently the German manufacturers solicited us to discontinue 
 the manufacture in this country and offered to supply us with these 
 bottles, read} 7 to put into their casings at 80 per cent of what it 
 cost us to make them now. In other words, they would lay them 
 down in Cincinnati, freight and duty paid, delivered to us at 80 
 per cent of our present actual cost. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. To what paragraph are you addressing your- 
 self '? 
 
 Mr. ALTENBERG. Paragraph 98. 
 
 German bottles in metal cases, which is the form in which they are 
 usually sold, have recently been imported and laid down here, in- 
 cluding the 60 per cent duty and freight, at a cost of 64 cents, while 
 it cost me 80 cents to make the same article. Therefore, the impor- 
 ter from Germany can to-day undersell us 20 per cent. 
 
 Almost everything of value that enters into our cost is actual labor 
 performed in our factory or some other factory working for us. I 
 recently made an experiment to see whether we could compete with 
 Germany manufacturers if we wont on the same basis they are on; 
 so I imported the raw material from Germany, in order to get the 
 benefit of the drawback when I reexported the goods. I have here a 
 number of letters from our foreign customers informing us that our 
 prices arc too high, even though we offered them the goods at the 
 actual cost of production. Wo wanted to see how low we had to get 
 in order to compete with Germany, using the German material on 
 which we get the drawback and we actually offered these goods at the 
 cost, just as an experiment, and we could not land the business. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 753 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Heretofore, considerable confusion has been created in assessing 
 the duty on these goods because, being a new line, they were not 
 taken into consideration when the last tariff was framed; so that 
 some of them have been coming in properly under paragraph 98. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is it a patented article ? 
 
 Mr. ALTENBERG. The patents do not amount to anything. There 
 are no patents on the principle, only on each individual manufac- 
 turer's design. The proper classification would be paragraph 98, 
 but we found where some people were bringing them in under para- 
 graph 199, by claiming that the chief element of value was the metal 
 casing, which was incorrect in both cases, and we brought it to the 
 attention of the Treasury Department. 
 
 The Treasury Department held, after considerable correspondence 
 with me, that when this bottle is brought in without its metal con- 
 tainer it should be entered under paragraph 98, and when the metal 
 container is of less value than the bottle it should also come in under 
 paragraph 98; but when they put that bottle into a fancy case they 
 can bring it in at 45 per cent duty under paragraph 199 on the plea 
 that the case is of greater value than the Dottle. 
 
 On that account, I would respectfully suggest that in framing a 
 new tariff act some provision be made for these bottles to prevent 
 that confusion. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Is it true the container is more valuable than the 
 bottle ? 
 
 Mr. ALTENBERG. Very seldom. In rare instances the container is 
 a fancy, elaborate affair that is worth more than the bottle; but I 
 should say in 90 per cent of the cases where the bottles are sold the 
 bottle is of greater value than the container. But it has left a way 
 open for fraud, and we pointed out several instances of fraud to the 
 Government. 
 
 On that account, I would suggest that some provision be made 
 under this wording: 
 
 Double-walled glass vessels, bottle, jar, and carafe shaped, either silvered or unsil- 
 vered, or silvered and evacuated, dutiable at 60 per cent. 
 
 That would cover the bottle either in a finished or partially 
 finished state. 
 
 I would also recommend that the same vessel, when contained or 
 mounted in a container of metal or other material, be dutiable at 
 the same rate. 
 
 That would give us some measure of protection. As it stands now, 
 these bottles when brought in at 60 per cent duty can undersell us 
 about 20 per cent. But I am not afraid of that, "because we are on 
 the ground, we can go after the business, we can send our salesmen 
 around every two or three months to solicit the business and get it. 
 But we could not fight foreign competition under any greater handi- 
 cap than that. 
 
 I want to show you just what this stuff costs. We have an offer 
 from Germany, as 1 have said. I have the original offer in my pocket. 
 This offer is to supply us with a pint size of bottle, ready for us to put 
 into the container, at 18 cents in Germany. The freight and duty, 
 ah 1 laid down in Cincinnati, would make that thing cost us about 30 
 
 78959 VOL 1 13 -IS 
 
754 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 cents or 32 cents all complete; possibly it might be 33 cents at the 
 outside. It would not be over 33 cents, but it would probably be 
 32 cents. 
 
 To make that bottle I have the blank from which we make the 
 bottle, made in New Jersey, and I pay 10 cents for that laid down 
 in Cincinnati. The silver and the actual cost of the labor, without 
 a penny of overhead expense, cost us 20 cents. We use a great deal 
 of gas in that work. We figure that the gas and power and super- 
 vision and foremen and rent and insurance cost us 10 cents on that 
 bottle. That makes the actual cost of production 40.5 cents in 
 Cincinnati, while I can buy it laid down for 32 cents from Germany, 
 taking the finished bottle as it goes to the customer, or as the con- 
 sumer buys it. 
 
 We recently found these bottles coming in at what we thought was 
 undervaluation, and I brought it to the attention of the Treasury De- 
 partment with the complaint that these goods were being undervalued, 
 and after a long investigation the Treasury Department wrote to me 
 at Cincinnati, under date of August 3, 1912, that the price at which 
 these finished bottles, in metal containers, were entered for duty was 
 the actual value in Germany. That price was 38.5 cents. 
 
 That identical bottle cost me 40.5 cents to make, as I have shown 
 you, for the bottle alone; the container and the overhead expenses 
 on that part belonging to the container runs the cost up to 80 cents, 
 without any selling cost. If thoy pay 38.5 cents in Germany and they 
 pay 60 per cent duty on it and freight, it costs them 64 cents laid down 
 in New York. 
 
 Under those conditions we thought that 60 per cent, the present 
 duty, is not excessive. We could not live at any lower rate of duty. 
 
 I made the statement a moment ago that we have tried it to see 
 how low we would have to go to get that foreign business. I have here 
 a copy of a letter from the largest concern in Australia, Anthony 
 Hordern & Sons (Ltd.), the concern which owns the largest depart- 
 ment stores in Melbourne and Sydney, a concern capitalized at 
 5,000,000. Those people formerly bought our goods, and quit buy- 
 ing them about a year and a half ago. Their letter is dated Sydney, 
 November 25, 1912, and roads as follows: 
 
 DEAR SIRS: Sample bottle advised in yours of 19th September to hand, and while 
 of satisfactory manufacture it is so very much dearer than the German article that we 
 could not entertain your proposal. 
 
 That was a try-out. We did not want the business at that price 
 but we wanted to see how low we would have to go to get business, 
 and we figured on supplying this firm with the goods made with 
 material imported from Germany, on which we could claim the 
 drawback. Therefore our raw material in that instance would cost 
 us the same as the German manufacturer. The only difference in cost 
 would be the labor cost and the cost of doing business in this country. 
 
 I will explain that. I am paying the cheapest glass blower that I 
 have SI 5 a week. I am paving my best man $25 a week. I have to 
 have a number of learners coming along. The cheapest of those 
 receives 87 a week, and after they have been with us five or six 
 months can do a littlw work and are then paid from $10 to $11 a week. 
 It takes about two and one-half to three years to develop that man 
 
SCHEDULE B. 755 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 into a real glass blower, where he is worth $15 to $18 per week. 
 Instead of using that kind of labor, the German manufacturers, who 
 are located in small towns, use girls. These girls work 11 hours a 
 day and receive from $4 to $6 a week, according to their scale. 
 
 That is the chief reason why we can not compete. We can not use 
 that kind of labor. In the first place, you could not get an American 
 woman to go and do the work. You could not get an American 
 woman to stand over a great, big hot flame, that is about that long 
 [indicating], that roars like a cyclone all day, and work in that heat; 
 but they can get them over there, and they get them cheap. That 
 is what we have to compete with. 
 
 Mr. LONGWOETH. About what proportion of your entire cost is 
 labor cost ? 
 
 Mr. ALTENBERG. I have shown here that out of the 40 cents, 20 
 cents is labor paid out in our factory, and 10 cents is what we pay for 
 the blank. That glass blank is almost all labor, but we do not make 
 that glass blank. It is made for us in New Jersey. That glass blank, 
 if American made, is with high-priced labor. When we buy that 
 blank from Germany, as we do in the export business, we pay 3.8 
 cents for it. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Your actual factory cost is how much ? 
 
 Mr. ALTENBERG. My actual labor cost is 20 cents out of the 40 
 cents. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Fifty per cent ? 
 
 Mr. ALTENBERG. Yes. Out of the 40 cents, I pay 20 cents in actual 
 labor. Then I have some overhead expense to be added to that, 
 which is not included in this 20 cents. That overhead includes my 
 foreman and superintendence. I should say that is another 5 cents: 
 so we would have, as a fair proposition, that my labor cost is 25 cents 
 out of the 40 cents. 
 
 Mr. HILL. What is the metal of the container? Of what metal is 
 it made ? 
 
 Mr. ALTENBERG. About half of the containers are made of sheet 
 steel run through a lithographing process like these ornamental signs 
 you saw. The other half of the containers are brass nickel plated. 
 These brass containers, nickel plated, cost just about the same as the 
 bottle. I will give it to you exactly. 
 
 One of my brass nickel-plated containers that contains a 40-cent 
 filler costs me 40 cents. The fancy containers cost me 42 cents. So 
 you see if I use the simple brass container it is cheaper than the 
 bottle, but if I use the fancy one it costs 5 per cent more than the glass 
 lining. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Have you ever made a careful calculation to ascer- 
 tain how much more efficient your highly paid American workman is 
 than those German girls ? 
 
 Mr. ALTENBERG. I am very sorry to say that at the present time it 
 is not in favor of our men. But that is not the fault of the men. It 
 is due to the newness of the industry. You must remember these 
 bottles have only been made in this country four and one-half years. 
 The oldest man with me on that work has only been on it three years. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Do you think you could go back to your factory and 
 tell your American workmen that they are not as efficient as the 
 German girls ? 
 
756 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Mr. ALTENBERG. We have had German workmen over here to teach 
 our American workmen, and our American workmen have not yet 
 been able to produce in a day or in an hour the same quantity of work 
 that our German teacher produced in the factory. We had three 
 Germans. Two of them we had as teachers. One of those teachers 
 produced each day 140 pieces, and he worked eight hours to do it. 
 The most that any of the men he taught can produce up to the present 
 time is 110 similar pieces in 10 hours. These men are getting a little 
 faster each week. You must remember that the Germans I had had 
 been at this business 15 years. These men that we have have only 
 been able to do this work probably successfully a year. Up to that 
 time they were just learning. I only got rid of my German teacher 
 last March. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. I suppose the German teacher was a fair average 
 of what the German girls can do ? 
 
 Mr. ALTENBERG. I can only give you the word of the teacher. 
 The teacher told me the girls produced the same as the men, and he 
 said he left Germany because he would not compete with them. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. It only requires lung power, does it not ? 
 
 Mr. ALTEXBERG. And a little endurance. 
 
 I want to call your attention to another letter from Sydney, Aus- 
 tralia, from the firm of Arthur Cocks & Co., dated Sydney, March 
 18, 1912: 
 
 We are in receipt of yours of the 6th of January and thank you for your proposition 
 with regard to the "Icy-Hot" products. 
 
 We have gone into this matter and can not see our way clear to handle these goods, 
 as by the time we got them here, with the heavy duty and expenses, the goods would 
 be too expensive for us to do anything much with, as tha lines that are selling out 
 here are of a similar nature, manufactured in Germany, and of course a much cheaper 
 line. However, we thank you for your offer, and perhaps later on we may be able to 
 do something in another direction. 
 
 I have another letter here from Johannesburg, dated the 5th of 
 February, 1912, from Mr. P. B. Findlay, reading as follows: 
 
 1 beg to own receipt of your favor of the 14th of December, and am obliged for your 
 further offer to me to handle your goods as your agent. I have, however, definitely 
 decided not to go further into this business, as I have found a very great difficulty in 
 disposing of the small stock of samples I had from you before; have in fact several still 
 on hand and will have to lose money to get rid of them at all. 
 
 This is owing to the keen competition between the English and German houses, 
 and I may add for your information that the German manufacturers have placed a 
 cheap line on the market which they can afford to sell here at about the figure you ask 
 for your product in the States. 
 
 I have endeavored to obtain for you a decent house to take up your product, but have 
 failed lor the reason given above. 
 
 There is one other concern here from which I have a letter and with 
 which I dealt for a great many years. They are located in Kingston, 
 Jamaica. We made this same offer to these people that we made to 
 the Australian people, and they being in a different quarter of the 
 world, it shows you how the}* feel about it. This letter is from John 
 M. Crosswell & Co., and is dated the 17th of July, 1912: 
 
 We own receipt of your letter of the 21st ultimo, which only reached us a few days 
 ago. contents of which meet with our attention. 
 
 \Ye thank you for bringing to our notice and also observe your remarks with reference 
 to the ayency we hold for your article. Our only regret has been that we have not 
 been able to pass you more orders, but as we have written you from time to time, both 
 German. English and other makes of bottles are coming here, and these cost consider- 
 
SCHEDULE B. 757 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 ably less than your article, hence our reason for not being able to compete with the 
 other houses. 
 
 Whilst we are willing, and have done everything in our power, yet conditions are 
 such that we have been unable to prevent sales against your make, which, as already 
 pointed out, costs much more over the English and other makes. 
 
 That is the way we are up against it. There is only one other 
 suggestion I have to bring to your notice, and that is this: 
 
 These goods are made out of what we call "glass blanks." There 
 has been more or less confusion as to what the rate of duty is which 
 these glass blanks pay. We are not particularly interested hi that 
 except in an indirect way. The glass blanks are at the present time 
 dutiable at 60 per cent. But if there is any alteration in the tariff 
 on these bottles which we make, we think the duty on the glass 
 blanks ought to come down to at least compensate for it. It can 
 not compensate much, because the price in Germany for glass blanks 
 is only 3.8 cents, and that goes to make a 40-cent bottle; but still it 
 amounts to something. Of course we are not importing stuff for 
 our work at present. We are buying it in New Jersey. 
 
 Gentlemen of the committee, I thank you. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. How many men make these bottles here in this 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. ALTEXBEEG. There are now five concerns in the business. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How many men are employed ? 
 
 Mr. ALTEXBERG. Offhand, I should say 500 men and boys. I 
 employ 50, but I am not the largest. The largest is the offshoot of 
 the great German concern that practically dominates the markets 
 of the world. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Do they pay a royalty ? 
 
 Mr. ALTEXBERG. They started to pay them a royalty, but I have 
 heard, though I can not verify this, that they have since paid them 
 a sum of money in settlement of that royalty to get rid of it. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Can anybody go in the business now and manufacture 
 these bottles ? 
 
 Mr. ALTEXBERG. There are five in the business at the present time. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Do they all pay a royalty ? 
 
 Mr. ALTEXBERG. No; nobody pays a royalty except that one com- 
 pany which was established here by the parent company in Germany 
 as an Ameii-an I ranch, and then they took in American capital, 
 and I do not know how it is run now. Americans are running it at 
 the present time. They and the German company work very closely 
 together, as I have found to my sorrow several times, because I was 
 shut out twice from the purchase of material by the German com- 
 panies pushing in and offering an order provided the people would 
 not sell to me. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. You think as your workmen become more skillful 
 they can produce more bottles per day ? 
 
 Mr. ALTEXBERG. I think so, after they become more skillful that 
 they will be able to produce more, but we must not lose sight of 
 the fact that the wage scale is three times as high per day. I do 
 not think they will produce more than the Germans do, because I 
 must say those people work very, very hard. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. As they will become more skillful and produce more, 
 then you will need less and less tariff ? 
 
758 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Mr. ALTENBERG. In time, yes ; but as we are situated now, we have 
 to pay from $15 to $25 a week to an operative who produces less than 
 the German girl produces for $4 to $6. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. You say they are improving every week ? 
 
 Mr. ALTENBERG. They are improving a little bit right along. You 
 can form your own conclusion. It has taken me three years to bring 
 them up to 100 pieces a day, while the German produces 140 pieces 
 in 20 per cent less time. In other words, the German would produce 
 in that same time somewhere about 170 pieces, while my operative 
 produces 100 pieces. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. What proportion of the number of bottles consumed 
 in this country do you suppose are imported ? 
 
 Mr. ALTENBERG. That is a very-hard thing to get at. I have tried 
 repeatedly to ascertain that fact. I find them in Cincinnati, I find 
 them in Iowa, I find them in Kentucky and in New York and every- 
 where ; but there are no statistics kept by the Government on vacuum 
 bottles. I have no way to get at it. The only way we know it at all 
 is from the traveling salesmen, when they write in from Iowa or 
 Kansas or elsewhere, "I have lost an order because the party bought 
 the German bottles on account of their being cheaper." We are 
 getting that "song" a little too often now. For a while we did not 
 care, because they only came in occasionally, but now it is a daily 
 occurrence. 
 
 I desire to file a short brief. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You may file that with the clerk. 
 
 BRIEF OF GEORGE P. ALTENBERG, PRESIDENT OF THE "Icy-HoT" BOTTLE Co., 
 
 CINCINNATI, OHIO. 
 
 In re tariff hearings, 1913, on Schedule B. Earthenware and glassware. Schedule C. 
 Metals and manufactures of metals. 
 
 Glass vacuum bottles, being one glass bottle on the inside of another with a vacuum 
 between and silvered and either encased in a metal or other casing, or unencased, 
 dutiable at 60 per cent under paragraph 98, and at 45 per cent under paragraph 99 
 of the present tariff act when the casing is of greater value than the glass. 
 
 The Treasury Department has held that glass vacuum bottles, when not in their 
 casing, are dutiable at GO per cent under paragraph 98 of the present tariff act, and 
 when completed, as usually used, encased in a metal casing, then if the metal casing 
 is the chief element of value, they are dutiable at 45 per cent under paragraph 199 and 
 when the casing is of least value they are dutiable at 60 per cent under paragraph 98. 
 
 Three elements of value enter into consideration: 
 
 (1) The glass vacuum bottle itself (not encased). 
 
 (2) The glass vacuum bottle when contained in an inexpensive metal container. 
 
 (3) The glass vacuum bottle when in a nickel-plated container. 
 
 When this bott le is in a cheap metal container, the glass is the chief element of value, 
 and therefore is dutiable at 60 per cent. 
 
 When ihis bottle is encased in a nickel-plated container, then the metal casing is 
 the chief element of value, and therefore the completed article is dutiable at 45 per 
 cent under paragraph 199. 
 
 The blanks, or bottle-shaped containers of blown flint glass from which the glass 
 vacuum bottle itself is made, are also dutiable under paragraph 98 at 60 per cent. 
 Heretofore much confusion has arisen in assessing the duty on these goods, either in 
 their completed or uncompleted state, and we therefore recommend that a special 
 paragraph be allotted to glass vacuum bottles, jars and carafes, and that said paragraph 
 should specify these articles in the following language: 
 
 (a) Double- walled glass vessels, bottle, jar and carafe shaped, either silvered or 
 unsilvered, or silvered and evacuated, dutiable at 60 per cent. 
 
 (6) The same vessels when contained or mounted in a container of metal or other 
 material, dutiable at 60 per cent. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 759 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 This is a new industry, having been started in this country about four and a half 
 years ago, and the American production we estimate at about $600,000 per year. We 
 have no means of judging the amount of imports at the present time. The estimate 
 as to the domestic production is based on our own output and that of our competitors. 
 
 Our reasons for suggesting that the tariff be maintained as now, at 60 per cent, 
 and that it be made to cover the luxurious fancv bottles in nickel-plated cases as 
 well as <he cheaper ones, is that these goods are largely manufactured in Germany, 
 where they can be produced for about one-half the cost of production in this country. 
 To prove this, we cite the following facts: The Hon. F. M. Halstead, chief of the 
 division of Office of Customs of the United States Treasury Department held in his 
 letter of August 3, 1912, to the Icy-Hot Bottle Co., that 38$ cents would cover the full 
 market value in Germany of a pint glass vacuum bottle in a substantial metal casing 
 submitted to him for consideration, that being the price at which the German manu- 
 facturer had sold the goods to the American merchant. It is wholly impossible to 
 manufacture the same article in this country and sell it under actual cost of 80 cents. 
 This would not include any profit for the American manufacturer, but would rep- 
 resent his actual cost. 
 
 In substantiation of this claim we cite the following: 
 
 The pint glass vacuum bottle is manufactured from two blanks of glass, for which 
 our company is now paying 10$ cents, including freight, from Vineland, N. J., to 
 Cincinnati, where the glass vacuum bottle is constructed out of these blanks. The 
 German manufacturers pay for these same blanks in Germany the sum of 3.8 cents. 
 We use skilled men, commanding high wages, to do the work, while the German 
 manufacturers employ women at less than one-fourth the wages we are compelled to 
 pay to men. 
 
 It is now possible to purchase any vacuum bottle in Germany, whether completed 
 in its metal casing or simply the finished filler, at less than one-half the cost of pro- 
 duction in this country. A German manufacturer on November 8 last offered 1o 
 supply us with completed but unmounted silvered and evacuated vacuum bottles 
 at 18 cents each for pints and 36 cents each for quarts. 
 
 As above stated we pay 10$ cents for the raw material, from which we manufacture 
 the same. The silver and labor cost at least 20 cents, to which must be added power, 
 gas, and overhead expenses of not less than 10 cents, making a total cost to us of at least 
 40$ cents, unmounted in any casing, when made in our own factory in Cincinnati. 
 This figure does not take into consideration any selling expense or profit to ourselves. 
 We are quite willing to prove the accuracy of these figures and to submit our books to 
 the inspection of any expert. This same percentage holds good with reference to the 
 larger sizes. 
 
 In further substantiation of the request that the duty be retained at 60 per cent, we 
 submit herewith and attach hereto a number of letters received from foreign countries 
 informing us that the German manufacturers are underbidding us so that in these mar- 
 kets our goods can not be sold. This, notwithstanding the fact that for the foreign 
 sales, we have been importing German blanks and collecting a drawback of the im- 
 port duty when the goods were reexported, thus showing that even when we obtain the 
 raw material at the price the Germans pay for it, our high cost of labor and all the other 
 high expenses of doing business, increase our prices to such a figure that we can not 
 compete. 
 
 Bottle shaped containers of blown glass, dutiable at 60 per cent, under paragraph 98. We 
 claim that the blanks brought in for the purpose of manufacturing them into glass vac- 
 uum bottles, should not be classified as above, but should be either admitted as flint 
 glass bottles or a separate paragraph allotted them in the tariff act, and that the duty 
 on the same should be made materially less than the duty on the finished vacuum 
 bottle whether mounted in its casing or unmounted. These blanks are essentially 
 a raw material and can only be used for the purpose of manufacturing vacuum bottles 
 out of them at a very large expense of labor. 
 
 We therefore suggest that a special paragraph be devoted to these articles and request 
 that the duty on the raw material be not more than one-half the duty on the finished 
 product. Therefore we recommend that a special paragraph be allotted to these, 
 which might be in the form of a section to the paragraphs above recommended, and 
 should be worded as follows: 
 
 "Blown glass containers, either bottle, jar, or carafe shaped, intended for the manu- 
 facture of vacuum bottles, dutiable at 30 per cent." 
 
760 TABIPF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AMD GLASSWARE. 
 
 E. A. AGAED, OF FAIEBTJEY, ILL., ASKS THAT THE PRESENT 
 DUTY ON GLASS BOTTLES BE RETAINED. 
 
 MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: 
 
 In November, 1908, when Schedule B was under consideration by the Ways and 
 Means Committee, I appeared before that body to urge that there should be no reduc- 
 tion in the duty upon the importation of glass bottles, and I now appear before this 
 committee for a like purpose, and again most respectfully present for your considera- 
 tion the proposition that any reduction in the duty upon glass bottles would benefit 
 only a few importers and large brewing and distilling interests who, with the excep- 
 tion of the importers, are not seeking this advantage; would not reduce by a single cent 
 the cost of living to the ultimate consumer, the public; would seriously affect the 
 American manufacturer, and work irreparable injury to the American workman. 
 
 The magnitude of the glass-bottle industry of this country is sufficient to justify 
 me in asking for its continued protection. I am unable to give you even approxi- 
 mately the amount of capital invested. But the business is done by about 150 con- 
 cerns, employing 50,000 workmen, about 14,000 of whom are highly skilled artisans, 
 and whose annual production amounts to upwards of $50,000,000, and in presenting 
 the case of the American manufacturer and workman to you to-day, I would do so 
 with the same brief and argument and in the same way that I did to the committee 
 four years ago, as I find upon careful investigation that the conditions are practically 
 the same now as then. 
 
 We have had at least one bitter experience with a tariff which failed to approxi- 
 mately equalize the cost between the home and the foreign manufacture. 
 
 The tariff acts of 1883 and 1890 were such a stimulus to the industry that within 
 that period the number of men employed in the production of glass bottles increased 
 more than threefold, and the amount of capital invested in this business was corre- 
 spondingly increased. 
 
 The tariff law of 1894, known as the Wilson bill, which went into effect August 27, 
 1894, dealt us a blow from which we were years in recovering. During all of the 
 time this act, which reduced the duty on glass bottles from 17 to 40 per cent and 
 in some cases nearly one-half, was in operation the business was in a terribly demoral- 
 ized condition. Many furnaces remained out of blast the entire time, others were 
 only operated a part of the time, several were permanently abandoned, and only a 
 few establishments, in the interior of the country and far removed from seaports and 
 closely adjacent to the purchaser, were able to run with any degree of regularity. It 
 was a grim and bitter struggle for existence that taxed the intelligence, patience, 
 ingenuity, skill, and financial resources of employer and employee alike to the utmost. 
 
 After the most rigid and economical methods of production and distribution had 
 been adopted there still remained so wide a difference between the cost of production 
 of bottles in this country and the cost of production in Europe that we were forced to ask 
 our men to increase their hours of labor, in an effort to meet the situation and stem the 
 tide and flood of importation. This failing to meet the situation and we being unable 
 to hold our own against foreign competition, we were finally reluctantly compelled 
 to ask our employees to come to our assistance by accepting a reduction in wages of 
 from 15 to 25 per cent. Our labor is highly skilled and intelligent, but a proposition 
 of this character, which would reduce their standard of life and living below the 
 comfort line, met with the most determined opposition from them. They were slow 
 to grasp the gravity of the situation with which we were confronted and to realize 
 that our very industrial lifp was at stake, and for a time refusing to meet the unpleas- 
 ant crisis in the only way possible, strikes and labor disputes, with all their attendant 
 heartburnings, misunderstandings, and disturbances, ensued, until a fuller appre- 
 ciation of our unhappy plight was reluctantly borne home to them, and they went 
 to work, where employment could be secured, at the reduced wage. 
 
 In the manufacture of glass bottles nearly all of the cost lies in the wages paid to 
 labor, the material of which the glass is composed lime, sand, and soda being of 
 small value, except for the necessary labor expended upon it, so that any reduction 
 in the tariff upon bottles must fall most heavily upon the workers, who will quickly 
 and fiercely resent any attempt to take from them or to reduce the value of the only 
 thing they have to sell that is, their brawn and skill. And who will say that their 
 position is not a natural, a logical, and a proper one? Certainly the people and the 
 business interests of this country can not fail to be injured by anything that reduces 
 the purchasing power of a large number of individuals and that brings upon us wide- 
 spread labor disturbances and strife, which we are seeking in this instance to avoid. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 761 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 The European manufacturers have such an overwhelming advantage in the way of 
 cheaper production that is, cheaper labor that they can put their product on the 
 American market at a price that is simply impossible for the American manufacturer 
 to meet without a tariff high enough to be protective. Indeed, if glass bottles were 
 admitted free of duty, it would, in my opinion, mean the extinction of the business 
 in this country. 
 
 The reduction of the import duty will not, in this case, as I have said before, benefit 
 the general public, who, in the last analysis, is the consumer. Upon the contrary, it 
 will result in a direct and permanent injury to the general public, by reason of the 
 closing of many plants, with the dispersing and scattering of large bodies of skilled 
 workmen and the reduction of the purchasing power of all of those identified with this 
 business, even if some of the factories should be able to continue in operation. If the 
 price of bottles was reduced to the brewer, the bottler, and to the great establishments 
 of so-called patent and proprietary medicines, what possible benefit can the con- 
 sumer derive from that? Beer, mineral water, and patent medicines will still sell at 
 retail at the same price, and even the bottler would not be benefited, as the destruc- 
 tion of their business would have put it beyond the power of a large number of former 
 consumers to purchase the product of the bottler. A single illustration, to which I 
 call your attention, will illustrate my meaning. 
 
 Warner's Safe Cure, which is a patent medicine, costs at retail $1 per bottle, equal 
 to $144 per gross. The cost of a gross of bottles laid down in Rochester, N. Y.. is about 
 $4, a very small fraction of the total cost. Suppose by a reduction of the tariff the 
 price of bottles is reduced to $3 per gross, making the cost to the medicine $143 per 
 gross, what possible chance is there for the retail buyer, the general public, to get any 
 benefit from the reduced price, which is less than 1 cent per bottle? 
 
 The European manufacturer has another great advantage over the American manu- 
 facturer in the fact that he can and does operate his plant 12 months in the year, while 
 in this country we are forced to close our glass factories during the months of July and 
 August, and in some cases both the months of June and September, these months being 
 altogether too hot for the operation of our plants to be profitable. The fore gn manu- 
 facturer erects a furnace and operates it continuously until it is burned out, which 
 may be a couple of years, and then closes down to repair or rebuild. In this country 
 a tank furnace will cost about $20,000. and after being operated from 7 to 10 
 months must be closed because the weather has become too hot to permit its operation. 
 The putting out of the fires in a glass furnace means its practical destruction, and it 
 must be rebuilt before it can be again operated, so that in the item of furnaces alone 
 the cost of the American manufacturer is more than double that of his foreign com- 
 petitor. 
 
 The following will show the cost of the standard sizes of beer and water bottles in 
 Germany, taken from statistics, and the cost of production of the same class of ware 
 in this country . 
 
 Cost of making a gross of pint and quart beer and water bottles in Germany: Labor, 
 salaries, and blowing, 65 cents; fuel, material, boxing, and supplies, $1.05; total cost 
 of production, $1.70. 
 
 The average cost of making bottles in this country of the same kind is slightly in 
 excess of $3 per gross, a difference in favor of the German manufacturer of $1.35 per 
 gross. 
 
 I have not the exact figures giving cost of production of glass bottles in England; 
 but I do know that it is more than $1 per gross less than the cost in this country upon 
 pint and quart beers, water bottles, and goods of that character. 
 
 The English manufacturer is offering to deliver free on board ship quart beer and 
 water bottles, packed in cases of 1 gross each, at $3.63 per gross; pints at $2.89 per 
 gross, less 2 per cent discount if payment is made in 30 days after delivery, while the 
 German manufacturer is selling quart beer and water bottles in the ports of Mexico for 
 $2 per gross, the buyer paying the tariff and freight from port of delivery to interior 
 destination, and the same can be done here. 
 
 As indicating the fact that our idea that a reduction of the tariff upon bottles can not 
 prove other than injurious to us is well founded, I feel that I can not do better than to 
 quote from the report of an investigation made by the president of the Glass Bottle 
 Blowers' Association during the time that the Wilson bill was in operation, to wit, 
 during the month of April, 1896, he having visited San Francisco, Gal., upon business 
 connected with his office, and while there investigated the importations at that port 
 alone. He said: 
 
 "Finding it very difficult to get information at the customhouse at San Francisco, 
 Cal., I went to the office of the San Francisco Call and solicited the aid of the commer- 
 
762 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 cial reporter of that paper. He kindly agreed to help me, and we went down to the 
 customhouse together and secured the following data on importation, viz:" 
 
 Quart bottles filled with wine I may say right here that the reason the importation 
 of bottles filled ia given is that they come into direct competition with empty bottles 
 here. They are emptied here and then thrown on the market. 
 
 Quarter ending Dec. 31, 1895: Pounds. 
 
 Bottles filled with wine 374, 832 
 
 Bottles filled with brewed stuff, medicines, liquor, etc 90, 062 
 
 Empty bottles, beers, wines, clarets, water bottles 99, 396 
 
 Empty demijohns 35, 695 
 
 Quarter ending Mar. 31, 1896: 
 
 Quart bottles filled with wine 313, 750 
 
 Pint bottles filled with wine 
 
 Filled with liquor, medicines, etc 127, 576 
 
 Empty bottles, beers, clarets, water bottles, etc 1, 625, 331 
 
 Empty demijohns 39, 958 
 
 It will be observed that these goods were imported to San Francisco and do not 
 include importations at Los Angeles and San Diego. 
 
 "The general manager of the bottling department of the National Brewing Co. said: 
 ' We can purchase imported beer bottles cheaper than the home goods can be put on the 
 market.' Mr. Deberry, superintendent of the bottling department of the United 
 Brewing Co., claims that it is solely a matter of cheapness with them in handling the 
 foreign goods. 'We can,' he said, 'purchase the imported goods much cheaper than 
 the home article, although we find the eastern and homemade bottles capable of sus- 
 taining a greater pressure than the foreign bottles.' 
 
 "On April 11, 1896, I visited the docks, and to my surprise I saw three large Ant- 
 werp and Hamburg ships unloading cargoes of beer bottles, wines, sodas, clarets, etc. 
 These goods are shipped in crates and sacks, and all three ships were unloading at the 
 wharf m the port of San Francisco on the same day, and I think you will agree with 
 me in saying it was a sickening sight to behold. 
 
 "There are 1,200 grocers in San Francisco. They are well organized and all handle 
 demijohns of wine, and mostly imported bottles. I interviewed a member of the 
 grocery men's association, and he informed me that he did not know that they were 
 using the foreign bottles and could not tell an imported bottle from one made in this 
 country." 
 
 The statistics sent out monthly by the Treasury Department giving the value of 
 imports of this line of goods from the date of the introduction of the Wilson bill, 
 August 27, 1894, to October 31, 1896, are as follows: 
 
 Bottles, vials, demijohns, and carboys, $1,024,401. 
 
 And be it remembered that during the time that this enormous importation of 
 glass bottles was being made American plants were lying idle, and should any reduc- 
 tion or change in the present schedule upon bottles be made a like condition of affairs 
 would speedily prevail. 
 
 The glass-bottle business of this countrv is not a small one, and unworthy of your 
 consideration, but millions of capital and" thousands of men are actively engaged in 
 this enterprise. 
 
 The greatest and the gravest problem confronting Europe to-day is the problem 
 of their unemployed. Men a long time out of work, hungry men with hungry families, 
 are not wise and will not listen to reason. That is the philosophical reasoning of the 
 high salaried and the well fed. A reduction of the tariff upon glass bottles will lessen 
 the menace confronting Europe by putting a large number of their unemployed to 
 work and will transfer their trouble to your shoulders by closing our factories and 
 reducing our capital, our investments, and our men to idleness, with all of the social, 
 economic, and industrial ills that follow in the wake of idle capital and idle men, 
 or it will force a reduction in wa.^es to just the amount that the tariff might be reduced. 
 The manufacturer has reduced the cost of production and distribution in this country 
 to the last final fraction that it is possible to attain without scaling down the wages 
 of every person whom he may employ. And the day that Congress passes any tariff 
 bill reducing the duty upon bottles that day they say positively and unequivocally 
 to the American workman " We have not considered your interests and so have reduced 
 your income, the fruits of your toil, by just the amount that we have reduced the 
 import duty," and the workman stands with sinking heart confronting the "horrid 
 front" of a lower standard of living, fewer pleasures, and shorter life for his wife; 
 less education and fewer opportunities for his boys and girls, whose advantages, 
 opportunities, and character should be the greatest concern of every lawmaker and 
 lawgiver of this country. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 763 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY UNITED STATES INCANDESCENT 
 LAMP CO. ON BULBS FOR ELECTRIC LAMPS. 
 
 To the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives: 
 
 The United States Incandescent Lamp Co., in whose behalf this memorandum 
 is prepared and submitted, is owned entirely by Mr. H. G. Ferguson. Mr. Ferguson 
 is an independent and has no connections of any kind with any other lamp 
 manufacturer. 
 
 There is now, and for many months has been, a tariff of 60 per cent on glass bulbs. 
 The Incandescent Lamp Co., as an independent manufacturer of lamps, submits that 
 this tariff should be entirely removed or greatly reduced. A statement of a few of 
 the salient facts with reference to the industry will show the necessity for this 
 reduction. 
 
 SCOPE OF THE INDUSTRY. 
 
 In round numbers, 100,000,000 bulbs are consumed in the United States annually. 
 This approximation is arrived at thus: In 1911 the Department of Justice filed a bill 
 in equity against the lamp trust, and, among other things, alleged that 80,000,000 
 electric lamps were made and sold in the United States in 1910. This allegation 
 was admitted by the defendants. If we estimate the annual increase at from 10 to 12 
 per cent (which is very conservative), we have the basis for the foregoing estimate. 
 
 BULB MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 These bulbs are manufactured by three concerns, to wit, The Libbey Glass Works, 
 Toledo, Ohio, Corning Glass Works, Corning, N. Y., and The General Electric Co. 
 
 The reason, or, at least, one of the reasons, why there are no other bulb manufac- 
 turers is because of the fact that since 1902 The General Electric Co. and The West- 
 inghouse Co. have had a practical monopoly of bulb consumption. Those two con- 
 cerns together control at least 95 per cent of the total business in electric lamps, and 
 they have, by agreement, confined their purchases to the manufacturers named. 
 Outside of these concerns the demand for bulbs has not been sufficiently large and 
 regular to induce the starting of factories for making bulbs, although it will appear in 
 what follows that the profits are large. 
 
 In addition to this there has been for years a standing agreement or understanding 
 between Libbey and Corning on the one part and Macbeth, of Pittsburgh, on the other 
 that the former shall not make lamp chimneys and the latter shall not make bulbs. 
 Thus by contract and a monopolistic control the bulb industry is dominated by The 
 General Electric Co. and Westinghouse. 
 
 WHAT THE TARIFF REALLY PROTECTS. 
 
 The prices charged by the Libbey and Corning Companies are the same and have 
 been for years. There is no real competition between them. 
 
 For standard size bulbs, such as are used in making the lamps like those in the offices 
 of Members of Congress, the independent lamp makers are charged $18 per thousand. 
 These standard-size bulbs comprise perhaps 75 per cent of the total sales and for this 
 reason are taken as means of comparison. It is openly stated by Libbey and Corning 
 that these same bulbs are sold to the General Electric Co. at $16 per thousand; whether 
 there are unannounced rebates and concessions from this published price the writer 
 of this memorandum can not say. But the difference in price, which is admitted, 
 amounts to 12 per cent; if extended to all items of cost this margin would soon prove 
 a decisive advantage to the General Electric Co. 
 
 The asserted justification for this discrimination is the larger volume of the General 
 Electric Co.'s purchases. But we must consider that the General Electric Co. manu- 
 factures a large part of its own bulbs: it has four plants now in operation and is con- 
 stantly increasing its bulb output. Every day it is broadening the scope of its com- 
 petition with Libbey and Corning. The independent lamp makers have never made 
 their own bulbs but have always purchased them exclusively from Libbey and Cor- 
 ning, as indeed they must. If those concerns were free to make prices, undoubtedly 
 they would encourage the independent lamp makers from whom, if from anyone, 
 their patronage in the future must come. For it is clear that the General Electric Co. 
 is preparing to render itself no longer dependent on Libbey and Corning for a supply. 
 The real reason why the independent lamp makers are placed at a disadvantage is 
 
764 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 because of the influence and power of the General Electric Co. and Westinghouse over 
 the bulb manufacturers. Practically speaking, the independent lamp producers, for 
 their supply of bulbs, are at the mercy of their powerful and ferocious rivals. It needs 
 no argument to convince this committee that since the General Electric Co. and the 
 Westinghouse purchase, say, 90 per cent of the output of Libbey and Corning, they also 
 can anal do influence and determine the policy, conditions, and prices on which the two 
 bulb manufacturers supply the independents with the remaining 10 per cent. And 
 the discrimination may operate in many ways in addition to that of price. It may be 
 concealed in the form of delay shipments, poor boxing, bad selections of bulbs. And 
 it is in the power of the bulb houses to inform the General Electric Co. just how many 
 and what types of bulbs are being purchased by the independents. This enables the 
 trust to know at all times just what outsiders are doing. I say the bulb makers have it 
 in their power to give this information and it is to their interest, they have a motive 
 for giving it. Where power and interest coincide, activity usually follows. 
 
 EXORBITANT PRICES. 
 
 I have already remarked that the General Electric Co. has four bulb plants of its 
 own. It certainly would not have gone into the manufacture of bulbs unless it knew 
 that a substantial saving in the cost of materials would thereby be realized. 
 
 Undoubtedly it can and does make bulbs at a cost to it far below the prevailing 
 prices and it continues to purchase of Libbey and Corning, to fortify and perpetuate 
 its monopoly of the lamp business by taking away the inducement of the bulb makers 
 to make lower prices to outsiders. If it should cease to purchase from Libbey and 
 Corning, it is obvious those concerns must go into the lamp business themselves or 
 stimulate others to do so. This could only be done by offering bulbs at a price com- 
 parable to what they cost the General Electric Co. and Westinghouse. 
 
 Taking the standard size bulb again as an illustration, as before stated, Libbey 's 
 and Coming's price to outsiders is $18 per thousand. But in addition they charge 
 on an average about $2 per thousand for boxes. Importers at the present time are 
 offering to deliver the same bulbs at New York, the 60 per cent duty paid at $16, and 
 they make no charge for boxes. Here, then, importers offer the bulbs at $4 per thou- 
 sand below Libbey and Corning and at the same time assume a duty of 60 per cent. 
 On larger size bulbs the duty is prohibitive and renders the cost above that of the 
 American producers, high as it is, and as to these outside lamp concerns have no choice 
 but must buy of Libbey and Corning. 
 
 Now, what is the cost of producing these bulbs? When anything is said about 
 lowering the tariff a great cry is raised in the name of the American laborer. Fortu- 
 nately we know in this instance precisely what part of the $18 goes to the workingman. 
 The wage scale of the American Flint Glass Workers Union is now in force at the 
 Libbey Glass Works. From this we learn that the total cost of labor in a thousand 
 bulbs is 87.25. The material is glass only. The bulb makers pay the lamp makers 
 1 cent per pound for the glass of broken bulbs. A thousand bulbs contain about 125 
 pounds of glass, which is worth $1.25, so that the total cost of labor and materials in a 
 thousand bulbs sold for $18 can not exceed $8.50. If we add to this for overhead 
 expenses, such as fuel, superintendence, interest, office expense, etc., $1 per thousand, 
 the entire cost does not exceed $9.50. It is easy to see why the General Electric Co. 
 has set about manufacturing its own bulbs. 
 
 In additional consideration, it is well known that the Libbey Co. has about perfected 
 an automatic bulb-blowing machine. This will probably be introduced within the 
 next year or so. This machine, like the bottle-blowing machine owned by the Libbey 
 Co., will largely replace hand labor. Then the tariff can not protect the laborer blowing 
 bulbs for he will not blow any. It will, if left undisturbed, only protect a monopoly 
 built up by unlawful agreements and a patented machine owned by the combine. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 FRANK Y. GLADNEY, 
 Counsel to the United States Incandescent Lamp Co, 
 
 JAN LAKY 11, 1913. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 765 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 RETAIL PRICE OF ELECTRIC-LIGHT BULBS. 
 
 SPOKANE, WASH., January 11, 1913. 
 The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D, C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: I know you are a busy man and I do not wish to weary you with trifles; 
 yet I know, too, that, even though your path is not a rosy one, still you are anxious to 
 do that which you as a citizen and as a Representative of the country leam to be the 
 best thing for all the people. I appreciate fully the difficulties which surround 
 your official position. 
 
 You are right when you base your course, not upon any fears of the future, but 
 upon the facts of the day the things that are now. Proper action upon them secures 
 the future. 
 
 Last night I purchased a couple of electric-light globes from a local dealer and he 
 charged me 40 cents apiece for them. I regarded the price exorbitant and made a 
 slight remonstrance, when he began to tell me all about them. He said the Consoli- 
 dated charged him 30 cents each for them, or $3.60 per dozen, and that besides he had 
 to pay $3.30 per hundred pound freight on them and that he could not sell them any 
 cheaper. So far as this retail merchant may be concerned this may be true. 
 
 I used to live in the glass-making country, and I know that 25 cents each would be 
 a good price for the consumer to pay if the retailer bought them at a reasonable price. 
 
 While it may not be convenient for the committee to procure evidence of this kind 
 from the laymen as it were the consumer I have often wished that some arrange- 
 ment for its admission could be devised. It is hardly, however, within the practical 
 purview of a committee such as that on Ways and Means, unless it had some subagency 
 to do this work for it some agency similar to that of a commissioner in chancery of 
 a court of chancery the latter being the fact gatherer for the court. 
 
 The globes I purchased were of the milkglass kind and of the following shape: 
 
 I am not making any complaint. This letter is not written in that sense at all, for 
 instances like this come up often in my daily rounds; but I felt that if I were on the 
 committee I should like to know these things and would be interested in them. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 W. C. MEYER. 
 
 BRIEF OF IMPORTERS OF GLASSWARE AT THE PORT OF NEW 
 
 YORK. 
 
 [Re Glassware, Schedule B.] 
 
 NEW YORK, January 7, 191S. 
 Hon. OSCAR UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, House oj Representatives, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We, the undersigned importers of glassware at the port of New York, 
 respectfully submit for your consideration the inclosed exhibits, illustrating: repre- 
 sentative examples of articles which have a large consumption in the United States 
 and the importation of which is either restricted or prohibited under Schedule B 
 of the act of Aueust, 1909. 
 
 The United States customs tariff now in force on these necessities of life, i. e., 60 
 per cent, is excessive 
 
 First. Because the revenue collected on all the glassware imported stands in no 
 proportion to the importance of the industry itself, as records will show that less than 
 2 per cent of the glassware consumed in the United States is of foreign origin. 
 
766 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-^98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Secondly. Because it raises the price for the consumer on the few necessities which 
 are still imported to an unnecessarily high figure. As a matter of fact, only a limited 
 number of specialties can still be imported at the high rate of duty. 
 
 The present duty of 60 per cent is taxed not only on the value of the goods, but also 
 on the packing, wrapping charges, and cases in which these goods are shipped, bringing 
 up the percentage of duty on the goods proper as high as 80 per cent and more. 
 
 In adjusting the tariff on this class of goods attention is called to the great percentage 
 of additional expenses which add to the cost of these goods to the consumer. The 
 ocean freight alone, which has been advancing every year for a number of years, equals 
 on some commodities as much as 62 per cent of the value of the goods at the factory. 
 In addition thereto the very nature of the business makes it necessary to figure with 
 a considerable amount of breakage with which the importer has to contend and for 
 which the United States customs tariff offers no relief. A material reduction in duties 
 on these commodities would allow these goods to be imported more freely from the 
 principal markets of the world and enter the hands of the consumer at a more reason- 
 able price and would increase the revenue under this schedule by permitting the 
 importation of many articles which the present tariff has excluded from these shores. 
 Inasmuch as imported merchandise must be ordered from six to eight months in 
 advance, and can only be imported in bulky packages unfit to enter into the general 
 trade without being repacked, while American manufacturers are in a position to 
 supply the trade at short notice in any desired quantities, and also inasmuch as Ameri- 
 can manufacturers are in a position to export their goods very extensively, and enter 
 in foreign markets into competition with foreign goods, we respectfully submit that 
 this should be conclusive evidence that there is no necessity for the high rate of duty 
 now prevailing. 
 
 We offer to appear before your committee, either collectively or individually, and 
 supply you with such further information and evidence as you may desire. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 M. Kirchberger & Co., 374-380 Second Avenue, New York; H. G. McFad- 
 din & Co., 38 Warren Street, New York City; Henry Endemann, 
 32 Park Place; Oscar 0. Snedlently, 127 Duane Street; Fonderille & 
 Naw Idustrie, 37 Warren Street; Fensterer & Reihl, 47 Murray 
 Street; B. Gunthel, 49 Barclay Street; Franz Enler & Co., 1 Hudson 
 Street. 
 
 Ten-inch ring top dome shades, opal. 
 
 (A reflector used on most cheap metal lamps, the principal staple in this line. Are imported in cases of 
 
 6 dozen each.] 
 
 
 Per dozen. 
 
 
 Marks. 
 1.70 
 .15 
 .50 
 
 Cents. 
 40.80 
 3.60 
 12.00 
 
 Packing and straw . . . 
 
 Cases and partitions, 3 marks per case 
 
 Freight from factory to Hamburg, 2 marks per 100 kilos; 6 dozen weigh 120 kilos... 
 United States duty, 60 per cent on 56.40 cents actually corresponds with S3 per cent 
 
 2.35 
 .40 
 
 56.40 
 9.60 
 
 33.84 
 22.00 
 
 3.26 
 4.00 
 
 Ocean freight: 
 $1.75 per cubic meter' 1 case equals 0.75 cubic meter' SI. 31 per case of 6 dozen. .. 
 
 
 Marine insurance, customs entry, consular certificates, expenses in Hamburg, 8 per 
 cent of 40.8 cents . .. 
 
 
 Cartage 
 
 
 Total cost laid down in United Stats 
 
 
 
 129.10 
 
 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Cost at factory 
 
 40 SO 
 
 100 
 
 Duty 
 
 33.84 
 
 83 
 
 Ocean freight ... . 
 
 22.00 
 
 55 
 
 All other expenses 
 
 32.46 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 
 
 129.10 
 
 318 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 767 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Ten-inch Rochester chimneys, 
 [Cut ends. The cheapest chimney used on lamps. Are imported in cases of 24 dozen each.] 
 
 
 
 Per dozen. 
 
 Marks. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Price at the factory in the interior of Germany 
 
 0.45 
 .04 
 
 .08 
 
 10.80 
 .96 
 1.92 
 
 
 Cases ( 1 92 marks per 24 dozen) 
 
 Freight from factory to Hamburg, 0.2 mark per 100 kilos (24 dozen 100 kilos). . 
 
 .57 
 .OS 
 
 13.68 
 1.92 
 
 8.21 
 6.54 
 
 .85 
 1.00 
 
 United States duty, 60 per cent on 13.68 cents actually corresponds with 77 per cent 
 of cost of goods (10.80 cents) 
 
 Ocean freight: $1.75 per cubic meter (1 case equals 0.90 cubic meter, 1.57) 
 
 
 Marine insurance, custom entry, consular certificates, expenses in Hamburg, 8 per 
 cent of 10.80 
 
 
 
 
 Total cost laid down in United States 
 
 
 
 32.20 
 
 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 Cost at factory 
 
 10.80 
 
 100 
 
 Duty 
 
 8.21 
 
 77 
 
 Ocean freight 
 
 6.54 
 
 62 
 
 All other expenses 
 
 6.65 
 
 62 
 
 
 
 
 
 32.20 
 
 301 
 
 Opal globes used for go*. 
 [One case contains 16 dozen.] 
 
 
 Marks. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Price at the factory in the interior of Germany. ........ 
 
 
 2.38 
 .19 
 .16 
 
 57.12 
 5.00 
 4.00 
 
 Case (3 marks per" 16 dozen) .". 
 
 
 Packing (2 ss m^r^s per ifi HOWI) ................... 
 
 
 Freight from factory to Hamburg, 2 marks per 100 kilos 
 United States duty, 60 per cent on 66.12 cents, actually c< 
 cost of goods 
 
 ,16 dozen 100 kilos 
 
 2.73 
 .12 
 
 66.12 
 3.00 
 
 39.67 
 8.20 
 
 4.57 
 2.00 
 
 >rresponds with 70 per cent of 
 
 Ocean freight: 1.75 per cubic meter, 1 case=0.75 cubic meter, $1.31 per case of 16 
 dozen.... -- 
 
 
 Marine insurance, customs entry, consular certificates, 
 cent of 57. 12 cents 
 
 expense in Hamburg, 8 per 
 
 
 Cartage 
 
 
 
 Total cost laid down in United States 
 
 
 
 123.56 
 
 
 
 
 Per dozen. 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Cost at factory 
 
 57.12 
 
 100 
 
 Duty 
 
 39 67 
 
 70 
 
 Ocean freight 
 
 8.20 
 
 15 
 
 Other expenses 
 
 18.57 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 
 
 123.56 
 
 220 
 
768 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Fourtcen-inch opal dome shades. 
 [Used for parlor or dining-room oil lamps. One case contains 4 dozen. 1 ) 
 
 Per dozen. 
 
 Marks. Cents. 
 
 Price at the factory in the interior of Germany. 
 Packing and case 
 
 3.85 
 1.40 
 
 Inland freight .' 
 
 United States duty, 60 per cent on 126.04 cents, actually corresponds with 81 per cent 
 
 ofcost of goods (92.44 cents) 
 
 Ocean freight 
 
 Marine insurance, customs entry, consular certificates, expenses in Hamburg, 8 per 
 
 cent of 92. 44 
 
 Cartage 
 
 5.25 
 .63 
 
 Total cost laid down in United States. 
 
 92.44 
 33.60 
 
 126.04 
 15.00 
 
 75.60 
 44.00 
 
 7.36 
 6.00 
 
 274.00 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Cost at factory. . 
 
 Duty 
 
 Ocean freight . . . 
 Other expenses. 
 
 92.44 
 75.60 
 44.00 
 61.96 
 
 100 
 81 
 
 48 
 
 274.00 
 
 295 
 
 Flint-glass lantern globe, staple article with large consumption. Can not be im- 
 ported under present tariff. Packed in cases of 12 dozen; gross weight, 100 kilos. 
 
 German marks 
 per dozen. 
 
 1 . Foreign cost at factory without packing 0. 48 
 
 2. Additional charge for packing 10 
 
 3. Additional charge for cases 25 
 
 4. Total dutiable value 83 
 
 5. United States duty, at 60 per cent .50 
 
 6. Inland freight from factory to Hamburg .17 
 
 7. Expenses at Hamburg .05 
 
 8. Ocean freight .48 
 
 9. Cost f . o. b. port of New York 2. 03 
 
 10. Less cost at factory as above .48 
 
 11. Difference, or cost of transportation and duty 1. 55 
 
 12. This difference expressed as percentage of foreign cost at factory, showing 
 
 actual protection afforded domestic producer 320 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Cents. Per cent. 
 
 Cost at factory 0. 48 100 
 
 Duty .50 104 
 
 Ocean freight .48 100 
 
 Other expenses .57 119 
 
 2.03 423 
 
SCHEDULE B. 769 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWABE. 
 
 The exhibits of clear pressed-glass globes for gas and electric light having large con- 
 sumption in United States, of pressed-glass candlesticks, of blown-glass electric globes, 
 crystal, frosted inside, and of pressed-glass bpbeches, can not be imported under present 
 tariff, and can be purchased from domestic producers at prices cheaper than those 
 obtainable in foreign markets, irrespective of duty and other expenses attending 
 importation to this country. 
 
 Duty prohibitive. 
 
 Exhibit of 3 by 6 crystal ball globe, frosted inside, used extensively in all sizes for 
 electric lighting. 
 
 Can not be imported under present tariff. Packed in cases of 10 dozen, gross weight 
 128 kilos. 
 
 German marks 
 per dozen. 
 
 1. Foreign cost at factory without packing L 92 
 
 2. Additional charge for packing 12 
 
 3. Additional charge for cases 30 
 
 4. Total dutiable value 2. 34 
 
 5. United States duty, at 60 per cent 1. 40 
 
 6. Inland freight from factory to Hamburg 26 
 
 7. Expenses at Hamburg 08 
 
 8. Ocean freight 73 
 
 9. Cost f. o. b. port of New York 4. 81 
 
 10. Less cost at factory as above 1. 92 
 
 11. Difference, or cost of transportation and duty 2. 89 
 
 12. This difference expressed as percentage of foreign cost at factory, showing 
 
 actual protection afforded domestic producer per cent. . 150 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Marks. Percent. 
 
 Cost at factory . 
 Duty 
 
 Ocean freight... 
 Other expenses . 
 
 1.92 
 
 1.40 
 
 .73 
 
 .76 
 
 100 
 73 
 38 
 39 
 
 Cost in United States. 
 
 4.81 
 
 250 
 
 Duty prohibitive. 
 
 Exhibit of ruby.glass lantern globe for standard tubular hand lantern. 
 
 Staple article, with large consumption. Importation limited under present tariff. 
 
 Packed in cases of 12 dozen; gross weight, 100 kilos. 
 
 German marks 
 per dozen. 
 
 1. Foreign cost at factory without packing 1. 96 
 
 2. Additional charge for packing 12 
 
 3. Additional charge for cases .25 
 
 4. Total dutiable value 2. 33 
 
 5. United States duty, at 60 per cent 1. 40 
 
 6. Inland freight from factory to Hamburg 17 
 
 7. Expenses at Hamburg 05 
 
 8. Ocean freight '. 48 
 
 9. Cost f. o. b. port of New York 4. 43 
 
 10. Less cost at factory, as above 1. 96 
 
 11. Difference, or cost of transportation and duty 2. 47 
 
 12. This difference expressed as percentage of foreign cost at factory, showing 
 
 actual protection afforded domestic producer per cent. . 126 
 
 78959 VOL 113 49 
 
770 
 
 TARIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWABE. 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Marks. Per cent. 
 
 Cost at factory. . 
 Duty 
 
 Ocean freight... 
 Other expenses. 
 
 1.96 
 1.40 
 
 .48 
 .59 
 
 100 
 73 
 25 
 30 
 
 4.43 
 
 228 
 
 Duty unprohibitive. 
 
 Exhibit of 2^-inch electric globe, blown glass, with deep-etched design. 
 Staple article with large consumption. Importation limited under present tariff. 
 Packed in cases of 10 dozen, gross weight 122 kilos. 
 
 German marks 
 per dozen. 
 
 1. Foreign cost at factory without packing 4. 94 
 
 2. Additional charge for packing 12 
 
 3. Additional charge for cases 30 
 
 4. Total dutiable value 5. 36 
 
 5. United States duty, at 60 per cent 3. 22 
 
 6. Inland freight from factory to Hamburg 24 
 
 7. Expenses at Hamburg 08 
 
 8. Ocean freight j .70 
 
 9. Cost f. o. b. port of New York 9. 60 
 
 10. Less cost at factory as above 4. 94 
 
 11. Difference, or cost of transportation and duty 4. 66 
 
 12. This difference expressed as percentage of foreign cost at factory, showing 
 
 actual protection afforded domestic producer per cent. . 94 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Marks. Per cent. 
 
 Cost at factory 4. 94 100 
 
 Duty " 3. 22 65 
 
 Ocean freight .70 14 
 
 Other expenses .74 15 
 
 9.60 
 
 194 
 
 Duty unprohibitive. 
 
 Exhibit of 4-inch pas globe, blown glass, with light etched or sand-blast design. 
 Staple article of large consumption. Importation limited under present tariff. 
 
 Packed in cases of 10 dozen each; gross weight, 110 kilos. 
 
 German marks 
 per dozen. 
 
 1 . Foreign cost at factory without packing 2. 61 
 
 2. Additional charge for packing 12 
 
 3. Additional charge for cases.." .30 
 
 Total dutiable value 3. 03 
 
 United States duty, at 60 per cent 1. 82 
 
 Inland freight from factory to Hamburg 22 
 
 Expenses at Hamburg 07 
 
 Ocean freight. . .63 
 
 11. Difference, or cost of transportation and duty 3. 16 
 
 12. This difference expressed as percentage of foreign cost at factory, showing 
 
 actual protection afforded domestic producer per cent. . 120 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 771 
 
 PARAGBAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 
 Marks. 
 
 Percent 
 
 Cost at factory 
 
 2.61 
 
 100 
 
 Duty 
 
 1.82 
 
 70 
 
 
 .63 
 
 24 
 
 
 .71 
 
 27 
 
 
 
 
 
 5.77 
 
 221 
 
 Importation limited. 
 
 Exhibit of 2J-inch electric globe, blown glass, with light etched or sandblast design. 
 Staple article, consumed in large quantities. Importation limited under present 
 
 tariff. Packed in cases of 12 dozen with gross weight of 90 kilos. 
 
 German marks 
 per dozen. 
 
 1. Foreign cost at factory without packing 2. 00 
 
 2. Additional charge for packing 10 
 
 3. Additional charge for cases 25 
 
 4. Total dutiable value 2.35 
 
 5. United States duty, at 60 per cent 1. 41 
 
 6. Inland freight from factory to Hamburg 15 
 
 7. Expenses at Hamburg 05 
 
 8. Ocean freight .43 
 
 9. Costf. o. b. port of New York 4.39 
 
 10. Less cost at factory as above 2. 00 
 
 11. Difference, or cost of transportation and duty 2. 39 
 
 12. This difference expressed as percentage of foreign cost at factory, showing 
 
 actual protection afforded domestic producer per cent. . 120 
 
 Importation limited. 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 
 Marks. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 Cost at factory ... 
 
 2.00 
 
 100 
 
 Duty 
 
 1.41 
 
 71 
 
 Ocean freight 
 
 .43 
 
 22 
 
 Other expenses 
 
 .55 
 
 28 
 
 
 
 
 
 4.39 
 
 221 
 
 Exhibit of blown glass globes for inverted gas burners, upper half frosted. 
 Staple article with large consumption. Can not be imported under present tariff. 
 Packed in cases of 18 dozen; gross weight, 155 kilos. German marks 
 
 per dozen. 
 
 1. Foreign cost at factory without packing 0. 88 
 
 2. Additional charge for packing 10 
 
 3. Additional charge for cases 16 
 
 4. Total dutiable value 1. 14 
 
 5. United States duty at 60 per cent 68 
 
 6. Inland freight from factory to Hamburg 16 
 
 7. Expenses at Hamburg 05 
 
 8 . Ocean freight 7 46 
 
 9. Cost f. o. b. port of New York 2. 49 
 
 10. Less cost at factory as above 88 
 
 11. Difference, or cost of transportation and duty 1. 61 
 
 12. This difference expressed as percentage of foreign cost at factory, showing 
 
 actual protection afforded domestic producer per cent. . 183 
 
 Duty prohibitive. 
 
772 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 
 Marks. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Cost at factory . 
 
 0.88 
 
 100 
 
 Duty 
 
 .68 
 
 77 
 
 Ocean freight . 
 
 .46 
 
 52 
 
 Other expenses 
 
 .47 
 
 52 
 
 
 
 
 
 2.49 
 
 281 
 
 Shipment of 11 cases of glass bowls. 
 
 
 Value in 
 marks. 
 
 Value in 
 dollars. 
 
 396 pieces at 1.25 marks per piece 
 
 495 
 
 88 
 
 117.80 
 20.95 
 83.25 
 15.47 
 3.72 
 33.80 
 2.50 
 3.30 
 
 Cost of case and packing*. . . T 
 
 Duty at the rate of 60 per cent on $138.75 
 
 Freight from factory to Hamburg, 2,600 kilos at 2.50 marks per 100 kilos 
 
 65 
 
 Hamburg forwarding charges, 2,600 kilos at 60 pfennig * 
 
 Ocean freight, 13 cubic meters at $2.60 per cubic meter 
 
 
 Customs entry 
 
 
 Cartage, 11 cases at 30 cents 
 
 
 Total cost laid down in United States 
 
 
 
 280.79 
 
 
 
 RESUME. 
 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Value of goods at factory 
 
 $117.80 
 
 100 
 
 Duty . . . 
 
 83.25 
 
 70 
 
 Other charges 
 
 79.74 
 
 67 
 
 
 
 
 
 280.79 
 
 237 
 
 Duty prohibitive. 
 
 Shipment of S% cases of glass globes, S dozen to case. 
 
 
 Value in 
 marks. 
 
 Value in 
 dollars. 
 
 
 281.28 
 
 66.95 
 
 Case and packing 32 cases, at 5 marks per piece . .... 
 
 160.00 
 
 38.08 
 
 Dutv on $105.03, at 60 per cent 
 
 
 63.01 
 
 Freight from factorv to Hamburg, 3,250 kilos, at 2 marks per 100 kilos 
 
 38.72 
 
 9.20 
 
 Hamburg forwarding charges, 3,250 kilos, at 60 pfennig per 100 kilos . 
 
 20.15 
 
 4.80 
 
 Ocean freight, 33J cubic meters, at $2.60 per cubic meter 
 
 
 87.10 
 
 Customs entry 
 
 
 2.50 
 
 
 
 9.60 
 
 
 
 
 Total cost laid down in United States 
 
 
 281.24 
 
 
 
 
 RESUME. 
 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Value of goods at factory 
 
 $66. 95 
 
 100 
 
 Duty 
 
 63.01 
 
 93J 
 
 O ther charges 
 
 151.28 
 
 236 
 
 
 
 
 
 281.24 
 
 429J 
 
 Duty prohibitive. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 773 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 One case common ordinary table goblets. 
 
 The following schedule shows the factory selling price to the importer of a goblet 
 and the percentage of duty and the percentage of the cost to land at seaport: 
 
 Naked goods, Fc. 38.85 $7. 55 
 
 Package, Fc. 6.75 1. 30 
 
 Freight from factory to seaport, Fc. 3 60 
 
 9.45 
 
 Expenses at seaport (about 5 per cent) 47 
 
 Ocean freight 1. 25 
 
 11.17 
 
 Duty on goods $7. 55 
 
 Duty on package 1. 30 
 
 Additional duty to make market value 3. 17 
 
 12.02 
 Less inland freight 60 
 
 11.42 
 At 60 per cent 6.85 
 
 Actual cost of goods, including duty and freight 18. 02 
 
 The actual duty paid on naked goods, which is $7.55, is 90 per cent. The percentage 
 of expenses on the actual cost of naked goods to land in America is 140 per cent on 
 the cost of the naked article. 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Cost of goods at factory. 
 
 Duty 
 
 Other expenses 
 
 $7.55 
 6.85 
 3.62 
 
 100 
 90 
 50 
 
 18.02 
 
 240 
 
 One case of 50 dozen water tumblers, 9-ounce, melted edge. 
 Coat price at the factory per dozen heller $0. 75 
 
 Kronen 37. 50 
 
 Case 6. 00 
 
 Kronen... . 43.50 
 
 At $20.3 8. 85 
 
 60 per cent duty 5. 31 
 
 Inland freight 1. 30 
 
 Ocean freight 1. 50 
 
 Insurance and entry charges 30 
 
 Dollars 17.26 
 
 RECAPITULATION . 
 
 Percentage of duty on actual cost of goods at the factory, 70 per cent. 
 
 Cost price per dozen, 34 cents. 
 
 Market price to-day, from 25 to 30 cents per dozen. 
 
774 TAEIFP HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 One case of 100 dozen S-ounce cut fluted whisky tumblers, melted edge. 
 Cost price at the factory, per dozen heller. . 
 
 Kronen 96. 00 
 
 Case... 6.50 
 
 Kronen.. . 102.50 
 
 At $20.30 20. 81 
 
 60 per cent duty 12. 49 
 
 Inland freight 1. 75 
 
 Ocean freight 2. 25 
 
 Insurance and entry charges 50 
 
 Dollars 37. 80 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Percentage of duty on actual cost of goods at the factory, 64 per cent. 
 Cost price per dozen, 37.8 cents. 
 Market price to-day, 36 cents per dozen. 
 
 One case of 100 dozen 5-ounce champagne tumblers, melted edge. 
 Cost price at the factory, per dozen heller. . 66 
 
 Kronen 66. 00 
 
 Case... 7.00 
 
 Kronen.. . 73.00 
 
 At $20.30 14. 82 
 
 60 per cent duty 8. 90 
 
 Inland freight 2. 25 
 
 Ocean freight 2. 75 
 
 Insurance and entry charges 40 
 
 Dollars 29.12 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Percentage of duty on actual cost of goods at the factory, 66J per cent. 
 
 Cost price per dozen, 29 cents. 
 
 Market price to-day, from 22 to 25 cents per dozen. 
 
 Common water bottle with plain cut fluted neck. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Duty 60 
 
 Duty on case and packing 6. 25 
 
 Cost of case and packing 10. 50 
 
 Ocean freight 12 
 
 Consular fee, customhouse entry, cartage, inland freight to Antwerp, and in- 
 
 eurance... 5 
 
 Charges above naked foreign coat 93. 75 
 
 Foreign cost per dozen $1. 958 
 
 Expense to import, 93.75 per cent 1. 835 
 
 Cost per dozen landed in United States 3. 793 
 
SCHEDULE B. 775 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Glass jug (used by cutters in the United States for manufacture of rich cut glass). 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Duty 60 
 
 Duty on cask and packing 3. 10 
 
 Cost of cask and packing 5. 30 
 
 Ocean freight 10 
 
 Consular fee, customhouse entry, cartage, inland freight, and insurance . 5 
 
 Charges above naked foreign cost 83. 40 
 
 Foreign cost of goods per dozen $7. 197 
 
 Expense to import, 83.40 per cent 6. 004 
 
 Cost per dozen landed in United States 13. 201 
 
 LAMP SHADES AND CHIMNEYS. 
 
 NEW YORK, January S. 191S. 
 Hon. OSCAR UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: The following matter, while directly germane to the glass lamp shades 
 and chimney schedules, affects practically every other schedule. 
 
 The freight rates from European ports are controlled and arbitrarily fixed by a 
 combination and pooling agreement between the trans-Atlantic steamship lines, of 
 which pool the Hamburg American Line is the dominating factor. Meetings of the 
 
 ool members and their decisions fixing rates are freely published in the foreign press, 
 he existence of the pool is not only a matter of common notoriety, but is the basis 
 of suits now being prosecuted by the Government, after due investigation, seeking a 
 dissolution of the pool and an injunction against its oppressive practices. 
 
 As an illustration of the arbitrary power of the members of this combination affect- 
 ing American merchants, I desire to call to the attention of your committee the treat- 
 ment just meted out to my clients, M. Kirchberger & Co., for 22 years one of the 
 largest importers of lamp shades and chimneys, at whose instance I am communicat- 
 ing with you. 
 
 Every such importer secures what are called special rates, very much lower than 
 the so-called regular freight tariff, by entering into a yearly contract to ship all his 
 freight by one line, or by such substituted lines as the carrier shall designate. The 
 1912 contracts expired with the end of the year. M. Kirchberger & Co.'s contract 
 was with the Hamburg American Line, which controls all shipments out of Hamburg, 
 the only port available to the shippers of these goods. 
 
 On October 11, 1912, this firm was notified by cable that "Pool rates next year 25 
 cents cubic meter higher." Mr. Kirchberger, exasperated by this last of a series of 
 advances since the formation of the pool, and realizing the helplessness of American 
 merchants, ventured to write to the press a protest at this increase of 16f per cent 
 over existing rates on a commodity which enters the poorest household, the advance 
 representing from 25 to 30 per cent of the foreign value of the commodity and neces- 
 sarily increasing the price to the consumer, as in the case of duties. The point of Mr. 
 Kirchberger' s letter was, as stated by him, that: "They (the steamship lines) are not 
 subjected to any control like our railroads, and can dictate simply the amount of trib- 
 ute that the consumer should pay them. Care must therefore be taken that the 
 reduction of the tariff, which we apparently are going to get at last, does not widen 
 this limit, and that simultaneously with a reduction of duties, this octopus be dealt 
 with in a manner that will prevent it from cheating the public by absorbing the bene- 
 fit of a reduction in duties for its own gain . ' ' For his temerity in exercising the Amer- 
 ican right of free speech and calling public attention to an evil, Mr. Kirchberger was 
 promptly notified by cable that unless he retracted and expressed his regret for hia 
 criticism the Hamburg- American line would make no contract whatever with him, 
 even at the advanced rate for the ensuing year, but that he would be compelled to 
 pay $1 a cubic meter more than his competitors for future shipments. Such a 
 discrimination is, of course, sufficient to put any firm out of business. 
 
 Guided by this experience, which is fairly typical of conditions now obtaining in 
 our foreign trade, it is earnestly urged that in making tariff reductions your com- 
 mittee couple the reductions with some effective regulation, calculated to give the 
 
776 TABIFP HEABINGS. 
 
 PAR A GRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 consumer the benefit of the reductions instead of giving the benefit to the foreign 
 steamship pool. 
 
 Such a regulation might be one providing that the reductions should not affect 
 importations from any country, freight rates from the ports of which are controlled 
 and fixed by agreement between steamship companies engaged in transportation 
 between the ports of such country and ports in the United States. 
 
 If possible, I should like to be heard briefly on this subject before your committee 
 on January 6, when the hearing on this schedule comes up, or at such other time as 
 may be fixed. With great respect, I am, 
 
 Yours, very truly, CLARENCE J. SHEARN. 
 
 STATEMENT REGARDING HOLLOW GLASSWARE. 
 
 NEW YORK, December 24, 1912. 
 Hon. OSCAR UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: I beg to call your attention to hollow glassware, such as shades and 
 chimneys, which were dutiable under the McKinley bill at 45 per cent ad valorem, 
 cases and packing free. Since then a powerful syndicate of high protectionists caused 
 the passage of a bill, advancing the duty to 60 per cent ad valorem, including the cost 
 of cases and packing, so that we pay 75 to 80 per cent duty on the glass, as the cases 
 and packing are worthless after unpacking. 
 
 We are even forced to pay full duty on breakage, so that a case with 50 per cent 
 breakage, such as occurs not infrequently, cost us 125 per cent duty. 
 
 On many articles which I import I have to raise my invoice 2 J to 5 per cent, because 
 the examiner and the appraisers claim that other importers of smaller quantities 
 have paid more for the same article, and make no allowance for quantities or better 
 buying ability. 
 
 You and your colleagues will readily see that a revision of the tariff on shades and 
 chimneys and other glassware is warranted and equitable. Forty-five per cent duty 
 on the naked glassware is surely an adequate protection for this industry. 
 
 On the 1st of January, 1912, ocean freight rates are being advanced 20 per cent, thus 
 giving the American manufacturers still further protection. 
 
 Sincerely hoping that you will give this matter your consideration, I remain, 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 OSCAR O. FRIEDLAENDER, 
 
 MEMORIAL FROM GLASSWORKERS' UNION, PHILADELPHIA, 
 
 PA. 
 
 HEADQUARTERS LOCAL UNION No. 99, A. F. G. W. U., 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., January 27, 191S. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 HONORABLE SIR: Our attention has been called to the fact that the Ways and Means 
 Committee is now considering a revision of the tariff laws on imported glasswares, and 
 has the subject under consideration known as paragraph B, schedule 98. We most 
 respectfully call your attention to the fact that a reduced tariff means reduced wages 
 to our members and other sacrifices such as were experienced under the Wilson 
 tariff law. 
 
 We therefore beseech you and your committee to not make any reduction on the 
 present tariff rates on imported glasswares, as the present tariff rates do not afford 
 sufficient protection to the American workman, as considerable glassware is now being 
 imported notwithstanding the extraordinary keen competition prevailing in the glass 
 markets of our country. 
 
 There is no monopoly on glasswares in the American trade, and no organization 
 among the flint-glass manufacturers. All are free to sell as they please and prices 
 are very low. 
 
 There will be no relief afforded to the citizens of our country if the tariff rates are 
 reduced, as it will only intensify the present deplorable state of affairs. 
 
 Therefore we most respectfully protest against any reduction in the tariff rates, 
 and we trust you will art favorably on our appeal. 
 Sincerely, yours, 
 
 JAMES P. McExTEE, Secretary. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 777 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99. 
 
 Unpolished, cylinder, crown, and common window glass, not exceeding 
 one hundred and fifty square inches, valued at not more than one and one- 
 half cents per pound, one and one-fourth cents per pound; valued at more 
 than one and one-half cents per ppund, one and three-eighths cents per pound; 
 above that, and not exceeding three hundred and eighty-four square inches, 
 valued at not more than one and three-fourths cents per pound, one and three- 
 fourths cents per pound; valued at more than one and three-fourths cents per 
 pound, one and seven-eighths cents per pound; above that, and not exceeding 
 seven hundred and twenty square inches, valued at not more than two and 
 one-eighth cents per pound, two and one-fourth cents per pound; valued 
 at more than two and one-eighth cents per pound, two and three-eighths 
 cents per pound; above that, and not exceeding eight hundred and sixty- 
 four square inches, two and three-fourths cents per pound; above that, 
 and not exceeding one thousand two hundred square inches, three and one- 
 fourth cents per pound; above that, and not exceeding two thousand four 
 hundred square inches, three and three-fourths cents per pound; above 
 that, four and one-fourth cents per pound: Provided, That unpolished cylin- 
 der, crown, and common window glass, imported in boxes, shall contain 
 fifty square feet, as nearly as sizes will permit, and the duty shall be com- 
 puted thereon according to the actual weight of glass. 
 
