UNIVERSITY OF CA/.IFORNIA 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 I
 
 TARIFF HEARINGS 
 
 BEFOKE TUE 
 
 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS. 
 
 SECOND SE^>>!()\. FIFTY-roniTH CONGRESS. 
 
 189 0-9 7. 
 
 IN TWO VOLUMES, 
 
 volu:me I. 
 
 WASHINGTON : 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
 1897.
 
 r- 
 
 
 oO 
 
 a 
 
 Q 
 
 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 Fifty-fourth Congress. 
 
 NELSON DINGLEY, Jr., Chairman. 
 
 SERENO E. PAYNE. 
 JOHN DALZKLL. 
 ALBERT J. HOl'KIN.'^. 
 CHARLES H. GROSVKNOR. 
 CHARLES A. RUSSELL. 
 JONATHAN P. DOLLIVER. 
 GEORGE W. STEELE. 
 MARTIN N. JOHNSON. 
 
 WALTER EVANS. 
 JAMES A. TAWNEY. 
 BENTON McMILLIN. 
 HENRY G. TURNER. 
 SETH W. COBB. 
 JOSEPH WHEELER. 
 JOHN L. McLAURIN. 
 CHARLES J. BOATNEE. 
 
 HiiRUKKT M. LoKD, Clerk. 
 
 
 \ 
 ^
 
 SCHEDULE A.. 
 
 CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS.
 
 Schedule A.-CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS S. HARRISON. OF PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 .MO'DAY, December 28, 1896. 
 
 Mr. IlARRiso?f. Mr. Cliaiiimiii and gentlemen of tlie committee, I 
 wonld state tliat I liave not been selected to make an argument at all, 
 hut simply to say that at a meeting held at Philadelphia, which was 
 larjjcly attended by meiidjers of the Manufacturers' Chemical Associa- 
 tion and others interested in the schedule, a committee of iive was 
 a]>i)ointed to lake up that schedule and make such suggestions as were 
 necessary and advisable. That committee received instructions from 
 the main body esi)ecially on the two jtointsof moderation and an effort 
 to change where it may be possible from an ad valorem to specific 
 rates. The committee is now at work, and if it bo your pleasure to 
 receive fronj it their suggestions, we will jnesent them to you in the 
 course of a few days in writing. 
 
 You are well aware. 1 have no doubt, of the importance of the 
 chenncal industry of thi.'S country at the i)resent time. I think some 
 $ir)(),()0(),(K)() of capital is invested in the j)roducts, or close to that 
 sum. You are also aware of the amount of brain work that is ueces- 
 Rary in the i)roducti()n of the articles of that schedule, and while the 
 industry asks no favors, it still does think it is entitled to justice. 
 Unfortunately, it is between the upi)er and nether millstones, as I said 
 this nntrning to one of the members of your committee, as all the other 
 industries, textile and others that use ehenncals, feel that they should 
 have the articles at something like the ])riccs which are paid abroad by 
 parties who buy them, and therelbre are unwilling to give us the same 
 meed of protection that they theujselves demand on account of the 
 differences in the cost of labor, and the exporters on the other side seek 
 to bring in the goods from Europe and other countries. We are con- 
 fronted now with competition also from China and Japan. There are 
 certain articles in that schedule to which we will call your attention of 
 tiie great danger that exists from that source. I know that the com- 
 mittee has many more to hear, and simply with these few words and a 
 ])romise on the part of the gentlemen who were at that meeting to 
 furnish you with the suggestions which they respectfully hope you will 
 consider, I have nothing more to say. 
 
 7
 
 8 SCHEDULE A. — CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED BY THE MANUFACTUR- 
 ING CHEMISTS' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 The customs duties imposed on articles covered by Schedule A, in 
 the tariff act of October, 1890, known as the McKinley bill, and that 
 of August, 1894, known as the Wilson bill have been compared, item 
 by item, by your committee, as carefully as time would permit, and the 
 suggestions that will now be presented are submitted for your consid- 
 eration. Your committee is desirous that every interest should be 
 treated impartially; it favors moderate and, therefore, reasonable rates, 
 and urges specific instead of ad valorem rates, as far as practicable. 
 
 That duties imposed on oils, ])aints, chemicals, and other articles 
 included in Schedule A are already low, by average, as compared with 
 other products of industry embraced in the other schedules, is simply 
 a fact capable of demonstration, and may be asserted without fear of 
 contradiction. 
 
 Specific rates are recommended as far us they may be practicable. 
 In some instances ad valorem duties can not be avoided — for example, 
 where a general clause, known as a blanket clause, or drag-net <-lause, 
 covers a number of items, too numerous to be mentioiu'd in detail and 
 varying greatly in value, as in the case of paragraph GO of the Wilson 
 bill: 
 
 Products or preparation known as alkalies, alkaloids, dietilled oils, essential oils, 
 expressed oils, rendered oils, and all combinations of tbo loregoint;, and all rheuii- 
 cal compounds and salts, not specially provided for in tliis act, 25 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Ad valorem rates are avoided very generally in Europe — notably in 
 France — and specific duties have been accepted there, as they should 
 be here, because they more fully protect the Government, the home 
 manufacturer, and the honest importer. Tons, pounds, ounces, gabons, 
 etc., can be determined accurately, specific duties calculated readily, 
 and fraud be ])reveuted surely. In the case of duties imposed accoril- 
 ing to valuation, contention and friction must be anticii)ated. The 
 Government officials may difler even from the imi)orter who means no 
 wrong, while intentional undervaluation may be expected from the 
 importer whose disposition to defraud the Government and secure 
 unfair advantage over loyal and honest importers is checked only by 
 liability of detection. In offering specific duties, care has been taken, 
 as far as the Hmited time at the disposal of your committee would per- 
 mit, to ascertain the equivalent ad valorem rates, based upon average 
 prices abroad, covering a period of several vears. 
 
 It must beremembeiTd (and your attention is particularly directed 
 to this point) that if an article should be made dutial)le at even a (luite 
 moderate specific rate at a time when the price rules low abroad such 
 specific rate converted into an ad valorem would indicate what minht 
 be regarded as too high a percentage; but the converse of this proposi- 
 tion must be equally true, of course. Therefore, the onlv equitable and 
 just method is to take an average price as a basis, reviewing a number 
 of years, and to adjust the specific dutv on such averaoe price This 
 your committee has done, and this but gives a rate of protection fair 
 by average, whde seemingly at times it may be too low, at others too 
 
 n^ii .? w *K ^^^'' ^^'^'''^^ ^"*>'^" ^'-^ ^^'iaWe chemicals, as nan ed 
 
 ^00 H^^ .^; ?^ t^l^^ount of the duties collected under the act of 
 
 1890 without taking the value entered as free, the average of the recom 
 
 mendation of your committee will be found to be less than -5 per ce^ ?• 
 
 and with the value of the free list, chemicals included, tess than 8 ^e;
 
 SCHEDULE AND RATES. 9 
 
 When we coiiBidcr the extent of the chemical Industry of the United 
 States, in wliich are invested over 8ir)0,(K)0,000, an industry that 
 requires the highest ability, witli technical education and complete 
 training far beyond the need of the majority of other branches of manu- 
 facture, it surely can not be thought unreasonable that an average of 
 25 per cent be required and given, especially when the average of the 
 duties required by others is, claimed to be over 40 per cent. As has 
 been said, the ciremical industry asks no favors — only fair treatment 
 and justice, and that it shall not be sacriliced to serve the seliish pur- 
 poses of the importers or those manufacturers who consume chemicals. 
 
 Thomas S. Harrison, 
 Chairman^ Thirtyjiftli and Grays Ferry Hoad, Fhiladelphiaj Pa, 
 
 PROPOSED DUTY 
 
 ACIDS. 
 
 Acetic or pyroligneouH, not exceeding tbe specICc gravity of 1.047, per 
 
 poiiml ...*. ■ I cent. 
 
 Acetic or pyroligiieous. exceeding tlie Hpecific gravity of 1.047 per pound,. 3 cents. 
 The rules proposed are less tbau the act of Ib'JO, aud will average less 
 than '20 per cent, which is the rate of the act of lb94. 
 
 Boracic per pound.. 3 cents. 
 
 The rate proposed is the same as in the act of 1894 aud less than the 
 act of 1890. 
 
 Chromic per pound.. 6 cents. 
 
 The rate proposed is the same as the act of 1890. 
 
 Citric per pound.. 8 cents. 
 
 A large industry aud one of conijiaratively recent date. Based on 
 average of foreign prices covering seveial years the rate proposed 
 would not average 25 per cent, ami is less than the act of 1890. 
 
 Sulphuric or oil of vitriol per pound.. i cent. 
 
 The same as the act of 1H90. Canada, from which competition may 
 result, levies a duty of oue-lialf cent jier pound. 
 
 Gallic per pound.. 10 cents. 
 
 Specially re<ommeuded for duty. 
 
 Tannic or ta'unin per pound.. 60 cents 
 
 The rate proposed is the same as the act of 1894 and loss than the act 
 of 1890. 
 
 Tartaric per pound.. 7 cents. 
 
 Made specific, and less than the act of 1890. 
 
 All mineral aciils, when chemically pure per pound.. 3 cents. 
 
 Sjiecially recnmniended for duty, and very necessary to the protection 
 of these iinjiortant articles. 
 Alcoholic perfumery, including cologne water and other toilet waters; 
 alcoholic compounds, not otherwise provided for. Insuflicient infor- 
 mation upon which to hase rate of duty. 
 
 ALr^r. 
 
 Crystal and ground, alum cake, patent alum, sulphate of alnmina, and 
 
 aluminous cake per pound.. ^ cent. 
 
 The rate ]iro])osed is less than the act of 18£0. 
 
 Alumina, hydrate of. and re lined bauxite per pound.. 1^ cents. 
 
 Til is paragrajdi has been revised, making an advance on the act of 
 18!)4. and a less duty than the act oT ISHO; also a different duty 
 placed on the primary materia! from that on its manufactured prod- 
 uct (alum). At the time this artii'le was originally incorporated in 
 the same paragraph witli the alums, it was comparatively little 
 known— certainly uot as a commercial .article. Its manufacture has 
 now, however, been largely developed, the staple product being hy- 
 drate of alumina, a much more expensive article than its salts. The 
 article rei|uires a costly and expensive plant and very considerable 
 chemical skill in its manufacture; furthermore, the principal mate- 
 rial used in its manufacture (soda ash or caustic soda) is now subject 
 to a duty e«iual to fully 40 per cent, and that duty it is proposed to 
 retain ; and as 1 pound of hydrate of alumina is equal to about 5 
 pounds of alum, it has been thought not unreasonable to propose the
 
 10 SCHEDULE A. — CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 above duty. In additiou, the bauxite, which is hydrate of alumina 
 in a crude or clay form, is obtained from the States ol Georgia, South 
 Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Alabama, and is iu j;reat quan- 
 tity and the development of this industry there is on a large scale. 
 It has been suggested that the article should pay a duty based on its 
 percentage of alumina, but as to the staple article, known in com- 
 merce as^hydrate of alumina, any such change would only give rise to 
 endless contention, in view of the fact that, although it can be ren- 
 dered anhydrous, its affinity for water, when placed in an anhydrous 
 condition, is such that it will immediately take up certain ]|ereent- 
 ages of moisture, resulting in a most unstable article as to its con- 
 tents of alumina. It is therefore suggested that both alumina and 
 hydrate of, as well as refined bauxite, be included under the one head 
 and no distinction made. 
 
 AMMOXIA. 
 
 Carbonate of per pound.. 
 
 Made specific, and a less duty than the act of l>iW. 
 
 Muriate of, or sal ammoniac per pouiid.. 
 
 Made specific, and the same duty as the act of 18130. 
 
 Sulphate of per pou ud . . 
 
 Made specific, and the same duty as the act of 1S90. 
 
 Bleaching powder, or hypo-chlorite or chloride of hnio per pound.. 
 
 Not heretofore especially specified. It is a dutiable article, and a very 
 important one, and should have been made in tliis coiintry many 
 years since, and would have been made under reasonable encourage- 
 ment in the way of a protective duty. We think that modern pro- 
 tection, such as is suggested, would ultinuitoly, and witiiin a very 
 short time, result to the great advantage of consumers. Manufac- 
 turers of chemicals assure us that within three nioutlis they could 
 have works in operation and that the market ])rice would not exceed 
 the present. It is now controlled by tlie I'nited Alkali Company, of 
 Great Britain^ a gigantic trust, who make prices to suit themselves, 
 having practically no competition, and it will be an article of con- 
 siderable revenue. 
 Blacking of all kinds. Insufficient information upon which to ba.se rate 
 of duty. 
 
 Blue vitriol, or sulphate of copper per pound.. 
 
 An article of great consequence and nianulacture of the United States, 
 and recommended at a rate but one-half of the act of 1890. 
 Bone char, suitable for use in decolorizing sugars. Insuliicient informa- 
 tion upon which to base rate of duty. 
 
 1 cent. 
 J cent. 
 4 cent. 
 i cent. 
 
 1 cent. 
 
 BORAX. 
 
 Borate of soda, crude and refined per pound.. 2 cents. 
 
 The rate of duty proposed is the same as the act of 1894. 
 
 Borate of lime per pound.. 1 cent. 
 
 The rate proposed is less than the act of 1894 and that of 1S!I0. the 
 article being a crude or raw material produced by one company in 
 the United States, which is said to have tlio monopoly of the same. 
 
 Calcium chloride '. . por pounil . . 4 cent. 
 
 This article is dutiable under the general clan.se, No. 60, :.'5 per cent, 
 and is taken out of said clause to guard against any possibility of its 
 being confused with chloride of li'me or bleaching powder. 
 
 Camplior, refined per pound.. 6 cents. 
 
 Made specific. The principal competition to be feared is now from 
 Japan. 
 Chalk, prepared, precipitated, French, and red; all other chalk prepara- 
 tions not otherwise provided for. Insufficient information upon which 
 to base rate of duty. 
 
 Cblorof.rm per pound.. 25 cents. 
 
 Ihe rate ot duty proposed is the same as the acts of 1890 and ISOl 
 All coal-tar colors or dyes, by whatever name known and not otherwise 
 provided for lu this act, ad valorem '>5 per ct 
 
 ^^^^^i^o^oaI^'""^"^®'^ *"* *^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^* o^ 1894 and less than" the act " 
 01 1890. 
 
 Coal-tar pitch, ad valorem 2^ «Ari.f 
 
 Heavy and light oil of coal tar, ad valorem .... ^^ n^r rt 
 
 Naphthaline, ad valorem -j per ct. 
 
 ' 2u per ct.
 
 SCHEDULE AND RATES. 
 
 11 
 
 Benzol toluol xylol, ad valorem ?n ^pr nt* 
 
 Nitrobeu/ole, ad valorem 20 S ct 
 
 Nitrotoluol, ad valorem - 9^ Lr ot" 
 
 Carbolic ami cresylic acids, ad valorem 25 ner ct 
 
 Benzoic acid, ad valorem - -:-• ---- :'' V^'V" 
 
 Cobalt, oxide of. Insufficient information upon winch to base ra^te o* a^"^y- ^^ ^^^^^^ 
 
 Thrrate' of duty proposed iV the same as the act of 189i and less than 
 
 the act of 1890. , . . , -4. 
 
 Bv whatever name known. Rolled or in sl^eets, but not made up mto 
 articles. If in finished or partly finished articles. lusulhcieut inlor- 
 raation npon which to base rate of duty. ^ . j. ■ . .■ 
 
 Coloring for brandy, wine, beer, or other liquors. Insufficient inlormation 
 
 upon which to b.ase rate of duty. . , 
 
 Copperas, or sulphate of iron ,•■--;,-•--•;• Vi^an" " •^'' ^^"""^ ' ' ^ 
 
 The rate of dutv proposed is less than the act of 1^90- 
 Drncfl such as barks, beans, berries, balsams, buds, bulbs and biilbous 
 roots, and excrescences (such as nut-alls), fruits, flowers, dried fa bers, 
 erains. eums and tium resins, herbs, leaves, lichens, mosses, nuts, roots 
 and stems, spices, vegetables, seeds (aromatic, not garden seeds), and 
 seeds of morbid growth, weeds, woods used expressly for dyeing and 
 dried insects; anv of the foregoing which are not edilde, but which 
 have been advanced in valne or condition by refining or grinding, or 
 by other process of manufacture and not otherwise provided for, ad va- ^^ ^^^^_ 
 
 lorem '* --.- i» 
 
 The same as in the acts of 1890 and 1891. 
 
 ETIIKR. 
 
 „ , , . . per pound.. 40 cents. 
 
 •^"1l'.'""'^- \.. .do..-- 25 cents. 
 
 Spirits, nitrous ^2 
 
 Fruit, oils or essein es . 
 
 All kinds, not otherwise provided lor "" 
 
 The same as the acts of 18!t0an<l 1894. ^ . f 
 
 Extracts and decoctions of logwood and <.ther dycwoo.ls; extract of 
 
 sumac and extracts of barks, such as are commonly used for dyeiug or 
 
 tanning, not otherwise pn.vided for. liquids per pound.- | cent. 
 
 Made specific, and the Slime rate as the act of 1890. 
 Anv and all of the above extracts, if in solid or dry form per pound.. U cents. 
 ' Sperially recommended for duty, this is the equivalent of the dry 
 material in the liquid. 
 
 Extracts of hemlock bark - --.--■ per pound.. i cent. 
 
 Made specific, and the same rate as the act of 1890. 
 Gelatin glue, isinglass, or lisli glue, and prepared fish bladders, or fash 
 sonndsT gelatin, glue, and isinglass, or fash glue, valued at not over 7 
 cents per pound; gelatin, glue, and isinglass, or fash glue, valued at 
 over 7 cemts per i.ound. and not over 30 cents per pound; gelatin, glue, 
 and isinghiss. or fash glue, valued at over 30 cents per pound. Insuf- 
 ficient information upon which to base rate of duty. 
 
 GLYCEHIN. 
 
 Crude, not purified r.'.no"^:: 
 
 ^ ^Botii are the same' as the act of 1894, and less than the act of 1890. 
 
 INDIGO. 
 
 Extracts or pastes of per pound.. 
 
 Carmines and indigotine ^'" 
 
 Both arc the same as th.' act of 1S!10. , . , . ^, ■ 
 
 Ink and ink powders, printers' ink. aud all other ink not otherwise pro- 
 vided for. Insufficient information upon which to base rate of duty. 
 
 Iodine, resublimed --. ----per pound 
 
 Less than the act of 1890. The American subhmers of lodme are now 
 competing with the cheap laborers of .Japan; the Japanese are now 
 sending resublimed iodine to this country. 
 - , - ^ perpound.. 
 
 The rate proposed is less than the act of 1890. 
 Licorice, extracts of, in paste, rolls, or other forms. Insufficient intorma- 
 tion upon which to base rate of duty. 
 
 1 cent. 
 3 cents. 
 
 f cent. 
 10 cents. 
 
 20 cents. 
 
 $1.
 
 12 
 
 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 MAGNESIA. 
 
 Carbonate of, medicinal per pound.. Scents. 
 
 Calcined...-'. do.... 7 cente. 
 
 Sulphate, or epsom salts - ----- ..------- - - - uo ... . t cenu. 
 
 The rates proposed are the same as the act of lib94 and less than the 
 act of 1890. 
 
 Morphia or morphine, and all salts thereof per ounce. i>0 cents. 
 
 The duty on morphia or morphine and the salts thereof has remained 
 undisturbed at 50 cents per ounce in the various tarift' bills, whether 
 enacted into laws or otherwise, and the rate has been carel'ully con- 
 sidered each time and conceded to be a fair and reasonable one. 
 Morphine is made from gum opium, which fluctuates very greatly in 
 price. Thus, December 7, 1889, opium, prime, Turkey trade, 11 to 12 
 shillings per pound ; December 20, 1890, 11^ to 13 ; December 12, 1891, 8 
 to 9; Decembers, 1892, 71 to 8i; December 16, 1893, 8i to 10; Decem- 
 ber 15, 1894, 10 to 11; December 12, 1895, 7,4, to 1^', November 28, 
 1896, 8^ to 9i\. 
 
 Alizarine assistant, by whatever name known, whether liquid, saponified 
 
 or in paste or solid per gallon . . 35 cents. 
 
 This is a reduction from some forms of the article, and is thought to 
 be sufficiently descriptive to cover all. 
 
 OIL. 
 
 Castor per gallon.. 35 cents. 
 
 The rate of duty proposed is the same as the act of 1894, ami less than 
 the act of 1890.- 
 Cod liver. Insufficient iufoniiation upon which to base rate of duty. 
 Cotton seed, per gallon of 7^ pounds weight. Insufficieut information 
 upon which to base rate of duty. 
 
 Croton per pound . . 20 cents. 
 
 The rate of duty proposed is less than the act of 1890, 
 Flaxseed or linseed, raw, boiled, or oxidized, per gallon of 7^ pounds 
 weight. Insufficient information upon wliich to base rate of duty. 
 Poppy seed has been taken out of this paragraph, and is specially 
 dutiable as below. 
 
 Poppy seed per gallon.. 6 cents. 
 
 Previous to the act of 1890, when this article was duty free, the iui- 
 portatious were in the neighborhood of 2,000 barrels per year, and 
 for the last three years, or since the act of 1890, they have been 
 only about 50 barrels per year. Poppy-seed oil can not be made here ; 
 neither can the prime oil-beaving seed be successfully cultivated on 
 oiir soil, owing to climatic conditions; it does not coinpete with any 
 of our oils— not even with linseed— as tlie poppy oil is used to umke 
 the artists' colors and ground zinc which are now imported from 
 France, England, and Germany. The price of poppy oil to-dav (if 
 free) would be 67 to 68 cents per gallon, against tiie ])rice of 33 to 
 35 cents on linseed oil, as it is not a comjietitor of the latter. With 
 the duty at 6 cents per gallon, there would be collected for reveuue 
 about $10,000 per anuum without injury to any established industry 
 and to the advantage of labor in this country in the production of 
 ground-zinc white and artists' colors. With" the duty as in the act 
 of 1894 the revenue received has been only about $600 per annum 
 
 Hemp seed and rape seed per gallon.. 10 cents. 
 
 Same rate as in the acts of 1890 and 1894. 
 
 Fusel or amylic alcohol, ad valorem jO iter ct 
 
 Sanje rate as in the acts of 1890 and 1894. 
 
 Olive, lit for salad purposes; peppermint; seal, herring, whale, and other 
 fish oil not otherwise provided for. Insufficient information re<'ardiuff 
 these three items upon which to base rate of duty. ° 
 
 OPIUM. 
 
 Aqiia, extract of, for medicinal use, and tincture of, as laudanum, and all 
 other liquid preparations of opium not otherwise provided for ad 
 
 valorem ' ' ^„ 
 
 Same rate as act of 1894. and less than act' of 1890 -0 pcr ct. 
 
 ^^smokilJl^ ^^^^ *^*° ^ ^^'^ ^^^^ ^^ morphine, and opium prepared for 
 
 Same^rate as act of 'l8'9"47 and less" than "aoVof '{890 ^*^ pouud . . $6 
 
 But opium prepared for smoking and other preparations of opium 
 deposited m l)onded warehouse, shall not be 'removed therefrom 
 without payment of duties, and such duties shall not be refunded
 
 SCHEDULE AND RATES. 13 
 
 BARYTA. 
 
 Sulphate of, or barytes, manufactured per ton.. $3 
 
 The same rate as tlie act of 18W. 
 Carbouate of, or witberite, and baryta, suljdiate of, or barytes, unmanu- 
 factured, incluiliuf? barytes earth Free. 
 
 The same as the act of 1894. 
 
 BI.UES. 
 
 Such as Berlin, Prussian, Chinese, and all others containing ferro-cyanide 
 
 of iron, dry or ground in, or mixed with oil or -water per pound.. 8 cents. 
 
 The duties reconuiunded on the raw material used in the manufacture 
 of blue render it imperative that the duty on blues be advanced to 
 8 cents per pound; also, the dilliculty of determining precisely the 
 amount of water contained in the pulp is productive of fraud upon 
 the revenue and endless contention, and in order to avoid all dilVer- 
 enees arising therefrom it is thought advisable to include both the 
 pulp and dry at the same rate. 
 Blanc fixe or artificial sulphate of barytes, and satin white or artificial 
 
 sulphate of lime per pound.. f cent. 
 
 Made specific, as opposed to a<l valorem, in the act of 1894. 
 Black made from bone, ivory, or vegetable, under whatever name known, 
 including boneblack and lampblack, dry or ground in oil or water, ad 
 
 valorem 20 per ct. 
 
 The rate proposed is the same as the act of 1894 and less than the act 
 of 1890." 
 Chrome yellow, chrome green, and all other chromium colors, dry or ground 
 
 in or mixed with oil or water per pound.. 5 cents. 
 
 The duties reconnneudod on the raw material used in the iiiauutaeture 
 of yellow and green render it imperative that the duty on yellows 
 and greens be advanced to 5 cents jier pound; also, the dithculty of 
 determining ]trecisely the amount of water contained in the pulp is 
 jiroductive of fraud upon the reveimo ;nid endless contention, and 
 in order to avoid all dillerences arising therefroui it is thought advis- 
 ul>ie to include both the pulp and dry at tiie s.uue ruto. 
 Ocher audochory eartlis, sienna and sienna earths, umber and umber earths, 
 
 not otherwise provided for, dr^' ])er pountl.. I cent. 
 
 Ground in oil do 1^ cents. 
 
 The rates jiroposed are the same as the act of 1890. 
 Ultramarine blue, whether dry, in pulp, or mixed with water, and wash 
 
 blue containing ult ratnarine per pound.. 4 cents. 
 
 Varnishes, including so-called gold size or japan, and all spirit varnishes 
 for tlie alcohol contained therein. Insufticicnt information upon which 
 to base rate of duty. 
 Vermilion red and colors containing quicksilver, dry or ground in uil or 
 
 water per pound.. 12 cents. 
 
 Made specific, and the same rate as act of 1890. 
 
 Not containing <iuicksilver, but made of lead or containing lead, per 
 
 pound 7i cents. 
 
 A slight advance over the act of 1894 and less than the act of 1890. 
 
 Whiting, and jtaris white, dry per pound.. ^ cent. 
 
 The proposed rate is the same as the act of 1894 and less than the act 
 of 1890. 
 
 Whiting, ground in oil or putty X>er pound.. 1 cent. 
 
 The proposed rate is the same .as the act of 1890, and is recommended 
 because of the duty of 20 cents per gallon on linseed oil, which is 
 equivalent to 2^ cento per pound on the oil. 
 
 ZINC, 
 
 Oxide of, and white paint containing zinc, but not containing lead, dry, 
 
 per pound 1 cent. 
 
 Oxide of, and white paint containing zinc, but not containing lead, ground 
 
 in oil per pound.. If cents. 
 
 The proposed rate in both cases is the same as the act of 1894. 
 
 Sulfid zinc white, or white sulphide of zinc per pound.. IJ cents. 
 
 All other paints, colors, and pigments, whether dry or mixed, or ground in 
 water or oil, or other solutions, including all colors in tubes, lakes, cray- 
 ons, smalts, and frostings, and not otherwise provided for, ad valorem.. 35 per ot. 
 This is an advance and essential, due to the duties on the articles com- 
 posing the various manufactures included iu this schedule, the rate 
 of 25 per cent (act of 1894) having been found so insufficient as to 
 prevent the successful production iu this country of many of the 
 other paints and pigments.
 
 14 
 
 SCHEDULE A. — CHEMICALS, OILS, AND TAINTS. 
 
 LEAD TKODUCTS. 
 
 Acetate of lead, white, crystals ----- per poiiml . . 
 
 The proposed rate ia the same as the act of 1894 and math le6s than 
 the act of 1800. 
 
 Acetate of lead, yellow, brown, and gray l>er ponud.. 
 
 The proposed rate is the same as the act of 1894 and less than the act 
 of 1890; and to make this '• acetate of lead, br<»wn.'' more specific, 
 the words " vellow and gray "' have been introduced. 
 
 Litharge -' per pound.. 
 
 Tlie proposed rate is less tliaii the act of 189(», and shouM be 1 cent |ht 
 pound above the rate inijiostd upon pig leatl. whatever that duty 
 mav be. 
 
 Nitrate of lead per pound.. 
 
 Tlic pro|>osed rate is less than the act of 1890. 
 
 Orange mineral por pound . . 
 
 The proposed rate is less than the act of IS'.H). This article is manu- 
 factured fri»ni dry or carbonate of lead, and t lie rate sliuuhl be IJ^ 
 cents per pound above the duty on pig lea«i, whatever that may be. 
 
 Red lead ' per p<>«md . . 
 
 The proposed rate is less than the act of 1890, and should be 1 cent per 
 pound above the duty on pig lea«l. whatever that may be. 
 White lead, white paint, and iiigiueiit containing bad, «iry or in pulp, or 
 
 ground, or iuixe<l with oil l>er pound.. 
 
 The rate should be 1 cent per poun«I above the duty on pig lead, 
 whatever tliat duty may be. 
 PhosphoriiB. Insullicient inl'ormation upon which to base rate of duty. 
 
 2J cent*. 
 1} centa. 
 
 2 cents. 
 
 2} cents. 
 2i cents. 
 
 2 cent*. 
 
 2 centa. 
 
 Bichromate and chromate of per pound . . 3 cento. 
 
 Madi' specilic, and tlie same rate as the act of IMH). 
 
 Caustic, or liydrate of, relincd, in stiiks ur rolls I>er pound.. 5 cento. 
 
 This is a very pure article, entirely dillereut from ordinary caustic 
 jtotash. 
 
 Cyanide of P^r pound . 10 cento. 
 
 This is here speiially designated, as eflorts have heretofore l>een made 
 to bring this article in as a coal-tar jirnduct. 
 
 Hydriodatc, iodiilcand iodate of per pound.. 25 cento. 
 
 The pro|tosoil rat« is the same aa the act of 1801, and lew than the act 
 of 1890. 
 
 Nitrate of. or saltpeter, rolined per pound.. ^ cent. 
 
 The i»ropo(scd rate ia the same aa the act of IS'.'l and less than the act 
 of 1890. 
 
 Prussia te of, red per pound.. 10 cento. 
 
 Made sitecific, and the same rate aa the act of 181M). 
 
 Prussia to of. yellow per pound.. 5 cento. 
 
 Made specific, and the same rate as the act of 18!K1. 
 All uHdicinal preparations, including me«liciiial coal tar j»reparati«in» of 
 whicii alcohol is a coiiipoiunt pjirl or iii tlie preparation of whicli alco- 
 hol is used, not specially provided t'or in tliis act per pound.. 50 cento. 
 
 Provided that no such preparation shall pay loas than L'5 per cent ad 
 
 valorem. 
 The jHoposed rate is the same aa the act of 1X94. 
 All mediriual preparations, including medicinal proprictarv ]>re]>arationa, 
 of whi<h alcohol is not a component part, and not specially i)rovidc»l for 
 
 in this act, ad valorem 25 per ct. 
 
 The same as the act of ISDO. 
 
 Calomel, and other mercurial metliciual nrejiarations, ad valorem 25 per ct. 
 
 The same as the act of 1S94 and le.sa than the act of !><*¥>. 
 Products or preparations known as alkalies, alkaloids, distilled oils, essen- 
 tial oils, expressed oils, rendered oils, and all combinations of the fore- 
 going, and all chemical coiu]iouiids and salts not specially provided for 
 
 in this act, ail valorem 25 per ct. 
 
 The same as the acts of IS'.M) and \S'M. 
 Preiiarations useil as applications to the hair, mouth, teeth, or skin, such aa 
 cosmetics, dentifrices, pastes, jiomades, powders, and all toilet preparii- 
 tions, and articles of perfumery, not specially provided tor in this act, 
 
 ad valorem 50 per ct. 
 
 Santouiue and all salts thereof, containing 80 per cent or over of santo- 
 
 nine per pound . . $1 
 
 The rate proposed is the same as the act of 1894, and less than the act 
 of 1890.
 
 SCHEDULE AND KATES. 
 
 15 
 
 80AP. 
 
 Castile per poand . . IJ cents. 
 
 Ma<le specific, and is the same as the act of 1n90. 
 Fancy, perliinied, and all d< striptions ot" toilet soap per pound.. 15 cents. 
 
 The rato proi'dsod is the same as the aft of l^i'O. 
 All otlier soajo, not otherwise provided for. ad valorem 10 per ct. 
 
 The rate proposed ia the same as the act of 1894. 
 
 SODA. 
 
 Bicarhonate of. or snper-carbonate, or saleratiis per pound.. } cent. 
 
 The rate i)r()p()sed is leus than the act of 18'.>0. 
 
 Hydrate of, or caustic soda ])or pound.. } cent. 
 
 The rate projjosed is less than the act of 1890. 
 
 Bichromate and ohroniate of per pound.. 3 cents. 
 
 .Made Kpecifie, an<l the same as the act of 1890. 
 
 Nitrite (not nitrate i of j)er pound.. 2 J cents. 
 
 This is a new article of manularture in the I'nited States, the manu- 
 facturers having; been strii;,'i:liii;; for success for about three years, 
 owini; to the fact that the article is syndicated in Eurojie. A great 
 effort has been made by the foreijcn prodiieers to destroy the industry 
 in this country, jirites having been redueed in the I'nited States con- 
 tinuously since the American jjrodMcers have been otVering this jirod- 
 uct. The manufacturers in the I'nited .St^ites say that tln-ir loss last 
 year was very large, and that overtures were made to them by the 
 foreign syntlicate t<> advance the price, dividing the I'nited States 
 market, which o\i rtures were dcclineil. 
 The rate projioseil is essential to a continuance of the industry in this 
 country. 
 
 Salaoda, or soda crystals per jtonnd . . I cent. 
 
 The |ir<>)iospd rate is less than the act of 1894. 
 
 Soda, ash, and crystals ear bona tf of soda jter ponnd.. ^ cent. 
 
 Specially rec(>mm»'jideil for duty. 
 
 Soda, prussiate of per pound.. 5 cents. 
 
 Specially recommended for duty. 
 
 Soda, silicate of. or other alkaline silicate per jtound .. f cent. 
 
 The rate ]>ropofled is the same as the act of 1894, and less than the act 
 of IK'.HI. 
 Soda, sulidiate of or s.iit cake, or niter cake, and Glauber salts. .per ton.. $1. 25 
 
 The same as the act of 1890. 
 Sponges, sea moss, or Iceland moss. Insuflicient information upon which 
 to base rate of duty. 
 
 Strychnia, or stryihtiine. and all salts thereof per ounce.. 30 cents. 
 
 The same as the acts of 181KJ and 1894. 
 
 8DLPUUR. 
 
 Refined, or roll brimstone per ton.. $6 
 
 Sublimed, or tlowers of do. . .. $6 
 
 Hoth made sjiecitic, and both less than the act of ISfH). 
 Sumac, ground per pound.. ^^ cent. 
 
 A Virginia industry; made specific, and the same as the act of 1890. 
 Tartar, en-am of, and jiatent t.irtar per pound.. 5 cents. 
 
 Made specitic, and less than the act of 1890. 
 Tartars, and lees crystal, partly refined ])er pound.. 4 cents. 
 
 Maib' sjiet ilic, and the same as the act of ISiK). 
 Tartrate of soda .and i>otassa, or rochelle salts per pound.. 3 cents. 
 
 The proposed rate is tlie same as the act of 1890. 
 Tin salts per pound.. 2 cents. 
 
 This is taken from the basket clause, paragraph 60, and specially pro- 
 vided for. 
 
 Articles 1o go upon the frtc list relating to Schedule A. 
 
 Acids used for medicinal, chemical, or mauufaoturiug purpoees, not specially pro- 
 vided for in this act. 
 Aconit*. 
 Albumim. 
 
 Alizarin, natural or artificial. 
 Aniline salts. 
 Aunatto, roucou, rocoa, or Orleans, and all extracts of.
 
 IG SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, A^'D PAINTS. 
 
 Apntito. 
 
 Argal, or ar;^ol, or crude tartar. 
 
 Arsenic and sulphide of, or orpinaent. 
 
 ArBuniatc ol' aniline. 
 
 Articles in a crude state, used in dyeing or tanning, not specially provided for in 
 this act. 
 
 Ashes, wood and lye of, and be«t-root ashes. 
 
 Asafetida. 
 
 Hahu of Gilead. 
 
 I'.arks, cinchona or other, from which ([uiniue may be extracted. 
 
 Haryta, carlioniite of, or withirite. 
 
 IJarytn, sulphate of, or barytea, auuiauufactured, including barytes earth. 
 
 Bauxite, or bt-aaxite. 
 
 iiisinuth. 
 
 Hra/il paste. 
 
 IJromine. 
 
 llMriiundy pitch. 
 
 Cadminu). 
 
 Calamine. 
 
 C'aui[)hor, crude. 
 
 Castor, or castoreum. 
 
 Cerium. 
 
 Chalk, unmauufactured. 
 
 Charcoal. 
 
 Chicctry root, raw, dried, or undried, but uuground. 
 
 Civet, crude*. 
 
 Cbroniate of iron, or chromic ore. 
 
 Coal tar, crude. 
 
 Cobalt and cobalt ore. 
 
 Cochineal. 
 
 Cocciilus iiulicuH. 
 
 Cryolite, or kryolith. 
 
 i'udlioar. 
 
 Cutch. 
 
 Divi divi. 
 
 Dragon's blood. 
 
 Dru"-', such as barks, beans, berries, balsams, buds, bulbs, and bulbous roots; 
 excrescences, such as nutgalls, fruils, llowors, dried llowcrs, and dried insects; 
 grains, gums and gum resin, herbs, leaves, lichens, nmsses, nuts, roots, and stems, 
 Bpices, vegetables, seeds aromatic and seeds of morbid growth, weod.s, and woods 
 used expressly for dyeing; any of the foregoing which are not edible and are in a 
 crude .state, and not advanced' in value or condition by refining or grinding, or by 
 other ])roce8s of mftnufocture, and not spcciftlly provided for in this act. 
 
 Krgot. 
 
 Farina. 
 
 Feldspar. 
 
 Febriu in all forms. 
 
 (Jiinibicr. 
 
 (Jnauo, manures, and all Bubetances especially used for manures. 
 
 Iu<ligo. 
 
 "Iodine, crude. 
 
 Ipecac. 
 
 Iridium. 
 
 .lalap. 
 
 Kelp. 
 
 Kieserite. 
 
 Kyanite, or cyanite, and kainite. 
 
 L:u'-dyo, crude, seed, button, stick, and shell. 
 
 Lac s]iirits. 
 
 Lactarinc. 
 
 Lemon juice, lime juice, and sour orange juice. 
 
 Licorice root, ungrouml. 
 
 Lime, citrate of. 
 
 Litmus, prepared or not prepared. 
 
 Madder and raunjeet, or Indian madder, ground or prepared, and extracts of. 
 
 Magnesito, or native mineral carbonate of magnesia. 
 
 Magnesium. 
 
 Maugauose, oxide and ore of. 
 
 Mineral waters, all not artiticial, and mineral salts of the same, obtained by evap- 
 or;ition vrhen aocompauied by duly^ authoutioated cortiticates showing that they are
 
 SCHEDULE AND KATES. 17 
 
 in no way artificially preparod, and are the product of a designated mineral spring; 
 lemonade, soda \vater, and all siniilar waters. 
 
 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 act. 
 
 Moss, seaweeds, and vegetalde substances, crude or unmanufactured, not other- 
 wise especially provided for in this act. 
 
 Musk, crude, in natural pods. 
 
 Myrid)olan. 
 
 Nux vomica. 
 
 Oils: almond, amber, crude and rectified ambergris, anise or aniseseed, aniline, 
 aspic or spike lavender, bergamot, cajeput, caraway, cassia, cinnamon, cedrat,, 
 chamomile, citronelia or lemon grass, civet, cotton .seeil, crott)n, fennel. Jasmine of 
 jasimine, juglandium, juniper, lavender, lenuui, limes, mace, nemli or orange tiower, 
 nut oil or oil of nuts not otherwise specially ])rovided for in this act, orange oil, 
 olive oil for maimfacturingor mechanical jjurposes unlit for eating and not otherwise 
 provide<l for in this act, ottar of roses, palm and <'ocoanut, rosemary or anthoss, 
 sesame or sesamiim seed or bt-an, thyme, origanum, red or white, \aleriau; and also 
 spermaceti, whale and other fish oils of American fisiieries, and all fish and other 
 prodints of such fisheries; ])etroleum, <rude or refined. 
 
 Opium, crude or unmanufactured, and not adulterated, containing 9 per cent and 
 over of morphia. 
 
 Orange and lemon i>eel, not preserved, candied, or otherwise prepared. 
 
 Orchil, or orchil liiiuid. 
 
 r)sminm. 
 
 rulladium. 
 
 Parafiin. 
 
 I'ho>phates, crude or native. 
 
 Pla»ter of paris ami sulphate of lime, ungronnd. 
 
 riatina, in ingots, liar>, slio ts, and wire. 
 
 i'latiniim, unmauMf.ictnred. and vaMts. retorts, and other apparatus, vessels, and 
 parts thereof composed of platinum for chemical uses; either plain, or gold-plated, 
 or gold-lined. 
 
 I'otash, carbonate of, crude and refined; caustic potash or hydrate of ; nitrate of 
 potftsh or salt jieter, crude; sulphate of pota«h, crude and refined; chlorate of pota«h ; 
 muriate of potash. 
 
 Rennets, raw or prepared. 
 
 Kallron and s.-illlower, and extract of, and saffron cake. 
 
 Siigo, crude, and sago fiour. 
 
 Saluciiu-. 
 
 Salt in bulk, and salt in bags, sacks, barrels, or other packages, but the coverings 
 Hhall l»ay the same rate of duty as if imj>orted sejiarately; J'rovided, That if salt is 
 importetl from any country whi«'h im])osesaduty upou salt exported from the United 
 Slates, then there shall be levied, paidv and collected upon such salt the rate of duty 
 existing prior to the passaj^o of this act. 
 
 Seeds; anise, canary, caraway, cardamom, coriander, cotton, croton, cummin, fen- 
 nel, fenugreek, hemp, hoarhonnd, mustard, rai)e, Saint .hdm's bre.id or l»ene, sugar 
 beet, mangel-wurzel, sorghum or sugar cane lor seed, and all llower and gra.ss seeds; 
 bulbs and bulbous roots, not eilible; all the foregoing nut specially provided for in 
 this act. 
 
 Sele]» or saloup. 
 
 Soda, nitrate of, or cubic nitrate, and chlorate of. 
 
 Sodium. 
 
 Cassia, cassia vera, and cassia buds, unground. 
 
 Cinnamon, aud chips of, ungrouud. 
 
 Cloves and clove stems, unground. 
 
 Ma<o. 
 
 Nutmegs. 
 
 Pepper, black or white, unground. 
 
 Pimento, unground. 
 
 Storax, or styrax. 
 
 Strontia, oxide of, and protoxide of strontian, and strontianite, or mineral carbon- 
 ate of strontia. 
 
 Sulphur or brimstone, crude, in bulk, sulphur ore, as pyrites, or sulphuret of iron 
 in its natural state, containing in excess of 25 per centum of sulphur, and sulphur not 
 otherwise provided for. 
 
 Cop])er, in ores. 
 
 If a duty is levied on copper, the usual commercial allowance of 1.3 per cent should 
 obtain. 
 
 Terra alba or sulphate of lime, not chemically jiroduced. 
 
 Terra jajiouiia. 
 
 T U 2
 
 18 SCHEDULE A. — CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 Tin ore, cassiterite or black oxide of tin, and tin in bars, blocks, pigs, or grain or 
 granulated. 
 Tripoli. 
 Turmeric. 
 Turpentine, Venice. 
 Turpentine, spirits of. 
 Uranium, oxide and salts of. 
 Valonia. 
 
 Verdigris, or subacetate of copper. 
 Zaffer. 
 
 ACIDS. 
 
 CITRIC ACID, TARTARIC ACID, CAMPHOR, CREAM TARTAR, ROOHELLE 
 SALTS, IODINE RESUBLIMED, TARTARS, AND LEES. 
 
 (Paragraphs 4, 6, lOi, 73, and 75, and free list.) 
 
 New York, N. Y., December 19, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We be^- now to refer to the matter of a revision of the duty ou the 
 articles elassilied nnder Scliedule A of the tariiV act now in operation, 
 and wonhl say that a earefnl perusal of the schedule in (jucstiou does 
 not reveal to us many needed changes. The one change winch we would 
 hail with great satisfaction would be that from ad valorem to specitic 
 duty. The former system seems productive of endless contention and 
 friction, as, for example, that brought about by the point raised, of tlie 
 price on arrival of the goods and the purchase i)rice thereof. Many 
 people will also operate under cover of the advantage olVered by the 
 billing of a lower grade of goods, whereas we thiidc a specilic duty 
 would result in the correct grade being invariably named, as well as 
 tend to raise the standard of quality. 
 
 We are in favor of a change from ad valorem to specific form of duty 
 on the following: 
 
 Citrir avid. — Paragraph 4, 8 cents per i)ouiid duty, instead of 25 per 
 cent atl valorem. (Present price in Kngland, Is. 1 Ad., eipials 27.50 ceuts 
 per i)ound; McKinley bill, 10 cents per pouiul.) 
 
 Tartaric acid. — Paragraph 0, 7 cents per ])oun(l duty, instead of 20 
 per cent ad valorem. (Present price in iMigland, Is., ecpials L'U cents 
 per pound; McKinley bill, 10 cents per pound.) 
 
 Camphor. — Paragraph 10.^, G cents per pound duty, instead of 10 i)er 
 cent ad valorem. (Present'price in England, Is. 6d., equals 30^ ceuts 
 per pound; McKinley bill, 4 ceuts per pound.) 
 
 Cream tartar. — Paragraph 73, 5 cents per pound duty, instead of 20 
 per cent ad valorem. (Present price in France, 102 francs, equals 17 
 cents per pound for 02 per cent; McKinley bill, cents per pound.) 
 
 EochcJIc s<(Its. — Paragraph 75, 2 cents per pound duty; should be 3 
 cents per pound. (lU'ing made from cream tartar, .3 cents i)er i)ound is 
 the proper equalization; McKinley bill, 3 cents per ixmnd.) 
 
 Iodine re.suhlimcd. — Now on the free list; being nninufactured in this 
 country, should have 25 cents per pound duty. (McKinley bill, 30 ceuts 
 per pound.) 
 
 Tartars and ?<ts.— Partly refined, crystals, paragraph 75, 4 cents ]ier 
 ])Ound duty, instead of 20 per cent ad valorem. (Danger of their being 
 brought in as cream tartar discolored j McKinley bill, 4 cents i)er pound). 
 
 Chas. Pfizer & Co.
 
 ACIDS. 19 
 
 TAETARIC ACID, CREAM OF TARTAR, AND ARGOL. 
 (Paragrai)h.s 6, 73, ami free list, i)aragraph 380.) 
 
 New York, Januari/ 8, 1S97. 
 
 ATgo\ is the cnuU' article from whence cream of tartar and tartaric 
 acid are manufactured and is on the free list of the i)resent tariff under 
 para^iraph 3.S(», and have also been free for a lonj;- term of years under 
 previous tarills. It is a larjro article, the importation beinji about 
 2o,000,0(H) i)ound8 a year, valued, roughly, at about !$2,U00,U0O. The 
 production in this country is trilling and can not increase much. 
 
 We suggest that argols be continued on the free list as at present. 
 
 Cream of tartar and tartaric acid are dutiable under the present 
 tariff, at I'O i)er cent under paragiaph 73 and paragraph 0, res])ectively. 
 The rates under the McKinley bill were G cents per pound ami lo cents 
 per i)oun<l. 
 
 We would suggest, as fair rates of duty to day. '> cents per pound ou 
 cream of taitar and 7 cents per pound on tartaric acid. 
 
 W. K. Peters & Co. 
 
 SULPHURIC ACID. 
 (Free list, i)iiragruiili 643.) 
 
 New York, December 24^ 1896. 
 The Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are njanufacturing chemists, and respectfully petition that a duty 
 be placed ujM.n the several articles which we manufacture, as follows, 
 viz: 
 
 Sulphuric acid or oil of vitriol, one (juarter of 1 cent per pound. 
 Tarilf of ISIM, free. 
 
 Indigo extra<*t, 10 per c<Mit ad valorem, Tarilf of ISOl, free. 
 Tin salts, 1* cents per pound. Tarilf of IS'.M, 1*5 per cent, 
 (iiauber's salts (sulphate of soda crystals), $1.25 per ton. Tariff" of 
 181>4, free. 
 Sulphate of soda or salt cake, $1.25 per ton. Tarilf of 1891, free. 
 Respectfully, yours, James L.Morgan & Co., 
 
 No. 17 FxilUm Street, 
 New York, N. Y, 
 
 SALICYLIC AND BENZOIC ACIDS, ETC. 
 
 (Paragraph 58, and free list, paragraphs 3G3 and 443.) 
 
 POTTSTOWN, Pa., Dectmher 24, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 1 wish a duty of 25 per cent on salicylic and benzoic acids and acetan- 
 Uid. I am a manufacturer of these products. Under the Wilson bill 
 (see customs law, 1894, on i»age 12, paragraph bi^^ under the head 
 "Preparations") "all medicinal preparations, including medicinal coal- 
 tar preparations," etc., are dutiable. '' 
 
 This clause covers the products mentioned, but has failed in its 
 working, and these products were placed ou the free list under the rul- 
 ing that they were not provided for (see customs law, 1891, page 86, 
 paragraph 303). The new act should remedy this and make salicylic
 
 20 SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 and benzoic acids and acetanilid clearly dutiable at 25 per cent The 
 salts of salicylic and benzoic acids, as, per example salicylate of soda, 
 L now (and' properly so) dutiable to tbe extent ot.>u per cent 
 
 I am informed tbat paragraph 58, page 12, customs hxv, 1^94, was 
 intended to cover these products. It was inserted at the request of 
 Herf&Frerichs, of St. Louis, with this object in view. 
 
 I would like a duty on the following coal-tar products, believing it 
 would cheapen the cost of coke fully 50 per cent by saving the by- 
 products: Coal-tar pitch, 20 per cent; naphtlialine,2o per cent; ben- 
 zol, toluol, xylol, nitrobenzol, nitrotoluol, and carbolic acid, 20 per 
 
 ''^''*' Tours, truly, W. S. McFaeland. 
 
 SALICYLIC ACID. 
 (Paragraph 58.) 
 
 New York, December 24, 1S96. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We, the undersigned ttrm of Wm. Zinsser & Co., who, under the 
 name of The United States Salicylic Acid Works, have for the last 
 twenty-two years been engaged in the manufacture of salicylic a<;id, 
 are now compelled to ask your honorable conimittee for a protective 
 tariff on this article, for reasons which will become evident after the 
 perusal of the following facts, and which we are ready at any time to 
 verify by our books. 
 
 Salicylic acid is a coal-tar preparation, and has been wrongly placed 
 on the free list along with other acids not specially provided for. 
 
 Carbolic acid, which is the basis for salicylic acid, is worth 17<^ cents 
 per pound, and, together with the other chemicals used in the process, 
 brings the cost of raw material per pound of salicylic acid to 24.4 cents; 
 factory expenses, such as rent, power, water, gas, repairs to machin- 
 ery, etc., 5.8 cents; wages, 14.4 cents. To this we have to add 5 ])er 
 cent for selling exx^enses, 2.2 cents, which shows you that to handle 
 this article without a loss we would liave to get 4G.8 cents ])er pound. 
 
 In order to meet the prices quoted by the agents of foreign houses, 
 we are compelled to sell at 34 cents less 1 per cent ; and the reason why the 
 agents of the foreign houses can sell at a proht for ii.} cents per jtound 
 an article that costs us 46.8 cents to manufacture and sell is partly due 
 to the difference in the cost of plant and raw materials, hut chiefly to 
 the difference in wages, the foreign laborer receiving from 50 to 75 
 cents per day of twelve hours, while we have to pay $2 per day of ten 
 hours. We also have to pay a duty on some of the raw materials nec- 
 essary in the manufacture, viz : Caustic soda, one half cent per pound, 
 or about 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 This statement will show that unless a duty of at least 25 cents per 
 pound is put on salicylic acid we will have to shut down our frlctory, 
 'thereby throwing all our men out of work, and we lose the entire busi- 
 ness and investment. These calculations of cost are based upon the 
 present tariff position of the raw materials necessary; and in the event 
 of a duty being put on carbolic acid or other raw material we would 
 ask you to duly consider such changes. 
 
 We would add that our reason for not asking for a protective duty 
 before this is that the foreign manufacturers until lately kept their 
 prices at a level, which enabled us to manufactuie the salicylic acid at 
 a profit. 
 
 EesiJectfully, yours, 
 
 Wm. Zinsser & Co.
 
 ACIDS. 21 
 
 LIQUEFIED CARBONIC ACID AND CONTAINERS. 
 (Free list, iiaragraph 363.) 
 
 New York, Beeemher 26, 1896. 
 Co;M:vnTTEE on Ways and Means: 
 
 Liquefied eiirltonic aeid and its eontainers. — These articles are admit- 
 ted free of duty. When empty cylinders are imported they are subject 
 to a duty of 3.") per cent. 
 
 We pray that a s]>e(ilic duty of 2 or 3 cents per pound be levied on 
 carbonic acid, and that the cylinders pay at least once duty, because 
 many remain in this country and are never reexported. 
 
 I'iie manul'acture of carbonic acid lias devcl(»i)ed to quite an indus- 
 try, but (lermaii com])ctition is very keen, and to put home manufac- 
 turers on an even Ibotiii;,' this industry should be moderately protected. 
 Very resi)ectfully, yours, 
 
 Chas. Cooper & Co. 
 
 LACTIC acid. 
 
 (Free list, paragraph 363.) 
 
 Boston, January 9, 1S97. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 1 would bc^ respectfully to iei»rcscnt that lactic acid, which is now 
 manufactured on a commercial scale, is on the free list under i)resent 
 tarill arranj^enu-nts. Lactic acid iu)\v plays an important part in dyeing 
 and coloring; woolen fabrics, and its manutacturc may trnly be described 
 as an infant industry. The process by which lactic acid is produced 
 cheai)ly. and on a laij^c scale, was the result of the protracted labors 
 of a citi/en of lioston. a jxraduate of the Massachusetts Institute of 
 Teclmoloffy, Charles 10. Avery. By his beneficent invention the art of 
 coloring; and ilyein;,^ woolens has become j,neatly imjjrovetl, and the old 
 aj^ents, wliicii lactic acid has disitl;\ced. are now in but little use. 
 
 Kei)resentin<;tlieMianufacturersof lacticacid inthis country, wc would 
 be<;- leave to call the attention of your committee to the desirability of 
 l»lacinjr upon tiiis article a moderate specilic duty, in order that this 
 meritorious American industry, now in its earliest stages, should not be 
 menaced with extinction by theintroduction of la(!tic acid manulactured 
 in (Jermany. The impftsition of a moderate si)ecifi(! duty upon this 
 l)rodnct will not have the ertcct of a<lvancin;i in the slij;htest defi:ree 
 the price to AnuMican consumers. When lactic acid was ori<,nnally put 
 on the market, about five years a^o, its price was 18 cents a pound, 
 since then the etlect of home competition has been to reduce the 
 price to IL'.^ cents. The article, namely, cream of tartar, which has 
 been disjilaccd by the introduction of lactic acid was sold to the Ameri- 
 can woolen mills at a price varyinj; from L'O to -~> cents ])er pound. As 
 considerable (piantities were used in the (lyein.t;' industry, it is thus seen 
 that the effect of the introduction of lactic acid has been to etlect an 
 important savinjj to the manufacturer, and ultimately to the consumer. 
 There is no danger here, nor can there be, of the foimation of a trust 
 or combine, and the movement to have lactic acid protected by a duty 
 is simi>ly and ])urcly in the interest to American industiy. 
 
 Prof. Charles E. Avery, the father of the cheap i)roduction of lactic 
 acid, was a Uoston boy. a jiraduate of the schools of his native city, and 
 worked hard and laboriously in .uettinoout what prove<l to be a highly 
 meritorious luveutiou. His first patents were granted in 1881, but
 
 22 SCHEDULE A. — CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 owiDg to tlie inlierent and great difficulties of starting: any new enter- 
 prise, the inventor has not as yet derired any of tlie advantages wliich 
 should justly accrue from so valuable an invention, and if commercial 
 lactic acid remains free of taritf duty those engag:ed in the American 
 production will find it a hard struggle to maintain the business. 
 
 In this petition we do not refer at all to the idiarmaceutieal prep- 
 aration of lactic acid, which is altogether a dilferent thing from the 
 commercial article. The pharmaceutical lactic acid we should be con- 
 tent to have remain on the free list, as it always has been. We refer 
 solely to commercial lactic acid, used in the industrial arts. On tlie 
 general principle of the protective policy, we think a very sinii)le and 
 clear case is made out for lactic acid. Your petitioners do not call for 
 any increase of duty, nor for any extraordinary rate, but sinqily for the 
 imposition of a moderate specific duty, that this American industry 
 shall not be subjected, while it is still in its earliest stages, to the disa.-^ 
 trous competition of the German manufacturers, who have stolen the 
 American process and are now manufacUiring on a considerable scale 
 lactic acid for the American market. 
 I am, yours, very truly, 
 
 V. A. Claflin, 
 Trenmirer of Avery Chtmical Company. 
 
 AUJMINA. 
 
 (Paragraph 8.) 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES C. MAGUIRE, OF ITEW YORK. 
 
 AIonday, December 38, IK^e. 
 
 Mr.MAGUiRE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, what 
 I have to ask in regard to the classification of alumina is .simi)ly in order 
 to distinguish, and we do not ask for any more nor anv less duty. The 
 tariff law as it now reads in paragraph 8 says: "Aliiinina, alum, alum 
 cake, etc., shall be subject to a duty of four-tenths of 1 cent ])er iMuind." 
 
 There are two kinds of aluniiim, the hydratcd and the anhydrous. 
 The hydrated alumina contains from 30 to 'M ]»er cent of water of 
 hydration. I am interested in a concern Avhich imports from 1()(» to L">(> 
 tons of alumina a month, and in order to bring this in under the mini- 
 nium rate of duty we have to import it in the anhydrous form, as there 
 IS no distinction in the tarifi- law between tlie^ anlivdrous and the 
 hydrated. If we brought it in in the hydrated form, we would have to 
 pay the duty on the water of hydration contained therein, so if the 
 word ''anhydrous" is substituted before the word"alumina"in section 
 », in Schedule A, it would make the proper distinction there, and then 
 m order that hydrated alumina should come in on the same basis or 
 in other words, if the duty shall be paid simplv on the amount of 
 alumina contained therein, I have to suggest that following paragraph 
 8ot the present schedule a paragraph numbered 84 be inserted, reading: 
 
 Hydrated alumina shall have a reduction in weight nllowf.,1 nf <?« ,.^^ „ ♦ 
 because of the .vater of hydration contained the'e^i! 4cl"hril pay a dK ot b";* 
 tenths of 1 cent per pound after this reduction has been allowed ^ 
 
 .nw"^ ?^ Zf-^'^ ""^ the hydration in this case is constant, or practically 
 constant, within a small fraction of 1 per cent, so that when a reducTion 
 of 30 per cent is allowed for the water of hydration, vou put the dutv 
 on the alumina on the hydrated on the same basis a^ thouyii the anhv 
 drous was brought in. It is simply a matter of classifica o 1, and S
 
 AMMONIA, SULPHATE OF, AND GROUND BONE. 23 
 
 yon nave considered the explanation I have endeavored to give, I do 
 not think there will be any question of defining just what is intended 
 to pay the duty u\hju. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. You do not ask for a change of the rate of duty! 
 
 Mr, Maguire. No, sir; we do not ask any more or less duty, oat we 
 are now obliged to import anhydrous alumina to avoid paying the duty 
 on water, and we .sin)ply want to be allowed to bring in the hj'drated 
 and pay the <luty on the alumina contained therein. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Does the hydrated alumina contain Just 36 per cent of 
 water, or does it vary? 
 
 Mr. Maguire. No, sir; it is constant. Thirty-six per cent of water 
 is as clo.se as all chendsts agree on the subject. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It does not vary? 
 
 Mr. Maguire. I'raetically, no, sir; it is a chemical compound, not a 
 chemical mixture. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It does not combine in any other proportion? 
 
 Mr. Maguire. No, sir; it does not cumbiue in any other ])roportion. 
 
 Mr. McMiLUiN. I would ask if the importation now is of the anhy- 
 drous alone? 
 
 Mr. Ma(H'ire. The anhy(h-uus is what is being brought in, as we 
 can not attbrd to bring in tlie hydrate<land ])ay the duty on the water. 
 
 Mr. Mc'MiLLiN. There is no hydriite tliat is imported? 
 
 Mr. Maguire. No, sir; to the best of my knowledge and belief, there 
 is not. 
 
 AMMOXIA, SULPnATE OF, AXD GROITNT) BOXE. 
 
 [Paragraph Hi and free list, paragraph 408.] 
 
 St. Louis, Mo., December 23, 1896. 
 
 COirMITTEE ON AVaYS AND MEANS: 
 
 In framing the new tariff bill we desire to call your attention to, first: 
 Siilphdie of (vnmo)i\a. — These goods are now to be used largely in this 
 country, principally for making anhydrous ammonia for ice nuichines. 
 It is brought in frum England under the guise of being used for fer- 
 tilizers. There is a very small per cent, however, used for this puri)Ose. 
 Now, we liave had no protection in this line and, having built a plant, 
 we find that the English l)y i)ro«luct from coke ovens and (»il wells has 
 driven tlie price down .'.JO to 4o per cent. Our own coke ovens under 
 protection can be made to jiroduce the bulk of the goods required for 
 home trade and a few trial ovens in Pennsylvania are now nearly com- 
 pleted. Being a by i)ro<luet in England, with low ocean fre; .:hts, 12 
 cents on 100 i)ounds from Liveri)ool to New York, Philadelphia, or 
 Baltimore, it can be laid down in our markets at a price that freezes 
 out the home i)roduet, esi)eeially when our railroads demaiul 31^ cents 
 per 100 ])Ounds from St. Louis to New York and 27^ cents per 100 
 from St. Louis to Baltimore. 
 
 Ground bone. — If in meal it has been ruled that it is duty free, but 
 if granulated, size of wheat and larger, a small duty has been imposed. 
 We protest against this. Ungrouud bone, duty free, we don't object to. 
 They are bulky and the additional space required in ship makes freights 
 higher, as vessel freights are figured upon cubic-foot space, but to let 
 ground bone of any size in duty free is an imposition, because two-thirds 
 pound more weight goes into the same space and reduces the freight 
 that much. Thousands of tons come now from Calcutta at $4 to $4.50 
 per ton freight and St. Louis is 31.^ cents or $0.30 per ton. Our labor 
 in grinding it is three times the cost of the coolie labor and for some
 
 24 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 years tlie Western iiianiifactnrers have been driven out of the Eastern 
 trade because of this Calcutta competition, as they could deliver floods 
 to Eastern seaport points very much lower than we Western manu- 
 facturers could begin to touch and consequently our factories have 
 been idle at least half the time. Now, we therefore request that bones 
 ground in any manner be dutiable at $5 per net ton and that sulphate 
 of ammonia be dutiable at 1 cent per pound, specific duty. All of which 
 is respectfully submitted to your consideration, and hoping it wHl meet 
 the attention it deserves, 
 I remain, yours, 
 
 liTOLTE & DOLCH FERTILIZEn Co., 
 
 For other Western Manufacturers, 
 
 SULPHATE OF AIMMONIA. 
 (Paragraph 8^.) 
 
 New Yokk. Jnnuan/ 9, 1S97. 
 
 This article is dutiable, under paragra])h 8i of the present tariff, at 
 20 per cent. The present value in England is £7 lOs. to £S per ton of 
 2,240 pounds, and the present duty of 20 per cent is about onetliird 
 of 1 cent per pound. The McKiidey rate was one-half cent jter i>oniid. 
 It is used mainly for agricultural purposes in the manufacture of arti- 
 ficial manures; also for aqua ammonia for making artificial ice, and in 
 the manufacture of alum. We estimate that upward of 80 per cent of 
 the total consumption is for agricultural puri)Oses. 
 
 At the time the McKinley bill was in operation the duty of one-half 
 cent per pound was not in excess of 20 per cent, on account of the higher 
 value of the article at that time. It is destined to be j)ro(lnced here as 
 a side product from coke ovens in large quantities — the same as it is 
 abroad — but at present the production here is small. 
 
 In view of the uses of this article for agricultural purposes, we would 
 suggest that it might fairly be put upon the free list: but, if this wore 
 not done, we very strongly urge that the duty sliould be a small specific 
 one, not to exceed one-fourth of 1 cent or one third of 1 cent per jiound. 
 
 Wm. R. Peters & Co. 
 
 BLUE YITEIOL, CKLOEIDE OF ZIXC, ETC. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE GRASSELLI CHEMICAL COM- 
 PANY, OF CLEVELAND, OHIO. 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio, December 28, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The undersigned is exclusively engaged in the manufacture and sale 
 of chemicals in the United States. It is a corporation created bv tl.o 
 aws oi the State of Ohio, and has large manufacturing plants in Cleve- 
 land, Ohio; Tremley, oST J.; Chicago, 111.; Clean, N. Y. Beaver FaHs, 
 Pa.; Titusville, Pa., and other points. It respectfully requests hat 
 your committee, m framing the new tariff law in the matter of the 
 schedule on chemicals, that it shall provide— 
 
 First. That the principle of a specific duty instead of an ad valorem 
 nel^a^ifftw?^ "''"''' practicable as to 111 duties levied umiertl" 
 
 Second. It requests that blue vitriol, which is now on the free list, but
 
 BLUE VITRIOL, CHLORIDE OF ZINC, ETC. 25 
 
 nnder the MfKinley law subject to a duty of 2 cents per ])ound, be 
 l)ut on the dutiable list, and tiu\t a duty of 1 cent per pound be placed 
 tlioreon. The manufacture of blue vitriol was entered upon in this 
 country under tlie i)i<)toctiou heretofore jrranted it; larg:e investments 
 were made in jjlant and a very lar^e business built up in this country 
 by reason of the protection atlbrded tliat industry under which it was 
 created i»ri(»r to the passaj^e of the Wilson bill. lieing now on the free 
 list, in view of clicajjcr labor in Europe, the competition from that 
 Continent has made it imjtossible for the existing manufacturers in this 
 country to realize any ])rolit on their investments, as the Eurojiean com- 
 jietition keeps the pvU-e at practically cost to the American n)anufac- 
 turer. It is true that by improved methods and machinery the Ameri- 
 can manufactnrer has been able to reduce the cost, but is not able to 
 manufacture it at a fair profit so long as it remains on the free list. 
 We ask, therefore, that the duty shall We made 1 cent per pound, which 
 is one half the duty under the Mclvinley bill. This duty will only 
 equal, as nearly as can be ascertained, the dilVcrence between the cost 
 of labor in this country and Kuroj)!' in the manufacture of the article. 
 
 Third. Chloride of zinc: I'nder the McKinley law, as well as the 
 Wilson law, tlie duty on this chemical was L'5 per cent ad valorem, and 
 is covered by the general chemical clause of the schedule. The process 
 ot uii(ler\abiation has been so great tiiat this is jyractically no protec- 
 tion and deprives the (ioveinnuMit of revenue. If the chemical was 
 listed for duty at its true value, LM per cent would yield to the (iovern- 
 ment theecpiivalentof a specific duty of a cent a pound. For the double 
 ]turpose, therefore, of i)rotecf ing the manufacturer in this country to the 
 extent of the difference in the juice of labor and to secure to the (lov- 
 ernment a iu()i)er revenue, we ask that it be ]»laced in the chemical 
 schedule, .^(""itarafe and distinct, with a sjiccilic duty of 1 cent a pourul. 
 
 l'\>urth. Hyposulphite of soda and suljihide of sodium: These chem- 
 icals, nndei' the McKinle.N law, were dutiableat -5 i)ercent ad vahirem; 
 under the Wilson bill tlie same. We ask that the duty on these be 
 made specific at one half c«'nt per ])otind. and we do this for the very 
 sanu» reasons and on the same grouiuls as heietofore stated as to chlo- 
 ride of zinc. The manufai ture of this chemical has been almost exclu- 
 sively confined to ICurojn', for the reason that -■') per cent ad valorem 
 under the i)rocess of valuing the goods im])orted has been almost ecpial 
 to no duty, and is not sullicient protection to the American manufacturer 
 to warrant him in making the goods in view of the difference in the cost 
 of labor between this country and ICurope. The duty of one half cent per 
 pound s])ecific would, in our ojtinion. equal tlie difference in labor and 
 would enable the American manufacturer to successfully com])ete with 
 the foreign manufacturer and at the same time earn a moderate profit on 
 hi-s investment, and so materially increase the industry in this country 
 and transfer to this country the manufacture of what it consumes, 
 instead of ]>urchasing abroad what it now uses. 
 
 Fifth. Suli)hate of soda, or salt cake, or niter cake: Under the 
 McKinley law these were dutiable at $1.25 a ton specific; they were 
 l)ut on the free list under the Wilson bill. We ask the restoration of 
 the <luty as it was in 181)0 of si. 2.") a ton. This is essential to enable 
 the American manufacturer t-o compete with the foreign ])roduction by 
 reason of the <lilference in the ])rice paid labor in this country com- 
 pared with the ])rice ])aid in Euro[)ean countries in the same industries. 
 This was placed on the free list under the Wilson bill, while soda ash 
 was retained in the Wilson bill at a duty of $") a ton as it had been 
 unde/ the McKinley law. No reason can be given why a change should 
 liave been made from the McKinley law in the matter of salt cake that
 
 26 SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS 
 
 prductFo^ of same in this country shall be protected against the 
 cheaper labor in the same industry in foreign countries. 
 
 Sixth. Sal soda: Under the McKinley law this chemical M 
 of one-fourth cent a pound specific; it w.is reduced nnder the \\ ilsou 
 bill to one-eighth cent a pound specific We ask its restoration to o e 
 fourth cent a pound specific. No valid reason could be gix en lor the 
 reduction made by the Wilson bill m the duty Provide by the McKu^ 
 lev bill. At one-fourth cent per pound there would be the minimum 
 of adequate protection to these industries i^this country m view t 
 the cost of labor in this country as compared with the cost in similar 
 industries in European countries. There had been no such red uc ion 
 in the cost of manufacture in this country as to warrant any such reduc- 
 tion of duty as was made by the Wilson bill, and the conditions that 
 existed warranting the duty when the McKinley bill was iiassed are 
 the same conditions, substantially, as exist to-day. ^.„ ,, . , 
 
 Seventh. Muriate of ammonia: Under the McKinley bill this chem- 
 ical had a specific duty of three-fourths of a cent a pound; under tlie 
 Wilson bill it was put on the free list. Xo good reason was given why 
 it should be put on the free list or kept on the free list. We ask that 
 it shall be taken from the free list and a specific duty of one-halt cent a 
 pound be placed on it. This is the minimum duty in order to secure its 
 profitable manufacture in this country in view of the price paid labor, as 
 compared with labor in the same industry in European countries. 
 
 We also request the committee to insert a provision in the bill that 
 whenever any foreign country imposes a duty on any chemical manu- 
 factured in and shipped from this country to that country that a like 
 duty shall be imposed by this country on the same chemical made in 
 that country and shipped to this country, but in no case shall tiie duty 
 imposed by this country be less than the duty on said chemical under 
 the law. 
 
 We have given the foregoing very careful consideration. We appre- 
 ciate the desire of the committee to construct a law that will be fair 
 and Justin its operation and will not merit the criticism of being pro- 
 hibitive in its character, or unwise or unfair in the amount of duty it 
 imposes. We have had an experience of over fifty years in the chem- 
 ical business, and are one of the largest concerns in this country. We 
 desire certainty of policy for the future in the business in which we are 
 engaged. We have named the minimum amount of duty which ought 
 to be imposed for the purpose of securing adequate revenue to the 
 Government and such protection as will equal the difference paid to 
 the wage earner in foreign countries in the same industries, and no 
 more. The duties thus requested by us will" not prevent or prohibit 
 fair competition from other countries in the same product; they will 
 not enable us, or any manufacturer, to earn an unfair profit, but will 
 simply place us on an equality as to wages paid in the effort of the 
 American manufacturer to secure, supply, and retain the home market 
 for his i^roducts. 
 
 Being thoroughly acquainted with the operation of the McKinley and 
 prior tariff laws on these chemicals, and also of the Wilson biU and 
 the changes it produced, we ask that this committee take action on 
 the chemicals named in this statement and give the business the relief 
 it needs by the enactment of these fair, just, and reasonable provisions 
 and duties. 
 
 The Grasselli Chemical Company 
 By 0. A. Geasselli, President. '
 
 BEOMLXE BOKAX AND BORACIG AGID. 27 
 
 BKO]MrN^E. 
 
 (Free list, paragraph 421.) 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio, Janvary 5, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir: I uiMlerstand that you are fully acquainted with the bro- 
 mine iuterests aloiij; the Ohio Kiver. You know what it is for these men 
 to eke out a simple living' from their bromine plants. The tendency is 
 to cut prices for the sake of elfectin^' sales, and thus they bring ruin 
 uj)on themselves. For the purpose of bettering their condition they 
 have iUl consented to i)ool tlieir interests, linut tlieir production, and 
 secure enougli retnunerati(»n by this method to kee]> l)ody and soul 
 together. It is felt by many who have watched this interest and are 
 related to it, that it would be but a measure of simjde justice to have a 
 tariff upon all imi)orted bromine and bromides, so that the foreign man- 
 ufacturers would not be in a position to dictate terms and keep its hand 
 on the neck of the bromine i)ro(lucers here. May I ask your considera- 
 tion of this matter and your interest to the end that in the new tariif 
 bill provision for amph* duty on l)romine and bromides may be nuide. 
 It is but fair to say that a duty of any amount, no dilfcrence how high, 
 would not alfect the scUing juice to the i)urcliaser here. Only a given 
 quantity of bromine can be sold each year, and so little of it would be 
 used by any single one that any simple dilVcience would not be notice- 
 able. The gn'at object would l>e in putting American producers in a 
 better position as regards the (lerman jirodiicers. 
 
 The control there of the bittern and their longer experience and 
 cheaper methods of mannfacture enable them to make the proiluct for 
 less money than tin; American manufacturer. Tlieir large jtlants would 
 enable them to make not oidy the quantity used in their own countries 
 but every (»unce tliat could be used in thiscountiy as well. The great- 
 est (langer to-day for the br(>mine jtroduceis lies with the (Jerman pro- 
 ducers, for they may at any time flood the country and shove the local 
 ])i()dncers out of «'\istence. 1 trust that you \\ill do all that you can 
 to bring abont the placing of a duty u])on inq»orted bromine and bro- 
 nndes that will i)i'ot<'ct our small bromine interests at home. 
 
 B. B. Helman. 
 
 BOKiVX AXD 15()KACIC ACID. 
 
 (I'arapraplis 2 and 10.) 
 STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY KREBS, OF SAN FRANCISCO. 
 
 iVroNDAY, December 38 j 1896. 
 
 Mr. Kki:bs. Mr. Chairnmn and genth'men of the committee: Weare 
 j)lain business jjcoide antl have not great facility for speech, and in 
 order to be (luite brief, if you will allow me, 1 will read not the entire 
 manuscript but a page or two: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee on \Vays and Means: 
 We appear before you on behalf of the borate and borax miners and 
 manufacturers of the states of California and Nevada. ^Ve are plain 
 people of business, we speak for ourselves and promise to be brief. 
 We beg first, gentlemen, to direct your attention to the tariff act of 
 1894, Schedule A, page 4, which gives the rate of duty on boracic acid 
 3 cents per pound. We also invite your notice to page 5, where you 
 will find borax, crude, or borate of soda, 2 cents per pound; borate of 
 lime, 1^ cents per pound; refined borax, 2 cents per pound.
 
 28 SCHEDULE A,— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 We submit for your consideration and decision, and would respect- 
 fully ask that the foregoing be changed to the following more explicit 
 and better classified list and increase, and beg leave to show you why 
 we ask such changes, as follows: 
 
 BORATES AND BORAX. 
 
 Centa. 
 
 ~ , perponml.. 3 
 
 BSrofTime'^onVaiuVng'nVt*'!^^^^^^^^ per cent of anhydn.us l„.racic 
 
 acid ^^^'^ vouua . . a 
 
 Borate 'of 'lime artificially treated, or coutainiug more than 44 per cent of aiiliy- 
 
 drousboracicacid..-. per pound.. 4 
 
 ■r, do 4 
 
 Borax ^,^ 5 
 
 Anhydrous borax _ 
 
 Boracic acid ' " ^ 
 
 Anhydrous boracic acid "" 
 
 Borax or boracic acid forming the component parts of any article 
 shall be charged the duty specified for each respectively in direct 
 importation. 
 
 The manufactured product of these mines, namely, borax and boracic 
 acid, is comparatively a new article of American coinnierce. 
 
 The method of refining borax was originally i)Ossessed as a great 
 secret by the Venetians and Dutch, but is now practiced in several 
 European countries, and latterly on the Pacific Coast. 
 
 Though still a small industry with us, as represented in volume and 
 money value, it came into life and under the beneficent taritf regula- 
 tions from 1883 to 1893, so that the production rose from ab«)ut 1-',IKK) 
 tons to about 6,000 tons. 
 
 Borax and boracic acid are not only useful and valuable, but are. in 
 fact, indispensable in the industrial arts and manufactures of our coun- 
 try, inasmuch as they stand at the very basis of some of our most 
 important home manufactures, such as granite ironware, piucelain 
 ironware, pottery, and glass-edge tools, for fiuxing jiiid forge use, ]>re- 
 servalines, starch, and meat packing, for without this essential agency 
 some of these industries would have no existence. 
 
 The specific duties now in force upon thes^ products arc as follows: 
 
 Borax, crude, or borate of soda, 2 cents per pouml: borate of lime, 
 1^} cents per pound; refined borax, 2 cents per pound; boracic acid, 3 
 cents per pound. 
 
 These duties are not only inadequate, but should be laid in propor- 
 tion to the per cent of boracic acid contained in them, as this a»iid is 
 the only ingredient of value in all borates. 
 
 We have failed to secure just recognition of this im]>ortant fact in 
 previous tarifl's; hence we now come before you to show why this 
 should be provided for in a revision and dillerent rating of duties. 
 
 Under the operations of the present tariff the Anu^rican miiu'rs and 
 producers have been deprived of full one-half of their home nmrket, and 
 this not altogether because the duties were lowered, as because under the 
 name of crude borate of lime a calcined, concentrated, and artificially 
 treated material direct from Asia Minor, which contains a very high 
 per cent of boric acid, has been the bulk of foreign importations'^. 
 
 This in the crude state is treated at the mines near Pandemia by 
 crushing, roasting, and separating and settling in reservoirs and agaiii 
 roasting to eliminate all traces of water. Thus processed, this is no 
 
 longer a raw material, but highly concentrated product of partial 
 facture (which is, in its raw state, of exceeding richness), so thi; 
 
 manu- 
 it each
 
 BORAX AND BORACIC ACID. 29 
 
 pound of this treated article will make nearly li poimds of refined 
 borax. The duty on crude borate of lime being lA cents per pound, this 
 stuff, beinji" raised from 3«) and 44 per cent to 54 and 00 per cent, pays 
 in reality only about I cent per pound in duty, thereby evading payment 
 of revenue due the Government and bringing upon the American pro- 
 ducers loss and impending ruin. 
 
 To show the increase and disturbing effect of these importations, we 
 may state tlie entire <]uantity of borate of lime im])orted in forty-eight 
 months under the McKinley law amounted to l,l<j7,4«)o i)ounds, while 
 for t\venty-8e\en months ending December 1, 181)0, they amounted to 
 l(),147,2o4 pounds. Of this latter (piantity about 10,0(10,000 i)0unds, 
 owing to its enhance<l \'alue by artilicial treatments, was equivalent to 
 about 15,000,000 pounds of actual borax, being ten times as much as 
 was imported under the .McKinley law. and ])aid a duty of only $152,208, 
 whereas at its true value the duty should have been $228,312, thus 
 depriving the Government of over $75,000 revenue. 
 
 In the analogous ])roduce, (boracic acid) the imports in the same 
 period under the McKinh-y law amounted to 2,320.040 pounds, duty 
 ]>ai(l, at5 cents i)er ]»ound, $1 10.317. while nnder the \Vils()n and Gorman 
 law for twenty se\ en months the imports weie 1,501.003 pounds, afford- 
 ing the Government a revenue of $47,750 at.» cents per ]»oun(l. showing 
 a relative falling oil' of revenue under the present law, ;ilthougli not in 
 (pnintity imported, for it averaged 24 tons per month under the McKin- 
 ley law and 30 tons per month under the present law, or an average 
 duty per month under the former of $2,424 and under the present law 
 only $1,813. 
 
 The chief sufferers from these evasions of duties and heavy importa- 
 tions are the smaller miners and i)roducers (a number of whom we most 
 directly represent), as some of them for neai'ly two years past have had 
 their mines and works closed, leaving the bnsiness to but a few 
 home manufacturers, to an l^nglish borax syndicate, and one wealthy 
 inii)orting iiouse. 
 
 These sulferers are now your humble i)etitioners for relief. 
 
 The t()tal annual production of borax alone in the United 8tates is 
 about 20,000, 000 pounds, or 10,000 tons, which can be more than sup- 
 plied by the American producers without foreign aid. 
 
 We therefore i)ray for a revision of the law, embracing a new classi- 
 ficalion and a new scaU; of duties, in the interest of our home produc- 
 ers and a Just revenue to the Government. 
 
 We ask that duties be fixed as follows, to wit: 
 
 BOKATES AND UOIIAX. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Borate of soda per pound.. 3 
 
 Borate of lime contaiuiu}^ not more than 44 per cent of anhydrous ))oracic acid, 
 borate of liiiio artilirially heated, or containing more than 44 per cent of 
 
 aubydrous boracic acid per pound.. 4 
 
 Borax do ... . 4 
 
 Anhydrous borax do 5 
 
 Boracic acid do 5 
 
 Anhydrous boracic acid do 6 
 
 Borax or boracic acid forming the component parts of any article 
 shall be charged the duty specified for each, respectively, in direct 
 importation. 
 
 Thanking you, gentlemen of the Ways and Means Committee, for 
 the attentive hearing accorded us, and respectfully asking that in 
 formulating 4»ny proposed tariff" legislation you may give favorable cou-
 
 30 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 sideration to the subject of our request, and asking further privilege of 
 submitting in a few days a fuller and more detailed statement touchiug 
 borates and borax, we have the pleasure to remain. 
 Yours, with great respect, 
 
 H. Krebs, Jr., 
 Eepresenting the Borate and Borax Miners and Producers 
 
 of the States of California and Nevada. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. This new classification you suggest contains items 
 not heretofore mentioned in the tariff bill? 
 
 Mr. Krebs. We have no new articles, simply a new classification. 
 We do that, as will be shown, with the view that under the name of 
 borate of lime this treated and highly calcined article is coming in 
 because of the defect in the law as it stands saying that this is borate 
 of lime, whereas it is a highly concentrated article. We are simi)ly 
 asking for a classification that will prevent the avoidance and evasion 
 of the duty. We ask it for the purpose or affording a measure of i»ro- 
 tection to the home producers and to prevent evasions of the law, from 
 which we are sufferers. 
 
 The Chairman. And to protect the revenue? 
 
 Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir j we have an interest in our Government as well 
 as any others. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Just for information, borax, if I understand, is the base 
 of all these various things you have mentioned? 
 
 Mr. Krebs. Boracic acid is the base. In other words, it is tke essen- 
 tial ingredient. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Have you figured to see whether the rate of duty upon 
 the quantity of boracic acid in each preparation would be th« same 
 upon the quantity of boracic acid in each of these articles you have 
 mentioned in that classification? 
 
 Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir; as nearly as it is possible to approximate it. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. That is the purpose of your classification? 
 
 Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir; that is the purpose that we desire, to get as 
 near as possible to have it proportionate to the amount of boracic acid 
 contained in each of these products, and if calcined and reduced and 
 concentrated to a high degree we take the amount of boracic acid con- 
 tained by percentages, taking it at 44 per cent, say, as 44 per cent is the 
 recognized base the world over for the amount of boracic acid in all 
 calculations. 
 
 The Chairman. Are the natural conditions as favorable for the pro- 
 duction of the base of boracic acid in this country as any ofher ? 
 
 Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. It is only the question of labor ? 
 
 Mr. Krebs. That is all. The crude product represents but a small 
 part of the manufactured product ; more than tliree-quarters is in labor. 
 Being a layman, an ordinary business man, 1 have reduced my thoughts 
 briefly to paper, and I desire, if permitted, to submit an amended pajjer 
 giving ample statistics from the custom-house. Treasury Department, 
 showing the few facts stated are based upon the actual statistics fur- 
 nished by the Government. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you please submit a subsequent paper covering 
 the facts to which you allude ? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you estimate that the schedule which you propose 
 would yield more or less money in the aggregate to the Government than 
 the one existing ?
 
 BORAX AND BORACIC ACID. 31 
 
 Mr. Krebs. I believe it will make at least as much revenue as it 
 is under this present law, and we believe tbat it would save a large 
 amount of evasion of duty. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. You do not think, however, it would increase the 
 revenues? 
 
 Mr. Krebs. It would not increase the revenues to 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. 1 mean in the aggregate amount. 
 
 Mr. Krebs. Not in the aggregate amount received, but we think 
 about the same amount of duty Mould be derived from it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Would it increase or diminish the price of this prod- 
 uct to the consumer in this country? 
 
 Mr. Krebs. Yes, it will, because 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. If your contention is allowed, the effect will be to 
 yield about the same revenue and to give you more protection, and give 
 a greater cost to the consumers in this country? 
 
 Mr. Krebs. Now, in order to cover that we should have to go back 
 and cover a great deal of ground. The American producers have 
 brought the price of borax down from Uo and 30 cents. While it main- 
 tained prices of that sort the interest of the importers was to maintain 
 prices and not to encourage producers in the don)estic arts. Many of 
 these manufactures have sprung from the fact that the California and 
 Nevada jjroducers reduced the price of borax and kindred ])roducts from 
 25 cents to the present price of ."» cents a pound — below the cost of i)ro- 
 duction and shijtment to market. We can not live at that, and we 
 think we are entitled to demand protection, having bidught the price 
 down from 26 cents to 5, 0, and S cents a pound, and in addition to that 
 have multi])lied many other manufactures which are of exceedingly 
 great l)enetit to our country. 
 
 l\Ir. .McMiLLiN. I did not get to hear your tirst remarks, and hence 
 you may have covered it, but your raw material is obtained how far 
 away from the relineries? 
 
 Mr. KiJEBS. In some cases the refinery is u])on the ground. The one 
 with which I have been connected for lifteen years is .J81 miles from San 
 Francisco south. It has a shipping jioint by rail that is 72 miles across 
 the Mojave desert to the deposit, and the retineiy is ui)on the ground. 
 It was originally put there because there seemed to be ample fuel from 
 the grease wood and sagebrusli around about, but tor nuiny years past 
 that has been consumed, and we haul I'uel, which is oil. We haul water, 
 and we carry more by bulk and weight to the works than we bring out. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. These works are situated that distance from the rail- 
 road? 
 
 Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir; 72 miles. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And it has to be hauled across the country 72 miles, 
 and that is one of the elements you want to overcome by protection? 
 
 Mr. Krebs. We are not alone. 
 
 Mr. MtMiLLiN. But that is one of the elements of cost? 
 
 Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir; but it has to be considered that the producfof 
 that place is of sufhcient richness to overcome some of the advantages 
 of those nearer the lines of railway have, though all have been atgreat 
 cost, for the reason that this is the product of a desert country. It 
 exists nowhere else in the world. That is something which caai not be 
 overcome. I thank you, gentlemen, for your hearing.
 
 32 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. HENRY KREBS, OF 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO. 
 
 Washington, January 9, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 In response to your public notice that hearings would be granted to 
 persons desiring to be heard on the tariff, Ave had the pleasure of 
 appearing before you on the 28th ultimo on the subject ot borates, 
 borax, and boracic acid. We desire rather to assist the comimttee 
 than to burden them or the record, but as the determination of the 
 relative values of these imports is technical we are under necessity of 
 entering upon details, and in verification of our general stateiuents 
 referring you to exhibits, statistics, and public documents. We desire 
 to show that under the present tariil' law there has been a loss both to 
 the Government and the American producers, as well as to labor. 
 
 The present duty (tariff act 1894:, Schedule A) on boracic acid is 3 
 cents per pound, and on borax, crude, or borate of soda, 2 cents per 
 pound; borate of lime, 1^ cents per pound; refined borax, 2 cents per 
 pound. We respectfully ask for an increase of these duties, which are 
 inadequate, and for a more exi)licit and better classification for the 
 benefit alike of the Government and the American miners and pro- 
 ducers. This new classification is necessary to prevent the importation 
 of manufactured products as crude or raw materials, which evade duty, 
 as we shall show. 
 
 It also sets forth the only standard for imposing a duty on the essen- 
 tial and valuable ingredients of all the articles specified, namely, the 
 percentage of boracic acid contained in them. This principle we have 
 never, therefore, had recognized, although the Justice of such contention 
 must seem apparent. In this connection it is necessary to state that 
 at the first hearing we presented certain rates which on examination 
 are found not duly proportional, but which are now based (so far as 
 practicable) on the following certificate: 
 
 CHEMIST'S CERTIFICATE, RELATIVE VALUES, ETC. 
 
 Mr. Henry Krebs, Jr. : 
 
 In reply to your request for information concerning the relative valnes of borax, 
 boric acid, and crude borate material, I submit tlie following st:itement: 
 
 Borax, or biborate of soda, crystallizes from cold solutions with ten molecules of 
 water of crystallization. Na^ Bj O7 -f 10 H2 O. Its percentage composition is, there- 
 fore, as follows : 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Soda (Na^O) 16.23 
 
 Boric anhydrid (BiOa) 36 65 
 
 Water (H2O) '.'.'.'.'.'. 4?! 12 
 
 Total 100 
 
 The essential and valuable constituent is, of comse, the boric anhvdrid, and borax 
 can be readily and cheaply made from any raw material containing'it. The same is 
 true of boric or boracic acid, the crystallized article of commerce containing 56.45 
 per cent of boric anhydrid. The value of any raw or crude material used as a source 
 of boric acid or borax is measured simply by its content of boric anhydrid, the sepa- 
 ration being made with equal facility from all the different forms in Which it occurs 
 in nature. It is evident that the only just and equitable mode of lixin'^ a rate of 
 duty upon borax, boric acid, and crude borate material is by means of a schedule rate 
 upon each proportional to the amount of boric anhvdrid it contains. 
 
 The principal forms of crude bor.ite material are: 
 
 1. Borocalcite, or borate of lime (a''r? + *2^^) imported chiefly from Turkey 
 under the name of Turkish borate of Ume. It is'theoreticaUy possible for this mate-
 
 BORAX AND BORACIC ACID. 33 
 
 rial to contain as high as 71 per cent of l>oric anhydrid if it contained no impuri- 
 ties and its water were driven otf by calcination. As an actual fact, it contains 
 over 50 jier cent of the valiialde constituent, as shown by the analysis by Thomas 
 Price & Son of an average sample of an importation. 
 
 2. Tuscan crude boric acid, imported from Italy, contains from 41 to 47 per cent of 
 boric anhydrid. 
 
 3. Native borax, biborato of soda, was formerly imported from Asia under the 
 name of Tincal, but is now supplanted by the above-named forms. It never con- 
 tains more than 36 per cent of boric anhydrid, but may be recrystallized from a hot 
 solution, when it ci-ystallizes with five molecules of water and contains 48 per cent 
 of boric anhydrid. 
 
 All, or nearly all, the water of crystallization may be driven oft' by drying or cal- 
 cining, wIhii it would contain (>!• per cent. A much hij^her rate should therefore be 
 placed upon the dehy<lrated or dried liorax tlian upon the crystallized. 
 
 If the duty on refined borax containing 3li i)er cent of boracic anhydrid is placed 
 at 4 cents per pouml, the proper proj)ortional rate for other compounds containing 
 this constituent would be as follows: 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Boracic ar id 6. 22 
 
 Borax, or bi borate of soda 4. 00 
 
 Borax f refined) 4.00 
 
 Borax (dehydrated or calcined ) 7. 66 
 
 ISorates, or other crude material, according to the actual content of boracic 
 
 anhydride, which may be as high as 70 per cent, giv ing a i)ro)iortional rate of. 7.8!) 
 And upon Turkish borate of lime as at present imported and containing 51 per 
 
 cent of boracic anhy<iride 5. 67 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 C. A. Crampton, M. D., Chemist. ' 
 
 Analyxh of nample of hnrate received from F. M. Smith, esq. 
 
 [TurkiHli liorato of lime. Siiiuple of 6,36o b.ijjs e\. "cevic" imported by Chas. Pfizer & Co., New York.) 
 
 San Fkancisco, Cal., Februarys, 1896. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Silicon dioxide and Insolubhi 1. 10 
 
 Iron and aluminium oxides .62 
 
 Calcium oxide 36.61 
 
 Magnesium oxide . U> 
 
 Snlpiinr trioxiib' 1. 75 
 
 Carbon dioxide .55 
 
 Water 8.11 
 
 Boron trioxidc 51.07 
 
 Total 1(X) 
 
 Equivalent in ordinary borax, 130.67 parts. 
 
 Tno.MAS Trice &l Son. 
 
 Stii.lwkll ife Gladding, 
 New York, Jdnuari/ 5, 1897. 
 Pacific Coast Borax Co^irAxv. 
 
 Suss: The term boron-tri-oxide is a chemical term meaning the same thing as 
 boracic acid (anhydrous). 
 The chemical symbol is BjOn. 
 
 Very truly, Stillwkll & Gladi>in(;. 
 
 In tlie act of 1890 tlie duty on refined borax was 5 cents per pound, 
 wliile under tlie act of 1894 the duty on borate of soda and refined 
 borax were alike, L' cents per j^ound. and the more valuable article, 
 borate of lime, was 1.^ cents per pound. These duties were arbitrarily 
 fixed in the course of legi.slation. Taking;- for the basis of calculation 
 4 cents per pound on refined borax, we have r-itios as above. This basis 
 T H 3
 
 34 SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 is fixed because we do not so much fear competition with Europe as 
 the semicivilized and serf labor of Asiatic Turkey and a product pre- 
 pared with express design to evade duties. We therefore submit the 
 following revised paragraph, based upon proportional or relative values : 
 
 Bates of duty ashed. ^ ^ 
 
 •' Cents. 
 
 Boracicacid per pound.. 6 
 
 Boracic acid wholly or partly dehydrated "o ° 
 
 Borax or biborate of soda • ^ . 
 
 Refined borax '"^ t 
 
 Borax, dehydrated or calcined -.- - <lo.... < 
 
 Borates, borate of soda, or borate of lime or other borate material containing 
 
 less than 36 per cent of boracic anhydrid P«r i)Oiind . . 6 
 
 Containing more than 36 per cent of boracic anhydrid do 4 
 
 All articles, compounds, and preparations of which boracic acid, 
 refined or powdered borax, are a component part of chief value (not 
 specially provided for in this act), shall be subject to a duty not less 
 than that imi)osed upon boracic acid. 
 
 HOW THE PRESENT LAW IS EVADED. 
 
 Under the operations of the present tariff the American miners and 
 producers have been deprived of about 30 per cent of their market, 
 and this is not altogether because the duties were lowered, since under 
 the name of crude borate of lime, a calcined, concentrated, and arti- 
 ficially treated material (dehydrated) direct from Asia Minor has been 
 the bulk of foreign importations. This, in a crude state, is treated 
 at the mines near Panderma, in Asiatic Turkey by crushing, roasting, 
 separating, and settling in reservoirs, and again roasting to eliminate 
 all traces of water. Thus processed, this is no longer a raw material, 
 but a highly concentrated product of partial manufacture, so tliat each 
 pound of this prepared article will make nearly 1^ pounds of refined 
 •borax. 
 
 The present duty on crude borate of lime being \h cents per p<mnd, 
 this material being raised from 3G and 44 jier cent to r>4 and 00 per cent, 
 pays in realty only about 1 cent per pound in duty, thereby evading 
 payment of revenue due the Government and bringing upon tlie Amer- 
 ican producers loss and impending ruin. 
 
 To show the increase and disturbing effect of these importations, we 
 may state that the entire quantity of borate of lime imported into the 
 port of ISTew York in forty-eight months under the act of 1.S90 amounted 
 to 1,167,465 pounds, while for twenty-seven montlis ending December 1, 
 1896, under the act of 1894, they amounted to 10,147,354 pounds. Of this 
 latter quantity about 10,000,000 pounds, owing to its enhanced value by 
 artificial treatment as set forth above, was equivalent to about 1 l.ooo.oob 
 pounds of actual borax, being nearly ten times as much within halt the 
 time as was imported under the act of 1890, and paid a duty of only 
 $152,208; whereas at its true value, the duty should have been 
 $213,091.20 thus depriving the Government of $60,883.20 revenue. 
 
 In the analagous and more valuable product (boracic acid) the im- 
 ports of the same period under the act of 1890 amounted to 2,326,940 
 pounds with a duty of 5 cents per pound, and paid §11(>,347, while 
 under the act of 1890 for twenty-seven months the imports were 
 1,591,993 pounds, yielding the Government a revenue of $47,759 at 3 
 cents per pound, showing relative falling off" of revenue under the pres- 
 ent law, although not in quantity imported, for it averaged 24 tons jjcr 
 month under the act of 1890, and 30 tons per mouth under the present
 
 BORAX AND BORACIC ACID. 
 
 35 
 
 law; or an average duty per mouth under the former of $2,424 and 
 under the present hiw only $1,843. 
 
 Thefollowing table shows the rates of duties imposed since the articles 
 were first enumerated in the tariff laws: 
 
 Date of acts. 
 
 Boracic acid. Borax, crude. 
 
 Borax, refined. 
 
 Borate of lime. 
 
 August 30, 1842 
 
 Jiilv yo, 184t5 
 
 5per cent 
 
 ''(1 Tier reut 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 25 per cent 
 
 4 per cent 
 
 25 percent 
 
 
 Mafcli 3, 1K57 4 percent 
 
 ilarch 2, l«6l Free 
 
 July 14 1862 S r«iit« ii«r 11> 
 
 do 
 
 12 per cent. 
 
 
 5 cents per lb . . . 
 
 10 cents per lb -^ <'^»ta ii«r Ih 
 
 June 6, 1872 
 
 March 3, 1883 
 
 O.tolirrl, 1890 
 
 August 28, 18'J4 
 
 
 ... do 
 
 Free 
 
 Cunimercial, 4 cents 
 perlb; pure, Scents 
 })er lb. 
 
 3cent« per lb... 
 do 
 
 5 cents per lb . . . 
 do 
 
 3 cents per lb. 
 Do. 
 
 
 2 cents per lb . . . 
 
 2 cents per lb . . . 
 
 IJ cents per lb. 
 
 
 Tahle of imports of borax, crude, entered for consumption for the fiscal years ending June 
 
 30, 1667, to 1896. 
 
 Fiscal year ended 
 June 10 — 
 
 1867. 
 1808. 
 1800. 
 1870. 
 1871. 
 1874. 
 1877. 
 J 878. 
 1884. 
 1880. 
 1887. 
 1888. 
 18'.tl. 
 18U2. 
 I8U3. 
 1895. 
 1896. 
 
 Borax, crude. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 5.672 
 
 22, 29:i 
 
 54, 822 
 
 2,616 
 
 5 
 
 588 
 
 55 
 
 286 
 
 142 
 
 4 
 
 33 
 
 45."> 
 
 82, 042 
 
 40 
 
 54:t, 967 
 
 337, 088 
 
 Value. 
 
 Rate of duty. 
 
 $711. 
 
 2. 985. 
 
 8,011. 
 
 322. 
 
 1. 
 
 78. 
 
 12. 
 
 61. 
 
 34. 
 
 1. 
 
 3. 
 
 38. 
 
 9,050. 
 
 6. 
 
 13.659. 
 
 15, 649. 
 
 5 cents i>er lb . 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 du 
 
 Free of duty.. 
 
 lie 
 
 do 
 
 3 cents per lb . 
 dii 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 ....do 
 
 do 
 
 2 cents ]>er lb 
 
 Duty col- 
 lected. 
 