 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF J. R. JOHNSTON, PEESIDENT OF THE JOHNSTON 
 GLASS CO., HARTFORD CITY, IND. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 since coming here I find there are three representatives of the window- 
 glass industry, who have prepared arguments that contain very much 
 that I contemplated saying. Therefore I am going to surrender my 
 time and submit a brief in behalf of my company. It has been sug- 
 gested by these three gentlemen, Messrs. Hilton, Neenan, and Stone, 
 that if 15 minutes were added to my allotted time, the window-glass 
 industry could be disposed of to-day. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We will have to get through with the witnesses 
 that are here, but if we can get through with them to-day we will try 
 to accommodate them. Your brief will be inserted at this point. 
 
 BRIEF or J. R. JOHNSTON, PRESIDENT JOHNSTON GLASS Co. 
 
 JANUARY 8, 1913. 
 
 To COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN: The continuance of manufacturing window glass 
 in the United States by hand methods depends upon the retention of sufficient tariff 
 to keep foreign glass out of our market. 
 
 The removal or any large reduction in the tariff would admit Belgian glass in such 
 quantities that it would force the closing of our plants in a very short time. 
 
 I have been engaged in the manufacture of window glass since 1890 and have found 
 the business exceedingly erratic, caused by various changes in methods, ruinous 
 competition at times bet.veen manufacturers, labor troubles, and overproduction. 
 Some of the opponents of a protective tariff have stated that the business has not 
 prospered, even though protected; and while this to a certain extent is true, the manu- 
 facturing of window glass would have ceased long ago in the United States had this 
 protection been removed. 
 
 It has been the history of the business that years showing losses have been freely 
 intermingled with those showing profits, and it is a fact that not a single rich man can 
 be named in the window-glass business who accumulated his means through the manu 
 facture of glass. 
 
 75262 B 13 21 
 
778 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 In the earlier days 10 months was considered the operating period, and for several 
 years factories operated for that length of time; but the production grew so rapidly 
 that when the output was at its height there was a total of 4,000 pots in the country 
 that could manufacture window glass, and with this increased output the period for 
 operating the factories gradually worked into fewer months, until now eight months is 
 considered a long period of operation, and more frequently our plants operate seven 
 months. To-day less than 1,400 hand-operated pots are in blast, and 20 modern plants 
 are idle and 20 other factories of more or less modern construction are not operating. 
 
 Natural gas has played a very important part in building up the industry. It is 
 an ideal fuel for making window glass, but it can scarcely be said to have been of very 
 much financial gain to those who have invested their money in the business. When 
 a gas field has been discovered promoters, land companies, and commercial clubs 
 have offered extraordinary inducements to establish window-glass factories because 
 of the attractive pay roll, and in many cases gas was furnished free of charge or else 
 at an exceedingly low rate, which price was many times below the cost of artificial 
 fuel. When the gas in any certain field would fail, the factories were either aban- 
 doned or moved to some newly-discovered field. This can be shown by the list of 
 factories attached, which is made from a directory of 1898. There isn't a single factory 
 in this list, that is operated by hand, in the location named at that time, and about 90 
 per cent of them have been dismantled and gone out of business. 
 
 The principal cost in making window glass is in labor, about 60 per cent, and any 
 further reductions in American costs would have to come from that source; and with 
 glassworkers employed on an average of seven months a year, there is no room for 
 economy in that direction. The other important costs are fuel and lumber, both of 
 which are continually advancing and are likely to show further increases from year to 
 year. In this country about two-thirds of the glass used is in single strength, and 
 from 50 to 60 per cent of this single strength is in the first three brackets, which means 
 sizes 16 by 24 and smaller. These sizes especially need an increased tariff, for the 
 reason that in Belgium the percentage of first three bracket sizes consumed is only about 
 20 per cent, which leaves that country with a surplus of small glass that they are only 
 too anxious to distribute in the United States and other world's markets. 
 
 Under the present tariff schedule the margin of profit on first two bracket sizes in 
 single strength is practically nothing, and American manufacturers make and sell 
 at least 1,000,000 boxes of small glass at an actual loss. On this small glass we should 
 have increased protection. The amount of tariff on these sizes should not be less than 
 2 cents per pound. 
 
 Personally I would be willing to leave the arrangement of the tariff schedule to any 
 fair-minded committee that would investigate foreign costs and base the protection on 
 the difference between labor in Belgium, skilled and unskilled, as compared with 
 wages for similar workmen in the United States, adding what any business man would 
 consider a reasonable profit on the investment. 
 
 The differences in wages in Belgium as compared with wages paid in the United 
 States is one of the strongest arguments why no lowering of the tariff should be consid- 
 ered. Common labor in Belgian window-glass factories receives 60 cents per day as 
 against our men at $2 per day. 
 
 In the skilled trades the same relative difference applies. 
 
 In the Belgian factories are employed many women, and girls are employed at wages 
 much lower than are paid their own men. These Belgian factories operate continu- 
 ously, viz, 24 hours daily and 7 days in the week. 
 
 Comparative figures show that for every $35 paid by foreign manufacturers as win- 
 dow-glass labor, we manufacturers in this country pay $100 for the same service. 
 
 The estimated consumption of window glass in this country is between seven and 
 seven and one-half million boxes. The returns for all of the glass manufactured in 
 the United States to the manufacturers does not exceed $15,000,000. Therefore, as 
 compared with the great industrial world, it is insignificant, as innumerable busi- 
 ness houses conducting small establishments do this much business annually. 
 
 Attached is statement showing the annual imports for the last 25 years. 
 
 We have never been able to dispose of any of our goods outside of our own country, 
 as we are met with Belgian competition in Canada, Central America, South America, 
 and Mexico, which would mean a serious loss to us if we met the selling price of our 
 competitors in these countries. Therefore, our sales are confined to our own terri- 
 tory and we hope that we will not be disturbed in marketing our goods at home. The 
 price of glass is not high, and the percentage of cost in construction is trifling. 
 
 Belgian manufacturers handle their business through syndicates which are en- 
 couraged and supported by their Government. Therefore, if we remove the tariff on 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 779 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 window glass we will not only abandon glass making to the foreign laborer and manu- 
 facturer but we will be buying our glass from one of these trusts which are so strongly 
 condemned at home. 
 
 I attach two estimates herewith showing the cost of glass in two dwelling houses, 
 which, at the price the retailer obtains for this glass, is only 1 per cent of the total cost 
 of the buildings. Window glass is the cheapest form of construction and can not be 
 duplicated in cost by using any other material. It is far cheaper than wood, stone, 
 brick, steel, etc., per square foot. 
 
 When noting the amount of window glass being used it can not be said that prices 
 are high and that the consumer is paying more than a normal price for our product. 
 We hear of no complaints on prices, or tariff, excepting from a few importers whose 
 selfish commercial interests cause them to lose sight of American laborers and the 
 owners of plants who contribute no small part to the building up and support of our 
 country. 
 
 Not only does foreign labor make the retention of present tariff imperative, but the 
 low ocean transportation charges work to our tremendous disadvantage. The rates 
 from Belgium to Pacific coast points are about one-third of our freight charges on rail 
 shipments from pur factories to the Pacific coast. About one-tenth of our product is 
 used on the Pacific coast. 
 
 In conclusion, will say that I firmly believe that if the tariff on window glass is 
 removed or lowered the industry will be destroyed. The glass workers will be com- 
 pelled to work for impossible wages until such time as they finally abandon their 
 trades, and the factories we own will drift into the junk heap. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 J. R. JOHNSTON, 
 President Johnston Glass Co., Hartford City, Ind. 
 
 GLASS IMPORTS AND EXPORTS. 
 
 The following tables are interesting as showing the amount of American money 
 which has gone to foreign countries during the past 25 years in exchange for glass 
 and glassware and the amount of foreign money which has been expended for our 
 products during a corresponding period. The tables presented do not include all of 
 the foreign glass which reaches our shores, plates or disks, rough cut or unwrought, 
 for optical instruments, which come in free of duty, being an exception, and for this 
 class of goods alone there was imported during the fiscal year ending with June 30, 
 1912, $383,234 worth, our total expenditure for foreign glass during the 12 months 
 ending with June 30 of this year having been $6,210,625, while the value of our expor- 
 tations during a corresponding period was $3,494,153. The record of window-glass 
 importations for 25 years is as follows: 
 
 Year. 
 
 Boxes. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Boxes. 
 
 Value. 
 
 1888... 
 
 1,184,219 
 
 $1, 389, 928 
 
 1901 
 
 470, 610 
 
 $922, 690 
 
 1889. 
 
 1 249,576 
 
 1,425,515 
 
 1902 
 
 950 196 
 
 1 797,681 
 
 1890. . . 
 
 1,193,954 
 
 1,430,777 
 
 1903 
 
 1 059,790 
 
 1, 762, 767 
 
 1891. . . . 
 
 982, 212 
 
 1,475 338 
 
 1904 
 
 855 682 
 
 1 381,104 
 
 1892 
 
 1,112,000 
 
 1,549,707 
 
 1905 
 
 297, 662 
 
 627, 618 
 
 1893 . 
 
 1 045 961 
 
 1 425 551 
 
 1906 
 
 570 833 
 
 1 306 723 
 
 1894 
 
 888, 332 
 
 1, 067, 787 
 
 1907 
 
 530 166 
 
 1,037,770 
 
 1895 
 
 663,081 
 
 835, 730 
 
 1903 
 
 424,239 
 
 824, 616 
 
 1896 
 
 886, 372 
 
 1,067,990 
 
 1909 
 
 389, 493 
 
 760,164 
 
 1897 
 
 932, 697 
 
 1, 181, 696 
 
 1910 
 
 450, 078 
 
 810, 915 
 
 1898 
 
 648, 483 
 
 953, 116 
 
 1911 
 
 520,832 
 
 948, 959 
 
 1899 
 
 786, 494 
 
 1,275,185 
 
 1912 
 
 413, 478 
 
 950, 123 
 
 1900 
 
 855.723 
 
 1,655,926 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
780 
 
 TAKIPF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 The following statement shows the amount in boxes and pounds, and the value of 
 cylinder, crown, and common window glass, unpolished, imported during July, 1912, 
 at the ports of entry designated: 
 
 District. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Boxes. Value. 
 
 District. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Boxes. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Baltimore 
 
 13,000 
 
 217 $394 
 
 Cuyahoga 
 
 30 992 
 
 517 
 
 $961 
 
 Boston 
 
 100, 312 
 
 1, 672 3, 627 
 
 Genesce . ... 
 
 820, 352 
 
 13 673 
 
 34 114 
 
 New York 
 
 469, 589 
 
 7, 826 19, 666 
 
 fHnninnftti 
 
 1 897 
 
 31 
 
 41 
 
 Philadelphia 
 
 156,923 
 
 2,615 5,271 
 
 Denver 
 
 205 
 
 3 
 
 82 
 
 Porto Rico 
 
 722 
 
 2 21 
 
 Tnriiftnupolis 
 
 28 184 
 
 470 
 
 812 
 
 Galveston 
 
 23,307 
 
 388 692 
 
 Lincoln . . 
 
 2,080 
 
 35 
 
 89 
 
 Portland 
 
 9,464 
 
 158 286 
 
 St. Louis 
 
 340 342 
 
 5 672 
 
 14 249 
 
 Buffalo 
 
 31 799 
 
 530 1 824 
 
 
 
 
 
 Chicago 
 
 157^247 
 
 2,621 ; 5,489 
 
 Total 
 
 2, 186, 415 
 
 36,440 
 
 87, 618 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The following statement shows the amount in boxes and pounds and the value of 
 cylinder, crown, and common window glass, unpolished, imported during August, 
 1912, at the ports of entry designated: 
 
 District. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Boxes. 
 
 Value. 
 
 District. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Boxes. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Baltimore 
 
 24, 216 
 
 403 
 
 $901 
 
 Genesee 
 
 364, 311 
 
 6,071 
 
 $14, 937 
 
 Boston 
 
 75,034 
 
 1,250 
 
 1,697 
 
 Columbus 
 
 11 
 
 
 6 
 
 New York 
 
 705, 683 
 
 11,761 
 
 29,839 
 
 Denver 
 
 57 
 
 
 231 
 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 37,966 
 
 632 
 
 2,189 
 
 Lincoln.... 
 
 27,040 
 
 450 
 
 1,082 
 
 New Orleans. 
 
 16,800 
 
 280 
 
 179 
 
 Omaha . ... 
 
 35,204 
 
 586 
 
 1,414 
 
 Los Angeles . . 
 
 41,872 
 
 698 
 
 1,186 
 
 St. Louis 
 
 253,805 
 
 4,230 
 
 10,583 
 
 
 32 656 
 
 544 
 
 944 
 
 
 
 
 
 San Francisco 
 
 72, 384 
 
 1,206 
 
 2,222 
 
 Total 
 
 1, 762, 055 
 
 29,361 
 
 72, 698 
 
 Chicago 
 
 75,016 
 
 1,250 
 
 5,288 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 In the above table it will be observed that Columbus is credited with taking 11 
 pounds, the value being $6, while Denver imported 57 pounds, at a reported cost of 
 $231. That strikes us as being sort of funny, but it is the showing made in the Govern- 
 ment's official record. 
 
 The following statement shows the amount of boxes and pounds and the value of 
 cylinder, crown, and common window glass, unpolished, imported during September, 
 1912, at the ports of entry designated: 
 
 District. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Boxes. 
 
 Value. 
 
 District. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Boxes. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Baltimore 
 
 12,914 
 
 215 
 
 $396 
 
 
 708 695 
 
 11 812 
 
 $30 579 
 
 Boston 
 
 104.025 
 
 1,734 
 
 3,078 
 
 Milwaukee 
 
 57,200 
 
 953 
 
 1 894 
 
 New York 
 
 352, &3S 
 
 5.877 
 
 16, 744 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 27, 328 
 
 455 
 
 1,241 
 
 Philadelphia . 
 
 99, 183 
 
 1,653 
 
 3,788 
 
 Columbus 
 
 279 
 
 5 
 
 87 
 
 New Orleans. 
 
 80,800 
 
 1,347 
 
 2,919 
 
 Denver 
 
 29,955 
 
 495 
 
 1,237 
 
 Los Angeles. . 
 Puget Sound. 
 
 14, 868 
 11,624 
 
 248 
 194 
 
 523 
 
 346 
 
 Kansas City 
 Memphis 
 
 30,415 
 694 
 
 507 
 12 
 
 1,229 
 63 
 
 San Francisco 
 
 20,608 
 
 343 
 
 1,131 
 
 St. Louis 
 
 147, 764 
 
 2,463 
 
 5,958 
 
 Buffalo 
 
 2 003 
 
 33 
 
 481 
 
 
 
 
 
 Chicago 
 
 IS"! 078 
 
 3,118 
 
 6,108 
 
 Total 
 
 1, 917, 555 
 
 31, 959 
 
 78, 717 
 
 Cuyahoga 
 
 29,484 
 
 491 
 
 915 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 781 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 t 
 
 The following statement shows the amount of boxes and pounds and the value of 
 cylinder, crown, and common window glass, unpolished, imported during October, 
 1912, at the ports of entry designated: 
 
 Districts. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Boxes. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Districts. l 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Boxes. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Baltimore 
 
 10,046 
 
 167 
 
 9236 
 
 Chicago 
 
 81,253 
 
 1,354 
 
 $3,351 
 
 Boston and 
 
 
 
 
 Cuyahoga. ....... 
 
 75 
 
 2 
 
 74 
 
 Charleston. ..... 
 
 112,308 
 
 1,871 
 
 5,112 
 
 Genesee 
 
 721,499 
 
 12.024 
 
 28,722 
 
 New York 
 
 900,682 
 
 15,012 
 
 30,484 
 
 Miami 
 
 33,532 
 
 558 
 
 1.219 
 
 Philadelphia . . 
 
 145,970 
 
 2,432 
 
 6,571 
 
 Superior.. ....... 
 
 140 
 
 3 
 
 21 
 
 New Orleans.. 
 
 13,887 
 
 231 
 
 424 
 
 Cincinnati. ....... 
 
 72,930 
 
 1,215 
 
 1,896 
 
 Alaska 
 
 25 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 Pittsburgh . . 
 
 2,058 
 
 33 
 
 356 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 62,000 
 
 1,033 
 
 1,932 
 
 St. Louis 
 
 590,823 
 
 9,847 
 
 23,397 
 
 
 9 800 
 
 163 
 
 295 
 
 
 
 
 
 Buffalo Creek.. 
 
 29^325 
 
 485 
 
 957 
 
 Total 
 
 2,786,353 
 
 46,431 
 
 105,054 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Glass in house of No. 2 Johnston' s first addition. 
 
 
 B single. 
 
 A double. 
 
 10 lights, 24 by 28... 
 
 27.27 
 
 46.14 
 
 18 lights, 24 by 26 
 
 69.75 
 
 117.00 
 
 2 lights, 22 by 40 
 
 8.44 
 
 14.00 
 
 1 light, 23 by 40 
 
 4.22 
 
 7.00 
 
 2 lights, 8 by 28 
 
 1.75 
 
 2.85 
 
 
 
 
 
 111.43 
 
 186.99 
 
 Jobbers' list: B single, at 90-20-8. 91-.011 of cost of house, $800; A double, at 
 90-25-14. 02-.0165 of cost of house, $800. 
 
 Above glass figured from manufacturers' list: B single, at 90-17^-6. 89-.0086 of coat 
 of house, $800; A double, at 90-22J-10.86-.0125 of cost of house, $800. 
 
 Glass in residence of J. R. Johnston. 
 
 16 lights, 14 by 22 A. D. S $25. 54 
 
 2 lights, 14 by 22 3. 96 
 
 1 light, 14 by 26 2. 28 
 
 4 lights, 14 by 30 11. 65 
 
 6 lights, 16 by 26 17. 47 
 
 2 lights, 20 by 20 5. 50 
 
 4 lights, 20 by 27 15. 23 
 
 2 lights, 20 by 41 12. 44 
 
 2 lights, 21 by 22 6. 60 
 
 2 lights, 22 by 22 6. 60 
 
 2 lights, 22 by 24 7. 08 
 
 2 lights, 22 by 26 7. 61 
 
 2 lights, 22 by 28 8. 25 
 
 6 lights, 22 by 32 30. 46 
 
 2 lights, 22 by 41 14. 00 
 
 6 lights, 24 by 30 30. 46 
 
 Jobbers' list, at 90-25-46. 73-.0058 of cost of house, $8.000. 
 
 8 lights, 24 by 32 $46. 22 
 
 2 lights, 25 by 41 16. 00 
 
 2 lights, 26 by 28 10. 40 
 
 8 lights, 26 by 32 46. 22 
 
 4 lights, 26 by 30 23.11 
 
 1 light, 26 by 41 8.00 
 
 2 lights, 30 by 36 16.00 
 
 4 lights, 30 by 41 41. 00 
 
 6 lights, 30 by 32 42. 00 
 
 1 light, 31 by 61 17. 00 
 
 1 light, 32 by 32 32.00 
 
 1 light, 44 by 66 42. 90 
 
 1 light, 56 by 66 77.14 
 
 Total.. . 623.12 
 
782 
 
 TABLFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Window-glas* factories in operation in 1898. 
 
 WESTERN DISTRICT. 
 
 Firm name. 
 
 Furnaces or 
 tanks. 
 
 Pots or 
 blowers. 
 
 Location. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Alexandria Window Glass 
 
 1 furnace.... 
 
 10 pots 
 
 Aifi^andrift, Tnd. . , , 
 
 Dismantled. 
 
 Co. 
 American Window Glass 
 
 1 taut. .. 
 
 54 blowers . 
 
 Gas City Ind 
 
 Do. 
 
 Co. 
 Anderson Glass Co 
 
 4 furnaces... 
 
 40 pots 
 
 Anderson, Ind... 
 
 Do. 
 
 Bellefonte Glass Co. . 
 
 1 furnace... 
 
 Spots 
 
 Bellefonte, Pa 
 
 Do. 
 
 Brickner Window Glass Co. 
 
 2 furnaces 
 
 12 pots 
 
 Sweetser, Ind , 
 
 Do. 
 
 Barnesville Glass Co 
 
 do... 
 
 18 pots. . 
 
 Barnesville, Ohio.. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Bates Window Glass Co 
 
 . .do 
 
 12 pots 
 
 Dunkirk, Ind 
 
 Do. 
 
 Baur Window Glass Co 
 
 1 tank 
 
 24 blowers.. 
 
 Eaton, Ind 
 
 Idle. 
 
 Bradford Glass Co 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 Bradford, Pa 
 
 Removed to Clarks- 
 
 B. N. McCoy Glass Co 
 
 2 tanks. ... 
 
 60 blowers... 
 
 Kane, Pa 
 
 burg. 
 American Window 
 
 Big Four Window Glass Co 
 
 2 furnaces . . 
 
 12pots... . 
 
 Fairmont, W. Va.. . 
 
 Glass Co. machine. 
 Dismantled 
 
 Buckeye Window Glass Co 
 
 . do 
 
 ... .do 
 
 Albany, Tnd . , 
 
 Do. 
 
 Chambers Glass Co 
 
 3 tanks 
 
 162 blowers. . 
 
 Arnold, Pa 
 
 American Window 
 
 Chambers & McKee Glass 
 
 ...do 
 
 168 blowers. . 
 
 Jeannette, Pa 
 
 Glass Co. machine. 
 Do. 
 
 Co. 
 Columbus Plate & Window 
 
 1 furnace... 
 
 10 pots 
 
 Lancaster. Ohio 
 
 Machines. 
 
 Glass Co. 
 Crystal Window Glass Co. . 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 Summitville, Ind 
 
 Dismantled. 
 
 Clyde Window Glass Co 
 
 2 furnaces 
 
 18 pots 
 
 Frankton, Ind ....... 
 
 Do. 
 
 Columbia Window Glass 
 
 1 fnrnfWfi 
 
 10 pots 
 
 Greenfield, Ind 
 
 Do. 
 
 Co. 
 Cunningham Glass Co., 
 
 (2 furnaces . . 
 
 20 pots 
 
 Pittsburgh, Pa 
 
 Idle for several years. 
 
 D. O. 
 
 \1 tank 
 
 30 blowers... 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 Cunningham & Co. (Ltd.) . 
 
 1 furnace .. 
 
 12 pots 
 
 do 
 
 Dismantled. 
 
 Dunkirk Window Glass Co. 
 
 4 furnaces 
 
 24 pots 
 
 Dunkirk, Ind 
 
 Moved to Charleston, 
 
 Ely Window Glass Co 
 
 1 furnace . 
 
 10 pots 
 
 Oilman, Ind 
 
 W. Va. 
 
 Dismantled. 
 
 Enterprise Window Glass 
 
 4 furnaces 
 
 36 pots 
 
 Dunkirk, Ind... 
 
 Do. 
 
 Co. 
 Elwood Window Glass Co 
 
 1 furnace 
 
 12 pots 
 
 Elwood, Ind 
 
 Do. 
 
 Estep Glass Co 
 
 Frankton Window Glass 
 
 2 furnaces . . . 
 1 furnam . . , 
 
 do 
 do 
 
 Marion, Ind 
 Frankton, Ind 
 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Co. 
 Globe Window Glass Co 
 
 1 tank 
 
 30 blowers 
 
 Findlay, Ohio 
 
 Idle abandoned. 
 
 Gem Window Glass Co 
 Getman Glass Works 
 
 2 furnaces... 
 1 furnace 
 
 12 pots 
 10 pots 
 
 Dunkirk, Ind 
 A venmore, Pa 
 
 Dismantled. 
 Do. 
 
 Hartford City Glass Co.. .. 
 
 2 tanks 
 
 120 blowers . 
 
 Hartford City, Ind.. 
 
 American Window 
 
 The Hurrle Glass Co 
 
 2 furnaces . 
 
 12 pots 
 
 do .... 
 
 Glass Co. machines. 
 Now J. G. Co., idle. 
 
 Ihmsen Glass Co 
 
 do... 
 
 22 pots 
 
 Pittsburgh, Pa 
 
 Dismantled. 
 
 Indiana Window Glass Co.. 
 
 do 
 
 20 pots 
 
 Pendleton, Ind 
 
 Do. 
 
 Lawrence Glass Co 
 
 1 tank 
 
 45 blowers. . . 
 
 New Castle, Pa 
 
 American Window 
 
 McKee & Co., S... 
 
 3 furnaces 
 
 26 pots 
 
 Pittsburgh, Pa 
 
 Glass Co., idle. 
 Dismantled. 
 
 McCullv. Wm. P., A- Co.... 
 
 1 tank 
 
 30 blowers. .. 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 Maring. Hart & Co 
 
 . . .do 
 
 54 blowers . . 
 
 Muncie, Ind 
 
 Do. 
 
 Marion Window Glass Co 
 
 1 furnace 
 
 10 pots 
 
 Marion Ind 
 
 Do. 
 
 Mahler Glass Co., J 
 
 do. ... 
 
 do 
 
 Du Bois, Pa 
 
 Do. 
 
 Monongahela Window Glass 
 Co. 
 Mutual Glass Co 
 
 do 
 .. do 
 
 do 
 8 pots . ... 
 
 New Eagle P. 0., Pa.. 
 Ithaca, N. Y. 
 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Over, C. H 
 
 1 tank... 
 
 51 blowers... 
 
 Muncie, Ind 
 
 Do. 
 
 Ohio Window Glass Co 
 
 do 
 
 30 blowers . 
 
 Arcadia, Ind . .. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Pendleton Window Glass 
 
 1 furnace .... 
 
 8 pots 
 
 Pendleton, Ind 
 
 Do. 
 
 Works. 
 Phillips Glass Co 
 
 f....do 
 
 10 pots 
 
 
 Do 
 
 Quaker City Glass Co 
 
 \ 1 tank 
 
 36 blowers... 
 10 pots 
 
 Quaker City Ohio 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 f....do 
 
 do 
 
 
 (American Window 
 
 
 \1 tank 
 
 51 blowers 
 
 
 \ Glass Co. machines. 
 
 Stewart-Estep Glass Co 
 Shenango Glass Co. 
 
 3 furnaces. . . 
 1 tank 
 
 26 pots 
 
 Marion, Ind 
 New Castle, Pa 
 
 Dismantled. 
 American Window 
 
 Standard Window Glass Co 
 
 1 furnace 
 
 10 pots 
 
 Redkey, Ind 
 
 Glass Co., idle. 
 Torn down. 
 
 T. Campbell Co 
 
 Thos. Wightman Glass Co.. 
 Union Glass Works 
 United Glass Co 
 
 Victor Window Gla^ Co 
 
 2 furnaces... 
 1 tank 
 1 furnace 
 1 tank 
 do 
 
 16 pots 
 45 blowers... 
 10 pots 
 57 blowers... 
 24 blowers 
 
 Pittsburgh, Pa 
 
 Anderson, Ind 
 Orestes, Ind 
 
 Do. 
 
 Abandoned. 
 Do. 
 Dismantled. 
 Do. 
 
 W. K. Jones & Co 
 
 
 10 pots 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 Wells, S. K 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 Greenfield Ind 
 
 Do. 
 
 W. C. Deinimv t v Co 
 
 1 tank 
 
 48 blowers... 
 
 Alexandria, Ind 
 
 Do. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Window-glass factories in operation in 1898 Continued. 
 EASTERN DISTRICT. 
 
 783 
 
 Finn name. 
 
 Furnaces or 
 tanks. 
 
 Pots or 
 blowers. 
 
 Location. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Atco Glass Co 
 
 1 furnace 
 2 furnaces... 
 do 
 
 Spots 
 
 Atco. N. J..., 
 
 Idle. 
 Abandoned 
 Do. 
 
 American 
 Glass Co 
 doned. 
 Converted 
 use. 
 Abandoned. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Window 
 ., aban- 
 
 to other 
 
 Baker Bros. & Co 
 
 16 pots 
 
 Baltimore, Md 
 
 Christiana Window Glass 
 Co. 
 Cohansey Glass Manufac- 
 turing Co. 
 
 Cumberland Glass Manu- 
 facturing Co. 
 Edw. R. Wood . 
 
 do 
 
 Wilmington, T^Pl 
 
 1 tank 
 
 54 blowers... 
 16 pots 
 
 Philadelphia, P ft 
 
 2 furnaces... 
 1 tank 
 
 Bridgeton N J 
 
 18 blowers... 
 16 pots 
 
 Millville N. J 
 
 Franklin Window Glass Co. 
 Bennett & Co 
 
 2 furnaces . . . 
 do 
 
 Woodbury, N. J 
 
 do 
 
 Spring City, Pa 
 
 Glassboro Window Glass Co 
 Henrietta Window Glass Co 
 Hires & Co 
 
 11 furnace 
 
 Spots 
 29 blowers... 
 18 blowers... 
 16 pots 
 
 JGlassboro, N. J 
 
 do 
 
 St. Dennis, Md 
 
 2 furnaces . . . 
 1 furnace 
 3 furnaces . . . 
 2 furnaces . . . 
 do 
 
 Quinton, N. J. ... 
 
 More-Jonas Glass Co. .... 
 
 8 pots 
 
 Bridgeton N J 
 
 Norristown Glass Co 
 
 30 pots 
 
 Norristown, Pa . . 
 
 Henry Seim & Co 
 
 16 pots 
 
 Baltimore. Md ..... 
 
 Swindell Bros 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 Win. King & Bro 
 
 3 furnaces 
 
 12 pots 
 
 do 
 
 United Glass Co 
 
 1 tank 
 
 48 blowers... 
 
 Cleveland, N. Y 
 
 
 
 
 NORTHERN DISTRICT. 
 
 Bernhards Bay Glass Co 
 
 1 furnace 
 
 10 pots 
 
 Bernhards Bay, N. Y 
 
 Abandoned. 
 
 Covington Glass Works ... 
 
 do. ... 
 
 8 pots 
 
 Covington, Pa ... . 
 
 Dismantled. 
 
 Elmira Glass Co 
 
 1 tank 
 
 36 blowers... 
 
 Elmira, N. Y 
 
 Do. 
 
 Harding & Cummings.. 
 
 1 furnace 
 
 10 pots 
 
 Berkshire Mass 
 
 Do. 
 
 Washington Glass Co 
 
 ... do.. 
 
 8 pots 
 
 Ithaca, N. Y 
 
 Do. 
 
 Wellsboro Co-Operative 
 
 .... do 
 
 16 pots 
 
 Wellsboro, Tioga 
 
 Idle. 
 
 Glass Works. 
 
 
 
 County, Pa. 
 
 
 Window glass factories, January, 191S. 
 PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 Factory. 
 
 Location. 
 
 Hand. 
 
 Machine. 
 
 Operat- 
 ing pots. 
 
 Not oper- 
 ating 
 pots. 
 
 Operat- 
 ing pots. 
 
 Not oper- 
 ating 
 pots. 
 
 American French Belgian Co 
 
 Du Bois 
 
 30 
 24 
 36 
 
 
 
 
 \lleganv Window Glass Co 
 
 Port Allegany 
 Brookville .... 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 Brook viLle Glass <t Tile Co 
 
 
 
 Consolidated Window Glass Co 
 
 Bradford 
 
 60 
 
 36 
 
 
 Eldred Window Glass Co 
 
 Punxsutawney.. . 
 Shinglehouse 
 
 36 
 30 
 
 
 Empire Glass Co 
 
 30 
 30 
 
 
 
 Fairchance Glass Co 
 
 Fairchance 
 
 
 
 Federated Glass Co 
 Ithaca Glass Manufacturing Co 
 
 IparmPtte Winrinw Gla^q Cn 
 
 Point Marion 
 Spring City 
 Point Marion 
 
 36 
 
 "'eo' 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kane Window Glass Co 
 
 Knnp 
 
 
 
 60 
 
 Kervin Glass Co 
 
 Eldred 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 Masontown Glass Co 
 
 Masontown 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 New Bethlehem Window Gla Co ... 
 
 New Bethlehem. . . 
 Kane 
 
 
 
 
 Pennsylvania Window Glass Co 
 
 
 
 60 
 
 Point Marion Window Glass C'o 
 
 Point Marion 
 Smethport 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 Smethport Glass Co 
 
 
 
 36 
 24 
 
 Wilcox Glass Co 
 
 Wilcox 
 
 
 
 
 American Window Gla^s Co . . 
 
 [Kane . 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 I Monongahela 
 
 
 
 
 
 I Belle Vernon 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 330 
 
 198 
 
 132 
 
 ISO 
 
784 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Window glass factories, January, 19 IS Continued. 
 
 WEST VIRGINIA. 
 
 Factory. 
 
 Location. 
 
 Hand. 
 
 Machine. 
 
 Operat- 
 ing pots. 
 
 Not oper- 
 ating 
 pots. 
 
 Operat- 
 ing pots. 
 
 Not oper- 
 ating 
 pots. 
 
 Banner Window Glass Co 
 
 South Charleston. 
 Charleston 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 Charleston Window Glass Co 
 
 
 36 
 
 
 Clarksburg Glass fo 
 
 Clarksburg 
 
 36 
 48 
 24 
 
 
 
 Crescent Window Glass Co 
 Doddridge Window Glass Co . 
 
 Weston 
 
 West Union 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dominion Window Glass Co 
 
 Grafton 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 Dunkirk Window Glass Co 
 
 South Charleston . 
 Buckhannon 
 
 36 
 36 
 36 
 24 
 24 
 
 
 
 Equitable Window Glass Co 
 
 
 
 
 Fairmont Window Glass Co 
 
 Fairmont 
 
 
 
 
 Ideal Window Glass Co 
 
 West Union 
 
 
 
 
 Independent Glass Co 
 W A. Jones & Co 
 
 Sistersville 
 Morgantown 
 
 
 
 
 
 48 
 
 
 Lafayette Window Glass Co 
 Manila Window Glass Co 
 
 Clarksburg 
 Morgantown 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 Modern Window Glass Co 
 
 Patterson Glass Manufacturing Co 
 
 Salem 
 
 Cameron 
 
 36 
 14 
 24 
 24 
 
 48 
 36 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Peerless Window Glass Co 
 
 Clarksburg 
 
 
 
 
 Salem Cooperative Window Glass Co 
 Tuna Glass Co 
 
 Salem 
 
 Clarksburg . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 West Fork Glass Co 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 488 
 
 36 
 
 84 
 
 30 
 
 
 INDIANA. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Blackford Window Glass Co . . 
 
 Vincennes 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 Johnston Glass Co 
 
 Hartford Citv 
 
 
 60 
 
 
 
 Vincennes Window Glass Co 
 
 Vincennes 
 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 Baur Window Glass Co 
 
 Katon 
 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 American Window Glass Co 
 
 Hartford C'itv 
 
 
 
 (h.b.)lOO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 120 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 TEXAS. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wichita Falls Glass Co 
 
 Wichita Falls 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 
 Texas Glass Co 
 
 Texarkana 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6G 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LOUISIANA. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Caddo Window Glass Co . 
 
 
 30 
 
 Built for 
 
 W o r k- 
 
 
 
 
 
 48. 
 
 ing30. 
 
 
 
 OKLAHOMA. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Baker Bros . . 
 
 ' Okmulgt'o 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 Coflevville Window Glass Co 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 
 54 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 54 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Window glass factories, January, 191S Continued. 
 OHIO. 
 
 785 
 
 Factory. 
 
 Location. 
 
 Hand. 
 
 Machine. 
 
 Operat- 
 ing pots. 
 
 Not oper- 
 ating 
 pots. 
 
 Operat- 
 ing pots. 
 
 Not oper- 
 ating 
 pots. 
 
 Camp Glass Co 
 
 Mount Vernon 
 Maumee 
 
 54 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 Case*& Merry Co 
 
 
 
 
 Cole Glass Co 
 
 Lancaster 
 
 
 
 45 
 
 Columbus Glass Co 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 Enterprise Glass Co 
 
 Sandusky 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 Licking Window Glass Co 
 
 Utica 
 
 42 
 24 
 48 
 
 
 
 Ohio Central Glass Co 
 
 Pleasantville 
 
 
 
 
 Utica Glass Co ... 
 
 Utica 
 
 
 
 
 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co 
 
 Mount Vernon. 
 
 
 51 
 
 
 Sandusky Glass Co 
 
 Sandusky 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 228 
 
 
 87 
 
 75 
 
 
 KANSAS. 
 
 Caney Window Glass Co 
 
 Canev 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 Cheyenne Window Glass Co 
 
 do 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 Fredonia Window Glass Co 
 
 Fredonia 
 
 48 
 
 
 
 
 Mechanics Glass Co 
 
 Chanute 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 Osage Window Glass Co 
 
 Independence 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 Sunflower Glass Co 
 
 Cofleyville 
 
 
 27 
 
 
 
 United Window Glass Co 
 
 PoncaCity.Okla 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 Kansas Glass Co 
 
 Cofleyville 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 126 
 
 97 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. STONE, ON BEHALF OF THE 
 NATIONAL WINDOW GLASS ASSOCIATION. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dalzell, I believe you desired to have Gov. 
 Stone make a statement to the committee at this time ? 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. Yes; Mr. Chairman. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Very well; we will hear from Gov. Stone. 
 
 Mr. STONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; it will be an accommoda- 
 tion to me in order to let me get back to my home, although there are 
 two other gentlemen who will speak more particularly of the statistics. 
 
 I, as attorney, represent the National Window Glass Association. 
 The remarks I will make are brief. 
 
 This industry is like any other industry that depends on the rule of 
 supply and demand, for the reason that there is produced or capable 
 of being produced in this country at least 50 per cent more window 
 glass than can be consumed in the country, and there is not and 
 never has been any exportation of window glass. 
 
 The tariff in the act of 1909, specified in Schedule B, paragraph 99, 
 lixes several different rates for different kinds and sizes of window 
 glass. Under the first and second brackets, so called, the window-glass 
 makers have had to practically abandon the manufacture of these 
 brackets, because they can not make them and sell them at a profit, 
 paying the present wages, and also nearly all used here are imported. 
 
 They are, however, making the balance of the glass under the 
 schedule and are paying the wages which the workers in window glass 
 
 78959 VOL 113- 
 
 50 
 
786 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 have agreed with them to accept. Their scale is a sliding scale.' If 
 the price of window glass increases, the wages of the men increase; 
 and if it lowers, the wages of the men do not lower. 
 
 I can not exactly specify, but there are made about 7,000,000 boxes, 
 50 feet square in a box, of window glass in this country. The cost of 
 labor is 60 per cent in each box of glass. The reduction of the tariff 
 at present fixed on all the brackets but the first two would result in 
 a reduction of wages or a suspension of work in the various glass 
 factories. 
 
 There are 92 factories in this country, 42 of which are shut down 
 because of competition, owing to the fact that were they all running, 
 even at a shut down of from two to five months each year on account 
 of the intense heat and the practice that has governed from time 
 immemorial, they could produce all the window glass that is con- 
 sumed in this country without any machine-made glass. 
 
 This is the situation with reference to window glass. It is one of 
 that peculiar class of industries that must be considered as a class by 
 itself. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is there not an arrangement about the amount of 
 production and the selling price among these glass manufacturers and 
 manufacturers of window glass ? 
 
 Mr. STONE. No, sir; there is not. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I am asking for the information because it has been 
 stated to mo that they all quote the same prices to the purchaser. 
 
 Mr. STONE. It is done for butter, and sometimes, until recently, for 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. But the wholesale purchasers contend that no 
 matter what factory they send to for a certain class of glass, at that 
 particular time the quotation price is always the same from them all. 
 
 Mr. STONE. That nas been so, I take it, of every product, even 
 wheat, ever since it has been produced. It is just this way, that the 
 papers give the market every morning, and people who have prod- 
 ucts for sale note the price. Of course, a man might put his own 
 price on a box of window glass. If he put it more than the market, he 
 simply could not sell it. If he put it less than the market, he would 
 lose the difference between the market and the price he asked. That 
 is true of everything. The market for steel rails, the market for 
 plows, and the market for automobiles, according to the man's make, 
 must be necessarily the same. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I know that with reference to some things, when 
 you come to iron and steel products, you can read the market quota- 
 tions in the paper, but always you have to pay the market price. 
 They approximate the market price, but sometimes they sell con- 
 siderably under the so-called market price. I do not know that it is 
 true, and I am asking the question because it was represented to me 
 as being true, that the quotations on window glass coming from these 
 mills were always the same. 
 
 Mr. STONE. I will tell you, if you will allow me to do so, that there 
 has been various attempts made in the history of all products to regu- 
 late prices and production, as you know. Some four or five years 
 ago there was an attempt made to regulate the price of window glass. 
 However, the Government prosecuted those parties, and indicted them 
 
SCHEDULE B. 787 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 all, and they were all fined, since which time there has been no effort 
 made to regulate any price at all on window glass, but the price regu- 
 lates itself, just the same as the price on every other product regulates 
 itself. 
 
 One of the largest regulators of the price of window glass is the 
 American Window Glass Co., which makes machine glass and makes 
 at least 50 per cent of all the wondow glass consumed. They fix their 
 own price, but if anyone produces very much window glass or very 
 much of anything and would undertake to fix the price, they would 
 fail. The price is hardly fixed any more than the price of steel stocks, 
 for instance. We like to see what it sold for yesterday to find out 
 what to ask for it to-day. That is about all there is to it. Take any 
 produce that is ever produced, I do not care what it is, in this country, 
 that has no export at all, and is only sold and consumed in this 
 country, and as to which there is sharp competition among producers 
 necessarily. That competition will run the price of it down, and then 
 the law of supply and demand comes in. People cease to make it 
 until the surplus is all consumed, and then they wake up some 
 morning and find there is a demand for some more of the product, and 
 they start in and the price goes up. But there is nothing regulates the 
 price of window glass except the old law of supply and demand. 
 
 Two years ago there was more window glass in the warehouses than 
 could be consumed in the coming year. They had simply overpro- 
 duced, and it has taken all of this time to use up this surplus. If you 
 could only fix some machine or some law that would simply measure 
 and take off every day just the amount to be consumed that day and 
 only produce that amount, then there would be no hard times in 
 this country and no trouble at all. But you can not do it by law, 
 I believe, although I think it is worth while to try. 
 
 Coming back to the question of window glass, there is not to-day 
 enough profit in window glass to justify a sale at a less price 
 than they are receiving now. The moment you attempt that, 
 either you would have to quit making window glass or the men would 
 have to have their wages reduced, and they are not getting very 
 large wages now. 
 
 It is only a question of wages, especially with a product that has 
 no latent value, like coal or anything else that is covered up and you 
 do not know the exact amount of it, or like timber. Window glass 
 is a thing you can sit down and make by the side of any place you 
 can discover a well of natural gas. It does not require very much 
 skill, and it does not require very much material. You have a 
 little salt cake, a little limestone, your fuel, and some labor. These 
 men who work in these factories know every inch of it and every item 
 of it and the cost of every item, just as well as the manufacturers 
 do, and they keep tab on that, and they will soon seek to raise the 
 prices prevailing to-day. What are you going to do about it ? You 
 nave to yield or there will be a long strike. Sometimes a strike is 
 beneficial to the producer as well as the laborer in a product that is 
 like this. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand window glass is made out of lime 
 instead of sand ? 
 
 Mr. STONE. I did not say out of lime instead of sand. 
 
788 TABIFP HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I did not understand you. 
 
 Mr. STONE. Of course we put sand in window glass, but lime goes 
 into it too, and salt cake, so called. 
 
 Sand is the principal ingredient, but there is some 60 per cent of it 
 that is simply nired labor. All these other items must be added to 
 that. Then you get the sum total. 
 
 Since 1909 the window-glass companies have not made any money. 
 Why ? They were so overcongested and overproduced with window 
 
 f^.ass that for two or three years after the tariff law known as the 
 ayne tariff went into effect it took three years to eat up the surplus 
 glass in the warehouses. They are making a little money^ now, but not 
 very much very, very little and selling the product which they over- 
 produced some time ago. They will overproduce again and fill up 
 the warehouses, and it will take another two years to use up the sur- 
 plus; and that is the way they have always done and always will dp. 
 If you can reduce the wages at the same time you reduce the tariff in 
 the law, the manufacturers would not be so much concerned, from a 
 cold-blooded viewpoint of the proposition. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I notice that the importations are greater than the 
 domestic productions, so the duty could hardly be said to be excessive 
 in the present law. The importations are more than the domestic 
 productions. 
 
 Mr. STONE. You mean in the second bracket ? 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. That is shown by the statistics submitted to the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Mr. STONE. In a certain bracket, yes. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Cylinder glass and window glass. 
 
 Mr. STONE. But there are seven divisions of the cylinder glass. 
 The first is SI. 38 tariff on a certain value. Of that glass, all of the 
 glass consumed is imported, and we do not make any at all. So it 
 is with the next bracket. Then of all the balance of the brackets 
 there is none imported; it is all made here. 
 
 I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 STATEMENT OF J. M. NEENAN, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL 
 WINDOW GLASS WORKERS. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The next speaker is Mr. J. M. Neenan. We will 
 hear from you, Mr. Neenan. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. To what paragraph are you objecting? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. To paragraph 99. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I desire to state, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of 
 the committee, that the committee in whoso behalf T am making this 
 statement, composed of W. R. Keagle, Herbert Thomas, and Frank 
 J. Walker, members of the executive board of the National Window 
 Glass Workers, represent the skilled workmen of this country who 
 arc emplo3 r ed in the production of window ^lass, and that our object 
 in appearing before the House Ways and Means Committee is to 
 present a plain statement of facts concerning the window glass 
 industry, from the workers' viewpoint, and by so doing to convince 
 you that a protective tariff is necessary that without it the working 
 
SCHEDULE B. 789 
 
 PARAGBAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 and manufacturing interests concerned would be at the mercy abso- 
 lutely of foreign competition. 
 
 We take it mat each member of the committee that we are address- 
 ing, irrespective of political affiliations, is desirous of seeing American 
 industries flourish and expand, and that none of you would know- 
 ingly be a party to giving an advantage to a foreign competitor at 
 the expense of American industry. 
 
 When we speak of foreign competition we refer particularly to 
 Belgian manufacturers and workmen, who can produce annually 
 about 5,000,000 boxes each of 50 square feet of window glass, and 
 whose home market consumes but 5 per cent of their product. 
 Because of these conditions the workmen and manufacturers of that 
 country have been forced to adopt methods of production that would 
 be neither desirable nor legitimate in this country. For instance, it 
 is customary to operate factories continuously, no rest being taken 
 on Sunday, 54 hours constituting a week's work for the Belgian 
 blower, while in this country 40 hours constitutes a week's work, 
 the American blower's work week commencing at 1 a. m. Monday 
 and terminating at 12 noon Saturday. It is also customary to 
 employ girls in the Belgian factories, who perform a certain class 
 of unskilled work for which they are paid at the rate of 40 cents per 
 day. The same class of labor in this country is performed by men or 
 boys, who receive from $1.50 to $2 per day. The cost of materials 
 entering into the manufacture and boxing of window glass is also 
 much cheaper in Belgium than in this country, so that before we 
 approach the question of wages paid skilled labor there is a substan- 
 tial advantage existing in favor of the foreign manufacturer. 
 
 We have been able to secure a copy of the wage contract effective 
 in Belgium at the present time and find that wages per box of 50 
 square feet, single strength, are as follows : 
 
 Cents. 
 Blower ................................................................... 11. 2 
 
 First gatherer .............................................................. 7 
 
 Second gatherer ............................................................ 2 
 
 Crane tender .............................................................. 1 
 
 Cutter ................................................................... 5 
 
 Flattener .................................................................. 3. 5 
 
 Total ................................................................ 29. 8 
 
 In this country wages per box of 50 square feet of single strength 
 are as foUows: 
 
 Cents. 
 Blower .................................................................... 26 
 
 Gatherer ......................... .......................................... 20.3 
 
 Flattener ........................................ .......................... 7 
 
 Cutter ..................................................................... 10.3 
 
 Snapper ................................................................... 12 
 
 Total ................................................................ 75.6 
 
 It will be seen from the above that the American manufacturer pays 
 about two and one-half tunes as much for skilled labor as does the 
 Belgian manufacturer, and it should not be lost sight of that this 
 advantage is even greater than it appears because of the extra amount 
 of production secured by reason of factories in Belgium being kept 
 in operation continuously. 
 
790 TAEIPP HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 It will perhaps be thought that the American manufacturer is 
 placed at a disadvantage by being compelled to pay an exorbitant 
 wage, and I wish to explain that the average workman will produce 
 about 100 boxes of single strength window glass per week, each box 
 containing 50 square feet, as nearly as sizes will allow, and that wages 
 will average as follows: 
 
 Blower $26.00 
 
 Gatherer 20.80 
 
 Flattener 28.08 
 
 Cutter 25.87 
 
 It must be borne in mind that the above rate of wages is not 
 effective for a whole year, as it is not possible for the Ameri- 
 can manufacturers to dispose of any of their product abroad 
 in competition with foreign manufacturers who have such dis- 
 tinct advantages in labor and raw material costs. Neither 
 has it been possible for the American window-glass workers to 
 labor continuously at trades that require such heavy drafts on 
 their vitality, not only because of the recognized unhealthfulness of 
 their occupations, but because of the extreme heat of the factories 
 during the summer months. For these reasons as soon as the wants 
 of the home markets are supplied, factories must cease operation. 
 This country consumes about 7,000,000 boxes of window glass annu- 
 ally, and with the present number of factories operating it is possible 
 to produce that amount in 8 months time, so that what seems 
 like a very fair wage at first glance does not seem such a large amount 
 when consideration is given to the fact that the amounts earned in 
 8 months must be distributed over a period of 12 months. I believe, 
 gentlemen of the committee, that if you will investigate thoroughly 
 the status of the window-glass industry in this country you will 
 come to the conclusion that any radical reductions in the present 
 tariff rates will be extremely harmful to all who are dependent for a 
 livelihood on the successful operation of window-glass factories. 
 
 There are at least 10,000 workmen and their families dependent 
 upon this industry, and it is necessary that their interests be given 
 very careful consideration before any action is proposed that will 
 affect their future welfare as would a reduction in the tariff rate, 
 making necessary a decrease in wages. 
 
 For the past three and one-half years the window-glass industry in 
 America has been fairly protected by a tariff rate that has kept the 
 home market free from the ruinous foreign competition which would 
 ensue upon a reduction of the tariff, and we therefore earnestly urge 
 that you report against any reductions of the present rate, knowing 
 as we do that if proper protection is given to the industry upon 
 which we are dependent for pur livelihood, it will be possible for us to 
 maintain wages at a point in keeping with the ideals of American 
 citizenship. 
 
 In conclusion I want to say there seems to be some misunder- 
 standing concerning the ability of the American window-glass workers 
 with regard to making large wages. The fact of the matter is that 
 the average skilled workman receives about $15 per week. When 
 we distribute the amount earned in 8 months over a period of 12, 
 that is not a large wage. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 791 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99^WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 As I have explained, the wants of the home markets can be sup- 
 plied in from seven and one-half to eight months; so that after the 
 requirements of the home market are supplied, we have to stop work. 
 It is not possible for the American manufacturer to get into the 
 foreign market and meet the foreign competition, particularly the 
 Belgian manufacturers. It has not been possible for him to get rid 
 of any of his product outside of the home market. For that reason 
 we feel that this trade of ours is entitled to enough protection to 
 enable us to work the limited time at our disposal; that the Belgian 
 manufacturers should not be allowed to come into this market and 
 interfere with us. 
 
 I believe if the Sunday work and the cheap unskilled labor cost 
 were eliminated in the Belgian industry, the American window-glass 
 worker would be able to compete with the Belgian manufacturer 
 and the Belgian workmen. I do not believe anyone would advocate 
 a plan for any industry which would tend to make it necessary for a 
 skilled workman to be employed on Sunday in this country, and 
 that is what we are protesting against here. We do not want to be 
 forced to meet that sort of competition, and we hope you will have 
 that in mind when you are taking up this schedule. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Do you work for this company here or appear for tbem ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. In answering that question I will say that I am 
 representing the Window Glass Workers' Association, the national 
 window-glass organization of skilled workmen. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. In what capacity? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I am president of the organization. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Do you live in Port Alleghany? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No; I live in Cleveland, Ohio. Our headquarters 
 are at Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You say you attaine'd the present rate of wages through 
 the protection which is afforded ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I believe so. I do not believe it will be possible for 
 us to maintain the present wages if the tariff is reduced to any con- 
 siderable extent. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Yes, exactly; but do not the laborers in the prganiza-_ 
 tion of which you are the president have anything to dt with main- 
 taining the wages ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir; they do. But when it comes to the question 
 of the American manufacturer selling a box of glass in competition 
 with a Belgium manufacturer I say it would be impossible for him to 
 do so under the present conditions. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. How many times have the members of your organiza- 
 tion struck for higher wages ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I believe it has been three years since we have had 
 a strike. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Where was that? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. It affected seven or eight different States Pennsyl- 
 vania, West Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, and Kansas. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What was the cause of that strike ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. We contended at that time for an advance in wages, 
 I believe, of 15 per cent. That was about three years ago, if I 
 remember correctly. 
 
792 TARIFF HEABHTGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 09 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Did you get it ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. We did not. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Was the rate upon these goods the same as it is now ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No; the selling price was lower at that time. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. I am talking about the tariff rate. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. It was before the revision of the present tariff. It 
 must have been about four years ago this winter. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Was the tariff rate increased or lowered? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. The tariff rate at that time afforded the American 
 manufacturer sufficient protection to sell his goods at higher prices, 
 but for some reason or other they could not get the higher prices. 
 Perhaps it was due to overproduction; I do not know. We stopped 
 work in the middle of the winter; a very bad time for us. The mem- 
 bers of our association were dependent, and within 10 weeks we lost 
 our struggle. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You went out for 10 weeks, trying to get an increase of 
 15 per cent. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Have you investigated to see how this tariff rate here 
 compares with the wages paid, the per cent of the wage paid in the 
 production of a given article? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. What do you mean ? 
 
 Mr. JAMES. In other words, is it not true that the tariff rate here is 
 many times higher than the amount of labor it takes to produce an 
 article ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. To a certain extent, perhaps, that is true. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Are you not asking for protection that is many times 
 greater than the labor cost ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I believe that the mistake in this tariff is that it pro- 
 tects, perhaps, a little too much on some sizes of brackets. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Do you not think this schedule protects too much? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No; I do not. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Are you not asking the committee to give a rate of pro- 
 tection that is many times the labor cost of the article ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No ; I do not think we are, except, as I have said, on 
 certain brackets. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Certain what ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. There are some brackets that we should have still 
 greater protection on; for instance, up to 16 by 24 sizes. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Do you think the rate is too high ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No ; I think we should have more protection. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Is it too low ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What is the rate ? 
 
 Mr. XEENAN. One and three-eighths cents. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. And you think that ought to be raised to what ? 
 
 Mr. XEENAN. I think if it was raised to about 2 cents it would give 
 us plenty of protection. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Do you sell any of those goods abroad? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You do not import any? 
 
 Air. NEENAN. No; we could not do that. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 793 
 
 PARAGRAPH 90 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What is the average wage per week to the people em- 
 ployed in this industry ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. The average is about $15 a week; that is pretty 
 close to it. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. About $15 a week? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes; our blowers are to-day making $100 a month, 
 and we will work seven and a half months each year. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Did these companies give you any assurance that 
 after the Payne Act of 1909 they would increase the wages if they 
 could get an increase in the tariff ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Have they led you to understand in any way that 
 you men are going to get an increase in wages if they can keep this 
 present tariff on ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Absolutely not. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How many times have your men struck hi the last 
 10 years for higher wages; say, since 1897? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I could not answer that question. 
 
 Mr. KTTCHIN. Several times ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. There has been quite a lot of trouble. Our own 
 organization had split up and caused trouble 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN (interposing). They never gave you the benefit of a 
 tariff until your organization got together and made them do it by 
 striking ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I think so. There was a tune years ago when the 
 window glass workers made better wages than they are making 
 to-day, and we got the benefit of the tariff rate. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You have made a great many talks to your men, 
 when they are assembled, in regard to wages, have you not ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Have you not always taken the position that it was 
 your organization or union that was giving you the higher wages ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Not altogether. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You laid more stress on that than anything else, did 
 you not? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No; I did not; but I know almost as well as I am 
 standing here before you gentlemen that if the Belgian manufacturer 
 is allowed to put glass down in the New York market that he can 
 make in Belgium for 95 cents a box, we can not meet that competition 
 at all. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. If you thought the manufacturers would give you 
 all the wages that you are entitled to under the protective tariff that 
 they are enjoying, you would not advise the men to strike? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No, sir; I would not. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you thiiuk they have come to a point where they 
 divide up the tariff and give you all that the present tariff will stand ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No. I believe that if this present condition continues 
 WP will be able to secure an advance in wages later on, through the 
 strength of our organization. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You think you can secure it through your union, 
 but they are not going to give it to you themselves ? It would not be 
 accorded you without a strike ? 
 
794 TAEIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I would not make a positive assertion of that kind. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What do you think about that? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I believe that we will have to demonstrate that we 
 are able to get it, and when we do that, they will see that it will not 
 be reasonable for them to undertake to fight us. If they are pro- 
 tected to such an extent that that'can be made up, we will get the 
 wages; but if they are not, we can not get them. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What effect have these bio whig machines had on the 
 blowers, in their wages ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Do you mean the glass blowers? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Yes, glass blowers. I do not mean these tariff blow- 
 ers; I mean glass blowers. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. You mean the people I am representing. We have 
 had to take a reduction in wages, I believe, forced on us through that 
 competition. 
 
 Mr KITCHIN. You have had to take a reduction in wages on account 
 of these machines? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I wouldn't say that 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN (interposing). I understood you to say that. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No; I didn't say that. You must understand that 
 these blowing machines do not eliminate skilled labor. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. The manufacturers always come here and ask for 
 tariff not for themselves, but for you laboring people and I want 
 you people to go in and get your part of it. Those fellows come 
 here claiming to protect you 
 
 Mr. NEENAN (interrupting). I do not believe that; I do not be- 
 lieve it. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You do not believe it? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No, indeed; I do not. I believe that if there is a 
 tariff sufficiently strong on window glass to protect the workingman 
 against foreign labor we can not work for 40 cents a day we will 
 keep our organization intact, and we will make the manufacturer 
 give us our share of it. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You promise to do that, do you ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. These laborers get an average wage of $15 a week? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. The skilled workmen. I believe the average wage 
 of the window-glass worker to-day is $15 a week, when you figure 
 what he makes in seven and a half or eight months on a twelve- 
 months basis. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You think it is $15 a week? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. About 815 a week. For instance, our blowers are 
 making about $100 a month. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. How much does lie make for the tune he does work? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. We are working now, and the blowers are making 
 about $104 a month. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. But taking the 52 weeks in the year it will average 
 about $15 a week? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. About that. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Does that include skilled as well as unskilled labor? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. That includes four different departments concerned 
 in this industry the blowers, gatherers, flatteners, and cutters. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 795 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Skilled as well as unskilled ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. The four departments are skilled trades. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Now, taking the average family man who has a wife 
 and three children five in the family and who gets $15 a week; 
 the cost of living, clothing, housing, etc., considered, what have they 
 left at the end of the year ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. They have nothing left, and we do not want to see 
 them get less. We do not want to be put in the position where we 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD (interrupting) . You say you are representing the 
 glassblowers ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir; the window-glass workers. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Do your employers know that you are here ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I suppose they do. 
 
 Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Have they contributed anything to the ex- 
 pense of your coming ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Absolutely nothing. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. How did you find out about the hearing? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Sir ? 
 
 Mr. JAMES. How did you know that a hearing was in progress here ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. In answer to that question, I would say that I was 
 here last spring in Washington. I have had my mind on this matter 
 for a long time. I communicated with the secretary of Congress- 
 man Campbell, from the Kansas district, who arranged this hearing 
 for me. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Were there any suggestions made to you in any way 
 by the companies protected ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Absolutely none. This matter started in 1893, 
 when the tariff was revised. I was not in the trade at that time; 
 but I remember that about 50 per cent of the production of this 
 country was curtailed and the importations, if I remember correctly, 
 amounted to over 2,000,000 boxes of glass, and the consumption at 
 that time was about 4,000,000. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I see from the table that the tariff on this window 
 glass varies from about 38 per cent to over 115 per cent. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Don't you think if that remains as it is, in these 
 times of the high cost of living, that you can squeeze a little better 
 wage than $15 a week for skilled labor? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. We might do it. I would like to see something 
 done so that we can make all of the glass used in this country. Four 
 hundred thousand boxes of glass come into this country that we 
 ought to make. We can make it just as good as they can make it hi 
 Belgium. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. About how much was the American output of 
 window glass for 1912, if you know? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I should judge something around $13,000,000. I 
 might be at sea on that and I would not like to say positively, because 
 I have not gone into it. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. In 1910 there were thirty-eight millions. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Have you any idea how much we actually imported ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No; I have not. I understand that there has been 
 about 400,000 boxes imported a year, for the last three years. 
 
796 TABIFF HEABLNGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Of all kinds only $827,868 worth, including cylinder 
 and crown glass, came in last year 
 
 Mr. NEENAN (interrupting). I would be glad to have the informa- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you think that much is cutting any ice hi com- 
 petition with $38,000,000 worth? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No; it is not. But that would mean two weeks 
 longer work for the window-glass worker. This year we are working 
 seven and a half months. If we had that production we could work 
 eight months. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I am afraid the manufacturers have made you 
 laboring people, you people who do this work and turn out the manu- 
 factured product, think that because of these immense "boatloads" of 
 glass coming in here and competing with them they can not pay you 
 any more wages. I want to give you some facts so that you can go 
 home and talk to them. With only $827,868 of all kinds coming in 
 here, you fellows are making $38,000,000 worth every year. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. We are not objecting to that. If it does not become 
 any worse, we do not object; naturally we would like to make that. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Then there is not very much competition, is there? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No ; there is not. For the past three and a half years 
 we have had no trouble 
 
 Mr. JAMES (interposing). How many laborers are engaged in your 
 business ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Unskilled ? 
 
 Mr. JAMES. No; altogether in the glass business? 
 
 Mr. NEEXAN. About 10,000 men. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Ten thousand men, and they work seven and a half 
 months a year ? 
 
 Mr. NEEXAN. Yes; but after the factories close down, the un- 
 skilled laborers are set at work repairing tanks and making other 
 necessary repairs. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. At an average wage of $15 a week, and still there is 
 consumed in America $38,051,000 worth of goods? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Are you sure that is just window glass ? 
 
 Mr. JAMES. This is the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, and 
 we take that as authentic. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. That is, all kinds. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Yes; cylinder, crown, and window glass 
 
 Mr. NEENAN (interrupting). What is that? 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Cylinder, crown, and common window glass, unpol- 
 ished. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Cylinder, crown, and common window glass; yes. 
 But I am speaking just about common window glass, the glass that 
 goes in your sashes. Crown glass we do not make at all in this 
 country. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. You do not make it at all ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Then it means all window glass, if you do not make 
 crown glass. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. It is being sold by some one else. It is being im- 
 ported, but it does not afl'ect our industry. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 797 
 
 PARAGRAPH 09 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Could you ascertain for us the total cost of labor in the 
 production of window glass, that we might ascertain whether or not 
 this 46.38 per cent tariff is all for the benefit of the labor, or whether you 
 are getting 10 per cent of it or 20 per cent of it, or just what you are 
 getting ? Could you not get that information for this committee and 
 lay it before us, so that we can act intelligently upon this question 
 as to whether or not labor should be protected and this tariff rate 
 lowered accordingly ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. You mean to submit that later? 
 
 Mr.. JAMES. Yes; submit a brief and give us the information. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I will be very glad to do that. You must under- 
 stand that we have men who are members of our association who 
 own factories, and therefore we are able to get a line on the window- 
 glass industry, I believe, better than any other class of organized 
 workmen in this country. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. But you come here and ask us to maintain a rate of 
 46.38 per cent. You employ men seven and a half months a year who 
 get an average wage of $15 a week, with a total production in this 
 country of thirty-eight million and some odd thousand dollars, and 
 yet you are not able to give us this information as to what per cent 
 labor gets for the production of this, and how much of this tariff 
 rate the manufacturer is pocketing at the expense of the consuming 
 people in America. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I will submit that to you later. I believe there is 
 some mistake. I think they have other kinds of glass confused with 
 window glass. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. This includes cylinder, crown, and common window 
 glass. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. But they say they do not make any crown glass in 
 this country. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. That is all included in the $38,000,000. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. But they do not make any of it in this country and 
 it is not included in that. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. That was your statement, was it? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Then this is window glass 
 
 Mr. NEENAN (interrupting). Is that a statement of the glass made 
 in this country or the glass sold ? 
 
 Mr. JAMES. The production. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I still think there is a mistake somewhere. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You are here as the representative of your 
 organization ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. And you are the representative of the National 
 Window Glass Workers ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You succeeded Mr. Faulkner ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Mr. Faulkner was here before this committee 
 three years ago ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir; he appeared before the committee. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Representing your organization ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
798 TARIFF HEAKINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Therefore, it is not very surprising, as Mr. James's 
 question would seem to indicate, that you happened to know that the 
 Ways and Means Committee were holding hearings on this subject. 
 You regard it as very important to your interests to know when a 
 revision of the tariff is contemplated ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I certainly do. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. The question asked by Mr. Kitchin seemed to 
 imply that the Payne law increased the duty on window glass ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. It did not. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. It did not ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Do you know whether it increased it or not? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. It decreased it, I believe, from 5 to 20 per cent. 
 There was a readjustment of tariff rates. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. One-eighth of 1 cent a pound in each bracket. 
 So that you would have had no ground to demand an increase in 
 wage since the Payne law was passed on the theory that the duty 
 was increased? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Generally speaking, your organization is pretty 
 well satisfied if a reasonable proportion of the profit is paid in wages? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir; we are. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. The members of your organization are practical 
 workers, and, as you say, a number of them own factories or stock ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. They own factories. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. And you know the practical nature of the glass 
 business ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You know how it is conducted in this country as 
 compared with other countries? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. And you know the rate of wages paid? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You know the rate of wages paid to the men who 
 are in daily competition \vith your workmen? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. And you are convinced, as a body, that a sub- 
 stantial reduction, or possibly any reduction, of the present tariff 
 would work you direct damage ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I am convinced of that. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. And that is the reason you are here? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. On behalf of the laborers? 
 
 Mr. NEENAX. On behalf of the window-glass workers. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. And not on behalf of anybody else? 
 
 Mr. XEEXAX. And on behalf of the unskilled men. The unskilled 
 men employed around a window-glass factory receive better wages 
 than the ordinary unskilled man. Hardly a man employed receives any 
 less than from $2 to $2.25 a day, or wages like that. That is not a large 
 wage, rnderstand I am not making any boast about that; but the 
 unskilled laborer of this country does not average that. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 799 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. HAMMOND. The average of $15 a week that you pay is the 
 average for the skilled labor and the unskilled labor? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No; it is for the skilled labor. 
 
 Mr. HAMMOND. Simply for the skilled labor ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HAMMOND. What is the average for unskilled labor ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I could not say. I suppose the unskilled men around 
 the window- glass plant will make $10 a week. 
 
 Mr. HAMMOND. While they are working, or for the year ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. For the year. They lose very little time. As soon 
 as the factory stops making glass, all of the furnaces have to be re- 
 paired and they are employed to do that work. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. In other words, they average that day in and day 
 out, whether they are working or not ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. That is about as near as it can be figured. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Did a representative of your organization appear be- 
 fore this committee in 1909? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes; Mr. A. L. Faulkner. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. He took the same grounds then that you have that 
 if you reduced the tariff it was going hard with the laboring man. 
 Have you read his testimony ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir; I have read Mr. Faulkner's testimony. Mr. 
 Faulkner made a fight to have the tariff raised so as to include the 
 16 by 24 brackets, if I am not mistaken. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Did he not make a fight against any decrease or 
 reduction ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I think he did. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Did he not say, like you say, that if they decreased 
 or reduced the tariff it would be hard on the laboring man? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. But they actually did reduce it from 5 up to 20 per 
 cent? 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. In what case did they reduce it 20 per cent? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. He said from 5 to 20 if to 1J and If to If. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. You are speaking of the tariff ? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Yes. When the tariff act of 1909 reduced the tariff 
 on window glass, did they reduce your wages? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. They did? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Understand that the reduction in wages the tariff 
 did not affect at all. The reduction in the wages wasn't brought 
 about because of the tariff. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. They did not reduce your wages on account of that 
 reduction in the tariff ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you me. in to say that you are getting less now 
 than you got when the Payne-Aldrich Act of 1909 was passed ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Let me explain that. 
 
 At that time there was an artificial condition created in the window- 
 glass industry. There was the formation of some sort of an organ- 
 ization by the manufacturers, the price of window glass advanced, 
 and we secured a very substantial increase. 
 
800 TABIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. After 1909 ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. When the tariff was reduced, your wages were 
 increased for some cause or another ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. For that reason; but then the Government attacked 
 the manufacturers and the prices went just as far the other way. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Are you quite sure that these manufacturers have 
 not fooled you men into the belief that if the tariff is reduced at all, 
 your wages will be reduced ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Absolutely not. They have got to get it either by 
 strike or by being able to convince the manufacturers that they are 
 able to get it somehow. We received a 15 per cent advance just last 
 fall without any strike. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. They ought to give it to you under this tariff, surely. 
 You spoke about some of your working men owning stock hi factories. 
 Do you own any stock in factories ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I do not. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You are head of your organization ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. If the cost of labor, say, was 25 per cent to produce an 
 
 flJT LlClG 
 
 Mr. NEENAN (interrupting). The cost 25 per cent? 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Yes. Suppose the tariff on an article was 50 per cent 
 and the cost 25 per cent. Would you think that was just to the con- 
 sumer or to the laboring man either ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. No. I would think the laboring man ought to get 
 more wages. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. To bring it down to the final analysis you would ask 
 this committee for a tariff that would be equal to the labor cost of the 
 article ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. The labor cost of the article ? 
 
 Mr. JAMES. I mean between this country and abroad ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. That would mean the labor cost between this 
 countrv and Belgium ? 
 
 Mr. JAMES. The difference in the labor cost between this country 
 and abroad. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. We ought to have at least that much, and we ought 
 to have more. I do not consider our wages to-day are what they 
 ought to be. We want to get more wages. Fifteen dollars a week, as 
 you have brought ou>t. is not a proper wage for a working man. I do 
 not think it is. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Suppose the material costs more here than abroad? 
 
 Mr. NEEXAX. It does. 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. Suppose those gentlemen do not provide for the differ- 
 ence in the cost ot materials. Is that going to benefit you? You 
 do not expect the manufacturers are going to pay that out of their 
 own pockets, do you ? 
 
 Mr. NEEXAX. Who do you mean provide it ? The tariff committee ? 
 
 Mr. PAYXE. The tariff committee. I do not mean you. 
 
 Mr. NEEXAX. Why, we know that if the manufacturers are selling 
 something for 90 cents that we can not make them pay us $1 to 
 produce it. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 801 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Of course not. Some of the questions seem to indicate 
 that you could. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You realize this, that if the manufacturer does 
 not make a profit your wages are not going to be increased ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You realize that they are really going to be 
 reduced or that you will lose your job? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes; one thing or the other. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You realize that if a duty is put on this article 
 so low that it will not pay the difference between the cost of produc- 
 tion here and abroad, that your wages will either be decreased or that 
 you will lose your jobs entirely? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. That is the reason you are here; in an effort to 
 prevent the duty being so low that our manufacturers will not be 
 able to compete with those abroad ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. That is it exactly. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What you really want is a tariff so high that it will 
 keep out foreign imports ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I would not say that. The amount of glass that is 
 coming into this country to-day, we can get along on that. If that 
 condition is maintained I do not think the window-glass workers will 
 have any cause of complaint. But as I have stated, I believe it will 
 be better to have that maintained so that work can be done by 
 American workmen. It would be better to do that than to have the 
 glass made in Belgium, if it can be arranged in any way. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Some remark has been made about tne cost of ma- 
 terials, that they may cost more abroad than here. What are the 
 materials that enter into the manufacture of window glass ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Materials that enter into the manufacture of window 
 glass? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Yes; the chief materials. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Lime, salt cake, carbon, and coal not coal, carbon is 
 coal. We call coal carbon. Sand, lime, salt cake, lumber the 
 lumber is for the boxes silica brick for repairing the tanks. I have 
 a note I would like to read. Sand sells for 80 cents a ton in Belgium, 
 and in this country it costs upward of $2 a ton; coal is $3.50 a ton hi 
 Belgium. We have, of course, cheaper coal hi this country. The 
 Belgium manufacturer, in order to reduce the cost as low as he pos- 
 sibly can, compels the Belgium glass workers to double up. For in- 
 stance, what would be a 48-blower tank in this country, with 16 open- 
 ings, would only have 8 openings there, and 2 men would be worked 
 at each one of those places. Lime sells for 97 cents a ton over 
 there. I am not positive what it sells for here. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Lime sells for 90 cents a what ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. A hundred. I should have said a hundred. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you know that lime is cheaper here than any- 
 where else in the world; that they make it cheaper here? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. That may be. I will not have much to say on lime. 
 Salt cake is $7.50 a ton hi Belgium and it is $12 a ton here. Lumber 
 is $17.75 to $20 a thousand feet, I suppose that means. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 51 
 
802 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. We are shipping lumber to Belgium from this country ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And they are getting it cheaper than we are ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I haven't anything to say about that if they are. 
 I know that it is dearer than that here. Tank blocks are $13.50 per 
 ton and in this country they are $30 a ton. Silica brick is $7.90 a 
 ton and in this country it is $30.90 a ton. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. If they have fooled you about the difference in the 
 price of lime, lumber, and coal, they might have fooled you about 
 the difference hi the price of these other ingredients. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. We know what the price of coal is. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. He said coal is cheaper. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. Coal is cheaper here. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Tell us who handed you those figures? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I had two Belgian window-glass workers, who learned 
 their trade in Belgium and who were in correspondence with the 
 president of the Belgian Window Glass Workers' Association, and 
 they got this data for me by writing to him. He secured that data 
 and sent it to these men, and they came into my office a week ago last 
 Saturday and gave me this information. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Suppose you file that letter from the president of 
 that association, if you have it ? 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I would have to get it from the parties that came 
 into my office. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Suppose you file that letter with this committee if 
 you can do it. 
 
 Mr. NEENAN. I will. I also secured a contract that the Belgian 
 window-glass workers are compelled to sign before they can accept 
 a place. I believe I have that with me. That would not be of much 
 interest to you. as it does not enter into the cost; but it shows the 
 conditions under which they are working. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. Are they the only people that are making window 
 glass that are competing with us ? 
 
 Mr. NEEXAX. Practically so. France has a duty. France had to 
 establish a tariil' rate. The English did not establish a tariff rate and 
 they have driven the English manufacturer out of the market, prac- 
 tically speaking. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. You believe Belgium is the country that has exported 
 all of this window-glass goods to this country? 
 
 Mr. NEEXAX'. I would not say that positively. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. You really do not know? 
 
 Mr. NEEXAX. 1 believe the greatest percentage of it is from 
 Belgium. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN*, is that all, gentlemen? 
 
 Mi\ NEENAN*. That is all I have to say. I thank you. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 803 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF H. R. HILTON, ESQ., ON BEHALF OF THE NA- 
 TIONAL WINDOW GLASS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for your 
 guidance in considering the schedule on window glass, paragraph 99, 
 I simply want to give you a few facts from the manufacturers' 
 standpoint: 
 
 Window glass is manufactured to-day in eight States, viz, Penn- 
 sylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, 
 and Louisiana. 
 
 The industry produces about 5,000,000 boxes of single-strength 
 glass and 2,000,000 boxes of double-strength. Total, 7,000,000 boxes. 
 Value, approximately $15,000,000. 
 
 This industry employs 12,000 workmen in the several factories, 72 
 per cent of those in the hand plants being skilled workmen. 
 
 About 60 per cent of the cost of manufacturing a box of window 
 glass is labor and the material used has as large a proportion of labor 
 in its cost. 
 
 The window-glass industry of the United States to-day consumes 
 and furnishes a market in each year for 160,000 tons of sand, 70,000 
 tons of salt cake or soda ash, 60,000 tons of ground limestone, 
 50,000,000 feet of lumber, and 3,200 tons of coal carbon. 
 
 Both coal and natural gas are used as fuel in manufacturing win- 
 dow glass. If all the factories used natural gas, the yearly consump- 
 tion would be 14,000,000,000 cubic feet. If all the factories used coal, 
 then 400,000 tons of coal would be consumed. 
 
 The manufacture of window glass hi the United States by either 
 hand or machine process is impossible without the aid of a protective 
 tariff. To sustain this statement, we submit the following: 
 
 Comparative table of labor cost, 48-blower factory. 
 
 SKILLED LABOR. 
 [50-foot boxes s. s.] 
 
 Belgium. 
 
 
 United States. 
 
 
 Weekly production (54 hours) per shop, 
 140 boxes s. s. 
 
 Cost per 
 box. 
 
 Weekly production (40 hours) per shop, 
 104 boxes s. s. 
 
 Cost per 
 box. 
 
 Blower 
 
 511.20 
 
 Blower 
 
 $26 00 
 
 Gatherer 
 
 7.30 
 
 Gatherer 
 
 20 80 
 
 Second gatherer 
 
 Crane tender 
 
 2.00 
 1.00 
 
 Snapper 
 
 . Cutter 
 
 12.00 
 10 35 
 
 Cutter 
 
 5.00 
 
 ' Flattener 
 
 10 92 
 
 Flattener. 
 
 3.50 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 30.00 
 
 
 80.07 
 
 Relative cost 
 
 37.50 
 
 Relative cost 
 
 100 00 
 
 
 
 
 
804 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Comparative table of labor cost, 48-blower factory Continued. 
 
 UNSKILLED LABOR. 
 
 Belgium. 
 
 United States. 
 
 
 Weekly. 
 
 Total. 
 
 
 Weekly. 
 
 Total. 
 
 1 bookkeeper 
 
 $7.50 
 3.00 
 7.50 
 12.50 
 6.25 
 6.25 
 5.25 
 3.50 
 1.75 
 1.75 
 4.20 
 
 $7.50 
 3.00 
 7.50 
 12.50 
 12.50 
 12.50 
 10.50 
 28.00 
 14.00 
 10.50 
 126.00 
 
 1 bookkeeper 
 
 $18. 75 
 12.50 
 21.00 
 19.50 
 19.50 
 15.00 
 15.00 
 11.50 
 10.50 
 8.00 
 11.00 
 
 $18. 75 
 12.50 
 21.00 
 19.50 
 39.00 
 30.00 
 30.00 
 92.00 
 84.00 
 48.00 
 330.00 
 
 1 stenographer 
 
 1 stenographer 
 
 1 master teaser 
 
 1 master teaser 
 
 1 machinist 
 
 1 machinist. 
 
 2 blacksmiths 
 
 2 blacksmiths 
 
 2 box makers 
 
 2 hnx makers 
 
 2 packers 
 
 2 packers 
 
 8 tear tenders (girls) 
 
 8 fehr tenders 
 
 8 shove boys (girls) 
 
 8 shove boys 
 
 6 roller boys (girls) 
 
 6 roller boys 
 
 30 laborers 
 
 30 laborers 
 
 Relative cost 
 
 
 244.50 
 
 694. 75 
 
 35.18 
 
 100.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Comparative table of cost of material. 
 
 
 Belgium. 
 
 United 
 States. 
 
 Sand, per ton 
 
 $0.80 
 
 $2.00 
 
 
 .97 
 
 2 40 
 
 Salt cake, per ton 
 
 7.50 
 
 12.00 
 
 
 17 75 
 
 21 00 
 
 Coal, per ton . 
 
 3.50 
 
 2. 25-2. 70 
 
 TanK blocks 
 
 13.15 
 
 30.00 
 
 Silica bricks 
 
 7.90 
 
 30.90 
 
 
 
 
 Coal is the only item of cost that is higher in Belgium than in the 
 United States, but the average of all material used is much less in 
 Belgium. 
 
 Of the 5,000,000 boxes of single-strength glass made annually in 
 the United States, consumers call for 50 per cent in the small sizes 
 up to 16 by 24. The poorest glass is usually cut into the first bracket 
 (25 united inches), or all sizes up to 10 by 15, and represent one- 
 fifth of the total production. These sizes always come in excess of 
 the demand both in Belgium and the United States, and the country 
 is always overstocked with them. In consequence, ic is only in rare 
 instances that a manufacturer can sell this product at cost price, 
 notwithstanding the fact that on these small sizes of third single the 
 skilled workman receives not more than S2 to $2.25 per day. 
 
 The Pacific coast consumes about 10 per cent of the glass used in 
 the United States, and yet United States factories can not compete 
 with Belgium in Pacific coast market in these small sizes at the 
 present tariff, as the following table will show: 
 
 BELGIUM. 
 
 1 box 10 by 15 third single at Antwerp (selling price) $0. 75 
 
 Freight to San Francisco as ballast in tramp steamers, 52 pounds, at 35 cents 
 
 per 100 18 
 
 Duty, 1-jj- cents per pound on 52 pounds 72 
 
 1.65 
 
SCHEDULE B. 805 
 
 PARAGBAPH 09 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 UNITED STATES. 
 
 1 box 10 by 15 third single at factory (cost price) $1. 50 
 
 Rail freight to San Francisco, at 90 cents per 100 (70 pounds) 63 
 
 2.13 
 
 This statement does not figure any profit to the American manu- 
 facturer and shows that the American manufacturer can not recover 
 the market for small glass on the Pacific coast from Belgium factories 
 unless protected by a tariff of 2 cents per pound on the first bracket 
 and 2 cents per pound on the second bracket, except by a marked 
 reduction hi cost of labor, and this is scarcely feasible under present 
 conditions and present cost of living. 
 
 Belgium reaches all our Atlantic seaport cities at less freight cost 
 than can any United States factory, and this advantage is more 
 marked in the Gulf ports, which give Belgium a better rate to St. 
 Louis and all points south and west of it than is open to any Penn- 
 sylvania or West Virginia factory. 
 
 Window glass to-day is a cheap product. The window glass in a 
 $1,000 home will cost, about $7.50, or three-fourths of 1 per cent of 
 the total cost. A $1,600 home can be glazed with second double 
 glass for $16, and with third single for $10. The glass in the house per 
 square foot costs less than the lumber. 
 
 The history of window-glass manufacturing during the past six 
 years is strewn with financial wrecks. The average of all the hand 
 factories shows a business without profit. The only way open to 
 reduce further the cost of window glass is by reducing the cost of 
 labor. 
 
 The cost of a box of first bracket third single American glass 
 delivered in Atlantic seaport cities is $1.65. The present selling 
 price in these cities is $1.63 per box. This makes a loss of 2 cents 
 per box to the American manufacturer at eastern ports, and a loss of 
 48 cents per box in meeting Belgium selling prices at Pacific ports. 
 
 On this small glass the manufacturer has nothing to concede 
 because he has no margin, and if a reduction of tariff is made it must 
 follow that either labor must stand a reduction in wages equal to the 
 reduction in tariff or the manufacture of window glass in the United 
 States must cease. 
 
 The competition between American hand and machine factories 
 gives greater assurance of a lower price for window glass to the con- 
 sumer than would be probable with control of the market of the 
 United States absolutely in the hands of as strong a syndicate of 
 window-glass manufacturers as now exists hi Belgium that now 
 controls and fixes the prices for all the open markets in the world. 
 
 We hope your committee will consider the interests of the work- 
 men of whose interests the manufacturers have not been unmindful 
 since they have agreed to share with their skilled employees any 
 advances that may be made in prices, but that you will also consider 
 the interests of a business in which dividends are rare and in which in 
 the past six years the losses have exceeded the profits. 
 
 We ask the privilege of submitting further data at a future time, 
 to be named by the committee. 
 
806 TABHT HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 This statement is submitted on behalf of the committee on tariff 
 for Window Glass Manufacturers' Association, composed of J. S. 
 Walker, secretary; Myron L. Case, O. C. Teague, Frank Bastine, and 
 myself as chairman. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. Mr. Hilton, did I understand you to say that the 
 American production averaged $15,000,000 a year? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes, sir. That estimate is based on the present 
 market price, which is the best price we have had in seven years, with 
 one exception. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. What does that cover? Does that cover anything 
 but common window glass ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Nothing but common window glass. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. It does not include cylinder or crown glass ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding about 
 that. The use of the words "cylinder" and "crown" comes down 
 to us from an old system. I think they used to call all window glass 
 crown glass, because it was made by a different process; and then it 
 has been called cylinder glass. I think these are all one. I do not 
 think there is any such thing as crown glass or cylinder glass as distin- 
 guished from window glass to-day. That is my judgment; I may 
 not know, but I have always put that interpretation upon it. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. The figures that are furnished the committee here 
 show the production of cylinder, crown, and common window glass 
 in 1910 was over $38,000,000. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. That is inevitably an error if it applies to window 
 glass, because that is an impossible figure. If the manufacturers had 
 received half that amount, or $19,000,000 for their product, they would 
 all, or nearly all, have been able to pay some dividend this year or 
 during the past year. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You do not mean to say they have not paid any 
 dividend under the Payne Act, do you ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I do. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Is that on account of the reduction of the tariff 
 under the Payne Act ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. It was on account of competition among ourselves 
 and a lowering of the price among ourselves and in competition 
 between machine and hand plants. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You say the figures of the Department of Commerce 
 and Labor must be wrong ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. It is an impossible figure if it applies to the window- 
 glass production in this country in one year. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. In discussing the possibility of a reduction of the 
 duty on window glass, you mentioned the cost of your materials 
 manufactured. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Are you aware that certain bills have passed the 
 House already, and which are possibly again under consideration, 
 which will reduce the duty upon those materials? For example, 
 one of tho things you mentioned was lumber. Lumber was put 
 upon the free list in the Democratic bill. Soda ash was cut from 
 one-quarter of a cent a pound to one-eighth of a cent; and salt cake, 
 at $1 a ton, has been taken off and put upon the free list. Then there 
 
SCHEDULE B. 807 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 -WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 is the further possibility of duties upon lime and coal being reduced, 
 combined also with the fact that the United States sand is supposed 
 to be the best in the world. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. The cost of nearly all that material is a labor and 
 transportation cost. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. That was the basis of your argument, as I under- 
 stood it, and I only call these matters to your attention. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Of course, if the duty is taken off salt cake there 
 would be a very slight advantage there ; but it would not be a material 
 one in the total cost. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. You advance that as a great impediment in your 
 competing 
 
 Mr. HILTON. No; I simply wanted to point out the difference 
 in price of material between the two countries, the disadvantage we 
 are at regarding all of the items. 
 
 The amount would be very small. The reduction on the one item 
 of salt sake or soda ash would be perhaps $1 a ton. We are paying 
 $12 now; we might get $11. If we got it for $11 it would be a slight 
 advantage, but a reduction of tariff on sand and limestone would not 
 help much at inland points. At present it is practically all a labor 
 and transportation cost. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Those were your own arguments, and what is 
 sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. We are simply showing the difference there is be- 
 tween our total cost and the cost in Belgium, and that on smaller sizes 
 is about 80 cents a box. And I want to show where we may do it. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. We want to lighten some of the burden on you. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. You will lighten it about one-fourth of a cent per 
 box. We get the sand at our door and grind it ourselves. We could 
 not put it on the cars at all and bring it from New York, or any sea- 
 port, for less than $1.50 a ton. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Coal is the important item in the production of 
 window glass? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. The most important of all ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. But we are nearer to the coal mines than to the 
 seaports. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. It is more important than lumber and soda ash and 
 salt cake, the other costs you mentioned ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. It is more important than all combined ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I would not say that. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. They get coal in Belgium 25 and 30 per cent cheaper 
 than you can get it here ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. No; the coal is higher there. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. I mean higher in Belgium than it is here. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. The coal is in your favor ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes; the coal is hi our favor at present. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Does not that more than offset the other advantages 
 that they have over there ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. No; they still have the advantage in material, not- 
 withstanding the advantage we have on coal. 
 
808 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. I understood you to say that the advantage in mate- 
 rial did not amount to much. 
 
 Mr. HELTON. Looking at it from this standpoint, the raw material 
 in a box of glass itself is not more than 20 per cent of the entire cost. 
 You can not figure the percentage of reduction on the whole cost of 
 the box. You can only figure it on the part of it that the material 
 enters into. So that a 5 or 10 per cent reduction on one-fifth of that 
 cost does not make much of a reduction on the total cost of the box. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. In speaking of glass, as to its production, that includes 
 making window glass of all sorts, does it not ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. The Treasury Department says that the production in 
 this country in 1910 was $38,055,297. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. They must have taken a different basis of valuation 
 and of selling price. There is not more than 5 to 8 per cent difference 
 in the selling price of all the factories. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. They say in 1905, under the Dingley tariff, the pro- 
 duction was $33,308,712. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Then there is a different basis of valuation from that 
 which the glass is actually sold at every factory, because we have 
 never approached half that price in any year, on the market we have 
 had. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Has the price of soda ash gone down in the market in 
 the last four years? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I do not use it myself. I use salt cake. There is 
 probably a slight reduction, but not very much. It has held at a 
 very uniform price. I am not myself a user of it, and I am not very 
 familiar with it. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Lumber costs you more now than it did four years ago ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes; this year it is 15 per cent higher than last year. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Soda ash was reduced from three-eighths to one- 
 fourth of a cent and lumber from $2 to $1.25. If they have gone up, 
 I do not see the advantage of reducing them again. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. He says that soda ash has gone down, and the 
 probability is if they do not put lumber on the free list it will soar 
 up to the skies. 
 
 Mr. HULL. Do you think of any other glass which might be included 
 in this Treasury estimate ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. No. There may be something there I do not know 
 about. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You claim the raw material in the manufacture of 
 this glass is a good deal lower in Belgium than in this country? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I do. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. "VVhat per cent of the finished product is represented 
 by the raw material ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. About 20 per cent is raw material. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Twenty per cent is the raw material ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much is labor ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Labor is 60 per cent. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. That includes salary of officers, sales agents, and 
 everything of that kind, bookkeepers, and so forth? 
 
SCHEDULE B. . 809 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. All that ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What are the wages of what are called wage earn- 
 ers not including the clerical force, agents, and salaried officers ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. The lowest wage we pay is $1.75 per day; the average 
 to unskilled labor is $2. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What percentage of this cost of the product is paid 
 to the wage earners ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Close to 60 per cent it will be over 56 per cent. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You say that lime, lumber, and coal are the chief 
 ingredients of this raw material ; that is, the most costly ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you not know we are exporters of lime, and that 
 lime is cheaper here than it is in Belgium. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. We are paying 90 cents a ton at the quarry, 75 cents 
 of this cost being labor. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Where did you get that inf ormation ? It must have 
 been from the gentleman over in Belgium, about whom our young 
 labor-organization man was speaking. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I have it from three or four different sources. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You had identically the same figures. You said 
 the lumber cost you more ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Don't you know as a matter of fact we are export- 
 ing to Belgium every year millions and millions of feet of lumber ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And that we shipped to Belgium last year over 
 $70,000,000 worth of box boards? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Is not that exported from the Northwestern Terri- 
 tory? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. That is where they get it. They have as good a rate 
 to Antwerp as we have to New York, and they get delivery by water, 
 while we have to pay the charges from the docks to the factory. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do they carry it from the seacoast to Belgium ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And then get a cheaper rate than people shipping 
 across the Continent? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. I am sure they have a cheaper rate to Ant- 
 werp than we can get around Cape Horn on a vessel to New York. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. They can carry it from Oregon or Washington or 
 California around the Cape and sell it to Belgium cheaper than you 
 can get the lumber? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Cheaper than we can get the same lumber. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. The same lumber? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. The distance from Puget Sound to Antwerp 
 by water is no greater than to New York. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Where do you get your lumber from ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. We get some of it locally. We are paying $21 a 
 thousand to-day; we paid $17.50 last year. It was cut right in* the 
 vicinity, and there was only a switching charge to pay for its trans- 
 portation. 
 
810 .TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you not know as a matter of fact that the present 
 rate is practically prohibitive; that you practically have no compe- 
 tition at all from foreigners, or from Belgium, on window glass? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. We have competition on first bracket glass, because it 
 is a by-product with them, or a waste product, and they sell it very 
 cheap, sell it as a very cheap product, and we are doing the same. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do not statistics show that of every $100 worth of 
 window glass sold and consumed in this country less than 2 per cent is 
 imported here ? 
 
 Mr. HELTON. Yes, I know it is small. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You sell 98 per cent, and the foreigner sells only 
 2 per cent; that is, out of every $100 you sell $98, and the foreigner, 
 from all over the world, $2. And you do not think this rate is 
 prohibitive ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Let me make this point: The competition with them 
 is practically on the small glass. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What do you call small glass, 15, 14 by 20 inches? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Up to 10 by 15 and 14 by 20 inches. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How many square inches ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Twenty-five united inches. That is the first bracket. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you kaow how much of that came in last year, 
 the amount you actually compete with, or the amount that actually 
 competes with you, of that size ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I only know what the total production is. I do not 
 know the total of that particular bracket. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. How much would you imagine? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Not 1 per cent of what you make. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Very well; but we make more of that than the 
 country will take, and we have to sell it at a loss, anyway. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Oh, yes; you sell it at a loss? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes; we sell it at a loss. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. So the Payne- Aldrich tariff bill compels you to sell 
 your product at a loss ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes; on that one bracket. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I want to know something about this patent ma- 
 chinery that has taken the place of gatherers, snappers, and blowers 
 in the glass business. Can you tell us who owns that machinery 
 what corporation owns those machines ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Of course, I can not tell you that by knowledge of 
 my own. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Tell what you have heard. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I have heard it is a window glass company that owns it. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Just one corporation that owns it? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Air. KITCHIN. And glass makers must use it? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Must use what? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Can buy only from this one corporation these 
 machines ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. No; you are mistaken. We have 10 factories now 
 being changed from hand to machine process, and they are using 
 four different patents; different from the American. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 811 
 
 PABAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Do you not believe that fully one-half of the window 
 glass that is made in this country is made by this patent machinery 
 that is owned by this one corporation? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. About one-half. It will be in that proportion anyway 
 in the future. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And since that, wages have actually been reduced 
 to the laborers ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. The competition between the hand and machine 
 factories has two or three times reduced wages. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. In spite of the high tariff, ranging from 38 to over 
 100 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. You are not one of those manufacturers who be- 
 lieve this tariff is made for the benefit of the laborer, are you ? It is 
 made for the benefit of the industry and manufacturers, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. It is made for all of them. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Are you one of the gentlemen that never gives an 
 employee higher wages until he strikes, although you have this high 
 tariff ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I do not understand your question. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. I say, is your concern one of the companies that 
 never increase wages of employees unless they strike and force you to 
 doit? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. No. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Notwithstanding the fact you have this high pro- 
 hibitive tariff made in the interest of the laboring man ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. We have made three scales with the workingmen in 
 the last three years, and we have twice given them increases. Once 
 it was a decrease because the market condition was so low they had 
 to come down to the cost of the glass, and that year we sold the glass 
 at cost. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. That was a market condition, not brought about by 
 any importations of foreign glass. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. The importations during the last three years have 
 not been a serious problem for us, but they do help to fix the price, 
 because we have to get rid of so much of this small glass that comes 
 in in spite of all we can do. It is so large a proportion of our pro- 
 duction, and we have to sell it so cheap, that it does affect the rest of 
 our operation. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Does your association regulate your price here by 
 the foreign price; that is, find the foreign price and then add to it 
 the tariff, and that makes the American price ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Xo. I never knew what the tariff was until the last 
 two or three months. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. So you do not know anything about the tariff ? 
 
 Mr. HILTOX. No; we did not know anything about it. Prices 
 are fixed by supply and demand. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. You say you have suffered considerably since the 
 Payne Act of 1909 went into effect ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. We have suffered considerably since machines came 
 into competition, and from overproduction. Overproduction has 
 been the cause of nearly all of our losses. We have many plants 
 lying idle. 
 
812 TAEIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PABAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Has the price of window glass decreased or increased 
 since 1909 ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. It has been up and down. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. It is higher now than it was in 1909 ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. In a part of 1910 it was a little higher than it is now. 
 In 1909 it was not quite so high as in 1910, but higher than it was in 
 1911, and not as high as it was prior to 1907. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. 1907 and 1908 were pretty bad years for you, too, 
 were they not ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. That was when the machines came in and we 
 had that- competition. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. The panic of 1907 affected you, which continued 
 over until November, 1910? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes; it had some influence in lessening the demand. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. That had some influence? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes; it lessened the demand and compelled us to 
 carry heavy stocks. 
 
 Air. PAYNE. Since window glass has been manufactured by ma- 
 chinery in this country by what amount have the wages of the 
 gatherers, blowers, and snappers been decreased ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. We have not decreased any this year; but some years 
 since they commenced they have decreased all the way from 25 
 to 40 per cent, I would say, among the snappers and blowers and 
 gatherers. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Have not the wages of the blowers, gatherers, and 
 snappers, since they commenced to decrease, caused by machinery, 
 been reduced 50 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. No, not that much, unless you go away back 10 years 
 or so to make a comparison of wages. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. I said since they had commenced to manufacture the 
 glass by machinery. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. No. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. How much would you say they have been reduced? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. From 25 to 40 per cent. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. From 35 to 40 ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. From 25 to 40. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. The tariff has remained the same all the time, has 
 it not 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. But somebody is getting the benefit of that much 
 protection, and inevitably it is not the wage earner, is it? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Neither the wage earners nor the manufacturers are 
 getting any benefit from that. There is no use made of it whatever. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Then we could take 25 or 30 per cent off? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. There are some sizes it could be reduced on, but the 
 main thing the higher brackets are probably a little too high and the 
 small glass is just a little too low. There is a difference in the cost in 
 wages between Belgium and this country of about 80 cents a box, and 
 we want that covered by protection. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. On this glass that is manufactured by machinery, 
 which has caused a reduction in wages to blowers and gatherers to the 
 extent of 35 to 40 per cent, do you think that the tariff might be 
 reduced upon that character of glass ? 
 
SCHEDULE B. 813 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. It could be reduced on the larger brackets, the 
 brackets above the second one. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. How much would you say it could be reduced ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I have not made any close calculation, but I would 
 suggest you make it 2 cents per pound clear through. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. You heard tne testimony of a gentleman that was 
 before the committee here testifying for the window-glass people, by 
 the name of Neenan ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. He told us that the wages of laborers had not been 
 decreased in the last seven or eight years. He was mistaken about 
 that, was he not ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I do not understand that he said that. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. That is the way I understood him. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. No, I think not; I did not hear him say that. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. He told us that the wages were reduced, I think, 
 about 12.5 per cent and were restored after the passage of the Payne 
 bill. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Well, they were reduced and restored. I know the 
 machine competition was the question that had determined that with 
 the manufacturers. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Of course his testimony is in the record and it will 
 speak for itself. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. It is in the record, but I think you will find he did not 
 make that statement. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Is it not true that those who manufacture this glass 
 by machinery, who own this machinery it is a patent, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Is it not true they practically dictate and control the 
 price of glass ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. When it was so cheap a year or two ago, the year 
 prior to this one, when glass went down so low, some of our hand 
 plants in their financial straits and necessities sold glass below their 
 price, and they came down and met it. They would do the same 
 thing if we made an advance, and would meet that. If the hand 
 plants made another cut, they would make a sacrifice and meet it. 
 The American Glass Co. would always go down and meet the cut. 
 But it was the hand plant that made the cuts first. They were 
 always able to go as low as we did. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. It is true, is it not, that those who control the 
 machines are the masters of the market ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. They control half of the production. They are one 
 individual and of course they have more control than the hand 
 plants have over the market to-day. In fact, we have none what- 
 ever. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. How many factories are embraced in the Associa- 
 tion of Window Glass Manufacturers ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. That was submitted in a list filed by Mr. J. R. John- 
 son yesterday in a statistical statement, so that you will find it all 
 there. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. They are all in there? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes; all listed, every one. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. You are speaking for all ? 
 
814 TAEIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGBAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I am speaking for all hand slants, not the machinery 
 plants, except machine plants that are putting in other patents than 
 the American this year. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Is there not some suspicion there is a window- 
 glass trust? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I do not know of any. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Are they all incorporated? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. The companies are all incorporated individually. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Have they not been under suspicion over here in 
 the departments? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. They were two years ago, when 40 per cent of them 
 organized. They had been cutting prices, and cutting each other 
 for a year or two. The business was demoralized, and practically all 
 gone to pieces, and so 40 per cent of them organized, and sold their 
 glass all through one agency. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. The machine factories you say are not in the 
 National Association? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. All the others are? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What company are you connected with? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I am connected with the Allegany Window Glass 
 Co., of Port Allegany, Pa. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What is your relation to that company? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. What company? 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. The company with which you are connected. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I am secretary, treasurer, and manager. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Do the companies that are embraced in your asso- 
 ciation avoid paying dividends by paying salaries to their officers ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. No. The window-glass industry does not pay any 
 large salaries. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. How much salary do you get? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. I get $2,000 a year, and 1 am the only salaried officer. 
 I am manager, secretary, and treasurer. I think that is about the 
 average they get. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. No skilled workmen are required in making glass by 
 machinery ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Not skilled. There is some skill developed, but they 
 are not an organized body, and they do not call themselves skilled 
 workmen. It is cheap labor. That is the reason we can not compete 
 with them. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You said 56 per cent of your factory cost was 
 labor. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes: it is more than that. When I come to think it 
 over, our office cost is not over 2 per cent, and 58 per cent is common 
 labor around the factory. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. And 20 per cent is your material? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. About 20 per cent overhead charges? 
 
 Air. HILTON. Yes. About 20 percent material and 20 per cent fuel. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. That is the way you figure your cost? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes, sir. The overhead charges include the fuel. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Includes fuel? 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 815 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. So that in round numbers 60 per cent of your 
 cost is the labor ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You have spoken of the disadvantage you were 
 at in comparison with Belgium, on your material ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. That is relatively insignificant, is it not, as com- 
 pared with the disadvantage as to labor? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You would be willing would you not, to have 
 glass put on the free list, if you could reduce your wages to what is 
 paid in Belgium ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You would be willing to do that ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. You would take free trade and pay your labor 
 the same as they do ? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. So your protection practically all goes to labor? 
 
 Mr. HILTON. It all goes to labor. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That is all. 
 
 The witness at a later date filed the following communication with 
 the committee: 
 
 AIXEGANY WINDOW GLASS Co., 
 
 Port Allegany, Pa., January 15, 191S. 
 THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Re Schedule B, paragraph 99. 
 
 The National Window Glass Manufacturers Association through its tariff committee 
 begs to submit the following additional data to that given before your committee at 
 the hearing of January 9. 
 
 In further reply to the questions of Mr. Dalzell and Mr. James, shown on pages 655 
 and 657 of Hearing No. 4, January 9, as to valuation of window-glass production in 
 the United States in 1910 by the United States Treasurer as being $38,055,297, we beg 
 to submit the following evidence to sustain the estimate of the manufacturers' com- 
 mittee as to the value of window-glass production in 1912: 
 
 Year. 
 
 50-foot 
 boxes. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Value 
 per box. 
 
 1899' 
 
 4,341,282 
 
 $10,879,355 
 
 J2.50 
 
 19041 
 
 4.852,315 
 
 11,610,851 
 
 2.39 
 
 19091 
 
 6.921,611 
 
 11,742.959 
 
 1.70 
 
 1912 s 
 
 7,000.000 
 
 15, 000, 000 
 
 2.14 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Figures taken from Thirteenth United States Census, Bulletin on Manufactures, p. 64. 
 * Manufacturers' tariff committee's estimate. 
 
 We also beg to submit a copy of the wage scale made between the manufacturers and 
 skilled workmen for the present blast, or working year, and call your attention specially 
 to the scale itself on first page and to paragraphs 2 and S. showing that the manufacturers 
 have agreed to share with their skilled workmen any advances in prices they may 
 secure. 
 
 The window-glass factories of the United States commenced three years ago manu- 
 facturing a heavy-weight glass, known as 32-ounce, being double the weight of single 
 
816 
 
 TABEFF HEAEINGS. 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 strength and 25 per cent heavier than double strength. As this is still a competitive 
 industry, we protest against any change being made in the tariff on this product. 
 
 Signed in behalf of the tariff committee of the National Window Glass Manufacturers' 
 Association. 
 
 H. R. HILTON, Chairman. 
 
 BRIEF OF SEMON BACHE & CO., RELATIVE TO COMMON 
 
 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 NEW YOEK, January 18, 1913. 
 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS. 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: We request your consideration of the propriety of a substantial reduc- 
 tion in the duties throughout this paragraph. 
 
 The present domestic production of window glass was stated by Mr. J. R. Johnston 
 in his testimony before the committee on January 8 last as about 7,500,000 boxes per 
 year. The boxes referred to contain, approximately, 50 square feet each and weigh, 
 net, about 55 pounds to the box in single thick and 80 pounds to the box in double 
 thick. The 7,500,000 boxes annually produced is the equivalent of about 475,000,000 
 pounds. 
 
 The importations run from 30,000,000 to 35,000,000 pounds annually; that is about 
 *l\ per cent of the domestic production. 
 
 The manufacturers ascribe this relatively small importation, which still existe, as due 
 to insufficient protection in the small sizes. The fact is, however, that the importa- 
 tions consist almost entirely of special varieties of window glass, imported solely on 
 account of their suitability for particular requirements and not on account oflow 
 pnce. In fact, the vast majority of the importations do not compete with the 
 American product at all. 
 
 For instance, there are imported annually about 12,000,000 pounds for the manufac- 
 ture of photographic dry plates, lantern slides, etc. At least 10,000,000 pounds consist 
 of high quality picture glass. These two items alone account for two-thirds of the 
 importation, and in addition there are numerous other imported specialties, such as 
 clear fluted glass, colored window glass, muffled glass for art glass workers, etc. 
 
 In fact, Mr. Johnston's own figures of glass imports, reprinted on page 408 of print 
 No. 3, Tariff Hearings. January 8, 1913. show conclusively the nature of the importa- 
 tion. The average price per box for the period from 1888 to 1912, inclusive, works 
 out as follows: 
 
 $1.96 
 1.89 
 1.66 
 1.61 
 2.11 
 2.29 
 1.96 
 1.94 
 1.95 
 1.80 
 1.80 
 2.29 
 
 1888 
 
 $1.17 
 
 1901 
 
 1899 
 
 1 14 
 
 1902 . . 
 
 1890 
 
 1 19 
 
 1903 
 
 1891 
 
 1 50 
 
 1904 
 
 1892 
 
 1. 39 
 
 1905. . 
 
 1S93 
 
 1. 36 
 
 1906 
 
 1S94 
 
 1.20 
 
 1907 ... 
 
 1895 
 
 1 26 
 
 1908 
 
 189G 
 
 1.20 
 
 1909 
 
 1897 
 
 1.27 
 
 1910 
 
 189S 
 
 1.47 
 
 1911 
 
 1899 
 
 1.62 
 
 1912 
 
 1900... 
 
 1.82 
 
 
 It will be observed that up to 1S9S the importations did actually consist of glass of 
 comparatively low value. Since then, however, there has been a consistent advance 
 in the foreign value of the importations. 
 
 The fact of the matter is that the American manufacturers of window glass are so 
 enormously overprotected that most of the time they don't take advantage of their 
 production, even in tho small si/es, but sell their product at 20 or 30 per cent less than 
 the cost of Belgian glass laid down in New York. The larger sizes, those exceeding 
 16 by 24 inchi-s, are frequently sold for much less than the cost of the Belgian product 
 that is. tho foreicrn cost f. o. b. Antwerp, without duty, and frequently for less than 
 the duty alone on the imported article. In fact, under competitive conditions the 
 price of American window glass never gets anywhere near the importation point and 
 the public doesn't suffer from the operation of the tariff. At intervals, however, the 
 domestic manufacturers get together in a trade agreement or selling agency or some- 
 thing of that sort and the public pays handsomely. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 817 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 In our brief presented to the Ways and Means Committee in 1909, we pointed out that 
 allowing this exceedingly high tariff to stand simply offered a premium for the forma- 
 tion of a combination behind it. Prophecies have seldom been fulfilled more promptly. 
 
 During the early part of 1909, the American window glass manufacturers had been 
 engaged in the formation of a combination, but as the project attracted some attention 
 during the tariff discussion of that year, the scheme was temporarily dropped. The 
 ink was hardly dry on the Payne bill, however, before it was revived and by the end of 
 1909 a selling agency known as the Imperial Window Glass Co. was in full operation. 
 
 This organization comprised some 70 plants, including 15 plants which were leased 
 for the purpose of shutting them down, and there were not more than half a dozen small 
 factories left outside when the combination was formed, so that together with the Amer- 
 ican Window Glass Co., who at that time produced all the glass made by the machine 
 process, amounting to about half the entire production, they controlled the market 
 absolutely. The effect on prices is illustrated in the attached tables Nos. 6 to 12, 
 inclusive, showing the fluctuations in selling prices during the past four years. 
 
 It will be seen that in some cases prices were more than doubled and that the advance 
 averaged all round considerably over 50 per cent. The Imperial Window Glass Co. 
 was merely a selling agency, operating principally on a commission basis, and most 
 of this enormous increase in price went direct to the manufacturers, whose product 
 was sold through the Imperial. Roughly speaking, the additional profit during 1910, 
 including the profits of the Imperial Co. itself, were in the neighborhood of about 
 $6,000,000. 
 
 The Imperial Co. did not last 'long. The profits of the business were so great that 
 old plants that had been shut down for years were renovated and manufacturing 
 recommenced, so that by the fall of 1910 there were 14 independent factories in opera- 
 tion and 5 new ones in process of construction, and as glass had been produced at an 
 unprecedented rate during the first half of 1910 owing to the stimulus of high prices, 
 the overproduction, together with outside competition, finally broke the market late 
 in the fall of 1910. 
 
 During its brief existence, however, the combination had, as stated above, cost the 
 country something like $6,000,000, which was a pretty good price to pay as a direct 
 result of the operation of the Payne tariff. 
 
 From the late fall of 1910 until the summer of 1912, competitive conditions existed 
 in the window-glass business. Last summer, however, the Imperial project was 
 practically revived by the formation of the Johnston Brokerage Co., Mr. J. R. Johnston, 
 the president of this concern, who appeared before your committee on January 8, 
 having been the secretary of the Imperial Co. The Johnston Brokerage Co. handles 
 the product of most of the factories that were formerly affiliated with the Imperial 
 concern. The effect of this last combination is shown in Tables Nos. 11 and 12 
 attached. For a graphic demonstration of the violence of the fluctuations in price due 
 entirely to the presence or absence of competitive conditions, and impossible except 
 under the existing tariff, we show hereunder comparative prices of four popular sizes 
 at different periods: 
 
 Net prices per box. 
 
 
 A single 
 (16 by 20 
 inches). 
 
 g 
 
 B single 
 (28 by 34 
 inches). 
 
 B double 
 (16 by 24 
 inches). 
 
 A double 
 (30 by 36 
 inches). 
 
 April, 1909, open market 
 
 $1 35 
 
 11 52 
 
 $1 67 
 
 $2 31 
 
 January, 1910, Imperial Window Glass Co. formed. 
 
 1 92 
 
 2 23 
 
 2 79 
 
 3 78 
 
 July, 1910, Imperial Window Glass Co. maximum 
 
 1 92 
 
 2 64 
 
 3 24 
 
 4.39 
 
 January, 1911, Imperial Window Glass Co. dissolved 
 
 1.69 
 
 1 85 
 
 2 17 
 
 2 94 
 
 October, 1911, open market 
 
 1 21 
 
 1 35 
 
 1 49 
 
 2 14 
 
 September, 1912, Johnston Co 
 
 1 80 
 
 2 02 
 
 2 17 
 
 2 94 
 
 January, 1913, Progress Johnston Co 
 
 1 95 
 
 2 33 
 
 2 71 
 
 3 72 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cost of Belgian glass in same sizes f. o. b. New York at average 
 price 
 
 2 26 
 
 3 31 
 
 2 99 
 
 5 37 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Duty on imported glass 
 
 97 
 
 1 69 
 
 1 50 
 
 2 60 
 
 Freight l on imported glass 
 
 14 
 
 14 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 Glass at 74- per cent 
 
 1 15 
 
 1 48 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 2 57 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 And insurance. 
 
 78959 VOL 113- 
 
818 TABEFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 It will be observed that under competitive conditions it would have been impos- 
 sible on the one hand to import ordinary Belgian window glass for glazing purposes, 
 even if it could have been brought in free of duty, as the foreign cost of the Belgian 
 glass was in many cases higher than that of the domestic factories here, while, on the 
 other hand, if the Belgian glass had been given away, it still could not have been 
 imported, as the duty was higher than the cost of the American glass. 
 
 In justice to the American manufacturers, we are free to say that a combination of 
 some sort appears to be the only alternative to ruinous cut-throat competition, and 
 we don't think any consumer of glass should object to a reasonable combination to 
 steady the market, but the combination should not be allowed the benefit of the 
 present excessive protection. The public should also be protected by at least the 
 possibility of foreign competition. 
 
 We are unable to figure out the basis for the comparative labor cost given by Mr. 
 Neenan and Mr. Hilton. In fact, we don't see how a really exact comparison could 
 be made. The American window glass blowers' wages are determined by the sizes 
 into which the glass he blows is eventually cut, whereas the Belgian blower is paid 
 by a piece-rate system. The same statement applies to gatherers, flatteners, cut- 
 ters, etc. 
 
 It is sufficient to say regarding this labor matter that up to 10 years ago or so, there 
 was steady immigration of window glass workers from Belgium, a large proportion 
 of the workmen in the trade to-day being of Belgian origin. This immigration has 
 practically ceased, which is sufficient demonstration that conditions in the trade 
 here are no longer attractive as compared with conditions in Belgium. 
 
 In fact, both Mr. Neenan's and Mr. Hilton's testimony show conclusively that the 
 tariff has absolutely nothing to do with the prosperity of the American window-glass 
 worker, as under the Dingley and Payne tariffs wages have been reduced 40 per cent 
 or more in spite of the enormous protection. 
 
 Mr. Hilton in suggesting a flat rate of 2 cents per pound (see print No. 4, tariff hear- 
 ings, Jan. 9, p. 662), practically admits the propriety of a reduction running from 20 
 to 50 per cent in all the larger sizes, those above 16 by 24. He insists, however, that 
 he suffers from Belgian competition in the small sizes. 
 
 We think that a glance at the attached tables on pages 6 and 10, showing that the 
 American manufacturers have sold this small glass frequently at only 20 or 30 cents 
 per box higher than the duty on the imported article will disprove this conclusively. 
 The American manufacturers may have been selling these small sizes too cheap, but 
 the tariff had nothing whatever to do with it. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 SEMON, BACHE & Co., 
 
 F. J. GOERTNER, Sales Manager. 
 
 [National Glass Budget, Pittsburgh, Saturday, Apr. 30, 1910.] 
 
 A DEMURRER IN IMPERIAL CASE WILL DELAY TRIAL AT LEAST SIX MONTHS POSSIBLY 
 A YEAR OR MORE SUIT NO LONGER A MENACE TO SPRING AND SUMMER MARKET 
 INDICTMENT MAY BE QUASHED PRICES ADVANCED. 
 
 As a result of an agreement arrived at between counsel for the Government and the 
 Imperial Window Glass Co. early this week the Imperial's attorneys will file a demur- 
 rer in the case on the 9th of May. The court will then set a day for argument. If the 
 demurrer is sustained it will then be optional with the United States district attorney 
 whether the case will go to the circuit court of appeals for review or be quashed. If 
 overruled the Imperial has no alternative but to go to trial, in which event the case 
 can not come up before the October term of court, and it may possibly be carried over 
 to the May term in 1911. In the event of the case going to trial before the local court 
 and an adverse decision rendered, the Imperial Co. will still have the privilege of 
 appealing it to the circuit court of appeals for review. United States District Attorney 
 Jordan, on Wednesday morning, said: 
 
 "This is the first case of this character to come before the local United States court 
 and it is desired on the part of the court to ascertain beforehand whether we are moving 
 in the right direction. Argument will determine whether the case will go to trial or 
 be quashed." 
 
 It will thus be seen that the executive officers of the Imperial Co. are to be given an 
 opportunity to state their case before the court, and, in view of the voluminous evi- 
 dence that they will be able to submit sustaining their position, they feel confident 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 819 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 that they will be able to maintain their position, through demonstrating to the court 
 that they are neither criminals, nor criminally inclined, but on the other hand have 
 resorted to the only available means looking to the safe-guarding of investments and 
 the paving of the way for living wages for the men who toil in front of window-glass 
 furnace fires. In any event this action removes a menace from the business for many 
 months ahead, putting the case entirely out of the way of spring and summer business. 
 
 [National Glass Budget, Pittsburgh, Nov. 19, 1910.] 
 
 THE WINDOW-GLASS SITUATION GOVERNMENT CASE ENDED BY IMPOSITION OF FINES 
 IMPERIAL NOW IN COURSE OF LIQUIDATION OUTPUT CURTAILED OWING TO WORKERS* 
 STRONG STAND IN SUPPORT OF WAGE AGREEMENT. 
 
 The Government action against the Imperial Window Glass Co., which was listed 
 for trial on Monday of this week, is at end, the defendants having appeared in court 
 on Friday afternoon of last week and pleaded "nolo contendere" before Judge James 
 S. Young to the counts that had been entered against them under the antitrust laws. 
 This was followed by the imposition of a fine of $2,500 against the company, and 
 fines of $500 each against its 15 directors, in both cases the cost having been assessed 
 against the defendants. 
 
 ******* 
 
 The sudden termination of this proceeding, Mr. Wickersham of the Department 
 of Justice states, was due to overtures made by representatives of the defendant com- 
 pany the day prior to the termination of the court action, while on the other hand, 
 representatives of the Imperial insist that their action was due to the fact that internal 
 dissentions and outside competition had nullified the usefulness of the organization. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 5, 1913. 
 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: Further to our communication of January 18, we beg to inform the 
 committee that although the statement is frequently made that American window 
 glass can not be exported, it is, as a matter of fact, at this very time being offered in 
 Canada at prices considerably below those ruling in the American market. We have 
 recently seen offers of large quantities to Canadian buyers at discounts of 90 and 40 
 per cent and 90 and 50 per cent from the list, whereas the discounts for the United 
 States market are 90 and 17^ per cent to 90 and Tl\ per cent, plus packing. 
 
 Using for an illustration the same four sizes as we used in our statement of January 
 18, the comparative prices are as follows: 
 
 
 Price to 
 United 
 States 
 buyer. 
 
 Price to 
 Canadian 
 buyer. 
 
 United 
 States 
 duty on 
 Belgian 
 glass. 
 
 16 by 20, A single 
 
 $1.95 
 
 $1.33 
 
 $0.97 
 
 28 by 34, B single 
 
 2.33 
 
 1.73 
 
 1.69 
 
 16 by 24, B double .". 
 
 2.71 
 
 1.55 
 
 1.50 
 
 30 by 36, A double 
 
 3.72 
 
 1.90 
 
 2.60 
 
 
 
 
 
 It will be observed that double-thick glass is being offered to the Canadian buyer 
 for less than the American duty on the imported glass, and that even in the single-thick 
 glass the selling price for Canada is only a trifle higher than the American duty. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 SEMON BACHE & Co., 
 
 F. J. GOERTNER, Sales Manager. 
 
820 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 99 WINDOW GLASS. 
 PRICES OF ORDINARY WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 DANBTJRY, CONN., January 10, 191S. 
 Hon. OSCAE W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: As a retail dealer in ordinary window glass, I wish to place some facts 
 of the business before your committee while the hearing on glass schedule is going on. 
 
 The average run of price on glass per box of 50 square feet, factory shipment, has 
 been from $1.20 to $1.40 per box for sizes in first bracket, i. e., of 150 united inches or 
 less. One year ago price was suddenly lowered to 99J cents a box on above sizes. 
 Upon making inquiry learned what purported to be the following facts: That the 
 American Window Glass Co. had perfected a machine which displaced about 48 of 
 every 50 glass blowers in the business; that they were cutting prices to get control of 
 'the business into their own hands, as price has been subsequently advanced again. 
 It is, I believe, reasonably safe to assume that they carried their point. 
 
 Now, then, how much tariff do manufacturers need that can voluntarily sell glass 
 (and good glass, too) at $1 per box? 
 
 Respectfully, yours, D. F. STEVENS. 
 
 ["Extract from Daily Consular and Trade Reports.] 
 
 PROSPERITY IN BELGIAN GLASS INDUSTRY. 
 
 [From Consul General Ethelbert Watts, Brussels.] 
 
 Belgian manufacturers of window glass are enjoying a period of unusual prosperity 
 because of a close understanding among themselves on prices for the various export 
 markets high where conditions permit it, low where there is competition and where 
 it is a matter of dumping surplus production. Although the wages of blowers have 
 been recently slightly advanced, they remain reasonable. It seems that the work- 
 men are moderate in their demands for better wages, in order not to encourage the 
 introduction into Belgium of the American window glass blowing machine. 
 
 Belgium plate-glass manufacturers are very prosperous, paying yearly dividends as 
 high as 30 per cent. Because of the cheap labor the plate-glass industry in Belgium 
 maintains on all foreign markets its power as price regulator. The advantage of a 
 lo\v cost of production (11 cents, United States currency, per square foot of polished 
 plate glass) is assisted by the successful operation of the International Syndicate of 
 Plate Glass Manufacturers, which regulates selling prices according to conditions 
 existing in each foreign market. These arbitrary selling prices are consequently of 
 great variety. For example, the same glass and the same sizes, quality for silvering, 
 are sold (off the gross prices of the same list) at 20 per cent discount for England and 
 30 per cent discount for the United States, and quality for window at 30 per cent 
 and 2i per cent for England, against a discount of 45 per cent and more for the United 
 States". 
 
 The reason for this discrimination is said to be the fact that the American plate- 
 glass manufacturers are not associated with the European syndicate, and consequently 
 the syndicate establishes a low range of prices for the American market on the kinds 
 and sizes of glass which, through overproduction, must be disposed of by the Ameri- 
 can manufacturers regardless of cost. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 100. 
 
 Cylinder and crown glass, polished, not exceeding three hundred and 
 eighty-four square incites, four cents per square foot; above that, and not 
 exceding seven hundred and twenty square inches, six cents per square foot; 
 above that, and not exceeding one thousand four hundred and forty square 
 inches, twelve cents per square foot; above that, fifteen cents per square foot. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 821 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 101. 
 
 Fluted, rolled, ribbed, or rough plate glass, or the same, containing a wire 
 netting within itself, not including crown, cylinder, or common window 
 glass, not exceeding three hundred and eighty-four square inches, three- 
 fourths of one cent per square foot; above that, and not exceeding seven 
 hundred and twenty square inches, one and one-fourth cents per square foot; 
 all above that, one and three-fourths cents per square foot; and all fluted, 
 rolled, ribbed, or rough plate glass, weighing over one hundred pounds per 
 one hundred square feet, shall pay an additional duty on the excess at the 
 same rates herein imposed: Provided, That all of the above plate glass, when 
 ground, smoothed, or otherwise obscured, shall be subject to the same rate 
 of duty as polished plate glass unsilvered. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 102. 
 
 Cast polished plate glass, finished or unfinished and unsilvered, not 
 exceeding three hundred and eighty-four square inches, ten cents per square 
 foot; above that, and not exceeding seven hundred and twenty square inches, 
 twelve and one-half cents per square foot ; all above that, twenty-two and one- 
 half cents per square foot. 
 
 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOSEPH S. AUEKBACH, OF NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 102. 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 before stating my position in detail as to the paragraph now under 
 consideration, I ask the indulgence of the committee in making cer- 
 tain suggestions applicable to it and to the other interests for which 
 I shall appear in these hearings, and applicable in a measure to 
 industry generally to be affected by your proposed revision. By 
 such a plan, I am confident, I shall be enabled to avoid repetition 
 and so economize your time. 
 
 My view is that your decision to hold these hearings indicates that 
 you invite such suggestions because your minds are not fully made 
 up as to the bills you are to report; that they are not necessarily to 
 be in substance mere duplicates of the tariff bills of last year, but that 
 with open minds you are seeking new and additional information to 
 enable you to give the most satisfactory answer to the many per- 
 plexing questions before you. 
 
 On behalf of these several interests I represent, I wish at the outset 
 to tender you the loyal cooperation of their management and counsel 
 in the task before you, which is to have such a momentous effect upon 
 the public welfare. For with all our selfish interests, which we do 
 not minimize, we have a correspondingly great stake in the prosperity 
 of industry that is halting upon your action; and if we were unduly 
 favored at the expense of other industries, it would not in the end be 
 to our permanent advantage. When general prosperity is lacking, 
 
 I a particular industry is almost certain to be injuriously affected, for 
 commercial depression is hopelessly contagious and we in the end 
 shall not be immune. Then, too, if we should succeed in securing 
 for ourselves inequalities, this will doubtless be true as to others, and 
 again we shall have a tariff with which the public will not be content, 
 and further agitation will ensue; and the manufacturer knows full 
 well that the course of treatment best for him in this case is rest from 
 such disturbing agitation. 
 
822 TABIFF HEAEINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 Lest my assuming to speak to you on the subject be deemed 
 presumptuous, let what has been said so often be repeated now that 
 the best tariff legislation can not be said to be truly scientific, but 
 merely the adoption of some practical plan to raise revenue for 
 Government needs without injustice, inequality, or discrimination. 
 And anyone possessing only general information and intelligence as 
 to governmental affairs may, perhaps, make some helpful contribution 
 to your deliberations; though I wish it to be understood that my 
 contribution is not the discovery of something novel by way of a 
 cure-all nostrum. 
 
 Observation teaches that no arbitrary rule will serve your purpose 
 of raising income. If there is a 10 per cent duty on a given article, 
 its reduction to 5 per cent or its increase to 20 per cent would not 
 necessarily mean in the one case, one-half, or in the other twice the 
 income. The reduced tax might produce jess or more revenue than 
 the original tax; and the increased tax might have a similar result. 
 You feel your way rather than see your way to a result; only you 
 have a great experience as your guide, and what might be a mere 
 guess on the part of others becomes a matter of reasonable proba- 
 bility when, with your familiarity concerning the subject, you 
 estimate the outcome of your revision. 
 
 It is true that you are to have before you the duty of living up to 
 the pledges of the Democratic Party to the people; but as a Democrat 
 by principle and practice, I have no fear of them rightly interpreted. 
 We are not, however, to confuse ourselves as to what were those 
 pledges even though prepared to accept them at their face value. 
 While there was a demand in the Democratic platform for the imme- 
 diate revision of tariff duties, it was accompanied by the declaration 
 that 
 
 We recognize that our system of tariff taxation is intimately connected with the 
 business of the country; and we favor the ultimate attainment of the principles we 
 advocate by legislation that will not injure or destroy legitimate industry. 
 
 President Elect Wilson, throughout the campaign, voiced this view; 
 and again and again he gave his assurance to the American people 
 that in the reform of the tariff no legitimate business industry need 
 fear unjust treatment. 
 
 The tariff, being a necessary governmental agency to produce 
 reasonable revenue for its just needs, the problem is to produce that 
 revenue in such a way that neither the wage earner nor the producer 
 nor the consumer will be unnecessarily injuriously affected, while if 
 possible the interests of all these classes may be promoted. The way 
 of the tariff 1 should be a toll road and not a highway where highway- 
 men may ply their trade. 
 
 Xaturally you must approach }~our task with solicitude as to the 
 result; for you have in your keeping not only the future of political 
 parties but the welfare of the whole nation. Some injury to one or 
 more of these classes will probably result from whatever you do, 
 but unquestionably you will have cause to congratulate yourselves if 
 the specific injury be reduced to a minimum and the general benefit 
 made a maximum. You have in all this proposed legislation the 
 administration of a great trust, and you will very inadequately dis- 
 charge your duty unless you know the rights as well as the needs of 
 
SCHEDULE B. 823 
 
 PARAGBAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 your cestuis que trustent. In no other way can your stewardship be 
 successful, however much you may receive a temporary popular 
 applause, which, though not to be wholly disregarded, you understand 
 full well is not always the fixed index of approval, but often the 
 weather vane, and you must, if necessary, be content patiently and 
 courageously to await the final verdict made up when wnat you have 
 accomplished has been weighed in the balance and not found wanting. 
 
 What then, rightly interpreted, was that tariff reform pledge, made 
 by the Democratic Party to the American people ? Whatever it was, 
 it was clearly not some things, and when these are eliminated from 
 consideration we can the better see what that pledge involved. 
 
 It was not free trade or any approach to it, and if it had been so 
 understood the Democratic Party would have gone down to certain 
 defeat. It was not discrimination against the manufacturer or the 
 producer who makes prosperity possible, or again the Democratic 
 Party would have gone down to certain defeat. Nor was that pledge 
 an undertaking to raise less money for the reasonable needs of govern- 
 ment, for any such proposal, witn the increasing necessity for legiti- 
 mate and enlarged national expenditures, would have been unintelli- 
 gent or insincere. Nor was it, as some insist, an arbitrary scheme of 
 taxation to get the largest return possible from tariff duties without 
 regard to individual or collective hardship. The pledge was none of 
 these things; but, stating it colloquially, it was that the Democratic 
 Party would so readjust the tariff that, in producing the same or even 
 more revenue, existing inequalities would as far as possible be done 
 away with and the burdens of the high cost of living to the general 
 consumer be lightened. 
 
 In all this, however, the solemn promise was that there would be 
 taken into account and allowed for the difference in cost of produc- 
 tion here and abroad. The chairman of this committee again and 
 again has expressed this view forcibly, eloquently, and persuasively, 
 too, as the result of the last election makes abundantly clear. 
 
 Accepting the view, therefore, that you all are at work, either as 
 leaders or in the ranks, to reduce the high cost of living generally, how 
 are you going to go about it always remembering that this so-called 
 high cost of living is often a misnomer for the cost of high living. Let 
 us not overlook that fact. 
 
 Clearly, one of the ways is first and foremost the straight and direct 
 way to reduce the cost of things having directly and immediately 
 to olo with living the things we eat, and then the things we wear, and 
 then the things we use, without, however, producing a result approach- 
 ing general industrial disturbance. We have all heard from the 
 President elect about that gibbet of shame, high as Haman's, upon 
 which he proposes to hang the panic-breeder; and of course none of 
 you long for the gibbet or even the public stocks. You wish, on the 
 contrary, to give an account of your stewardship that will be reflected 
 in a defensible prosperity not to the few and favored but to the 
 many; and, as the chairman of this committee once said on a notable 
 occasion, to avoid a result so often characteristic of our legislation, 
 both State and National, with its artificial ups and downs, which are 
 no better for the body politic than was, of old, the prevailing disease 
 of chills and fever good for the human body. The normal condition 
 
824 TAKEFP HEABINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 is as essential for the manufacturer in his business as it is for the 
 individual in his life. 
 
 In connection "with the reduction of the tariff on the things we eat 
 and wear, and the things we use in our home life or in our ousiness, 
 this tariff must produce a revenue which must at least be as large as 
 it is now; for the crying need of important undertakings such as 
 Federal courthouses, the dredging of our great waterways and har- 
 bors to prepare for the new era of commercial activitv to result from 
 the opening of the Panama Canal, modern post-office buildings to 
 handle the mails, and the parcel post departure (I have not time even 
 to call the roll of all the needs) makes a greater rather than a smaller 
 revenue almost imperative unless we are prepared to suffer in national 
 pride and national advancement. 
 
 Under all these conditions the duty of the Democratic Party is clear 
 enough. Having pledged itself to a revision of the tariff which shall 
 be designed for revenue only, and having asserted, till it has become 
 an inseparable part of that pledge, that, in readjusting the tariff the 
 difference in cost between production here and abroad is to be taken 
 into account and equalized, the primary consideration is, how is this 
 difference in cost to be arrived at. 
 
 Many rush to the conclusion that it is to be confined to the mere 
 difference in the wages of the laborer here and abroad. But clearly 
 this is altogether too limited and narrow a view of the subject. For 
 has not the cost of the installation of the manufacturing plant here 
 and abroad of necessity much to do with the relative prices of pro- 
 duction ? If the plant here is built by the American workman who 
 demands and commands a higher wage than the foreign workman; if 
 the price of material used here in construction is higher and therefore 
 the expenditure for the plant more than for a plant of similar capacity 
 abroad; if maintenance and depreciation are higher these elements, 
 too, are to be given due weight in ascertaining the cost of production. 
 Yet these are not all, for there is the productivity of the workmen 
 employed in the industry; and if a workman with a given wage abroad 
 produces more than the workman here proper weight being given 
 to the question of the respective quality of the foreign and domestic 
 product that element, too, is not to be ignored. If the reply be 
 that your time is too limited to pursue the subject into such rami- 
 fications and details, then it may well be said that you may be doing 
 a great injury as well as taking a leap in the dark; and I, for one, am 
 not prepared to believe that you are disposed to commit the wrong of 
 the injury or take the risk 01 the leap. 
 
 You are not to be judges and yet insist that you have not time 
 to hear testimony and independently examine and weigh facts. 
 That would be a course not to be tolerated in a free country, and 
 tyranny has never assumed a more forbidding form than when 
 guilty of like practices. It would indeed be execution before judg- 
 ment and you do not need to be reminded by me that execution 
 before judgment is a poor form of justice. 
 
 You may do an injury after all painstaking effort and research; 
 but then you will not run the risk of having the accusation success- 
 fully brought against you that this result was traceable directly to 
 neglect or indifference. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 825 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 Then, too, what an ideal prospect opens up before you. You have 
 no precedents to control you, as the judges of our courts so often 
 have, compelling them at times, in obedience to those precedents, 
 to bring about individual hardship. There is no rule of stare decisis 
 to hamper you, and being thus free to decide each case on its particu- 
 lar merits, you are enabled to go a long way in the effort to avoid 
 injustice. 
 
 Perhaps, however, it may be error to conclude that in every case 
 you must necessarily delve into all these indefinable and rather 
 intricate methods of determining cost; and it may be that at least 
 as to more than one of the industries which I represent, and I think 
 this is true of many other interests to be before you there is a short 
 cut to results, not necessarily controlling, but influential and helpful 
 for your deliberations. 
 
 However difficult of ascertainment this matter of cost may often 
 be and the person is hopelessly inexperienced who asserts the 
 contrary one way of approaching it is to inquire, what in the par- 
 ticular case have been the results of manufacture and trade under 
 the existing tariff ? Is the capital stock artificial or does it represent 
 actual investment? Is the management efficient and economical, 
 or the reverse ? And I wish to say with all the emphasis which can 
 be put into language that the earnings of an industry having this 
 efficient management and this low capital stock contrasted with 
 the result of similar manufacture abroad are factors you can not fail 
 to take into your calculations as a labor-saving device and a fairly 
 safe guide in helping you to arrive at cost. 
 
 You are bound, too, to contrast the industrial organization thus 
 administered and capitalized, and yet paying meagre returns upon 
 the capital invested, with the other home organization having excess- 
 ive capital and ineffectively administered, and also with the agri- 
 cultural industry so conducted as to reflect indifference to the gospel 
 of soil efficiency and productivity preached by every national agri- 
 cultural experimental station. If an industry is infant only in 
 efficiency but adult in its date of registration, or if the farmer has 
 no anxiety to make two blades of grass grow where one grows now, 
 you certainly can not justly ignore these facts. While adjusting 
 the tariff primarily so as to produce income, as an immediate accom- 
 paniment of that idea, you will enable the slothful manufacturer 
 and farmer to enjoy prosperity only if they indicate a willingness 
 to earn and enjoy it by industry and intelligence and the employ- 
 ment of the most modern-day methods hi their labors. Any other 
 course would be intolerable. 
 
 In no safe way can the tariff be regarded as absolute rather than 
 relative; and if you say, well, each case in its turn must be taken 
 up, my comment is yes, provided always each case, though con- 
 sidered by itself, be considered also as part of the whole problem. 
 
 Permit me to give you an illustration not without application to 
 this subject. In railroad reorganizations the judicial decree often 
 requires that you ascertain certain auction block values by a dual 
 method. First, each separate piece of property is offered for sale 
 under the so-called unit bid, and then tne property is put up as a 
 whole. Whichever method produces the highest amount whether 
 
826 TARIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 the single bid or the aggregate of the unit bids determines who is the 
 successful purchaser. Applying this principle to the involved sub- 
 ject before you, you are to consider each in considering the whole, 
 even though you legislate by schedules you are not prevented from 
 taking into account the elements which would be controlling in one 
 general bill; and as a matter of good sense and fair play, and in line 
 with what our ex-President has termed the square deal, no schedule 
 should be finally determined upon except it be thus regarded as part 
 of the whole. 
 
 Let me see if I can make another point clear to you as it is to me, 
 concerning allowance for this difference between foreign and domestic 
 cost, for it is of critical and far-reaching importance. 
 
 The counterpart abroad of more than one industry here, as is true 
 of this industry, is controlled in manufacture, output, management 
 and distribution by a dictatorial combination or trust not only toler- 
 ated but favored and legalized by the foreign government. Its 
 unlawful existence here would be enjoined and its promoters indicted 
 and convicted; and under certain circumstances, importations of 
 the output of such a combination might be against the letter as well 
 as the spirit of our antitrust acts. Surely you are not solicitous 
 about contributing to its profits or advantage, though for the moment 
 I am not directing your attention to this aspect of the case, but to 
 the effect of such a combination upon the cost of production. Under 
 this absolute dictation as to price and output only a given number of 
 machines are permitted to operate, the others are sealed up and can 
 be put into operation only by the sanction of the trust. The fac- 
 tories are not run to their full capacity. If under such regulations you 
 superficially figure the cost as it appears to be under this artificial 
 restraint, you do not really arrive at it. Your calculations must 
 take into account what would be the lower and the real cost if the 
 factories were permitted to run naturally and freely and not held in 
 the strangle hold of this trust, and as they would be run if you open 
 the floodgates of a ruinous cutthroat, and unlawful competition upon 
 home manufacture. 
 
 An estimated foreign cost under such conditions is not the cost 
 of manufacture but a manufactured cost; and the often perfunctory 
 consular report ought not to be either the law or the gospel of your 
 tariff revision. 
 
 In all this there is no suggestion that you are to protect the profits 
 of an industry industrial or agricultural. The time has gone by for 
 controversy on this subject, since once and for all this contention has 
 been rejected not only by the Democratic Party but by the American 
 people. Yet we are not to deceive ourselves as to what is involved in 
 this rejection. It does not mean that you are to be responsible for a 
 course of conduct which will, without warrant, injuriously affect those 
 profits, if they be legitimate. To state the case in its offensive 
 aspects, suppose there are two industries producing profits even arti- 
 ficially through the protection of the tariff; it would not be according 
 to the spirit or even the letter of democratic doctrine to discriminate 
 against one and hi favor of the other. Each industry is to be made 
 to bear its burden of new legislation. Suppose you are legislating as 
 3 r ou soon will bo for a free list or, more accurately, a freer list of food 
 stuffs. Are you not always having to reckon, of course, with the 
 
SCHEDULE B. 827 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 problem of raising revenue bound to have some idea of equalizing 
 of the new burdens upon the producer, as well as the new benefits to 
 the consumer? You are not by your revision even to expose one 
 such article to a ruinous competition from abroad, and let the other 
 by reason of what you have done or failed to do, enjoy a full measure 
 01 protection. 
 
 Such a course is not protecting profits but rather avoiding injustice, 
 and I do not hesitate to say that there are instances where, though 
 the tariff be in a sense prohibitory, it ought riot to be disturbed, pro- 
 vided you can secure the necessary revenue elsewhere. Let us for a 
 moment see whether this is not the correct conclusion. The Demo- 
 cratic platform declares that "Articles entering into competition with 
 trust-controlled products and articles of American manufacture which 
 are sold abroad more cheaply than at home should be put upon the 
 free list." Do you intend to disregard this principle, which you may 
 consider good economic, as well as good political doctrine, when 
 applied to the foreign trust-made product ? Clearly not, if you are 
 mindful of home industry and our national dignity; and the correct 
 application of that principle, as its logical corollary, may in some 
 cases result" in a practical exclusion of such foreign product from 
 competition with our own manufacture. 
 
 We have been legislating in this country, civilly and criminally, 
 against trusts and organizations opposed to the public welfare. Is 
 the Government of the United States so much in need of money that 
 it is, in ah 1 cases, anxious to collect at the customhouse revenue from 
 the importation into this country of products which could not lawfully 
 be made here ? Is there not some censorship to be exercised over the 
 articles of such manufacture, and might not some one say without 
 exaggeration that there are instances in which such duties would be 
 in the nature of indefensible receipts ? 
 
 We have rigorous laws as to the offering for sale of unwholesome 
 food products, and would not long tolerate their importation into this 
 country. Yet looking at the tariff as a relative question having to 
 do with our national dignity and national policy and national revenue 
 as well as with the general prosperity of labor and capital there is, 
 under given conditions, no more justification for the importation of 
 articles manufactured by the foreign trusts than there would be for 
 permitting the importation of such unwholesome food products. For 
 one may not be more injurious to the physical body than is the other 
 to the body politic. 
 
 If you are to legislate for free bread and free beef and leave other 
 branches of agricultural products unaffected by your revision, how 
 can that course be justified unless you are driven to it by the necessity 
 of providing revenue; and assuming that revenue to be as satisfac- 
 torily realizable by a reduction of duties generally as to all food prod- 
 ucts, is there any question as to your proper course ? For with equal 
 revenue provided in the two cases, you are benefiting the general 
 public, while at the same time you are not discriminating against the 
 particular producer. What is true of agricultural products is true 
 also of manufacturing products. 
 
 From a narrow, selfish, superficial point of view it might seem to be 
 to the immediate benefit of the manufacturer that as many agricuL 
 
828 TABIFP HEABINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 tural products as possible, irrespective of the comparative equity of 
 such a program, be put upon the free list, so that the necessity of 
 providing for this abandoned revenue enure to the greater protection 
 and advantage of the manufacturer. But again such a procedure, 
 as I have said in another aspect of the case, would ignore the interest 
 of the manufacturer in a common prosperity. And the manufacturers 
 I represent are unalterably opposed to and protest against such an 
 injustice, and urge that a similar equitable principle of justice be 
 applied to them as to the farmers. 
 
 Nor are all these suggestions contrary either to the lately announced 
 platform of the Democratic Party or to its old articles of faith reaching 
 back to the founder of that party, Jefferson himself ; for no one better 
 than he understood the complexity of the tariff or the labyrinth from 
 which we are to find our way out. 
 
 Moreover, he looked at the tariff question as we must all look at it, 
 unless we put a premium upon error, as a relative and not an absolute 
 question. He held no brief, as you must hold no brief, either for or 
 against the manufacturing industries of this country; but a brief 
 for the national welfare. He saw the problem, not hi a valley with 
 horizon shut in, but, as you must desire to see it, from high peaks 
 where broad and extended vision was possible; and he took into 
 consideration some things which you may well take into consideration, 
 additional to those I have just endeavored to urge upon your attention. 
 
 He was not in accord with Hamilton as to the protection of our 
 manufacturing industries, whether infant or adult; but he did have 
 this one fundamental controlling thought, showing how complete 
 and broad his view was that in such legislation as you are under- 
 taking there are involved not alone individual cases but national 
 and even international considerations as well. And he said these 
 words, which you can with much benefit ponder over now: 
 
 Should any nation, contrary to our wishes, suppose it may better find its advantages 
 by continuing its system of prohibition, duties, and regulations, it behooves us to 
 protect our citizens, their commerce and navigation, by counter prohibitions, duties, 
 and regulations, also. Free commerce and navigation are not to be given in exchange 
 for restrictions and vexations; nor are they likely to produce a relaxation of them. 
 
 And again: 
 
 We wish to encourage navigation and commerce by throwing open all the doors of 
 commerce, and knocking off its shackles. But as this can not be done for others, 
 unless they will do it for us, and there is no probability that Europe will do this, I 
 suppose we shall be obliged to adopt a system which may shackle them in our ports 
 
 as they do us in theirs. 
 
 Undoubtedly, these were correct views when Jefferson uttered 
 them. Yet how much more pertinent are they now, and how much 
 more emphatic \\ould certainly have been his expression if he were 
 speaking at this time, when foreign Governments not only impose 
 high duties upon our manufactured products but promote the exist- 
 ence and favor the operation of trusts which would be unlawful here, 
 but which, nevertheless, seek this market as a dumping ground for 
 their product hi unequal, unfair competition with domestic manu- 
 facture. 
 
 To-day many of our great manufacturing interests, in order to carry 
 on their foreign trade with profit, are obliged by the laws of those 
 countries to establish within their borders and subject to their laws 
 
SCHEDULE B. 829 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 foreign factories. To outside capital, but not to goods manufactured 
 elsewhere, those countries issue a generous invitation. We do the 
 same; and there is now no duty or embargo upon foreign capital 
 which seeks here a profitable, competitive field for its operations; 
 on the contrary, it meets our capital on an equal footing. 
 
 The tune was when doubtless this was not so, but under the 
 late interpretations of the antitrust laws by the Supreme Court, 
 the door of opportunity to competitive industry is no longer closed 
 and boarded up, no matter whether the capital employed be foreign 
 or domestic, but thrown wide open. The fact that the output of a 
 corporation is great or its operations extended, is not the test of 
 unlawf ulness ; but the searching question is, How were they secured 
 and how are they maintained? If by monopolistic practices, the 
 act is utterly condemned by civil and criminal statute, and unfair 
 trade and competition have received a death blow at the hands of 
 our greatest court, over which presides the wisest judge in the 
 English-speaking world. 
 
 Therefore in large measure, when you come to frame your laws, you 
 must, as a matter of national pride and commercial prestige, consider 
 how other nations treat the industry, whose future you are affecting 
 by your legislation. 
 
 Jefferson not only advocated but he put into operation something 
 else, which shows at least although it may be premature for you to 
 adopt it how completely relative he regarded this question of the 
 tariff, and how inseparably associated it was with other considerations 
 having to do with the national welfare. In his effort to benefit the 
 whole people he saw in the tariff a means of building up our merchant 
 marine; and in 1802 was responsible for a discriminating tariff which 
 provided that goods brought to this country in American bottoms 
 should pay at the port of entry a much less tariff than those brought 
 in foreign bottoms. And as a result, our merchant marine received 
 an impetus which enabled it to secure a mighty influence in the carry- 
 ing trade of the world raising it, if I recall rightly the statement of the 
 chairman of this committee, from 17 to 90 per cent, which, by our 
 slothfulness and inactivity and mistakes and indifference, we have 
 all but lost. 
 
 With the evidence confronting you everywhere that the whole 
 subject matter of tariff revision is relative and not absolute, with the 
 certainty that what you must do is not only to raise revenue but so 
 to raise it as to cause the least disturbance to legitimate business, and 
 setting your face always and unalterably against methods of busi- 
 ness if there be such which would prey on the community, you 
 are, by the many declarations of Democratic leaders, committed 
 unqualifiedly to the proposition that you are to legislate with care 
 and foresight and equity, so that neither the wheels of the machinery 
 of government nor of industry shall come to rest. You are not to 
 legislate either for a glut of revenue or for a glut of apparent but unreal 
 prosperity. Too great a revenue might be responsible for national 
 extravagance, and an abnormal prosperity would be more than likely 
 to promote undue production and its corresponding depression 
 together with a disregard of many considerations which must enter 
 into our conceptions of a higher and more responsive citizenship. 
 
830 TARIFF HEAKINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 Then, too, while the people accepted the pledge of the Democratic 
 Party, as a pledge so to readjust tariff conditions that, so far as possi- 
 ble, inequalities of burdens should be done away with, it was, as we 
 all know, with the proviso that law-abiding nidus try was to be given 
 a fair and reasonable opportunity to adjust itself to the new order 
 you are to establish. 
 
 That not only rules of conduct but rights of property often proceed 
 from wrongs is familiar enough, not only to men of my profession 
 but to all intelligent observers. If an unjust tariff has produced 
 artificial activity, you are not ruthlessly to destroy the industry but 
 to seek to regulate it and get it acclimated to the new conditions of 
 exposure. You are not to take the hothouse plant which this 
 country by its tariff policy rightly or wrongly and often it was 
 wrongly done, I am free to admit has permitted to grow up and 
 consign it to rough wind and weather without some thought of 
 adequate provision for its shelter and support, merely telling it to 
 enter at once and without aid into the struggle for existence and live. 
 For you know it can not live, but must inevitably die. 
 
 No roving commission was issued to the Democratic Party to com- 
 mit injustice. You do not have to take my word for this. There sit 
 men on this committee who are not strangers to this thought, but who 
 have given it forceful utterance; and if the voters of this country had 
 thought otherwise, no one in his senses can entertain the view that 
 the late election would not have had an entirely different result. 
 
 Permit me to give you a further authority for this statement. 
 In 1909 Mr. Wilson wrote for the North American Review an article 
 condemning utterly the Payne-Aldrich tariff. He characterized it 
 as the " Tariff make-believe;" and I am in as much accord with his 
 presentation of the matter as any of you can possibly be. Yet he 
 said in that article words of prudence and wisdom and justice, just as 
 over and over again he expressed the same sentiment in many a cam- 
 paign speech. If he had taken any other attitude, not only could he 
 not have been elected but he could not even have been nominated. 
 The people trusted him; they trust } T OU and you will not now, I know, 
 throw overboard the chart and compass of reason and put behind you 
 the solemn assurances of the Democratic Party as you set forth on 
 your voyage, for that would be to invite certain shipwreck not only 
 for yourselves, but for your party and for the whole people. Rather 
 you will summon to your aid and keep always to the front all tried 
 and just methods to enable you to take the observations which will 
 guide you aright. And certainly one of the methods is to be found 
 in these words from the President-elect : 
 
 The existing system was built up by statesmanlike and patriotic men, upon a theory 
 which even the most skeptical economists must concede it possible to found a valid and 
 effective policy. It is very likely that by slower, sounder, less artificial means the 
 country might have worked its way up to the same extraordinary development and 
 success, the same overwhelming material achievement and power; but that is a ques- 
 tion no longer worth debate by practical men. As a matter of fact, the method of 
 artificial stimulation was adopted, has been persisted in from generation to generation 
 with a constant increase of the stimulation, and we have at last, by means of it, come to 
 our present case. It will not do to reverse such a policy suddenly or in revolutionary 
 fashion. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 831 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 And lie added: 
 
 Existing protection should not be suddenly withdrawn, but steadily on a fixed pro- 
 gram upon which every man of business could base his definite forecast and systematic 
 plan. 
 
 I could multiply additional quotations of like import from Mr. 
 Wilson and other leaders of the Democratic Party, but they would 
 merely be cumulative and need only to be referred to in passing, for 
 the view expressed is so sane that somewhere in the tariff revision 
 program it must find expression. 
 
 It may well be that all the industries I represent here did not need 
 to have all this said in their behalf, for their only reasonably pros- 
 perous condition rests upon the security of a present ability to com- 
 pete on any just scale with foreign-made goods. Yet in a measure I 
 say it in behalf of them all, irrespective of their ability to meet such 
 competition, on account of their immediate concern with the general 
 prosperity; for if this is legislated out of existence those industries, 
 too, will find themselves among the debris you will be responsible for. 
 And I say without fear of contradiction hereafter that if these reason- 
 able views are not given heed to, we shall all live to see the day and 
 we do not need to live long when there will be a reckoning once 
 and finally with the resentment of the American people. 
 
 If, on the contrary, as I am sure will be the case, you legislate 
 wisely and do not reject the counsels of prudence and equity you 
 will without doing violence to your convictions, but with their 
 approval enjoy the high privilege of ushering in a new era of normal, 
 legitimate prosperity, which wifl not be here to-day and there to- 
 morrow, but which will stimulate and perpetuate as well the steady, 
 economic growth of the activities of a whole people. 
 
 Only by such a course can you hope to receive the commendation 
 that you have been good and faithful servants; and this you cannot 
 expect if you reject the very cornerstone on which you have agreed 
 to build the new order; you can not to quote those words which 
 sum up the highest obligations for political as well as social conduct 
 resting on all of us keep the worcf of promise to the ear and break 
 it to the hope. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Mr. Auerbach, I am interested in the foreign-trust 
 proposition. It has been represented to me lately by the glass 
 manufacturers in this country that there is in Germany a manufac- 
 turing concern, of which the former owner, upon his death, created 
 a trust in the Government to be run for a long time for the benefit 
 of the employees. Do you know anything about that? 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. No; I am not familiar with it, but I will ask and 
 find out. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I would like to know about that. If there is such 
 a concern in Germany, as has been represented to me, would not 
 that be a very serious competitor of those other trusts that you 
 speak of there ? 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. Of course I should have to assume its existence, 
 as I do not know about it. Its operation would depend upon the 
 terms of the trust. It may be a hard and fast trust. Trusts as a 
 rule being favored by the German Government, I am sure the Gov- 
 ernment would enter upon the execution of no undertaking that 
 would interfere with this general policy. 
 