 $283. 60 
 
 1, 114.05 
 
 2, 711. 10 
 130. 80 
 
 .25 
 
 4.26 
 
 .12 
 
 .99 
 
 13.65 
 
 2, 479. 26 
 
 1.20 
 
 16,319.01 
 
 6, 753. 76 
 
 Value per Equivalent 
 pound. ^"^ valorem 
 
 Centt. 
 0. 126 
 .132 
 .150 
 .125 
 .20 
 .132 
 .219 
 .213 
 .24 
 .25 
 .115 
 .085 
 .11 
 .15 
 .025 
 .046 
 
 Per 
 
 cent. 
 
 40 
 
 37.50 
 
 34. 25 
 
 40.62 
 
 25 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 12. 53 
 
 12 
 
 26.05 
 
 35.36 
 
 27.39 
 
 20 
 119.47 
 
 43.16 
 
 TiuM-e was iini)ortc(l in the year 1807 5,072 pounds, at an average 
 vahu' of 12.G cents jier i)ouiul, and in 18U5 there was imported 337,088 
 pounds, at an average value of 4.0 cents per i)ouud.
 
 36 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 Statement of refined borax imported for the fiscal years ended June SO, 1S67 to 1896, 
 
 inclusive. 
 
 Fiscal year ended 
 June oO — 
 
 Borax, refined. 
 
 1867. 
 
 1868. 
 1869. 
 1870. 
 1871. 
 1872. 
 1873. 
 1874. 
 1875. 
 1876. 
 1877. 
 1878. 
 1879. 
 1880. 
 1881. 
 1882. 
 1883. 
 1884. 
 1885. 
 1886. 
 1887. 
 1888. 
 1889. 
 1890. 
 1891. 
 1892. 
 1893. 
 1894. 
 
 1895. 
 
 1896. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 49, 652 
 
 79, 183 
 
 89, 695 
 
 97, 078 
 134, 927 
 
 35, 542 
 9,284 
 3,860 
 5, 153 
 3,145 
 3,500 
 3,492 
 3,472 
 
 15, 278 
 4,136 
 
 15,710 
 5,611 
 7, 332 
 240 
 4, 625 
 3,731 
 4,705 
 5,642 
 2,302 
 
 10, 725 
 3,970 
 
 11,230 
 
 1,812 
 
 74 
 
 612, 656 
 11,376 
 
 Value. 
 
 $6,601.50 
 
 10, 127. 00 
 
 12, 799. 00 
 
 14,511.28 
 
 20, 705. 24 
 
 6, 288. 00 
 
 2, 152. 00 
 
 1, 253. 00 
 
 1. 224. 15 
 
 691. 35 
 
 676.10 
 
 514. 00 
 
 490. 00 
 
 2,011.00 
 
 865. 50 
 
 3, 774. 00 
 
 1, 359. 00 
 
 1, 691. .50 
 
 41.00 
 
 769. 52 
 
 439. 00 
 
 600. 00 
 
 684. 60 
 
 275. 00 
 
 1, 062. 00 
 
 426. 00 
 
 1, 327. 00 
 
 225. 00 
 
 11.00 
 
 26,418.00 
 
 795. 62 
 
 Rate of duty. 
 
 10 cents per lb. 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ...do 
 
 do 
 
 ....do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 5 cents per lb. 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 2 cents per lb. 
 do 
 
 Duty col- 
 lected. 
 
 $4 
 
 965. 
 918. 
 969. 
 707. 
 492. 
 554. 
 928. 
 386. 
 515. 
 314. 
 350. 
 349. 
 347. 
 527. 
 413. 
 571. 
 561. 
 366. 
 12. 
 231. 
 186. 
 235. 
 282. 
 11.5. 
 
 5:;6. 
 
 198. 
 561. 
 90. 
 3. 
 , 253. 
 227. 
 
 Value ner 
 pound. 
 
 CenU. 
 0.132 
 .127 
 .142 
 .151 
 .153 
 .176 
 .231 
 .324 
 .237 
 .22 
 .193 
 .147 
 .141 
 .131 
 .209 
 .24 
 .242 
 .231 
 .171 
 .166 
 .117 
 .128 
 .121 
 .119 
 .099 
 .107 
 .118 
 .124 
 .15 
 .043 
 .07 
 
 Equivalent 
 ad valorem 
 rat«. 
 
 Per ceiit. 
 75. 21 
 78.19 
 70.01 
 66.90 
 65.16 
 56.52 
 43.14 
 30.80 
 42. 09 
 45.49 
 51.77 
 67. 92 
 70. 86 
 75.99 
 47. 79 
 41.63 
 41.29 
 21.67 
 29.27 
 30. 05 
 42. 49 
 39.21 
 41.21 
 41.85 
 50.49 
 46. 6o 
 42.31 
 40. -je 
 33. 64 
 46.38 
 28.58 
 
 The table of boracic acid imported into the United Statrs for the 
 fiscal years 1867 to 1884 shows the following: 
 
 Fiscal year ended 
 June 30 — 
 
 Boracic acid (of all kind*). 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Kate of duty. 
 
 Duty col- 
 lected. 
 
 Value per Kn-'i^'"" 
 
 1867.... 
 1868.... 
 
 1869 
 
 1870 
 
 1871.... 
 
 1872 
 
 1873.... 
 
 1874 
 
 1875.... 
 1876.... 
 1877.... 
 1878.... 
 
 1879 
 
 1880.... 
 
 18S1 
 
 18S2.-.. 
 1883.... 
 
 770, 756 
 
 243. 993 
 
 988, 033 
 
 1, 166, 145 
 
 1, 204. 049 
 
 1, 103, 974 
 
 1, 222, 006 
 
 233, 955 
 
 41, 742 
 
 137,518 
 
 107, 468 
 
 178, 798 
 
 306, 462 
 
 243, 733 
 
 187, 053 
 
 536, 334 
 
 4, 334, 432 
 
 5 cents per lb . 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 Free of dutv.. 
 
 do "... 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do , 
 
 do , 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 $38, 537. 80 
 12.199.65 
 49.401.65 
 58, 307. 25 
 60, 202. 45 
 55,198.70 
 
 Cents. 
 0.095 
 .092 
 .11 
 .148 
 .154 
 .171 
 .208 
 .226 
 .15 
 .114 
 .105 
 .085 
 .071 
 .076 
 .084 
 .133 
 .134 
 
 Per emt. 
 
 52.51 
 53.40 
 44.92 
 33.55 
 32. 46 
 28.81 
 Freo. 
 
 ¥Tf«. 
 
 Free. 
 Free. 
 Fre*. 
 Fre«. 
 Fr««. 
 Free. 
 Free. 
 Free. 
 Free. 
 
 The price in 1867 was 9i cents per pound, when it was subject to a 
 
 per pound.
 
 BORAX AND BORACIC ACID. 
 
 37 
 
 The table following exhibits a steady increase of importations of 
 coinmeiciar' and ''pure" boracic acid from 1864 to 1801: 
 
 
 
 
 Coracic acid, 
 
 cotnniercial. 
 
 
 
 Fiscal year euded 
 Juue 30— 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Rate of duty 
 
 Duty 
 collected. 
 
 Value per 
 pound. 
 
 Equivalent 
 ad valo- 
 rem rate. 
 
 1884 
 
 42, 900. 25 
 
 42. 1&5 
 393. K32 
 341.446 
 4.VI. 845 
 624, 321 
 7ri2. 952 
 152, 093 
 
 $4, 193. 00 
 3, 208. 00 
 22. 462. 00 
 16, 905. 00 
 24, 050. 00 
 32, 502. 00 
 35,913.00 
 7. 975. 00 
 
 4 cents per lb . 
 
 1 
 ... $1,716.01 
 ...' 1 6.S6 00 
 
 CenU. 
 .098 
 .076 
 .050 
 .05 
 .052 
 .052 
 .047 
 .052 
 
 Per cent. 
 40.93 
 
 1885 
 
 5"' 57 
 
 1886 
 
 do 
 
 ... 15.753.28 
 
 70 13 
 
 1887 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 ... 13.657.84 
 ... 18.393.80 
 ... 24,972.84 
 ... 30,518.08 
 6,083.72 
 
 
 1888 
 
 76 46 
 
 1H89 
 
 70 83 
 
 1 890 
 
 84 97 
 
 1891a 
 
 76.30 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Boracic acid, 
 
 pure. 
 
 
 
 Fiscal year ended 
 J uue 30 — 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Kate of duty. 
 
 Duty 
 collected. 
 
 Value per 
 pound. 
 
 Equivalen 
 ad valo- 
 rem rate. 
 
 1884 
 
 1.611.50 
 
 6, 352 
 36, 823 
 34. 738 
 27. 932. 25 
 52.415 
 104, 850 
 39, 394 
 
 $301. 00 
 827. (H) 
 8.775.91 
 2, 920. 00 
 2, 338. 00 
 4,312.00 
 8,0.">4.0O 
 2, 9U0. 00 
 
 Scents per lb 
 
 $80.58 
 
 317.00 
 
 1,841.15 
 
 1, 730. 90 
 1,390.02 
 
 2, 62.1. 75 
 5, 242. 50 
 1, 909. 70 
 
 CenU. 
 .187 
 .13 
 .103 
 .084 
 .084 
 .082 
 .077 
 .074 
 
 Per cent. 
 96 77 
 
 1885 
 
 38 40 
 
 1886 
 
 ... do 
 
 48 75 
 
 1887 
 
 do 
 
 59 48 
 
 1888 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 59 74 
 
 1889 
 
 60 77 
 
 1890 
 
 65 09 
 
 1891 o 
 
 67 68 
 
 
 
 
 a Three niontbs. 
 
 By the act of October 1, 1890, boracic acid, being subject to a single 
 duty of 5 cents per i)0iiii(l, and under the act of August 28, 181)4, to a 
 duty of 3 cents per i)ound. 
 
 
 Doracic acid (of all kinds). 
 
 Fiscal year ended 
 J uue 30 — 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Rate of duty. J^^^^ 
 
 Value per 
 pound. 
 
 Equivalent 
 ad valo- 
 rem rate. 
 
 1891 
 
 475,377.60 
 
 701,025 
 
 771,775 
 
 2112. 990 
 S ^S. 172 
 \ W9. 982 
 
 555, 709 
 
 $30,138.15 
 
 39,418.00 
 40. 508. 00 
 19,2f;2. 00 
 4.310.00 
 37, 740. 50 
 21, 899. 00 
 
 Scents per lb 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 3 cents per lb 
 
 $23. 768. 88 
 35.081.25 
 38. 588. 75 
 14, 64'J. 50 
 4, 258. 60 
 25,199.46 
 16. 673. 07 
 
 CenU. 
 .003 
 .050 
 .053 
 .066 
 .051 
 .045 
 .04 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 78.87 
 89 
 
 1892 
 
 1893 
 
 1894 
 
 1895 
 
 95.12 
 75.96 
 98.67 
 
 1896 
 
 66.77 
 76 14 
 
 
 
 
 a Nine months.
 
 38 
 
 SCHEDULE A. — CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 Borate of soda or borate of lime was subject to a duty, under act of 
 October 1, 1890, of 3 ceuts per pound and was reduced to 1^ cents by 
 tbe act of August 28, 1894. The importations are nearly ten tunes the 
 imports of the year 1894. 
 
 Fiscal year ended 
 June 30— 
 
 1870 
 
 1871 
 1872 
 18S0 
 1S!)0 
 i8Hl 
 1804 
 
 1895 
 1896 
 
 Borate of soda or borate of lime. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 33, 520 
 
 45, 600 
 
 22, 500 
 
 22. 122 
 
 29, 608 
 
 331, 509 
 
 441. 066 
 
 a9fl, 720 
 
 3. 796. 953 
 
 4, 307, 100 
 
 Value. 
 
 $1,666.00 
 
 2, 248. 00 
 
 800. 00 
 
 742. 00 
 
 800. 00 
 
 8, 631. 00 
 
 11,427.00 
 
 2, 700. 00 
 
 87, 255. 00 
 
 104, 951. 50 
 
 Kate of duty. 
 
 Duty 
 collected. 
 
 5 cent.s per lb... 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 Free of duty 
 
 3 cents per lb... 
 do 
 
 do ;. 
 
 do 
 
 IJ cents per lb.. 
 do 
 
 . 676. 45 
 , 2.«0. 00 
 , 125.00 
 
 888. 24 
 945. 27 
 231.98 
 991. 60 
 954.30 
 606. 52 
 
 Value per 
 pound. 
 
 Cent*. 
 .049 
 .047 
 .035 
 .034 
 .027 
 .028 
 .026 
 .027 
 .023 
 .024 
 
 Eoniviilent 
 
 au viilorem 
 
 rate. 
 
 Per 
 
 cent. 
 100. 63 
 10 1.. SO 
 140. 62 
 Froe. 
 111.03 
 115.23 
 11.''..70 
 110.89 
 6.-.. 27 
 61. S6 
 
 a Two months. 
 
 The proposed relative rate of duty on borate of lime would no 
 doubt result in a falling off in the importations, but there would prob- 
 ably still be sufficient imported to maintain a fair amount of revenue 
 from so exceptional a source, and the 8<i0,883.2() evaded for the i)ast 
 two years must be either paid to the Government as an increased rev- 
 enue or the product bought at home, to the benefit of American laborers 
 and producers. 
 
 As an evidence of good faith, the American miners have ottered and 
 stand ready to supply this raw material to contracting parties at the 
 foreign price, plus the ruling rate of duty. The chief sutlVrcrs from 
 these evasions of duties and heavy importations are the smaller miners 
 and producers (a number of whom I most directly represent), as some 
 of them for nearly a year have had their works closed, leaving the bus- 
 iness to but a few home producers, to an English borax syndicate, and 
 °. few importers. These suflerers are now your humble petitioners for 
 relief. 
 
 KEASONS FOR INCREASE OF DUTY. 
 
 We ask this revision and increase of duty the more confidently for the 
 reason that, having cheapened borax and'boracic acid by a con.stantly 
 increasing production under reasonable tariff protectioii from 1883 to 
 1893, and placed the American consumer where he is no longer depend- 
 ent or at the mercy of the foreign manufiicturer and importer, we feel 
 that we are entitled to such measure of protection as will protect ns 
 from being made periodically the damping ground of foreign surplus 
 stocks, only to be followed by reprisals upon our people when we shall 
 have been driven out of the business. 
 
 This mode of warfare is not new in this growing indnstry which 
 but for the interposition of timely protective duties would have been 
 several times in the past upon the brink of ruin. In maintaining the 
 double fight of home and foreign competition prices have fiillen below 
 cost ot manufacture and transportation to our Eastern markets and 
 while such loss (exclusive of any return on investment) falls heavilv 
 upon the producer, labor must share that loss with him, or the industry 
 must decline and ultimately cease. "'uu^uy
 
 BORAX AND BORACIC ACID, 
 
 39 
 
 LABOR AND WAGES. 
 
 The following table shows the wages per day paid employees in the 
 borax industry in the United States and in Asia Minor: 
 
 (Extract from report of Consul Madden, August 26, 1896.] 
 
 United States. 
 
 Turkey in Asia. 
 
 Laborers $2 per day 44 cents per day . . 
 
 Canient<T.s $'-i per day 66 cents per day -. 
 
 Black sni it lis $.i 5ip ipcr day 8K cents per day .. 
 
 TinHiiiitlis $.'l lii-i day 66 cents per day .. 
 
 Engineers ' $r_'0 per nmnth | $52.80 per month.. 
 
 Firemen $7") per month : $15.40 per month. . 
 
 Bookkeepers $125 per month $35.20 per month.. 
 
 Foremen ' $240 per month $44 per month 
 
 Ditrcronce in favor 
 of lalior in the 
 United States. 
 
 $1.56 per day. 
 $2.34 per day. 
 $2.62 per diiy. 
 $2.:i4 per day. 
 $67.20 per mOnth. 
 $59 00 per month. 
 $8it.80 per nn)nth. 
 $196 per month. 
 
 The wages of laborers, carpenters, and tinsmiths are four and one- 
 half times, of blacksmiths (our times, of engineers two and one fourth 
 times, of bookkeepers three ami one-fourtli times, and of foremen 
 nearly five tinie.s greater in tlie United States (California and Nevada) 
 than in Tnrkey in Asia. 
 
 (The information in regard to wages in the United States is taken 
 from the lejiort of the L'nited States (xeological Survey, ]\Iineral 
 Kesonices of tlie Tiiited States, IHSIMKJ, page 4'»4, while 'the state- 
 ments concerning 'f iirkey in Asia are taken from the Special Consular 
 Keport on Money and Prices in l*'oreign Countries, \'olumeXlII, Parti, 
 page ms. State Department, Washington, D. C, ISlHi.) 
 
 In further contrast with tlie foregoing we have in the report of C. G. 
 Wornford Lock on pandermite (ISSO) a new boracic mineral, which is 
 part of the record of the Senate, Fiftieth Congress, first session, Report 
 No. L*33l*, part 13, testimony taken by the subcommittee on the tariff of 
 the Senate Committee on Finance, in connection with the bill H. R. 
 9051, 188S, as follows: 
 
 Lal>or JH very cheap (in A.'*ia Minora and almiidaiit, Tiirkpi, Circ.issian, Tartars, 
 Armenians, (Ireeks, and Italians iiein;; <>l)t.iinald(' from tlif nei<;liborinfj villaj^es. 
 
 Tlio Ottoman (Jovernment has granted a coniiirehensive concession to a party of 
 Britisli residents who are settinj^ to work to develop the property, and the district 
 enjoys the great advantage of being niuler British jirotection. 
 
 SOURCES OF SUPPLY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 The sources of supply are ample for the indefinite future, as the 
 deposits are greatly diversified in area and character, some of tliese 
 having the power of reproduction from the saline lake waters charged 
 with the essential agent, namely, boracic acid. This agency, being in 
 the underlying waters, renews the surface deposits to a very great 
 extent. 
 
 There are many thousands of acres of these saline deposits through- 
 out the State of Nevada, on the Mojave Desert, and in Death Valley, 
 Cjilifornia. 
 
 The deposits at Borax Lake, known as Searles P>orax Marsh, San 
 Bernardino County, Cal., have been worked for twenty three years with 
 an average output of -lOO tons per year, which property has no plant 
 yet adequate to test its producing capacity.^ 
 
 'See United States Geological Survey, Mineral Resources of the United States, 
 I889-yO, 1893-94.
 
 40 SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 The great uudergrouud ledge formation in the Calico District, San 
 Bernardino County, Cal., is capable of sustaining its present output tor 
 SryTears, and L?^of veJy hig\.-grade material, the borate of hme cor. 
 taining from 28 per cent to 44 per cent of boracic acid Th^ ^/^.^"^ 
 Valley deposits of Inyo County, Cal., a marsn ot ^'^^^^e of soda 1 a. a 
 fertile area of 2,000 acres. These deposits are owned and operated by 
 the following: 
 
 List of horax companies in California and Nevada. 
 
 CALIFORNIA. 
 
 1. Pacific Coast Borax Company, m operation. , , . „^ „„, ,. ion. 
 
 2. San Bernardino Borax Mining Company suspended smce act of 1894. 
 
 3. Saline Valley Borax Company, suspended since act ol im. 
 
 4. Morrow, deposit uear Mojave, suspended since act ot 1^J4. 
 
 5. Salt Marsh Borax Company, suspended since act ot 1894. 
 
 NEVADA. 
 
 1. Eeno Borax Company, in operation. 
 
 2. Berne Borax Company, in operation. 
 
 3 Nevada Sal and Borax Company, suspended since act ot l»y4. 
 
 4. Columbus Borax and Boracic Acid Company, in operatum. 
 
 5. State Line Borax Company, suspended since act ot 1894. 
 
 6. Amadee Borax Company, suspended since act ot 1894. 
 
 7. R. Neuscliwander, suspended since act of 1894. 
 
 Of the foregoing 12 operators only 4 are now working. 
 
 There are great natural resources for future supply in Death Valley 
 which are untouched, owing to distance from rail transportation, wiiich 
 ■will become available in the near future wlien a railroad connecting 
 Salt Lake, Utah, with Los Angles, Cal., already surveyed, is con- 
 structed. There is also a deposit of small area in Curry County, Oreg. 
 
 PRODUCTION. 
 
 The growth of the industry and the etiect of its development and 
 expansion is best shown by the figures in the following table: 
 
 Production of horax in the United States from 1SG4 to 1SS6, inclusive. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 1864. 
 1865. 
 1866. 
 
 1867 . 
 
 1868 . 
 
 1869 . 
 
 1870 - 
 
 1871 . 
 
 1872 . 
 
 1873 . 
 
 1874 . 
 
 1875 . 
 1876. 
 1877. 
 1878. 
 1879. 
 1880. 
 1881. 
 
 Production. 
 
 Pounds. 
 25, 000 
 250, 000 
 
 •No production 
 
 2, 000, 000 
 
 4, 000, 000 
 
 5, 433, 658 
 5, 180, 810 
 4, 727, 280 
 
 2, 802, 800 
 1, 554, 986 
 
 3, 860, 748 
 
 4, 045, 405 
 
 Wholesale 
 inice in 
 
 New York 
 City per 
 pound. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 39 
 374 
 
 123 
 105 
 9J 
 ^ 
 9 
 12i 
 13J 
 
 Year. 
 
 1882. 
 
 1883 . 
 
 1884 . 
 : 1885 . 
 
 33ii 1886 . 
 ,351 1 1887 . 
 30}r 1888 . 
 3li 1889 . 
 32 i 1890 . 
 244 ! 1891 , 
 14ii 1892 
 
 1893 . 
 1894. 
 1895 . 
 1896, 
 
 Total. 
 
 Production. 
 
 Pounds. 
 4.236,291 
 5. 600, 000 
 7.713,30.1 
 7,471,404 
 9.841,482 
 10, 182, OUO 
 
 7, 830, 000 
 
 8, 800, 000 
 
 9, 500, 000 
 13. 380, 000 
 12,5:48,196 
 
 8, 609, 000 
 13,000,000 
 13. 500, 000 
 15, 400, 000 
 
 181,297,363 
 
 Wlioli'»«l« 
 pricp in 
 
 Mi'w York 
 
 City per 
 
 pound. 
 
 CenU. 
 
 14} 
 
 8 
 7* 
 
 
 a Equal to 90,648.1363 tons.
 
 BORAX AND BORACIC ACID. 41 
 
 COST OF MANUFACTURE. 
 
 By reference to the letter of Delafield, McGovern & Co., New York, 
 it will be seen tliat they place the cost of manufacture of coiuuiercial 
 borax by the lieiio Borax Coiiii>any, of Keno, Xev., and the Berne 
 Borax Company, of Lovelocks, ]Sev.. at about -1 cents a pound at rail- 
 road, and the freiglit rate at 87i cents per 100 ])(>unds, making the cost 
 in tlie Eastern nnirket about 4^ cents. Tlie selling i)rice is now 5 cents 
 I)er pound in 2sew York, allowing- nothing for insurance, storage, dray- 
 age, and interest on investment. 
 
 New York. December 26, 1S96. 
 
 COMMITTKK ON WaYS AND MkANS: 
 
 Ah the represeutatives of the Reuo Borax Company, of Reno, Nev., and the Berne* 
 Borax Coinpaiiy, of Lovelocks, Nev.. we bt-p leave to ask the consideration of yonr 
 conmiittee to the iuijjosition ol a tariff on iinjxirtations of borax tliat will enable the 
 Annirican jirodiicers and nianiil'acturers of this article to meet foreij;n conipetitiou. 
 
 'J'he total inijiortations of borate of lime and crude borax under the McKiuley bill 
 amounted to 1,107,^05 jiounds. I'lider the Wil.sou-Gornian bill imports to December 
 1 of tlie current year were 10,147. 2r)4 pounds. 
 
 Borate of lime is iiu])orted in cabined form and runs very bigh in anhydrous boracio 
 acid, wliich is the base of b«irax ol couimcrce. C'onnnercial borax i>rodnces about 36 
 per ceut of aniiydrous bcuaric acid, while l»orate of lime will average 51 to fiii per 
 cent. It is apparent, thcitforc, that (or every ])onnd imi)ortcd there is suflicient 
 material to produce 1^ ]ionndH of borax, and the total quantity imjiorted nnder the 
 Wil.son-Ciornian bill i.s sulhcient to make aliout 7,5(X) tons of borax, or about a year's 
 Bupply. 
 
 Borate of lime pays 1^ cents per poun<l duty. e<|uivalent, say, to 1 cent per borax- 
 inakiii;^ pound. Our jiroducers. owin;j to the hii;h jirice of lal>or and the lonjx te.im 
 hauls across the desert to a railroad. c:in not <leliver borax at the railroad station lor 
 much less than J ci-ntsa pound. Railroad freij^ht to Kastern jioints is bi7^ cents i)er 100 
 
 IiouikIs. 'I'he ])resent New York price fur c<uicentratcd borax is 4i cents i)er p(uind. 
 n conso<|iien(e of these comliiions our ])eople are compelled to stop the production, 
 and they advised ns (|uite recently that they can not atibrd to continue to ship borax 
 to be sidd at the ]»re ent market )»rices. 
 
 There is sullicienl borax nia'erial on the Pacific Coast to supjily the entire tradeof 
 the I'nited States at a reasonable jirice tor many years to c(uue. and we apjieal to 
 you that these producers, workiny as they do under yreat disadvantages, should be 
 encouraged. 
 
 As a i|uestion of revenue, the total duty ]iaid on imported material iinder th« pres- 
 ent tarilf is only about $!.">(), 000. With an increase in this duty of about \h cents a 
 poun<l there would doubtless be a heavy falling off in the importations, but there 
 would jirobably still be sulbcient impoited to maintain the revenue from this source, 
 ai the present figure at least. We think the duty on higli-grade material of this 
 kind should be at least 3 cents ]»er pound. 
 
 Re8i)ectfully submitting the foregoing, we beg to remain, yours, very truly, 
 
 Dki^kjki.u, McGovKifN A Co. 
 
 The value of the nniterial in the mine or deposit is represented by no 
 more than its due i)ro rata of interest and taxes on the total investment, 
 so that until touched by labor tlie first cost is nominal, as compared 
 with the manufactured i)roduct laid down in the Eastern market. As 
 this industry includes both mining and manufacturing, and has all the 
 disadvantages of remoteness and scarcity of near-by laborers, there are 
 more constant fixed charges (mostly labor) than attach to any other 
 American manufacture. tSo that if tiie output falls below a certain 
 quantity the expense account is relatively greater and the cost j^er 
 l)Ound higher than at full working capacity. A larger share of our 
 home market is therefore indisjjensable to its existence. 
 
 These fixed exjienses are: Su])erintendence, clerks, skilled and com- 
 mon laborers familiar with the working of variable characteristics of 
 the raw borates to be treated, animals for wagon transportation, etc., 
 which must be retained at nearly all times, and cost as much whether
 
 42 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 the output be large or small. The surrender, therefore, of the market 
 to this foreign, partially manufactured article means that the American 
 must sell his goods at less than cost (which is the present case) and 
 ultimately go out of the business bankrupt, when, in turn, the foreign 
 borax syndicate and importer recoup themselves by advancing prices 
 to any limit after having destroyed domestic competition. 
 
 CONSUMPTION OF BORAX AND BORACIC ACID. 
 
 The present annual consumption of borax is about 11,000 tons, of 
 which amount upward of 3,300 tons, or 30 per cent, is now supplied by 
 importations of Turkish borate of lime, artificially prepared witii ex- 
 press design of evading duties. There has been a marked increase in 
 the consumption of borax m this country, as well as an increase in home 
 production, but competition with the specified imports has reduced 
 prices below profit and narrowed the competitive warfare to three home 
 companies and the foreign importers. 
 
 Adequate protection would enable the smaller producers to start up 
 again, for if present conditions were to continue, their proi)erty w<uil(l 
 be finally absorbed by the larger concerns, thus destroying all domestic 
 competition. 
 
 Of boracic acid the annual consumption is about 1,150 tons. Of this 
 amount the importers who use the Turkish borate ot lime for making 
 boric acid sell about 000 tons. Tliere is also sold about !'.")(► tons of 
 Tuscany boracic acid, which is not further refined and is used in direct 
 form, thus leaving only about 300 tons of this more valuable jiroduct to 
 the American producers. 
 
 The method'of refining borax was originally possessed as a great secret 
 by the Venetians and l^utcli. Later it became a British mono])o]y. 
 The Pacific Coast production has rescued our i)eople from extortionate 
 prices, as shown. Between the years 1873 and 1S83 a large portion of 
 the American product was exported to Europe, for want of a home 
 market. The demand now keeps pace and is regulated by the pros 
 perity of our home manufactures. 
 
 The tariff act of 18S3 gave the first impulse to domestic consumption, 
 though still a small industry, as represented in volume and moiu^y value, 
 compared with the many industries that owe their existence to this 
 American product. For borax and boracic acid are nf>t only useful and 
 valuable, but have become, in fact, indispensable in the industrial arts 
 and manufactures of our country, inasnnich as they stand at the very 
 basis of some of our most important home industries and manufactures, 
 such as enameled ironware, porcelain ironware, pottery and glass, 
 edged tools, for fluxing and forge use, preservatives, stareh, fish curing, 
 meat packing, etc., and without this essential agent some of these 
 industries would have no existence. 
 
 ADVERSE INTERESTS. 
 
 There are but few self-interested parties hostile to the imposition of 
 protective duties on these manufactured products— importers, who are 
 the natural enemies of all domestic manufactures, and a few potteries 
 that manufacture artistic and decorated wares which command fancy 
 prices, and to whom the cost of boracic acid or borax is a minor expense 
 They are accustomed to foreign goods and will not use the American 
 article under any conditions. Their wares are strictly a luxury. 
 
 The trade generally, but actual consumers who use the bulk of our
 
 BORAX AND BORACIC ACID. 43 
 
 product particularly, are favorable to higher duties, being willing to 
 allow us, under our American policy, what they ask for themselves. 
 Also, being under the necessity of securing large supplies, wliich must 
 come to them around the Horn in American vessels, they prefer stable 
 prices to the tiu(;tiiating and speculative prices of imported goods. 
 
 Tliey likewise, from experience, know that under a former tariff of 5 
 cents a ])ound on retined borax and pure boracic acid, and 3 cents on 
 borate of lirne and crude borax, that concentrated (prismatic) borax, 
 the grade used by them was sold at less than 5 cents i)er ])ound, caused 
 by (lomcstic competition. (See testimony of Mr. J. W. Mather before 
 Senate Finance Coiumittee, Kejwrt No. 2332, part 2, pp. 20r)-213.) 
 
 Experimental chemistry has done but little for this great industry of 
 the desert lands of California and Nevada. Cheai)er methods of 
 extraction and better developments of properties looking to perma- 
 nence are the outgrowth of practical experience which is at tirst 
 attended by heavy losses in all new tields of enterprise. We need tlie 
 assurance of tlie Congress that such enterprise will not be crushed out 
 for want of a home market. 
 
 WHAT BORAX IS, WHERE IT COMES FROM, AND SOME OF ITS USES. 
 
 Borax of soda, common borax, is a neutral salt formed by tlie com- 
 bination of boracic ;icid with soda (chemistry). It is biborate of soda, 
 manufactured by combining native boracic acid and soda (Worcester's 
 Dictionary). Crndc boracic :icid from Italy (and from Tnrkey in Asia 
 Minor) is i>rinci{)ally sent to ICngland and the Cnited States, where a 
 large i)roportion of it is manufactnred into borax by artilicial combina- 
 tion with carbonate of soda. Tlie ordinary prismatic borax of com- 
 merce, principally used in the I'nited States, is manufactured from the 
 native borati's of California and Neva<la and is of tirst class (juality 
 and chemically puie (l*r<)lessor Hank's Third Annual Keport to Cali- 
 fornia State Mining Uureau (18S3), pp. 10-2(i). 
 
 J)orax and boracic acid have great antiseptic properties and also 
 perform an important jiart of economic value in the industrial arts. 
 Jioiax is useful in the arts, manutactures, and mines. Borax is a 
 germici<lc used in antise]>tic surgery and to arrest decay in animal 
 f()o<l. Borax is a tlux for all nietals — iron, gold, silver, etc., enabling 
 them to melt at a lower temperature. ]5orax is a glaze used in i)otteries, 
 glass factories, and by emimelers for making a brilliant polish. 
 Borax is an emollient valuable for tlie toilet: it softens and whitens tlie 
 face and lian<ls. ISorax is uninHammable and prevents tire, can be 
 employed for rendering muslin tireproof. Borax is a medicine and 
 now enters into many iiharnuiceutical jireparations. Borax is a bleach 
 tUid is used in laundries for preventing clothes from turning yellow. 
 Borax is used to enamel jxircelain coated iron, known as ''granite 
 ware," "agate ware," etc. Borax in solution, mixed with linseed oil, 
 may be used for cheap painting. Borax is used as a mordant in calico 
 printing and in dyeing, and as a substitute for soap. Borax is exten- 
 sively used in starch making and gives a tine gloss. 
 
 Kespectfully submitted. 
 
 IT. Krebs, Jr., 
 Repreaenting the Borate anil Borax Miners and Producers 
 
 of tlie IStates of California and Nevada.
 
 44 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. H. M. YERINGTON, OF CARSON 
 
 CITY, NEV. 
 
 Carson City, Nev., December 26, 1896, 
 
 Dear Sir: In view of tlie interest now taken in tlie tarift" que.><tiou, 
 I feel that you will pardon me for calling your attention to some ot our 
 Nevada and California productions which re(iuire a little more ])rotee- 
 tion, viz, borax and soda, the further details of which please hud m 
 the accompanying memorandum, wherein I have attempted to give a 
 few unquestionable facts for your consideration. 
 
 Some ten years ago a number of our residents secured, by purcliase 
 from the Government, the extensive alkali deposit known as Owens 
 Lake, in Inyo County, Cal., with the intention of extracting from its 
 waterssodaash, bicarbonateofsoda, caustic soda, and other by-products^ 
 with which those waters are so strongly '•ini>regnated, without doubt 
 the largest alkali deposit in America. About .S2.J0,(K)0 has been 
 invested in the lands and works at the lake, this year's i)roduction being 
 over 3,0U0 tons of excellent carbonate of soda. So far a dividend has 
 never been declared, although, I believe, tlie consuinptioM of carbonate 
 of soda and its compounds in the United States is about 1M0,(U)0 tons 
 per annum, the greater portion coming from England and other foreign 
 countries. The output at Owens Lake could be heavily increased by 
 investment of more capital, but foreign competition is so great under 
 present low tariff that a further investment is not advisable unless 
 we have a higher duty to protect the industry against the raids of 
 foieigners. 
 
 The borax interests are especially important, the production large 
 (viz, over 35,000 tons since 18S3, which at present market price of 4^ 
 cents per pound would be over $3,000,000j, with a heavy amount or 
 capital invested, giving employment to a vast number of white i>eople, 
 and also to Indians coming off the Indian reservation, who are well 
 paid, thus materially assisting the Government in taking care of them. 
 
 With the hope tliat they will give every possible aid in this matter, 
 I have taken the liberty of writing Senator Stewart, Senator \VUite, 
 Senator Jones, and other leading Members of Congress now at Wash- 
 ington. 
 
 The borax marshes of the United States are confined almost entirely 
 to the States of California and Nevada, consisting of many thousands 
 of acres situated at widely different points but entirely within the arid 
 and desert region, as a rule far di.stant fro n railroad facilities, hence 
 the transportation and freight of machinery, supplies, etc.. to the various 
 works and the manufactured ])roduct from thence to railroad and mar- 
 ket is found to be very expensive, necessitating the employment of an 
 exten.sive outfit of heavy teams, wagons, etc. The result is that i)ro- 
 ducers now find it extremely difficult to compete with the foreign i)rod- 
 uct under its system of cheap labor and cheap trans]»ortation. But even 
 under this adverse state of things our people have been able to increa.se 
 their output from the small beginning of COO tons in 1873 to over 5,000 
 tons per annum in 1895, and reducing the price from 33 cents per pouud 
 in 1873, when the country was entirely su])i)lied by foreigners, to -4.^ 
 cents, the present rate, which could not have been done under the oi)era- 
 tion of a free list, for since the tariff of 1883 the prices of borax have 
 ruled lower than ever known before. Therefore, it is evident that 
 through the action of our American producers C)i;sumers throughout 
 the country have been immensely benefited; and they are found in
 
 BORAX AND BORACIC ACID. 45 
 
 every town and hamlet in the land. Aside froni the great benefit to 
 consniner.s generally, the maunfacture is of great and vital importance 
 to the people of the States of California and ^'evada in this, that very 
 large sums of money are invested in these works, namely: 
 
 First. By purchase of hirge tracts of land from the United States 
 Government at 82.50 per acre. As a rule, those lands are absolutely 
 worthless for any other pur])ose, and hence would lie as arid, unproduc- 
 tive wastes for all time, both to the Government and ])eople. 
 
 Second. Large sums of money have been expended in the shape of 
 extensive bnildings, plant, and other machinery, whicli, without a tarift", 
 would have to be abandoned and go to ruin and decay. 
 
 Third. The business requires much skilled and scientific labor, for 
 which high renih'neration is paid. Ordinary laborers are necessarily 
 employed by the hundred at good rates of wages. On many of the 
 marshes vast numbers of Indians, the nation's proteges, are given work 
 nearly all the year round at never less than $1 per day, thus greatly 
 aiding the (iovernment in taking care of them. At one marsh in 
 Nevada 300 Indians are frequently on its pay roll, engaged in gather- 
 ing boracic acid, known as '' cotton balls." 
 
 Fourth. Further, relative to the labor and industrial question as found 
 in connection with the borax and soda i>roductions of California and 
 Nevada. Trans])(»rtation cuts an important figure in its extensive 
 teaming and freighting, requiring the services of great numbers of 
 skilled teamsters, staide men, etc. The consum])tion of hay, oats, and 
 barley is necessarily veiy great, an<l tiie supplies of beef, pork, vege- 
 tables, and other supjilies for the use of the camps, all obtained from 
 the nearest ranches, for which cash is paid and which the producers 
 could not possibly obtain through any other source. At all the works 
 immense (piantities of wood are used as fuel in the manufacture of 
 boiax and soda. This wood is cut in the mountains by white men and 
 hauled to the works, thus employing an additional number ot men and 
 teams at a heavy outlay of cash, at the same time giving many of our 
 people steady employment. The small country merchants scattered 
 throughout those regions are also benefited by this trade, which helps 
 greatly to keep their heads above water. 
 
 Fifth. The large amount of taxes paid the States and counties inci- 
 dent to these industries is important, and their loss would be severely 
 felt by the several counties particularly. 
 
 Of late years the consumption of borax and soda enters into the arts, 
 manufactures, and home life of the c<uintry very extensively, is won- 
 derfully increasing every year, and, as above stated, English manufac- 
 turers, being the great foreign shipi)ers into this country, they, by their 
 cheap labor, transportation, etc., under our low tariff, are enabled to 
 cripple our home ])r()dncers of both borax and soda very seriously, in 
 fact, today almost driving them out of our own markets. 
 
 Soda stands relatively on the same ground with borax, the great nat- 
 ural deposits being found at Owens Lake, in Inj-o County, Cal., Rag- 
 town, and other points in Nevada, in an alkali, arid region, entirely 
 devoid of vegetation. The production on the coast is comparatively 
 small, at continued reduced i)rices, owing to the larger and improved 
 Works and methods of manufacture, and yet notwithstanding the des- 
 perate efforts of foreign conq)etitors to hold the trade it is only a ques- 
 tion of time when our manufacturers will be able to supply the wants 
 of at least one half the country provided a little higher tarifl" is granted 
 them. 
 The sales of carbonate of soda or English ash on the coast are about
 
 46 SCHEDULE A. — CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 7,000 tous per annum, principally from England, less the borne produc- 
 tion of about 2,500 tous. Under the present tariff our people are sub- 
 jected to very sharp competition from foreigners, rendered possible 
 "owing to their extensive moneyed capital, cheap labor, and extraordi- 
 narily cheap transportation to their shipping ports and across the sea, 
 the bulk of their shipments coming over to our ports as ballast. 
 
 The annual consumption of soda and its compounds, viz, English ash 
 (carbonate of soda), salaratus (bicarbonate of soda), caustic, bleaching: 
 and washing soda, etc., in the United States is about 2.")(i,<MM) tons, the 
 major portion being from Great Britain, shipped to this country ])rin- 
 cipally in foreign bottoms, thus adding gneatly to their receipts from 
 the pockets of our people. 
 
 Notwithstanding the high wages paid in this country, expense of 
 transportation to market, etc., it is not to be snpi>()sed that should the 
 present tariff be increased somewhat, as desired, tliat our i)roducers 
 can j)ossibly advance jirices, but, on tl.'e other hand, our works nuist 
 shut down and foreigners have absolute control of tliis market, as pre- 
 vious to 1872, force up prices far beyond the present rates, and all 
 American consumers suffer accordingl3^ In this connection it may be 
 stated that in the manufacture of borax 33 per cent ot soda is recjuired 
 to every ton. 
 
 Glass blowers, paper workers, soap manufacturers, woolen mills, etc., 
 are consumers of carbonate of soda to an enormous extent, supplied 
 principally from England. Therefore, in advocating a substantial 
 increase of the present tariff this appeal is not made wholly in the 
 interest of the producers alone, but in thatof the manufacturers above 
 stated and that of avast number of our peojdc in every condition of 
 life, and for the benefit of nearly every houscliold in our broad land. 
 
 Under this state of things it is felt by the i)ro(lu(ers in Nevada and 
 California that they are justified in asking that the following duties be 
 fixed: 
 
 Ceiita^ 
 
 Boracic acid por ponnd . . 5 
 
 Borax do.... 4 
 
 Concentrated, calcined or treated borate of lime, and otlier borax uiuterials, 
 
 per pound '3 
 
 Borate of lime .1"/. V////. y.'. '.'.'.".".!! J.Vr' pom. 'd" 3 
 
 Borate 01 soda ,Jq 3 
 
 Carbonate of soda (b> i 
 
 Bicarbonate of soda ,](, j 
 
 Sal soda or crystals ,iy 1 
 
 Caustic soda 1 * ,* 
 
 Silicate of soda j^ , 
 
 n. M. Yerington. 
 
 New York, December 24, 1896. 
 Dear Sir: As buyers of borax and boracic acid in this market and 
 abroad, we suggest that the just and true principle for reallv increasino- 
 the revenue have full consideration at your haiuls. A cursoVv glance a*t 
 facts, that every year are becoming fixed f^icts, should b4 borne in 
 mind. American borax has been gaining for some time past a control- 
 hug influence in Europe as well as in the United States and Canada. 
 Every consumer m this country is paying a tax-to a monopolv,as we 
 understand it-equivalent to 40 per cent of the quantity selling price, 
 the present duty being 2 cents a pound. As little or no relined borax 
 IS imported or can be owing to the present duty, the revenue might be
 
 CAMPHOR. 47 
 
 increased by reducing the rate of duty to 1 cent i>er pound and the 
 crude to one-half cent i)er ])ound duty. If our inforniatiou is correct, the 
 entire product ot borax in this country is under the control of a foreigu 
 corporation. 
 
 You can readily learn if this is so; and if so, see the injustice of tax- 
 ing cv<*ry Uhcr of boiax in this country to benefit outsiders, not only 
 through the tariff giving thcni a nionoi>oly, but through a combination 
 of loreigu capital to that end. In fact no borax can be imported and 
 sold in competition, hence no revenue. 
 
 Boracic acid, refined, is also made by the same combination of inter- 
 ests, their lowest ])rice being S cents per i)ound. The lowest i)rice on 
 foreign boracic acid, refined, is £L'.S lOs. i)er ton, or say (i.l cents per 
 ])ound, present duty 3 cents, making the foreign cost 9.1 cents j)eri)ound 
 indei)endent of freight, insurance, customs charges^ consular invoices, 
 etc.; i)re8ent i)r()t<'ction, 48 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 By reducing the duty to 2 cents per pound an increased revenue 
 would be the result; a fairer competition and a benefit to every line of 
 manulacture, to every lionseliold in the land, every pottery, and many 
 other branches. ("iu<le boracic acitl. costing .Cl'y lOs. in Euroj^e (without 
 freight, insuram-e. and other charges), say .{A cents i)er pound. i>ays now 
 a duty of .'i cents jx'r pound, or altout M) i>er cent ad valorem. This 
 article is used by e\eiy ]»ottery in the I'nited States, and only by them. 
 The duty should not l)e more than 1 cent jier ]»ound. 'i'lie imjxtrts would 
 be increas«'d. lOvery jtotter would be b«'nefited by getting this mate- 
 rial so nuu-h nearer the cost of the article as }>aid by their foreigu com- 
 l)etitors in England and (lermany. 
 
 ('lays — <hina clay aiul china stone — pay at i)resent a duty much 
 greater than the duty on the manufactured ware. If made free, every 
 ]>ottcry in the <-ountry w<tuld not only buy their foreign clays at less 
 price, but the home producers would have to redu<"e their ])rice. 
 
 Jus. F. McCoy Co. 
 
 CA^rPIIOR. 
 
 ', Para^jrai.h 1(H.) 
 
 Nkw York, December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 A\'e desire to bring to the notice of your committee some facts iu 
 relation to tlie duty on refined camplior, in which we are largely inter- 
 ested as domestic refiners of this article. It is our opinion that the 
 duty on refined cami»hor should be specific and not ad valorem, as iu 
 the present tariff, thus avoiding the undervaluations which have been 
 attempted, and which doubtless will continue to be attemi»ted under 
 an ad valorem duty, and such specific duty should be cents i)er jiound, 
 for the reas<ins hereinafter stated. 
 
 We would state that the act of 1890 irajiosed a duty of 4 cents per 
 l)onnd, but at that time that duty figured out about 15 per cent ad 
 valorem, whereas the duty of <> cents wli'ch we advocate, would also 
 figure out about 15 per cent ad valorem, as crude camphor is nuicli 
 higher than in former years, and will ]»robal)ly remain so, owing to its 
 not being so ])lentitul as formerly. Of late years, since crude cam])hor 
 has been higher, the Ibreign jtroducers make an article that contains 
 considerably more moisture and impurities than formerly, so that it costs 
 us much moie to work the camphor of late years than it did in 1890, 
 as we have to eliminate from the material all the moisture and im])urities, 
 leaving oidy the absolutely refined camphor itself, and for this reason
 
 48 SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 we, as manufacturers, are uobetter ofl" with a duty of 6 cents per ivmnd 
 and the present high pri(;e of crude camphor that is so wet and impure 
 than with the former tariff of 4 cents per pound, as m the act ot IbJO, 
 with the lower-priced crude camphor which contained so much less 
 moisture and impurities. ,^ ^ i 
 
 Ketined camphor has been dutiable as high as 40 cents per pound, 
 but in aslviiig for 6 cents per pound we only ask for the very moderate 
 protection (about 15 per cent) that is necessary in view of the extremely 
 low price of labor abroad, and in view of the very adverse circum- 
 stances under wbich we, as American camphor retiiHMS, labor. 
 
 Ameri(;an refined camphor is absolutely pure, and contains no mois- 
 ture whatever, whereas the Japan refined camphor, which is made by 
 a difteient process, contains from 5 to 7 per cent of moisture. Conse- 
 quently it is not so valuable as the domestic refined camphor, and the 
 consumer in buying it gets less value for his money. Although tlie 
 moisture is not in a condition to be visible, yet while the Japan refined 
 camphor is api)arently dry it neverthel'iss has this moisture incorpo- 
 rated with it. 
 
 Japan and Formosa supply the world with crude camphor and Ameri- 
 can refiners derive their supplies from there, having to order the crude 
 camphor a long time before they can ])hice it on the market here as 
 refined camphor; the time elapsing between the ordering of the cam- 
 phor and the placing of itonthe market as refined camphor averaging 
 possibly eight months, and sometimes longer: and American refiners 
 have to order it in considerable <iuantities and store it in such (inanti- 
 ties so as to have it for use when they reciuire it. in Japan the refining 
 of camphor has of late years come to the front, and they have so many 
 advantages over the American refiner that the latter is left at great 
 disadvantage, and would simply ha\e to succumb to this competition 
 if forced to meet them on an ecjual footing. In the first place, labor iu 
 Japan is procurable at about lo cents per day, whereas we have to pay 
 our men an average of from 81.75 to ¥2 per day. 
 
 The Jaj^an manufacturers can get their crude camphor practically 
 just about as they require it for refining, not being required to keep 
 large stocks on hand, as they can go out on the market and buy what 
 they want Irom time to time; whereas the Ann'rican refiners have 
 always to carry a large stock of it, and with an expensive article like 
 camphor the interest on the value of such dormant stock which has to 
 be carried is enormous, to say nothing of the interest on the amount 
 invested in plant, machinery, etc., which tigures u]) very high, this 
 being a charge which Japan refiners do not have to stand, except to a 
 shght degree, their plants being nothing like as valuable as they are 
 in this countr3\ 
 
 The American refiner has to freight from Japan the crude camphor, 
 which comes in tubs which occupy a great deal of space, and as the 
 crude material on which this freight has to be i»aid contains about L*5 
 to 35 per cent more or less of moisture and impurities, it will be seen 
 that the foreign refiner who simply freights the refined article in s(piare 
 cases, which are packed very closely, thus making a saving in freight, 
 is very much more favorably situated in this respect than the American 
 refiner. 
 
 Eetined camphor from abroad, which is packed in tight boxes, loses 
 nothing in weight, while crude camiihor, on the other hand', loses 
 largely m weight on the voyage. Japan refiners are looking with long 
 ing eyes to the markets of this country and have shipi)ed considerable 
 quantities of refined camphor here, which in many cases has been-
 
 CAMPHOR. 49 
 
 uudervalued (the present duty being ad valorem), as records of the 
 Government will j)rove. 
 
 H. J. Baker & Bro. 
 
 Boston, Mass., January 1, 1S97. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Camphor is known in the marts of the worhl as crude and refined. 
 Crude camphor has rifjhtly been on the free list for twenty years, it 
 being a crude or raw material to the refiner. Kefined camphor has 
 always been on the dutiable list and should remain there, as the refiners 
 in this country are called upon to take large risks in the article, it being 
 eight to ten months, and sometimes even longer, after purchasing the 
 crude material before any returns can be realized. The laborer who 
 is employed in American refineries receives *1.7~) per day, as against 
 50 cents ]>er day in England, Germany, and France, and 1") cents per 
 day in .lajian. 
 
 The Japanese manufacturer has a great advantage over the American 
 refiner in being able to purchase crude camphor in small lots from day 
 to day, as recjuired, whereas we are obliged to purchase the crude in 
 large (piantities at such times as tonnage is available. The American 
 refiner is thus obliged to carry in stock a large amount of manufactured 
 goods, the interest and storage charges on which amount to a large 
 sum. 
 
 Crude camjdior, being packed in tubs, occupies much unnecessary 
 space, and, .Is it contains from LM to.'i^ per cent of imjjurities, the advan- 
 tage to the -Japanese refiner, who freights only refined camphor, com- 
 pactly ])acked in s(juarc cases, is (juite apparent. 
 
 In order that the American refiner may successfully compete with 
 the refiners of .lajjan a sutlicient duty should be levied to offset the 
 great disadvantages under which he labors, as compared with the 
 native .Iai>anese refiner who has everything in his favor. 
 
 Since tlie rai»i<l advance in value of crude camphor, the amount of 
 moisture and impurities lias constantly increased, and the cost of refin- 
 ing has increased pioportionately. The duty which we ask for at 
 present jtlaces us in no better jiosition than when the rate was 4 cents, 
 at which time Japan refined camphor was unknown, this industry in 
 Japan having been introduced only during the last five years. The 
 Japanese are looking tbrward with longing eyes t^> the United States 
 for a market for their product, and unless sufiicient protection is given 
 to Anu^rican refiners they must abandon its manufacture. 
 
 We advocate and recommend a specific duty of <> cents i)er pound 
 in place of an ad valorem duty, in order to guard against undervalua- 
 tions. The records of the Board of General Ai)[»raisers relating to the 
 undervaluation of refined camphor during the past lew months are 
 sufficient evidence of the importance of this matter to deserve your 
 Rerious consideration. 
 
 West & Jenney. 
 
 T n 4
 
 50 SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 COPPEEAS. 
 
 (Free list, paragraph 455.) 
 STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY C. STEWART, OF PHILADELPHIA, 
 
 Monday, December 28 j 1896. 
 The Chairman. How about the duty imposed on copperas in 1890; 
 are you acquainted with that; that is a duty of thiee-tentlis of a cent 
 
 per pound? ^ , . 
 
 Mr. Stewart. It immediately reduced the price of the American 
 product to that at which it could be laid down here. ('(»i>peras can be 
 laid down from Europe on our seaboard at ;iO cents per KK) pounds. 
 The Chairman. You say three-tenths of a cent was sullicient? 
 Mr. Stewart. Quite suhicient; yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. It is now on the iree list. Has the importation 
 largely increased? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. Not of copperas, but the American price dropped to 
 exactly what it cost to lay it down from Kurope, and there has been 
 very little English copperas brought in, inih'cd. 1 tried an e.\i>eriment 
 and brought some copperas from Wales at 25 cents per lUO pounds on 
 the dock at Philadelphia. 
 
 The Chairman. 1 notice the importatious were abuost identically the 
 same in 1896 that they Avere in 1893. The importations do not seem to 
 have increased by putting it on the free list. 
 
 Mr. Stewart. ISfo, sir; the American i)ro<lucers recognized that they 
 had to sell their product; and by way of explanation I might say that 
 copperas must be manufactured. It is made from the waste sulphuric 
 acid, which if turned into the streams destroys tin* lish and of course 
 injures the stream. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. IIow much of this waste coi»]>eras you seek to have 
 transferred to the dutiable list was imjjorted last year? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. Well, there are two ilistinct articles 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You mentioned a number. 
 
 Mr. Stewart. Copperas, you understand, is not an ore; it is a chem- 
 ical product. Now, as to the ores, under ocher an«l ochery earths, 
 imported durhig last year, I should say i)robably ij5JUO,909; nuiybo 
 $250,000. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is the value of the ilomestic product f 
 Mr. Stewart. Last year about 6100,000. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. And the entire consumption in the United States 
 amounted to about $300,000? 
 Mr. Stewart. Yes, sir; well, prol)ably 8400,000. 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Then it Avould be about an equal amount of foreign 
 and domestic? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. No, sir; I should say about $250,000 and $150,(K)0. 
 The foreign at present ranges very much higher in value, because we 
 can not afford to make our products from the same grade of goods. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But you say the transfer of copperas from the 
 dutiable list did not increase the importations? 
 Mr. Stewart. I did ; that is true. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Well, if it did not increase the importation, how does 
 it take away your market? 
 
 Mr Stewart. It does not, sir. I do not say so on copperas. I want 
 that distinctly understood. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The imposition of a duty would tend to increase the 
 price to the consumers of the United States?
 
 COPPERAS. 51 
 
 Mr. Stewart. 'So, sir; not at all. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Then, if it does not keep out any foreign i)roduct 
 and does not increase the value to the seller or producer here, how will 
 it benefit you by a reimposition of dutyf 
 
 Mr. Stewart. It will j;ive the American manufacturers an oppor- 
 tunity to make a business where today they are losiu;^' money. 
 
 3Ir. McMiLLiN. Then you can only do it by increasing the price! 
 
 Mr. Stewart. There might be a slight increase, but 
 
 Mr. Mc.MiLLiN. In the paper you submit what duty do you suggest? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. That of the McKiidey bill, of three-teuths of a ceut 
 per ])onnd. 
 
 Mr. KvANS. This copperas is a by-productt 
 
 Mr. Stewart. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kvans. Of what? 
 
 Mr. Stkwaut. Of snlphnric acid which has been used. Sulphuric 
 acid and water are nsed to treat iron sheets and I'ods. After it has taken 
 lip a certain amount of iron from the sheets or rods it becomes saturated 
 aud is no longer useful. Then it has been the habit to allow it to run 
 into streams and destroy them. Tlie Americans, and in fact foreigners, 
 found it could be made into an industry, and they took it and boiled it 
 and made it a little stronger, and thereby produced from this waste 
 iron liijuor, the commercial coi>peras. 
 
 Ml. lOvANs. So to protect these streams near these manufacturing 
 estai)lishmcnts they must make the copperas? 
 
 Mr. Stewak'J'. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. lOvANS. Whether they make any jtrofit out of it or not? 
 
 Mr. Sti;wart. That is correct. Most of the maniilacturers of cop- 
 peras arc under contract with the producers of the crude liipior to take 
 their supi)ly, so they must make it whether they make a prolil on it 
 or not. 
 
 ]\Ir. I'AVNK. ilow long do these contracts iiinf 
 
 Mr. Stewaih'. 1 presume they could be abrogated at any time, but 
 we have kept on in the hope that some day we might find a pr<>fitable 
 use for the material. 
 
 i\Ir. Tavne. Of course it is a by-jiroduct of the iron industry? 
 
 Mr. vStewakt. Yes, sir. Now, in the endeavor to find a market for 
 copperas, which ol course has been largely pro<luced in excess, my own 
 concern ami a number of others have gone to work and burned the 
 copperas which we jtroduced, and made a brilliant icd color from it, 
 which is capable of being used in jtaints. That industry is capable 
 of very great enlargement if a comnu'iisiirate duty is place<l on the 
 product. There is a great deal of Venetian red oxides of iron of all 
 kinds brought from abrt)ad which can be produced here by the biiniing 
 of copperas into «)xide of iron. 
 
 A JiYSTANDEK. Is it not true that in many localities the manufac- 
 turers are coiupelled by law to manufacture copperas? 
 
 Mr. Stewakt. I am not certain as to that, but in some States I 
 think it is true, for instance Ohio; but I do not know that it is true in 
 Kew Jersey, where our manufactory is located. 
 
 A livsTANDER. I kiiow that is true in many cases. 
 
 .Mr. Payne. That is, they are liable for damages if they turn this 
 acid into the streams? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. I do not think that is true in New Jersey, because I 
 know it has been^lone there and turned into the Delaware and IJaritan 
 Canal and caused a good deal of damaire to the locks and the canal 
 generally.
 
 52 SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 OXIDE OF IRON. 
 
 Allegheny City, Ta., January 4, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir: We tako notice throno-li tlie press of tl.e clmnges asked 
 before tbe Ways and Means Committee in the tariff rates on oclier and 
 ocLery earths, etc., also on "oxide of iron, under >Yhatsoever name, when 
 crude and not advanced in value by any process ot n.anulacture. The 
 changes were asked tor by Henry C. Stewart. \N e wish to say that 
 we indorse all Mr. Stewart said on the subject with the exception ot 
 that part where he asks for a tarifl' of $10 per ton on "oxide ot iron, 
 under whatsoever name, when crude and not advanced by any process 
 of manufacture." We consider the tariff asked for this portion emi- 
 nently unjust, for the reason that tliere are crude oxides brought lioin 
 abroad which can not be obtained in tliis country, but whicli, after being 
 brought here in the crude, furnish emi)loynient to our own men in refin- 
 ing and preparing them for tlie market. We imjiort coMsj.U'rable quan- 
 tities of these crude oxides, as do other manuractnrers m various parts 
 of the country. The adding of $10 per ton for duty wouUl destroy this 
 ])art of our business as well as tliose wlio have been importing tliis ore 
 in other parts of the country, to tlie advantage of one or two concerns 
 who fitted out some years ago at considerable expense to prochice these 
 colors chemically, before the aboveuaiiied crude oxides became a factor 
 in the American market. The etfect of a $10 rate would be to com- 
 pel all the crude oxide to remain in the old countries and become refined 
 there and brouglit here in the refined state, compelling buyers here to 
 l>ay the advanced rate in duty, depriving us and others of our business 
 and our men of their labor connected with the relining. 
 
 The present rate on crude oxide is 40 cents jier ton, which is really 
 more than it should be, as our experience teaches us that such material 
 should come in free. 
 
 PiTTSBUEG lliON TAINT Co. 
 
 Washington, D. C, Dccemhcr 53, 1896, 
 Dear Sir: Iron and steel rods and plates, after being formed, are, 
 for the purpose of removing the little "scales" from the surface, dipped 
 in a bath composed of about ten ])arts of water and «nie of suli)huric 
 acid, which clears the surface of the metal and holds the particles 
 removed in solution. When this is boiled down to a given consistency 
 It crystallizes into the copperas of commerce. l>y this i)roces8, I am 
 reliably informed, under an American scale of wages, cojjjieravs is \n'o- 
 duced from the waste from iron foundries (I speak i)articularly of Koel- 
 ings, Trenton, N. J.) at a cost of $0 i)er ton. 
 
 The manufticturers of tin plate in Wales, producing coi)peras by 
 precisely the same method, under their wage scale can deliver it on the 
 docks at American ports for $0 per ton. Even in these dull times 
 there is a demand for a good deal of the article in this country. With 
 a duty of three-tenths of a cent per pound on copperas, 1 tlmik there 
 can be no doubt that nearly all that is consumed in this country will 
 hereafter be made from what has been waste from American iroii and 
 steel mills. 
 
 J. J. GAIlD^•EE, M. C.
 
 COPPERAS. 53 
 
 TVoRCESTER, Mass., December 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We desire to strongly urge that the former duty of 30 per cent on 
 copperas be restored. Copperas is made from a waste product from 
 wire mills, coiisistin<j of an acid used in cleaning or pickling wire rods, 
 and wire wlien in process of manufacture. Wire mills are obliged by 
 law to take care of this waste acid and not allow it to run into natural 
 streams or sewer systcuis. Cojtperas is the only product that can be 
 made from the spent acid. Large amounts of copjieras are made in 
 foreign countries, and have been sold in this country, coming in not 
 only under the name of copperas, but under other designations. 
 
 We resi)ectfully ask that careful consideration be given to our request 
 in this matter. We are sure it will be strongly seconded by all nuikers 
 of copperas. 
 
 WAsniiUKN cS: Moen Manufacturing Co. 
 
 PlLLLlP VV. MOEN, 
 
 Treasurer and General Manager. 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio, December 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Mi;ans: 
 
 We desire to call your attention to the matter of duty on copperas, 
 which will doubtless come up in the chemical schedule on the proposals 
 for a new tariff bill. 
 
 In the last revision of the tarill the <luty of .'?(► cents per hundred- 
 weight, or *<) ])er tun, was taken off and copperas made free. The 
 result was that it totally ruined the business of manufacturing copperas 
 in this country; first, l>ecause it l)rought the price down to compete 
 with foreign copjyeras that has been imjiorted, and in the next place 
 because the action of the tariff bill, as a whole, ruined temporarily the 
 business of (juite a number of industries that depended on copperas 
 for a portion of their raw material. There is now some prospect that 
 the consumption of co]>peras will be increased, especially if the manu- 
 facturers and users of that sort of material are given protection in 
 their lines which w<Mild enable them to use copperas at a price that 
 will give the manuiacturer even a fair return on its cost of manufacture. 
 
 We therefore strongly urge you to have the ()ro|)osal for the changes 
 in a new tariff bill that may be brought up inchule the restoration of 
 the former duty on co|)i)eras of 30 cents per hundredweight. 
 
 Very respectfully 8ubmitte«l. 
 
 Cleveland Holling Mill Company. 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio, December 27, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Without going int(> any details or lengthy argument permit us to 
 state: 
 
 That we have one of the few large plants of the country for the manu- 
 facture of copperas or suli)hate of iron. 
 
 That we can not without selling below cost meet the prices at which 
 the English manufacturers are now quoting copperas for delivery at 
 our seaboard. 
 
 That we have a large amount of money invested in our plant, and
 
 54 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 that Oil the enactment of the Wilson bill the prices of onr product 
 declined to such an extent tliat we have lost money every montli since. 
 In view of these facts we respectfully request in justice to our indus- 
 try that as equitable duties there be inseited in a new bill in Schedule 
 A, in place of paragraph 455 in the free list, tariff act of 1S!)4, tlie (ol- 
 lowino-: "Copperas 30 cents per hundred pounds." And In jdace of 
 paragraph 5G0, in the free list, tariff act of 1S94, tlie following: 
 
 "All oxides of iron, by whatever name known, unless otherwise spe- 
 cially provided for, wheu crude and not advanced by any process of 
 manufacture, $10 per ton." 
 
 We resi)ectfully ask your kind consideration in this matter, ami are, 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 The Forest City CorPERAs Co., 
 By J. H. Fuller, /Secretary. 
 
 COAL-TAB PRODUCTS. 
 
 (Paragraphs 14, 58, 368, 443, filT.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. W. H. H. CHILDS, OF 66 MAIDEN LANE, 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 Monday, December 28, ISOG. 
 
 Mr. Childs. We have submitted a pa]>er to the cominitteo, and we 
 have nothing farther to say, except I am here to answer any questions 
 the committee may wish to ask. I am interested in the raw product 
 derived from the first distillation of coal tar. 
 
 The Chairman. What was suggested in the i)ai)er presented as to 
 raw materials? You may state it briefly, without referring to, as your 
 statement will be printed. 
 
 Mr. Childs. We suggest that the wording of paragraph 443 be 
 changed to read : 
 
 "Coal tar, and the crude product obtained from the direct distillation 
 of coal tar, namely, pitch, dead, or creosote oil, cru<le nai)htha, and 
 crude naphthaline salt pressed but not relined. free." 
 
 The Chairman. Those are now on the free list? 
 
 Mr. Childs. Yes, sir; they are now on the free list. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Does that enlarge the present clause on the free list or 
 otherwise? 
 
 Mr. Childs. It does not. It leaves it just as it is, except it more 
 closely defines it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It is a better definition? 
 
 Mr. Childs. We think so. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you ask any change in the dutv of coal-tar prei)ara- 
 tions? 
 Mr. Childs. We do not. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You are satisfied with the ad valorem dutv of 25 ])er cent? 
 Mr. Childs. We are. 
 
 Mr Payne. Are you engaged in the manufacture of these prepara- 
 tions? ^ * 
 
 Mr. Childs. To some extent. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Or are you simply an importer!
 
 COAL-TAR PRODUCTS. 55 
 
 Mr Childs. No, sir; we have tlie largest individual plant in the 
 country, locate<I 
 
 Mr. Payne. Manufacturinu- i)lant of what? 
 
 IMr. CniLDS. Distilling coal tar and manufacturing products from it. 
 
 The (Jhaieman. But what products do you manufacture? 
 
 i\Ir. CniLDS. We take the raw coal tar and manufacture benzol, naph- 
 thalene — refine it; and we manufacture rooting material, manufacture 
 paving materials which are used on the streets in paving, sheathing 
 l)apers, and numerous articles. 
 
 The Chairman. You ask for no change in duty? 
 
 Mr. Childs. Except the raw material we want on the free list. 
 
 The Chairman. You want a more definite statement respecting the 
 raw material ? 
 
 ]\Ir. Childs. Yes, sir; so we will have no trouble with the appraisers 
 in New York. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You say, so you will have no trouble with the appraisers. 
 Do this api (raisers now interpret the law ;ind confine it to the free list, or 
 do you want to enlarge it according to the definition of the a[)praisers, or 
 what is the trouble with the ii]t]>r;iisers of which you wish to get rid? 
 
 Mr. Childs. Creosote oil, crude, is, by a recent decision of the:ipi)rais- 
 ers, made to pay a duty of 25 i)er cent. It is a crude product of distil- 
 lation. The manufacturers, of course, have appealed, and, we think, 
 undoubtedly it will be shown to be a crude product of coal tar and 
 should be put buck on the free list. 
 
 jNIr. Payne. That change woidd give you the interpretation you desire 
 on it aiul would make no further change? 
 
 iMr. CULLDS. None at all. 
 
 To THE Committee on Ways and IMeans: 
 
 Your attention is respectfully called to article 443, free list, of the 
 tiiritV of 18|>4, relating to coal tar and its products, which reads as 
 follows : 
 
 "Coal tar, crude, and all preparations except medicinal coal-tar prep- 
 arations, and products of coal tar, not color or dyes, not specially pro- 
 videcHbr in this act." 
 
 It is of the highest im]»ortance to the trade in these goods and to the 
 manufacturers using these goods, that coal tar and its crude i)roducts 
 named in article 44') of the free list, be lett upon the free list, simply 
 amending the wording as below so as to make its design beyond 
 question, viz: 
 
 "Coal tar and the crude products obtained from the direct distilla- 
 tion of coal tar, namely, pitch, dead or creosote oil, crude naphtha, and 
 crude naphthaline salts pressed but iu>t refined, free." 
 
 It is important that coal tar and its crude products be allowed to 
 remain upon the free list, as 00 per cent of the manufacturers and deal- 
 ers in this country are dependent upon getting a large proportion of 
 their su}>i)ly of raw materials from abroad. The reason for this is 
 found in the change which has occurred since 1890 in the methods of 
 manufacturing illuminating gas. Previous to that time gas was almost 
 universally made from coal, but the methods of manufacture have since 
 been changed to processes where oil is employed in which no coal is 
 used, lessening the product of coal tar from one-half to two-thirds, and
 
 56 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 many of tlie large cities that formerly produced the bulk of coal tar 
 now produce very little or none at all. The constantly increasing num- 
 ber of gas companies that are abandoning the use of coal and employ- 
 ing methods that do not produce coal tar increases the deficiency of 
 raw material, which deficiency must be obtained from abroad. The 
 only new source of supply of coal tar that has developed in the last 
 two years has been tar from coke ovens, where coking of coal has been 
 done by new and improved methods, but the quantity of coal tar so 
 produced has been too small to be any factor in covering the deficiency 
 of supply. 
 
 We have endeavored to furnish you records of the amount of impor- 
 tations of coal tar and its crude products into this country for the years 
 since 1890, but we have been able to find only a record of the amount 
 of pitch and coal tar imported in barrels, which record leaves out the 
 enormous amount of pitch imported in bulk and bags. The record of 
 barrels alone indicates clearly, however, the absolute dependence of our 
 manufacturers upon the foreign supply, viz : 
 
 Crude coal tar, and pitch of. 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 1891 89,313 
 
 1892 117,056 
 
 1893 102,136 
 
 1894 96,068 
 
 1895 112,536 
 
 1896 (to October 1) 139,976 
 
 Total &37,085 
 
 The crude products of coal tar are articles of large bulk and low 
 price, and the cost of package, freight, handling, and waste, in ol)tain- 
 ing same from abroad, is ample protection to labor and cai)ital employed 
 in producing same in this country. For example, pitch, in bulk, in 
 London, is worth about 27 shillings per ton of L',240 pounds, or $<>.75. 
 The cost of barrels, hghterage, freight, insurance, waste, etc., is about 
 29 shillings, or $7.25, or over 100 per cent protection. Again, dead or 
 creosote oil, in London, in bulk, is worth about 3J cents ]»er gallon. The 
 cost of barrelSj freight, insurance, waste, etc., is about 4 cents per 
 gallon, or a protection of about 115 per cent. 
 
 Crude coal-tar products are used largely in city paving, composition 
 roofing, creosoting timber, and the manutacture of lampblack. All 6f 
 these articles are sold in competition with many other articles used for 
 the same purposes, and must be sold at low prices in order to be sold 
 at all. 
 
 The result of placing any duty upon crude coal tar products will 
 necessitate the advance in price of these materials and the goods man- 
 ufactured therefrom to all American consumers and a consequent 
 shrinkage in their consumption. This would make possible the control 
 of the total American product by a monopoly and loss of business and 
 disaster to nine-tenths of the present American manufacturers using 
 these products. The manufacturing interests using crude coal-tar 
 products that have survived the hard times can be reasonably prosper- 
 ous with a return of a normal demand for goods, and can compete suc- 
 cessfully with foreign manufacturers, provided that no duty is placed 
 upon the raw materials necessary to their business. 
 
 While we urgently press the necessity of keeping on the free list 
 coal tar and its crude products, we wish to be placed on record as not 
 opposing a fair duty being imposed upon the numerous coal-tar prepa- 
 rations manufactured from these raw materials.
 
 COAL-TAR PROBUCTS. 57 
 
 We therefore respectfully pray your committee to leave the crude 
 articles upon the free list, simply amending the wording as stated 
 above so as to make its design perfectly clear. 
 Mica IJooFiNa Co., 
 Per W. H. H. Childs, 
 
 Proprietor, New YorTc City. 
 II. F. Watson Co., 
 By H. F. Watson, 
 
 President, Erie, Pa. 
 T. New Roofing Co., 
 
 New York City. 
 
 MOENS ASPHALTIC CeMENT CO., 
 
 Per J. W. Vaughan, 
 
 Secretary, New Yorlc City. 
 Warren Chemical and Mfg. Co., 
 Per W. K. Warren, 
 
 President, Neiv Yorlc City. 
 W. H. Rankin, 
 
 New York City. 
 Wm. H. Stewart, 
 
 Neio York City. 
 Old Dominion Creosoting Co., 
 
 Norfolk, Va. 
 Norfolk Creosoting Co., 
 
 Norfolk, Va. 
 Fernandina Oil and Creosote Works, 
 
 Fenuindina, Fla. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. J. F. SCHOELLKOPF, JR., OF NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 Monday, December 28^ 1806. 
 Mr. Schoellkopf submitted the following paper: 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 Washington, I). C. : 
 
 The undersigned coal-tar dye manufacturers of the United States 
 resi)ectfully submit that the following changes be nmde iu the present 
 tariff law: 
 
 Paragraph 14, which reads as follows, "Coal-tar colors or dyes, by 
 whatever name known, and not s])ecially provided for in this act, 25 
 per cent ad valorem," slioukl be changed to read as follows: 
 
 "Coal-tar colors and dyes of every description not specially exempted 
 by name, 35 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 The change in phraseology increases the clearness of the paragraph, 
 and the increase in duty to 35 per cent is absolutely necessary to i)ut 
 the industry on a footing which will enable it to compete successfully 
 with the foreign makers. 
 
 Article 443 : " Coal tar, crude, and all preparations except medicinal 
 coal-tar preparations and products of coal tar, not colors or dyes, not 
 specially ]irovided for in this act, free." 
 
 This article should be changed to read as follows: 
 
 "Coal tar and all products and preparations of coal tar, not colors or 
 dyes, except medicinal coal-tar preparations and such other coal-tar 
 products and preparations which are specially exempted by name, free." 
 
 This phraseology makes the paragraph much clearer without iu any
 
 58 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 way clianging its meaning-, aud will avoid differences of opinion as to 
 where certain products belong. ,,,,■■ 4. ^ a .„h 
 
 Article 308, which reads as follows: "Alizarine, natural and aiti- 
 ficial, and all alizarine colors and dyes, free," should be changed to 
 read as follows: "Alizarine, natural and artificial, ijee. 
 
 This is the way the paragraph stood in the act of l.sSJ, and there is 
 no reason whatever why alizarine colors, which are nothing more nor less 
 than coal-tar colors, should be put on the free list any more than any 
 other class of coal-tar colors. 
 
 The tariff of 181)0 left the domestic coal-tar dye manufacturers in a very 
 unfortunate position, with the duty of 35 per cent on the colors and 20 
 per cent on coal-tar preparations, which constitute a large percentage 
 of the raw material for the colors. This, in addition to the higher 
 prices we are compelled to pay for labor ami other domestic chemicals, 
 precluded any real progress of the American manufacturers in their 
 struggle against the aggressive competition of the well-equipped tler- 
 man factories. The Wilson bill placed tht coal-tar preparations on the 
 free list, but by reducing the duty on the colors to 2.") per cent did not 
 improve the position of the domestic makers. We feel confident that the 
 slight increase asked for, which makes the rate what it was under the 
 tariff acts of 1883 and 1890, will enable us, with the experience ^ye have 
 gained under adverse circumstances and with the great domestic prog- 
 ress in scientific chemistiy, to successfully compete against the imported 
 goods and in time supply the home market. 
 
 The Heller & Merz Co., 
 
 Henry Merz, Treasurer. 
 
 The Schoellkopf Aniline and CnE:\ricAL Co., 
 By J. F. Schoellkopf, Jr. 
 
 Hudson Eiver Aniline Color Works, 
 
 Louis S. Waldman, rresident. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the extent of this industry of coal t:ir colors 
 in this country? 
 
 Mr. Schoellkopf. There are three i)lants with an aggregate capital 
 of about a million dollars. 
 
 The Chairman. And how many employees? 
 
 Mr. Schoellkopf. About 150 direct. Of course, the coal tar <lye 
 industry is very large, in fact the largest consumer of crude cliemicals, 
 such as acids, etc., and in that way gives emi)loyment to a large num- 
 ber of hands indirectly. 
 
 The Chairman. About what proportion of the consumption, of this 
 country is produced here now ? 
 
 Mr. Schoellkopf. 1 would say about 20 to 25 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. I see that the imports last year amounted to about 
 $3,000,000. 
 
 Mr. Schoellkopf. Well, I think that includes the alizarine red, also, 
 as well. 
 
 TheCHAiRMAN. It includes all dutiable coal-tar colors? 
 
 Mr. Schoellkopf. Yes; I think that alizarine colors, which are 
 coal-tar colors, of course, are included in that. 
 
 The Chairman. I presume so. 
 
 Mr. Schoellkopf. I would like to mention that in this percentage I 
 was not referring to alizarine red, which is on the free list now and 
 always has been on the free list. 
 
 The Chairman. Are alizarine colors made in this country? 
 
 Mr. Schoellkopf. They are not at present. They are on the free
 
 COAL-TAR PRODUCTS. 59 
 
 list at present and, of course, can not be made here. They could be 
 made. 
 
 The Chairman. No attempt has been made to make them? 
 
 INFr. ScnoELLKOPF. They couhl be made. 
 
 The CiiAiWMAN. Are there any special dilliculties in the manufacture 
 of these colors in this country? 
 
 Mr. SciiOKLLKorF. There are not now. 
 
 The Chairman. Growing out of the tecluiical education which is 
 recjuired? 
 
 Mr. SciiOEi.LKOPF. That used to be the case formerly, but, of course, 
 as I liave stated in my paper, we have overcome these dilliculties and 
 are in a fair shape to capture the home market if we are sufficiently 
 l)rotected; and aside from the coal-tar jjroducts, whieli are on the free 
 list, we consume vast quantities of other chemicals which are made in 
 this country and can not be imported, such as acids, etc. 
 
 The ('HAiRMAN. There is a great ditterence in the value of these 
 materials? 
 
 Mr. ScnoKLLKorP. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Therefore an ad valorem duty, perhai^s, could be 
 aiti)lied better than a si>eci(ic duty could be applied? 
 
 Mv. ScHOELLKOPF. It would be rather difficult to apply a specific 
 duty. 
 
 The Chairman. The prices ranging from what to what? 
 
 Mr. S(;iiOELLKOPF. K'unningfrom 20 and -~) cents a pound up to $15 
 a iHMUid. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What will be the value of the product which will be 
 affected by the change of from !'."» i»er cent ad valorem to 'rt~t per cent? 
 
 Mr. ScMOKLLKoPF. You mean the value at i)reseut of the products 
 of this country? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SciioEi.LKOPF. 1 should say about .$(;fK),nOO or 8700,000. 
 
 Mr. Mt'MiLLiN. And the present duty being L'r> i)er cwit, 10 per cent 
 adfled to that is an increase of more than I'O i)er cent of the ])resent 
 rate. That would be a dinercnce of between .^100,000 and ."$1*00,000 
 addeil to the value of that i)ro(luct? 
 
 Mr. Sciioin.TJvOPF. I doubt very much whether it would add that 
 mu<-h to the direct cost at the present time. AVe are not really able to 
 w)mi)ete at all, and while we are selling our colors we are not making 
 anything on them, and we can not jjossibly make anything on them, 
 and it is not so much we ask an increased duty to increase our prices 
 greatly but simply to be better able to compete. It is not so much we 
 want to increase the prices one or two hundred thousand dollars, but 
 if we can increase our production we can produce cheaper if we are 
 sure of this market, but if we must comi)ete against twenty-five or 
 thirty importers in iSTew York, each one of whom represents a large 
 manufacturing establishment on the other side, we must compete on 
 even their ternts and we must expect to get our proportion of the busi- 
 nefrs which will be about 5 or 10 i)er cent, because this is our only 
 market and we can not manufacture on a sufficiently large scale to 
 produce cheaply. 
 
 Mr. Mc.MiLLiN. How many hands does j'our concern employ? 
 
 ]\Ir. SCHOELLKOPF. We employ at the present between 60 and 70 
 hands. 
 
 Mr. ]\tcMiLLiN. And there are three concerns, representing the busi- 
 ness of this country, I believe you stated, who employ about 150 hands ? 
 
 Mr. ScHOELLKOPF. Some gentleman here can state that better than 
 I can.
 
 60 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 The GHAIRMA.N. From what source of supply is crude tar product 
 obtained— the residuum of tlie mauufacture of gas ? 
 
 Mr. ScHOELLKOPF. Ycs, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. It comes from no other source in commercial quan- 
 tities. Is it a by-product of the manufacture of gas? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Ycs, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Has the supply of coal tar of this country boon 
 diminished by the extensive manufacture of water gas instead of coal 
 gas? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. It has. 
 
 The Chairman. Is the supply insufficient in this country? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. The raw materials we use are an intonnodiate 
 product between coal tar and coal-tar colors. There are certain products 
 of coal tar which are intermediate, and those are the products which 
 we use. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is any considerable portion of this raw material 
 imported? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. A vory considerable proportion. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But you get your raw material free? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You do not seek to add a duty to that! 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. iSTo, sir; we do not. In fact, we could not. 
 
 The Chairman. The reason is there is an insutlicient supply of the 
 by-product? 
 
 Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. That is one reason. Of course, we could not get 
 along without a duty on colors. We would have to have an additional 
 duty on colors if we put an additional duty on the raw material. 
 
 aniline COLORS AND DYESTUFFS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF F. E. ATTEAUX & CO., OF BOSTON, MASS. 
 
 Boston, Mass., January 9, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We beg leave to present in brief our reasons for requesting that a 
 duty be placed upon all colors coniniercially known as alizarin colors, 
 with the exception of true chemical alizarin. 
 
 We are domestic manufacturers of so-called alizarine colors and dye- 
 stuffs, and have our works at South Boston, Mass. Our plant there is 
 valued at about $75,000. We have been in this business a number of 
 years, and are manufacturing a line of colors which come into comjieti- 
 tion with the so-called alizarin colors which are imi)orted to this country. 
 In the last ten years we have spent over .^L'0,(»00 experimenting, and 
 we are now able to make a considerable number of colors which do the 
 work of the imported colors. We feel that we are entitled to consitler- 
 ation and that our interests ought to be considered by youi- committee 
 in framing this bill. 
 
 benefits the domestic CONSUIMER. 
 
 In 1890, when we commenced to manufacture the color which we 
 call alizarin violet, and which took the place of the foreign alizarin 
 violet, the imported color was sold in this market at 75 cents a jujund. 
 To-day it is being sold at 28 cents a pound, and the reduction has been
 
 COAL-TAR PRODUCTS. 61 
 
 largely due to onr competition. We make in the same way alizarin 
 green, so called, and this conies in competition with the imported veri- 
 dine,or co^ruliiie. The inii)orters were selling this color at that time at 
 about 48 cents a pound. To day, largely in consequence of our being 
 able to manufacture a similar color, the price has fallen to 25 cents a 
 pound. These are only two instances of cases which may be ami^lified 
 to show your committee what has been the effect of our presence as 
 manufacturers in this market. In addition to these two colors we are 
 now manufacturing five other so-called alizarin colors, to wit. Blue B., 
 Blue G. S., Blue K., Brown O., and Brown 11. These colors come into 
 competition with and take the place of imported alizarin blue and 
 browu. The fineign colors are patented, as is well known, and the 
 prices charged here and abroad for the same article have greatly varied, 
 at the expense of the American consumer. 
 
 It is well known to the coal tar color trade that prior to 1888 a cer- 
 tain firm of importers in this country was charging 81.1*5 per pound for 
 alizarin which was sold all over Europe at 25 cents. As long as we are 
 not able to produce tliese colors, the complete control of the market will 
 enable the foieigner to charge a price without reference to the cost, 
 and based entirely upon the needs of the consumer and his inability to 
 obtain the color from any other source. In this connection, we beg 
 leave to refer your committee to the statements made and testimony 
 taken July 7, 1888, before the subcommittee on the tariff of the Senate 
 Committee on Finance, and printed on i)age 268. 
 
 The fact that the imported colors are patented does not make it impos- 
 sible for us, under equal conditions, to compete with these articles, as we 
 have been able in the past and expect in the future to make colors which 
 will do the work of the imi)orted colors and not infringe upon their 
 patent rights. If we can do this, it will be seen that it will be of large 
 benefit to the domestic consumer, as the patent has been in the past 
 the means of keeping up the i)rices artificially in this country. As soon 
 as we have been able to make a color that did the work of a foreign 
 color we have found that the im])orters have been compelled to bring 
 their prices down and to sell at or below our ])rice; and this i)rice of 
 ours being based upon the cost of manufacture has given the consumer 
 the benefit of a large reduction in the artificially sustained price. 
 
 DUTY ON RAW MATERIAL AND NOT ON THE MANUFACTURED ARTICLE. 
 
 In our industry we are confronted with conditions imposed by the 
 tariff which are a reversal of the usual methods of protection. We are 
 paying 25 i)er cent duty on the articles which we imi)ort and use as the 
 material for making our colors. We are compelled to sell the colors 
 which we manufacture in competition with the so-called alizarine colors 
 which are entered without duty by the imi)orters. We use at present 
 as our raw material iini)erial blue, chrome orange, and naptliol yellow, 
 and on these we pay at the custom-house 25 per cent duty as coal-tar 
 colors. 
 
 In addition to this, it may be stated that our labor costs at least 
 double that of Europe, we paying $1.50 a day while the same class of 
 labor can there be had at 75 cents a day. As we have heretofore 
 stated, this is a direct reversal of the theory of protection of a new 
 industry, and we feel that if we are compelled to pay a duty of 25 per 
 cent for that which enters into our complete product the article which 
 is not manufactured and with which we are now comijeting should pay 
 at least the same rate of duty.
 
 62 SCHEDULE A. — CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 The duty which we pay on our raw materials aucl our higher labor 
 cost in this country makes our conflict with the foreign manufacturer 
 a very unequal one and gives him all tlie advantages. The consequence 
 is that with these advantages he is always able, if lie wislies, to 
 undersell us and to drive us to the wall if our opposition should become 
 dangerous to him. It is a question with him of how much he will 
 deduct II om his artificial profit in order to drive out a competitor. 
 Although we have brought down his price considerably, there is still 
 a large percentage of profit to him over bis cost and expenses, and he 
 is ready to tap this at any time we become dangerous. All we ask 
 your committee in this connection is to give us a fair field and we will 
 drive him out or bring him down to a reasonable profit. This figlit is 
 benefitmg the large consumers (the manufacturers of textile fabrics), 
 and they would be glad to be rid of the domination of the few large 
 houses importing these colors. We are not treading on the toes of any 
 domestic manufacturers of the materials we use, as we are paying a 
 duty on the same and will pay them in this country as soon as w«' can 
 get them, for we believe in the doctrine of protection to home industries. 
 
 HISTORY OF LEGISLATION AND LEGAL CONSTRUCTION. 
 
 On February 8, 1875, alizarine was put on the free list. In the tariff 
 act of 18.S3 the terms were extended so that tlie provision read ali/.ariiie, 
 natural or artificial. In 18!)0 the phraseology was further enlarged so 
 as to include d3'es commercially known as alizarine colors, namely, yel- 
 low, green, blue, brown, and black, and in ISDi it was further extemlcd 
 so as to include alizarine colors or dyes, natural or artificial. This lan- 
 guage is broad enough to include any color commercially known as an 
 alizarine color. This has enlarged the scope of this ]>rovision so much 
 that there are a number of colors which arc not in any true sense aliza- 
 rine colors, which are entitled to entry under it free of duty. 
 
 It does not seem i)ossible that Congress in enacting the law of 1S!>4 
 intended to admit free of duty anything which might be commercially 
 known as an alizarin color, but the language of the provision has been 
 broad enough in practice to allow the successful importation of a large 
 number of coal-tar colois free of duty. This has ojjcncd the door very 
 wide, and has i)ermitted the revenue to be dei)leted and the (iovern- 
 ment has been deprived of the duty which should have been collected 
 on these colors as coal-tar colors. The Board of United States General 
 Appraisers know in their official capacity how far this has gone, as many 
 of such cases have come before them on i)rotests made by importers. We 
 beg to suggest to your committee that if you desire to know how this 
 law of 18!U has worked out in practice, it could be accomi)lished in no 
 better way than by summoning before you a mend)er of the lioard who 
 has given most attention to this subject, the Hon. W. F. Luut. 
 
 CHEMICAL CONSTRUCTION OF ALIZARINE. 
 
 We have had made, and beg leave to submit to your committee, a 
 statement from the chemical standpoint which describes fully the proc- 
 ess of making true abzariu and its homologues and derivatives known 
 as ahzarin colors, commercially; and also the chemical construction 
 and process of making of certain dyestulis which are in no sense aliza- 
 rin in their derivation, but are coal-tar colors which are sometimes 
 called alizarin colors. 
 
 AU of the colors, including galleine and cteruline, treated of in the
 
 COAL-TAR PRODUCTS. 63 
 
 statement before referred to, are admitted free of duty as alizarin colors, 
 natural and artificial; and we call your particular attention to this 
 statement in that it shows very clearly how far and to what extent the 
 term alizarin colors or dj'es, natural or artifieial, in the present tariff 
 has been extended, and how, as we think, its true intent has been 
 defeated. 
 
 EFFECT OF PUTTING ALL SO-CALLED ALIZARIN COLORS ON THE 
 
 DUTIABLE LIST. 
 
 It may be urged in opposition to this proposed change that the effect 
 will be to increase the price of these colors in tliis market to the con- 
 sumer. We consider that we are justified in stating that tb^re is no 
 danger of this result. The imi)orters have a very large margin of 
 prolit and as it will not be possible for them to raise their price to any 
 extent to the consumer, it will be necessary to i)ay the duty out of their 
 at present large prolits. The presence of a domestic manufacturer of 
 this article in the nmrket has been in the past and will be in the future 
 the cause of further reduction in the price, on account of the competition. 
 Other coal-tar colors might be cited as an exam])le. A duty has been 
 exacted for a great number of years on such colors. The manufac- 
 ture of these colors in this country was commenced by certain concerns 
 in ISS.'i. At that time the color known as bister brown was selling at 81 
 a ])oun(l ; at the i)r('sent time it is selling at 35 cents a pound. Another 
 color, chrysoidine, was selling at $1.10; the price is now 40 cents. 
 Orange was selling then at 50 cents, and can now be had at IS cents, 
 and a color, fuchsine, which sold then at 82 a pound, is now being sold 
 at tX) cents. These facts can be corroborated by the Sclioell Kopf 
 Aniline Chemical ('omi)any, of BulValo, X. Y. 
 
 In this connection your committee should consider that the change 
 advocated by us would bring to the (Tovernment a considerable reve- 
 nue. In the year IS'-X; the value of alizarin aiul alizariu colors, natural 
 or artificial, imported, amounted to the sum of §994,305, and of this 
 amount, under our suggestion, a large portion would be dutiable as 
 coal tar colors. 
 
 WHAT WE REQUEST. 
 
 We request your committee that the same rate of duty be imposed 
 upon all of the so called alizarin colors, other than true artificial 
 alizarin, as upon coal tar colors in the new act. 
 
 In this connection we suggest that the new tariff" provide for "all 
 coal-tar colors or dyes (including all alizarin colors), by whatever name 
 known and not specially provided for in this act, 35 per cent ad 
 valorem," and that in the free list there be a provision for " artificial 
 alizarin red," or the equivalent scientific name "Ali)ha-i>etal)iox3-an- 
 thra(iuinone." 
 
 Lastly, that what is now paragraph 368 of the present act be omitted 
 from the new tariff act. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, F. E. Atteaux & Co. 
 
 COAL-TAR PITCH, HEAVY OILS, ETC. 
 
 Philadelphia, December 29, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 On behalf of our company I would respectfully submit for your con- 
 sideration a duty on the following articles under Schedule A : Coal tar
 
 64 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 and coal-tar pitch; heavy oil, known as dead oil or creosote; benzole, 
 nitrobenzol, toluol, nitrotoluol, carbolic and cresolic acids, an ad valorem 
 duty of 25 per cent, or sucli proper specific duty as would be equivalent 
 thereto; sulphate of ammonia, one-half cent per pound; and muriate of 
 ammonia, 1^ cents per pound. 
 
 This company has recently expended between a quarter and half a 
 million dollars in an experimental plant, and which is proNing success- 
 ful and will doubtless lead to further considerable extensions in the 
 future. These by-products are the result of the distillation of the pis 
 from coking, and a proper protection of this line will duly increase the 
 manufacture of these articles and give the consequent resulting labor 
 to our people, and with a few years of satisfactory ])rotection the 
 industry can, we think, be raised to such a point that home competi- 
 tion will regulate the prices and the industry will be thereafter inde- 
 pendent of foreign manufactures. Our products to-day are confined 
 to the two last-named items, but others are the results of further dis- 
 tillation from tliese first products. 
 
 Bespeaking for this matter your careful consideration, we are, 
 
 POAVELL StACKHOUSE, 
 
 President Cambria Iron Company. 
 
 COAL TAB AND CRUDE PRODUCTS. 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio, December J24, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We understand that eflbrts are being made to have coal tar and the 
 crude products, pitch, dead and creosote oil, transferred from the free 
 list, where they were placed under the tariff of 1894, article 443, free 
 list, and tariff of 1890, paragraph 538 and ])aragraph 731, and resjjcct- 
 fully enter our protest against any such action at this time, and desire 
 to be heard on this question, in case any such action is contemplated 
 by your committee. 
 
 If the McKinley tariff" of 1890 and the Wilson tariff of 1894 agreed 
 to the extent of putting coal tar, and the crude products, pitch, etc., on 
 the free list, we certainly think that great weight should be attached 
 to this action, and that no change should be made on these products 
 under these circumstances, without most careful investigation on the 
 part of your committee. We certainly think that it can be shown that 
 no good purpose can be served by putting these products on the dutia- 
 ble list, and that much damage will be done to manufacturers and 
 consumers of these products. We simply wish to have these i)rodacts 
 left where they were placed by the McKinley and Wilson tariffs, and 
 before any action is taken toward placing a duty on these products 
 that an opportunity of explaining their views be afforded to the parties 
 in favor of continuing the free-list policy in so far as it relates to coal 
 tar and its crude products, pitch, etc. 
 
 The crude products of coal tar are articles of such large bulk and 
 low price that the cost of package, fi-eight, and waste in obtaining 
 them from abroad are considerably in excess of the original cost of 
 these articles in London, and practically a protection of over 100 per 
 cent. 
 
 We respectfully petition that no change be made on these products. 
 
 W. H. Lawrence, 
 Fresident National Carbon Company,
 
 COAL-TAR PRODUCTS. 65 
 
 OEEOSOTE OR DEAD OIL, 
 
 Boston, December S6, 1896, 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 It was, we think, the intention of the framers of paragraph 443 of 
 the present tariff that that should cover creosote or dead oil, which is 
 the heavy product distilled from coal tar in the manufacture of pitch 
 for roofing and other purposes. It has, indeed, been imported in Boston 
 under this head, and ruled by Winslow Warren, esq., collector, and the 
 chemical examiner of the port, as properly classified. It has been, 
 however, the interest of the largest combination of coal-tar distillers 
 in this country, who control nine-tenths of the whole product made 
 here, that this should not be the interpretation in the Northern States, 
 and they have been successful in their contentions. The reasons we 
 would urge for its continuing on the free list, as we believe it was 
 intended it should be in the last tariff, are the following: 
 
 First. It is impossible to produce in this country one-half of the creo- 
 sote oil used in the United States. 
 
 Second. The cost of labor in producing dead or creosote oil from coal 
 tar is not quite 7 per cent of the total cost. 
 
 Third. The protection afforded to home manufacturers is as follows, 
 without a tariff (this is ex])ressed in percentage of the cost at the tar 
 works in England): Package, from 50 to 60 per cent; water freight to 
 Boston, 60 to 70 per cent; truckage at foreign port, 4 per cent; total, 
 114 to 134 per cent. You see, therefore, that there is already a protec- 
 tion of at least 114 per cent to home manufacturers from the mere 
 geographical position of the suj)])ly. 
 
 In conclusion, we would ask that you put creosote or dead oil explic- 
 itly upon the free list, if upon deliberation you think it wise to do so, 
 and at any rate make your ruling so ex])licit and definite that no pos- 
 sible distinction can be made in the rulings at different ports. The 
 present tariff " keeps the word of promise to our ear and breaks it to 
 our hope." 
 
 1 remain, Sam Cabot. 
 
 DUTIES ON COAL-TAR PRODUCTS. 
 
 Philadelphia, December 28, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We would respectfully submit the request that the following duties 
 be placed upon products of coal tar, under Schedule A of the proposed 
 tariff bill: Coal tar pitch, 25 per cent ad valorem; oils distilled from 
 coal tar which are lighter than water, 25 per cent ad valorem; heavy 
 or dead oil (also known as creosote oil), 25 per cent ad valorem; benzol, 
 toluol, xylol, nitro-benzol, and nitro-toluol, 25 per cent ad valorem; car- 
 bolic and cresylic acids, 25 per cent ad valorem; salicylic acid, 25 per 
 cent ad valorem ; benzoic acid, 25 per cent ad valorem ; sulphate of 
 ammonia, a specific duty of ^ cent per pound; muriate of ammonia, a 
 specific duty of 1^ cents per pound. In a brief form, we submit the 
 following list of importations from May 15 to and including December 
 18, 1896: There has been imported into this country, free of duty, 
 37,435,104 pounds of pitch, which is equivalent to 125,000 barrels. In 
 the same time there had been imported 1,972,550 gallons of dead oil, 
 most of which has been imported and duty paid under protest. In the 
 T H 5
 
 66 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 year ending October 1, 1896, there were 6,000,000 pounds of muriate of 
 ammonia imported, and for the year ending June, 1890, 335,354 i)ound8 
 of salicylic acid, and during the current year there has been 960,509 
 pounds of carbolic acid crystals imported. There has also been very 
 large quantities of naphthaline, benzol, and other coal-tar products 
 imported, but we have no statistics on these. We should estimate, 
 however, that the importations of naphthaline alone would amount to 
 about 2,000 tons. All the products we have asked to have a duty on, 
 come in free under the present tariff, except heavy oil (on which a duty 
 is paid under protest) and crude carbolic acid. It is our intention to 
 make this request as briefly as possible, knowing the very great amount 
 of work that wiU be submitted for your consideration. We would, 
 therefore, request that if, in your judgment, it is necessary for us to 
 appear in person, you would appoint a time which would suit your 
 convenience. 
 
 Yery respectfully, yours, Geo. W. Elkins,. 
 
 Fresident Barrett Manufacturing Company, 
 
 coal-tar colors and dyes. 
 
 178 Front Street, 
 New York, December j2(jj 1896, 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 Washington, D. C. : 
 
 We beg respectfully to request that section 14, Schedule A, should 
 remain as it is, viz: "All coal-tar colors or dyes, by whatever name 
 known, and not especially provided for in this act, 25 per cent ad 
 valorem." 
 
 That the free list, section 443, should remain as it is, viz: "Coal tar, 
 crude, and all preparations except medicinal coal-tar preparations and 
 products of coal tar not colors or dyea not specially provided for in 
 this act." 
 
 Aniline salts, free. 
 
 Aniline oils, free. 
 
 Section 368 of the free list, which now reads, "Alizarine and aliza- 
 rine colors or dyes, natural or artificial," should be restored to the old 
 and original phraseology, viz: "Alizarine, natural or artificial, free." 
 
 The present phraseology is better than the preceding one, which one 
 9f the large New York importers succeeded in pushing into the free 
 list in the bill which preceded this, but it is still faulty and capable of 
 confusion, and is resulting in suits against the Government which will 
 doubtless be decided in favor of the importers, admitting free of duty 
 many coal-tar colors or dyes because they are commercially known as 
 alizarine colors or dyes. 
 
 We contend that all coal-tar colors or dyes, by whatever name known, 
 should be treated alike — either all free or all pay duty. It is not fair 
 that one or more firms of importers should be allowed to import their 
 coal-tar colors or dyes free because they have called them "alizarine 
 dyes," while other importers have to pay a duty for exactly the same 
 or similar preparations of coal-tar dyes because they are not known 
 commercially as alizarine dyes. 
 
 As manufacturers of dyewood extracts we ask that the present clause, 
 section 18, Schedule A, be retained as it now is, viz : 
 
 *' Extracts and decoctions of logwood ;md other dyewoods, extracts
 
 COAL-TAR PRODUCTS. 67 
 
 of sumac and extracts of barks sucb as are commonly used for dyeing 
 or tanning, not specially provided for in this act, and extracts of hem- 
 lock bark, 10 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 That indigo extract, carmine, etc., which prior to the Wilson bill paid 
 a duty of 10 i^er cent, should be restored to the dutiable list. A meager 
 protection of 10 per cent can do no industry in this country any harm, 
 and will serve in some measure to make up for the difference in cost of 
 labor for producing this article that we pay in excess of European 
 manufacturers. 
 
 iiespectfully, Wm. J. Matheson & Co., Limited, 
 
 Fer Wm. J. Matheson. 
 