832 TABIFP HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. Does it not seem to you that we would have 
 had just exactly the source of obtaining the information that you 
 have referred to, which you advocate, had it not been for the de- 
 liberate action of the Democratic Party in opposing a tariff com- 
 mission ? 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. No, I can not assent to that. Bills of revenue 
 originate constitutionally here, and I think you should have aids to 
 this committee in arriving at the result; but I do not think con- 
 stitutionally you are entitled to have a boss. That is generally my 
 notion about the Tariff Board. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. There was no intention on the part of anybody 
 that the Tariff Commission should be anything more than a mere 
 instrument for the purpose of finding out facts upon which this 
 committee, primarily, and Congress were to act, and, as I under- 
 stand, it is precisely the thing you are asking for; in fact, I heard 
 you make a rather significant remark, it seems to me, a little while 
 ago, that, if this committee were n,ot fully cognizant of the question 
 of cost of production, it is not competent to legislate. 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. I think so. The question of what agencies they 
 shall employ, whether an agency such as the Tariff Commission, 
 created in the way in which it was created not by the House of 
 Representatives at all, but a personal agency of the Executive 
 Office is quite another thing. I do not by any means intend to 
 approve of that. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You will remember that Governor Wilson, in his 
 speech of acceptance, said that the tariff would be revised down- 
 ward, and steadily downward. 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. I recall his statement. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. That statement was accepted by the Democratic 
 Party everywhere throughout the country as the policy upon which 
 we would enter if brought into power. 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. Yes; I understand that. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Now, is it not a fact, therefore, that any statement 
 before this committee by American manufacturers asking us to 
 leave the duties as they are or to increase them, is an invitation to 
 us, as Democratic members of the Ways and Means Committee, to 
 break the pledge that our candidate made, and that we have made, 
 to the American people recently ? 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. Well, if there were any undertaking in the speech 
 of acceptance by the President-elect of the United States that there 
 was to bo any absolute hide-bound rule by which you were to deal 
 with industry, irrespective of the special conditions as they would 
 arise; if he has made that commitment on the part of himself that 
 this was to be revision downward, so that it might be impossible for 
 you to carry it into effect without gross individual injustice, then I 
 say that this speech is not binding upon you. I believe that irrespec- 
 tive of what lias been said by anybody that if anyone in public life or 
 seeking public of I ice should assume that arbitrary position, he will, 
 as I have said, have to meet once and finally, as he has always had to 
 meet under such conditions, the resentment of the American people. 
 Is there any doubt about that, in your opinion? I do not believe 
 there is. However, I do not understand from any declaration Mr. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 833 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 Wilson has made that he believed the country was entering upon any 
 such course of procedure. 
 
 Mr. HILL. In the course of your remarks, you quoted President- 
 elect Wilson. Now, I want to read you a later utterance of his. On 
 the 21st day of August of this year, three months later, he made this 
 statement in New Jersey: 
 
 But I want at every turn of every argument that I make of this nature to say that 
 the legitimate enterprises of this country have absolutely nothing to fear 
 
 If he had stopped right there, I would have a word to say, but he 
 continues : 
 
 provided they will stand on their own bottoms, but that they have everything to fear 
 if all they have under them is the prop of a tax, which everybody is obliged to pay in 
 order that they may be able to conduct their business, and I believe that is a just 
 principle of Government. 
 
 Do you know of any protected industry in the United States that 
 is not sustained by the prop of a tax? 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. I think that is right doctrine. If the sole support 
 of an industry is a tax enacted for its own selfish interests, and that 
 is the only support it has, it ought to be withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. HILL, lou fail to recognize, then, or take into consideration 
 the difference in wages ? 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. No, clearly not, but also all the other factors I have 
 referred to which go to make up the difference between the foreign 
 and domestic cost of production. What Mr. Wilson clearly intends 
 to state is that each industry is to stand upon its own bottom and be 
 put upon a competitive basis, but not upon a ruinous basis. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Is it not true that the importations of this tariff 
 are onlv about half as much as thev were sixteen years ago, under the 
 Wilson" tariff? 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. Yes; very appreciably less, and that is due to 
 internal competition and the operations of the Foreign Trust. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Was there not a prosecution some years ago against 
 the plate glass people ? 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. That I do not know. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What company was that ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That was the plain window glass company. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. In your opinion, the revision which is to "be made 
 must still be downward and steadily downward, but not horizontally 
 downward ? 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. I do not know that I quite comprehend the mean- 
 ing of that phrase. Those words are a little enigmatical to me. I 
 would answer that question by saying that I do not believe there is a 
 pledge on the part of the Democratic Party in its compact with the 
 people that it is bound to revise everything it finds lying around, 
 irrespective of the equities of the case and irrespective of this question 
 of foreign and domestic cost and irrespective of the question as to 
 whether the foreign industry is in the hands of a trust. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What proportion of the foreign trade is controlled by 
 this trust that you speak of ? 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. All of it 
 
 Mr. PALMER. All of it. 
 
 78059 VOL 1 13 53 
 
834 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. All of it ? 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Absolutely all of it ? 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. All of it. It is an international glass trust per- 
 mitted by the Government. Of course, all such trusts are not only 
 permitted but favored by foreign Governments. If we, too, want to 
 favor the foreign trusts, operating in ways distinctly against our 
 public policy, well and good. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. We are apt to consider in this country a trust as a 
 business concern which controls a very large proportion of that par- 
 ticular business. 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. I think that would be erroneous. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. We do so, however. 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. No. I do not think you and I do, as lawyers. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. We speak of the Unitea States Steel Corporation as 
 the Steel Trust, yet I observe that it controls only about the same 
 proportion of steel business as the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. controls 
 of the plate-glass business. 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. One might perhaps be justified in calling that a 
 trust, inasmuch as it is popularly understood that the Government in 
 the pending litigation has so characterized it. A corporation may 
 have a large amount of business, a large output, and a large control of 
 trade. That is an element in determining what is a trust. But that 
 is not the controlling element, the final thing. Under the interpreta- 
 tion of the Supreme Court the question now is, "How was the volume 
 and control secured, and how are they maintained? Were they 
 secured through monopolistic practices, and are they maintained 
 through monopolistic practices either by raising the price or by cut- 
 throat practices, by lowering the price or otherwise, so that a com- 
 petitor is killed and its business absorbed ?" If so, there is a clear 
 violation of our antitrust acts. 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. As I understand, all you want is to maintain the 
 present law. 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. That is all I dare ask for, though the difference 
 between the foreign and home cost of production as set forth in our 
 brief would justify me in asking for an increase rather than in merely 
 protesting against a decrease of duty. 
 
 Mr. AUERBACH. If there is anything further you would like to have, 
 we shall be glad to submit it. The Audit Co. of New York has not 
 been able to do all of its work yet, but if you want it done, although it 
 will be a matter of considerable expense, several thousand dollars, the 
 Audit Co. will go over every plant engaged in this industry in the 
 United States and submit its report, as you will find in the back of the 
 brief it has, within the limited time at its disposal, done as to two or 
 three corporations. 
 
 Before I close, I wish to say that I am told that the trust Mr. Palmer 
 has referred to is a trust in optical goods in Germany, Schoot & Genos- 
 sen, at Jena, and has nothing to do with the plate-glass industry. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 835 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PLATE GLASS INDUSTRY. 
 
 [Represented by the following companies: Allegheny Plate Glass Co.. Glassmere, Pa.; American Plate Glass 
 Co., Kane, Pa.; Columbia Plate Glass Co., Blairsville, Pa.; Federal Plate Glass Co., Ottawa, 111.; Heiden- 
 kamp Mirror Co., Springdale, Pa.; Penn American Plate Glass Co., Alexandria, Ind.; Pittsburgh Plate 
 Glass Co., Pittsburgh, Pa.; Saginaw Plate Glass Co., Saginaw, Mich.; St. Louis Plate Glass Co., Valley 
 Park, Mo.; Standard Plate Glass Co., Butler, Pa.; Edward Ford Plate Glass Co., Rossford, Ohio; Kit- 
 tanning Plate Glass Co., Kittanning, Pa.] 
 
 To the honorable members of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives: 
 
 Although the above companies are rivals in business and carrying on their operations 
 under keen competitive conditions between themselves, they have joined in this 
 appeal to Congress because the plate-glass industry in the United States is in a pre- 
 carious condition even under the present tariff. This condition exists by reason of 
 the enormous difference between the cost of production here and abroad, and also 
 owing to the operations of the European Plate Glass Trust. This trust in its control 
 of the output and the regulation of prices is favored by the policy of the foreign 
 Government, while in this country a similar trust would be condemned by public 
 opinion and be unlawful. 
 
 The subject of this brief comprises paragraphs 100, 102, 103, 104, and 109 of the 
 Payne-Aldrich tariff bill. In the following presentation we refer specifically to 
 paragraph 102 which has to do with oast polished plate glass, unsilvered. 
 The present duty under paragraph 102 is as follows: 
 
 Cents per 
 square foot. 
 
 On plate glass measuring 384 square inches and under 10 
 
 On plate glass above 384 square inches and not exceeding 720 square inches. . . 12 
 On plate glass above 720 square inches 22J 
 
 WORLD PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION. 
 
 The production of plate glass throughout the world is estimated at 125,000,000 feet, 
 a little less than one-half of which is produced and consumed in the United States. 
 The European factories have a capacity of 45 to 50 per cent more than their present 
 production. Their production is curtailed and prices fixed under a trust combina- 
 tion which would be indictable here. 
 
 CONDITIONS OF INDUSTRY ABROAD. 
 
 Factories. The plate glass factories of Europe are equipped with modern machinery 
 and are as up-to-date and efficient as those of the United States. A great advantage to 
 the foreign manufacturer is that the cost of building and equipping the manufacturing 
 plant abroad is less than one-half the cost of a similar plant here. This item is partic- 
 ularly important in that it enables them to turn over their capital every 8 to 10 
 months, whereas in the United States it is impossible to turn the capital over more often 
 than once in two years. This extraordinary condition is made possible, first, by the 
 difference in the original cost of the plant; and second, by the fact that they are main- 
 taining through their syndicate operations a very high price for their product which 
 would be considered intolerable in this country, whereas the market conditions in 
 the United States have barely permitted the manufacturers to maintain their existence. 
 This makes the overhead charges and depreciation of the Belgian manufacturers, 
 figured per foot, materially less than one-half what they are in this country. 
 
 Labor. The foreign plants have the advantage of labor that is better trained and 
 more skillful than American labor, as abroad the trade descends from father to son, 
 and here the laborer has to be trained and developed. 
 
 The rate of wages in Belgium, the chief producer and exporter of plate glass, is less 
 than one-third that which is paid in this country, and enables the manufacturers 
 there to produce glass cheaper than any other country in the world. 
 
836 
 
 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGEAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 The producing countries are Belgium, Germany, Austria, France, England, Italy, 
 Spain, and Russia. As Belgium produces more glass than any of the other countries, 
 at the lowest cost, and .exports 95 per cent of its product, we submit herewith a report 
 of the consul general residing at Brussels, giving rates of wages in Belgium, to wit: 
 
 [United States Daily Consular and Trade Reports, Oct. 31, 1912, p. 566. From Consul General Ethelbert 
 
 Watts, Brussels, Belgium.] 
 
 "FOREIGN WAGES AND COST OF LIVING. 
 
 "According to data published by the Government, wages in Belgium are lower 
 generally than in any other European country. The Annuaire Statistique, which gives 
 the official figures for 1910, shows the following daily wages: 
 
 Number of wage earners. 
 
 Daily wages. 
 
 Number of wage earners. 
 
 Daily wages. 
 
 Male, under 16 years: 
 4 667 . .... 
 
 Less than $0.10 
 
 Male, over 16 years Continued. 
 1,653 
 
 $1.25-*1.35 
 
 12,748 
 
 $0. 10-. 19 
 
 4,357 , 
 
 $1.35 and over. 
 
 15 090 
 
 . 19-. 29 
 
 Female, under 16 years: 
 
 
 10,128.. . 
 
 .'0. 29 and over. 
 
 3,575 
 
 Less than $0.10 
 
 Male over 16 years' 
 
 
 g 480 . . 
 
 $0. 10-$0. 19 
 
 20,883 . 
 
 Less than $0. 29 
 
 6,946 
 
 $0. 19 and over. 
 
 28 638 
 
 $0. 29-$0. 38 
 
 Female, over 16 years' 
 
 
 62,195 
 
 .38- .48 
 
 6,609 
 
 Less than $0. 19 
 
 87 Oil 
 
 .48- .58 i 
 
 22,420 
 
 $0. 19-$0. 29 
 
 100 367 . ... 
 
 . 58- . 67 
 
 21.349 
 
 .29- .38 
 
 65 781 
 
 . 67- . 77 
 
 13 429 
 
 .38- .48 
 
 50,874 
 
 . 77- . 87 
 
 5,362 
 
 .48- .58 
 
 21 134 
 
 . 87- . 96 
 
 2 233 
 
 .58- .67 
 
 13,832 
 
 .97- 1.06 
 
 652 
 
 . 67- . 77 
 
 5,776 
 
 1.06- 1.16 
 
 395 
 
 $0.77 and over. 
 
 3,668 
 
 1.16- 1.25 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "About 65 per cent of men workers over 16 years earn less than 68 cents. Of the 
 women, 67 per cent earn less than 39 cents, and 93 per cent less than 58 cents. 
 
 "In 1907 inquiry was made at the public schools of 18 towns, distributed over the 
 country, into the quantity and kind of food each one of the children had had during 
 the preceding 24 hours. The answers compiled have shown that 21.33 per cent of the 
 children were insufficiently nourished." 
 
 The rates of wages paid to Belgian plate-glass workers are no higher than the general 
 rates above given, while the average rate of wages paid by the American plate-glass 
 manufacturers is about $2.30 per day. 
 
 Tariff. Germany (whose tariff is admittedly the most scientific in the world) taxes 
 plate glass at a flat rate equivalent to 12.42 cents per square foot; Austria, a flat rate 
 equivalent to 12.60 cents per square foot; Spain, a flat rate equivalent to 14.80 cents 
 per square foot; France, 5.40 rents to 6.30 cents per square foot; and Italy, 7.79 cents to 
 9.86 cents per square foot. The European countries maintain this tariff notwithstand- 
 ing that their costs of production are not materially higher than the cost of production 
 of Belgian manufacturers. 
 
 Foreign Plate Glass Trust. The European manufacturers are organized into one of 
 the strongest and most successful trusts known to the commercial world, controlling 
 absolutely and arbitrarily the output of its members. This trust, known as the Inter- 
 national Glass Convention, was organized in 1904. and has been extended until 1924. 
 It includes nearly all the continental manufacturers of plate glass. It has been very 
 successful in its operations, some of its members earning as high as 83 per cent per 
 annum on their capital, and paying as high as 30 per cent per annum in dividends, 
 as is shown by the following extracts from the balance sheets of the two principal 
 manufacturers in Belgium, published in 1911, according to the Belgian law. 
 
 
 Capital. 
 
 Earnings. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Dividend. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 Saint Rooh 
 
 Francs. 
 4 500 000 
 
 Francs. 
 3.384,047 
 
 75 
 
 Francs. 
 1.350.000 
 
 30 
 
 
 2 000 000 
 
 1 004 93S 
 
 83 
 
 COO 000 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SCHEDULE B. 837 
 
 PARAGBAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 This trust and its operations are described in the following extracts from the United 
 States Daily Consular Trade Reports: 
 
 [United States Consular and Trade Reports, Aug. 18, 1909, pp. 2-3.] 
 
 "PLATE GLASS TRUST IN EUROPE. 
 * * * * * * * 
 
 " The scope of the plate-glass syndicate is mainly to place the manufacturer of plate 
 glass in direct connection with the consumers of this article, in order, in a measure, 
 to give stability to the selling price and to prevent overproduction, which always 
 results in excessive damage in any form of industrial activity. 
 
 "LIMITING PRODUCTION. 
 
 "In order to attain this object, the syndicate agreed theoretically, it is stated, to 
 reduce the productive capacity of the syndicated concerns to 126 days per year work- 
 ing at full power. They have therefore imposed on the members of the combine a 
 stoppage of work for a period of 180 days out of the 306 working days of the year. In 
 this arrangement there is a tendency to oppose the interests of the working force, the 
 members of which can with difficulty accept such a long period of enforced idleness. 
 In order to obviate this inconvenience the shutdown was in practice regulated as 
 follows: The factories in the combine were forced to remain in operation during the 
 entire year, but with a productive capacity of machinery that would limit the output 
 to what it would have been had they worked but 126 days during the year. Thus, a 
 factory possessing 10 machines, according to the agreement, would have a productive 
 capacity of 1,260 days working at full force., Instead of working 126 days at full force, 
 however, the factory would work during the entire year but four of its machines, 
 leaving the remaining six idle. ^This arrangement enabled the managers of the differ- 
 eat factories in the combine to eliminate the least valuable element among their work- 
 ing forces, and to retain only the most skillful workmen. Besides, there resulted a 
 saving in the cost of operating a large number of machines. 
 
 ******* 
 
 " The board of management (conseil general) of the international syndicate follows 
 very carefully the movements of the different markets; the board meets every three 
 months in order to regulate the matter of production. Besides a special committee 
 examines each month all statistics communicated by the members of the syndicate, 
 while an organization composed of agents of the principal factories meets at least once 
 a month in order to regulate the question of orders received and communicate to the 
 board of managers such information as may be deemed opportune." 
 
 The United States trade report of July 22, 1912, page 376, says, concerning the 
 Belgium industry: 
 
 "CONDITIONS IN THE PLATE-GLASS INDUSTRY. 
 
 "Plate glass is one of the most important articles of export to the United States. 
 The shipments last year were valued at $568,199, compared with $1,166,026 for the 
 previous year. The large decrease last year was due to the fact that in 1910 one of 
 the principal plate glass factories in the United States was destroyed by fire, thereby 
 increasing the demand for the Belgian product. 
 
 "In 1904 the International Glass Convention was organized, with a view to control 
 the production and sale of polished glass. With the exception of two companies, one 
 in France and the other in Belgium, all the plate-glass companies in Germany, Austria, 
 Belgium, France, Netherlands, and Italy agreed to the convention which is still in 
 operation and which operates to the satisfaction of all concerned. Since the agreement 
 the plate-glasss manufacturers have prospered, while prior to that time the industry was 
 unsatisfactory. Great improvements have been made in the machinery. A glass- 
 polishing machine of 1 square meter to-day produces as much or more than one of 2 
 square meters before the convention. Great improvements have been made in the 
 manufacturing of the rough glass (glace" brute) and the cost greatly reduced. Eight 
 years ago the cost of manufacturing glass in Belgium was 9 to 10 francs ($1.74 to $1.93 
 per square meter (10.76 square feet). At present it is 5.60 to 6.50 francs ($1.06 to $1.25) 
 and rough glass is now manufactured at the cost of less than 2.50 francs (48J cents) per 
 square meter (10.76 square feet) or 4J cents per square foot." 
 
838 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 The report of November 6, 1912, states as follows: 
 
 "Belgium plate-glass manufacturers are very prosperous, paying yearly dividends 
 as high as 30 per cent. . Because of the cheap labor the plate glass industry in Belgium 
 maintains on all foreign markets its power as price regulator. The advantage of a low 
 cost of production (11 cents United States currency per square foot of polished plate 
 glass) is assisted by the successful operation of the international syndicate of plate 
 glass manufacturers which regulates the selling prices according to conditions existing 
 in such foreign market. These arbitrary selling prices are consequently of great 
 variety. For example, the same glass and the same size, quality for silvering are sold 
 (off the gross prices of the same list) at 20 per cent discount for England and 30 per cent 
 discount for the United States, and quality for window at 30 per cent and 2J per cent 
 for England against a discount of 45 per cent and more for the United States. 
 
 "The reason for this discrimination is said to be the fact that American plate glass 
 manufacturers are not associated with the European syndicate and consequently the 
 syndicate establishes a low range of prices for the American market on the kinds and 
 sizes of glass which, through overproduction, must be disposed of by the American 
 manufacturers regardless of cost." 
 
 Organization of foreign sales agency. Within the last 30 days a new and most im- 
 portant step has been taken by the foreign manufacturers of plate glass. The trust 
 described above left to each factory the sale of its own product, under certain restrictions 
 which left the manufacturers in limited competition with each other. The product 
 of each factory being handled separately, the trust had not the power to control and 
 regulate markets as it would have had if it had charge of the selling of the entire product 
 of all its members. This power has just been vested in the trust through the organiza- 
 tion in Belgium of a selling company, which will purchase from each manufacturer 
 his entire product and then distribute and sell it in such markets and at such prices 
 as is deemed to the best interest of all the manufacturers in the syndicate. The con- 
 trol of the entire output of the factories gives the trust an enormous power. It can 
 undersell competitors in any market in the world and recoup its losses by adding them 
 to the price of glass in markets that it controls. The trust is therefore in a position to 
 at once successfully invade the American market, which consumes practically half 
 the glass production of the world, and is the only market which the foreign manufac- 
 turer does not at present control, although it does regulate the prices upon part of the 
 American product and could easily do so on all of it. 
 
 CONDITIONS OF THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Production. The production in the United States is about 60,000,000 square feet, 
 about 47 per cent of which is produced by the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. and the 
 remainder by 11 separate companies. None of the American product is exported, 
 excepting a negligible quantity to contiguous territory to supply pressing require- 
 ments. 
 
 The capital invested in the industry in this country is about $49,000,000, the smallest 
 concern in the industry having a capital investment of about $1,000,000. The average 
 number of men directly employed in the industry in this country is about 11,000. 
 Those indirectly employed will equal more than twice this number. 
 
 Importations. Importations of unsilvered polished plate glass into the United 
 States from 190G to 1911, inclusive, in feet, were: 
 
 Duty. 
 
 1906 1,050,313 
 
 1907 1,207,576 
 
 1910 
 1911 
 
 10 cents. 
 505,478 
 390, 159 
 
 Duty. 
 
 10 cents. 
 5,178,212 
 4,577,059 
 2,590,302 
 1,611,845 
 49,706 
 
 12\ cents. 
 2,057,277 
 2,800,542 
 
 Duty. 
 
 S2\ cents. 
 898,294 
 741,947 
 643,715 
 300,010 
 14,813 
 
 $&\ cents. 
 511,860 
 683,278 
 
 Duty. 
 
 S5 cents. 
 164,416 
 180,913 
 150,345 
 22,517 
 7,068 
 
 Total. 
 
 7,291,235 
 6,707,495 
 3,827,224 
 2,279,933 
 
 3, 150, 176 
 3,873,979 
 
 An inspection of the table of imports given above shows that most of the importa- 
 tions consist of small sixes. Small sizes of plate glass have never been adequately 
 protected, and the American product under 384 square inches, now bearing a duty 
 of 10 cents per square foot, and above same but not exceeding 720 square inct es 
 bearing a duty of 12 cents per square foot, does not yield an average price equal to 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 839 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 the cost of production. (See Annexed report of the Audit Co.) This was not im- 
 portant originally, because the production in this country was not equal to the demand 
 for large sheets and there were large quantities of all sizes imported. The manu- 
 facturer in those days contented himself with selling such quantities of small glass 
 in the two brackets named as resulted from breakage and was incidental to the op- 
 eration of his plant, which amounted to about 10 per cent. 
 
 Prices to consumer. The prices to consumers of plate glass in the United States 
 have, on the whole, been in distinct contrast to the upward tendency in the price of 
 most commodities during the last 10 years, while the manufacturers nave been com- 
 pelled to pay more for the materials entering into its production and have been com- 
 pelled to increase wages in keeping with the general upward tendency of wages, all 
 of which for a time increased the cost of production. Nevertheless, by the intro- 
 duction of labor-saving devices and new inventions, the tendency in the cost of pro- 
 duction for the last four years has been downward, and the cost to the consumer has 
 also had a downward tendency, as is shown by the following table, giving the retail 
 price to the actual consumer: 
 
 
 1875 
 
 1880 
 
 1885 
 
 1890 
 
 1895 
 
 1900 
 
 1905 
 
 1908 
 
 1912 
 
 1 toSfeet 
 
 $0.71 
 
 $0.51 
 
 $0.46 
 
 $0.40 
 
 $0.30 
 
 $0.31 
 
 $0. 1875 
 
 $0. 1875 
 
 $0.22 
 
 3 to 5 feet 
 
 .84 
 
 .61 
 
 .55 
 
 .48 
 
 .36 
 
 .38 
 
 .225 
 
 .225 
 
 .247 
 
 5 to 10 feet 
 
 1.12 
 
 .80 
 
 .72 
 
 .64 
 
 .48 
 
 .60 
 
 .36 
 
 .36 
 
 .342 
 
 10 to 25 feet 
 
 1.49 
 
 1.06 
 
 .96 
 
 .85 
 
 .63 
 
 .81 
 
 .416 
 
 .39 
 
 .365 
 
 25 to 50 feet 
 
 1.56 
 
 1.11 
 
 1.01 
 
 .89 
 
 .66 
 
 .85 
 
 .436 
 
 .408 
 
 .38 
 
 50 to 100 feet 
 
 1.69 
 
 1.21 
 
 1.09 
 
 .97 
 
 .72 
 
 .90 
 
 .462 
 
 .432 
 
 .392 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 COST OP MANUFACTURE OF GLASS IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 At the hearing before the Ways and Means Committee in 1908 there was a conflict 
 of testimony as to the cost of manufacturing plate glass in this country. At that time 
 a representative of the importers of plate glass stated that the importers "would ask 
 for nothing better than to have the subject (cost) gone over by a public accountant 
 and the new tariff based on the difference between the cost of production here and 
 abroad." (Hearings of 19'08, Schedule B, p. 1124.) 
 
 Upon receipt of your notice of these hearings the Audit Co. of New York was author- 
 ized to proceed at once with the work of ascertaining the cost of production of the 
 American manufacturers of plate glass by auditing the books of the plate-glass manu- 
 facturers in this country, and has worked diligently upon the preparation of this audit, 
 but has not been able to complete an audit of all the companies up. to the date of draw- 
 ing this brief. It has found that the average cost of manufacturing plate glass by the 
 companies so far examined was, in 1909, 28.16 cents per square foot and in 1912, 23.98 
 cents per square foot before adding depreciation. With depreciation added, but 
 without allowing anything for interest on bonds or capital invested, the cost of glass 
 per square foot was, in 1909, 33.71 cents and in 1912, 28.45 cents. (See audit annexed.) 
 The Audit Co.'s chief mechanical engineer has carefully estimated the cost of de- 
 preciation over and above the sums which have been charged for repairs and main- 
 tenance. The aggregate charged for the maintenance of buildings and equipment, 
 including the depreciation, aggregates but 12 per cent on the actual costs of the build- 
 ings and equipment, which is not higher than exists in many other lines of manufacture 
 in the United States, although the strain on much of the equipment is very great, 
 owing to the very high temperature and the necessity for running power plants with 
 less than normal rest. 
 
 The average selling prices obtained during the years ending July 31, 1909, and 
 November 30, 1912, were as follows: 
 
 
 Year ending 
 in 1909. 
 
 Year ending 
 in 1912. 
 
 384 square inches and under . . 
 
 Cents. 
 16.01 
 
 Cents. 
 13.43 
 
 Above 384 square inches to 5 square feet 
 
 22.39 
 
 21.45 
 
 Over 5 square feet 
 
 29.97 
 
 28.64 
 
 
 
 
 A comparison of the foregoing costs before deducting depreciation or any interest 
 in bonds or capital, compared with the average selling prices for the same periods, show 
 that all glass under 5 feet was sold at a large loss, while the margin of profit on glass 
 
840 TAEIFP HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 over 5 feet was but 1.81 cents per square foot in 1909 and but 4.66 cents in 1912. If 
 we include depreciation, which is an actual cost of production and should be invariably 
 considered, there existed on sales of glass over 5 square feet an actual loss in 1909 and 
 but nineteen one-hundredths cent profit per square foot in 1912. 
 
 The companies which have been examined by the Audit Co. on the average there- 
 fore show losses instead of gains, after considering depreciation, but before allowing 
 anything for interest on bonds or upon actual capital invested. 
 
 The companies examined are fair examples of a majority of the manufacturers. 
 
 If this committee desires it, the audit company will be instructed to proceed with 
 the audits of the remaining companies or we shall be glad to have the committee 
 designate any competent auditing concern to complete the audits. 
 
 FOREIGN COST OF PLATE GLASS. 
 
 The cost of plate glass abroad is understood to be from 10 to 11 cents per square 
 foot, and this is borne out by the United States Daily Consular and Trade Keports of 
 July 22, 1912 (p. 376): 
 
 "Eight years ago the cost of manufacturing glass in Belgium was 9 to 10 francs 
 ($1.74 to $1.93) per square meter (10.76 square feet). At present it is 5.60 to 6.50 
 francs ($1.06 to $1.25), and rough glass is now manufactured at the cost of less than 
 2.50 francs (48 cents) per square meter (10.76 square feet), or 4 cents per square 
 foot." 
 
 And November 6, 1912 (p. 688): 
 
 " The advantage of a low cost of production (11 cents, United States currency, per 
 square foot of polished plate glass) is assisted by the successful operation of the inter- 
 national syndicate of plate-glass manufacturers, which regulates the selling prices 
 according to conditions existing in each foreign market." 
 
 The present Belgian cost, as above, is the cost on the basis of operating at 66 per 
 cent of their capacity, and would be decreased if the foreign syndicate should release 
 the excess capacity and let their factories run to full capacity . 
 
 FREIGHT RATES. 
 
 The transportation problem is another phase of the tariff question, and must be 
 taken into account. Plate glass can be imported from Antwerp, Belgium, to any of 
 the Pacific coast cities for approximately 2 cents per square foot and in any quantity. 
 We now pay the railroads in this country about 7 cents per square foot to transport 
 plate glass from the factories to the Pacific coast in carloads and about 10 cents on 
 less than carloads, and the railroads have filed rates to increase this charge to 10 cents 
 per square foot in carloads and 18 cents per square foot on less than carload quantities. 
 The rate from Antwerp to New Orleans is less than 1 cent per square foot regardless 
 of the quantity of plate glass shipped. The rate from the Pittsburgh district factories 
 to New Orleans on American-made plate glass is about 3 cents in carloads and about 
 5 cents per square foot on less than carloads. 
 
 ALL PLATE GLASS COSTS THE SAME PER SQUARE FOOT, REGARDLESS OF SIZE. 
 
 It should be borne in mind that a square foot of plate glass costs the same amount 
 whether manufactured in large or small plates, because it must of necessity be cast 
 first in large plates exclusively. Glass can not economically be melted in small 
 quantities. It is necessary to manufacture in large sizes, in the course of which 
 manufacturing process the unavoidable breaking and cutting down for imperfections 
 produces some smaller sizes under 5 square feet. Normally this production of small 
 sizes, to wit, under 5 square feet, is about 10 per cent. 
 
 In answer to the statement made by the representative of the importers four years 
 ago, that the cost of small glass was not the same as the cost of large glass, and to the 
 effect that the small glass was a by-product, we wish to distinctly say that neither 
 one of these statements is in accordance with the facts. Assuming now for the sake 
 of argument that the 10 per cent of glass under 5 square feet above referred to is a 
 by-product, it must be borne in mind that the consumption of the country for glass 
 of this character has now grown to be nearly 50 per cent of the entire production, 
 which compels the manufacturer to cut 35 to 40 per cent of additional glass which 
 would normally be large sizes down to the market requirements under 5 square feet, 
 and which can certainly not be considered a by-product from any standpoint. 
 
 The query may naturally arise as to why the manufacturer should supply this 
 additional glass if he does it at a loss. The answer is that by increasing his output 
 
SCHEDULE B. 841 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 by this large additional amount of business he is enabled to operate his plants nearly 
 to their capacity, and thus reduce his general production cost. If the American 
 manufacturer were to cease to supply this business, the cost of production would be 
 advanced at least 3 cents per foot. 
 
 We do not claim that all glass under 5 square feet is sold at a loss, because for the 
 finer qualities we get what appears to be a fair price; but in order to secure the small 
 pieces of fine quality, it is necessary to cut out of the large plates the patches of fine 
 quality, with the result that this cutting reduces the balance of the plate to odds 
 and ends and strips. The average price secured for all the glass sold under 5 square 
 feet has always netted a loss to the manufacturer, 
 
 FOREIGN TRUST SELLING AGENCY A NEW PERIL TO THE AMERICAN INDUSTRY. 
 
 The great danger to the American plate-glass industry is that the foreign trust, 
 through its newly formed selling agency, is in a position to run its plants at increased 
 capacity, and by so doing reduce its general cost very considerably and to dump 
 the surplus product into the United States at shop cost or less. The foreign trust 
 selling agency can sell its surplus product in the American market at a price of 10 
 or 11 cents per square foot. This price, plus the existing rate of the American tariff, 
 would enable the glass to be sold to the jobbers in the United States at an average 
 price which the American manufacturer would have to meet at a loss. This would 
 drive the American manufacturers out of business. 
 
 When it is considered that there is this trust in Europe which has controlled the 
 output for years and that within the last 30 days it has organized a selling agency 
 which will handle the entire product and sell it at such prices as may seem best to 
 the foreign manufacturers, and that the only market in the world in which they 
 can dump their product is the American market (the only market they do not now 
 control), your committee must realize that there is a grave danger hanging over the 
 American industry which should incline Congress to increase rather than to main- 
 tain the present rate. 
 
 The argument so far has treated of cast polished plate glass, unsilvered, covered 
 in paragraph 102 of the existing tariff. All glass covered by paragraphs 100, 103, 
 104, and 109 is competitive with the product of the American factories, and the 
 differences between the rates of tariff fixed in those paragraphs and those fixed in 
 paragraph 102 are in logical balance with the difference in the character of the prod- 
 ucts and cost of production, and the same relation should be maintained. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Allegheny Plate Glass Co., Glassmere, Pa.; American Plate Glass Co., 
 Kane, Pa.; Columbia Plate Glass Co., Blairsville, Pa.; Federal Plate 
 Glass Co., Ottawa, 111.; Heidenkamp Mirror Co., Springdale, Pa.; 
 Penn American Plate Glass Co., Alexandria, Ind.; Pittsburgh Plate 
 Glass Co., Pitssburgh, Pa.; Saginaw Plate Glass Co., Saginaw, Mich.; 
 St. Louis Plate Glass Co., Valley Park, Mo.; Standard Plate Glass Co., 
 Butler, Pa. 
 
 JANUARY, 1913. 
 
 THE AUDIT Co. OF NEW YORK, 
 
 New York, January 3, 1913. 
 To the Committee of Plate Glass Manufacturers, New York City. 
 
 DEAR SIRS: Agreeably to your request, we have audited the books and accounts 
 of certain plate-glass manufacturers for the two years ending July 31, 1909, and 
 November 30, 1912. 
 
842 
 
 TAEIFF HEABINGS. 
 PABAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 The average sales prices obtained for the various sizes and the costs of production 
 we find to be as follows: 
 
 
 Year to 
 July 31, 1909, 
 average per 
 square foot. 
 
 Year to 
 Nov. 30, 1912, 
 average per 
 square foot. 
 
 Prices from net sales: 
 
 384 sqnarfi innhes and iindnr ....... , , , , 
 
 Cents. 
 16.01 
 
 Cents. 
 13,43 
 
 384 square inches to 5 square feet 
 
 22.39 
 
 21.45 
 
 Over 5 square feet 
 
 29.97 
 
 28.64 
 
 
 
 
 Costs of production before adding depreciation 
 
 28.16 
 
 23.98 
 
 Add depreciation 
 
 5.55 
 
 4.47 
 
 
 
 
 Costs after depreciation but before adding Interest on bonds and capi- 
 tal invested 
 
 33. 71 
 
 28.45 
 
 
 
 
 We hereby certify that the foregoing average results form a true showing as prepared 
 from the books of the companies audited by us, excepting as to depreciation, which 
 we have carefully estimated. 
 
 Very truly, yours, THE AUDIT* Co. OP NEW YORK. 
 
 A. W. DUNNING, President. 
 G. A. BOWERS, Secretary. 
 
 REPLY BRIEF SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PLATE GLASS INDUSTRY. 
 
 [Represented by the following companies: Allegheny Plate Glass Co., Glassmere, Pa.; American Plate 
 Glass Co., Kane, Pa.; Columbia Plate Glass Co., Blairsville, Pa.: Federal Plate Glass Co.. Ottawa, 111.; 
 Heidenkamp Mirror Co., Springdale, Pa.; Penii American Plate Glass Co., Alexandria, Ind.; Pittsburgh. 
 Plate Glass Co., Pittsburgh. Pa.: Saginaw Plate Glass Co., Saginaw, Mich.: St. Louis Plate Glass Co., 
 Valley Park. Mo.; Standard Plate Glass Co., Butler, Pa.; Edward Ford Plate Glass Co., Rossford, Ohio; 
 Kittanning Plate Glass Co., Kittanning, Pa.] 
 
 To the honorable Members of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives: 
 
 By permission of your committee we file this supplemental brief in reply to the 
 briefs filed by Semon. Bache & Co.. on December 1. 1911 (at least bearing that date, 
 though perhaps filed later), and January 13, 1913, In the interest of the economy of 
 your time, it will be necessary to call your attention to a few of these misstatements. 
 At the outset it should be stated that the briefs were written by importers either 
 not knowing or suppressing the facts, who naturally view the matter from the stand- 
 point of advancing their interests through creating a large market in the United States 
 for European products, and are wholly indifferent, if not hostile, to the prosperity of 
 the American manufacturer. 
 We wish particularly to call attention to two features of their brief: 
 
 I. That the Audit Co.. of New York, which made a report that certain of the com- 
 panies it had examined had produced little, if any. earnings, had selected those com- 
 panies with a view of being able to make such a report. The fact is wholly misrepre- 
 sented. These companies are among the most modern and representative of the whole 
 industry; and. until the committee indicated no desire to have the remaining com- 
 panies examined, it was intended that the Audit Co. should make a complete audit 
 of all the companies engaged in this industry. That offer was made on the oral argu- 
 ment, and still holds good. 
 
 II. The assertion to the effect, that the foreign plate glass convention is "not a trust 
 at all," is sufliciently contradicted by themselves in their statement in the same para- 
 graph that the convention only primarily adjusts production, and incidentally fixes 
 prices. To show the inaccuracy of this statement, and the real scope and power of this 
 foreign trust, we append in original 1 and translation, in Exhibit A hereto annexed, 
 articles fcpom the Action Economique, a Belgian publication, of December land 8, 1912. 
 
 The novel but incidentally criminal course suggested in the importers' brief is for 
 the American manufacturer to retaliate against the foreign trust by itself engaging in 
 what in this country would be a conspiracy. 
 
 The foreign trust may seem of little significance to importers inasmuch as it is their 
 ally; but to the American manufacturers its significance is of vital importance, because 
 
 1 Translation only printed. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 843 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 it is a legalized organization which can so control an industry and dictate prices as to 
 enable its members to make 75 to 80 per cent a year, and possesses a power which, if 
 unfairly favored by American legislation, must inevitably be exercised in this market 
 to the disaster of the home industry, even now struggling to keep its feet. 
 
 Another evidence of the importers' willingness to confuse the subject and make it 
 difficult for the committee to clearly comprehend the actual conditions existing in 
 this industry in regard to importations, is that their briefs do not show the division 
 between glass in which the American manufacturers compete only among them- 
 selves, and glass in which the American manufacturers are in active competition not 
 only among themselves, but with the foreign producers. 
 
 The plate-glass business divides itself into two general classes, viz : 
 
 First. Glazing quality (the kind of glass used for windows), with regard to which 
 there is the keenest and most active domestic competition, and which forces the 
 manufacturers to sell it without any regard to the rates of duty imposed; and, 
 
 Second. Glass of silvering quality, glass of selected quality and sizes for special 
 purposes, with which the American manufacturers are now, and always have been, 
 in keen competition with the foreign manufacturers. The imports, no matter whether 
 large or small, for the last 15 or 20 years have been almost exclusively of this character. 
 
 Disregarding this fact, the importers, when they compare American prices with 
 foreign prices and the existing rates of duty, show only the prices for glazing quality, 
 as to which we are not in competition with the foreigner, and give you the impression 
 that this is the only kind of glass the American manufacturers make, suppressing the 
 fact as to the prices for silvering and selected qualities and special sizes, with which 
 we are in active competition with the foreigners. Four years ago, when these importers 
 were before the Committee on Ways and Means, they stated that the American manu- 
 facturers could not produce silvering and selected qualities and that they were not, 
 therefore, entitled to protection thereon, the inference being that if we were able to 
 make silvering quality, and were therefore actually in competition with the foreign 
 manufacturers, we might be entitled to proper protection. Mr. Goertner, the im- 
 porters' representative at that time, made the following statement (p. 1125, Vol. II, 
 Tariff Hearings 60th Cong.): 
 
 " The glass now imported is imported because it is especially suitable for the pur- 
 poses. It is not really in direct competition with American glass." 
 
 Now that it has been conclusively shown that the American manufacturers are able 
 to supply the fine qualities required, the importers carefully fail to state the fact that 
 while glazing quality is selling at low prices the American manufacturers are in active 
 competition with the foreigners on all silvering and selected qualities and special 
 sizes, which represent a very important part of the business. 
 
 It has been intimated that a tariff on plate glass should be on a scale corresponding 
 to the large number of gradations in the quality, but this is impracticable from an 
 administration standpoint. The distinction of grades is a matter of expert judgment, 
 made under special conditions, requiring such a large amount of space that it would be 
 impracticable in the Government warehouses, and every sheet of glass imported would 
 have to be separately inspected. A tariff based on quality would be productive of 
 endless disagreement and frauds. 
 
 As proof of this statement, we quote Mr. Goertner (Hearings of Nov. 23. 1908, p. 
 1131): 
 
 "Mr. UNDERWOOD. Can you describe to the reporter the distinction technically 
 between these two classes of glass (silvering quality and glazing quality) so that the 
 committee can technically distinguish it? 
 
 "Mr. GOERTNER. It could not be described to anybody, Mr. Underwood. I could 
 not describe it to another man in the trade; you can only point it out when the two 
 classes are in front of you. It is the most intangible proposition in the world; it is a 
 matter of judgment." 
 
 In answer to the importers' reference to the large increase in the production of 
 what is ironically characterized as "a languishing industry," we wish to say that 
 this increase in production was caused primarily by the enormous increase in the con- 
 sumption of the country, and incidentally by the fact that once embarked in busi- 
 ness every manufacturer is compelled to make every possible effort to reduce his 
 costs and "keep in line with progressive conditions, and volume of output is always 
 one of the principal determining factors in reducing costs. To accomplish this, the 
 manufacturers in this country have been compelled to put in large amounts of new 
 money for the purpose of keeping their equipment up to date; and while these addi- 
 tional investments have not been profitable to the extent that investments normally 
 should be, they have been absolutely necessary in order to escape dry rot and the 
 ruin which otherwise would have inevitably overtaken them. 
 
844 TAKUT HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 The importers claim that the present rates of duty are dangerous because they put a 
 premium upon the promotion of trade combinations. This statement is at least lack- 
 ing in seriousness, for, if the manufacturers were ever going to combine for the purpose 
 of advancing their own interests at the expense of the consuming public, they would 
 have done so. To-day, with the late interpretation by the Supreme Court of the 
 antitrust acts, the suggestion of such a combination is preposterous. The plate-glass 
 manufacturers as a whole have made very little money for the past 10 years; most of 
 them have paid no dividends whatever, and the dividends have been totally inade- 
 for any normal business condition; and of all this the public has been reaping its 
 advantage. 
 
 The importers say the American manufacturers only get 20 or 21 cents a foot, while 
 in other parts of their brief they quote domestic prices which they say average from 30 
 to 41 cents per square foot. These contradictory statements need no comment, except 
 that the American manufacturers readily admit that the selling prices have -een 
 altogether too low too low, in fact, to leave anything for depreciation, and frequently 
 nothing for overhead charges; but there never has been any average selling price for 
 any American factory nearly as low as the figure of 20 to 21 cents. 
 
 The importers claim that it is not necessary to verify the foreign cost which they 
 give (14.79 cents), as it was practically admitted by the plate-glass manufacturers at 
 the hearings in the Sixtieth Congress. They ignore entirely the fact that, by the 
 introduction of the Lehr, an American device, it should be remembered, and other 
 important improvements in methods of grinding and polishing, the foreigners have 
 reduced their cost 3 to 4 cents per foot in the past four years. The comparative cost 
 sheets submitted by the importers are ingenious only as they deal in invention and 
 not in facts. For example: It is the cost sheet of an old type of kiln factory now 
 obsolete; it omits altogether an important item of cost the breakage and shrinkage 
 incident to manufacture. The shrinkage charge in connection with general expendi- 
 ture is not sufficient to cover that incident to cutting orders, and can not by any pre- 
 tense cover the shrinkage incident to manufacture; it charges soda ash at $26 per ton, 
 a price that was current 20 years ago. The present price is about half that figure. 
 These facts, which could be largely added to, if it were necessary to give cumulative 
 evidence of what we say as to the methods pursued in the preparation of their briefs, 
 are all unqualifiedly contradicted by The Audit Co. as well as by the consular reports. 
 We respectfully submit that the committee should not be called upon to waste its 
 valuable time on inferences and guesses, when they are afforded every opportunity to 
 examine and ascertain the facts and conditions as they exist. 
 
 The importers say that the American public have paid heavily for the excessive 
 protection given to the plate-glass industry, and refer to various fluctuations in prices. 
 
 This statement is answered in part by the fact that the fluctuations in the prices of 
 plate glass have on the whole in recent years been less than in most other commodities; 
 that the high prices have been very brief in their duration, due to temporary shortages 
 of production or excessive demand. But the best answer to unsupported and inac- 
 curate assertions is the fact that the industry has made so little money during the 
 period in question, while, as we have shown the committee, there has been a gradual 
 and progressive decrease in the cost of the product to the consumer. 
 
 The importers also give us a further evidence of the method adopted in the prepara- 
 tion of their briefs: 
 
 "That the ink was hardly dry on that document (the Payne-Aldrich bill) when new 
 prices, as shown on page 12. were issued." 
 
 This is a wholly indefensible statement, inasmuch as the impression is sought to be 
 conveyed that the prices were advanced as the outgrowth of the Payne-Aldrich bill. 
 
 As a matter of fact, of the 11 prices shown. 8 were within the range in which the duty 
 was reduced from 35 to 22. V cents by the Payne-Aldrich bill, 1 was for the 5 to 10 foot 
 bracket, which in the Payne-Aldrich bill remained unchanged, and only 2 were within 
 the range of the two brackets, the 5 square feet and under, upon which the very slight 
 increase in rates was made. 
 
 Another misleading statement is with regard to the Belgian manufacturers having 
 no foreign market in which to dump for the reason that 90 per cent of their product 
 goes into foreign markets. The brief omits to say that practically all of this 90 per cent 
 of glass exported goes into markets other than the United States, which they abso- 
 lutely control and in which they maintain fictitiously high prices, due to the operations 
 of their syndicate. 
 
 While they are shipping a comparatively small part of the 90 per cent to the American 
 market they could, by operating their plants to full capacity, largely increase this 
 output, as the articles from the Action Economique clearly show, and dump their sur- 
 
SCHEDULE B. 845 
 
 P ABA GRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 plus into this country at cost without in any wise affecting the export trade they now 
 control, and upon wnich they make a very large profit. The increase in production 
 thus made possible will also enable then to largely reduce their cost and further increase 
 their inflated profits, which now run as high as 83 per cent per annum. 
 
 There ought certainly not to be, if the prosperity of American industry is to be 
 regarded, any further invitation to commit this wrong. 
 
 Having therefore conclusively shown to the committee^ 
 
 I. That the American industry is in a highly competitive condition, first, with 
 regard to glass for glazing purposes among themselves, and, second, that they are in 
 active competition not only among themselves but with the importers under the 
 existing rates of duty with regard to glass for mirror purposes and other selected require- 
 ments; 
 
 II. That under this existing state of competition the profits realized by the manu- 
 facturers are altogether too meager for the healthy perpetuation of any industry; 
 
 III. That, according to the Audit and consular reports, the cost of foreign produc- 
 tion and the home cost of production is scarcely equalized and allowed for by the 
 present tariff; 
 
 IV. That this foreign cost would be appreciably lower if the foreign factories were 
 running full and not curtailing production by the arbitrary, dictatorial operations of 
 the foreign trust; and 
 
 V. That no trust or combination or understanding exists among American manu- 
 facturers as to the output or prices of product, or otherwise, but that the foreign trade 
 is completely in the hands of the trust and that there is in this trust a real menace to 
 the American industry if conditions are made to favor its operation in this market; 
 we submit that no reduction in the present rates of duty can be justified. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 Allegheny Plate Glass Co., Glassmere, Pa.; American Plate Glass Co., 
 Kane, Pa.; Columbia Plate Glass Co., Blairsville, Pa.; Federal Plate 
 Glass Co., Ottawa, 111.; Heidenkamp Mirror Co., Springdale, Pa.; 
 Penn American Plate Glass Co., Alexandria, Ind.; Pittsburgh Plate 
 Glass Co., Pittsburgh, Pa.; Saginaw Plate Glass Co., Saginaw, Mich.; 
 St. Louis Plate Glass Co., Valley Park, Mo.; Standard Plate Glass Co., 
 Butler, Pa.; Edward Ford Plate Glass Co., Rossford, Ohio; Kittanning 
 Plate Glass Co., Kittanning, Pa. 
 
 January 30, 1913. 
 
 Filed by Harrison Osborne, 34 Nassau Street, New York, N. Y. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 [From the Action Eeonomique, Dec. 1, 1912.] 
 
 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION OF PLATE GLASS MANUFACTURERS THE CONDITIONS OP 
 ITS RENEWAL THE ORGANIZATION OF A COMMERCIAL AND CONTINENTAL UNION OP 
 PLATE GLASS MANUFACTURERS THE PURPOSE OF THIS UNION. 
 
 We think it may be interesting to give some details concerning the conditions under 
 which the International Convention of Plate Glass Manufacturers was renewed. 
 
 This organization, as is known, began to exist really on the 17th of August, 1904, 
 and ended on the 17th of August, 1909; it was renewed about two years before this last 
 date for a period of five years, and on the 15th of November last it was decided to again 
 extend it; but this time for a period of 10 years beginning with the expiration of the 
 agreements, viz, the 17th of August, 1914, so as to end it on the 17th of August, 1924. 
 The concluded agreements embrace practically the whole of the European factories 
 with the exception of the Societe des Glaces de Courcelles and the firm of Pilkington 
 Bros, at St. Helens (England). The following corporations are members of the syn- 
 dicate : 
 
 First. Manufactures de Glaces et Produits Chimiques de St. Gobain, at Paris (fac- 
 tories at St. Gobain, Chaumy, Cirey, Montlucon, Mannheim, Stolberg, Pise, and 
 Franiere). 
 
 Second. Nouvelle Societe des Glaceries Ne'erlandaises, at Sas de Gand (Netherlands. 
 
 Third. Schlesische Spiegel Manufactur Carl von Tielsch, at Altwasser (Germany). 
 
 Fourth. Socie'te' Anonyme de Glaces Nationales Beiges, at St. Roch Auvelais. 
 
 Fifth. Societe Anonyme Glacerie Germania, at Porz Urbach (Cologne), principal 
 office at St. Roch Auvelais. 
 
846 TABUT HEAEINGS. 
 
 PABAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 Sixth. Socie"t6 Anonyme de Glaces de Ste. Marie d'Oignies, at Aiseau. 
 
 Seventh. Compagnie de Floreffe, at Floreffe. 
 
 Eighth. Soci6t6 Anonyme des Glaces de Moustier-sur-Sambre, at Moustier-sur- 
 Sambre. 
 
 Ninth. Socie'te' Anonyme dea Glaces de Auvelais, at Auvelais. 
 
 Tenth. Socie'te' Anonyme des Glaces de Charleroi, at Roux. 
 
 Eleventh. Compagnies re^unies des Glaces et Verres sp^ciaux du Nord de la France, 
 at Jeumont (a corporation formed by the fusion of the Compagnie des Glaces at Verres 
 spe^ciaux de France at Boussois ana of the Compagnie des Glaces et Verres spciaux 
 du Nord, at Jeumont). 
 
 Twelfth. Soci6t6 Anonyme des Verreries et Manufacture des Glaces d'Aniche, at 
 Aniche (North). 
 
 Thirteenth. Soci&e' Anonyme des Glaceries et Charbonnages de Boheme, at Stan- 
 kau (Bohemia), principal office at Brussels. 
 
 Fourteenth. Socie'te Anonyme Glas-und Spiegel Manufactur, at Schalke (West- 
 phalia). 
 
 Fifteenth. Socie'te' Anonyme Herzogenrather-Spiegelglas und Spiegelfabrik, at 
 Herzogenrath (Germany). 
 
 Sixteenth. Socie'te' Anonyme Rheinische Spiegelglasfabrik, at Eckamp, near 
 Ratingen (Germany). 
 
 Seventeenth. Socie'te' Anonyme Deutsche Spiegelglas A. G., at Freden (Hanover). 
 
 The convention is, in fact, an organization naving as its object to establish prices 
 and sale conditions of plate glass, polished and unpolished, plain or silvered, on the 
 different markets. All the factories of the convention, that is to say, all the European 
 plate-glass factories (with the exception of Courcelles and Pilkington, with the reserva- 
 tion which we shall give later), have agreed between themselves to respect the prices 
 and sale conditions as fixed by the convention, and not to evade them in any way, 
 under penalty of heavy fines, either favoring the buyer by taking all the breakage 
 risks or by guaranteeing for each delivery a premium for breakage if it should reach 
 a certain percentage. 
 
 The convention desiring to bring production in direct relation to consumption, 
 each factory must shut down as many days per quarter that it is directed. 
 
 Every plate-glass factory, whether German, Belgian, French, or Austrian, may 
 sell on all the markets without any distinction whatsoever, in Belgium, Holland, 
 England, Germany, Austria-Hungary, in the Balkans, in Italy, Spain, Extreme 
 Orient, Orient, Russia, Poland, Finland, Scandinavia, South America, United 
 States of America, Canada, and Africa. It is sufficient that the contracting firm 
 should respect the conditions and prices as fixed by the convention. Each factory 
 has, moreover, its own agent in practically every market. 
 
 As a matter of fact, competition exists between the factories which are members 
 of the convention; but it is simply limited to the quality of glass which is furnished, 
 the prompt delivery, the care taken in packing, and other secondary details. 
 
 The Pilkington and Courcelles factories have themselves given up price competition 
 with the factories of the convention. These two manufacturers, although not bound 
 by any understanding, nevertheless observe the prices of the syndicate, and, in fact, 
 their competition does not go beyond that which is authorized between the affiliated 
 factories. 
 
 Had the syndicate not been renewed it would have resulted to the enormous preju- 
 dice of the interests of the plate-glass industry. There would in fact have been a 
 return to the situation prevailing before 1904. At that time the plate-glass industry 
 was going through a very acute crisis. Through excessive competition, prices had 
 fallen in considerable proportion, and, on the other hand, the rise in price of the raw 
 materials influenced unfavorably the cost price. Under these conditions, the future 
 of this industry seemed very dark, and though some strong companies could face 
 without fear a price war, the situation was not the same for the other companies, 
 especially for those whose products are not of the first quality. 
 
 One may say that under these conditions, without any exaggeration, the non- 
 renewal of the convention would have been a disaster for the great majority of the 
 factories. 
 
 It had lately been reported that the German syndicate of plate-glass manufacturers 
 and the international syndicate had decided to extend their agreement for a new 
 period of 10 years. 
 
 The information in this shape is not quite exact, and the reason why is this: 
 
 The Verband Deutscher Spiepelfabriken is the syndicate of plate-glass manu- 
 facturers which regulates the market of the German Confederation, from the point 
 of view of prices and sale conditions. But the German factories have joined the con- 
 
SCHEDULE B. 847 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 vention, and the latter has adopted for the sale in Germany the conditions of the 
 verband. There has, therefore, not been, and there could not have been, a renewal of 
 the understanding, so to speak, between the verband and the convention, because in 
 fact there is no special understanding between these two organizations, which are 
 working together. The renewal of the convention implied that of this understanding. 
 In fact, the verband is a division of the convention which each of its members has 
 joined. 
 
 A new event has marked this year the negotiations which have taken place con- 
 cerning the renewal of the International Convention of Plate Glass Manufacturers. 
 There is under consideration the draft of a constitution of an actual plate-glass trust 
 which shall be named 1' Union Internationale et Commerciale des Glaceries. This 
 project will not be long delayed. A plan for the organization of this union is at present 
 submitted for the definite approval of the interested parties. 
 
 L'TJnion Internationale et Commerciale des Glaceries will centralize at Brussels, 
 all the commercial services of the plate-glass companies, thus forming, as we said, a 
 genuine trust, a trust which will control all the branches interested in the plate-glass 
 industry, because the new organization makes provision in its by-laws for being a party 
 to the production of raw materials, of shipping companies, etc. 
 
 Contrary to what might be supposed, 1' Union Internationale et Commerciale des 
 Glaceries is not intended to replace the International Convention of Plate Glass Man- 
 ufacturers. The renewal of the latter has brought about the foundation of the union. 
 The union will act as an exporter which will buy the production of all the factories, 
 in accordance with its needs; that is, the orders received at a price fixed per square 
 meter, and resell this production at price and conditions fixed by the convention. 
 
 The capital of the union will be furnished by the factories of the convention, which 
 will pay into the corporation to be formed a part of their own capital. 
 
 This proposition originates from Mr. Henin, administrator of the plate-glass factories 
 of Charleroi, at Roux. It is, as one may see, tremendous, and is bound to strengthen 
 still further the position of the plate-glass industry, and the union among the members 
 of the syndicate. 
 
 A. MAUREY. 
 
 [From the Action Economique, Dec. 8, 1812.] 
 
 We have given in the last number of the Action Economique some information 
 concerning the renewal of the International Convention of Plate Glass Manufacturers. 
 
 We think it may be useful to complete this with more precision. 
 
 The principal object of the convention, as we said before, is to put production in 
 direct relation to consumption, so as to give stability to the prices and avoid an over- 
 production, injurious to every industry. The production of the factories is, therefore, 
 limited by the imposition of a certain shutdown. If, for example, a shutdown of 
 45 per cent is decreed, the factory would only be allowed to produce 55 per cent of its 
 productive capacity. 
 
 How is the control of this shutdown process effected? In the following way: The 
 factories can produce at will any amount of rough plate glass; but as soon as it is sub- 
 jected to the finishing process the control by way of shutdown interferes. The 
 grinding and polishing apparatus are sealed for the number of days or hours during 
 which the shutdown is decided for each period of three months. 
 
 New agreements have been talked about in view of an understanding on the limita- 
 tion of the respective productions between the convention and the famous English 
 Pilkington Co. which, as is true of theCourcellesCo.,isnotamember of the convention, 
 but respects the prices fixed by it. It is important to notice that the only difference, 
 or at least the most important one with the other affiliated factories, is that the English 
 Co. does not pay any attention to the special conditions of each market (for example, 
 the sizes intended for mirrors sold in qualities used for windows). Therefore, there 
 has not been, and there could not have been, negotiations in view of a new agreement 
 between the Pilkington Co. and the convention, the existing agreements renewing 
 themselves automatically at the same time as the convention itself. The situation, 
 in this direction, is identical with that of the verband for Germany, and it is, in fact, 
 that of the French group. In other words, there are three protected markets, viz. 
 France, Germany, and England, which are governed by their own federation of 
 manufacturers under the control of the convention. 
 
 It ifl nevertheless true that efforts are being made to obtain from the Pilkington 
 Co. a limitation of its production, and it is precisely in view of this that the new 
 
848 TAEIFF HEAKINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-103 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 organization 1' Union des Glaceries, whose organization we have referred to, will be 
 able to be of service. 
 
 We can already, in the most formal fashion, affirm this: The business activity of 
 1' Union Internationale et Commerciale des Glaceries (International and not Conti- 
 nental) is only a question of three or four months. 
 
 The constitution of this organization is to-day a definite one. Certain manufac- 
 turers, it is true, were hesitating to join the union before the renewal of the conven- 
 tion; but the fact itself of this renewal for a period of 10 years has done away with this. 
 Alone, the Glaceries Nationales Beiges have not yet given their assent, but one may 
 predict that it will not be long before they join, their holding aloof being without 
 reason. 
 
 The union will be, as we have already said, a genuine trust. It will concentrate 
 the production of all the factories and will buy it in toto at a price per square meter 
 fixed by the union itself, the latter being the representative of all the plate glass 
 factories. Rebates will naturally be granted to the different factories according to 
 the sale prices. 
 
 The principal advantage of the union will be in fact the complete suppression of 
 competition. The present competition on the quality of glass and the quality of 
 the packing will be itself completely done away with. There will be no more glass 
 of Floreffe, or Charleroi, or Auvelais; there will only be union glass. The distinction 
 will have enormous consequences, especially from the point of view of modifications 
 which will have to be made in the organization of sales on foreign markets, where 
 the factories all have actually their own agents. 
 
 We may add: The capital of 1' Union Commerciale et Internationale des Glaceries 
 will be of 2,000,000 francs. 
 
 A.M. 
 
 NOTE. The sales corporation above referred to which is the final step taken by 
 the trust to wholly dominate the foreign industry was formally incorporated at 
 Brussels in December, 1912, under the name of Union Commerciale Con tinentale. 
 
 BRIEF OF SEMON BACHE & CO. EELATIVE TO ROUGH PLATE 
 
 GLASS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 101. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 25, 1913. 
 THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: The duties in this paragraph are ostensibly levied on a square-foot 
 basis, but the provision that any excess over a weight of 1 pound per square foot shall 
 be dutiable at the same rate practically converts the rates to a weight basis, as none of 
 the glass weighs as little as 1 pound to the foot; that is, the rates of f cent, 1 cents, and 
 If cents per square foot are actual rates of f cent, 1^ cents, and If cents per pound. 
 
 Samples of the commoner varieties of the material covered by this paragraph are 
 sent herewith. The process of manufacture is very simple. The molten metal is 
 ladled out of the melting pot or tank and poured on an iron casting table from 2 to 4 
 feet wide and about 12 feet long and a roller is then run over it. A plain casting table 
 is used for the ordinary rough glass. The ribbed glass and the various patterns shown 
 by the samples are produced by cutting the ribs or the patterns in the surface of the 
 table. In the case of wire <dass, the wire is forced into the glass during the rolling 
 process. Xo grinding or polishing of any sort is done and the operation above described 
 rovers the entire manufacturing process with the exception of the annealing. In 
 short, compared with other varieties of glass, the proportion of the labor cost to the 
 total cost of the product is very small, the principal items of cost being the melting 
 materials and the fuel, both of which are cheaper here than in Europe. 
 
 The bulk of this glass is sold by the manufacturers in the original stock sheets just 
 as they come from the casting table, although there is a considerable volume of sales 
 of glass cut to the exact sizes required. The product is so cheap that the sizes do not 
 affect the price, stock sheets being sold at a uniform price per square foot regardless of 
 size, and glass cut to size is also usually sold at a uniform price enough higher than the 
 stock shoots to cover the cost of cutting, waste, etc.; that is, unlike plate glass, window 
 glass, and practically all other varieties of glass, the price per square foot has no rela- 
 tionship to the size, small sizes and large sizes being sold at the same price. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 849 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 The duties levied under this paragraph are not only higher than the cost of produc- 
 tion, which is about 2 cents per square foot for glass J inch in thickness, but are in 
 many cases higher than the manufacturers' selling prices. The table hereunder shows 
 the American manufacturers' selling prices for a long period, in fact for several years 
 prior to the fall of 1912, and also the duty on the imported glass. 
 
 
 Weight 
 per 
 square 
 foot. 
 
 Selling 
 price 
 per 
 square 
 foot. 
 
 Duty 
 per 
 square 
 foot. 
 
 Size. 
 
 J inch rough or ribbed. 
 
 Pounds. 
 1} 
 
 Cents. 
 
 z 
 
 Cents. 
 3.06 
 2.19 
 
 Above 24 by 30. 
 16 by 24 to 24 by 30. 
 
 ft inch rough or ribbed . 
 
 2| 
 
 3 
 
 1.31 
 4.59 
 3.28 
 
 Up to 16 by 24. 
 Above 24 by 30. 
 16 by 24 to 24 by 30. 
 
 
 3} 
 
 4} 
 
 1.96 
 6.12 
 4.38 
 
 Up to 16 by 24. 
 Above 24 by 30. 
 16 by 24 to 24 by 30. 
 
 J inch pattern glass, etc 
 
 If 
 
 4 
 
 2.62 
 3.06 
 2.19 
 
 Up to 16 by 24. 
 Above 24 by 30. 
 16 by 24 to 24 by 30. 
 
 J inch rough ribbed or ornamental wire glass 
 
 31 
 
 8 
 
 1.31 
 6.12 
 4.38 
 2.62 
 
 Up to 16 by 24. 
 Above 24 by 30. 
 16 by 24 to 24 by 30. 
 Up to 16 by 24. 
 
 All the above prices are for original stock sheets and comparison should, of course, 
 be made with the highest duty rates which apply to these sizes. 
 
 The manufacturers' present selling prices are a cent or two higher than the above, 
 which apparently does not amount to much but is the equivalent of 20 per cent to 
 35 per cent, figured on a percentage basis. 
 
 As a matter of fact, this glass is probably made cheaper in the United States than 
 anywhere else in the world. The manufacturers have been for years exporting con- 
 siderable quantities to Canada, where they are able to compete successfully not only 
 with European manufacturers in general, but even with the English manufacturers, 
 who enjoy a preferential tariff in Canada. 
 
 The importation into this country is trifling and consists almost entirely of special 
 ornamental patterns. Occasionally when a European manufacturer gets out a desir- 
 able and unique design of ornamental glass there is a little importation for a short 
 time, but the design is usually copied promptly and the importation ceases forthwith. 
 
 In short, the situation is about the same as in other varieties of American glass, the 
 tariff rates being in many cases higher than the manufacturers' selling prices and 
 higher than the foreign cost of the same variety of glass. Usually there is sufficient 
 competition among the American manufacturers to keep the selling price down to a 
 reasonable figure; in fact to the best of our recollection they have never taken full 
 advantage of the protection they enjoy. A radical reduction in the present rates 
 should be made, however, in order to make foreign competition at least possible. It 
 is also probable that with lower rates in effect the occasional importation of European 
 designs of ornamental glass would become more frequent and the Government reve- 
 nues benefited accordingly. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 SEMON BACHE & Co., 
 F. J. GOERTNER, 
 
 Sales Manager. 
 PARAGRAPH 102. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 13, 191S. 
 The COMMITTEE ox WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: We beg to confirm our statement of December 1, 1911 (copy attached), 
 as an accurate representation of existing conditions excepting regarding the selling price 
 of American plate glass. Beginning in April, 1912, a gradual advance in the manu- 
 facturers' selling prices has taken place. To-day's prices approximate those of Au- 
 gust 19, 1909 (see attached pamphlet). These, however, may be described as official 
 
 78959 VOL 113- 
 
 -54 
 
850 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 rather than actual prices. A large proportion of the glass now being shipped by the 
 manufacturers is against old contracts at the prices existing in the fall of 1911. 
 
 We also insert statistics of domestic production and importation for the fiscal year 
 ending July 1, 1912. It will be observed that the importations are only 2 per cent 
 of the domestic production. 
 
 The statement of the manufacturers submitted by Mr. Auerbach on January 8 last 
 also deserves mention on two or three points. All references are to print No. 3, tariff 
 hearings, January 8, 1913. 
 
 The American production to-day is given as 60,000,000 square feet annually. In 
 1909 it was 47,000,000 square feet. An increase of over 25 per cent in three years ia 
 not bad for an industry which is described by its members as being almost on the 
 rocks through inadequate protection. 
 
 Freights. Please see page of the attached pamphlet, which gives the actual 
 facts. New Orleans is almost the only point in the United States to which foreign 
 plate glass can be shipped cheaper than the domestic article; that is, while it is true 
 that low rates are obtainable from Antwerp to the Pacific coast, they are by all-water 
 routes, the time required for transportation being from three to six months, and are 
 not available for the average buyer. 
 
 The manufacturers' statement confirms ours as to the average cost of the American 
 production of polished plate. The report of the Audit Co. (p. 458) is based upon the 
 examination of "certain" factories. As the Audit Co.'s report was secured for the 
 purpose of fortifying an argument based on the alleged high cost of American plate 
 glass, it is a reasonable conclusion that the factories selected for the examination 
 the least efficient factories those showing the highest costs. 
 
 The result of the examination is a maximum cost of 23.98 cents per square foot, 
 about 5 cents higher than the average cost as stated by us. But this cost of 23.98 cents 
 includes everything except depreciation and interest on investment. It included 
 general office expense, selling expense, packing charges, etc., all of which are not 
 included in our statement and which amount to 2 or 3 cents per square foot. 
 
 Boiled down, the manufacturers' statement means that there are "certain" ineffi- 
 cient plants whose costs are about 10 or 15 per cent higher than our statement of the 
 general average cost. 
 
 This Audit Co.'s statement yields further remarkable results. It shows that these 
 factories sold their product in 1912 at the following average prices: Sizes up to 384 
 square inches, 13.43 cents per square foot; sizes exceeding 384 and not exceeding 720 
 inches, 21.45 cents per square foot; sizes over 720 square inches, 28.64 cents per square 
 foot. 
 
 The manufacturers claim (p. 456) that the low prices of the first two classifications 
 (small sizes) are due to inadequate protection. But the duty on these two classifi- 
 cations is 10 and 12i cents per square foot, respectively; and the foreign glass imported 
 into the United Stales, nearly all in small sizes under 720 inches, is of an average 
 value of over 20 cents per square foot; that is, foreign value, before duty is paid. It 
 was 24 cents per square foot in 1912. 
 
 This means a duty paid cost in the United States of around 33 to 35 cents per square 
 foot on these brackets, respectively. 
 
 So, in order to meet this competition, they sold these two classifications of sizes at 
 13i and 21^ cents per foot, respectively. The smallest sizes, those most "inadequately 
 protected,'' were sold at an average only 3A cents per square foot higher than the 
 duty alone on the imported gL.ss and for about 7 cents per square foot less than the 
 foreign cost of the Belgian plate glass, and for less than half of the laid-down cost 
 of the foreign gloss. 
 
 This doesn't seem to be reasonable, no more reasonable than the explanation (p. 457) 
 that the reason that small gl; PS is s< 'Id for less than ccst is on account of the tremendous 
 demand for it. We have here the anomaly of a tremendous demand reducing prices 
 to 50 per cent below the importation point, instead of raising them to the importation 
 point, which should follow by ordinary rules of logic. 
 
 Incidentally the Audit Co.'s statement also shows that the selling prices in 1909 
 under the Dingley tariff were higher than in 1912 under the Payne tariff, especially in 
 the smaller sizes, although the Payne tariff is 25 per cent higher in these sizes than 
 the Dingley tariff. In short, when the manufacturers secured additional protection 
 in these sizes by the tariff of 1909, they not only did not take advantage of it, but on the 
 contrary reduced their selling prices. 
 
 As for the convention of foreign plate glass manufacturers upon which so much 
 stress is laM in the manufacturers' statement, this is an arrangement of a sort that is 
 common in all European industries but which is not a trust at all, in our sense of the 
 
SCHEDULE B. 851 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PI/ATE GLASS. 
 
 term. The international convention is not a corporation, but merely a trade associa- 
 tion. Each factory retains its own autonomy and deals direct with its customers. 
 The primary function of the association is the adjustment of the production to the 
 probable demand, and, incidentally, the fixing of prices, but as a matter of fact the 
 regulation of the production creates a stable market in which prices take care of them- 
 selves. Present selling prices were established shortly after the organization of the 
 convention in 1904 and have remained practically unchanged since; in fact, as far as 
 the prices for the American market are concerned, there have not been any changes at 
 all except of a minor fractional nature. 
 
 An arrangement of this sort would be of great benefit to the trade in this country, 
 but of course would be dangerous, working behind the protection of the present moun- 
 tainous tariff wall. 
 
 In the prices given for the English market (p. 455) it is carefully omitted to state 
 that the English prices are freight paid to destination, while the American prices are 
 f. o. b. Antwerp. It is also carefully omitted that these English prices are for glass 
 cut to exact measurements, whereas most Belgian plate glass sold in England is in the 
 original stock sheets and on these the prices for the English market average lower than 
 prices for the United States. In fact it is obvious that as there is no duty on plate 
 glass entering England . The prices for that market can never be more than a fraction 
 higher than those for this country, as there would be no difficulty whatever in ship- 
 ping to New York in bond and reexporting to Great Britain. 
 
 Summed up, the situation is that 30 years ago we imported 65 per cent of our plate 
 glass. During that period the American production has increased about sixty-fold, 
 and we are to-day importing only 2 per cent of the total consumption. Furthermore, 
 the manufacturers can not under competitive conditions take advantage of their 
 present protection, their selling prices usually being way below the importation point. 
 
 There isn't any real reason, however, why the manufacturers should not get together 
 and take advantage of their present protection. They have effected combinations 
 in the past, and if the present tariff is allowed to stand there is every reason to expect 
 the organization of such a combination in the future. There are abundant trade 
 precedents for it, and a premium of 10 or 15 cents per square foot on a production of 
 60.000,000 square feet per year is a prize worth working for. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 SEMON BACHE & Co., 
 
 F. J. GOERTNER, Sales Manager. 
 
 NEW YORK, December 1, 1911. 
 To the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN : We beg to request your consideration of paragraph No. 102 of the tariff 
 act of 1909 (polished plate glass). 
 
 From a protective point of view the duties now imposed are far out of reason. 
 Attached hereto is an itemized statement showing that the cost of production in 
 this country does not exceed the European cost by more than 3 or 4 cents per square 
 foot at the outside whereas the duties run from 10 to 22^ cents. 
 
 Although this is a statement of average costs it is much more accurate than such 
 calculations usually are. No plate-glass factory makes anything to speak of except 
 plate glass, and the operations are unusually free from complexity. Verification of 
 the details of the cost 01 American production will be found in the pages immediately 
 following the statement itself. 
 
 We also quote the gelling prices of the American manufacturers, showing that 
 they are selling the great bulk of their product at prices only a trifle above the 
 duty on the imported article. It is obvious that a manufacturer does not need a 
 protection of 10 cents per foot on glass that he sells for 11 cents, nor does he need 
 12 cents protection on glass sold at 14 or 15 cents, nor 22 cents protection on glass 
 sold at from 22 to 32 cents per foot. 
 
 As for the revenue point of view, to get the revenue we must have importations. 
 These, in the case of plate glass, are steadily dwindling, and amount to-day to about 
 5 per cent of the American consumption. 
 
 At the present moment the American consumer is not suffering to any extent from 
 the high tariff. As stated above, the manufacturers are selling the product at only 
 a cent or 2 per foot above the duty alone on the imported glass/ In fact, there is a 
 good deal of glass being sold for less than the duty. 
 
852 
 
 TAEIFP HEAKINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. . 
 
 In times past, ,however, the American public has paid heavily for the excessive 
 protection given to the plate-glass industry. 
 
 In fact, the public has paid handsomely during the brief period since the passage 
 of the Payne-Aldrich bill. The ink was hardly dry on that document when nev 
 prices were issued simultaneously by the American manufacturers. They repre 
 sented an advance of about 20 per cent over the previous prices. The upward move 
 ment continued, reaching its highest point in the prices pi April 24 of this year, and 
 represent an advance of about 40 per cent over the prices of 1908-9. Since then 
 beginning early this summer, prices have dropped to the 1908-9 level. 
 
 It is only a question of time before the plate-glass manufacturers get together again 
 They can do about anything they like behind the present tariff wall without fear 
 of competition from abroad. It is simply a question of reaching a good understand 
 ing among themselves. So far the combinations that have been formed have col- 
 lapsed after an existence of a year or two, but there isn't any real reason why price^ 
 could not be put up to the importation point and kept there indefinitely. 
 
 We respectfully submit that it is dangerous to leave this high protection hanging 
 up as a premium for the formation of trade combinations. Prices could be raised at 
 average of 12 to 15 cents per square foot above to-day's level without increasing th*- 
 importations by more than a trifle. American production of plate glass is to-daj 
 about 50,000,000 square feet annually. There is a prize of from five to seven million 
 dollars of annual income waiting as a reward for the plan that will get together th. 
 American plate-glass factories and keep them together. There are only 12 manu 
 facturing companies, all told. Many more difficult combinations have been effected 
 
 The subject uppermost in the public mind to-day is the regulation of all trade com- 
 binations and the prevention of oppressive combinations. It in only through the 
 operation of the tariff that an oppressive "trust" in the plate-glass business could be 
 formed. The present schedule of duties is a standing invitation to create one. 
 