 OOAL-TAE PRODUCTION DECREASED. 
 
 Boston, December 19, 1896, 
 
 COMlVriTTEE on WATS AND IMeANS: 
 
 Water gas, from the best information to be obtained, constitutes 75 
 per cent of tlie entire gas product of the country and produces no coal 
 tar. The free importation of coal tar and pitch of coal tar, and creosote 
 oil from coal tar would benefit consumers, as the entire supply to-day 
 we estimate to be 50 per cent short of the actual demand. By the 
 change from coal to water gas the production of coal tar (from which 
 the above articles are manufactured) has been diminished 500,000 bar- 
 rels ])er year. 
 
 This deficiency is not temporary; information obtained from the gas 
 companies shows that the manufacture of water gas is permanent and 
 increasing, which will add to the deficiency now existing in all coal-tar 
 products. As an illustration, no water gas was made for distribution 
 in Massachusetts prior to 1884, while in the twelve months ending 
 July 1, 1895, there was 2,400,000,000 feet of wat-er gas made in said 
 State, from which no coal tar is produced. 
 
 Importation is therefore a necessity, and unless coal tar and pitch of 
 coal tar are kept upon the free list, most consumers and dealers in these 
 nuiterials will be seriously embarrassed if not debarred from carrying 
 on their business. Creosote oil should also be i)laced on the free list. 
 
 The "ocean freight," " package," and " cartage" charges are, in them- 
 selves, heavy enough to form an adequate protective tarift'. 
 
 Substantially the above reasons in ])rinted form were placed before 
 the " tariff committee " in August, 1890, when they were considering 
 this subject; they at that time decided to place coal tar and pitch of 
 coal tar on the free list. We then had several personal interviews with 
 the committee. 
 
 Chapman & Soden. 
 Sam Cabot. 
 
 New England Felt Eoofing Works, 
 By Levi L. Willcutt, President, 
 I. C. Stoney & Co. 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT. 
 
 Coal tar, crude, is a residuum made at coal-gas works. The distilla- 
 tion of coal tar produces naphtha and ammonia water, 10 per cent; 
 creosote oil, 20 i)er cent; pitch of coal tar, 70 per cent. 
 
 The most valuable of these products in Europe is naphtha, from 
 which is obtained aniline colors and various sanitary preparations.
 
 68 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 They are not made to any extent in America, as 95 per cent of their 
 cost consists of labor and chemicals, which are much cheaper in Europe. 
 
 The gas companies iu Europe, lor the reason above stated, sell their 
 coal tar at so large a price at home as to make the cost of its im]>(.rta- 
 tation into the United States so great as to Avork no injury to the 
 limited supply that is manufactured here. 
 
 The supply of coal tar aud pitch of coal tar in the United States 
 being about one-half the quantity necessary for the actual demands of 
 the trade, their free importation can work no harm to any interest 
 engaged in their manufacture. 
 
 The signers of this document are distillers of co:d tar, and. having 
 been in the business more than thirty years, feel that they are c((ni])e- 
 tent to advise with you as to how the proposed tarilf should deal with 
 this class of goods. 
 
 COAL TAR AND SULPHATE OF AMjVIONIA. 
 
 PniLADELPHlA, JdU lUOif •/, /Wr. 
 
 Committee on Ways and jNIeans: 
 
 We are, at an expenditure of about 8750,000, ]uitting up a by-product 
 coke-oven plant near McKeesport, Pa., of the Otto-lIolVnian systeni, 
 which has been eminently successful in (Jcimany ;ind which we hope 
 will be here, and one of the things whicli will contribute as mu<-h to 
 the possibility of this as anything will be the ample ]>rotection of coal 
 tar aud sulphate of ammonia, which are by-products obtained in the 
 manufacture by this system. 
 
 There was imported into this country during the year 1896 150,0(K) 
 barrels of ])itch, averaging 300 poumls to the barrel: lO.OOO barrels of 
 creosote oil, averaging 50 gallons to the barrel, and (!,0(K),0(»() ])ounds 
 of muriate of ammonia ini])orted from October 1, 1895, to October 1, 
 1896, and for the year ending .lune, 189(), .■>35,351 pounds of salicylic 
 acid, and during the year just passed there has been over l,(Mio,()00 
 pounds of crystal carbolic acid imported. There has also been very 
 large quantities of sulphate of ammonia, benzole, naphthaliue, and 
 other coal-tar products. 
 
 We would suggest as a jn'oper protection 25 i>er cent ad valorem. If 
 the protection asked for is granted, it will have a tendency to stimulate, 
 the expenditure of from $20,000,000 to sl*5,000.000 in tlie building of 
 works of the character above referred to, the importance of which you 
 can at once comi)reheud. 
 
 The United Coke and Gas Company, 
 Wm. L. Elkins, Jr., rrcsident. 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio, Becemhcr 28, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We would respectfully request that protection be afforded the indus- 
 try which we represent by placing a duty upon the ])roducts of coal tar 
 equal to 25 per cent ad valorem on coal-tar pitch and other products in 
 proportion, and upon sulphate of ammonia of one-half cent per i)ound. 
 The Cleveland Gas Light and Coke Company.
 
 COAL-TAR PRODUCTS. 69 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE NEW YORK COAL TAR CHEM- 
 ICAL COMPANY. 
 
 New York, January 9, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways axd Means: 
 
 As inaiiufacturers of coal-tar i^rotlucts and ammonia products, we 
 reciuest that tlic lollowiiiji-iiained articles, wliicli are now admitted free 
 of duty, be sjiecially provided for as dutiable articles at the following 
 rates: 
 
 Coal-tar pitch, ad valorem 25 per ct. 
 
 Heavy oil of coal tar or creosote oil, acl valorem 25 per ct. 
 
 Liglit oil of coal tar, ad valorem 25 per ct. 
 
 Naphthaline, ad valorem 25 per ct. 
 
 Benzol, ad valorem 25 per ct. 
 
 Tnliiol, ad valorem 25 per ct. 
 
 Nitrol>enz(d, ad valorem 20 per ct. 
 
 Nitrotuluol, ad valorem 20 per ct. 
 
 Xylol, ad valorem 20 per ct. 
 
 Carholic acid, ad valorem 25 per ct. 
 
 ("resylic acid, ad valorem 25 per ct. 
 
 Salicylic acid, ad valorem 25 per ct. 
 
 Benzoic acid, ad valorem 25 per ct. 
 
 Ammonia: 
 
 Sulphate of per pound. . | cent 
 
 Muriate of or sal amnion iae do 1 cent 
 
 Carbonate of do If cents 
 
 The above rates of duty will only partially compensate American 
 manufacturers <»f tlM' above ])r»»diu*fs for the difference in the cost of 
 labor in this country as comjiaied with that of the same class of labor 
 in Europe. Knjilish inanufacturers obtain this labor at about one-half 
 the rate paid in tiiis conntry, while on the Continent the same quality 
 of labor can be obtained at one-third of the amount paid here. As a 
 great ])art of the cost of the manufacturing plant is represented by the 
 cost of the labor entering into it, our investment is also largely increased 
 for the same capacity of production. 
 
 The supi)ly of raw material, coal tar, promises, at an early date, to be 
 largely increased in this country, as it has been increased within the 
 last three years in Germany, Belgium, and England, by the establish- 
 ment of i?nproved ovens for the coking of coal. There are at the 
 present time in course of construction very large atul expensive plants 
 for this pur])ose in this country. A fair return for the by-])ioducts of 
 tar and ammonia will assist greatly in the development of this industry 
 and promises a ]uoductiou more than sufficient to supply inesent 
 demands in this country. 
 
 There is an apparent injustice to capital invested and labor emploj-ed 
 in the nviinufacture of these ]>roducts that no protection whatever is 
 furnished by the present tarilf law. A moderate duty imj)Osed upon 
 these articles, while attbrdiiig a very considerable revenue to the Gov- 
 ernment, is absolutely necessary for the stability of our business. Very 
 wide lluctuations in the value of these products occur abroad, and the 
 ability to ship large quantities into this country without the payment 
 of duty results in a Hooding of our markets and a consequent loss to 
 manufacturers and diminislied employment for labor. 
 
 Muriate of ammonia is not manufactured at present in this country, 
 although the importations are very large. We have the raw material 
 and would be glad to enter into its manufacture, giving emj)loyment 
 to additional labor, and with the moderate specific duty of 1 cent per
 
 70 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 pound would be able to undertake it. The present ad valorem duty of 
 10 per cent is equal to about one-half cent per pound if the article is 
 fairly valued by the shipper. 
 
 New York Coal Tar Chemical Co., 
 E. H. Wardwell, Secretary. 
 
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY MANUFACTURERS OF COAL GAS. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We would respectfully request that protection against foreign com- 
 petition be afforded the industry which we represent by placing a duty 
 upon the products of coal tar ecpuil to 25 per cent ad valorem on coal 
 tar pitch, and other products in proportion, and upon sulpliate of 
 ammonia of one-half cent jier pound. 
 
 W. H. Odiorne, President ^Vestern Gaa Association. 
 
 The Yougheogheny Gas Coal Co., 
 By D. E. Hanna, Fresident. 
 
 First Pool Monongahela Gas Coal Co., 
 By Francis L. Kobbins, President. 
 
 The New York and Cleveland Gas Coal Co., 
 
 John Blyth & Co., 
 
 Blyth Coal Co., J. J. Stcytler, Manager. 
 
 Osborne, Sager & Co. 
 
 Yougheogheny Kiver Coal Co., 
 By M. H. Taylor, President. 
 
 The Sheppler Gas Coal Co., 
 By F. E. Young, President. 
 
 James W. Ellsworth & Co. 
 
 colloi)to:n^. 
 
 (Paragraph 15.) 
 
 New York, T>ecemher 24, 1R96. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We have noticed in the public prints that hearings on the tariff will 
 be held by the AVays and Means Committee, commencing December 28. 
 We desire to be heard on this question, as it, affects our industry, but 
 recognize that it would be impossible to i)resent more than a bare out- 
 line of our case in the time whicli could be granted to us l)y the com- 
 mittee, and therefore have decided to present it in writing, making it as 
 brief and concise as possible, and respectfully requesting for it your 
 favorable consideration and interest. * * * 
 
 PRESENT TARIFF. 
 
 Collodion and all compounds of pyroxyline, by whatever name known, fortv cents 
 per pound; rolled or in sheets, but not made up into articles, fifty cents per pound ; 
 if in finished or partly finished articles, forty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 
 Collodion is a solution of pyroxyline, 1 part, in stronger ether, 17i 
 parts, and alcohol, G.^ jiarts (United States formula), or i)vr()xyline, i 
 part, ether, 36 parts, and alcohol, 12 parts (British formula). (See
 
 COLLODION. 71 
 
 Watts's Dictionary of Cliemistry, 1883, vol. 1, p. 1083.) These prox)or 
 tions are varied according to the j)urpose for which it is intended. 
 
 " Other compounds of pj^roxyline, by whatever name known " (in the 
 language of the act), refers to the solid remainder after the volatile 
 solvents (ether, alcohol, etc.) have been driven off. It is known com- 
 mercially as " solid collodion " and by such other fanciful trade names 
 as have been adopted by different manufacturers. 
 
 Collodion is sold in its liquid form and is used j)rinci pally by phy- 
 sicians, photographers, etc., and " solid collodion" is made into sheets 
 and other forms and worked up into a great variety of articles, as toilet 
 brushes, hand mirrors, combs, novelties and fancy goods, waterproof 
 wearing ai)parel, and thousands of other forms involving the use of 
 other materials, such as silk, velvets, plushes, ribbons, metal ornaments, 
 mirror glass, cutlery, etc., and including a large amount of labor. 
 These articles are in no sense a necessity of life, but are entirely in the 
 nature of a luxury, being comparatively costly and depending for their 
 sale entirely upon their quality, beauty of coloring, and ornamentation. 
 
 The business of manufacturing "compounds of pyroxyline" (which, 
 classification also includes collodion) is a purely American enter- 
 prise as regards its commercial development and success. There had 
 been many attempts, extending over thirty or more years, to produce 
 a solid compound from a pyroxyline base, useful in the arts and manu- 
 factures, without success until this company took the matter up and 
 by persistent experimenting and the outlay of hundreds of thousands 
 of dollars discovered new processes, invented new machinery, etc., and, 
 after several years of losses, succeeded in bringing it to its present 
 condition. Immediately it was an established success, companies 
 sprang up in England, France, Germany, Austria, and, we are informed, 
 in Japan or China, who, taking advantage of our experience and 
 expenditures of money, have copied our processes and plant. 
 
 Our European competitors have now all the markets of the world, 
 except this, and they are using every effort to secure a foothold here at 
 prices that would render the nuirket unprofitable to us, as they can and 
 would sell their material at cost or even beh)W cost to accomplish it. 
 This they can afford to do, as they would be in the meantime drawing 
 a profit froni their other markets to sustain them, and after having once 
 driven us out of the field, could raise their prices in this market. We, 
 with only this one unprofitable market, Avith dear materials and high- 
 priced labor, can only foresee one result : We should be driven out of 
 the market. 
 
 At present the foreign companies can and are selling the material for 
 exi)ort at prices, in some cases, considerably lower than we can manu- 
 facture tliem for here, and in the cases of articles made up from the 
 material, in which the item of labor is a very large one, our cost is in some 
 instances several times higher than they can and do sell them for. 
 
 The business of this company has been extended into the various 
 lines of manufacture, until it now has over $4,000,000 actually engaged 
 in the business and employs nearly one thousand hands, to whom 
 we ])aid during the year 1805, $497,000 in wages, in addition to 
 which we expended for materials and other expenses a further sum 
 of nearly $000,000. These figures show that the labor amounts to 
 nearly 50 per cent of the cost of our goods, and figures received from 
 abroad show that, taking the whole average of wages that we pay, it is 
 more than three times that paid by our competitors. The only reduc- 
 tion possible, therefore, in the cost of our goods, would lie in the direc- 
 tion of reducing the wages of our employees, and, should we find them
 
 72 SCHEDULE A. — CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 unwilling to accept such reductions, to close our factories, as tbe profit 
 on the business is so small now, even at tbe present rate of profit, 
 that no more cai>ital could be induced to invest in it. For the five years, 
 1891 to 1895, the total amount of dividends which this company was 
 able to pay to its stockholders was 19 per cent, an average of less than 
 4 per cent per annum. 
 
 That a iiigher tariff would not result in an advance in the price of 
 our goods is insured by the fact of the comi)etition in this country, 
 there being a large number of companies engaged in the manufacture 
 of the material and of goods made therefrom. These companies have 
 also large amounts of capital employed and of employees, of which we 
 are of course not competent to speak, but which would swell the figures 
 given for our company to very much larger proportions. 
 
 The tariff" act of 1883 read as follows : 
 
 Collodion and all compounds of pvroxyline by whatever name known, fifty cents 
 per pound ; rolled or in sheets, but not made up into articles, sixty cents per pound ; 
 and when in finished or partly finished articles, sl^ty cents jjcr pound ami twenty-five 
 per centum ad valorem. 
 
 This rate was not changed in any subsequent tariff act until the 
 present, when it was reduced, as referred to in the first [lart of this 
 petition. 
 
 It will be noticed that the present tariff act changed the rate of duty 
 on finished or partly finished articles from a compound duty of HO cents 
 j)er pound and 25 per cent ad valorem to an ad valorem duty only 
 of 45 per cent. This change works very unfairly, and no other duty 
 than a compound one could be satisfactory. The articles nuide from 
 "solid collodion" in immense variety are very different in their charac- 
 ter; some are very light in weight, but costly by reason of otlier mate- 
 rials added or the amount of hibor whicli has gone into them; others 
 again are very heavy and of but little comparative cost. In the case 
 of an exclusively ad- valorem duty, the latter goods would pay a less 
 amount of duty than that provided for sheet material at the specific 
 rate of 00 cents per pound, while the former class might easily pay a 
 very much larger amount than necessary. The compound duty, how- 
 ever, provides that the goods shall i^ay at least the same rate'that is 
 charged on the sheets (which in this case are practically the raw material 
 from which they are made) in addition to the ad-valorem duty charged, 
 which was intended to compensate us for the additional labor, etc., 
 added to it. 
 
 Another defect in the section, as at present worded, is that it does 
 not sufiiciently define many articles made from ''compounds of pvroxy- 
 line," which are imported under other classifications, such as ciitlery, 
 smokers' articles, hand mirrors, etc., at varying rates of duty, in some 
 cases much less than is provided for in section 15 of Schedule A. 
 
 We would respectfully urge, therefore, that the proposed tariff" should 
 contain a paragraph worded as follows: 
 
 Collodion and all compounds of pyroxylins, by whatever name known, fifty cents 
 per pound; rolled or in sheets, unpolished and not made up into articles, sixty cfiits 
 per pound; if in finished or partly finished articles, sixty cents jut pourul and 
 twenty-five per centum ad valorem; and no articles made wholly or in i>art of any 
 compound of pyroxyline, or in which a compound of pyroxvline is the component 
 material of chief value, shall bo assessed at a less rate than that provided above. 
 
 We would respectfully point out that we have not asked for any 
 increase of duties other than contained in all the tariff" acts from 1SS3 
 up to and inclusive of the so-called "McKinley tariff," but have only
 
 COLLODION. 73 
 
 added to it a proviso to make what was evidently the intent of tlie act 
 still more clear. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 M. C. Leffertz, 
 President of the Celluloid Company of New York. 
 
 CELLULOID. 
 
 (Paragraph 15.) 
 
 Xew York, December SO, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Will you kindly look into the tariff on the celluloid goods and see if 
 it can not be better adjusted to meet the demands of home protection 
 to the manufacturers at large. Tlie sheet stock tariff is oO cents per 
 pound, manufactured goods 45 ad valorem. Why not let the sheet 
 stock in free so we can keep our men at work and not hold our market 
 open for foreign goods, giving the cheap labor of Europe the bread and 
 butter that oar owu people iieed f 
 
 James Wilkinson. 
 
 Newburyport, Mass., December 31, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: We are manufacturers of combs aud kindred articles 
 from horn and celluloid, and are particularly aflected in our celluloid 
 business by tlie last paragrai>h of that section, viz: ''If in finished or 
 partly finished articles, 45 percent.'' The market ]>rice in France of 
 celhdoid in sheets, ]>er pound, is about (IS cents; add duty, 50 cents, 
 and the cost liero per pound, in sheets, is 81.1<S. The foreign maker 
 manufactures into an "article," say 1 pound, which costs as above, 08 
 cents, and sends it here at 45 per cent duty, 31 cents, and tlie cost here of 
 material in finished articles is 1M> cents. Thus there is a discrimination 
 against the Anieric^an manufacturer of articles of about ID per cent in 
 cost of material. In this illustration we have confined ourselves wholly 
 to the material so as not to obscure the point, although the 45 per cent 
 duty on the labor portion of articles manufactured therefrom probably 
 does not cover the difference in wages. 
 
 The schedule in the McKinley bill, viz, GO cents per pound and 25 
 per cent ad valorem, was much more scientific and equitable. If this 
 plan were followed and the duty made 50 cents per [)ound (to conform 
 to change in duty on sheets) and -5 per cent ad valorem, it would give 
 us a figliting chance. 
 
 Millions of dollars worth of celluloid combs have been imported 
 during the last two years and only a comparatively small (luantity 
 manufactured here, which clearly shows the inability of Americans 
 to compete under this schedule. 
 
 Carr, Brown & Co. 
 By Geo. W. Kichardson. 
 
 New Y'ork, December 29, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We beg to call your attention to the injustice which is imposed upon 
 the American manufacturer of celluloid (collodion) goods. Schedule 
 A, Article 15, of the Wilson bdl, reads " Collodion, rolled or in sheets, 
 50 cents per pound ; if in finished or partly finished articles, 45 per cent
 
 74 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 ad valorem." Celluloid in sheets costs us per kilo or 24 pounds 5.75 
 marks, less 2 per cent discount, which is equal to $1.35, figuring the 
 mark at 24 cents. On this there is a duty of 50 cents per pound on 2^ 
 pounds, or $1.10, which is equal to an ad valorem duty of 81i percent. 
 On the manufactured article we would have to pay on $1.35 at 45 per 
 cent ad valorem, 60| cents against theunmanufactured article of $1.10, 
 or, in other words, 81 per cent more is charged on the sheets from which 
 the manufactured article is made. 
 
 There are several millions of dollars' worth of manufactured goods 
 imported yearly, while of the sheets there is very little imported, and 
 if your committee would give the American manufacturer some relief 
 in getting the sheets to this country at a lower tariff than the manu- 
 factured article, owing to the higher wages paid in this country than in 
 Europe, thousands of peoijle would find employment, as all these goods 
 could be successfully made in this country. 
 
 W. Maas & Co. 
 
 FRLT^T ETHERS, OIL OOGXAC, AND OLL UUM. 
 
 (Paragraph 17.) 
 
 Cincinnati, December J24, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Chemicals into which alcohol or its derivatives enter have for quite 
 a number of years been accorded protection against those of foreign 
 manufacture. Considering the high tax on alcohol and increased wages 
 paid at home it is evident that successful comi)etition, without such 
 protection, must cease. We wish to call esi)ecial attention to the fol- 
 lowing ethers and oils manufactured in this country, which certainly 
 are entitled to at least the same protection accorded them up to 1800. 
 
 Oil fruit or fruit ethers or essences, viz, apple, pear, peach, apricot, 
 strawberry, and raspberry, etc., made of fusel oil or fruit or imitations 
 thereof, $2.50 per pound; oil cognac or oenanthic ether, $4 per ounce; 
 oil rum or rum essence, 50 cents per ounce. Furthermore, in tlie man- 
 ufacture of caramel or burnt sugar enormous quantities of home-i)rei)ared 
 grape sugar, made from corn, are used; consequently this product ouglit 
 to receive a i)rotectiou of not less than 50 cents per gallon. 
 
 Alex. Fries & Bros. 
 
 DYESTUFFS. 
 
 (Paragraph 18.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. W. W. SKIDDY, OF NEW YORK. REPRESENTING 
 
 BYEWOODS. 
 
 Monday, December 28, 1896. 
 Mr. Skiddy said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 know you have a great deal of work to attend to and want everything 
 stated as briefly as can be, so I will read you our petition and paper 
 signed by the trade, and then I will be prepared to answer any ques- 
 tions you desire to ask. I think this paper covers it pretty thoroughly : 
 
 statement submitted. 
 
 The undersigned manufacturers of "extracts and decoctions of log- 
 wood and other dyewoods" in the United States of America respect- 
 fully beg to submit the following statement: 
 
 The manufacture of these dyes is distinctively an American industry,
 
 DYESTUFFS. 75 
 
 having originated here many years ago, and at present being estab- 
 lished in the States of Massachnsetts, Connecticut, Ehode Island, 
 Pennsylvania, Xew York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia, hold- 
 ing large invested interests and employing thousands of workmen. 
 
 Originally the Americans held the markets of the world, but subse- 
 quently the French and later the Germans commenced to manufacture 
 these goods, adopting the American method, but by reason of their 
 cheaper labor, as well as the rate of duty placed by their Governments 
 on the article, they were enabled to secure the trade of their own coun- 
 tries at profitable prices and to dispose of the surplus products in this 
 country at very low figures, not only greatly reducing, but almost 
 destroying the export of these ])rodncts from this country. In addition 
 to this, they injured us by forcing their surplus products against us in 
 our own home market. 
 
 The French tariff on blue and black extracts of dyewoods (which 
 cover all the decoctions of logwood) is equivalent to If cents per 
 pound, and on all yellow and red decoctions (which cover fustic and red 
 woods) is equivalent to 2,^o cents per pound. These rates are really 
 prohibitory, none of our goods having entered that country for many 
 years, while the imports into this country very largely come from 
 France. 
 
 Ihe crude dyewood in logs, from which the extract is manufactured, 
 comes from South and Central America, INIexico, and the West Indies, 
 and is very largely, if not entirely, paid for' by the exchange of United 
 States i)roducts, such as beef, pork. Hour, soap, and calicoes, etc., cre- 
 ating a trade in this country that heli>s very many industries. The 
 transportation of these articles between the Tropics and the Tnited 
 States ports gives enqtloyment to many steamers and sailing vessels 
 manned by American seamen and employing American capital. 
 
 We believe that the American consumer of ''extracts and decoctions 
 of dyewoods," owing to the competition in this country, now obtains 
 them at nnu-h less cost tlian they would if the American industry was 
 ruined or crippled by adverse legislation and the consumer compelled 
 to be dependent upon the foreign manufacture. 
 
 The duty on tnese articles has been, at different times, specific and 
 ad valorem, and your petitioners at one time were uncertain as to the 
 best form, but nov,-, having had the experience in both ways, they can 
 not but feel that the specific duty is the better one, as it stops to a cer- 
 tain extent the importation of a poorer and adulterated article, as well 
 as the temi)tation to enter goods at false prices. These articles as 
 imported into this country should be, in our judgment, specified as the 
 liquid form and solid form, and therefore we Avould suggest that the 
 form as found in Schedule A, clause IS, in the present tariff", read as 
 follows : 
 
 Extracts and decoctions of logwood and other dyewood extracts in liquid form, 
 extract of sumac, and extracts of bark, such as are commonly used for dyeing and 
 tanning, not specially provided for in this act, seven-eighths of a cent per pound. 
 
 Extract of hemlock bark. 
 
 Any and all of the above extracts, if in solid or dry form, one and one-half cents 
 per pound. 
 
 We do not desire to ask for any rate of duty higher than that which 
 we believe absolutely necessary for the saving of the industry, and in 
 asking for the li cents per j^ound on the solid or dry extracts we are 
 only asking the e(iuivalent of the seven-eighths of a cent per pound on 
 the licjuid extracts, which have until of late constituted the greater 
 bulk of the article as imported, and therefore we would respectfully 
 ask that the duty on extracts and decoctions of logwood and other
 
 76 SCHEDULE A. — CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 dyewoods in liquid form be made a specific one of seven-eighths of a cent 
 per pound, and if in solid or dry form U cents per pouud, and that the 
 crude materials— viz, "dyewoods in stick"— be continued, as heretofore, 
 
 on the free list. . , 
 
 We believe, in asking your committee for the change in form as well 
 as the rates, that we are not unreasonable, bat that it would form only 
 a moderate protection, as small as this trade believe they can well live 
 under, and which is much less than the rates of tiie principal country 
 that we have to combat in our own market, and which is by no means 
 equal to the difference between the wages paid in the United States 
 and Europe. 
 All of which we respectfully submit. 
 
 The Stamford Manufacturing Co., Xc7c York, 
 
 W. \V, Skidd Y, rrcsidcnt. 
 
 New York and Boston Dyewood Co., 
 
 Xeic YorJc and Boston, 
 Jos. C. Stevens, Treasurer. 
 
 ; Harway Dyewood and Extract Mfg. Co., 
 
 New I'orA-, 
 F. G. Pauly, President. 
 
 Oakes Manufacturing Co., Neir York, 
 
 Francis J. Oakes, President. 
 
 Innis & Co., New York, 
 
 By Geo. T. Sheffield, Attonui/. 
 
 John D. Lewis, Providence. P. f. 
 
 The Sharpless Dyewood Ext. Co., I'liiladelphio, 
 
 By Thos. Scattergood, President. 
 Browning & Brothers. 
 New York, December 21, ISHG. 
 
 The Chairman. The tariff" of 1S90 imposed some duty on the dry 
 extract? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy, Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Seven-eighths of a cent? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. Yes, sir. We want it simi>ly on the solid and dry, 
 because some years ago the importation of logwood and other dyes 
 were in liquid form of 30^ Banme. Of late years it has been coming 
 in largely in a harder form, and to equalize the old rate in the liquid 
 at 30° Baume we ask there be a distinction made between the liquid, 
 the solid, and the dry, making the rate on the solid and the dry propor- 
 tionate to the old liquid of 30° Baunu'. We ask that the thing may 
 be equalized. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Was the drv imported under the tariff of 1800 to anv 
 extent? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. Yes, sir; but how much I can not tell you. It has been 
 coming in, but we notice it has been coming in the last two or three 
 years much more than before. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is the proportion between the solid and dry? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. They run from 10 cents up to 15 cents, depending alto- 
 gether upon the quality. 
 
 Mr. Payne. As to the grade which you import dry for 15 cents, what 
 will the liquid be worth ? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. It will be worth, say, from 8 cents to 10 cents, depend- 
 ing upon its quality. Some of it is clarified and much finer than others.
 
 DYESTUFFS. 77 
 
 Mr. Payne. Ten cents is the highest grades! 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. It miglit get as high, but 1 should say not over it. 
 
 The Chairman. 1 see the average valuation for 189C Avas G cents? 
 
 ]\Ir. Skiddy. Because it has very little logwood liquor and a good 
 deal of something else. I am speaking of the logwood liquor. The 
 French, I presume, could beat the world on all articles in adulteration. 
 Nobody can beat the French on that. They send an extract here which 
 is like cooking a canvasback duck by j^assiug it through the kitchen, 
 and in the other case it probably ])asses through a logwood pile. Most 
 of it is made of beet -root sugar and other matters put into it, and not 
 a great deal of logwood, we know, can be i)iit tliere and sent over at so 
 low a figure. I was basing my tigures purely on the logwood extract. 
 
 The Chairman. The rate of the act of 1800, seven-eighths of a cent, 
 appears to have been i^rotective according to the conditions that then 
 existed? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. I might say yes and no. It was protective only by the 
 most carcfnl and rigi<l economy of the manufacturers here, and we felt 
 and we have always felt and our trade has always maintained that, and 
 I have had — I can not say whether it is my pleasure or misfortune — to 
 appear for the trade for lifteen years or more here; but we always main- 
 tained that we would not ask for absolutely more than Avt' thought we 
 could really do with. 
 
 Tiie CiiAiKMAN. If that seven-eighths of a cent was protective in 
 181HI, why do you ie(|uir«' a cent and a half now? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. AVe recjuire seven eighths of a cent on the liquid at 30° 
 lieaunic'. it has been heretofore for the reason that the liquor was 
 largely the only article inqtorted into tliis country. Very little of the 
 solid or dry came in. In fact, the dry form is rather a new i)rocess. It 
 has not been in vogue very long, l>ut it has come in more and more, to a 
 greater extent, and of course it will eventually come in altogether, and 
 the liiiuid form m ill be driven out with a uniform rate. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That came in l)efore 18!)(>? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. Ves, sir; it has been coming in, but it has been increas- 
 ing, and it is only on account of that increase we have been forced to 
 ask this; otherwise we should have askctl what we have heretofore. It 
 has left us just stiuggling along, and because of that increase we are 
 forced to ask this ]»rovision. 
 
 Mr. INIc.MiLLiN. You say you do not ask for an increase of duty. 
 Does not the form in which you propose to recast this duty necessarily 
 result in an increase by i)utting upon the dry, that which has hereto- 
 fore borne only seven-eighths per cent duty, lA per cent duty? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You think it is no increase? 
 . Mr. Skiddy. No, sir; because of the dry or the harder extract very 
 little came into this country, and we have always 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The dry can now be imported at seven-eighths of a 
 cent? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. Y'es, sir. 
 
 ]\Ir. McMiLLiN. Under the duty which you propose to impose it could 
 not be imi)orted for less than li cents. \A'ill you explain to the com- 
 mittee why that is not an increase? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. This is not an increase from our way of looking at it, 
 because we have based our seven-eighths of a cent — and we formerly 
 had it 1 cent per pound — but the rate of seven-eighths of a cent we have 
 always based our tigures on the form in which it came into this coun- 
 try for years and years, which was 30^ Beaume.
 
 78 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. We are not proposing to deal with what was the 
 customs of the trade eight or ten years ago, but we will fix the tariff 
 rates at the present according to present conditions. IS ow I will repeat 
 my question if I have not made myself understood. At present the 
 consumer can import it at seven-eighths of a cent in the dry. Under 
 your amendment he could only import it at 1^ cents in the dry. Now 
 is not that an increase in duty under the present custom of trade? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. Not from the way I look at it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Then you look at it strangely. 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. That article never came in. A few years ago that 
 article did not come in. It all came in as a liquor. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The present duty is 10 per cent ad valorem, so your 
 rate will be above that. 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. At 15 cents for the dry it will be just li cents. 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. We tried to figure it so as to make it as near to that 
 seven-eighths as we possibly can get. We do not want anything dry 
 or solid comiug above that rate we always figured on, namely, seven- 
 eighths per cent on liquid, 30^ Baume. 
 
 Mr. Payne. If the importing price in the dry is 15 cents a pound, 
 the present ad valorem rate will be just Ih cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. I do not see how you could bring in the dry article for 
 much less than that. 
 
 Mr. Payne. If you are right about it, it will be simply a specific duty 
 equivalent to the present ad valorem rate? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What proportion of the consumption of this article 
 in this country is manufactured here? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. I could not tell positively, but I should think I might 
 say 80 per cent, or perhaps a little more, is manufactured in this 
 country. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The home producer has now 80 per cent of our 
 market? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. Yes, sir; and the other 20 per cent is mostly from 
 France. It is her surplus output. We can not send anything to France. 
 They will not let us in, and they have put their duty so high they Lave 
 prohibited us selling to them and we can not get a pound in. The 
 bulk of that 20 per cent comes from France. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What i)roportion of the product of this country is 
 shipped abroad; any of it? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. Very little. It used to be a good deal, but it is a small 
 quantity now. The largest amount of dyes which are shipped now 
 abroad will be probably of yellow dye, quer citrine, and the only reason 
 we can obtain any market for that is because it is made out of 
 black-oak bark gathered in Virginia, that they have not got in Europe 
 and so they are obliged to buy the article. With that exception the 
 exportation of dyestuff from this country has largely ceased. If that 
 is all on the dye question, I will present this other paper. 
 
 Mr. Evans. You say formerly there was a large quantity of this 
 shipped abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Where did most of it go— to France? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. France, Germany, and Eussia. Now the duties in 
 France and liussia are prohibitory. We can not get a pound in there. 
 Germany is not quite so bad, but pretty near, and the factories of those 
 articles in those countries have started up, so that now where they used 
 to have one they have half a dozen.
 
 GELATIN. 79 
 
 GELATIN. 
 
 (Paragraph 19.) 
 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, December 24, 1896. 
 
 The present duty on gelatin is 25 i)er cent for all kinds, without 
 regard to quality or the purpose for which it is used, and the larger 
 part of the gelatin now used in this country is imported. 
 
 It is a class of manufacture in which the cost of the raw material is 
 but a small proportion of its total cost. Most of the labor employed in 
 its manufacture is unskilled, which labor is paid in Europe about one- 
 third the price of American labor for the same work. 
 
 Gelatin for food or eating purposes is considered a luxury. It is 
 used by x^eople in good circumstances and is kept in stock by grocers 
 who supply that class of trade. It is essentially a trade-mark or brand 
 trade; a few foreign makers have practically control of the American 
 market, and the gelatin is usually put \\\i in what purports to be a 
 2-ounce i)ackage, of which the actual contents are 1^ ounces, with the 
 maker's name or distinguishing trade-mark, which secures the trade. 
 
 I suggest the duty on gelatin be restored to 30 per cent ad valorem, 
 with an additional specific duty of 50 cents per jiound on all gelatin 
 used for eating or food purposes. This would bring a large additional 
 revenue, as the foreign houses have such a strong hold on this trade 
 that the consumption of foreign gelatin would not be decreased by the 
 advance in price for some years. The reason for suggesting the addi- 
 tional duty of 50 cents per pound for this class of goods instead of by 
 the dozen packages, is to prevent thje evasion of the extra duty on this 
 class of gelatin by importing in bulk and putting into packages 
 afterwards. 
 
 This additional duty would stimulate the makers of domestic gelatin 
 (who can make as good or better goods) to spend a large amount of 
 money necessary to introduce a food product, as these goods would 
 practically have to be sold three times — first, to get the consumer 
 direct to order them, by which a demand is created by the consumer to 
 the retail grocer, and from the retail grocer a demand is created to the 
 large wholesale jobber. To do this canvassers are needed, also demon- 
 strations at food shows and in large stores, showing the quality of the 
 goods in comparison with foreign, also salesmen and advertising; all 
 of which is money spent in this country to establish a new industry in 
 competition with the foreign makers, who, having established a trade 
 do not even employ local traveling salesmen, but derive their business 
 through letter orders from one or two large wholesale grocers in each 
 city. 
 
 Michigan Carbon Works, 
 Deming Jarves, President, 
 
 Of Detroit, Mich. 
 The Kingery Mfg. Co., 
 J. B. Warner, 
 
 Of Cincinnati, Ohio. 
 
 WiLLiAMSViLLE, F. Y., December 5, 1896. 
 Dear Sir : Once more we have presented to us an opportunity of 
 laying before you some facts which I hope the Committee on Ways and 
 Means will look into with due consideration, and with the object of
 
 80 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 encouragiug an industry which has been largely handicapped and 
 retarded owing- to a combination of circumstances which your commit- 
 tee can to a very large extent remedy. 
 
 Something like one hundred years ago gelatin was first imported 
 into this couutry. Up to 1873 Messrs. Cox, of Scotland, and Messrs. 
 Nelson, of England, had entire control of this market on gelatin for 
 domestic purposes. This gave to them a tremeudous advantage when 
 others put their i)roduct on the market. 
 
 The value of our product is largely labor (unskilled). Such labor in 
 Europe is paid about one-third of what we have to pay for similar labor 
 here. The prestige which our foreign competitors have over us in 
 having been on the market so many years without competition, together 
 with their cheaper labor, has so restricted this industry that it is not, 
 and under present circumstances never will be, in that preeminent posi- 
 tion which should be ours. We have to spend thousands of dollars 
 simply to exist while our foreign competitors spend nothing to live. 
 
 Pardon our extreme modesty, but we +ake the honor of breaking 
 down the unwarranted and exclusive price which Americans had to 
 pay for the imported article owing to their being no competition. Pre- 
 vious to 1873 the foreign manufacturer got $22 in gold for every gross 
 that was sold, the consumer paying 25 cents and 30 cents for a packet 
 called 2 ounces, but really containing li ounces. About 1888 the price 
 of the imported article had been gradually forced down, when in that 
 year it was sold for $10, at which price it has remained. The consumer 
 now pays 12 cents per x^acket, or 100 jjer cent less than he had to pay 
 in 1873. And this was the result of domestic competition in leveling 
 down and regulating prices. Now, this has all cost money, and we 
 have had to spend about all we ever made to accomplish this result. 
 This fight must be kept up and the domestic manufacturer must do all 
 the fighting. The foreign manufacturer does not have to do this, as he 
 is too firmly intrenched in this market. 
 
 Now, I would suggest a duty of 30 per cent ad valorem on gelatin 
 with an additional specific duty of 50 cents per jjound on all gelatins 
 or glue which is capable of absorbing five times its own weight of water. 
 This would be a fair basis to determine or be a demarcation line to distin- 
 guish glue from gelatin, which has never yet been determined. Any 
 product which will absorb five times its own weight of water can and is 
 usually used for domestic purposes. 
 
 We certainly should be given an opportunity for a few years to build 
 up the industry and create demand for the goods, after which it would 
 be immaterial what the duty was. Gelatin is a luxury and generally 
 used by people of means. In order to get this trade we must give the 
 consumer a large margin. 
 
 James Chalivders' Son. 
 
 PREN^TERS' INK. 
 
 (Paragraph 21.) 
 
 New York, January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We would respectfully call your attention to the duty on lithograi)h- 
 ers' and printers' ink, which at present is 20 per cent ad valorem. This 
 rate is entirely too low to be effective in protecting American manufac- 
 turers, as all raw material used for these inks cost from 20 to 35 per 
 cent duty, and all dry colors not made in this country are coming in 
 under the same classification. We further consider an ad valorem duty
 
 LICORICE PASTE. 81 
 
 as totally impractical, as no chemist can ascertain by analysis whether 
 the market price of a black is 10 marks for a fine black ink or 3 marks 
 for an ordinary job black ink — a fact which leaves the door for under- 
 valuation wide open. 
 
 We would therefore suggest a specific duty of 50 cents per pound 
 on all reds, blacks, and purple lithographic and printing inks, as well 
 as on all inks manufactured of aniline color or aniline dyes, and 20 
 cents per pound on all other lithographic and printing inks not other- 
 wise provided for. 
 
 ^ EoBT. Mater & Co. 
 
 LICORICE PASTE. 
 
 (Paragraph 23.) 
 STATEMENT OF MR. W. W. SKIDDY, OF NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 Monday, December 28, 1896. 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. Gentlemen of the committee, I submit the following- 
 paper : 
 
 The undersigned, representing the manufacturers of licorice paste and 
 the ])rodu(;t of extracts of licorice in the United States of America, 
 would reiiuest that in the revision of the tarift" the present rate of duty 
 of o cents per pound on "licorice, extracts of, in paste, rolls, or other 
 forms," remain without change. 
 
 The duty on this article has been changed from time to time, but 
 always in the line of a redaction, and one that was not forced upon us, 
 but cheerfully agreed to; in fact, at times advocated by the manufac- 
 turers of this article. 
 
 In 1883 we recommended a reduction from 10 to Ih cents per pound 
 duty upon the manufactured jjroduct. In 1890 we again asked that 
 the duty be (> cents instead of 7^ cents. In 1893 the bill known as 
 the "Wilson bill" had placed it at 5i cents, aiul we proposed that it be 
 made 5 cents. 
 
 We quote these facts tJjat you may know that we have never desired 
 an unnecessary protective <luty, and have always been ready to advocate 
 a reduction to a rate as low as was necessary for the maintaining of 
 the business in this country. 
 
 Owing to the encouragement given us by our Government, we have 
 been enabled to develop this business gradually, by the means of 
 improvements in machinery, manufacture, and the securing of our raw 
 material, thus reducing the cost of production and warranting a reduc- 
 tion in the rate of duty in 1883 of 10 cents per pound to the present 
 rate of 5 cents per pound. 
 
 The business has become a large and important industry, it being 
 now carried on in the States of Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, 
 New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware, acquiring a large 
 amount of capital and emi)loying a great number of men. In addition 
 to the capital used in this country, a large amount is invested in the 
 Orient and southern Eussia for the purpose of gathering and securing 
 the root (the raw material from which the extract is made), and the 
 risks and hardships necessary in order to secure this root can not be 
 understood by anyone who has not tried it. 
 
 Efforts have been made to cultivate this root in various parts of the 
 United States, but without success. 
 
 A very small portion of the licorice mass mauufactoied is used in 
 T H G •
 
 82 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 confections and medicines, the most of it being used in tbe manufacture 
 of tobacco, and our position is so thorougbly understood and appreci- 
 ated by the users of this article that not only in 1888 did they protest 
 against the reduction of duty on licorice paste below that rate which 
 would properly protect the manufacturers of the article, but also in 
 1894 letters were sent to the Committee on Ways and Means from 
 nearly all the manufacturers of tobacco in this country asking that 
 the duty be retained at 5 cents, as requested by the manufacturers of 
 the paste. 
 
 Not wishing to make too long a statement, and believing that many 
 of the gentlemen now on your committee will remember past hearings, 
 and also believing that they will acknowledge our desire for fairness 
 and justice in the matter, we would ask that no change whatever be 
 made in this article, and that it remain as it is in the present law — 5 
 cents per pound for licorice extract in paste and rolls or other forms, 
 and that the crude material (the root) be admitted free, as it has been 
 for many years. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 New York, December 21, 1896. 
 
 W. W. Skiddy, 
 For Stamford Mfg. Co., Connecticut. 
 
 Also for MacAndrews & Forbes, New Jersey; Mellor & Eittenhouse, 
 Pennsylvania; J. S. Young Co., Maryland; S. V. & E. P. Scudder, 
 New York; Weaver «& Sterry, New York; Young & Smylie, New York; 
 J. Henry Grimm, Delaware; John D. Lewis, Rhode Island. 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. This business, I will say, Mr, Chairman, is closely con- 
 nected with the dyewood business, and several of the dyewood manu- 
 facturers make liquid paste. All do not, but several do, and it is very 
 closely connected. I think there is nothing more to say on this subject. 
 1 have appeared before you gentlemen before on this matter and have 
 stated to you about the work we have to do and the risks we have to 
 take in Turkey in gathering our root. We have tried very hard indeed 
 and useil every eflbrt to grow that article in this country. We have 
 tried to grow it in Mexico, Florida, and southern California. Nobody 
 is more anxious to have it grow in this cotintry than we are, because we 
 have a great many difficulties to encounter and on account of the large 
 amount of capital which we have to day in the Orient, because we know 
 it is in great danger and we can not tell at what moment we may be 
 wiped out there, but we find we are obliged to go there because we can 
 not raise it here. We only wish we could. 
 
 Mr. jNIcMtllin. I see the average rate of duty on last year's impor- 
 tations is 47^, or rather 47.55 per cent; that proportion of the con- 
 sumption of this country is imported? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. Well, I shotild think it did not vary very much from 
 the dyewoods — about 80 to '^o per cent. Most of the article imported 
 into this country now is the Spanish, and it is much more expensive. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. How many manufacturers are engaged in it? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. I should say about some eight. 
 
 Mr. McJMiLLiN. You read the number? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy. Yes, sir. It is Spanish, mostly, as you will see, which 
 is a higher grade, and we can not make the Spanish in this country. 
 It is a higher grade, and in many respects a better grade. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is there any trust or combinations among the manu- 
 facturers of this country? 
 
 Mr. Skiddy, No, sir, 
 
 Mr, Payjne, I see the importations have increased about 11 percent 
 under the present rate.
 
 EPSOM SALTS. 83 
 
 Mr. Skidd Y. Yes, sir; mostly Spanish liquid, I think, sir, and the 
 reason for that is, the present rate of duty will permit the Spanish 
 goods to come into this country in competition with us. In fact, they 
 can sell rather better than we can by the present rate, and we have 
 asked an average rate on the Spanisli and Greek together, and if you 
 put us lower than the 5 cents jou will simply wipe us off the face of 
 the earth. That is all there is to it. They are clriving us now out of 
 the Spanish entirely, and they have simply left the Greek to us. 
 
 EPSOM SALTS. 
 
 (Paragraphs 24 and 542.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. ALONZO L. THOMSEN, OF 
 
 BALTIMORE. 
 
 Monday, December 28, 1896. 
 
 r would suggest that epsom salts be either especially provided for at 
 one-fourth cent per pound or made dutiable as an unenumerated chem- 
 ical at such rate as your committee in their wisdom may see fit to deter- 
 mine for this class of imports. 
 
 The present law as i)assed by the House puts epsom salts on the free 
 list, paragraph 542. This the Senate amended, paragraph 24, making 
 it dutiable at one-fifth cent per pound, but through some oversight was 
 not stricken off the free list. 
 
 The Board of Appraisers have decided that as section 542 comes after 
 section 24, therefore epsom salts is exemi)t from duty, ignoring altogether 
 the fact that section 24, being an amendment, necessarily expresses the 
 latest legislative intent. 
 
 The collector of New York has appealed from this decision to the 
 United States court, where the matter is now pending. 
 
 I would therefore suggest that you incorporate in your bill a provi- 
 sion covering the ]»(>ints involved in this case somewhat as follows: 
 
 When an article may be classified under different sections, either of 
 the dutiable or free list, that it be assessed under the section imposing 
 the highest rate of duty, and that the free list be simply regarded as the 
 lowest possible rate of duty, except that if any article may be classified 
 under different sections, any of which are amendments of the original 
 bill, the last amendment shall prevail as expressing the latest legislative 
 intent. 
 
 Yours, truly, Alonzo L. Thomsen. 
 
 The Chairman. In what paragraph is epsom salts to be found? 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. It occurs in two paragraphs in the new law. It 
 ■occurs in paragraph 24 on the dutiable schedule and paragraph 542 of 
 the free list. We only ask on epsom salts a duty of one-fourth of a 
 cent a pound, or the same duty that is i)laced on other chemicals. We 
 do not ask anything more for epsom salts than is given other chemicals. 
 
 Mr. Jones. It is now on the free list. It is on the dutiable list if 
 not otherwise provided for. 
 
 ]\Ir. Thomsen. I want to bring up the point suggested by Mr. Jones. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It would be better not to put the same article both on 
 the free list and on the dutiable list. 
 
 ]Mr. Thomskn. The only point is that I have been informed by the 
 Treasury officials that when an article is made to pay two or more dif- 
 ferent rates of duty it should be put under the section in which it pays 
 the highest rate of duty. If at presei^t an article is on the dutiable
 
 84 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 list and on tlie free list also, it comes in free under tlie ruling of the 
 Treasury Department. 
 
 The Chairman. After an article is made to pay a duty they some- 
 times get that same article on the free list under a different name? 
 ■ Mr. Thomsen. Yes, sir; under a different class. An article may be 
 classed under two headings; it might be on the free list under one 
 heading and on the dutiable list under another head, and in that case 
 the Department would enter it free. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Did you ever know except in the act of 1894 an article 
 to be on the free list and also be made to pay duty^ 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. iSTo, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But as a matter of fact it has frequently occurred 
 before that. 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. It has not come under my ex])erience. 
 
 If an article may be classified under different sections, any of which 
 are amendments to the bill, that the last amendment shall prevail as 
 expressing the latest legislative intent on the subject. I mention that 
 because the Government Board of Appraisers have decided tliat in this 
 case paragraph 542, being later in the bill than paragraph 24, neces- 
 sarily expresses the latestintentofthelegislative power, notwithstanding 
 the fact that section 24 was put in the bill in the Senate some three or 
 four months later. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you ask more than one-fifth of a cent a pound i 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. We ask for one-fourth of a cent a pound, or simply 
 the duty that you put on similar chemicals of the same class, 
 
 Mr. Payne. "why do you ask for one-fourth instead of one-fifth? 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. We could get along with one-fifth. The 5 cents 
 would not make much difference, but one-fourth of a cent Avould be 
 about 25 per cent on its selling price, and one-fourth of a cent is a little 
 easier to calculate than one-fifth of a cent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Has the present rate given you dangerous or de- 
 structive competition 1 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. Which rate do you mean, now; the one-fifth of a cent 
 or the free list? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I mean the law under which you are operating. 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. Yes, sir; because a friend of mine sometime ago, 
 when this decision w^as rendered by the Board of Api)raisers, imported, 
 as you will see by your book, 100,000 pounds, and he was surprised to 
 find he had to pay two-fifths of a cent duty. Since then I have not 
 heard of any importations. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I have the Treasury statement before me, and I 
 take that to go by. From this 1 see the value of the importations was 
 $691.20. 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. That is last year. It would have l)een nothing, except 
 for this decision. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. That the duties were $201.72, and that the rate 
 under that w^as 21.19 per cent. That is the a<l valorem equivalent. 
 IS^ow, the competition, of which you complain is $201.72 per annum; 
 what is the amount of this manufactured in the United States ? 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. It is about from 10,000 to 12,000 barrels ; more than 
 that. It is about 0,000 to 8,000 tons; possibly more than that. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Valued at what? 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. At about $25 a ton; $20 or $25 a ton. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Valued at $25 a ton, and how many tons? 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. I have never figured it out. It may run up to 10,000. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Your calculation is, then, that your comijetition is 
 $691?
 
 OILS. 85 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. Yes, sir ; because if it had not been for your j)rotective 
 tariff we would not have sold a pound, sir. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. If tlie appraisers had held that the article was on the 
 free list, the Treasury figures do not represent the importations of last 
 year, but iiug'ht represent a single iniportati<ni onlj\ 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. If you will notice, one importation was entered free, 
 and all the others at one fifth of a cent per pound. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The one that is put down here is the imi)ortation of 
 100,859 pounds in 1890. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. If there were two rulings on the subject — and it was 
 held that the article was dutiable at one time and free at another time — 
 then these figures do not necessarily represent the importations last 
 year. 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. Only once I heard of one small importation, made to 
 test the law. All we ask for is the same i)rotection you give other 
 chemicals. We do not ask for more and do not think we ought to be 
 asked to take less ])rotection. Epsom salts have been specially pro- 
 vided for. What we would like to have would be permanence. 
 
 OILS. 
 
 ALIZARIN ASSISTANT. 
 (Paragraph 26.) 
 
 Xew York, Janvari/ <'?, :1S97. 
 Committee on Ways and ]Means: 
 
 As domestic manufacturers of castor oil, we desire respectfully to call 
 your attention to a very unjust provision of the present tarift', which 
 has resulted in the almost utter destruction of the manufacture in this 
 country of the article of alizarin assistant. 
 
 Alizarin assistant usually consists of castor oil, treated with sul- 
 l)huric aci<l, 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, i)addin<j^ licjuor, etc., varicms im])orters in former 
 years bringing- it in un<ler various names in order to endeavor to pass 
 it through the custom-house at a lower rate of duty than the Govern- 
 ment exacted. 
 
 It is made of varying strengths, the strength as used by the con- 
 sumer being- what is*^ called from 30 to 50 yiev cent, that being the per- 
 centage 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 
 ]nire 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 reijuired 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 after- 
 wards recovered from the mixture as castor oil by a very simple 
 process. 
 
 In tariffs previous to 1890 this article was not specially enumerated, 
 but the duty levied was the same as that on castor oil, under what was 
 known in the tariff as the similitude clause; and, as will be seen from 
 the foregoing:, this was perfectly just and proper, as it is clearly evident 
 that, as the mixture can be imported consisting- of such a very large 
 percentage of castor oil, it should pay the same duty as castor oil; and
 
 86 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 it requires no long argument to show the injustice of levying upon a 
 mixture a duty wliich is only a slight portion of that levied upon the 
 main ingredient of that mixture, of which, as we have stated, it can 
 be almost entirely composed. 
 
 The act of 1894 makes alizarin assistant dutiable at 30 per cent ad 
 valorem, which would figure up in the vicinity of 10 cents per gallon, 
 or a tritle more, whereas the duty on castor oil, of which it can be 
 almost entirely composed, is 35 cents per gallon, the duty on castor oil 
 being none too low, by reason of the duty paid on castor beans, of 
 which it is made (which affords ])rotection to the American farmer), the 
 extreme cheapness of the cost of labor in India, where castor oil is 
 made, and various other reasons. 
 
 Its manufacture, of course, could not, under these circumstances, 
 possibly be carried on in this country, and consequently it is now made 
 by foreigners and the manufacture in this country has been killed. 
 This is most unjust, and this inequality of the tariff laws should be 
 rectified, and we would respectfully suggest tlie adoption of the follow- 
 ing paragraph : 
 
 "Alizarin assistant, by whatever name known, whether liquid, in 
 paste, or solid, 35 cents per gallon" (which is the duty on castor oil). 
 
 We would state that the clause "by whatever name known" is very 
 important, as in the past parties have endeavored to evade the tariff 
 by bringing it in under various names, as mentioned in paragraph 1. 
 The words "liquid, paste, or solid" are necessary, as it is only lately 
 that parties have had alizarin assistant made abroad, carrying the 
 process to the point of saponification (which can readily be done by 
 expelling the moisture), and then passing it through the custom-house 
 as "soap not otherwise provided for, 10 ])er cent," and this has been 
 done and is being done successl'ully, notwithstanding the fact that the 
 present tariff makes the article dutiable at 30 ])('r cent. 
 
 As regards revenue, we would state that the importation of alizarin 
 assistant deprives the Government of the greater revenue which would 
 be collected from the larger amount of castor beans that would other- 
 wise be imported, which are dutiable at 25 cents per bushel, being nnu-h 
 greater than the equivalent duty that the alizarin assistant would })ay. 
 
 The Baker Castor Oil Works. 
 
 St. Louis, Jannary 8, 1R97. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We desire to call your attention to an article called alizarin assistant, 
 which is principally composed of castor oil. It is used for a mordant, 
 and until the x^resent tariff' bill paid the same duty as castor oil, which 
 was right. The grade of castor oil usually used in its manufacture is 
 what is called No. 3, a dark-colored castor oil, and the present tariff" has 
 destroyed the manufacture of alizarin assistant in this country and 
 given an impetus to the manufacture of the article abroad, foreign-made 
 alizarin assistant now taking the place of what was formerly made in 
 this country. This is a great hardship for those who formerly manufac- 
 tured alizarin assistant, as well as for us and the other castor-oil manu- 
 facturers of this country, who formerly supplied them with their castor 
 oil, and the result is that we have a considerable accummulation of 
 unsold stock of this grade of castor oil, which would not be the case if 
 the industry of the manufacture of alizarin assistant were allowed to 
 exist in this country as it did formerly and as it should do.
 
 OILS. 87 
 
 "We therefore respectfully petition the committee to impose the same 
 rate of duty ou ulizariu assistant as is imposed on castor oil. 
 
 E. P.. Brown Oil Co., 
 J. H. Maxon, President. 
 
 COD LIVER OIL, ETC. 
 (Paragraphs 28 and 34. ) 
 
 New York, Januanj 9, 1897. 
 Co:mmittee on Ways and Means: 
 
 liei (resenting- and actinjj; for substantially all persons engaged in 
 menhaden and cod tishiug- in the Xew England, Middle, and Southern 
 States, we desire to present to your committee certain facts bearing 
 upon tliese interests, -with the hoi)e that the tariff on importations may 
 be so far adjusted as to insure reasonable protection to these industries. 
 
 There are two inii)ortaut branches involved in the industries in ques- 
 tion, namely, the menhaden oil industry, and the cod oil industry. An 
 examination of the reports covering the last ten years, shows that the 
 average annual catcli of menhaden during that i)eri»)d amounted to 
 411,l!.'i4,470 iisli, and the average quantity of <»il annually manufactured 
 from the lish so caught during that period amounted to 1^,099,552 gal- 
 lons, or 41,901 barrels. The price of this oil during the period from 1892 
 to 1S94 averaged from 28 to 33 cents per gallon, and from 1894 to 1896, 
 after the enactment of the so called Wilson bill, from 1(5.^ to 21 cents 
 per gallon. Menliaden are caught mainly for tlie oil and guano manu- 
 factuied therefrom, and for bait. The <»il is extensively used for the 
 purpose of i>re))aring leather, technically known as ''tilling leather," for 
 tempering steel or wire drawing, in manufacturing rope, and as a base 
 for conij)oun(ling with other oils. The (juantity of oil produced is almost 
 wholly dependent upon ])hysical labor, and its value, therefore, largely 
 governed and controlled by the actual cost of labor employed in catch- 
 ing the lish and manufactuiing oil therefrom. 
 
 The i)rosperity of this industry, therefore, as well as that of the cod 
 oil industry, depends almost wholly upon the amount which persons 
 engaged in these pursuits can afford to pay their employees. The price 
 l)aid captains for manning vessels engaged in these industries varies 
 from $1,000 to 84,000 a season of six months, and the average wages 
 l)aid the lishermen vary from S30 to -"^lOO a mttnth fortheseason. Those 
 employedin these industries, in order to be successful laborers, must be 
 men of ])hysical endurance, fidelity, and ability. It is im])Ossible to 
 successfully o])erate any branch of this industry except with skilled 
 laborers, and such laborers can not be employed excei)t at high Amer- 
 ican wages. 
 
 In the discussion of the cod oil industry it is customary to treat the 
 oil manufactured from the cod under two headings or divisions — ''cod- 
 liver oil" and "cod oil.*' It will be found by reference to the act of 
 1890, known as the McKinley bill, as well as the act of 1894, known 
 as the Wilson bill, that the oil manufactured from the cod is desig- 
 nated under these two names. As matter of fact, however, all oil 
 manufactured from the cod is made from the liver of the fish, and is 
 therefore technically correctly designated as "cod-liver oil." In the 
 trade, however, the refined oil manufactured from the liver of the cod, 
 and customarily used for medicinal purposes, is designated as "cod- 
 liver oil," and other oil manufactured from the liver of this fish, unre- 
 fined, or not of a quality particularly fitting it for medicinal uses, is
 
 88 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 designated as " cod oil." If, however, we wish to be technically correct, 
 all oil manufactured from the cod should be designated as "cod-liver 
 oil," and should be divided into different grades, according to the extent 
 to which the same has been refined or purified. 
 
 The refined cod oil, known as "cod-liver oil," is, as just stated, exten- 
 sively used for medicinal purposes, and the less refined, customarily 
 designated as "cod oil," is used for mechanical purposes. The average 
 vield of oil from the cod fisheries along the ^ew England coast is from 
 11,000 to 12,000 barrels, amounting to 550,000 to 000,000 'gallons annu- 
 ally; and the average price per gallon during the years 1892 to 1801 
 varied from 30 to 35 cents, and from 1894 to 1890, after the passage of 
 the so-called Wilson bill, from 20 to 25 cents per gallon. 
 
 The oil manufactured from the cod taken by the Xew England fish- 
 eries comes in direct competition with the cod oil manufactured from 
 the catch by the fisheries of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Bruns- 
 wick, and other Canadian i)orts, Canada, recognizing the importance 
 of its fisheries for the purpose of encouraging this particular industry, 
 about the year 1882 commenced paying bounties to fishermen, and 
 between that date and 1891 the Canadian Government paid out 
 $1,091,800.73. 
 
 The Kepublic of France, likewise recognizing the importance of 
 encouraging these industries, established bj' law in 1851 a system of 
 bounties, pursuant to which a certain amount was i)aid to each mem- 
 ber of the crew engaged in fishing on the coast of Newfoundland and 
 other sections, as provided by the act. 
 
 This system of bounties established by the act in question was sub- 
 sequently extended in 1871, and again in 1891, and as far as we are 
 able to learn, is still in force. 
 
 It will therefore be observed that the coast fisheries of this country 
 not only come in direct competition with foreign fishermen, but such 
 competition in some instances is rendered doubly diflicult by the action 
 of foreign governments in granting bounties to their citizens engaged 
 in such pursuits. IMoreover, we apprehend that the wages paid French 
 and Canadian fishermen do not exceed 50 per cent of the sum |)aid 
 American fishermen for like services. 
 
 It is difficult to ascertain tlie amount of cod oil, meaning tliercby oil 
 used for mechanical i^urposes, Avhich has been imported free since the 
 enactment of the Wilson bill. Under the act of 1890, commonly known 
 as the McK'inley bill, cod oil paid a duty of 8 cents per gallon. Under 
 the act of 1894, section 499, commonly known as the Wilson bill, cod 
 oil has been imj)orted free. The reports showing the importations 
 include cod oil among the other merchandise covered by that section. 
 It will, however, be observed that while the grease and oils which came 
 in free j)ursuant to section 599 of the act ot 1890 (the McKinley bill), 
 amounted for the years 1891 to 1894, inclusive, to about 13,403,126 
 pounds, after the passage of the act of 1894 (the Wilson bill), the 
 amount covered by section 499 of that bill, including cod oil, amounted 
 for the year 1895 alone to 15,148,000 pounds, and for the year 189G, 
 only partially reported, to 10,560,166 pounds. Although the reports do 
 not separate the cod oil from the other merchandise covered by the 
 section in question, it is fair to assume that the excess in importations 
 for the years 1894-95, and 1895-96 over the preceding year, amounting 
 for 1894-95 to about 12,000,000 pounds, and for 1895-90 to about 
 13,000,000 pounds, covers the cod oil which was imported free subse- 
 quently to the Wilson act. 
 
 For several years prior to the war between China and Japan an oil
 
 OILS. 89 
 
 manufactured bj' the Japanese, known as Japan oil, was imported into 
 this country. The Japan fisheries are carried on for nearly the entire 
 year. The fish are caught for fertilizing purposes, and the oil made 
 constitutes a by-])roduct of that industry. Asa result, therefore, Jai)an 
 oil is produced at slight cost, but when imported to this country is used 
 for the same ])urposes as cod and menhaden oil, and therefore comes in 
 direct competition with these industries. 
 
 The cost of manufacturing oil in Japan is trifling compared with the 
 expense involved in the United States. Reports show that the Japan- 
 ese fisherman receive only about 8100 per man for a year's labor, while 
 American fishermen receive from $40 to 8100 per month. 
 
 It fi)llows as a necessary sequence that unless American fishermen 
 are properly i)rotected against cheap Japanese labor the products of 
 American fisheries will be supplanted and the American markets largely 
 appropriated by Japanese i)roducers. 
 
 Degras is a term used to designate a grease made from the washings 
 of sheep's wool, and is described in the act of 1890 as "wool grease, 
 including that known commercially as degras or brown-wool grease," 
 and under that act was subject to a tax of one-half of 1 cent per pound. 
 It is manufactured from the wasliiugs of sheep's wool and from the 
 hides of various animals, and is imported in bulk in barrels. It is used 
 princii)ally for stuffing or filling leather, and therefore comes in direct 
 competition Avitli both the cod and menhaden oils. 
 
 The average annual importation of degras from 1891 to 1894, the 
 date at which tlie Wilson bill weut into effect, was about 8,900,000 
 pounds, while the importation for 1895 was about 15,109,000 pounds, 
 and for 1890, as far as reported, 11,052,900 pounds. 
 
 Inasmuch as degras is used for the same i)uri)oses for which cod and 
 menhaden oils are employed, it is submitted that it should be taken 
 from the free list and made subject to tax as under the act of 1890. 
 
 On account of the depressed condition of the menhaden industry the 
 value of the property emi)loyed has rapidly deteriorated, and not one- 
 Iburth of the amount actually invested could be realized at the present 
 time. The i)resent market value, however, of the i>roperty invested in 
 menhaden fisheries is upward of $3,000,000, although the actual cost 
 many times exceeds that sum. The present marlvct value of the prop- 
 erty invested in the cod industries, at a low estimate, exceeds the sum 
 of $2,000,000. 
 
 There are employed in the menhaden fisheries 85 steam and sailing 
 vessels, and in the cod fisheries 440 sailing vessels, making the total 
 number of vessels so employed 525. The vessels engaged in menhaden 
 fishing are oecui)ied only during the summer months, while the vessels 
 employed in the cod fisheries are so occupied during the entire year. 
 The men employed in menhaden fishing and almost wholly dependent for 
 support thereon number upward of 2,500, and those so employed in the 
 cod fisheries and wholly dependent on that industry for their liveli- 
 hood amount to u])ward of 7,000. In addition to the 7.000 men engaged 
 in the cod fisheries at sea many thousands are employed to care for the 
 catch when landed. 
 
 It wil>l be noted that we have carefully excluded from these estimates 
 the large number of fishermen engaged in fishing industries other than 
 menhaden and cod fisheries. While the number of men actually em- 
 ployed in the two industries referred to amount to about 10,000, the 
 persons actually dependent for a livelihood on those industries many 
 times exceed that amount. It is estimated that at least 200,000 meia 
 are engaged in the various branches of fishing on the Atlantic coast 
 and the lakes in the United States.
 
 90 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 Under the act of 1890 (the McKinley bill) the following provisions 
 affect the industries in question: 
 
 38. Cod-liver oil, fifteen cents per gallon. • +i ■ 
 
 46. Seal, herring, whale, and other fish oil not specially provided for in this act, 
 
 eight cents per gallon. ^ 
 
 316. Wool grease, inclnding that known commercially as degra, or sbrowu wool 
 
 grease, one-half of one cent per pound. 
 
 Fish oils other than those covered by the foregoing sections were 
 admitted free. Under the act of 1894 (the Wilson bill) the tax or tariff 
 was changed from specific to ad valorem; and the enactments, so far 
 as they bear on the products of the industries in question, are as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 28. Cod-liver oil, twenty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 34. Seal, herring, whale, and other fish oil not specially provided for in this act, 
 twenty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 Degras and "cod oil" other than that designated as "cod-liver oil" 
 are imported free of tax. 
 
 Tlie question vvhether the tariff" on importations referred to in this 
 statement should be specific or ad valorem, it appears to us, will not 
 admit of argument. Where the tax is specific there is no opportunity 
 for undervaluation. Persons, therefore, engaged in the industries in 
 question, provided the tax is specific, know exactly the competition 
 which they must meet, and to that extent are much more favorably 
 protected than where the tax is ad valorem. 
 
 We therefore respectfully urge that the tariff on importations apper- 
 taining to the industries in question, should, in all cases, be specific 
 and not dependent upon the value thereof as fixed by importers. 
 
 W^e would, therefore, respectfully urge that the tariff" appertaining 
 to the industries in question should be adjusted and provisions bearing 
 thereon should be favored in substantially the following form: 
 
 Sec. 1. (Sec. 38 of law of 1890.) Cod-liver oil, refiued in whole or in part, tifteen 
 cents per gallon. 
 
 Cod-liver oil, crude or unrefined, eight cents jier gallon. 
 
 Sec. 2. (Sec, 46 of law of 1890.) Seal, herring, whale, and all other fish oil not 
 specially provided for in this act, eight cents per gallon. 
 
 Sec. 3. All greases, including degras, used for stufiing or dressing leather, oue- 
 half cent per jjound. 
 
 Nathaniel B. Church, 
 153 Maiden Lane, Xeic Yoj7>- City, 
 For the Fish-Oil Ituhistries of the United States. 
 
 POPPY-SEED OIL. 
 
 (Paragraph 29.) 
 
 i^Tew York, December 24, 1S96. 
 
 C03I3IITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 You will undoubtedly be interested to know how the ])resent dutv of 
 20 cents per gallon affects poppy-seed oil, and we therefore beg to put 
 before you the following facts: 
 
 Since 1882, or say previous to the McKinley bill, we imported in the 
 neighborhood of 2,000 barrels of poj^py-seed oil a year (it was then free) 
 and for the last three years, or since the McKinley bill, we have imported 
 50 barrels a year, paying toward the revenue the small sum of $000 
 It is therefore a mistake to place a high duty on this oil. 
 
 We are obbged to-day to ask for this oil 92 cents per gallon and this
 
 OILS. 91 
 
 price is practically prohibitory. Our paint manufacturers now import 
 the tine paints and zinc from France, England, and Germany, whereas 
 if the duty is reduced to about 10 i)er cent of the cost — say about 6 
 cents i^er gallon — this would enable us to again supply our zinc manu- 
 facturers with this oil, and they would make the tine paints and zinc 
 here, thus ])rotecting our paint manufacturers and at the same time 
 increasing the revenue from 8000 to 810,000 or more a year. 
 
 P<»Pl>y-seed oil can not be made here, neither can the seed (which is 
 a product of Morocco] be cultivated on our soil, as the climate is unfa- 
 vorable for it. It does not compete with any of our oils, even linseed 
 oil, as it is used to make the artists' c<»lors and ground zinc which we 
 now import from France, England, and Germany. Linseed oil for fine 
 work is not a substitute for poppy-sccd oil. Another i)roof that poppy 
 oil is not a competitor: The amount of this oil is limited to about 3,000 
 to .'^,500 barrels a year, against COO.OOO barrels of linseed oil sold in 
 that time. Poppy-seed oil when duty free was never sold for less than 
 GG cents per gallon, at least 20 cents per gallon over the price of 
 linseed oil. 
 
 If there is any further inlbrmation you desire, we will be pleased to 
 give it to you, as we arc the only importers and have been the only ones 
 since the time \\e introduced the oil in this country. 
 
 We ask you to take into consideration the fact that with a duty of 
 G cents ]»rr gallon the zinc and the artists' colors can be made here, thus 
 protecting our manufacturers and increasing the revenue. Our leading 
 manufacturers will coutirm our statements. 
 
 xVsking your kind attention to the above facts, we remain. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 Antoine Coty & Son, 
 lost Fulton /Street, New York, X. Y. 
 
 LINSEED OIL. 
 
 I I'iira^raph L'ii. ) 
 
 STATEMENT OF J. A. DEANE, OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Monday, December 28, 1896. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I speak for the manufacturers of linseed oil in New 
 Y''ork and elsewhere. The tariff of 1800 gave us 32 cents protection on 
 linseed oil, 7A pounds to tlie gallon, and 30 cents for seed per bushel 
 of 50 i)ounds. The tariff of 1804 reduced the 32 cents to 20, and 
 reduced the 30 cents on seed also to 20 cents, making both 20 cents. 
 The growth of seed in 1870 was a little over a million bushels, and this 
 year the crop coming is about 18,000, 0(>0 bushels. The reduction in oil, 
 as you will see, was nuu'h greater than the reduction on seed, but the 
 manufai-turers I speak for prefer that the thing should remain as it is 
 rather than have any further agitation on the subject. 
 
 I have prepared, in connection with others, a statement of the whole 
 case briefly set forth, and I will submit that together with what else I 
 have said. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I see there is a great fluctuation in the foreign price; 
 that it has gone down from 81.02 to 38 cents. 
 
 Mr. Deane. Yes, sir; it is to-day 30 cents. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Foreign price? 
 
 Mr. Deane. The price of linseed oil in America is 30 or 29 cents. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That is lower than it has ever been before? 
 
 Mr. Deane. It never has been so low.
 
 92 SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE. You are satisfied, tlien, witli tbe present rate «f/^"ty? 
 Mr. Deane. I don't say satisfied, but ^xe tbink it is Tvise to let it stay 
 where it is. We wonld like 25. 
 
 Mr. Payne. But you are satisfied with JO? 
 
 Mr. Deane. Yes, sir. , . ^- „*. ^i.^ 
 
 The Chairman. That is on the assumption the seed continue.- at the 
 
 same rate. , /• ^.i u. r*. • i ^^^^ 
 
 Mr. Deane. Well, we have to take tlie chance of that, it is lower 
 
 than it ever has been 
 
 The Chairman. I mean the duty. 
 
 Mr Deane. Yes; let the duty be 20 cents, as it is to-day. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is the reason of that great fiuctuation ot price? 
 
 Mr' Deane. A large crop in this country and a prostration ot busi- 
 ness has induced them to sell it for less than it cost in some cases. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It is now one-third what it was? 
 
 Mr Deane. Just about. Formerly we imported oil into this country. 
 That* had a great deal to do with it, and I thought when it reached 00 
 cents it would never be so low again. 
 
 Mr. Payne. There can not be any new process! 
 
 Mr. Deane. None whatever; the process is the same as pursued in 
 Holland two hundred years ago. 
 
 Mr. Deane submitted the following written statement: 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE LINSEED-OIL MANI'FACTURERS. 
 
 New York. December i^G, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The flaxseed grown in the United States in 1870 was about 1.2.30,000 
 bushels; in the present year (1896) it has increased to about 18,000.000 
 bushels, thus showing its value as a crop to the farmer in the Fnitcd 
 States, and the recent investigations by this (.iovernment have dis- 
 proved the heretofore accepted theory that flaxseed was an exhausting 
 crop to the soil. This theory was based on the eflect this crop liad on 
 the soil in Ireland, where it is grown for the fiber only, and is ]»ulli'd 
 up by the roots while green instead of being cut, as it is in this coniitry. 
 Here the stalk is cut as high as possible from the ground and ]»lowed in. 
 
 There is one fact connected with the making of linseed oil in the 
 United States that is probably not known to those who are not familiar 
 with its manufacture, and that is the necessity of shipping to (Jreat 
 Britain and the Continent that portion of the seed left after the oil has 
 been pressed out. This is known to the trade as linseed cake, and is 
 used for food for sheep, cattle, etc., in the above-named countries, but 
 not in the United States. It has therefore to be exported for sale to 
 Great Britain and Europe, at a cost to the manufacturer in America of 
 about 12 to 15 cents per bushel of seed, as shown in the statement 
 accompanying this. 
 
 This is a permanent disability under which the American crusher 
 labors. The foreign manufacturer has a home market for his cake, and 
 thus saves this 12 to 15 cents per bushel. This virtually reduces the 
 duty on linseed oil about 5 or 6 cents per gallon. If the duty on linseec- 
 oil is made so low that foreign oil is imported, then there will be no 
 demand for flaxseed for crushing in the United States, and usually it 
 can not be exported, as England and the Continent receive a full sup- 
 ply from the East Indies, Eussia, and South America duty free. 
 
 In exceptional years, like the present one, seed has been exported 
 in consequence of a partial failure of the crops in the East Indies and 
 South America, so that while the very large crop in this country and the
 
 OILS. 
 
 93 
 
 lovr price prevailin^i' here for flaxseed has caused the export of about 
 4,r)()0,00(> bushels, this has beeu an exceptional year in that respect. 
 
 Under the tariff act of 1890 the duty ou linseed or flaxseed was 30 
 cents per bushel, and the duty on linseed oil 32 cents per gallon. The 
 bill of 1894 made the duty on linseed oil 20 cents per gallon and the 
 duty on linseed 20 cents i)er bushel, the reduction in duty ou the manu- 
 factured product being equivalent to 30 cents per bushel, while the 
 reduction on the seed was but 10 cents per bushel. Against this the 
 bill of 1894 allowed a drawback on cake which the Treasury Depart- 
 ment rules to be equivalent to about 4 cents per bushel on imported 
 seed. This leaves the net reduction on the oil equivalent to 28 cents 
 per bushel as against the reduction on tlie seed of 10 cents per bushel. 
 We therefore ask that tlie present rate of duty on both linseed and 
 linseed oil remain as they are now, viz : On linseed, 20 cents on a bushel 
 of 5(> pounds; linseed oil, 20 cents on a gallon of 7i pounds. 
 
 Xational Lead & Oil Co., 
 
 Of Pennsylvania, 
 By R. A, ('OLE, I'resident. 
 Dean Linseed Oil Co., 
 
 0/ Neiv YorJc^ 
 Jos. A. Dean, Fresid'ent. 
 Campbell cS: Thayer, 
 
 Of New York. 
 National Lead Co. 
 John T. Lewis & Bros. Co., 
 
 0/' I'hiladcliihia. 
 
 Cliari/ts on 1 hiinlnl {oH poundx) linsiid iniportid from Calcutta to Xeiv York. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Duty, s]un'ilic per bushel.. 20 
 
 Freij^ht do 17^ 
 
 This frt'ijjlit is $5 per ton of 1,600 pounds. Each ton contains 28^ bushels seed, 
 and this makes tbti IVeifiht 17A cents per bushel, 
 liauker's coiuujissiou and marine insurance per bushel.. 4 
 
 Total charges do 4^ 
 
 Dntij on linsvetl oil. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Duty, sjiecific per gallon.. 20 
 
 When linseed oil is beinj^ made, a portion of the seed takes the form of " lin.seed 
 cake." All this take has to bo shipped out of this country, as it is not used here 
 as food for cattle and sheep, but is sent to Great Britain and the Continent. 
 This subjects the manufacturers of the United States to a cost at present of 12 
 to 15ceutsper busliel, an unavoidable and probably permanent disadvantage in 
 competition ^vith other countries where the cake is sold to be used on the spot. 
 As a bushel of seed ]iroduces 2^ gallons of oil, and this 12 to 15 cents ])er bushel 
 is etpial to f! cents per gallon, which we consider should be regarded as lessening 
 our protection ou oil per gallon . . 6 
 
 Making a netdiity of do. . .. 14 
 
 Drawback : The Treasury Department compute the drawback on cake to be 
 about 4 cents per bu.shel per gallon.. 2 
 
 Protection to crushers do 16 
 
 New York, December 24. 1896. 
 
 Campbell & Thayer. 
 Dean Linseed Oil Co., 
 J. A. Dean, President. 
 National Lead Co., 
 By E. A. Cole, President.
 
 94 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 RAPE-SEED OIL. 
 (Paragraph 31.) 
 
 New York, J^. Y., December 28, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 At the request of the chairman of the committee ou legislation of the 
 drug-trade section of the New York Board of Trade and Transportation, 
 I beg to say that under the present tariff the duty on rape-seed oil is 
 10 cents per gallon, and manufacturers of butter color in Copenhagen 
 and other points use rape-seed oil in making their color, and ship the 
 color here, entering it at the custom-house as batter color, which is free 
 of duty. In this way they get the rape-seed oil into the country with- 
 out paying the duty of 10 cents per gallon, to the detriment of domes- 
 tic oils. 
 
 I would respectfully suggest, if the duty remains the same on rape- 
 seed oil, that the law be amended so that any article which may be 
 composed iu part of rape-seed oil shall pay at least the same <luty as 
 rape- seed oil. 
 
 L. E. Eansom. 
 
 olive oil. 
 
 (Paragraph 32.) 
 
 Boston, December 29, 1890. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We respectfully protest against the efforts of the few i^roducers of 
 olive oil in California to have a high rate of duty on so necessary an 
 article for all classes of people as pure olive oil. As importers and 
 dealers we suggest that a specific duty of 20 cents per gallon on olive 
 oil would be a proper protection to the very few American cultivators 
 of the olive tree. 
 
 James A. Hayes & Co. 
 
 OLIVE oil for mechanical USES. 
 
 (Paragraph 568.) 
 
 New York, January <9, 1897. 
 
 We are importers of common olive oil for manufacturing and mechan- 
 ical purposes. There is no olive oil produced commercially in our 
 country which competes with this grade, it all being used for eating 
 purposes. The duty on olive oil fit for salad purposes (Par. No. 32,) is 
 35 cents per gallon. We have no changes to suggest in the rate of 
 duty. We ask for a clearer specification in the wording of para- 
 graph 568. The only distinction between "free" oil and "35 cents per 
 gallon duty" oil is the phrase "unfit for eating." In Italy and Spain 
 the lowest and poorest class of the population use these low-grade oils 
 for cooking and eating. In our country there is no consumption of 
 this oil for eating purposes, except, perhaps, to a very limited extent 
 among the poorest foreign laboring class of Italy and Spain. 
 
 The intent of the tariff is to protect the American eating oils by a 
 duty of 35 cents per gallon on quality used generally for this purpose. 
 The duty is at times assessed on oil imported under paragraph 568
 
 OPIUM AND MORPHINE. 95 
 
 under the charge that it is fit to eat. The average value of a barrel of 
 olive oil for the past three years would be about $25. The duty assessed 
 amounts to $17.50 per barrel, or, say, 75 per cent on its value. The 
 importer must ])ay and recover through the usual channels. We think 
 this an injustice, and respectfully urge that the paragraph should read 
 in a new tariif act, ''Olive oil expressly used for manufacturing and 
 mechanical purposes, free." 
 
 The principal consuniiition for this grade of olive oil is the woolen 
 manufacturing industrj', for finishing washing woolen yarns; the soap 
 manufacturing industry for textile and castile soaps, principally the 
 former; the nmnufacturing drug trade, for lotions, ointments, plasters, 
 and similar-articles, and the silk manufacturing and dyeing industry for 
 finishing silks. The first and second are the principal uses, the others 
 all being small. 
 
 We ask for a favorable consideration of our suggestion, in order that 
 olive oil used for the jmrposes intended may be absolutely secure in 
 its exemption from duty. 
 
 Wm. Petees & Co. 
 
 FISH OIL. 
 (Paragraph 34.) 
 
 Bristol, Me., Deceitihcr 20, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 reruiit me to call your attention to the need of a change in the duty 
 on fish oils. Instead of the 25 per cent ad valorem of the ])resent 
 tariff" there sliould be a specific duty of at least 10 cents per gallon. 
 Some think 12 cents not exorbitant, but my impression is that 10 cents 
 is a conservative figure. 
 
 11. II, Chamberlain. 
 
 OPIUM AXD MOEPHIXE. 
 
 (Paragraphs 25 and 36.) 
 
 New York, December 28^ 1890. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 A new tariff bill being now unaer consideration, and the purjiose 
 being to produce revenue as well as provide protection to our home 
 industries, we res])ecttully suggest that the duty on opium be restored 
 to $1 i)er poun<l, and on morphia to $1.50 per ounce, as proposed in 
 the inclosed cirruhir. 
 
 Ko article can, better tlian opium, stand a tax. It will not be felt by 
 the consumers, will allord a safeguard against the introduction of adul- 
 terated and hannl'ul preparations of the drug, and should produce a 
 revenue of more than $000,000. 
 
 The duty on morphia, codeine, and other alkaloids of opium would 
 amply protect our manufacturers. 
 
 TARIFF relating TO OPIUM AND ITS PREPARATIONS. 
 
 Free list, parngraph 560, reads: "Opium, crude or unmanufactured, 
 and not adulterated, containing nine per centum and over of morphia, 
 free."
 
 96 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS. AND PAINTS. 
 
 Amend to read "one dollar per pound." . 
 
 Schednle A, section 25, reads: -Morphia, or morpLme, and all salts 
 
 '^'^elI^r:::t^^.^coaeine, and other alkaloids of opium, and 
 all salts thereof, one dollar and fifty cents per ounce. 
 
 Schedule A, section 35, reads: "Opium, aqueous extracts ot, lor 
 medicinal uses, and tincture of; as laudanum, and all other liquid prep- 
 arations of opium, not specially provided for in this act, twenty per 
 centum ad valorem." 
 
 Amend to read " forty per centum ad valorem.' 
 
 Laioian ii Kemp. 
 
 PAINTS, COLORS, AXD TARISTLSHES. 
 
 (Paragraphs 37 to 48.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. J. SEAVER PAGE, REPRESENTING E. W. 
 DEVOE AND THE C. C. REYNOLDS COMPANY. 
 
 Monday, December 28, 189(!. 
 
 Mr. Page. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee : Like the 
 gentleman who preceded me, I desire to say on the part of tlie color 
 makers we will present a statement later in regard to what we require, 
 but we are happy at this particular moment to call attention to our 
 business for this reason, like one of the gentlemen who preceded me 
 said, we are also between the upper and the nether millstone, and if any- 
 thing we are on the top shelt; because we have to use chemicals in 
 order to make the colors ; so in that consideration we desire you will 
 not overlook us, but if we can have a relative duty, that is all we ask. 
 We desire to have no increase, but enough to protect us in the manu- 
 facture of our business. We shall be glad to answer any questions 
 if there is anything concerning our colors which requires explanation 
 and which we will submit to you in writing later. 
 
 The Chairman. I understand you to say the existing duties in 
 regard to colors you find to be ample to retain the business in this 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. Page. In many respects; yes, sir. There are some few changes, 
 and of course where the chemicals are changed you must make it rela- 
 tive; and we assume that a change will be made in chemicals. 
 
 Mr. Evans. You will explain in your written statement just exactly 
 where that provision would bear? 
 
 Mr. Page. Yes, sir; we will certainly do so. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Will you specify in your written statement just what 
 particular chemicals enter into your business! 
 
 Mr. Page. Y^es, sir; and all we ask is a relative change on our 
 products. We use such things as white lead, zincs, and oils, and of 
 course they are component parts of our manufacture, and if any change 
 be made in those we want relative changes made in our products and 
 nothing more. 
 
 Mr. SIcMillin. If they remain the same you are satisfied with the 
 present schedules ? 
 
 Mr. Page. Yes, sir. If you will allow me to correct one statement I 
 made, before going further. I was asked the question if there are no 
 changes made in chemicals we should desire some changes made in 
 colors, and I answered no. I now desire to say yes. To my mind there 
 are two or three items which, to be in harmony, ought to be changed.
 
 PAINTS, COLORS, AND VARNISHES. 97 
 
 STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE REPRESENTING THE COLOR MANU- 
 FACTURERS. 
 
 jS^ew York, ]Sr, T., January 6, 1897. 
 
 COMIMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 The committee representiug the color manufacturers submit the 
 following facts and arguments relative to the articles consumed and 
 mauutiictured by them, and the rates of duty which, in their judgment, 
 should be placed upon them. 
 
 Our raw materials are chiefly chemicals, and in almost everj^ case 
 they form the only component i)arts of our manufa(;tures. Should any 
 change be made in the duty on chemicals, it would be only just that 
 colors should be treated in a relatively similar manner. Heretofore 
 in many cases the linished product has been admitted at a lower rate 
 of duty than that imposed on tlie raw materials and in some cases at 
 the same rate, when in fact the linished product represents but a 
 fractional part of the raw materials used in its manufacture. 
 
 The manufactures in which we are interested are covered by the 
 following j)aragraplis: 
 
 Paragraph 38, which should read as follows: "Blues, such as berlin, 
 Prussian, Chinese, and all others containing ferrocyanide of iron, dry 
 or ground in oil, or mixed with oil, and in pulp or mixed with water, 
 12 cents per pound.'' 
 
 Blues containing ferrocyanide of iron pay under the present law G 
 cents per pound. The price of this article was in 1894, 1895, and 1896, 
 resi)ectively, 32 cents, 31 cents, and 31 cents per pound. A duty of 
 6 cents per pound, therefore, is eciuivalent to an ad valorem duty 
 of 18.99, 19.07, and 19.07 per cent for the years above given, or average 
 about 19 per cent. (See Imports for Consumption, Bureau of Statistics, 
 189G, pp. 286 and 396.) 
 
 In the manufacture of these blues we use the following raw materials: 
 Yellow prussiate of potash, paying 2.5 ])er cent ad valorem; bichromate 
 of i)0tasli, paying 25 per cent ad valorem; coi)peras, free. 
 
 To ])roduce 80 i)ounds of blue, 100 pounds of yellow prussiate of pot- 
 ash, 20 pounds of bichromate of potash, and 9.5 poundsof copperas are 
 used, the two former of which have a higher rate of duty than the fin- 
 ished product. It is plain, therefore, that not only have we no protec- 
 tion, but that a discrimination in favor of the foreign manufacturer 
 clearly exists. To e([ua]i/,e tlie ditt'crence in the price of labor and plant 
 and give us adequate i)rotecti()n, we ask for a duty of 12 cents per pound 
 on all blues as enumerated in paragraph 38. 
 
 AVe also ask tluit colors in pnlp or mixed with water be included in 
 this paragraph, under the duty of J 2 cents ])er jionnd. We dry these 
 colors at a temperature of not more than 120^, whereas the importer 
 claims that 212"^ is the pro])er tem])crature. At this latter point con- 
 siderably more moisture is driven olf than is customary in manufactur- 
 ing, and the im})orter thus i>ays a duty on 25 percent on dry blue only, 
 whereas he should be made to pay a duty on 33 per cent at least. 
 
 We further suggest that sh(mld a duty of 5 cents per pound be placed 
 on yellow i)russiate, and a duty of 3 cents per pound be placed on 
 bichromate of potash and a duty reimposed on copperas, we should 
 be given a compensatory duty of at least 25 per cent ad valorem, in 
 addition to the duty of 12 cents per pound, on all blues as enumerated 
 in ])aragraph 38, and the paragragh would then read as follows : "Para- 
 graph 38. Blues, such as berlin, prussiau, Chinese, and all others 
 T H 7
 
 98 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 containing ferrocyanicle of iron, dry or ground in oil, or mixed with oil, 
 and in pulp or mixed with water, 12 cents per pound and 25 per cent ad 
 valorem." 
 
 Paragraph 40 should read: "Black, made from bone, ivory, or vege- 
 table, under whatever name known, including bone black and lamp- 
 black, dry or ground in oil or water, 30 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 Paragraph 41 should read as follows : " Chrome yellow, chrome green, 
 and all chromium colors in which lead and bichromate of potash or soda 
 are component parts, dry or ground in or mixed with oil or water, 4J 
 cents per pound and 25 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 In the production of chrome yellow we use white sugar of lead and 
 bichromate of potash. Chrome yellow under the present law pays a 
 duty of 3 cents per pound. To produce 100 pounds of this article we 
 use 137 pounds of white sugar of lead, on which there is a duty of 2f 
 cents per pound, making a total duty of $3.77, and 45i pounds of bichro- 
 mate of potash, on which there is a duty of 25 ]ier cent ad valorem, mak- 
 ing a total duty of $2, and a grand total of $5.77 in duties which we 
 pay on the raw materials used to produce 100 pounds of chrome yellow, 
 which under the present law pays a duty of 3 cents per pound, or on 
 100 pounds a total duty of $3, showing a diflcrence of 82.77 between the 
 duty paid on the raw materials and that paid on the finished product, to 
 the disadvantage of the latter. 
 
 We therefore ask for the duty above suggested. 
 
 Article 566 of the free list, which inovicles for the ftee entry of ocber, 
 umber, and sienna earths, should be stricken from the free list, and 
 article 42 of Schedule A should be amended to read as foHows: "Ocher 
 and ochery earths, sienna and sienna earths, umber and umber earths, 
 dry, crude, not powdered, washed, or pulverized, 61 per ton ; powdered, 
 washed, or pulverized, three-eighths of 1 cent per pound ; ground iu oil, 
 111 cents per pound." 
 
 Paragraph 44, relating to varnishes, should read: "Paragraj)!! 44. 
 Varnishes, including so-called gold size japan, 35 ]ier cent ad valorem, 
 and on spirit varnishes for the alcohol contained therein, 81.32 per 
 gallon additional." 
 
 Paragraph 45 should read: "45. Yermilion and other colors contain- 
 ing quicksilver, dry or ground in oil or water, 7 cents per pound and 
 20 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 Quicksilver, from which these colors are made, pays a duty of 7 cents 
 per pound, and the manufactured product a duty of 20 percent ad valo- 
 rem, with no compensatory duty for the additional duty on quicksilver. 
 
 The decreased importation of quicksilver and the increased importa- 
 tion of vermilion will show how the manufacturers of vermilion suffer 
 because of no compensatory or adequate duty on their manufactured 
 product. 
 
 The importation of quicksilver for the three preceding years was as 
 follows: 1894, 15,000 pounds; 1895, 15,007 pounds; 1896,75 pounds. 
 Whereas the importation of vermilion showed an increase as follows: 
 1894, 26,276.9 pounds; 1895, 1,271 pounds; 1896, 43,890.5 pounds. 
 
 The duty of 20 per cent ad valorem allows the German and English 
 manufacturers to ship increasing quantities of vermilion to this coun- 
 try, and every pound imported means a pound less of American quick- 
 silver used in the production of vermilion here. It is only reasonable 
 to insist upon a duty which will offset the disadvantage under which 
 the home manufacturer now works. 
 
 Vermilion red, made of or containing lead, should pay 7i cents per 
 pound. This is made from orange mineral and aniline colors, and
 
 PAINTS, COLORS, AND VARNISHES. 99 
 
 should the rates on these be increased, a compensatory duty on ver- 
 milion red should be granted. 
 
 Paragraph 47 should read : " 47. Zinc, oxide of, and white paint or pig- 
 ment containing zinc, dry, or ground in oil or water, 1 cent per pound." 
 This is simply the old rate of duty. 
 
 Paragraph 48 should be eliminated, and in place thereof the follow- 
 ing should be incorporated: "All colors in jars, bottles, pans, or cakes, 
 and known as artists' colors, 35 per cent ad valorem. All colors in 
 collapsible tubes 35 per cent ad valorem and 20 cents per dozen addi- 
 tional. All colors known as lakes, and made from vegetable or wood 
 dyes, 35 per cent ad valorem; containing or made from coal-tar colors, 
 or alizarin, 45 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 "All other paints, colors, and pigments, whether dry or mixed, or 
 ground in water or oil, or other solutions, and not otherwise provided 
 for in this act, 25 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 To this paragraph has been added "paints, colors, and pigments, 
 when in eollapsii)le metal tubes, 10 cents per dozen and 35 per cent ad 
 valorem," and "lakes containing coal tar or alizarin colors, 45 per cent 
 ad valorem," and "lakes made of vegetable or wood dyes, 35 per cent 
 ad valorem." 
 
 Paints, etc, in collapsible metal tubes have never been adequately 
 provided for, and lakes containing coal-tar colors or dyes require this 
 duty of 45 per cent because the raw materials, aniline colors, from 
 which these lakes are made is dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 We also desire the following to be added to paragraph 277, after the 
 words "35 per cent ad valorem," "on all such goods when painted or 
 surface coated, not otherwise provided for in this act, 50 per cent ad 
 vah)rem," so that the paragrai»h will read as follows: "Paragraph 277. 
 All manufactures of tlax, hemp. Jute, or other vegetable fiber, except 
 cotton, of which these substances or either of them is the component 
 material of chief value, not specially provided for in this act, 35 per 
 cent ad valorem; and when painted or surface coated, and not other- 
 wise provided for in tliis act, 50 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 Paragraph 368, which now reads "alizarin colors or dyes, artificial 
 or natural" should read ^'■'Si)S. Alizarin, artificial or natural." The 
 words "colors and dyes" should be stricken out, otherwise orange 
 mineral colored with alizarin and alizarin lakes, which are colors made 
 from alizarin, can be, as they have been, admitted free of duty. 
 
 I'aris green and london i)uri)lc should come in under the general 
 clause paragraph 48 of "colors not otherwise provided for," and espe- 
 cially should this be done aiul a compensatory duty given them if a 
 duty be placed upon blue vitriol, which is a raw material used in the 
 manufa(;ture of paris green. 
 
 We will be glad to furnish any additional information desired by 
 your committee, or make any further explanations which you may deem 
 necessary, and trusting that these requests will meet with your favor- 
 able consideration. 
 
 J. Seaver Page, 
 Of Th. Devoe, 0. T. Reynolds Co., 
 
 101 Fulton street, New YorJ{, 
 M. Alsberg, 
 Of Alsbeeg & Pfeiffer, 
 
 176 Fulton street, New York, 
 H. Spencer Lucas, 
 John Lucas & Co., 
 
 Fourth and Race streets, Philadelphia, 
 
 Committee of Color Manufacturers.
 
 100 
 
 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 STATEMENT AND SCHEDULE SUBMITTED BY LEWIS BERGER & 
 SONS, OF NEV/ YORK, N. Y. 
 
 New Yokk, January 5, 1897, 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Referriug to the recent hearings before your committee covering the 
 proposed new tariff schedule, we respectfully submit the following 
 considerations in regard to the duties to be levied on certain articles 
 under Schedule A, chemicals, oils, paints, etc. We have been estab- 
 lished in this market for thirty years, our main office being in the city of 
 New York. We herewith beg to give a statement of the duties on some 
 of our leading articles as provided for in the ]\rcKinley act of 1890 and 
 the existing Wilson act of 1894, our purpose being to show that the 
 reductions made, if any, were quite moderate. 
 
 Para- 
 graph. 
 
 Article. 
 
 Bines 
 
 Blacks ■ 
 
 Chrome yellows, chrome greeus, and all other 
 chromium colors. 
 
 TTltramarine blue • 
 
 Vermilion red 
 
 White lead 
 
 All other colors not otherwise provided for 
 
 Litharge • 
 
 Nitrate of lead 
 
 Orauffe mineral 
 
 Ited lead 
 
 Vermilion 
 
 Rate. 
 
 Act of 1890. 
 
 6 cents per pound. 
 
 25 per cent 
 
 4i cents ■ 
 
 Act of 1894. 
 
 6 cents per pound. 
 20 per cent. 
 3 cents. 
 
 4J cents Scents. 
 
 12 cents I 6 cents. 
 
 Scents I IJ cents. 
 
 25 per cent 25 per cent. 
 
 Scents ]J cents. 
 
 Scents IJ conts. 
 
 3J cents. IJ cents. 
 
 3 cents. | IJ cents. 
 
 12 cents per pound i 2u per o«nt. 
 
 Even under the Wilson act, the following articles from the above list 
 are either entirely prohibited or nearly so: lilues, G cents per pound; 
 ultramarines, 3 cents per pound; vermilion reds not containing quick- 
 silver, 6 cents per pound; chromium colors, 3 cents per jwund; white 
 lead, 1^ cents per pound; litharge, H cents per pound ; nitrate of lead, 
 IJ cents per i)Ound; vermilion containing quicksilver, I'O ])er cent. 
 
 The importation on the above is nominal if any, thus depriving 
 revenue therefrom. 
 
 As the object of your committee is to increase the revenue, it is abso- 
 lutely true that this result can best be accomplished by reductions of 
 the present rates of duty, and not by raises of any kind. We notice 
 that several spokesmen who appeared before you insisted very strongly 
 upon specific duties, alleging the difficulty of finding out the correct 
 values, etc. We make two suggestions in this particular: First, that 
 it is not difficult to find the correct foreign market values of paints 
 and colors, as they are staple articles, and there has never been a ques- 
 tion of any serious moment raised against the valuations passing the 
 United States custom-house on paints; second, again the assessing 
 of specific duties at random upon colors is absurd, because the colors 
 vary very greatly in value. 
 
 The apparent object of the gentlemen who are demanding specific 
 duties exclusively seems to be to get very high rates of duty in this form. 
 We would therefore ask that in every instance in which specific rates of 
 duties are imposed, you would, as a matter of justice, ascertain what 
 corresponding ad valorem rate of duty is; otherwise, under an ap]>ar- 
 ently slight advance, you will be practically prohibiting importation,
 
 PAINTS, COLORS, AND VARNISHES. 101 
 
 and of course cutting off all possible revenue; in fact, that is the effect 
 of nearly all tbe specific rates in the present tariff. 
 Eespectfully, yours, 
 
 Lewis Bekger & Sons, Limited. 
 
 Wm. F. Siemon. 
 
 We beg to submit herevrith a schedule of duties which will produce 
 revenue, and aflord anii)Ie protection to home manufactures: 
 
 Colors, all coutainingquicksilver, 15 per cent; berlin blue, dry or ground 
 in oil, 3 cents per pound; berlin blue, in pulp or mixed with water on 
 material contained, 3 cents per pound; black, made from bone, ivory, or 
 vegetable under wliatever name known, including boneblack and lamp- 
 black, dry or ground in oil or water, 15 per cent; blanc-tixe, or satin 
 white, or artiticial sulphate of barytes, 20 per cent; blues, such as ber- 
 lin, Prussian, Chinese, and all others containing ferrocyanide of iron, 
 dry or ground in oil, 3 cents per pound ; boneblack, 15 per cent ; chrome 
 yellow, chrome green, and all other chromium colors, in which lead or 
 bichromate of potash or soda are component parts, dry or ground in 
 oil, ss. 13,200, li cents per pound; ocher ancl ochery earth, dry, ss. 
 12,331>, free, 5 cents i)er pound; paris green, 10 per cent; orange min- 
 eral, 1 cent per i)Ound ; priissian blue, ss. 8,312, 3 cents per pound; red 
 lead, 1 cent per pound; sienna and sienna earth, dry, free; Spanish 
 brown, 25 per cent; turkey red ss. 3,500, 25 per cent; umber and umber 
 eartli, dry, free; vandyke brown ss. 0,090, 25 per cent; Venetian red 
 ss. 0,000, 25 per cent; vermilion red, not containing quicksilver, dry or 
 ground in oil or water, 3 cents per pound: white lead and white paint 
 and ])igment containing lead, dry or in pnlp, ground or mixed witli oil 
 1 cent per pound; all other i)aints, colors, and pigments, Avhether dry 
 or mixed, or ground in water or oil, or other solutions, including all 
 colors in tubes, lakes, crayons, smalts, and frostings, and not specially 
 provided for in this act, 25 per cent. 
 
 Lewis Bergkr & Sons, Limited. 
 Wm. F. Siemon. 
 
 BARYTES. 
 
 (Paragraph 37.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. M. H. DINGEE, OF LYNCHBURG, VA. 
 
 Monday, December 28, 1896. 
 
 Mr. Dingee said: I come here in the interest of Barytes. 
 
 The Chairman. Is this article of barytes a product of your region? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. Yes, sir; in Virginia and ]N^orth Carolina. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you find the present duty satisfactory for your 
 purpose? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. Far from being so. Our business has languished since 
 the present tariff went into effect. We Mall submit our argument in 
 writing. If there are questions you desire to ask me furthur I will be 
 glad to answer them. 
 
 The Chairman. Is the supply sufficient in this country for all our 
 needs?
 
 102 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 Mr. DiNGEB. Yes, sir. n . r. ■ i a9 
 
 The Chairman. It is ooly the question of labor involveaT 
 Mr. DiNGBE. It is the question of labor. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED BY DINGEE, WEINMAN 
 AND CO., OF LYNCHBURG, VA. 
 
 Lynchburg, Va., January 2, 1897, 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Confirming interview of our Mr. M. H. Dingee with your committee 
 on December 28, we herewith give our reasons for asking the following: 
 
 First. A specific duty and return to duties of tariff bill of 1890, viz, 
 $6.72 per ton on manufactured barytes and $1.12 on unmanufactured 
 barytes. Further, we desire a specific duty of a half cent per pound 
 on blanc fixe (precipitated sulphate of barium), chloride of barium, and 
 all barium salts; also carbonate of bariuLi. 
 
 Since the inception of the Wilson tariff bill more than one-half of 
 the firms engaged in the business have either failed or gone out of 
 existence by reason of the present low tariff. The duties we aak will 
 not enhance any of the necessities of life or prominent articles of com- 
 merce; it will add more revenue than now received by the Government; 
 it will stimulate home industries and encourage manufactures now 
 barely existing to renewed efforts; it will give employment to labor 
 and develop parts of the country where farming is unprofitable. 
 
 Regarding the duty we ask you to impose upon blanc fixe, carbonate 
 of barium, and the various barium salts, there has been very little of 
 the aforementioned made in this country. We know of three firms now 
 getting ready to manufacture if adequately protected. 
 
 The duties under the bill of 1890 are not in any way too high, nor 
 are they burdensome upon anyone. The existing duties are not suffi- 
 cient, and are, indeed, even inadequate to maintain the industry of 
 barytes mining and preparation upon a remunerative basis, and unless 
 we have a larger measure of protection than now afforded it must 
 result in disaster to the industry and all who are interested in it and 
 dependent upon it. 
 
 Barytes is an article but little known outside of the paint and chem- 
 ical trades. It may therefore be proper to say a few words descriptive 
 of it and its uses. 
 
 Barytes, or sulphate of barium, is a mineral of very heavy specific grav- 
 ity, being within fifteen one-thousandths as heavy as carbonate of lead. 
 On account of the properties it possesses, it is largely used in paints 
 and colors and other collateral lines. Barytes, when properly prepared 
 and used in certain preparations with other pigment matter, forms the 
 groundwork of many of the cheaper paints that are so largely used by 
 the great body of the people, especially the farming class. It is very 
 extensively used in making colors with which agricultural implements 
 and farm wagons are painted in the West. It is used in wall papers 
 and in the manufacture of visiting cards, but never as an adulterant 
 of foods. It will not oxidize and is insoluble. Its uses are becoming 
 more widely known, and if the manufacturers in this country have the 
 same benefit that have been given to other industries, in a few years 
 they can meet foreign competition. It has been used in colors for many 
 centuries in the Old World, and is by many believed to be the basis of 
 the fast colors of the old Italian masters.
 
 PAINTS, COLORS, AND VARNISHES. 103 
 
 The consumption in the United States averages 30,000 tons per annum, 
 and in Europe and the United Kingdom more than 300,000 tons per 
 annum. 
 
 The revenues now derived by the Government from this source are 
 so small that this, we know, is no argument for the advance of the 
 duty; yet upon that duty depends our own living and that of many 
 employees and the preservation of the investment of much capital and 
 the time and labor of a lifetime. 
 
 The crud6 barytes is originally taken from the ground or mine in 
 large lumps, more or less associated with other minerals, and this fact 
 involves the necessity of picking the ore, so that the barytes itself may 
 be separated from the foreign matter. 
 
 Then, again, a further picking or selection has to be gone through to 
 separate the diflFereiit qualities. All this picking has to be done by 
 hand, and therefore involves the employment of labor. Much of the 
 labor used is of that class that it is most desirable to assist. Much of 
 the work is done by women and cliildren — in Missouri more especially — 
 many of them belonging to families of farmers upon whose land or in 
 the vicinity of whose farm the barytes is fouud. Owing to the location 
 of the farms where this labor is employed the destruction of the barytes 
 industry would entirely deprive those referred to of this very great aid 
 to the family support, because no specified employment is open to those 
 concerned. Then, again, the farmers find employment for tliemselves 
 and for their farm help in barytes mining, ])reparation, and sliipping, at 
 times and seasons when not engaged in ordinary farm work. 
 
 In addition to farm labor, skilled labor is employed in the mining 
 and preparation of barytes, and unless we have a change and a higher 
 tariff the losses and suffering will be both Avide and great. Not only 
 will the farmers suffer and the families of the farmers, but other labor, 
 such as the coopers, who make barrels in which barytes is packed; 
 the various mechanics who make the mills and grind the barytes, and 
 the i)arties by wliom it is washed and floated, witli those dei)endent 
 upon them. Then, again, the transportation companies that carry the 
 barytes to the various markets will also be losers to the extent of a con- 
 siderable amount of freight. Barytes is found in Missouri and several 
 Southern States, viz : Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Caro- 
 lina, and Tennessee. It is estimated that in Virginia alone any injury 
 to the barytes business would attect at least three thousand people. 
 
 Foreign barytes which comes to the United States is mainly produced 
 in the Hartz Mountains, Germany. While we have no exact figures as 
 to the wages paid for mining barytes in Germany, they are unquestion- 
 ably low — such as to make competition on the part of the American 
 manufacturer out of the question — unless he brings down his own 
 expenses of production to a level with that of his German rival. If 
 he can not do this — and it would seem impossible — he must give up the 
 industry altogether. 
 
 That the German wages must be on a cheaper scale is evidenced by 
 the prices at which the German article is sold in the United States. If 
 the barytes itself is worth anything at all it is very clear from the foreign 
 figures that the cost of mining and preparing it must be small indeed. 
 To get some idea of the German cost of labor some figures may not come 
 amiss: 
 
 The United States custom reports for 1885, with ad valorem duty on 
 unmanufactured barytes, show the importation of 9,622,822 pounds, on 
 the basis of $2.78 per ton, as the total foreign valuation for everything.
 
 104 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 That is to say, both on barytes itself and its mining and hauling. If 
 this is not a clear example of the effect of ad valorem duties, and the 
 undervaluation such duties lead to, then it would certainly be interest- 
 ing to have a division of this foreign cost, so that we might know how 
 much the barytes itself was worth, and how much the labor expended 
 on it. 
 
 In 1890, under the McKinley bill, the duty was made $6.72 per ton 
 on manufactured barytes, and under this duty the importations to 1893 
 fell ofl" considerably, or about one-half of what they were under the 
 previous lower tariff, thus transferring the benefit of a much larger 
 share of the industry than formerly to American hands, mainly the 
 people of the Southern States, and thus showing the beneficent effect 
 to this industry and to these people by the extra protection given. 
 
 The impetus given to the domestic production of barytes and the 
 reduced price which domestic competition brought about led to a very 
 considerably increased comsumptiou of the article. This is believed to 
 amount to nearly 10,000 tons within three > ears. The present consump- 
 tion is estimated to be about 30,000 tons per year, which is capable of 
 much development if you will only give us adequate protective duties, 
 because the industry here is only in its infancy when compared with 
 that of Europe. Foreign barytes is largely brought to the United 
 States as ballast, so that the ocean distance gives us no protection; on 
 the contrary, the cheap ocean transport German steamers enable Ger- 
 man barytes to be laid down in the northern seaboard markets of the 
 United States at much less cost than the same markets can be reached 
 from Virginia, and debarring us entirely from the trade of the Gulf 
 States and Pacific Coast. 
 
 Notwithstanding that the McKinley bill by making the duty on man- 
 ufactured barytes $'6.72 per ton did not have the effect of raising tlie 
 price in the United States, but, on the contrary, caused a considerable 
 lowering in figures, the cheapening of prices which the increased 
 home production and competition brought about is about $1 ])er ton, 
 equal to20percentof the selling price prior to the McKinley bill taking 
 effect, while under t he protecting shelter of the act of 1890 the increased 
 home production and competition have brought lower prices for barytes, 
 and in that way have placed cheap paints within the reach of all, benefit- 
 ing the farmers of the South, not only by the money earned from barytes 
 mining, but in giving them also the ad\\antage of low-priced material. 
 Unless we have a higher tariff than now in effect, we shall have to go 
 out of business entirely— the last three years having demonstrated, 
 without the shadow of a doubt, our utter inability under the existing 
 tariff to maintain our business— thus insuring a high ])rice both for 
 barytes and the paints made from it, which will assuredly follow when 
 the American mines and miners have been abandoned and Germany 
 has control of the trade. There will be gladness in the Hartz Moun- 
 tains and sadness in Virginia. The invited flow of German barytes 
 will carry sorrow to many happy, sunny Southern homes. 
 
 It is respectfully urged that your honorable committee give ns $0.72 
 per ton on manufactured barytes and $1.12 per ton on unmanufactured 
 barytes, and one-half cent per pound on blanc fixe and carbonate of 
 barium and the various barium salts, and it is further respectfully 
 urged that the rates, whatever they may be, shall be specific and not 
 ad valorem. 
 
 Eespectfully, 
 
 DiNGEE, Weinman & Co.
 
 PAINTS, COLORS, AND VARNISHES. 105 
 
 St. Louis, January 6, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir: We are very much interested in efforts now being made 
 to correct the i)reseiit tariff duties on products which compete with 
 goods we have been manufacturing, and venture to ask your kind 
 assistance, in the hope tliat something may be accomplished to make 
 it possible to produce these goods at a profit in St. Louis. We have for 
 the past ten years been endeavoring to manufacture different mineral 
 colors, principally for sale to the paint-grinding trade, and under the 
 McKinley tariff we were able to enlarge our business, but under the 
 present bill our business has been unprofitable, as we are entirely shut 
 out of the most important markets, nor is it possible for us to compete 
 with the existing state of affairs. 
 
 We manufacture bjirytes — sulphate of baryta — a mineral found in 
 very large quantity in this State in connection with lead ore, and we 
 treat it and prepare it for use, but we find that goods made in Germany 
 are being laid down at the seaboard on the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific 
 Coast ports at prices which we are totally unable to meet. We are 
 repeatedly oflered the business, as the preference amojig the users is 
 for American-made goods, but we find it impossible to accept orders at 
 prices made by the German factories. 
 
 We therefore ask that the duties prevailing under the McKinley 
 bill, viz, $0.72 i^er ton on manufactured goods and $1.12 per ton on 
 crude barytes ore, be reinstated. We may say that we have had as 
 much help from the railroad companies as could be expected, they hav- 
 ing given us the same rates as for grain products, and for Pacific Coast 
 business even lower rates; still we fiiul it imi)ossible to compete, as the 
 freight rates fron) Hamburg and Brenuni are almost nothing, frequently 
 less than $1.50 per ton, goods being taken as "ballast." 
 
 We are reliably informed that the miners who raise this material in 
 Washington and Jefierson counties have not been able to earn an 
 average of $1.50 ])er week during the last two years, owing to the 
 great falling off in trade, and this not only affects miners, but team- 
 sters, 8torekeei)ers, and the entire community as well. 
 
 We are also interested in the manufacture of iron-oxide colors, pro- 
 duced from copperas, and in this trade have to compete against goods of 
 English manufacture. Under the Wilson bill, which admitted ocher 
 and such like products free of duty, the foreign factories have sent into 
 this country large quantities of these goods, billing them as " red ocher," 
 and so passing them through the custom-houses entirely free of duty. 
 This not only aflects the seaboard trade, but in consequence of extremely 
 low rates of freight we have found it, in many cases, impossible to com- 
 pete in markets as close to hand as Chicago, Louisville, Cincinnati, etc., 
 and as an instance would mention that last summer there was a rate 
 inade from Liverpool to East St. Louis of $3.50 per ton on these goods, 
 our rate from East St. Louis to JSTew York being $5 per ton. 
 
 Geo. S. Mepham & Klein. 
 
 OOHER AND OCHERY EARTHS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY C. STEWART, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
 Monday, December 28, 1896. 
 Mr. Stewart. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I 
 not only represent The S. P. Wetherill Company, of Philadelphia, but 
 also a number of manufacturers and producers to whom I addressed a
 
 106 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 letter since I learned that this committee would have hearings, and with 
 your kind permission I will read a few letters from them later on. I 
 am speaking particularly of ocher and ochery earths, which are now on 
 the free list, and I have made a comparative statement of the materials 
 here and would ask that a duty be placed on copperas, and also that a 
 duty be placed on ocher and ochery earths and all oxides of iron ; ocher 
 and ochery eartlis, sienna and sienna earths, umber and umber earths 
 are all oxides of iron, probably with some other substance mixed. The 
 oxides of iron, properly speaking, are Venetian red, Indian red, and 
 tuscan red, metallic oxide, colcothar, crocus rouge, and those tilings 
 are now admitted free under the clause of ocher and ochery earths or 
 crude earths. Now, 1 am in receipt of the following letter which is 
 addressed to The S. P. Wetherill Company: 
 
 Bethlehem, Pa., December 23, 1896, 
 
 The S. P. Wetherill Company, 
 
 925 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia. 
 
 Gentlemen: Your letter received. I have given careful attention 
 and thought to your "Comparisons of tariffs and materials in Schedule 
 A entering into oxides of iron and Venetian reds," and the duties now 
 asked to be inserted in a new bill on ocher and ocher earths, sienna, 
 and sienna earths, umbers, and umber earths, indian reds, Venetian 
 reds, etc., are not only equitable duties, but are absolutely necessary to 
 the maintenance of this branch of the paint industry in the United 
 States. 
 
 As a result of the enaction of the present tariff" law 1 was compelled 
 to shut down my Virginia mill and mines, known as the Bermuda 
 Ochre Company's Works, and under the existing law it will not be i)rof- 
 itable or possible to work this property. These works emjdoyed about 
 thirty men directly. 
 
 In Pennsylvania and New Jersey I have six mines of ocher, umbers, 
 and siennas, all of which, with one exception, have been shut down for 
 almost two years. These mines furnished the crude materials used at 
 my mill in Bethlehem, and all together, when in operation, employed 
 about one hundred men. The force at the present time is eighteen 
 men. This stoppage and reduction in force has been a direct and nec- 
 essary result of the present tariff" law, and if this law remains in force 
 for two years longer I will have to discontinue the mining and manu- 
 facturing of ochers, umbers, siennas, and Venetian reds, as I can not 
 successfully compete with foreign goods. 
 
 Tours, truly, Henry Erwin. 
 
 I will say in regard to Mr. Erwin that he does just what he claims, 
 and I believe every statement made therein to be absolutely true. I 
 have also to-day a letter addressed by George S. Mepham &* Klein, of 
 St. Louis, Mo. : 
 
 St. Louis, December 26, 1896. 
 Mr. Henry C. Stewart, 
 
 Treasurer 8. P. Wetherill Co., Washington, D. 0. 
 
 Dear Sir: We are in receipt of your valued favor in relation to 
 tariff". Also received schedule referring to oxides of iron and Venetian 
 red, and most heartily indorse it as necessary and equitable, and trust 
 it may be inserted in the tariff bill. 
 
 Under existing tariff we have found it almost impossible to exist, as 
 foreign products are sold, even in St. Louis, at prices impossible for us 
 to meet, owing to the great difference in labor which we pay as com-
 
 PAINTS, COLORS, AND VARNISHES. 
 
 107 
 
 pared with the prices in England for same class of work, our men 
 receiving from $9 to $18 per week, while at Derby and Spondon the 
 highest wages paid was £1 per week. 
 
 We have also suffered from exceeding low freight rates; for instance, 
 last summer Venetian reds were brought into this city on a freight rate 
 of 17J cents per 100 pounds from Liverpool, England, to East St. Louis 
 by both Baltimore and Newport News, goods being brought across the 
 ocean as ballast; and we have also met with instances where English 
 goods (Venetian reds) have been passed through the custom-houses as 
 '< red ocher," which, under present tariff, is free of duty. 
 
 We are and have been producing goods in every way equal to the 
 imported, and the business is capable of great enlargement, provided 
 it may be possible for us to work on a basis more nearly equal to that 
 enjoyed by the English manufacturers. 
 
 We trust your efforts to correct this injustice, which has worked a 
 hardship on all of the American manufacturers, will be successful, and 
 hope to hear from you soon. 
 
 Yours, truly. 
 
 Geo. S. Mepham & Klein. 
 
 I respectfully submit these, sir, together with the memorandum. 
 
 Comparisons of tariffs and viaieriah in Schedule A entering into oxides of iron and 
 
 Venetian reds. 
 
 
 Duties per act 
 of 1872. 
 
 Duties, act of 1883. 
 
 Duties, act of 1890. 
 
 Duties, act of 189i. 
 
 CopperM (is the basis 
 
 i cent per 
 
 ^0 cent per pound. 
 
 f^ cent per pound 
 
 Free (par. 455). 
 
 for inoBt American and 
 
 pound. 
 
 
 (par. 23). 
 
 
 English oxides of iron. 
 
 
 
 
 
 The eight following 
 
 
 
 
 
 can be and are made 
 
 
 
 
 
 from both copperas 
 
 
 
 
 
 and natural red oxides 
 
 
 
 
 
 or earths). 
 
 
 
 
 
 Colcothar, 1. e., oxide of 
 
 Free (sec. 6). 
 
 This class, in this 
 
 This class. In this 
 
 This class, In this 
 
 iron. 
 
 This it«m 
 
 tarifl', was pro- 
 
 tariff, was pro- 
 
 tariff, was pro- 
 
 
 interfered 
 
 vided for under 
 
 vided for under 
 
 vided for under 
 
 
 with the en- 
 
 "Colors and 
 
 clause 61 at 25 
 
 clause 48 at 25 
 
 
 tire class. 
 
 paints" at 2 5 
 
 per cent, but 
 
 per cent, but 
 
 Croons colcottra, an ox- 
 
 25 per cent... 
 
 per cent, but a 
 
 the crude min- 
 
 the crude min- 
 
 ide of iron; crocus 
 
 
 clause provid- 
 
 erals were im- 
 
 erals are im- 
 
 martins, an oxide of 
 
 
 ing for crudi! 
 
 ported as iron 
 
 ported as iron 
 
 iron. 
 
 
 minerals, which 
 
 ore at 75 cents 
 
 ore at 40 cents 
 
 Rouge or raddle, an ox- 
 
 50 per cent. . . 
 
 have been ad- 
 
 per ton. 
 
 per ten, and the 
 
 ide of iron. 
 
 
 vanced by refin- 
 
 
 manufactured 
 
 Indian red, an oxide of 
 
 25 per cent... 
 
 ing or grading, 
 not specially 
 providea for, ad- 
 
 
 largely free un- 
 
 iron. 
 
 
 
 d e r paragraph 
 
 Tuscan red, an oxide of 
 
 
 
 566. 
 
 iron. 
 
 
 mitted most at 
 
 
 
 Strong bright red, an ox- 
 ide of iron. 
 
 
 10 percent. Re- 
 mainder, under 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Purple brown, an oxide 
 of iron. 
 
 25 per cent. . . 
 
 variims other 
 
 
 
 
 evasions. 
 
 
 
 Venetian red, an oxide 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 
 
 of iron adulterated. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Earths, red, brown, yel- 
 
 50 cents per 
 
 50 cents per 100 
 
 4 cent per pound.. 
 
 Free (par. 666). 
 
 low; dry, including 
 ocbers, siennas, and 
 
 100 pounds. 
 
 pounds. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 nmbers. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Spanish brown, an ocher, 
 
 25 per cent. 
 
 
 
 
 but dutiable. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Vandyke brown, a dry 
 
 20 per cent. 
 
 
 
 
 pigment, but dutiable. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Paints, dry, not other- 
 
 25 per cent 
 
 25 per cent 
 
 25 per cent (par. 
 
 25 per cent (par. 
 
 wise provided for. 
 
 
 i 
 
 61). 
 
 48). 
 
 We would respectfully ask as equitable duties to be inserted in a new 
 bill in Schedule A : 
 
 In place of paragraph 455 in the free list, tariff act 1894, the following : 
 *' Copperas, 30 cents per 100 pounds."
 
 108 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 In place of paraj^rrapli 566 in tlie free list, tariff act 1894, the following: 
 
 " Ocher and ocliery eartlis, sienna and sienna earths, umber and umber 
 earths, Indian red, tuscan red, strong bright red, purple brown, metal- 
 lic oxide, colcothar, crocus, rouge or raddle, and all oxides of iron by 
 whatever name known, unless otherwise specially provided for, when 
 crude and not advanced by any process of manufacture, $10 per ton; 
 when dry or powdered, 1^ cents per pound ; when ground in oil or water, 
 4 cents per pound. 
 
 " Venetian red, when crude, $10 per ton ; when dry or manufactured, 
 1 cent per pound; when ground in oil or water, 3 cents per pound. 
 
 '^ Colors, paints, and pigments, not otherwise provided for, 50 per cent 
 ad valorem." 
 
 The S. p. Wetheeill Company, 
 
 Fhiladelphia, Pa. 
 
 The Ferric Chemical and Color Co., 
 
 Worcester, Mass. 
 
 Geo. S. Mepham & Klein, St. Louis, Mo. 
 Williams & Co., Easton, Pa. 
 Henry Erwin, Bethlehem, Pa. 
 
 The Chairman. What effect does the duties imposed by the act of 1800 
 have upon your industry'? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. The duty on ocher and ochery earths was very hurt- 
 ful indeed. They changed the rates from half a cent to quiirter ot a 
 cent a pound, and the American producer can not exist on that rate; be 
 gradually drops behind. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the foreign value of ocher and ochery earths? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. It ranges all the way from half a cent a i)Ound to a 
 cent a pound at present, although it has been very much above that. 
 On the higher grades of oxides of iron, where it ranges 90 per cent of 
 oxide of iron, the value is about $90 to 8100 per ton. There has been a 
 good deal of red oxide of iron valued at $90 a ton coming to this country. 
 
 The Chairman. The act of 1890 reduced the duty? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. It did. 
 
 The Chairman. That you say reduced the duty too low? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. Tes, sir; and we protested against that at the time — 
 that is, we spoke against it, but it seemed to be the opinion of the com- 
 mittee the duty should be reduced along with many other things of that 
 class, but it had a very disastrous effect indeed. Our people compete 
 with Europeans at very low wages indeed. In France the price paid is 
 not over 2 francs a day, and of course we must pay $1.50, and some- 
 times pay a foreman as high as $5 a day. 
 
 IVORY AND BONE BLACKS. 
 (Paragraph 40. ) 
 
 Boston, Mass., December 29, 1896. 
 Dear Sir : We write asking your aid in securing a higher duty on 
 ivory and bone blacks. We believe we are the largest if not the only 
 manufacturers of these goods in the United States, and we have a hard 
 time to introduce and make a business, owing to the low tariff" and for- 
 eign cheap labor. When we began the business the price of blacks 
 was 6 to 7 cents a pound, all imported, i^ow they sell at 3 to 3i cents. 
 The Wilson tariff reduced the duty from 25 per cent to 20 per cent, and 
 we would like to have it increased to 35 per cent to enable us to compete 
 with the cheap labor abroad.
 
 PAINTS, COLORS, AND VARNISHES. 109 
 
 The duty sliould be on all ivory, drop, and bone blacks, except such 
 as is used in fertilizers. That is coarse and unground, and comes in 
 free. The amount of ivory and drop blacks imported, we believe, does 
 not exceed 500 tons a year, so the amount of duty collected is a small 
 matter, but a protective duty meaus another American industry which 
 otherwise may fail. 
 
 Seavek & Co. 
 
 OCHEB AND OCHERY EARTHS. 
 
 (Paragraph 42.) 
 
 WoECESTEB, Mass., December 26^ 1896, 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I wish to indorse the request of other makers of chemicals, such as 
 ocher and ochery earths, sienna and sienna earths, umber and umber 
 earths, Indian red, tuscan red, strong bright red, purple brown, metal- 
 lic oxide, colcothar, crocus, rouge or raddle, and all oxides of iron, by 
 whatever name known, unless otherwise especially provided for, when 
 crude and not advanced by any i^rocess of manufacture, $10 per ton; 
 wlien dry or powdered, 1^ cents per pound; when ground in oil or 
 water, 4 cents per pound. 
 
 Venetian red is a product of copperas by oxidization. "We respect- 
 fully ask that a duty be placed on this of $10 per ton when crude; 
 when dry or manufactured, 1 cent per pound; when ground in oil or 
 water, 3 cents per pound. 
 
 We desire to represent to your committee that our works, both at 
 Worcester and Waukegan, 111., are very large producers of both cop- 
 peras and Venetian red, and would be producers of some of tlie other 
 articles named in the paragraph next preceding this in our letter were 
 it not for the fact that the duties have been so low as to render it 
 impossible for us to compete with foreign manufacturers. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 Washburn and Moen Mfg. Co., 
 Philip W. Moen, 
 
 Treasurer and General Manager. 
 
 DRY ocher. 
 (Free list, paragraph 566.) 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., Becemher 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 We respectfully ask the restoration of the '^McKinley duty" on dry 
 ocher. Under the law of 1883 the duty on dry ocher was one-half cent 
 per pound; under the law of 1890 the duty on dry ocher was one-fourth 
 cent per pound; under the law of 1894 dry ocher is put on the free list. 
 
 Act of 1883, ocher, ground in oil, duty 1 cent per pound; act of 1890, 
 ocher, ground in oil, duty 1^ cents per pound; act of 1894, ocher, ground 
 in oil, duty 1^ cents per pound. 
 
 We would ask your consideration of the fact that dry ocher, in a 
 marketable condition, has cost a large amount of labor in mining, wash- 
 ing, floating, drying, grinding, and packing (requiring several months' 
 time in its preparation), and the duty on it has been reduced by the 
 acts of 1890 and 1894 from one-half cent per pound to the free list.
 
 no SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 By the same acts the duty on ocher, when ground in oil, which requires 
 but a small amount of additional labor, has been increased from 1 cent 
 per pound to 1^ cents per pound, notwithstanding the dry product was 
 m fi d ft frGG 
 
 The present law gives the market for dry ocher largely to the foreign 
 product, yielding no revenue, and in a great measure destro3dng our 
 industry, and solely to the advantage of the grinders in oil, who do not 
 further refine the product, but simply mix it with oil. 
 
 We respectfully ask your committee to treat our industry fairly, by 
 giving it no less protection than it enjoyed under the act of 1890. 
 Yours, obediently, 
 
 Keystone Ocher Co. (Limited). 
 B. W. Conrad, Treasurer. 
 
 Philadelphia, December 26, 1896. 
 Dear Sir : The duty should be restored on dry ocher and other earth 
 paints. In 1883 the duty was one-half cent per pound. Under the 
 McKinley law it was reduced to one-fourth cent a pound, and in 1894 
 the duty was dropped entirely. The present law gives the market for 
 dry ocher largely to the foreign product (yielding no revenue) and in a 
 great measure destroying our industry. 
 
 Keystone Ochre Co., Limited, 
 C. E. LuBURG, Chairman. 
 
 Philadelphia, December 26, 1896. 
 
 Dear Sir : The duty on dry ocher under the law of 1883 was one- 
 half cent per pound. The law of 1890 reduced it to one-fourth cent 
 per pound, and the law of 1894 put it on the free list. This ocher 
 requires a great amount of labor in mining, washing, floating, drying, 
 grinding, packing, etc., and several months' time is necessary in its 
 preparation for market. The paint grinders run this product through a 
 mixing mill together with oil, which is termed "grinding in oil," but 
 adding nothing to its refinement. Under the law of 1883 the duty on 
 ocher ground in oil was 1 cent per pound. The law of 1890 increased 
 the duty to IJ cents per pound, and the law of 1894 put the duty at 1^ 
 cents per pound, notwithstanding the duty on the dry product was 
 removed. 
 
 You will please note that the dry ocher was slaughtered in the inter- 
 est of the grinders in oil, and in large measure destroyed the dry-ocher 
 industry, bringing the foreign product into the country, supplying the 
 market, and yielding no revenue. 
 
 B. W. Conrad, 
 1701 Wallace street, Philadelphia. 
 
 ULTRAMARINE. 
 
 (Paragraph 43.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY MERZ, OF NEWARK, N. J. 
 
 Mr. Merz. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I handed 
 in a statement which will explain our situation fully. The only thing 
 I would like to add is in regard to the difference between the cost of 
 production here and on the other side. That would be $40 000 on
 
 PAINTS, COLORS, AND VARNISHES. Ill 
 
 20,000 liundred weight; in other words, 2.4 per pound, and besides that, 
 we are under 
 
 The Chairman. You are speaking now of ultramarine? 
 
 Mr. Merz. Yes, sir. We had 5 cents a pound before the McKinley 
 bill was passed, and that reduced us to 4^ cents a pound. We have 
 since increased our production and improved our production to such an 
 extent we would be able now to go along with 4J cents very easily, at 
 least tolerably well, but 3 cents would put us in a position where we 
 would hardly be able to get along, and we therefore request you to put 
 that at 4^ cents a pound, as the McKinley bill had it. 
 
 The cost in labor between the other side and here is somewhere about 
 from 6 to 2^. Where we have to pay from $10 to $11 for a laborer, they 
 pay about $4.50, and that ratio will go right through all of our expenses — 
 repairs, selling expenses, office expenses — and interest on capital is also 
 very large. First, we must have a much larger capital for our plant, 
 and, second, they charge us about 5 per cent interest or 6 per cent 
 interest, and they do not pay, at the highest, over there more than 4 
 per cent, which would be, with the necessary wear and tear, about 
 $15,000 difference. That is pretty much all I have to say, unless you 
 want to ask some questions. We have increased the production to such 
 an extent here that now we are making about 80 per cent of the con- 
 sumption of the United States, and the prices have been reduced consid- 
 erably. In some instances, as 1 state tbere in that paper, it has been 
 reduced from $1 first to 25 cents a pound, and then it has been reduced 
 down to, for some grades, 6 and 7 cents a pound, and now it has been 
 brought down to a point where we have to go on starving or give it up 
 entirely. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You say you now make 80 per cent of the product of 
 the United States? 
 
 Mr. Merz. Yes; of the manufacture here. There are two manufac- 
 turers, and the two make 80 per cent of the consumption. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. There are only two in the United States? 
 
 Mr. Merz. There are only two ; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. How many hands do they employ? 
 
 Mr. Merz. I do not know how many hands the other people employ, 
 but we employ about 70. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And you make what per cent of the product on this 
 side? 
 
 Mr. Merz. Of what is consumed here? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You say there is 80 per cent of the home product 
 made here. Now, what part of the home product do you make? 
 
 Mr. Merz. Well, we make, I think, about 65 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And that takes 70 hands? 
 
 Mr. Merz. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. What is the total consumption of the United States ? 
 
 Mr. Merz. About 34,000 hundredweight; the consumption is not 
 very large. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is its commercial value? 
 
 Mr. Merz. I could not say exactly what is the commercial value of 
 that which is imported, but what is sold here and made here at the 
 present time is worth about 8 i ents on the average. The qualities are 
 very different. There are very low qualities and very fine qualities, 
 and some of the finer qualities we do not get more than 10 per cent and 
 others we get 40 to 50 per cent, but I should say we get between 8 and 
 10 cents a pound on the average. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Has the importation increased by reason of the 
 reduction of the tariff rate under the Wilson bill?
 
 112 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 Mr. Merz. No, sir; it has not increased. .. , , 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You still have about the same proportion of the home 
 market you had before? 
 
 Mr. Merz. It is rather somewhat decreased on account of the poor 
 business. We have had a poor business for the last few years. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The importation has decreased! 
 
 Mr. Merz. Yes, sir. We have increased our business to a certain 
 extent on account of our strenuous efforts to keep on top, and, of course, 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The result of the Wilson bill has been to decrease 
 the importations and increase the home production? 
 
 Mr. Merz. It has decreased the importations on account of the poor 
 business, and it is also on account of our being longer in the business 
 and got somewhat more acquainted and got more customers, whom we 
 formerly could not get. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Has the import price increased since 1893 1 
 
 Mr. Merz. The price has decreased continuously. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The price of the imported article during the last few 
 years ? 
 
 Mr. Merz. Yes; during the last few years the price has decreased; 
 partly on account of the lower duty and also on account of home 
 competition. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I see in this report we have here from the Treasury 
 Department that the import price was 10 cents on the average in 18'J3 
 and 11 cents in 1895 and 1896. 
 
 Mr. Merz. Eleven cents in 1896! That may have been on account 
 of the quantity being reduced on these finer grades. You see. you can 
 not tell the exact prices for these different grades, as we make about 
 forty or fifty different grades of ultramarine. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. That might occur without having an increase in the 
 general value of the product here. Have you put the increase in the 
 value of the importeci goods by reason of importing different grades? 
 
 Mr. Merz. Well, it could, but then the higher-grade goods would be 
 always imported first rather than the others. 
 
 Mr, McMillin. Under a specific duty? 
 
 Mr. Merz. Yes. I thank you very much, gentlemen, for your hearing 
 
 Mr. Evans. The imported article of this ultramarine is a better 
 quality, is it not, than that which you produce in this country? 
 
 Mr. Merz. Well, not exactly than what we can produce, but what is 
 simply sold here. Of course the lower grades Avere first absorbed by 
 the American manufacturers and the finer grades gradually, and for two 
 reasons: First, when we started it was not i^ossible for us to make 
 many of the finer grades, and then when we did make them we had to 
 contend with the prejudice of the consumers. Some of the consumers 
 would nottake home-made goods of that kind under any circumstances. 
 Many times I was told, " I will not take your goods under any circum- 
 stances, not even if you make me a present of them." We had to work 
 our way in it in spite of these prejudices, and gradually succeeded in 
 getting in the goods. Sometimes we have been" selling goods through 
 the importers to some parties who would not buy our goods at all 
 
 Mr. Evans. What is ultramarine blue? 
 
 Mr. Merz. It is composed of china clay, which is a chemical and not 
 an admixture; soda ash, brimstone, silica, and resin. Those are all 
 ground finely together in certain portions and then calcined. 
 
 Mr. Evans. What is it used for? 
 
 Mr. Merz. It is used in paints, window shades, and different calico
 
 PAINTS, COLORS, AND VARNISHES. il3 
 
 prints, and whitewashes. There are quite anumber of different products. 
 It is used for sign painting, and so on. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Has the domestic product of this article fallen off or 
 increased during the last two years'? 
 
 Mr. Merz. It has duriug the last two years increased, with us at 
 least, because it was a certain policy of mine to see to it that I would 
 hold my own in this business under all circumstances, no matter whether 
 I made money or lost money. I was hoi)ing for the future which I see 
 now coming, which I hope is coming, and if that hope is fultilled I wiU 
 be sat is lied. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Are any of the articles used in the manufacture of 
 this ultramarine imported? Where do the articles come from? 
 
 Mr. Merz. Tlie china clay, the soda ash, and brimstone all come 
 from the other side. There are several qualities of china clay that we 
 can not find here. In regard to soda ash, we are in such a condition 
 that we can not buy American-made stuff because we are on the east- 
 ern coast; so we have to take it from Europe. The brimstone we can 
 not get here at all ; it is too far west for us to get. Silica and resin are 
 the things we have to take here. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. I see the Secretary of the Treasury in his report for 
 1893 shows there were 929,000 — what does that mean? Does that mean 
 pounds? 
 
 Mr. Merz. Pounds. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. That was imported? 
 
 Mr. Merz. Imjjorted. Now, there is an explanation. We had at one 
 time a great misha}) in our factory and had to keep our works shut 
 down — at least, the manufacturing — for several months, and to keep us 
 going we had to inii)oit goods to keep our customers satisfied. We 
 could not stop and say to our customers that we had not the ultrama- 
 rine, so we had to go on buying to keep the business up and to satisfy 
 both myself and my customers. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. 1 see for 189(5 it is less than 500,000 pounds? 
 
 Mr. Merz. That is quite right. It was reduced at that time to 
 500,000 pounds, and in 1893 it was just on that account the importa- 
 tions were so large. Something similar happened in 1885, when our 
 factory burned down, so we had to import about 3,000 hundredweight. 
 We had to keep the business going and could not shut down. 
 
 New York, December 24, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 For consideration in the coming tariff discussion we beg to present 
 the following: 
 
 The duty on ultramarine before 1870 was 25 per cent, when all ultra- 
 miirine was inii)orted. In 1870 the tariff" was changed to specific duty 
 of G cents per i)ound, when ultramarine was first manufactured in this 
 country. In 1883 tliis was changed to 5 cents per pound; 1890, 
 McKinley bill, to l.;t cents a pound; 1892, Wilson bill, to 3 cents a 
 pound. 
 
 We ask to have duty of 1890 reinstated, and base this request on the 
 following facts: 
 
 The difference in cost of labor, wear and tear, interest, selling and 
 office expenses between this country and Europe, to our disadvantage, 
 is so large that a j^rotection is necessary to enable us to hold our own 
 against European surplus. 
 
 Labor in Europe is 3 marks for eleven hours a day, or $4.50 per week, 
 against from $10 to $11 per week here. 
 T H 8
 
 114 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 A similar ratio exists between all our expenses, besides wbicli we 
 have to pay duties on raw material to the extent of 25 cents per hun- 
 dredweight on our output. • , 4. qq 4. 
 
 The quantity of American ultramarine sold now is about »c5 per cent 
 of the wliole consumption in this country. The former tanflf schedules 
 were helpful to us and enabled us to prepare for the shock ot Ib'JJ. 
 
 We have improved our methods considerably and are now producing 
 better qualities and larger quantities than formerly; in fact, we have 
 put ourselves on almost the same level with the long-established Euro- 
 .pean manufacturers. 
 
 Competing with the European manufacturers, we have been able to 
 reduce the price of ultramarines in some instances, as drop blue, from 
 $1 to 25 cents per pound, paper manufacturers' blue from 30 cents to 
 12 cents, and other qualities from 15 cents to 6 and 7 cents per pound, 
 aggregating a very large amount to the benefit of the consumers in 
 this country, which benefit will disappear as soon as the European 
 combination, "The Vereinigte Ultramarinefabriken of Niiremberg," 
 shall have compelled us to discontinue. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 The Heller & Merz Co., 
 Heniiy Meiiz, Treasurer. 
 
 New York, December 23, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We desire to call your attention to the section in Schedule A refer- 
 ring to paints, colors, and varnishes. Some of the colors have a 8])e- 
 cific duty and others ad valorem rates. Sections 38 and 41 call for 
 
 specific duties, and say "in pulp or mixed with water, cents per 
 
 pound on the material contained therein when dry." 
 
 Section 43, ultramarine blue, also carries a specific duty, but without 
 the above provision, thus putting the duty on the water of a pulp color, 
 which is more than 50 per cent of the weight, making the duty twice 
 as much on the pulp color as on the dry. We do not ask any reduction 
 of the specific rate, but do ask the insertion of the above clause in sec- 
 tion 43 and in any other section of colors where the specific duty may 
 be placed. 
 
 This will work no injastice to the American manufacturers of colors, 
 and will be of service to this trade. 
 
 If paragraphs 37 to 48, inclusive, are generally given specific rates, 
 it might be well to make an additional paragraph that "any colors in 
 pulp or mixed with water should carry the same rate per pound as the 
 material contained therein when dry." 
 
 Trusting this will receive your favorable attention, we remain, 
 Yours, respectfully. 
 
 Doty & Scrimgeoub. 
 
 colors for paper STAINING. 
 
 New York, December 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 The undersigned are importers of colors, principally of those used 
 by paper manufacturers and paper stainers. The duty on such colors 
 under the present tariff law appears to be fully adequate for protective 
 purposes, as our experience is that if the domestic manufacturers of
 
 PHOSPHORUS POTASH. 115 
 
 colors can succeed in making a color of satisfactory quality they sup- 
 ply the demaiul, being able to sell at a lower price tliau the imported 
 articles can be sold. 
 
 Unfoitunately, under the present tariff stained or glazed paper is 
 imported and sold here at a less price than the domestic manufacturers 
 can atford to make, as we repeatedly had occasion to verify by actual 
 figures of cost and of selling prices. 
 
 We respectfully submit that either the duty on the materials used by 
 the manufacturers of stained or colored paper, in this case "colors," 
 should be reduced or the rate of the duty on the finished material, 
 viz, stained or colored paper, correspondingly increased. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 Wm. PiCKHARDT & KUTTROFF. 
 
 PHOSPHORUS. 
 
 (Paragraph 53.) 
 
 Philadelphia, January 6, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We would respectfully request that the duty of 20 cents per pound 
 on phospliorus be restored. The American manufacturers have been 
 making snch headway in the manufacture of phosphorus that they 
 have steadily reduced the (luantity imported of 195,810 pounds in 1887 
 to 20,757 i)ounds in 1894, and during that portion of the year 1895 that 
 the 20 cents per i)ound duty was in force to but 4,950 pounds. But in 
 1890, witli the reduced duty of 15 cents per pound, imports increased 
 to -Inne 30 of tliat year to 50,027 yiounds. 
 
 The American manufacturers have been running during each of the 
 years since 1890, and feel fully equii)ped to sui)p]y the consumi)tion in 
 this conntry, and would respectfully request that the duty of 20 cents 
 per pound, in force during the years 1892 and 1893 be restored. 
 
 MoRO Phillips Chemical Co., 
 Wm. M. Keku, 
 
 Secretary and Treasurer. 
 
 POTASH. 
 
 CHLORATE OF POTASH. 
 
 (Free list, paragraph 595.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF FREDERICK F. OVERBURY, OF NEW YORK CITY 
 
 Monday, December 28, 1896. 
 
 Mr. Oyerbury. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent a com 
 pany which is the first company in this country to manufacture chlorate 
 of potash, and the only one at the present time. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you remember what class this is under! 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Is it on the free list? 
 
 Mr. Oyerbury. It is on the free list now. It has been going 
 steadily down since our i)lant was erected, owing to numerous causes. 
 The principal cause is that they have controlled the trade on the other 
 side, and as soon as we had gotten in running order the price dropped 
 down to below the cost it could be made for in this country, and as we
 
 116 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 pay a higher rate of wages, and the freight on our raw mati'rial, which 
 is all obtained from the other side, this brings our cost up above what 
 their cost is on tlie other side; and not only that, but they have been 
 shipping their surplus here and selling below the figure it is selling for 
 on the other side at the present time, and considerable profit has been 
 made in shipping back these goods from hereto London and other ports 
 and selling them there; so that even at this time they are selling on 
 this side (where none is made, with the exception of what our company 
 makes) for a less price than on the other side. We ask for a duty of 5 
 cents a pound for some of the reasons which 1 have here. I will 
 give the price here: In 1894, 13 to 14 cents; in 1805-1)0, 7 to 7^ cents. 
 There is imported every year, or at least there has been this year, 
 5,500,000 pounds. Our company will make a very small proportion of 
 such a quantity. A duty of 5 cents a pound will bring it back to about 
 12 cents a pound, where it has been for a number of years. By adding 
 a duty of 5 cents it will enable our plant to start up. It has been closed 
 down for some time, owing to the price oeing less than our cost price, 
 and 5 cents a pound on 5,500,000 will give a good deal of revenue to 
 this Government and not hart in any way the consumers, as they have 
 been paying 14 cents and even as high as 18 cents up to 1804. 
 
 The Chairman. What are the commercial uses of chlorate of potash 
 outside of medicinal purposes? 
 
 Mr. OvERBiiRY. It is used in calico dyeing; it is used in matches 
 and blasting powder, and it has a number of other uses in tlie arts. 
 
 The Chair:man. What are the raw materials from which it is 
 made? 
 
 Mr. OvERBURY. It is made from chloride of potash, commonly called 
 muriate, found in Germany. 
 
 The Chairman. How much do you manufacture? 
 
 Mr. OvERBURY. Our one company manufactures not far from one- 
 third of a million. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How long have you been manufacturing it! 
 
 Mr. OvERBURY. About six months. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Six months since you commenced it? 
 
 Mr. OvERBURY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. When did you commence the industry? 
 
 Mr. 0\^erbury. It is the first plant in the country, and has been 
 erected and started in about six months. It is the only plant in the 
 country ; it is an industry which will probably grow. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Where is your plant? 
 
 Mr. Overbury. At Niagara Falls. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Where do you get the chloride? 
 
 Mr. Overbury. We get it from Germany. We wish the raw mate- 
 rial, chloride of potassium, to remain on the free list, as it is not found 
 in this country. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you say that your plant is closed now? 
 
 Mr. Overbury. Yes, sir; it is. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How long did you run it? 
 
 Mr. Overbury. About four months. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What was the price of this article when you started ? 
 
 Mr. Overbury. Fourteen cents. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How many hands do you employ? 
 
 Mr. Overbury. About 50. 
 
 Mr. Payne. In making this one article? 
 
 Mr. Overbury. Y^es, sir. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. How much capital is invested?
 
 POTASH. 117 
 
 Mr. OVERBITRY. About $150,000. We can not open the plant for 
 any vsucli price as 7 cents. Our labor, freiglit charges, and all that, 
 bring our price up 2 cents at least above what it is selling for now In 
 this country. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How much does the labor cost per pound? 
 
 Mr. OvERBURY. We figure that out about 2^ cents. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is the cost per pound of manufacturing ? 
 
 Mr. OvERBURY. In this country it is nearly 10 cents. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you mean to include raw material? 
 
 Mr. OvERBURY. Every cost; every item of expense. 
 
 The Chairman. Inclusive of raw material ? 
 
 Mr. OvERBURY. Well, we figure that in this country at 2^^ cents per 
 pound. 
 
 The Chairman. Two and one-half cents per pound is the whole cost 
 of manufacture? 
 
 Mr. OVERBURY. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And you want 5 cents duty? 
 
 Mr. OvERBURY. Yes, sir. There was a duty in 1890 of 3 cents a 
 pound. 
 
 The Chairman. That was for purely revenue purposes. If j^ou are 
 looking at it from a purely protective point of view 
 
 ]\Ir.ijVERBURY. Three cents Avould not protect us. 
 
 The Chairman. Not if it only cost 2i cents a pound? 
 
 Mr. OVERBURY. I beg your pardon; that is for only one item of 
 ex[)ense. The labor cost is that. 
 
 Tlie ( 'HAiRMAN. At what do you estimate the entire cost, including 
 labor of manufacture? 
 
 Mr. OvERBURY. It is over the selling price to-day; I would not like 
 to give exact figures. 
 
 Mr. Dauzell. The selling price is 7 cents? 
 
 Mr. OvERBURY. It is slightly over that now on account of a fire in 
 one of the largest manufacturing establishments on the other side. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The raw material is chloride of potassium? 
 
 Mr. OvERBURY. Yes, sir. 
 
 IMr. Payne. How much does it take of that to make a pound of 
 chlorate of potash ? 
 
 Mr. OvERBi-RY. To make a thousand pounds of chlorate it takes 600 
 pounds of chloride. 
 
 Mr. Payne. IIow much does the chloride cost? 
 
 Mr. OvERBURY. Two and one-fourth. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. What is the selling price here to-day? 
 
 Mr. OvERBURY. Slightly over 8 cents, on account of the report of a 
 fire in one of the largest concerns on the other side, in Sweden, and it 
 affected the price. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. What is the selling price on the other side? 
 
 Mr. OvERBURY. About 9 cents and over. They are sending their 
 surplus stock over here and selling it for less than they are selhug it on 
 the other side. It has never been as low as at the present time. I think 
 up to 1891, 11 cents was as low as it ever got. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. You have a written statement in addition to your 
 oral statement? 
 
 Mr. OVERBURY. Yes, sir; I will have one in a day or two. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Does not this i)roduct enter into the manufacture of 
 matches very largely? 
 
 Mr. OvERBURY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr, Wheeler. What are its other uses?
 
 118 SCHEDULE A. — CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 Mr. OvEEBURY. It is used in calico dyeing, and blast powder, and 
 smokeless powder to some extent, I tliiulc. 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What amount is imported compared with the amount 
 
 made in this country'? . .>^, -, • -.ono i 4. 
 
 Mr. OVERBUEY. Five and a half million m lb94, and m 1803 about 
 
 four millions. 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. How many people do you employ '. 
 Mr. OvERBURY. Fifty. i . .i .. • • . i » 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is the value of the i)roduct that is imported? 
 Mr. OvERBURY. The value is about 8'^00,()0(). 
 Mr. McMiLLiN, You propose a duty of 5 cents? 
 Mr. OVERBURY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. That would be about what ad valorem duty? 
 Mr! OVERBURY. It has always been a specilic duty. It was 3 cents 
 
 a pound in 1890. . -, , , . ,...1 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I mean, what would be its ad valorem duty— a little 
 
 over 50 per cent? 
 Mr. OvERBURY. Y^es,.sir. 
 
 Tlie Chairman. That would make it a inire revenue duty? 
 Mr. McMillin. Yes. 
 
 New Y''ork, January (1, 1S97. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The Chemical Construction Company herewith submits to your com- 
 mittee the reasons why it asks for a duty of 5 cents a i>ound on chlo- 
 rate of potassium. Ko chlorate of potassium was made in this country 
 until 1890. The import in 1893 was 4,064,170 pounds; in 1894, 4,131,055 
 pounds; in 1895, 4,549,899 pounds; in 1890, 5.520,913 jiounds. This 
 company invested a large amount of cajutal in its plant, which was. 
 designed to turn out about 400,000 pounds, or less than one-sixteenth 
 of the amount consumed in this country. A duty of 5 cents a itound 
 on the balance, which would still have to be imported, would yield a 
 revenue to the Government of over §250,000 ])er annum. 
 
 Previous to 1890 the price of chlorate of potassium liad varied from 
 14 to 18 cents a pound. In that year the foreign manufactureis, with 
 the intention of stopping production here, forced their sur])lus on this 
 market, and the price fell to 7:^ cents a pound. This was so much 
 below what they were selling for in Europe that reshipments were 
 made at a profit. The company hos now closed its works, being 
 unable to operate under these conditions. It is very evident that 
 when this industry has been destroyed the foreign manufacturers will 
 raise chlorate of potassium to its normal selling i)iice. The Govern- 
 ment will lose this revenue without any benefit to the consumer. 
 
 Chemical Construction Co., 
 Walton Ferguson, rresidenU 
 
 YELLOW PRUSSIATE OF POTASH. 
 
 (Paragraph 57.) 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah, December 22, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are informed that there is an intention on the part of the Gov- 
 ernment to increase the duty upon yellow prussiate of potash (from 
 which cyanide is made) and to increase the duty on cyanide of potassium
 
 POTASH. 119 
 
 I Itself. We respectfully call your attention to the fact that this article 
 is dailj^ entering- more and inoie into use for the extraction of the 
 precious metals (gold and silver) from their ores. We now stand at a 
 disadvantage of 25 i^er cent duty over the rest of the world in the 
 extraction of these metals by cyanide by reason of the heavy duty on 
 tliis material. The cheapening of this product means the cheapening 
 of the reduction of gold and silver ores (a very large and important 
 industry in the United States), and if there is an excessive or further 
 duty placed upon cyanide of i)otassium it will restrain Tlie use of this 
 chemical, will make the production of gold and silver more costly, and 
 will still more hamper the production of these metals. We therefore 
 respectfully refjuest that you use your influence not to increase the 
 already heavy duty on cyanide of potassium. 
 
 i'ours, very respectfully, H. A. Cohen, 
 
 General Manaf/er, 
 De La Mar\s Xerada Gold Mining Company. 
 
 Cincinnati, Becemher 21, 1896. 
 
 Dear Sir : We, the undersigned manufacturers of prussiate of potash, 
 ask for a S])ecilic duty of 7 cents per pound on prussiate of potash and 
 prussiate of soda. Foreign prussiate is manufiictnred for 7 cents per 
 pound, while the minimum cost of American prussiate is 15 cents a 
 pound. 
 
 In the manufiicture of prussiate of potash or soda we consume a large 
 amount of animal matter, consisting of cuttings of leather fronj shoe 
 and harness manufacturers, horns, hoofs, old shoes, and spent oxide 
 from gas companies, which, if not used in the manufacture of prussiate 
 of ])otash or soda, can not be used otherwise. 
 
 Closing of our works would effect a hardship on our employees, many 
 of them having been in our em})loy a number of years. It would as 
 disastrously affect emjiloyees of coal, lime, foundry supplies, cooperage, 
 harness, transportation companies, and other companies directly con- 
 nected with our Avorks. 
 
 Unless aspecilic duty of 7 cents a pound is restored we will be com- 
 pelled to close our works. 
 
 The a. L. McKeynolds Chemical Co. 
 
 3EYFERT cS: FrEDERICH. 
 
 WiLLiAMsroRT, Pa., Dcccmher 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The Cyano Chemical Company, of William sport, Pa., begs leave to 
 call the attention of yon r committee to the necessary revision of the tariff 
 on prussiate of potasli — yellow and red. The company is located just 
 outside of tlie city of Williamsport, Pa., and is prepared to manufacture 
 prussiate of potasli in unlimited quantities when given proper tariff 
 legislation. 
 
 The law of 1804 placed an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent on prus- 
 siate of potash, but that is insufficient, because the duty is computed 
 on the value in the foreign market, and would approximately give but 
 a duty of 3 cents per pound. For example, if the price of prussiate of 
 potash in the foreign market were but 8 cents per pound, the duty 
 would be but 2 cents per pound, which would be wholly iusufBcient.
 
 120 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, 01L8, AND PAINTS. 
 
 An ad valorem duty can not be fairly laid, because it is not based on 
 the liome roarket. 
 
 The Euglisb, Scotcli, (xermau, and other foreign manufacturers of 
 prussiate of potasli can manufacture it at a rate of 7| to 8 cents per 
 pound, whereas the estimated cost of its manufacture in the United 
 States is from 14 to 10 cents. The English have cheaper fuel, cheaper 
 labor, have no duty on carbonate'of potash to pay, and by their having 
 been manufacturers of this article for so great a period of time can 
 secure the horn used in its manufacture from South American coun- 
 tries at a much less rate than the same can be gotten here; and with 
 less than an 8-cent specific duty on prussiate of potash the American 
 market will be supplied below the cost of the home manufacture. This 
 may be shown by the continued imiwrtation of this article during the 
 last year at the rate of $3,000 to -S 10,000 worth per week at the low 
 price of 13 to 14 cents per pound, and not an American factory in 
 operation. 
 
 An indispensable article in the manufacturing of prussiate of potash 
 is carbonate of potash, whicli is not i>roduced, neitlier is it capable of 
 production in the United States; and it would l)e greatly benelicial to all 
 users of carbonate of potash if admitte<l free of duty. The law of 18!>4 
 reduced the rate of duty on prussiate of potash, and also further injured 
 the home manufacture of this article by leaving a 20 per cent duty, ad 
 valorem, on carbonate of potash. 
 
 The price of prussiate of ])otasli, under the law of 1894, has reached 
 a point where it is impossible for the American manufacturer to fur- 
 ther attempt to compete, yet considerable imi)ortations weekly continue 
 to arrive, at the marvelonsly low ])rice of 1.) to 14 cents per i)ound. 
 Under the law of 1890 the market was firm and stable with a specific 
 duty of 5 cents on yellow and 10 cents on red, and the article was ready 
 sale at 22 and 24 cents; but with less than 8 cents specific duty on 
 prussiate of potash onr honu», manufacturers are in constant peril. 
 
 Give us a specific duty of 8 cents per ponnd on yellow and 12 cents 
 on red prussiate of potash, admit carboiuite of potash free of duty, 
 and the American market will be sui)plied with home-manufac^tured 
 product equally as prime as the imported article, by which Ameri- 
 can labor can be employed, home industries fostered, and prosperity 
 resumed. 
 
 Cyano Chemical Co., 
 Justin L. Hill, Manager. 
 
 ■Jersey City, N. J., January S, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 In reference to the question of duty on yellow i)russiate of potash, 
 we wish to express our views as manufacturers of this article. The 
 ad valorem duty on this article is ruinous to us, as it is constantly 
 undervalued, and foreign manufacturers are selling for less money for 
 export to this country than they would accept at home, being 'pro- 
 tected also by an import duty in most C(mntries. We therefore would 
 request you to recommend the old specific duty of 5 cents a pound on 
 this article. The average price for ten years in foreign countries has 
 been 8i d., and 5 cents per pound is therefore little more than 2.'> per 
 cent ad valorem. This increase of duty is so much more justifiable, as 
 under a recent ruling of the Treasury of the United States refined car- 
 bonate ot potash, which we use largely in the manufacture and which
 
 POTASH. 121 
 
 was formerly free, now pays a duty of 25 per cent ad valorem, amount- 
 mg to 1 cent per pound of every pound of prussiate of potash made. 
 
 We have invested in the manufacture of this article about $100,000, 
 and pay out right here for labor, repairs, and freights about $10,000 
 monthly, and unless Congress comes to our relief by restoring the old 
 duty we will be compelled to stop our business. 
 
 The Mutual Chemical Company of Jersey City. 
 
 New York, Jannary 8, 1897. 
 
 This article was dutiable at 5 cents per pound under the McKinley 
 bill and is dutiable at 25 per cent under paragraph 57 of the present 
 tariff. 
 
 The consumption of yellow prussiate of potash in this country amounts 
 to about 5,000,000 pounds per annum and it is used mostly in the manu- 
 facture of paints and colors, by tlie])rint works for dyeing, and for the 
 manufacture of cyanide of potash. It is a very old industry in this 
 country. 
 
 We would suggest a specilic duty of 5 cents per pound in place of 
 the present rate. 
 
 Wm. 11. Peters & Co. 
 
 CARBONATE OF POTASH. 
 (Free list, Paragraph 595.) 
 
 New York, Jannary 8, 1897. 
 
 This article was, we believe, intended to be free under paragraph 595 
 of the present taritf ; but, under decisions of the Secretary of tlie Treas- 
 ury, a duty of 25 per cent has been levied under paragraph GO, as a 
 chemical salt not otherwise provided for. 
 
 It is used mostly ill the manufacture of glass and of prussiate of pot- 
 ash, although entering in a less degree into the manufacture of numer- 
 ous smaller chemicals. 
 
 We would suggest that the clause in paragraph 595, "potash, crude 
 carbonate of, or black salts, etc.,'' be altered to read, "potash, carbonate 
 of, crude or relined, and black salts of potash, etc." 
 
 Wm. E. Peters & Co. 
 
 CYANIDE OF POTASSIUM. 
 (Paragraph 57.) 
 
 New York, December 17, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We take the liberty of addressing your honorable committee with 
 reference to ]>rospective tariff changes of Schedule A, chemicals, etc., 
 and particularly about the article cyanide of potassium. We respect- 
 fully proi)ose that the rate of duty for this article, specified as cyanide, 
 should be governed by the duty which the new tariff" will impose on 
 yellow i)russiate of potash, this being the raw material for the manu- 
 facture of cyanide. 
 
 If in the tariff bill about to be prepared hj your honorable com- 
 mittee an ad valorem duty is adhered to for yellow prussiate ot potash, 
 the same ad valorem duty should be imposed on cyanide.
 
 122 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 If the present ad valorem duty on yellow prussiate of potash should 
 be changed to a specific duty, the specific duty for cyanide should be 
 double the amount of the specific duty for yellow ]nnissiate of potash. 
 
 Therefore, if yellow prussiate of potash should pay a specific <luty ot 
 5 cents per pound, cyanide should pay a duty of 10 cents ])er i)()und. 
 If yellow prussiate of potash pays a duty of 4 cents per i»ound, the 
 duty for cyanide should be 8 cents per pound. 
 
 We have to offer the following reasons for our proposition : 
 
 Since ten years we have established in this country the manufacture 
 of cyanide on a large scale. Cyanide of potassium and yellow prussiate 
 of potash are both paying at present a duty of 25 per cent ad valorem. 
 The present fair foreign market value of yellow prussiate of potash is 
 6d. per pound, equal to 12 cents per pound; of cyanide of potassium, 
 12d. per pound, equal to 24 per cents per pound. At the juesent rate 
 of 25 per cent ad valorem duty the duty for i)rnssiate figures to 3 cents 
 per pound; for cyanide to G cents per ])oun(l. 
 
 By this ratio we are only fairly i)rotected against foreign competition, 
 which works with cheaper raw material and with lower wages, and 
 which particularly unloads overproduction in this country. If, how- 
 ever, the comparative ratio between the raw material, yellow i)russiate 
 of potash, and the finished product, cyanide, sliould be changed to the 
 disadvantage of cj^anide, a premium would be put on the manul'acture 
 of cyanide in foreign countries, aiul the manufacture of cyanide in this 
 conutry would be handicapped. 
 
 In conclusion, we beg to state that our only object in drawing your 
 attention to cyanide is to avoid any i)0ssible error and (liscrimimition 
 against a finished product when compared with tlie duty im]»osed on 
 its raw material. 
 
 Eecommending our representations to your lionor's vnlued considera- 
 tion, we remain. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 The Koessler & llAssLAcnEii Che:\ii(;al Co., 
 Jacob Hasslacher, President. 
 
 POTASH (MURIATE OF, SULPHATE OF, KAINIT, SYLVINIT). 
 
 Neav Yokk, Jamtory .9, ]Si)7. 
 
 These articles are used almost exclusively fi)r agricultural i)ui-poses, 
 either direct or in the manufacture of artificial nmnurcs. Tliey are 
 free at present and should be continued so. 
 
 Muriate and sulphate of potash are provided lor in tlie i)resenr tariff 
 under ])aragraph 595. 
 
 Kainit is provided for under paragraph 52G, but the spelling of the 
 article is incorrect and should be "kainit." We would suggest that 
 the article .sylvinit be added to this paragraph 520. Sylvinit is now 
 free under paragraph 500 as " a substance expressly used for nmnure." 
 It is found in the German potash mines with kainit, and is in fact a 
 higher grade of kainit, containing from 28 to 38 per cent of sulphate 
 of potash, as against 23 to 25 per cent in kainit. 
 
 These articles are practically the only potash supply for making arti- 
 ficial fertilizers and are of very great importance to the agricultural 
 community. The total consumption amounts to about 83.500,000 per 
 annum. These articles are not produced in this country. 
 
 Wm. R. Peters cS: Go.
 
 SODIUM SOAP AND SOAP INGREDIENTS. 123 
 
 SODIUM. 
 
 (Free list, paragraph 623.) 
 
 New York, December 17, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We take the liberty of addressing' you, gentlemen of the committee, 
 with reference to prospective tariti' changes of Schedule A, chemicals, 
 etc, and i)articalarly about the article sodium. We have taken up 
 the manufacture of sodium in this country in our factory at Niagara 
 Falls, establishing thereby a new industry. Sodium is at present duty 
 free, while the raw material used, caustic soda, is paying duty. The 
 value of metallic sodium is 50 cents per pound, and we advocate a 
 duty of 15 cents per pound on this article, equivalent to the duty we 
 have to pay on the raw material and the higher wages which we have 
 to pay to our workmen. 
 
 Niagara Electro Chemical Co.. 
 J. Hasslaciier, 
 
 Secretary and General Manager. 
 
 SOAP AND SOAP INGREDIENTS. 
 
 TOILET SOAP. 
 (Paragraph 03.) 
 
 New York, N. Y., December 28, 1896. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 In our opinion the present duty of 35 per cent ad valorem on toilet 
 soai)s is detrimental to both the importer and manufacturer of these 
 goods, for the following reasons, viz: 
 
 First. It allows the importation of low-priced inferior goods, while 
 the finer and better (pialities are almost entirely excluded on account 
 of increased duty. 
 
 Second. It i;^ almost impossible for the home manufacturer to make 
 a decent soap to compete with tliis foreign inferior article, manufactured 
 at wages very much lower than American labor can exist on, thus 
 placing a quantity of soap on the market, both foreign and domestic, 
 which is more harmful than otherwise. 
 
 Third. It opens the door to fraud by encouraging undervaluation. 
 
 We would suggest a specific customs duty on toilet soaps, as was in 
 force ])revious to i)resent tariff", viz, 15 cents per pound net. This 
 method of taxation is, without doubt, the simplest and safest for the 
 Government, as no fraud by undervaluation can be perpetrated, and, 
 besides, it is a protection for the honest importer. 
 
 Further, it debars low-priced inferior goods from being entered into 
 this market, while it encourages the importation of better and finer 
 articles. The home manufacturer is better protected and enabled to 
 turn out a finer grade of goods at a moderate price. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 MiJLHENS & KROPFF, 
 
 Importers and Manufacturers of Toilet tSoaps.
 
 124 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 SOAP INGREDIENTS. 
 (Paragraph 60.) 
 
 Chicago, December 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We avail ourselves of the opportunity offered under your general 
 invitation to put before tbe Ways and Means Committee, so far as our 
 own industry is concerned, sucli clianges in the tariff as would be 
 beneficial both to the Government and ourselves. As the heading of 
 our letter indicates, we are engaged in the manufacturing of soaps and 
 glycerin, and, consequently, large users of chemicals, caustic soda, 
 and soda ash. We do not favor an increase either on caustic soda or 
 soda ash. Any advance of duty on these two commodities will simply 
 go into the pockets of the few manufaclurers of this country and not 
 to the consumers. We will not say that there exists to-day in tlie 
 United States a strong combination among the soda makers of this 
 country, assisted by foreign makers, but what Ave can say and do know 
 is that we can not contract as usual for any future delivery. The amount 
 of revenue received by the Government from these two items is exceed- 
 ingly small, and if removed entirely would not be felt very seriously. 
 Yet, if the present duty on caustic soda and soda ash remain as now, 
 we rather think it will be satisfactory to all concerned. 
 
 The duty on crude glycerin is now 1 cent per i)ound; on relined, 3 
 cents per pound. We would suggest that the duty on relined remain 
 as it is now, and an increase on crude from 1 cent per i)ound to 2i or 3 
 cents per pound, for this reason: The percentage of j^uie glycerin in 
 the crude state is from 75 to 80 per cent; after it is put through the 
 process of refining, it shows 90 to 95 per cent. In order to bring about 
 the article known as refined glycerin three to four distillations are 
 required, which adds very much to its cost. What is now and has been 
 imported for the past year or so comes as crude glycerin in an almo.st 
 refined state, only one distillation being required to put it into refined 
 or chemically pure glycerin. Tliis is a shrewd trick, and no doubt will 
 receive the attention it deserves from your committee. 
 
 We hope the committee will not add duty on tallow. If any advance 
 in duty is put upon this article, it will simply go into the pockets of the 
 "big four." , 
 
 We have given you our views. They may be selfish, but as our bnsi- 
 ness is a very large one, we are of the opinion that should any of the 
 suggestions be adopted, they will be well received by those engaged in 
 similar business to our own. 
 
 Very sincerely, yours, Jas. S. Kirk & Co. 
 
 P. S.— During the enactment of the Wilson bill duty on soa]) was 
 reduced from 20 to 10 per cent. We think this sufficient for our ])ro 
 tectioufc 
 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, December 26, 1S96. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are advised that hearings are now being given by the Ways and 
 MeansCommittee to thoseinterestedinarticlescomingunder Schedule A. 
 
 As large manufacturers of soap and correspondinglv largo consumers 
 of ods, tallows, and heavy chemicals, we earnestly ask that as sli«Tht 
 modification as possible be made in present tariff". The protection
 
 SOAP AND SOAP INGREDIENTS. 125 
 
 afforded to soap manufacturers under tlie i)resent tariff law is, in our 
 estiuiatiou, ample. The only modification that we would suggest would 
 be to change the duty from an ad valorem to a specific basis. One-half 
 cent per pound would i)robab]y be a fair equivalent for a specific duty 
 of 10 per cent upon ''all soa[)S other than castile and fancy perfumed, 
 medicated, and all descriptions of toilet soaps." Our personal interests, 
 of course, are that the rates of duty should be increased. It might 
 possibly enable us to make a little larger profit, but as Republicans 
 we feel very strongly the necessity of great moderation being exercised 
 in the revision of the present tariff, which revision we believe is abso- 
 lutely necessary. 
 
 As regards the heavy chemicals mentioned as entering into the man- 
 ufacture of our product, would say that they consist mainly of common 
 salt, soda ash, and caustic soda. The rate of duty upon soda ash and 
 caustic is, we believe, high enough. We know that in private conver- 
 sation with the writer the Solvay Alkali Works have stated that the 
 present duty gives them all the protection tliey need. We also know 
 that under the i)rotection afforded by the present tariff they have largely 
 increased their plant, and that additional plants are also now being 
 erected by other i)arties. 
 
 Tallow is the ]»rincipal article of raw material entering into the man- 
 ufacture of soaj). This country normally produces more tallow than 
 she can consume, and has a corresponding surplus for export. It is 
 only under very unusual circumstances, such as a succession of failures 
 of the corn crop or a cornering of the supplies by speculative interests, 
 that this country can afford to import tallow even when dutyfree. We 
 believe that this condition should continue. 
 Yours, very respectfully. 
 
 The Procter & Gamble Co., 
 
 Wm. Cooper Procter, General Manager. 
 
 New Orleans, December 38, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We have been advised that your committee will take up the duty on 
 caustic soda. We see no good reason to change the duty. It has not 
 been long since it was reduced from 1 cent to one-half cent, which we 
 think is a satisfactory duty, considering the value of the caustic. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 J. H. Keller Soap Works. 
 
 Kansas City, December 28, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Learning that your committee is about to consider a revision of 
 the tariff on chemicals, and believing the American manufacturers 
 are now on a footing to compete successfully with foreign manufactur- 
 ers, we would resi)ectfully protest against any increase of tariff on such 
 chemicals as are used in the manufacture of soap, and would earnestly 
 solicit your aid in defeating any action tending to increase the present 
 duty on such commodities. 
 
 Peet Bros. Mfo. Co.
 
 126 SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 Zanesville, Ohio, December 29^ 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As promiuent manufacturers of soap we desire to enter our protest 
 against the proposed advance in duties ou cliemicals which enter 
 largely into the making of soaps. The present tariti" seems enough for 
 ample protection to Americau makers and also has merit as a revenue 
 
 scliedule on these articles. 
 
 SCHULTZ & Co. 
 
 Baltimore, Md., December 29, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As soap makers we respectfully protest against any increase in duties 
 on chemicals used in our industry. 
 
 Chris. Lipps Co. 
 
 St. Paul, Minn., December 28, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Meaiss: 
 
 The soap makers of the United States can not stand any more tax 
 on chemicals, such as soda ash, caustic soda, and caustic potash. 
 
 The Minn. Soap Co. 
 
 Boston, Mass., December 20, 1890. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are informed that the question is uj) of increasing duties on 
 chemicals used by soap manufacturers. We beg to add our protest and 
 say that we feel that it is unnecessary for the interests of the chemical 
 manufacturers at home, and would add that we are getting very severe 
 competition in the East to-day irom the largest soap manufacturers in 
 the world, namely, Lever Bros,, Limited, of London, manufacturers of 
 the Sunlight soap, who are in our markets i)ushing Sunliglit soap for all 
 it is worth, because they can manufacture so much cheaper abroad. 
 We do not think it is the intent of Congress to protect the foreign 
 manufacturer. Trusting that this matter will have serious attention 
 and that our protest with others Avill prevail, we remain. 
 Yours, sincerely, 
 
 Curtis Davis & Co. 
 
 P. S. — We are the largest and oldest soap manufacturers in New 
 England. 
 
 jSTew York, December 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Having been informed that a hearing is to be given by your commit- 
 tee on Monday next, 28th instant, in relation to proposed changes in 
 the tariff as affecting articles in Schedule A, we take the liberty of 
 addressing you to say that, as soap manufacturers, we have no desire 
 to see any changes made in the matter of duties on anv of the items 
 relating to our business. We understand that etforts are'to be made to 
 secure an advance in tlie rates of duty on chemicals used by soap man- 
 ufacturers, especially the items of caustic soda and soda ash. Any
 
 SOAP AND SOAP INGREDIENTS. 127 
 
 changes in tliis direction we would consider to be very injurious to tlie 
 interests of our industry, as likely to materially increase the cost of 
 soap to tlie people, and as seriously handicapping us in the effort to hold 
 and increase our considerable export trade in soap. 
 
 Hoi)ing' that your committee may decide to let well enough alone as 
 regards the articles mentioned, we remain. 
 
 Yours, very truly, Colgate & Co. 
 
 ,^'-' Boston, Decemher 26, 1896. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Our attention has been called to the fact tliat your committee are 
 considering the advisability of increasing the duties on chemicals used 
 by soap manufacturers. At the present time our business is in its worst 
 possible condition, caused by the very large overproduction and com- 
 petition by tlie manufacturers of this country, and any increase of duty 
 on alkalis would seriously add to our present great burdens. There 
 are two concerns in this country manufacturing alkalis at the present 
 time su(!cesst'ully in competition with foreign makes with the i)resent 
 protection, and any increase in duties will simply be for the benefit of 
 these two manufacturers, whose interests, compared to the great i)opu- 
 lation of this country — particularly the laboring part, who are the large 
 consumers of soap — are hardly worth considering. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 John Keardon & Sons. 
 
 Lancaster, Pa., Decemher 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and ]\[eans: 
 
 Pardon my addressing ycm upon a question that is to come before your 
 honorable body — the question of hicreasing the duty on chemicals used 
 in the manufacture of soap. This, allow me to say, would be most disas- 
 trous to the soap interests of this country. Besides, it would totally 
 stop us from making any soap for foreign countries, and I must ask you 
 to have the kindness to do all in your [)()wer to prevent such change in 
 duty, and thereby protect our home interests. 
 
 Charles F. Miller. 
 
 Buffalo, N. Y., December 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We desire to enter our earnest protest against increasing the duties 
 on chemicals used by soap manufacturers in their business. The i^res- 
 ent duties are ample to protect the American manufacturer, and any 
 increase of duties on such chemicals would be a serious burden on an 
 important industry. 
 
 Kespectfully, yours, Gowans & Sons. 
 
 St. Louis, Decemher 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We earnestlj^ protest against an increase of duties on soda ash and 
 chemicals used by soap manufacturers. Soap is an article of first neces- 
 sity in every household and its cost to consumers should not be increased
 
 128 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 by legislation to protect the few mauufacturers of ash aud chemicals 
 in this country. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 SCHAEFFER BROS. & POWELL 3I'f'G CO., 
 
 Per Willis J. Powell, Treasurer. 
 
 Philadelphia, December 26, 189.6. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 In considering the tariff question we would like to ask the attention 
 of your honorable committee to the duty on soap and chemicals used 
 by soap manufacturers. As we understand it the question of duty ou 
 chemicals is now under consideration. If you will kindly look over the 
 matter you will find that the duty on soap was reduced and changed 
 considerably since the McKinley tariff bill was enforced, and under the 
 present condition of things there is a great quantity of laundry 8oai)s 
 being shipped into this country from England. Of course a large quan- 
 tity of toilet soap is also sent here, and manufacturers are paying a high 
 duty on chemicals, considering the price at which the goods are being 
 sold, owing to the very close competition. 
 
 In considering the question we trust that your committee is carefully 
 considering the protection of our home industries, which are very nec- 
 essary to the welfare of our own country. In looking over the matter 
 carefully it would seem to us that greater protection should be arranged 
 for the home manufacturers, and we therefore hope that you may see 
 your way to allow the duty on chemicals to remain as it is at the pres- 
 ent time, and we would respectfully urge u])on you the necessity of 
 placing the duty on soap to what it was under the McKinley tariff". It 
 would certainly put the conditions regulating the soap nnmufacturing 
 business in a position that will be more healthy and beneficial to the 
 home industries. If you will kindly examine the matter carefully you 
 will see that the protection will not then be greater than it should be. 
 
 Your favorable consideration to the above is respectfully requested by 
 
 J. Eavenson & Sons. 
 
 Xew York, Becemher 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 We understand your honorable committee are to have a meeting to 
 hear arguments preparatory to increasing the duty on certain kinds of 
 chemicals. Caustic soda and soda ash are largely used by soa]) makers, 
 and to enhance the cost of their product by a n*^ increased duty would 
 entail a severe hardship, as we believe it would be impossible to increase 
 the price of soap sufficiently to cover the tax. 
 
 It is true some soap makers are making good profits because of their 
 superior ability as advertisers, but the competitive manufacturer has a 
 hard row to hoe, aud makes little more than a living, and he is entitled 
 to your consideratiou. An increased tax on soap imported Avonld not 
 serve to protect us from the loss entailed by an increased duty on 
 caustic, etc., while the latter would serve to enrich the few manufac- 
 turers of American caustic to the detriment of the larger number in 
 soap making. 
 
 Your earnest consideration of these facts, and asking that the present
 
 ANTITOXIN. 129 
 
 duty on caustic soda and soda ash may stand as at present specified, 
 in the interest of the soap makers, your petitioners will ever pray. 
 
 David S. Bro^tst & Co. 
 
 Brooklyn, X. Y., December 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We hereby petition your committee to retain the duties of the pres- 
 ent tariff on soap and soap makers' materials as per Schedule A, jjar- 
 agraphs 63, C5, and 67. We believe their retention will be a benefit to 
 the soap-manufacturing industry of the United States. 
 
 Kirkman & Son. 
 
 A]STITOXIK. 
 
 (Paragraph 59.) 
 
 Washington, I). C, December 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 While the committee has under consideration the medicinal schedule 
 of the proposed new tarilf law, I would respectfully urge upon it the 
 importance of placing a duty of at least 50 cents per vial upon every 
 vial of antitoxin or antidiphtheritic serum that is imported into this 
 country. 
 
 There was a time when it was desirable to obtain the serum wherever 
 it could be had at the lowest possible price, but that time has passed 
 and American manufacturers are now in a position to make a high- 
 grade and perfectly satisfactory quality of serum themselves. The 
 difterent boards of health thronghout the United States have taken 
 hold of the matter, have had sufticient time to develop the horses, com- 
 mercial concerns such as our own and others have entered the field, 
 and we are in the United States, taking all these factors together, 
 abundantly able to supjily au antitoxin as good as the best. 
 
 When American comjietition was being felt on this article, a German 
 house made a reduction in their i)rices, the reduction being ecjual to the 
 duty that they might have to pay, but do not pay, because at the present 
 moment antitoxin or antidiphtheritic serum is admitted free into this 
 country. The time has now arrived when American manufacturers of 
 thus article should be protected. In our own case, we recently had a 
 large contract thrown out because we could not compete with the price 
 of the antitoxin offered by the German house. If there had been a 
 duty the contract would surely have gone to some American house. 
 
 Aside from the protection which should be given our home producers 
 of this article, there is no reason why the German manufacturer should 
 be allowed any special privileges at a time when the German Govern- 
 ment seems to be boycotting any and every thing that emanates from 
 America. 
 
 I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, 
 
 Chas. a. Cotterill, 
 On behalf of ParJce, Davis tfi Co., Mamtfacturing Chemists, 
 
 Detroit, Mich. 
 t h 9
 
 130 SCHEDULE A. — CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 ALKALIES, ALICALOLDS, ETC. 
 
 (Paragraph 60.) 
 
 New York, December 24, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 We submit herewith certain suggestions and recommendations, to 
 which we trust you and your committee will give due consideration in 
 the preparation of the new tariff act. We do not consider it necessary 
 to consume the time of your committee with a recital of the history of 
 our industry. The protective rates of duty accorded our products in 
 the tariff" measures preceding the i)resent one enabled us to compete 
 fairly w ell with the foreign articles in our line and at the same time to 
 reduce very largely the price of our articles to the consumers in this 
 country. 
 
 All we ask or expect is that such rates of duty will be given on alka- 
 lis, alkaloids, etc., competing with our makes as will comi)en8ate for 
 the difference in labor and costs of raw material l>etween this and com- 
 peting foreign countries. And we consider it i)r()i)er to say right here 
 that we are subjected to most severe competition from a powerlul com- 
 bination of foreign iiiamifacturers, Avho under the existing tariff rates 
 l)ractically control this market. We refer i)articnlarly to tlie Tnited 
 Alkali Works, Limited, with ojterations whicli inehnle almost the entire 
 alkali section of and contiguous to St. Helens, England, and also thd 
 works of INIessrs. Rrunner, Mond iS: Co., Limited, siu^cessors to Murgae 
 troyd Ammonia, Soda, and Salt Syndicate, Limited, of Middlcwich, 
 England. 
 
 Within the i>ast two or three years these syndicates and others have 
 songht to take advantage of the existing tarilV i)rovisions r«'lating to 
 alkalis by introdu(;ing into tliis country certain of their i)roducts under 
 the guise of new and arbitrary names, with s(»ine slight change in Ibrm 
 or method of ]nnduction. One of these was an article made by Messrs. 
 Bowman, Thoniiison «S: Co., Limited, of Nortliwich, I*]ngland, and adver- 
 tised by them in lOngland as "industrial bicarbonate of soda." This 
 article they invoiced to their agents here uiuler the name of '^carbonic 
 soda,'' and they succeeded for some time in bringing it into this country 
 through the jiorts of Boston, New York, New Orleans, and Newjjort 
 News, ami entering it for duty at 25 ])er cent ad valorem as a nonenu- 
 merated alkali or chemical com])ound under paragraph Oo of the |)res- 
 ent law. 
 
 This trick was finally discovered by chance, and the api>raiser and 
 collector of customs here then pn»i)«'rly classilied the article as bicar- 
 bonate of soda, and assessed duty thereon at one half cent per pound. 
 Tiie importers i)rotested against this assessment of duty, but the col- 
 lector's action was sustained by the decision of the Board of General 
 Appraisers (see G. A. 33L'!), Exhibit A, herewith iiiclos«'d), ])ractically 
 all the evidence in the case proving the article to be in fact bicarbonate 
 of soda, varying in strength from about (JO per cent bicarbonate of soda 
 up to 00 per cent, that it was produced bj- the ammonia system, and 
 was simihir to the "wet bicarbonate of soda" produced in this country 
 by the ammonia system. 
 
 Ila<l the (Jeneral Ai)i)raisers' decision been in favor of the importers 
 it would have opened the doors to ruinous competition for us, as all of 
 the bicarbonate of soda would have no doubt been imported in the wet
 
 ALKALIES, ALKALOIDS, ETC. 131 
 
 state as "carbonic soda" at the low duty of 25 per cent (less than one- 
 half the rate for bicarbonate of soda), and would have then been brought 
 ui) to whatever percentage of strength might be desired by a simple 
 process of allowing the moisture and ammonia to evaporate. As no 
 appeal was taken from this decision the question has never been settled 
 by the courts, and may arise again at any time. We suggest, therefore, 
 and earnestly recommend that the jirovision covering bicarbonate of 
 soda in the new tariff be made to read as follows: 
 
 "Bicarbonate of soda or supercarbonate of soda, or saleratus, and 
 other alkalis containing 50 per cent or more of bicarbonate of soda, 
 1 cent per jjound." 
 
 Tliis change in the language of the tarift" will, we think, protect us, 
 as well as the Government, against any such tricks on the part of the 
 imi)ortcrs as we have above jiointed out. We believe the rate of 1 cent 
 per pound ( wliich was the rate in the act of 1883) is no more than suffi- 
 cient to compensate for the difference in labor, etc., between this coun- 
 try and Europe. 
 
 Another article, the sale of which is now being controlled almost 
 entirely by the English manufacturers, owing to the present low rate 
 of duty, is crystal carbonate, or concentrated soda crystals, being, in 
 fact, monohydrate of soda, or sesquicarbonate, and about double the 
 strength and value of sal soda or soda crystals not concentrated. This 
 article was originally entered for duty at one-eighth cent i>er pound, as 
 sal soda or soda crystals, but was afterwards held to be dutiable by a 
 board of general appraisers as a nonenumerated alkali or chemical com- 
 pound at iT) ])er cent ad valorem (see G. A. .{OMO, E^xhibit B, herewith 
 inclosed), which decision has recently been alhrmed by the circuit court 
 for the southern district of New York. Prior to the decision of the 
 board of general appraisers, making the duty '_'•") per cent ad valorem, 
 the article was invoiced at £G to £0 Ws. per ton, or about 832 (equal to 
 about 8".'">() ])er ton duty, or about one-third cent per pound). Imme- 
 diately after the decision, however (as we stated in our previous letter), 
 the invoice prices were reduced to about £4, or 820, per ton (making 
 the duty 8o per ton, or less than one-fourth cent ])er pound). This 
 invoice ])rice was advanced by the local appraisers to about its former 
 price, and this action was tinally sustained by a board of general 
 appraisers. We therefore most earnestly urge that this article be 
 specially i)rovi(le(l for with a specilic rate of duty to prevent under- 
 valuation, and as the article is double the strength and value (see 
 Exhibit C, herewith inclosed) of sal soda we think it only fair and 
 equitable that the duty be made one-half cent per pound, or double the 
 rate for sal soda or soda crystals, which was one fourth cent per pound 
 under the tarift' of 1883 and 1890. We suggest the following as a proper 
 provision for this article: 
 
 "Crystal carbonate, or concentrated soda crystals, or monohydrate 
 or sesquicarbonate of soda, one-half cent per pound." 
 
 The reduction of the duty in the present so-called Wilson-Gorman 
 act on sal soda or soda crystals from one-fourth to one-eighth of a cent 
 per pound has been most detrimental, and indeed almost ruinous, to 
 our interests, enabling our foreign competitors to largely control the 
 American market. In simi)le justice to ourselves as well as to the 
 interests of the public revenue, sal soda or soda crystal should be made 
 dutiable at one-fourth of a cent per pound, the same as soda ash, being 
 the rate in the tarift' acts of 1883 and 1890. 
 
 The Government statistics show an increase in the importation of 
 these products in the year 1895, under the present low rate of duty, of
 
 132 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 about 12,000,000 pounds over the year 1894, the importation for those 
 two years being as follows: 
 
 July, 1804 to 1895, 28,701,108 pounds, duty one-eighth cent, $34,950; 
 July, 1893 to 1804, 16,893,760 pounds, duty one-fourth cent, $42,234; 
 showing a loss to the revenue of $7,284. 
 
 Holding ourselves in readiness to resjiond to any inijuiries your com- 
 mittee may think proper to make regarding our interests, we are, 
 Eespectfully, yours, 
 
 CHUKCH AND DWIGHT COMPANY, 
 
 E. D WIGHT Church, First Vice-President. 
 
 EXHIHIT A. 
 
 (Ifi8i0— G. A.3:i2<t.) 
 
 " Infhi atrial hicnrhontitv of god a." 
 
 [Before thp United St.it«8 General Ai>praiH<T9 at Kew York, Jamiarv 6, 1806. In the matter of the 
 protests, 91265rt-08:iO. ltl2t)C. 9IJ07, and !U26K, of Messrs. Devoy Itrotliers, against tlio dinision of the 
 collector of ciistoins at New York as to the rate and amount of ilntics cliar;;i-alili' on certain uier- 
 cliaudise, imported per Cevir, Taurir, Jlritaniiic, linrif, Xomatlic. antl Crvu-. and entered December 
 5, 1894, and January 15, 21, 30, and April 5 and 24, 1893. respectively. Opinion by Wilkinson. Gen- 
 eral Appraiser.] 
 
 The merchan(li.«(e in invoiced a.s "cnrhoiiii' soda." It was assessed for duty as 
 bicarbonate of soda at k cent jtcr ])(>nn«l nuder j»araj;raj)h tU. and is clainuMl to bo 
 dutiable as a clicmical compound at L'."> f)er cent under parajjraph tid, as soda ash 
 under paragraph 67, or as a noiu-nuinerated article tunlcr section 3. 
 
 The manufacturers advertise the article in Kn;iland as "industrial bicarbonat« of 
 soda," and they invoiced a number of shipments to this country as bicarbonate of 
 soda. 
 
 The importer pave as a rea.son for the change of name in the invoice that the soda 
 was not a pure bicarbonate, and that lie was informed tliat its im]»ortation as bicar- 
 bonate of soda would ren<ler him ameiial>lo to the regulations of laws ciuicerning 
 food adulterations. Without discrediting the good faith of this statement, it may be 
 stated that the change of n.ime was followed by .i demand for a lower rate of duty. 
 
 The purjioso for which the article in (luestion is designe<l and used is in charging 
 mineral water. Accoriling to the t<stiniony. this is the chief use t>f bicarbonate of 
 soda generally. It is in evidence that manuf.ictMrers in this country jiroduce a simi- 
 lar soda, and that it is known in tra<le as bicarbonate of soda. 
 
 The following atialysis represents substantially the article in controversy: 
 
 Bicarbonate of soda 76. 12 
 
 Bicarboiuite of ammonia 2. 79 
 
 Chlorate sodium 11 
 
 Insolubles -28 
 
 Moisture 20.70 
 
 100.00 
 While this has not the pnrity or strength of the officinal preparation as given by 
 
 the United States rharmacopceia. it has the character of the bicarbonate of soda made 
 
 in this country by tlie ammonia process, and the excess of moisttire simply weakens 
 
 its strength but does not I'h.inge its character. 
 We lind u]>on the evidence that the merchandise is in fact and is known in trade 
 
 as bicarbonate of soda. 
 The assessment of duty under paragraph 64 is affirmed. 
 
 Exhibit B. 
 
 (G. A. 3030.) 
 
 Crystal carbonate — not (luiiahle either ax sal soda or soda a»h. 
 
 [Before the Fnited States general appraisers at New York, April i, 1S95. In the matter of the protest, 
 82984 a-3042, of .T. L. A; I). S. Kiker against the decision of tlie c(dlector of customs at New York aa 
 to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per yomadic, entered 
 January 22, 1895. Opinion hy Lant, general appraiser.] 
 
 We lind— 
 
 (1) That Messrs. .T. L. «S: D. S. Rikor imported into the port of Xow York, January 
 22, 189.^, certain so-called crystal carbonate, upoiT which dtity was assessed at one- 
 fourth of 1 cent per pound, the rate provided for soda aah in paragraph 67, act of
 
 CAFFEINE. 
 
 133 
 
 August 28, 1891. The importprs claim it to be dutiable at one-eighth of a cent per 
 poiiml as eal soda, provided for in paragraph 07. 
 
 (2) That there is a eheuiical salt sometimes called soda crystal aud washing soda, 
 which is kuown commercially as sal soda, aud another commercially kuown as 
 soda ash. 
 
 (3) That the substance under consideration is not commercially known by either 
 of those designations, but is designated as crystal carbonate, and is an alkaline 
 chemical salt. 
 
 (1) That while the chemical composition of crystal carbonate is the same as that 
 of sal soda, its chemical c(m8titution differs. A comparative statement of an analysis 
 of sal soda, crystal carbonate, aud soda ash approximately indicates the differences. 
 
 Carhoiiato of soda. , 
 
 Hydrate of 80<la 
 
 Sulphate of soda... 
 Cliloridu of sodium 
 Water 
 
 c«i <.«.io Crystal Soda ash, 
 aaiBoaa. carbonate, pure. 
 
 34.22 
 
 .10 
 
 2.54 
 
 .27 
 
 62.84 
 
 81.89 
 .13 
 .81 
 .08 
 
 17.10 
 
 '100 
 
 » Commercially it contaiDa a percentage of chlorides, etc., anhydrous. 
 
 Inasmuch as these salts ha%e distinct counnercial designations and there is a 
 special provision in ])aragraph GO for jirodiicts or jneparations known as alkalies 
 • " * and clicmical compounds and salts, we can not classify this article by assim- 
 ilation to either sal soda or soda ash, but hold it dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem 
 iindei- paragraph tlO. 
 
 The merchandise in (|uesti<)n is produced by the I'nitcd Alkali Company at the 
 Oaskell A- Deacon Works, Widues, Lancashire, England. 
 
 The protest is overruled. 
 
 ExKiHiT C. — Pkucentagk «)k ai.kai.i anp analysis of crystal carronatk ok 
 
 .MONOIIYDRATK Ol' SODA. SKStjlI-CAKHONATF. OF .«<ODA, AX1» SAL .SODA. 
 
 As their value dcpemls on the amount of alkali which each contains, rather than 
 any other constituent therein, it will rea<lily be seen that sal soda is only half or less 
 than one-half the value of either of the others. 
 
 Alkali 
 (Na,0). 
 
 Carbonate | 
 soda (Naj 
 Cos). I 
 
 Water 
 (HjO). 
 
 Uicar- 
 
 bouateof 
 
 soda. 
 
 Crystal i;arbonate or nionobydrato 50 
 
 Snow tliiko or acsqui-carbon'ate 41. 15 
 
 Sal soda or soda cryHtals, not concentrated, or washing I 
 
 soda ! ' 21.68 
 
 85.48 
 46.90 
 
 14.52 
 15.93 
 
 62.93 
 
 CAFFEIXE. 
 
 STATEMENT OF DR. LOUIS SCHAEFER, OF MAYWOOD, N. J. 
 
 ^Monday, December 28, 1896. 
 
 I submitted a vrritteii statement to the chaiiman of the committee, 
 and I \vish simply to add that by an increased duty on caffeine, as sug- 
 gested in my statement, the revenues would be increased considerably 
 and the manufacture of the mentioned article would be suflQcieutly 
 protected. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Is it on the free list now ? 
 
 Dr. ScHAEFER. It is entered at 25 per cent duty. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Do you know what number it is on this list? 
 
 Dr. ScHAEFER. Oh, it is, under the Wilson tariff, I think, 60. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. It is entered as an alkaloid ? 
 
 Dr. Schaefer. Yes, sir; it is entered as an alkaloid. It is manu- 
 factured from tea sweepings. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Is it manufactured here? 
 
 Dr. Scuaefer. 1 am the tirst to manufacture it here in this country.
 
 134 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. How long have you been manufacturing it? 
 
 Dr. SCHAEFEE. About a year. , . .1 ■ ,_ « 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is it manufactured anywhere else in this country? 
 
 Dr. SCHAEFER. No, sir. . 
 
 Mr Payne. How many hands have you been employing . 
 
 Dr. SciiAEFER. About ten only. It is a new plant, and 1 hope to be 
 able to increase it. 
 
 ]Mr. Payne. How much duty do you ask I 
 
 Dr SCHAEFER. Twenty-five per cent ad valorem. This makes some- 
 thing like $1 a pound. The price of the article is 18 shillings in 
 England, and it makes about $1; but, as I suggested in my statement, 
 this is quite insufiQcient to protect the manufacture of the article in a 
 sufficient way. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Have you filed a written statement! 
 
 Dr. ScHAEFER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. In which you go into particulars, do you, as to the cost 
 abroad and the cost here? 
 
 Dr. SCHAEFER. I did so, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You say it is made from the sweepings of tea? 
 
 Dr. ScHAEFER. It is made from the tea sweepings collected in ware- 
 houses in London, and I can not enter them free of duty. I can only 
 enter them mixed with lime, and they have to pay 25 per cent duty as 
 a chemical compound. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Y"ou have to buy these tea sweepings abroad ? 
 
 Dr. ScHAEFER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Y'oii can not get them here*? 
 
 Dr. SCHAEFER. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What do the tea sweepings — the raw material — cost you 
 at your factory ? 
 
 Dr. ScHAEFER. A ton costs about $60. It increases the cost of manu- 
 facture about 50 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How many pounds of the alkaloid will a ton of the 
 sweei)ings make? 
 
 Dr. SCHAEFER. About 30 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is this alkaloid used for? 
 
 Dr. Schaefer. For the manufacture of mixtures such as bromo 
 seltzer, bromo caffeine, and so on. 
 
 Mr. Payne, Headache medicine? 
 
 Dr. Schaefer. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. It is used entirely for medicipal preparations! 
 
 Dr. Schaefer. Entirely so. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is the value of the imported product? 
 
 Dr. Schaefer. Eighteen shillings a pound. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I mean what is the aggregate of the importations'? 
 
 Dr. Schaefer. About 20,000 to 25,000 pounds a year. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And what is the value? 
 
 Dr. Schaefer. About $120,000. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And you work how many hands? 
 
 Dr. Schaefer. About ten now, but it is a new plant. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Yours is the only establishment in the country? 
 
 Dr. Schaefer. Yes; and the first one. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You are working ten hands, and for the purpose of 
 keeping up this infant industry you want the duty raised from 25 to 
 what rate? 
 
 Dr. Schaefer. I suggested a specific duty of $2 a pound. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. That would be how much ad valorem ? 
 
 Dr. Schaefer. That would be 40 per cent. Besides, under the
 
 CA.FFEINE. 135 
 
 circumstances of the industry here, we have to pay a duty of 25 per cent 
 on the tea sweepings — the raw materials. As I suggested before, that 
 is a very important point for me. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Are you a native of the United States? 
 
 Dr. SCHAEFER. I will be. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. How loug have you been here? 
 
 Dr. ScHAEFER. One year. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Are you naturalized yet? 
 
 Dr. ScHAEFER. Not yet. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You say 18 shillings abroad. Do you mean 18 British 
 shillings? 
 
 Dr. SCHAEFER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Well, that makes your 40 per cent a little nearer correct. 
 
 Following is Dr. Schaefer's prepared statement as referred to above: 
 
 Maywood, :N^. J., December 21, 1896. 
 CoioriTTEE ON Ways and Means: 
 
 With reference to the framing of a new tariff now under considera- 
 tion with your honorable conujiittee, I take the liberty of addressing 
 your honor in reschedule A, chemicals, and to advocate a specific duty 
 of $2 per pound on caffeine. This proposition is based on the following 
 reasons: 
 
 Caffeine is used to a considerable extent in this country for the 
 manufacture of different kinds of medicines and medical preparations. 
 Yearly (•onsami)tioii, about 2."),000 pounds. 
 
 The article was exclusively imported to this country from England 
 and Germany up to about a year ago, and 1 am the tirst one who entered 
 into the nianut'acture of the same in this country at the end of last year. 
 
 At i)resent caffeine is protected by a tariff of 25 per cent, which at 
 the present imce of IS shillings per pound in England is equal to a 
 duty of about §1 per pound here. 
 
 With the following lines I beg to show that a duty of $1 per pound 
 on caffeine in the United States is not a sutlicient protection against 
 the English and German manufacturers. 
 
 Caffeine is manufactured from tea sweepings, which are supplied 
 from the wharves of London. In Kngland these sweepings are duty 
 free as long as they are rendered unlit tor consumi)tion by being denatu- 
 ralized by lime; therefore these tea sweepings, mixed with Hme, are 
 free of duty for the English and German manufacturer, while they are 
 taxed with a duty of 25 per cent when imported to the United States 
 as a chemical comi)ound. This, on 1 pound of caffeine, makes an addi- 
 tional cost of 40 cents for the American manufacturer when compared 
 with the cost to the foreign manufacturer. 
 