 The present duties could be cut. at least in half, without injuring the America! 
 manufacturer and affording to the American consumer the protection of possible com- 
 petition from abroad. 
 
 Respectfully, SEMON BACHE & Co., 
 
 F. J. GOERTNER, Sales Manager. 
 
 Comparison of American production and importations. 
 
 Plate-class production 
 in the United States. 
 
 Imports. 
 
 Square 
 feet. 
 
 Total 
 value. 
 
 Square 
 feet. 
 
 Total 
 value. 
 
 Percent- 
 age of 
 total 
 consump- 
 tion. 
 
 1880.. 1,042,000 
 
 
 1,906,617 
 2,823,965 
 1,902,146 
 3,103,813 
 3,303,227 
 1,201,189 
 709,596 
 927, 692 
 1,061,038 
 3,240,316 
 4,209,979 
 0, 320, 553 
 
 $648,890 
 917,369 
 440,299 
 688,203 
 764,914 
 311,848 
 175,970 
 233,099 
 256,347 
 793,755 
 
 Per cent. 
 65 
 24 
 
 1890 . . 9, lOD.lll 
 
 4,172,48-1 
 
 1S94 
 
 1895 . . 
 
 
 ] 896 
 
 
 1897. 
 
 
 189S 
 
 
 1899 ; 
 
 
 1900 10,883,578 
 
 5,158,598 
 
 6 
 
 1901 
 
 1902 
 
 
 1,006,765 
 1,363,058 
 
 
 1903 
 
 
 
 1904. 27,293,138 
 
 7,97S,253 
 
 4,580,207 
 6,087,481 
 7,330,327 
 
 884, 722 
 1,084,575 
 1,529,773 
 
 14.1 
 
 1905 
 
 1900 
 
 
 1907. 
 
 0,761,526 
 3,883,684 
 2, 294, 448 
 3, 209, 392 
 3, 957, 934 
 
 1,421,300 
 864, 756 
 507,851 
 726, 224 
 893,436 
 
 
 1908 
 
 
 
 1909 47 370 254 
 
 
 ij 
 
 1910 
 
 
 1911 
 
 
 
 
 1912.. . . 00,000,000 
 
 
 1 1,200, 000 
 
 
 
 ... 
 
 
 
 1 Approximately. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 853 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 The figures in parentheses on the cost calculation in the table refer to the succeeding 
 pages which contain verifications of the individual items. In most cases the proof 
 of the accuracy of the figures is taken from the Government records and in all cases 
 the authority is stated. 
 
 Verification of the foreign cost is not necessary, as it is practically admitted by the 
 American plate-glass manufacturers. (See p. 1142, Tariff Hearings, Schedule B, 
 60th Cong.) 
 
 The Belgian cost is used as the basis of comparison, as the Belgian production is 
 the cheapest in Europe and the importations of plate glass into the United States are 
 mostly from that country. 
 
 Cost of production in Belgium and in the United States of polished plate glass. 
 
 
 Requirements 
 for producing 1 
 square foot. 
 
 Cost per unit. 
 
 Cost of require- 
 ments for produc- 
 ing 1 square foot. 
 
 Belgium. 
 
 United States. 
 
 Belgium. 
 
 United 
 States. 
 
 White sand 
 
 LABOR. 
 
 0.041 days (1) ... 
 
 MATERIALS. 
 
 5.84 pounds (2) . 
 1. CO pounds (2). 
 0.54 pounds (2) . 
 2.14 pounds (2). 
 0.10 pounds (2). 
 30.50 pounds (3) 
 2.66 pounds (4). 
 0.05 pounds 
 0.05 pounds (5). 
 
 0.0001674 pots.. 
 0.451 pounds . . . 
 0.01 pounds 
 
 $0.8277 per day.. 
 
 $0.89 per ton.. 
 $10.10 per ton. 
 $21. 50 per ton. 
 $1.10 per ton.. 
 $12.20 per ton. 
 $0.48 per ton 
 $1.70 per ton 
 $0.012 per pound 
 $0.03 per pound.. 
 
 $22 per pot 
 $0.096 per pound 
 $0.0144 per 
 pound. 
 
 $1.93 per day (6). 
 
 $2 per ton (7) 
 $12 per ton (8) . . 
 $26 per ton (9) . . 
 $2.40 per ton (10) 
 $6 per ton (11) .. 
 $0.85 per ton (12) 
 $5.10 per ton (13) 
 $0.03 per pound . 
 $0.028 per pound 
 (14). 
 $26 per pot (15).. 
 $0.01 per pound . 
 
 Cents. 
 3.39 
 
 .26 
 .81 
 .58 
 .12 
 .06 
 .73 
 .23 
 .06 
 .15 
 
 .38 
 .43 
 .02 
 
 .10 
 .22 
 
 f 2.92 
 \ 1.18 
 
 1.12 
 2.03 
 
 Cents. 
 7.91 
 
 .58 
 .96 
 .70 
 .26 
 .03 
 1.30 
 .68 
 .15 
 .14 
 
 .43 
 .45 
 .25 
 
 .06 
 .26 
 
 } 1.23 
 1.12 
 2.08 
 
 Salt cake 
 
 Soda ash 
 
 Limestone. 
 
 Carbon (charcoal) 
 
 Grinding sand 
 
 Plaster 
 
 Emery 
 
 Rouge 
 
 Pots 
 
 Rnnnp.r irons 
 
 Felts 
 
 Lubricants 
 
 
 Miscellaneous supplies 
 
 
 
 
 Coal for melting furnaces 
 and for power. 
 Coal for annealing kilns 
 Maintenance, including fur- 
 nace repairs. 
 General expenditure and 
 shrinkage. 
 
 Total 
 
 FUEL. 
 
 18.06 pounds 
 6.46 pounds 
 
 $3.14 per ton 
 $3.65 per ton 
 
 l$lperton(16)... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 14.19 
 
 18.59 
 
 
 
 
 
 Analysis of cost in United States. 
 
 Labor 
 
 Material 
 
 Fuel 
 
 Maintenance 
 
 General expense and miscellaneous. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Per cent. 
 42 
 34 
 
 7 
 
 11 
 
 100 
 
 This calculation covers average shop cost only and does not include interest on 
 investment, general office expense, selling expense, nor the cost of packing material 
 or of labor for packing. It is impossible to make an accurate average statement of 
 these items which may run anywhere from 2 to 3i cents per square foot, either in 
 Belgium or in the United States, according to the individual factory. See note (17) 
 following. 
 
854 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 _ NOTE 1. Amount of /after. We give this as 0.041 days, or the equivalent proposi- 
 tion of 24.4 square feet per man per day or 7,320 square feet per man per year of 300 
 working days. 
 
 This is a difficult item on which to reach an exact figure as the result can not be 
 reached by dividing the annual output of a factory by the average number of em- 
 ployees. All the plate-glass factories make their own pots and the cost of the labor 
 in this department is not part of the general labor cost but is included in the pot cost, 
 which is a separate item in the calculation (see note 15). {Similarly, many of the com- 
 panies mine their own sand or dredge it from river or lake beds, this labor representing 
 the cost of the sand and not being part of the general cost of manufacture. Some of 
 the companies operate private railroads. The number of employees in these three 
 departments in one factory that we know of aggregates 90 men. 
 
 There are also companies that specialize in very thin or very thick plate glass, 
 both of which are considerably more expensive to produce than the regular one-quarter 
 inch thickness and decrease the output per man accordingly. 
 
 In the case of a factory confining itself to straight plate glass production, however, 
 it will be found that the average output per man is considerably in excess of the 
 amount we state. 
 
 For instance, the general manager of the Ford Plate Glass Co. stated to a commercial 
 agency under date of March 6, 1911, as follows: 
 
 "We expect to have part of the new plant in operation within six to eight months. 
 When it is running complete we will have a pay roll between $75,000 and $100,000 per 
 month. Our output is now about 500,000 square feet of glass per month, and it will 
 then be about 1,000,000 square feet. At this time we are now employing about 800 
 men including those employed on the new work." 
 
 Eight hundred men at 300 working days per year equals 240,000 working days per 
 year. 
 
 Five hundred thousand square feet per month equals 6,000,000 square feet per 
 year, which divided by 240,000 equals 25 feet per man per day or 7,500 feet per man 
 per year. 
 
 It will be noted that these 800 men include those engaged on the new plant and we 
 may add that this company dredges its sand from Lake Erie, leaving the obvious 
 conclusion that this particular factory's output is in the neighborhood of 8,000 feet 
 per man per year. 
 
 In the Commoner and Glassworker, a Pittsburgh trade publication, in the issue of 
 April 24, 1909, there is an article concerning this company and giving details of im- 
 provements recently made at the plant and winding up with the statement that the 
 monthly capacity is 450.000 square feet and that the employees number 700, which 
 works out at 7,7i4 feet per man per year and agrees remarkably well with the state- 
 ment quoted above made two years later. 
 
 NOTE 2. Melting materials. We allow 10.22 pounds for the total material entering 
 into the composition of a square foot. The weight of plate glass in the rough, imme- 
 diately after casting and before grinding or polishing, is about 7 pounds per foot, so 
 that we obviously allow sufficient material with proper allowance for volatilization, 
 which is about 30 per cent in soda ash but much less in the other important materials. 
 
 NOTE 3. Grinding sand. The 30.5 pounds allowed is rather larger than the quantity 
 actually required, but a? this material is more expensive in this country than in Europe 
 we have allowed a maximum quantity to remove all room for argument. The total 
 consumption of grinding: stmd on page" 23 of Census Bulletin No. 62 of 1905 is given as 
 410,856 tons. Not all of this was used for grinding plate glass, as there were several 
 million square feet of ground and obscured glass produced in 1905, most of which was 
 made by the sand-blast process. However, assuming that the entire consumption 
 was for the manufacture of polished plate, the 410.856 tons divided by the 1905 pro- 
 duction of polished plate 27,293,138 square feet equals 30.1 pounds per foot of 
 production. 
 
 NOTE 4. Plaster. We state the required quantity as 2.66 pounds per foot of pro- 
 duction. The total consumption according to page'23 of Census Bulletin No. 62 of 
 1905 was 33,939 tons, which divided by the number of square feet produced 
 27,293.138 gives a results of 2.49 pounds per square foot. 
 
 NOTE S.Rouge.'We state the quantity as 0.05 pound per square foot. Page 
 23 of Census Bulletin No. 62 sives the consumption as 1,098,566 pounds, which divided 
 by the production of 27.293,138 square feet, give a result of 0.04 pounds per foot. 
 
 'NOTE 6. Cost of labor. It is fortunately possible to confirm this item very exactly 
 from official records. The report of the United States Commission on Immigration, 
 now issuing from the Government Printing Office, gives in its investigation of the 
 conditions in the manufacture of pkte glass the following tables. 
 
SCHEDULE n. 855 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 STUDY OF EMPLOYEES. 
 
 TABLE 38. Per cent of male employees 18 years of age or over earning each specified 
 amount per week, by general nativity and race Plate glass. 
 
 [This table includes only races with 80 or more males reporting. The totals, however, are for all races.] 
 
 General nativity 
 and race. 
 
 Num- 
 ber 
 report- 
 ing 
 com- 
 plete 
 data. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 earn- 
 ings 
 per 
 week. 
 
 Per cent earning each specified amount per week. 
 
 $7.50 
 or over. 
 
 $10 or 
 over. 
 
 $12.50 
 or over. 
 
 $15 or 
 over. 
 
 $17.50 
 or over. 
 
 $20 or 
 over. 
 
 $22.50 
 or over. 
 
 $25 or 
 over. 
 
 Native born of na- 
 tive father: 
 White 
 
 959 
 92 
 
 110 
 
 222 
 89 
 144 
 403 
 83 
 513 
 
 $12. 86 
 12.90 
 
 13.38 
 
 13.28 
 9.05 
 10.85 
 11.24 
 10.94 
 11.10 
 
 99.4 
 100.0 
 
 99.1 
 
 100.0 
 95.5 
 100.0 
 99.8 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 
 71.3 
 80.4 
 
 71.8 
 
 75.2 
 1.1 
 52.1 
 55.6 
 32.5 
 53.6 
 
 43.2 
 59.8 
 
 50.9 
 
 55.0 
 1.1 
 21.5 
 23.3 
 7.2 
 25.0 
 
 27.6 
 26.1 
 
 38.2 
 
 35.1 
 1.1 
 12.5 
 10.2 
 3.6 
 15.4 
 
 11.6 
 1.1 
 
 17.3 
 
 11.7 
 1.1 
 2.8 
 4.0 
 1.2 
 2.7 
 
 5.3 
 
 2.9 
 
 2.1 
 
 
 Native born of for- 
 eign father, by 
 country of birth 
 of father, G e r - 
 many 
 
 7.3 
 4.1 
 
 2.7 
 2.3 
 
 .0 
 
 1.8 
 
 Foreign born by 
 race: 
 German 
 
 
 Magyar 
 
 
 
 
 Polish 
 
 1.2 
 
 .7 
 
 .7 
 
 
 Slovak 
 
 .2 
 
 
 
 Grand total.. 
 Total native born 
 of foreign father.. 
 Total native born.. 
 Total foreign born. 
 
 3,261 
 
 223 
 
 1,274 
 1,987 
 
 12.07 
 
 13.67 
 13.00 
 11.48 
 
 99.4 
 
 99.1 
 99.4 
 99.5 
 
 59.0 
 
 74.0 
 72.6 
 50.2 
 
 34.3 
 
 53.4 
 
 46.2 
 26.6 
 
 21.1 
 
 38.1 
 
 29.4 
 15.9 
 
 8.1 
 
 17.9 
 
 11.9 
 5.6 
 
 3.3 
 
 9.0 
 5.6 
 1.8 
 
 1.7 
 
 4.0 
 2.9 
 .9 
 
 1.2 
 
 1.8 
 1.9 
 .7 
 
 STUDY OP EMPLOYEES. 
 
 TABLE 43. Per cent of male employees 14 and under 18 years of age earning each specified 
 amount per week, by general nativity and race Plate glass. 
 
 [This table includes only races with 40 or more males reporting. The totals, however, are for all races.] 
 
 General nativity and race. 
 
 Number 
 reporting 
 complete 
 data. 
 
 Average 
 earnings 
 per 
 week. 
 
 Per cent earning each specified amount 
 per week. 
 
 $2.50 or 
 over. 
 
 $5 or 
 over. 
 
 $7.50 or 
 over. 
 
 $10 or 
 over. 
 
 Native hnrn nf n^tivA fathpr j whitfl 
 
 64 
 
 $7.98 
 
 100.0 
 
 89.1 
 
 67.2 
 
 14.1 
 
 Grand total 
 
 174 
 66 
 132 
 42 
 
 7.87 
 7.60 
 7.81 
 8.04 
 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 
 90.8 
 90.9 
 90.2 
 92.9 
 
 69.0 
 66.7 
 67.4 
 73.8 
 
 9.2 
 6.1 
 9.8 
 7.1 
 
 Total native born of foreign father 
 
 Total native born 
 
 Total foreign born 
 
 
 In the above tables figures are given for a total of 3,261 adult employees and 174 
 boys, showing average weekly wages of $12.07 and $7.87, respectively. Assuming 
 these proportions of 3,261 to 174 to hold good, we reach an average weekly wage of 
 $11.85, or $1.97 per day. 
 
 The above tables, Nos. 38 and 43, however, show an unduly large proportion of 
 native American labor; that is, of high-priced labor, and an unduly small proportion 
 of Italian and Slav labor; that is, of cheap labor. 
 
 This Italian and Slav labor constitutes 60 to 70 per cent of the entire working force 
 in the average American factory, as stated by Mr. Clause, president of the Pittsburgh 
 Plate Glass Co., in his testimony before the Committee on Ways and Means in 1908. 
 (See p. 1158, Tariff Hearings. Schedule B, Sixtieth Congress.) This is also confirmed 
 
856 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 by another table (No. 130) in the report of the Immigration Commission in which the 
 racial distribution of employees in a typical plate glass plant is given as follows: 
 
 Native white 87 
 
 Native negro 12 
 
 English 38 
 
 Irish 9 
 
 Scotch 2 
 
 German 17 
 
 French 88 
 
 Races constituting about 67 per cent of the total: 
 
 Italian 220 
 
 Slovak 294 
 
 Magyar 16 
 
 Croatian 5 
 
 Unknown . . 1 
 
 Total... 
 
 789 
 
 Tables Nos. 38 and 43 show an average wage of $1.97 per day for a working force 
 containing 1,069 native Americans out of a total of 3,261 (exclusive of boys), or about 
 33 per cent, and 1,143 Italians, Slovaks, etc., out of 3,261, or about 35 per cent. It is 
 obvious that average wages for a force consisting of only 11 per cent native Americans 
 and about 67 per cent Italians, Slovaks, etc., will be very considerably lower. 
 
 NOTE 7. Cost of melting sand. We state it as $2 per ton. Census Bulletin No. 62, 
 1905, page 23, gives the total consumption as 769,702 tons of a total cost of $1,547,147, 
 or $2.01 per ton. 
 
 NOTE 8. Cost of salt cake. We state it as $12 per ton. Census Bulletin No. 62, of 
 1905, page 23, gives the total consumption as 53.905 tons of a total value of $802,611, 
 or $14. 89 per ton. 
 
 This material has declined in price since 1905. There have been small importa- 
 tions during the first nine months of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1911, amounting 
 to 10,397 tons of a foreign value of $109,667, which, plus the duty of $1 per ton, works 
 out at $11 .55 per ton. 
 
 Salt cake and soda ash are interchangeable materials in glass manufacture. Some 
 American factories use soda ash exclusively. When soda ash alone is used, fusion is 
 quicker and at a lower temperature, thus effecting a saving in fuel, compensating for 
 the increased cost of the material as compared with salt cake. 
 
 NOTE 9. Cost of soda ash. We state it as $26 per ton. Census Bulletin No. 62, of 
 905, page 23, gives the consumption as 215,462 tons of a total value of $4,068,804, or 
 $18.88 per ton. Unlike salt cake, this material has advanced in price during the past 
 few years. There has been a trifling importation during the first nine months of the 
 fiscal year ending June 30, 1911, 2,951.203 pounds, or about 1,476 tons of a foreign 
 value of $33.024, which, plus the duty of S5 per ton, give^ a total value of $40,402, or 
 about S27.38 per ton. (See also the preceding memorandum regarding salt cake.) 
 
 NOTES 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. All figures from Census Bulletin No. 62, of 1905, page 23. 
 
 Total con- 
 sumption. 
 
 Total 
 value. 
 
 Value 
 per unit. 
 
 Grinding sand (12) 
 
 Plaster (1,3)... do 
 
 Rouse (14) pounds 
 
 115, G55 
 
 3,750 
 
 410, 856 
 
 33, 939 
 
 1,098,566 
 
 $274, 209 
 
 22, 333 
 
 332,013 
 
 169, 988 
 
 29, 869 
 
 $2. 37 
 5.96 
 
 5.01 
 .027 
 
 NOTE. The cost of grinding sand in many factories is exclusively for labor. See note No. 1. 
 
 NOTE 15. -Cost of pots. Our statement of S2G per pot is difficult to confirm, as the 
 plate-glass factorio- make practically all their own pots. We have accordingly based 
 ourselves on the Belgian cost, phn about one-third of what the freight and duty 
 would amount to if the pots were imported, and as none actually are imported, this 
 is a reasonably close approximation. This id a very small item in the cost in any 
 event. 
 
 NOTE 16. Cost of fuel. The value of $1 per ton assigned to coal should rather be 
 described as the relative cost of fuel as compared with the Belgian cost. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 857 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 No single item in the cost varies so greatly as this one. Many of the American 
 factories are still operating with natural gas, particularly those in Pennsylvania, 
 which are more than half of the total number in the country. Still other factories, 
 notably the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., own their own coal mines, or are so located with 
 reference to coal deposits that their cost is considerably under $1 per ton. In other 
 factories the cost is higher, but $1 is a fair average for a ton of coal or for fuel of equal 
 caloric value. 
 
 Census Bulletin No. 62, of 1905, on page 35, gives the total consumption of coal in 
 the State of Pennsylvania as 419,636 tons of a value of $574,274, or $1.37 per ton. 
 This includes the operation of all establishments and is undoubtedly much higher 
 than in the plate-glass factories, who are very large consumers and who were located 
 with reference to cheap fuel, as is stated in the preface to the Census Bulletin above 
 referred to. 
 
 NOTE 17. The investment required to erect and operate a plate-glass factory inde- 
 pendent of banking facilities, is about 33J per cent higher in the United States than in 
 Belgium. The capital required in Belgium is about 45 cents per square foot of annual 
 capacity. In the United States it requires about 60 cents per square foot of annual 
 capacity. The interest on this difference of 15 cents per square foot, at 5 per cent per 
 annum, amounts to about three-fourths cent per square foot in the cost of the product. 
 
 General office expense and selling expense is, generally speaking, higher in Belgium 
 than in the United States. The Belgian factories sell very little of their product in 
 their own country not more than 5 to 10 per cent all the rest being exported and 
 sold in relatively small units than is the practice in the United States. The fact of 
 of exporting the bulk of their product naturally requires a much larger clerical force 
 for the handling of the business, on account of consular formalities, etc., and the multi- 
 plication of clerical details. This is a difficult matter to reduce to figures, but it is a 
 matter of common knowledge to anyone familiar with plate-glass plants that the 
 entire office force of an American factory will not exceed five or six people, that is, 
 exclusive of the force employed in keeping factory records, etc., all of whom are pro- 
 vided for in the administrative expense item shown on the calculation of shop cost, 
 whereas a Belgian factory will employ an office staff three or four times as large. 
 
 General office expense, however, is a most intangible matter, particularly in close 
 corporations, where it is a matter of indifference to the proprietors of the business 
 whether their profits take the form of dividends or large salaries. 
 
 Selling expense is also a greater item with the average Belgian factory than with the 
 average American establishment. That is natural, on account of the fact that the 
 Belgian market is all over the world instead of being confined to one country. The 
 average American plate-glass plant employs only one general sales agent, who rarely 
 has any assistants. The Belgian factory employs an official of the same title, and in 
 addition to this markets most of its product through brokers, who are paid a com- 
 mission of from 2 to 3 per cent. 
 
 In the cost of packing, it is about a stand-off. The labor costs less in Belgium; the 
 packing material itself lumber, straw, excelsior, etc. costs less in the United States. 
 It should be said, however, that this refers merely to packing in Belgium in a general 
 way. The packing of Belgian glass destined for the United States or any other country 
 to which it is exported by water is very much more expensive than the packing 
 employed by the American manufacturers for rail shipment. 
 
 The general expense above referred to is simply general office expense. The ex- 
 pense of record keeping in the factory, and of all office expense directly connected 
 with the operation of a factory, in fact, all office expense except that connected with 
 the sale of the material and the relations between the manufacturer and his customers, 
 are included in the cost calculation. 
 
 SELLING PRICES OF AMERICAN PLATE GLASS. 
 
 We believe it will be accepted as an axiom that no manufacturer will continuously 
 sell his product below cost. He may perhaps sell occasional parcels of merchandise 
 below the cost of production, or perhaps he may sell his entire product, for a very brief 
 period, below the cost of production, but he will not continuously sell his product 
 on this basis and keep his factory in full operation. 
 
 The manner in which the great bulk of American plate glass is sold is in carload 
 lots of what are known as glazing stock sheets; that is, the manufacturer does not 
 undertake to furnish any specific sizes, but merely sizes within certain limits that 
 is, of any given quantity he undertakes to furnish. 
 
858 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 Four per cent in sizes having an area of from 1 to 3 square feet, 6 per cent in sizes hav- 
 ing an area of from 3 to 5 square feet, and so on. These divisions are known as brackets. 
 The percentages furnished in each of the various brackets, and the way in which the 
 average price of a carload of glazing stock sheets is worked out, is shown in the following 
 tables. The first table shows the figures on a carload of 10,000 square feet at the 
 prices current during the greater part of the years 1908-9. The second table shows 
 to-day's prices. 
 
 Average price of carload of 10,000 square feet, 1908-9. 
 
 4 per cent in sizes from 1 to 3 square feet; that is, 400 square feet, at $0.114 $45. 60 
 
 6 per cent in sizes from 3 to 5 square feet; that is, 600 square feet, at .142 85.20 
 
 20 per cent in sizes from 5 to 10 square feet; that is, 2,000 square feet, at .228 456.00 
 
 21 per cent in sizes from 10 to 25 square feet; that is, 2,100 square feet, at .275 577..50 
 
 22 per cent in sizes from 25 to 50 square feet; that is, 2,200 square feet, at .285 627.00 
 
 24 per cent in sizes from 50 to 100 square feet; that is, 2,400 square feet, at .295 708.00 
 
 3 per cent in sizes from 100 to 120 square feet; that is, 300 square feet, at .323 96. 90 
 
 100 per cent. 10,000 square feet. 2, 596. 20 
 
 That is an average price per square foot of almost 26 cents. 
 
 Average price of carload of 10,000 square feet, 1911. 
 
 4 per cent in sizes from 1 to 2J square feet; that is, 400 square feet, at $0.1045 $41.80 
 
 4 per cent in sizes from 2 to 4 square feet; that is, 400 square feet, at .133 53. 20 
 
 2 per cent in sizes from 4 to 5 square feet; that is, 200 square feet, at .1425 28. 50 
 
 8 per cent in sizes from 5 to 7 square feet; that is, 800 square feet, at .2185 174.80 
 
 10 per cent in sizes from 7 to 10 sqaure feet; that is, 1,000 square feet, at .228 228.00 
 
 5 per cent in sizes from 10 to 12 square feet; that is, 500 square feet, at .2375 118.75 
 
 18 per cent in sizes from 12 to 25 square feet; that is, 1,800 square feet, at .266 478.80 
 
 22 per cent in sizes from 25 to 50 square feet; that is, 2,200 square feet, at .285 627.00 
 
 24 per cent in sizes from 50 to 100 square feet; that is, 2,400 square feet, at .28975 695.40 
 
 3 per cent in sizes from 100 to 120 square feet; that is, 300 square feet, at .323 96.90 
 
 100 per cent. 10,000 square feet. 2, 543. 15 
 
 Average price. 25.43 cents per square foot. 
 
 The duty on either of these standard carloads would be $2,140. 
 
 It will be observed that the average selling price of a carload of glazing stock sheets 
 was just a trifle under 26 cents per square foot in 1908 and is about 2 per cent lower 
 to-day. 
 
 Now the average price of a carload of glazing stock sheets is considerably higher 
 than the average price obtained for the total product of a factory. The manufacturers 
 themselves testified on this point in 1909. We quote from the statement signed by 
 the independent plate glass manufacturers the factories exclusive of the Pittsburgh 
 Plate Glass Co. dated February 11, 1909, and printed on pages 7863 to 7869, inclusive, 
 of the appendix to the tariff hearings of the Sixtieth Congress, the quotation following 
 being from page 7865: 
 
 "The manufacturer is burdened with cuttings from stock sheets, by the trade. 
 called strips, with second quality, and with inferior quality called O. B.'s, which 
 glass sells at about one-third of cost. There are also large quantities of small glass sold 
 not included in the customary car of stock sheets, at prices far below cost. The result 
 is the average price for the entire product is much less than the average price received 
 per square foot for a carload of glazing stock sheets." 
 
 The difference between the average price of a carload of glazing stock sheets and 
 the average price received for the entire product of a factory is usually figured at 4 to 
 6 cents per square foot. Five cents is a fair average. That is, if the price of stock 
 sheets averages 2G cents per square foot, it means that an average price of only 21 
 cents per square foot is being obtained for the product of a factory taken as a whole. 
 
 The American plate-glass factories are running along as usual with only the usual 
 and normal shutdowns, and are selling their product at 20 or 21 cents per foot on the 
 average, these figures being reached as outlined above. 
 
 We submit that this condition is consistent with the average cost as stated by us 
 and is not consistent with any higher cost. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 859 
 
 PAEAGEAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 PITTSBURGH, PA., January 19, 1906. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: Withdrawing all previous quotations on stock sheets and cut sizes, 
 the following prices go into effect this day, subject to change without notice: 
 \ 
 
 One-fourth inch glass, glazing quality, per square foot. 
 
 
 Stock 
 sheet 
 prices. 
 
 Cut size 
 prices. 
 
 1 to 3 foot brackets . . 
 
 Cents. 
 19 
 
 Cents. 
 24 
 
 3 to 5 foot brackets ... .. 
 
 22 
 
 28 
 
 5 to 10 foot brackets 
 
 34 
 
 39 
 
 10 to 25 foot brackets 
 
 44 
 
 49 
 
 25 to 50 foot brackets 
 
 46 
 
 51 
 
 50 to 100 foot brackets . . 
 
 49 
 
 54 
 
 100 to 120 foot brackets 
 
 54 
 
 60 
 
 
 
 
 F. o. b. factory, freight equalized with nearest factory. 
 The cut size prices do not include A B sizes or their multiples. 
 For three-sixteenths inch, 15 per cent to be added, and for special thickness (other 
 than three-sixteenths inch) three-eighths inch, and five-sixteenths inch, inclusive, 10 
 per cent to be added to the above prices. 
 
 Allegheny Plate Glass Co., Edward Ford Plate Glass Co., Standard Plate 
 Glass Co., Saginaw Plate Glass Co., Penn American Plate Glass Co., 
 St. Louis Plate Glass Co., Columbia Plate Glass Co., Heidenkamp Mir- 
 ror Co., Kittanning Plate Glass Co. 
 
 The nine companies whose signature is appended to the above quotation represented 
 all the American manufacturers with the exception of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. 
 
 BUTLER, PA., August 19, 1909. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: Withdrawing all previous quotations on stock sheets and cut sizes the 
 following prices go into effect this day, subject to change without notice: 
 
 Polished plate glass about one-fourth inch, glazing quality, per square foot. 
 
 
 Stock 
 sheet 
 prices. 
 
 Cut size 
 prices. 
 
 1 to 3 foot brackets . 
 
 Cents. 
 18 
 
 Cents. 
 22 
 
 3 to 5 foot brackets 
 
 22 
 
 27 
 
 5 to 10 foot brackets 
 
 28 
 
 33 
 
 10 to 25 foot brackets 
 
 30 
 
 35 
 
 25 to 50 foot brackets 
 
 32 
 
 37 
 
 50 to 100 foot brackets . . 
 
 34 
 
 40 
 
 100 to 120 foot brackets . . * 
 
 36 
 
 42 
 
 120 to 130 foot brackets 
 
 40 
 
 46 
 
 130 to 140 foot brackets ... 
 
 45 
 
 52 
 
 140 to 150 foot brackets 
 
 50 
 
 58 
 
 Over 150 foot brackets. 
 
 55 
 
 65 
 
 
 
 
 F. o. b. factory, freight equalized with nearest factory. 
 The cut size prices do not include A B sizes or their multiples. 
 For three-sixteenths inch, 15 per cent to be added, and for special thickness (other 
 than three-sixteenths inch), three-eighths inch and five-sixteenths inch, inclusive, 10 
 per cent to be added to the above prices. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 STANDARD PLATE GLASS Co. 
 Average price, 30.22 cents per square foot. 
 
860 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 AMERICAN PLATE GLASS Co., 
 
 Kane, Pa., April 24, 1911. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: All stock sheets up to 12 square feet will be sold in ranges and brackets 
 as below, and at prices stated, until further advised: 
 
 Eange. 
 
 Bracket. 
 
 Price. 
 
 12/19by 12/19 
 
 1 foot to 2 feet 8 inches 
 
 Per square 
 foot. 
 $0.15 
 
 
 1 foot to 2 feet 8 inches 
 
 .18 
 
 
 2 feet 8 inches to 4 feet 
 
 .22 
 
 12/19 by 20/61 
 
 4 feet to 5 feet 
 
 .26 
 
 
 5 feet to 7 feet 
 
 .35 
 
 
 7 feet to 12 feet 
 
 .36 
 
 12/19 by 62/12 
 
 fo feet to 7 feet 
 
 .36 
 
 
 \7 feet to 12 feet 
 r2 feet 8 inches to 4 feet 
 
 .37 
 .22 
 
 20/29 by 20/29 
 
 J4 feet to 5 feet 
 
 .25 
 
 
 lo feet to 7 feet 
 
 .34 
 
 20/29by30/37 . 
 
 (4 feet to 5 feet 
 
 .25 
 
 20/29 by 38/12 . 
 
 \5 feet to 7 feet 
 (5 feet to 7 feet 
 
 .36 
 .36 
 
 30/39 by 30/39 
 
 \7 feet to 12 feet 
 15 feet to 7 feet 
 
 .37 
 .34 
 
 30/41 by 40/12 
 
 i\7 feet to 12 feet 
 7 feet to 12 feet 
 
 .36 
 
 .38 
 
 
 
 
 To determine bracket, use next lower even inch in width and length up to 12 feet and the entire footage 
 of a plate will be charged at the price indicated by the bracket thus indicated. 
 
 All brackets above 12 feet will be the same as heretofore, allowing a plate containing 6 inches above the 
 bracket to be applied in the lower bracket. 
 
 All crops will be charged for at the lowest price indicated for the bracket. 
 
 25 to 50 feet... 
 50 to 100 feet.. 
 100 to 120 feet. 
 120 to 130 feet. 
 130 to 140 feet. 
 
 Regular stock, not in above ranges. 
 
 140 to 150 feet.,. 
 150 to 160 feet... 
 160 to 180 feet... 
 180 to 200 feet... 
 200 to 220 feet... 
 220 to 240 feet.. 
 
 .40 
 
 .42 
 .44 
 .46 
 .48 
 
 ). 50 
 .52 
 .54 
 .62 
 .66 
 .70 
 
 Bracket percentages for carloads of stock sheets. 
 
 1 foot to 2 feet 8 inches 
 
 2 feet 8 inches to 4 feet 
 
 4 to 5 feet 
 
 5 to 7 feet 
 
 7 to 12 feet... 15 
 
 Per cent. 
 4 
 4 
 
 ... 2 
 
 8 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 12 to 25 feet 18 
 
 25 to 50 feet 22 
 
 50 to 100 feet 24 
 
 100 to 120 feet.. 3 
 
 Average price, 37.45 cents per square foot. 
 
 100 
 
 The Belgian manufacturer exports over 90 per cent of his product. Having no 
 home market, he can not "dump" a surplus here or anywhere else. 
 
 Cheap European glass is not imported into the United States at all, as will be con- 
 firmed by a glance at the value per unit of the importations. Plate glass in sizes from 
 16 by 24 to 24 by 30 can be bought in Belgium at 15 or 16 cents per foot, but the im- 
 portations in these sizes consist of glass of 25 or 30 per cent higher value. 
 
 The fact is that the importations consist of expensive glass, bought entirely by 
 reason of its quality and not on account of low price. This is not only true to-day but 
 has always been true. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 861 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 101-102 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 PROGRESS OP AMERICAN PLATE-GLASS MANUFACTURE. 
 
 In round figures the production in 1890 was 9,000,000 feet; in 1900, 17,000,000 
 feet; in 1904, 27,000,000 feet; in 1910, 47,000,000 feet; to-day, over 50,000,000 feet. 
 
 There were 3 manufacturers in 1900, 10 in 1904, 12 to-day. There have been no 
 bankruptcies or receiverships during this period. 
 
 The greatest increase was 1904 to 191020,000,000 feet of production. The two new 
 factories established during this period account for 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 feet. The 
 remaining 14,000,000 feet represents extensions and improvements made by the 
 previously existing plants. That is, the increased production is not due to outsiders 
 entering the business, but represents additional investment by those already engaged 
 in it. 
 
 We submit that this is not a picture of a languishing industry. 
 
 FREIGHTS. 
 
 Comparatiie carload rates in cents per hundred pounds. 
 
 
 From American factories. 
 
 From Belgian factories. 
 
 Pittsburgh 
 district. 
 
 Toledo. 
 
 St. Louis 
 (Valley Park). 
 
 Via Atlantic 
 seaboard ports. 
 
 Via New 
 Orleans. 
 
 Class. 
 
 Class. 
 
 Class. 
 
 Class. 
 
 Class. 
 
 Third. 
 
 Fourth. 
 
 Third. 
 
 Fourth. 
 
 Third. 
 
 Fourth. 
 
 Third. 
 
 Fourth. 
 
 Third. 
 
 Fourth. 
 
 Atlanta 
 
 95 
 27 
 33 
 22 
 30 
 26 
 152$ 
 26 
 34 
 28$ 
 75 
 79 
 30 
 10 
 37J 
 150 
 
 73 
 18 
 24 
 14* 
 21 
 18 
 118$ 
 18 
 24 
 19i 
 53 
 61 
 21 
 8 
 26 
 150 
 
 100$ 
 36 
 44 
 23 
 23$ 
 22$ 
 145$ 
 12 
 30 
 23$ 
 65* 
 79 
 39 
 23 
 30$ 
 150 
 
 78 
 24$ 
 81| 
 16 
 16 
 15 
 113i 
 9 
 21 
 16 
 48} 
 61 
 27J 
 16 
 21J 
 150 
 
 95 
 58$ 
 66$ 
 40$ 
 29$ 
 28$ 
 115 
 33$ 
 21 
 27 
 35 
 65 
 61$ 
 40$ 
 3 
 150 
 
 75 
 41 
 48 
 29$ 
 23 
 20$ 
 92 
 24$ 
 16 
 19$ 
 27 
 50 
 44 
 29$ 
 3 
 150 
 
 
 
 113$ 
 
 113$ 
 
 Baltimore 
 
 35$ 
 35$ 
 55$ 
 75 
 69$ 
 137$ 
 
 71$ 
 102$ 
 
 35$ 
 35$ 
 46$ 
 59$ 
 
 111$ 
 51$ 
 53$ 
 57$ 
 85$ 
 
 Best on 
 
 
 
 Buffalo 
 
 
 
 Chicago 
 
 63$ 
 57$ 
 121$ 
 
 52$ 
 47$ 
 95$ 
 
 Cincinnati 
 
 Denver 
 
 Detroit : 
 
 E vansville 
 
 
 
 Indianapolis 
 
 
 
 Kansas Cit v 
 
 21 
 
 78$ 
 35$ 
 
 New Orleans 
 
 New York 
 
 32$ 
 55$ 
 83$ 
 161$ 
 
 32$ 
 45$ 
 65$ 
 161$ 
 
 Pittsburgh 
 
 
 
 St. Louis 
 
 73$ 
 161$ 
 
 60$ 
 161$ 
 
 San Francisco 
 
 
 Plate glass takes third or fourth class rate in carload lots (eastern classification), 
 according to the size of the package. 
 
 Rates from Belgian factories are Antwerp rates plus the rate from the factories to 
 Antwerp, which is 13 francs per 1,000 kilos, or about 11 cents per hundredweight. 
 From other European producing centers the rates are much higher. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 103. 
 
 Cast polished plate glass, silvered, cylinder and crown glass, silvered, and 
 looking-glass plates, exceeding in size one hundred and forty-four square 
 inches and not exceeding three hundred and eighty-four square inches, 
 eleven cents per square foot; above that, and not exceeding seven hundred 
 and twenty square inches, thirteen cents per square foot; all above that, 
 twenty-five cents per square foot: Provided, That no looking-glass plates or 
 plate glass, silvered, when framed, shall pay a less rate of duty than that 
 imposed upon similar glass of like description not framed, but shall pay in 
 addition thereto upon such frames the rate of duty applicable thereto when 
 imported separate. 
 See Joseph Auerbach, page 835. 
 
862 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 104. 
 
 Cast polished plate glass, silvered or unsilvered, and cylinder, crown, or 
 . common window glass, silvered or unsilvered, polished or unpolished, when 
 bent, ground, obscured, frosted, sanded, enameled, beveled, etched, em- 
 bossed, engraved, flashed, stained, colored, painted, ornamented, or deco- 
 rated, shall be subject to a duty of five per centum ad valorem in addition to 
 the rates otherwise chargeable thereon. 
 See Joseph Auerbach, page 835. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 105. 
 
 Spectacles, eyeglasses, and goggles, and frames for the same, or parts 
 thereof, finished or unfinished, valued at not over forty cents per dozen, 
 twenty cents per dozen and fifteen per centum ad valorem; valued at over 
 forty cents per dozen and not over one dollar and fifty cents per dozen, forty-five 
 cents per dozen and twenty per centum ad valorem ; valued at over one dollar 
 and fifty cents per dozen, fifty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 106. 
 
 Lenses of glass or pebble, molded or pressed, or ground and polished to a 
 spherical, cylindrical, or prismatic form, and ground and polished piano or 
 coquill glasses, wholly or partly manufactured, with the edges ungrouud, 
 forty-five per centum ad valorem ; if with their edges ground or beveled, ten 
 cents per dozen pairs and forty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 107. 
 
 Strips of glass, not more than three inches wide, ground or polished on one 
 or both sides to a cylindrical or prismatic form, including those used in the 
 construction of gauges, and glass slides for magic lanterns, forty-five per 
 centum ad valorem. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108. 
 
 Opera and field glasses, telescopes, microscopes, photographic and projec- 
 tion lenses and optical instruments, and frames or mountings for the same; 
 all the foregoing not specially provided for in this section, forty-five per centum 
 ad valorem. 
 
 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CHANGING M. WELLS, ON BEHALF OF THE 
 AMERICAN OPTICAL CO., SOUTHBRIDGE, MASS. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Give your name and address to the stenographer, 
 please. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Ch aiming M. Wells, vice president of the American 
 Optical Co., Southbridge, Mass. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. To which paragraph do you desire to address 
 yourself ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. To schedule B, paragraph 105, relating to spectacles, 
 eyeglasses, goggles, and frames for the same; schedule B, section 
 1 06, Lenses of glass or pebble. 
 
 Schedule B, section 107, strips of glass, not more than 3 inches 
 wide, ground or polished on one or both sides to a cylindrical or 
 prismatic, form. 
 
 Free list, section 577, glass plates or discs, rough cut or unwrought, 
 for use in the manufacture of optical instruments, spectacles, and 
 eyeglasses, and suitable only for such use. 
 
 Our company is engaged in the manufacture of optical goods, 
 such as spectacles, eyeglasses, goggles, test cases, lenses, mountings, 
 and cases for glasses. 
 
 The manufacturing end of the optical industry as applied to 
 spectacles and eyeglasses in this country is carried on by from 25 to 
 
SCHEDULE B. 863 
 
 PARAGBAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, SENSES, ETC. 
 
 30 firms or companies, and the statements herein set down have come 
 as a result of our experience in our own lines, and of our intercourse 
 with other dealers in our own and kindred trades. 
 
 The spectacle and eyeglass manufacturing plants are mainly 
 located in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecti- 
 cut, New York, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, and the following are 
 rough estimates of their extent : 
 
 The capital involved about $7,500,000. 
 
 The wages paid annually, about $4,000,000. 
 
 The annual product, about $8,500,000. 
 
 This applies only to spectacles and eyeglasses and does not include 
 the whole optical art, which covers telescopes, opera glasses, camera 
 lenses, and scientific instruments, etc. 
 
 Our business was begun in a small way, and started in Southbridge, 
 Mass., in 1833. Our average net profit for the last 5 years does not 
 equal 10 per cent of our annual turnover. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What do you mean by that ? Ten per cent of your 
 sales ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. How much is your capital I 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Our capital is $2,100,000. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. How much do your sales amount to ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Our sales are about $2,800,000. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. So it is about 12 to 14 per cent of your capital, on 
 the average ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. About that; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Two millions of capital. You engage in business in 
 which the annual sales are only about two millions ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. That is very close, I think; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Proceed. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. The main development of our business has taken place 
 hi the last 25 years, because of the increase in demand for optical 
 goods, though until a comparatively recent period the optical busi- 
 ness as a business amounted to practically nothing. 
 
 There is no trust or combination among the manufacturers or any 
 agreement to fix the prices, regulate output or divide territory. The 
 prices are regulated by open and active competition existing in the 
 business. There is no overcapitalization of the various concerns in 
 the trade. The competition is open and active. The business in 
 Southbridge was built up very largely during my father's lifetime. 
 He came to Southbridge 45 years ago as a boy from the farm to learn 
 the trade of spectacle maker. At that time, there were 11 men 
 in the shop. The shop was called the "Spec" shop, and the town 
 to-day, in manufacturing New England, is Known as "Spectown." 
 
 The condition of our employees has steadily improved, the hours 
 of labor have been decreased from 60 hours to 54 hours a week for 
 women, and 55 hours a week for men, and the wages have been 
 steadily increasing. We pay from two to four times as high wages as 
 paid for the same classes of work in Franco and Germany, our prin- 
 cipal foreign competitors. In view of the fact that about 90 per 
 cent of the cost of production of the larger portion of optical goods 
 is labor cost, the duties can not be reduced without endangering 
 employment and wages, and we, therefore, believe that a duty is 
 
864 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 absolutely essential to equalize the labor conditions at home and 
 abroad. 
 
 The prices of bur product have not been increased, but, on the 
 contrary, due to improved methods and domestic and foreign com- 
 petition, they have been repeatedly reduced and in the last 10 years, 
 particularly on lines wherein the greatest demand exists, the prices 
 have in many cases been reduced about 50 per cent. We are selling 
 to-day better goods in some classes for $3.50 a dozen than were sold 
 10 years ago for $7.50 a dozen. 
 
 In regard to foreign competition, we find that we can not compete 
 abroad with foreign-made goods on our standard lines generally. 
 Our exportation business is only a small percentage of our business, 
 being less than 10 per cent of the whole, and is wholly due to the 
 superiority of our goods in certain styles and qualities. As stated, 
 we are able to export only certain lines of our goods. These are the 
 new goods which we are constantly developing to keep up to date, 
 those which are a little ahead of the foreign manufacturers, and are 
 in the nature of novelties, which our foreign competitors are quick 
 to seize upon and imitate. The business of our foreign competitors 
 has been developed and unproved, like our own. These foreign 
 manufacturers maintain a strict system of espionage in this country 
 on ah 1 our lines, watching our new styles and reporting them back 
 to their home countries as soon as we put them on the market. 
 These styles they imitate with their cheaper labor. They also 
 import from this country tools and machinery for manufacturing 
 these goods from the same processes that we use here. Therefore, 
 they would be able, were it not for the duties, in view of then* much 
 cheaper labor cost of production, to place these goods into our mar- 
 kets at a price cheaper than we could produce them and of inferior 
 quality. 
 
 It would be utterly impossible for a manufacturer in this country 
 to make these goods at foreign cost, for the reason, as stated, that the 
 item of labor of manufacture of spectacles and eyeglasses is from 85 
 to 90 per cent of their cost, and the wages of skilled mechanics abroad 
 average from one-fourth to one-third the amount the same skilled 
 mechanics command in this country. The difference between un- 
 skilled labor abroad and here is still greater in many instances. 
 Women and girls working on goods of this kind in Germany and 
 France receive only from $1 to $2 a week, while in this country the 
 same class of labor can not be procured less than from $5.50 to $9.50 
 a week, and some a good deal more. 
 
 The consumer would not profit by a reduction, as might be sup- 
 posed. This is due to the fact that only a small proportion of the 
 total price paid by the consumer for these goods is for the goods 
 themselves. Eyeglasses and spectacles are instruments involving 
 scientific and physical qualities, which makes it impossible to sell 
 them as other goods are sold. In the first place the eve of the patient 
 must be examined by one skilled in refraction to determine the optical 
 needs of the eye. After this is determined the eyeglasses or spectacles 
 must be fitted to the facial requirements of the patient. This work is 
 done by professional oculists, optometrists, and opticians. Therefore 
 the retailer's charge is principally for professional and personal 
 
SCHEDULE B. 865 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 services, varying in accordance with the skill and reputation of the 
 prescribing oculist or optician. A difference of one or two dollars a 
 dozen on a manufacturing price would probably not affect the price 
 which the consumer would pay for the goods. On the other hand, 
 were the duties on these lines reduced, the domestic manufacturers 
 could only meet foreign competition by reducing wages and quality. 
 In the long run the consumer would suffer, in that the high standard 
 and excellence of our goods would be reduced to the detriment both 
 of the trade and of the general public. 
 
 We believe that unless the present schedule on these items be 
 maintained, for the reasons stated above, that an importation from 
 foreign sources would increase to such an extent that it would be 
 practically impossible for us to compete with them. We believe that 
 such an increase and importation would tend to reduce the standard 
 of excellence which has been built up in this line of goods. We also 
 believe, as stated above, in view of the fact that practically all of the 
 cost of production is a labor cost, and that as the rates of wages at 
 home are two or three times as high as those paid for the same classes 
 of work abroad, that the present schedule is scientifically based and 
 should not be decreased, as it would seem to hold about the correct 
 ratio, which ratio is as representative now as it has been in the past. 
 
 Paragraph 577 of the free list relates to glass plates or disks, rough 
 cut or unwrought, for use in the manufacture of optical instruments, 
 spectacles or eyeglasses, and suitable only for such use. 
 
 This section covers the rough stock from which we make lenses. 
 This stock is not, and never has been, made in this country. It is 
 therefore necessary that it should be kept on the free list, as it covers 
 the raw material from which we produce. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Mr. Wells, I notice that there has been no change in 
 the rate of duty on your articles in the last three revisions of the 
 tariff; is that correct? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I think you are right; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. How long has it been since the present duty was first 
 placed on your goods ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I can not tell you. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. In which tariff did it first appear as it is now? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I can not tell you that exactly, and I have been 
 engaged in the business over 20 years. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Are you now better able to compete with foreign 
 manufacturers than you were 20 years ago ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. No better. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Why not? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. They have improved in their methods about as fast 
 as we have, and perhaps faster. I do not think their wages have 
 advanced as fast as the xvages of the American workman. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. How long ago was it that your father started this 
 business ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Forty-five years ago. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. He began as a workman ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. He began as a workman. He came into the factory 
 45 years ago, and he learned the trade of spectacle maker. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. In the same factory which later developed into your 
 \' manufacturing plant? 
 
 7S959 C VOL 1 lo 55 
 
866 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir. At that time there were 11 employees. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. He was one of them ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. He became one of them after he learned the trade ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. And then he bought out the plant ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. No, sir. He was not a stockholder for a number of 
 years, but he was advanced, first as foreman and then as superin- 
 tendent, and finally purchased some of the stock, and he became 
 a stockholder. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. How much did he originally invest in the company ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. $4,000. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What is the capital of your company now ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. It is $2,100,000. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. How much surplus has it ? How much surplus does 
 it carry on its books ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I should say we have about $200,000 surplus at the 
 present time. (This is cash on hand ; see supplemental statement.) 
 
 Mr. PALMER. So that your total capital, according to your books, 
 is a matter of $2,100,000 now? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Capital and surplus. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Is it widely held and generally distributed, or is it 
 owned by your family ? I am referring to your capital stock. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. It is owned principally by our family. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Have any sales taken place lately of your capital 
 stock ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What is it worth ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I should think the capitalization is a fair basis of value. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What dividends have you been paying? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. We pay about $30,000 a year in dividends. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What per cent dividends do you pay? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. We have just recapitalized our business, so that I have 
 not figured the percentage. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. How have you recapitalized it? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. It was formerly a Massachusetts corporation of 
 $00,000 capital. That would be a 50 per cent dividend under the old 
 arrangement. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Xow it is a voluntary association. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. With two millions of capital? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Whore did the difference between the $60,000 and 
 $2,000.000 come from? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. It is represented by the value of the plant itself. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. That is. accumulated profits? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes; that have been put back into the business and 
 also new additional capital. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Which you and your father before you have earned 
 right there in the shop t 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 867 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Before this large increase of capital from $60,000 to 
 $2,000,000 you were paying 50 per cent dividends? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir; 50 per cent on $60,000. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. On $60,000 ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. We are paying $30,000. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I suppose, with the exception of $4,000, all of that 
 $60,000 was accumulated profit, was it not? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Did you not say that your father had put $4,000 in 
 the plant when he went into it ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir; but other people put in money besides him. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. So that there is in your business $60,000 of actual 
 cash money invested ? 
 
 Mr. W T ELLS. There is a good deal more than that invested, but that 
 was the original capital stock. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. And the rest of it as represented bv your capital and 
 surplus is accumulated profit? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes; what is not new capital is profits accumulated 
 and put back into the business over a period of, say, 45 years. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. The only new money that was put into the plant 
 amounted to $60,000 ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. No; I am mistaken in regard to that. I think there 
 was $30,000 more put in $90,000. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You think it is $90,000 ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Then, when you were paying a dividend of $30,000, 
 you were earning and receiving 33$ per cent on the actual money 
 which had been put into the plant ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Tnat $30,000 was added only two years ago, just 
 before we went into a voluntary association. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. So that all the time that you were paying $30,000 a 
 year dividends, the capital stock was actually $60,000 ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Nominal capital was $60,000. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Or 50 per cent was the amount of the profit which you 
 were receiving on the money actually invested. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir. But the amount of money invested greatly 
 exceeded $60,000. Of course there were years when there were 
 more dividends paid. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. More than that? How much did the dividends run? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I think there were some years when 100 per cent was 
 paid on the original capitalization. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Did it ever run above a hundred per cent ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I do not think so. That was 15 years ago or more. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Is from 50 to 100 per cent considered a fair manu- 
 facturer's profit up in that section of manufacturing New England? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. We would not consider it was any such profit as that. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. It was real money which you got ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. On the capital stock it would be 100 per cent; but 
 considering the value of the plant at that time 
 
 Mr. PALMER. But you were paying from 50 to 100 per cent on the 
 amount of money actually invested and at the same time accumulat- 
 ing profits by way of surplus, which subsequently amounted to 
 $2,000,000, and that made it possible for you to reconvert that into 
 
868 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 an enlarged capital stock of $2,100,000, on which you are now earning 
 12 per cent or thereabouts, as I understand you. Is that right? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. No, sir; we are not earning 12 per cent, and your 
 statement is not correct, the $2,100,000 includes $300,000 of new 
 cash added two years ago. The difference between $60,000 and 
 $1,800,000, which is $1,740,000, represents additions from earnings 
 equal to less than $40,000 a year on the average. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Did you not say in your statement here that you 
 were making 10 per cent profit on your annual turnover? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. No, sir; I said we did not get an average of 10 per 
 cent profit on our annual turnover. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I think you said you do average 10 per cent profit on 
 your annual turnover. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. You misunderstood me. At least, I did riot intend 
 to say that. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I think your written brief says that: "Our average 
 net profit does not equal 10 per cent of your annual turnover." 
 
 By that you mean it is a little less than 10 per cent; is that it ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. That means it is less than 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. A little less than 10 per cent, you mean, do you not? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. No. I do not know just how much less. It averages 
 less than that. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Your annual turnover is several hundred thousand 
 dollars more than your total capitalization at the present time? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. So that your profit approximately is 10 per cent of 
 your present capital, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I should say not. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You should say not? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Xo. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Well, how much is it? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. It is less than 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. How much less ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I can not tell you. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What do you mean by saying here that "Our aver- 
 age net profit does not equal 10 per cent of our annual turnover." 
 What impression did you mean to leave with the committee as to 
 your profit ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. .lust what it says. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. But it is so indefinite. Does it mean 5 or 9 per cent? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Well, it would be between 5 and 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Between 5 and 10 per cent? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. That is. it might average, say, 7i per cent? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes: it might. It might be less, and I wanted to make 
 a conservative statement. (It is less than 6 per cent; see supple- 
 mental statement.) 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Your present capitalization is approximately 30 times 
 the actual money originally invested ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Y"es. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Outside of accumulated profits. Therefore, your 
 earnings at the present time on the actual cash money invested in 
 
SCHEDULE B. 869 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES. LENSES, ETC. 
 
 your plant are about 30 times 7$, or something over 200 per cent; is 
 that correct ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. We consider that we have a great deal more than 
 $60,000 or $90,000 invested in our business. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I know you do, and I am not disputing that at all, 
 but it is all earned profits that you have reinvested in the company; 
 is not that correct ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Except $360,000. It represents money put back into 
 the business and is the result of a lifetime of work. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I understand that, and I am just trying to get the 
 record straight as to the earnings you are now receiving on the actual 
 cash money invested in your plant, and that is something over 200 
 per cent per annum; is not that correct? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I do not follow you in that; no, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Do you not think that if you had been satisfied in the 
 days when you were making and receiving from 50 to 100 per cent 
 return on the actual capital invested with some less profit than that, 
 you would have been more able to compete with the foreigner, with- 
 out requiring this large duty, which ran from 84 to 120 per cent 
 during all those years. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. We have never felt that we could compete with a less 
 dutv. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What you mean by that is that you never felt you 
 could be satisfied with a less profit than from 50 to 100 per cent; is 
 that it ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Well, it sounds like it to me. Is your concern allied 
 with any other optical manufacturing concern? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. >.o, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Are there any others ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I beg your pardon ? 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Are there any others in this country? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Where are they located ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. As I stated in my remarks, there are 25 or 30 other 
 manufacturing concerns, located in New England, New York, Penn- 
 sylvania, and Michigan. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Have they had such a struggle as you have had during 
 these 45 years, to get along? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I think they have had; yes. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Just about the same ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Of course they are not as old in the business as we are, 
 and they have not become as well established as we have. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Are they earning about the same return on the capi- 
 tal invested during all these years ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I can not say. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. That is all. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Wells, you say that your father w r ent there 45 
 years ago to learn the trade ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How long did it take him to learn the trade ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I should say three or four years at that time. 
 
 Mr. RAINET. Then he became a workman in the factory ? 
 
870 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Well, he was a workman while he was learning the 
 trade. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How long did he remain as a workman in the factory 
 before he became interested in the business ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Well, he always considered himself a workman. He 
 was the foreman of a department and superintendent probably for 20 
 years. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. For 20 years ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes. He became president of the company 45 years 
 in all. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Yes; I understand that; but he was there 24 years 
 before he became the president. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. About that time ; yes. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. At that time did he become interested in the com- 
 pany ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Before. He became interested while he was still a 
 workman in charge of one of the small departments. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. When did he make the $4,000 investment ? How 
 long had he been a workman then ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I think that was about 5 years after he had started 
 in the business, and he had to borrow the money to buy the stock. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Then, it was 14 years after he went there to learn 
 the business before he made this investment of $4,000? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. No, sir; about 5 years. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Then this very satisfactory increase in your original 
 investment has not occurred in 45 years, but in 31 years? 
 
 Mi 1 . WELLS. Well, the development has been mostly in the last 
 25 years. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. The development has been mostly in the last 25 
 years ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Twenty-five to thirty-five years. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. I understood you to say a while ago that this increase 
 in the original investment, in which you now have such a satisfac- 
 tory surplus, was the result of 45 years' labors. However, it is only 
 the result of 25 years' work instead of 45 years. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Xo; I should not say that. The principal develop- 
 ment was in the last 25 or 30 years, but the present business has been 
 gradually built up during all those 45 years. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. But your father was not interested for about 14 
 years in the business at all. 
 
 Mr. ' v \ ELLS. Yes, sir: for about 5 years. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. When he put in his 4,000? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Well, there were others interested in the business, 
 who have since' died. 
 
 Mr. KAI.NEV. When your father put the 84,000 in the business, he 
 did not figure it was worth over $60,000, the business and plant and 
 everything else ( 
 
 Mr. WELLS. 60,000 was the amount of the capital stock. 
 
 Mr. RAIXEY. That was about 31 years ago when that happened? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Forty-three years ago when he bought his stock. 
 
 Mr. KAIXEY. Then, the increase from $60,000 to over $2,000,000 
 has occurred in the last 31 years, all of it, has it not? 
 
 Mr. 'WELLS. Mostly. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 871 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. And not 45 years, as you stated a while ago, but 
 most of it has occurred in the last 25 years. How many other fac- 
 tories are engaged in this business ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. "About 25 or 30. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Where are they located in your neighborhood 
 there ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. No; there are some in Massachusetts. There are 
 three other factories in Southbridge, Mass., where we are; and there 
 are others in Providence; some in New Hampshire, some in Con- 
 necticut, and some in New York State, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Do they all put their products on the market at the 
 same prices ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Very much the same price. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Is that a coincidence or is it the result of some gentle- 
 man's agreement between them? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. No, sir; there is no agreement. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Just a coincidence? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Just free competition, competitive conditions. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. But before they get into any active competition with 
 each other they divide from about 50 to 100 per cent on their hi vest- 
 ment each year, do they ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I think not. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. None of them make as much as you do ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. We do not consider we make very much money on the 
 investment we have there to-day. Of course, the competitive con- 
 ditions 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How many men are employed in your industry ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. How many men ? 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Yes. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. We have about 2,400 or 2,500 employed at the present 
 time. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How many people are employed in this entire indus- 
 try, in all of these factories. 
 
 "Mr. WELLS. I should think something around 6,000. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. What wages do you pay? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Do you mean the amount of our pay roll ? 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. No ; the average amount that you pay your men ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I think the average per man would be about $13 a week. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Do you employ any women ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes. They would average $8 a week $7 to $8 a week. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Do you employ any children ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. No cnildren. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How many men do you employ as compared to the 
 number of women that you employ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. We have in the neighborhood of 639 women. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. About one-third of the total. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Is that true with reference to the other factories? 
 Do they employ about one-third women ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I do not know about that. Probably about the same. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. You get all your raw material from abroad, do you ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Our glass; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Where does it come from ? 
 
872 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 Mr. WELLS. It comes from Germany, France, and England. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. You have been getting that free all these years ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. That is all. 
 
 Mr. DIXON. What is the amount of your yearly business, the value 
 of your output per year ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. Our sales this year, I think, will be about $2,700,000. 
 
 Mr. DIXON. What has been your average for the last 10 years? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I could not tell you that. 
 
 Mr. DIXON. Approximately? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. A little less each year. I think the year before was 
 about $2,600,000. It increases about $100,000 a year. That is an 
 approximation. 
 
 Mr. DIXON. That is all. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Are there any further questions ? 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Is there very much of your finished product imported 
 into this country from abroad in volume ? 
 
 Mr. WELLS. I would say there are quite a good many. As to the 
 amount, I have no means of knowing, except what is printed in the 
 statistical reports. 
 
 The following additional statement was filed by the witness: 
 
 SOUTHBRIDGE, MASS., January 16, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 MY DEAR SIR: On January 9, 1913, I appeared before your committee and made a 
 statement in behalf of the American Optical Co. with relation to Schedule B, sections 
 105 to 107 of the existing tariff, concerning duties on optical goods. 
 
 At that time I was questioned by Messrs. Palmer and Rainey regarding the capi- 
 talization of our company and the dividends paid. Owing to the somewhat confusing 
 character of their questions and my unfamiliarity with many of the matters which 
 they inquired for (because 1 have not had charge of the finances of our company, but 
 have been principally concerned with the selling of goods), the answers that I made 
 were in many instances incomplete or inaccurate as to the facts and led them to 
 draw wrong inferences which do us injustice and may well tend to mislead you and 
 others. 1 therefore ask leave to supplement the record of my examination by the 
 addition of this statement, which I ask to have inserted in the record of my exami- 
 nation and particularly submitted to Messrs. Palmer and Rainey. 
 
 The facts are these: The American Optical Co. was organized in 1869 with a capital 
 of $40, 000, at which time my father invested $4,000 in the stock, not $10,000, as I 
 stated. In 1871 the capital stock was increased to 60,000, and fully paid in cash. 
 Between 1S7J and 1911 there was added to the actual cash invested in the plant and 
 business 1,740.000 from earnings in a period of 41 years, in pursuance of a conserva- 
 tive policy whi''h looked to improving and increasing the size of the plant and ita 
 efficiency. In lull $:>00.000 new cash capital was subscribed and added, making 
 the present capitalization of $2.100,000, which fairly represents the value of the invest- 
 ment in real estate, buildings, machinery, and stock. 
 
 The sum -SI, 740, 000 was added to the capital account from earnings without increas- 
 ing the number of shares of the nominal capital stock, but accomplished what in 
 other businesses may have been done by the sale of capital stock to stockholders 
 who have reinvested their money. 
 
 This sum, though large in the aggregate, compared with the original capital, repre- 
 sents a little less than 8 per cent on the original investment of $60,000 if added each 
 year to the investment of the previous year. 
 
 The dividends of $30,000 paid in recent years, while representing 50 per cent on the 
 nominal capital stock, in fact represent less than 3 per cent on the money actually 
 invested in the business, and our present dividend rate represents less than 2 per cent 
 on our money actually invested. 
 
 An analysis of the figures given and careful computations carried through this period 
 of more than 40 years will demonstrate the truth of this statement. During the period 
 
SCHEDULE B. 873 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 when Messrs. Palmer and Rainey inquired for dividends the stock was held almost 
 entirely by men who worked for and were officers of the company. The salaries were 
 small, and the sums paid by way of dividends in part were recognized as compensation 
 for services rendered. 
 
 When I stated in answer to a question that we had a surplus of $200,000, I stated 
 the amount of cash on hand. We have, in fact, no surplus above our present capital 
 of $2,100,000. 
 
 Our average profit on our total turnover for the last five years is less than 6 per cent, 
 or about 7 per cent on our present capital. 
 
 These considerations should be given their just weight and importance. Hasty 
 calculations attempted on the witness stand are not usually accurate and frequently 
 mislead both questioner and witness. 
 
 It is not safe to base a present dav tariff on conditions of 40 years ago. We were the 
 first to start, hence established before others entered the field. To-day competition 
 has grown until there are between 25 and 30 domestic concerns, and foreign competi- 
 tion has greatly expanded and increased. The percentage of profits has been steadily 
 decreasing for years, until at the present time we are able to earn only about 7 per cent 
 on our present invested capital. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 AMERICAN OPTICAL Co., 
 By C. M. WELLS, Vice President. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HENRY B. GRAVES, ESQ., REPRESENTING THE 
 STANDARD OPTICAL CO. AND THE UNITED STATES LENS CO. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Graves, we have about half a dozen more 
 witnesses and we would like to finish this schedule to-night because 
 the iron and steel schedule is coming on to-morrow. If we do not 
 finish to-day's schedule, it will have to go over. 
 
 If the committee is agreeable I would like to hold the remaining 
 witnesses down, so that they may all take about 10 minutes. We 
 have about a half dozen more witnesses, and I would like to get 
 through them to-night. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I think we had better go on and see what develops. 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, representing the 
 Standard Optical Co., of Geneva, N. Y., manufacturers of spectacles 
 and eyeglass frames, mountings and machinery used in the man- 
 ufacture of spectacle and eyeglass lenses, and optical instruments, 
 and the United States Lens Co., a subsidiary corporation, manufactur- 
 ing lenses only, I submit the following and respectfully request that 
 you retain the present rates of duty on sections 105, 106, 107, and 
 108, as far as it applies to optical instruments, of Schedule B and 
 section 577 of the free list. 
 
 This company was originally organized in 1883 and reorganized 
 in 1896, at which time it was compelled to reduce the par value 
 of its common stock from $100 to $40 per share, owing to the fact 
 that it had been unable to do business at a profit up to that time 
 and had actually lost money, but since 1896 the business has developed 
 considerably, as we added some new lines of goods which were then 
 more profitable, and we now employ more than 550 operatives 
 about half men and half women and girls. 
 
 Owing to the necessity of furnishing lenses with our other goods, 
 we invested fully $100,000 in the development of that branch of 
 the business, employing the best talent we could secure for that 
 purpose, but unsuccessfully, as the building and installing of expensive 
 machinery and the training of operators until they become skilled 
 in their respective operations requires years of training. 
 
874 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 In 1909 we had the good fortune to secure the services of a man 
 who had demonstrated his ability to erect and operate suitable 
 machinery for the purpose, and with his experience and his financial 
 investment in the United States Lens Co., coupled with a similar 
 investment by another manufacturer interested in the production 
 of spectacles and eyeglasses to compete with the cheapest imported 
 goods, we started with fresh hopes to strengthen our industry, 
 one of our most important aims being to supply to the poorest 
 class of our citizens a far superior article to those imported, the 
 serious injurious effects of which were brought before the committee 
 in the testimony of Mr. John S. Spencer, at its hearing in 1908 (see 
 p. 1225, proceedings of 1908). 
 
 Spectacle lenses are not a commodity only, but are comparable 
 to medicines or scientific instruments. They actually prolong the 
 usefulness of the wearer and his earning capacity during all of his 
 life after 40 or 45 years if they are properly fitted to his eye and 
 features. We are now employing more than 200 persons in the lens 
 factory, as against 57 in 1909, most of whom are women and girls. 
 
 We are, of course, hoping to make our lens business profitable, but 
 after three and a half years, during which we have perfected our 
 machinery and trained our help, our statement of July 1, 1912, for 
 the six months ending June 30, showed an actual loss of over $5,000. 
 We are, nevertheless, confident of success if tariff conditions remain 
 as at present. 
 
 The quality of our goods is unsurpassed and can not be classed with 
 any similar goods made in Europe, although a reduction in the tariff 
 would undoubtedly stimulate the importation of large quantities of 
 lenses made in Germany and France, which, although interior to our 
 goods, would displace them to such an extent on the market that we 
 would be forced to meet the competition either by reducing the quality 
 of our goods or by reducing our prices to an extent which would 
 jeopardize and might ruin our industry. 
 
 The United States is at least 25 years ahead of Europe in the quality 
 of glasses worn by our citizens, the greater part of them being pre- 
 scribed by oculists and optometrists capable of prescribing glasses 
 which exactly fit the patient, and the standard of our prescription 
 lenses is held so high by the manufacturers that unscrupulous parties 
 can not procure low-grade lenses to prescribe to their patients. 
 
 Any condition which would permit the inferior foreign lenses to 
 enter this country in larger quantities would be a great injury to the 
 wearers of spectacles, which could not be measured in dollars and 
 cents. 
 
 The fact thai there were but two successful factories in this country 
 until within the last six years, although others have been started 
 and failed, shows how difficult it is to manufacture spectacle lenses 
 of the American standard of quality. 
 
 The wages of our employees have been increased within the past 
 five years nearly 50 per cent, the average in 1898 being about $8.50 
 per week per employee, and at the present time over $12.15 per 
 week per employee. Our wages have gone up nearly 10 per cent 
 since the passage of the 54-hour law by the Legislature of the State 
 of New York hi hi 12. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 875 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES. LENSES, ETC. 
 
 The wages paid to girls in the optical industry in Germany is 1 
 mark 24 cents a day, whereas we pay 10 cents per hour to per- 
 fectly unskilled girl beginners. Foremen in Germany, with gener- 
 ations of inherited training and experience, can be secured at $9 
 a week, whereas we must pay similarly skilled men from $18 to $25 
 a week. 
 
 We are almost shut out of the South American and Oriental market 
 by German and French competition and in free-trade England the 
 whole lense industry has been killed by this competition. 
 
 Our profits on our whole output for the past five years has been 
 less than 6 per cent, and it requires the most rigid economy and 
 improved methods of manufacture to make a sufficient profit to 
 pay our annual dividends, the peculiar nature of the business com- 
 pelling us to tie up our earnings year by year in improved machines, 
 and in additional plant and merchandise as the business develops, 
 besides increasing our new capital almost yearly. 
 
 We are now endeavoring to raise additional capital to develop our 
 business. And right here, if I may be allowed, I want to say just a 
 word with regard to the testimony this morning from Mr. George W. 
 Wells, who built up the American Optical Co. Although it started 
 with small capital, by the closest economy in the business as well as 
 in his living, by a very high grade of mechanical organizing and busi- 
 ness ability, he was able to develop a plant and stock of goods equal 
 to their present capital, while others totally failed, almost inducting 
 ourselves. He is my strongest competitor, but I am very glad to 
 bear that testimony. 
 
 In my brief I state our percentage of profit as 6 per cent. I can 
 be a little more exact, if it is desired. In 1908 our percentage of 
 profit was 4.4 per cent; in 1909, 3.5 per cent; in 1910, 4.6 per cent; 
 m 1911, 6 per cent; and in 1912, while our statement is not yet pre- 
 pared, approximately it is 6.4 per cent. 
 
 During the past 18 months, which has been the most prosperous 
 in our history, our net earnings have been produced largely through 
 the manufacture of our optical machinery, all of which is covered 
 by United States patents, and in special styles of eyeglasses, which 
 are also covered by patents. 
 
 Our other departments, in which, in fact, the greater part of our 
 capital is invested, do not show earnings in proportion to the invest- 
 ment, owing to the keen competition to which we are subjected, and 
 to the rapidly increasing scale of wages, and the steady reduction 
 in selling prices occasioned by our competition. A department 
 which showed good earnings in 1907 and 1908 to-day is barely self- 
 supporting. At the same time these comparatively unproductive 
 departments enable us to dispose of our other goods on which there 
 is a better profit, and on which we can secure better prices owing to 
 the fact that they are covered by patents. 
 
 The least productive department, that in which our cheap metal 
 goods are manufactured, has never shown a profit, and that in which 
 our gold and gold-filled goods are manufactured and in which nearly 
 half of our capital is invested has been reduced very greatly within 
 the past five years owing to the reduction in selling prices and 
 increased wages. 
 
876 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 Both of these departments would be seriously injured, if indeed we 
 would be able to maintain them at all, if we were subjected to the 
 competition of foreign-made goods, which would both reduce the 
 prices which we receive for our goods and compel us to make a lower 
 quality of goods than we are now making to meet the foreign com- 
 petition. 
 
 Our exports amount to about 5 per cent of our output and a large 
 part consists of our patented machinery. 
 
 We have unquestionably lost money on the other business we have 
 done hi Europe, as it has been mostly in goods made especially for 
 that market, and so far we have not been able to sell in large enough 
 quantities or high enough prices to enable us to manufacture and sell 
 at a profit. Our only hope in that market is slowly to educate the 
 retail trade to appreciate American quality, demand American goods, 
 and pay American prices. 
 
 In conclusion, I ask you to at least maintain the present rate of 
 duties on the items in Schedule "B" covering our line of manufacture. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I would like to ask you one or two questions. You 
 are engaged in precisely the same kind of business as the American 
 Optical Co., which was represented here this morning by Mr. Wells ? 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. Practically so. They make two or three lines which 
 we do not make, which are not very important. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. They are, as I understand you, your chief competitor 
 in this country? 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. But you have very generously stated that the reason 
 for the phenomenal success of that company was to be found in the 
 efficient, skillful, and economic management of the plant by Mr. Wells 
 and his father. 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. Yes, sir; a great deal of it was when prices were a 
 good deal higher than they are at present. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I assume if that be so that the reason for those who 
 have not been so successful, on the part of other gentlemen engaged in 
 the trade, is that they did not exercise the same skill, efficiency, and 
 economv in the operation of their plants as was exercised by Mr. 
 Wells. 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. They did not have any plants. Our plants were 
 started years after his plant was a tremendous success. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. During the very years when you say you have been 
 making 3, 4, 5. and 6 per cent, Mr. Wells has been making very much 
 larger profits than that, has he not? 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. He has a much larger business, and a much more 
 highly developed business. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Do you really think that in writing a tariff law we 
 ought to consider conditions made or existing in inefficient, unskill- 
 fully managed plants, or that we ought to consider conditions made 
 in efficient and skillfully managed plants ? In other words, is it your 
 theory that the law ought to protect inefficiency in American manu- 
 facture I 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. Certainly not. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. If no duty is required for the protection of a reason- 
 able amount of profits, \ve will say for a concern so well managed as 
 
SCHEDULE B. 877 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 the American Optical Co., by reason of its efficient management, do 
 you still think we ought to vote a duty on the goods in order to take 
 care of men who admit that the reason for then* comparative failure 
 is that they did not equal the efficiency of that plant ? 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. I do not think that is a fairly stated question, sir. 
 You take the ground that they do not need the tariff, and that we do 
 need it on the ground of inefficiency, neither of which is correct. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I frankly say I do not believe any concern which is 
 making the money Mr. Wells admitted his concern is making, has 
 very much right to come here and ask us to keep this tariff rate up to 
 the present figure. 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. His concern is making less than 10 per cent on the 
 present capitalization, which is not excessive. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. It is about 200 per cent on the actual capital invested 
 in the company. 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. I do not admit it. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Mr. Wells admitted it. 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. He did not do his father the justice I am willing to 
 do him. If his father was willing for years to live economically and 
 instead of drawing a large salary, keep it in the business, put it in 
 there and develop the business, that was exactly the same as if new 
 money was put into it. If he had drawn a large salary, which he 
 would and could have demanded, if some one else had furnished the 
 capital, he would have had new money to put back into the business; 
 and that is exactly what he did in effect. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. He would have taken that increased salary right out 
 of the profits of the business. 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. No, sir; it would have been taken out before the 
 profits were shown, because it was earned. It is wages, not profits. 
 A salary is not a profit. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. It is part of the cost to produce ? 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. Absolutely. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. I do not exactly understand that, Mr. Graves. 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. I say, properly speaking, salaries are not profits; 
 they are part of the cost of production. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Have you stated the amount of your capital paid in, 
 in the first place, in this company? 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. Our company's total capital stock is $237,000 up to 
 the present time. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. Have you ever reduced the capital ? 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. The par value of the common stock and the total 
 common stock was reduced from $100,000 to $40,000 in 1898. I have 
 been connected with the business since 1897. Prior to that time they 
 had been manufacturing a limited number of lines and had actually 
 lost money. It was one of the first things I did to insist on the capital 
 stock being reduced to the actual condition of the business. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. As to these dividends you have spoken of, on what 
 capital were they declared? 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. We have paid 6 per cent dividend. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. On what ? 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. On our total capitalization since 1896. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. On how much capitalization? 
 
878 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. On an increasing capitalization from $90,000, since 
 which time we have added to our capital stock three times, until 
 the present tune. Our last issue of capital stock, which was a 7 per 
 cent preferred stock, was three or four years ago. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Have you ever paid dividends on that stock which 
 you charged up ? 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You never paid dividends on that ? 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. But you did pay dividends on what was left ? 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. Yes, sir. In reply to the suggestion that the business 
 has been inefficiently managed, we have also built up a surplus which 
 is represented not in cash but in plant of about $263,000, which is a 
 little more than our capital stock. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I did not make the suggestion your business was 
 inefficiently managed. 
 
 Mr. GRAVES. I understood it so. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I thought you had suggested it in acknowledging the 
 reason for the unusual success of the American Optical Co. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That is all, Mr. Graves. 
 
 GENEVA, N. Y., January 9, 191S. 
 The WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIRS: Representing the Standard Optical Co., of Geneva, N. Y., manufac- 
 turers of spectacles and eyeglass frames, mountings, and machinery used in the manu- 
 facture of spectacle and eyeglass lenses and optical instruments, and the United States 
 Lens Co., a subsidiary corporation, manufacturing lenses only, I submit the following 
 and respectfully request that you retain the present rates of duty on sections 105, 106, 
 10V, and 108 of Schedule B and section 577 of the free list. 
 
 This company was originally organized in 1883, and reorganized in 1896, at which 
 time it was compelled to reduce the par value of its common stock from $100 to $40 
 per share, owing to the fact that it had been unable to do business at a profit up to 
 that time, and had actually lost money, but since 1896 the business has developed 
 considerably, as we added some new lines of goods which were then more profitable, 
 and we now employ more than 550 operatoos, about half men and half women and 
 girls. 
 
 Owing to (he necessity of furnishing lenses with our other goods, we invested fully 
 ? 100, 000 in the development of that branch of the business, employing the best talent 
 we could secure for that purpose, but unsuccessfully, as the building and installing 
 of expensive machinery and the training of operators until they became skilled in 
 their respective operations requires years of training. 
 
 In 1909 we had the good fortune to secure the services of a man who had demon- 
 strated his ability to erect and operate suitable machinery for the purpose, and with 
 his experience and his financial investment in the United States Lens Co., coupled 
 with a similar investment by another manufacturer interested in the production of 
 spe 't.u'los and eyeglasses to compete with the cheapest imported goods, we started 
 with fresh hopes to strengthen our industry, one of our most important aims being to 
 supply to the poorest class of our citizens a far superior article to those imported, the 
 serious injurious effects of which worn brought before the committee in the testimony 
 of Mr. John S. Sponcer at its hearing in 190S (see p. 1225, proceedings of 1908). 
 
 \Vo it re ii"\v employing nmro than 200 persons in the lens factory, as against 57 in 
 1909, most of whom are women and girls. 
 
 We are, of course, hoping to make our lens business profitable, but after three and 
 a half years, during which we have perfected our machinery and trained our help, our 
 statement of July 1 . 1012, for the six months ending June 30, showed an actual loss of 
 over S5.000. 
 
 We are nevertheless confident of success if tariff conditions remain as at present. 
 
 The quality of our goods is unsurpassed, and can not be classed with any similar 
 good? made in Europe, although a reduction in the tariff would undoubtedly stimulate 
 
SCHEDULE B. 879 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 the importation of large quantities of lenses made in Germany and France, which, 
 although inferior to our goods, would displace them to such an extent on the market 
 that we would be forced to meet the competition either by reducing the quality of 
 our goods or by reducing our prices to an extent which would jeopardize and might 
 ruin our industry. 
 
 The United States is at least 25 years ahead of Europe in the quality of glasses worn 
 by our citizens, the greater part of them being prescribed by oculists and optometrists 
 capable of prescribing glasses which exactly fit the patient, and the standard of our 
 prescription lenses is held so high by the manufacturers that unscrupulous parties 
 can not procure low-grade lenses to prescribe to their patients. 
 
 Any condition which would permit the inferior foreign lenses to enter this country 
 in larger quantities would be a great injury to the wearers of spectacles, which could 
 not be measured in dollars and cents. 
 
 The fact that there were but two successful lens factories in this country until 
 within the last six years, although others have been started and failed, shows how 
 difficult it is to manufacture spectacle lenses of the American standard of quality. 
 
 The wages of our employees have been increased within the past five years nearly 
 50 per cent, the average in 1898 being about $8.50 per employee, and at the present 
 time over $12.15 per employee. Our wages have gone up nearly 10 per cent since the 
 passage of the 54 hour law by the legislature of the State of New York in 1912. 
 
 The wages paid to girls in the optical industry in Germany is 1 mark (24 cents) per 
 day, whereas we pay 10 cents per hour to perfectly unskilled girl beginners. Foremen 
 in Germany, with generations of inherited training and experience, can be secured 
 at $9 a week, whereas we must pay similarly skilled men from $18 to $25 a week. 
 
 We are almost shut out of the South American and Oriental market by German and 
 French competition, and in free-trade England the whole lens industry has been killed 
 by this competition. 
 
 Out profits on our whole output for the past five years has been less than 6 per cent, 
 and it requires the most rigid economy and improved methods of manufacture to 
 make a sufficient profit to pay our annual dividends, the peculiar nature of the busi- 
 ness compelling us to tie up our earnings year by year in improved machines and 
 in additional plant and merchandise as the business develops, besides increasing our 
 capital almost yearly. 
 
 During the past 18 months, which have been the most prosperous in our history, 
 our net earnings have been produced largely through the manufacture of our optical 
 machinery, all of which is covered by United States patents, and in special styles of 
 eyeglasses, which are also covered by patents. 
 
 Our other departments, in which in fact the greater part of our capital is invested, 
 do not show earnings in proportion to the investment owing to the keen competition 
 to which wo are subjected, and to the rapidly increasing scale of wages, and the steady 
 reduction in selling prices occasioned by our competition. A department which 
 showed good earnings in 1907 and 1908 to-day is barely self-supporting. At the same 
 time these comparatively unproductive departments enable us to dispose of our other 
 goods on which there is a better profit, and on which we can secure better prices owing 
 to the fact that they are covered by patents. 
 
 The least productive department, that in which pur cheap metal goods are manu- 
 factured, has never shown a profit, and that in which our gold and gold-filled goods 
 are manufactured and in which nearly half of our capital is invested, has been re- 
 duced very greatly within the past five years owing to the reduction in selling prices 
 and increased wages. 
 
 Both of these departments would be seriously injured, if indeed we would be able 
 to maintain them at all, if we were subjected to the competition of foreign-made goods, 
 which would both reduce the prices which we receive for our goods, and compel ua 
 to make a lower quality of goods than we are now making to meet the foreign com- 
 petition. 
 
 Our exports amount to about 5 per cent of our output and a large part consists of our 
 patented machinery. 
 
 We have unquestionably lost money on the other business we have done in Europe, 
 as it has been mostly in goods made especially for that market and so far we have not 
 been able to sell in large enough quantities or high enough prices to enable us to manu- 
 facture and sell at a profit. Our only hope in that market is slowly to educate the retail 
 trade to appreciate American quality, demand American goods, and pay American 
 prices. 
 
880 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 Asking you to at least maintain the present rate of duties on the items in Schedule 
 "B" covering our line of manufacture, I am, 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 STANDARD OPTICAL Co., 
 UNITED STATES LENS Co., 
 HENRY B. GRAVES, 
 
 Secretary and Treasurer. 
 
 BRIEF OF TILTON OPTICAL CO., IN RE SPECTACLE AND EYE- 
 GLASS LENSES. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 106. 
 
 TILTON, N. H., January 6, 191S. 
 CLERK OP THE WATS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 House of Representatives, Office Building, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We understand your committee have appointed January 8 as the day 
 on which to hear arguments regarding the glass schedule, under which the product of 
 our factory is classified, and in which we are most vitally interested. 
 
 We would submit, therefore, for the consideration of your committee some of the 
 reasons which we believe warrant the retention of the present tariff rate. 
 
 In our factory we manufacture for sale only spectacle and eyeglass lenses. We 
 have been manufacturing them now for something like 12 years. The profits which 
 we have made have been small as compared with those which should be reasonably 
 expected from a manufacturing plant with an amount of capital as large as we have 
 invested in our business. 
 
 The principal item of expense which goes into the cost of lens manufacturing is that 
 for labor, for which we pay a much higher rate than prevails abroad. 
 
 We pay our girls and women, when they enter our employ without experience, 11 
 cents an hour, increasing this amount as their ability warrants at the rate of about 
 ] cent per hour per month, until we are paying them an average of 16 cents per hour. 
 Some of the girls make more than this amount. 
 
 Our boys (none of whom are under 15 years of age) we pay at the same rate as the 
 girls. Men entering our employ without any experience we pay at the rate of 16 
 rents per hour, increasing them at the rate of 2 cents per hour until they are earning 
 20 cents per hour. This usually takes about two months before they are getting this 
 standard pay. If a man shows exceptional ability, we pay him more. All of our men 
 have .an opportunity of earning a bonus of $1 a week whenever they produce a percent- 
 age of first quality "lenses averaging above a given standard. 
 
 In the principal optical centers of Germany, after three years' service, men are 
 receiving about $6 a week and girls an average of less than $5. We are paying our 
 employees on an average about 100 per cent higher than the rate prevailing there. 
 
 In addition to this higher rate of wages, our American factories maintain a higher 
 standard of quality than is maintained by the European manufacturers; that is, the 
 lenses of our production are more free from scratches and surface imperfections and 
 defects in the glass than those made abroad. We also maintain a more uniform 
 standard of lens thickness and size of blank, all of which add materially to the net 
 cost of production. 
 
 We believe, therefore, that the rate now prevailing is just to our manufacturers 
 and not an undue burden upon the consumer, and we feel that a decrease in the 
 present tariff rate would force our American manufacturers to drop the standard of 
 quality to that now maintained by our European competitors. 
 
 This would be a rendition very unfair to the American consumer, in whose behalf 
 our orulists and opticians are urging an even higher standard than that we are at the 
 present able to maintain. 
 
 We respectfully submit the above for your consideration, and remain, 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 TILTON OPTICAL COMPANY. 
 STANTON E. SMITH, General Manager. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 881 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 STATEMENT OF F. E. HAMILTON, ATTORNEY FOR THE 
 TAYLOR-HOBSON CO., OF NEW YORK. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 106. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. To what paragraph do you wish to address yourself, 
 Mr. Hamilton? 
 
 Mr. HAMILTON. Paragraph 106. My clients desire to approve the 
 reduction of the duty. The suggestions made by them are contained 
 in these briefs, whicn I will hand to the clerk and thereby save the 
 committee the necessity of listening to me. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You may hand them to the stenographer and they 
 be printed in t le record at this point. 
 
 BRIEF OF PARAGRAPH 106, SCHEDULE B LENSES. 
 
 To the honorable the WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 Souse of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: The Taylor-Hobson Co., of New York City, respectfully requests a 
 reduction upon lenses of glass or pebble, molded or pressed, ground and polished to 
 spherical, cylindrical, or prismatic form, and ground and polished piano or coquill 
 glasses, wholly or partly manufactured with the edges unground, from 45 per cent 
 ad valorem to 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 The present rate of duty represents much more than the difference between the cost 
 of production at home and abroad. The importation of lenses of very high quality 
 only can meet this high rate of duty, and 95 per cent of the trade in lenses used on 
 small kodaks and moving-picture machines has become practically a monopoly in 
 the hands of American manufacturers solely on account of the above tariff, which ia 
 absolutely prohibitive. 
 
 Within the past 60 days we were asked to submit quotations to the Edison labora- 
 tories at West Orange, N. J, for lenses to be used on the Home Kinetescope in lota 
 of 30,000. The contract was awarded to one of our competitors, an American manu- 
 facturer, at the following rates: 
 
 1A condensing lens, mounted $0. 38 
 
 IB condensing lens, mounted 39 
 
 1C condensing lens, mounted 44 
 
 1A stereo, lens, mounted 42 
 
 IB stereo, lens, mounted 65 
 
 1C stereo, lens, mounted $0. 75 
 
 1A motion-picture lens 1. 75 
 
 1 A motion-picture lens 93 
 
 IB motion-picture lens 1. 85 
 
 1C motion-picture lens 2. 55 
 
 These figures are practically the same that the goods cost us to lay down in New 
 York after a 45 per cent duty, thus clearly proving the absolutely prohibitive char- 
 acter of the present duty charge. 
 
 This is only one instance, which we could easily multiply, of our inability to com- 
 pete with American manufacturers upon the prices of photographic and other lenses, 
 owing to the high rate of duty under the Payne-Aldrich bill, and it has become the 
 rule with us to decline to bid wherever price is the determining factor rather than 
 high quality. 
 
 We believe that a reduction of the present rate of 45 per cent to 20 per cent would 
 result in approximately increasing our business threefold, since we are unable to 
 enter the field of moving-picture machines and cameras, the two largest fields in the 
 use of lenses. Another illustration of the present high rate may be offered in com- 
 paring the lens and shutter used by the Sears-Roebuck mail-order house of Chicago 
 on their camera known as the "Conley." 
 
 This house lists the lens and shutter in question with complete equipment, includ- 
 ing camera, at $42.85. The same camera, with an ordinary cheap lens and shutter, 
 they list at $15.40, so that the difference of $27.45 represents the amount which Sears- 
 Roebuck & Co. receive for the 4 by 5 lens and shutter, and even at such figures they 
 must necessarily make a profit. The house that manufactures the lens and shutter 
 in question lists the same at $40. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the present 
 45 per cent duty rate protects the American manufacturer and as well the American 
 
 78959 VOL 113 56 
 
882 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGRAPHS 105-108 SPECTACLES, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 jobber to such an extent that an article listed at $40 can still be sold for $27.45 and 
 make a profit, since the high duty rate prohibits the competition of the foreign lens. 
 It is claimed for the imported lens that they are of better quality at an even price 
 with that of the American manufacturer, but there is no opportunity of testing this 
 question under the present exorbitant duty rate. 
 
 We respectfully urge the reduction of the rate in question from 45 per cent ad valo- 
 rem to 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 THE TAYLOR-HOBSON Co., 
 By FRANCIS E. HAMILTON, Counsel, 
 
 32 Broadway, New York. 
 JANUARY 3, 1913. 
 
 BRIEF OF BATJSCH & LOME OPTICAI CO., ROCHESTER, N. Y., IN 
 RE OPTICAI INDUSTRY. 
 
 BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL Co., 
 
 Rochester, N. Y., January 7, 1913. 
 WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 HONORED SIRS: In view of our inability to appear before your honorable body in 
 person, we beg to present our arguments relating to tariff Schedule B, paragraphs 106, 
 107, and 108, in writing, and will preface the same with a general statement relating 
 to the optical industry in the United States before entering into the subject from 
 our own point of view. 
 
 The industry originated in Europe, and for decades American opticians were 
 dependent for the greater share of their requirements on this source of supply. Under 
 the protective policy of our Government, this condition has changed. Since 1850 
 considerable development toward home manufacture has taken place, until now few 
 optical goods are imported, except for educational purposes, and largely for the 
 reason that American ingenuity steadily raised the standard of perfection in optical 
 apparatus covering the various branches of science, and to such an extent that Euro- 
 pean manufacturers now copy instrumental, methods, and appliances, a fact well 
 worthy of note. 
 
 The optical industry in the United States is represented by about 25 manufac- 
 turers with a capital investment approximating $10,000,000, and employing in round 
 numbers 10,000 people. 
 
 The production of optical instruments requires not only skilled labor, but scien- 
 tific attainments in the computation of optical systems for the great variety of goods 
 comprised thereunder. This labor can only be obtained and the skill attained 
 through years of preparation, and it is only reasonable to say that the transfer of 
 trade to the United States for home consumption could never have been accom- 
 plished without proper compensation to American workmen on a scale comparative 
 with our cost of living. 
 
 We have it from reliable sources that the European labor rate in the construction 
 of apparatus of similar character ranges from ?S for semiskilled to $12 for skilled 
 labor, while our wages range from $12 in the semiskilled to $18 and more for skilled 
 labor, per week. For our manufactures the raw material is the smaller part of the 
 completed cost of goods, and while it varies for different instruments, the relation i? 
 about 35 per cent for material to 05 per cent for labor. 
 
 The present rate of duty for the products covered under the above-enumerated 
 paragraphs is 45 per rent ad valorem, which, if compared with the above, assuming 
 material cost 1o be about the same as abroad, does not properly compensate for the 
 difference in labor rates. For many reasons it is important that this development 
 in apparatus lor scientific research and use should be fostered within our own borders, 
 and no encouragement on the part of the Government in the regulation of its tariff 
 schedules can be greater than to provide the necessary protection to American labor, 
 to insure the incentive for even greater accomplishments in an industry that may 
 be of small proportions to the commerce of the country, but of great value to the 
 Government itself and the scientific world. 
 
 Any reduction from the present tariff rate would be injurious to this development, 
 would create serious disturbance and prove a heavy burden to American producers 
 and their workmen, and we therefore appeal to your honorable body to recommend 
 
SCHEDULE B. 883 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108 LENSES, CAMERAS, ETC. 
 
 that the existing rate of duty for the schedules named be maintained in order that 
 what has been accomplished will not be undone by any act that can but slightly affect 
 the revenues of the Government, but would retard the progress of a growing American 
 industry. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL Co., 
 J. J. BAUSCH, President. 
 
 
 
 LENSES, CAMERAS, ETC. 
 STATEMENT OF G. C. GENNERT, ESQ., OF NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. To what paragraph do you speak ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. The paragraph about which I wish to speak is 108, 
 concerning cameras, which are there classed as optical instruments. 
 
 The firm I represent has, since 1854, been engaged in New York 
 and Chicago in the manufacture and as dealers and importers of the 
 photographic materials in question. 
 
 Our present position is that we have been directly forced, in order 
 to get cameras, to import the same. The entire market in cameras, 
 as well as in all other photographic materials, is tight in the grip of 
 the Eastman Kodak Co., that owns the business body and soul. It 
 is undoubtedly a safe and conservative estimate to say that upon that 
 particular class of merchandise, of cameras, they produce and sell at 
 least seven-eighths. 
 
 Their policy is to sell these cameras, as they do with their other 
 goods, on a restrictive policy as to price and on a restrictive policy 
 as to persons buying similar goods of other independent manufac- 
 turers. For instance, we can buy no cameras from the Eastman 
 Kodak Co., we can buy no plates from the Eastman Kodak Co., we 
 can buy no films from the Eastman Kodak Co., because we have had 
 the te*merity to sell other brands, or attempt to sell other brands, 
 excepting their own. 
 
 The duty on cameras is 45 per cent ad valorem. That the industry 
 in this country needs absolutely no protection is evident when we con- 
 sult the dividend record of the Eastman Kodak Co. After a steady 
 increase in the last 10 years it finally, in 1911 and 1912, reached the 
 tremendous basis of an annual dividend of 40 per cent on about 
 twenty millions of capital stock. 
 
 If I may detain you just long enough, I want to read from a recent 
 article in a photographic trade journal, commenting upon the Eastman 
 
 dividends: 
 
 i 
 
 Eastman Kodak common dividends seem to be stationary at 40 per cent per annum. 
 That is the amount declared so far this year, the same as in 1911 and 1910. In the 
 forward march of net earnings of this remarkable company there has not to date been 
 a single misstep. Profits have quadrupled in the 10 years of its existence and are now 
 each year equal to well over one-half of the $19,512,300 common-stock issue. 
 
 The career of the Eastman Kodak Co. reads like a page of financial romance. In 
 slightly more than a decade it has paid common shareholders dividends aggregating 
 $249 per share, or an average of $23.50 annually. The company is now selling in the 
 market for about $146,000,000 the $6,165,700 6 per cent preferred at 125 and the 
 $19,512,300 common at 710. Manifestly this huge sum is far and away greater than 
 the value of actual property assets; it is rather an expression of the spectacular earn- 
 ing ability of the company. 
 
884 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108 LENSES, CAMERAS, ETC. 
 
 We are in a position that we can not get these cameras except by 
 importing them. We import them. The imports have to date been 
 so slight that the Department of Commerce and Labor does not even 
 furnish any statistics, and I should estimate them at approximately 
 $30,000, whereas the exports are in the neighborhood of $1,000,000, 
 not quite a million for the last 11 months, but steadily increasing 
 from month to month. 
 
 What happens when we go out in the market and attempt to sell 
 our goods in competition, if I may use the almost amusing word, with 
 the photographic trust? What happens is that we get letters, of 
 which I hold about a dozen in my hand and have others, from cus- 
 tomers to whom we have shipped our cameras, which we in large part 
 import from England. I mention no names hi connection with these 
 letters, because the moment the names were made public undoubt- 
 edly the Eastman Kodak Co. would refuse to ship their goods to the 
 customer in question. 
 
 The letter to which I have reference now is as follows : 
 
 We are returning herewith one Ensignette camera, list $10; one Ensignette, list 
 $15. Please credit these to our account. We could no doubt have sold a large num- 
 ber of these cameras, but as the Eastman Kodak Co. refuses to sell us their product 
 if we sold Ensignettes, we are obliged to discontinue the sale of them. 
 
 I have one where even the following humiliation of expression is 
 swallowed by the retail customer who had attempted to buy goods 
 from the applicant: 
 
 I am returning via United States Express one Ensignette camera, which I wish you 
 would give me credit for, as the Eastman Kodak Co. have stopped me from selling it. 
 
 That is not the exact letter I had reference to, but I do not lay my 
 hands on it for the moment. In any event the letter contains this 
 phrase: The customer writes us, saying: "I must return the camera 
 because I can not afford to incur the displeasure of the Eastman 
 Kodak Co." 
 
 It seems it is a very unusual situation that an American business 
 man must fear for his very existence, that he is going to incur the 
 displeasure of a company whose profits seem to be without limit. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You want the reduction on cameras allowed? 
 
 Mr. GENXERT. I can only take up the question of cameras alone, 
 because the cameras are the sole photographic article that come under 
 the paragraph that the committee is considering to-day. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. What is the number of that paragraph? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. One hundred and eight. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Your business is the business of selling photographic 
 supplies ? 
 
 Mr. GEXXERT. Yes, sir; and to a certain extent manufacturing. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What line do you manufacture? 
 
 Mr. GEXXERT. We have formerly to a considerable extent manu- 
 factured cameras, but we were unable to sell them owing to the 
 restrictive policy pursued in the main by the predecessor of the 
 present Eastman Kodak Co., the Rochester Optical Co., which in 
 turn has been absorbed by one of the companies, which in turn has 
 been absorbed by the present corporation, the Eastman Kodak Co., 
 which is a corporation of New Jersey. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 885 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108 LENSES, CAMERAS, ETC. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Did I understand you to say the Eastman people 
 have seven-eighths of the business now in this country ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. I think it is a conservative estimate to say they 
 have seven-eighths of practically every branch. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Is that a patent monopoly or a monopoly obtained 
 by combination of various companies which own patented articles ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. That opens a question that I can only give you my 
 side of. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I would not expect you, after what I have heard thus 
 far, to give the Eastman side of it. 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. The main patents on the films have expired, and the 
 main patents on the cameras have expired. But for films and plates 
 they relied largely on the secret-process idea, which has, by a recent 
 decision, been exploded. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Is the Eastman Co. also a company of a number of 
 other concerns which were engaged independently in the business of 
 making cameras ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. A good many years ago, yes. It has absorbed three 
 or four of the largest camera-manufacturing companies. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You say that the American manufacturers of cameras 
 to-day can not compete successfully in this market ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. They can not. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. With the Eastman people ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. They can not. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Is that the reason you went out of business ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. We were forced out of business because we could 
 not seh 1 our goods, owing to the restrictive policy of the forerunner of 
 the Eastman Kodak Co. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. What do you mean by the restrictive policy? Do 
 they fix a price ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. They had films, but we had no films. We had 
 cameras. But each retail dealer had to have a film, which we did not 
 have. And as a result they cut our cameras out because we did not 
 have the films to sell them. We are left high and dry, and one by one 
 our customers are throwing us overboard. 
 
 I intend to make a similar argument when this committee reaches 
 the film schedule, which I believe is among the sundries. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Have the prices on photographic products gone up 
 or down, in view of the controlling operations of the Eastman Co. ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. I do not think there has been a great change either 
 way. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. In what length of time, say ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. About 10 years. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. There have been great advances made in the camera 
 manufacturing business in 10 years in the way of improved cameras, 
 have there not ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. There have. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. But the prices you think have remained about the 
 same? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. The prices have remained about the same. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Are there foreign cameras which are equal in quality 
 to the Eastman camera ? 
 
886 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108 LENSES, CAMERAS, ETC. 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. There are, but we can not bring them in at the 
 price the Eastman camera is selling for here. We are selling some, 
 out at a higher price than the Eastman. We sell, for instance, a 
 small cheap camera for $2.50 which we import. That is, we sell it if 
 we can. The Eastman Kodak Co. is selling the same camera for $2. 
 Competition under those circumstances is very difficult. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. You mean the same kind of camera, about the same 
 quality ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. Yes, cameras similar to each other, which will do 
 the same work ours will do. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Would the removal of this 45 per cent duty open up 
 this entire American market to the foreign article ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. It would give us an opportunity to compete. At 
 the present moment we not alone have difference in prices against 
 us, but we have the restrictive policy which scares off the customer. 
 If we could get a much lower duty we could at least meet the East- 
 man Kodak Co. in price, and we might even afford to spend more 
 money for advertising, and thus create a market. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I should think that the Eastman Co. would be satis- 
 fied with a reasonable profit on its capital of, say, 10 per cent, or 
 even 15 per cent, which is a fab- manufacturers' profit, and it could 
 reduce the price of cameras so as to still keep out the foreign camera. 
 
 Mr. GEXXERT. The profit is so enormous it is hard to tell where 
 the point would be reached by the Eastman Kodak Co. They could 
 afford to keep dropping and dropping. It is unique. I do not 
 remember just what the profit of the Standard Oil Co. is, but even 
 with its tremendous dividends there is a surplus that in a very few 
 years will exceed the capital stock, mounting and mounting by leaps 
 and bounds. 
 
 Mr. LONGWORTH. But the tariff has nothing to do with the Stand- 
 ard Oil Co.; that is not protected. 
 
 Mr. GEXXERT. I merely used the instance of the Standard Oil Co. 
 as an instance of prosperity. 
 
 Mr. LOXGWORTH. But you fire speaking of the tariff. 
 
 Mr. GEXXERT. My example was probably badly chosen. I did 
 not use it for the purpose of producing a tariff argument. If I 
 created that impression, I want to correct it. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. This paragraph reads, "Opera and field glasses, 
 telescopes, microscopes, photographic and projection lenses, and 
 optical instruments. 
 
 It seems the Government gets about $240,000 or $250,000 out of 
 this item. There must be competition in some of these articles that 
 are in this paragraph to produce that amount of revenue. 
 
 Mr. GEXXERT. There undoubtedly is, Mr. Chairman, and we make 
 the point that photographic lenses do not belong in that schedule. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What I wanted to ask you was that very question. 
 Does the term "photographic lenses'' cover cameras? 
 
 Mr. GEXXERT. It does not. A photographic lens is on a sepa- 
 rate piece of wood and easily detachable from the body of the camera. 
 In other words, the only optical part of the camera, is the lens. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Cameras come under this section as photographic 
 lenses ? 
 
SCHEDULE B. 887 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108 LENSES, CAMERAS, ETC. 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. They come in under optical instruments. The 
 board of appraisers has classed them as optical instruments. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. It says, "Photographic and projection lenses and 
 optical instruments, and frames for mountings for the same." 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. Yes, but the Board of General Appraisers has said 
 that cameras are optical instruments. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. You probably know that the Democratic plat- 
 form calls for the placing of trust-controlled products on the free list. 
 Suppose we attempted to put the products of the Eastman Co. upon 
 the free list; what effect, if any, would that have upon any of the 
 manufacturers of cameras in the United States ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. It would be a benefit to everybody, and it would 
 permit a competition between outsiders and the Eastman Kodak 
 Co. There would be only one class of manufacturers who might be 
 harmed. The manufacture of lenses and shutters, while it is not a 
 large part of the industry, is still carried on on a fairly competitive 
 basis. 
 
 The suggestion I was going to take the liberty of making to this 
 body was that a separate duty be levied on cameras. We desire to 
 import from Europe camera bodies, namely, a box, which is not 
 optically equipped with a lens and a shutter. When this box has 
 been imported from Europe we intend to go to the American manu- 
 facturers of lenses and shutters, an industry which is still independent, 
 and equip our European-bought bodies with American optical por- 
 tions. And I might add that we do not manufacture these Ameri- 
 can optical portions. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. How large a proportion of the camera production 
 in the United States is controlled by the Eastman people ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. At least seven-eighths, if not more. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Are they selling their products cheaper abroad 
 than they are in the United States ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. As to answering yes or no, I do not think I can 
 answer. Their sale in foreign countries depends upon the condition 
 of those countries. If, for instance, there is a duty into the country, 
 persons buying are given a large discount for customs, so that they 
 can meet competition. I do not think there is a great difference 
 between the prices they get abroad and the prices the others get. 
 They are always there and sell cheap enough to be able to compete 
 abroad; and, while they have not the control abroad they have in 
 America, they still do a large business in practically every civilized 
 Eur6pean country. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Do you know if they have factories abroad ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. They have factories for certain articles, but which 
 ones I can not tell you. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Do you know whether there is any financial connection 
 between the Eastman Kodak Co. and the foreign Kodak Trust in 
 England ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. There is undoubtedly some connection. 
 
 Mr. HILL. There is undoubtedly? Then putting the article on 
 the free list, even though the Democratic platform called for it, does 
 not necessarily call for putting the foreign trust on the free list, but 
 only domestic articles on the free list ? 
 
888 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108 LENSES, CAMERAS, ETC. 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. I might say 
 
 Mr. HILL (interposing) . Can you reach these people by the tariff ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Then I would like to know why could not the Eastman 
 Co. manufacture abroad any article made free, manufacture it in 
 their factories abroad, and ship the finished product here and sell 
 it here under the free schedule ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. They make everything here that thev can make 
 cheaper; they do not manufacture abroad for the American market 
 at all. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Why would not they do it if it was free ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. HILL. That is what I say. Can you reach this problem by 
 tariff regulation ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. If the tariff is reduced we can. Even if we do not 
 buy the goods from Eastman, if the tariff is reduced, we can get the 
 goods from others at such a price that we can compete here. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I am just as much opposed to the trust proposition as 
 you are. But the question I w r ant to know about is what is the best 
 way of reaching it. If the Eastman Co. has a factory in England, 
 and another in Germany, and the articles they make are put on the 
 free list, how have you helped the situation any? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. To answer your question properly, I would have 
 to know more than I do about the extent to which the Eastman 
 Kodak Co. manufactures abroad. 
 
 Mr. G. C. GENXERT. I think I can answer your question. The 
 Eastman Kodak Co. does not manufacture in Germany. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Do they in England ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. They have a factory in England. I do not think 
 they make any cameras in England. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Have the}- any business connection with anybody else 
 in other countries, or is it the same company there as here? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. They have none that I know of. They have offices 
 for the sale of their goods. There was a report some time ago they 
 had joined with a company in Dresden. I tried to verify that report 
 when I was in Germany this summer, but I was assured there was no 
 truth in it by the officers of the company. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Are you manufacturing here ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. I manufacture on a small scale here. 
 
 Mr. HILL. What would be your judgment if they did have a factory 
 abroad whether putting the product on the free list would in any way 
 relievo the situation? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. The putting of cameras on the free list will relieve 
 the situation in this way: There are factories abroad at the present 
 moment prepared to supply us with goods appropriate for our use. 
 There are none in the United States. We are making plans now to 
 go into the manufacture ourselves. We arc not afraid of the free 
 list. There will always be a certain trade in this country in cam- 
 eras of foreign manufacture. 
 
 Mr. HILL. You are not manufacturing now? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. We are on a small scale. We are preparing to 
 embark on a larger scale. It is only a year since the Houston patent, 
 
SCHEDULE B. 889 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108 CAMERAS, LENSES, ETC. 
 
 which controlled the camera, expired. Before that the Eastman 
 Kodak Co. had absolute control, except of a license owned by the 
 Ansco Co. 
 
 Mr. HILL. While I am opposed to the trust proposition, I can not 
 quite see how, for instance, taking sewing machines that are made 
 here, and then having the same machines made as extensively abroad 
 as here how it is going to relieve the situation by putting such an 
 article on the free list, when it can be made abroad cheaper than it 
 can be made here. 
 
 Mr. GENNEET. I have not said it could be made abroad cheaper. 
 I do not believe the kodak company would save any money by manu- 
 facturing in Europe. 
 
 Mr. HILL. They certainly are not barred out of England by a pro- 
 tective tariff, and if they have a factory in England there would be 
 nothing to prevent them making them there, and if they could make 
 them cheaper, selling them over here in competition. 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. They do not make them hi England. They export 
 to England, Germany, and France, as far as I know. The exports 
 amount to more than half a million dollars, photographic cameras 
 alone. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. What do the imports amount to ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. They are very small. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. About one-half million came in under paragraph 
 108, but they are classed by the Treasury Department with these 
 other goods, under the same paragraph, and we do not know what 
 proportion was photographic material. 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. It is so infinites imally small they could not be con- 
 sidered separately. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON. Putting cameras on the free list, then, would have 
 no effect upon the revenue? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. None whatever. It would, in so far as the imports 
 would increase, and if there was a light duty the Government would 
 have that advantage. Of course, if they are put on the free list that 
 would not be the case. 
 
 Mr. DIXON. Do the Eastman people manufacture everything that 
 goes to make up a camera ? 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. They manufacture everything that is used in 
 photography. 
 
 Mr. GENNERT. In conclusion I would like to read the suggestion I 
 have taken the liberty to put into my short brief. We request the 
 following new paragraphs in the law that is being prepared, in place 
 of the present duty of 45 per cent on cameras- levied as optical instru- 
 ments under paragraph 108 of the present tariff law: 
 
 1. Camera bodies not optically equipped and parts thereof to be free. 
 
 2. Cameras optically equipped, 15 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Ways and Means Committee: 
 
 I am here before your committee for the purpose of requesting changes in the tariff 
 on photographic cameras. These changes, if made, will tend to free the trade in these 
 instruments from the unfair selling restrictions under which it is now laboring, by 
 reason of the fact that the entire photographic supply business in this country is con- 
 trolled by the Eastman Kodak Co. These changes would increase the revenue to 
 the Government by changing the present conditien of merely nominal imports to one 
 of considerable importation, and would benefit the public by making possible a reduc- 
 tion in prices. 
 
890 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108 LENSES, CAMERAS, ETC. 
 
 Some years ago there were a number of factories engaged in manufacturing cameras 
 in America. At the present time one single company, the Eastman Kodak Co., which 
 has absorbed the most importantcamera factories of this country, is producing at least 
 seven-eighths of all the cameras made in America; the Eastman Kodak Co. is selling 
 cameras to retailers under a restriction policy and refuses to allow anybody to sell its 
 cameras who either sells cameras made by any other manufacturers or who sells films 
 used in the cameras which are not the product of the Eastman Kodak Co.; this same 
 principle they apply at will to their other products. 
 
 That the charge that this company is a trust in violation of the Sherman law is not 
 an empty statement, is best evidenced by the fact that this company's methods are 
 now under investigation by the Department of Justice, where detailed information 
 can most easily be obtained by this body. 
 
 I append a copy of a letter received by my firm from a dealer in photographic 
 materials in New York City, whose name I will not give, unless this committee re- 
 quests the same, in order that this dealer may not be cut off from further supplies of 
 goods by the Eastman Kodak Co. The letter is as follows: 
 
 "We are returning herewith 1 Ensignette camera, list, $10; 1 Ensignette, list, $15. 
 Please credit these to our account. We could, no doubt, have sold a large number of 
 these cameras, but, as the Eastman Kodak Co. refuses to sell us their product if we 
 sold Ensignettes, we are obliged to discontinue the sale of them." 
 
 This letter is dated March 27, 1912, and is one of a large number of similar import, 
 which we are prepared to submit to this body. 
 
 That the Eastman Kodak Co., which not "alone dominates but controls the entire 
 photographic business of this country in cameras, plates, and films, is in no need of a 
 protective tariff is best evidenced by the fact that it has paid in 1911 and 1912 a divi- 
 dend on its common stock of 40 per cent per annum, and that its earnings on the com- 
 mon stock for 1911 were 57 per cent, the common stock amounting to about $20,000.000. 
 
 My firm, for instance, is unable to buy any goods or to buy any cameras or films 
 from the Eastman Kodak Co. simply because we have the temerity to wish to sell 
 also films and cameras not manufactured by the trust. Under these trade conditions 
 and particularly in view of the high duty of 45 per cent levied on cameras, competi- 
 tion has been impossible, and we have been forced to go to Europe to get our cameras, 
 which we must import and sell with very little profit. This is a situation from which 
 we now desire relief. 
 
 Cameras have never been specifically provided for in any of our tariffs; they have 
 been classified by the board of appraisers as optical instruments, which we contend 
 they are not. Cameras are made up of a camera body and a lens, which latter is an 
 optical instrument. Th^ camera body is certainly not an optical instrument. 
 
 The lenses, and the shutters used to govern the quantity of light admitted through 
 the lens, both of which are properly optical instruments, are not under the domina- 
 tion of any trust in this country, and their manufacture is independently and suc- 
 cessfully carried on in the United States at present under proper and fair conditions, 
 quite different from the completely equipped cameras. 
 
 We desire to import camera bodies as we have been doing in the past that is to 
 say, cameras not equipped with a lens and shutter for the reason that we can not buy 
 these bodies in America. After their importation we will equip these bodies imported 
 from abroad with lenses and shutters of American manufacture, thus giving employ- 
 ment to American labor. The optical portion of the camera that is to say, the lens 
 and shutter-^originally constitutes about one-third of the value of the completely 
 equipped camera. We request, therefore, the following new paragraphs in the law 
 that is being prepared in place of the present duty of 45 per cent on cameras levied 
 as optical instruments under paragraph 108 of the present tariff law: 
 
 1. Camera bodies not optically equipped, and parts thereof, to be free. 
 
 2. Cameras optically equipped, 15 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 We feel sure that if these changes in the tariff law are made, the present importa- 
 tion of cameras, which is so small that the Department of Commerce and Labor fur- 
 nishes no statistics in regard thereto, will be increased at least fourfold over the 
 present figure, of less than $50,000 per annum, an amount to which the undersigned is 
 no doubt the largest contributor. Opposed to this small amount are exports of cameras 
 and other photographic apparatus which amounted for the nine months ended March, 
 1912, to 535,158, an amount shown by the last statistics of the Bureau of Commerce 
 and Labor to be on a constant increase. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 G. GENNERT, 
 24 and 26 East Thirteenth Street, New York, N. T. 
 
 NEW YORK, January 9, 1913. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 891 
 
 PABAGBAPH 108 LENSES CAMEBAS, ETC. 
 
 LETTER OF WILLIAMS, BROWN & EARLE (INC.), REGARDING 
 
 LENSES, ETC. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, January 10, 1913. 
 CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We desire to call your attention to the unnecessary duty on microscopes, 
 photographic and projecting lenses. 
 
 Microscopes are manufactured in the United States to-day and sold at prices which 
 are as low as goods of similar quality can be imported into the United States. It, 
 therefore, is not necessary for any duty to be levied on microscopes, so far as a protec- 
 tion to the industry is concerned. 
 
 The American manufacturers of photographic and projecting lenses are amply able 
 to compete with their product without any duty being levied upon such lenses. Micro- 
 scopes, photographic and projecting lenses are scientific instruments used in the arts 
 and therefore should be free of duty so as to enable institutions and individuals engaged 
 in research work and investigation to get their goods at a lower price. 
 
 Many physicians of limited incomes are deprived of the use of a microscope owing 
 to the high prices that are charged on account of the duty which is levied on the 
 foreign product and on account of the large profits made by the American manufac- 
 turers on microscopes. 
 
 We hope, therefore, that you will remove the duty on microscopes as well as on 
 photographic and projecting lenses, neither of which are luxuries, but are intended 
 for scientific research and purchased by those who are not able to expend large 
 amounts of money and are used by them in many cases for a lifetime in their profes- 
 sion 01 occupation. 
 
 Yours, very truly, WILLIAMS, BROWN & EARLE (!NC.), 
 
 HENRY S. WILLIAMS, President. 
 
 REQUEST OF CALIFORNIA CAMERA CLUB, REQUESTING THAT 
 PHOTOGRAPHIC APPARATUS BE PLACED ON FREE LIST. 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO, CAL., January 16, 1913. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UXDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: The California Camera Club, an organization in this city of about 400 
 users of photographic apparatus, and no doubt representative of the attitude of thou- 
 sands of other photographers, at a recent meeting passed a resolution to be presented 
 to your honorable committee, asking that in the proposed revision of the tariff down- 
 ward, the excessive duties of 45 per cent prevailing on photographic apparatus be 
 removed altogether and they be placed on the free list or the duty reduced to some 
 figure that is equitable to thousands of consumers. 
 
 It is alleged as a special and good reason for drastic action on the part of your commit- 
 tee on this schedule, and it is a matter of common knowledge that the business of the 
 United States in photographic apparatus and supplies, with the exception of a com- 
 paratively negligible amount, is done and controlled by one concern and its several 
 subdivisions, and that this concern by a trade agreement rigidly enforced for the 
 past 12 years upon dealers in photographic supplies, has prevented the development 
 and marketing of competitive photographic products. 
 
 As an example of the working of this restrictive system, it is cited that the San 
 Francisco City directory of 1912 list 26 exclusive dealers in photographic products, 
 of whom there is only one known to be not doing business under this trade agreement. 
 This condition is universal throughout the country. The only relief for the consumer 
 from this noncompetitive condition is by purchasing abroad where supplies and 
 apparatus of the highest character can be had at reasonable prices, but this relief is 
 denied him because of the prohibitive protective tariff duty. 
 
 It is a well known fact that the concern referred to above does an enormous foreign 
 business in its products in Europe and England as well as in other parts of the world, 
 under keenest competitive conditions prevailing there, and it is self-evident that a 
 protective tariff duty is not needed in this country excepting as it has served during 
 the past 12 years as a bulwark to the non-competitive business policy of this concern 
 
892 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108 LENSES, CAMERAS, ETC. 
 
 enforced through its trade agreements. During the period referred to, it is not known 
 to have given the consumer the benefit of any reduction in price originally established. 
 
 It is also asked that relief be afforded from the prohibitive duty of 45 per cent on 
 photographic lenses, particularly in relation to scientifically corrected lenses known 
 at. anastigmats, which are universally used in the arts and sciences in the production 
 of accurate photographic work. 
 
 As an incident of the controlled development of the photographic business of the 
 United States as referred to above in this communication, there has in consequence 
 developed in this country only one large and prominent manufacturer of photo- 
 graphic lenses. We believe investigation will show that bis concern, which manu- 
 factures the bulk of corrected American-made lenses (under German patents and 
 royalty) is publicly advertising and selling its lenses abroad at figures corresponding 
 to prices charged consumers in this country less the 45 per cent duty. 
 
 It is necessary in this communication to cover the contingency that in your hearing 
 there may be representation by other so-called American manufacturers of foreign 
 lenses against a reduction of duty. It is therefore desired to call to your attention that 
 there are several concerns of this kind who import the glass elements of expensive 
 anastigmat lenses unmounted ready for assembling and bringing them in under the 
 low duty charged against unmounted lenses. These finished lenses ready for assem- 
 bling are mounted at small cost compared to the cost of production of the glass elements 
 in metal cells and sold to the American purchaser at a price that includes the full 
 45 per cent duty, notwithstanding the fact that no such duty has been paid. Basing 
 our information as to the high cost of anastigmat lens on the information thereon 
 given by manufacturers in various lens catalogues the bulk of the cost of such len 
 undoubtedly lies in the grinding and finished polishing of the lens elements and the 
 culling out of faulty lenses after all the work on them has been done. 
 
 The various allegations made above concerning these various concerns are not 
 made for the purpose of criticising them, but for the sole purpose of showing that an 
 intolerable and unjust condition has existed for years, which was in part made possible 
 by high protective tariff duties, which without the tariff would quickly and equi- 
 tably regulate itself. 
 
 Abroad, where free trade or reasonable duties prevail, no such condition exists, 
 and there is the keenest competition and wide varieties of photographic manufac- 
 turers for purchasers to select from. The condition in this country, it is contended, 
 has stifled individual enterprise and native ability, and where in other lines we are 
 pieemme:it such is not the case in photography. 
 
 It may seem irrelevant in a communication of this character to make such asser- 
 tions, but it is an interesting fact that the epoch-making discoveries and inventions 
 in the art and science of photography in the last 10 years, as instanced by the dis- 
 covery of color photography by Lumere and the invention of new anastigmat lenses 
 and developments of the chemistry of photography, have been made abroad and not 
 in the United States. 
 
 The California Camera Club four years ago, at the time when this schedule of the 
 Payne-Aldrich bill was up for revision, took up the matter of the reduction of these 
 duties in a personal communication to the chairman of that committee, and the only 
 acknowledgement of it was that it had been received and filed. 
 
 We trust that our interests and the interests of thousands of others who are not able 
 in any other way to present their case to your committee will fare better at your hands. 
 
 Begging leave to remain, we are. 
 Respectfully, yours. 
 
 RESOLUTION COMMITTEE OF THE CALIFORNIA CAMERA CLUB, 
 C. P>. AUKKBACH. Chairman. 
 
 BRIEF OF SENECA CAMERA MANUFACTURING CO., OF ROCHES- 
 TER, N. Y., RELATIVE TO THE DUTY ON PHOTOGRAPHIC 
 CAMERAS. 
 
 ROCHESTER, N. Y., January 15, 1913. 
 
 To the Committee on Ways and Means of tJte House of Representatives: 
 The Seneca Camera Manufacturing Co., of Rochester, X. Y., files this statement 
 
 relative to the tariff upon photographic cameras in answer to the statement of Mr. G. C. 
 
 ( iennert. an importer and dealer of New York City, made to the committee on January 
 
 !). 1!M3. 
 
 The present duty is 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 108. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 893 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108 LENSES, CAMERAS, ETC. 
 
 The Seneca Camera Manufacturing Co. is engaged in the manufacture of photographic 
 cameras at Rochester, X . Y. It manufactures no other line of goods. It has an invest- 
 ment of at least $125,000 in that business and employs at least 175 hands upon the aver- 
 age throughout the year in the manufacture of cameras. Mr. Gennert advocates such 
 change in the law as shall put camera bodies not optically equipped and parts thereof 
 on the free list and a duty of 15 per cent ad valorem on cameras optically equipped. 
 In support of this he states: 
 
 First. "That domestic dealers like himself in photographic cameras can not buy 
 and sell cameras of domestic manufacture, because the entire supply thereof is con- 
 trolled by the Eastman Kodak Co. That the Eastman Kodak Co manufactures seven- 
 eighths or more of the domestic product. That no domestic manufacturer of photo- 
 graphic cameras can compete with the Eastman Kodak Co." 
 
 The fact is that there are five substantial business concerns manufacturing photo- 
 graphic cameras in the United States, all of which are wholly independent of the 
 Eastman Kodak Co. and are successfully competing with it. These are: The Ansco 
 Co., Binghamton, N. Y.; Burke & James, Chicago, 111.; Connolly Camera Co., Roches- 
 ter, Minn.; Gundlach-Manhattan Optical Co., Rochester, N. Y.; Seneca Camera 
 Manufacturing Co., Rochester, N. Y. In addition there are some smaller companies 
 which it is not necessary to mention. 
 
 The foregoing five establishments have an aggregate investment in the manufacture 
 of photographic cameras of at least $750,000. They have upward of 850 employees 
 in that line of manufacture alone and they produce at least one-fourth and probably 
 one-third of all the photographic cameras sold in the United States. Mr. Gennert can 
 buy domestic made photographic cameras from any one of the above-named five con- 
 cerns on terms which will enable him to compete successfully, so far as the character 
 c.i the product or the price is concerned, with the cameras manufactured by the East- 
 man Kodak Co. For several years he has purchased cameras of the Seneca Camera 
 Manufacturing Co. For the year 1910 his purchases from that company amounted to 
 $6,855; for 1911 to $5,053; for 1912 to $4,258. 
 
 Mr. Gennert states: 
 
 Second. "That the placing of photographic cameras upon the free list would not 
 affect any domestic production except that of the Eastman Kodak Co., which needs 
 no protection because its profits have been so large that it is paying annual dividends 
 of 6 per cent on upward of $6,000,000 of preferred stock and 40 per cent on upward of 
 $19,000,000 of common stock, the common shares of the par value of $100 having now 
 a market value of upward of $700 each." 
 
 The profits of the Eastman Kodak Co., as shown by the value of its stock and by the 
 rate of dividends which it is now paying are correctly stated, but the inference that 
 these profits are made from the manufacture and sale of photographic cameras is wholly 
 incorrect. The Eastman Kodak Co. has never made any unusual profit from the 
 manufacture and sale of cameras, which is but a very small part of its business. For 
 many years that company has manufactured and sold a complete line of photographic 
 goods, including besides cameras, photographic papers, plates, and films, develop- 
 ment apparatus and supplies, moving-picture films, etc. Until the year 1906 it had 
 never paid a dividend upon its common shares of more than 10 per cent. Up to 10 
 years ago its preferred and common stock was selling at par or slightly above par. 
 Then came the moving-picture business, for which it mamifactures the films. It has 
 now a complete monopoly of the manufacture of moving-picture film in the United 
 States and a complete monopoly of supplying moving-picture film to the moving-pic- 
 ture establishments in the United States. This business has proved enormously 
 profitable and accounts for the extraordinary profits of the company. 
 
 Mr. Gennert also states: 
 
 Third: "That the Eastman Kodak Co. refuses to permit dealers in photographic sup- 
 plies to purchase and sell its goods if the dealer undertakes to sell a camera of any other 
 manufacturer. Having stated that there was no, or substantially no, domestic pro- 
 duction except that of the Eastman Co., he leaves the inference to be drawn that the 
 Eastman Co. would be properly dealt with by putting its product on the free list." 
 
 It is true that the Eastman Kodak Co., by methods which are probably within the 
 law, restricts its retail dealers to the sale of its products exclusively. The independent 
 manufacturers of photographic apparatus and supplies have suffered enormously 
 from this practice of the Eastman Co. They have maintained their position hi spite 
 of it. They would welcome the abolition of this practice and the removal of this 
 obstacle to 'then- growth heartily, as heartily as Mr. Gennert would, for their interest 
 and his in that respect are identical. They fail, however, to see how the removal or 
 reduction of the duty upon cameras would accomplish that even to the slightest 
 
894 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108 LENSES, CAMERAS ETC. 
 
 degree. The Eastman Kodak Co. manufactures a complete line of photographic appa- 
 ratus and supplies. It advertises its goods extensively so that they are well known. 
 It is, therefore, to the advantage of the retail dealer to handle their goods. If the 
 Eastman Co. can legally require the retail dealer or legally make it an object to the 
 retail dealer to handle Eastman goods exclusively, it will, of course, do so. 
 
 The tariff, however; has nothing to do with that. Neither the rate of duty nor the 
 absence of duty upon imports will affect that feature of the business. If, however, the 
 Eastman Kodak Co. was the only domestic concern to be affected it might very well 
 be urged that it deserves no protective duty, but that is not the case as we have already 
 shown. The Eastman Kodak Co. controls the Canadian Kodak Co. (Ltd.), of Toronto, 
 Canada; the Kodak (Ltd.), of London, England; the Eastman Kodak Socie'te' Fran- 
 caise of Paris, France, and the Kodak Gesellschaft, of Berlin, Germany. It is, there- 
 fore, in a position to take advantage of any reduction in the duties upon imports 
 imposed by the United States and to manufacture its goods abroad and supply the 
 domestic market. The contrary is true of the independent manufacturers in the 
 United States. 
 
 Mr. Gennert further states in effect: 
 
 Fourth. "That the present duty of 45 per cent prevents the importation of cameras 
 at a price which will compete with the domestic made article." 
 
 To bear out this statement Mr. Gennert refers to a small camera which he imports 
 to sell at $2.50. He states that the same camera of domestic make sells for $2. The 
 camera which he refers to as imported by him is the "Ensign " 2| B made by Hough- 
 tons (Ltd.), of London and Glasgow. The $2 domestic camera to which he refers is 
 the No. 2 "Brownie" made by the Eastman Kodak Co. which corresponds to the 
 No. 2 "Scout " made by us. We submit with this statement a sample of each of these 
 three cameras in order that the committee may see that the $2.50 English made 
 camera is superior in every way to either of the $2" American cameras. The difference 
 in the cameras accounts for the difference in the retail price, and when the difference 
 in the cameras is taken into account it is apparent that the present tariff of 45 per 
 cent does not prevent an English made camera from competing as to price with a 
 similar camera of domestic manufacture. 
 
 Furthermore, the letters from customers produced by Mr. Gennert before the 
 committee show that with the present rate of import duty upon cameras, English 
 made cameras can be imported at a price which will enable them to compete freely 
 with American made goods. One of the letters produced by Mr. Gennert before the 
 committee read as follows: 
 
 "We are returning herewith one Ensignette camera, list $10, and one Ensignette, list 
 $15. Please credit theso to our account. We could no doubt have sold a large num- 
 ber of theso cameras, but as the Eastman Kodak Co. refused to sell us their product 
 if we sold Ensignettes we are obliged to discontimie the sale of them." 
 
 Another letter produced by Mr. Gennert read as follows: 
 
 "I am returning via United States Express one Ensignette camera which I wish 
 you would give me credit for as the Eastman Kodak Co. have stopped me from sell- 
 ing it.'' 
 
 Another letter road: 
 
 " I must return the camera because I can not afford to incur the displeasure of the 
 Eastman Kodak Co." 
 
 The " Ensign pt to ' ' cameras above referred to are manufactured by Houghtons (Ltd.), 
 of London and Glasgow, and are a folding vest-pocket or small type, as the name 
 indicates, of thoii "Ensign" camera. 
 
 It is therefore apparent that the duty of 45 per cent under existing law does not 
 prevent Mr. Gcnnort from dealing in foreign made cameras through retail dealers in 
 the United States, but that the dealers were only prevented from handling the foreign 
 marie goods by the practice of the Eastman Company in restricting such dealers to 
 the Eastman Co.'s goods exclusively. 
 
 It is true, as was pointed out at the hearing before this committee on the 9th inst., 
 I hat the importation of foreign-made cameras under existing law is very small. It 
 does not follow, however, that the present duty of 45 per cent ad valorem is prohib- 
 itive. On the contrary it appears from what has been above stated that American 
 dealers can handle and would be very u;lad to handle foreign cameras under the present 
 rate of duty were it not for the restrictions put upon the retail dealers by the East- 
 man Kodak Co. The Seneca Camera Manufacturing Co. has a modern plant of the 
 highest efiiciency. It is in keen competition with the Eastman Kodak Co. in the 
 manufacture and sale of cameras and with the four other independent manufacturers 
 herein named. It pays out to its employees in wages an amount equaling over 69 
 
SCHEDULE B. 895 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108 LENSES, CAMERAS, ETC. 
 
 per cent of its output of manufactured goods. If the duty of 45 per cent ad valorem 
 under which it has been able to establish its business as a competitor of the Eastman 
 Kodak Co. is removed or materially reduced its business can not continue. The 
 same must be true of the other independent camera makers above named. 
 
 It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the present duty of 45 per cent ad 
 valorem so far as it applies to photographic cameras is reasonable and should not be 
 changed. 
 
 SENECA CAMERA MANUFACTURING Co., 
 By F. K. TOWNSEND, Secretary and Treasurer. 
 
 DISCUSSION OF THE CAMERA INDUSTRY. 
 
 LETTER OF THE ANSCO Co., BINGHAMTON, N. Y. 
 
 ANSCO Co., 
 
 Binghamton, N. Y., January 15, 19 IS. 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 9 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We read a few days ago in the newspapers an account of the hearing on 
 the schedule affecting duties on photographic cameras, and regret that through lack 
 of notice or inadvertence on our part we were not represented at the hearing. 
 
 According to the press reports Mr. G. Gennert has made the statement that there is 
 a large profit in the manufacture of cameras; that the Eastman Kodak Co. has made 
 enormous profits from that end of their business, because of the high import duties, 
 which keep foreign-made cameras out. The facts warrant me in stating that Gennert'a 
 attention is absolutely unwarranted. 
 
 The Ansco Co. makes a line of cameras paralleling that of the Eastman Kodak Co. 
 The cost of production, namely, the raw materials and the high wages which prevail, 
 makes that branch of the Ansco Co.'s business almost unproductive. 
 
 All the independent dealers in photographic supplies in this country know that 
 we have for several years freely admitted that we only manufacutre cameras for the 
 purpose of giving the independent dealer a complete assortment of photographic 
 goods to parallel that of ; he Eastman controlled dealer. This statement has been made 
 to Gennert, who, as a dealer, was at one time interested in the sale of Ansco cameras. 
 
 In other words, we manufacture cameras practically at no profit, after the large 
 investment is taken in consideration; so that the independent dealer, whom the 
 Eastman Kodak Co. declines to do business with, may have cameras to sell as a vehicle 
 to dispose of other goods on which we and other independent manufacturers make 
 a reasonable profit. 
 
 The importation of cameras from Europe has not in any way been impeded by the 
 duty as it now stands. The duty is less than the difference between the cost of manu- 
 facture in Europe, where labor is cheaper, and the cost of production in this country. 
 
 There are now being imported into this country all the different models of cameras 
 made in Europe for which a market has been created here. If more are not imported 
 and sold . it is because the European manufacturer does not create or produce business, 
 but merely waits until the American manufacturer has established a demand. 
 
 There are many types of cameras now made in Europe in imitation of the American 
 designs, devices, and models, which have been widely advertised in this country, and 
 for which the American manufacturer, at an enormous expense for propaganda, has 
 created a large demand. 
 
 Those cameras may not be imported into this country to fill this demand created by 
 tl.e American manufacturer who has been able to advertise them because of patent 
 protections simply because they are alleged to be infringements of American patents. 
 
 The hindrance heretofore to the importation of these styles of cameras has been the 
 Houston patent. The Houston patent has recently expired, and the European makers 
 will now have a chance to see what they can do on an even basis with American manu- 
 facturers, whose protection is simply a duty equivalent to less than the difference 
 between the cost of production in Europe and the United States. To lower the duties 
 will be throwing away revenue and will only result in injuring American industries. 
 
 Photographic cameras, especially the amateur variety in which importers are inter- 
 ested, may only be classified as an article of luxury purchased mainly by those who 
 can afford to indulge in the pastime. In accordance with what we understand is the 
 policy to be pursued, the Government is committed, and properly so, to tax such 
 
896 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108 LENSES, CAMERAS, ETC. 
 
 articles of luxury to the end that the downward revision on necessities may not affect 
 the total revenues. 
 
 It is stated by Gennert that the Eastman Kodak Co. is a trust; that it has through 
 many reprehensible practices restrained trade, so that they are in reality a monopoly. 
 We quite agree with Mr. Gennert in this respect; and if the Government is in a position 
 to correct these abuses in restraint of trade it will help us in the fight we have, after a 
 long struggle, waged 'successfully in building up a business on independent lines, which 
 affords some relief to the photographic dealer and to the photographic consumer by 
 means of open competition. 
 
 We certainly, however, must protest against any attempt to punish the Eastman 
 monopoly by reducing duties on imported cameras, for this, instead of punishing the 
 Eastman Kodak Co., will be the means of putting out of business those independent 
 concerns, like ourselves, which have afforded the only competition in the manufacture 
 and sale of photographic goods in this country. 
 
 The Eastman Kodak Co. is an international concern. It has factories in several 
 countries in Europe and in Canada. If the duties were reduced so that it would not be 
 profitable for them to manufacture cameras in this country they will surely manufac- 
 ture the cameras in England or elsewhere, where labor and raw materials are lower, 
 and simply export them to this country. 
 
 If the Eastman Kodak Co. is forced to manufacture in Europe for the purpose of 
 exporting cheap-labor cameras, because of a lower scale of duties, they would have 
 no difficulty in consolidating and acquiring the few camera factories in Germany and 
 England through their European company. In that way they would destroy the 
 American independent manufacturer and would control the price to American con- 
 sumers without the Sherman law being operative against them. Indeed, it has already 
 been reported that the Eastman Kodak Co. has acquired the lea Co. and other leading 
 factories in Europe. 
 
 This method of stifling competition in this country is nothing new, for the Eastman 
 Kodak Co. a few years ago did this very same thing with manufacturers of raw photo- 
 graphic paper in Europe. This paper deal was the foundation for the Eastman Kodak 
 Co.'s strong financial and commanding position and for the use they now make of 
 their preponderating capital and output. 
 
 Mr. Gennert, who himself is now advocating the destruction of the American 
 camera industry, would be a sufferer from his own cupidity, for if the Eastman Kodak 
 Co. manufactured cameras in Europe for importation into this country, as before out- 
 lined, and in addition controlled the European manufacturers, Mr. Gennert's con- 
 tract with his camera maker in Europe would not in that event be worth the paper 
 it is written on. 
 
 The Government must not lose sight of the fact that from a revenue standpoint it 
 would not be any better off. The revenue in the way of duties on imported finished 
 cameras might increase, but the revenue in the way of duties on raw materials will 
 cease, such as, for instance, the duty on glass for the manufacture of lenses. 
 
 Revenues in the way of duties, in the last analysis, are collected from the consumer, 
 and since revenues are derived from the people and from no other source it is plain 
 that every industry, receiving a body blow through the tariff, means so many thou- 
 sand operatives who find their purchasing power reduced, and the more the purchas- 
 ing power of the people is reduced the fewer goods will they be able to buy on which 
 the Government can collect duties. 
 
 Gennert and other importers who have not the ability or courage to manufacture 
 cameras in this country and who are simply selfishly interested in making greater 
 profit as parasitical middlemen, are distorting facts for personal gain at the expense 
 of ihe Government and to the lasting detriment of the American people. 
 
 If there are to be further hearings affecting photographic goods, I shall be greatly 
 obliged to be advised of same by wire at my expense, if the time is short, in order 
 that we may cooperate with the Government in reaching a conclusion fair alike to the 
 Government, the consumer, and the manufacturer. 
 
 Very truly, yours, Axsco Co., 
 
 T. W. STEPHENS, President, 
 
SCHEDULE B. 897 
 
 PABAGBAPH 108 LENSES, CAMEBAS, ETC. 
 
 (LETTER OF G. GENNERT, NEW YORK, N. Y.) 
 
 FEBRUARY 19, 1913. 
 The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIRS : Referring to the letters sent to this committee by the Seneca Camera Manufac- 
 turing Co. and the Ansco Co. in opposition to your petitioners request for a revision 
 downward of the present duty of 45 per cent on photographic cameras assessed under 
 Schedule B, paragraph 108, as optical instruments, we beg briefly to state as follows: 
 
 Both letters consist merely oi denials of petitioners evidence and contain no facts 
 that will or can enlighten this committee on the real condition of the industry. 
 
 The objectant letters entirely ignore the following salient points: 
 
 (1) There are now practically no imports of camaras, whereas the exports for the 
 year ending December, 1912, were $672,108. Lowering the duty to 15 per cent will 
 greatly increase the revenue. 
 
 (2) The Eastman Kodak Co. can manufacture more cheaply in America by its tre- 
 mendous output than any European factory. This company is practically the only 
 exporter to Europe, where it competes vigorously but where it does not manufacture 
 cameras. The Eastmen Co. will not therefore buy up the European factories and 
 export cameras to the United States if the duty is reduced. 
 
 The Seneca Camera Manufacturing Co. in its letter to this committee seems to 
 want this committee to believe that the Eastman Kodak Co.'s methods are not illegal. 
 On November 28, 1911, the Seneca Co. sent out to the trade the annexed circular, 
 which throws a strange light on the sincerity of their present attitude before this 
 committee. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 G. GENNERT, 
 24 East Thirteenth Street, New York. 
 
 [Letter annexed to statement of G. Gennert.] 
 
 SENECA CAMERA MANUFACTURING Co., 
 
 Rochester, N. Y., November 28, 1911. 
 To the photographic trade: 
 
 The pitiable, humiliating spectacle of a great man brought to his knees, that's the 
 mental picture the Camera Trust's recent announcement suggests. 
 
 We mean, of course, the letter sent you under date of November 15, 1911, by the 
 Photographic Trust. 
 
 Have you digested it? 
 
 Was there ever such a commingling of craven, abject fear, with fawning hypocrisy? 
 In your mind's eye cast back through the years of tyrannous oppression, when Bill, the 
 chiD swinger, and his corps d' espionage ranged the land; when no dealer was safe for 
 a minute from the paid minions of their corps of detectives; look along the pathway of 
 years, strewn with wrecks in the photographic business, and place the responsibility; 
 recall the restrictions, the rebates, the systems of petty meddling. Think what you 
 have had to put up with in your struggle to eke a living out of this business. Friend, 
 ask yourself what has ever been the attitude of the trust. Hasn't it used the photo- 
 graphic dealer as one would a common conveyance? Has it ever given to him as 
 much thought as you would bestow on an office boy? 
 
 As the photographer may inadvertently take a picture on a plate already exposed, 
 so everything has appeared to the trust through the film of money. This film has grown 
 to be a cataract and an operation is necessary, in fact, overdue. You will remember 
 that often, like Daniel of old, we called the attention of this Belshazzar, drunk_with 
 sordid gain, to the handwriting on the wall. At last, outraged freedom shrieked 
 aloud and the Government came to the rescue. Trusts fell on all sides; from the 
 proud position of mighty arrogance the Photographic Trust fled in terror. 
 
 Calmly the requirements of the Department of Justice regarding corporations were 
 formulated into three questions, on which every corporation could test itself as to 
 whether it was complying with the law or not. Here are the questions: 
 
 Are you restricting production? 
 
 Are you using duress upon your competitors? 
 
 78959 VOL 113 57 
 
898 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108 LENSES, CAMERAS, ETC. 
 
 Are you, by your combination, regulating the prices at which your goods are resold? 
 
 Can the Camera Trust answer any of these questions in the negative? What is 
 that we hear from you, friend? Caught with the goods? 
 
 Now, listen to tne wail of the octopus in its official letter: "With restrictions re- 
 moved, we fear there will be a tendency to reduce the dealers' profit." Noble and 
 trenchant thought! .The trust is capitalized at $35,000,000; you know how much of 
 that is water. It is paying annually 40 per cent dividends. Has it ever given thought 
 before to what you were making? And do you make 40 per cent on the real capital 
 invested in your business? With a fawning, ingratiating, solicitousness that is en- 
 tirely new to its character, the trust asks you in its letter what it shall do in the future, 
 what shall be its policy. You are invitea to commend the system that has enthralled 
 you in bondage for years, and stood with its foot on your neck. Why? So that if 
 the Government goes further, the trust can rally you to its support. Was there ever 
 anything so impudent as this? Were you ever asked to help the strong man formu- 
 late a policy for running his business before? Why does he come to you when he is 
 in trouble? And, then, that concession on film that he makes, which amounts to 
 nothing. Beware the Greeks bearing gifts. 
 
 Friend, there is another and entirely different aspect of this whole matter: The 
 inalienable right of the dealer to buy and sell what he wishes is restored to him. 
 Throughout the land the rumble of freedom is swelling to augment the grand reces- 
 sional. We stand forth with renewed courage and rejuvenated spirit; our eyes have 
 fallen on the promised land. 
 
 The Seneca Camera Manufacturing Co. is the largest independent camera-mak- 
 ing establishment in the world, and commends itself again to your notice. We feel 
 that the time is here when our goods and ourselves are worthy of your serious con- 
 sideration. We can supply you with everything photographic and no one can dis- 
 criminate against you for selling our goods. Will you seek a better acquaintance? 
 To-day is the day and this is the hour. 
 Yours, for an early reply, 
 
 SENECA CAMERA MANUFACTURING Co. 
 
 BOSTON, MASS., January IS, 191S. 
 Mr. OSCAR UNDERWOOD. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Cut the duties out on all goods sold in foreign markets cheaper than the 
 same is sold in our markets. That is what the people want, though the majority of 
 those who appear before your committee have an ax to grind, and are therefore the 
 only enes you hear from. 
 
 I note testimony of Gennert of New York. There is no doubt that there is a photo- 
 graphic trust. I am an amateur photographer of 25 years' experience. The Eastman 
 Co., and its allied concerns, Folmer-Swing, Bausch & Lomb, Rochester Camera Co., 
 etc., are in my opinion all in it. It is impossible to get a well-made camera or lense 
 that is made in this country. I am the owner of a Blair English compact camera, 
 made before they were gobbled by the trust; Honduras mahogany, brass screwed, 
 tongued and glued, and after 20 years it is still solid and sound. That camera or one 
 as good can not be found in our markets to-day unless foreign built. To-day they are 
 all basswood or white wood, glued up with fish glue and stained, or of cheaper cedar, 
 filled and polished to look and sell for mahogany. 
 
 I have just imported for a State institution, several thousand dollars worth of genuine 
 Carl Zeiss goods lenses, microscopes, etc. Comparing them with supposedly the 
 same goods made by Bausch & Lomb under the Zeiss patents show plainly that they 
 are much superior to the American make. Their execution is far better, definition 
 and covering power, and the mounting is superb. Now, I do not doubt that Bausch 
 & Lomb can do good work, but they don't have to under this accursed tariff and 
 therefore they won't. There are no American goods in the line of photographic goods 
 and microscopes that can compare with any one of a half a dozen foreign makers. It 
 all works to the bad it injures the workman, saps our national pride in our goods, 
 and costs those who want the best a lot of money that only goes into the pockets of 
 certain people who have no patriotism save the almighty dollar. Foreign makers 
 don't even send their best goods to this market they don't have to. Their second- 
 rate goods are better than our best. We are the dumping ground for the second-rate 
 products of the world. 
 
 Patents are bought up or kept out of the market in other ways, so that such concerns 
 can pay ungodly dividends on their watered stocks. There is no national pride in 
 
SCHEDULE B. . 899 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108 LENSES, CAMERAS, ETC. 
 
 our products there never will be until we can get men in our Congress that can hear 
 the shout of the common people as plainly as they can the voice of the dollar. 
 
 This is hastily written, but by a man whose ancestors helped build this country 
 from the very start, and taken together with his father, voted for every Democratic 
 President since Jefferson. 
 
 This iniquitous tariff business has had my goat so many years that once started I 
 am afraid I don't know enough to stop. I hope that we are at the end of building 
 millionaires at the expense of the people, but we shall see what we shall see. Our 
 successes in the past were but a change of vendors. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 GEORGE H. UNDERBILL, M. D. 
 
 Kodak goods could be sold at a profit, if sold at all, in competition with the rottenest 
 goods made in the world. A tariff needed to protect such goods? Bah! A tariff is 
 needed to sell them at all they are the cheapest of the cheap. This is but cold 
 frozen fact. 
 
 NEW YORK, Jan. 6, 1913. 
 Mr. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: As it very likely will not be possible for me to be in Washington at the 
 forthcoming hearings on tariff schedules, I take the liberty of addressing you by letter, 
 lending whatever assistance I can. 
 
 It is needless to say that I have always fought for tariff reduction, believing the 
 present rate top high in my particular line, which, as you will notice from this letter 
 head, is in scientific instruments and optical apparatus and cameras. I sincerely 
 believe that a reduction of the tariff on cameras, binoculars, microscopes, telescopes, 
 and other high-class optical instruments from 45 per cent ad valorem to 25 per cent 
 ad valorem as assessed under the former Wilson tariff, is fully sufficient. 
 
 This lower rate of duty will certainly not put out of business any American manu- 
 facturer. In the first place, as regards the camera line, only the cheaper grades are 
 made here by about three or four concerns, of which the Eastman Kodak Co. is the 
 biggest one, and an iron-bound trust at that. These companies, particularly the 
 Eastman Kodak Co., will, even if the tariff should be lowered to 25 per cent, be able 
 to make just as big profits on their goods as heretofore. Of course that company is by 
 coercive trust measures so well entrenched that independent camera manufacturers 
 do not have much show any way, and it is therefore in the interest of the people in 
 general to open the way for competition. Nevertheless mostly foreign cameras of the 
 higher grade are imported, which are not made here. 
 
 The Eastman Kodak Co. declared in the last few years dividends of between 50 
 and 60 per cent, and they have a surplus now of a larger amount than their actual 
 capital consists of. This surplus will be converted into watered stock within a short 
 time according to reliable information. The present stock of the Kodak Co. sells 
 upward of $700 per share. 
 
 Now regarding microscopes. The fact that in spite of the 45 per cent tariff on 
 foreign microscopes the American manufacturers have been able to reduce their prices 
 since the enaction of the Dingley tariff by fully one-third or more shows conclusively 
 that the profits they have made before they reduced the prices were very high and even 
 now, at the reduced prices they are making very handsome profits and are able to 
 compete very successfully with foreign microscopes, even on the duty-free basis. 
 By "duty-free importation" I mean that duty to such educational institutions, which 
 are entitled to duty-free entry under the act of Congress, is remitted. Consequently 
 it is evident that a reduction to 25 per cent duty on microscopes will not hurt the 
 American manufacturers in competition with foreign goods. 
 
 Now as regards opera glasses, prism binoculars, etc., very few are made here to 
 *peak of. There were a few prism binoculars made in Cleveland and some in Roch- 
 ester, but practically the only prism binoculars now made are manufactured by the 
 Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., who uphold their prices to the same level as the imported 
 equivalent, the Carl Zeiss prism binocular, after which they are modeled. Should the 
 tariff on these be reduced to 25 per cent, and consequently the selling price of the 
 imported ones be lowered, the price for the few made here in America will also be 
 consequently lowered, but will still leave a handsome profit to the manufacturers. 
 
 Field glasses and opera glasses are not made in this country at all. Neither are 
 telescopes except a few special ones made, for instance, by the John A. Brashear Co., 
 
900 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 108 LENSES, CAMERAS, ETC. 
 
 Pittsburgh, Pa., and even these people import most of the optical parts from abroad, 
 chiefly doing the mounting here. 
 
 Photographic lenses (also optical instruments) could also stand a reduction in tariff 
 duty, as the majority of photographic lenses are imported notwithstanding the high 
 present duty of 45 per cent, and in spite of some domestic manufacturers having 
 combined with certain foreign firms as to scientific data, thus showing that the domes- 
 tic manufacturers, even with a reduction of the tariff, could easily meet foreign com- 
 petition. 
 
 Finally, I want to say a word as to the duty-free clause, and that is this: That all 
 those laboratories engaged in scientific research work should be entitled to duty-free 
 importation of high-class scientific instruments only, not in everything they need, 
 as the domestic manufacturer has to be protected as well. It is incongruous to think, 
 for instance, that the State department of health of say, Oklahoma or Arizona, with 
 its small needs should be entitled to duty-free importation, whereas such a large 
 department as the health department of the city of New York, with its many research 
 laboratories, is required to pay duty on everything they import. 
 
 Mind you, I do not believe in having everything imported free of duty, but the laws 
 should be more equalized, that whatever importations, like, for instance, the research 
 laboratories of New York City, Philadelphia, Washington, etc., do need scientific 
 instruments not made in this country, they should be entitled to duty-free entry of 
 same. A like tolerance should be shown toward laboratories of large hospitals. It 
 is incongruous to think, for instance, that a hospital spending thousands of dollars 
 per year for laboratory research and buying, for instance, say, microscopes worth 
 $200 each, should be required to pay duty on the instrument, whereas a little 
 country "University", so called, may get its single $20 microscope in free of duty. 
 