 Other additional expenses for the manufacturer are: 
 
 Labor, per day in the United States, $1.50 ; in England and Germany, 
 about 45 cents. The higher wages give an additional expense of $1.10 
 per i)ound of caffeine for the American manufacturer. 
 
 Chemicals used in the manufacture of caffeine: Soda ash, caustic 
 soda, sulphuric acid, and animal charcoal. Soda ash and caustic soda 
 are subject to an import duty of one-half cent per pound; animal char- 
 coal, 25 per centduty. Sulphuric acid isdutyfreeunderthepresenttariff'. 
 In case a duty should be placed on sulphuric acid a further increase of 
 the cost i)rice would result for the American manufacturer. 
 
 For the chemicals used in the manufacture of caffeine the American 
 manufacturer incurs additional exi^enses of about 50 cents compared 
 with the foreign manufacturer. 
 
 In adding up these different items, 40 cents, $1.10, and 50 cents, it is
 
 136 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 Shown that an import duty of $2 per poimd on cafieiue is necessary to 
 place the manufacturer of the article in this country on the same level 
 with the foreign competitor. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, Dr. Louis Schaefer. 
 
 (Free list, paragraph 394.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF THOMAS N. CUTHBERT. REPRESENTING THE NEW 
 YORK QUININE AND CHEMICAL WORKS, LIMITED. 
 
 Monday, December 28^ 1896. 
 
 Mr. CUTHBERT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 represent the Quinine and Chemical Works of the city of New York, a 
 compauy which is largely engaged in the manufacture of quinine. We 
 propose to ask the committee to strike quinine from the free list, where 
 it now is, and restore the duty of 20 per cent which existed prior to 
 1890, or its equivalent, which will be about 5 cents an ounce. I have 
 with me some figures taken from the report of the United States Treas- 
 ury which will show the effect of placing quinine upon the free list. In 
 the year 1879 there was imported into the I'nited States (»,389,378 
 pounds of cinchona bark, all of which was manufactured into the sul- 
 phate of quinine by the American manufacturer. In 1880 the amount 
 fell to 6,013,000 pounds, in round numbers. In the fiscal year ending 
 June 30, 1896, the amount had fallen to 2,70(;,00(; pounds, a little over 
 one-third the amount which was imported and manufactured into 
 quinine when quinine was subject to a duty. 
 
 In the same year, 1879, there were imported into this country 228,310 
 ounces of sulphate of quinine manufactured abroad. The following 
 year, 1880, there were imported into this country 416,998 ounces, or 
 about twice as much. In 1896 there were imported into this country 
 3,359,818 ounces, or about twelve times the quantity that was imjjorted 
 into this country when quinine was subject to a duty. Tlic eflect of 
 these changes has been most disastrous to the native industry, and if 
 the i)resent state of things continues, the time is not far distant wlien 
 the American manufacturer of quinine will have to find some other 
 industry. In the meantime the price of quinine has diminished from 
 $2.25 an ounce in 1879 and $2.66 in 1880 to 23i cents an ounce in 18!)6. 
 Now, we do not claim that great decrease in the price has been due to 
 the fact that quinine is on the free list. It would not be frank to the 
 committee to make any such claim as that. Jt is due to the fact that we 
 obtain a much better quality of bark than formerly — a cultivated quality 
 from Java and the East Indies, which is nmcli richer than the wild 
 variety we formerly obtained. From the bark we now use we are able 
 to obtain something like 5 per cent of quinia. Formerly we were lucky 
 if we could get as much as 2 per cent. Tlie lower price is also due to 
 improved processes in manufacture. But the great decrease in the 
 importation of Peruvian bark and importation of the manufoctured 
 article is due to the fact, first, that it is on the free list. 
 
 Now, as to the reasons why the American manufacturer can not com- 
 pete with the European manufacturer, to those familiar with the facts 
 they are very plain. The American manufacturer has to buy his bark 
 in the same market with the English and the German manufacturer. 
 The market of the world is London, and Amsterdam, in Holland. The 
 direct importations to this country are comparative!}^ insignificant. 
 Having bought our bark in competition with the European mauufocturer'
 
 QUININE. 137 
 
 we have to pay ocean freightage upou it (and the bark is a bulky- 
 article, and cliarged for accordiug to the cubic sj)ace it occupies) and 
 transport it to this country; and having brought it here we have to pay 
 American wages to American workingmen to manufacture the sulphate 
 of quinine. Our competitors in this business buy their bark almost at 
 the scene of manufacture. They transport it only a short distance, 
 from the market to the manufacturing establishment. They do not pay 
 ocean freight on the bark. They employ German workingmen and pay 
 them the German rate of wages, which is about one half what we pay 
 here; and when they have manufactured their stock they send their 
 surplus here to this country and sell it at cost, and we have to meet 
 the competition. The result of this has been most injurious to our 
 business. We ask a restoration of a duty of -0 per cent ad valorem, 
 or its equivalent, Avhich we estimate will be about 5 cents an ounce. 
 
 As explaining the great diiierence in freight, which tells against the 
 American manufacturer, I would say that the bark yields but about 
 5 i)er cent of quinea. In other words, it takes between G and 7 pounds 
 of bark, which is light but bulky, to produce an ounce of quinine. An 
 ounce of quinine can be i)ut in a paper in one's vest i)ocket, and its 
 equivalent in the bark makes a bulky i)ackage on which we have to pay 
 freight per cubic loot of space it occupies. As a result of this great 
 advantage our foreign competitors have, we are slowly but surely being 
 crowded out of the business of the manufacture of quinine. 
 
 Now, if the country is in need of additional revenue, which seems to 
 be only too evident, and it is i)ropos('d to raise that revenue by a mod- 
 erate increase of duties on articles manufactured abroad, we think we 
 are fully entitled to our share of such duty on what we manufacture. 
 We do not ask anything more than what is fair, and we do not expect 
 anything less than that. We submit that what we ask is only a reason- 
 able and fair duty, which will not be a burden on the consumer. 
 
 Perhaps an illustration showing it is not a burden on the consumer 
 may interest the eommittee. The commonest form in which sulphate 
 of ([uinine is sold to the public is in the shape of 2 grain pills. 
 These are sold usually in small bottles containing 100 2-gram pills, and 
 these bottles can be bought at any of the large department stores in 
 New York City, and at some of the larger drug stores, as low as 17 or 
 18 cents per 100 julls. The wholesale price to the dealer is 12 to 14 
 cents per 100. The dealer who buys them that way and sells them gets 
 his pills 7 or 8 for a cent and makes a profit of 3 or 4 cents a hundred 
 selling them that way. But if any gentleman of this committee on 
 leaving this room will stop at the lirst apothecary shop and purchase 
 10 or 20 of these pills he will have to pay 25 cents for the 10 and 40 
 or 50 cents for the 20. The dealer has bought these pills or 7 for one 
 cent and charges about 2i cents apiece for them. Now, if this increased 
 duty is put on, the druggist will ])robably get 5 or 6 of these pills for 
 a cent and he can readily afford to sell them to the public as before. 
 In other words, the increased price will be paid by the retail dealer 
 and not by the consumer. 
 
 I will supplement what I have said with a written statement. 
 
 Mr. Evans. What was the duty on quinine before 1 
 
 Mr. CuTHBERT. Twenty per cent ad valorem, down to June, 1879. 
 
 Mr. Evans. And this 5 cents would be equivalent to 20 per cent now ? 
 
 Mr. CuTHBEKT. Yes, sir; this would be equivalent to 20 per cent. 
 The market price to-day is quoted by the Secretary of the Treasury at 
 23i^ cents. It ranges from that to 25 cents. 
 
 Mr. Evans. How many concerns are there in the United States 
 manufacturing quinine'?
 
 138 
 
 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 Mr OUTHBERT. I know of only one large concern besides our own 
 manufacturing qninine, and that is Powers, Weigbtman & Co., of 
 Philadelphia, and I believe there are no others. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. From 1880 to 1800, did your business increase or 
 
 decrease 1 
 
 Mr. OuTHBERT. It was steadily decreasing. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. I speak of the number of ounces manufactured and 
 sold, not of the amount you received for your goods. 
 
 Mr. CuTHBERT. The number of ounces lias steadily decreased. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. From 1880 to the present time ? 
 
 Mr. CuTHBERT. Yes, sir; from 1880 to the present time. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What was the sale in 1880 'J 
 
 Mr. CuTHBERT. In the United States ? 
 Yes. 
 
 I can not say. 
 What this year? 
 
 I can not give the exact figures. I will furnish them 
 in the statement I am to hand in. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I will get you to state whether or not, i)rior t<» the 
 placing of quinine on the free list Powers & Weightmaii and one or 
 two other concerns in this country did not have absolute control of the 
 market in the United States. 
 
 Mr. CuTHBERT. I could not answer that positively, sir, excei)t I per- 
 ceive by this list that for four years prior to 1880 there was considerable 
 sulphate of quinine imported into this country. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN, 
 
 Mr. CUTHBEET. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. 
 
 Mr. CUTHBERT. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. CUTHBERT. 
 
 New York, January i^, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We beg to call your attention to some figures from the report of the 
 Bureau of Statistics, Washington, and to give you tlie following data, 
 which you may not have at hand, for ready reference: 
 
 SULPHATE OF QUININE. 
 
 Year. 
 
 1896 
 1895 
 1894 
 1893 
 1892 
 1891 
 1890 
 1889 
 1888 
 1887 
 1886 
 1885 
 1884 
 1883 
 1882 
 1881 
 1880 
 1879 
 1878 
 1877 
 1876 
 
 Imports 
 
 into TTnitecl 
 
 states. 
 
 Ounces. 
 3, 359, 818 
 
 1, 308, 959 
 2, 141, 130 
 3.027.819 
 2, 686, 677 
 3, 079, 000 
 
 2, 990, 239 
 2, 825. 008 
 1, 003, 936 
 2, 180, 1.57 
 1, 251, i).56 
 1. 390, 126 
 1, 263, 7.32 
 1, 055, 764 
 
 794, 495 
 
 408, 851 
 
 416, 998 
 
 228, 348 
 
 17, 549 
 
 75, 804 
 
 22, 746 
 
 Average 
 value per 
 oiince as 
 entered at 
 custom- 
 house. 
 
 $0. 235 
 .25 
 .219 
 .18 
 .202 
 
 .•:6i 
 
 .297 
 
 .325 
 
 .405 
 
 .50 
 
 .71 
 
 .93 
 
 1.27 
 
 1.71 
 
 1.96 
 
 2.57 
 
 2.66 
 
 2.75 
 
 2.90 
 
 1.81 
 
 1.37 
 
 Dutv. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Made free Juiu-, 1X70. 
 
 20 per rent. 
 
 20 per cfHt. 
 
 20 i)er cent.
 
 QUININE. 
 
 139 
 
 To say that the duty of 20 per cent imposed on foreign quinine by 
 tbe tariff of the United States previous to 1879 has any bearing on 
 these quotations is to misstate facts, as the price advanced and remained 
 liigher for five years after the duty was removed than it had been in 
 1870-77, when there was a duty of 20 per cent. 
 
 CIN'CHOXA BARK. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Import.'i into 
 Umte<l 
 States. 
 
 Average 
 value per 
 pounil as 
 entered at 
 custom- 
 house. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 1896 
 
 Pounds. 
 2, 706, 006 
 2,012,399 
 2. 302, 224 
 2, 374, 042 
 3, 424, 941 
 2, 672. 364 
 2, 838, 306 
 
 2, 878. 184 
 2,801,457 
 4,787,311 
 4, 447, 082 
 
 3, 559. 691 
 2, 588, 307 
 3,039,315 
 5,010,547 
 4,219,403 
 0. 013, 877 
 6, :(89. 378 
 
 4, 820, 290 
 1,760,440 
 5.280,159 
 
 $0. 0614 
 .0610 
 .057 
 .083 
 .088 
 .113 
 .099 
 .128 
 .133 
 .155 
 .202 
 .257 
 .272 
 .330 
 .368 
 .438 
 .279 
 .328 
 . 295 
 .252 
 .209 
 
 Free. 
 
 1805 
 
 Free. 
 
 1894 
 
 Free. 
 
 ]g<j3 ... 
 
 Free. 
 
 1892 
 
 Free. 
 
 1891 
 
 Free. 
 
 1890 
 
 Free. 
 
 1889 . 
 
 Free. 
 
 1888 
 
 Free. 
 
 1K87 
 
 Free. 
 
 1886 ... 
 
 Free. 
 
 1885 
 
 Free. 
 
 1884 
 
 Free. 
 
 1883 
 
 Free. 
 
 1882 
 
 Free. 
 
 1881 
 
 Free. 
 
 1880 
 
 Free. 
 
 1879 
 
 Free. 
 
 1878 
 
 Free. 
 
 1877 
 
 Free. 
 
 1870 
 
 Free. 
 
 
 
 As quinine, tlie worhl over, diopi)ed from one-third to one-fourth 
 the price between the year.s 1877 and 1887, Kngli.sh, French, German, 
 Italian, and all other mamifactnrers, irrespective of locality, lowering 
 their figures gradually and .synchroiionsly, it follows logically that the 
 controlling intlucnce mii.st have been one and the same. The nniform 
 low ])iicc.s (»f (luinine ruling during recent years have been etl'ected by 
 the reduced cost of cinchona bark, the crude material employed. The 
 reduction in the price of bark was caused solely by the largely 
 increased supplies, brought about by the action of the British and 
 Dutch (Tovernments, by cultivating cinchona trees in India and Java. 
 Formerly all cinchona bark came trom Scmth America, where the trees 
 were not under any systematic cultivation. 
 
 While supplies of l>ark are ])leiity, this country will be flooded with 
 quinine, the surplus product of foreign factories who enter this manu- 
 factured product free of any duty what.soever. The domestic manu- 
 facturers pay taxes to their (lovernment, the foreign quinine maker 
 not a cent. Fven the tins, wrai)i)ers, labels, and cases containing the 
 quinine come in free. Skilled labor must be employed for making fine 
 chemicals, and wages are very high liere, while in Germany money 
 prizes are ofteied to chemical students by the Government, and a large 
 force of well trained chemists is always available. The European 
 manufacturers have advantages in cheaper freights and have not only 
 the home markets to supply, but ship to North and South America, 
 also to the East, including China and Japan, besides Africa and 
 Australia. 
 
 Reviewing tlie years since quinine was allowed to come into the 
 country untaxed, we find that one firm was ruined and passed out of 
 existence, two others finally gave it up, and our own has been kept
 
 140 SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 alive only by a change of policy and by introdncing new articles. Our 
 corporation lias never paid but one small dividend, and lost several 
 hundred thousand dollars in vain efforts to carry on the (lumine 
 
 Inasmuch as the Government is in need of revenue, we ask that para- 
 graph 601, law 1894, be taken from free list and that a duty of 20 per 
 cent, or, say, 5 cents per ounce, be imposed on quinine, sulphate of, and 
 all alkaloids and salts of cinchona bark. , . . 
 
 On an article selling at $0.18 per ounce, the usual dose being not 
 more than 10 grains, with 437i grains to the ounce, it can not be held 
 that the tax would be felt by the consumer. 
 
 The New York Quinine and Chemical Works, Limited, 
 
 Thomas K. Cuthbert, Director. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. ALEX. H. JONES, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
 Monday, December 28^ 1896. 
 
 Mr. Jones. I can speak for Powers & Weightman. They were among 
 the first manufacturers in this country. They and Itosengardner Sons, 
 of Philadelphia, both commenced to make sulphate of quiniue almost 
 immediately after its discovery, and they had the preference in this 
 country. Those two manufacturers sold, as you can readily aiulcrstand 
 by looking at the list of importations, almost all the quinine .sold in tho 
 United States. The 20 per cent duty we had enabled us to comi)ete 
 very successfully. I should say, however, that at first the French liad 
 the preference. After awhile the Americans could get about one half — 
 a dealer would take one-half the French article and one-half flie 
 American article. 
 
 At first, indeed, the preference was so decidedly in favor of th<' I'rench 
 that American manufacturers put French labels on their bottles, not 
 because it was made in France or anything of that kiiul. Tlien the 
 preference came for the American product, and 1870, when the duty 
 was taken off, marked the time of the beginning of the decline in the 
 sales of our concern. We have steadily maintained the manufacture 
 of quinine, and we propose to do so Just as long as .Mr. Weightman is 
 living. He is an old gentleman, 83 years of age, and he lias been in 
 the business since he was a youth of 18 and feels a great deal of pride 
 in maintaining this industry, and he will do it, probably, regardless of 
 profit. The statement of Mr. Cuthbert I can indorse as far»as he has 
 gone. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Did not Powers & Weightman and those associate<l 
 with them in the control of the market control substantially the 
 American market prior to the reduction of the duty ? 
 
 Mr. Jones. Only in the way 1 tell you. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. They did not enter into contracts with wholesale 
 druggists for the sale of quinine, and fix the rates at which the sales 
 were to be made ? 
 
 Mr. Jones. To fix the rate at which the druggists would sell the 
 goods 1 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Jones. No, sir; we have never done that. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. That was reported to have been done at the time
 
 QUININE. 141 
 
 ]\rr. Jones. There have been made a great many statements tliat 
 are not true. We do not do it to-day on any article vre manufacture. 
 We don't say to our customers, "You must hold those goods at certain 
 prices." We, and Rosengardner & Sons, had the control of this market, 
 as I have said, by having made this product from almost the discovery 
 of the article, and still continue to make it, furnishing an excellent 
 article, as everybody knows, and we had the preference of the American 
 public and the wholesale druggists. 
 
 Mr. ]McMiLLiN. How do you account for the fact that whereas the 
 price was $li.7~) an ounce Mhen the tarill" was reduced, it is 23 cents an 
 ounce now ? 
 
 Mr. Jones. That is accounted for l)y the fact that the price of the 
 crude material has decreased, and if I were to give you a statement 
 you could see this, but I am sure you will rely on what I tell yon. I 
 could give you the unit of value — what bark was ■worth a pound which 
 contained 1 per cent of quiiiia — what it was in 1870, 1877, 1878, com- 
 ing down to the present time. You juobably know that the cinchona 
 bark, from which (juinine is made, came originally from South America? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I remember. 
 
 i\Ir. rIoNES. And you know it was crude in every sense of the word. 
 The trees were strijiprd and destroyed, and it was the Ihitish (lovern- 
 ment and Hm' Dutch (iovernment, more especially the British Govern- 
 ment, way back ]»robab]y tliirty yenrs ago, which introduced into the 
 East Indies the seeds and cuttings, at great risk, from South America. 
 The low price of siilpliate of quinine to-day is not due to putting the 
 article on the free list. It is due to the very successful ettbrts of the 
 British (lovernnuMit more than anything else. It is now the cultivated 
 bark that comes from tlie East Indies, from ("eyion, and from .lava. 
 That cultivated bark is now very low in ])rice, and the low price of the 
 ciiicliona bark of course mthiences th«', price of the manufactured 
 article. If you want statements of fact, those can all be sustained. 
 
 Mr. McMir.Lix. Can you give me the information I souglit from Mr. 
 Cuthbert as to the amount of quinine that was jtroduced by Powers «& 
 Weightman juior to and at tlu; time of the removal of the duty and 
 afterwards, and the amcmnt juoduced by tliem now? 
 
 Mr. .loNHS. 1 would prefer not to make a pubbc statement of tliat 
 sort; but I can tell you this, that in the nature of things our business 
 should have been increased and we should be selling mucli more today 
 than in 1878 or 1S7;>, but we are not selling as mucii (|uiiiine to-day, I 
 think, as we were in l.s7S. As the country has increased in poi)uIation, 
 naturally we shouhl i)e selling more. 
 
 Mr. McMiLT.iN. Have or have not other concerns begun the manu- 
 facture of it in the I'liited States? 
 
 Mr. Jones. The only concern that has begun the manufacture of 
 quinine in the United States is the house Mr. Cuthbert is in. Origin- 
 ally it was Powers iS: Weightman — two distinct houses for the manii- 
 focture of this article — and then C. T. White; and that concern failed 
 and Keysby & Mason started, and they after awhile stopped the manu- 
 facture of the article, and the next concern Avas the New York Chemi- 
 cal Works. 1 tliink there are only these two concerns in the country 
 to-day manufacturing (luinine — I'owers »S: Weightman and the New 
 York Chemical Company. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. There were few at the time the duty was on. 
 
 Mr. Jones. There were never many. 
 
 ]\Ii'. McMiLLiN. 1 remember the time the duty was removed on motion 
 of McKeuzie, of Kentucky, now minister to Peru, that it was predicted
 
 142 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 it would close the manufacturing concerns making this in the United 
 States. That you say it has not done. 
 
 Mr. Jones. You are perfectly right. It was so stated, and it was 
 so thought, and I thought if it had not been for the ability and disposi- 
 tion of Mr. Weightman, who is a man of means, constantly in business 
 for many years— and this is only one of the many articles we have 
 made— I think if it had not been for Ids determination the industry 
 would have been blotted out entirely. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. American industry and resolution are equal to alnu >st 
 every emergency, I believe. 
 
 Mr. Jones. That is true; it is equal to a great deal, but I think you 
 will admit there is some limitation. Xow, there was a gentleman «)nce 
 in our counting house, and as some of the girls went from our \Ai\fe 1 
 said to him, ''How well dressed those girls are." He said, "Yes." 
 "What wages do you suppose we give them?'' said I. He said he 
 didn't know, and I told him $5 or $6 a week. He was interested in 
 quinine, and 1 said to him, "What wages do you give?" And lie told 
 me that where this quinine Avas made in (lermany they were abb' in 
 the winter time to get the women's work foe about 12 cents a day. 
 
 In the summer time they work in the liehls and in the winter time 
 they work in the factories. We give our girls who ])ut uj) the bottles 
 $5 or $G a week. Then, talking abont the wages of men, " We give 
 $12 a week," I said; and he told me that tliey gave — if my memory 
 serves me right — about 2 marks a day; say, 50 cents, or something like 
 that. 
 
 Now, American energy will count lor a great deal, but when it comes 
 to 12J cents against a dollar and a half or a dollar you can figure that 
 up about as well as anybody I know of. | Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Have you any objection to liling with the committee 
 a statement of what the production of your lirm was ])rior to the 
 removal of the duty and what it has been since the removal of that 
 duty? 
 
 Mr. Jones. I don't think we have any objection, providing it is for 
 the use of the committee simi)ly. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I have no desire to make it public at all. 
 
 Mr. Jones. You shall have it, sir. 
 
 Mr. CuTHBERT. I would simply add that if we did not have other 
 articles which we manufacture besides the one in (luestion we would 
 long since have ceased to manufacture sulphate of (luiniue. There is 
 no money in it at present prices. 
 
 Mr. Evans (to Mr. Jones). Do you know how manv concerns in 
 Europe manufactured quinine in 1878 * 
 
 Mr. Jones. I can not tell you just now, l)ut I did kn(»w, and 1 can 
 ascertain and give you those figures. 
 
 Mr. Evans. And give us how many now manutacture it. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. JONES. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are manufacturing chemists, successors in business of Messrs. 
 ^axr cVc xvunzi established in Philadelphia in 1818. The business has 
 Deen prosecuted without interruption for a period of nearlv seventy- 
 nine years As manufacturing chemists we are interested in Schedule 
 r.?i wo^l imposing customs duties on chemicals, etc. In suggesting 
 rates, we have named such as seem to us to be only reasonable and
 
 SCHEDULE OF RATES. 143 
 
 proper. In no case Lave we asked for excessive protection. We can 
 but be mindlul of tlie g^reat disjiarity between wages and general 
 expenses of conducting bu,siness paid in tbis country and in P]uroj)e, 
 especially Gennany, where wages are extremely low, from which coun- 
 try are sent vast quantities of fine chemicals to tlie United States — 
 far more than for any other part of luirope — and to which country no 
 chemicals made liere can be sent to be sold in competition. 
 
 Another competitor, having still cheaper labor, has appeared within 
 the past few years, namely, Japan. The Japanese are able to make 
 chemicals to quite a coiisideral»le extent, and have sent large lots of 
 rclined camjdior, iodine resublimed, }»reparations of iodine, etc., to this 
 country, selling the same at lower i)rices than American manufacturers 
 can afford to name. It is to countervail or compensate for the" great 
 difference in wages and general expenses of conducting business that 
 the duties suggested by us are named. 
 
 Kestricting our suggestions and remarks to such articles as are of 
 8pe<-ial interest to us we respectfully name the following rates: 
 
 Acid, chromic, iirojxtsed rate, '.) cents per i)ound. The ditlerence in 
 wages jiistilii's this duty; 181)4 rate, A cents per pound; 18'JO rate, 6 
 cents ]ter ])ound. 
 
 Acid, citric, ])ro|>osed rate, S cents i)er pound; 1804 rate, 25 per cent 
 ad valorem; IS'.IO rate, 10 cents per pound. Hased upon average prices 
 in Europe, obtained by reviewing figures for a number of years, 8 cents 
 per pound converted into ad valorem gives a moderate per cent only. 
 
 We were the first to manufacture citric acid in the United States. 
 The iniiott Cresson gold medal was awar(le<l to us May 12, 1875, ''for 
 the introduction of an industry new in the United Statesand perfection 
 of result in the i)r()(luct obtained in the manufacture of citric acid." 
 (Franklin Institute.) 
 
 Acid, sulpiiuric, or oil of vitriol, proposed rate, one-fourth cent per 
 pound; 1804, free, with qualifying clause; 1800 rate, one-fourth cent 
 per i>ound. 
 
 Acid, gallic, i)r.oi)osed rate 10 cents j^er pound. Now admitted free 
 under general clause 3G3. Acids used for medicinal, chemical, or manu- 
 facturing ])urposes, n. o. p. f. German gallic acid is imported quite 
 largely. It is not e(|ual to the American, but interferes with the sale 
 of th(» home jiroduet notwithstanding. 
 
 Acids, mineral, such as muriatic acid, nitrii- acid, sulphuric acid, 
 when clu'mically pure, .■'» cents per pound. Xow free under clause 303, 
 cited above. 
 
 Acid, tannic, or tannin, proposed rate, GO cents per pound; 1804 rate, 
 60 cents i)er i)ound ; 1800 rate, 75 cents per pound. 
 
 Acid, tartaric, proposed rate, 7 cents i)er pound; 1804 rate, 20 per 
 cent ad valorem; 1800 rate, 10 cents per pound. 
 
 Alcoholic i)erfumery, including cologne water and other toilet waters, 
 and alcoholic compounds, n. o. p. f., proposed late, $2 per gallon and 
 50 per cent ad valorem, as now. 
 
 Alum, crystals and ground, alum cake, patent alum, sulphate of 
 alumina, and aluminous cake, proposed rate, one-half cent per pound; 
 1804 rate, iour-tenths cent per pound; 1800 rate, six-tenths cent per 
 pound. 
 
 Annnonia, sulphate of, proposed rate, one-third cent per pound; 
 1804 rate, 20 per cent ad valorem; 1800 rate, one-half cent per pound. 
 
 Blue vitriol, or sulphate of copper, proposed rate, 1 cent per pound; 
 1894, free; 1890 rate, 2 cents per pound.
 
 144 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 Chloroform, proposed rate, 25 cents per pound; 1894 rate, 25 cents 
 T^prnound- 1890 rate, 25 cents per pound. 
 
 ^ColSon, proposed rate, 40 cents per pound; 1894 rate, 40 cents per 
 pound; 1890 rate, 50 cents per pound. ..,, ^ , 
 
 Copperas, or sulpliate of iron, proposed rate, one-fafth cent per pound ; 
 
 advanced in value 
 10 per cent ad 
 
 valorem as now. ^ A specific rite of duty can not be made to apply. A 
 drao-net clause, such as this, covers a multitude of articles, too numer- 
 ouslo mention in detail, and varying greatly in value. An ad valorem 
 rate can not be avoided. 
 
 Ether, sulphuric, proposed rate, 40 cents per pound ; 1894 rate, 40 
 cents per pound; 1890 rate, 40 cents per pound. 
 
 Ether, spirits nitrous (alcoholic prepaiation), ])roposed rate, 2o cents 
 per pound; 1894 rate, 25 cents per pound; 1890 rate, 25 cents per 
 
 pound. 
 
 Ethers: Fruit ethers, oils, or essences (ah-oliolic i)reparations), pro- 
 posed rate, $2 per pound; 1894 rate, $2.50 per pound ; 189(» rate, *2 per 
 pouud. 
 
 Ethers of all kinds, n. o. p. f., proposed rate, 81 per pound; 1894 rate, 
 $1 per pound; 1890 rate, $1 per pound. 
 
 Glycerin, crude, not inirified, proposed rate. 1 cent \)vr ik»um(1: 1894 
 rate, 1 cent per pound; 1890 rate, I'i cents per pound. 
 
 Glycerin, refined, proposed rate, 3 cents per pound; 1894 rate. :\ cents 
 per pound; 1890 rate, 4^ cents per pound. 
 
 Iodine, resnblimed, proposed rate, 20 cents per pound; l.soi, free; 
 1890 rate, 30 cents per pound. This preparation should certainly be 
 dutiable. Japanese resublimed iodine is now sent here. The question 
 is Japanese against American labor and wages. 
 
 Iodoform (a preparation of iodine), i)roi)Osed rate, *1 per i)ound ; 
 1894 rate, $1 per pound ; 1890 rate, 81.50 per pound. The sunw remarks 
 as to Japanese labor and wages apply here. 
 
 Magnesia, calcined, proposed rate, 7 cents per])<)und; 1894 rate, 7 
 cents per i)ound; 1890 rate. Scents per pound. 
 
 Magnesia, sulphate, or epsom salt, proposed rate, one-fifth cent per 
 pound; 1894 rate, one-fifth cent per pound; 1890 rate, three-tenths cent 
 per pound. 
 
 Morphia or morphine and all salts thereof, proposed rate, 50 cents 
 per ounce; 1894 rate, 50 cents per ounce; 1890 rate, 50 cents per ounce. 
 Morphine is made from gum opium, and gum opium comes mainly from 
 Turkey — some comes from Persia (none comes to this country from the 
 East Indies or China). Opium fluctuates Aery much in price, being 
 influenced largely by the extent of the crop, which varies greatly. A 
 large crop means low prices and a small crop high i)rices. Of course, 
 manufacturers of morphine have no control over the opium crops, e. g. 
 the same grade of opium that sold at 8 shillings and 5 pence ])er pound 
 November, 1896, sold at 12 shiUings and 9 pence per pound May, 1S93. 
 
 Mori)hia or morphine and the various salts thereof are manufactured 
 in this country quite largely, and are of undoubted purity and general 
 excellence. Eifty cents per ounce has been regarded as a fair rate of 
 duty, based upon average price of opium, by all i)recedini;- Ways and 
 Means Committees, and Mr. Clifton R. Breckinridge and others looked 
 into the matter closely. 
 
 Oil, fusel, or amylic alcohol, proposed rate, 10 per cent ad valorem ; 
 1894 rate, 10 per cent ad valorem; 1890 rate, 10 per cent ad valorem.
 
 SCHEDULE OF RATES. 145 
 
 Opium, aq. ext. of, for medicinal use, and tincture of, as laudanum, 
 and all other liquid preparations of opium, n. o. p. f., 20 per cent ad 
 valorem ; 1 894 rate, 40 per cent ad valorem ; 1890 rate, 20 per cent ad 
 valorem. 
 
 Opium, containing less than 9 per cent of morphine, and opium pre- 
 pared for suiokinf?, jtroposed rate, $G per pound; 1894 rate, §0 jier 
 pound; 1890 rate, 812 per pound. 
 
 POTASH. 
 
 Bichromate and chromate, ])roposed rate, 3 cents per pound; 1894 
 rate, 2."> i)er cent ad valorem; 1890 rate, 3 cents i)er i)ound. 
 
 Caustic' or hy<lrate of (when refined), in sticks or rolls, proposed 
 rate, o cents per ixmnd; 1894, free; 1890, 1 cent i>er i)ound. 
 
 Cyanide, ])r()posed rate, 10 cents i)er pound. 
 
 Hydriodate, iodide, and iodate, jjroposetl rate, 25 cents per pound; 
 1894 rate, 2") cents i)er jxmnd; 1.S90 rate, 50 cents per pound. 
 
 Prussiate of, red, ]>roposcd rate, 10 cents i)er jjound: 1894 rate, 25 
 per cent; 1S90 rate, !(► cents jier i)Ound. 
 
 Prussiate of, yellow, jjroposed rate, 5 cents per pound; 1894 rate, 25 
 per cent; 1890 rate, 5 cents per pound. 
 
 PREPARATIONS. 
 
 All medicinal preparations, including? medicinal proprietary prepara- 
 tions of w liiih alcohol is a component jiart, or in the preparation of 
 which alcohol is used, inclndinj; also medicinal coal tar preparations, 
 50 cents per pound: I'rovided, That no such preparation shall pay less 
 than 25 j)crcent ad valorem as now. 
 
 All medicinal preparations, including medicinal proprietary prepara- 
 tions of which alcohol is not a component part, and n. o. j). f., proposed 
 rate, 25 per cent ad valorem; 1894 rate, 25 i)er cent ad valorem; 1890 
 rate, 25 ]»cr cent ad valorem. 
 
 Calomel and other mercurial nu'dicinal preparations, proposed rate, 
 30 per cent ad valorem; 1894 rate, 25 per cent ad valorem; 1890 rate, 
 35 ])er cent ad valorem. 
 
 Products or ]tre]>arations known as alkalies, alkaloids, distilled oils, 
 essential oils, ex])res.sed oils, rendered oils, and all combinations of the 
 foregoing, and all chemical compounds and salts, n. o. p. f., proposed 
 rate, 25 i)er cent ad valorem; 1894 rate, 25 per cent ad valorem; 1890 
 rate, 25 per cent ad valorem. Regarding this clause we desire to say 
 that it is one of very great consequence to American manufacturers of 
 line chemicals. The number of fine chemicals made is very consider- 
 able; the number specified very few; consetiuently this drag-net clause 
 means 25 per cent on all unenumerated chemicals, and this practically 
 means that fine chemicals shall have 25 per cent — not more — as a rule. 
 We regard 25 ])er cent as very reasonable. In 1888 the chemical sched- 
 ule was referred to us, and we endeavored to assist the Committee on 
 Ways and .Means. Mr. Clifton R. Breckinridge gave special attention 
 to this clause and had the rate fixed at 25 per cent. He was good 
 enough to acknowledge our assistance and to refer to us very kindly in 
 
 ' An entirely different article from ordinary commercial caustic potash. 
 T H 10
 
 146 ' SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 a speech (1888), which, of course, appeared in the Congressional Record, 
 and can readily be referred to should you desn^e to do so. 
 
 QUINIA, OR QUININE, AND ALL SALTS THEREOF, INCLUDINC. SUL- 
 PHATE, AND ALL OTHER ALKALOIDS OF THE CINCHONA BARKS 
 AND ALL SALTS THEREOF. 
 
 Before entering into the consideration of a duty on quinine, we desire 
 to say that there are four important alkaloids found m rinc-hona bark 
 namely, nuinidine, quinine, cinchonidine, cnichonine. They are all ()t 
 ffreat value in the treatment of fever. Experiments have shown qiiini- 
 dine ratio of failure per 1,000 cases treated, 0; (luinine, ratio of failure 
 per 1,000 cases treated, 7; cinchonidine, ratio of failure per 1,000 cases 
 treated, 10; cinchonine, ratio offailure per l,000cases treated, 23 These 
 experiments were conducted under the superintendence ot Mr. Howards, 
 of the celebrated firm of Howards c^' Sons, London (inanuhu-turmg 
 chemists). We give you this point that you may know that <iuiniiie is 
 not the only valuable alkaloid contained in cinchona bark. (Quinine has 
 been preferred, although quinidine was found by :Mr. Howards to be 
 more effective. There is considerable demand for (luinidine for certain 
 preparations, but the rule is quinine. Cinchonidine and cinchonineare 
 both effective. They are very cheap, the last named selling at about Ti 
 cents per ounce, in a large way for sulphate. We term them the "«'heaper 
 alkaloids of cinchona bark," wlien speaking of them as a class. The 
 duty removed by act of 1870 was 20 per cent a<l valorem. Now 20 per 
 cent is not regarded as a high rate of duty, if our tariiV acts can be 
 taken as an indication. We were selected for special legislation and 
 seemingly punished for having brought to perfect i(»n an industry ot 
 great importance; and for being able to supi»Iy the home market, to a 
 very great extent at least (and this under a 20 per cent duty), the 20 
 per cent was struck out, while far higher r''^«^s were acciutled to all other 
 manufacturers, as is a fact Avell known. !So conspicuous was the zeal 
 to hurry legislation that the crude material remained dutiable at 10 per 
 cent, while the finished ])roduct was given free entry. 
 
 The bark used came largely from the East Indies. It was bought in 
 Europe. It had to be so boug..^, and 10 i)er cent was imijosed nmler 
 the Cape of Good Hope discriminating duty clause on all bark pro 
 duced in the East Indies bought at the London or Amsterdam bark 
 sales. The duty was removed from (juinine in .Inly 1. IS7!>. The 10 
 per cent Cai)e of Good Hope discriminating duty clause was rei)eale<l 
 in May 6, 1882, to go into effect .Linuary 1. 1SS3. We would direct 
 attention to this point particularly. Quinine was made free July 1, 
 1879, to go into immediate effect. The bark from which it was made, 
 if of East Indies growth, bought in Euro])e, remained dutiable until 
 January 1, 1883, although the repealing act was of date. May 6, 1882. 
 Such manifest injustice needs no comment. 
 
 For very many years the bark came exclusively from South America. 
 The Dutch and Enghsh introduced the cultivation of cinchona bark 
 into India, Java, Ceylon, etc. The United States had nothing to do 
 with the cultivation of cinchona bark. The Dutch and English made 
 a great success. In 1861 the first installment of seeds arrived in Cey- 
 lon from South America. In 18G9 a little lot was exported, say, 28 
 ounces. The ouantity produced so increased that during the season of 
 1886-87 there was exported 17,310.719 pounds. You have therefore pre- 
 sented to you the result of Dutch and British enterprise, as explaining
 
 SCHEDULE OF RATES. 147 
 
 why tlie price of cinclioua bark gradually lowered. As the price of 
 bark lowered so did that of (luiniiie. lu 1877, ^lay 12, English qui- 
 niue sold at KJs. Gd.; 1878, July G, at 12s.; 1870, July 19, at i;3s. 6d.; 
 1880, July 17, at 12s. 8d. English quinine is quoted in London to-day 
 at Is. per ounce in 1-ounce vials; French, at Is. 2d. per ounce, in 
 1 ounce vials; German and Italian, in bulk, at 9d. American quinine 
 today (P. & W.), 20 cents per ounce, bulk, same as fixed upon by us 
 (for our own brand only); (merman, in bulk, in the United States, 18 
 cents per ounce. Taking English quinine, simi)ly to illustrate, you 
 observe IGs. and Gd. in 1877 ecjuals 84.12A per ounce, and Is. in 180J 
 e(iuals 25 cents, 1 ounce vials included. Surely tlie Ways and Means 
 Committee will not assert that the removal of a 20 per cent duty will 
 cause a rednction of 00 ])cr cent in the price of any article in England, 
 France, (lermany. and Italy. 
 
 As stated to your comndttee by our Mr. A. H. Jones, the reduction 
 in price was subse(|uent in date to the removal of the duty. So it was 
 subsequent to the Centennial Exposition, or any event that took i)lace 
 prior to 1870. But the Congress of the ITnited States did not bring 
 about the low prices by any legislation. It is true, as stated to your 
 committee, that we intimated inability to compete and probability of 
 abandoning the manufacture. We can not comi)ete successfully, under 
 one-sided free trade, and <lisj)arity in wages paid. France imposes an 
 enormous duty on <|uiiiiiu'; the United States gives free entry. Ger- 
 mans can get girls, wh() work in the fields in the summer, to accept 12i 
 cents ])er <lay in tlie winter lor such work as we i»ay '*."> to >=G j)er week, 
 and men to accept 2 marks or 4S cents i)er day against our 82. We do 
 not i)roless to be able to meet such competition. We have made qui- 
 nine almost from its diseovery. We have continued to make it more 
 from jnide than for ])rofit, since the removal of the duty. Had it not 
 been for us, there would be no strictly American quinine to be had. 
 The industry would have ceased to exist loug since. There are two 
 makers of (piiniiie in the Tnited States. There were five. One failed 
 and two stopjied working. We are one of the survivors. Our (|uinine 
 rei)resents American capital, skill, labor, and wages, absolutely and 
 entirely. As stated to your comndttee, we never imposed restrictions 
 upon our customers as to the prices they were to charge for (juiiiiue, or 
 for anything whatever. We never did, we do not, we shall not. This 
 was merely one of the many romances connected with (|uinine literature. 
 We never enjoyed a monoi)oly. We had a 20 i)er cent duty. Others 
 had 4(> and "iO and GO per cent and over. We had no exclusive right to 
 manufacture. Anyone had the right to engage in the business, as you 
 well know. Quite a number tried, but very few succeeded. We did 
 succeed. We made a good article, gave satisfaction to the trade, to 
 physicians, to consumers, and we enjoyed the preference lor years. 
 With labor as in (iermany, Italy, and France we would not fear com- 
 petition. We might not be able to export, but we would hold this 
 market against all comers. As it is, three-fourths of the quinine sold 
 here is German. 
 
 We certainly think that there should be a duty imposed of, say, 5 
 cents per ounce. The Government would derive a revenue, consum- 
 ers would pay no more, for the great bulk of the quinine consumed 
 enters into pills, pills of 2 grains and 3 grains, sold by the 100, and the 
 difference in i)rice on 100 pills would be imperceptible. It Mould be a 
 duty of 5 cents on 437^ grains on an article taken by grains. Further
 
 148 SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 than this we do not believe that the fall 5 cents per ounce wonld be 
 ndded to nresent prices niider any circumstances. r. ., 
 
 Forei^rs would reduce figures in all probability and help pay for the 
 prfvneTof doTng M^ h?re. What applies to other articles applies 
 
 to qubfine the policy for one should be the policy for all, whether free 
 tmde or protection."^ We fulfilled all that any manufacturer could 
 piomise to do. We made a standard article and we made it in sufh- 
 S quantity to meet all ordinary demands. Having been requested 
 to give the number of factories, we reply, say, Germauy 4, England 2, 
 Frince 4, or about 10 in Europe. It is diflicult to get at these ac^cu- 
 rately, because there may be (and are) some who pose as makers but 
 buy German, and do not make in fact. Add two in the United States 
 and you have 12 all told, as far as we know. , , ^ , 
 
 Soda, caustic, in rolls or sticks, refined, proposed rate, 5 cents per 
 pound. Same remarks apply as to potassa, caustic, refined, m rolls or 
 
 Soda, bichromate and chromate, proposed rate, 3 cents per pound; 
 1894 rate, 25 per cent ad valorem; 1890 rate, 3 cents per pound. 
 
 Soda, sulphate of soda, or salt cake, or niter cake, proposed rate, 
 one-tenth cent per pound; 1894, free; 18<>0 rate, $1.25 per ton. 
 
 Strychnia or strychnine and all salts thereof, proposed rate, 30 cents 
 per ounce; 1894 rate, 30 cents per ounce; 1890 rate, 40 cents peronnce. 
 
 Tartrate of soda and potassa, or roclielle salt, proposed rate. 3 cents 
 per pouudj 1894 rate, 2 cents per pound; 18!M) rate, 3 cents pound. 
 
 Powers ^: Weightman. 
 A. II. Jones. 
 
 SULPHATE OF QUININE. 
 (Free list, paragraph 601.) 
 
 Philadelphia, December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The undersigu'ed respectfully request that quinia, sulphate of, and all 
 alkaloids or salts of cinchona bark be stricken from tlie free list and 
 that the articles berated under paragraph GO, viz: "Products or prep- 
 arations, etc., and all chemical compounds and salts not specially 
 provided for," or that a specific duty be imi)osed. Under present con- 
 ditions it is impossible for the American manufacturer to compete suc- 
 cessfully with the foreign makers. The duty of 20 per cent was 
 removed in 1879. The quantity of sulphate of quinine iini)orted in 1870 
 was 228,348 ounces; sulphate of quinine and other salts and alkaloids 
 of cinchona bark imported in 1896 was 3,359,818 ounces; average value 
 per ounce in 1879 was $2.75; in 1896, 23i cents. 
 
 The very large production of cinchona bark in the idantations of 
 Java, Ceylon, India, and Africa, which is used for the manufacture of 
 sulphate of quinia, has caused the great reduction in the value of the 
 bark and the present low price of quinine. The value of cinchona bark 
 imported in 1879 was $2,094,514; the value of cinchona bark imported 
 in 1896 was $166,004. 
 
 ROSENGARTEN & SoNS.
 
 SODA. 149 
 
 SODA. 
 
 AESENIATE OF SODA. 
 
 (Paragraph 60.) 
 
 Boston, Becemher 84^ 1896. 
 Committee on^^Vays and ]NrEANS: 
 
 Wo would respectfully call the attention of your committee to the 
 article arson iate of soda, which now bears a duty of 25 per cent as a 
 "chemical compound." As arsenate of soda, as facts show, is fre- 
 quently entered at an undervaluation, thereby cheating the Govern- 
 ment and thereby placing the domestic manufacturer at a disadvan- 
 tage, we respectfully recommend that tlie article ''arsenate of soda" be 
 specified in the new tariff and a duty of 2 cents per pound be imposed. 
 liespectliiUy, 
 
 John Shaw & Oo. 
 
 SAL SODA. 
 
 (Parafirai.h 67.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. ALONZO L. THOMSEN, OF BALTIMORE. 
 
 Monday, December JJ8, 1S96. 
 
 Mr. Thomsen read the following paper: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and (Jentlemen of the (Committee on Ways and Means: 
 Believing that you desire to report a bill which will produce sulticieut 
 revenue for tlie country and at the same time eimble the American 
 manufacturer to continue the American standard of wages and protect 
 the American labor against the cheap labor of the Old World, 1 take 
 the liberty of offering the following suggestions: 
 
 Sal soda or soda crystals: The experience of the last Jew years has 
 abundantly proven that when the duty on sal soda is the same as on 
 soda ash. from which it is made, the Government receives a larger rev- 
 enue than under the present law, which makes sal soda dutiable at 
 one-eighth cent per pound and soda ash at one-fourth cent per pound. 
 
 In order to produce the same revenue under the present law at one- 
 eighth cent as under the old law at one fourth cent, it is necessary to 
 import twice the number of ])Ounds. 
 
 Sal soda being made from soda ash — 1 pound of ash making about 
 2J pounds of sal — it necessarily Ibllows that an increased importation 
 of sal soda decreases the importation of soda ash and the resulting 
 revenue proportionately. For instance, under the present law 250 
 pounds sal soda, at one-eighth cent per pound, produce 31^ cents 
 duty, levss the duty on 100 pimnds soda ash to make same, at one-fourth 
 cent per pound, 25 cents; net revenue to the Government, G^ cents. 
 
 Under the old tariff law, 250 pounds sal soda, one-fourth cent per 
 pound, produce G2i cents duty, less duty on 100 pounds soda ash, 25 
 cents; net revenue to- Government, 37^ cents, as against G^ cents under 
 present law.
 
 150 SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 The present law is also unfair to the American producer, as it taxes 
 his raw material almost as much as it protects his hnished product, the 
 net protection being 2 J cents per 100 pounds, which protection is more 
 than absorbed by the fact that the American manufacturer, in order to 
 produce the same quantity as his foreign competitor, must have a cap- 
 ital as much larger as the amount of duty which he must pay on the 
 soda ash— his crude material. 
 
 Again, as the large majority of American exports are bulky, while 
 the imports are light, steamship companies carry heavy goods, such as 
 sal soda, at very low rates— at present about 6 cents per 100 pounds 
 from Europe to America— which is, in fact, much less than the local 
 freight from New York to Baltimore, Boston, or Philadelphia, which 
 difference of itself is more than the protection aflorded by the present 
 
 In view of the foregoing facts, I think I may confidently expect that 
 your committee will make the duty on sal soda and soda ash the same 
 as it had been for many years until chinged by the tariff of 1893. 
 
 Alonzo L. Thomsen. 
 
 Mr. Evans. How much would it be at one-fourth of a cent a pound? 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. It would be 15 cents a hundred. 
 
 Mr. Evans. What is sal soda worth? 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. About 65 or 75 cents a hundred pounds. But the 
 point I want to bring out is this decrease in duty. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Is that the foreign price — about 50 or GO? 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. That's alow price j the average price of sal soda is 70 
 or 80 cents. 
 
 Mr. EvaNs. Abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. In America. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I ask about the foreign price. 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. The foreign price would be so much less. 
 
 Mr. Evans. About 55 cents ? 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. About that. The present price is low owing to 
 depression and the attempt on the part of the foreign manufacturers 
 to prevent the ash from being made in this country. 
 
 They put the price down very low in order to prevent our friends from 
 Syracuse and other parts from developing their plants. The i)oint I wish 
 to make is that the decrease in duty has not produced as much revenue 
 as under the old law. Under the old law at one-fourth of a cent the 
 revenue was twice as much as under the present law at one-eighth of a 
 cent. At the time the change was made it was expected that the tak- 
 ing off of the duty on sal soda would stimulate the importation, but 
 inasmuch as it stimulates importation, it decreases the importation of 
 soda ash, and the net duty is practically nothing. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Are you through with that subject? 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. Yes, sir; I have finished. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I see by the statement before me that the qnantitv 
 of importations was 27,777,488 pounds in 1893 and only 18,434,024 in 
 1896. 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. That is less competition now than before? 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. No, sir; we have had to meet that competition. We 
 did not propose to sit down and let the foreigners take our business 
 away without a fight, and so we have stood up against them. But we 
 ao not think It IS right to ask us to keep up this fight. In order to 
 iteep It up and compete we have had to work for nothing.
 
 SODA. 161 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is tlie per cent of this product that is 
 imported and what per cent is made in this country'? 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. That I could not tell you. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You do not kuow, therefore, what the extent the 
 competition you have had to meet is in quantity"? 
 
 Mr, Thomsen. No, sir; the competition depends upon different 
 conditions, such as freight rates. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You don't know what proportion of the market you 
 now hold and what proportion is supplied by foreigners? 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. jS^o, sir ; I could not tell you that. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I see that under the old law it was 29.6, and under 
 the new law it is 26.59. 
 
 Mr. Thomsen. Yes, sir ; but then you don't deduct the duty we have 
 paid on our raw material. Your committee, three or four years ago, 
 started out with the statement we were to have free raw material. 
 When it came to soda ash, Mr. Wilson said that the duty on soda ash 
 would bring in a revenue of $1,000,000, and therefore they could not 
 put that on the free list. It left the duty on our raw material the same 
 as before and cut in half the duty on our finished product. 
 
 SODA ASH. 
 
 (Paragraph 67.) 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio, Jannary 6, 1897, 
 Deab Sir: Permit me to call your attention to an important prod- 
 uct. I refer to soda ash, the basis of which, of course, is salt, lime- 
 stone, ammonia, and coal. For many years the consumption in this 
 country has been from 400 to 800 tons per day, all of which has been 
 supplied by European manufacturers, and at a cost of from $25 to $35 
 per ton. We have in Ohio alone the basis of this product that we 
 could produce all the soda ash for the next fifty years if we had some 
 such stimulus as we had under the McKinley bill — not to the same 
 extent, however. The present duty on soda ash is one-fourth cent per 
 pound, and I am of the opinion if that was made one-half cent per 
 pound that it would stinuilate capital to erect the necessary works in this 
 State and Michigan that in a few years would create a competition 
 similar to the tin plate, as it has been demonstrated that we can make 
 a superior quality of soda ash, of a higher grade than that which is 
 imported, but the necessary capital to equip a plant for a production 
 of 100 tons a day involves at least a quarter million of money. 
 
 Cleveland is now erecting such works, ;nid hopes to be in operation 
 by the first of April or May. Wyandotte, Mich., has already a small 
 plant in operation. Syracuse has a large plant that is partly owned 
 by the European parties who have heretofore supplied this country with 
 soda ash, looking forward, no doubt, to a time when American manu- 
 factures would spring up and be protected so as to keep millions and 
 millions of dollars heretofore sent to them, and give employment to 
 American labor. 
 
 I hope that salt will be restored to the McKinley schedule, which 
 was 8 cents per 100 pounds, $1.60 for a net ton, which is all that the 
 salt people ask for, and is simply to equalize the freight. As it is now, 
 the English control the entire Atlantic Coast trade, bringing over 
 their salt at a nominal freight as ballast, with labor at from 65 cents 
 to 80 cents a day that we are paying from $1.50 to $1.75 for. You, of 
 course, remember that the Wilson bill placed that on the free list. 
 
 D. A. Daholbii.
 
 152 SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE MATHIESON ALKALI WORKS. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We ask for duties as follows: ^ ^-.oha i 4. 
 
 Bicarbonate of soda.-Act of 1SS3, 1 cent a pound; act of 1890,1 cent 
 a pound ; Wilson bill, one-half cent a pound. \\ e ask the duty retained 
 
 ^^ Hydrate m' caustic soda.— Act of 1883, 1 cent a pound; act of 1800, 
 1 ceiit a pound ; Wilson hill, one-half cent a pound. We wish a specific 
 duty of 1 cent a pound. 
 
 iSoda ash.— Act of 1883, one-fourth cent a pound; act of 1890. one- 
 fourth cent a pound ; Wilson bill, one-fourth cent a pound. We wish a 
 specific dutv of three-eighths of a cent a pound. 
 
 Sal soda or soda crystals.— Act of 1883, one- fourth cent a pound; act 
 of 1890, one-fourth cent a pound; Wilson bill, one-eighth cent a pound. 
 We wish a specific duty of one-fourth c^ut a pound. ^ 
 
 i 
 
 $1 
 
 per 100 pounds; act of 1890, in bulk 8 cents per 100 pounds, in bags 12 
 cents per 100 pounds; Wilson bill, free. We wish a specific duty of 8 
 cents per 100 pounds in bulk and 12 cents per 100 pounds in bags or 
 packages. 
 
 Bleaching poicders. — Have been free. We ask for three-fourths of a 
 cent a pound. 
 
 Ours IS the first industry for the nianufaoture of bleaching ]>nwder 
 ever established in this country of any magnitude. The serious increase 
 in the cost of construction of a plant in this country over a like i)lant 
 in England is a handicap to start with. One of the materials entering 
 into the construction, and by far tlie largest item (viz, sheet lead), car- 
 ries a duty at present of nearly 100 per cent. It is manifestly unfair 
 that our product should be thus haini)ered for the benefit of otlier 
 industries in this country and yet bear no share in the benefits accorded 
 to manufacturers who have furnished us with the material of construc- 
 tion in so large a degree. Three-quarters of a cent a ]>ouiid would 
 enable us to establish this industry here permanently and to meet the 
 serious competition which our production will at once engender. 
 
 Hydrate or canstic soda. — This is an article most largely manufactured 
 in this country by first dissolving soda ash, causticizing'the liquor, and 
 then an expensive and troublesome system of boiling it down and con- 
 centrating it to crystallization. A reduction of duty imi)08ed by the 
 Wilson bill has been a serious handicap to the manuiacturers here, as 
 there is a large surplus of this article manufactured in England, and a 
 greater possibility of manufacture by the plants there in existence. The 
 United States is used largely as a country to disjuxse of their surplus at 
 any price which the market here will alford, and to afford adequate pro- 
 tection to the American manufactures 1 cent a pound is not more than 
 adequate. We ask that at least it be restored to 1 cent a pound. 
 
 Soda ash.— The present tariff of one-fourth of a cent a i)onnd in our 
 opinion should be increased to three-eighths of a cent to afford the pro- 
 tection necessary against the conditions existing abroad. There is a 
 capacity of English manufacture largely in excess of the demands of 
 the trade there, and they have adjusted a scale of prices for English 
 consumption more than double that which they are willing to export to
 
 SODA. 153 
 
 the TJnitod States to dispose of their surplus, selling here at a severe 
 loss, and as a consequence forcing prices in this country below the point 
 of protitable prodnction. 
 
 j^'a/ soda or soda crystals. — This is an article manufactured by a 
 great number of small concerns scattered from the Mississippi Eiver 
 to the New England coast. They buy the soda ash as a crude nuiterial 
 and convert it into sal soda. Even at the duty of one-fonrth of a cent 
 a pound which existed prior to the Wilson bill large quantities of this 
 was inqtorted, and at the reduction in duty it has been impossible for 
 many of the domestic makers to continue operation. We earnestly ask 
 for a reinstall ment of the one- fourth of a cent a pound protection duty. 
 
 In the construction of plants for the manufacture of soda ash, 
 caustic soda, and bleaching powders the cost of construction is largely 
 in excess of that for a similar plant in England, being quite oO per 
 cent larger here than there. The development which is now in prog- 
 ress in this county is of such serious moment to the English manufac- 
 turers that in all of the articles they have eviiu-ed a purpose to sell 
 here at greatly lower prices than they are willing to sell at home, lor 
 the ap])arent purpose, if possible, of obstructing and retarding the 
 development of the inclustries here. On bleaching powders especially 
 the English people luive for many years held a ])ractical monopoly of 
 the American trade, and for several years past, and at present, main- 
 tain a i)rice for America greater than the protection wc ask above the 
 values it was selling at ]trior to their monopolizing the trade, as it is 
 to-day i^ractically in one exceedingly large concern in England. They 
 have been able to do this from the fact that no tariff on this article has 
 del)arred manufacturers from entering the field to produce in this 
 country. Our plant is an exceedingly ex])ensive and elaborate one, 
 calling for large e\])eiuliture of money and high technical skill for its 
 manipulation ; we therefore earnestly pray it be called upon to share its 
 proportion of the revenue as conq)ared with other industries in this 
 country. The ocean freights on this article are to day named from 
 Liverpool to interior points in the I'nited States exactly the same as 
 would cost from our seaboards or from i)oints of manufacture here to 
 those points of delivery, thus i»racti<ally eliminating any source of 
 protection which might apparently- exist in the way of freight ship- 
 ments from abroad. 
 
 The amount of cajtital invested in our individual plant is nearly 
 $4,()0(),()0(», giving employment to about 1,000 jjersons. 
 
 The fact is to be noted that while bleaching powders have been 
 admitted to this country free of duty, American consumers have been 
 forced to pay a higher per cent of profit on their actual cost than they 
 have ])aid on soila ash, caustic soda, and other articles in this line of 
 mauul'acture that have been protected by being on the tariff list. The 
 reason for this state of affairs is that American manufacturers have 
 grown u]) under the protection that the tariff afforded the other articles, 
 and the lack of such protection to bleaching powders, coupled with the 
 knowledge that their production here without any protection would at 
 once precipitate the severest competition from the foreign monojjoly 
 now controlling this article, has thus far prevented any plants being 
 erected iu this country. 
 
 The Mathieson Alkali Works. 
 By Edward E. Arnold, Frcsident.
 
 154 SCHEDULE A. — CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 SILICATE OF SODA. 
 (Paragraph 68.) 
 
 Boston, December 24, 1896. 
 Committee on Wats and Means: 
 
 We would respectfully call the attention of your committee to the 
 present duty of three-eighths of 1 cent per pound on silicate of soda or 
 other alkaline silicate as being inadequate, and earnestly pray that the 
 duty be changed to one-half of 1 cent per pound. 
 
 Eespectfully, ^ ^ „ ^ 
 
 John Shaw & Co. 
 
 SULPHUR. 
 
 (Paragraph 71.) 
 
 New York, December 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Wats and Means: 
 
 The memorial of the undersigned manufacturers of refined sul]ihur 
 respectfully represents that tbey require a reasonable protection on 
 their products in order to enable them to compete against cheap labor 
 in foreign countries. 
 
 Tariff act of 1890, Schedule A, paragraph 88, reads : " Sulphur, refined, 
 $8 a ton; sublimed, or flowers of, $10 a ton." 
 
 Tariif act of 1894, Schedule A, paragraph 71, reads: "Sulphur, sub- 
 limed, refined, or flowers of, 20 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 They would respectfully suggest the following change in the proposed 
 bill: 
 
 Sulphur, refined, sublimed, or flowers of, $6 a ton. 
 
 At present prices of refined sulphur in Europe the now existing 
 duty of 20 per cent would amount to about $6 a ton. 
 
 A specific duty is proposed as being more equitable and less liable 
 to open the door to frauds on the revenue. 
 
 The undersigned would also respectfully request tliat crude sulphur 
 remain on the free list, same as under tariff acts of 1890 and 1894. 
 
 Battelle & Kenwick. 
 T. & S. C. White. 
 C. J. Shaw. 
 
 Nassau SuLrnuE Works. 
 G. J. Beggs, Proprietor. 
 
 SUINIAC. 
 
 (Paragraph 72.) 
 
 P,^, ^ Boston, December 16, 1896. 
 
 Committee on Wats and Means : 
 
 The undersigned would respectfully call the attention of your honor- 
 able committee to the subject of ground Sicily sumac. 
 
 nir.'^ ^li'"'^^ ^ff.'^f ^y P^^^ ^ ^P^cifi<^ <^"ty of tbree-tenths of 1 cent 
 per pound, say $0.72 per ton of 2,240 pounds, and sold for about $60
 
 SUMAC. 155 
 
 to $65 ex dock America, duty and all charges paid. Under the McKin- 
 ley tariff bill the duty was assessed at four-tenths of 1 cent per pound, 
 say $8,96 per ton, and the price was about the same. Under the present 
 Wilson tariff bill the duty was changed to an ad valorem duty of 10 
 per cent. At the present cost of sumac at Sicily this duty amounts 
 to about $3 per ton, equal to, say, one-eighth of a cent per pound when 
 reduced to a specific duty. 
 
 We do not seek for a change in this duty as regards the amount 
 levied. In this case it is scarcely a question of protecting a domestic 
 product, as Virginia sumac hardly enters into competition with Sicily 
 sumac, being used for ditterent purposes. 
 
 We would say that Sicily sumac has fallen in price in Palermo, Sicily, 
 from about $50 to $55 per ton "free on board" Palermo to $30 to $32 
 at tlie present time, while Virginian sumac during the same time has 
 only declined in price from $37 to $35. 
 
 We do beg to press on your attention, however, the great desirability 
 of changing the duty from ad valorem to specific. Sicily sumac is sub- 
 stantially of the same value under whatever brand it may be shipped. 
 There is no opportunity for fraud under a specific duty, while under an 
 ad valorem duty, as at present levied, there is the opportunity of false 
 valuation by unscrupulous Sicilian shippers, and, on the other hand, 
 vexatious and needless delays and penalties imposed on honest import- 
 ers by custom house authorities. 
 
 We are much the largest importers of Sicily sumac in this country, 
 but in this matter we speak for substantially the whole trade when we 
 earnestly request you to change the ad valorem duty at present levied 
 to a corresi)onding specific duty. 
 
 We put this matter before you in as concise a form as possible. Of 
 course there are many arguments to be adduced to our statements of 
 above in corroboration of it, but we do not wish to burden your com- 
 mittee with verbose statements regarding the matter, feeling that the 
 above puts the matter clearly and concisely before you. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 W. L. Montgomery & Co. 
 
 Richmond, Va., January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I am largely interested in the manufacture of ground sumac. In the 
 last bill the duty was reduced on ground sumac to 10 per cent ad 
 valorem. I think on the leaf, free. This sumac at present is brought 
 from Sicily with a comparatively low rate of freight — less rate from 
 Sicily to New York and Boston than we can get from Kichmond to 
 New York and Boston. The ad valorem duty amounts to nothing, as 
 they put it very low. There is quite an industry in Virginia in this 
 line and it is a great help to the poorest class of labor we have. The 
 negroes at present gather these leaves from the fence corners, dry 
 them, and bring tliem in. If we could pay a price for it it would circu- 
 late thousands of dollars to the poorest class of labor, as I have stated, 
 that we have in the South, and protect an industry that certainly needs 
 protection. 
 
 Waenee Mooee.
 
 156 
 
 SCHEDULE A. CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 THE T>1UJG :>nLT.ET^S. 
 
 STATEMENTS OF MH. GEORGE R. HILLIER. OF R. HILLIER SON & 
 CO., MILLERS OF DRUGS, NEW YORK CITY, AND MR, MURRAY. 
 
 Monday, December 28, 1896. 
 
 Mr. HiLLiER read the followiiip: paper: 
 
 We, the undersigned drug- millers of the United States, would most 
 earnestly request the committee on tarift" revision to substitute the fol- 
 lowing paragraph for paragraph No. 16i, Schedule A, of the present 
 tariff: 
 
 Drno-s such as barks, beans, berries, bal.^^ams, b,.<ls. bulbous roots, .•xcreKceurcH 
 such as nutgalls, fruits, flowers, dried libers and insects, frraius, Runw an<l num 
 resins, herb.s^ leaves, lichens, mosses, nuts, roots and stems, spices, v«-j:««trtble», B«'od8 
 aromatic and seeds of morbid growth, weeds and woods used exprcwsly for dyeing, 
 also chemicals, such as oxalic and tartaric acid, alum, muriate of ammonia, cobalt, 
 bichromate, chlorate and prussiatc of i>otash. copp.ras, .roam tartar, lulb-r's earth 
 and pumice stone if advanced in value or condition by refining, grinding or by otUtT 
 process of manufacture and not specially provided for in this act, three (3) cent* per 
 pound. 
 
 This will make the duty on powdered drugs the same as powdered 
 spices. 
 
 For the past three years a large part of our machinery luia stood idle, 
 as we could not import the crude drugs and mill them and jmt them on 
 the market at the price that the foreign drug miller sold them delivered 
 in this country. 
 
 In fact, a number of powdered drugs are imi)orted for leas money tbao 
 we can purchase the crude drugs, as per memorandum below. 
 
 Article. 
 
 Foreijrn 
 price, 
 crude, 
 cost and 
 freight, 
 Xew 
 York. 
 
 Loss of 
 
 tare (per 
 
 cent). 
 
 Loss in 
 
 maniifuc- 
 
 tiiring 
 
 (per 
 cent). 
 
 Cost of 
 package 
 on 100 
 pounds. 
 
 Cost of 
 manufac- 
 turing 
 
 100 
 
 pniinds 
 
 in United 
 
 Status. 
 
 TotJil not 
 rost in 
 Tnited 
 Stalca. 
 
 Fon-ign 
 prie.- for 
 powdtn'd 
 on do<'k, 
 Now 
 York, 
 including 
 duty. 10 
 per cent, 
 and coHt 
 of pack- 
 age. 
 
 Diffpr- 
 enr« in 
 favor of 
 forfign 
 drug 
 miller. 
 
 Althea root 
 
 Gentian root 
 
 Hellebore root 
 
 Licorice root 
 
 Orris root, flor 
 
 Cents. 
 9 
 64 
 4 
 2| 
 17 
 
 3% =.27 
 20,0 =.13 
 2% =.08 
 2%=.0-.J 
 296 =.34 
 
 8Q6=.72 
 10% =.65 
 
 8% =.32 
 100o=.28i 
 
 6% = 1.02 
 
 .12 
 .12 
 .12 
 .12 
 .12 
 
 CenU. 
 2 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 12.11 
 9.40 
 6.52 
 5.34i 
 
 20.48 
 
 6.00 
 5.50 
 4.81 
 4.121 
 19.26 
 
 B.ftl 
 8.90 
 1.71 
 1.32 
 
 Las 
 
 We recommend that specific duties be substituted for ad valorem 
 duties wherever po.ssible, for articles pertaining to the drug and 
 chemical trade, for the following reasons: 
 
 The experience of many years proves that specific duties favor the 
 importation of purer and higher grades of drugs, chemicals, and medic- 
 inal preparations, while ad valorem duties favor the unscruimlous im- 
 porter, and induce false invoicing by dishonest ])arties. 
 
 We also recommend that legislation regarding the tarift" be completed
 
 THE DRUG MILLERS. 157 
 
 as speedily as possible, to the end that the business interests of the 
 country may not sutler any unnecessary disturbance. 
 
 MuiJRAY »S: XiCKELL MfGt. Co., Chicago, III. 
 
 K. HiLLiER's Son Co., Neic York, X. Y. 
 
 Allaire Woodward & Co., Peoria, III. 
 
 McIlvaine Bros., Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 J. L. UoPKiNS & Co., New York, N. Y. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Are the duties under the present law the same as 
 under the act of 1890? 
 
 Mr. IliLLiER. Yes; 10 per cent. 
 
 The ('iiAiRMAN. You want the duties raised beyond the act of 1800! 
 
 Mr. IliLLiKR. We ask that the duties be raised to 3 cents a pound 
 8pe<'itic. 
 
 The Chairman. Take licorice root, and it would l)e a raise of 100 per 
 cent. 
 
 Mr. IIiLLiKR. Yes, sir, at 2} tor the whole. lN»\vdcr is sold in this 
 country for the same price atter paying a duty of 10 i)er cent. 
 
 Mr. Payne. 1 notice that you have left out the clause in the fore- 
 going that articles whi<h are not edible should i)ay a duty of 10 per 
 cent. 
 
 Mr. HiLLiEE. It is the intention to have that whole paragraph in. 
 
 Mr. I'AVNE. Then that was a mistake. Do you remember what the 
 duty was uiidrr tliis para;^^rapli in the act of lss;{? 
 
 Mr. I liLLi F,u. It has been 1<> i)cr rent right along. 
 
 Mr. I)Ai,ZKLL. Wiiat is the reason the articles mentioned in this 
 l)aragraph are grouped together? They difter largely, and you have 
 them at the same duty. 
 
 Mr. IliLLiKR. We merely take the foreign price current as they run. 
 
 Mr. Dalzkll. In previous taritl" acts they seem to have been grouped 
 together. What is the rt'ason for that? 
 
 Mr. lliLLiKR. lU'cause they all refer to drugs. 
 
 The Chairman. If you put in a round spceilie «luty at 2J to 17 cents 
 a pouuil, wouhl not yonr duties be a little out ol ■pr()]>orti(»n? Of course 
 as long as you have an ad valorem duty, y(Mi ean put it in any one 
 paragraph. 
 
 Mr. IliLLiER. If we had a specific duty, it would be all right so as 
 t<i have a higher or lower one. The majority of these goods are low, 
 costing from .{ to 10 cents a pound. 
 
 The Chairman. Are these goods of so general a character that there 
 is great dangerof undervaluation, or arc they well known in the market? 
 
 Mr. Hii.i.iKR. They are well known in the market. 
 
 The Chairman. And therefore there is no liability to undervaluation? 
 
 Mr. IIiLLiKR. Not in the crude. 
 
 The Chairman. Not if we use an ad valorem duty? 
 
 Mr. IIiLLiEi{. No, sir: 1 do not think there is. The price is generally 
 well known among merchants. 
 
 The Chairman. You would hardly want the same specific duty on 
 those that are seven-eighths of a cent as on those that are 17 cents, 
 would you? 
 
 Mr. iliLLiER. We only ask what would be fiiir on a 1 cent to a 10 
 cents per pound article. The article here of gentian root, which we 
 have mentioned, is worth 3 to 6 cents a pound in the crude state, but 
 putting that on at 3 cents would be 30 cents per hundred for the manu- 
 factured product. 
 
 The Chaiem:an. Some of these articles are 17 cents!
 
 158 SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 Mr- tTtt t tfu One is, but the others are below 10 cents. 
 
 Mr* pSiE ihe same equivalent ad valorem would be 50 per cent 
 
 Mr". McMiLLiN. The duty on licorice root would average about 100 
 
 ^^Mr^plYNE. Have you any statement of the foreign price of these 
 
 articles • i • *. 
 
 Mr Hlllier. I have a schedule of their price list. 
 The CHAIRMAN. Some would be less than 3 cents, or about the for- 
 
 eign value? 
 Mr. HiLLiER. Yes. ^ i. # 
 
 The Chairman. Three cents would be a heavy dut> T 
 Mr HiLLiEK. It would be. It coats just as much to powder an 
 
 article worth 3 cents as to powder an article costing •■?1..>0. 
 The Chairman. Do you sav that the mere powdering .)t an article 
 
 is worth a difference of 3 cents a pound in this country trom the price 
 
 abroad? 
 
 Mr. HiLLiEE. Yes, sir. . 
 
 The Chairman. What does it cost for liconcc rootT 
 
 Mr HiLLiER. Two cents per pound by the (luantity. 
 
 The Chairman. And you want 3 cents duty on thatt That covers 
 the whole cost of griudiiig and 50 per cent more. • , m * 
 
 Mr. HILLIER. We put the cost at li cents a pound t« grind that 
 
 Mr. Murray. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that, in the lirst 
 place, all these articles that we have mentioned come in free. In the 
 first place, it costs as much to powder an article which is cheap us one 
 which is dear. The crude articles come in free, and they are all whed- 
 uled the same as spices. The spice mills get a duty of 3 cvmU a pound 
 for grinding spices. Now, we have here goods of these ditlerent char- 
 acters mentioned which come into this market from Kranc«> ;in<l Ger- 
 many, and they sell at the same price that fhey chaig*' us for the whole 
 articles. Many of these articles are farmed the same as we tarm \»tUv- 
 toes and things of that kind, and when they jiut them into the market 
 in this country, they are selected the same as wf select articles to send 
 abroad. The poorer article is thrown away or used for any purpose for 
 which they can find use. We can not explain it in any other way. Mr. 
 Hillier has a bill made out at -4 cents a pound, and that same man billed 
 another 5 tons of whole at GA cents. The reason we want this duty of 
 3 cents a pound is to keep that class of goods out of the market. 
 
 The Chairman. That is put on the ground entirely that it would 
 exclude these articles ? 
 
 Mr.MuRRAY. Yes; these articles are coining in all the while. In my 
 house we consume 50 tons of gentian per year, and I have not sold 5 
 barrels in three months. In one wholesale house in St. Louis a man 
 bought 5 barrels of powdered gentian from a foreign broker, but he got 
 it from our house, because the foreign broker could not furnish it at 
 that price. 
 
 The Chairman. Was not that mainly on the ground that these 
 articles when imported are adulterated? 
 
 Mr. Murray. They say they are pure, but it is probably not so. 
 The millers of this country have never appeared before this committee 
 until two years ago, when the Wilson bill was up, and we have never 
 bothered with foreign goods, but the discussion was so great in this 
 country at that time that the foreigners concluded they would try their 
 hands in the importing business, and the result has been that they have 
 been quite successful in the last three years in doing an importing
 
 THE DRUG MILLERS. 159 
 
 business. Here is a letter, dated Xoveiiiber 11, from a wholesale house, 
 which I will read and leave with the clerk of the committee. lu this 
 letter it is stated that one sample of groods is a little olf color, because 
 the farmer from whom they bought it put it into a bake oven to dry and 
 it got o\erlieated. Voucan imagine iiow much me<liciiial quality there 
 wouNl be in an article that was overheated. The great argument of 
 the spice peojile was that they wanted pure goods, which they c(mld 
 get from the laiiiiers in this country for 3 cents. If they want pure 
 spices, liow much moie important is it to liave pure drugs. 
 
 Mr. VViiKELHK. I reeollfct that in the hearing three years ago the 
 argument was made that in some lin«*s they a^ked more tlian 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Have you any data as to the amount of licorice root 
 used in the I'nited States? 
 
 Mr. MiEUAY. Of imported I can not say. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. It is an article that is very largely used! 
 
 Mr. .MruKAY. Ves, sir. 
 
 •Mr. M< .MiLLiN. And on that you propose a rate that would be over 
 l(i(t p»'r rent. 
 
 Mr. Ml iiitAV. Yes, sir; 21, the same as for the whole. 
 
 Mr. Mc MiLLiN. Vou ask '^ cents duty, which would be 100 per cent 
 on this articU' that is so extensively used? 
 
 Mr. MiruKAY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Dai-ZKLL. Is this |»er pound or per 100 pounds? 
 
 Mr. Ml UUAV. It is per poun<I. Two cents per pound is the price 
 charged for powdere<l goods. There is a loss in drying out. We have 
 to pay freigiit in some cases where tliere is a loss of 15 Ut L'O per cent. 
 Tlic h»ss <Mi it will sometimes average !*"> per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMii-i.iN. You ask more than tlie cost of the crude material 
 anil cost of manufacture, wln'reas the other j>coj)lc only ask ~) cents. 
 
 .Mr. MriJKAY. I hav«' a list, obtained through my luokers in London, 
 from one of the best drug milling houses there, an(l the cost of grinding 
 is ."»(» cents per barrel lor gentian, which would be 2g cents per pound 
 for grinding ")0 barrel lots. 
 
 The (-I1AIKMAN. That is more than you charge? 
 
 Mr. MiTKRAY, Y'es, sir. 
 
 The CiiAtK'MAN. What would you say to prohibiting by law the 
 importation ot a«lnlt4'ratcd jtroducts? 
 
 Mr. MiTRHAV. It would be all right if you could do it. Y'ou have a 
 certain restriction as to asatetida, but we find that a great deal of 
 asafetida does come in. 
 
 .Mr. I)Ai,zi:i,L. You think such a law could not be enforced? 
 
 -Mr. Win Ki.KK. There is a law an<l always has been, but it can not 
 be enforceil. 
 
 The ('iiAiuMAN. Would not the adulterated article be sold in the 
 same way? 
 
 Mr. Murray. I do not think so. They can not get it any cheaper 
 than they g«'t it now. I think a duty of 3 cents a pound would virtu- 
 ally shut that otf. It has been said that wo can not beat the French 
 in adulteration. 
 
 The ('II AIRMAN. Might not a dealer here be an expert in adultera- 
 tion, and if he could get 1 cent more profit for it, is there not some 
 danger of his adulterating it? 
 
 Mr. MiTRUAY. We can not adulterate goods, because they can be 
 easily traced. Every retail druggist has got a bill from the place at 
 which he buys, and it is easily traced to the miller who sells it.
 
 160 SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MINE OWNERS, MANUFACTURERS, AND GRINDERS 
 
 OF PAINTS. 
 
 New Yokk, December 4?5, 1896, 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As mine owners, manufacturers, and jjijimUts of American and other 
 earth paints we ask your attention to the foUowinj: stateiueiit and 
 
 request: 
 
 This business is one of the few exceptions in the i)resent ami preced- 
 ing tariff bill that is not at all protected, and the consequence is that we 
 have a continual struggle to keep our mines and factories running 
 even part of the year, as most of the goods that we produce, either 
 crude or pulverized, are admitted from foreign <<tnntries free of duty. 
 The principal paints in this class art- ochcrs, umbers, and sii-nnas, and 
 although these goods are found in mure or less (luantity in almost t'very 
 State in the Union, the present tarilf bill admits them all, whether 
 crude or powdered and ready for use, free of duty. Tins is not oidy a 
 great injustice to the American mine owners rlinnighout the Tnitetl 
 States, but also to those who make a busiiu'ss of relining and in)wder- 
 ing these earth paints and prei)aring them for use by the paint grinder 
 or painter. 
 
 It has been the general poliey of the framerH of the various tariff 
 bills for many years past to niaic(» a diffen-ne** in duty betwj'en many 
 articles crude and the same article ground i>r p«>wdered or advan<-e<l in 
 value by any process of manuriicture, l)ut this class (»f earth paints is 
 a singular exce])tion to this welldelined policy, which is a policy well cal- 
 culated to build up American industries in prelerence to those «)f foreign 
 countries. 
 
 We therefore ask, for the protection of these A merican i)ro«lucts, sucii 
 as ocher, umber, sienna, etc., as well as for the i)roteetion of the Ameri- 
 can mill owner against the lower wages ruling in other countries 
 which come into competition with us, and for the protection of the 
 American workman, that he should 1)0 i)ai<l the wages for i)roducing 
 these goods instead of the foreigner; that article .'»«;•; of the free list, 
 which reads as follows: "Ocher and ochery earths, sienna and sienjia 
 earths, umber and umber earths, not sp«'cially i»ro\ ided for in this act, 
 dry," be stricken out or eliminated, and that" article 41' of S<'hedule A, 
 which reatls as follows: "Ocher and ochery earths, sienna and sienna 
 earths, umber and umber earths, ground in «til, one and one fourth 
 cents per i)Ouml," be amended so as to read as follows: "Ocher and 
 ochery earths, sienna and sienna earths, undier and undjer earths, dry, 
 crude, not powdered, washed, or imlveri/.ed, one <lollar per ton; i)Ow- 
 dered, washed, or i)ulverized, three-eighths of one cent per i>ound; 
 ground in oil, one and three fourths cents per jmund." 
 
 As the great bulk of these goods are imjtorted in the jiowdered state, 
 and in thatcondition come into comjjetition with the Anu-rican i)rodu<-t, 
 the highest rate of duty asked for above ujion the junvdered material, 
 namely, three-eighths of one cent i»er ]>ound, will be satisfactory for 
 the protection of the American manufacturer. 
 
 We therefore earnestly commend this change to vour honorable com- 
 mittee as aflecting many thousand citizens of the liiited States engaged 
 in the nianufaeture of earth paints, and feeling sure that it is a fair, 
 just, and reasonable reciuest.
 
 THE DRUG MILLERS. 161 
 
 Hoping tor your favorable action on this appeal, we subscribe our- 
 selves, resi»ecttully, 
 
 liAss Paint Company, 
 
 P,. C. Bass, Scnctanj, 108 Fiilton Street, Ncic York. 
 Wm. E. Browne & Co., ^c and ^^^ Pine street. 
 The Prince Manufacturing Company. 
 
 David Prince, Strntorif. 
 Bowman's Carhon Company, Vennsylvania, 
 Oxford Ociikr Company, 
 
 C. S. Fn(»TK, President. 
 Stanley Page Company, Virginia. 
 Wallace Dunrar, l«i<> Hnxidiray, X Y. 
 
 E. P. Earle, 3'i Lilnrty street, Sew York. 
 Peruvian ocher Comi'anv, 
 
 E. P. Earle, President. 
 
 F. W. Devoe and C. T. Reynolds Company, 
 
 101 and lo.i Fulton street, Xeir York, 
 
 For the Committee of Color Manu/aeturers. 
 M. ALTnER<}, 17(1 Fulton street, Xew York. 
 I. Lee Smith & Co., J.'/ Frankfort street, Xeir York. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE DRUG MILLERS OF THE UNITED 
 
 STATES. 
 
 We, the nndersifrncd dniK niillcr.-* of the I'nitcd State.^, woultl most 
 earnestly HMpiest tin- committee on taritV revision to substitute the tol- 
 lowiu}; J)araj,'rHph for i.ara^M;iph No. 10.^, schedule A, of the present 
 taritV: 
 
 Drugs. Kiich aw luirks. Ix-anH. berries, balsams, buds, bulbous routs, excrescences 
 such as 'nut nails, fruits, tlowcrs. driod libers and insects, grains, jjums and gum 
 resins, herbs, leaves, li< 1i»mih. nu>sHes. nut-s. roots and stems, spires, vegetables, seeds 
 aromatic au«l seeds of morbid growtii, w«eds and yroods used exj>res8ly lor dveing, 
 also chemicals, sueh as oxalic and tartaric acids, alum, muriate of auimonia, cobalt, 
 bichromate, chlorate and prussiate of in.ta-h. CDjiperas, cream tartar, fullers earth 
 and pumice ston<-; anv of the foregoing wliich are not edible, but which .ire advanced 
 in value or cndition by relining. grinding, or by other process of manufacture, and 
 not specially provided for in this a<t, 3 ceut« per jiound. 
 
 This will make the duty on pow<lered and jjround druffs the same as 
 po\v(lcr»'d spices. 
 
 We ask ."i cents per ptMiiid duty on i»owdere<l and ^'ronn<l drugs to 
 enable the drug millers in the I'liited States, witli i)ure drugs, to com- 
 l>ete with the foreign drug miller, who places powdered and ground 
 drugs on this nuirket at prices (inclmling the i)reseut 10 per cent duty) 
 less than the crude drugs cost the American miller. 
 
 For the past three years a large part of our machinery has stood idle, 
 as we could not import the crude drugs and mill them and put them on 
 the market at the price that the foreign drug miller .sold them delivered 
 in this country. 
 
 The labor in our drug mills in the United States costs from 00 per 
 cent to 150 per cent more than iu Germany and France. In fact a number 
 
 T H 11
 
 162 
 
 SCHEDULE A. — CHEMICALS, OILS, AND PAINTS. 
 
 of powdered drags are imported for less money than we can imicliase 
 the crude drugs, as per nieniorandiun of a few staples cited below. 
 
 
 
 
 bi 
 
 
 ki 
 
 "B 
 
 h 
 
 J'fc.^J 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 5 
 
 c 
 
 ,M *"0 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 P. 
 
 ♦a 
 
 
 
 p. 
 
 Isi 
 
 
 
 1 . 
 
 r-T3 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 rs 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 n^ 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 U 
 
 • 
 
 
 o 
 
 -3 
 
 « 
 
 ti'^ 
 
 t-2 
 
 
 
 ^ft 
 
 
 & 
 
 
 o 
 
 C 
 
 1 
 
 fc^& 
 
 *~ = 
 
 
 
 O ti 
 
 p. 
 
 tt 
 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 
 "F «S 
 
 »- i. 
 
 
 
 ofe 
 
 4J 
 
 Er3 
 
 
 '"•c 
 
 :>« 
 
 B-d 
 
 fc£-? 
 
 o fi> 
 
 
 Article. 
 
 II 
 
 § 
 hi 
 
 £ 
 
 2 
 
 'S 9 
 
 3 
 
 e 
 
 ° s 
 
 *> i. 
 
 « 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 ■sg. 
 
 § 
 
 «■ 
 o 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 .1 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 ■ 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 e 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 
 5 
 
 s 
 
 i 
 
 
 OenU. 
 
 
 
 
 
 OenU. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Althearoot 
 
 9 
 
 3%=. 27 
 
 8%= 
 
 72 
 
 .12 
 
 2 
 
 1111 
 
 6.60 
 
 5.51 
 
 B.C.B H. 
 
 Gentian root. .. 
 
 64 
 
 2%=. 13 
 
 109i=: 
 
 65 
 
 .12 
 
 2 
 
 t.40 
 
 ^ 
 
 3.M 
 
 A.A K. 
 
 Hellebore root . 
 
 4 
 
 2%=. 08 
 
 8%= 
 
 32 
 
 .12 
 
 a 
 
 6.52 
 
 4.81 
 
 1.71 
 
 C. K II A. 
 (I). O.A.R 
 
 Licorice root... 
 
 21 
 
 296=. 06| 
 
 109o= 
 
 28i 
 
 .13 
 
 1 
 
 6.SH 
 
 4.131 
 
 1.33 
 
 C. 
 R. S. it Co. 
 
 letter. 
 U.D. 
 
 Orris root, flor.. 
 
 17 
 
 2%=. 34 
 
 606=1 
 
 02 
 
 .12 
 
 3 
 
 30.48 
 
 1>1 
 
 1.38 
 
 Pumice stone.. 
 
 1 
 
 l%=.07il0?o= 
 
 08J 
 
 .08 
 
 •l 
 
 " 
 
 rn*. 
 
 1 
 
 LL 
 
 The schedule (consisting of foreign invoice.^, printed price list*, and 
 foreign letters) is in the hands of the chairman of the Committee on 
 Ways and Means. 
 
 REC0MMKNDAT10N8. 
 
 We recommend that spe<Mfic duties bo substitutiMl for ad valorem 
 duties wherever possible, for articles pertaining to the <lrug and 
 chemical trade, for the following rca.son: 
 
 The experience of many years proves that specific duties favor the 
 importation of purer and higher grades <.f dings, chemicals, and medi.-i- 
 nal preparations, while ad valorem duties favor the unscrupulouB 
 importer and induce false invoicing by dishonest jtartie.s. 
 
 We also recommend that legi.slation" regarding the tariff be completed 
 as speedily as possible, to the end that the l)nsiness interests of tlie 
 country may not suflbr any unneces.sary distnrbanie. 
 
 Murray vS: Xickell Mfg. Co., Chicnqo. III. 
 
 R. HiLLiER's Son Co., Xew York, X. Y. 
 
 Allaire, Woodward cV: Co., Pvotin, III. 
 
 McIlvaine Bros., Phitadrlphia, Pa. 
 
 J. L. Hopkins & Co., Xew York, X. Y. 
 
 HuuER & FuuRMAN Drug MiLLS, Fond du Lac, \Vh. 
 
 HEAVY CHEMICALS. 
 
 SCHEDULE OF HEAVY CHEMICALS RECOMMENDED BY THE PENN- 
 SYLVANIA SALT MANUFACTURING COMPANY. 
 
 ., Philadelphia, Pa., January 4, 1897. 
 
 GoiVrMITTEE ON WAYS AND MeANS: 
 
 sabmulwnD *''*^^ proposed taritf revision, we respecttnllv beg to 
 aS to he^r'I^^'^ ''7 rocon.men.lations for your consideration as 
 applied to heavy chemicals. For your convenience we give the dutie.H
 
 HEAVY CHEMICALS. 
 
 163 
 
 as under the acts of 1890 and 18m and, in apposition to same, the rates 
 we take the liberty of suggesting: 
 
 HEAVY CHEMICALS. 
 
 Article. 
 
 r,!' .:1 'M itc of nod*, aftlerfttus, or snpercar- 
 
 I , ■ . .'T hydrate of Moila 
 
 .•vmI.i mhIi 
 
 Aliiiii, aliim c«k<>. pat«-iit alum. ■(il[>hite of 
 aliiiniun, alum in cryBtalu, or ((round. 
 
 \ > 1 iKiund of tliifl is r4|ual to about 
 
 . I •■ .1. i.H aluui, or -ulpl iit«' aliiuiina). 
 '1 IIP l< rill " ' ■ niiglit l>«> 
 
 aililrtl to tliiM ]'■! ' thiM nnine 
 
 iM«v»'ral altriii|.t > to intro- 
 
 iliiif tlin ldrnti<:il .tn.^.i- .w.u ihjM 'ountry 
 an frrn goiHln. 1 lie iiliiiniii.i iiiitu.-«:iv liaa 
 Im-«'ii larj;«-ly de\ plopid m ; ! r i.,.-i •. i.iii 
 hikI upon It d^i.riiil |. • 
 liutixita dflionilx ot 
 
 In v,.w..f the hull . : 
 
 ' .stf<l withilH|iru<lui'lii, thn locrraxMl 
 - imI In rather under than omt a 
 
 .>ul|ihat« of soda, or aalt cake 
 
 Couperaa 
 
 Chloride oalciam 
 
 Blue vitriol, or sulphat* copper. 
 8ul|diurto acid 
 
 niearhtoK powder, or ohior. Ilm« 
 
 With thu duly Wf ar<^ r. nfi.lrnt thnt tli. 
 market pri<e will n ■■ • 
 '1 hero In no Idea. Ii ; 
 
 I'nllrd St.ilrn U 
 
 up... 
 
 fai 1 
 
 -iil'l'lv '.1 I'l.-- .ut.tl.-, 
 I to w'n. with a duty 
 .rti'il, utid Home cum- 
 
 petitiuu wuulii bnu^ price lower than noi 
 
 McKiiilev bill, 
 189U. 
 
 Wilson bill, 1891. 
 
 1 ct. per pound (ot. per pound.. 
 
 let. per pound i ct. per jMjuud.. 
 J ct. |HT pounil I I ct. per pound . . 
 /jct.perpound A ct. per pound . 
 
 jinct.perpound! | ct. per i>ound. . 
 I'sCt-periMund ,*g ct. per pound. 
 
 11.25 per ton 
 
 Act.jierpound 
 25 p«T cent ad 
 
 valureui 
 Sots.perpound 
 Jet. per pound 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free 
 
 Free 
 
 25 per cC ad Talorem . . 
 
 Free 
 
 Fre*, except from 
 country collictiii); 
 a Ant\ from thin 
 ronntrv, then i cent 
 
 Free 
 
 Proposed bill. 
 1897. 
 
 Ict.per pound 
 
 i ct.per pound 
 
 Jct.i>er j)ound. 
 ct.pev pound. 
 
 ict ]>f r pound. 
 JJ cents per 
 poucd. 
 
 $1.25 per ton. 
 ^ ct.per pound. 
 I ct.per pound. 
 
 1 ct.per pound, 
 ict.per iiounil. 
 
 4 ct.per pound. 
 
 FREE LI.ST. 
 
 Hauxite, crude Free Fre* 
 
 Kryolith, or cryolite Fr<»© I Free 
 
 I'y "rite* KruA | l>*reo 
 
 Sulphur, lac or pr«>clpit.ited. and sulphur or Froo I-'roe 
 
 hrimBtone, crude in hulk; sulplitir ore an ) 
 
 pyriten. or siilphiiret of iron in itn natural 
 state, contaicing in exce.in of' 25 per cent 
 nnlphur, and sulphur not otherwise pro- 
 vided for. 
 
 Free. 
 Free. 
 Free. 
 Free. 
 
 COPPER IN ORES AND MATTES. 
 
 Copper in oree. containing over 2 per cent 
 
 copper. 
 
 Should there be a duty levied on copper in 
 ores and matter the usual conuiierc.al allow- 
 nnce of l.;i percent should he deducted he fore 
 settliii;:. This was the practice under the 
 Ml Kiuley hill but not stated in the bill itwelf. 
 The (Jenernl Appraisers fnve their opinions, 
 which obtained. 
 
 The Pennsylvania Salt Manuf'g Co., 
 
 T. Armstrong, President.
 
 164 SCHEDULE A. (UEMICAL.s, olL.», AND I'AlNTS. 
 
 SPECIFIC DUTY RECOMMENDED. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. JAMES HARTFORD. OF NEW YORK. 
 
 ]MoNDAV, Ihvvmher :*H^ 1896. 
 Mr. James Hartford, of >'ew York, api»eare<l helore the <<»nimitte« 
 and submitted tlie following memorial: 
 
 Drug Trade Section of the 
 New York Uoard of Tkade and Tran.^portation, 
 
 Snr York, Devnnber ^Vy, 1896. 
 
 Ways and Means Committee, Washimjton, J). C. 
 
 Gentlemen: On belialf of the I)ru<;Trad«' Sectitm of the New York 
 Board of Trade and Transportation, we reronimmtl that .specille duties 
 be substituted for ad valorem <iutirs wheiever possibU'oii articles i»er- 
 taining- to the driij;- and eliemicai trad*', for the lollowin;; rea.sons: 
 
 The experienee of many years jinivts that spt-ritic duties fav«»r the 
 importation of purer and hij^her ;;ra<h'sof drn;is. chrniirals, antl iu«*dic 
 iual i)reparations, while ad valorem dntirs fav<»r tin* unscrupuhms 
 importer and indnee false invoicing by dishonest parties. 
 
 We also recommend that on all articles imported iu the manufactur- 
 ing of which grain alcohol is usctl a duty be le\ ie<l comnuMisurato with 
 the internal-revenue tax, and which will be a pn)te«'tion to the Americau 
 manufacturer. 
 
 We further recommeml th;it legislation rogjinling the tariff be com 
 pleted as speedily as jtossiblc. to the end that the l»u>iui'ss iutorests of 
 the country may not sutler any unnecessary «listurbanco. 
 
 .1 AMES IIaktFoRD, Chairman, 
 \V.M..IaV ScHIKFFKMN. S.rfU'tari/, 
 
 Andrew IJ. Hocern. 
 W. 1). Fa IMS, 
 .Iacoh Kleimians, 
 Tuns. V. Main, 
 Fred (i. My.\ \:n. 
 Committer on I.i ijislatiun, Ih-inj Tra:lr Srrtinn, 
 
 Xew Vnrk Hoard <>f' Trade and Transportation. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. You seek to (h.iiiLre tinni :oi \:iliiii'iii to a >)M'<ifir 
 
 rate? 
 
 Mr. Hartford. We do, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I untlerstand your reasons for it. Is not the tend- 
 ency iu the manufacture of most things, .such as drugs, etc.. downward 
 constantly iu value toward cheai)ness on a<couut ot' the imreaseil 
 facility of producti(ni and i;u])roved methods «»f production? I believe 
 that is so of all chemicals as iu other things? 
 
 Mr. Hartford. It is. 
 
 INIr. McMiLLiN. If you transfer from tiie ad valorem .system to the 
 specific system, would not the result of that change 1m- t<") jirt^vent the 
 consumer from getting the full benetit of that diminution of cost of 
 production and of the increased cheapness of the goods? 
 
 Mr. Hartford. There is no (jucstion about that. It has that effect. 
 I wdl mention to you gentlemen, if it Avill be of any a.ssistance to yonr 
 honorable committee, our section would draw up a section which would 
 embody their views and present it to you. 
 
 The Chairman. We will be hai>pv to have a written statement or 
 suggestions, Avith the reasons therefor.
 
 SCITKDITT.r: T3. 
 
 E ART I J S, E A 1 rr 1 L E NAV ARE, 
 AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 165
 
 Schedule B -EARTHS. EARTHENWAEE, AND GLASS- 
 WARE. 
 
 rii?r; iikick. 
 
 (Paragraph 76.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY WILLIAM HOMES. OF BOSTON. REPRE- 
 SENTING FT2E BRICK MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 lIosTDN, December 31, 1S96. 
 
 < '((MMHTKK ON W AYS AND .MKA.NS: 
 
 The unci'itaiiity ot" gettiiijr our committee together in order to be 
 present at your sitting for tin* discnssion of earthenware, tire l)ri('k, 
 (•tr., iiiakeH it desirabh* tliat I put in writing a few arfxiinients, together 
 with tahuhited figures, to show wliy it is necessary that the present 
 ad vah>reni basis of conijiutalion be changed, and, as far as possible, 
 spiM'ific duties imposed. 
 
 I'refacing my explanation, allow me to say I visited the cnstom- 
 liouse to-day in anticipation of obtaining statistics to lay before you 
 K'iaiive to our industry that would siiow the importation of these 
 goods lately in ctmiparison with former impoi tatn»ns under the AIcKin- 
 ley rates. Although data relative to chinaware. earthenware, faience, 
 etc., is tabulated in l)ook foiin, yet it is so condensed (t<t avoid unneces- 
 sary bulk, I supi»ose) tiiat no separate menti<»n is made of tire brick, 
 manganese brick, bricks not ornamented, decorated, etc., or bricks 
 ornament<'d. 
 
 Consecpiently. a very important factor that I would wish to show to 
 you must be eliminated, but really business in all branches has been so 
 dull during the past three years I fear it would not be of comparative 
 amount, and it is a nnndi fairer way to show you the relative working 
 under the ad valoiem rates jireviously in vogue, and before the ]\IcKin- 
 ley bill went into foice, as with the working under McKinley n'gime, 
 for the business then was nearer on a ])ar or equal footing. 
 
 iU'fore calling your attention to these statistics allow me to say: 
 Under the ohl ad valorem scliednle the importation of foreign bricks 
 nnule the <'ompetition so sharp that the business was auytliing but 
 encouraging to those interested in the nmnufactn''«> in this country, and 
 very little return could be made commensurate with the capital invested. 
 We were in a very unsatisfactory condition. Our locr.l or domestic 
 competition was what might be exi)ected from any business, and 
 brought profits to barely living ones, and we could not withstand the 
 additional ju-essure brought about by low foreign wages, where the 
 united wages of one family of men, women, and children do not as 
 a rule ecpial the wages paid to a man in this country. This, coupled 
 witli low freiglits (in foreign vessels), makes the delivery in America 
 very low indeed. 
 
 167
 
 168 SCHEDULE B.— EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Now if, aside from this, we must run the risk of having that valuation 
 halved, or nearly so, ui)on wliich a cheai) ad vahirem rate is imposed, 
 it would seem to the writer that this is one reason why some change 
 insuring better methods be adopted. .,,.», 
 
 We, as manufacturers, have our expensive plants here established; 
 we employ a large force of clerks, salesmen, workmen, etc., dependent 
 upon our output. The loss of business through foreign competition is 
 an old and hackneyed story, but nevertheless tlie true reason why our 
 desires are entitled to consideration. 
 
 There are many such reasons, all too well known to every business 
 man who manufactures, which, rather tliaii advance to occupy your 
 time I will omit, as results are now what you wisli to cope with, and it 
 is my desire to aid you to an insight which you readily could obtain 
 amoiig your statistics at Washington, but which in their detailed form 
 are too intricate and complex for you to spend time uikui. 
 
 I may say I was last year asked to call at tlie appraiser's «»nice in this 
 city to give expert opinion on the vahie ot ;:ertain goods in my line tliat 
 were being imported. Tlie very lowest (piotation 1 could get for them 
 on the other side of the water was V2 shillings, and yet I was tohl they 
 were being invoiced at M) shillings. Is not this a very apt illustration 
 of what may happen when "honesty'' is sleejiing? 
 
 Following are the comparative statistics of the importation of tire 
 and other bricks into the United States of America: 
 
 BEFORE THE M<KINLEV BILL. 
 