 It is self-evident that a hospital with a research laboratory is doing more to advance 
 science than this little country university, and nowadays, at the least in all larger 
 cities, the men working in hospital laboratories are all connected with the staff of 
 scientific institutions, if not a part of the faculty thereof. I could name you, for 
 instance, numerous instances of such close affiliation and cooperation in New York 
 City alone, not to speak of other cities. 
 
 If there is any other information you desire to obtain in regard to optical and scien- 
 tific instruments, I shall be pleased to give you same as I feel myself particularly fit 
 to do so through my very long experience in that line, which is also highly regarded 
 here by the general appraisers, for whom I have, at a number of times, appeared as 
 qualifying witness. 
 
 I do hope that this letter may help toward reduction and equalization of tariff duty 
 for revenue only, which I strongly believe in and work for. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, MAX MEYER. 
 
 PROVIDENCE, R. I., January 4, 191S. 
 The WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D . C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: In regard to the metal schedule which we understand comes up on the 
 10th of this month, we would like to file the following brief as to why we feel the duty 
 on optical goods should remain where it is. 
 
 (1) We find the average wages paid in Rath enow, Germany, for labor on optical 
 goods is as follows: Girl apprentices, $1 to 2 per week for first three years, and $3 to 
 $4 after three years. For men, SI. 25 to $2.50 for first four years, and an average wage 
 of $(-> thereafter. The lowest wage? paid by us for girls is $7.50 and for men $9 per week. 
 
 (2) We feel that it will be for the best interests of the country to have a tariff equal 
 to the difference in waaes paid in this country and abroad, otherwise we will be unable 
 to keep up the high standard of quality which has been maintained heretofore. 
 
 (3) Under the present tariff we have been able to set a standard which up to the 
 present time has not been approached by our foreign competitors, although they are 
 making vast strides by sending men into this country to work at the bench and buy 
 American machinery, so we feel it is only a question of time before they will be on 
 the same plane. 
 
 (4) Furthermore, owing to fair competition in this country the manufacturer's price 
 has been trending steadily downward, although the consumer pays the same price he 
 did 10 years ago. Hence he would not benefit by a lower tariff, as he would only be 
 paying the same price for an inferior article which we would be forced to manufacture 
 to meet foreign competition. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 901 
 
 PARAGRAPH 109 STAINED WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 We might add that the retailers' gross profit of 300 or 400 per cent is not exorbitant, 
 as an oculist or optician has been obliged to spend years of preparation for his work, 
 which can be likened to that of any other profession. 
 An oculist or optician who makes more than a fair living is the exception. 
 Finally, it will be readily understood from the foregoing that a lower tariff will mean 
 a poorer American product, less than a living wage to the employee of this industry, 
 and no benefit to the ultimate consumer. 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, MARTIN-COPELAND Co., 
 
 L. C. MARTIN. 
 
 MOVING-PICTURE CAMERAS. 
 
 NEW YORK, July 1, 191t. 
 Hon. W. E. TUTTLE, Jr., ' 
 
 Stoneleigh Park, Westfield, N. J. 
 
 DEAR SIR: As a member of vour congressional district and one who voted for you 
 at the last election, we would like to call your attention to the duty on moving-picture 
 cameras. I am interested in a firm importing moving-picture cameras, on which there 
 is a duty of 45 per cent, grossly unfair both to ourselves and the many moving-picture 
 men and others who are using moving-picture cameras. There are no makers of the 
 same in the United States worthy of mention, their cameras being inferior in make, 
 and their numbers, I think, one or two. We see no need of protection, as it is impossi- 
 ble for American firms to duplicate in any wa> foreign moving-picture cameras. We 
 hope we may count on you to use your best efforts to have this unjust duty taken off. 
 Hoping we may hear of your success in this matter, we remain, 
 
 Yours, very truly, R. M. MOORE. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 109. 
 
 Stained or painted glass windows, or parts thereof, and all mirrors, not 
 exceeding in size one hundred and forty-four square inches, with or without 
 frames or cases, and all glass or manufactures of glass or paste or of which 
 glass or paste is the component material of chief value, not specially provided 
 for in this section, forty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 See Joseph Auerbach, page 835. 
 
 STAINED WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF T. M. LANE, ON BEHALF OF MAYER & CO., 
 STAINED WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 The CHAIEMAN. On what paragraph do you speak, Mr. Lane ? 
 
 Mr. LANE. Paragraph 109, stained-glass windows. 
 
 I appear in behalf of certain importers of stained-glass windows, 
 and just at this point I would like to correct a misstatement that I 
 see indorsed on our brief, apparently through inadvertence, that we 
 appear for importers of stained window glass and stained-glass 
 windows. We do not appear for importers of stained window glass, 
 using that term as implying glass in sheets, in bulk quantities. The 
 only thing we ask your committee to deal with, so far as our applica- 
 tion is concerned, is the item of stained-glass windows. As to those, 
 we ask for a reduction in the present rate of duty of 45 per cent, and 
 we ask you to restore to the free list the provision for stained-glass 
 windows imported for presentation to churches. 
 
 Our case is stated in our brief, and I will take but a very few 
 minutes to call the committee's attention to the salient points only. 
 
 We are asking you to conform the provisions of the new act to the 
 immemorial policy of Congress, an exception to which has existed under 
 the McKinley Act and the Dingley tariff and the tariff of 1909, with 
 respect to stained-glass windows. 
 
902 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 109 STAINED WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Prior to the McKinley tariff these windows were admitted free 
 under the provision for paintings imported for churches. When the 
 McKinley tariff was enacted certain manufacturers of stained glass 
 windows appeared before this committee and urgently represented 
 that the industry of manufacturing stained glass windows was then in 
 its inf ancy in this country and needed protection. The result was the 
 passage of a law which contained a specific provision for stained glass 
 windows the first, I think, that had appeared in the tariff up to that 
 tim& at a duty of 45 per cent, and for a specific exclusion inserted in the 
 free list excluding stained-glass windows from the provision statuary and 
 works of art imported for presentation to churches. The result of that is 
 that since the McKinley tariff of 1890 up to the present time this industry 
 in this country has had the benefit of a protective duty of 45 percent, and 
 churches have been unable to import these windows as they formerly 
 were, free of duty, with the exception of the brief interim under the 
 Wilson tariff, when they were again given free entry, and the duty was 
 reduced to 35 cents. In other words, in 20 years out of 23 this industry 
 has had an absolute protective rate of 45 per cent. The industry is 
 not one that is controlled by a trust, so far as I can find out, either 
 here or abroad. Stained glass windows are the products of a few 
 manufacturers scattered around through Germany, Austria, Great 
 Britain more in the nature of ateliers than factories. The business 
 itself is essentially an artistic business, the production of a more or 
 less high art in that country, and I think the same is true in this 
 country. The revenue which the Government derives, of course, is 
 not enormous, though I suppose it is substantial. I have noticed for 
 the fiscal year ending June 30, 1911, this paragraph, which covers 
 glass windows, stained or painted, and mirrors, not exceeding 144 
 square inches in size, brought a duty of $161,000. The mirrors are 
 
 robably substantial. There is no separation of these two items, 
 he total from glass windows, stained or painted, and mirrors was 
 $161,000. The result probably is that a very much smaller quan- 
 tity is sold in this country under a rate of 45 per cent than would 
 be under a rate of 25 or even 35 per cent. 
 
 The proposal that we make to you for a reduction in rate to 25 per 
 cent would mean practicality that churches and perhaps 9 out of 
 10 of these windows are bought by churches 
 
 Mr. HARRISON (interposing). Is it not now the custom of Congress 
 to pass bills refunding to churches the duties that they have paid for 
 stained-glass windows? 
 
 Mr. LAXE. If there have been such bills passed, they must have 
 been very few in number in comparison with the number of churches 
 that buy this glass, for practicaUy all of it is sold to churches. 
 
 Mr. PP:TERS. The only bill that was passed was in a case where a 
 contract was made to purchase the glass brought under a ruling of 
 the Treasury Department that it would come in free, or the local 
 collector that it would come in free, and later such ruling was 
 reversed and the duty collected. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. That, was the reason that the bill was passed. 
 
 Mr. LAXE. It does not seem to me that this is essentially a proper 
 subject for treatment by a protective duty anyway. There are a 
 few high-class studios in this country, like the Tiffany studios and Lamb 
 studios, who appeared before the committee at the last hearing under 
 
SCHEDULE B. 903 
 
 PARAGRAPH 109 STAINED WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 the tariff of 1909 and asked for a high rate of duty on this article, 
 and yet I suppose that any one of the artists connected with those 
 concerns and they have some high-class artists connected with 
 them would resent the imputation that the American artist needed 
 a protective duty to continue his business. 
 
 The request made at the last tariff hearing was a very modest one. 
 I very briefly would like to call the committee's attention to the only 
 concrete illustration of the cost of manufacturing these articles abroad 
 as against the cost hi this country that was given at the last hearing. 
 It is found on pages 1232 to 1235 of tariff hearings of 1909, which 
 I have open before me, and it was there attempted to show that the 
 factory cost of making abroad a window containing 165 feet of 
 glass was about $120, selling price about $216, and the modest request 
 was made that a specific rate of $2 per square foot and 20 per cent be 
 substituted for the then existing rate, and a very simple arithmetical 
 process will show that that rate on a window containing 165 square 
 feet of glass valued at $216 would be $259, or about 120 per cent. 
 I am glad to say that the committee refused to raise the rate, 
 which the highest of the protective tariffs had contained, and con- 
 tinued it at 45 per cent. This industry survived the rate of 35 per 
 cent, and the provision for free entry for windows imported for 
 churches which existed under the Wilson tariff, and it is a very 
 thriving, very strong industry in this country to-day. It is an 
 industry which does and should stand on its merits or its ability to 
 make glass that has a high artistic character, and it should not 
 ask any protection, 
 
 As it is, if you will reduce this duty, continue a duty and reduce it, 
 the churches that import windows directly for purposes of construct- 
 ing new buildings will pay that duty without question. If you restore 
 to the free list the provision for the free entry of glass presented to 
 churches you will merely restore the provision of the tariff as of 1894 
 and the practice as it existed prior to the act of 1883, and vou will, 
 we think, conform the law to the long-established policy of Congress, 
 which has been to exempt not only stained-glass windows but all 
 works of art of all descriptions, of regalia, gems, statuary, specimens 
 of sculpture when imported by churches or imported for presentation 
 to churches. 
 
 A great many windows brought into this country, as you natu- 
 rally will infer, are memorial windows and are very beautiful works of 
 art, and it seems almost irreverent to tax the feelings that inspire 
 the donors to give such beautiful works of art to churches. 
 
 The American manufacturers have not apparently been heard on 
 this question as yet, and I do not know wnat figures they will lay 
 before you, but I want to ask for just a moment your consideration 
 of the figures they submitted at the last tariff hearing. 
 
 The window that they showed as typical they said could be made 
 in Munich for 3 marks per square foot. We have produced before you 
 and printed in this brief an affidavit of Simbert Sallinger, a certified ac- 
 countant, who went over the books of Mayer & Co., the largest stained 
 glass window manufacturers in Germany, and their factory shows for a 
 year's output the average factory cost of at least 8.5 marks; nearly 
 8.58 marks per square foot; nearly three times what the American 
 
904 TABIFF HEABINGS. 
 
 PABAGRAPH 109 STAINED WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 manufacturer asserted the German cost to be. It was further asserted 
 that that window could be sold in Germany for 5.5 marks per square 
 foot. Under the present rule of appraising this glass at the foreign 
 market value, the New York customhouse is to-day passing it at 
 an average of, I. think it is safe to say, nearly 20 marks per square 
 foot, certainly over 15 marks. The scale is a sliding one, depending 
 on the number of figures in the window. For one figure it is 18 
 marks per square foot; two figures, it is 20 marks per square foot; 
 three figures, it is 22 marks per square foot; and four figures, it is 
 23 marks per square foot. The very lowest value stated in this 
 schedule of appraised values at present in force is 8 marks per square 
 foot for plain ornament. And these are the duties on which I believe 
 every importer of German stained glass is paying duties at the New 
 York customhouse at the present tune. And notwithstanding that, 
 we find the American manufacturer coming before your committee 
 at the last tariff hearing and asserting that a window of that kind 
 could be sold for 5.5 marks per square foot in Germany. 
 
 That is all of your time that I will take. 
 
 I would like permission to file this brief, and if the committee 
 will allow it, the petitions from various churches and ecclesiastical 
 authorities. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. They may be filed. 
 
 Mr. LANE. Is there any objection to my later presenting some pe- 
 titions that may come to me here ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You may present them to the committee when 
 you receive them. 
 
 The following petition was filed at a later date: 
 
 The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIRS: The undersigned res] e t fully urges upon your committee and Congress 
 that the duty on stained glass windows shall be reduced to 25 per cent and that pro- 
 vision be made in the free list of the new tariff act for the free entry of stained glass 
 windows, statuary, and casts of sculpture imported for the use of churches and other 
 societies of a religious or educational nature. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 E. F. Prendergast, Archbishop of Philadelphia; P. J. Riordan, Arch- 
 bishop of San Francisco; Charles H. Culton, Bishop of Buffalo, N. Y.; 
 James J. Keane, Archbishop of Dubuque; D. J. O'Connell, Bishop 
 of Richmond; Joseph Schremtz, Bishop of Toledo; Regis Canenin 
 Bishop of Pittsburgh; Henry Gabriels, Bishop of Ogde'^sburg; James 
 II. Blenk. Archbishop of New Orleans; George Albert C uertin, Bishop 
 of Manchester; John E. Fitzmaurice, Bishop of Erie: Henry Joseph 
 Richter, Bishop of Grand Rapids; John S. Foley, Bishop of Detroit; 
 Camillas P. Maes, Bishop of Covington; Henry Moeller, Archbishop 
 of Cincinnati: Francis Silas Chatarcl, Bishop of Indianapolis; Herman 
 J. Alerding. Bishop of Fort Wayne; Thomas Sebastian Nyrne, Bishop 
 of Nashville: Henry P. Northrop, Bishop of Charleston, S. C.; John 
 Janssen, Bishop of Belleville; E. A. Gauey, Bishop of Altoona; 
 James Cardinal Gibbons, of Baltimore. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 905 
 
 PARAGRAPH 109 STAINED WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO CHANGES IN WORDING OF PARAGRAPH 716, AS IT RELATES TO THE 
 IMPORTATION OP STAINED-GLASS WINDOWS. 
 
 'Presented by Frederick E. Mayer, 138 W. Pomona Street, Philadelphia, Pa.] 
 
 The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: The undersigned respectfully suggests that the word "except," 
 preceding the phrase "stained or painted window glass, or stained or painted glass 
 windows, " as found in paragraph 716, be retained, and that the entire sentence relating 
 to stained glass windows be incorporated in its present form in the new tariff act now 
 under consideration by your honorable body. My reasons for urging this action upon 
 your committee, are as follows: 
 
 (1) While it is impossible to make accurate statement, a fair approximation shows 
 that of the stained glass windows sold to American churches about 85 per cent are 
 windows of foreign manufacture. 
 
 (2) If the foregoing statement be true, then the present duty of 45 per cent ad va- 
 lorem is scarcely adequate to protect the American artist. 
 
 (3) No American manufacturer of leaded and stained glass depends exclusively 
 upon his ability to sell his stained glass church windows in competition with the 
 product of the foreign maker of stained glass. As a matter of fact a considerable pro- 
 portion of our business is composed of opalescent and ornamental glass such as is used 
 in private dwellings, business buildings, and public buildings. 
 
 Foreign manufacturers can not readily compete with us in this class of work, because 
 the rapidity of American building construction prevents the prompt delivery of for- 
 eign goods; and, second, because of the architects' specifications, which usually 
 require inspection of the commodity during the course of manufacture. The advan- 
 tage, therefore, accruing to the American manufacture of commercial stained glass 
 is peculiarly local in character and is not directly the result of tariff legislation. 
 Stained-glass windows for churches, however, are usually ordered six months or even 
 a year in advance of their installation. These long-time contracts, therefore, enable 
 the foreign makers of stained-glass windows to use their cheaper-paid labor to the dis- 
 advantage of the American maker of stained-glass windows, thus enabling the foreigner 
 to control the sales of about 85 per cent of the stained-glass windows in America. 
 The production of the ecclesiastical stained-glass windows by American makers should 
 therefore be directly encouraged by the imposition of an ad valorem duty of about 
 50 per cent. 
 
 (4) The making of ecclesiastical stained-glass windows represents the higher devel- 
 opment of the glass painters' art. Our best results are almost invariably attained in 
 the making of the stained-glass windows for churches. Placing upon the free list 
 stained glass- windows designed for churches would rob the American maker of stained- 
 glass windows of his opportunity to sell his admittedly skilled labor upon a fair 
 competitive basis. 
 
 His only hope under free importation would be in finding a prospective donor with 
 sufficient patriotism to give preference to the American maker, irrespective of the 
 selling price of the window. 
 
 Or his other alternative would be to find a prospective purchaser who would place 
 an order with him for purely personal reasons. 
 
 (5) In the brief filed by Mayer & Co. with your committee, I find the following state- 
 ment: "The present tariff has imposed a severe and burdensome tax upon churches, 
 and upon those whose religious inclinations have prompted them to make gifts of the 
 beautiful devotional works of art to churches." This statement, gentlemen, is not 
 true. Stained glass church windows are seldom paid for out of the funds of church 
 corporations. They are, in nearly every instance, the gift of wealthy individual 
 donors, who either make their provisional donation to the church or who buy direct 
 from the maker. It would, therefore, be no hardship upon the church corporation 
 were the churches obliged to pay the present duty or a higher duty of, say, 50 per cent 
 ad valorem. 
 
 (6) In the brief filed by Mayer & Co., I find the following statement: "We respect- 
 fully submit that the stained glass industry is no longer in its infancy." The American 
 artist cheerfully admits this assertion . Figuratively speaking, we are no longer infants. 
 We are boys who have just put on their long trousers. We are young and hopeful and 
 enthusiastic, but we are weak in comparison with the corporation of Mayer & Co., of 
 Munich. This corporation has a highly developed factory svstem in Germany, and 
 has firmly established agencies who sell to Central America, Mexico, South America, 
 Australia, Africa, and continental Europe. 
 
906 TAEIFP HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPH 109 STAINED WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 We respectfully ask that your committee do not place a club in the hands of this 
 corporation that would give it an overpowering advantage. 
 
 (7) Included in the brief of Mayer & Co. are two apparently distinct propositions: 
 First, that the duty on stained or painted glass windows, or parts thereof, as found 
 in paragraph 109, be reduced from 45 to 25 per cent ad valorem. The second propo- 
 sition is that the word "including" be substituted for "except," preceding the phrase 
 "stained or painted window glass, or stained or painted glass windows," as found in 
 paragraph 716. 
 
 Right here, permit me to show you the colored gentleman in the woodpile. Your 
 committee is asked to change paragraph 716, so as to give the privilege of free entry to 
 stained-glass windows intended for church use. If you grant this privilege, para- 
 graph 109, imposing an ad valorem duty, would be of noneffect, because your appraiser 
 would undoubtedly be confronted with this statement: "My dear sir, these stained- 
 gkss windows are a donation to a certain church, and under paragraph 716 they can 
 not be subject to the imposition of any tax whatever." A recapitulation of my state- 
 ment shows that of the total number of stained-glass windows sold to American churches 
 for church use, about 85 per cent are made by foreign manufacturers, and that virtu- 
 ally all stained-glass windows sold for church use are primarily presented to the 
 churches as donations. The American maker of stained-glass windows is therefore 
 confronted with the proposition that he makes stained-glass windows for church use 
 under absolutely free-trade conditions. 
 
 (8) To place stained glass upon the free list would deprive the Government of an 
 annual revenue of about $120,000. The last report given by the Bureau of Foreign 
 and Domestic Commerce is as follows: Imports of glass windows, value, $266,408; a 
 duty at 45 per cent ad valorem, $119,883. 
 
 If you place stained-glass windows, intended for church use, upon the free list, you 
 give up about $120,000 annually, at the same time presenting to the importer and 
 foreign manufacturers additional profits by reason of the increased volume of business 
 that would accrue to them. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 FREDERICK E. MAYER. 
 
 IMPORTERS OF STAINED WINDOW GLASS AND STAINED-GLASS WINDOWS. 
 
 Curie, Smith & Maxwell, attorneys for importers of stained window glass and stained 
 glass windows, 32 Broadway, New York City. Thomas M. Lane, of counsel. 
 
 To the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEX: We beg to submit the following brief in behalf of the importers of 
 stained glass windows, who ask for a reduction of duty on said windows, or for their 
 free entry when imported for churches. 
 
 Prior to the enactment of the McKinley tariff of 1890, stained glass windows portray- 
 ing biblical and relisrious subjects were admitted free of duty when imported for 
 presentation to religious societies. (Par. 819, tariff act of 1883; 146 U. S., 71, 73.) 
 
 The McKinley tariff of 1S90 (par. 122) made specific provision for stained glass 
 windows and stained window glass at a duty of 45 per cent and expressly excluded 
 such stained glass and stained glass windows from the provision exempting paintings 
 imported for presentation to churches (par. 757) . This action was taken upon the 
 urgent plea of manufacturing interests that the stained glass window industry was 
 then an infant industry in this country and entitled to protection. A decision of the 
 United States Supieme Coin I upon a test case taken up under this tariff held that, 
 in view of the exclusion of stained glass windows from free entry under paragraph 757, 
 such exception must be considered implied in the other paragraphs relating to impor- 
 tations for churches. (U. S. r Perry, 146 U. S., 71.) This decision definitely fixed 
 the duty on all stained glass windows, for whatever purpose imported, at 45 per cent, 
 and gave the domestic interests the fullest measure of protection. 
 
 From 1890 to the present day this rate has been continued except for a brief interval 
 of three years under the Wilson tariff of 1894, when the rate on stained glass windows 
 w;>s reduced to 35 per cent (pnr. 1021, and the provision admitting such windows to 
 free entry when imported for presentation to churches was restored to the free list 
 ('par. 686). The Dinyley I a riff of 1897 reenacted the provisions of the act of 1890, and 
 the Payne-Aldrich tariff of 1909 continued them. 
 
 Since this protect ion was given it. the stained glass window industry in this country 
 has grown and llonrishod and H now an established business. This is evidenced by 
 
SCHEDULE B. 907 
 
 PARAGRAPH 109 STAINED WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 the number of houses doing business in this line, some of them important and prosper- 
 ous. A glance at the published hearings on this subject under the various tariffs is 
 sufficient evidence of this. 
 
 Nevertheless, when this question came up at the preliminary hearing on the Payne- 
 Aldrich act of 1909, the American manufactiuers, notwithstanding the growth of their 
 industry under a protective duty of 45 per cent ad valorem, which they had enjoyed 
 for practically 18 years, and which had not been seriously unpaired by an interval of 
 three years, during which competitive conditions with European manufacturers were 
 restored, petitioned Congress for even greater protection than they had hitherto en- 
 joyed . We anticipate that a similar effort will be made before your committee and will 
 briefly discuss some of the representations male to the Ways and Means Committee 
 of the Sixty-first Congress, upon the assumption that they may be renewed here. 
 
 The application of the Von Gerichten Art Glass Co., of Columbus, Ohio, found in 
 Tariff Hearings, 1908-9, Schedule B, pages 1232-1235, offers a fair example of the 
 extravagant demand for protection made by the domestic manufacturers. This com- 
 pany asked that a specific rate of $2 per square foot and 20 per cent ad valorem be 
 substituted for the existing rate of 45 per cent ad valorem, and represents that this 
 difference in rate reflects the difference in the cost of manufacture of the same window 
 hi Europe and in the United States. 
 
 They use for purposes of illustration a window containing 165 square feet of glass, 
 which they say can be sold in Europe for $216. The duty on 165 square feet of glass, 
 at $2 per square foot, is $330, and the duty at 20 per cent ad valorem on the foreign 
 value of $216 is $43.20. The total duty proposed was therefore $259.20 on a window 
 sold abroad for $216; a duty equivalent to 120 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 This rate was nearly three times as high as had ever been placed upon stained-glass 
 windows by the most radical of the protective tariffs. An industry demanding such 
 a rate of protection would evidently be of the "hothouse" variety, and its existence 
 in this country could only be assured by taxing the consumer to an extent entirely 
 out of proportion to the importance of maintaining such an anemic industry. But 
 there is abundant evidence that the industry of manufacturing stained-glass windows 
 in this country is not of such a character and needs no such measure of protection. 
 It has grown strong under a duty of 45 per cent ad valorem, and was apparently not 
 seriously injured by the rate of 35 per cent and the privilege of free entry for windows 
 imported for churches, which prevailed under the tariff act of 1894. 
 
 It is incredible that your committee would seriously entertain a proposal to increase 
 the present high rate of protection. To do so would be to raise an effective tariff bar 
 against some of the most artistic glass in the world, which is available to our churches 
 and to those who seek to beautify them by gifts of memorial and other windows. 
 Such legislation would also wipe out the substantial revenue derived from the duties 
 on stained-glass windows and would place our churches and the donors of many 
 splendid works of art at the mercy of the domestic manufacturer, whose way to 
 exorbitant profits would be made easy. We respectfully submit that there is nothing 
 in the policy of our tariff legislation which requires that the cause of religion should 
 be made to suffer to enrich a few manufacturers. 
 
 Upon the contrary, we urgently insist that the present duty on stained-glass windows 
 should be reduced. It has been the policy of Congress, recognized in many tariff 
 acts, to favor the cause of religion by allowing free importation of articles intended 
 to be used for religious purposes. The striking out of all provisions for free entry of 
 stained-glass windows imported for presentation to churches under the tariff acts of 
 1890, 1897, and 1909 was a pronounced and radical exception to the general policy of 
 Congress. The present tariff has imposed a severe and burdensome tax upon churches 
 and upon those whose religious inclinations have prompted them to make gifts of 
 beautiful devotional works of art to churches. 
 
 The domestic manufacturers have had 23 years in which to put their industry on its 
 feet. They have not only succeeded in putting it on its feet, but have made it a very 
 strong and thriving industry. They are more than holding their own against foreign 
 competition and ought to be disposed to make concessions after such a liberal treat- 
 ment over so long a period of time. 
 
 We respectfully submit that the industry is no longer in its infancy and that the 
 tune has come when it is entirely proper that Congress should withdraw from it some 
 of the protection it has been enjoying. This would be in accord with the soundest 
 economic principles, held even by those who advocate the protective policy. 
 
 We ask your committee to accept with caution figures that may be given by domestic 
 manufacturers for labor in various countries in Europe. Hitherto these figures have 
 
908 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 1O9 STAINED WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 been accompanied by no statement as to the authority on which they are given, 
 and we are satisfied that they have been far from correct. We submit that hearsay 
 evidence on this question of wages or cost of production should not be received. It 
 should always be borne in mind, in connection with these statements as to lower wages 
 paid to European workmen, that the American manufacturer requires and obtains 
 from his workmen nearly twice as much work in a given number of hours as can be 
 obtained from corresponding workmen in a European establishment. 
 
 That the figures given by the American manufacturers are unreliable can be shown 
 by the example already cited by them from the last tariff hearing (ante, p. 3). It was 
 asserted that a window containing 165 square feet would have a factory cost in Ger- 
 many of $120.50 and could be sold for export in Germany at $216. Expressed in 
 German currency, this is a factory cost of approximately 3 marks per square foot 
 and a selling price of 5J marks per square foot. 
 
 The actual facts are very different. The books of Mayer & Co., of Munich, the 
 largest manufacturers of stained-glass windows in Germany, show an average factory 
 cost upon a year's business, including "Regie," or administration expenses, of 8.58 
 marks per square foot for all glass made, or 10.72 marks per square foot after adding 
 25 per cent profit to arrive at a fair selling price. The authority for these figures is 
 the affidavit of a sworn accountant who examined the books of this company, printed 
 as an appendix to this brief. The original of this affidavit is at the disposal of your 
 committee if it desires it. 
 
 The schedule of values now being used for the purpose of appraising this glass at 
 the port of New York, which can be verified by the appraiser at that port, is as follows: 
 
 "One single figure, 18 marks per square foot. 
 
 "Group of two figures, 20 marks per square foot. 
 
 "Group of three figures, 22 marks per square foot. 
 
 "Group of four figures and over, 23 marks per square foot. 
 
 "Landscape, 12 marks per square foot. 
 
 "Ornament, 8 marks per square foot. 
 
 "Busts, 14 marks per square foot." 
 
 While the above values adopted by the appraising officers as the foreign market 
 value of this glass are believed to be much too high, in view of the actual conditions 
 shown by the books of Mayer & Co.. they serve to emphasize the absurdity of the 
 claims made by the American manufacturer, who asserts that this glass can be turned 
 out in Germany for 3 marks per square foot and sold for 5J marks per square foot, 
 and makes his claim for protection accordingly. 
 
 Recurring to the window of 165 square feet chosen as an example, the American 
 manufacturer tells us that its factory cost in this country would be $257. (Tariff Hear- 
 ings, 1908-9, pp. 1233 to 1234.) This is equivalent to 6. 55 marks per square foot. Com- 
 pare these figures with Mayer & Co. 's average factory cost of 8.58 marks per square foot. 
 Where do we find any basis for the plea that the American manufacturer needs a pro- 
 tective duty of 45 per cent to compensate for the difference between the cost of }>ro- 
 iucing his window and that of the German manufacturer? 
 
 Hitherto the American manufacturers applying for protection have failed to furnish 
 any figures as to the increase of their business since 1890, or the amount of their profits, 
 or, if they are incorporated, the dividends they pay on their stock, or the relation their 
 stock issue bears to the actual amount of money invested in the business, etc. 
 In short, as to all the facts peculiarly within their own knowledge, they have been 
 reticent to the last degree, whereas as to those of which they can have no actual knowl- 
 edge they have been exceedingly ready to talk. 
 
 It should be borne in mind that the competition between foreign and domestic 
 .stained glass, which is the subject of the present dispute, exists only as to stained glass 
 windows imported for churches, etc. As to the opalescent and ornamental glass, such 
 as is used in private houses, public buildings, etc., the domestic manufacturer now 
 enjoys a monopoly, and the foreign houses have not attempted and do not now seek to 
 compete with him. 
 
 For the foregoing reasons we respectfully urge the following changes in the existing 
 law as found in paragraphs 109 and 716 of the tariff act of 1909: 
 
 (1) That the duty on stained or painted glass windows, or parts thereof, as found in 
 paragraph 109, be reduced from 45 to 25 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 (2) That the word "including" be substituted for the word "except," preceding 
 flie phrase, "sluined or painted window glass or stained or painted glass windows," 
 as found in paragraph 710, thus restoring the privilege of free entry to church windows 
 
SCHEDULE B- 909 
 
 PARAGRAPH 109 STAINED WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 as it stood under the Wilson tariff of 1894, and as it was accorded prior to the tariff act 
 of 1890. 
 Dated, New York, January 6, 1913. 
 
 CURIE, SMITH & MAXWELL, 
 
 Attorneys for Importers of Stained Window Glass and 
 Stained Glass Windows, No. 32 Broadway, New York City. 
 THOMAS M. LANE, 
 
 Of Counsel. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 (Translation.! 
 Register No. 673. 
 
 To-day, the 27th day of February, 1912, appeared before me, Justizrat Karl Lens, 
 royal notary at Munich XII, in my office, Mr. Simbert Sallinger, known to me per- 
 sonally as sworn auditor and competent judge in matters of bookkeeping, residing at 
 12/IV Barerstrasse, Munich, and declared his intention to make an affidavit. 
 
 I, notary, thereupon called expressly Mr. Sallinger 's attention to the legal impor- 
 tance of an affidavit and the criminal consequences in case he knowingly or carelessly 
 made a false statement on affidavit. 
 
 Thereupon Mr. Sallinger declared with his request of having his statement recorded 
 the following: 
 
 Requested by the firm Mayer 'sche Kgl. Hofkunstanstalt in Munich to calculate 
 upon the entries in their books the market value of one square foot of their production 
 in stained glass, I undertook the task in the offices of the said firm between February 
 21 and February 24, 1912. 
 
 Before examining the books I inspected attentively the studios of the firm already 
 well known to me, and after examining the properly kept books basing my calcula- 
 tions upon the business year from March 1, 1910. to February 28, 1911 as the last 
 year balanced have arrived at the following results and affirm: 
 
 That in the period mentioned the production of stained glass amounted to 34,800 
 square feet, that the cost of production per square foot was 8.586 marks, to which 
 amount added 25 per cent for profit, 2.147 marks: follows that the market value per 
 square foot is 10.733 marks. 
 
 In detail the books show the following itema 
 
 Marks. 
 
 For making cartoons 39, 767. 10 
 
 For material: Marks. 
 
 (a) Glass ." 18,074.03 
 
 (&) Colors 3, 570. 55 
 
 (c) Lead and zinc 5, 379. 57 
 
 (d) Various 717. 17 
 
 27,741.32 
 
 67, 508. 42 
 
 For wages, etc 199, 105. 95 
 
 For working expenses 11, 741. 27 
 
 For Regie 20, 453. 65 
 
 231, 300. 87 
 
 298, 809. 29 
 
 8.586 
 2.147 
 
 Total per square foot - 10. 733 
 
 The above-mentioned figures have been arrived at with the utmost exactness and 
 will correspond in the average with the cost of production of other producers of stained 
 glass in Munich. What the firm pays more in higher wages they really save, as, owing 
 to their widespread circle of customers and large output, the cartoons, the production 
 of which requires great outlay, can be used over and over again. Thus, this item 
 amounts to only 1.13 marks per square foot, although the firm employs prominent 
 artists. 
 
 I state hereby particularly that the market value as figured above is based upon 
 the total production of stained glass by the firm in the year 1910-11, and that the mar- 
 ket value for the stained glass supplied to the New York house would figure out 
 
910 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 109 STAINED WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 much less, as for these supplies the advantages of a wholesale production are most 
 apparent. 
 
 Now, referring to the custom of the firm to charge to the New York house higher 
 prices than calculated above and declared in the legalized invoices for custom pur- 
 poses as market value, the reason for this lies in the inner conditions, to wit: In the 
 annual balance the profit for the New York house is figured separately, as the manager 
 of that branch draws a share of the so-established profit. As the mother house in 
 Munich takes a certain amount of the profit beforehand, on which the New York 
 house gets no share, the New York house has to accept the goods at a higher amount. 
 This is, therefore, as already mentioned, a purely internal and book "technical matter, 
 and the making out of invoices to that effect could just as well have been omitted 
 and the matter arranged at the annual balance. For the custom declaration, the 
 above figured market value only is material and correct. 
 
 I confirm by affidavit the correctness and completeness of my statement given 
 above. 
 
 This present document, of which a copy has not been retained, is to be handed 
 over to the Mayer'sche Kgl. Hofkunstanstalt against payment of costs. 
 
 Read out by the notary, acknowledged by the interested parties, and signed m. p. 
 
 [SEAL.] SIMBERT SALLINGER, 
 
 Justizrat Lem, Royal Notary. 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 State, City, and County of New York, ss: 
 
 I. the undersigned notary public in and for the county of New York, familiar with 
 the English as well as with the German language, do hereby certify that I have com- 
 pared the foregoing translation with the German original attached hereto, and found 
 that it is a correct translation of the German original. 
 
 New York, March 19, 1912. 
 
 [SEAL.] ROB. SCHWARTZ, 
 
 Notary Public, 104, for New York County. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF ORNAMENTAL GLASS MANUFACTURERS' ASSO- 
 CIATION. 
 
 Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 House of Representat ires. Washington. D. C. 
 
 On behalf of the National Ornamental Glass Manufacturers' Association, composed 
 <!' glass stainers in all of the prominent cities of the United States, and including 
 from 75 to 80 per cent of all the glass of this character manufactured in the United 
 States, we beg to submit for your consideration, certain facts patent to our trade, and 
 which have a distinct bearing on the rate of tariff on stained-glass windows. 
 
 (a) The cost of production of our product consists mainly of the item of labor, in 
 fact it is variously estimated from 75 to 80 per cent of the entire cost of production. 
 
 (b) Wages in Europe are from one-third to one-half of what corresponding labor is 
 paid for in this country. 
 
 Cc) Wages have, in the last decade, advanced about 25 per cent, and at that time 
 iir industry was protected with a 65 per cent ad valorem duty, since reduced to a 
 -15 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 I'd) The gross product of our industry in the United States probablv exceeds 
 ^7.000,000 annually, requiring an investment of about S2,500, and employing about 
 (l.OOO workmen. 
 
 We therefore ask for a revision of the tariff: 
 
 First. Based on a specific duty for $4 per square foot on all stained-glass windows 
 or parts of windows, painted, stained, or enameled for any purpose whatever. 
 
 Second. In addition thereto an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. 
 
 Our reasons for asking for the above changes in the tariff is called for by the facts 
 that the German and Austrian importers undervalue their work, and even go to the 
 extent of entering work into this country gratis (re St. Mary's G. C. Church, N. S. 
 Pittsburgh, by the Tyrolose Co.. of Jnsbruck), therefore, by placing the duties, as 
 askdl lor. and establishing a flat rate with an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent added 
 thereto, there should be no further inducements to undervaluations. 
 
 Fourth. We would also recommend the elimination of all conflicting clauses, which 
 have heretofore allowed stained or painted glass or windows being brought into the 
 country under pictorial painting on glass classification, for the reasons that the German 
 
SCHEDULE B. 911 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 and Austrian importers are continually entering glass under the guise of pictorial 
 paintings on glass clause with the view of evading the payments of the duties, as at 
 present called for, trusting to the chance that the collector at the port of entry will 
 pass the windows through under this clause (entry of Boos of Germany re St. George's 
 C. Church, S. S. Pittsburgh, Pa., attempted entry as pictorial paintings on glass, 
 December. 1912). 
 We particularly refer to paragraph No. 716 in the present tariff schedule. 
 
 KARL STEWARD, 
 
 Chairman Executive Committee N. 0. G. M. Association. 
 
 HENRY HUNT, 
 
 Secretary. 
 .1 \\TARY 16, 1913. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 110. 
 
 Fusible enamel, twenty-five per centum ad valorem ; opal or cylinder glass 
 tiles or tiling, sixty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 111. 
 
 Marble and onyx, in block, rough or squared only, sixty-five cents per 
 cubic foot ; marble and onyx, sawed or dressed, over two inches in thickness, 
 one dollar per cubic foot; slabs or paving tiles of marble or onyx, contain- . 
 ing not less than four superficial inches, if not more than one inch in thick- 
 ness, eight cents per superficial foot; if more 4han one inch and not more 
 than one and one-half inches in thickness, ten cents per superficial foot; 
 if more than one and one-half inches and not more than two inches in thick- 
 ness, twelve and one-half cents per superficial foot; if rubbed in whole or in 
 part, two cents per superficial foot in addition; mosaic cubes of marble or 
 onyx, not exceeding two cubic inches in size, if loose, one-fourth of one 
 cent per pound and twenty per centum ad valorem; if attached to paper or 
 other material, five cents per superficial foot and thirty-five per centum ad 
 valorem. 
 See Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 481. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 112. 
 
 Marble, breccia, onyx, alabaster, and jet, wholly or partly manufactured 
 into monuments, benches, vases, and other articles, or of which these sub- 
 stances or either of them is the component material of chief value, and all 
 articles composed wholly or in chief value of agate, rock crystal, or other 
 semiprecious stones, except such as are cut into shapes and forms fitting 
 them expressly for use in the construction of jewelry, not specially provided 
 for in this section, fifty per centum ad valorem. 
 For marble, etc., see Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 481. 
 
 MARBLE. 
 
 STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN D. TRAITEL, PRESIDENT OF THE 
 MARBLE INDUSTRY EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK 
 CITY. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 111. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Traitel, which paragraph do you wish to 
 refer to ? 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. Paragraph 111, page 11. providing for a duty of 65 
 cents per cubic foot on marble in block, rough or squared. Our 
 appeal to you, gentlemen, is that this duty be repealed and that these 
 rough blocks be admitted free. It is raw material, and we are appeal- 
 ing to you on the raw material only. 
 
 I represent 42 nonquarrying manufacturers, makers and fabricators 
 of interior marblework exclusively. They do not do exterior work, 
 and do not operate quarries, operating manufacturing plants only 
 and buying from the quarries or the representatives of the quarries. 
 
912 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 These 42 manufacturers employ 25 per cent of the labor engaged in 
 working this product in the United States and have a capital invested 
 of about $8,000,000. 
 
 We want this material free for many reasons ; first, because we have 
 no possible way of competing with the quarrying manufacturer. Per- 
 haps I had better explain what is meant by that. The quarrying 
 manufacturer is one who owns and operates or operates a quarry, 
 taking the marble from the quarry, milling it, sawing it, and fabricat- 
 ing it to the last degree for his requirements. The nonquarrying 
 manufacturer does the manufacturing only from the rough blocks, 
 which he must purchase from quarrymen. It has often occurred that 
 in competing for the ulterior work of such a building as this, where 
 the Government very naturally has specified domestic material, that 
 the prices made by the quarrying manufacturer for the rough 
 material only to the nonquarrying manufacturer have almost equaled 
 the price made to the Government for the work completely finished 
 and installed. Now, if that be so, and it is so, we have no chance 
 with the domestic material, and our only chance to compete with 
 such a monopolistic condition, for it is such, is by having the raw ma- 
 terials from abroad come in free. Unlike the cabinetworker and the 
 woodworker, we have to fabricate our work from the rough block. 
 They can buy their material sawed to sizes, but we have to do it all. 
 We want to be placed on an equal footing with the quarrying 
 manufacturer. 
 
 What has this duty on rougli marble yielded to the United States 
 in all these years? Taking the Government statistics, the average 
 annual imports from 1906 down to 1912, exclusive of cost at the port 
 of entry I am wrong the cost at the port of shipment, $951,342. 
 This is based on the average import in those years, the average being 
 623,500 cubic feet of marble, at an average cost per cubic foot of 
 $1.54^. The specific duty on this is 65 cents, making an ad valorem 
 of between 42 and 43 per cent, which has yielded to the Government 
 in all those years a total revenue of $2,000,796.88. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. In how many years ? 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. Seven years. 
 
 We maintain, gentlemen, that marble, once classed as a luxury, 
 and perhaps properly so, is no longer such, in the light of the advance- 
 ment in building construction and the demand and necessity for 
 better sanitary conditions, for as near as possible fireproof conditions, 
 because noncombustible and noninflammable materials must super- 
 sede and are superseding combustible and inflammable materials. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What revenue did it yield last year? 
 
 Mr. KITCHIX. $402,677. 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. You will appreciate, from the nature of the building 
 you are in, that you are housed in as nearly a fireproof structure as 
 it was possible for the architect to design. So it is to-day, within 
 certain limitations, with regard to housing business people, housing 
 people in tenements, and people in charitable institutions. The 
 demand to-day is that the material in the construction of these build- 
 ings must be as nearly fireproof as possible. And so an industry has 
 grown up in interior marblework. Where heretofore you had win- 
 
SCHEDULE B. 913 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 dow and door trims of wood, to-day you have them of marble, or 
 steel, or wood drawn over with steel. Where you had partitions of 
 wood in toilets and lavatories, you have them to-day of marble; and 
 so on throughout the whole construction of buildings, so that this 
 material is no longer a luxury, as has been heretofore claimed, but 
 is a necessity. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Is it not true that marble is used by the well-to-do 
 people and not by the classes of people who predominate in our 
 population ? 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. No. Let me answer you in this way: The well- 
 to-do, without question, use a great deal of marble for decorative 
 purposes. There is no question about that, and they use the richest 
 of marble. But when we speak of marble, we are not speaking of 
 decorative marble, we are speaking of the marble of commerce, the 
 white marble, the blue and the gray marble, and the marbles that 
 are dense in quality, resisting absorption 
 
 Mr. PALMER (interposing) . You would not call it one of the neces- 
 sities of life ? 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. No; I would not call it a necessity of life, but I would 
 call it a necessity for comfort and for health. It must be either mar- 
 ble or slate or soapstone. Marble is more beautiful and does not cost 
 so awfully much more than clear black slate. Marble is, therefore, 
 utilitarian as well as beautiful. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. What percentage of the people who work for your con- 
 cern own their own homes and use this character of marble ? 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. A very large percentage. I could not give it in exact 
 numbers, but I can answer it in this way: For years our marble cut- 
 ters have received $5 a day for an eight-hour day; the polishers have 
 received $4 for an eight-hour day; the sawyers and rubbers, $4.25; 
 and the laborers, S3. These wages, in the main, have just been 
 increased 10 per cent. 
 
 I am glad you asked that question, for it brings to my mind this fact: 
 That the manufacturers who are nonquarrymen pay the highest wages 
 and work an 8-hour day ; they have their factories in cities where land 
 and buildings are expensive and where fcaxes are higher, while the 
 manufacturing quarrymen, who will appeal to you to reduce the duty, 
 have their plants and their quarries out in the outlying districts or 
 away out in the country; they keep wages down to the lowest point 
 and they work the 10-hour day. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. That was not my question. I asked you what per cent 
 of the laboring men who worked for your concern own their own homes 
 and use this character of marble ? 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. Well, I should say the largest percentage of the men 
 who work for us rent their homes and live in tenements or apartments. 
 In the tenements that go above six stories in height, in our location 
 in the metropolitan district of New York they must use fireproof 
 material. If they are six stories or lower, they can use other material. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. So they rent their homes, then ? 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. Yes, sir; a great mam 7 of them rent their homes. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. So, of course, this marble is not a necessity to them ? 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. No. 
 
 78959 VOL 113 58 
 
914 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. They need a home worse than anything else. 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. Well, we all do that. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. I am sorry to say that is true. 
 
 Mr. DIXON. If you put rough marble on the free list, what would 
 you do with the. marble that had been advanced in manufacture ? 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. If rough marble is on the free list, it would make the 
 present duty on manufactured marble that much higher. The wages 
 abroad in the manufacturing marble industry are so far below the 
 wages in this country, that you could not for one moment consider 
 the removal of duty from manufactured marble. Where we pay $5 a 
 day they pay 5 francs. 
 
 Mr. DIXON. You would leave them at the same rate they are at 
 the present tune ? 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. I would, at least. But I am not raising an issue on 
 that, particularly. I am satisfied to have that remain where it is. 
 Manufactured marble can be brought to this country to-day, plus the 
 present duty, at far below the price at which we can produce it here 
 even with the duty off the block. Keep that in mind, please. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. What part of your manufactured product is the 
 rough marble? 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. All of our manufactured product is from the rough 
 marble. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. No; I mean in dollars and cents. When you turn 
 out, say, a thousand dollars' worth of manufactured product, how 
 much is represented by the rough marble? 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. I should say, taking what we call the everyday work 
 and the ornamental work together, about 30 per cent. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. If they gave you free marble and took off this tariff 
 of about 41 or 42 per cent, how much lower do you think we ought 
 to reduce the tariff on your finished product ? 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. Personally, I do not think it should be reduced. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. So you would get the benefit of this 41 per cent 
 reduction ? 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. We would get it in the raw material only. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. And the consumer who buys this article which you 
 call an article of necessity would not get the benefit of the reduction. 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. When I tell you that there are 42 manufacturers in 
 our association in New York and a very few outside, you can readily 
 appreciate that the competition is pretty keen. Each takes advan- 
 tage of the best he gets and the best facilities for manufacturing. If 
 you would get a half a dozen estimates for marblework on a particular 
 building to-day, you would find that they would vary very materially 
 in price. 
 
 Mr. KITCHIN. Are *ou an exporter of any finished marble? 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. No; nothing to speak of. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The time of the witness has expired. 
 
 Mr. TRAITEL. I thank you, gentlemen. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 915 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 BRIEF OF MR. BENJ. D. TRAITEL TARIFF ON MARBLE RE MARBLE, IN BLOCK, 
 
 ROUGH OR SQUARED. 
 
 To the honorable Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: The following is respectfully presented on behalf of members of the 
 Marble Industry Employers' Association of New York City, engaged exclusively in 
 the manufacturing and finishing of interior marblework, mainly from the rough blocks, 
 and not producers of marble, and who employ about 25 per cent of the total number of 
 mechanics engaged in this branch of the building industry in the United States and 
 whose investment in plant, stock, and machinery exceeds $8,000,000 in New York 
 City. 
 
 MARBLE NOT A LUXURY, BUT A NECESSITY. 
 
 In memorials submitted to the Ways and Means Committee in the years 1893, 1897, 
 and 1908, the basis of the arguments of those preparing and directly responsible for 
 such memorials for the maintaining or the increasing of the tariff on marble was upon 
 the plea that marble was a luxury and that the raw material, or block marble, was 
 therefore one of the articles upon which the Government could properly place an import 
 duty. 
 
 Upon investigation it is found that the reverse of such arguments is true and that 
 instead of marble being classed as a luxury it is found, in the light of the advancement 
 made in fireproof construction, that non combustible and noninflammable material 
 has become a necessity for interior as well as for exteriors of fireproof buildings. 
 
 In the larger cities of the country the so-called fire zone is becoming more and more 
 enlarged by legislation, and in consequence thereof wood and other combustible 
 materials are being superseded by marble and other noncombustible materials in 
 tenement houses, apartment houses, mercantile buildings, institutions, Government 
 buildings, and all permanent buildings of this country. 
 
 In addition to this use building codes generally provide for marble for sanitary 
 purposes. 
 
 Seventy per cent of the quantity of marble installed in the interior of buildings in 
 this country is used for floor tiling in vestibules, corridors, public spaces, and toilets, 
 treads and platforms of stairs, book-stack floors of public libraries, water-closet par- 
 titions, backs, and floor safe?, urinal partitions, backs, and floor slabs, door saddles, 
 sanitary base, wall linings, plinth blocks, door and window trim, radiator tops, window 
 sills, switchboards, laboratory tops and floor slabs, table tops, counter tops, etc., and 
 none of this work can be classed under the heading of "luxury." Block or rough 
 marble is as necessary to the manufacturers of interior marble as timber is to the 
 manufacturing woodworker, and the available supply in this country of marble of a 
 uniform texture, grade, or color suitable for interior use is limited. The production 
 of this kind of material in this country has not kept pace with the developments and 
 requirements of the building industry, and the manufacturers of interior marblework 
 are at greater disadvantage for stock to meet the demands of the architects, owners, 
 and building public each year. 
 
 Therefore, to meet these constantly increasing requirements, we largely depend on 
 the foreign supply of the raw material. 
 
 As the cost of housing the people of this country, whether in their homes, work- 
 shops, educational and eleemosynary institutions, enters as one of the large factors 
 in the cost of living, we should have this raw product come in free. 
 
 The duty, as it stands to-day on the cheaper marbles coming from abroad, is dis- 
 proportionate and tends only to enable the domestic quarryman to maintain his prices 
 at the highest point and with an abnormal profit. 
 
 The domestic quarrymen are manufacturers, using not only their own product from 
 their quarries in competition with the nonquarrying manufacturers, but also buying 
 imported marble blocks and manufacturing and installing them in consequence of 
 the shortage of domestic rough blocks. 
 
 It is a well-established fact that the nonquarrying manufacturers pay the highest 
 wages, working the 8-hour day, having their plants in the cities, therefore paying 
 more for land and buildings and paying higher taxes than the quarry owners, where 
 wages are kept at the lowest point and where they work not less than the 10-hour day. 
 
 In competition, where using the product of their own quarries, they figure on this 
 product at first-cost basis to themselves. 
 
916 TABIFP HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 Lower wages per day and longer hours of work, with lower taxes (the quarries being 
 in the country), makes competition on the part of the nonquarrying manufacturers 
 prohibitive and thus (in the domestic material, at least) creates a monopoly. 
 
 If the foreign material (blocks, rough or squared) were admitted free, the non- 
 quarrying manufacturer would be placed in a more equal position, the monopoly 
 eradicated, the cost of tht finished product reduced, and one step forward would be 
 effected in the reduction ot the cost of living. 
 
 We again respectfully call the committee's attention to the following conditions of 
 our trade, viz: 
 
 First. Some of the largest quarry owners and producers of marble in this country 
 are also manufacturers, and the nonquarrying manufacturers can not compete with 
 them in the manufacture of their own product. 
 
 Second. The specifying of their own product in part gives control to the quarry 
 owners and makes for unequal competition and for monopoly. 
 
 Third. The same quarry manufacturers contract to furnish foreign marble in com- 
 bination with their own product and are to-day large purchasers of foreign marble, 
 establishing the shortage of the domestic supply. 
 
 Fourth. One of the largest producers of marble in this country, in a signed statement 
 before your committee about December, 1908, stated, viz: 
 
 "During the year 1907 the average price realized by this company for all of its 
 marble actually sold, taking all grades quarried, was 96 cents per cubic foot in the 
 block at the quarry." 
 
 A recent ''price li&t of marble for building work" (see Exhibit A, attached), issued 
 to the manufacturers by this same company, shows the average selling price of the 39 
 grades of their quarry products to the trade, sawed, to be about $4 per cubic foot at 
 quarry. Deducting sawing by water power at 50 cents a cubic foot would show an 
 increase of about 250 per cent over the statement quoted before your committee in 
 1908. This is made possible by the present duty. 
 
 The same producer does not sell its marble in blocks to the manufacturing trade. 
 
 Fifth. In a similar signed statement by the producers of Tennessee marble before 
 your committee about December, 1908, they stated: "The selling price of blocks so 
 produced, taking the average of the different grades produced, is now about $1 per 
 cubic foot f. o. b. cars." 
 
 Although the average price the nonquarrying manufacturers are now paying for the 
 same material is from 50 to 75 per cent higher, the character and color of Tennessee 
 marble is peculiar to its locality and it has no foreign competition when this class of 
 material is desired. 
 
 We, therefore, in the interest and for the protection of a young and growing industry 
 respectfully petition your honorable committee that the present import duty on marble 
 "in block, rough or squared," be removed, and that Marble "in block, rough or 
 squared " (under the present classification of marble, onyx, stone, and manufactures of ) 
 be admitted free. 
 
 Signed by the manufacturing members of the Marble Industry Employers Associa- 
 tion of the City of New York. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 917 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 American Marble Mosaic Co., Borough of 
 Queens, N. Y. 
 
 Batterson & Eisele, Borough of Manhat- 
 tan, N. Y. 
 
 Bierach & Co.. Borough of Bronx, N. Y. 
 
 William Bradley & Son, Borough of 
 Queens, N. Y. 
 
 D. Bravin Tile & Marble Co., Borough of 
 Manhattan, N. Y. 
 
 William Buess, Borough of Manhattan, 
 N. Y. 
 
 Brooklyn Steam Marble Co., Borough of 
 Brooklyn, N. Y. 
 
 Borgia Bros. Co., Borough of Queens, N. Y. 
 
 Cork & Zicha Marble Co., Borough of Man- 
 hattan, N. Y. 
 
 S. Cascio Marble Works, Borough of 
 Brooklyn, N. Y. 
 
 Cerussi Marble Works, Borough of Bronx, 
 N. Y. 
 
 J. Cullo & Bro., Borough of Manhattan, 
 N. Y. 
 
 De Francisci Bros. Co., Borough of 
 Queens, N. Y. 
 
 Ellin, Kitson & Co., Borough of Manhat- 
 tan, N. Y. 
 
 S. C. Poletto Bros. Marble Co., Borough of 
 Brooklyn, N. Y. 
 
 B. F. Reilly, Borough of Brooklyn, N. Y. 
 
 P. M. & W. Schlichter, Borough of Man- 
 hattan ; N. Y. 
 
 J. H. Shipway & Bro., Borough of Bronx, 
 N. Y. 
 
 Frank Scolaro, Borough of Bronx, N. Y. 
 
 J. Sciacca, Borough of Manhattan, N. Y. 
 
 Peter Theis's Sons, Borough of Manhat- 
 tan, N. Y. 
 
 The Traitel Marble Co., Borough of 
 Queens, N. Y. 
 
 Friedman Marble & Slate Works, Bor- 
 ough of Manhattan, N. Y. 
 
 C. M. Gray Marble & Slate Co., Borough 
 of Queens, N. Y. 
 
 Hajek Bros. & Co., Borough of Bronx, 
 N. Y. 
 
 Ital-American Marble Co., Borough of 
 Brooklyn, N. Y 
 
 A. Klaber & Son, Borough of Queens, 
 N. Y. 
 
 Kemlein & Leahy (Inc.), Borough of 
 Queens, N. Y. 
 
 Jacob M. Leonhardt, Borough of Manhat- 
 tan, N. Y. 
 
 Maxwell & Dempsey (Inc.), Borough of 
 Manhattan, N. Y. 
 
 Manhattan Marble & Slate Works, Bor- 
 ough of Manhattan, N. Y. 
 
 The McGowan & Connolly Co., Borough 
 of Bronx, N. Y. 
 
 McGratty & Sons, Borough of Brooklyn, 
 N. Y. 
 
 D. H. McLaury Marble Co., Borough of 
 Bronx, N. Y. 
 
 Alexander Pelli & Co., Borough of Man- 
 hattan, N. Y. 
 
 Tozzini & Co., Borough of Bronx, N. Y. 
 
 Voska, Foelsch & Sidlo (Inc.), Borough of 
 Queens, N. Y. 
 
 Yorkville Marble Co., Borough of Manhat- 
 tan, N. Y. 
 
 George Brown & Co., Borough of Manhat- 
 tan, N. Y. 
 
 East New York Marble Co., Borough of 
 Brooklyn, N. Y. 
 
 Atlantic Marble Co., Borough of Brook- 
 lyn, N. Y. 
 
 South Brooklyn Marble & Tile Co., Bor- 
 ough of Brooklyn, N. Y. 
 
 BENJ. D. TRAITEL, President. 
 
 EDWARD J. MCGRATTY, Chairman Executive Committee. 
 
 WILLIAM K. FERTIG, Secretary, 
 
918 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 PRICE LIST OF MARBLE FOR BUILDING WORK, VERMONT MARBLE Co. 
 
 [Exhibit A of the manufacturing members of the Marble Industry Employers' Association of New York 
 and attached to petition dated Jan. 8, 1913, and marked "Original."] 
 
 Price list of Vermont marble for exterior, interior, decorative, electrical, and similar classes 
 
 of work, November, 1911. 
 
 [All prices are at mills in Vermont.] 
 
 f : 
 
 In slabs from saw, full size of block, 
 per square foot. 
 
 Cubic, 
 notS.R., 
 not 
 boxed. 
 
 Jand 
 Jinch. 
 
 1 inch. 
 
 l|and 
 1J inches. 
 
 1J inches. 
 
 Light cloud 
 
 $0.30 
 .37 
 .45 
 
 .50 
 .70 
 .90 
 1.20 
 .25 
 .25 
 .30 
 .40 
 .60 
 .50 
 .32 
 .85 
 .35 
 .30 
 .25 
 .34 
 .40 
 .20 
 .27 
 .32 
 .35 
 .35 
 .40 
 .60 
 .30 
 .25 
 .30 
 .23 
 .30 
 34 
 
 $0.33 
 .40 
 .50 
 .58 
 .78 
 1.00 
 1.35 
 .28 
 .28 
 .33 
 .43 
 .70 
 .58 
 .35 
 1.00 
 .40 
 .33 
 .28 
 .37 
 .45 
 .23 
 .30 
 .35 
 .40 
 .40 
 .43 
 .70 
 .33 
 .28 
 .33 
 .25 
 .33 
 .37 
 .22 
 .22 
 .35 
 .24 
 .24 
 
 .18 
 
 $0.40 
 .50 
 .58 
 .68 
 .85 
 1.15 
 1.55 
 .35 
 .35 
 .40 
 .53 
 .80 
 .68 
 .42 
 1.15 
 .48 
 .40 
 .35 
 .44 
 .50 
 .28 
 .37 
 .45 
 .48 
 .48 
 .53 
 .80 
 .40 
 .35 
 .40 
 .32 
 .40 
 .44 
 .25 
 .25 
 .45 
 .27 
 .27 
 
 .20 
 
 $0.45 
 .62 
 .70 
 .80 
 1.00 
 1.40 
 1.80 
 .42 
 .42 
 .45 
 .65 
 .95 
 .80 
 .50 
 1.35 
 .55 
 .45 
 .42 
 .50 
 .60 
 .38 
 .45 
 .55 
 .55 
 .55 
 .70 
 .95 
 .45 
 .42 
 .45 
 .40 
 .45 
 .50 
 .32 
 .32 
 .55 
 .34 
 .34 
 
 .26 
 
 $3.00 
 3.75 
 4.75 
 5.25 
 7.00 
 9.00 
 12.00 
 2.50 
 2.50 
 3.00 
 4.00 
 7.25 
 6.00 
 3.25 
 9.00 
 3.50 
 3.00 
 2.50 
 3.25 
 3.00 
 2.00 
 3.00 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 4.50 
 7.25 
 3.00 
 2.50 
 3.00 
 2.50 
 3.00 
 3.25 
 2.50 
 2.50 
 3.50 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 
 1.75 
 
 Best light cloud 
 
 Light Rutland Italian.. . 
 
 Second statuary 
 
 Extra white Rutland 
 
 No. 1 Rutland 
 
 Statuary Rutland 
 
 Olivo. . . . 
 
 Verdoso 
 
 Brocadillo 
 
 Listavena . . 
 
 Pink Listavena. . . 
 
 Rubio P 
 
 Rubio G 
 
 American Pavonazzo 
 
 Westland light Cippolino 
 
 Pittsford Vallev W 
 
 Pittsford Vallev X 
 
 Riverside W 
 
 Royal antique 
 
 Standard blue 
 
 Dove blue ... 
 
 Electric blue 
 
 Veined blue ... 
 
 
 Extra dark blue .... 
 
 Ruvaro 
 
 Pittsford Italian V\" . . . 
 
 Pittsford Italian X 
 
 Avenatto. . . . . . 
 
 
 Marine Veno^o 
 
 Extra select P I 
 
 Pink Lcpanto 
 
 .20 
 .20 
 32 
 
 
 
 Riverside floor and tread stock 
 
 .22 
 22 
 
 .16 
 
 Pittsford Italian floor and tread stock 
 
 Florence (including P. V. dove shade) floor and 
 tread stock 
 
 
 Slabs 0.2 and under in thickness, other than full size of block, extra 20 per cent. 
 Extra for matched veining of Listaveua, pink Listavena, Avenatto, and Venoso. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 919 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 SPECIALS. 
 
 Strips, pieces, etc., 2 inches or over in thickness and less than 2.6 wide, ordered 
 
 7 long and under 11, extra per cubic foot $0. 50 
 
 If ordered 11 long, extra per cubic foot 75 
 
 For every additional foot in length, extra per cubic foot 25 
 
 Pieces less than 1.6 wide and less than 2 inches in thickness, ordered 7 long, 
 
 under 10, extra per superficial foot 04 
 
 If ordered 10 long, extra per superficial foot 08 
 
 For every additional foot in length, extra per superficial foot 04 
 
 Slabs 2.6 or over wide, ordered 9 long or 4.6 wide, 2 inches or over in thickness, 
 and for every additional foot in length and for every additional 6 inches in 
 
 width, extra per cubic foot 25 
 
 Slabs 1.6 or over wide, ordered 9 long or 4.6 wide, under 2 inches in thickness, 
 and for every additional foot in length or for every additional 6 inches in 
 
 width, extra per superficial foot 04 
 
 Slabs 2 inches and under in thickness, other than full size of block, extra 20 
 
 per cent. 
 Sawing edges of slabs 1, 1J, and 1 inches thick, per superficial foot of slab. . . 03 
 
 Sawing edges of slabs 2, 3, and 4 inches thick, per cubic foot of slab 30 
 
 Sawing ends of slabs the same as for edges. 
 
 CRATING. 
 
 Cubic stock 4 inches and over, per cubic foot 40 
 
 Slabs 2 and 3 inches, per superficial foot 10 
 
 Slabs 1, 1J, and 1^ inches, singly, per superficial foot 08 
 
 Slabs 1, 1J, and 1 inches, two or more together, per superficial foot 05 
 
 No marble will be crated unless so ordered. 
 
 COMPUTATION OF QUANTITIES. 
 
 [In figuring all charges a half inch or any fraction in excess thereof will be treated as a whole inch. This 
 does not apply to the thickness of slabs less than 2 inches.] 
 
 TILE. 
 
 Usual thickness varying from O.OJ to 0.1 not crated, per superficial foot. 
 
 Per su- 
 perficial 
 
 Riverside, Pittaford Valley, and Pitteford Italian: foot- 
 
 Extra white.. .I f$0. 40 
 
 lo.6 x 0.6, 0.8 x 0.8, 0.10 x 0.10, 1.0 x 1.0, 1.4 x 0.8, 1.8 x I ' 
 
 > 01020x10 1 - 28 
 
 Variegated.... <*.JI>, ^.U x I.U. 22 
 
 Florence } [ .20 
 
 Isle La Motte 28 
 
 Blue 28 
 
 Dots 0.5 square and under, each 08 
 
 Crating tile, per superficial foot : 03 
 
 All other sizes at special prices. 
 
 Diagonal half and quarter tile will be charged as whole square tile. 
 
 For tile 1} inches thick, add 30 per cent to above prices. 
 
 Special prices on all tile ordered of uniform thickness. 
 
 Cornered tile of regular sizes for dots not larger than 0.3; extra for each corner cut, 
 I0.01J. 
 
 Cornered tile of regular sizes for dots larger than 0.3 and not larger than 0.6, extra 
 for each corner cut, $0.03. 
 
 Border. Ordinary widths, 0.6 or over, if ordered with tile, same price as tile. 
 
 Border, ordinary widths, 0.6 or over, if ordered without tile, 20 per cent higher than 
 tile 1.0 square. 
 
 Border under 0.6 in width will be charged as 0.6 wide. 
 
 Crating border, if ordered without tile, per superficial foot, |0.05. 
 
920 TAEIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 TERMS. 
 
 Two per cent discount for cash within 30 days from date of invoice, or payment 
 in full after 60 days from date of invoice. 
 
 A discount of 5 per cent will be given on carload lots of sawed marble of 30,000 
 pounds or more in one order. 
 
 Special and net prices are not subject to carload discount. 
 
 All claims for errors in measurements or for unsoundness must be made within 20 
 days from receipt of marble, and no charge for work on defective marble will be 
 allowed. 
 
 All marble will be carefully loaded on the cars free of charge and shipped the day 
 the bill is dated, which is a delivery to the purchaser. The railroad company's re- 
 ceipt shall be sufficient evidence of such delivery. 
 
 Unless otherwise directed all marble will be shipped by the cheapest route, "owner's 
 risk released," and subject to the official freight classification. 
 
 MARBLE INDUSTRY EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION, 
 
 New York, January 16, 191S. 
 To the COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: The manufacturing members of the Marble Industry Employers' 
 Association of New York City desire to supplement their brief filed at a hearing 
 before your committee on January 8, 1913, as follows: 
 
 First. We believe the request of the importers for the maintaining of a duty on 
 rough marble (in blocks, rough or squared) makes for control and monopoly, and also 
 to make it as troublesome as possible for manufacturers to import direct, and to dis- 
 courage anyone from entering the importing business because of the greater capital 
 required where duty is to be paid than if there were no duty. 
 
 Second. We indorse, excepting as to the recommendations for the maintenance of 
 any duty on marble blocks, all the statements made under the heading of "Marble," 
 in a memorial presented by the Italian Chamber of Commerce before your committee 
 and printed in the hearing under date of January 9, 1913. (Print 4, page 741.) 
 
 Third. We beg to file the following additional signatures received from those 
 engaged in the manufacture of marble for interior use, approving the recommendations 
 in our petition of January 8, 1913, entitled Tariff on Marble: Peoria Stone & Marble 
 Works, Peoria, 111.; N. 0. Nelson Marble Co., Edwardsville, 111.; The Puffer Manu- 
 facturing Co., Boston, Mass.; Jacoby & Sons Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; S. Klaber & Co., 
 New York, N. Y.; Voska-Bremer Marble Co., Kansas City, Mo.; Allen & Haworth, 
 Cleveland, Ohio; The Liquid Carbonic Co., Chicago, 111.; Standard Marble Works, 
 Cincinnati, Ohio; American Soda Fountain Co., Boston, Mass.; Flavin Marble Mill, 
 Chicago, 111.; Davis Marble Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; The Bowker Torrey Co., Boston, 
 Mass.; Feeney & DeVanny Co., New York, N. Y.; The Eckhardt Monumental Co., 
 Toledo, Ohio; The Johnson Marble Co., Boston, Mass.; H. Marquardt Marble & 
 Granite Co., St. Louis, Mo.; John M. Gessler's Sons, Philadelphia, Pa.; Northwestern 
 Marble & Tile Co., Minneapolis, Minn.; The Buckeye Marble Co., Cincinnati, Ohio. 
 
 Trusting this communication will receive favorable consideration, I beg to remain, 
 Respectfully, 
 
 WM. K. FERTIG, Secretary. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOHN S. SEWALL, REPRESENTING THE 
 ALABAMA MARBLE CO. 
 
 Mr. SEWALL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent the Ala- 
 bama Marble Co. as its general manager. I am authorized also to 
 speak for other American producers whose names are signed to a 
 brief statement, which we have submitted to the committee in printed 
 form. In this statement we have set forth facts which we believe 
 justify the maintenance of the present tariff on marble in all of its 
 forms, regardless of the point of view from which we consider it. 
 
 We desire further to state the following facts: 
 
 The total investment of the companies whose names are signed to 
 the printed statement is not less than 825,000,000. The develop- 
 ment of a marble deposit to a point of profitable production is the 
 
SCHEDULE B. 921 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 work of almost a lifetime and calls for the expenditure of enormous 
 sums of money. Very few of the American producing companies 
 are yet on a dividend basis, and it is safe to say that, taken as a whole, 
 their annual net earnings do not average as much as 6 per cent on 
 the actual investment. In making that estimate the interest on 
 capital is not reckoned as an item of cost. Most of them are still 
 putting every cent they earn over actual cash operating cost into the 
 maintenance and development of their properties, and the dividend 
 period is not yet in sight. 
 
 Marble for interior use is a luxury and not a necessity. Consid- 
 ered as a building material for interior use, marble is not fireproof. 
 Whenever exposed to a severe fire it has invariably shown a total 
 loss. From a purely sanitary point of view it possesses no real ad- 
 vantages over competing and cheaper materials. Its only advantage 
 lies in its richer texture and more pleasing appearance. This fact 
 becomes painfully apparent when we endeavor to sell the less hand- 
 some grades at which might be termed marble prices in competition 
 with slate ceramic tiles, hard plaster, metal door and window trim, 
 and certain of the ordinary limestones which are sometimes used for 
 interior work. 
 
 Interior marble enters not at all into the cost of ordinary living 
 and is but a small factor in the cost of high living. 
 
 The American quarries can easily produce enough marble suitable 
 for interior use to supply the country's needs. But, even when of as 
 good quality and just as handsome as the imported marbles, it is of 
 such a different appearance that architects and owners often insist 
 upon the imported marble in order to secure certain definite archi- 
 tectural effects. The matter is often a matter of taste, pure and 
 simple, and, within rather wide limits, is not a question of cost. 
 
 Tne average cost to the purchaser of imported marble, as finished 
 and set in place in the building, is not less than $12 per cubic foot. 
 The tariff of 65 cents per cubic foot would not make much difference 
 to the purchaser, even if he benefited by its removal, which he prob- 
 ably would not. 
 
 The imported marbles have a large market in this country, based 
 mostly on differences of taste and partly upon a prejudice hi favor 
 of imported materials, which the American producers have so far 
 not been able to capture in whole or in part, and this fact is not at 
 all due to any lack of good American marble. The existence of the 
 tariff has enabled American producers to secure prices for a small 
 part of their product not more than 10 per cent of the whole 
 that are comparable with those at which imported marbles are sold. 
 This has compensated, in some measure, for the very low prices at 
 which most of their product must be sold, if sold at all. 
 
 We are fully convinced that if the tariff on blocks is removed or 
 seriously lowered, the only result will be a reduction in the revenues 
 of the Government and an appreciable loss to the American pro- 
 ducers. Were it otherwise, the American producers would long ago 
 have driven the imported marbles out of this country. In our 
 attempts to supplant them, we often cut the price by more than the 
 amount of the tariff, but without result. 
 
 From 1910 to 1911 the average price of marble blocks imported 
 into this country increased by about 36 cents per cubic foot; 1911, 
 
922 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 however, was rather a dull year in the interior marble business. 
 The decrease in the quantity of imported marble used in 1911 as 
 compared with that used in 1910 was about 20 per cent, accompanied 
 with an increase in the price of marble of 36 cents per cubic foot. 
 The corresponding decrease in the use of domestic marble for inte- 
 rior purposes during the same period was nearly 23 per cent, so that 
 the use of domestic marble diminished more than the use of imported 
 marble, notwithstanding the increase in the price of imported marble 
 and with practically no change in the price of domestic marble. We 
 do not believe that the manufacturers using mainly imported blocks 
 and having no quarries of their own, are at any serious disadvantage 
 as compared with the American producers. 
 
 About 25 per cent of the manufacturing capacity of the country 
 not connected with any quarries is located in Greater New York. 
 As a matter of fact, the labor conditions in Greater New York are 
 such that business there is not attractive to the American producer, 
 and it is a fact that American producers do not ship one penny's 
 worth of finished marble into Greater New York at the present time. 
 Therefore, in the matter of finished material, the New York manu- 
 facturers in their own city, which is the greatest interior marble 
 market in the world, have absolutely no competition from the 
 American producer. 
 
 We simply request that the members of the committee, if they can 
 possibly find time, will read the brief which we have submitted, 
 and beyond that I have nothing further to say. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We will give consideration to your suggestions. 
 
 TARIFF ON MARBLE. 
 
 To the honorable Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: The signers of this memorial represent at least 95 per cent of the 
 business of American marble producers who produce marble suitable for interior 
 work. 
 
 We respectfully request that the tariff on marble be maintained at its present value. 
 
 Our primary reason for making this request is that we believe the maintenance of 
 the present tariff is essential to the reasonable success of our business. 
 
 Practically all of the marble imported into this country is used for interior work; 
 the question, therefore, lies between all of the imported marble on one hand and that 
 portion of the domestic marble produced in this country which is used for interior 
 work. 
 
 Interior marble is not a necessity of life; it is not used by people of moderate and lim- 
 ited means; it is used only by corporations and people of considerable wealth: we, there- 
 fore, submit that it is a proper article upon which to levy a tariff for the purposes of 
 revenue. We believe that the present tariff on marble will yield more revenue than 
 any lower tariff; it is even probable that an increase in revenue would result from some 
 increase in the tariff, but as the present tariff has been used for a number of years and 
 we have our business adjusted on that basis, we confine our request to the maintenance 
 of the present tariff just as it is. 
 
 The reports of (he Treasury Department show that for the eight fiscal years from 
 1905 to 1912. inclusive, there were imported into this country in the form of blocks 
 alone, and neglecting all other marble products, a total of 4,859,362 cubic feet, an 
 average yearly importation of 607,420 cubic feet. From the report of the Geological 
 Survey on the production and consumption of stone in the United States it appears 
 that during the eight calendar years from 1904 to 1911, inclusive, of domestic marble 
 produced in this country a total of 3.890.106 cubic feet were used for interior work; 
 this is a yearly average of 486.263 cubic feet, as compared with a yearly average for 
 the imporlc-d marble of 607,420 cubic feet. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 923 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 111-112 MABBLE. 
 
 The present tariff on marble blocks is $0.65 per cubic foot. The average yearly 
 revenue for the years from 1905 to 1912 on the marble blocks imported during that 
 period was, therefore, $394,823. If the tariff were reduced to 50 per cent of its present 
 value and imported marble substituted for all of the domestic marble used for interior 
 work, the yearly revenue would amount to $355,446.98. The annual reduction from 
 the revenue actually collected would be $39,376.02. 
 
 In the classification of domestic marble by the Geological Survey is an item of ' ' rough 
 blocks sold to manufacturers." It is probable that a portion of this marble finds ita 
 way into interior work; we have no means of getting at the exact amount, but we do 
 know from our knowledge of our own business that it is a relatively small percentage 
 of the whole. The omission of this marble from the table submitted herewith is more 
 than offset by the following facts: 
 
 Even among the domestic marbles used for interior work there is a large percentage 
 which is of relatively low grade. It is sold at a price with which imported marble 
 could not compete, even if there were no tariff; it is sold at this low price because the 
 people to whom it is sold would not use marble at all if they had to pay the price at 
 which the imported marble would have to be sold even if it were admitted duty free. 
 For these reasons we believe that our estimate of the reduction in revenue that would 
 result from a reduction in the tariff on imported marble is too small rather than too large. 
 The tariff on imported marble does not amount to more than 6 or 7 per cent of the 
 value of the marble set in place in the building. In those cases where owners and 
 architects want the imported marble we believe they would still use it even if the 
 tariff were somewhat higher. The existence of the tariff enables the American pro- 
 ducers to sell then- better grades of marble at a price which compensates for the lower 
 prices thay have to accept for their lower grades. AYe are fully convinced that con- 
 siderable variation might be made from the present tariff in either direction without any 
 material effect on the amount of imported marble used; on the other hand, a material 
 reduction in the tariff would seriously diminish the amount of domestic marble used. 
 
 The total consumption of interior marble is necessarily limited; it depends entirely 
 upon the activity in the building trades and is confined to buildings of the more 
 expensive class. There is submitted herewith a table showing the importation of 
 foreign marble blocks for the eight years above mentioned, also a table showing the 
 consumption of domestic marble for interior purposes for the calendar y^ars from 
 1904 to 1911. By comparing these yearly figures with the dates of financial stringency 
 it will be readily seen that the consumption of both classes of marble for interior work 
 is directly dependent upon the state of trade. The figures yield no reason whatever 
 for supposing that the present tariff has had any deterrent effect upon the use of im- 
 ported marble. Since about the year 1880 there has been a steady increase in the 
 price of Italian blocks, due to concerted action of the Italian producers and exporters. 
 About 1880 Italian blocks of low grade could be purchased in New Yor"k for about 
 $1.80 per cubic feet; similar blocks now bring not less than $2.80 per cubic foot. Dur- 
 ing the intervening time the tariff has varied somewhat. Notwithstanding the tariff 
 and the increased price of Italian blocks, the consumption of imported marble has 
 increased with the increase in expensive buildings and has varied directly with the 
 number of such buildings under contract at any time. The table indicates that the 
 use of imported marble in this country is in excess of the use of domestic marble for 
 interior work. It should be noted that the use of interior marble falls off a little after 
 the severest stress of a panic is passed and does not increase for some time after better 
 conditions have come about. This is due to the fact, in the first place, that contracts 
 made during prosperous times have to be completed, and, in the second place, that 
 new contract" are not entered into for some time after prosperity begins. 
 
 Most of the marble imported into this country comes from the Carrara district in 
 Italy; its export from that district is controlled by a relatively small number of firms, 
 who undoubtedly act together in the matter of controlling the price. Marble exported 
 from Italy is also subjected to an export tax; of this fact the signers of this memorial 
 are sure, but we are not in possession of the exact amount of the tax. There is abso- 
 lutely no combination with a view to regulation of prices among American producers; 
 competition between them is absolutely free and extraordinarily keen. There is no 
 understanding as to the control of prices between American producers and American 
 manufacturers. The competition between them is also entirely free and very keen. 
 Natural conditions make it imperative for the American producers to finish a consid- 
 erable portion of their own products; the material from which much of this finished 
 work is made is subject to so much waste that it would not stand the cost of transporta- 
 tion to other points in the rough block. The fact that the American producers do a 
 large amount of finished work is a source of differences between them and the manu- 
 
924 
 
 TABIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 P ABAGBAPHS 1 1 1-1 12 MABBLE. 
 
 facturers, and the necessity they are under of working up the material is practically 
 a permanent guaranty that competition will always be keen. 
 
 As marble producers with a considerable amount of capital invested in American 
 industries and employing American labor, we feel that we are entitled to some protec- 
 tion against the imported material; we are taking the liberty of submitting herewith 
 a memorial which was submitted to this committee some years ago. We content our- 
 selves, in this instance, with simply submitting this former memorial, with the statement 
 that all of its arguments are just as applicable to-day as they were when the memorial 
 was originally submitted. 
 
 Alabama Marble Co., Alabama; George B. Sickles Marble Co., Georgia; 
 Eoyal Marble Co., Tennessee; T. S. Godfrey Marble Co., Tennessee; 
 Gray Eagle Marble Co., Tennessee; Tennessee Producers Marble Co., 
 Tennessee; John M. Ross, Tennessee; Knoxville Marble Co., Tennes- 
 see; Empire Marble Co., Tennessee; Meadow Marble Co., Tennessee; 
 Boss & Republic Marble Co., Tennessee; Vermont Marble Co., Ver- 
 mont and Alaska; Georgia Marble Co., Georgia; Blue Ridge Marble 
 Co., Georgia; Asbury Marble Co., Tennessee; Evans Marble Co., Ten- 
 nessee; John J. Craig Co., Tennessee; Knox Marble & Railway Co., 
 Tennessee; Victoria Maible Co., Tennessee; Fenton Construction Co., 
 Tennessee; Appalachian Marble Co., Tennessee; Cumberland Marble 
 Mill Co., Tennessee; Colorado- Yule Marble Co., Colorado; Barney Mar- 
 ble Co., Vermont; Grant Marble Co., Milwaukee, Wis.; Pickel Marble 
 & Granite Co., St. Loui, Mo.; St. Louis Marble & Tile Co., St. Louis, 
 Mo.; Drake Marble & Tile Co., St. Paul, Minn.; Joseph Musto-Sons- 
 Keenan Co., San Francisco, Cal. 
 
 Comparison of amounts of marble (in cubic feet) imported into the United States and 
 amounts reported as used for interior work by American producers. 
 
 Fiscal year. 
 
 Imported. 
 
 Calendar year. 
 
 Domestic 
 marble used 
 for interior 
 work. 
 
 1905 
 
 657, 099 
 
 1904... 
 
 359, 418 
 
 1906 
 
 S20, 040 
 
 1905 
 
 480, 757 
 
 1907 
 
 707, 598 
 
 1906 
 
 492, 127 
 
 1908 . ... 
 
 625, 159 
 
 1907 
 
 543, 129 
 
 1909 . 
 
 665, S27 
 
 1908 
 
 555,357 
 
 1910 
 
 726, 326 
 
 1909 
 
 445,081 
 
 1911 
 
 637,224 
 
 1910 
 
 571, 899 
 
 1912 
 
 619, 488 
 
 1911 
 
 442,338 
 
 
 
 
 
 Yearly average 
 
 *, 859, 301 
 607, 420 
 
 Yearly average 
 
 3,890,106 
 486, 263 
 
 
 
 
 
 TARIFF ON MARBLE. 
 
 To the honorable the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. 
 
 The presenters of this memorial represent more than 90 per cent of the business of 
 the American marble producers, the foreign marble importers, the marble mills, and 
 marble manufactories of the United States. 
 
 By the tariff act of March 3, 1883, the rates of duty on all classes of marble were 
 materially reduced. The act of October 1, 1890, made no change. The act of August 
 27, 1894, somewhat reduced these rates; but the act of July 24, 1897, restored the rates 
 of 1883, with only a slight change in the classification of the unimportant items of 
 slabs and mosaics. 
 
 Eighty per cent of all the marble imported into the United States comes from Italy. 
 Any comparison, therefore, of the relative methods and conditions of producing 
 marble at home and abroad is necessarily with Italy. 
 
 The first process in the production of marble is the quarrying of blocks. The con- 
 ditions of quarrying in this country and in Italy are very diverse. The deposits in 
 the United States are often deep below the surface of the ground, and in all cases it is 
 necessary to actually cut the blocks out of the quarry by machinery or tools to avoid 
 shattering the marble. In Italy, the deposits are exposed on the surface of the moun- 
 
SCHEDULE B. 925 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 tain, and the blocks are simply blasted off and afterwards pointed or ecabbled into 
 regular shapes. 
 
 The second process is the sawing of these blocks into slabs the full size of the block, 
 or into smaller pieces, sawed to size, for parts of monuments, or other specific purposes. 
 The full-size slabs are finally coped, or broken into slabs of smaller dimensions. 
 
 The third process is the finishing of sawed marble by rubbing, cutting, carving, 
 turning, polishing, etc., for its final use. 
 
 For the six years ending June 30, 1908, 69 per cent in value of all marble imported 
 into the United States was in blocks, 6 per cent in slabs, 22 per cent in manufactures 
 of marble, and 3 per cent in mosaic cubes. Almost the entire importations of onyx 
 are in blocks. 
 
 FOREIGN MARBLE IS A PROPER COMMODITY UPON WHICH TO RAISE REVENUE. 
 
 People of moderate means use little marble except for cemetery purposes. For 
 that they use a large amount; but they now use, and they will continue to use, Ameri- 
 can marble almost exclusively, because it is better for outdoor use, and that mainly 
 used in cemeteries is cheaper than any foreign marble would be, even if admitted 
 free of duty. Foreign marbles imported into the United States are either colored 
 marbles or expensive grades of lignt marble. They are a luxury and their use de- 
 pends more upon conditions of general prosperity than upon variations of cost. For 
 example, under the business depression beginning in 1893 the total importation of 
 marble fell from $1,135,176.23 for the year ending June 30, 1893, to $711,289.80 for 
 the year ending June 30, 1894; and under the business depression beginning in No- 
 vember, 1907, the total importation fell from $1,536,156 for the year ending June 30, 
 1907, to $1,159,543 for the year ending June 30, 1908. 
 
 THE DUTY ON FOREIGN MARBLE TENDS TO REDUCE THE PRICE OP THE MEDIUM AND 
 CHEAPER GRADES OF MARBLE. 
 
 The production of Italian marble is confined to a Email territory about Carrara, and 
 its export price to this country is controlled by a few Italian firms. In so far as the 
 duty on marble is not, in effect, paid by them, it operates to tax the wealthier consumer 
 who buys expensive ornamental marble, while the buyer of grades of marble in com- 
 mon use by the people at large gets them at a lower price by reason of the tariff. The 
 finer grades of American marble are so mixed with the cheaper grades in the same 
 quarries that they must be worked together. The more of the finer there is pro- 
 duced the more of the cheaper grades there must be, and the lower their price. The 
 marble in ordinary use for cemetery purposes and much of that used for building 
 purposes could not be produced by itself alone for the price at which it is sold. It is 
 the production from the same quarries of the higher grades of ornamental marbles 
 competing with foreign marbles that admits of the production of much of the cheaper 
 marble. 
 
 Of the total output of sawed marble for the last five years of the largest American 
 producer, whose quarries produce the highest-priced marble in this country, (1) 45 
 per cent was sold for less than $1 per cubic foot, (2) 15 per cent for $1 to $2 per cubic 
 foot, (3) 34 per cent for $2 to $3 per cubic foot, (4) 6 per cent for $3 and over per cubic 
 foot. None of the first and second divisions and only a part of the third and fourth 
 are in competition with Italian marble. Considerable of the third division is sold 
 below the price of Italian marble and considerable of the fourth above it. 
 
 A PROTECTIVE DUTY ON MARBLE IS NECESSARY. 
 
 Any advantage to American quarries from machinery is more than offset. The Italian 
 quarries have certain natural advantages over the quarries of the United States. In 
 the first place almost their entire product is high-priced marble, and hence the cost 
 of quarrying it is a much less percentage of its selling price than in the case of American 
 marble. The character of the Italian deposits, as hereinbefore explained, more than 
 offset any advantages accruing to American quarries from the use of machinery. 
 Machinery is used in our quarries from necessity and it is not used in the Italian 
 quarries, by the larger producers at least, because the present method is cheaper. 
 
 The American quarries derive no protection from freight. To the principal distribut- 
 ing points in the United States the freight will average as much as from Italy. For 
 example, the present rates per cubic foot are approximately: To New York from 
 Italv by steamer 36 cents, from Vermont 25 cents, and from Tennessee 65 cents; to 
 Baltimore from Italy by steamer 38 cents, from Vermont 37 cents, and from Tennessee 
 
926 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 59 cents; to New Orleans from Italy by steamer 40 cents, from Vermont 74 cents, and 
 from Tennessee 35 cents; to San Francisco from Italy by steamer 90 cents, from Vermont 
 $1.33 by steamer or $1.80 all rail, and from Tennessee $1.80. The comparison from 
 the Georgia and Alabama quarries would be quite as favorable to the Italian quarries, 
 and from the Colorado and Alaska quarries still more so. Our quarries, therefore, 
 even in our own market have no natural protection against those of Italy. 
 
 Blocks are not rait) material, but represent almost entirely labor. The raw material in 
 the mountains in Italy is of relatively small value, but the cost of the blocks is chiefly 
 the labor required to quarry them and move them to the seaboard. In this country 
 also an undeveloped quarry is of little value. The prevailing royalty paid a land- 
 owner for the right to quarry marble on his land is only 5 cents per cubic foot of mer- 
 chantable marble produced. Two-thirds of the expense of producing marble in this 
 country is for labor direct, and about one-fourth for supplies and material, including 
 machinery, iron, tools, coal, etc. It is estimated that 90 per cent of the expense of 
 the production of marble is directly or indirectly for labor. The competition between 
 Italian and American marble, therefore, is peculiarly a competition between Italian 
 and American labor. 
 
 THE PRESENT RATES OP DUTY ON MARBLE OUGHT NOT TO BE REDUCED. 
 
 The duty on marble yields a revenue on an article which is a luxury. It tends to 
 decrease the cost of the cheaper grades of marble which are used by the people at large. 
 It is the protection afforded the high-priced marble that has made possible the pro- 
 duction and use in the United States of great quantities of medium and cheaper 
 grades of marble for cemetery purposes, buildings, etc. Such use of marble is entirely 
 peculiar to our own country. It affords protection direct to American labor, not by 
 lessening the importation but by upholding the prices of high-priced, colored marbles 
 and expensive grades of light marbles. It tends also to further develop the remarkable 
 marble deposits of this country. Marble is abundant in all the States along the 
 Appalachian range, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canada line, viz: Alabama, Georgia, 
 Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Con- 
 necticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont. It is also found in Missouri, Colorado, Idaho, 
 Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, California, Washington, and Alaska. The 
 ornamental or colored marbles found in Tennessee, Georgia, Vermont, Missouri, 
 Arizona, and many other sections of the country are of the highest artistic order. 
 The development of new marble quarries in Alabama, Colorado, and Alaska is at 
 present very active. But the obstacles to be overcome in developing these natural 
 resources can not be appreciated except by experience. 
 
 The difference in the cost of labor employed in the production, sawing, and manu- 
 facture of American and foreign marbles is much greater than the present rates of 
 duty on marble, and those rates are not sufficient to equalize, in our own markets, the 
 position of the marble quarries, mills, and shops of the United States with like indus- 
 tries abroad. 
 
 We recognize, however, that the present rates have prevailed since 1883, except 
 for the short period between 1894 and 1897, and that business and trade relations have 
 long been adjusted to those rates. Therefore the undersigned, representing more 
 than 90 per cent of the American marble producing and foreign marble importing 
 interests of the United States, and of its marble mills and manufactories, ask that the 
 present rates of duty on marble be left as they are. 
 
 We call your attention to two instances of wrong classification which work great in- 
 justice to marble and ought to be corrected. 
 
 Limestones susceptible of polish and usable for decorative purposes. -Under the 
 present tariff (par. 117) limestone unmanufactured is dutiable at 12 cents per cubic 
 foot less than one-fifth the marble rate. Under this paragraph the right is claimed 
 to import Istrian, Hauteville, Botticino, and other fancy stones, which are sold and 
 used in direct competition with regular high-grade marbles. The commercial and 
 ordinary or popular meaning of marble is either any limestone which is capable of 
 taking a polish or else any limestone which is suitable for being used for decorative 
 or ornamental purposes. (See Century Dictionary, New American Encyclopedia, 
 New International Encyclopedia.) Accordingly the Board of General Appraisers 
 have held that Istrian (Decision 3803) and Hauteville (Decision 6398) should under 
 the present tariff be classed as marbles and pay the marble rate. The decision in the 
 latter case was affirmed by the United States Circtiit Court, but on appeal was reversed 
 by the United States Court of Appeals, which followed the more technical and limited 
 definition that only that limestone is marble which is of a crystalline structure. The 
 
SCHEDULE B. 927 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 whole subject of the proper classification of these stones under the present tariff 
 now remains much confused and is still in litigation. Without reference to what may 
 be their proper classification under the wording of the present tariff, they should in 
 the new act be classed according to the purposes for which they are capable of being 
 used, and in fact are used (in conformity with the similitude clause of the present 
 tariff act, sec. 7), and on an equality with the stone with which they directly 
 compete. They are capable both of being polished and of being used for interior 
 decorative purposes of a high order, and in fact are so used in many important build- 
 ings in direct competition with regular marbles, both American and foreign. We 
 therefore respectfully request that limestones, when susceptible of taking a polish 
 and suitable for interior decorative purposes, be specifically classed with marble and 
 take the marble rate. Limestone of low grade used as a building stone and not for 
 higher decorative purposes should continue to be classed with freestone, sandstone, 
 and other building stone. 
 
 Breccia. Under the present tariff (paragraph 508) breccia is admitted free. It is 
 a conglomerate marble susceptible of taking a polish and used in direct competition 
 with regular marble for interior decorative purposes in many public and other large 
 buildings. In the statistics of the Department of Commerce and Labor, "Importations 
 entered for consumption, ' ' breccia is now included in the statistics of marble, being 
 classed as free marble as distinguished from other marbles which are dutiable. We 
 respectfully request that it be specifically included with marble and take the marble 
 rate. 
 
 Another great advantage of the Italian quarries lies in the following facts: 
 The unsound and worthless material can be separated from the good and rejected 
 immediately after the marble is blown down from the quarry faces. At this stage 
 the rejected material can not have cost more than 5 cents per cubic foot. 
 
 In the American quarries the marble has to be taken out a block at a time. The 
 blocks which prove worthless and have to be rejected on the bank of the quarry, 
 represent an actual cost of not less than 40 cents per cubic foot. The rejection of 
 worthless material does not end here, however. There are still many blocks which 
 contain good and bad in the same block and they can only be separated after sawing. 
 Everything rejected at this stage represents a cost on the average of not less than $1 
 per cubic foot. All of the material rejected in both Italy and America is a burden of 
 added cost that has to be borne by the good material. It is evident that on this point 
 the Italian quarries have a much less burdensome load to carry than the American 
 quarries. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Vermont Marble Co., Vermont; Rutland-Florence Marble Co., Vermont; 
 Brandon Italian Marble Co., Vermont; Barney Marble Co., Vermont; 
 Norcross-West Marble Co., Vermont; O. W. Norcross, Vermont; George 
 P. Eastman, Vermont; South Dover Marble Co., New York; Waverly 
 Marble Co., New York; White Marble & Terrazzo Co., Massachusetts; 
 Westfield Marble & Sandstone Co., Massachusetts; Lee Marble Works, 
 Massachusetts; Evans Marble Co., Maryland; Georgia Marble Co., 
 Georgia; Geo. B. Sickles Marble Co., Georgia; Blue Ridge Marble Co., 
 Georgia; Georgia Marble Finishing Works, Georgia; Southern Marble 
 Co., Georgia; Kennesaw Marble Co., Georgia; John M. Ross, Tennes- 
 see; The Knoxville Marble Co., Tennessee; Gray Eagle Marble Co., 
 Tennessee; Jno. J. Craig Co., Tennessee; Empire Marble Co., Tennes- 
 see; Godfrey Marble Co., Tennessee; Ross Marble Co., Tennessee; 
 Republic Marble Co., Tennessee; American Marble Co., Tennessee; 
 The United States Marble Co., Tennessee; The Victoria Marble Co., 
 Tennessee; Tennessee Producers' Marble Co., Tennessee; Knox Mar- 
 ble & Railway Co., Tennessee; Alabama Marble Co., Alabama; Colo- 
 rado-Yule Marble Co., Colorado. 
 
 John Eisele, of Batterson & Eisele; W. K. Fertig, of R. C. Fisher & 
 Co.; J. W. Harrison, of Ellin, Kitson & Co.; E. J. McGratty, of 
 McGratty & Sons; John R. Taber, of Taber & Co.; C. D. Jackson, of 
 C. D. Jackson & Co.; R. C. Fisher, of R. C. Fisher & Co.; Committee 
 of the Marble Industry of New York. 
 
 W. H. Evans, of Baltimore. President and Committee of the National 
 Association of Marble Dealers. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., November 23, 1908. 
 
928 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JACKSON, REPRESENTING C. D. JACKSON & 
 
 CO., OF NEW YORK. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111 AND 114. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jackson, will you please state the paragraph 
 to which you wish to refer ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. Paragraphs 111 and 114, marble. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., January 9, 191S. 
 The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: 
 
 Since 1908 a number of changes have taken place in the cost of production of marble 
 and stone in rough blocks (and consequently in rough sawed slabs) in all the quarrying 
 districts abroad through higher wages, pension funds, road taxes, transportation, etc., 
 which necessitated the increase in selling prices abroad and consequently in the 
 United States. 
 
 The adherence to a disproportionately high duty of 65 cents per cubic foot (un- 
 changed since the tariff act of 1897) on rough blocks of marble hindered the importa- 
 tion of foreign marbles necessary in the construction and ornamentation of buildings. 
 
 The cost prices of the different foreign marbles vary in accordance with the facilities 
 with which the material can be quarried, the location of the quarries, the distance to 
 be covered by railroad transportation between the quarries, and the port at which 
 marble is embarked for the United States. 
 
 In the following tabulation we wish to show the present approximate average costs 
 of marble in rough blocks, average sized, large and small blocks mixed, as produced by 
 quarries, loaded on cars at railroad station nearest to the quarry. 
 
 Duty. 
 Category 1. Present average cost of poushable hard limestone, 85 cents per 
 
 cubic foot ._ $0. 65 
 
 Category 2. Present average cost of ordinary marble, $1.30 per cubic foot 65 
 
 Category 3. Present average cost of veined type, $2 per cubic foot 65 
 
 Category 4. Present average cost of veined statuary type, $2.40 per cubic foot . . .65 
 
 Category 5. Low-priced colored marble, $1.50 per cubic foot 65 
 
 Category 6. Medium-priced colored marble, $3.50 per cubic foot 65 
 
 Category 7. High-priced colored marble, $7 per cubic foot 65 
 
 Based upon the foregoing average cost prices (being the wholesale selling prices to 
 dealers abroad) 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 The duty on category 1 amounts to 76J 
 
 The duty on category 2 amounts to 50 
 
 The duty on category 3 amounts to 32J 
 
 The duty on categoiy 4 amounts to 27 
 
 The duty on category 5 amounts to 40 
 
 The duty on category t> amounts to 18 
 
 The duty on category 7 amounts to 9 
 
 The importation into the United States of the different categories can be classified 
 by percentage as 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 On categoiy 1, about 30 
 
 On category 2, about 45 
 
 On category 3, about 5 
 
 On category 4, about ] 
 
 On category 5, about 15 
 
 On category 6, about 3 
 
 On category 7. about 1 
 
 From this it will bo seen that the present duty of 65 cents per cubic foot means an 
 average duty of about 53.97 per cent on a crude article such as marble in blocks, rough 
 or squared only, at point of loading from quarries abroad. 
 
 A further detrimental feature enforced since January, 1913, will tend to reduce still 
 more the importation of foreign marble. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 
 
 929 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 The steamship pool, regulating the steamer freight rates from abroad, has imposed a 
 new hardship on all imported marble. The freight rates have been increased from 
 20 to 35 per cent, which necessitated an increase in the selling prices here of from 10 
 to 15 cents per cubic foot. 
 
 Another very serious and appreciable increase is now imposed by the lighterage and 
 hoisting companies operating in the port of New York, who increased their minimum 
 charges for transportation to consignors of marble by nearly 30 per cent, which will 
 increase the cost, namely, the delivery of materials to mills, by additional 5 cents per 
 cubic foot. This increase went into effect on January 1, 1913. 
 
 It will tend to decrease more the demand for foreign marble, since a long time 
 unable to compete with domestic products which are not subjected to these exorbitant 
 charges. 
 
 We therefore respectfully recommend to the Ways and Means Committee to reduce 
 the present tariff act of 1909, reading as follows: "Marble and onyx blocks, rough or 
 squared only, 65 cents per cubic foot," to 45 cents per cubic foot, and if so considered, 
 the tariff should read: "Marble and onyx in blocks, rough or squared only, 45 cents per 
 cubic foot." 
 
 While the amount of this reduction may not seem large enough 
 to your honorable committee, it is our belief that it would be suffi- 
 cient to overcome the existing hardship, at least, imported marble 
 could be sold in future at the same prices as it was sold up to January 
 1, 1913, and it will prevent a further decrease in importation, which 
 would further reduce the revenues to the Government. 
 
 We wish to state the tariff act of 1894, paragraph 103, provided a 
 tariff on marble of all kinds in block, rough or squared only, of 50 
 cents per cubic foot. 
 
 The following facts should also be taken into consideration, i. e., 
 that none of the different species of marble imported into this coun- 
 try exist in the United States and consequently can not be produced 
 here, so no harm to domestic quarry owners can result by the im- 
 portation of marbles from abroad at a lower tariff than the existing 
 one. 
 
 The Government report shows that the importation of foreign 
 marble into the United States is as follows: 
 
 
 Cubic 
 quantity. 
 
 Import 
 value. 
 
 Duties. 
 
 1907. . . 
 
 707598-0 
 
 $1 083 188 
 
 $459 939 11 
 
 1908 
 
 525159-0 
 
 796, 873 
 
 341,353.91 
 
 1909 
 
 565827-0 
 
 877 413 
 
 367 789 98 
 
 1910 
 
 726326-0 
 
 1,116,058 
 
 472,112.30 
 
 1911 
 
 637224-0 
 
 1 042 285 
 
 414 195 76 
 
 1912 
 
 619488-0 
 
 979,310 
 
 402,667.29 
 
 
 
 
 
 It shows the falling off of importations of foreign marble in rough blocks considerably. 
 
 Comparing the year 1907 with the years 1908 and 1909, it shows a decrease of im- 
 portation of 314,210-0 cubic feet, and a decrease of duties collected by the Government 
 of $210,774.33. 
 
 During the year 1910 a large demand for building material existed generally and 
 domestic quarries not being able to supply the demand, in consequence the impor- 
 tation of foreign marble increased during that year. 
 
 However, the comparison between the years 1910, 1911, and 1912 shows that the 
 importation of marble in rough blocks during the years 1911 and 1912 decreased by 
 195,940-0 cubic feet, and the Government collected during 1911, $58,016.54 less duty 
 than during 1910 and during 1912, $69,545.01 less than in 1910, or a total decrease of 
 $127,561.55. 
 
 Marble slabs. Only Carrara marble slabs are imported to this country, as they are 
 the only material that can stand the strain of transportation without great damage, 
 namely, breakage. 
 
 78939 VOL 113 59 
 
930 
 
 TAKIFF HEAKINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 111-112 MABBLE. 
 
 The average prices for average-sized slabs of average grade, free on cars Carrara, are: 
 
 
 Cost 
 price 
 (square 
 foot). 
 
 Duty 
 (square 
 foot). 
 
 Equal 
 to 
 
 Category 1: Up to 1 inch to thickness (mostly J Inch are imported) 
 
 Cents. 
 12 
 
 Cents. 
 8 
 
 Percent. 
 66.6 
 
 Category 2: Up to 1} inches to thickness 1." .*. '. 
 
 17 
 
 10 
 
 58.5 
 
 Category 3: Up to 1J inches in thickness 
 
 22 
 
 10 
 
 45.5 
 
 Category 4: Up to 2 niches in thickness 
 
 27 
 
 12 
 
 44.4 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ The proportion of each of these categories imported, based upon the entire importa- 
 tion of sawed slabs in this country, is as follows: 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Category 1, up to 1 inch 65 
 
 Category 2, up to 1} inches 30 
 
 Category 3, up to 1$ inches 3 
 
 Category 4, up to 2 inches 2 
 
 which means an average duty of 63.3 per cent on the value of the slabs, being the 
 wholesale selling price to dealers abroad. 
 
 As we respectfully recommended a reduction on rough blocks from 65 cents to 45 
 cents, being about 30 per cent reduction, the duty on slabs should be reduced in the 
 same proportion, i. e.: 
 
 
 Present 
 duty. 
 
 Proposed 
 duty. 
 
 On slabs up to 1 inch 
 
 Cents. 
 8 
 
 Cents. 
 6 
 
 On slabs up to li inches 
 
 10 
 
 71 
 
 On slabs up to 2 inches 
 
 12 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 The tariff act of 1894 provided approximately the same duty on slabs as proposed 
 herewith and if our recommendation should find due consideration, the new tariff 
 act should read: 
 
 "Marble and onyx sawed or dressed if not more than 1 inch thickness, 6 cents per 
 superficial foot. If more than 1 inch and not more than 1 inches in thickness, 7$ 
 cents per superficial foot. If more than 1 inches and not more than 2 inches in thick- 
 ness, 9 cents per superficial foot." 
 
 Imported slabs are largely used by marble manufacturers who dp not buy blocks 
 and have same sawed in the custom sawmills. These custom sawmills are disappear- 
 ing rapidly in this country, as all the larger marble manufacturers are equipped with 
 their own sawing plants as part of their manufacturing equipment solely for their 
 own use. 
 
 This proposed duty will stimulate the demand and importation of foreign slabs, 
 which has fallen off lately to a very insignificant amount, while under the tariff act 
 of 1894, paragraph 104, reading as follows: 
 
 "Marble sawed, dressed, or otherwise, including marble slabs, mosaic cubes, and 
 marble paving tiles, 85 cents per cubic foot (no slab to be computed at less than 1 
 inch in thickness)." 
 
 The importation of slabs amounted to thousands of tons per year. 
 
 Tiles. The present duty, according to tariff act of 1909, on imported marble tiles, 
 classified in the tariff as specified under paragraph 111, provides that the duty on 
 
 "Slabs or paving tiles of marble or onyx containing not less than 4 superficial inches, 
 if not more than 1 inch in thickness, 8 cents per superficial foot. If more than 1 inch 
 and not more than 1 inches in thickness, 10 cents per superficial foot. If more than 
 1 inches and not more than 2 inches in thickness, 12J cents per superficial foot. If 
 rubbed in whole or in part, 2 cents per superficial foot in addition." 
 
 This duty is entirely out of proportion to the value of the goods in themselves. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 931 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 Marble tiles are made from slabs, either unfit for shipirtent as such on account of 
 defects, such as cracks, etc., or from pieces of marble slabs broken or damaged while 
 being taken out of the saw frames, or broken in yards of sawmill. 
 
 Tiles vary in sizes from about 1 to 6 square feet, according to the demand and sizes 
 of floors to be covered, according to specifications of architects. Such small sound 
 stock can be usually found in such salvage to make these tiles. 
 
 Tiles are used either in thicknesses of three-fourths inch or seven-eighths inch. 
 The present prices abroad are about 16 cents per square foot, finished and ooxed, free 
 on ci- -s at the mills of the quarry. 
 
 The present duty on marble tiles up to 1 inch in thickness is 10 cents, equal to 62$ 
 per cent. 
 
 You will readily see the inconsistency of such high tariff on an article representing 
 hardly any outlay of labor or any value of material, if you compare it with the present 
 duty on richly finished carved and polished marblework which pays only an ad 
 valorem of 50 per cent. 
 
 For comparison, we name herewith prices on domestic tiles sold by quarries in the 
 United States: 
 
 Vermont or Alabama, or Lee white tiles, seven-eighths inch, from 15 to 20 centa per 
 square foot. 
 
 Tennessee tiles, 20 cents per square foot. 
 
 All of same are manufactured from salvage by domestic quarry owners and sawmills 
 in the same manner as by the foreign producers. 
 
 The total duty on rubbed and finished tiles to 1 inch in thickness should not be 
 higher than 6 cents per square foot, and on tiles up to 1$ inches in thickness, 8 cents per 
 square foot. 
 
 The present duty is so prohibitive that tiles can not be imported, being unable to 
 compete on account of this high duty with the domestic tile. 
 
 Under the present tariff, the Government assessed a duty without receiving any 
 revenue from an article which could be imported to this country in large quantities, 
 provided a rate of duty consistent with the actual value of the article were assessed. 
 
 Mosaic. The present duty on mosaics is one-fourth of 1 cent per pound and 
 20 per cent ad valorem. Marble mosaic, with the exception of Tennessee marble, 
 which is cut from the smallest waste occurring in marble mills in Tennessee, is not 
 produced in this country, and the demand for Tennessee marble mosaic is only a 
 very limited one, hardly more than 1 per cent of the entire amount of mosaic used 
 in this country. 
 
 Marble mosaic is cut from such small debris in small cubes of one-half inch, five- 
 eighths inch, and three-fourths inch square. The importation of marble mosaics is 
 diminishing from year to year on account of the competition of ceramic tile. While 
 ceramic floors are undoubtedly very good sanitary floors, they lack many decorative 
 and other qualities. 
 
 Good, sanitary mosaic floors, but more practical and decorative, not alone in color 
 but also in designs, etc., can only be produced from marble mosaics, in which the 
 different variety of shades and colors well blended produce the artistic effects. 
 
 While the duty on mosaic has been reduced under the present tariff act 1909 from 
 that assessed under act 1897, viz, from 1 cent per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem 
 to one-fourth of 1 cent per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem, we would respectfully 
 submit the abolition of the 20 per cent ad valorem duty, for the following reasons: 
 
 The United States custom authorities ignore completely the contracts made on the 
 other side in accordance with which the material is actually purchased. 
 
 The value of invoices to buyers of small quantities who purchase their stock from 
 second and third hand, are adopted as established market values, and in order to avoid 
 annoyances, importers have to accept an arbitrary valuation fixed by the United 
 States appraisers, and on this the 20 per cent ad valorem duty is paid. 
 
 We offer the following suggestion as a remedy: 
 
 The specific duty on this article, viz, one-fourth of 1 cent per pound, should remain 
 and the additional 20 per cent ad valorem duty should be dropped. This would 
 give less expenses to the Government for research and other work and render more 
 revenue to the Government on account of the increased importation which would 
 undoubtedly follow, if importers and dealers are freed from these petty and useless 
 annoyances caused by the ad valorem appraisement. 
 
932 
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PABAGBAPHS 111-112 MABBLE. 
 For comparison, we wish to name the following figures: 
 
 
 Foreign 
 
 
 
 
 wholesale 
 
 
 
 
 market 
 
 Present 
 
 Per cent 
 
 
 value 
 
 duty. 
 
 (about). 
 
 
 
 (per 224 
 
 
 
 
 pounds). 
 
 
 
 Mosaic cubes of 
 
 
 
 
 Carrara mosaic 
 
 $2.33 
 
 $1.03 
 
 44 
 
 No>r V\n ,,.,,...,,, 
 
 2 82 
 
 .12 
 
 40 
 
 Ste. Anne 
 
 2 82 
 
 .12 
 
 40 
 
 Rouge Beige 
 
 2 oo 
 
 12 
 
 40 
 
 Rouge Chagny 
 
 3.08 
 
 .18 
 
 38 
 
 Rouge Cuit 
 
 3.64 
 
 .29 
 
 36 
 
 Jaime de Lyon. ... 
 
 3.20 
 
 20 
 
 374 
 
 Blanc de Nimes 
 
 3.50 
 
 .26 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 
 
 The above figures give the wholesale market value per 224 pounds, free on board 
 Genoa, Leghorn, Antwerp, or Marseille. In this price the packing and railroad freight 
 are included. The railroad freight is about 32 cents per 224 pounds. It gives the 
 amount of the United States duty paid per 224 pounds and also the percentage in pro- 
 portion to the value of the respective merchandise. 
 
 Should, however, the specific duty of one-fourth of 1 cent not be sufficient, we rec- 
 ommend a total specific duty of one-third of 1 cent to overcome the difference of the 
 20 per cent ad valorem duty. 
 
 The new tariff act should therefore read: 
 
 "Mosaic cubes of marble or onyx not exceeding 2 cubic inches in size, if loose, one- 
 fourth of 1 cent per pound (or one-third of 1 cent per pound). If attached to paper or 
 other material, 5 cents per superficial foot and 35 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 Terrazzo and granito. The present duty of 20 per cent ad valorem is inconsistent 
 with the nature of the material. The article in itself is nothing but the waste d6bris 
 of quarries and sawmills, broken slabs, chips, etc., which can not be used for anything 
 else, not even for road making. In order to clean up the accumulating de'bris, mostly 
 in factories, they are ground up into granular particles, and these particles are packed 
 in bags and shipped to this country. 
 
 The same customhouse conditions and regulations exist with regard to this article 
 as mentioned above on mosaics. A specific duty of 60 cents per gross ton should be 
 assessed, which covers the present ad valorem duty. 
 
 The material in itself has absolutely no value; the mills and quarries abroad are only 
 charging for the actual labor required in grinding up this de'bris. 
 
 The price for this granito at Carrara is 16 lire per gross ton, equal to about $3. 10 
 
 The present freight rate from Carrara to New York is about 6. 00 
 
 Duty on same 62 
 
 Which brings the net cost price per ton (ex steamship New York) 9. 72 
 
 Additional handling, lighterage and freight expenses in the port of New York will 
 bring the net cost to importers to about $11 per ton. 
 
 Domestic quarries and marble manufacturers are making this terrazzo or granito in 
 the same manner also, to clear their quarries and workshops of de'bris. 
 
 The white granito or terrazzo produced in Vermont, Alabama, Georgia, or Massa- 
 chusetts factories is sold at 85.50 per net ton f. o. b. cars respective quarries. The 
 high cost of transportation, freight, etc., on the imported article, already forms an 
 ample protection to domestic producers. 
 
 Carrara granito is an essential necessity for the top layers of terrazzo floors as the 
 granito made of domestic marble is too soft, it wears out quickly and discolors as soon 
 as cement is applied. 
 
 A very good granito is produced in Tennessee but the price for same is $8 per net 
 ton on cars Knoxville. 
 
 Tennessee granito is the only granito hard enough to be applied for floors, but on 
 account of its peculiar color from light gray to dark brown, does not find the demand 
 that the white granito does but it commands a higher price than any white granito 
 or terrazzo. 
 
 freestone. The present United States tariff act, 1909, paragraph 114, reads: 
 
SCHEDULE B. 933 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 "Freestone, granite, sandstone, limestone, and all other monumental or building 
 stone except marble, breccia, and onyx not specially provided for in this section, 
 hewn, dressed, or polished or otherwise manufactured, 50 per cent ad valorem. 
 Unmanufactured or not dressed, hewn, or polished, 10 cents per cubic foot." 
 
 The importation of freestone or limestone of French, Italian, and other origin coming 
 under this classification, amounts to only about 30,000 to 40,000 cubic feet per year, 
 a very small amount compared with the millions of cubic feet produced in this country. 
 
 Freestones of light color like the French limestones, chassignelles, Caen stone, lens 
 stone, Italian limestones, Travertine, etc., all of light delicate shade, are not in ex- 
 istence in this country and consequently can not be produced here. 
 
 The average cost of these materials at the quarry abroad, amounts to about 30 cents 
 per cubic foot, delivered on cars quarry. To this an average railway and steamer 
 transportation of about 90 cents per cubic foot has to be added. 
 
 The high cost of transportation gives ample protection to domestic quarry owners 
 if you consider that the limestone quarried at Bedford, Ind., is sold in New York, one 
 of the farthest points from their quarries, at 75 cents per cubic foot. 
 
 The duty of 10 cents on imported limestones is unproportionately high toward the 
 value of the material in itself, it amounting to about 33J per cent. 
 
 If the duty on this material would be reduced to 5 cents per cubic foot, it may lead 
 to larger adoption and consumption in the United States, and this material could then 
 be employed in larger proportions than heretofore. We propose that the tariff act 
 should read: 
 
 "Freestone, granite, sandstone, limestone, and all other monumental or building 
 stones except marble and breccia and onyx not specially provided for in this section, 
 hewn, dressed, or polished, or otherwise manufactured, 50 per cent ad valorem; 
 not manufactured, dressed, hewn, polished, or otherwise manufactured, 5 cents per 
 cubic foot. " 
 
 All the above data are given after an exhaustive research, and we recommend to the 
 honorable Ways and Means Committee all the facts and suggestions for their best 
 consideration. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. C. D. JACKSON. 
 
 TABER & Co. 
 PISANI BROS. 
 
 HlLGARTNER MARBLE Co., 
 
 C. L. HILGARTNER, President. 
 EVANS MARBLE Co. 
 E. L. ASHLEY. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? 
 
 Mr. HILL. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Do you 
 import Italian granite only? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. No; all kinds. 
 
 Mr. HILL. What would be your idea of the wisdom of striking out 
 these specific duties on marble blocks of these various kinds and 
 making them all ad valorem or just the same as that which is 
 partly manufactured ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. The ad valorem duty if you had an ad valorem, it 
 would work great harm in the importation of marble. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Why in regard to marble more than anything else? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. Because there is no expert here in United States 
 employment who can say what is first, what is second, third, or 
 fourth quality marble. The unscrupulous shipper on the other side 
 will send first-quality and classify it as fourth-quality marble. 
 
 Mr. HILL. There are no such things as unscrupulous shippers, are 
 there ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. There are. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Why should there be an a/1 valorem duty on a piece of 
 marble or a piece of granite that has work on it, and a specific duty 
 on a block of the same stone, or the same piece of stone, without any 
 work done on it ? 
 
934 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. That is very easy to answer. You might employ on 
 a piece of marble, which is only a cubic foot large, several hundred 
 dollars' worth of work, richly carved, but it measures only a cubic 
 foot, and the marble in itself might be worth $2. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Then that is the reason, is it, for these specific duties, 
 the very high duties that are shown here, not intrinsically high, but 
 merely because of the necessity of providing a tariff in this way ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. No; it is impossible. The only just duty on marble 
 in the rough should be a specific duty. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Why should we throw out anything on which a specific 
 duty could be applied ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. Because you sell marble by measure, cubic foot 
 measure. It is measured in the United States. It eliminates all 
 entanglements. You can not transport a block of marble of 24 or 30 
 tons and shove it into a storage warehouse. It is impossible. The 
 United States measurer comes and measures, and that ends the 
 dispute. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Why would that not be equally applicable to every 
 other item in the tariff bill ? Let me refer you to this: 
 
 Freestone, granite, sandstone, limestone, and all other monumental or building 
 stone, except marble, breccia, and onyx, not specially provided for in this section, 
 hewn, dressed, or polished, or otherwise manufactured, 50 per cent ad valorem; un- 
 manufactured, or not dressed, hewn, or polished, 10 cents per cubic foot. 
 
 There is no fair comparison between all these different stones, that 
 they should be classified at 60 or 80 per cent duty. 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HILL. It is specified 10 cents a cubic foot. That might mean 
 a hundred per cent on one piece and only 20 per cent on another ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. You are talking from the manufacturer's point of 
 view. 
 
 Mr. HELL. No; I am talking from the viewpoint of the making of 
 the tariff. I am not talking from the viewpoint of the manufac- 
 turer or the importer. I am simply after the best administration. 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. I have been in the business 28 years. I have fol- 
 lowed up this question thoroughly. I was not present during the 
 tariff hearings of 1893 or 1894, but I consulted foreign producers as 
 to which would be the safest and wisest way to get the merchandise 
 before the public hi the United States, and they said, "Do you prefer 
 ad valorem or do you prefer specific duties?" They all told me the 
 ad valorem duty can not gauge the value of a piece of marble. Now, if 
 this piece of marble should represent a block measuring, for instance, 
 120 cubic feet, and if it should be absolutely sound, the price would 
 be $7 on the other side; but if this piece of marble should show a 
 crack up to here [indicating], it is sold at once by the producer as 
 defective and he would reduce the price to So per cubic foot. 
 
 Mr. HILL. It would pay the same specific duty per foot ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HELL. And the duty is double in the estimates? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. No; that is not right. How can the United States 
 appraisers, after all the annoyance we have in New York, alleviate 
 it? Suppose the importer bought it for $5 on account of that crack, 
 is he the judge to decide about it ? 
 
SCHEDULE B. 935 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-1 12 MARBLE. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Is it not as possible for him to make a correct ap- 
 praisal as for the man who sells it to make a correct price ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. No, sir. If I could find an expert to-day to do this, 
 I would be willing to pay him $25,000 a year if he could select marble 
 for me on the other side. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Then, in your judgment and from your experience as an 
 importer of marble, would you say that the duties here should con- 
 tinue to be on the specific basis? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. On the specific basis. The only basis where the 
 United States will receive honest duties, which they collect, is the 
 specific basis. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I supposed they were all honest. 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. No. Duties are unquestionably honest on specific 
 values; otherwise not. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Are you prepared to discuss the question as to how 
 much more revenue the Goverment could get out of these various 
 articles that you discussed a while ago ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. Yes; I think I am. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. If the rates you suggest are put into effect. 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. I think I am prepared to do so. I have given it 
 some considerable study for years. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. How much more would we get out of it ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. I do not think the Government would lose any- 
 thing by it. I think you would receive about the same amount. 
 We are in a peculiar situation. We are in the hands of the steam- 
 ship companies, who formed an ironclad pool on the other side, and 
 unless we accept their rates, we can not have any marble shipped. 
 Now, the hoisting companies in New York City have advanced their 
 hoisting charges from 50 to 90 cents a ton. The lighters in the New 
 York Harbor everything has to be lightered to the railroads or to the 
 yards of manuf acurers or dealers has been increased, and the increase 
 will amount to about $30,000 a year additional cost. They have 
 combined, and we are at their mercy. We can not do anything. 
 The question was sprung on us on the 15th of December, and they 
 said that that tariff would go into effect on the 1st of January. 
 Now, we can not build hoisting gears or boats to transport these 
 things over night. It would take us about from six to ei^ht or nine 
 months to build such boats to transport it. The importations would 
 remain the same. Domestic quarry owners usually follow the prices 
 set for the imported article. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Do you think you could not make it more if the 
 tariff were lowered ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. No; it could not be increased. It depends also on 
 foreign conditions. America is not the only consuming country. I 
 have tabulations here showing the consumption. We are only a 
 small consumer of foreign material. There is South America 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. If we should reduce these tariffs, who is going to get 
 the benefit of the reductions ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. Nobody would get the benefit of it. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Then, why are you asking us to do it ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. To help to maintain the importation of material. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Who would be benefited by it ? 
 
936 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. , 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. The benefit would be with the importations. The 
 importations would remain in this country. Otherwise, if the tariff 
 is not reduced, it will be driven out. 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. Do importations have any effect upon prices made 
 in this country by domestic producers ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. They usually follow. For instance, we had to raise 
 these prices 20 or 25 cents on account of the freight rates for trans- 
 portation. They follow. They say, "All right; the importer has 
 got to pay so much more, and the article is worth so much more, and 
 we will raise it about 15 or 20 cents." It is quite a natural condi- 
 tion. For instance, if the duty should remain the same to-dav the 
 material is worth $3, and we have to pay 25 cents more now. We 
 can not sell it for less than S3. 25. The domestic material is sold for 
 $1.75. They say, "Now the importers have to pay 25 cents more 
 freight and duty; the material can be bought cheaper from New 
 York; let us take advantage of the situation and still have $1.95 
 or $1.90." 
 
 Mr. RAINEY. All right; that is all. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Was there not a reduction in the Payne bill from the 
 Dingley bill ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. No. 
 
 Mr. HILL. As to none of these ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. A reduction was only made on slabs, not on blocks, 
 where the slabs were reduced by 2 cents a square foot. 
 
 Mr. HILL. Was there any reduction in granite ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. That was from 12 to 10 cents. We import I can 
 not say that I am the only importer of this limestone we import 
 to-day about 15,000 cubic feet more per year on account of the 
 reduction of 2 cents. 
 
 Mr. HILL. But you get no more profit ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. No; we gave them the benefit of it. If any tariff 
 is reduced by certain proportions, the manufacturer will get the 
 benefit of it. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I supposed it would go to the other side. 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. No; here. 
 
 Mr. HILL. The man who buys and manufactures it ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HILL. He passes it on down to the consumer, just as you pass 
 it down to him, does he not ? 
 
 Mr. JACKSON. That is a question. 
 
 STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. ASHLEY, ESQ., REPRESENTING THE 
 
 SISSON MARBLE CO. 
 
 Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent the Sisson 
 Marble Co. and the sentiment of 10 others from whom we have 
 heard, in a quick correspondence on the subject, in regard to the 
 tariff on marble, which is covered in paragraphs 111, 112, and 114. 
 
 The present assessment of block marble, taking that as a basis, 
 is 65 cents a cubic foot. The average cost of quarrying marble in 
 this country ranges from 40 to 60 cents a cubic foot. The average 
 cost, using as a basis the white marble, the Carrara marble, on 
 board ship, is 83.10 per cubic foot. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 937 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 It is not only that it is excessive when compared to the cost of 
 marble in this country, but the range of the duties on sawed mate- 
 rial is inequitable. For instance, if you take a block of marble 
 and saw it into slabs, say three-quarters to an inch thick, it costs 
 you 60 cents a cubic foot for the service. You can obtain from 10 
 to 11 slabs. It makes the cost in this country for slabs 1 inch thick 
 37 cents per superficial foot. You can buy those same slabs in 
 Italy and the exporter will be paid at \1\ or 18 cents on board ship. 
 I put it in my statement here 10 pence, which is 20 cents, and with 
 the prevailing duties at 8 cents and the ocean freight at 3 cents, it 
 amounts to 31 cents, against the cost in this country of 37 cents. 
 
 I want to say, simply as a matter of revenue, if the duties are kept 
 on block marble the duties on the sawed material should be rearranged 
 at least to make it possible that a manufactory or mill in this country 
 can produce from a block of marble, which is the raw material, at a 
 cost not exceeding that at which it can be imported. 
 
 Under one of these schedules, there is no provision made for an 
 article that is largely imported. Wecallitgranito. It is being assessed 
 at present under paragraph 480. They have tried numerous ways of 
 having it admitted under the classification of waste at 10 per cent, 
 but under paragraph 480 it has a duty of 20 per cent. This granito 
 costs on board steamer on the other side one-filth of 1 cent per pound, 
 or $4 a ton of 2,000 pounds. The freight on that is $4. That is $8, 
 which is the cost to land it exclusive of duties. It is sold in this 
 country from $9.50 to $10, the cost not exceeding $5, manufactured 
 on this side. 
 
 Under the same classifications you are admitting granite, sandstone, 
 limestone, and other material of that character on a basis of 10 cents 
 a cubic foot. Why should this discrimination be made against mar- 
 ble? There is a large percentage of limestone, Italian and French, 
 that is now known to the architectural trade and to the trade gen- 
 erally as monotone marbles, which is being used for decorative pur- 
 poses limestone 10 cents, granite 10 cents, sandstone 10 cents, mar- 
 ble 65 cents. 
 
 It is easily explainable how duties on marble was arrived at 65 
 cents. 
 
 Speaking for the manufacturers, and I have known them for the 
 last 30 years, who have been accustomed to bear this burden, if this 
 duty is retained at 65 cents we desire to ask your committee to at 
 least readjust the duties on the sawed material so that we can produce 
 them in this country at a cost not exceeding that at which it can be 
 imported. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions ? That is all. 
 
 BALTIMORE, MD., January 4, 191i. 
 
 To the honorable COMMITTEE ON WATS AND MEANS, 
 
 Washing Ion, D. C. 
 GENTLEMEN: 
 Present tariff on marble and onyx: 
 
 On block per cubic foot. 
 
 Sawed over 2 inches thick per cubic foot. 
 
 Slabs 1 inch and under per superficial foot. 
 
 Slabs over 1 inch and not exceeding H inches per superficial foot. 
 
 Slabs over 1 inches and not more than 2 inches thick... per superficial foot. 
 
 $0.65 
 1.00 
 .08 
 .10 
 .12* 
 
938 TABIPF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 This classification of rates discriminates in favor of slabs sawed abroad, thus: 
 
 Average cost of Italian white ordinary, marble in this country, duties and freight 
 paid, is $3.10 per cubic foot. 
 
 Cost of sawing in this country, 60 cents per cubic foot. 
 
 Ten slabs of 1 inch thickness can be produced to the cubic foot, making the cost 
 of 1-inch slabs produced in this country 37 cents per superficial foot. 
 
 Slabs not exceeding 1 inch thick can be purchased abroad f . o. b. steamer at 
 
 cost of 10d., say per superficial foot. . $0. 20 
 
 Prevailing duties per superficial foot.. .08 
 
 Ocean freight per superficial foot.. .03 
 
 .31 
 
 A differential of approximately 20 per cent in favor of imported slabs not exceed- 
 ing 1 inch thick. 
 
 The differential in favor of imported slabs over 1-inch and not exceeding 1$ inches 
 is approximately 15 per cent. 
 
 We claim that if the present rate is continued on blocks, the schedule on slabs 
 should be increased to equalize costs. 
 
 Other than a source of revenue there is no logical reason for duty on marble in 
 block form (which is raw material), for the reason that the average cost of quarrying 
 marble in this country is approximately 50 cents to 60 cents per cubic foot. 
 
 The average cost of Italian ordinary white blocks, f. o. b. steamer abroad, is $2 
 per cubic foot; ocean freight, 45 cents per cubic foot. 
 
 Paragraph 111 should be amended to include breccia, which is not provided for in 
 existing classification, excepting wholly or partly manufactured. 
 
 The existing schedules admit freestone, granite, sandstone, and limestone, unmanu- 
 factured or not dressed, hewn, or polished, at 10 cente per cubic foot. 
 
 Does any reason exist why marble blocks should be made to pay a duty six and one- 
 half times as high as that assessed against limestone, granite, etc.? It is, however, 
 easily explainable in that limestone, granite, sandstone, and freestone are not quarried 
 in Vermont, from which influence the present rate on block marble was assessed to 
 provide a needless protection for a material that cost less to quarry than the duty 
 assessed. If block marble abroad were given away and ocean freight free, then the 
 prevailing duties still represent an excess of the cost of quarrying in this country. 
 
 Granito, which is imported largely, is not provided for under the existing tariff law, 
 but is assessed at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 480. This material, made 
 from spalls of white ordinary Italian marble, can be purchased abroad at lit. 2.40 per 
 100 kilos f. o. b. steamer, Bay one-fifth of 1 cent per pound, or say $4 per ton of 2,000 
 pounds. Freight on same, say $4 per ton, as against a net cost of $5 per ton when 
 produced in this country. 
 
 We suggest this article be admitted free of duty. 
 
 Placquettes or mosaic cubes of white ordinary Italian can be purchased abroad for 
 lit. 12 per 100 kilos, say 1 cent per pound, or $20 per ton of 2,000 pounds f. o. b. steamer. 
 The demand for it has decreased gradually for past decade, largely because of excessive 
 duties, which are substantially 45 per cent, and should be reasonably reduced. 
 
 We suggest that paragraphs 111, 112, 114 be revised to read: 
 
 "Marble, breccia, onyx, freestone, granite, sandstone, limestone, and all other monu- 
 mental or building marble and stone, in block, rough or squared only, unman ufac- 
 tured, or not dressed, hewn, sawed, or polished, ten cents per cubic foot; marble, 
 breccia, and onyx sawed over two inches in thickness seventy-five cents per cubic 
 foot; slabs or paving tile of marble, containing not less than four superficial inches, 
 if not more than one inch in thickness, eight cents per superficial foot; if more than 
 one inch and not more than one and one-half inches in thickness, ten cents per super- 
 ficial foot; if more than one and one-half inches and not more than two inches in 
 thickness, fifteen cents per superficial foot; if rubbed in whole or in part, three cents 
 per superficial foot in addition; mosaic cubes of marble not exceeding two inches iu 
 size, if loose, twenty per centum ad valorem; if attached to paper or other material, 
 thirty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 
 "Marble, breccia, onyx, alabaster, limestone, and jet wholly or partly manufactured 
 into monuments, benches, vases, architectural designs, and other articles or of which 
 these substances or either of them is the component material of chief value, and all 
 articles composed wholly or in chief value of agate, rock crystal, or other semiprecious 
 stones, except such as are cut into shapes and forms fitting them expressly for use in 
 
SCHEDULE B. 939 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 the construction of jewelry, not specially provided for in this section, fifty per centum 
 ad valorem." 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Yours, truly, SISSON MARBLE Co., 
 
 Per GEO. W. ASHLEY, President. 
 
 PEORIA STONE & MARBLE WORKS, 
 
 Peoria, III., January 2, 191S. 
 Mr. GEO. W. ASHLEY, 
 
 Care of Sisson Marble Co., Baltimore. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We beg to advise you that we certainly favor a reduction in the tariff on 
 imported marble and feel that block marble should come in free of duty as the cost of 
 producing domestic material does not amount to as much as the duty per cubic foot. 
 There is several million dollars invested in manufacturing plants that their existence 
 depends on the use of imported marble as the producers of domestic material make the 
 price so that we can not buy their stock and compete against them, which we are com- 
 pelled to do. 
 
 The duty imposed places the foreign product in the hands of a few wealthy importers 
 and bars the smaller manufacturer in this country from purchasing his material direct 
 from the producer on the other side, and we have always noticed the large importers 
 who have representatives in this country oppose the reduction in duty, as the imposing 
 of a duty enabled them to control the situation here and charge us such profit as they 
 see fit. 
 
 We certainly hope the Ways and Means Committee will assist the manufacturers of 
 this country to break up any combination that may exist by taking off all duty and 
 let us have free raw material. 
 
 Yours, truly, PEORIA STONE & MARBLE WORKS, 
 
 Per H. A. FARLEY. 
 
 STANDARD MARBLE WORKS, 
 
 Cincinnati, December 16, 191g. 
 Mr. GEO. W. ASHLEY, 
 
 Care of Sisson Marble Co., Baltimore, Md. 
 
 DEAR SIR: I have your letter of the 14th instant and note the contents. I cer- 
 tainly think that some concerted action should be taken to bring to the attention of 
 the Ways and Means Committee the schedule of tariff now levied on marble, as 
 being excessive and inconsistent. They should be told emphatically that the present 
 duty is excessive and inconsistent. I am heartily in favor of having the duty on 
 block marble taken off entirely. If any duty is placed on marble, let it be on slabs 
 and finished stock and on finished stock in particular. 
 
 I understand that finished marble when intended for church purposes is brought in 
 free, and this should be called to the attention of the Ways and Means Committee and 
 a heavy duty placed on marble of this character. 
 
 I am ready to act with you, and if you will advise me what I can do to bring the 
 matter in a proper way to the attention of the Ways and Means Committee, I will be 
 glad to act promptly. 
 
 Yours, very truly, JOHN M. MUELLER, Jr. 
 
 HENRY MARBLE Co., 
 
 Chicago, January 2, 1913 
 SISSON MARBLE Co., Baltimore, Md. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: Replying to your inquiry regarding our views on the subject of tariff 
 on marble would state that we are strongly in favor of a reduction in the tariff, and 
 can not see how we can successfully compete with some other materials that are 
 thrown on the market at the present time, unless tariff is reduced considerably on 
 imported marbles. Hope your committee will be successful in influencing this re- 
 duction at an early date. 
 
 Yours, very truly, HENRY MARBLE Co., 
 
 Per H. K. TOWNSEND. 
 
940 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 MARBLE. 
 
 FEENEY & DEVANNY Co., 
 New York City, N. Y., December 16, 1912. 
 Mr. G. W. ASHLEY, 
 
 Care of the Sisson Marble Co., Baltimore, Md. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We acknowledge' receipt of your letter of the 14th instant regarding 
 the tariff on marble. -We heartily agree with your views and presume that you have 
 some plan in mind and in going over the matter we take this occasion of a hearty co- 
 operation and when your plans are formulated we would appreciate the opportunity 
 to participate in them. 
 
 Very truly, yours, FEENEY & DEVANNY Co. 
 
 GORDON STEWART. 
 
 N. O. NELSON MARBLE Co., 
 Edwardsville, III., December 16, 1912. 
 SISSON MARBLE Co., Baltimore, Md. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: We have your favor of the 14th, addressed to the Illinois Marble Co., 
 whose successors we are. We agree with you that the present tariff on imported 
 marble is excessive, and we would have no objection to joining in with other marble 
 dealers in getting the tariff reduced. In fact, it seems to us that when the Democrats 
 get to work on the tariff there will not be much trouble in getting them to cut this 
 item, as well as many others. 
 
 We are with you in this movement and will be glad to join forces with you and 
 others when the proper time comes. 
 
 Yours, truly, N. O. NELSON MARBLE Co., 
 
 L. D. LAWINN, Treasurer. 
 
 THE CHAS. MCDONALD MARBLE Co. (!NC.), 
 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, December 21, 1912. 
 GEO. W. ASHLEY, 
 
 Care of Sisson Marble Co., Baltimore, Md. 
 
 DEAR SIR: We are in receipt of yours of the 14th and think some concerted action 
 should be taken regarding the marble tariff. 
 
 The board of directors of the National Association of Marble Dealers had a meeting 
 here Thursday and those not interested in native quarries thought it was all right. 
 Mr. Farley said that he was going on to Washington, and that he had had several talks 
 with Mr. Champ Clark regarding the matter. 
 
 Kindly keep the writer advised regarding the situation. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 THE CHAS. MCDONALD MARBLE Co., 
 Per WINSLOW. 
 
 JACOBY & SON Co., KEYSTONE MARBLE WORKS, 
 
 Philadelphia, December 14, 1912. 
 SISSON MARBLE Co., 
 
 West, Twenty-third Street and Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, Baltimore, Md. 
 GENTLEMEN: Replying to yours of 13th, would say that we agree with you that 
 something should be done to reduce tariff on marble and will be glad to do our share 
 in the matter. 
 
 Yours, truly, JACOBY & SON Co. 
 
 II. MARQUARDT MARBLE AND GRANITE Co., 
 
 St. Louis, Mo., December 16, 1912. 
 
 Messrs. SISSON MARBLE Co., . 
 
 West T verity-third Street and Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 
 
 Baltimore, Md. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: Wo have received your favor regarding the new schedule of ocean 
 freight rate? and tariff, etc., which may come up before the Committee on Ways and 
 Means, said rates and tariff discriminating apparently in favor of the domestic marble 
 combinations. 
 
 We certainly are willing to aid in the revision of said tariff, if advised. 
 Hoping it will be successfully carried out, we remain, 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 II. MARQUARDT MARBLE & GRANITE Co., 
 Per H. M. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 941 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 111-112 -ONYX. 
 
 JAMES B. CLOW & SONS, 
 
 Chicago, December 16, 1919. 
 SISSON MARBLE Co., 
 
 West Twenty-third Street and Baltimore <fc Ohio Railroad, 
 
 Baltimore, Md. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: I think if we let the Democrats alone they will put the tariff down 
 low enough. I never did see any reason except from the standpoint of revenue, why 
 there should be a duty on a noncompetitive product like Italian marble that is used 
 for different purposes than our regular run of white American marble. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 W. E. CLOW, President. 
 
 JOHN H. SHIPWAY & BRO., 
 
 New York, December 17, 1919. 
 The SISSON MARBLE Co., 
 
 Baltimore, Md. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: Replying to your favor of December 14, which has just come to hand, 
 the writer has taken the matter up with two or three different manufacturers in New 
 York, and we are going to bring it before our executive committee of the Marble 
 Industry Employers' Association. As soon as something definite has been decided 
 upon we shall be very pleased to immediately communicate with you. 
 
 We believe that the duty on block marble should be abolished, and we shall work 
 toward that end, keeping you informed of everything that happens before the time 
 when the matter is to be heard. 
 
 We wish to thank you for your kindness in bringing this matter to our attention, 
 and beg to remain, 
 
 Yours, very truly, JOHN H. SHIPWAY & BRO., 
 
 Per J. H. SHIPWAY. 
 
 ONYX. 
 
 PROTEST AGAINST REMOVAL OF DUTY. 
 
 PEDRARA ONYX Co., 
 San Diego, Col., January 18, 191S. 
 Hon. WILLIAM KETTNER, 
 
 United States Representative, Eleventh District of California, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: I would appreciate your cooperation in the following matter pertaining 
 to the removal of the import duty of 65 cents per cubic foot imposed upon our product 
 at the present time, and concerning same I wish to present the following facts, which 
 I believe justify the attitude of myself and associates in this company in this matter. 
 
 First. Should this duty of 65 cents per cubic foot be removed from our product, it 
 would still be absolutely impossible for us to produce and land our product in the 
 United States for the price at which domestic marbles are sold to the retail trade. The 
 majority of the domestic marbles commands a price of from $1 to $1.25 per cubic foot 
 less at retail than that at which we can produce and land onyx in the United States. 
 
 Second. There is absolutely no onyx in the United States of marketable quality in 
 sufficient quantity to warrant placing it upon the market. Consequently we would 
 not be competing with home products in any way. 
 
 Third. We are at this time at a great disadvantage with our competitors in the im- 
 portation of foreign colored marbles into the United States, because of the inaccessible 
 location of our quarries and the peculiar conditions surrounding them necessary to 
 the production of our onyx, which preclude even a legitimate competition on our part 
 with any pf the imported colored foreign marbles. 
 
 Fourth. We also wish to call to your attention at this time that our company is 
 strictly an American company, organized in the United States and operating in 
 Mexico, whereas in 99 per cent of the cases pur competitors in the importation of for- 
 eign colored marbles are controlled by foreign capital, and the United States there- 
 lore derives no benefit whatever from them. But, on account of our financial back- 
 
942 TAEIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 114 GRANITE. 
 
 ing, as above stated, being in the United StateSj the sale of our product is not a drain 
 upon the financial resources of the country, as is naturally the case with foreign cor- 
 porations operating in the United States. On the contrary, the proceeds of this com- 
 pany are a direct asset to the general financial condition in this country. 
 Your requests for any further information or data will receive my prompt attention. 
 Your cooperation in this matter, as previously stated', will be personally appreciated. 
 Thanking you in advance for an early reply, I beg to remain, 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 PEDRARA ONYX Co., 
 F. J. LEA, 
 Vice President and General Manager. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 113. 
 
 Burrstones, manufactured or bound up into millstones, fifteen per centum 
 ad valorem. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 114. 
 
 Freestone, granite, sandstone, limestone, and all other monumental or 
 building stone, except marble, breccia, and onyx, not specially provided for 
 in this section, hewn, dressed, or polished, or otherwise manufactured, fifty 
 per centum ad valorem ; unmanufactured, or not dressed, hewn, or polished, 
 ten cents per cubic foot. 
 
 GRANITE. 
 
 STATEMENT OF FRANK J. HANOLD, REPRESENTING THE 
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GRANITE DEALERS. 
 
 Mr. HANOLD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am not Mr. William 
 M. Dodd. Mr. Dodd telegraphed me to represent him. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Give your name and address to the stenographer. 
 
 Mr. HANOLD. My name is Frank J. Hanold, of Townsend, Townsend 
 & Co., 453 West Twenty-first Street, New York City. I might also 
 say that you have allotted me from 3.40 to 3.50 p. m. on behalf of my 
 own firm. In what I have to say as representing the wholesale 
 granite dealers, I will cover ground on behalf of my. own firm at the 
 same time, and it will be unnecessary to give me that tune this 
 afternoon. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What paragraph are you interested in? 
 
 Mr. HANOLD. Paragraph 114. 
 
 On behalf of the National Wholesale Granite Dealers Association, 
 comprising 18 firms engaged in the business of selling domestic and 
 imported granite monuments at wholesale, respectfully recommend 
 that section B, paragraph 114, of tariff act of August 5, 1909, be 
 amended by reducing the tariff on manufactured granite mentioned 
 in said paragraph from 50 per cent ad valorem to 20 per cent ad 
 valorem. 
 
 The present rate of 50 per cent ad valorem is prohibitive to that 
 extent, that the cost of imported granite monuments is far in excess 
 of the cost of the same article of domestic manufacture, so that the 
 importation of granite monuments has diminished, resulting not only 
 in preventing the imported article reaching the consumer of moderate 
 means, but must have resulted in decreased revenue to the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 943 
 
 PARAGRAPH 11-t-GRANTTE. 
 
 I have prepared a brief in which are submitted plans of certain 
 classes of monuments that we deal in, the class of goods that we 
 import. I do not wish to take up your time to read this brief, but I 
 wish to state that in computing the cost of these monuments we first 
 show the cost of imported granite monuments, delivered f. o. b. cars 
 at New York, at the present tariff rate of 50 per cent ad valorem ; then 
 we show the relative cost of imported granite monuments, delivered 
 f. o. b. cars at New York, based on a tariff rate of 20 per cent ad 
 valorem; and then we show the present cost of the same article of 
 domestic granite manufacture, delivered f. o. b. cars at the quarries. 
 
 Your attention is specially directed to the fact that under a tariff 
 of 20 per cent ad valorem the cost of the imported article will still 
 be in excess of the cost of the domestic article, thereby furnishing 
 protection to the American industry and at the same tune will afford 
 the consumer the opportunity to purchase imported goods at reason- 
 able prices, which must result in increased imports and consequently 
 greater revenue to the Government. 
 
 I am prepared now to answer any questions on the subject. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions, gentlemen ? [After a 
 pause.] That is all. 
 
 Mr. HANOLD. Thank you. 
 
 Mr. Hanold's brief is as follows: 
 
 The cost of monuments, as per plans attached, are computed as follows: 
 
 First. Cost of imported granite f . o. b. Aberdeen, Scotland, the place of manufacture, 
 in pounds, at $4.8665. Duty at 50 per cent ad valorem. Freight from Aberdeen and 
 delivery charges to f. o. b. cars at New York, based on actual experience on goods that 
 have been imported. 
 
 Second. Cost of goods, same as above, but based on a tariff of 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Third. Cost price of same article in domestic granite, including delivery f. o. b. 
 cars at quarry. 
 
 PLAN 7744. 
 
 At 50 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 2.14 $13.34 
 
 Duty, 50 per cent ad valorem 6. 67 
 
 Freight and delivery f . o. b. cars, New York 4. 57 
 
 24.58 
 At 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 2.14 13.34 
 
 Duty at 20 per cent ad valorem 2. 67 
 
 Freight and delivery f. o. b. cars, New York 4. 57 
 
 20.58 
 Cost in domestic granite. 
 
 Delivered f . o. b. cars at quarry 13. 00 
 
 PLAN 8185. 
 At 50 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 4.14 $22.87 
 
 Duty, at 50 per cent ad valorem 11. 44 
 
 Freight and delivery f. o. b. cars at New York 7. 11 
 
 41.42 
 
944 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 114 GRANITE. 
 
 At 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 4.14 $22.87 
 
 Duty, at 20 per cent ad valorem 4. 58 
 
 Freight and delivery f. o. b. cars, New York 7. 11 
 
 34.56 
 Cost in domestic granite. 
 
 Delivered L o. b. cars at quarry 30. 00 
 
 PLAN 8212. 
 At 50 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 4.15 $23.11 
 
 Duty, at 50 per cent ad valorem 11. 55 
 
 Freight and delivery f . o. b cars, New York 7. 11 
 
 41.77 
 At 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 4.15 23. 11 
 
 Duty, at 50 per cent ad valorem 4. 62 
 
 Freignt and delivery f . o. b. cars, New York '. 7. 11 
 
 34.84 
 Cost in domestic granite. 
 
 Delivered f . o. b. cars at quarry 30. 00 
 
 PLAN 8093. 
 At 50 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 6 $29. 19 
 
 Duty, 50 per cent ad valorem 14. 59 
 
 Freight and delivery, f . o. b. cars New York 9. 50 
 
 53.28 
 
 At 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 6 29. 19 
 
 Duty, 20 per cent ad valorem 5. 82 
 
 Freight and delivery, f. o. b. cars New York -. 9. 50 
 
 44.51 
 
 Cost in domestic granite. 
 
 Delivered f . o . b . cars at quarry 36. 00 
 
 PLAN 8090. 
 At 50 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 6.17.6 $33. 45 
 
 Duty, 50 per cent: ad valorem 16. 73 
 
 Freignt and delivery, f. o. 1). curs New York 10. 63 
 
 60.81 
 
 At 20 per cent ad -valorem. 
 
 Cost, 0.17.6 33.45 
 
 Duty, 20 per cent ad valorem 6. 69 
 
 Freight and delivery, f. o. b. cars New York 10. 63 
 
 50.77 
 
 Cost in dojnestic granite. 
 
 Delivered f . o. b. cars at quarry 40. 00 
 
SCHEDULE B. 945 
 
 PARAGRAPH 114 GRANITE. 
 
 PLAN 8120. 
 At 50 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 8 . 15 $42. 58 
 
 Duty, 50 per cent ad valorem 21. 29 
 
 Freight and delivery, f . o. b. cars New York 12. 49 
 
 76.36 
 At 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 8.15 42.58 
 
 Duty, 20 per cent ad valorem 8. 52 
 
 Freight and delivery, f. o. b. cars New York 12. 49 
 
 63.59 
 
 Cost in domestic granite. 
 
 Delivered f . o. b. cars at quarry 53. 00 
 
 PLAN 8123. 
 At 50 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 11.10 $55.96 
 
 Duty, 50 per cent ad valorem 27. 98 
 
 Freight and delivery, f. o. b. cars New York 16. 38 
 
 100. 32 
 
 At 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 11 .10 55. 96 
 
 Duty, 20 per cent ad valorem 11. 20 
 
 Freight and delivery f . o. b. cars New York 16. 38 
 
 83.54 
 
 Cost in domestic granite. 
 
 Delivered f . o. b. cars at quarry 68. 00 
 
 PLAN 7943. 
 
 At 50 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 12.5 $59. 61 
 
 Duty, 50 per cent ad valorem 29. 80 
 
 Freight and delivery f . o. b. cars New York 18. 72 
 
 108. 13 
 
 At SO per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 12.5 59. 61 
 
 Duty, 20 per cent ad valorem 11. 92 
 
 Freight and delivery f . o. b. cars New York 18. 72 
 
 90.25 
 
 Cost in domestic granite. 
 
 Delivered f. o. b. cars at quarry 87. 00 
 
 PLAN 8015. 
 
 At -50 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 12 $60. 82 
 
 Duty, at 50 per cent ad valorem 30. 41 
 
 Freight and delivery f. o. b. cars New York 19. 13 
 
 110. 36 
 78959 s YOL 113 60 
 
946 TARIFF HEARINGS. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 114 GRANITE. 
 
 At 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 12 $60. 82 
 
 Duty, 20 per cent ad valorem 12.17 
 
 Freight and delivery f. o. b. cars New York 19. 13 
 
 92.12 
 
 Cost in domestic granite. 
 Delivered f. o. b. cars at quarry 88. 00 
 
 PLAN 7967. 
 At 50 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 15 $72. 99 
 
 Duty, 50 per cent ad valorem . * 36:50 
 
 Freight and delivery f . o. b. cars New York 22. 67 
 
 132. 16 
 At 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 15 72. 99 
 
 Duty, 20 per cent ad valorem 14. 60 
 
 Freight and delivery f . o. b. cars New York 22. 67 
 
 110. 26 
 
 Cost in domestic granite. 
 
 Delivered f . o. b. cars at quarry 95. 00 
 
 PLAN 8044. 
 At 50 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Cost, 16.5 $79. 08 
 
 Duty, 50 per cent ad valorem 39. 54 
 
 Freight and delivery f . o. b. cars New York 24. 10 
 
 142. 72 
 At 20 per cent ad valortr:. 
 
 Cost, 16.5 79. 08 
 
 Duty, 20 per cent ad valorem 15. 82 
 
 Freight and deliverv f . o. b . cars New York. . 24. 10 
 
 119. 00 
 
 PARAGRAPH 115. 
 
 Grindstones, finished or unfinished, one dollar and seventy-five cents 
 per ton. 
 
 PARAGRAPH 116. 
 
 Slates, slate chimney pieces, mantels, slabs for tables, roofing slates, and 
 all other manufactures of slate, not specially provided for in this section, 
 twenty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 SWEARING OF WITNESSES. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Genrlemen. I believe. Mr. James has a motion to 
 make. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman. I move that after to-day's hearing, all 
 witnesses that appear before the committee be first sworn. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. 1 have no objection if we have authority; I do not 
 know as we have authoritv. 
 
SCHEDULE B. 947 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I think there is authority under the general stat- 
 ute 
 
 Mr. DALZELL. Did we not have to pass a resolution at the time of 
 the hearings on the Payne bill ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We did, but it was not necessary. 
 
 Mr. JAMES. The general statute authorizes the chairman to swear 
 witnesses. 
 
 Mr. HULL. Is the statute broad enough so that one sitting for the 
 chairman may administer the oath ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Do you wish to discuss this motion, gentle- 
 men ? If not, I will put the question. 
 
 The motion was adopted. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned until 10 
 o'clock to-morrow morning. 
 
 Whereupon, at 7.20 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 
 to-morrow, January 10, 1913, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
 
 [E VOL. 1) 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A. 
 
UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 A 000 569 248 8