 KlKE HKICK. 
 
 [Ad vnlorcin duty 20 per rent.] 
 
 June 30, 1888, fo June 30. 1880. 
 June 30, 1889, to June 30. 1890 . 
 June 30, IWIO, to Oct. 6, 1890... 
 
 Qnaulity. 
 
 Valup. 
 
 6,439,863 
 
 8. GT4. 615 
 al.:»0.S«3 
 
 $08. 61 1. 04 
 
 8:1. za 07 
 25. ^42. 41 
 
 Duty 
 
 16,ni6.99 
 5. (108. 47 
 
 Total. 
 
 10, 014, 038 177. 188.43 I 85.437.86 
 
 alt year were fUled ont in same mtio. the <]uantity wonid be 0,748,344. 
 UKICK OTHEK THAN FIKE URICK. 
 
 Jnne30. 1888, fo June 30, 1889 
 
 2.714,990 
 4. .I.'l.-.. T'.H) 
 2, 017. 590 
 
 45. 005 !V5 
 56. 777. 36 
 'Mi. (Uti. 21 
 
 9, iKi.n 
 
 June 30. 1880, to June 30, 1890 
 
 June 30, 1S90, to Oct. 6, 1890 
 
 lI,:i.Vl.47 
 7, 320. 44 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 9. ■ 
 
 1 
 
 - 7 03 
 
 Grand total importation for 2 yeiirs 3 nionlks d.iys . . . 
 
 't.CT 
 
 UNDER Mckinley bill. 
 
 FIKE HRICK. 
 [Not glazed, enameled, ornanientod, or decor.ited in any manner, daty $1.25 per ton apedflo.] 
 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 (juautity. 
 a 6, 034 667 
 
 Value. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 OctoberC. 1890, to June30, 1891 
 
 ToTU. 
 17. 904 
 2J. 4t>l 
 14.t,iS9.62 
 
 «TA OOa IK 
 
 822. 3U. 36 
 2M.0-JO.67 
 18.rJ7.07 
 
 June 30,1891, to June 30, 1892 
 
 June 30, 1892, to June 30, 1893 
 
 7, 4SS tMm ^ 93, 974. ■'■>5 
 4, 996. .■>40 74. 443. 22 
 
 Total 
 
 
 245.323.23 
 
 69, 073. 00 
 
 
 
 
 olf year were filled out in .sjuue ratio, the quantity would be 8,302,440.
 
 FIK1-: BlilCK. 
 
 169 
 
 UNDER Mckinley bill— continued. 
 
 FIRE BRICK— Continned, 
 
 [Glased, enanu'led, ornamented, or decorated, duty 45 per cent ad valorem.] 
 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Value. 
 
 0(t<.h«r6. lS!Mi. to June 30. 1801 
 
 June 3" 18'.M to June 30 1K9'_' 
 
 Ton$. 
 
 1,357.30 
 880.00 
 715. 74 
 
 452. 433 
 
 295. 533 
 2:!8. 580 
 
 $18. 748. 50 
 18, 308. 00 
 10, 379. 59 
 
 $8. 436. 83 
 7, 3(55. GO 
 
 June 30, 1h9'J, to Juno 30, 1893 
 
 4, 670. 82 
 
 Total 
 
 2, 959. 64 
 
 986,546 
 
 45, 496. 09 
 
 20,473.25 
 
 BRICK OTIIEK THAN FIRE BRICK, 
 [Not glazed, enameled, ornamented, paiDt«d. or decorate<l, duty 25 por cent ad valorem.] 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 OctoluT 0, l«'»i, to .luiix :!il, 1891 
 
 Jun«> ;tO, l^'Jl to .hi III- :'.n 1 "'.'J 
 
 June 30, 18<.»2, t« J un»- lu, 1H93 
 
 Thovtand. 
 
 ttl5,360 
 
 1.874.120 
 
 2. 225, 000 
 
 ♦7,900.07 
 15. ;«4. 97 
 14,929.96 
 
 $1,975.02 
 3, 833. 75 
 3, 732. 50 
 
 Total. 
 
 5,014,480 
 
 38, 165. 00 
 
 0, 541. 27 
 
 [Ornamented, glased, paiDte<), enanuled, vitrified, or decorated, doty 46 per cent] 
 
 OrlolxT «, 1890. to June 30, 1«)I. 
 JlllH' 30, 18!ll. lo.liiin- 30. 189-J... 
 Jane 30, 18'J2. to June 3U, 1893... 
 
 Thousand. 
 
 7111.710 
 
 1, ITo. 4S'0 
 
 ItOO, «80 
 
 Total. 
 
 2.923.180 
 
 Grand total importation 2 yearn 8 months 24 tiayn 27,343,413 
 
 $.^S, 507. 00 
 57. 204. 00 
 48, 062. 00 
 
 141,373.00 
 
 $15,978.15 
 2.%. 741.80 
 21,807.90 
 
 63,617.85 
 
 470,357.82 i 162,705.37 
 
 Axsumid. — Drdiict ini])(irt:it ion lor .1 months IS d;»ys = Hi8 days, tp 
 etiiiali/*' ;iim1 make time same as olil sclirdiile, hasotl on last year's 
 importation under .MiKinley n <iime. Old scluMlule made for - years 
 3 montlis days. WcKinley scliedule made lor 2 years 8 mouths 
 24 days. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 Firii brick, not clazed, $1.25 
 
 Fire lirirk. (jlii/.iMJ. 45 \h-t nut 
 
 Briik otiur tli.m lire lirick 
 
 BHck ornamented 
 
 Total 
 
 Leaving net McKinley amount 
 
 Thovrand. 
 
 2,331.072 
 
 111,384 
 
 1,038.408 
 
 448,372 
 
 $34, 740. 72 
 
 4, 843. 44 
 
 e, OtiO. 06 
 
 22, 080. 00 
 
 $8, 744. 40 
 2,178.96 
 1,742.16 
 
 10. 219. 44 
 
 3, 929, 836 
 
 69, 231. 12 
 
 22, 884. 96 
 
 23,413,577 I 401,126.20 
 
 139, 820. 41 
 
 DiFFEHENrE: ]SreKinl«'y decrease. 2,008.752 bricks; increase in value, 
 $84,<;.")l.<;ti: increase in duty, *7(»,"»2.")..")4 in favor McKinley rates. 
 
 In prcsciitinj; these li^iiies (or your cousiileration I wish to state that 
 in doiii^^ .so, it is in the interest Of not only the firm of which I am a 
 member, but actiu.ij: for and in the interest of practically all the fire 
 brick, building: brick, and enameled brick manufacturers, who have 
 formed an association lar;;ely for this very purpose, as they felt they 
 were menaced by an industrial enemy of large proportions.
 
 170 SCHEDULE B.— EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 I represent the ^atioDal Association of Fire Bri<'k Manuf-ictnrers, as 
 chairman of its executive committee, and it is n.y desire to impress 
 upon you that with one accord it is the wish ot all its members tha 
 such consideration of our industry be taken by your commit ee as will 
 r^ommend to the Senate and House ot Kepresentatives that le-islatioij 
 btwiacted which will relieve our distress an.l put us back on good old 
 McKinley specific rates, specific in all classes ot our go-.ds it possible. 
 
 One word for the glazed and enameled brick industry, also covered 
 bv our association. This is a limited business in this country, for the 
 reason it requires years of experience to properly test the clays used, 
 to ascertain their adaptability to glazing processes, formulas tor glazes, 
 
 methods of firing, etc. . , , * r 
 
 This knowledge the foreigner has the advantage of possessing. 
 Every item of the business is known to him to the minutest detail. 
 These secrets, coupled with the cheap labor, the latter item entering as 
 the largest factor into the manufacture of all clay goods, gives him an 
 advantage over our partially unskilled maiiufarturers. 
 
 I might liken it to the tin i)late industry, which. I think, got its stimu- 
 lus in this country from ISltO to IS'.).;. L(.\v ad valorem duties wouhl 
 certainly preclude further development of the glazed brick industry, or 
 at least would curtail etiorts to push American manufacture. Much 
 capital has been lost in endeavors to launch this business in this C4uin- 
 try, and much credit is due to certain jjersevering concerns here. Help 
 this and you will have another large source of employment of American 
 
 labor. 
 
 These goods are higher cost and should bear a corrcspomlingly high 
 protection consistent with same. Kates of wages abroad may be of 
 avail to you, and in concliisi(»n 1 will therefore slat«' that I have 
 authority for saying that wages in Knghin<l and (lermany — two of the 
 principal European brick jnodiicing countries — amount to from 20 to 
 75 or 80 cents per day, wiiile with us no boy receives less than .">0 cents, 
 and from that to $1.75 and *-, and in some clas.ses of work even 
 
 more, per diem. 
 
 William Homes, 
 Chairman Kxecutixe Committee 
 National Association Firi Brick Manufacturtra. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE BRICK 
 
 MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 Albany, N. Y., January 6, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The National Association of Fire Brick Manufacturers of the United 
 States desires to call your attenlion to the fact that under the so-called 
 Wilson bill the si)ecific <liities on foreign fire brick were taken olf and 
 an ad valorem duty of -5 per cent substituted in place of the specific 
 duty of $1.25 per ton imposed under the McKinley bill. 
 
 The low prices of foreign wages and low freight make comjietition 
 impossible. Every foreign tire brick importe<l into this country dis- 
 places the sale and use of the home i)roduct, to the injury of Ameiican 
 industry. The best fire-brick material is found in nearly all of these 
 United States, and in large quantities. 
 
 At the present time the fire-brick industry is reduced to a very low 
 point by reason of foreign competition. 
 
 II. B. Newton, rrisi<hnt.
 
 TILE. 171 
 
 TILE. 
 
 (rar:ifir;ii.b 78.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. F. W. WALKER, OF LEAVER FALLS, PA. 
 
 FitiDAY, January S, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Walker said: Mr. Cbairman and gentleiueu of the committee, 
 in appeariiij,' before you today as a committee of tlie Wall and Floor 
 'I'ile Manufacturers of the United States, we come to call your atten- 
 tion to what has in the past worked an injury to our business, and to 
 ])re8ent fiir your consideration a jtroposition which, we think, will cor- 
 rect the trouble. Tlie parajirraph of tlie law under which duties are 
 now beiu^j levied under Schedule B reads as follows: 
 
 TileH, plain, not glazed, ornamented, painted, enameled, vitrified, or decorated, 
 twenty-tive per ct-ntiini ad valorem; ornamented, glazed, painted, enameled, vitrified, 
 or «leeorate«l, and encaustic, forty per centum ad valorem. 
 
 We would ask to have the law changed so as to read as follows: 
 
 TiloH, glazed or nnglazed, encauittic, ceramic, mosaic, vitrified. Hint, sp.ir, 
 eml>o><Hud, enameled, or ornaiiiental, and all other earthenware tile lor floors and 
 wallM, ten cent« per square foot, or lour cents jter pound. Tile, hand painted or gold 
 decorated, twenty cents per square foot, or six cents per ponnd. 
 
 (Jur reasons for asking' for the.se changes are as follows: Many tiles 
 upon which the tluty sliould be Icvicfl at the 4(1 per c<'nt rate are now 
 beinj: brought in un<l«'r tlic L'.~) per cent classilication. This we find an 
 error that is very easily made on account of the ditticnlty an inexperi- 
 enced person has in being able to determine the class to which the tiles 
 belong. Another rea.son is the undervaluation of goods by falsifying 
 invoices, wliich is done by billing first quality tiles as second or third 
 quality, making the ])rice a very low one, and thus paying a duty on 
 the false in place ot tlie proper ])rice. This is accomplished in different 
 ways; one way being by sending a remittance or draft with the order 
 for, say, one-half of the amount, and the tile being invoiced as seconds 
 or thirds for the un])aid balance. And in order to make the tile appear 
 as seconds «)r thirds, a certain quantity of poor-(|iiality tile is place<l in 
 each cask witli the good lile, and as it is impossible for the insjiectors 
 to examine each j>iece of tile, in this way tile are brouglit into the 
 country at a price in many ca.ses one fourtli their actual cost. 
 
 In advocating a specific duty and ])la<ing all cla.s.ses of tile, except 
 band-painted and gold decorated, in one classification, it simi)lifies the 
 law and takes away the oi)portunity of falsifying invoices. In asking 
 for a duty by tlie pound, as well as by the square foot, U^ be specified, 
 it is for the juupose of covering thin mosaic tiles, which are now imported 
 by weight, and which amounts to the same duty as the rate specified 
 by the square foot, and we would recommend tliat the net and gross 
 weight, as well as the square feet, be plainly marked on all original 
 l)ackages. 
 
 The weight proves the number of square feet contained in the pack- 
 age. In presenting this change for your consideration we admit it 
 makes some slight changes from the present rate, in some cases mak- 
 ing a lower and in one a higher duty, but upon the principal kinds of 
 tile and those that are generally imported it makes i>ractically no 
 change, the only class that it advances a duty upon being unglazed 
 tiles, which is the smaller i)oition ul the tile imported.
 
 172 SCHEDULE B.— EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 On the ornamental and embossed class it reduces tlie duty sunie, 
 which will equalize the small advance ou the unglazed class. Again, 
 in advocating this change we do not lose track of the revenue to be 
 collected, and can assure the committee that, wlule protecting our 
 industry, it will at the same time realize more revenue to tlic Govern- 
 ment, and simplifies the collection of duties and prevents trauduK-nt 
 invoicing. The tile industry, as you are no d.uibt aware, is a com]>ara- 
 tively new one in this country, and lias been beset by many ditliculties, 
 but the manufacturers have persevered, and to-day the tdes being made 
 in this country are equal to any made in any part of the world. 
 
 The committee now before you have all been in the business almost 
 from its beginning in the country, and have given tlie wiiole subject 
 the most thorough investigation, and are unanimously of the opinion 
 that if our request is granted it will not only i>lace the industry on a 
 better foundation, but will add to the revenues of the (iovernnu-nt. 
 
 F. VV. Walker. 
 
 Jackson Landers. 
 
 H. Fischer. 
 
 John (\ Alrich. 
 
 A. H. HoNNKLL. 
 
 Karl Lancerreth. 
 
 Arthir I). FoUST. 
 
 * 
 
 The Chairman. What proportion of the consninptiou of tiles is now 
 made in this country? 
 
 Mr. Walker. About 80 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. And there is no (litliculty in making all we rerpiire 
 practically; I mean except those that are imported as a inatttT of 
 luxury? 
 
 Mr. Walker. We can make all and more. The present capacity of 
 the factories is much more than the demand will be for the next two or 
 three years. 
 
 The Chairman. I suppose your idea is a certain i)roportioii of tiles 
 will always be imported by those who want a foreign article which they 
 regard as a luxury, or something of that kind, and the revenue will 
 come in that direction T 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. 
 
 j\Ir. Dalzell. But you are asking a new classification and 8i)eciflo 
 duties? 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Steele. It being impossible to collect the duties now imposedt 
 
 Mr. Walker. Y'cs, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you present any foreign i)rice8 with your request! 
 
 Mr. Walker. We do not, but we can. 1 have a memorandum here 
 which I can give you. 
 
 Mr. Payne. 1 wish you would. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you give in your statement the items of the cost 
 of production in this couiitiy and the cost abroad? 
 
 Mr. Walker. 1 can give the selling i>rices abroad. 
 
 The Chairman. And thecostof productitm in this country by itemst 
 
 Mr. Walker. Y'es, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. If you will file such a statement so it can be published 
 with the hearing it will be sufiicient for mv purposes. 
 
 Mr. Walker. We can file that ft)r you.' 
 
 The Chairman. File that with your hearing. We desire to know 
 what is the cost of the ditlerent kinds of tiling at home and abroad.
 
 TII.E. 173 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVEK. Where are these tiles raostlj' manufactured; in what 
 part of the country? 
 
 Air. Walkek. In New Jersey, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and in 
 Kentucky. 
 
 The Chairman. This industry has increased quite largely since 18i)0? 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Particularly between 1800 and 1803! 
 
 Mi-. Walki;r. Yes, sir; almost doubled its capacity in that time. 
 
 The Chairman. That is suflicicnt, unless there are further «iuesti()us. 
 
 Mr. Steele. That statement you will tile between now and Monday? 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes, sir; wc will do so. 
 
 Mr. Payne. So it can be published right alongside your statemeuti 
 
 Mr. Walkek. We will lile it between now and Monday. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FILED BY MR. WALKER. 
 
 In response to the recpiest made by your committee to sui>plement 
 the statement n»a(h' l>y the tile manutacturers of the country, with 
 information as to tlie comparative cost of production of tile in this 
 country and abroad, we beg to olVer the following: 
 
 The raw materials entering into <iur manufacture — clays, minerals, 
 and coal — are comparatively cheap in all parts (»t" the w<)rld. The value 
 3f the prochu'ts lies mainly in tlie labor directly involved in the i)ro- 
 (iuction from theuj. This labor in all our factories is fully To i)er cent 
 of the cost of the pnxluct. The price we are coni]>elled to pay for labor 
 in this country is, according to intbrmation i)ersoiudly collected by 
 several members of our body abroa<l, as three to one. 
 
 Therefore, in a dollar's worth of our product there is less than 25 
 cents for material and fully 7o cents for lab(»r <lirectly expended, and 
 as the latter is not over '_'"» cents abroa<i it costs them but 50 cents to 
 produce that which our labor makes cost a dollar. 
 
 For this rea.sou the dnty on the highest scheduled products of the 
 present tarilf — luimely, 10 per cent — is very moderate, and the si>eciljc 
 duty that we ask runs on the totality of tile imjmrted below that which 
 in an honest and fair levy would be secured to the Government by the 
 present rating. 
 
 F. W. Walker. 
 
 Jackson Landers. 
 
 B. Flscher. 
 
 John C. Alrich. 
 
 A. JI. Bonnell. 
 
 Karl Langerbeth. 
 
 Arthur D. Forst. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY TRAITEL BROTHERS & CO.. OF 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 New York, January 9, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We note in the newspaper reports under the head "WanttariflF on 
 tiles'' that the Ways aiul .Means Committee has been hearing the 
 plaints of the manufacturers Ibr more duties. "Mr. F. W. Walker, of 
 Beaver Falls, Pa., in asking for a reclassitication and specific duties, 
 recommends that all tiles now paying 1*0 per cent ad valorem, 10 cents
 
 174 SCHEDULE B. — EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 a square foot or 4 ceuts a pound be made the rate; ou those paying 40 
 per cent, 20 cents a square foot or cents a pound be made the rate." 
 
 In this connection, we beg to say that the rejrular market price ot the 
 American product, such as would be ( las.scd und.'i- the I'O per cent duty 
 (present tariff), is 28 cents per square foot, hst, with the lollowiii}: dis- 
 counts: 50, 10, and 5 per cent, and an extra discount wherever htrpe 
 quantities are purchased. On the tiles paying JO per cent duty (present 
 tariff) enameled tiles are 54 cents, list, subject t<. the same discounts. 
 Glazed tiles are 50 cents per square foot, subjeet to the same dise<.unts. 
 
 We quote you these, the market prices, and, if you desire, will furnish 
 you with the printed price lists of the various tile manufacturers to 
 illustrate to you that Mr. Walker is asking an amount per stjuare foot 
 in duty almost equal to the whole price that is charged now by the 
 home maker for his product. 
 
 We beg further to say tliat with the pre.sent duty it is j)ractically 
 impossible to import tiles and land them at a price to meet the compe- 
 tition of the home price. You will lind I'.iis borne out by consulting 
 the records of the custom-house on this subject. 
 
 For ourselves, we can say that from the importation of from 1(K>,(K)0 
 to 200,000 feet per anmim a few years ago we import nothing now, 
 because home manufacturers produce an equally gmnl (juality at as low 
 a price as we can land goods liere for. 
 
 In addition to this, let us add that greater (piaiitities of tiles are u.sed 
 for purposes of .sanitation than for purposes of ornamentation, and 
 certainly should be left within the nath of everybody. 
 
 Tkaitkl Hkotiikbr & Co., 
 
 133 West Forty second iStreet. 
 
 CEINIENT. 
 
 (Para),'raph 79.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT W. W. LESLEY. OF THE AMERICAN 
 
 CEMENT COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA. REPRESENTING THE 
 
 AMERICAN CEMENT INDUSTRY. 
 
 FkiI'A^ , -I unitary .s, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Lesley said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 the duty on cement under the i)res»mt bill is 8 cents per 1»m> pounds 
 and in bulk 7 cent.s. That is the same duty fixed by the McKinley bill 
 and retained under the Wilson bill, and is the ])resent duty. Previous 
 duties on cement luid been ad valorem, and under the construction of 
 the Secretary of the Treasury admitting packages free, the duty was 
 gradually shifted from the manufactured cement to the nondutiable 
 packages, so that linally, at one time the inv()i<'e value on cement was 
 only 60 cents, so both the McKinley committee and the Wilson commit- 
 tee fixed the duty at the jjiesent rate. 1 intend to give you some fig- 
 ures on the question of a tax, producing revenue. 
 
 I also show in my statement here that there has been a decrejise in 
 the price to the consumer; so in arguing for the retention of the i)re.sent 
 duty it would vseem that all the requirements of the taxing power are 
 accomplished there. It jiresents three remarkable features 
 
 The Chairman. Y'ou cover the gioiind in your printed statement? 
 
 Mr. Lesley. Yes, sir; I only want to say oiu- thing fuither. Some 
 manufacturers in connection with the subject had thought possibly, as 
 the industry was growing here and was still increasing, and as the
 
 CEMENT. 175 
 
 amount under the McKinley bill had accomplished those desirable 
 objects — raising; revenue, decreasing the i^rices to the consumer, increas- 
 ing the American liroduct, and increasing the wages of the American 
 workmen — we thonglit possibly iu seeking additional sources of revenue 
 some slight increase might be granted us there. I have figures here 
 
 The Chairman. We got almost $1,000,000 out of cement? 
 
 Mr. Lesley. You received an average of *500,000 a year for the five 
 years subsequent t^) the MeKinley bill, or a total of .*2,r)00,000. During 
 th.it period the American manufacture has increased a nn'llion barrels, 
 and the cost on cement laid down in 1800, as compared with the cost of 
 our cement laid down in 1S05, shows that the American consumer is 
 buying his eement for 36 cents less or more tlian the total duty — more 
 than the increased duty under the MeKinley law — but during that 
 period I can say that the American labor in this product has not been 
 decreased. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And we are producing as good cement as anywhere in 
 the world t 
 
 Mr. Lesley. Every bit, and the (Government post-ollice down here 
 proves it. You can see it at your own doors. There is no trust in this 
 industry, and conse(iuently it is a fair subject for consideration. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVEH. What is your cement made out of? 
 
 Mr. Lesley. There are two kin<ls of cement — natural and Portland 
 cement. The natural cement is an argillaceous limest<uie put into the 
 kiln ami then ground well — that is common cement. The Portland 
 cement, used for jtaving and high grade work, consists of marl or lime- 
 stone and clay, which is ground uj* raw and made into bricks and 
 burne<l to a clinker and then ground again. One has two grindings 
 and two oj»erations and the other has only one. The result is that it 
 is one of the largest individual industries in this country, making very 
 rapid strides all tlir<»ugh the West; and in the wide valley reaching from 
 Texas to Winnijjeg that cement is cajiable of being made to ])rovide 
 stone for that Western territory, which has now no stone or lumber. It 
 is a thing whit ii will giou to large jtroportioTis in this c<»untry if only 
 considered in the light which I know the committee is ready to do. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY ME. LESLEY. 
 
 RoiiiHii, I'ortlaiui, ami otiier liydraulir pphumiI in barn-Is, sacks, or other packages, 
 per lUU i»oiin<ls, inoltuliu;; weight of liarrc-l or packn;;e, 8 cents. In bulk, per 100 
 pounds, 7 centtt. 
 
 The above extract from the present tariflf law, passed in 1894, known 
 
 as the " Wilson bill," is the same duty that was fixed ujion cement by 
 the McKinley bill, and as therefore the present rate tirst went into force 
 at the time that the McKinley bill took effect, it is pro]»er in consider- 
 ing the question of duty on cement to view the matter from the stand- 
 point of the date of the passage of the McKinley bill and to note the 
 effects of the operation of that law aiul the i)resent law upon the cement 
 trade and the rev«Miue of the (Tovernment. 
 
 The best way to test the working of a tax is by the eflfects of its 
 o])eration in luoducing the objects for which the tax was intended. 
 The ^IcKinley bill was intended to provide revenue for the operations 
 of the Government and such i)rotection as would equalize the difference 
 between American labor and the labor in foreign countries. It was 
 also the intention in the fixing of any rates of duty to protect the 
 Amerii'an consumer against prohibitive i)rices and against trusts. In 
 order, therefore, to prove that the McKinley bill, the provisions of 
 which as to cement were subse(juently embodied into the Wilson bill,
 
 176 SCHEDULE li.— EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND (JLASSWARE. 
 accomplished the purposes above mentioned, it will be necessary to 
 
 First. That the rate of taxation named under the McKinley bill duly 
 provided the Government with additional revenue. 
 
 Second That it protected the American manulacturer m the sense ot 
 increasing the output of American mills and in preventing the lessening 
 of waaes of American labor employed therein. 
 
 Third. That since the passage of the McKinley bill the prices of both 
 American and imported cements were less to the consumer than prior 
 to the passage of the bill; and, further, tliat the cement industry is not 
 controlled by any trust or trusts, but is a closely competitive industry 
 
 THE PRESENT TAX IS A DUTY FOR REVENUE. 
 
 Prior to the passage of the Mclvink\v act cement was dutiable at 20 
 per cent ad valorem under the act of 1.S8.S. The averagi* invoice value 
 per barrel in 188.) was 81. 73, and this value was maintained until about 
 188G. The net duty under the act of l.^.{ upon the valuation men- 
 tioned was 34 cents "per band. In 1S8(; the Sc-rctary of the Treasury 
 rendered an opinion admitting packages (bands) and cost of inland 
 transportation free of duty. As a result of this (b'cision tln' invoice 
 value of cement fell to •i'l.lO, so that iu 18s7. when the matter of the 
 duty on cement was con.sideied by the Mills eoniinittee,tlM' average duty 
 on cement was about L'l' cents. This duty fell right along until 188'.>, 
 when by the undervaluation of the <enH'iit and the overvaluation of the 
 packages one invoice came into this eountry at a valuation as low as (50 
 cents, the duty being 11' cents. Under the MeKinley bill the ad valorem 
 duty was abolished and a sjiecific duty of 8 cents jter 100 pounds was 
 placed upon cement. This duty upon a weight of Un) jMrnnds, the trade 
 weight of a band of Portland cement, yi«'lded to the (rovernmeut 32 
 cents per barrel, and this ain(»unt is the amount now collected. 
 
 The ligures of the United States (".eologieal Survey, which are taken 
 from the ligures of the Bureau of Statistics ami reduced to calendar 
 instead of fiscal years, sliow that in th*' live years prior t<» the piwjsage 
 of the McKinley bill the imi)orts of cements were as follows: 
 
 Year. 
 
 lUrrela of 
 400 pounda. 
 
 915. SM 
 I.. 114. 095 
 
 1 , 740, 336 
 1.040,186 
 
 ValiM. 
 
 1886 
 
 
 1902,689 
 
 1887 
 
 1.470,K4fl 
 
 1888 
 
 1,731,456 
 
 1889 
 
 1.704.263 
 
 1890 - - - - 
 
 2. 240. 741 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 7. 045. 390 
 
 8,118,086 
 
 
 
 This was dutiable at 20 per cent, the then existing rate, and yielded 
 the Government, for the live years above mentioned, a tax of ."?1.GL'3,- 
 797, or an average of $3L*4,7."il>.4() i»er annum. 
 
 The imports subsequent to the passage of the McKinley bill were as 
 follows : 
 
 Year. 
 
 Rarrols of 
 400x>ound8. 
 
 1891 2,988,313 
 
 1892 2.440.654 
 
 1893 2,674.149 
 
 1894 2,0:»8. 107 
 
 1895 2, 997, 395 
 
 Value. 
 
 Total 13.738,618 i 18,529,682 
 
 $4,411,330 
 3. 378, 331 
 3, 470, 160 
 3, 396, 729 
 3, 873, 123
 
 CEMENT. 177 
 
 Wliicli, beiiij; dutiable at the rate of 8 cents per 100 pouuds, or an 
 equivalent of 32 cents per barrel, yielded the Government in the five 
 years subse(|nent to the ^McKinley bill, and covered by that bill and 
 the present Wilson bill, $4,3'.)t>,357.70, or an average of $379,291.55 per 
 annum. 
 These figures may be made up as follows: 
 
 Total liarrels imported: 
 
 I'ive yt'Jirb since the McKinley bill 13, 738, 618 
 
 Five years prior to McKiuley bill 7. 945, 396 
 
 Increase ill barrels in five years since McKinley bill 5,793,222 
 
 Total duty collected in tive years since McKinley bill $1,396,357.76 
 
 Total duty collected in five years prior to McKiuley bill 1,623,797.00 
 
 Gain in reveniic to the I'liited States Government for five years 
 since the McKinley bill 2,772,560.76 
 
 Average duty per annum (for five years) since ifcKinley bill 879,291.55 
 
 Average duty per annum (for five years) prior to McKinley bill 324, 759. 40 
 
 Average >;ain of revenue per annum for the past five years since 
 the McKinley bill 554,532.15 
 
 Under this state of facts it is clearly shown that the ])rcsent duty on 
 cement is certainly a taritl tor revenue, and lias yielded to the Goveru- 
 iiuMit a steady imrease of revenut*. with an inciease of the imports from 
 abroad, thus proving the rate of duty clearly withiu the lines of tarili" 
 for revenue. 
 
 TUK PKESE.NT TAX IS A PROTECTIVE MEASURE. 
 
 According to the (ieological Snivey report for 1801 there wore in the 
 United States in isito «i7 natural cement works producing 7,0S2,2()4 
 bands of natural hydraidir cement, and 17 works producing 3;i."),r)00 
 barrels of artilicial Tortland cement, and according to tlie same authority 
 there were in lsi».") (51 works producing 7,711,077 barrels of natuial 
 hydraulic cement, and 22 works i)roducing !>0(),324 barrels of artificial 
 Portland cenuMit; or, in round figures, a gain since the passage of the 
 McKinley bill (»f 5 Portland cenuMit works, a decrease of 2 natural <'em- 
 ent works, and a total gain in tlie output of natural cement of ().")8,S73 
 barrels, and in the outjtut (tf PcuMland cenuMit of ().")4.S24 barrels, or a 
 gain of over 1,2."»(>.0(K> bands in the output of American cement works, 
 half of which was in the higlier-iuiced Portland cement, with which the 
 foreign imports come directly into competition. 
 
 During the same period of tive years it can be stated, by a compari- 
 8()n of the tigures of various American cement works, that the average 
 rates for labor employed in most American mills and quarries, which 
 rates are on an average double the rates in European factories, have 
 not been reduced. 
 
 Hence, under the broad ground of a tariff for protection only, the 
 present duty on cement should be niaintaiued. 
 
 THE RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN CONSUMER. 
 
 In 1800, as shown by the Geological Survey report, the net price of 
 American natural-rock cement in bulk at the mills was 51.37 cents per 
 barrel. In ISO,") the net price was .■)0.32 cents i>er barrel, a decrease of 
 1 cent per barrel. In 1800 it a])pears from the same authority that 
 the average price of American Portland cement at the mill, including 
 T 11 12
 
 178 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EAKTHEIsWAUK, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 tlie barrels, was $2.10, or, deducting the value of the barrels, $1.85 per 
 barrel, and in 1895 the net price of American Portland cement at the 
 mills in barrels was $1.85, and in bulk $1.60 per barrel, showing a decline 
 in this commodity, which comes in direct competition with the foreign 
 imports, of 25 cents per barrel. 
 
 At the time the McKinley bill took effect (July 1, 1890) the four 
 leading brands of cement imported into the port of Philadelphia cost 
 the importer as follows, laid down in riiihulelphia: 
 
 Hilton (EngliRh) $2.35 
 
 Bnrham (Enp:lish) --30 
 
 Dvckerhoff (German) 2. bO 
 
 Heyn (German) 2.35 
 
 f u 1895 the same brands of cement cost as follows: 
 
 Hilton (English) $L97 
 
 hurbam (English) 1.^3 
 
 Dyckerhoif (German) 2. 35 
 
 Heyn (German) 1.97 
 
 So that while the change from an :ul valormi to a specitlc duty, 
 together with the packages dutiable, nominally increased the average 
 duty about 12 cents a barrel, the actual cost of the identically same 
 cement, laid down at the same port, has decreased 'M) cents pw barrel, 
 equivalent not only to a reduction to the consumer of the nominal 
 increase in the duty, but to an amount actually more than the total 
 amount of the duty charged. 
 
 From this it can be seen that the j)r«'sent tax is essentially a proper 
 duty from the consumer's standjjoint, inasmuch as it (<i) decreases the 
 cost to the consumer.and (//) increases tlu' revenue to the (lovernment. 
 
 Furtlier than this, in the line of the protection of the consumer, it <-aii 
 be stated to the cied it of the cement mannfacttirers of tlie Tnited States 
 that in the fac*' of the tendencies in these <layH of commercial combi- 
 nations and trusts for ;he monoj)oli/.ation of various industries they 
 have entered into no coml)ination or trust of any kiiul for tlie con- 
 trol of production or the enhancement of i>rices. There are today in 
 the United States, acx'oiding to the census of 1895, «(»n)e 22 works pro- 
 ducing Portland cement and 64 works producing natural hydraulic 
 cement, a total of 86 works; and yet among them all tliere exists no 
 combination or trust for the control of the product, hut manufacturers 
 go on producing their material, and. with the exception of one single 
 Western district, where one company C(»ntrols several smaller corpo- 
 rations, sell their product free of trusts or other monopolistic tendencies. 
 
 General Points as to the Cement Trade. 
 
 Having thus demonstrated from Government figures that the present 
 duty on cement has oi)erated as a revenue measure, and also for the 
 protection of both the American manufacturer and the American con- 
 sumer, it is incumbent to add some general information upon matters 
 connected with the tariff on cement. 
 
 THE CEMENT INDUSTRY. 
 
 The manufacture of cement is not a local industry. It is national. 
 Works exist in Maine, Connecticut, New .Tersey, New York, Arkansas, 
 Utah, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, Washington. Oregon, 
 Alabama, Colorado, Texas, California. Illinois, Wisconsin. Kansas, 
 West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Micliigan. and South Dakota. It
 
 CEMENT. 179 
 
 stands seventh on the list of uoiimetallic mineral products of the 
 United States. It ranks just below lime and salt. It employs a capital 
 of $10,000,000, has an output of nearly 9,000,000 barrels per annum, 
 and gfivee work to about 20,000 laborers. The largest works are in 
 New York State, where over 3,(MK).000 barrels are made and 5,000 men 
 employed; in Kentucky and Indiana, where nearly 2,000,000 barrels 
 are made and 1,500 men employed, and in Pennsylvania, where nearly 
 1,500,000 barrels are made and 1,500 men are employed. 
 
 MANUFACTURE AND CLASSIFICATION OF CEMENT. 
 
 Roman cement is a natural rock, quarried, burnt in kilns, and ground. 
 
 Portland cement is an artificial cement, made by mixing chalk and 
 clay, or limestone and clay, in varying proportion, grinding this to pow- 
 der, making a brick or ball out of this moistened powder, and, after cal- 
 cining at high heat this artificially made new stone, by grinding the 
 resultant clinkers to powder. 
 
 The Koman c'orresjxjnds substantially to the Rosendale, Louisville, 
 and the majority of American natural cements. 
 
 The Portland corresjionds to the American Portland. It has been 
 claimed that this grade of cement could not be made in this country 
 for want of material. After twenty years of experimenting, and after 
 a loss running into millions, this statement has been controverted, and 
 for fifteen years past American IVirtland cements, of a quality equal to 
 any imported, and made in Pennsylvania, in New Jersey, in Ohio, in 
 California, in New York, in Colorado, in Indiana, in Texas, in Utah, and 
 in South Dakota, have been used on (irjverninent work (vide Reports 
 Engineer Commissioner District <»f Columbia lor 1883, et seciuitur) and 
 other i)ublic work with entire success and in comi)etition with foreign 
 cements. The I^ads Jetties are built with American Portland cement 
 (vide Caj)tain Eads's Re])ort on Mississippi Jetties), and the London 
 and Southwestern Railroad of England actually, after a tost, bought 
 American Portland for one of its bridges. (Engineering News, vol. 
 1887.) 
 
 In addition to this the United States Government, the Pennsylvania 
 Railroad, and the New York Central Railroad, and other large consum- 
 ers all allow the use of American I'ortland cement on their work. 
 The principal engineering works in the United States, such as the New 
 Y'ork acjueduct and dams, the celebrated Johnstown liridge, the Scran- 
 ton dams, the tunnel under Niagara P'alls, are all built with American 
 I'ortland cement, thus clearly demonstrating its cjuality to be equal to 
 that of the imported Portland cement. Therefore, having shown that 
 the manufacture of cement is an important one in the United States, 
 and not a local industiy, and iiaving shown further that the American 
 article is slightly cheaper and is actually equal to the imported 
 cement, it is next in order to show that cement does not fall among 
 those articles called "raw material," and is actually almost entirely the 
 product of domestic labor. 
 
 The first element, as above stated, to the manufacture of either natural 
 or Portland cement is the base, viz, cement, rock, chalk, and clay, or 
 limestone and clay. This base is produced by mining or quarrying by 
 American labor the ingredients mentioned. The next step in the pro- 
 cess is the calcining of this material, which is done with coke or coal, 
 also the product of American labor. This is followed by the grinding 
 of the calcined product by millstones and crushers operated by Ameri- 
 can labor and driven by engines whoso steam is produced by coal mined
 
 180 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 by American labor. The manufactured product is put into barrels, the 
 cooperage stock of which has been pre])ared by American labor, while 
 the packing is also done by the labor of this country. The manufactured 
 article is loaded onto cars by American labor and is carried to market 
 by our inland lines of transportation. 
 
 By a careful e.xamination into tlie cost of a barrel of cement it is 
 shown that in the production of a barrel of natural cement the follow- 
 ing figures are very nearly correct, while in tlic i)roduction of a barrel 
 of American Portland cement, which more directly competes with the 
 foreign j)roduct, the actual cost of labor runs up to over DU per cent. 
 
 IN THE LXITEI) STATES. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Quarrying represents 40 
 
 Burning represents 6 
 
 Griuding represent 6 
 
 Moving, etc., represent 5 
 
 Packing represents 3 
 
 Coal and coke, staves and heading, all the product of labor, represent 27 
 
 Making of labor 87 
 
 This labor represents, on an average pei- day, for — 
 
 Quiirrymen $1 . 20 to $2. tX) 
 
 Laborers 1.10 1.50 
 
 Millers 2.00 2.50 
 
 Millwrigbts 2.50 3.00 
 
 Engineers 2. 00 2. 50 
 
 Coopers 1.50 2.00 
 
 All the labor is that of men. 
 
 IN EUROPE. 
 
 Both men and women are employe<l in cement works. 
 The wages paid pi^r (hiy, as gathered from investigation made in the 
 European cement works and from consular reports, are as follows: 
 
 
 France. 
 
 Germany. 
 
 Belffium. 
 
 Bnglaiid 
 
 Miners 
 
 ♦0.87 
 
 10. 40 to . »7 
 
 .20 to. 39 
 
 l.pt 
 
 . 76 
 
 .3^ 
 
 .97 
 .93 
 
 #0.76 
 1.00 
 
 •aao 
 
 .88* 
 
 10.76 
 1 00 
 
 Millers 
 
 Women iiiillers 
 
 
 Milhyrijiht-s 
 
 1.00 
 .76 
 .60 
 
 1.20 
 .78 
 
 .67 
 
 1.03 
 
 .M 
 
 1 10 
 
 Laborers 
 
 .78 
 
 Women laborers 
 
 
 En;;ineer8 
 
 i.to 
 
 Coopers 
 
 1 13 
 
 
 
 AMERICAN MALE VS. GERMAN FEMALE LABOR. 
 
 From United States Consular Reports (Ex. Doc, Forty eighth Cou- 
 gress, p. 404) one German Portland cement manufactory in Silesia 
 employed in 1884, according to its i)ay roll, in its wlxtle works, li 
 workmen, at 30 cents per day; 00 workmen, at 24 cents ])or day; 7(> 
 men and women, at 24 cents per day— a total «laily i)ay roll of ^si.l'J. 
 
 An American works of same nund)erof hands employs, according to 
 its books, 2 engineers, at 82; 4 millers, at $2.:)(); 2 mil'hvright.s, at .i>3; 
 30 coopers, at $1.75; 51 laborers, at $1.30; 50 quarrymen, at $1.75— a 
 total daily i)ay roll of $22().30. 
 
 A daily ditlerence in favor of (German manufacturer and against 
 American manufacturer of $192.50.
 
 CEMENT. 
 
 181 
 
 (Vment enters into no other industry, but is simply like lime, a build- 
 ing material for the mortar used in building, and is in no sense a raw 
 material for any other industry. 
 
 LEGISLATION AS TO THE DUTY ON CEMENT. 
 
 The present dutv on cement is practically the same that existed origi- 
 nally iS "he Jt of 188.] before the aeticm of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury made the barrels and inland transportation nondutiable. 
 When tiie question of duty on cement came up m U^b., the Mills Lom- 
 mittee in their bill presented to the House, reimposed the duty on bar- 
 rels mdh. land transportation and left the rate of duty at 2(. per cent, 
 hus ak g, at the then existing inyoice price, a duty of about 32 cents 
 lerbirrel. Atthesan.e session of Congress, in the tantlbil introduced 
 bv Congressman liandall. the duty and rcimposition o the duty on bar- 
 rJls a d inhuul transportation as adopted by the Mills Committee was 
 a s^»Sowe.l, while the Senate bill of the same year contained a si.mlar 
 enaetn.ent. Thus all the legislation as to the duty on cement at the 
 session Of 18S7 tended to fix the duty at a rate Y^'''V\711V.^''^;^^" J« 
 the present duty. At the sessicm of 1S89-1»0, when the Mckinley bill 
 vs'n course 'of prei.aration, the writer appeared betore both the 
 M K ley an.l Senate con.n.ittees as the representative of tbe An,e i^ 
 c n een.ent n.an.ifacturers. In the face of a strong opposition of cement 
 nanulac-turers not represented by him he, on the ground of fairness 
 ale if, asked that no higher duty shouhl be leyied upon cement 
 ? In 1 nan.e.l by the Mills (%.n.nnttee and the other committees of 
 t esessonof ISS?; belieying that where three dilVeient bod.es repre- 
 sent in c^ltVerent yiews of the duty upon a giyen subject conld come to 
 a similar giyen conclusion that this conclusion must be so near right 
 ^ha wouhl not be fair to ask any change. Tins suggestion was 
 
 •ulo pted by the McKinley ami the Senate con.mittees with the modifica- 
 tion of makiii'- the duty specific instead of ad yalorem. 
 
 We e Wilson committee gaye pul.lic hearings for the preparation 
 of the p esent law. the writer again appeared before that committee, 
 auu MutluMepresentati.u. substa..tialiyen.bodicdu. the present argm^ 
 ent that eon, nittee and the Senate Fina..ce Comnuttee reenacted in 
 t J Wi on bill the rate proyide.l .n the McKinley ^^'l^.-^'^^V^^^/';; .X 
 i fbr.e and, as shown aboye. has resulted m decreasing the cost of the 
 cement ti "the consu.ner and increasing the reyenue to the Government 
 to an amount of over *50U,()00 per annum since its adoption. 
 
 STATISTICS OF MANUFACTUEE. 
 
 The following figures are given of the total production of all kinds 
 of cement in the United States from 1882 to 1891: 
 
 Year. 
 
 1882.. 
 
 188:!.. 
 1884.. 
 1885.. 
 18X6.. 
 1887.. 
 1888.. 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 3, 250, 000 
 4. l'.>0.000 
 4, IX>0. 000 
 4, !.">«, 000 
 4. 5WI, OOO 
 6, 942, 744 
 6, 503, 095 
 
 Value. 
 
 $3. 672. 750 
 
 4, 29:i. 5ti0 
 3, 720, Olio 
 3, 402, .ItM) 
 3, 90i>, ODO 
 5,674.400 
 5, 021, 139 
 
 Per 
 barrel. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 $1.13 
 
 1.02 
 
 .93 
 
 .84 
 
 1889 
 
 1800 
 
 1891 
 
 18it2 
 
 1893 
 
 1894 
 
 1895 
 
 781, 876 
 :i08, 734 
 707. 979 
 758. 621 
 , 002. 467 
 , 302. 245 
 , 731, 401 
 
 Value. 
 
 '.$5, 000, 000 
 5, 582, 243 
 5,613,522 
 7,151,750 
 6, 262, 846 
 5,010,204 
 5, 482, 254 
 
 aEstiuiated. 
 
 Per 
 barrel. 
 
 ).72 
 .72 
 .81 
 .78 
 .60 
 .63
 
 182 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EAKTHENWARE, AXD GLASSWARE. 
 
 The figures for the years 1804 and 180."") are given for tlie cement in 
 bulk at the mills, and"^ prior years for cement in barrels at the mill. 
 The increased i)rice per barrel shown in the year 1S92 is due to the large 
 increase in the higher-priced Portland cement, the cost of which per 
 barrel in bulk at the mill is equivalent t^^ $1.60, as against 50 cents for 
 the lower-priced natural cement, and the figures for the Portland cement 
 production in the years 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, which are 
 embraced in the general figures above given, are as follows : 
 
 Tears. 
 
 1890 
 3801 
 1892 
 1893 
 1894 
 1895 
 
 ISarrela. 
 
 335,500 
 464.813 
 547.440 
 690. 652 
 798, 757 
 990,324 
 
 Value. 
 
 $704,050 
 1. 067. 4L'9 
 
 1. i.sa.floo 
 
 1, 15X. 13« 
 a 1, 34v<. 473 
 a 1, 586. 830 
 
 Perb»r- 
 rel. 
 
 •3.10 
 2.33 
 2.10 
 l.M 
 1.73 
 1.60 
 
 a TLe value in tho l.iet two years in i^ckoned In bulk and not in barr«la. 
 
 IMPORTATIONS OF CEMENT. 
 
 Prom reports of P>ureau of .Statistics the following are the imports of 
 cement of all kinds into the United States for the paiit 10 years: 
 
 Tear, a 
 
 1878 5 
 
 1879 6 
 
 1880 b 
 
 1881 6 
 1882.. 
 1883.. 
 1881 .. 
 1885 . . 
 1886.. 
 
 Barrels of 
 400 pounds. 
 
 92,000 
 106, (KM) 
 187.000 
 221. 000 
 337, 793 
 472 804 
 682, (123 
 578. 141 
 015,255 
 
 Vidne. 
 
 Tev. a 
 
 $21 '4, 421' 
 
 2ii.'."T( 
 
 a':: ■ 
 
 44' 
 
 «7^ 
 817 
 821' 
 901- 
 962, (ibJ 
 
 1887 
 
 1 .0^ 
 
 Barrels of 
 400 pooiids 
 
 1.614.096 
 1, 835. 504 
 1,740.356 
 1. 94U. 186 
 2. 968. 318 
 2,440.0&4 
 2.674.149 
 2,638,107 
 1997,395 
 
 Valae. 
 
 $1, 470, 846 
 1.731,456 
 1, 704, 2.'W 
 1349.741 
 4,411.3.-)0 
 $,.178,331 
 8, 47U. 160 
 8, 896. 729 
 1873,128 
 
 The 
 show 
 
 a A calendar year ending Doceniber 31 from 1886, |ir»vioiia years ending Jane $0. 
 
 bEHtiniate of Ueologiral Survey. 
 
 e imports for the year 1896 will run close to those of year 1895, a.s 
 II so far by the figures for the ten months «'iiding October 30, ISOO. 
 
 increased, while the price of the article has dccroa.sed t<» the c«»ii8umcr; 
 third, that the undervaluation under the old law, whereby tin* valua- 
 tion was shifted from the dutiable cement to the noii(luti;iblc barrel, 
 has been put an end to, and the dutiable cement is valued at its true 
 price. 
 
 IMPORTED CEMENT, AT CERTAIN SEASONS, COMES PRACTICALLY AS 
 
 BALLAST, 
 
 The additional reason for the maintenance of the present rate of duty 
 is that Portland cement in barrels forms one of the most convenient 
 articles of ballast for the loMdiug of sliijts. and for this reason is carried 
 at very low rates of freight. Duiiug certain years sailing vessels have
 
 CEMENT. 183 
 
 brouglit cement from Frencli. Dt'lrjiaii, and I'lnglisli ports to Xew York 
 as low as 10 cents per barrel, while steamer rates as low as -0 cents per 
 barrel have been made. 
 
 Owing to the fact that the raw material in this country is at a distance 
 from the seaboard and the principal places of consumption are at the 
 seaboard, the American manufacturer is at a great disadvantage. The 
 rates from the Syracuse (N. Y.) district to New York City are 40 cents per 
 barrel on Portland cement, while the rates from the Lehigh (Pa.) dis- 
 trict are 2G cents per barrel, and to Philadelphia from the same districts 
 the rates are respectively 52 cents and 20 cents per barrel. Hence the 
 average freight of American Portland cement to New York, where it 
 enters into competition with the foreign article, is practically the same 
 as the freight on the foreign cement from Euro])e to the same point, and 
 in some cases, where tramj) steamers or sailing vessels are used, the 
 rates are materially higher. Under this state of facts it can be seen 
 that any reduction in the duty on Portland cement would drive the 
 American manufacturer practically out of the business. 
 
 RECIPROCITY. 
 
 In connection with these facts governing cement as an article of 
 ballast for vessels carrying other material of higher grades and lighter 
 weight, a strong argument may be ma<le in favor of the inclusion of 
 cement, natural and PortUmd. in any schedules of articles that may be 
 made in connection with reciprocity treaties. The inaniifactured goods 
 exported from this c(»untry to other countries are generally of light 
 weight, such as cutlery, machinery, agricultural implements, bicycles, 
 dry goods, and other articles of similar character. All these are bulky 
 so far as spa<e is <'oncerned, but light so far as bulk to space is con- 
 cerned. For this reason it would be a great benetit toother American 
 manufacturers (d goods of the character abo\ e mentioned to have 
 included in any schedules of reciprocity treaties a) heavy an article in 
 relation to bulk as cement, because it would furnish ballast or heavy 
 low grade freights for vessels carrying the lighter products of American 
 manufacturers to other nations where reciprocity treaties might be in 
 existence. No better class of freight for this purjjose can be imagined 
 than Portland cement, which is loaded in barrels, is easily handled, 
 and furnishes a most admirable and solid ballast, and one which will 
 bear a moderate rate of freight. 
 
 In conclusion it is respectfully asked: 
 
 First. That the i)resent rate of duty as named in the McKinley bill 
 and as framed in the Wilson bill shall be maintained; or, if in the 
 judgment of the committee additional revenue is desired, which, while 
 ]>rotectingand advancing the interests of a growing Ameri<'an industry, 
 will not injure the American consumer, then it is suggested that the 
 rate be increased either 2 or 4 cents per l(i(» pounds, and made 10 cents 
 or 12 cent^ per 100 pounds, instead of 8 cents per 100 pounds, as under 
 the present taritf. 
 
 Second. That in any schedules of American goods that may be 
 end^raced in recii)rocity treaties to be etlected with other nations 
 American hydraulic natural cement and American Portland cement 
 shall be included therein.
 
 184 SCHEDULE B. — EARTHS, EAKTHE^N WAKE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 POETLAXD CE:MEXT. 
 
 (Paragraph 79.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. J. L. KING. OF SYRACUSE. N. Y. 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y., .January 10, 1800. 
 Hydraulic cements may be divided into two (•las.«<e.s as follows: 
 
 1. Natural -rock cement made from a natural limestone containing a 
 high percentage of clay by burning at a low lieat and grinding'. The 
 product is known as quick-setting, Koinan, common, or liydraulic 
 cement. This i)ro«luct is manufactured in tiiis country to the amount 
 of about 7,00(),(K)(» barrels a year. It is sold at a price of ."io to <l() cents 
 per barrel, in sacks, and is u.sed for moi tar. It is greatly inferior to 
 Portland cement, and can not be u.sed for sidewalks, foundations of 
 machinery, etc. 
 
 2. Portland cement is made from an artificial mixture of carbonate 
 of lime (chalk, marl, or limestone) ami clay, in exactly tlie right juo- 
 portions, burned at a white heat and grouml. The jtroduct owes its 
 excelleiu'e to the exact i)roi)ortions between tin* lime and «'lay, in con- 
 sequence of which it may be burned at a white heat, an<l develops the 
 maximum hydraulic qualities. 
 
 Portland cement was first made in 1-ngland in 18li."». The indnstry 
 slowly devel()])e(l and has now reached a piodnction of about 4,(»M>.(H»0 
 barrels. The manufacture was begun in I'rance in 1S."»0, (iermany in 
 1800, Belgium about is<i(), and the Inited Stati's in 1S78. 
 
 The comparati\e annual output of Portland cement in the various 
 countries is about as follows: 
 
 Barrvlt. 
 
 England 4.000,000 
 
 France L', (XX), ( 00 
 
 Germany IL', <mhi, (HK) 
 
 Belijiiuu 1, .VH). 000 
 
 United State.s l.tXK», 0<X) 
 
 The production of Portland cement in the I'nited States, ami also 
 the im])orts from Euro]ie. since ISSi', are shown in the following table, 
 taken from the reports on Mineral iJesources of the I'liited States, 
 published by the United States (ieological Survey. 
 
 Tenr. 
 
 ^Innnfar- 
 tiiml in 
 I'nited 
 SUtcs. 
 
 Imported. 
 
 Tol«l roil- 
 aumtni. 
 
 1882 
 
 Barrel*. 
 
 ST.. 000 
 l.SO, 000 
 250, 000 
 :«5. 5(t0 
 !>47. 440 
 798. 7r.7 
 990,324 
 1,000,000 
 
 BarreU. 
 337. 793 
 4:18. 815 
 1,070,400 
 1,940,896 
 2, C8G. 921 
 2. «38. 1(r7 
 
 2. 997. ;«5 
 
 3, 000, 000 
 
 BarreU. 
 
 42-J. 793 
 
 5H8.H 1.1 
 
 1.:j2(i, ifKi 
 2, 27r.. :i'.<6 
 3.2;»4,;i«i 
 
 3. 43«!, MU 
 .1,987.719 
 
 4, QW. 000 
 
 1885 
 
 1887 
 
 1890 
 
 1892 
 
 1894 
 
 1895 
 
 1896 (estimated) 
 
 
 It thus appears that the American industry has not materially gained 
 in proportion to the imports in the ]»ast fouiteen vears. \Vliil"c in 1SS2 
 about 20 per cent of the Portland cement consumed in the Tnited 
 States was of home manufacture, in 181»0 and IS'JG this propoiti«m was 
 about L*^ per cent.
 
 POUTLAND CEMENT. 185 
 
 The inaimfacture of Portland cement is carried on in this country iu 
 twenty-two factories, the larj^est of wliich produces about 900 barrels 
 j)er day. Seveial of the Kugli-sh and German factories produce over 
 2,000 barrels per day. 
 
 CAUSES OF SLOW DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDUSTRY. 
 
 The reasons for the comparatively slow increase in i>roduction of Port- 
 land ccnicnt in this country are chietiy the hi<;h price of labor and the 
 steady fall in price of im])orted cement. The best English and (Jermau 
 Portland sold at wholesale in New York in 1886 at $3.50 and S4 per 
 barrel. In 1800 tiie ])rice was $2 to .S2.r)0. Immense quantities of 
 cheaper Kn{,dish and lieltrian cements are also imported and sold in 
 New York at $1.25 to 81.50 per barrel. Much of this cheap lJel,i;ian 
 cement is really a natural rock cement, and is adulterated with slaj:j and 
 other substances to jjive it the color and composition of true Portland 
 cement (see report of I>clgian consul, United States Consular Keports, 
 Se])tend)cr, ISIMJ, p. 180). Much of the Enjjlish Portland cement sent to 
 this country is also adulterated with sla.u ami {ground "rag stone." 
 
 The average wages paid per day in cement works of Gernniny, Eng- 
 land, and the I'nited States are as follows: Germany (liiebrich), 
 63 cents; England, 83 cents to $1.17; United States, $1.50. The figure 
 piven for (Jernumy was stated by Dr. Dykeshoff, of lJiel)rich, Germany, 
 to S. H. Newberry, in July, ISOO. The figure given for England is 
 taken fnun the rei)orts of Consul New (Unifed States Consular lieporls). 
 The figure given for the United States is taken from pay rolls of cement 
 works at Syracuse, N. V., and San<lusky, Ohio. 
 
 DUTIES ON PORTLAND AND ROMAN CEMENT. 
 
 Tariff of 1883, 20 per cent ad valorem; M<Kinley bill, 8 cents per 
 100=32 cents; Wilson bill, 8 cents i)er J0(> pounds =32 cents. 
 
 It is a well known fact that much of the low-grade Belgian and 
 adulterated lOnglish cements are imported into this country as natural- 
 rock cements at the low duty per liarrel of 8 cents, and thereafter 
 rebranded as high-class Portland cements, and sold in competition with 
 best American cements, at i)rices whi<;h can not be met. 
 
 The American dealer must contend not oidy with the high price of 
 labor, but with the fact that tlu'se low-grade cements can be shipped 
 from Pelgium and England through to Chicago and the West at a jirice 
 lower than it costs to i>roduce the American article. The higher-grade 
 foreign c«'ments can be in)ported into Chicago and the West so as to 
 practically kill the American C(Uuiietition in tliat market. The result 
 of the low duty and of the facts above stated have caused the shut- 
 down of numy of tJie large cement works in the East, which can never 
 be started unless protected to the extent of at least 50 cents specific 
 duty per barrel. 
 
 A S])eciiic duty of 60 cents on each barrel of all kinds of cements 
 imported would have the double eflect of starting up the idle cement 
 factories of this country and of increasing its revenue. 
 
 At 8 cents i)er 100 pounds the duty is about 30 cents per barrel, which 
 is ad valorem duty of from 10 to 15 i)er cent. 
 
 Ocean freights for cement are merely nominal. Much of it comes as 
 ballast. The foreign manufacturer makes his money out of his home 
 market and disposes of what that market will not take, either from 
 overproduction or inferi(»rity of quality, iu the United States at what 
 ever i)rice can be obtained.
 
 186 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWAKE, AND ULA.n>v. AKE. 
 
 The American manufacturer asks that his home market be protected 
 against its use as a dumping ground for the overproduction of Euroi)e. 
 
 J. L. King. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY IMPORTERS AND DEALERS IN 
 PORTLAND CEMENT. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The undersigned importers and dealers in Portland cement beg to 
 submit for the consideration of your committee the following statement : 
 
 The present duty on Portland cement is S cents per KM) pounds, or 
 32 cents per barrel. This tarilf was fixed by the McKinley bill an<l 
 retained by the Wilson bill. The tariff prior to the McKinley bill was 
 20 per cent of invoice cost, or about 20 cents per barrel. The revenue 
 to the Government trom the present importations amounts to only 
 about 1800,000 annually. The manufacture of Portland cement in the 
 United States dates fiom 1875, and now amounts to an annual output 
 of about 1,000,000 barrels. The importati(»n during the last five years 
 has been annually about 2,.j(>o.<m>o barrels. Does recent experience 
 show the present taritf to be unnecessarily high? 
 
 The present selling ])rice of American Portland cement in the leading 
 markets on the Atlantic coast is ^l.H.". to *2 i)er barrel, wliile the foreign 
 cement is selling at $1.75 to >'2.25 per barrel. 
 
 It is authoritatively stated that Portland cement is manufactured in 
 the United States at a cost of from *1 to .^1.25 per barrel. Inder these 
 conditions, and notwithstanding the general «le])ression of business, 
 the American Portland cement industry has rajjidly grown to large 
 proportions, and it is a fact that during the past year the domestic 
 manufacturers have been unable to supply the demand upon them, 
 and at present additions to old plants and new works are being 
 constructed, which will nniterially increavse the domestic output. 
 
 On this evidence it nuist be taken for grant<'d that the domestic manu- 
 facturers find a satisfactory i)rotit in underselling the iini)orted cement, 
 otherwise they would have taken advantage of tiieir orders exceeding 
 the supply to advance their ]irice. 
 
 Foreign Portland cement, paying a duty of ;i2 cents, and freight from 
 Europe to American seaports of ."35 cents i)er barrel, otters to the Ameri 
 can manufacturer a protective duty of about 07 cents per barrel, which 
 is about 60 per cent of the actual cost of production both at home and 
 abroad, and, in addition, foreign Portland cement must be imported in 
 barrels, which must be well made, in order to carry the contents in good 
 order and form a considerable item of expense, while American i'oit- 
 land cement is largely delivered in bags, which cost much less than 
 barrels and can be returned to the manufacturers and used again and 
 again. 
 
 Portland cement has become a necessity to the peo])le of the Unitc<l 
 States; it is not only used in the construction of aqueducts, bridges, 
 dams, canals, fortifications, and other public works, but is of importance 
 to every manufacturer, householder, and farmer for the construction of 
 foundations, floors, cellars, silos, pavements, etc. 
 
 Whatever of duty may be assessed on the imported cement in excess 
 of what might be considered ample protection to the American manu- 
 facture, unnecessarily adds to the cost and consequently, to the selling 
 price, and becomes to that extent a burden upon the public, covering 
 such extensive general uses as we have mentioned.
 
 PORTLAND CEMENT. 187 
 
 In view of the fact that the American Portland cement industry is so 
 flourishing,' at a sellin<; price lower than must be obtained for foreij^u 
 cement, does not that suggest, for the serious consideration of your 
 committee, the ([uestion whether the consumer should not be relieved 
 of so much of the present tarifl' a9exj)erieni'e demonstrates is not neces- 
 sary for ample protection to the American manufacturer, and whether 
 such reduction might not incidentally result in an increase to the 
 revenue T 
 
 If your committee, on careful consideration of the foregoing state- 
 ment, should arrive at this conclusion, the undersigned would suggest 
 that the new tarilf law should provide for a duty at the rate of 5 cents 
 l)er KM) pounds, including weight of barrel or j)ackage, on Koman, Port- 
 land, and othei- liydraulic cements in barrels, sacks, or otiier packages. 
 Sinclair & liabsou, Uaebler «S: Co., Gabriel \- Schall, Ham- 
 mill & Clillespie, Charles J. Stevens, 1'. Thiele, H. Mar- 
 quardt c^ Co., F. ilelirend, L. Meyerstein. Manhattan 
 Cement Conij>any, New York; Waldo Bros., Boston, 
 Mass.; ?^dwin Hall «!t Cf).. Morris Kbert. Philadelphia, Pa.; 
 National Builders" Supply Company, B. ^Vallis .Ji: Co., 
 Baltimore. M<1.; VVm. -M. Bird il^ Co., Charleston, S. C; 
 C. M.Gilbert c^' Co.,Savannali. Ca.; A. V. Clubbs, Tensa- 
 cola, Fla.; St. .John A; Co.. Mobile, Ala.; Ong, Ililler & 
 Co., New Orlean.s, La.; William Parr & Co., Geo. 11. 
 Henchman, Galveston, Tex., and others. 
 
 New York, January 5, 1897. 
 CorvriTTEE ON Ways and Mkans: 
 
 Having been given to understand that the manufacturers of Port- 
 land cement intend to demand an increase in the jtresent duty of this 
 article, and not awaie of any action having been taken by my contem- 
 poraries and the cou^umers to present their side of the question, I 
 res|»ectlully beg to submit the following: 
 
 Tlieie exists in this country a lew i)lants for manufacturing Portland 
 cenu'Ut wlrich, it is possible, have not proved a jirolitable investment, 
 and this may be submitted to you as a cause for demand (»f iiM-rease in 
 the pri'sent duty. These two or three jdants, however, are in this ])re- 
 dicament through error in Judgment by constructors and because of 
 their management, and not on account of insuflicient i)rotection. 
 
 Portland cement factories in our country properly constructed and 
 well managed are ]»aying good returns, and the imlustry has increased 
 considcraldy during the last few years; and this in spite of the great 
 dei)res8ion that has prevailed in the building trade throughout the 
 country. 
 
 An increase in the present rate of duty of 8 cents per 100 i)Ounds, I 
 believe, would make the inqiortation (»f goo<l Portland cement well nigh 
 impossible, and cause loss to the consumers as well as to the Govern- 
 ment, which now derives a considerable income from the importation of 
 this article. 
 
 The industry of manufacturing Portland cement in this country has 
 l)as8ed its infancy. The domestic brands are sold at less prices than 
 the good foreign brands, although the foreign manufacturers have been 
 selling their goods at cost price, in many instances, during the past few 
 yeais. 
 
 The increased demand outside of the United States during the last
 
 188 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 year, witli good prospects of steady demand in the future, has wipetl 
 out the greater part of the surphis production of Europe sohl m our 
 market in the past, and further restriction of importation would cause 
 considerable loss and inconvenience to the consumer, because the 
 domestic factories can supply only about one-third of the demand. 
 The difference of cost in the manufacture of good Portland cement in 
 this country and Europe is from 20 to 25 per cent in favor of Euroi)ean 
 manufacturers, while, based on the prevailing freight rate from Europe 
 and present duty of S cents per 100 pounds, the American manufac- 
 turers enjoy a protection of about .")() ])er cent. 
 
 In addition to this, the domestic Portland cement manufacturers have 
 a great advantage over the foreign ot being able to deliver tlieir ])rod- 
 uct in bags, which is done to a very great extent, thereby saving the 
 cost of the package, which i)lac«*s the (htmestic manufacturers in a 
 position where there is no ]K)ssibiIity of competition of the foreign 
 brands. During the hearing for revision of the tariff of ISIXI I under 
 stand the domestic manulacturers stated at that time that if the pres- 
 ent rate of duty was given them it would be all they would re<piire to 
 build up the industry of manufacturing Portland cement in this coun- 
 try, and the increase in this industry during the last few years has 
 proved the rate of duty then asked for to be sutlicient protection. 
 
 All the manufacturers asked for was comeded to them at that time, 
 and the rate then established has been in force ever since, having been 
 retained by the framers of the present tarifl' law. 
 
 E. F. IlOLMBEEO. 
 
 (Paragrapli 79.) 
 
 Medicine L()D(;e, Kans,. December 2(), lf!96. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Keene's cement is a special niiinnfactnre fronj gy|)sum rock of a 
 peculiar rpiality. It ditVers in almost all of its charactei istics and uses 
 from i)laster of paris, having a strength greatly exceeding that of the 
 latter. Its manutactnie is ex])ensive and reipiires great skill, experi- 
 ence, and a special ])liintof machin«'ry, and its jtrice is ab(Uit four times 
 that of plaster of ]»aris. 
 
 Till within recent years the whole of Keene's cement use<l in America 
 was imported from Gieat I>ritain. No sjiecial mention of this ])roduct 
 is made in the present tariff schedules, and it has been pa.s.sed througli 
 the customs at the same rate as Portland cement, nan)ely at a duty of 
 8 cents per 100 pounds, or 24 cents per barrel of .ioo jniunds, thoiigh 
 the price of it is four times greater than that of Portland cement. 
 
 Keene's cement is now bein.u: manufactured by P.est P.ros. vS: Co., 
 Limited, in INIedicine Lodge, Kans., from rock fou'nd in the neighbor- 
 ing hills, which they discovered to be of the special «pmlitv needed for 
 its manufacture. 
 
 The company finds that to reach the best markets for its i)roduct8, 
 viz, New York, New En,uland. and Pennsylvania, it must pav a freight 
 of from $1 to Sl.2o a barrel, while duty and freight from London, Eng- 
 land, combined amount to only about 41 cents a barrel on the English 
 Keene's cement. 
 
 Thepresent rate of tariff does not, therefore, really afford any protection
 
 GYPSUM OR PLASTER OF PARIS. 
 
 189 
 
 to our manufacture. Tliis being tlie case, we feel that we have substan- 
 tial ;;iuuii(ls for requesting the assistance of \t)ur committee toward 
 seeurin;; lor this, one of tiie very few industries of the State of Kansas 
 which are cajtable of receiving assistance of this kind, a similar meas- 
 ure of i)rotecti(tn to tliat accorded to the manufactures of the East. We 
 accordingly suggest that Keene's cement be added to the taritf sched- 
 ules in any revision of them, and that Keene's cement, both coarse and 
 sujH'rline, be made subject to an import duty of 5fl.25 a barrel of 300 
 pounds. 
 
 Best Beos. & Co., Limited. 
 
 GYPSinSI OR PLASTER OF PARIS. 
 
 (Paragraph 81.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. CALVIN TOMKINS. OF NEW YORK. 
 
 New Yoek, January 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I write to protest against the favorable consideration of any possi- 
 ble demand for an increased rate of <lnty on plaster of i»aris. The 
 existing duty is ."?«1.2.~> per ton, and this is nearly prohibitive as it 
 stands, l^xcepting very moderate imp«»rtations into lIost(»n, I'hiladel 
 phia, and Kichnmnd, no mannfacturecl jdaster of paris is brought into 
 tlie country. At the «ities alxtve noted plaster of i>aris of domestic 
 manufacture is sold and consumed lo a much great«'r extent than is the 
 foreign article. It tlie duty should l)e increased, even to a slight 
 extent, importations \\((uhl entirely cease, and \u) revenue whatever 
 wouhl accrue to the (loNernment. 
 
 Tlie present rate of duty provides ample protection for the domestic 
 manufacturer as above noted, an<l at the same time jirovides a revenue 
 for the (lovernment, thus accomplishing the twofold intent of the 
 projHised tariff legislation. 
 
 CALVLN TOMKINS. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MARSH & CO., OF SANDUSKY, OHIO. 
 
 Sanhuskv, Ohio, January L*^ 1S'.)7. 
 The gyi>sum producers of the Lnited States are interested in having 
 a duty levied on all importations of gypsum rock, which amounts to 
 about 70 per cent of the home ])roduction. Plea.se note the following 
 statistics, taken from Volume IV of the Sixteenth Annual Kejtort of 
 the I'nited States Geological Survey to the Secretary of the Interior, 
 which is the only authority we have on the subject at this time: 
 
 ((2unntitii«s in short tuns.] 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Production 
 
 Inthernitetl 
 
 States. 
 
 ImTiorta- 
 tiuns. 
 
 1889 267,769 170,965 
 
 1890 182,995 171.289 
 
 18S11 208.126 110,2.17 
 
 1892 256.259 i 181. 104 
 
 1893 253.615 164.300 
 
 1894 1 239,312 162, .500
 
 190 SCHEDULE B.— EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Gypsum is prodiu ed in Xew York, Yirgiuia, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, 
 Kansas, Texas, Colorado, and other Wostein States, and is manufactured 
 into calcined and land plaster, both of which are protected by $1.2o 
 per ton on the former and 81 per ton on the latter. A tarlft tax of at 
 least §1 per ton should, in our judgment, be placed on the gypsum rock. 
 This country can easily produce all the gypsum required for home con 
 sumption, and as it is produced in so many localities the competition 
 would prevent any advance in price, even if the tariff on foreign gyp- 
 sum was hi^h enough to stop importations entirely. If a duty of $1 
 per ton would not stop importations of gypsum, the United States 
 Government would be benelited to that extent on every ton imported. 
 If such a tax would curtail iin]>ortations, American labor would be 
 benefited by giving employment to more men in the various gypsum 
 mines and quarries of I his country. 
 
 Mabsh & Co. 
 
 E ASTON, Pa., January ]i\ 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We understand there has been a move made to impose a duty on 
 gypsum rock, Avhich we think is a great disadvantage to the i)eople 
 of the United States, from the fact that a great deal of this material is 
 used in themannfactureofcalcineand]»laster of paris, ]>y manufacturers 
 in this country, it being their b;ise or cru<le muterial. The same also 
 enters largely in the nianula'ture of dry |>aint,s. thus gi\ ingemi)loyment 
 to a great many ])eo])le, wheie if duty was imposed it i-ould not be used 
 in the manufacture of the produ«t, which is princij)ally calcine and 
 plaster of i)aris, which is nuniufactnred in foreign c<mntries, on whieli 
 there is already a duty, thus j)rotecting our manufacturers hereon this 
 material. 
 
 Hoping this will meet with your views and that the sanie will still 
 remain on the free list, we are, 
 
 C. K. Williams & Co. 
 
 I'llILADELrni A. r.V.. .litnUiiru .9, 1S97. 
 
 Committee on Wats and Means: 
 
 An imposition of duty on rock ])last^r, anil an increase on calcined 
 will woi k an injury to farmers, consumers, and manufacturers of plaster 
 throughout the Atlantic States. 
 
 Samuel U. French & Co. 
 
 Garbutt, Monroe County, N. Y., December 31, 1896. 
 
 Dear Sir: There is now no tarilf on gypsum, exeej)! in its manufac- 
 tured state, and ascom])aratively little is ever imported in this condition 
 it is practically a dead letter. There should be a tariff tax on crude 
 gypsum, both for protection and revenue. At present we can not reach 
 New York, Philadeli)hia, or Baltimore, or their vicinity. The freight 
 from Monroe County to these places is $2.2r> per net ton, but the imi)orted 
 rock gypsum is sold in the above <;ities for $1.1K» or less per ton. Thus 
 you will readily see that we can not compete in the eastern part of our 
 own State, even if we should give our goods away. 
 
 Gypsum and salt being both extensivelv used for fertilizing i>uri)oses, 
 it is our opinion that they should have the same tax. A tax of 10 cents
 
 FIRE CLAY. 191 
 
 per 100 pounds on g>'psnm in both its crude and iiianTifactmed state 
 would be none too bijjh either for protection or revenue. This rat€ of 
 tarifl' would not throw the imported goods out of the market, or even 
 give us an advantage over them, but would give us an opportunity to 
 compete with them. The cost of rock gypsu^u f. o. b. cars here is 90 
 cents per net ton, without any protit. 
 
 J. W. Gar BUTT. 
 
 New Haven, Conn., January 8, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We understand that there is a movement on foot to place a duty on 
 p^psum rock, and we wish to state that any duty whatever on this 
 rock would be ruinous to our business. We would like to have a duty 
 l)la(e<l on the ^Mnnnd or calcined i)roduct of this rock, as that would 
 prevent its being manufactured in Nova Scotia and shipped here in 
 competition with us. 
 
 The Connkctiout Adamant Plaster Co. 
 
 West CnESTER, Pa., January 8, 1897. 
 Dear Sir: Under the McKiidey tariff" gyi)»um rock was put on the 
 free list, and there is a movement now made by the Western people 
 (principally from Kansas and Texas) to have it restored to the dutiable 
 list. The wisdom of it.s admission I'ree wiis determined by tiie Commit- 
 tee on Ways and Means in \s*M), after a long argument made on each 
 side. There does not seem, so far as I ean learn, to be any reason at 
 tliis time why there should be a duty imposed upon gypsum that did 
 not api)ly when the case was argued in Ks'JO. 
 
 Thomas S. Butler. 
 
 rnjE CLAY. 
 
 (Paragraph 82.) 
 
 St. Louis, January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As one of the largest mineis of fire clay and manufacturers of fire- 
 clay products in the United States, and in fact in the woi Id, we take 
 the liberty of cMlling your attention to the following facts: Under the 
 existing tarifl" law "clays or earths, unwionglit or unnianufactured," 
 are subject to a duty of $1 i)er ton, and "wrou;:ht or manufactured, $2 
 per ton," while on the free list we find "common blue clay suitable for 
 the manufacture of crucibles." 
 
 We have just completed exhaustive investigations in the fire clay 
 factories throughout the world. As a result, we are enal)led to state 
 positively that in (lermany, from which country comes most of the fire 
 clay imported to this country, the bulk of the clay is (juarried in open 
 l)its at very small cost; that the pay of a laborer working in fire clay 
 establishments is as low as five cents per hour; that the wages paid 
 for digging clay in these open pits is 12i cents per ton; that tlie wages 
 of fire clay workers — that is, the men who make up the manufactured 
 product — is $1 per day often hours. We are expected to successfully 
 compete with the fire clay products of Europe in the face of the above 
 facts. We are mining our clay at a depth of 75 feet below the surface 
 of the ground, at which depth we drift on the vein, necessitating avast
 
 192 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 outlay for timberino- the entries, diainin-- seepage water, and expensive 
 niacliiiiery for lioistiii.i: clay and punii>iug water: these conditions \ve 
 believe to exist in nearly all tlie lire clay mines of tliis country. We 
 ])ay our couunon laborers sl.^.") to $1.50 per day as a{?ainst .KK-ents per 
 day in Germany: our molders are i)aid from .•i'l.T."> to $11 ]>er day as 
 against $1 per day in Gefmany; and our miners earn about $2.50 jier 
 day, equal to about 50 cents per ton, whereas in Germany 12A cents per 
 ton is the price paid. 
 
 Under the operation of the McKinley tariti' law we employed between 
 300 and 400 men. and hence were instrumental in the sup])ort of from 
 1,200 to 1,500 individuals. After the ])resent tarilf law went into clVect 
 our force was decreased about one half: this lieiii;;: mainly due in our 
 opinion to the increased sales of German clay made possible by the 
 lower tarift'. 
 
 After duly considering: the statements herein made we would resi)ect 
 fully request you to recommend that a duty of $2 jier ton he jilaciMl on 
 unwrought tire clay, iiicludinj,' bine clay lor crucibles, and that a duty 
 of $1 per ton be placed on wrouj;ht or manufactured tire clay. 
 
 J. B. Clements, 
 Vice-Vretsident and (i< nnal MaiuKjer^ 
 
 Chritfty Fire Cloy Company. 
 
 GLASSIIOrSE YUIE CLAY. 
 
 (I'arngraph 82.) 
 
 St. Louis, Mo., January 4, J897. 
 Co:irMiTTEE ON Ways and Means: 
 
 Iveferrinji- to Schedule li, earths, earthenware, and jrla.ssware, iindei 
 the head of "Clays and earth," we ask that the article of glasshouse 
 fire clay be inserted and that the duty on >anie be as follows: "Glass- 
 hous«i tire clays, unwrou;:ht or unmanntactun-d. *1.5o per ton; wron;rht 
 or nninulactnred. $3 ])er ton," which is the same <luty as that of the 
 McKinley bill and of the one jtrecedin^' it, while the duty of the Wil- 
 son bill is on unwron<;ht or unmanufacturetl .$1 pel- ton, and on wrought 
 or manufactured $2 per ton. 
 
 Glasshouse lire clays are used by all ^:las8 mannlacturers and those 
 clays found in Missouri lie 50 to (50 feet under the surface, ami are 
 mined and washed at a ;:reat exi)ense. Our primijial competitor is a 
 German trust, liavinj;- an ap,enl in New York. They tind their clay on 
 the surface, emph)y very cheaj) labor, and ])rocure a very low freight 
 rate to the United States on their clay, as it is used for ballast. Before 
 ]\Iissouri f:jlasshonse tire clays were well known. (German clays were 
 sold here at $18 per ton, and were it not for Miss<»uri clays would sell 
 at that price to day instead of $13 per ton, a le.ss price than it sells at 
 in Gernmny. 
 
 You will i»lease note that the duty on clays and earth was not increased 
 by the McKinley bill over that of the tarilV preceding; it, which in our 
 judgment conld have l>een done with g:reat projiriety and profit to tlje 
 Government: also please note that the duty on these valuable clays is 
 no more than on common clays, all beinjj classed under the one head 
 of "Clays and earths." Hence we ask y(»u to make the new classifica- 
 tion of "fjlasshotjse tire clays'' and to increase the duty to not less 
 than the amounts named. 
 
 Jamieson-Fkencu Fire Clay Company, 
 Per E. E. French.
 
 CHINA CLAY OR KAOLIN. 
 
 193 
 
 CHINA CLAY OR KAOLIN. 
 
 (Paragraj)!! ^2. ) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE CLAY MINERS' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 rillLADKLPlllA, Jauiiary 8, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Tlie Aiiiericaii kaolin or cliiim clay iniiiers beg^ to state a few facta 
 relative to tliat iiulustry and brietly sliow that clays are not ])roperly 
 pi(»tecte(l under the present taritVof $1' j>erton on kaolin or china clay 
 and ^\ i)er ton on unwashed or unwroujrht clays. 
 
 Kaolin or china clay, as prepared for tlie potter's use, derives its value 
 j»riii(ipally from labor in niininj;, washing, and prej)ariiiff it for market, 
 at uiiicli sta^r it can not be classed as raw material, 8(» per cent of its 
 valuation beinj; representeil by labor. The avera<:e price of labor in 
 American clay mines is *I, '_'."» a da>'. The total imi»ortation of the 
 higher grades of chiys used by pottt-rs and jtaper manufacturers comes 
 from Cornwall, Kn;;land. and the aveia^^e price of labor on same is 2 
 shillni'Ts or 50 cents a day. 
 
 Little was known of the kaolin or china clay industry in the I'nitcd 
 States prior t<) ISGU. I'nder a taritt' of $5 a tou, as it was previous to 
 l.S.s;{, the industry grew to the i»roportions of the importations, which 
 had reached about 19,000 t<»n8 j)er annum at that time. From 1883 to 
 1S90, under the tarift' duty of t.? a ton on kaolin or china clay the annual 
 importations increased to30.01.> tons, while the products from Ameri- 
 can mines increased to about L'r»,000 tons. The increase in imjjorta- 
 tions was over <iO i)er cent, whereas the increased ])roduct)on of 
 American clay was 3L' per cent. 
 
 riie tbllowing is a comparison of the importations of kaidin, with the 
 production of American clays, from 1881 to 1890, inclusive: 
 
 Fiscal v^nr «-nilinK 
 J due 30— 
 
 Kaolin, or wrought 
 cliina clitys. 
 
 Fiacnl vear ending 
 June 30— 
 
 Kaolin or wroBght 
 china clays. 
 
 Import*. 
 
 Product of 
 
 American 
 
 minea. 
 
 Imports. 
 
 Product of 
 
 American 
 
 mines. 
 
 1801 
 
 Tom. 
 m. 033 
 r.O. 493 
 58,365 
 
 Ton*. 
 24,32* 
 25,700 
 y7.23« 
 
 1894 
 
 Tout. 
 49,7»0 
 7«,685 
 7»,«9& 
 
 Ton*. 
 25 110 
 
 1892 
 
 J8»5 
 
 23.855 
 
 1893 
 
 1896 
 
 24,736 
 
 
 
 
 For eight months ending August, 1896, the importations were 66,302 
 tons of clay. 
 
 The cost of transportation of clay from the English mines at Corn- 
 wall will average less than 11 shillings per gross ton to any of the 
 ports of the Atlantic ("oast, large quantities being carried as ballast by 
 steamers coming west for lading. 
 
 The average cost of transportation for American clays to the pottery 
 centers exceeds that on foreign clays from any Atlantic port with the 
 ocean freight added. The freight rate from Florida clay mines is $5.50 
 per ton, by rail and water, and from the Carolinas and Georgia, $4.50 
 per ton ; from Pennsylania and Delaware, all rail, $1.60 to $3 per 12,000 
 pounds. 
 
 T H 13
 
 194 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLA<.-WaKE. 
 
 Out of fifteen American kaolin mines, making exclusively clay for 
 china potters, in 1S93, six have suspeude<l work, bei-ause there was no 
 pro tit in the business. It will be seen that the present tariff duty on 
 china and wrouiiht clays, while not affording protection to the Ameri- 
 can miner, has increased the importations over liK) i>er cent in the jvast 
 six years, and the American mines have scarcely kept apace with their 
 production of 1800. thus compelling 40 per cent of these works to now 
 stand idle or be abandoned. 
 
 There is an abundance of kaolin lying undeveloped in nearly all the 
 States sufficient for future demands, but American miners are not war- 
 ranted in new developments, or. in fact, continuing their present works, 
 in competition with foreij:n clays with lower rates of freight and their 
 advantages in cost of ial)or. and we rt'S[>ectfully ask to have a duty 
 placed on imported kaolin or china clay and all washed or wn>n<:ht 
 clay of $4 a ton and a duty of ^'2.50 ^>er ton i>laced on all unwashed 
 or un wrought clay imported into the United States. 
 
 American clays are in every respect as good as the foreigru. 
 
 Thos. y. Cooper, 
 President t'hii/ Miiterit' .-l-Moriaftoii. 
 
 Jesse B. Kimes, 
 Secretanf Clay J/mtrr A*tociation. 
 
 Milwaukee, January 2, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir : We ask yon, in the i " - an 
 
 who wishes our natural resources .»n 
 
 china clay or kaolin. China clay is t.-iuj.i id North 
 
 and South Carolina, Maryland. Fl<>ri«la, A '. I>ola- 
 
 ware. Nearly all the china clay washiti:: plants have i>een < i-e 
 
 the Wilson bill took effeit. The china «lay o( Knglaud. I:: lud 
 
 Germany is carried free as ballast in ships coining to this country. The 
 duty now is only $2 i>er long ton. The old duty, I think, was ?t> per 
 ton, whit h is, in my opinion, not t«>o high. The framers of the McRin- 
 ley bill made a great mistake in re<Uuing it to ^.i. 
 
 I am interested in china « lay land in Wis<-i>usin and in Missouri, and 
 have been trying for th«' i>ast three years to devc' I it 
 
 impossilile to meet the prices of foreign clay. The < ^ is- 
 
 consin, Missouri, and Florida are equal in every resj^it to jn 
 
 clays. The labor of mining, washing, and drying i^J rhn .»s 
 
 great in America as it is in Europe. 1 am reliably :• whole 
 
 families — men. women, and children — living at the i _ • > one 
 
 generation following the other, wt>rk for '2.'t cents to 7o cents a day. 
 I pray that no American faniily will ever have to do the same. China 
 clay is largely used by iH)tters, pai)er manufacturers, paint manafao- 
 turers, high-class tile manufacturers, etc. 
 
 Wm. II. Il£:<S£. 
 
 Eichmmnd, Lake Coi'nty. Fla., 
 
 J ii HU It ry 3, 1S97, 
 CoAtMiTTEE ON Ways anp Means: 
 
 During the last six years we have discovered in Lake Countv, Fla^ 
 the largest body of white kaolin (china clayi ever found in the history 
 of the world. It is long, tough clay, adapted to the best uses in the
 
 EARTHENWARE AND CHINA. 195 
 
 iii:iiinf:ictiirf' of eliiiia wan^ ami i)orc»'lain, and so tonfjli that it can be 
 manipulated in the tinest work without the admixture of ball elay. 
 These mines are known to extend over IM) nules along the Palatlakaha 
 Valley and we luive not found the bottom of the mines. It is safe to 
 say that we iiave clay in Lake County of the highest grade to supply 
 the i)otteri«'s of this country for two hnndre<l years. 
 
 During the last year of President Harrison's Administration our com- 
 l)any established the tirst elay plant in the extreme South, at a cash out- 
 lay of over >'L'0,(KK>, besides cost of our mines. The tree-trade excitement 
 attending the eU'ction of Mr. Cleveland arrested the work of the pot- 
 teiies, and the Wilson bill, redn«ing taritf on kaolin from ^'.^ per ton to 
 •t-, took away the last item of jirolit there was in the business for us. 
 ( >ur clay is a<knowledged by the best ])otters of the United States to 
 be the finest in the woild ; but the rage has been for cheaj) things, and 
 we have not sold '2,iHH) tons under the Wilson bill. All the best clay 
 yet discovered in this country is in Florida, and we have long hauls 
 and high transixtrtation to get it to market. 
 
 We urge«l the Wdson committee to consider that the re<luction of $1 
 on the price of a ton of kaolin would not cheapen dishes to a laboring 
 man as one ton of clay wouM make two or three hundred sets such as is 
 found on the poor man's table. We also urged that the reduction 
 would destroy our tra«le and give the business t«) luiropean clay 
 dealers, win) had the advantage of cheaper labor and transportation. 
 Tlie result has been as we anticipated. The MeKinley bill left the 
 tariff on kaolin right where it had stood for some years; we urged the 
 VN'ilson committee to do the sann*. 
 
 We think our I'lorida ndncrs should be encouraged to get their piod- 
 uct to market. We ask you, therefore, to j)la«'e a taritf on white kaolin 
 of yf',\ i>er ton (the old rate) and to phwe a li^ihter taritf on inferior clay. 
 Make duties sitecilic. not ad \alorem. The potters were seriously crij)- 
 pled by the W ilson bill and many of them bankruitt«'d. We ask you 
 to consider what they have to say and to relieve them by such tariff 
 as you think Just to all coiic»'rned. 
 
 J. F. Ukumond, 
 Secretary, Treasurer, and Manager Falatlakaha Kaolin Co. 
 
 EAin IIEXAVAIJE AXD cni:N^A. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN W. MORGAN. OF TRENTON, N. J., 
 OPERATOR IN POTTERY. 
 
 Fkiday, J Olivary S, 1897. 
 Mr. Morgan said: ]\Ir. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 we are here in the interest of the wage worker. Our only motive in 
 coming before you is to better our condiiion. We are in a dei)lorable 
 state, farwor.se than any class of mechanics, either in this country or 
 Ibreign countries. The mechanic of Fngland is tar better situated than 
 the nicchanic jmtter of Trenton, in the United States. I have some 
 statistics here, gatlierctl and vouched for as to their correctness by the 
 labor bureau of >.ew Jersey. The weekly earnings under taritl" rates 
 prior to the Wilson bill — the average eaiuings per week — were 811.40. 
 Those were the average earnings of the operator prior to the Wilson 
 bill. Under the WiKson bill they were reduced to $4.03 i)er week. Nor 
 was that all. These earnings would ha\e been reduced ."iO per cent more 
 had the same number of men been employed during the period as were
 
 196 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 employed under the former period. During the period of the tariff 
 rates prior to the Wilson law the prices to the consumer were reduced, 
 while the wages of the operator were not. Now, understand me, gen- 
 tlemen, we did not have anv trouble in our industry for ten years prior 
 to the enactment of the Wilson bill. Under the schedule of the Wilson 
 bill it is impossible to compete with European products and receive 
 living wages. 
 
 I have worked on both sides of the water and know sonu'thing about 
 this. The condition which has existed in Trenton for the last two 
 years has been one of destitution. .Men always willingand able to work 
 have had no employment on account of the inii)ortation from the other 
 side, and in the homes of these workmen there has been absolute want. 
 All we ask is that our industry be given i)rotection in order to let the 
 American workman live as he should. We are able and we are willing 
 to work if you will only give us the chan<e. 
 
 Many homes have been broken up in Trenton. They have been com- 
 pelled, to ai)pease the wants of their children, to sell their furniture, 
 to sell their clothing, all that it wasjtossibh' to do without. We have one 
 case where an operator s<»ld an overcoat for ab«iut ••?- so that his family 
 might buy bread. Some iiave found it ne<es>ary t<» strip their homes 
 of everj article of furniture ami carpt-ts. leaving n(»thiiig but the bed, 
 and even beds have l)een sold. Families have double<l up and lived 
 two and three in one house, ^^'e think this a dcjdorable condition of 
 aflairs in this American Ivepublic, and we pray to you to alter this 
 state of affairs. We will show you as we go further on that the imports 
 have increased and the revenue has decreased. 1 think that is about 
 as plain as 1 can i)ut it to you. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. In what linesof goods have these imports increasodt 
 
 Mr. MoHGAN. In the decorative, ami generally in this class of got)ds. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Are the works at Trenton running now at allT 
 
 Mr. MoiiGAN. No; ccuMjiletely stopped. 
 
 Mr. DOLLIVER. All of them I 
 
 Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVEif. How long have the men been idlet 
 
 Mr. MoKGAN. This is the fcuirth week. 
 
 INIr. DoLLiVKR, Can not the cheai)est line of goods be prmluced In 
 competition with the injported articles? 
 
 Mr. Morgan. I have to put it to you in my way: After the ena<'t- 
 ment of the Wilson bill the exporter on the other side of the wat<T 
 was determined to take possession of the Anierican market at all haz- 
 ards, lie was detenniiuHl to rule supreme. The selling i)rice, of course, 
 was reduced at one bound until it got to the scale <»t the lower grade 
 of goods. The American manufacturer, to compete with the imjtorter, 
 put his granite shapes into CC— the white granite patterns — and manu- 
 factured them into CC goods, which mcajit another reduction to the 
 operator of 10 per cent, as that is the dilVerence between the granite 
 shape and the CC shajte. Now, the manulacturer was comp.-llcd to do 
 this to tind us work. We undersrood the (litliculty. lie was not going 
 to be 80 foolish as to pay for these designs and manufacture them in 
 CC goods if he could possibly avoid it. I really believe, candidlv, 
 though the manufacturer is best able to answer that questiim, that 
 there is not a dollar's worth of ])rofit in CC goods. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. You spoke of working in i:ngland before coming to 
 Trenton. That will enable you to state exa.tly, in our monev. what the 
 English operators get in wages compared to the Trent4Ui operators. 
 
 Mr. Morgan. This is an olhcial statement, a rather worn paper, but
 
 EARTHENWARE AND CHINA. 197 
 
 nevertlieless it is evidence. [Mr, Morgan took out of his pocket and 
 exhibited a t;il>h' of lijrures.] This was ootten up by tiie board of arbi- 
 tration in Stalfordsliirc, Knjrhind, This is dated tlie iL'th of May, lSi»l. 
 There are 12 firms and 10 various branches in this business. These 
 tirnis are here given. Tlie hours the o])erator works and tlie money he 
 earns are down in the table here. I will enumerate them. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVEK. I want y«»u to state from your own knowledge in 
 regard to wages in England compaied to wages in the United States. 
 State it in our own money. 
 
 •Air. MouGAN. In 1H68 i nngrated to this country; in ISTl I returned; 
 in 1S7."> 1 cauM' back. For the work that 1 tlien did they paid 7 shillings 
 ])er score, and that work was cups. Since that time, and about tlie 
 time the McKiidey bill went into effect, they introduced machinery, 
 \\ hat we call a i)ull down, and it low«»red the mechanics' wages on the 
 other side. Wliere 1 would liave received, had I remained there, 7 shil- 
 lings for making one score of cups, I would only receive 4 shillings now. 
 
 Mr. (xRosvENOU. What is a score? 
 
 Mr. MoiKJAN. Twenty dozen. 
 
 Mr. Iloi'KiNs. 1 {educe this to a day's wages. 
 
 Mr. Mok(;an. Our wages at that time were worth about £3 i>er 
 week — ^l."». 
 
 Mr. DoLLlVER. What would similar work be worth in this country, 
 according to your ])ersonal exiMMience? Wiuit did you receive under 
 the s;nne conditions? 
 
 .Mr. .MoR(;an. In the neighborhood of $L'(>, I believe, lor that ([uality 
 of work. 
 
 The mechanic that nuide this <-lass of work on the othei- side of the 
 water was crowded out gradually into the coal mine, and the wife or the 
 daughter took the place of the husband or the son, and such conditions 
 exist today. WIumc the man was working a few years ago the wife or 
 daughter is woi king to <la>. 
 
 .Mr. DoLi.iVEU. Do you have personal knowledge of the employment 
 at tlie present time of female laboiers in Staffordshire? 
 
 .Mr. Morgan. I do. sir. 
 
 .Mr. Doi.LiVER. To what e\t«'nt is it emjdoxed nowt 
 
 Mr. Morgan. To a great extent. Almost entirely on cujjs, plates, 
 antl saucers. For instance, .las. Meekins (.'omi)any, which is one of the 
 largest manufacturers on the other side of the water, only has one man 
 working with a machine, and he makes almost as much ware as — well, 
 at one time, in ISOll. he visited Trenton, and a manufacturer asked him 
 how many couM he make in a week — how nuiny he turned out. He said 
 50 or <»(>: and the otlier man saiil, "Why that is as much as we make in 
 all Tienton." Since then Meekins has enhirged his firm and bought 
 other firm>^ out. He barters for gr;\in, leather — anj'thing in the shape 
 of money — or where money is in sight he will exchange, and the result 
 is that he has from five to eight factories ovei- there. 
 
 Mr, Daxzell, I <lon"t think 1 understand you about the wages. At 
 one time you got the equivalent to $15 a week on the other side of the 
 ocean? 
 
 Mr, Morgan. Yes, sir. 
 
 ]Mr. Dalzell. At what time was that? 
 
 Mr. Morgan. Ln 1873 or 187i', 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Was that the time you were paid so much a score, 
 and if you made 7 shillings at that rate that would make $1') a week! 
 
 Mr. MoR(;an. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Working how many hours -^ day!
 
 198 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Mr. Morgan. I did not take nmcli notice at tbat time: a man oame 
 and went about when lie pleased. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. It was piecework? 
 
 Mr. Morgan. Yes. sir; it was piecework. Ishould Judge we worked 
 about eight and one half or nine hours a day. perhaps a little lonper «>r 
 a little over that. We did not try to drive ourselves in the work at 
 quite so high pressure as we do in America now. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Do you still use the potters' wheel to make these shapes. 
 
 Mr. Morgan. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. Steele. What would a man in England get for making L'Odo/.eu 
 cups now — the same as you mentioned a while ago? 
 
 Mr. Morgan. Divide four into 20 parts: anyone here who has a jten 
 and pencil could get at that tigure correctly. Tlie cups are 3(» to the 
 dozen, while in our country here there are only 1- to the dozen. 
 
 STATEMENT OF E. J. WHITEHEAD. OF TRENTON. N. J.. REPRESENT- 
 ING THE POTTERY NATIONAL UNION. 
 
 Friday, January 5, 1S97. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do not want to 
 occupy any more of your time than is really necessary, and will oidy 
 say a word or two. Mr. Morgan and I are here in tlu' interest of oi>»*r- 
 ators from Trenton, as he has told you. We find that the c(»nditioii of 
 affairs that exists to-day is sometliing dcjtlorable. and we attribute it 
 largely to the lack of ])rotection to our industry. W«' tiinl that the 
 imports of crockery have largely increased, and, contrary to the claims 
 of the advocates of the \\'ilson bill, I think the revenue has (U'creascd. 
 AVe want a rate of duty iniposed tiiat will protect our interests. We 
 believe that the present administration of the taritl laws is insuflicient 
 to give us the protection that we need. Tiider the ad valorem .'<ysteni 
 there are too many discrei)ancies that will permit of undervaluatiinis 
 of goods, and so enable the foreign importer to produ<'e a class ot ware 
 that will undersell us. We can see in our city, in the crockery stores, 
 decorated china dinner sets oflered for sale at A 10. so, and we know for 
 a fact that to produce those and ofter them for that tigure the <luty 
 has not or could not have been honestly collected, even under the 
 present low Wilson tarilV rate. 
 
 Mr. Turner. How many pieces in the set? 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. The ti'gures vary from .'.0 to 144, and sometimes 156. 
 
 Mr. Steele. Y^ou say you can buy these .sets tor .*«10? 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. Yes; 144 pieces, china dinner sets. The.se are dec- 
 orated and placed right here in our own city for SlO.tJS or $I0.GI». 
 
 Mr. Ta\vney. What does it cost to produce those dinner sets in 
 Trenton, N. J.? 
 
 Mr. AVhitehead. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $S or $10. 
 
 Mr. Tawnev. That is the labor cost? 
 
 Mr. Turner. He meant the entire cost. 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. I mean the labor cost. 
 
 Mr. Turner. While you are on the subject now I might reenforce 
 your statement as to the value of the foreign article. lioirt they sell 
 a pretty good china set on the other side tor a pound sterling? 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. A 40-piece dinner set? 
 
 Mr. Turner. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. 1 have known them to be sold even cheaper than 
 that.
 
 EARTHENWARE AND CHINA. 199 
 
 Mr. Turner. Of course, the value depends on the decorations. 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. Yes; I have seen them in Trenton at $4.21) — a blue- 
 ]>rint set. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Where are they made, these sets that are being sold 
 at Trenton at 810 a set? 
 
 Mr. WiiiTEHKAD. Tliese cheap sets are principally made in England, 
 and some of" tlieni in (Icnnany. 
 
 Mr. I'AVNE. What was tlie condition of the pottery manufacturers 
 in Trenton from 1S|»(> to 18;>;3? 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. Th<'y were fairly prosperous. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How was it as to the men being employed? 
 
 Mr. \N'iiiteuead. They were employed on an aveiage of five days a 
 week. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Were they running full time or not? 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. They were tlien running full time. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is tlie condition of those .same men to-day? 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. There are not I'."* per cent of the potters — no, I 
 won't sa> that — hut there are not more than a third of the jiotters in 
 tiie <ity emjiloyed today. 
 
 Mr. I'AYNE, You say not one third of the pottery operators are 
 enji>loyed? 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. Ye.s, sir; of the operative potters, about one-third, 
 and tlio.se are not working on full time. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How long has that <ojulitioii of affairs lasted? 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. lor the last i wo years; it has gradually been grow- 
 ing worse. 
 
 Mr. Payne, When did your business depression commence and the 
 jiotteries ceasi- to operat*- on full time? 
 
 * Mi-. WmrEHEAit. At altont the time of the enactment of the Wilson 
 bill, and it has l)een growing worse ever since. 
 
 Mr. I'AYNE. Has there been any reduction in wages? 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. iSince the Wilson bill was enacted there has been 
 a reduction of ll' per cent on the list prices of wages. 
 
 Mr. Payne. IJy the piece, I suppose. 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. In England and Germany, how do the wages compare 
 with the wages in Trenton? 
 
 Mr. Wiii'iEHEAD. As far as England is concerned, 1 can speak with 
 little knowliMlge, but I know the wages of the (lerinan potter are often 
 below the wages of the lOnglish jKttter. and the wages of the lOnglish 
 l)Otter are about two-thirds that of the American potter at the j)resent 
 time. Fronj information 1 gather from statistics and from the personal 
 knowledge of men who have come from there, that is about the pro- 
 l)ortion. 
 
 Mr. Tawney'. You represent the organization, do you; the Pottery 
 Association? 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. Yes, sir; the organization in the East. That is 
 the Potters' National Union of America, located in Trenton. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. ComiK)sed of operators generally? 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. Yes, sir; general ware manufacturing departments. 
 
 Mr. Tawney'. How many are in your organization? 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. W^e have at the present time not over 300 or 350 
 members in good standing. 
 
 Mr, McMiLLiN, What rate do you seek? 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. We would ask a specific duty on general ware — 
 that is, ware generally consumed by the public, which would not need
 
 200 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 to be classified. But just what figures we could not state at the pres- 
 
 Mr. McMlllin. You have not determined, then, what would be a fair 
 
 rate*? 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. No; we have not determined what would be a fair 
 rate, but equivalent to the McKinley rate or thereal)ontsf 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Has this 12i per cent reduction in wages chara<.'ter- 
 ized all lines of pottery in Trenton t 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Steele. What does it cost to manufacture twenty score such a« 
 the gentleman preceding you mentioned ? 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. I think my friend, Mr. Morgan, was a littU' oft' in 
 his statement about the comparison of wages there. They i>ay by thr 
 score; 3G ])ieces to the dozen, and :.'(» dozen to the score; and in Trenton 
 we pay by a dozen of li' pieces, and for the manufacture of a dozen cups, 
 I believe, it is 2i cents; the turning is 3 cents, the handling is 3 cents, 
 and that compk'tes the manufacture of the cu]) — that is, so far as the 
 clay hand is concerned. So a dozen cups wouhl cost about S\ cents to 
 manufacture. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Where? 
 
 Mr. Whitehead. In Trenton. I have here some flgurea showing 
 importations, etc., which 1 will file: 
 
 I)ecoi;atp:i> ware. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Valuo 
 
 I>iil:<-« 
 
 Arorags 
 ail N nlor«m 
 mir of 
 1 duty. 
 
 1894 
 
 1895 
 
 1895 
 
 
 ^1 «-».. -»J •>! 
 
 Ik) 
 35 
 
 1896 
 
 1 3S 
 
 
 1 
 
 WHITE WARE— NOT DECORATED. 
 
 1894. 
 
 1895 
 1895 
 1896 
 
 1,CkX>, i -tit. 61 
 
 666.M«.ft& 
 
 55 
 &5 
 
 M 
 SO 
 
 Statement of the f/ears 1S06 and lS9.'i, shotting the inrrratt of valuation of import i> and the 
 decrease of revenue for that ptriod. 
 
 DECORATED. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Value. 
 
 DutlM. 
 
 1896 
 
 , 
 
 111 
 
 
 1893 
 
 
 Difference 
 
 i, .1-1. t.t.i j6 
 
 
 WHITE (PLAIX). 
 
 1896 
 
 *1,««6. 149 61 ♦SCI R44 85 
 
 2. iio,w«.o.) i,:6o. !»:o w 
 
 1893 
 
 
 Diflerrnce 
 
 c 224. 706. 44 6 505,125.98 
 
 
 a Increase of imports. 
 
 6 Decrease in reveime. 
 
 e Decrease in importo.
 
 EARTHENWARE AND CHINA. 
 
 201 
 
 Statement of the years 1890 and 189S, showinp the increa$e of raluaiion of imports and the 
 decreaae of revenue for that perioil in hnih decorated and jilain (uhite) irare. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Duties. 
 
 ims 
 
 $10, 109. 641. 38 
 8.931,948.72 
 
 $3, 444, 067. 08 
 
 I8a3 - 
 
 5, 253. 626. 41 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 1,177.692.66 
 
 b 1 809, 559. 33 
 
 
 
 a Increase of im porta. 
 
 b Decrease in revenae. 
 
 Statimiiit of the yean 1896 and 1S94, thoicinij the incnate <f valuation of importa and ths 
 dtcieate of re venue for that period, 
 
 DECORATED. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Value. 
 
 18'.)0 $8. 20:«. 491.77 
 
 1894 .S, 062. 9K0 72 
 
 Diflercnre a 8. 160, 511. 05 
 
 I 
 
 PLAIN (WHITE). 
 
 18M »I,8««. 149.61 
 
 1894 1,2*48,651.74 
 
 Din'ereiice i a597, 497. 67 
 
 Duties. 
 
 $2,878,222.23 
 3. 03T, 788. 31 
 
 b 159, 506. OS 
 
 $565. 844. 85 
 708. 558. 84 
 
 b 142. 913. 49 
 
 • Increase of imports. 
 
 b Decrease in revenae. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. E. A. STEPHENSON. OF EAST LIVERPOOL, OHIO, 
 REPRESENTING THE OPERATIVE POTTERS OF THE WEST. 
 
 Friday, January S, 1S97. 
 
 Mr. Srephen.son said: 'Mt. (^liainnan and ^'cntUMncn of the conimit- 
 tee, I will only ask your forboaraiice for a tVw luoniciits. 1 will try to 
 give you, as tlie other fjeiitleiiKii who have preceded iiie have given 
 you, the figures in regard to our business. 
 
 1 represent the operative potters of the West, embracing in all 
 nearly (i,(KM> operator.'^, au<l 1 have come U) give yon in a few words the 
 sentiment that prevails among the men with wliom I come in touch as 
 ojierative potters. Tlie city from which I comt' ;ni<l where I reside has 
 been built u}) within the jiast few years upon that indnstiy alone, we 
 having in that town of less than 1.').«mm) population some 'SS ])otteries, 
 eini)loying a great many men and women. We get our living and 
 sustenance fn»m those factories. 
 
 1 wish to give you the sentiment, as I have said, of the men whom I 
 represent in reference to this matter; as to what we ask as operatives 
 and citizens of the town and as men who are trying to buy homes and 
 pay for them, how we feel and how we are alfected by the tariti" regula- 
 tions. I am not well enough i)osted along the tariti" lines and in regard 
 to the intricate workings of that system to enter into any discussion 
 or details of it. I know from a practical point of view how it has 
 attected me, and as a workingman I know the results of it. I know 
 that under a high luotective policy, the McKiuley bill, we only then
 
 202 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 received what was fair and honest compensation tor our labor, such as 
 all American workmen should receive who work at skilled labor— that 
 is enough to permit him to live and be contented m his home, and to be 
 employed, which he certainly has an inalienable right to. 
 
 Mr. Geosvenor. Can not you give us the wages before the N\ ilson 
 bill and the wages now ? Those are the facts we want. 
 
 Mr. Stephenson. Ves, sir; then you do not care about how the tanli 
 
 affects him? .,.«..,• •. i»- *. i • 
 
 Mr. GEoevENOR. That is the way the taritl attects Imn: it aflect.s hm 
 
 Mr. Tawney, Please give the extent to which he has been afteeteil. 
 
 Mr. Stephenson. It affected me over -fi' per week in my wages; 
 that is how it aflected me, and it now only gives me eompensation 
 enough to eke out, even when 1 have steady work, a bare existence. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. You have had some work, theiif 
 
 Mr. Stephenson. Fortunately 1 have tteady work. 
 
 Mr.GROSVENOR. How about the remainder of your fellow operativesT 
 
 Mr. Stephenson. Tlie most of them liave not had work. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. What ])roi»ortion of tliem are idle? 
 
 Mr. Stephenson. I would say fully (tne third of tlie workingmon of 
 the West have been idle during tlie i»eriod between the passage of the 
 Wilson bill and the ja-escnt time. 
 
 Mr. GROSVE^■()R. In your jnilgment. as an intelligent man, did you 
 get as fair a share of the piolits under the \Vilson bill as luub-r the 
 McKinley bill. 
 
 Mr. Stephenson. I have every reason to believe I <lid, and I just 
 wish to say this in conclusion: I am sjieakingof the sentiment of the 
 men generally when I stand here and say that in our Judgment and 
 o]>inion if you men do not give us a higher protective tariff along with 
 all other mannfact(uies the condition of the workingmeu in the near 
 future will be sad in the extreme. I will say furtluT, ou my own 
 resi)oiisibility and theresjionsibility of a gnsit many others — f<»r 1 think 
 lam rightly interpreting the sentinu-nts of the working people — that if 
 such a tariff is not given to the nnmiifartories by which a restoration of 
 the wages can l>e given the men 1 tear for the tuture pn)spt'rity of th 
 Kepublican party. 
 
 e 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT W. TAYLER. A REPRESENTATIVE 
 FROM THE STATE OF OHIO. 
 
 1'kii»a\, .hniuoryS, lf^97. 
 
 Mr. Tayler said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of tlie committee, I 
 shall occui)y only a small fracti<»n of the hour kindly given me by the 
 committee, because 1 do not intend t(» burden the ((»mniittee or consume 
 my own time with any general .statement. 
 
 I represent, for the time being, the manufacturing and operating iK)t- 
 ters — not so much because I am a Congres.-^man as because 1 iiave 
 been, as it were, reared in the atmos]ihere of jiotteiies, ami, ex<e|)t 
 technically, I have a very wide knowledge of the business. I am not 
 a manufacturer of i^ottery, and never have been, but know something 
 about it, having lived in a pottery community for about ten years of 
 my lite. 
 
 The committee probably understands that in this, the most interest- 
 ing and ancient of all the arts, no industry of that charact«'r has ever 
 prospered or has ever been established except by the assistance of the
 
 EARTHEN WAKE AND CHINA. 203 
 
 Government. All the <,aeat pottinp: institutions have been so estab- 
 lislMMJ. 'J'he i>otters of America ne\er have asked for Government 
 establishnient, or Govei iinient ])rote(tion, or (lovemmeut assistance, 
 Itiit it is iin]>ortaiit to ])ear in mind that those circnmstanees, as well as 
 labor, are faitors relating to cost of jtroduetion on the other side of tlie 
 water, lint wiiat tlie\ want is an exjtression, legislatively, of the dif- 
 ferent labor (conditions in this country and theotlier countries in which 
 the i>ottintr prodnct is made. They want Congress to give expression 
 to this fact. It C(>sts more to maintain the American civilization than 
 it does the otlier, but if Congress does not undertake to maintain that 
 distinctive civilization, then ours must go down, apjjroaching the level 
 of the others. 
 
 Now t he etVectof the \Vils(»n law on the pottery business was peculiar. 
 In 181MI, undrr the act wliich passed that year, the duty on tbe two 
 kinds of pottery in which I am at jjresent interested wiis .jo and »»0 j)er 
 cent, resjiectively ; that is to say, on plain white gocnls the rate of 
 duty was 55 jier cent and on decorated goods «tO jter cent. That cov- 
 ered what is known as white eartln-nware and china. Karthenware and 
 china are two br(»ad terms which cover all kinds of i)ottery — not scien- 
 tilically, but with reasonable a<curacy. One of them has an oi)aque 
 body; the other has a translucent b<Kly. In one of them the gla/.e 
 unites only with the surface of the body, and in the other the glaze 
 passes throngh the entire thickness and thus jtrodnces a translucent 
 and, generally, a vitritied body. Thos«' are the practical methods of dis- 
 i-riminating between wii;it isknoxNU as white earthenware and what is 
 known as china. 
 
 I'nder the Wilson bill the rate (tf duty was changed from 50 ])er 
 cent on jdain white gooils to .'io i»er cent, and trom <•(• per cent on deco- 
 rated goods to .■?5 percent. Now, I do not know that this committee, in 
 framing a taritf bill, is going to consider any other legislation as a 
 basis or as atlecting their jiulgment as t<» what ought to lie the basis of 
 new legislation, but h)r fear this committee may be misled in taking 
 the Wilson bill for a basis of their h-gislation, 1 desire to refer to what 
 is already in thenunds and memory of many gentleinen here. That is, 
 while the ])resent law makes the rate of dnty on pottery .() and 35 per 
 cent, res|)ectiv»'l> , the Wilson bill, as it emergt d from tlic House under 
 the drastic reform sentiment that exi>-tcd in the committee and in the 
 House, made the rat»'s of dnty .'>5 jier cent on jtlain white goods ami 10 
 per cent on decorated goods; but the Senate, by a process of evolution 
 that would be a hmg stcny to fnlly elaborate, changed that to.io percent 
 aud 35 per cent, but they did it with the exiKM'tation atid promise of the 
 gentlemen who had charge of the measure there — I mean the Demo- 
 cratic gentlemen — that when a strike that was then iu jtrogress among 
 the pottery oi)eratives in this conntry was settled the duty would be 
 restored in the bill and would finally pass the Senate at 40 on jdain 
 white and 45 i)er cent on decorated goods. And, indeed, 1 am informed 
 that the gentleman in the Ways and .Means Committee wlio had chaige 
 of the pottery schedule himself declared that if the ecjuilibriuni of tlie 
 "Wilson bill had Iteen maintained, if justice had been done to ]>ottery 
 alike with the other interests — that is, if they had been trented alike — 
 that the rates of duty on pott<'ry W(»uld have been 4(> and 45 per cent 
 instead of 35 and 40 per ceut, as it was when it went to the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Ti RNEU. As ]»art of that history; is it not true that the opera- 
 tives asked their friends in the Senate to support tUo Senate amend- 
 ment? 
 
 Mr. Tayleu. For a time I admit that wa so, but that goes into the
 
 204 SCHEDULE B.— EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 tent to conference, but in conference it stayed. The benate never had 
 So-ht of a hair of the tariff bill after it got into conference, and the 
 retnlt was that the gentleman who intended to carry out his promise to 
 see that pottery hacl a rate of 40 and 45 per cent, winch wouhl make it 
 preserve the equilibrium as between it and the other j.arts of even a 
 Democratic; revenue measure, was unable to carry out his pn|mi80. It 
 was physicallv impossible for him to do so. And the result is that 
 against even 'the wishes of tariff reformers the pottery business has 
 been compelled for the last three years to proceed on tlie basis of a 
 tariff that was far below even what the enemies of protection thought 
 it was entitled to have. So I say in that respect the pottery business 
 has been peculiarly affected. 
 
 But more than all that. Notwithstanding the depression in the tunes, 
 notwithstanding the fact that pottery is in a sense a luxury— that is 
 to say, new pottery is a luxury— that is, wlien a man is hard run for 
 money he will not buy new crockery until wliat he has is Itrokeii, but 
 if he is reasonably well lixed, if he is earning gtM)d wages, lie will buy 
 new pottery when his old goods chip, — I say that, notwithstanding the 
 universal depression which has prevailed in this country for the last 
 three years, notwithstanding the notorious fact that und»'rvaluatious 
 have been more and more known to exist in the importations of ywtf tery 
 into this country, the volume of importations as in«'a->urt*d by those 
 undervaluations has enormously increased, until in isiMi the annuint 
 imported was $10,539,476 worth of pottery, i>ractically all of which 
 comes directly into competition with the American pn»du('t : in thi' two 
 years, in 1895 and 1896, there were imported into t)iis<-ountry J!'L*(i,<mmi.(XM1 
 worth of pottery; while in ISOl and 189L*. under the McKiidcy law. there 
 was something over $16,000,000 worth imported into tlic country, and the 
 revenue derived under that latter importation was .*:{.(mkijmk) mon' than 
 the revenue derived from the larger inqiortations under the Wilson 
 tariff bill. 
 
 Mr. Turner. What countries abroad are the greatest exporters to 
 this country? 
 
 Mr. Tayler. England, France, and Germany, I think, in the order 
 I have named them. In a moment I am going to refer to another coun- 
 try, which is the greatest menace to American pottery, and will become 
 more and more so as the years go on. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Before you depart from this matter, have yon any 
 figures that will give us an idea as to the amount that is prod"uced in 
 this country'? 
 
 Mr. Tayler. I can answer your question, althougli not in exart 
 hgures. The production of this countrv in ISOi'. while tlie McKinley 
 law was in operation, was approximately 10 per cent of the goods con- 
 sumed. We imported in other words. 60 per cent and manufactured 
 40 per cent. Practically 90 per cent of that imp<.rted. iKMhaps not so 
 much, but very nearly that much, was of a class of g.H.ds whi«-h the 
 
 twr'"'/'''^%^^^ "'^" ''"'^ ^^'^ money and the intelligence to them- 
 selves produce; I mean produce along lines of absolute econoniv not 
 economy of wages perhaps, but economy of human etbu t, akhi'g no 
 ZVmZlXV' ^'r ?f '''''' '' accomplish the manutvJufe of 
 countries country than it takes to produce them in other
 
 EARTHENWARE AND CHINA. 205 
 
 What I wanted to impress upou tlie mindsof the committee was that 
 whiU* th«'U* has been an enorinonsly reduced consumption in this <(>uu- 
 try of earthenware and chinaware in tlie last thice years, the ])r()duc- 
 tion (»f other <M»untries that has been sent into this country has hir;;ely 
 inci eased, and tlie result has been neet-ssaiilw inevitably, the thin.i; that 
 has been ^irapliiially described by the j^entlemen who have already 
 spoken here. Men have worked half time if they have wmked at all, 
 and the wa<;es paid to American workin«;men in potteries in the last 
 three years have not been half of what they earned in the three years 
 j)revions to the enactment of the NVils(»n law. Their waj^es have been 
 reduced V2f, per cent, but that was the least of their troubles. It might 
 be charged against a manufacturer that he unjustly reduced wages, but 
 it could not be justly charged against a manufac-turer who had any 
 desire for his own pmspeiity thai h«' shut down his works and worked 
 them on half time unless his business conii>elled him to do so; it is the 
 shortness of the work that has nmde the men sutfer most. 
 
 \N'e lliink th«»se circumstances present in the most graphic foriu the 
 fact that there is something in the legislative eomlitions that is respon- 
 sible for this. Pottery is the only great product that has not had a fair 
 chance on American soil. It is the only thing which linds the foreign 
 producer getting the American nnirket more and more, not because the 
 American manufa<turer can not make it. as I said a few moments ago, 
 but be<-ause he can not maintain the kind of civilization among his 
 W(»rkmen which they have enjciyed; he can not pay them the wages 
 they weie jwcustomed to re<'eive, and by right <uiglit to receive, and 
 come int<» op«'n competition wilii the products ol' thi'se other factories. 
 
 Now, iiere are a few specimens ot' jtotteiy work that I want to refer 
 to with gr«*at brevity to illustrate the point I have just nnule. Here is 
 a cup and sau«'er, one of a dozen of them, ol' dillereiit clesigus. They 
 are china, nuide an<l decorated in .lapan. A dozen of those beautilully 
 de<-orati*d pieces s«»ld in New Y<uk, at wholesale |)rice, for $1'.")0. Now, 
 I venture the assertion that you coidtl not hire an American <lecorator, 
 as skille<l as any in his line in the worhl, to do the work of decorating 
 those tor ^'J.oO. He could not do it if he was i)aid only one third of 
 what he is paid. The average wages of W(m kmen that work on this are 
 IS to L*r> cents a day in Japan. 
 
 In front of tlu* <hairman is a piece of ware which the «'xpertson this 
 c(unmitt«'e upon looking at it will say is Dresden. I'.oth of the laiger 
 pieces are of that character, but those two beautiful pieces of Dresden 
 ware were nunle in .lapan also. I think that Dresden will be looking 
 to her laurels as early and as soon as we: and the very impetus that 
 has been given to the potteries in .Jajtaii will justify the statement that 
 I was once charged with being rash in makingithat if I had $1(M),(MK),()00 
 at my command 1 couhl capture e\ery market in the world, and I would 
 drive America and the Continent aither into barbarism or to protection. 
 That is ])recisely what will happen uidess the world protects itself 
 against Japanese i>ottery and other arti«les. 
 
 1 hold in my hand a beautiful cup and saucer, also of a Dresden [»at- 
 tern, which upon a careful investigation it is tound can be decorated 
 in this country by most skilled workmen for ">() ccHits, pro\ided they 
 have a year's work and plenty of it, so that you can proceed with abso- 
 lute economy of time. 
 
 Mr. TruNER. Fifty cents for how much? 
 
 Mr. Tayler (continuing). And his skill can be used to the best of 
 advantage. It will be .">(> cents tor doing the decorating on one cup and 
 saucer. It is all hand work, and yet that piece — the cup and saucer —
 
 206 SCHEDULE B.— EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 was sold in New York for 08 cents. Of course no American mamitac^ 
 tarer or English manufacturer could by any possibility compete with 
 
 *^It*is often said that America can not produce it-^'an not prmluce the 
 ware this country ought to have and the beautitul things that are made 
 
 ^ Thave in my hand a cup and saucer whose combine<l wciglit is 1;] 
 ounces. Itisbelleek ware, made in Trenton, X. J. It can be made any 
 place where the American potter has tirmly taken root— wlierc the 
 American atmosphere pervades a potting community. And 1 want to 
 say while I am not what would be called an expert in pottery, yet, 
 iud'nng from my own knowledge and from the higliest testimony tliat 
 can^be obtained, there never was a better piece of l)eneek made on the 
 face of the earth, and no connoisseur, no judge ot beautitul tilings. 
 would set that alongside of a i)ieL-e of Irish beMe.-k and not say that 
 this was the finer article. I am not speaking in lu-roics about it, but 
 speaking my solemn judgment. 
 Mr. Turner. Please tell us a little more about the expensiveness 
 
 of it^ . , » * 
 
 Mr. Tayler. That piece of ware, to i)ut it on the market, cost about 
 
 $18 a dozen, about 61..j(> for producing. It is one of the liigln'st i)ro- 
 
 ducts of the potters' art. I am not bringing things here tiiat merely 
 
 show a large amount of labor. That is one of the iiighest i)roduet8 of 
 
 the potters' art, and, as I say, ought to sell from the factory at about 
 
 $18 a do/.en. 
 
 I have here another sample of the same kind of work, which I would 
 like to have the committee examine. This. too. is certainly a beautiful 
 product. 
 
 (Mr. Tayler i)assed around for the inspt'ction of committee various 
 l^ieces of this ware.) 
 
 I have in my hand another piece of belleek decorated in the royal 
 Worcester fashion which would need the American stamp «>n it to make 
 the finest judge of pottery disjjute that it was American. 1 do not 
 think anybody ever saw a finer thing of its kind than that. I do 
 not think anybody could make a tiner thing. There is absolutely noth- 
 ing, gentlemen, in the line of pottery which the American people can 
 not to-day produce within themselves. They have the enterjn ise, they 
 have the ingenuity, they have the artistic jiidgnu'iit and the artistic 
 workmen, and they can make any of these things, but the bahl jiroblem 
 is presented to-day — how can they i)ay the American \v<»rkmen wliat 
 they think they are entitled to get and what the manufai-turer is will- 
 ing to pay if he can, the price the workmen demand, and compete with 
 the same article manufactured by labor that g»'ts h-s*; for its work! 
 
 Mr. Tawney. All these articles you have exhibited are articles of 
 luxury, are they not? 
 
 Mr. Tayler. Yes, sir; although I suppose a euj* and saucer tliat 
 cost 20 cents are not very great luxuries; and yet these decorations 
 seem to make the articles a luxury. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is not that Japanese cup and saucer the latest desipnt 
 
 Mr. Tayler. Of Japanese make, but not of Japanese design. Kvery- 
 body knows the wonderful faculty of the Japanese and Chinese to 
 imitate. The Japanese have im]>orted recently a full plant of machin- 
 ery, since machinery has come into use in ])otteries. They im])orted it 
 from this country. They are setting it up in .Ia|>an. It is a jiatented 
 article, but there is no uatent law in Japan that will prevent them from
 
 EARTIIEXWAKE AND CHINA. 207 
 
 rei>r(»diicinp: it ad iufinituin, and they will before Ion*? be prodnoiiifjall the 
 articles w«' n)ake. The only thiiijj that has jnevented him tVoni .urasp- 
 ing American ideas more is that he has not yet exactly ci>ini»rehended 
 the idea of (juantity. A man who wanted t«) buy a hundred or a thou- 
 sand crates or casks of a certain article trom the .laj^anese and would 
 H'we his order to them nii;:ht jret one hundred or he might get ten. He 
 would not be sure his order would be lilled, and therefore there is an 
 uncertainty in dealing with the .Ja])anese. 
 
 All of these purely artistic things that you see on the table here 
 were made in America. And yet iii)on a close insp<Mtion of the ira- 
 l)orted sami)les you will note that the kind of decoration on them is no 
 more to be com]>ared with the decoration on this belleek made at Tren- 
 ton than a i)aiiit4'r"s daub made in a day is to be compared to one that 
 it takes a month or a y«'ar U) i)aint. 
 
 Mr. Tawnky. Will you jdease tell us what these two cups and saucers 
 made in .lapan will cost the consumer in this country now? 
 
 Mr, Tavlkk. I suppose .Y.i.TiO a dozen. They might sell for 1*5 or 30 
 cents ai>ie<'e here at retail. 
 
 Mr. Ti'KNKH. And the Trenton cups and saucers of about the same 
 size would sell for what here! 
 
 Mr. Tavlkk. It is not fair uiM)n my i)art, if 1 have left that impres- 
 sion, to compare tlntse belleek cups and saucers with these others. 
 They belong in another class. 'I'ln-se are not even competitors of those. 
 Anybody that looks at these will see that, while they are i)retty. they 
 are not to be considered in the same moment with the iK'lleek 1 have 
 just passed down the table. 1 presented it for the jturpose of showing 
 what the Anwrican |)oiter could <lo. for there is nothing liner than the 
 specimen that 1 have shown you. Of course a larger amount ot work 
 could be put on the decorations. They could be made considerably 
 more exjuMisive if it was desired to do so; but the work, the art, all 
 that is beautiful in pottery, is to be discerned in the specimens that I 
 hav«' shown to this committee. 
 
 Mr. M<"MiLLiN. I would like to ask if goods coming under section 84 
 of the Wilson law. china, porcelain, stone, and crockery ware, known 
 as ])Iain white goods, generally sp«Mking, m»t changed in conditions by 
 siiperadde«l ornamentations or decoiations — if these goods do not form 
 one of the main items in the mannlai tuies l)y our peojdef 
 
 Mr. Tavlkk. No, sir; I do not think so. 
 
 Mr. M("Mii.LiN. There is a very large production of such goods, is 
 there not ? 
 
 Mr. Tavi.EU. No, sir. 1 should say at a guess, and somebody may 
 correct me if necessary, that the product of American potters is about 
 25 per cent plain and 75 per cent decorated goods. 
 
 Mr. McMiLi.iN. I see that, notwithstanding the reduction by the 
 Wilson bill which was made on that class of ])ott<»ry, there was imjmrted 
 in 18!Ki under the McKinley act .^LMlOjOiMJ worth and under the Wilson 
 bill in 18!»t) only .*tl,SS0,O(Mi worth. 
 
 Mr. Tavler. That is the ])rocess of development. Weare not man- 
 ufacturing less, because it must all be lirst white goods, but we are 
 selling less and less; everybody is selling less and less of white and 
 decorating m(»re. 
 
 Mr. MrMiLLiN. I oidy wanted to see how the reduction in price has 
 taken our market when the amount imported had been reduced. 
 
 Mr. Taylek'. Well, you will understand that the first step in the 
 l)roceB8 of manufacturing i3ottery is the making of the plain white
 
 208 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 goods. The consumption of those white goods as a form for final use 
 is constantly growing less and less, and when you find, nnder the con- 
 ditions of the last three years, that there is only a dillerence of, say, 
 $1^00,000 between the importation of plain whi[e g(.<>ds in this ccmntry 
 in one year from the next, and that less thaii the importations of the 
 preceding year, you may be pretty sure that there has not Iti-en a 
 normal falling off in the importation of that class of goods. The white 
 goods that are imported are largely imported for the piniK)se of redeeo- 
 ration here. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is it a fact that there is a combination among the 
 makers of pottery fixing prices and discount? 
 
 Mr, Taylek. No, sir, 
 
 Mr. ^McMiLLiN. lias there been none? A dealer in tlie commodity 
 informed me that there was. 
 
 Mr. Tayler. There is no such combination in any suth sense as 1 
 know your (piestion is intended to con\cy. Theie is, liowcver, a kind 
 of potters' association wliich considers all questiousof common interest. 
 They have a uniform i)ricc list. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. They make their uniform price lists! 
 
 Mr. Tavlek. They make their uniform price lists, from which certain 
 discounts are allowed: and while there in an understanding that a 
 certain rate of discount shonhi be the prevailing one, yet every nnin 
 sells at what price he i)leases — dillerent i>otters sell at different prices. 
 Anyone in the so-called association does as lie pleases about the dis- 
 count. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. There is an association, then? 
 
 Mr. Tayler. Yes; the association, or the menjbers of it, sell their 
 goods at different rates of discount. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Is it not a tact that they give a less discount, by 
 agreement among themselves, to the smaller dealers than they do to the 
 larger ones? 
 
 Mr. Tayler. I can not say as tt» that: 1 (h. not know: very likely 
 they might. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. They have this agreement, then : but you say in .some 
 instances it is violated ? 
 
 Mr. Tayler. 1 do not think there is any agreement any more than a 
 uniform understanding as to the price at'wiiich i><»ttery ought to sell. 
 There is no restriction of ])roduction. There is no one who can be 
 forced to sell at any particular jirice, and it is the common understand- 
 ing that every man sells at whatever j.rice he i»lea.>*es. 
 
 Mr. jNIcMillin. I'.ut does not that agreement extend to an under- 
 standing that they will not sell below llie price that the judgment of 
 the combination has fixed? 
 
 Mr. Tayler. 1 do not know, Mr. McMillin. I do know that so far 
 as any agreement is concerned it is a mere rope of sand, because it has 
 nothing to hold it together. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Is it not a mere association of the i)otter8 of this 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. Tayler. That is all it is. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Does not the putting on of higher duties and the 
 preventing of imports make it more easy to control the market where 
 they undertake to do so? 
 
 Mr. Tayler. There never was a time when the home competition was 
 not suflieient to keep the price of pottery down. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. LLow many pottery establishment*> are there in the 
 United States ?
 
 EARTHENWARE AND CHINA. 209 
 
 Mr. Tayler. About sixty of the kind that manufactare chiua aud 
 eartlieuware — tableware in one form or another. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is it not a fact that the common yellow, or Rocking- 
 liani, pottery work, even at the present rate, is so that the mai'ket is 
 held by the American manufacturers? 
 
 Mr. Tayler. Yes, sir; that is true. 
 
 Mr. M< MiLLiN. They have control of tha't markett 
 
 Mr. Tayler. Tliey have control of that market — that is to say, they 
 dominate the trade in that class of ware, and I have never heard any- 
 body com]»lain that the i»ri<e was unreasonably hijLih. It is that line 
 of pottery manufacture which has demonstrated the effect of improved 
 production when tiie protection sutticcs to put it on a sound basis where 
 it was not in much danger of destruction. 
 
 Mr. (iROsvENoii*. As to this agreement in regard to prices, have you 
 a knowled^ie of whether i)rices have ever been put up by any agreement 
 above a fair price to the public? 
 
 Mr. Tavlek. 1 do not. I want to say this in that connection, that I 
 have the best evidence that I could be expecti'd to have that not more 
 than five of the iK>tteries in this country have made any money within 
 the last three years. I do know, aside from these evidences that midti- 
 ply on every han»l — aside from the fact thai men do not work on full 
 time or else have had theii wages decreased — I know that three or four 
 of the potteries in my section of the countiy, of the finest potteries ever 
 const ructeil by the wit of man, have absolutely shut down and have 
 been shut down for months, and they do not know when they will open. 
 They have every appliance that was ever devised for making pottery, 
 but tbey can not make pottery and live. Several factories in my own 
 county hav»^ fallen into the hands of receivers or have made assign- 
 ments within the last three years, and it is absolutely a« plain as such 
 a thing can be to one who is not in the business that the manufacturer 
 as well a« the employee has sufl'ered. and has surtered grievously, within 
 the last three years. 
 
 Mr. (Irosvknou. Have they sutfered in like i)roportion? In other 
 words, did the manufa«tnrers maintain as high a scale of wages as they 
 could under the circunistaiu-es? 
 
 Mr. Tayler. Cndoubtedly. 1 do not think that any workingman in 
 the ]>otteries disj»utes the fact that he has been getting all the wajfes 
 his employer could pay him since the Wilson bill went into etlect. I 
 have never heard it disj)uted by anybody. 
 
 The CriAiKMAN. In confirmation of the statement you made, I see 
 from the figures that while the importation of plain has fallen off 
 $2L'r»,(HK) in LS'Mi from 18!Ki the im])ortatiou of the better article has 
 increased ><1,4<M>,(KH>. That substantiates the point. 
 
 Mr. Tayler. Precisely. 
 
 Mr. Tawnev. Do you know anything about the eftect of the Wilson 
 law on the china-clay washing plants in this country? 
 
 Mr. Tayler. Of course, the etlect could only be disastrous to those 
 who sui)ply raw materials, since the factories have had their markets 
 cut almost in tw() in the last three years. Their market has been almost 
 destroyed. The china clay producers have not had an opportunity to 
 supply more than (K) per cent of the material which before the Wilson 
 bill went into etteet they were sup[)lyiug. 
 
 I want to proceed for a moment to the more practical side of this 
 
 questicm. It is perfectly apparent, I think, to the members of this com- 
 
 mitti'C that no tariff law can be properly elfective unless there is a fair 
 
 determination in the first instance of what it is you are putting your 
 
 T H 14
 
 210 SCHEDULE B. — EARTHS, EARTHENWARE. AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 duty Oil what its value should be, what its value i.s, so that you may 
 properly give expression to the idea that is involved m the phdosophy 
 of protection. There is nothing- in which this process of undervaluation 
 has been reduced to so fine a science as jmttery. I have had it stated 
 tome within the last twenty-four hours by gentlemen in wln.so knowl- 
 edo-e I have the greatest confidence tliat seven eighths of the capital 
 invested in Limoges, the greatest center of china manuraeturing in the 
 
 it here. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. Consign it to themselves! 
 
 Mr. Taylek. Consign it to them.selves. of course. 
 
 Mr. DOLLIVER. How long have Americans invested in this way in 
 
 Limoges? 
 
 Mr. Tayler. About fifty years ago they first invested, when a e«»uple 
 of Yankees invested tlieir money— their names weie llavihind— and 
 started theie. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Would you object to giving some of the mimes «)f 
 the people that are engaged in fiaudnlent transaefioiis of that kind? 
 This would be very important information to us and to the (iovernment, 
 
 Mr. Tayler. 1 am stating it, as I said, npon se«-oiid hand infoiniati(»ii. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Yes, of course: most all of such information is second- 
 hand information, it seems. 
 
 Mr. Tayler. 1 do not pretend to hav»> jiersonal knowledge of that. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. If that exists, and if seven eiglitlis of the rapital 
 invested in the industries indened to abro;ul is owned by AnuTieans, 
 and those Americans have their establishments on this side of the 
 ocean also, and are sending t heir goods liere undervalued, it is an impor- 
 tant thing to lind out about. 
 
 Mr. Tayler. I tlid not say owned by Americans. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You said it was American capital. 
 
 Mr. Tayler. Yes, sir; I said American capital. Some of it is owned 
 here; some of it originated here and has been develope<l here, and it is 
 principally all derived from the Anu-rican purcha.ser. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. If they are engaged in ship]»iiip fraudulently to 
 themselves by undervaluation, the fact is very imp()rtant. 
 
 Mr. Tayler. 1 have nt) doubt at all that it is a fwt susceptible of 
 determination; but Mr. ^b•^lillin understands that ea<-h .sej.arate in- 
 stance furnishes the loundation for an enormous amount of iM(|uiry and 
 investigation, and tlmt it becomes jdiysically imi)i'>sible to juii sue every 
 one of these multitudinous instam-es, lint, iiowever that may be, 
 everybody knows that tins sort of thing gties on. Everybody knows 
 that, or everybody is mistaken in that wiiieh he supjmses to be common 
 knowledge. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. The evidence before this committee last winter showed 
 very conclusively that that was the faci. 
 
 Mr. Steele. It apjilied to almost all industries. 
 
 Mr. Tayler. And 1 do not think the i)eople in the jtottery business 
 are made of any better clay than those engaged in uny other busii es.s. 
 They ought to be, perhaps; but a man does not always make the be«t 
 job of himself. 
 
 Theresult of thisisthat. ifit ispossilde todoso in the ease of pottery, 
 a specific duty ought to be laid upon that article, and a comi)ound duty 
 where a specific duty will not entirely meet the situation. Those who
 
 EARTHENWARE AND CHINA. 211 
 
 aro interested in this business are not prepared to-day to submit to this 
 coniinittee a statement of tlie reolassitication of the pottery scliedules, 
 all lioiij^h tlu'v lia\e that work under way. It is perfectly apparent I hat 
 with tht* vast variety of work that is done anion^ tlie jiotters there must 
 be a larjrer elassilication ; that is to say. a larg:er number of classes. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVKK. Mr. Tayler, it apjicars that the committee in 1890 
 failed to make any of the duties on this ware specific! 
 
 Mr Tavlek. Precisely. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Have you made such investigations as would enable 
 you to sujrtjest a basis for specific duties on this warcf 
 
 Mr. Tavler. We will jiresent a statement of that sort in a short 
 time. It is a matter that involves, as you will readily understand, 
 almost a re\<»lution in the system of valiiiii;; pottery, and tht)se who 
 aie informed U|)on the subject are dili;;ently at work endeavorinji' to 
 arii\e at sometliini; wliith will be a fair and just classification, and then 
 it will be for tin* committee to pass u|>on that elassilication, and also 
 upon the rates and duty. Hut I may say in a <;eneral way their idea is 
 that upon the plain jjoods as dislin;;uished from decorated, and also 
 Irom those plain ^'oods which in their very contbrnnition are artistic, a 
 spj'cilic duty will an>wer the i)urpose, l>ecause tliere is no su]»eradded 
 ornamentation which mijiht be enterin;; in its cost to complicate the 
 situation; that npon that class a specilic duty could be laid. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. On what basis! 
 
 Mr. Tavlkr. liy wei;^'ht; and one serious matter (»f consid«'ration 
 was whetlier it ouj^hl to be the wei;;ht of the piece itself or the weight 
 of the jHcce with the packa^'e. iMobaidy it would be wisest to put it 
 in the pat ka;;e. The fact I hat tli«re is a packa;;e could be considered 
 in determininj,' what tlie specilic rate should be per p<»und, but the 
 gentlemen can uiuleistand it would be very tedious to wei'rh every 
 piece, whih" it wouhl be a simple operation to take the weiglit of the 
 cask or crate wei<:hinj; 1, .")(»() j)ounds. foi- instance. 
 
 \N'hen the ])lain t,'oods are ornamented by plain print, tlien the prob- 
 lem is reasonably simple, but when it is hi}xhl.\ (U'naniente<l then there 
 should be acblctl to tlie specific duty an a<l valorem duty whi« h woidd 
 protect tlie consumei and the mannlactuier in this country from under- 
 valuations of jroods that are of hijili \alne bnt little weiy:ht. The jren- 
 eral plan of that has been thorouj^hly worked out. but on account of 
 the lar;:e diversity in the class of decorations and in the value of the 
 goods no systematic result has been arrived at. lUit it is very desir- 
 able to have an oi>|»ortunity later to pr<'sent to the committee in writing 
 a statenu'nt of the manner in which they undertake to solve that 
 problem. 
 
 Mr. .McMiLLiN. Those diflerent schedules can be printed with the 
 bearings. 
 
 The Chairman. You will tile those so as to be printed? 
 
 Mr. McMii.LiN. The reason I ask is that a nund)er of parties have 
 said that they would have schedules prepared. 
 
 The Chairman. If they are tiled in season they will be i>rinted. 
 Upon examining these two i)ara..:raphs alone of the earthenware I find 
 that the increase of importations in 181'0 over the fiscal year 1893 
 exceeded ."»!1,(U)(),0()(), but notwithstanding that increase of importations 
 in the liscal year 1890 the revenue tell off .<!80().0(H>. 
 
 Mr. Tayler. If there is anything at all in the i)rinciple of protection, 
 this interest and industry is the thing to which it ought to be applied, 
 and, if so, it ought to be apjtlied to an extent very much beyond that 
 which we find iu the law now iu force. We have all the present
 
 212 SCHEDULE B.— EARTHS, EAKTHENWAKE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 evidence of the necessity for this industry receivin- a hir-er protiH-tion 
 a higher rate of duty, and that is apj.ar.ntly indepen.kM.t of the prescn 
 financial condition and the dullufss whirh rharac-terizes ahnost all 
 branches of industry, many of which l.ave sutured Horn excessive 
 importations. It seems to me tl.at tl.e duty ■•' ^vLatever torm impose< 
 ouffht not to be a lower rate than that iini)osed in l^fm. 1 know that 
 DeoDle are apt to say tbat their interest and industry is the thuip that 
 needs protection most. I have perhaps characteri/ed this industry as 
 one of that kind, but I leave it to you to say whether, fn.m tlie evidence 
 I have presented and the evidence wliich is within your owu knowl- 
 edge, this is not an industry of that character. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. ARTHUR C. WIGGIN. IMPORTER. OF BOSTON. 
 SECRETARY OF THE NEW ENGLAND CROCKERY AND GLASS- 
 WARE ASSOCIATION. 
 
 TuiDAV, .January s, />.9r. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Is your statement in fav(»r of increaaiii^ the duties on 
 
 pottery ? 
 
 Mr. WiGGiN. It is in favor of retaining the duties as at present. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Lot us hear that. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Vou pre.^^ent the rea.sonswliy thedutieM should remain 
 as they are? 
 
 Mr. WiGGiN. Yes, sir; so far a« we wen* abU' to formulate them. It 
 is our position in tlie matter. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Do you represent the manufacturer or the imiM>rterT 
 
 Mr. WiGGiN. The imi)orters, 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do y<»u know of a combination existing among the 
 pottery manufacturers for the fixing of prices an<l discounts at which 
 their wares shall be sold? 
 
 Mr. WiGGiN. No; ex<ci»ting that every sah'sinan that comes in rep- 
 resenting difl'erent potters has tlie same di.scount. 
 
 Mr. Mc^IiLLiN. And do they live uj) to it! 
 
 Mr. WiG(UN. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And do they have a laru'cr di'^connt for large con- 
 sumers and a smaller discount for small consumerH or ilcalern? 
 
 Mr. WiGGiN. Yes, sir; practically they do. Tiiey make a dilTerenee. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. It is your observation tha' ti'-v liv.« up to their 
 undertaking? 
 
 Mr. WiGGiN. Yes, sir; it is. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. How long lias that been the case? 
 
 Mr. WiGGiN. It has been the case for at least twenty two years. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Do you know of any agreement by which they have 
 the same prices for the same articlet* 
 
 Mr. WiGGiN. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Y'ou are an importert 
 
 Mr. WiGGiN. Y'es, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Now, in selling your goods, do yon make any discount 
 or any price which varies in accordance witl, uli.ti,..] you sell a large 
 or small quantity? 
 
 Mr. WiGGiN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you know of anybody who does not do that! 
 
 Mr. Wiggtn. No, sir; I do not. 
 
 Mr. Payne. 1 do not, either. 
 
 The Chair-\ian. When you say the discount is uniform, you do not 
 mean to say that the price is uniform in the.se various ix.itenes?
 
 F 
 
 EARTH ENWABE AND CHINA. 213 
 
 Mr. WiGOiN. I moan to say. sir, that on what is in jreneral use, the 
 wliite granite and C C goodg and the yeHow and Kockiufjham goods, 
 tlie discount given is invariably the same given by the ditVerent manu- 
 facturers. 
 
 The CoAiKMAN. That is so. in trade, of all kinds of discounts. 
 
 Mr. WiGGiN. No, sir: I think not. 
 
 The Chairman. Is not the discount ordinarily given tlie same? For 
 instance, take tlic \v<»nlen trarle. Is it ordinarily iittt ."> per cent discount? 
 
 Mr. \VlG(;iN. I tlo not know about that business. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVKR. Have you obs<'rvcd that same kind of a system of 
 discount in your contact with the foreign trade? 
 
 Mr. VViGGiN. No, sir; there is not the sanjc agreement among for- 
 eigners, apparently, as to their i)rices. 
 
 Mr. I)ollivi:h. In buying in Kngland do they appear to liave a 
 uniform price list? 
 
 Mr. WiGGiN. No, sir; they <lo not. 
 
 Mr. n<)Li.lVKR. Or a uniform discount? 
 
 Mr. WiGGiN, Not to tlie extent they do Ikto. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVKH. To wliat extent do you (ind that uniformity of dis- 
 counts in the Hni^Iish trade? 
 
 Mr. \Vifj(MN. I am unable to answer the (juestion. 
 
 Mr. Stkklk. Is undervaluation uniforndy practiced? 
 
 Mr. WiGGiN. I know nothing about it. and I do not think it is prac 
 ticed in Hoston. 
 
 Mr. Tawnkv. Do you know whether this agreement extends t«) anj'- 
 thing except the price? 
 
 Mr. WiGGiN. I only judge there is an agreement by the fact that 
 their discounts are universally the same. I liave no knowle<lge beyond 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. For the same reason you would Jutlge there was an 
 agreement of that kind among imi)ortcrs? 
 
 Mr. WiGGiN. No, sir: because the juice among importers is not so 
 universally the same. 
 
 Mr. Ti'UNKK. As an importer, from your experience as such, would 
 you say that a speci fu- dtity, a.s suggested by .Mr. Tayler, is i)racticable 
 in earthenware and chinaware? 
 
 Mr. Wkuiin. I do not think it is possible to have it work practically. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The domestic manufactUK-r has the absolute market, 
 or substantially so, on yellow and Kockingliam goods, has he not? 
 
 Mr. \Vi(;<;iN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Wiggin rea«l the following paper: 
 
 Onr aHHociation Ih coinposptl of tlio importers and dealers of the larger cities of tlio 
 New Kngland StatoH. W<> arc associatrd, not to couibino on prices nor to tix prices, 
 but to lieconie better acimainted, and by ni«<«'tiiij; and talking with «'arh other arrive 
 at abetter understanding as to the best niethoiis of doinp business; in brief, to study 
 the peneral interests of the trade. We sell largely of both foreign an<l American 
 made wares. We stand between the consumer and the various manuf:icturera. For 
 instance, we imjtnrt largely Irom Kngland. Kranc<-. (ierniaiiy, .Jajiaii, and we also 
 buy largely of American-made jiottt-ry and glassware. In other words, we are 
 interested in low prices, as we supply the wants of the American yteople. We own 
 no interest in any pottery, but w^e are presumed to be intelligent buyers, and there- 
 fore are aware of the prices of this merchandise, whether it be foreign or American, 
 and we stand as a purveyor betweei» the manufacturer and the consumer, trying 
 always to find the best ware for the least money, therefore we believe that the mer- 
 chant who sells both foreign and domestic ware is as useful in the coniniunity .as the 
 mannfacturer, whose ])ro<luot may or not be the best for the consumer. There is no 
 doubt but that the claims of the domestic ])otter8 can be justitied in saying that 
 crockery has been reduced in ])rice in the last twenty years. Presumably this has 
 been during the period covering these high-tarifl' taxes, but there are other facts 
 that are responsible for the reduction in cost of pottery.
 
 214 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 The rates of tariff have not heen the controlling factor, a« I can prove t<) yoa. 
 There have been t^vo or three inventions that hav been of imrortance in r.«<luring 
 prices within the last twenty-five years. One of these iniprovt-mcnts w:i« in tiie old- 
 fashioned kiln where the coal was put directly int.. tlu- lire Hue and nnu-h boat wm 
 wasted Thev now have a patent which nearly donhli-s the savinj; lu fuel, or rather 
 furnishes nearly double the heatin^' capacity of the old kiln. Anoth.-r intlii.Mi.e has 
 come in the shape of the displacement of band power by steam. This has been 
 adopted in other countries as well as in America. Another inii)ortant fa.-tor within 
 a few years has been the introduction ol tbe litho;;raid»ic transfer ].rocisR. I hey 
 now take blank pottery and put a decoration of a spray of leaves or f.diajre upon it, 
 and instead of having to paint it carefully by hand as formerly, they simply wipe a 
 piece of tissue paper on the lithouraplii.- tr:in>rer pnu-.-ss, and wipe that on the pot- 
 tery, and it is done almost as raj.idly as I have t(dd you. 
 
 Iniay add that recently a ])rintincr machine has been invented for transferring the 
 decoration, which reduces the cost of printiiii,' color desiunis nearly .'»(• per cut. In 
 this connection, let me add tli.it all three of these inventions, the Minton kiln, the 
 lithographic transfer process of decoratir.n, and tlie steam power in place of band or 
 foot power, are foreign inventions, showing tliat the si imulant of n high tarilV in the 
 United States did not j.roduce these cheapening processes of nnuiufaeture, as all 
 these were foreign inventions. 
 
 1 am willing to give the domestic potters thi- benefit of the rlnim that they have 
 helped to introduce wares to cre:yte competition between the home and foreign nmiui- 
 facturers. But you must not lose siglit of the fact that there is always an active 
 competition between the English, Fremli, flerm.-in, and Chinese potters which brings 
 the price of the products down. The causes of bringing the price down have been 
 these new methods of tiring and decorating the ware. They have bwn the chief 
 cause of reducing the cost. 
 
 Thebrief history of the tarid changes on earthenware is asfidlown: It was inereaMe<I 
 from 10 per centin 1781t-17!M. to L'Ot.er cent in 1H16-1HJJ: IM p.r cent in l>t'.7- IMU ; 40 
 per cent in 1861-1.^83 to (;()-:..'. per cent in 18x:{. From IxXi to Hie act of ]h'M) the duti- 
 able value on outside packages (crates, casks, and rnws, including the packing 
 material) was mad*^ duty free to compensate for the increa.<«ed hi lie«liile r;»t<' from 10 
 tons and 60 per cent : but in the .idmini-trative tarilV act of \>*.K) the value of the 
 outside packages was made dutiable while the r;ite« of .V* on white wan- and 6<> on 
 decorated ware remained, leaving the tariff tax on earlbeiiwaie not lef»s than •»;') jM-r 
 cent on the finer ware, and fully 70 to 75 per cent «»n tl»e common crockery nse«l 
 chiefly by the masses. 
 
 The Wilson act reduced rat<'8 to .30 jier cent (»n wliite ware and '.V> per eent«>n deco- 
 rated ware, but it left the .idministrative a<t unchani;eil, which now t:i it- 
 side packages, making tbe |iresent duty on the ware it-elf trimi !.'» to I. 
 Added to this tax is tbe abolition of damage iillowan« e, which up to Is-.. .,,.. i :i 
 rebate on all goods damaged in transit to the port of entry. To-day if a ship • "in- >* 
 in water-logged or has shifted cargo on the voyage or damage by tire or othei « is.-, 
 and there is damage to any amount, the iniport«'r must pay duty on the entire lot or 
 abandon his property. This feature of the jiresent law is an unjust tax which adds 
 materially to the landed cost of earthenware and glass, and of course has to be borne 
 by the consumer. 
 
 We believe that the recent tariff tax allows of a fair ineasnre of competition 
 between foreign and domestic crockery and glass, and th.-it as un<ler the present 
 schedule rates, towhich must be added the administrative items of tax on the costly 
 packages, with abolition of damage allowances, will bring a larger revenue to the 
 Treasury than would be realize<l if higher rates are imposed. 
 
 Why, under the schedules, two important classes of crockery are prohibited, to 
 wit, the common yellow ware, the h'ockiugham teajiots. an<l the common cream- 
 colored ware, u.sed as kitchen cro.kery by all and on the tables of the j>oorer ebmses. 
 Ten years ago the yellow, the Hoekiiighai'n. and the cream-icdored w:»re w.is imported 
 extensively, but since \xW it has almost ceased to come from abroad, being made 
 here, and by manufacturers who control the markets of this country by a combina- 
 tion which fixes its prices because of no foreign competition. 
 
 It is suggested that as far as ]>ractieable specific duties ».e substituted for ad 
 valorem. On that j.oiiit we beg to say that on this class of merchandise it is imprac- 
 ticable; the question has been stn<iied f<.r years, but has never been fouml feasible, 
 as, if by avoirdupois, the ware for lb.- masses being the roar^er and heavier, it would 
 burden the masses of consumers, and if bv count, the same objecti.m. 
 
 We believe that the undervaluation in the goods in .^^chedule It bos been redneed 
 to the minimum, as the records <d' the Uuite.l .States (Jeneral .Appraisers will prove. 
 We therefore pray that no change to specific rates bo made. as. in our judgment, it 
 would act prohibitory on most clas.ses of crockery, then-fore reduce tlie"revenue and 
 aaa to the cost ol ware to the mass of consumers. 
 
 I am and always have been a believer in protection, and think that the proaeal
 
 EARTHKNWAKE AND CHINA CLOCK CASES. 215 
 
 rate of dnty on crockery has been a true protective tariff. 80 far as ray knowledge 
 and (iliservation go, tinder the jircscnt tariff the output of American potters has 
 Ktradily iurrciiHod, the iinality itni)nive(l. :nid price lessened, so tiiat never were the 
 American jteople j^ettiiij; better jjoods at as low juices as to-day. Nn article is in 
 more general use than crnckery; it is used l)y the laborer and tlie millionaire, and 
 as a believer in true and f.iir protection, which gives Htimnlus to the American 
 maniit'acturers liy a duty and at the 8;ime time dues not prohibit foreign goods so 
 that the pet»)de are at the mercy of a manufacturers' iissociation or trust, I think the 
 provisions of the present bill, so far :is crockery is concerned, have been successful. 
 I wish to call to your attention the fact tliat two Ami'iican uianufacturers of di-co- 
 rated i»ottery who have aehievcd success and a national fame, namely, tiie Hockwood 
 Tottery Company, of Cinciun.tti, nhio, an<l the Low Art Tile Comjiauy, of Chelsea, 
 Mass., never asked fur or would Join in aay petition for higher duties. 
 
 eartiiexwatm: axd ciiixa clock cases. 
 
 [Paragraphs 84 and 85.] 
 
 Baltimore, January 1^ 1S97. 
 Committee on Ways and Mkans: 
 
 We bej: leave to (all tlie attention of yonr connnittee to an existing: 
 practi«(' under th<' tarilV act of Aii;^Mist L'S, l.SOl, which piactice, if not 
 IVandiih'iit in intent, ri'snlt.'^ in d«'|irivini; tlie (J«>veninn'nt of revenue 
 whi<li beyond question it is entithMl to receive, and whicli the IVaniers 
 of tiic act expected it wouM receive. 
 
 ''Decorated eartlienwure and chin;i." or jtorcehnn chuk cases, with- 
 out ii parti(de of metal alxuit them, are re^uhtrly admitted at the New 
 York custom house at a duty of L*i> per centum as "metals and nninu- 
 fa<tures of," uiuler I'arajrraph IT.i of Sclie<luU» 0, insti-ad of l)eing 
 entered at a duty of .!."» per centum an "earthenware an«l <hina," under 
 Paraj^raph H't of Scheduh* H, where they beyond qin'stion j)roperly 
 l)eIonj;. 
 
 The lea.son piven for their bein;: .so entered is tliat in Para;:rai>li 173 
 of Schednh* ('."inttals. and nninufactnres of." aie found the words 
 "cli»cks or parts tiiereuf,"' and an eartlienware or ( hina elock bein^ a 
 part of a chu-k, is entith'd to entry at !'.'» per centum. 
 
 In order tliat the abuse referred to may be stoi»pe<l, we ask that the 
 words "clock cases with movenu'iits or without," be added to both 
 Parajriaplis St and s"i of Schedule H, immediately following the word 
 " includin<;.'' 
 
 AVe also ask that the words, »Mf compo.sed of metal,'' be added to 
 Paragraph IT.i, Schedule C, imnndiately Ibllowing the word "thereof," 
 
 D. r. LIayxNEs & Son. 
 
 DECORATED STONEWARE. 
 
 (Paragraph 85.) 
 
 Deat? Sir: In the McKiidey lull, on the item of Flemish stoneware, 
 sometimes known as decorated stoneware', which covers a line of steins, 
 or beer mn-^s, orowhis, wine Ju^rs, etc., there was jilaced a duty of 55 
 ])er cent on the jdain and 05 per cent on the decorated, if we under- 
 stand the matter correctly. 
 
 Under the Mills bill this duty was reduced to 35 per cent. On deco- 
 rated <joo«ls, with. M per cent mai <;in as between ourselves and the (Jerman 
 and l']n<ili.sh makes. Me can mtt possibly com])ete. Notwithstanding: 
 our molds and appliances for making these goods, the trade the last two
 
 216 SCHEDULE B. — EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 years made about 10 per cent of onr ontpnt. On the other hand, there 
 has never been a year since we have known anything of the business 
 that there have been so many goods imported as dnring the last year 
 
 especially. . „ . , . 
 
 In the manafacture of these goods labor is practically the only item 
 to be considered, as materials are rather cheap and fuel is cheap, yet 
 our materials cost us more than they do our competitors across the 
 water, and, as you know, labor costs us considerably more than double 
 
 as much. 
 
 CiiARi-i:s N. WniTE, 
 MiUHuji ' <''>'iral New York I'otUry. 
 
 LATA GAS TIPS. 
 
 (Paragraph S6.) 
 STATEMENT OF MR. D. M. STEWARD, OF CHATTANOOGA. TENN. 
 
 Friday, January 8, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Steward said: I^Ir. Chairman and gentlemen (»f the i'oinniittee, 
 I will not take much of your timr. biM ause of the fact that, owing to 
 sickness, I was unable to prepare a wiittrn stat«Mnent. I wish to call 
 your atteution brietly to the article which perhaps has not been brought 
 to your attention before — certainly not to my knowledge — and that is 
 the manufacture of lava gas tips, a little article which ia in itself very 
 necessary, because without it we can not g»'t i)erfeet light with the gas 
 which we are using in this country. My tlrst accpiaintance with this 
 business was in the city of Cincinnati, about litteen years ago. Tlie 
 company with which 1 then connected myself has traveling sah'smen 
 who had been in the business some live or six years previous to that 
 time. These little articles, the lava gas tips, were sold then at whole- 
 sale for $0 a gross. They have from time to time been reduce<l, until 
 at the present time we find (Uirselves on ;i starvation basis of .'i5 centa 
 a gross for the same article. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Where do they appear on the tarifl'list uowt 
 
 Mr. Steward. In paragrai)h'8t). I wish to lespectluUy submit that 
 the duty is entirely inaile(|nate. It evidently was arranged by the 
 importers, or other parties in interest, and is entirely inadeipinte and 
 does not protect the American manufacturer at all. One concern, the 
 one to wliich I referred in the beginning of my reniarks. was a concern 
 with a capital of $75,1)00. organized in the city of Cincinnati with every 
 facility for manufacture, and it went to the \v:dl. as it naturally wonlJl 
 under the circumstances, although the prices they obtained w»'re greater 
 than at the present time. It also led to the bankruptcv of another con- 
 cern with a capital of $1,000,(IOO. and were it not for the fact that the 
 concern that I represent had a jiatent in an electrical line to tall ba«k 
 upon, we would not have apiieared before you to day, but would probably 
 be in the poorhouse or somewhere else. 
 
 These little gas tii)s are indispensable. You go into a gas fitter's 
 establishment, as I did to day, and purchase one. In the case of this 
 one [exhibiting a sample] I paid o cents for it at retail, or it would cost 
 $7.20 a gross. In order that 1 might not prejudice the nunds of the 
 committee, I went further and found another establishment of a larger 
 character, and the gentleman very kindly sold nie three f«>r r> cents, 
 but positively refused to give any reduction if I took a lar;.e quantity.
 
 FILTERS. 217 
 
 Tliat is at the rate of '$2.80 a gross. I have the card of the house from 
 whif'li I bou^'ht these if any g^entleinan wonhl like more definite infor- 
 mation, i claim it is unjust to ask us to compete with the P^uropean 
 nianutiK'turers. where the labor is underpaid, as you know. I will not 
 take up the time of the committee to go over that. Every gentleman 
 l)receding me, or nearly every one, has talked on that line, and it is a 
 fruitful subject. 1 could talk all night on that line if I had the time, 
 but I will not do so. 
 
 VVe ask for a specific duty. In my fifteen years' experience in this 
 business I have satislied myself that the duty has been evaded con- 
 stantly, right straight along. Can the iniporters of these goods pay 1 
 mark 8 pfennigs, or 1 maik 10 pfennigs, and pay the freight and consul 
 fee8 and insuranci' and that sort of thing and sell them for 35 cents a 
 gross in New York City? Thny can not do it. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. What specific duty do yoa suggest! 
 
 Mr. Stkwakd. I'ifty cents a gross. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVKR. What would lie the ad valorem e([uivalent to that? 
 
 Mr. Steward. The ad valorem duty was only about 1) cents, 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. What would be the eipiivalcnt? 
 
 Mr. Stkwaki). I don't know. I won't take time to figure it out. The 
 for«'ign value is 1 mark M ])fennig or 1 mark 10 pfennig. 
 
 Mr. Doi.LiVER. What is it in our money? 
 
 Mr. Steward. About .i'J cents. 
 
 Mr. l)«ir, liver. And you want 50 cents a gross specific duty? 
 
 Mr. Stkwahd. Yes: we do. Wc want to kcej) out of tlie sheriff's 
 hands. You sc«» the people do not get the benefit of these at the i»res- 
 ent time, and can not do so. 
 
 Mr. DoLi.iVEB. The rate you ask ia more than double what the 
 McKinley rate was. 
 
 Mr. Steward. I don't care. It is no more than Just. It is what we 
 should have. The people do not get the benefit of it now. We have 
 an industry and are emi»Ioying |»eople who would otherwise be unem- 
 ployed. The material would lie dormant if we did n(»t use it. ^Ve can 
 make and do make goods etpial to the best imp<>rte<l goods in this line. 
 We can make any kind of" the gixxls :unl make them Just as good as the 
 European goods, and the people would get them for the same money, 
 or less money if we bad the protection we ask for. 
 
 FILTKKS. 
 
 [Par.i;;ra].h 86.] 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL J. SORG. A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
 
 THE STATE OF OHIO. 
 
 FUlDAY, January 8, 1897. 
 Mr. SoRG said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have 
 been ic(pier>l»'d Py the i*asteurC'haml)erland Filter Company, of Day- 
 ton, Ohio, to i)resent a retpiest or statement to this committee, wherein 
 they ask that the tubes or bougies that are made of pottery be put upon 
 the free list. They claim to be, and I believe they are, the sole licensed 
 agents of the Pasteur filter, which is covered by a French patent. That 
 ])arf of the i)atent, I believe, is the tube, which they claim can not be 
 made in this country. The total or highest amount they have imported 
 wa.s (JUjOOU of those tubes, upon which there is a duty of 30 per cent.
 
 218 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 They claim that that duty increased the cost of these filters, which is 
 a water purifier of some note, and I believe you are familiar with it, 
 and if they are relieved of this duty on this — which d«»es not enter into 
 competition witli the American iiianufacturer, because they have not 
 been able to make them— they could put these lilters into the liands of 
 more people by reduciug the <-ost of it ronsidcrably. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. How lonj,^ has that l-'reiich i>ateiit yet to runt 
 
 Mr. SoRG. I do Jiot know. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. There is no reason why this <ouii)any could not manu- 
 facture these filters in this country after the i)atent exj>ires, is there! 
 
 Mr. SOKG. They claim that one kilu ovjt there can burn some 1(».U(K» 
 of those tubes at <me time, and it would not pay an Americjin manu- 
 facturer to enter into it because they could not burn more than one and 
 a half kilns a year. 
 
 Mr. DOLLiVEii. Do they claim that the iluty is unreasonably liijjhT 
 
 Mr. SoRG. Tiiey think under the cinuinstances it sliouhi be put on 
 the free list, as it is not manufactured in this country, and can not be, 
 because the production is protected l)y a patent. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. As a revenue pnxlucer I sIkuiUI think the tariff' wouU! 
 be all right. 
 
 Mr. SoRG. Well, it might be from that standiMiint, but it is a small 
 thing, as I do not think that I he revenue wouUl aniount to more than 
 $10,000 a year. They lay great stress on the statement that this (ilti-r 
 apparatus purifies water to su«'h an extent the public an* largely bene- 
 fited thereby, and would be a good deal more beiM'fited if they could 
 sell this cheaper and ]int it within tiie n-ach of njore i>cople. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Wliat is the duty now .' 
 
 Mr. SORG. Tiiirty i»er cent. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is the value of on«' of tlioset 
 
 IMr. Sou*;. I'ifty cents for two. We iiave a sample there at the otln-r 
 end. and probably someone could tell whether they couUi be made here. 
 
 Mr. (iKosvENoif. They are not made here, and the statement is that 
 nobody could atloid to make them with the juesent demand. 
 
 Mr. 80RG. Yes; that is the statement, and they are protecte<I by a 
 duty. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Their observatiim is that the «luty adds to the cost. 
 
 ]Mr. Hopkins, The r»'ason of the higher price is because it is prote^-ted 
 by a patent, i« it not, and there can be no home competition ? 
 
 Mr. SoRG. 1 understaml that even if that pat<'nt expireil it would not 
 justify any pottery to rig up for the manutacture of them. I have the 
 following statement from the seeretary of the company referred to: 
 
 _ Dayton. <)iih>. .lamuar^ S, 1S97. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Mkans: 
 
 The nndersi-^ned liorcb.v snhniits. for tlHMonsi.lcration of tin* cominittco. tin' follow- 
 in;; facts relative to the lUiiuiuT ill whii h till- «<\istmu' taritV laws :,fl><t it«t iMioincHs: 
 
 This company is the sole licensee in tlie fnited Statrs |..r the inannfartnrr iiml 
 Bale ol hlters, eniployinfj the tilterin;: mdiuui which is patented hv ChftrlcH K.lonard 
 Chamberland. of Paris, France, under letters patent of the Inited States. dat«-d 
 I'ebruary IG, 188fi, and nnmhered S.UlliS.'.dnd IWC.HSfi la sainph- of saiil lilterinu niedinm 
 being submitted herewith, .and is marked "sample filtoriiiK meilinm of the Paj»teur 
 hiter, from The Past.ur-Chamberland Kilter Companv. of l)avt<m, (Uiio"). The 
 articles which we denominate "tubes" or "bouuics" are "conii)o.He<l of earthen or 
 +"'°ff 1 ^"^^t'lnces," asclassilied under Schedule H, paraj;r.iph sr.. of the existing 
 taritt laws. The patent relates to the fi.nnul.i for cmpoundinj; these substances 
 and requires a technical knowledge of the art of ju.ttci v as well .as of the 8cienre« 
 to successfully manufacture and test the tub.-s before fhev are pla<ed upon the 
 market Ihe function of this lilt.rinK medium is to remove from water .ind other 
 mmis all matters in suspension, including luicro-orKanisins, and eepeciallv germa of
 
 FILTERS. 
 
 219 
 
 It iH adn.ittr.i by scientiBte throuKliout tlie worl.l that it is the only means wberel.y 
 drinkii.LC ^vater .an be deprivecl of .lis..as.-,,rolMcin>r orKanisms and yet retain its 
 n-.t iraUalts and -ases. It is lik.-^visc th.- only means wlu-reby fluids can be deprived 
 o^K V^^s with::..t;ieHtroyinK the toxin pr..d.ue,l by them. Hy its use -ly - > 1-- 
 Bible t<. manufa.tme the various antitoxins n..^v employed in the pre^enti. n of 
 diseases, and esp. . iall v for the prevention ..f diphtheria. It is used hrouj;hont the 
 Jwh annv f.. supplVin- drinking water to the soldiers, and has during the pa t 
 fouJvear. redueed he d, ath rate from typh.ml f.ver more than :.0 per cent, and the 
 I ul e of a-se^ more than 75 per cent, as sh,.wn by the olhcial report ..1 the minister 
 of "tar of Fran.e. It is the onlv filter that has been approved by the I'rnss.an xvar 
 ofli.e for the prevention of diseases inci.lent to drinkin- impure ^vaUr (>ee report 
 of lulv m*n) It has been adopted by the Hritush (;..vernmentJor the use ot its 
 nnniesVand that of the inhabitants of n.any of the cities in India, for tbe preveu nm 
 of ent/.ric fever and cholera. We have also numerous evidences since it« introduc- 
 tion into this eountrv of its great hygienic an<l s.ieiitilic value 
 
 he art of pottervin this ..>untry is not f.r enough advanced nor are the potters 
 suni.ientlv e. ucated in the s.ienees to be able to make these tubes and ;Kterinine 
 p'stvelv' whether or n..t thev are eflicicnt to st. rili/e llui.ls 1 hese tubes are al 
 ade in one p..tterv. the only 'one of the kind in the world The potters are skilled 
 this special work, and the tubes are tested for bactenologiral etbcency by com- 
 et, nt persons under the in.mediate supervision of the inv-ntor. 1 'r. Charles Kdouard 
 •hamb-rland. director-general of th- I'a.steur Institute. I he number of these tubes 
 hat are now n-Muired.or which will no doubt be required lor supplying tj.e trade of 
 c I nited States for years to come, will, in our judgment, not be sulbc.ent to justify 
 
 an American i.otter t.i construct his kilns or t.. secure persons having the necessary 
 technical knowledge to make them. . 
 
 We are advised that an ordinary potter's kiln in this conntry will bum at one time 
 about40(Xt()of the»e tubes. We haVe not thus far in our existenc.- imj.orted to 
 Jxed »«'.<)<'<. during anv one year, and a consumption of L'(K),(.(H) would cause a very 
 handsome output in tirese hlters. When one considers that a kiln "f <>'-•; ^'^ 
 reouires onlv a week or t.n davs in wh.ch to burn them it will be readilx seen that 
 thi nouirements for this countr>- w..uld not justify a potter to make i.r.T'rations 
 ad -mplov the necessarv skilled workmen to take up the-r manutacture. Numerous 
 a tempis Jiave been made by potters in this country to "'"""'"r;."-, -"J' ''^ "' ^r 
 out success, and even if they were to succeed they would be liable to suit* lor 
 infriuirenieiit of the Chamberlainl patents. ..,„,. •» i 
 
 'Scon.panv was i„corp..rat.d'under the laws of Ohio in 1K8X having a capital 
 Btork of f 1.NI..NK) tuliv pai.l ..p. It has expended a large amount of mone> in estab- 
 lishing agencies, perfectinu' the lilter c.ises and apparatus ... wh.ch these tubes are 
 ne'ess^rilv plac^.l to be ,n prn.ti- al op.-ration; it has a large '^'''.'^v. wed cMUipped 
 in all its appointments, but owing to the great cost in n.anulac unng the Liters .id 
 ,1 part i.-ular item of this cost are the liltering tnb.B) our j.r.ceH have been necessar.ly 
 so hi.'h aa to n.ake their general introdn. tion and u»- verv slow. As a ,onM^M"/''»'iS. 
 in aU these vears we have ...ade no ...oney f..r our stockholders. I he .•idmiss.o.i ol 
 these t..bes"int<. this country free of duty would cable us, we J'*' •«7- J^' ^;"J 
 n.ate.iallv redn.e the cost .d' o..r goods and br.ng the retail price of the Liters ^e^y 
 eem rail v" within the rea.h of the masses, and th.is i>M r.ase ..nr business 
 
 At the present time these tubes cost us. incl..di..g transportation, breakage t.nritt^ 
 etc., nearlv .^.0 cents ea. 1.. delivered at our factory: we sell them to our agents at < u 
 cents, a.id thev in turn sell them to the customer at fl whereas 'f tl"".y J^^^. 
 imp..rted into this country free <.f duty we would be able to make a reduction 
 about 2.-. per ce.it on the retail price, and tl.t.s enable us to acco...pl.8h our >\^■^^reu^ 
 popularizing the prices of our u'oo.ls. I., the u.an..facture ot <''f' '. "' .«" ,7''' ^.""^ 
 compelled toemplov the most skilled work.... n and use the best materia l.Tthepur- 
 pos... Thus far, under the ...ost favorabb- circ.ustances, we have not ''•'7;"^';' J" 
 give employment to m..re than aL.u.t tbrty persons. b..t there .s no ^ o"''V„r ti'i- 
 could give employment to many times that number if we can be relieved ol tl.is 
 
 *''ThTpe..ple of this .ountry have declared for profction to American in^l"8lrit-8. 
 with sutbci.i.t tariirto n.eet all the r.-piireuientsof the government but the thtorN 
 of smh a tarilV c.u.templates the a.lmissu.n i.ito this .ountry tree ot duty al sm 
 articles as bv reason of . limate ..r tin- character of the article can not be produced 
 nor ,..anufa.-tiire<l at a pn.tit. In other words, all articles that can °«t in any man- 
 ner come in competition with like articles of agriculture or manufacture, etc., in 
 
 *^'we"hen'fore respectfully ask you to place "P"" t''^ ^^^ "«\\' ''^'^■"P /'l^/ J 
 filtering me.lium. comi-osed of earthen or mineral ^^"bstances that are bscu.ted, 
 which will stand a test of not less than l.r.OO-.l;." >\e make this <1 ^J'"^ » ion s^) as 
 to prevent the importation into this country of inferior filtering medium composed
 
 220 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 lar<^elv of silicated carbon, and which would oonie in competition with similar mnn- 
 ufa'ctures in this country, but ?vhich is not a aterilizinji medium, and consequently 
 to limit the temperature as above would not open the doors for comi»etitiou in any 
 
 manner whatever. . , , ^ . , ^ xi. 
 
 In conclusion, we believe that this company is entitled at your hands to the most 
 favorable consideration for tlie following: reasons, to wit: 
 
 First. The I'asteur filter, which is our only article of manufacture, can not be 
 made without the employment of tliis specially constructed hlterin^ medium. 
 
 Second. Being protected by letters patent of the Tnitcd States to a citi/»-n t>f u 
 foreign country, who controls the sole ri;;ht to their manufacture, the courts have 
 intervened to prevent American potters from manufacturiti^ them in this country 
 during the life of said i)ateuts. 
 
 Third. In the present state of the art of jjottery, the lack of scientific knowledge 
 on the part of the potters of this country uould m.ike it unsafe at the present time 
 to market tubes made by them for tlie j)urpose8 intended. 
 
 Fourth. The quautity'which in all reasonable itrobability will be used by us for 
 many years to come would not Justify any jiotter in making the necessary prepara- 
 tion and emi)loying the necessarily skilled workmen to pnxliice them for ua, or for 
 others, even if other conditions wer« favonible f'lr >o doing. 
 
 Fifth. This company, having the sole control of all patents of the inventor now 
 in existence or that may hereafter be taken out. as well as the right to the c(uumer- 
 cial reputation of the business for more than twenty years hereafter, upon condition 
 of purchasing these tubes of the inventor, it will be seen that we could not become 
 purchasers of an American-made article. 
 
 Sixth. After the expiration <»f the jiateiits co\eriiig the formula of the composition 
 of these tubes, if there be any trad*' in this country other than that of this com- 
 pany, it (biea not deprive American potters of the right to manufacture the same 
 should they so desire. 
 
 Seventh. Inasmuch as this filter is universally ailniitt^d to have »olve<l the prob- 
 lem whereby typhoid fever and other water-borne iliseases may be prevented, and 
 whereby antitoxins lor tin* ]»revention of cliseases c;in be 8ucc««««fully sterili/.eil 
 without destroying their chemical ])ropertieH. we believe that the product of our 
 manufactory should come in universal un«'. and to do th.it the cost to the consuiiier 
 should bo ])laced at the niinimum, ami in so far as the ]ilacing of these articles upon 
 the free list will aid us in accompli.'-liing that end. we feel that your conunittee 
 will not only be eniiuiraging what ])romises to be (|uite an industry, but will like- 
 wise directly contribute to the preservation of the health and livee of the people of 
 this country. 
 
 TlIK rAaTKlK-CllA.MIIFKIJlM) FlI.TER CO., 
 By .1. S. Mli.KS, Srrntary. 
 
 STATEMENT OF AUGUST GIESE. OF NEW YORK. RELATIVE TO THE 
 BERKEFELD FILTER. 
 
 New York, January 11, 1S97. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I have imported for several years from (rermany a Miter, known as 
 tlie "Berkefeltl lilter," wliicli is used for filtration of wator, reniovinjr 
 from same all imimrities, even tyjdioid and chnh'ra bacilli, as proved 
 by eminent bacteriologists, such as Dr. Robert Koch, of Herlin; Dr. 
 Bitter, of Breslau; Dr. Percy Frankland. of Dundee; Hon. G. M. 
 Sternberg, Surgeon-General of the I'nited States Army: Franklin 
 Institute, Philadelphia, and many others. This filter is usexl bv the 
 boards of health and colleges in many cities of the Unite<l States for 
 the filtration of toxin for antitoxin, the great remedy for diphtheria: is 
 further in use by several of our military posts, tlie whole .Vcademy of 
 West Point being eijuipped with them;' is also used in i)ublic schools, 
 hospitals, and ought to be used by every jirivate family to prevent 
 diseases which are the consequence of unhealthy drinking water, 
 principally in large cities. 
 
 The filter itself is a hollow cylinder made of infusorial earth, and has 
 on Its outlet a brass, nickel plated heatlpiece, by which it is attached 
 to the outside filter case, and. according to i)resent tarif!; pays a duty 
 01 3o per cent as a manufacture of earth and metal. 
 
 ^
 
 FILTERS. 221 
 
 The outside filter cases are made of iron or brass, and can be made 
 in this country to jtrotect our home industry, or if imi)ortcd ouglit to 
 pay duty as manufactures of metal not otlierwise sixcilied. The tilter 
 cylinders are not and can not be made in this country. The duty only 
 increases the cost to the consumer, no liome industry snUering- by free 
 entry of them, and as it is important that these filter cylinders should 
 be sold as cheap as possible, at prices witliin the reach of every tamily 
 desirous to piovide for pure, healthy, drinking water, als(t for use in 
 colleges for bacteriological ]»urposes, 1 therefore respectfully ask to have 
 these lierkefeld filter cylinders placed on the free list, and further, if 
 this is done, to have them classified in the tarifl" as " The Berkefeld 
 filter cylinders, made of infusorial earth, with brass headpiece at- 
 tached." The reason why 1 ask to have them so classified is simply 
 to facilitate the work of the Tniteil .States appraisers, so that there is 
 no (piestion how to classify them, as is often the case with articles 
 which are not called by their correct names. 
 
 liEliKEFELD FILTER COMPANY, 
 
 A. GiE.sE, Proprietor. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE CC LUMBIA FILTER COMPANY, OF WASHING- 
 TON. D. C. 
 
 Washington, 1). C, January 18, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir: The Columbia I-'ilter Company, of this city, is engaged 
 in the producti(Hi of filters, and uses, in conneclion with certain self- 
 cleansing; mechanical features, a filt4*ring tul»e of a material rest'mbling 
 fine porcelain in texture, which has, as will be seen from the appended 
 testimonials ot medical experts, a lemarkable degree of excellence, in 
 that it removes entirely bacteria and disease-jiroducing germs from 
 water however polluted, and. by the mechanical devices attached to 
 the filter when in use, if is absolutely self cleansing. There is only one 
 estaldishment in the I'nited States which has so far been able to pro- 
 duce these tubes. This is located in lialtimore, and has but recently 
 perfected, after a long jteriod of exi)erimental work and at a consider- 
 able ex])ense, a method of mixing, molding, and baking the materials. 
 
 At the present time we are placing these tubes on the market at but 
 little over half the jtrice of the imported fubes, which are seeking to 
 be admitted free of duty, and we see no reason to doubt that with con- 
 tinued im])rovements in the process of manufacture, and with the grow- 
 ing demand for filters of the best quality, the price can be still further 
 reduced. 
 
 We respectfully ask therefore that in framing the tariff biU a suflB- 
 cient duty be placed upon such imi)orted tubes as will enable our 
 American manufacturers to continue their i>resent etiorts to establish 
 this industry ui)on a firm footing in the United States. 
 
 In support of the above statement as to the quality of the tubes 
 made in this country, I beg to refer you to a few of many testimonials 
 voluntarily tendered to this company: 
 
 Navy DKrARTMKNX, 
 Bureau of Medicink and Surgery, 
 
 Washington, June 24, 189S. 
 The Columbia Filter Compaxy, 
 
 Jrashintjton, D. C. 
 
 Gentlemen: I have expeiin'ented with the Columbia filter, and find it gives the 
 most satisfactory rrsnlts bactfiiologically, and it can be relied upon in removing 
 disease-prod 11 (iui; ^^tMuis. 
 
 Very respL-ctfully, Philip S. Wales, 
 
 Medical Director, U. S. N., in Charge.
 
 222 SCHEDULE 13. — EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 I desire to voluntarily testify to tl.e excellent (iniilities of the Colun.|.ia filter 
 which has been in op.r.ition in my residence lor a nimiher <>1 mouths It tillers per- 
 fectly uul in my opinion, is l.evon.l donht the very best iu use. I heartily recom- 
 mend 'ii to 'all, and advise every lamily to have oue. ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^_ Stowkix. 
 
 Central Dispensarv and E.mkuukncy Hospital. 
 
 jrashingtoii, tt. C, September ^, 1895. 
 Permit me to add my testimony to that of many others to the enieiency aud excel- 
 lence of the Columbia filter. We have been nsin^' yonr ai n the hospital for 
 over three years, iind I am gla«l to say it hiis given |.erf.-< on. W .- tiud it 
 
 of great value in the flrug department, where we need a ■j.i I purified water. 
 
 It supplies a sullicient (juantity of very clt-ar water, ami the inhtrimieiit has never 
 gotten out of order. 1 think it the best lilter 1 have set-n, and cordially rec<uuiiiend 
 
 it to all. 
 
 11. L. E. Jc>llN80N, M. D. 
 
 Thk (Jahkiki.p Mkmohiai. Hospitai^ 
 
 U'anhiiKiloH, p. ('.. Seplnithrr 4, 1S9S. 
 
 I take pleasure in stating that therolninbia filter which you havekindlx prenented 
 to the (iarlield Memori.il llospiliil has Ihm-ii te.ntfd thoroughly by Jie |i,itliol..>{i(»l 
 laboratory. In my oiiiiiion it is tlu- lM>st of its kind in th-- marki-t. It prodmeii 
 pure and clear w.itrr and supplies tlie hospital for liriiikiu;: niirpi'si ».. an wi-11 a« for 
 the pliarmaceuticai work. I take this ojtp-irtiinitN to thank yon for the valuable 
 gift to our hospital. 
 
 I'lilUP .Iaihohn, M. D., Vatkulogitt. 
 
 In reference to my experience with the Coliimbin filter, I would beg leuve to itt«t« 
 that the lilter has proven eiitinly satisfactory; the Hilf-cb-anning feature given it • 
 superiority, in my opiuion, over all other fillers which I ha\r UNe«I. 
 
 Dr. W. W. .I011N80N. 
 
 Wasiilngton, D. C, Amgutt i7, 1896. 
 
 Relative to the Columbia filter j>la<ed in my olli'e -nine titiH* ago, I de.HJre to nay: 
 It has beiu in coMstant operation aiitl has bi-rn siibjiM-ted to tin- >»«'\or<»t teMt, and I 
 claim, without tear of coiitrailietion. that it is without doubt the M-ry be-tt lilter 
 ever iiitroduccd. It lilt»>rs rapiilly, has nrvrr been out of order, and in, in my opin- 
 ion, as near ^;eriii proof as any 1 have ev«'r sem. 1 hraitiiv inil<ir!»i> and recommend 
 it. A filter such as the Columbi.i should be in ever> hou-ehold. I can not -ay tiMi 
 much in its praise; iu fact, when I hid it jdaced on trial at your 8iiggeHtioii I did 
 not anticipate its working as thoroughly and a» jierii-ctly a« it doe«. Voii can put 
 me on record as saying that 1 am a firm believer and iiidorser of the Columbia lilter. 
 
 8. Ai.HKhr Kisiinij^TK, M. D., 
 Physician in Charge United States Jcodimy of Mediamc and SMrgerf. 
 
 I have had experience with a number of so-called "germ-proof" filtem, bat the 
 Columbia is the only one to give atisolutes.itislaction. I h:»\el -it for some 
 
 months, and it has ])rove(l a household ble--ing. The sell'-cl. .tore, in it« 
 
 simplicity and tiioiougliiicss of actiiui, is beyond praise The , .. .vater when 
 
 iiiost turbid and unlit for even bathing ]>iirposes during the past year has come 
 from the lilter in uninterrupted How and with sjiarkling purity. I "unhe?«itatingly 
 recommend it as superior to all other filters known. It is invaluable, aud an abso- 
 lute necessity in every household. 
 
 Dr. I'l.oYn V. Hkooks. 
 
 Hundreds of others could be appended to show that these tube.** are 
 as perfect as human ingenuity has thus far been able to «levise to accom- 
 plish tlie desired result. 
 
 Jno. II. White, Prenident.
 
 GUEEN GLASS UOTTLES. 223 
 
 GREEN GLASS BOTTLES. 
 
 (Parajrraph 88.) 
 
 STATEMEirr OF MR. LOUIS ABRINGTON. OF ALTON. ILL.. VICE- 
 PRESIDENT OF THE GREEN GLASS WORKERS' ASSOCIATION OF 
 
 AMERICA. 
 
 Friday, January 8, lS;f7. 
 
 Mr. Arkinoton said : Mr. Cliaiiiiiaii and jjiMitli'uieii of the committee, 
 we arc here as workmen to a.sk for the restoration of the McKiuley duty 
 on {^las.s l>(»ttl<s. 
 
 'llu'Cii.MKMAN. Vou are from Illinois, representing; the glass workers. 
 
 Mr. Aki;in(;ton. Yes, sir: an<l I will not detain you with any 
 e.vtrmhd nrnarks, bnt I will call on my eoUeajrue to state to yon the 
 n-ason why we ask a restoration of the duty of lSi>0 on ^'lass ln.ttU's. 
 Mr. A;,'onl, of Strrator, 111., is prepared and ran do it quicker than I 
 can, KG 1 will not consume any more of your time. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. EDGAR A. AGORD. OF STREATOR. ILL.. OF 
 EXECUTIVE BOARD OF GREEN GLASS WORKERS* ASSOCIATION 
 
 OF AMERICA. 
 
 Friday, January s, 1897. 
 
 Mr. AOOKD said: Mr. (Chairman an<l jrentlcnien of the foiiiniittee, we 
 repie'sent the (Hi-en (llass Hoi lie IJloweis of the entire bottle industry 
 of the United States, ami, Mr. Chairnnin, we are simply An>eri<an 
 nierhaiiies, workmen, and it ojir ar-nnient jiartakes more of the median- 
 ieal tlian of the intelle.tual 1 trust this committee will makeallowance 
 
 for it. ^ 1 . n- 
 
 The (lla.ss Mottle Blowers airnestly ur;rc the re-adoption of tli<' tunfl 
 Hchednh-of IS'.Mi i bett<'r known as the .McKinley bill i upon ^zlass bottles. 
 The chantje made in this schedule by tlii- W il.son bill, which went into 
 effect August li7, IS'.H. has bonu' so heavily upon all classes (>f hil)or 
 employed in the production of jrlass bottles that dennualization has 
 l)racticallv been the re.snlt of the adoption of said .schedule, and abso- 
 lute ruin is almost certain to overwhelm us should it be c«)ntinued tor 
 any considerable lenjrth of time. As it is, a stru^'};le for the very exist- 
 em''«'of«>ur tra.ie has been forced iipon us and has been in juoce.ss .since 
 the repeal of the tariff act of 1S!»0. The taritf a<-ts of 188:5 and 181)0 
 were so benelicial to our trade that within that peiioil the nund)er of 
 uum emi.lov«'d in the production of ^dass bottles increased at lea.st three- 
 fold, trade was prosperous, and work steady, and at tlu' same time, by 
 domestic competition and imi>roved .system of manufacture, the .selling 
 price of bottles was reducdl L'o and 'J'. i»er cent. 
 
 The tariff law of 18'.>4 reduced the duty on jilass bottles trom 17 to 40 
 per cent, or in some cases a reduction from the law of 1800 of about 
 
 one half. . , , ^ ,, 
 
 As usual in such cases the reduction or ddference in duty tell upon 
 labor, and to enable our emi)lovers to compete with the imported article 
 our waj;es have been reduc.irfiom 15 to 2.") per cent, while our hours 
 of iab(.r have been increased and we have been driven to work at a rate 
 of speed almost bev«md the limit of human endurance, and even then 
 it has been and is" i)ro\ iii^- more dillicult every day to hold oui- own 
 against foreign competitiou.
 
 224 SCHEDULE B. — EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 In the manufacture of glass, nearly all the cost lies in the wa^jes paid 
 to labor; the material of which it is composed, lime, sand, and soda ash, 
 being almost without value except for the necessary labor expen<led 
 upon it. Soda ash was formerly imported and used in the manufacture 
 of glass at a great cost, but in a few years— preceding 1894— there grew 
 up at Syracuse, N. Y., a large manufacturing establishment where soda 
 ash is now produced in laige (juantitics by the Solvay process and sold 
 to the glass manufacturers of this country at a small cost, and this 
 American soda, owing to the l)eneticent influence of a protective tariff, 
 has almost entirely displaced the use of .noda ash formerly imported 
 from St. Helens. 
 
 The European manufacturer has such an overwhelming advantaj;e 
 in the way of cheaper production— i. e., cheap labor — that he can put 
 his product on the American market at a price that is simi>ly impossi- 
 ble for the Ajnerican manufacturer fo meet; in fact, were glass bottles 
 admitted free of duty and the glass blowers of the Tnited States to 
 work for absolutely nothing, the foreign nmnufacturer would still l>e 
 able to undersell the American manufacturer in his home market, so 
 much are we depending on the tariff lor the yuoteetion of our industry. 
 
 The reduction of the inijtort duty ditl not, in the case of glass Ijottles 
 at least, benefit the general public of the country one single iota: upon 
 the contrary it has resulted in a direct and |»ermanent injury to the 
 general public, resul'Jng, as it has in ditlerent parts of this country, in 
 the expenditure of large sums of public money for the maintenance of 
 those who were thrown out of work by a reduction of the tarilf and 
 thus increasing the rate of taxation. The large buyers of glass bottles 
 are the wealthy brewers, beer botth'rs. botlh'rs of mineral water, and 
 patent medicine dealers. If the price is reduced to them, say i"] jier 
 gross, what benefit can the public d«'rive from that? Beer, mineral 
 water, and patent medicine will still sell at retail at the same jtrice, 
 while tlie wealthy corporations ami wholesale dealers pocket flje <iif- 
 ference and labor is tiie onl> sufferer for tlie change. "VN'e believe that 
 when this fact becomes known and appreciat«'d as it should be there 
 will be found none to lift their voice in protest becan.se of any advance 
 in the imiK)rt duty upon gla.ss bottles. 
 
 The law of Ism was also a most severe blow to labor interest* in other 
 forms; heretofore it had been i)o.ssible for small capitalists or <'<M)p<Ta- 
 tive bodies of workmen to club together and operate snuill factories, 
 which has been a most i)otent factor in n'ducing i>ri<-es. Tiider the law 
 of 189-4 thiscooj)erati()n has been remlered inip<tssible. as tlu' most ei;o- 
 nomical systems, or the maximum ])roduction with the minimum outhiy 
 of labor, have been adopted ; the new system of gas tanks, which neces- 
 sitates a very costly ])lant, but which is a great economizer in the cost 
 of productiou because of the auumnt <»t lal»or displaced, has forced the 
 trade into the hands of large capitalists, destroying any chance a work- 
 man ever had to better his condition, and thus crushing the best heritage 
 of the American worknmn — his andntion. A gas tank as at present 
 constructed costs about $L*9,(KK» to put into operation; and it is neces- 
 sary that two furnaces should be worked in order to meet the demand 
 for the different colors of glass, making an outlay of .*4(>.(»(»0 for fur- 
 naces alone, while under the law of 1890 one furnace could be i)ut up 
 which would i)roduce several colors of glass in i)ots or crucibles. These 
 were more costly to operate, but were both suitable and profitable for 
 small capitalists under the then existing conditi(»ns. We are l)eing 
 driven to the wall from all sides by the oi)eration of the tariff act of 1894. 
 
 Pending the proposed change in the tariil and in the anticipation of
 
 GREEN GLASS BOTTLES. 225 
 
 a reduction then-of, iu tbe spiiujj of ls94, large dealers in bottles with- 
 held their orders; and as a consecjuenee over sixty glass furnaies went 
 out of blast and one-third of the skilled workmen of the trade were 
 thrown out of ♦'nii)loynjent, and sai<l workmen and furnaces have lain 
 iu idleness the greater part of the time since then. It amazes us to 
 think that our legishitors. whom we e\i>ect to legislate for the pro8j)er- 
 ity of all classes of citizens, should without any good reast)n and with- 
 out any <:orrcsj)onding benelit to the general public, by a few strokes 
 of the i)en, bring stagnation and demoralization, with its attendant 
 misery, to an extensive and important industry, when we should be 
 enjoying prosperity and security if only the law of 1800 had been allowed 
 to remain. 
 
 In order to more fully protect our trade there should also be an iucrease 
 of duty upon wines. li(|Uor8, mineral waters, natural and artificial and 
 imitations, iiujiortt'd into this country: an»l the bottles containing the 
 same should pay, in addition to the duty upon their contents, the rates 
 of duty prescrihed tor such bottles when imj)orted empty. 
 
 Th«' loreigji manufacturer has .t great advantage over the American 
 miinnfacturer in the fact that the foreigner can and does operate his 
 furnaces and men twelve months in the year, wiiile in this country the 
 mouths of .luly and August, and in some cases both .June and Septem- 
 ber, are altogether too hot for glass blowing to be prolitable, sa that 
 ten month.s' work per year is the extreme limit, l)oth for manufacturers 
 and workmen, and it is very seldom indee<l that their season's work is 
 not much less than fliat. (t will be readily seen that this tact alone 
 has quite an elfect ujkui the c«)st of production. 
 
 The following list will show you the cost of production of beer and 
 water botlh's at the (iresheim \^'orks of lleye, <iermany, taken from 
 statistics, and the cost of production of the same cla^iS of goods iu this 
 country at the same time: 
 
 COST OF PRODUCTION AT GRR8HRIM WOUK8. 
 
 CoHt of making a gr<i8H ofamlior pint and quart bottler: 
 
 Fiitil, niuterial, Imxin^, and suiiplits $1. 05 
 
 Labor, salaries, and blowing G5 
 
 Total cost of production 7 70 
 
 COST OK PUODCCTION IX AMERICA. 
 
 Cost of qnarts — fuel, material, and su]))ilies 2.00 
 
 Labor, salaries, and Idowing ■. L'. 09 
 
 Total cost of qnartH 4.09 
 
 Cost of pints: 
 
 Fuel, material, and supplies, pints 1.44 
 
 Labor, salaries, and blowing 1. 57 
 
 Total cost of pints 3.01 
 
 Average cost in America, pint*? and quarts 3.55 
 
 Average cost iu Germany, pints and quarts 1. 70 
 
 These figures are respectfully submitted to show that the former 
 duty, which we now ask to have restored, was and is simply just and 
 wise, and injured nor will injure no one and therefore ought to be 
 reenacted; that the general i)ublic have not been benefited by the 
 present law, while it has proven especially hurtful and ruinous to the 
 workmen. 
 
 The following list shows the prices per gi'oss obtained for beer and 
 wiue bottles in the year preceding the a<lox)tion of the McKinley bill; 
 T u 15
 
 226 SCHEDULE B. — EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 also the prices at which the same class of goods were sold during the 
 
 operation of that law: 
 ^ 1889. 
 
 Regular quart export beers *i' !!"- !" ^' 12 
 
 Regular pint export beers r ' -n ♦" I' nn 
 
 Hock wine and brandy bottles 5. ^0 to 6.00 
 
 Water bottles, quarts o.Joto 5.76 
 
 l?<lt:i-!lj. 
 
 Quart exports *J- ?S I"* ^.- -^ 
 
 Pint exports 3.t»0 o .<. .5 
 
 Hock wine and brandy bottles , i'l *;• ;S 
 
 Water bottles 4.60to 4.90 
 
 Tiiese prices can be dejiended upon as being accurate, and show 
 plainly and conclusively that i)rices decrease*! considerably during the 
 time and after the ]\I(-Kinley bill went into etVect. 
 
 That the tarift' asked for on glass bottles is n«»t a burden upon the 
 public, and again tliat a reclnction in ihe tarifl' diti not benelit the 
 public will be shown by one illustration: 
 
 Warner's Safe Cure, which is a patent medicine, costs at retail ^\.'27> 
 per bottle, equal to $180 per gross. The cost of a gross of bottles laid 
 down in liochester, N. Y., is about $4, a very small fra<-tion of tl>e total 
 cost. Suppose, by a reduction of the tarilf, the jirice of bottles is 
 reduced to $.'/> i)er gross, making the i»iice ot a gross of the me<licine 
 $179, what ])ossible cliance is there for tin' retail buyer the ^'eneral 
 public) to get any benelit from the reduce<l price, which is only about 
 two-thirds of a cent per bottlet 
 
 We have already called yoxn attention to the fact that since the adop- 
 tion of the Wilson hill tin- wages of those who have been able \o secure 
 work have been reduced from 1.") to L'.") percent. The manufacturiTH 
 have made like and in some cases even greater redn<tion in tlu' selling 
 price of their bottles, while in no instance has the consumer — i. ©., the 
 individual j)urchaser, at retail, of the individual bottle — ha<l the price 
 reduced to him a single fraction. The jiroprietors or wholesale dealers 
 have been the only gainers, and tliis is a fair san)ple of the way a 
 reduction of the taiitf operates in most cases. It is siuiply taking from 
 those who have little and giving to those who have much, which we 
 naturally look upon as a great injustice being done to us in the name 
 of reform. 
 
 It is generally supposed and believed that glass blowers make very 
 high wages; but it can easily be shown, when the whole truth is told, 
 that the high wages are very ordinary wages iiuleed. ( )ur work requires 
 great bodily exertion, with the very highest degree of manipulative 
 skill; no machinery or mechanical appliances are used, the hands and 
 the head of the workmen are alone en)pl(\ve<l from morning until nijjht 
 and from night until morning, for we work in shifts both night and day 
 at furnaces where fires are urged to the most intense heat. 
 
 During July and August no work is done in the Fnite*! States, these 
 months being too hot for work of that kind: time is often lost cluring 
 the year trom various causes, so that when all of these drawbacks are 
 taken into account glass blowers do not average more than ^3 i^er day— 
 surely not an extravagant wage when the nature of their employment 
 is taken into consideration. 
 
 Glass blowers are classed by insurance agents as among the moat 
 undesirable risks for insurance, and not without reason. The (ila.ss 
 Bottle Blowers Union have a beneficiary dei)artment, in which they 
 insure all their members. The average age of all who have died since 
 it was instituted has been found to be under 38 years, and a very high
 
 GEEEN GLASS BOTTLES, 227 
 
 mortality at tliat, showing beyoinl a doubt tliat our ocrnpatioii is labo- 
 rious, exliaustiii;:, and unhealtlifnl, Tiiere arc about o.dOO nitMiibcrs of 
 our craft, about 4,(KM» boys, from 14 to L'O years of age, and about 2,000 
 men directly connected with the trade wh(> are not blowers. 
 
 Manufacturers have vigorously demanded a general reduction of the 
 wages of the blowers of ;iO per l-ent, but through our organization we 
 have thus far been enabled t<» resist this demand. The Inmrs of work 
 for the men who are employed have not been cuitailed within the past 
 three years, but the production has falh-n off nearly one-half, the chief 
 cause being a reduclion of tin* tarilf, although, of course, the general 
 di'prcssion of busine>s has atVe<ted our tra<ie, as it has all others. 
 
 Since the Ut day of .July, l.s'.i.'>, many of our members have not 
 worked at all at their trade, while fully <jne third have secured but a 
 few months* work in each year at their princijtal occupation, and the 
 average for the entire membershi]) of our association has certainly not 
 been more than six months per year. Those who have work<'d have 
 generously donated a large ])art of their earnings to help support their 
 less fortunate fellow craftsmen. 
 
 The law of ISJMi was just sullicient to prevent the foreign inanuftic- 
 turer trom monopolizing the glass bottle trade of this country, especially 
 beer, wine, and mineral water bottles, and a leduclion on the tarilV has 
 simply resulted in a reduction of wages and a lowering in the standard 
 of living of the American glass blower. 
 
 During the month of April, IS'.IC, Mr. .Tosejjh 1). Troth, of Millville, 
 N. J., who was at that tinn* the president of our association, visited San 
 Franci.sco, Cal., upon business connected witli hisoflice, and the follow- 
 ing is taken from his report of said visit, to wit: 
 
 Finilin^jit very (lifllrnll tojjet inlormntiou i»t Hie cuHtora-hoiiBe at San Francisco, 
 I went to the otY\ce of the San I'raiiciBi-o Call hihI Holicitrd the ai<l of tlio conimprcial 
 rtijiorter of that paper, lit- kiixlly agrord to h«>l]» nie and we went down to the 
 cuHtom-house together and secnrcd the following data on importation, viz: 
 
 Quarter ending DecpniUfr. 31, 1SU5: PoundB. 
 
 Kottles filled with wine 374,823 
 
 Bottles tilled with othor brewed Htnft'. iiiedirines, liquors, etc IK), 062 
 
 Empty hottles, beers, wines, rlarits, wtter bottles, etc 99,396 
 
 Empty demijohns 35, 695 
 
 Quarter ending March 31, 1896: 
 
 Quart bottles tilled with wine 313,750 
 
 Pint bottles tilled with wine 252 
 
 Filled with liquors, medicines, etc 127, 576 
 
 Empty bottles, beers, clarets, water bottlea, etc 1,625,331 
 
 Empty demijohns 39, 058 
 
 It will be observed that these goods were imported to San Francisco and do not 
 include imjiortations at Los Angeles and Siin I'iego. 
 
 The general managi-r of the bottling deitarlment of the National ]?rewing Com- 
 pany said: "We can purchase imjiorted beer bottles chea]»er than the home goods 
 can be i)nt on the market." Mr. Debarry, snperinteiulent of the bottling de|)art- 
 ment of the I'nited Mrewin;,' ('onip«ny, d.iims that it is solely a matter of cheapness 
 with them in handling the foreign yoods. "We can," ho said, "purchase the 
 imi)orted goods mu<h chea]>er than the home article, iilthough we find the eastern 
 and home-made bottles capable of sustaining a greater pressure than the foreign 
 bottle." 
 
 On April 11, 1896, I visited the docks and to my surprise I saw three large Antwerp 
 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 nnloiiding at 
 the wharf in the port of San Francisco on the same day. and I think you will agree 
 with me in saying that it was a sickening sight to behold. 
 
 There are 1,*2U0 grocers in .San Francisco. They are well organized, and all handle 
 demijohns for wine and mostly imjiorted bottles. I interviewed a member of the 
 Groceryman's Association and lie informed me that he did not know they were using 
 the foreign bottle and could not tell an imijorted bottle from one made iu tliis 
 country.
 
 228 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 And in this connection we desire to say that in our opinion all 
 imported bottles should be stamped or lettered on the body with the 
 name of the country in which they are mad.-. This can be readily 
 done, as letters are easily blown in the jjlass without adding to the cost, 
 and thus enable dealers who prefer the Americaii-niade article to see 
 that they get it. . . 
 
 The statistics sent out monthly by the Treasury Department giving 
 the value of the imports of this line of goods since the introduction of 
 the Wilson bill to October 31, 180(5, is as follows: Bottles, vials, demi- 
 johns, and carboys, etc., from the month ending August 31, 18m, to the 
 month ending October 31, l-StKi, *l,()i.'4,401. 
 
 During the time that this enormous amount of glass bottles was being 
 imported a large percentage of the American glass blowers were idly 
 walking the streets, unable to sc<uie cinploymcnt. Had any consider- 
 able amount of these imported bottles been made in this country every 
 glass bottle blower would have l»cen enii'loycd at remunerative wages. 
 
 We have thus briefly endeavored to give you our reasons for asking 
 for a restoration of the tariff schedule up«»n glass bottles of 181M1. 
 
 The effect of the Wilson bill upon our trade is not a matter of 8i)ec- 
 ulative theory with us. \N'e have seen our wages go stea<lily down. 
 We have seen our members suffering for the necessaries of life. They, 
 or at least many of them, have been compelled to leave their homes, 
 with this restraining intiueuces, and go tar alield in search of work at 
 other avocations. Home ties have been weakened, dissipation has 
 followed, homes have been abandoned, hearts base been broken, men 
 and women have walked the streets hungry and cold, while the ]unched 
 faces of helpless cliildieu have borne elo»iueMt testimony to the effect 
 that the Wilson bill has had up<»n the glass industry of this countiy. 
 There is more, inucli more, that can be said and whi<h we might say 
 upon the subject, but surely we have said enough to convince aoy 
 person, unless "like the deaf adder he stoppeth his ears." that we have 
 asked no more than the absolute necessities of our <'ase demand. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Do you belong to the regular (ilass lilowers' Asso- 
 ciation? 
 
 Mr. Agord. Yes, sir. I am first executive oflicerof the Green Ci lass 
 Bottle Association of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Turner. What did you state were the average wages of a tirst- 
 class workman ! 
 
 Mr. Agord. Not more than $3 a day. 
 
 Mr. Turner. But vsome of your people get much more. What is thf 
 maximum rate? 
 
 Mr. Agord. The maximum rate would be somewhat <lifficult to stat<, 
 as we are paid by the piece, you untlerstand. ami to state what the 
 highest wages were made in one day 1 do not know I could tell. We 
 have attempted to give you the average. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Well, to give the average you have to have some datat 
 
 Mr. Agord. There are men who in making demijolins and carbovs 
 who, I presume, make $10 per day for some days, and then they w'ill 
 be idle three or four months in a year. 
 
 Mr. Turner. And some of them perhaps make more! 
 
 Mr. Agord. I doubt if any make more. 
 
 Mr. Turner. You think $10 is the maximum nowt 
 
 Mr. Agord. I do not know of anv making more. 
 
 Mr. Turner. What is the minimum? 
 
 Mr. Agord. We have men working in Streator, 111., in a place right 
 next to me, who do not earn more than $8 a week making pint beera.
 
 GREEN GLASS BOTTLES. 229 
 
 Mr. TuRNEK, Working how many days? 
 
 Mr. AdORD. Working right along every day. 
 
 Mr. Turnp:r. Making $S for six days! 
 
 Mr. Agord. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. Turner. What is the class of work on which they get $8 jicr 
 week? 
 
 Mr. Agord. They were making pint beers. 
 
 Mr. TURNKR. Have you got auy beneticial fund hiid up for the benefit 
 of your organization? 
 
 Mr. Agord. Simply an insurance — a death beneficiary. 
 
 Mr. Turner. What is your regulation now about ai)prentices? 
 
 Mr. A(;oRD. We endeavor to kecj) the entire trade tilled with appren- 
 tices, and su])ply them as needed in order to avoid immigration in that 
 line. Our regulation is to take l>ut one new apjuentice a year to fifteen 
 journeymen. Voii understand tlie apprentices are indentured for five 
 years, and they lake one each yearforeveiy fifteen journeymen employed 
 there, and th«* ratio would be about oue to every three journeymen by 
 the time the first set's tiiue eT]»ires. 
 
 Mr. TiRNER. Does that allow any increase in the force, or does that 
 just about supply the vacancies! 
 
 Mr. Agord. Well, it keeps a lot of meu walking the country all the 
 time idle. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Answer my question. 
 
 Mr. Agokd. Perhaps i (lid not understand your question. 
 
 Mr. Turner. You say your regulations about apprentices provide 
 for the admission of uuv to e\ery fiftt'cn men! 
 
 Mr. A(;o!n). To every fifteen journeymen, or three fifths of fifteen. 
 You know we work two or thiee men in a place, and I will just say in 
 this connection, by the way. tliat all these things are arranged by arbi- 
 tration. We meet a <'omn\ittee of the manufacturers during .July or 
 August at the time the furnaces are idle, and those two committees, 
 one committee rei)resenting the manufiictnrers and the other committee 
 representing the blowers, arrange all these matters satisfactory to each 
 organization — the i)rices. hours of labor, and number of ajjprentices to 
 be taken. They give their figures on how many is necessary, and all 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Turner. FTow large is your organization? 
 
 Mr. A(;0RT). Our organization is about .{.(KKJ. There is another bot- 
 tle organization whirh makes flint and lime glass, which is separate. 
 Their president is himself here to da.\. 
 
 Mr. Turner. And it embraces the entire glass-blowing bottle indus- 
 try of the United States? 
 
 Mr. Agord. Yes, sir; green and amber bottles, y(m understand. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Do these ccmditions which you make in regard to 
 apprentices have the effect of increasing the c<>rps or amount to about 
 enough to supply vacancies by death and casualties? 
 
 Mr. Agord. Yes, sir; and more, too. There are more glass blowers 
 in this country now than there is work for. They were all working 
 sometime ago, but they have not been for several years. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Were you present at the hearing given the Glass- 
 Blowers' Association two or three years ago? 
 
 Mr. Agord. No, sir; this is the first time I have ever been in Wash- 
 ingtou.
 
 230 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 FLLLED GLASS BOTTLES. 
 
 (Paragraph 88.) 
 
 New York, Jmnn,.,, //, iS97. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 "Mineral waters, all, not artificial," liave since 1S72 btcn c-'iitiniionsly 
 on the free list. The act of .Tune (J, 1871'. also iiitcntUnl that the Iw.ttles 
 containing these natural mineral waters should he admitted hee. but 
 the Attorney-General in 1879 (in re Olive oil) decided that all hottles 
 containing free goods were liable to duty under the poorly constructed 
 sentence in the glass schedule (sec. It.")."., U. S. Kev. Stats.), and conse- 
 quently 30 per cent ad valorem was collected on the bottles containing; 
 free goods, thus including Apollinaris. 
 
 In the 1883 tarift" revision A]tollinaris was not affected, '♦ mineral 
 waters, all, not artificial," being e\])ressly retained in the free list, and 
 the duty on fdled bottles was continued at 30 per cent ad valorem, 
 although the duty on empty bottles was advance*! fnmi 3"» \^v cent ad 
 valorem to 1 cent ])er jiound. 
 
 The bottle manufacturers had, however, asked tliat filled bottles be 
 treated as if they were new bottles imported for sale. Congress, alter 
 considering it at great length, dismissed tliis chiim UjMin unanswerable 
 arguments. It was, for instance, held that the small proportion of tilled 
 bottles sold when empty to the junk man bring a very low price. <»wing 
 to their unmerchantable condition, no nu»tter how higli the <luty. In 
 short, the duty on tilled bottles, be it ever so high, unless it actually 
 prohibit imi)ortation, will not jirotect the domesti*- bottle maker, as the 
 tilled imported l)ottle when sold as junk nnist inevital)ly bring less than 
 the domestic bottle. (Congressional Kecord. vol. r.n. pp. lL'7li. 1340; vol. 
 61,p. li!)(;i,etc.) 
 
 In the 1S!»() tariff revision Congress expressed the intention of U-gis 
 lating in favor of Apollinaris, as shown by the ( ongrcssional llecord 
 (vol. Ill', pp. 0721), 07li7). and with that oV)iect in view retained "mineral 
 waters, all, not artilicial," on the free list. l»ut these waters were 
 caught by paragraphs l(i;> and 104 (glass schedule) of the I>*.t(» law, 
 which exacted tlie enormous duty of 1 cent jter pcminl on tilled bottles 
 holding more than 1 i)int and U cents per pound on tilled bottles hohl- 
 ing less than 1 pint, etc. 
 
 This exorbitant tax on filled bottles in general would not have been 
 imposed had not the Ways and Means Committee erroneously thought 
 that such a speeilic duty would on the average be eipiivalent to a rate 
 of 40 per cent ad valorem, and therefore be but a small a<lvance over 
 the 30 per cent ad valorem rate of is.s.! on iill,.,l bottles. This incorrect 
 ad valorem e(|uivalent was contained in the tables ajijdied to paragraph 
 108 in draft ot"bill 11.1MI4I(;. Titty first Congress, tirst session. jiage 1.'), 
 and tables ai)pliod to paragraph lo3of the same bill, as reported by the 
 Finance Committee to tiie Senate June 18, 1S'.>0. page US. 
 
 That these tables were entirely incorrect is well known now, and is 
 shown by the tables published by the Bureau of Statistics. 
 
 Bottlers of domestic waters," speaking of mineral water bottles, 
 admitted that 1 cent per pound is about !(»,"> i)er cent (see p. 801. tariff 
 hearings, 1800). They stated that M) per cent makes the dutv 01 cents 
 per gross, and that 1 cent per pound is .$L*.L'."i per gross, or 'about lO.! 
 per cent. 
 
 The Reports of the Bureau of Statistics, for the fiscal years ISO I t<»
 
 FILLED GLASS BOTTLES. 
 
 231 
 
 1S04 inclusive, show the ad valorem equivalent of 1 cent per pound on 
 thowlM.le .lass of r.llcd -roe.) bottles paying: that rate (champagne 
 bottles wore n..t included) to have reached 85 per cent, and of U cents 
 
 ^'^Fim^'ri.t'o"^!'^^'^^^^^^ of ApoUinaris bottles, as stated in consular 
 invo^-es oi. tile at the cust<..u-houses, the 1 cent per pound ami .^ cei. s 
 per pound paid on the dilVeient sizes of bottles was ecpuvalent to lOo 
 and l.il i)er cent, respectively. . , * n .<- „^f,fi 
 
 The iAm law likewise expressly left '' mineral waters, all not artifi- 
 cial "on the free list. The dratt of the House bdl put died ^neen 
 ela'is bottles, whi<h can n..t be n)ade in this country, at 30 per cent, 
 fie rate wl.i.-h existed prior to ()et,.ber ISUO (cuivalent to about one- 
 t irleent,,er pouud).but the Senate, obviously through msu.hcient 
 . tiKatil>n, ihaM,.-.l the House pn.vision to U cent- and three- 
 fnrths cent per pound, whirh on the ^aeen jrlass bottles in ^^ Inch 
 A o naris is impluted, cinals !»7 per cent for the tnst and about nO 
 pe\ ce.!; tor the latter specilie rate. This is about three times as high 
 as the rate which existed prior to October, 1>^H>. i , «. i„ 
 
 Our pen-entases, just given, under the \Vilson law are absolutely 
 rorreet, as can be verified, although the liurcau ot' Statistics reports that 
 inied bottlesat tlKM.reset.t ratescMualled 47.r.7 and 4;..T)!. per cen .u 
 bottles, an.l r,i\.\l and .VJ.Sl per cent on pint b,.ttles,for 1M».. and I.s.Mk 
 A reason for this seeming disparity with ..ur ligures in the foreg.Mi.g 
 ,,ua..iaph of this memorandum, is that the expensive rhampagne lu.t^ 
 h's (autiable at :i rents .ach under liquur schedule o 1- "»• =;"< "<^t 
 in<.Iud..d in but reported separately from the other hlled kUi-^s bot les, 
 durinir the MeKinlev law vears) are now tax.d uiMler the general pai- 
 agiaph of the glass' schedule, and therefore include, by the .ureau 
 of Statistics in its l.SO:. and ISlKi general returns tor ille.l b<.ttles. 
 instea.l .)f l)eing reported separately-thus, by their higher cKst rais- 
 il/.Mh.' unit ..1 valii.' for the whole class of tilled bottles, an.l .-orre- 
 spondiii-lv l.>wering the ad valorem equivalent. n « i^.ii law 
 
 These hi-h rat.'s on such lille.l inin.'ral water bottles, m thelMM law 
 as in the KV.K> law. must be .-..nshleied a mistake and an inc.)nsisteucy 
 in view of the fa.'t that in both of th.-se a.-ts numerous other arti.'les 
 of manula.tiir.'d glass of a higher grade were taxe.l at miicli lower ad 
 vahu-em rates, f.)r instance: ("ut and ..rnamental glass was (.(> per cent 
 in the act of ISUO, and in the present law is 40 per cent, which is even 
 h)wer than the rate in the lSS:Maw. 
 
 The ad valorem e.inivalent .)f the in.lirect tax <m the whole package, 
 contents iiiclu.l.Ml, whi.h Aimllinaris and other hygienic waters bear, 
 thr.»ugh the bottle duty, is as high or higher than that ot bottled gin^ 
 ger ale. bottle.l malt li.iu.us, an.l b..ttle<l still wines, m the present 
 hnv. and the same was the fact relatively in the law ot ISiH) 
 
 On tlu'se iDiial.'oholic useful medical agents (natural prod u«_-ts pecul- 
 iar to the conntii.'s wheiic- they .-.mie) high duties are not .mly hurt- 
 ful to the .•.Misumers but als.. teii.l to re.Uice the revenue. 
 
 Useless, and failing to pr..tect the b.)itle maker, as shown in para- 
 graph ;3, this heavy .luty on ApoUinaris b..ttles is likewise n..t necd(.Hl 
 bv the d.)mestic wiiter bottler, for even under the ol.l an. much lower 
 tariff duties of isS.S these bottlers were able to prohtably sell their 
 waters at much lower prices than ApoUinaris; nor, as we can prove, 
 have thev even increased their prices since the ena.tment ot the IbJO 
 taritV. wliich increased the cost of ApoUinaris to consumers in the 
 United States.
 
 232 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 It is w«ll known to the trade and shown by the figures of the Depart- 
 ment of the Interior that the sales of domestic spring waters have been 
 regularly increasing at a phenomenal rate, far beyond the ratio of 
 increased population. This is a proof of the prosperity of the dcjmestic 
 sprino- proprietors. On the other hand, our populations yearly con- 
 sumption of imported natural mineral waters amonnts to uiu<h less 
 than an ordinary glassful per capita, and th.- number (d bottirs imported, 
 filled with such waters, is consequently not an important lacior lor 
 revenue purposes. . . 
 
 The 1883 tariff afTorded them ample protection, but lor that matter 
 they need none at all in view of the advantages they have even if they 
 use"^an imported bottle. For instance, it they use an imported Ix.ttle, 
 they pay the duty onlv once, but refill it si\ or even a dozen times: by 
 thus taking back their bottles they greatly ie<luce the price of their 
 waters to the consumer, and obtain the bottles at a lower cost than if 
 they bought new ones— two great advantages whi«h the water importer 
 does not possess. The foreign waters being >liipped from remote sources 
 are subject to greater losses from breakage and deterioration. The 
 greater cost of transportaticm and of distributing the foreign water in 
 an important item in the instame of such heavy and perishable gtKxla. 
 Labor is a very small item (or the doineMtie water boii lers, roust ituting 
 only 10 per cent of cost, according to their testimony in tai ifl' hearings, 
 1890, page 803. 
 
 Neither the domestic water bottler nor the botth> maker nee<lB. or 
 benefits by, the onerous tax which kee|)S Apollinaris and other useful 
 foreign waters out of the reach of many to whom Iheir use ha** U*en 
 rec(jmmended by physicians. The medical pn»fe8sion has repeattnlly 
 declared Apollinaiis to be an article of nee^'ssily. b«»<'au.'*e of it.s purity 
 and valuable dietetic (|ualities. All nu'diral and scientific authorities 
 are now. more than ever, insisting upon the imperative neceiwity of using 
 pure drinking water. 
 
 Ir follows that the paragrajth in the free list referring to mineral wafer 
 should be altered so as to read: •'.Miner.il waters, all, not artifieial, 
 together with the bottles or jugs in which the same are im|M»rte<l.'' 
 
 llespectfully submitted by us, as the ini"" '•••>- >>( Apollinarin, A{>enta 
 Hungarian Aperient Water and Kriedri« itt^-r Water, with tin? 
 
 ofter of additional substantiating evidem . m >urh be deHire<l by y<mr 
 honorable committee. 
 
 CHAKl.KS CiRM-.F & C'O., 
 
 oa! Ill liter atrtit^ Xetc York, 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MANUFACTURERS OF GREEN, COL- 
 ORED, MOLDED OR PRESSED, AND FLINT AND LIME GLASS 
 BOTTLES. 
 
 The manufacture of "green. colored. molde<l or pres8e<l, and flint and 
 
 lime glass bottles" (paragraph 8s. act August, 18!>1), is well a<lapted to 
 conditions in the United States: is already well established in the 
 Eastern and Pacific Coast, as well as thiougii the We.stern .States, and 
 now has ample capacity to more than suppiv the total consumption of 
 the country. 
 
 The product is of native materials almost exclusively, prepared for
 
 FILLED GLASS BOTTLES. 233 
 
 use by unskilled lubor, and finished by manual labor only, both skilled 
 and iinskillfMl. tlie proportion of un«;killed labor in jupinuinjr uialerials 
 and working' th«Mii at the furnaces bfinjr as larjje as for skilled work- 
 men in conv* rtih{^ the metal into finished products. 
 
 Tiie total labor so employed amounts to S"> per cent of the total cost, 
 and for continuance of the manufiwtnre duties on imi)orted bottles are 
 necessary toetiualize American wa;;es standard with that of Uermany, 
 the princi|)al exporter of bottles to tliis country. 
 
 This ditierence, as is well known, is between the German rates of 1 to 
 2 marks and the rnitc<l States standard of <•! to*J per day for unskilled, 
 and in about tiie >ame proportion for skilled workmen ; averaging at 
 least JOO per cent higher in the United States. 
 
 Steam siii|iruriits, and low freights as heavy goods, secure almost as 
 quick an<i cheap (bdivery to American consumeis as from furnaces in 
 the United States. 
 
 Large imj'orts of bottles are constantly maile and will greatly increase 
 when manufaetureis here ask such prices as will give them a fairjjrofit. 
 lU'fore tiie reduition «»f duties by act of IS'.M bottle pric«'S here were, 
 by comi)etiti(>n. ki'pt to<» low to permit fair profit. Since the redu«tion 
 of duties the lower cost of material and wages have lieljted to still 
 further reclucethe Anu'ri«-an i)ricc>. in order to hold the trade for better 
 times. .Vdvancing cost of materials and wages will still more than 
 uinler tin* present tryingconditions rentier manufacturers in the rnitctl 
 States unable to compete in large lines of manufacture with foreign 
 bottles. 
 
 Duties to make up for higher wages in the I'nited States are neces- 
 sary to emible mannfac'turers to continue to produce, as n«» machinery 
 can be employed to diminish thedilVerence in wages. Competition estab- 
 lished secures consumers as low juices as Tniteil States conditions 
 justily. Increased <luties will increase revenue, either directly by 
 higher rates, or in«iii»ctly by greater ability t)f labor t<t consume. 
 
 I'illed bottles are rightly chargetl with the same duties as if empty, 
 as they dire<'tly disjihue the use of homemade bottles, the contents 
 freijuently in)t being as valuaMe as the bottles. The pro\ ision of 
 prest'ut law (paragraph SS), for the same duty on tilled as on unlilled 
 bottles, is practically annulled in nmny cases. 
 
 Ginger ale or beer (paragraph 'J4H) is chargeable with 1*0 ]>er cent ad 
 valorem, but no separate rate or additional duty shall be assessed on 
 the bottles — not on«' half tiie duty on a luxury as assessed on almost 
 all other articles. The bottles come in free an«l are regularly ami 
 largely sold tor use again, disphu'ing .\iiierican bottles. This exemp- 
 tion of bottles wouhl permit imports tille<l with ordinary water, for 
 sake of free bottles. The exemption should be stricken out and a spe- 
 cith' duty of L'O cents per «lo/.en b«' char;:fd on the iiottles. 
 
 By paragraph .")•")."» of pres«Mit law. "Mineial waters not artifi<'ial, 
 lemonade, sotia water, and all similar waters," are plac«*<l on the free 
 list. This includes a number of articles very largely imported, most 
 or all of them luxuries, well able to pay high <liities and most of them 
 iniported in bottles. All smh articles should be charged the same 
 duties as on empty bottles, or a special duty of _(> cents i)er dozen on 
 bottles if holding not over 1 pint: if holding over 1 pint. .U) cents per 
 dozen bottles. 
 
 Duties now levied on bottles, filled or unfilled, are below the rates 
 imjiosed on other glass, althcmgh the materials and ])roportion of wages 
 are but little less in this uiauufacture. The rates under the act of IfciUU
 
 234 SCHEDULE B.— EARTHS, EARTH EXWAKE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 were found to permit large imports, even witli prices in the Uuited States 
 kept very low by excessive home competition, L nder the huv ot 18.»0, 
 as well as since, under the act of 1804. it is foiiixl that althou-h quart 
 bottles cost much more than pints, the actual duty per gross under both 
 acts is practically the same in amount, on both sizes— a mamlest incon- 
 sistency. To adjust this, an additional size, with the rate between 
 pints and quarts, should be provided. The reduction of duties in 1894 
 was from a very low rate, c(»nsidering the manual labor character of 
 the product and the relative rates in other glass. Manufacturers, 
 therefore, urge as necessary and fair, and as tending to higher revenue, 
 the following rates of duties: 
 
 Green and colored, nioltle<l or pressed. an<l Hint and lime Rlass bottles or vial«, 
 holdiu"- more tban one quart, and ilemi.johns an<l eaiboys roven-d or niicovered, 
 -whetlier tilled or unfilled, and whether their conti-nts lu* dutialde or free, and other 
 molded or pressed, green and eolored and liint or limf Ix.ltle >,'Ia»sware, not specially 
 provided for in this act. one rout per jtouml; holdin;: ni«t more than one .piart .and 
 not less than one and one-half pints, one and on. -.|uarter rents j.er jiound; holding 
 not more than one and one-half })iuts. .and not less than one qnarter of one )>int, one 
 and one-half cents per pound; if holdini; less than on«'-fourth of it i>int. lifty eent« 
 per gross; all other i)lain gn-cn ami colored, molded or preHtied, and flint lime an<l 
 glassware, forty ]ier centum ail valorem. 
 
 Ale, porter, a'nd hecr, when imported in hottles. Jugs, etc., if holdinj; not over one 
 pint, twenty cents jier dozen liottles or Jugn; if hcddinjj over one pint, thirly cents 
 per dozen bottles or jugs. 
 
 Malt extract, including all preparations hearing the name und eoinmereially 
 known as such, imported in bottles, jugs, etc., if holding nut over one pint, twenty 
 cents per dozen bottles or jugs; if holding over one pint, thirty cent* per dozen 
 bottles or jugs. 
 
 Ginger ale. or ginger beer, when imjtortcd in bottles or JugH, holding not over one 
 pint, twenty cents i)er dozen bottles or jugs, and if liobling over one pint, thirty 
 cents per dozen bottles or jugs. 
 
 Mineral w;iters, all not .nrtitieial, lemonade, soda water, and all similar watord. if 
 free, or if subject to duty on c(mt<'ntH, when nacki'd in l»ottles or jugs, if holding 
 not over one iiiut, twenty cent-^ per dozen bottles or jiigN; if holding over one pint, 
 thirty cents per do2eu on the bottleti or jugs. 
 
 F. I>. UoDINK, 
 
 I'liiholtlphw, r,i. 
 .loiiN P. VVnlTNK^. 
 
 (ilosshoroj \. •/. 
 
 GLASS l.\:mp sii\i)i:s. 
 
 (Paragraph 8i<.) 
 
 Jeannette. Pa., hecemhcr ^/?, 1R96. 
 BeAE Sir: The shade branch of the glass intlustry nee<la all tlie 
 protection it can get. All simdl sizes of sha«l('s and all kiiuls up to and 
 including shades 10 inches in diameter, hirgcr sli:ides. and gas ami 
 electric globes are iiiii)orte<l in huge quantities, but the im|>(»rtations 
 are heaviest in the 10 inch :iiul snudh-r sizes, thereby <le])riving the 
 American workman of work that <'ouhl and should be doiu' at home. 
 What I say about them being iiuportetl is not hearsay, but \vh;it I see. 
 There is one kind of shade they use here, namely, the 7 inch (lernum 
 shade, that they im]H)rt altogether. We shade workers see them com- 
 ing here by the carload, while we have to walk around doing nothing, 
 whereas, if the tariff' was high enough, they couhl not import them. 
 And there is another sluule they imi^ort heavily, the Krinch ring <loine. 
 We make some of these, but not many. The.se two varieties ctf sluides
 
 FLINT AND LIME GLASSWARE. 235 
 
 arc iiiii>«)rt(*(] in this \ iciiiity, wliilc other manuthcturers import other 
 (lilVcreiit kiii(N. Some of them import all of their small shades and 
 ploljes. If with this you take into consideration the amount that is 
 imported by Jobbers and jjlass dealers (tor I have been speakiiifr of the 
 amount imported by the manufa«tiirers of gjlassware because they im- 
 ])ort them cheajter than tiieycan manufacture them), you will <j;et some 
 little idea of tlu' menace to American labor. If 1 had the time to pro- 
 cure them. 1 could <;ive you facts and figures to prove what I have 
 written. Hvcn under the McKinlcy l»ill shiidcs and tiiu' blown ware 
 were imported in large quantities, and then tlie Wilson bill reduced the 
 duty about M) ])0i cent. Vou can imagine the etVect it would have. 
 
 I believe in elevating the Ameiican workingman, and not bringing him 
 on a level with the cheaj) labor of Kurope; and 1 believe in a protective 
 tarili" that will ]note<t us from the cheap labor of foreign countiies, and 
 we need protection, especially on the line-blown goods. 
 
 TnoMAs ^IcKee. 
 
 FLIXT AXD TJAFE GLASSWARE. 
 
 (Paragraphs 88, 89, 90, and 102.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. W. J. SMITH. OF PITTSBURG. PA.. APPEARING 
 FOR ALL THE WORKERS IN FLINT AND LIME GLASSWARE. 
 
 Friday, .lanuary 8, i^V7. 
 Mr. Smith said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, our 
 workers have recjuested me to ai)i>ear before this conunittee to ask 
 greater i)rotection for an old industry to the end that much of the 
 Hint and lime glassware now made in foreign fact(»ries by tbreign 
 workmen, while American workmen are idle, sliall be made in American 
 factories by American W(ukmen, in order that they may have employ- 
 ment. In making this rcMpiest they are i)romi)ted by the belief that 
 the facts in their ca.se form a just basis for the recjue.st. 
 
 On the subject of taritV on ilint glassware, representing the workers 
 interested in the jiroduction of the glassware included in paragraphs 
 88, 80, no, and KIl' of the Wilson taritf law, I desire to say- 
 Flint glass is the most important branch of the glass industry by 
 rea.son of tin* capital invested an<l the numlter of persons employed. It 
 has a cai)ital invested approximating si.Mt,(HMKO(K(. ami the value of its 
 annual production will reach .'^20,(H)0,(KX), which gives employment to 
 about .■>0,(KK» })ersons. 
 
 In a general way it nuiy be asserted that the factories of the United 
 States interested in the manufacture of articles of Hint glass are sup- 
 plied with all the latest modern appliances ami facilities for their suc- 
 cessful manufacture, and have s])ared neither i)ains nor expense to 
 place themselves in position to compare favorably with the world in 
 economy of methods and in excellence of product; they have surrounded 
 themselves with employees posses.sing all the knowledge and skill 
 necessary to jtroduce any and all kinds and qualities of articles of flint 
 glass known to the commercial world. 
 
 In spite of all the ellbrts made by honu^ manufactarers to produce 
 in American factories with American workmen all the flint glass con- 
 sumed in the United States, they find the stability of their business
 
 236 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 constantly threatened and the welfare of tlieniselves and their employees 
 injured by the inroads made npon their trade by fon'ijin comprtitors, 
 whose only advantage lies in the fact that they are able to obtain labor 
 at a wage rate varying in amount from OIK* half toone lifthof the wages 
 paid to American labor for the same (luantity and quality of goods. 
 
 The articles of flint glass of foreign manufacture imjKirted into this 
 country and sold in competition with goods of domestic manufaeture 
 cover a wide variety of articles, including lamp chimneys, porcelain or 
 opal shades and globes, thin-blown stem wares, glassware, colored, cut, 
 decorated, and otherwise ornamented, baiKjUct himp gh.bes, and many 
 other articles of glassware, nearly all ol' whi«-h are laid down in this 
 country duty paid at prices ap{)roximating the cost of lalior alone in 
 American factories; and to such an extent has the uneipial con)i>etition 
 been carried that many manufacturing lirnjs in the I'niteil States are 
 now importing their goods, while their own eniployees are kept in idle- 
 ness, simply because they can import mach of their glassware cheaper 
 than they can produce it. 
 
 The average annual ])ro«lnction of Ameri<'au factories of articles ot 
 flint glass is estimated in value to be a1)out f_M».()(M».(i()<). Owing to the 
 depression prevailing in the land during tlu' tiscal year ending .iune .'{O, 
 1895, the production fell at least L'o per cent below the average. nMlucing 
 its value to $1(),0()0,(KH>, and yet during the same liscal year tlie reported 
 value of flint glassware importeil. exclusive of «iuty. was m.;.(;(»."),1«)4, 
 suflicient to have given employment to more than 1I,<mm) a*lditi(»iial 
 persons if the goods imported had been produced in this «*ountry. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. That is under paragraphs l(r» and HM5 of the McKinlev 
 law? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I will give you the |»aragraphs. It is und»T paragraphs 
 88, 80, 90, and lOi' in the Wilson bill. 
 
 Mr. WiiEEi>Ei;. That is what I wanted to know. 
 
 The chief European countries from \\lii«li articles of tlint gl.iss are 
 inii)orted into this countiy are ICngland. I'rance, (lermany, Uelgium, 
 and Austria, but of all these, the last, Austria, or more properly its 
 Province of Bohemia, is the worst coniix'titor, because it is in nohcmia 
 that the labor of jtrodiicing articles of glass receives the least comjien- 
 sation, in conseipience of which it is enabled to send int*> our country 
 nearly all the common got ds we imjiort. 
 
 As an example of the cheapness of Bohemian labor, it maybe stated 
 that the cost of the shop labor engaged in forming from the molten 
 glass one dozen 6-inch Hat shades for electrical purposes will not exceed, 
 exclusive of any cost for cutting olV, ») cents, while the same labor in an 
 American factory will cost not less than .'{l! cents. 
 
 Next to Austria in the cheajjuessof its labor «'omes Germany. Here 
 the shop labor of producing one dozen 10 inch ringti»i» dome shades 
 for lamps would cost al)out '2'2 cents, as against a c><)st of <W; centn in fac- 
 tories of the United States. 
 
 And as the foreigners have an advantage over American houses in 
 the manipulation of the molten glass, so they have an advantage in 
 their raw materials in the fact that their labor of handling them costs 
 less. 
 
 To present a more definite idea of the disadvantage against which 
 American workmen and American manufacturers are obliged to con- 
 tend in the production of articles of flint glass, we present the follow- 
 ing table, showing the est of American goods and the importer's 
 prices for competing goods, with the probable labor cost of foreign
 
 FLINT AND LIME GLASSWARE. 
 
 237 
 
 goods based npon the positive statement that the foreign -labor cost 
 per dozen of G inch flat shades is G cents: 
 
 Name of articlo. 
 
 Home ' 
 cost , Home 
 jxT labor 
 
 do/.eu I cost. 
 
 pieces. 
 
 Importer's 
 
 pricus in 
 
 J»ew York 
 
 per dozcu 
 
 pieces. 
 
 Foreign 
 labor 
 cost. 
 
 Lamp chiinnej/s. 
 
 No. 2 stiideDt 
 
 7-inrh en-* 
 
 No. i Al'iiliriiiK arK^iiid 
 
 0-incli <lii|il)>x 
 
 No. t dual 
 
 No. 2 Kocbester 
 
 Shades and globe 
 
 9-inch tint abiule, opal 
 
 7'incb tiat HiMde, opal 
 
 8incb Mill ulia.le. opal 
 
 10 inch tt.it Hhadi'. opal 
 
 S-incb crimp tliude, opal 
 
 7-inch crimp ali.ide, opal 
 
 8-incb ci'iiiip sbudp. ii|>ul 
 
 lO-iiicb crimp ahad)'. oiial 
 
 S-iiicb W. 15. crimp »b«Me, o|ial 
 
 7-iiicli \V. n. crimp «li-idt?, opal 
 
 S'incb W. li. criiui) Hliade, opal 
 
 7i-iticb (1(1 II at -!ri(..- upal 
 
 7^'iucbH>i< vBtal 
 
 7-iDch don 1 
 
 7iiiich... ..l 
 
 l\ inch li:in -tM.!. ..pal 
 
 TJi inch b<-II itliade, oi>al 
 
 Electric i>au 
 
 EU>ctric bell 
 
 Elcctri. tulip 
 
 lOiiu'h ciiiie nbadi', riii;; top 
 
 lO-indi dome «li 1. ■ 
 
 lOini h dome bIi.. ;. 
 
 8-iiich duplex ^1' I . . 
 
 f0.30 
 .36 
 .35 
 .47 
 .46 
 .46 
 
 $0.23 
 .24 
 .28 
 .31 
 .31 
 .31 
 
 .53 
 
 .44 
 
 .61 
 
 .49 
 
 .73 
 
 .58 
 
 .70 
 
 .58 
 
 .63 
 
 .48 
 
 .67 
 
 .49 
 
 .73 
 
 .62 
 
 .84 
 
 .«0 
 
 .53 
 
 .44 
 
 .64 
 
 .52 
 
 .n 
 
 .57 
 
 ].19 
 
 .89 
 
 I.IS 
 
 .89 
 
 1.02 
 
 .84 
 
 .03 
 
 .75 
 
 .88 
 
 .70 
 
 .03 
 
 .75 
 
 .57 
 
 .45 
 
 .57 
 
 .45 
 
 . 57 
 
 .45 
 
 1.40 
 
 1.00 
 
 1.50 
 
 1.00 
 
 1.52 
 
 1.16 
 
 1.75 
 
 1.19 
 
 $0.04 
 .05 
 ,06 
 .07 
 .07 
 .07 
 
 .08) 
 
 .09) 
 
 .11 
 
 .11 
 
 .09 
 
 .09) 
 
 .10 
 
 .12 
 
 .08 
 
 .09) 
 
 .10 
 
 .15 
 
 .15 
 
 .15 
 
 .15 
 
 .15 
 
 .15 
 
 .08) 
 
 .OK) 
 
 .08) 
 
 .20 
 
 .20 
 
 .24 
 
 .24 
 
 The wide difference between the co.st of foreij^n and domestic labor 
 indiratrd l>y the for('<;oiii<j; stateiiu-iit .shows that, wliether protection is 
 to be the object or the iiicitient of the tanlf bill about to be formulated, 
 the tiint-jjlass industry is entitled to more protection than has as yet 
 been accordetl to it. 
 
 The duties to be imposed should be specific wherever it is possible to 
 impose specific duties, and they sliould be compound where it is not 
 possible to iiiijiose duties wholly speeitic, because e.xix'rience has taught 
 tliat under ad valorem rates the importers have always found someway 
 of underselling domestic producers in the American markets. 
 
 Flint glassw are varies so much in weight, desi{;n, finish, and value 
 that it is dillicult to suj:-^fest duties that will cover all classes of ware 
 without doiii<j: injustice to any interest. Still we venture to suggest 
 that the following schedule would give satisfaction to the flint-glass 
 industry: 
 
 GLASSWARE SCHEDULE 6UGGE8TKD. 
 
 Greon aud colored, nioldfd or jiressed, and flint and lime ghies l)ottle8, boldinf; more 
 than one pint, aud demijohns and carboys, covered or nucovered, whether filled or 
 iiulilled, and whether tiifir content.s be dutiable or tree, and other molded or pressed, 
 given and colored, and tlint or lime or bottle j^las^ware not specially provided for in 
 this act, one cent per ponnd; aud vials hohiiujj uot more than one pint and not less 
 than one-«|narter of a pint, one and one-half cents per pound. If holding less than 
 one-fourth of a pint, lifty cents jier {jross. 
 
 Articles of jfjassware, crystal, piesscd, staiujied, or cast in mold and not cut, 
 etched, enj^raved. saud-lilasted, colored, stained, printed, gilded, i)ainted or decorated, 
 three cents per pound. 
 
 Articles of glassware, crystal or opal, blown, with or without a mold, not cut,
 
 238 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EAKTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 etched, engraved, sand-l.lasted. colored, stained, printed, jiilded, painted, de.nrated, 
 or otherwise ornamented, except blanks for tuttiiij;. six rents per pound. Blanks lor 
 cnttin". made -with or without a mold, ten cents per pound. 
 
 Avticli-8 of glassware, Mown, with or without a imdd, if eTit. etched. en^'rave<l, 
 sand-l)lasted, 'Colored, stained, printed, gilded, j.ainted. decorated, or otherwise 
 oniainoiited, ten cents per pound and fifty l)er cent ad valorem. 
 
 All cut, etched, engraved, painted, decorated, or otherwise ornamented glass bot- 
 tles, with or without stoi)i)er8, or similar vessels of glass, t«'n cent« per pound and 
 fifty per cent ad valorem. ,, ^ . , . 
 
 Articles of glassware. Idown. with or without a mold, including all drinking glasses, 
 made with srem .lud foot, and all other m:mufa<tnres of glas.s. or of Nvliich ghiss 
 shall be the component material of chief value. n<it spii iilK iii.)\ i.!r,l i<ii in tl, >, 
 act, ten cents per pound and fifty per cent ad valorem. 
 
 These fifjnres show that it is absoliitoly ne<'oss.iry l(tr tlu- Hint and 
 lime glass iiidnstry to have a greater rate of duty upon tliat kind of 
 goods than was ever yet given it by any tarilV hill. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Yon ehtini the duty nndcr liie so called McKinley bill 
 was not high enongli to piotect the interest you represent t 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; 1 do. 
 
 i\Ir. Dalzell. In cotnHM-tion with your statement you have made some 
 statistics as to the rate of duty? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Which yon will file with that statenicntT 
 
 Mr. Smith. Y'es, sir. 
 
 Mr. DoLLlVKR. A<-cording to tlic statement of Mr. Agord, it seems 
 even the McKinley rate has failed to he suth«ient. Mr. Agord asked 
 the restoration of the McKiidey rat«', but he said, if I nn«lerst<»od it, 
 that if the niannfadnrci paid nothing in this country we could not 
 compete with tlntse peojdc — that is. if they got their labor for nothing. 
 
 Mr. Smith. \Vell, our reiiuest for a higher rate of duty is u|k>u a dif- 
 ferent class of wares, which are used for parlor lamps — u.sed for illumi 
 nants of any kind, such as lamp chimneys and thin-blown glassware 
 generally. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Yon simjdy ask for the restoration of the tluty un<ler 
 the McKinley law? 
 
 Mr. Smith. And that it be made sjiecilic instead of a*! valorem. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. About its e(iuivalcntT 
 
 Mr. Smith. \>s, sir. 
 
 Mr. KusSELL. In the statistics which I have here, which are official, 
 it would seem the imiiortations of botli.in quantity and quality, with 
 very few exceptions, were larger in I.S'.K? than they have been in 1H".».') 
 and 1890. How do you account for that in the particular cases to which 
 you just referred? 
 
 Mr. Smith. 1 think the value of imported tlint and lime glassware — 
 I quote from the statistical abstract of lsi>.")_and I think the abstract 
 shows for that year the imports of tlint and lime glassware were greater 
 than for any preceding year. 
 
 Mr. KussKLL. Take this item of bottles ami vials of flint an<l lime 
 glass, etc., one pint, the (juantity of potmds is given f«>r ISO.J at 
 2,242,470, and in value >i;;(;,(ii;;.70; and in isiMi it is given at l,l.rl.."»ll 
 pounds, and in value a reduction of almost two thinls. 
 
 Mr. Smith. Well, I want to say of the rejwrts generally that thev 
 either indicate gross errors on the iiart of those who compile them or 
 they indicate that the schedules have not been clearly understood by 
 the inspectors. Now, for examide, you will find l>oth in the reports for 
 1895 and ISDO porcelain or opal glassware is enter«-d at less than ^;?,(MH) 
 in each year. 1 i)ersonally know of one manufacturing house in mv 
 neighborhood which in the year 1895 imported $18,000 worth of opal or
 
 FLINT AND LIME GLASSWARE. 239 
 
 porcolnin ^lasswnre. niid last year tliey imported ^IH.OOO ^vortli of the 
 same kind of jilasswaie. Now, tlieie are .some tllin<,^s about tlie report 
 I confess I eau not eomitreliend. and that is one i)arti('nlar item. How 
 the value of jiorechiin and opal j^dassware can be entered at *.i,(MK) in 
 each of both years, when one manufacturing house — a manufacturing 
 house, not an importing house — brought over from 81').<H)() to *1>'.000 
 worth. I do not know, and 1 think that the gcnthMuan wlio will follow 
 me in connection witii the cut glassware will show that there is some 
 mistake in the reprutcd value of iiiijtorts in cut glassware. 
 
 .Mr. Hoi'KiNs, Then our so calh'<l otiicial leports are not reliable? 
 
 .Mr. Smith. I was thinking they either indicated they are not reliable 
 or that the clause has not been undeistood. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. I think the dilliculty. arises probably from the fact that 
 you have ligures on that in the aggregate, while in these reports they 
 have di\ided them uj) into sepaiate items? 
 
 Mr. Smith. That is the way we have figured it. 
 
 Mr. Dai.zell. And. furthermore, there is some little ditleience, it 
 se^'ins to nu\ if 1 heird you ari;;ht, in your classilication from the 
 classitication in either of the preceding billsT 
 
 .Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 
 
 .Mr. Uni'KiNS, Theie can be no (piestion about the fact there is a 
 depreciation in the business an<l lab(»r as well as mauulacturing under 
 existing conditions! 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; that is positive. 
 
 Mr. Ki^ssEi.L. .\nd you, from your practical knowledge, think there 
 is no doubt about the increase in the im])ortationsf 
 
 Mr. Smith. There is not a doubt in my mind that the importations 
 have increased. 
 
 Mr. Ht'ssELL. The figures to the contrary notwithatandingf 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes. sir, 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you undertake to say the Treasury report is false 
 in that regard? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I undertake to say upon that particular item ol ])orce- 
 lain or opal glassware that the Treasury rejtort is not reliable, or those 
 who reported the glassware did not understand it. Now, either one of 
 the two things stand <uit clear. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. 1 have been examining for a good while these things 
 and I have never had occasion to come to the conclusion they were 
 falsely made by any Treasury Department oflicial as to importati<ms. 
 
 The Chairman. These articles which under the act of ]S'X] were 
 imported uiuler one classification have been under the act of 181)4 put 
 into the basket clause, whereby they got a lower rate of duty. 
 
 Mr. Smith. That is i)robable. 
 
 The Chaikman. \\ hen the basket clause of any schedule places a 
 lower duty, the attempt of the imi»orter is to change the classilication 
 to get it in under the basket clause with the lower rate of duty. If 
 you will note the basket clause, the importations have arisen to 
 $1,I7L',;^()0. That shows these articles by some classitication of the 
 ai)praiKers have been forced into the basket clause and got in at a 
 lower rate of duty. 
 
 Mr. Smith. We can say we do not know a great deal about figures, 
 but we do know tliat American workmen have l)een kept in idleness in 
 this country while their employers have imported foreign goods. 
 
 The Chairman. There is probably no difficulty about the official 
 statistics. It is because the items or classification under which they 
 have been imported have been changed, and I can very readily see
 
 240 SCHEDULE B.— EARTHS, EARTHENWAKE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 iust bow it has come about; the basket .laiise haviug: a lower <luty, tlu- 
 importers have forced other articles into the basket clause, and that is 
 where the great increase is. 
 
 Mr. Smith. That would seem to indicate the necessity tor a specittc 
 rather than for an ad valorem rate. . . 
 
 Mr. Steele. These goods have been sold at ruinously low prices in 
 the last two years, below the cost of manufacture! 
 
 Mr. Smith. In our country? 
 
 Mr. Steele. Yes, sir. , , , , » 
 
 Mr. Smith. Oh, yes, sir; they have been sold as low aa our h»bor 
 
 cost alone. . , .-. . • -.i i 
 
 The Chairman. In paragraph SH ot glassware, after having speciHed 
 a large number of items, that is wliere the inerease has taken place? 
 
 Mr. Steele. Is it not true that the workmen have been out <»f emph>y- 
 ment and the manufacturers have sold goods very inueh below the cost 
 of manufacture for the last two years? 
 
 Mr. Smith. There is no (|uestion about that. 
 
 Mr. j\IcMillin. Figured down to ad valorem duties, what does your 
 rate average? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Well, we have two or three changes in classith'ntion here, 
 and I want to be frank with the committee and say we ask on "artieles 
 of glassware, crystal or oi)ai. lih>wn, witii or witliuut a mold, not eut, 
 etched, engrave<l. sand blasted. (•oh)retl. stained. i)rinled. gihled, 
 painted, decorated, or otherwise ornamented, except blanks for cutting, 
 6 cents per i)ound." 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What would tliaf bo a«l valorem? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I want to state frankly, it will approximate O.! per cent, 
 and that i)articular item is intended to <over gootls of this description 
 from which the American manufacturers suffer most. I have alr«'ady 
 indicated the labor cctst \i\Hm this class of foreign goods is only about 
 one-fifth of tlie lal)or cost of this country. 
 
 Mr. McMii.LiN. 1 see the importationsunder that last yearamountod 
 to $.'32<i,(i(>(> and scuuething in value, and that is on the ratio of a duty 
 of 40 i)er cent? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Ves, sir. These are entered here and should have been 
 entered as opal or porcelain glassware. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is the h)west rate of duty you ask? Is \)'> the 
 highest? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Ninety five is the highest. 
 
 Mr. jNIcMillin. >fN^hat would be your lowest rate? 
 
 Mr. Smi rn. Our lowest rate would run about "»."» per cent. 
 
 Mr. ]\Ir^IiLLiN. Von think the scale should be from .'>."» to l>5 percent! 
 
 ]\Ir. Smith. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. On what class of articles do you ask a duty of 95 per 
 cent? 
 
 Mr. Smith. On i)lain blown articles, opal and i)orcelain and thin blown 
 chimneys of this description [exhibiting]. This article is laid down in 
 the city of New York, duty paid, at 40 cents per dozen, and our labor 
 cost alone is oO cents. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. What do you call that? 
 
 Mr. Smith. That is a thin blown cordial glass; that is the technical 
 name in the trade. We have six or eight very large houses engaged in 
 the manufacture of this class of wares. They have a ca)>ital invested 
 of perhaps $700,0(10, I want to suggest that wliilcour rate may appear 
 to be a very exorbitant one upon this class of goods, yet experience
 
 FLINT AND LIME GLAS.^WAKE. 241 
 
 has bIiowii us it is absolutely necessary in order to continue makinp: 
 tbeni in this country ami j,nve eni]»loynu*nt to our American workmen. 
 
 Mr. Mc.MiLLiN. Porcelain lamp sluides and troods of that kind are in 
 very extensive and general use in the L'nited States, almost in every 
 household? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; and I know that there has always existed some 
 fear in various localities that an increase of duties upon some goods 
 would tend to increase the cost of tlie ware to the consumer. Our expe- 
 rience has shown us that in this glass industry that is not true. 
 
 Mr. M<".Mii-LiN. If it does not increase the cost at which the articles 
 sell, how can it henelit you in your sales? 
 
 Mr. Smith. We are ixjt talking about the sales of the goods. We 
 are seeking work for American workmen. 
 
 Mr. Mc.MiLLiN. Yes; but you say that the present rate at which the 
 duty is made it does not even pay the labor cost. Now, if the price of 
 the article is uot raised by this imposition of duty, how would it beuefit 
 your labor? 
 
 Mr. Smith. It would cut down the midtlleman's profit on the goods, 
 and the consumer could get the goods at about the same prices. 
 
 Mr. M< 'Ml I.LIN. Will you exi)lain how your increase of duty will cut 
 the middleman and not alVect the consumer? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I propose to undeitake to show it. 
 
 Mr. Mc.MiLLlN. I will l)e glad to hear it. 
 
 Mr. Smith. Now, there is a class of goods which for a long time were 
 imi)(»rted entirely. 
 
 Mr. .loHNSo.N. State what class of goojls they are. 
 
 Mr. Smith. This is a thin blown tumbler, which would come under 
 the i)aragra])h I have Just read. 
 
 Mr. .loiiNsoN. What is it ordinarily used for? 
 
 Mr. Smith. It is used for whisky. This thin blown 
 
 Mr. Johnson. What is that small gr>blet used for? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Here is a cordial glass 
 
 Mr. .loiiN.soN. What is it used ibr? 
 
 Mr. Smith. For brandy. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. They are also blown in different sizes for tableware. 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson, This expensive class of goods then, on which you ask 
 a duty of Do i)er cent, is used mostly to hold whisky, brandy, wine, and 
 things of that kind? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; except these sha^les. I was going to state, Mr. 
 Chairman, that glasses of this description for years were imported into 
 this country in immense ([uantitic's. The workmen made volunteer 
 concessions rej^eatedly. Tiiey asked an increased i)rotecti(»n and did 
 not get what they asked for, and linally they cut their wages fully L'<) 
 per cent. After they cut their wages down, I think the foreign goods 
 were kept out, and since they have been excluded those goods have 
 been reduced from 25 cents a dozen down to 15 and 10 cents a dozen. 
 
 Mr. HvANS. liy reason of home competition? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. To what class of goods do you refer; to whisky glasses? 
 
 Mr. Smith. There are glasses tumbler size, glasses champagae size, 
 glasses cordial size, etc. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. I understand these are 00 per cent now? 
 
 ^Ir. S:\riTH. No, sir; those are 40 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Whei:ler. Under the McKiuley bill they were 00 per cent? 
 T H 10
 
 242 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. . ^ ^. i • i, ^ 
 
 Mr Tawney. Can voii state how tlie cost of tliese porcelain shades 
 to the consumers now\:onipares witli the cost under the McKinley actt 
 
 Mr Smith. I should have stated that, and I am much obli^'e<l to you 
 for tiie suggestion. Prior to the passage of th«' McKinley bill and 
 after the passage of the McKinley bill those goods sold for 40 cents to 
 the real consumer by the single piece, and the day before yesterday I 
 went into a store and found they were still selling them to the reiil con- 
 sumer at 40 cents apiece. 
 
 Mr, Tawney. So the reduction of tlic duty has not reduced the cost 
 to the consumer? 
 
 Mr, Smith, No, sir; not a cent, 
 
 Mr. :Mc:Millin. How has it hurt your business thent 
 
 Mr. Smith. It has hurt our business in excluding American workmen 
 from employment. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. If the price is the sa'ne how has that occurred? 
 
 Mr. Tawney. You spoke of the i)rice to the actual consunirr. 
 
 Mr. Smith. I mean to the real consumer, those who bay the shades 
 for actual use. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. That is, at retail jmces. 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; and the retail price is to «ents. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. And you do not sell to the retail trade? 
 
 Mr. Smith. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. WiiEEi.ER. Ill what city <lid you fincl that? 
 
 Mr. Smith. In the citj' of Pittsburg, surrotuuled by factories making 
 that class of goods. 
 
 Mr. Steele. What do the workmen get T 
 
 ]Mr. Smi'IH. The labor of making this article in (lermany 
 
 Mr. Tawnev. State what article it is? 
 
 Mr. Smith. It is a 10 inch ring top i>orcela!n sluule used to put over 
 lani])S. The (ierman cost to produce 1 dozen pieces of these shades 
 would be 22 cents, while the American cost would be ('»<; <'entR, 
 
 Mr. Dalzkll. Three times as inuch? 
 
 Mr, Smith, While in liohcuiia the cost is one fifth of what our Ameri- 
 can cost is. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. And you say that sells for 40 cent^i — what does it cost 
 to iiui)ort it? 
 
 ]Mr. Smith. I will give yrui the figures. This style of goods will cost 
 in the city of New York, duty paid, ^lA't per dozen. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And those retail at 40 cents a piece? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. In other words, thev cost about 9 cents and retail 
 at 40? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. :McMillin. Is there any trust in them? 
 
 Mr. Smith. There is no trust in this country— whether there is a 
 trust abroad among tlie im])orters I can not tell.' 
 
 Mr. Wiikeler. Is that the average price at which they retail, or is 
 this one price exceptional? 
 
 Mr. Smith. No; that is the usual price. Here is an imported stu<lent- 
 lanipcliimney which for ten years has been selling for 10 cents, and yet 
 they are imported in New York, duty i)ai<l, at 17A cents a dozen. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. And tliere has V)een no reductTon in price since the 
 Wilson bill was substituted lor the law of ISDO? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Not a cent.
 
 FLINT AND LIME GLASSWARE, 243 
 
 Mr. Steele. What is the cost of producing: that chimney there? 
 
 Mr. Smith. The hibor cost alone is 22 cents, and the total cost of 
 production about M) cents. 
 
 Mr. McMn.LiN. What would be the equivalent ad valorem rate on 
 tliat lamp chimney? 
 
 Mr. Smith. It would reach about 12") per cent. 
 
 Mr. Mf'MiLLiN. And you ask altout 12.") per cent on thatt 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. M<MiLLiN. And this lamp chimney is in very general use in 
 the United States and has been for many years? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Ye.s, sir; it has V)een in peneral use. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Did you state what the cost was abroad and here? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sirTand I can give you the Hambm*]: jirice. The 
 Hambnrjr juice for the chimney is 12 cents a dozen. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is it here? 
 
 Mr, Smith, Lleie the labor cost of production is about 22 to 23 cents. 
 
 Mr. DoLLTVER. What is tlie factory price? 
 
 Mr. Smith. The factory price would l»e about 32 or 3;i cents, and the 
 full cost of producinjr it in a domestic house would be about :M) cents. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVKR. And you can get a chimney of this kind for 10 cents? 
 
 Mr. Smith, Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr I'AYNE. So that the cost here is somewhat over 200 per cent more 
 than it is abroad? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Do you reler to the cost of the imp«»rtcd article here? 
 
 Mr. Payne. It costs to produce here some 200 per cent more than it 
 docs abroad ? 
 
 Ml-. Smith. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Dai,zell. When did we commeiu*e making chimneys of that 
 kind 111 this country? Were any made prior to tiie McKinley act? 
 
 Mr, Smith. Yes, sir; there were some made i)rior. They undertook 
 to make some prior to the McKinley law, and occasionally they would 
 make one or two days' work of them to supi)ly the local trade, 
 
 Mr, Dalzkll. Was it a successful branch of the trade — the making 
 of that argand chimney? 
 
 Mr. Smith, I did not cpiite cat«h your question. 
 
 Mr, Dalzell. 1 mean in this country? 
 
 Mr. Payne. They have been able to make that chimney for fifteen 
 or twenty years. 
 
 Mr. Evans. P>nt could they make it successfully? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Oh, no: they have never been able to make that success- 
 fully in a commercial way. 
 
 Mr, Wheeler. What was the duty prior to the McKinley act! 
 
 Mr, Smith. Forty-five per cent. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. It was GO per cent under the act of 1890? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I want to ask you if the lamp chimney of which you 
 have just s])oken was made successfully commercially in the United 
 States during the operation of the McKinley law? 
 
 Mr. S:mitii. No. sir. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Xot even then ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. No, sir; not even then. Our position is, upon this entire 
 class of goods, that the American manufacturers have never had enough 
 protection. 
 
 Mr. DoLLivER. And you want to go bevond the 60 per cent of the 
 act of 1890?
 
 244 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. We want you to give the Ainerioau workman an 
 opportunity to make all the goods he cau possibly make. That is our 
 
 r)ositiou. ^ ^ . , 
 
 Mr. Tawney. You have all the facilities here for manufacturing that 
 
 they have abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. We have all the facilities for making glass here against 
 the world. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. And have as good sand? 
 
 Mr. Smith. We have superior sand. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And you have also natural gas in some localities? 
 
 Mr. Smith. In most localities wlu-re tliosc goods arc inadi- we have 
 Dot the natural gas. 
 
 Mr. Mc'MiLLiN. Has the natural gas given out as a factor for mauu 
 facturing in Pittsburg? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Practically. 
 
 Mr. Mc^IiLLiN. I knew it was used. 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Now, Mr. Cliairman, 1 would like to conclude 
 so as to give others a chance, and I will close by saying we frcl uiM)n 
 this class of goods \vc have shown the absolute necessity lor a higher 
 rate of protection, and a si»c(ific rate at tliat, in order to give the 
 American workmen an o])i»ortunity tor employment. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Are you engageil in tlie manufacture of K^^^^sf 
 
 Mr. Smith. No, sir; I am a workman. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. You represent the workmen? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. I am a glass worker; that is my trade. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. I understand the important featun- in making glass- 
 ware is fuel ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. The fuel is a fairly important item. 
 
 JNIr. WrilCELEK. That is the largest in bulk? 
 
 ]\Ir. Smith. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. WiiKHi.EK. NN'liatis? 
 
 ]\lr. Smith. If it was Hint glass or lead glass, lead would be the most 
 important factor, although luel is a very material item. 
 
 y\v. IjVANS. Not more so than labor? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Oh, no; labor is the most important. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. What per cent of the whole industry is labort 
 
 j\Ir. Smith. It will run from 70 to S."» jut cent. 
 
 Mr. :McMillin. What do you embrace in that? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I embrace slioy» labor, all unskille«l labor employed around 
 the factory, the labor emi>loyed in i»acking, the labor employed in cut- 
 ting these articles olV |illus"tratiiig|, grinding, and smoothing them up. 
 I do not include the ollice exju'iises. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The cost of your raw material is pretty much all labor, 
 is it not? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Labor certainly ent<'rs into tlie raw material, but I have 
 not made that a part of our estimate of the proportionate cost of the 
 goods as labor. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. llave the glass workers an organization? 
 
 Mr. Smith. We have an organization, sir. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Do you appear here as their representative? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I appear here as the representative of the American Flint- 
 Glass Workers of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler, I recall that in ISS.? the labor was IK) jier cent of the 
 whole cost; it seems to be less now. 
 
 Mr. Smith. I do not recall that contention was ever made. Upon
 
 THE CUT-GLASS INDUSTRY. 245 
 
 articles of this description the labor would run nearly 90 per cent 
 [referring to thin Idown tumblers]. 
 
 Mr. Pavnk. Wliat percentage does your organization cover of glass 
 produced in America? 
 
 Mr. Smith. The glass produced in America? 
 
 Mr. Payne. Yes. sir. What percentage of the workmen does your 
 organization include? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Wo cover about between 8,(K)() :ind D.odo skilled workmen. 
 
 Mr. I'AYNE. What percentage of all are skiih'd workmen? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Of the total labor employed it is a little less than one- 
 third. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You have said, I believe, that there was no trust in 
 the formation of this porcelain ware: is there in any part of the glass 
 schedule? 
 
 Mr. Smuii. I am not aware of the existence of any trust iu any part 
 of the ghiss industry. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. I'nless it be among the importcrst 
 
 Mr. Smi HI. Knloss it be among the importers. 
 
 Mr. M( MiLLiN. And are you aware of any theret 
 
 Mr. Smith. No, sir. 
 
 TILE CUT-GLASS rN^DUS TRY. 
 
 (Parajn-aph 90.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM F. DORFLINGER. OF NEW YORK, 
 REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION OF CUT-GLASS MANUFAC- 
 TURERS. 
 
 Friday, Januarys, 1897. 
 Mr. DoRFi.TNGKU said: ^Ir. Chairman and gentlemen of the commit- 
 tee, 1 represent the Association of Cut-Glass Manufacturers, and I will 
 confine my argument to the reading of a short petition which I propose 
 to leave with you: 
 
 CoMMrrxEE ON Ways and Mk.an.«i: 
 
 At a meeting of the Cut (Jlass Maniifaotnrers' ARsoriation at the Asfor House, New 
 York, on .lanuary 5, ISO?, it was rt'Hi<lv<;(l to submit the following reijucst for your 
 consideration in preparing a new tarill bill: 
 
 This association sjiecially commends the fixing of specific duties instead of ad 
 valorem for many wt-ll-known reasons with whidi your committee is familiar, and 
 it asks tliat the duty on what is called " blanks." or glass blown in shapes. ])lain, 
 but for cutting, be I'lxetl at 10 cents per pound. Tliat on cut goods the duty be 
 lixt'd at 10 cents per pound anil .50 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Owing to the enormous dillennce ]>aid in wages between this cotintry an<l France 
 and Germany, and particularly Bohemia, and owing to the fact that the raw mate- 
 rial comes largely from Europe, a high tarill' is necessary to protect the industry and 
 employ the labor now depending on such industry in this country. 
 
 In tiie United States the average Journeyman gla.ss cutter earns $18 per week; the 
 same man in England would get $8 jier week ; in Belgium $5, and iu parts of Germany 
 antl Bohemia much less than in Belgium. 
 
 In the blowing of glass the factory is divided into shops — a shop usnally consists 
 of 5 persons, 3 men and 2 boys. On the basis of the running of a shop in the United 
 States, on the grade of glass that is made for cutting, the average wage is $15 per 
 day for the shop. In England the same shop earns $7.50 per day; in Belgium $3.20, 
 and in Bohemia still less. 
 
 In this country, glass cutters and glass blowers are skilled mechanics enjoying 
 journeyman's wages only after a long a]i]>renticeship. 
 
 There are about lifteeii principal factories manufacturing cut glass, and as far as
 
 246 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 we can determine, there are employed in these factories about 2,000 hands, and the 
 annual product is, under normal conditions, al.out .f2.iH3(),(«>0. ^ , , ,j » 
 
 Fine cut glass is a luxury— it is purchased by the rich and rehned and ebonW be 
 amply p-rotected. _ • .^- • 
 
 We would call the attention of your committee to the great abuses existing m our 
 trade by reason of resident agents in this country. Factori.-s in France, (Jermauy, 
 and Belgium have their agents here, to whom the goods are consigned, and who sell 
 them, delivered here, in our money. There is no telling what the goods cost and no 
 way of getting at the bottom price from the factories. Goo«i8 are brought here and 
 sold at a price always below the price that American manufacturers lan si-11 l«r. 
 
 Goods made here that are desirable and quick selling are sent to theoUierside and 
 copied and brought in here at a lower price. 
 
 And, by the way, the only set of table service I have seen on rennsyl- 
 vania avenue is represented by tbis sami)le. It is nnuU* at Val St. 
 Lambert, Belgium, and made alter a pattern gotten up by the Libbey 
 Glass Company, of Toledo. The i)rice of tliis linger bowl at the Libbey 
 works is $10.50 a dozen, and the foreign price of this linger bowl laid 
 down in Washington is $12. 
 
 The Chairman. Where is it imported fromt 
 
 Mr. DoRFLiNGER. From Belgium. 
 
 Some means shouW be devised by which the duties shonl-l \>v (iilly paid on what- 
 ever basis it may be ]>ut. Wc have to roiiipete not only with tho i<iw cost, by the 
 pauper labor of Enroi)e, but, a.s many believe, with systematic undervaluation. 
 Specilio duties as far as practicable would obviate this. 
 
 W.M. F. DORFUNOKR, 
 
 Of C. Dor/liiigrr .(• Son*, Xrw York, 
 
 J. I). ROUINSON, 
 Of Lihhey iHa»B Co., Toledo, Ohio, 
 
 Comtnittte, 
 
 Mr. DOLLTTER. On what basis do you make the duty specificT 
 
 Mr. DORFLINGER. By the ]»ouii(]. and that is the oidy way we can 
 think of. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. To what extent is cut glass imported into this country 
 from France? 
 
 Mr. DoRFLTNOER. Very largely, but in the lower grades. Tlie 
 Baccarat Glass Company, the largest concern in the world, sends a 
 great deal of ghiss to this country. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Wliere is it located? 
 
 Mr. DoRFLiNGER. At Baccarat, in France. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The value of the cut ghiss depends very largely upon 
 the amount of work upon it? 
 
 Mr. DoRFLiNGEK. Yes, sir; on the amount of hil)or. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Would a pound duty rei)resent fairly the value of the 
 cut glass? 
 
 Mr. DORFLINGER. No; we want a 8])ecitic duty on the blanks, the 
 plain glass for cutting. For the last two or three years a great deal ol 
 that has been imported. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How much do you ask for that? 
 
 Mr. Dorflinger. Ten cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. Payne. On the plain glass 10 cents per pound will be how much 
 ad valorem ? 
 
 Mr. Dorflinger. We figure from 40 to CO per cent, according to the 
 weight of the article. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. You ask an additional ad valorem duty on cut glass? 
 
 Mr. Dorflinger. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How much? 
 
 Mr. Dorflinger. Fifty per cent and the same price per pound.
 
 THE CUT-GLASS INDUSTRY, 247 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Tliat would aggregate in ad valorem duties how 
 much? 
 
 Mr. DORFI.INGEK. From 50 to 60 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMii.i.iN. Vou give oO per cent directly and the other 10 cents 
 w<»nld amount to what of that class of ghiss? 
 
 Mr. DnuFLiNOKK. It would be about U> per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Making in all about GO per eentt 
 
 Mr. I)()KFLiN(;i:u. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. I)()LLIVi:k. What is the present rate on glass shapes ready for 
 rutting? 
 
 .Mr. DoRFLiNOER. Forty live per cent. 
 
 .Mr. lOvAN.s. What is the average value of cut glass shapes for cut- 
 ting per pound ? 
 
 Mr. DoKFLiNdKR. It runs from 30 cents, the minimum, to say 75 
 cents per pound, according to the artich*. Stem ware, ware of that 
 kind li)icking up a glass], is sold by the dozen here by specific weight, 
 and will i)robably go from 70 to 75 cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. I'^VANS. Ten cents per pound would not be a very high duty on 
 that sort of ghi.ss? 
 
 .Mr. DdRFLlNGER. No, sir; it would not. 
 
 .Mr. DoLi-iVKK. You thiiik it wouhl be adequate, however?^ 
 
 Mr. I)(iKFLiN<ii;R. VVe wouM have to get ahmg with it. We do not 
 want to ask too much. 
 
 .Mr. MrMiiLiN. What projwrtion of goods is brought into this coun- 
 try of that wliich is consumed of the grades of which you have been 
 speaking! 
 
 Mr. 1)(»RFL1N(JER. I could not say. I do not know any way of get- 
 ting at it. As .Mr. Smith stated, there is hardly any way of getting at 
 the importation of <'ut glass, because there are so nuiny kinds covered 
 in one paragrajdi. 
 
 Mr. M<:.Mii.LiN. I see in paragraph DO, which embraces these arti- 
 cles, there were imported a little over a half a million dollars' worth in 
 180(>. 
 
 Mr. DoRFLiNcJER. Well, that does not give any idea of it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLMN. 'I'lie itrndnct «>f the manufacturers here, 1 believe you 
 stated, was about $i.',0oo,»m»o a year! 
 
 Mr. D()RFL1N(;kr. i){' cut glass: yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Russell. I wish you would tell as why that does not give us 
 any idea of the amount of importations. 
 
 Mr. DoRFLiNGER. Because we know some concerns have imported 
 enormously of those goods, of a class of ware that is sent hero by one 
 concern from Belgium. Alxtut four years ago tliey sent one of their 
 directors here, and he traveled all over this country, and the manufac- 
 turers showed him every attention ami gave him all possible informa- 
 tion on his representation tl)at lie would not u.se it, and he took back 
 with him about a thousand dollars' worth of samples, and the following 
 year we had the benelit at' his exj)erience. 
 
 Mr. KussELL. Did they smuggle them in or undervalue themt 
 Mr. DoRFLiNGER. The cost is so low you would suppose there would 
 be no reason to undervalue, but the importers themselves say there is 
 a great deal of undervaluation. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVKK. Why do not the Treasury reports accurately show 
 the anmunt imported? 
 
 ^Ir. l)()RFLiN(iER. I suppose they do in the aggregate, but this class 
 of ware, cut glass, is not shown by itself.
 
 248 SCHEDULE B.— EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Mr Dalzell. It is included in two or three i.arapraphs? 
 
 Mr DORFLINGER. Yes, it is in with the otlier jjoods; it is in the bas- 
 ket ciause of 40 per cent. It was 00 per cent under the McKmley bill. 
 
 The Chairman, The cut glass has only 10 per cent duty? 
 
 Mr. DORFLINGER. Yes, sir. , ., • , , ^ • 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Is this cut glass imported all included in paragraph 
 90 of the present law? ,..,.. 
 
 Mr. DORFLINGER. I could not state. 1 have not referred to that at 
 all, but 1 would be very .ulad to send you any data you may re(iuirr: 
 but there was hardly time to go into that. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. I understood you to say a little while ago that the 
 present duty was 35 per cent? 
 
 Mr. DORFLINGER. No, sir; 40 jier cent. If I said .*?"» i)er cent it wa8 
 a mistake. It was 45 per cent under the old bill and Oo pcrcmt under 
 the McKinley bill, and now it is 40 p«'r r.-iit undn th.' WiNmi bill. 
 
 STATEMENT OF OTHER GLASS REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT AT 
 
 THE HEARING. 
 
 Having heard the statements made by Messrs Smith and Dortlinger, 
 and not desiring to unnecessarily consume the time of the committee, 
 we desire to indorse their statements. 
 
 .1. I). KoilINSON. 
 .IaMKS (;n.MM)KR. 
 (iKO. \V. HlAIB. 
 1). C. HlI'LKY. 
 
 (Pnrapr.iph 91.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. F. L. BODINE. OF PHILADELPHIA. REPRE- 
 SENTING MANUFACTURERS OF CYLINDER GLASS. 
 
 Fkidav, January s, ISI97. 
 
 Mr. BodijME said: ]Mr. riiainnan and gentlenien of the j-ommittee, I 
 appear on behalf of manufacturers of cylinder window glass, unpol 
 ished, and also of green and Hint bottle glass. They are allied iiulus- 
 tries, and nearly all the facts ai>ply to the same glass with tiieexcej»tioii 
 of a difference in degree. Cyliiuler window glass is a higher manufac- 
 ture, and a higher degree of skill is nsrd in its pnnlnction. and the 
 niaterials are somewhat liiglHT in their character: and tin- dilVerences 
 in the operation consist simjjly after the glass has been made, (»f work- 
 ing one into a cylinder to be tiatlened into a sheet, or blowing the glass 
 in a mold to be finished with the lip to the b(»ttle. As we have some 
 accurate statistics on tlie subject of cylinder window glass, I will sjicak 
 of that i)rinci[>ally, and when> there are any ditVerences in regard to 
 the bottle glass I will call attention thereto. 
 
 The present duties on the cylinder window glass were reduced in 
 1894 from Ig cents per pound by sizes to 3i cents, under the old law, to, 
 under the present rates, 1 cent i>er ixuind to L'i cents, an average 
 reduction of seven-tenths of a cent ]>er pound. The elfect of this re- 
 duction has been, first, to reduce the wages partly, only to meet the 
 reduction; to reduce the amount of i)roduct: to reduce "the amount of 
 revenue, and operating furnaces in the country at an absolute loss.
 
 CYLINDER WINIiOW GLASS. 249 
 
 Tlie oxtrenie low iiricoof iiiatnials. to^^etlier with tlio partial reduction 
 ill the rate of wa;,u*s. liave enabled the inanutaeturers to hold on with 
 hope of » ehanK«-. Without that chan<re a further reduetion in the 
 wages will be re<iuisite, and it will be doubtful, as the whole cost of 
 glass is wages, if it can be continued in this country under the Ameri- 
 can system of wa;,'es if the IJelgium system comes in competition at 
 about one thinl our rate.. 
 
 \\ hen this reduction in duty was made the price of glass declined by 
 Aiiinican maniifacturrrs simply selling their i)io<luct rather than be 
 driven out of business and waiting to see how we could adjust our- 
 selves. That decline reduced tli«' imjxirts very materially and its elVect 
 upon the manufacturers was that more than half of them in the Tnited 
 States to day are probably bankrupt; not admittedly so, but it is a fact 
 nevertheless*. As soon as the inanutaeturers reached that condition as 
 a result of the tirst year under the Wils(.n bill, they fotind it absolutely 
 necessary, for them'to run at all. that ther should advance their rates, 
 and they tried to get a small advance while hoping that better things 
 might c«une. As soon as this advance was ma<le, the imports increased — 
 I am speaking now of the last rep<»rt I have from the I'.ureau, which 
 gives the ten months of IS'.).", contrasted with the ten months of IS'.tO up 
 to the end of Novend>er — the imports increased fnun LSIC. at theperiod 
 of extreme depression. As soon as tlu' prices were advaiued .'» or K) 
 cents the imi»orts were increased over To i»er cent, and as a result dur- 
 ing IS<h; a considerable iMUtiiui of the manutacturers of this country 
 have been shut (h>wn and those that have run have been »>perated but 
 about half of the time. 
 
 This indicates the eflect of the law of 1S04 upon the cylinder window- 
 glass interest. This interest is one natural to the country. In more 
 than a <lo/.en States all the materials necessary for its manufa<-tun' are 
 accessible. It is not an infant industry. They are manufacturing in a 
 large number (»f States. Tliey have a capa<-ity greater than any other 
 country in the world, and tlu'y are prei)ared to supply all the glass that 
 can be used in this country, with great conii)etiti<Mi lietweeii the manu- 
 factories already established. They not oidy have the cai>acity, but 
 they have their organized industry. The kintwledge of tln' industiy is 
 thoroughly understood and the very latest and the very best methods 
 of the woVhl have been adopted in the principal glass factories and 
 nearly all the factories here, ami there is no reason to day why any glass 
 should be imi»orted. excei>t the fact that American wages are not as 
 low and can not be brought as low aiul perhaps it is not desirable they 
 should be as low as the Belgians. This ditference iu wages is not 
 conlined to the skilled labor. 
 
 While this is a large )>roportion of our cost, varying in ditVerent parts 
 of the country from V2 to .".•_• or even a higher per cent, that variation is 
 largely because of the dillerent <-ost of luel in dilVerent States in ditVer- 
 ent parts of the country. In Indiana fuel is a very small a<count. In 
 the Hast it is very large, so that throws to wages a larger per cent of 
 their cost than it'wouM in the Kast, but taking the average, 4.") to 50 
 per cent througliout the country is the proportion of skilled labor. 
 There is as much paid for labor in the manufacture of glass in this 
 country that is unskiUed as is paid for the skilled. W^e pay at the 
 works— ami the «lata I am giving are taken from the books, and every 
 item can be verilied— we i>ay at the works al)out l*«) to 25 per cent for 
 unskilled labor of our total cost, and there is paiti in the digging of the 
 sand, mining of the coal, cutting ni' timber, and all of the other arti- 
 cles they use as much more for unskilled labor— 1 am calling all unskilled
 
 250 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 that are not highly skilled in a special business— so our total cost for 
 labor in making glass is from 85 to 90 per cent of it, without machinery, 
 all labor, and half of that is unskilled labor. 
 
 We have to compete with the Belgian skilled labor with wages of 
 about a mark and a half a day, as compared in this country with .*1..0O 
 a day. Thereisaditl'erenceof 2(Kj per cent, or nnnt- than that. It is the 
 difl'erence between 40 cents and $1.50 per day or $L' a day, which makes 
 300 per cent and over, and tlie ditlerence in skillcMl wages is from 100 
 to 200 per cent. Now, it is evident we can not compete with those wages 
 without something to make up the difference, ajid the only thing which 
 can make up that difference is a duty. This has been tried in the past 
 and its effects are known. It has made cheaper glass for every con- 
 sumer in the country by high rates of duty or what were called high 
 rates under the act of 1890. In 1873 the Ibreign invoiced price of glass 
 on board at Antwerp in gold was 5.57 cents per jtound. In 188."^ it was 
 reduced because of the (lev«'lopment of the American n)anufacturer to 
 3.16 cents per pound. 1 am giving the Bureau of Statistic's figures. 
 In 1893 it was reduced to 2.3 cents per iwund. In 1894 it wa« reduced 
 to 2.1 cents. 
 
 I took periods often years, and then I brought it up to 1894. Since 
 that, in 189G, the figures have advance<l, because of the diminished 
 American competition, and the rate for the ten months of 181H) was 2.37 
 cents, an advance from the lowest rate of 13 ]»er cent and besides an 
 increase in the importations of 70 per cent in (jiiantit.y. In other words, 
 the American consumer of glass in this country is |iaying but three- 
 eighths of the price they pai<l in 1873, and that was «lone by Aineri«an 
 competition, and it is reasonable to expett it. Merchants do business 
 to get as much as they can, and not as little as they can. The fon-ign 
 manufacturers are not dilferent from other jjcoplc in that particular. 
 And therefore, the fact ai)i)»'ars, it has cheapeue<l the cost to th«' con- 
 sumer, as foreign glass is no longer a necessity, but a luxury, ami it is 
 not imported on any other ground than because there is a prejtidice in 
 its favor,for the quality is no better. and American production is beyond 
 any possible consumi)tion for years to co;n»'. 
 
 The actual product to day, although all are not running, is at a 
 higher rate than has ever been the consum])tion in the United States 
 of both American and foreign glass combined. \Ve can supply all the 
 trade of this country and we have a surplus which will insure that the 
 price will be kept as low if not lower than can be alTorded. As to 
 the materials, soda ash and suli)hate of soda, they are being made here 
 very largely. There are two other items which'l omitted to mention 
 in their proper connection — one being the interest rate, which is a large 
 matter. A plant on the other side costs about half what it co.st« to 
 construct on this side, and the interest rate on the other side would 
 not average more than two-thirds of the interest rate on this side. 
 That ditierence alone would be sullicient to i)ay the interest on the 
 capital invested there, and we have to i>av that interest when we make 
 the glass. 
 
 There is one other very important consideration. The foreign manu- 
 facturers have a world-wide market, and over there thev have long 
 est:ablished connections, not only ha\iiig the trade of Kurope, but Asia, 
 Africa, and South America, and they, in getting that trade, knowing 
 that the competition was from this' countrv, svsrematicallv charge a 
 ^uch higher price for shipments to those countries than thcV do Ut the 
 
 i!v 1 ^^^^t^s- That is not a matter of mere assertion. That'is a matter 
 pubhshed constautly in their home pai>ers of r.elgium. For instance, 
 where they are quoting for shipment to those countries 70 discount,
 
 CYLINDER WINDOW GLASS. 251 
 
 24 to 25 net, they are quoting for shipment to the United States 85 and 
 8«) discount, or 14 net, or which is about one-third lower than the Bel- 
 gians sell tlircc fourths or four tifths of the product to other nations, 
 and 1 understand they have within a short time held a meeting in which 
 they still insist they will take the American trade, no matter what the 
 loss. They hope to drive us out entirely, and then the country will be 
 Hooded. IS'ow, under these conditions we think it is reasonable, and it 
 certainly is necessary, to have not less than the old rates of the bill ol 
 1890, with some adjustments to meet changed conditions. This changed 
 condition is that i)ractically during recent years there has been a great 
 deal of increase in the amount of large sizes of glass. They used to 
 be considered as luxuries, and they are imi)orted at very much less than 
 we can atlord to sell at, and when the brackets in the old law were 
 framed, the amount of this business was not nearly what it has become, 
 and therefore some changes of these rates ai)pear to be necessary, but 
 all these details we propose to submit to you in a statement, \\hich will 
 include the proposed rates we ask — the McKinley rates, with some 
 additions. 
 
 On the subject of bottle glass, green Hint, and Hint glass bottles, as I 
 have said, the industries are almost identical, and it is evident that in 
 the final form tiiat the greatest skill isretiuired in the window glass and 
 finer material, and the dilVenMice in the duties is one of degree an«l not 
 of fact. All the circumstances in establishing an industry that is now 
 thoroughly piejtared to meet all the consumption demands I alhnb'd to, 
 and the competition of tlie imjxtrted, securing the lowest i)ri<e the Ameri- 
 can conditions admit ot, apply to bottle glass the same as to window 
 glass. This is as to the untilled bottles. There is another feature, 
 where they come in tilknl. That is the large part of the cost of many 
 imported articles. There are a number of articles, some free and some 
 with an ad valorem duty, that are and can be brought in, without refer- 
 ence to the cost of the*cont«'nts, at a lower rate than bringing in the 
 naked bottles; such as ginger ale. 
 
 .Mr. McMiLLiN. lielbre Mr. liodine concludes his statement I desire 
 to ask him one additional (|uestion. The first l)racket was reduced from 
 47 to 'M per cent; but tin* importation, instead of increasing, fell from 
 $37(),(>(K> to .'«'.S32,()0(>. 1 read from the statement showing the importa- 
 tions of IS'.).', and ISIX). The lirst bracket of section 91 is the one 1 am 
 referring to. 
 
 Mr. BoDiNE. It is true the importations under all brackets have fallen 
 oft", and that was due tt» the extreme low prices in this country and the 
 general dullness in building. It has been so in window glass, as in 
 everything else. Buildings are always done under contract, and the 
 glass .required for them is not wanted for six months after contracted 
 for, or, possibly, a year after the contracts are made. So the effect is 
 not so immediately important on glass as it is afterwards, and it is the 
 observation of the trade that the great depression in window glass 
 comes the year after the changes. It is also true that a revival does 
 not come until a year after a revival has come in other branches. 
 
 Mr. Dalzkll. Isn't it a fact that while the values of the importations 
 under that first bracket are less than the values in 1803, the quantities 
 imported are larger— 13,000,000 pounds in 1896 against 12,778,000 
 pounds in 1893. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. To be accurate, 12,777,000 and 13,154,000— that is, 
 between the years 1893 and 1896. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. In 1896 the (piantity imported was greater than the 
 quantity in 1893, although the value is less, and the revenue received
 
 252 SCHEDULE B. — EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 by the Government on tlio greater (luantity imported in 1800 is nearlN 
 $40,()0(> less tlian under the act of l.sno. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Then under the second bracket the rate was rethiced 
 from 100 per cent to 81* per cent, leaving oil' fractions. The importa- 
 tions were about the same. But the value of importations fell olV from 
 8270,000 to $-l33,0()0. The next bracket was reduced from 120 percent 
 to 100.77 per cent and the fallinj:: oft" was from .?;>1;{,(MM» worth to 
 $213,000 worth. The next bracket was reduced from 124 to llKJ per 
 cent. The falling off of imports under this was from $117,000 to 
 $72,000. The next bracket was reduced from 110 per cent to l»."i i>er 
 cent, and there was a falling otT of from .^324.0tH) to *2ir,,(MK) in 
 imports. The next bracket was reduced from 20 per cent to 1 1 i)er 
 cent, and there was a falling oil" in imjiorts of from i*13,0(M> to jj«12,(MK> 
 worth. The next was reduced from 27 i»er cent to 17 i>er cent and the 
 importations under the act of ]S!»;5— the higher rate of duty— were 
 $35,000, and umler the low rate of duty were ^ItN^MK), The next brat ket 
 remained substantially the sanu- and ihe falling otV was from i«|o,(KK) 
 to $12,000, and so on with that schedule. Now. how «lo you account 
 for the falling oil in all of the brackets in the way that you have 
 indicated? 
 
 Mr. BoDiNE. I can not speak absolutely in reganl to the different 
 years, because ] have seen no statistics and it is tlifllcult t«) make a 
 proper reply. The general principle would ap|»ly to all bra<'kets. 
 
 Mr. .Mc.MiLLiN. What rate of duty do you seek to have reimpose<lT 
 
 Mr. r.oDiNi:. We want the McKinley rates of duly, with one i>r tw«i 
 brackets added to .:ovei the new sizes, which are largely ma<le now. at 
 a i)roi)oi tionate late. I would liki'toadd a word «>r two to what I have 
 already said. These duties are constantly being n'duced toad vah»rem 
 rates, which, in absolute experience, are iitterly misleading. In ls73 
 the duty was re])orted by the I bureau (»f Statistics as 37 percent. .\ft4T 
 a reduction of iluty it was reporte<l at KM) |>er cent. Vet the duty is 
 less. That is because the foieign price luus been cut down, a« I aaid 
 this morning. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And tin* rates were sjjccifb'. wovo they? 
 
 Mr. r>(»i)iNE. They always have been. 
 
 Mr. McMii.iMN. Then the increase«l iHirccutage resulted from a 
 reduction of the foieign price! 
 
 Mr. BoDiNE. Yes. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE MANUFACTURERS OF CYLINDER 
 
 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 Wasiiincton. JauuartfS, 1897, 
 Committee on "Ways and ^Fkans: 
 
 The manufacturers of cylinder window glass, unpolished, resi)ectfully 
 submit the statement within of the serious injury to the industry by 
 the reduction of tarilf under the act of August 2S, isiM. and the re^isons 
 for restoring the duties levie«l under the act of 1^>00, with certain modi- 
 lications to meet changed conditions. 
 
 F. L. lioDiNE, of PhiladfUphia, Pa., 
 
 Hiprcfii )it!nil Kasttrn Mntiu/acturrrs 
 
 of Ciflituitr Wiudoir (iiass, I'upoUshcd, 
 James A. Chamuers, of Pittsburg, J'a., 
 
 licprescutinn Wcstrru Mdniif'iutKrnft 
 
 of Cylinder Wiiuioic Olasx, Unpoliahcd,
 
 CYLINDER WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 253 
 
 Duties on cylinder, .town, and commou wiu.low glass, unpolish.d, were reduced in 
 1894 Iroui the rules under the law of 1890, as follows: 
 
 DatiM, law of 1800. 
 
 11 crntii ixT ].. snptolOV 
 
 IJ .int.H jH-r 1 , up to 10 1. 
 
 '2| i«-iitii per 1 • ■ " "P t" -* ' 
 
 •A c«ut« jwr iK.uii.l o;. »iu-» ap lo 24 h\ ■ '> H" 1 < " 
 
 3^ cent* i>er |>ound on »inr« above 24 by 30 mcbea 
 
 Duties, Uw of 1894. 
 
 1 c«nt per pound . . 
 IJ coiits i>cr iiound 
 IJ cent!* per iiouiid 
 
 2 c«-iit« pi-r pound . 
 2| ci'titB per jH>uud 
 
 Reduc- 
 tion. 
 
 Cent. 
 
 An averaee reduction of seven-tenths cent i)er pound. 
 
 The reHult has been that wa^es have been redu. eci. furnaces have l.een operated at 
 a hi produ. tiun has l.ecn de. uaned, rev.-uue has fallen ml. extre.ne low prues for 
 mater ilH, and Ian;- reduet i,.n of wa«e«. asKiste.! n.anufa.turer. to continue part pn.d- 
 Tt tl ouL'h at lo«.. in hope of change. If preM-nt rates ot .luty are not nierease.l 
 advan . t' cohI ol n.aterialH. even w.th still further reduet.on in wa«e«. wjll conj,.el 
 verv larL-e .l.-. reane in .Vn.er.can pio.luct. The reduction ol duties coinpelled leduo- 
 
 on ..f pri.es to prevent a .1 1 of imports and eause.l >"^««;-;;-/':,^ ''''[;';;!;' ^^, 
 
 ufi.turerH. These very low i-rin-s ^Teatlv reduced imports for W.,. Alter lari,e 
 osses and after having re.l.ued wa;,es 2J per cent and n.at.;rialH still more, nmnulae^ 
 turers t" e-cape universal bankruptcy, were ol.li^ed to both re.luce product and 
 .Tease price! when in.p.Tts, according to Bureau of Statistics reports for ten 
 months ending October, increased T<> per cent in WH\ as compared with \m>. 
 
 At tl e salue^in.e Aineri.an pro.luct'dc. reased. so that lor 181-; l'"tthree-fourth« ot 
 the capa. itv of the country has been operat. d, and that only averaued half produc . 
 •o lions in the I nited Stat<^ favor the production here of all glass consuuud 
 All a e ials are found or manulacture.l in a large nunilx-r ol .Mates Knowledge 
 an 1 organization of th- industry is c<unpl.te. The n.ost economical "'«^ - ->;;;;: 
 ufacture are established. The M»"l'ty is equal to the imported, t apacitj t. pr 
 d ice is bevond the largest consumption of American and lore.gn glass .omb.ned. am 
 Ts ireater-than in anv other country, lnrna.es now in operation in the I me. 
 St aes have capacitv greater than h^ ev.-r b. en consumed of Amen, an an. imported 
 c ais c mbi, Tin :\ddi.i..n to whi-h a large capacity is idle or abaml..ne.l Amen- 
 can maZfaci.reil ask su. h duties as will o.lset the higher wages under the American 
 » ste I as compared with th.me pai.l in Helgium. besi.les the high.r inlere* rates in 
 UieUniJ^d States and the lower pri.es ma.le by foreign n.anu.a, turers for sh.pmen s 
 to tlie l-nited States, through bett-r prices re.eived in their home and other markets 
 •when- comitetition .Iocs not ontnd their rates. , , /• » „> 
 
 Wa-esdilVerenc- in the Inite.l States, by a.tual figures taken from manufacturers 
 bo.,ks:anu.unt^ to from .iJ to 7.^ j.er .•ent ..f the t..t«l cost, and there is also the large 
 waiies ditVerence for mining an.l cleaning sand. .,uarrying an.l gnn.ling tie lime- 
 stone, manufa.turing the sulphate of s..da ..r soda ash, mining the c.al, cutting an.l 
 manufacturing the lumb.T. an.l tran.sp..rting tht^se t^ the lurna.es. amounting to a 
 large pr..p..rtion ..f their f.tal cost. The total wages pai.l at the lurnac.-s ami in 
 prei-arati.ui and transj.ortati.m of materials amount to lully 8;. per cent ol the total 
 cost, an.l represent alm..sl exclusively tlie cost of gla.HS. , . ,. i i , 
 
 In Helgium. with which w.- principally compete, the wages for the ordinary labor 
 of mining, pr.-parati..n of materials, and han.lling them at the lurna.es (whi.h is 
 larclv don.« by w..men ) are U to L' francs per day, compan<l with the Amen.an 
 Btan.lard of *1 to $2 a .lay. a .iilVer.n.e of :m per cent or more on '-">"'0" Ij! ;;;- 
 while skilh'd labor is from 100toJ(«» p.r .ent high.r in the I uited Stat.-s Ihese 
 difVerences re.,uire higher rat^s of duty, which are justitied by results seen in the 
 
 ^"specific duties on window glass have been assessed f..r many years, an.l arc neces- 
 sarv to secure fair administration, as well as for pr.dection during *>'"«« «f«J.^''J 
 deppssion. wh.n nu.st neede.l. A.l valorem duties are never re lable and al^^ais 
 misleading. 1 he sp.-ili.- dutv on win.l.)w glass wa.s reporte.l by the Hureau ol Sta- 
 ?;; csi«fH73a.s e.uivalent to ST per e.-nt a.l valorem and ,n ^^''^ '-.^/"Vi ; d'bc. n 
 UK) per cent ad vah.rem. and vet actual duties had not advanced, but ha.l be. n 
 redu'ced. The eflect ..f duties siulicient t.. protect "-'""»'''• VrTinrl^^ofStSics 
 ing this year's f.,reign invoice cost with prevn.us years. Ihe Bureau of btatistics 
 reported the average foreign cost (.in gold) as follows: ^^^^^ 
 
 per pound. 
 
 ,o-^ 5.57 
 
 18<3 3 16 
 
 1 w;-? 9 30 
 
 l^!'3 2! 10 
 
 1894 2 37 
 
 For ten months ending October, Ib'JG
 
 254 SCHEDULE B. EAETHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 By which it appears American competition forced down foreign manufacturers' 
 price for shipment to United States from 5.57 cents per pound in 1873 to 3.16 cent* 
 per pound in 1883, to 43 per cent reduction; to 2.30 cents per pound in 1893, to 58 per 
 cent reduction ; to 2.10 cents per pound in 1894, to 6l' per cent reduction. Foreign 
 manufacturers paid the duty, and not American consumers. 
 
 The reduction in tariff in 1894 having compelled a, reduction of American product, 
 foreign prices, as shown bv above table, advanced from 2.1 centii per pound in 1x94 to 
 2 37 cents per pound in 1896, equal to 13 per cent. Destroy American competition, 
 and the cost of imports is increased. The inevitable result is thus demonstrated— 
 tariff sufficient to protect forces down the prices of foreign glass as low as the nor- 
 mal conditions of the country permit its manufacture. The tariff reduced below 
 rates to protect the American manufacturers tirst compels very low ]irice« and lossea, 
 then compels reduced product or stoppage of American furnaces, when prices of 
 foreign manufactures advance, yet without justifying the start of American fur- 
 naces, as foreign prices would again reduce prices below cost. 
 
 Insufficient tariff, therefore, gives the control of the American market to foreij^ 
 makers through their lower wages, less cost of plant, and of interest and repairs; 
 besides the enormous advantage of better, nearer markets, where, a« their own 
 papers show, are constantly quqted higher prices than for United States shipments. 
 
 Duties on wimlow glass under the law of IXMC were as low as the labor cost and 
 average conditions in the United StateK will justify. Recent years have greatly 
 increased the use of very large sizes of glass, which cost much more. To meet this 
 change, corresponding duty on those sizes is nee«led. As, therefore, the develope<l 
 competition has greatly reduced the cost to consumers, and it ample to continue to 
 keep prices as low, or lower, than a fair profit jtermit*, as the manufacture utilizes 
 large quantities of native materials to the general advantage of the country, gives 
 employment to large numbers of both skillcil and unskilled workmen, ancl as the 
 revenue from imjtorts of ;:la«8 may Justly l>e higher on arti< les which are only luxu- 
 ries, and the result of prejudice in favor of forei;;n goods, manufacturers of window- 
 glass urge that the duty on cylinder window gluAs, Jinpolisheil, be assessed at the 
 rates following, which are the same as in the act of 1890, with the additional brack- 
 ets, of large sizes, at corresponding rat«'S: 
 
 "Unpolished cylinder, crown, and common window gla^s, not exceeding ten by 
 fifteen inches scjuare, one ami three-eighths cents per pound; above that, ami not 
 exceeding sixteen by twenty-four inches square, one ami seven-eighths eent.s jier 
 pound; above that, and not exceeding twenty-four by thirty inches sciuare, two and 
 three-eighths cents per pound; above that, an<l not eicee<ling twenty-four by thirty- 
 six inches square, two and seven-eighths cents per pound; above that, and not 
 exceeding thirty by forty inches square, three and three-eighths cents per pound ; 
 above that, and not excelling forty by sixty inches square, three and seven-eighths 
 cents per pound; above that, four and three-eighths cent per ]>ound: Proridrd. That 
 unpolished cylinder, crown, and common window glass, imported in boxes, shall con- 
 tain fifty sqnare feet, as nearly as sizes will permit, and the duty shall be compute<l 
 thereon according to the actual weight of glass. 
 
 "Cast polished plate glass, silvered or unsilvered, ami cylinder, crown, or common 
 window glass, when ground, obscured, frosted, sanded, enameled, beveled, etched, 
 embossed, engraved, stained, colored, or otherwise ornatnented or decorated, shall 
 be subject to a duty of ten per centum ad valorem in addition to the rates otherwise 
 chargable thereon." 
 
 WTNDOW GLASS. 
 
 (Paragraph 91.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. SIMON BURNS, PRESIDENT OF THE WINDOW 
 GLASS WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA. 
 
 Friday, January 8, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Burns said: Mr. Chairman and pentlomen of the coniniittee, we 
 present to you the workers' side of the tarilV (juestion and the benefits 
 and injuries that we see in the impo.^inp of duties, so far as our trade 
 is concerned. In presenting: the case of the workers to you, we make a 
 brief statement, and as I go along I will be glad to answer any (piestion. 
 
 The Wilson bill, after it had taken etVect, forced on the window glass 
 workers a reduction of 22i to 28 per cent, among the four branches of 
 trade which is known as the four skilled branches employed in the
 
 WINDOW GLASS. 255 
 
 window glass bBsiness, forming a consolidated organization under one 
 general head. 
 Mr. Burns then read the following paper: 
 
 The industry which we represent is one that requires not only a protective duty to 
 enable the workmen to compete with the foreign product, but it also requires the 
 highest class of skill coupled with hard labor. The amount of labor and hardships 
 that are attached to this trade are not understood by many. They give it bat a 
 pasding thought and arrive at a hasty conclusion without going into the details, and 
 the same may be said of the amount of wages made by tne window glass workers. 
 The average wages are not considered or figured on. They usually figure on the' 
 actual time at work, instead of twelve months. We most respectfully submit to 
 you our reasons why the tarift'on window glass should be increased. 
 
 We desire to state that on the passage of the Wilson bill, which waa a reduction 
 of each bracket in the schedule amounting on an average of 27^ to 3l2 percent, mak- 
 ing an average of 30 per cent, this enormous reduction from the McKinley bill had 
 its disa-strous (•ft"e<t on our trade and the business in general. Immediately after the 
 pa.sHage of the Wilson bill the window glass workers were forced to accept a reduc- 
 tion of from 'J'Ji per cent to 2H per cent. The average wages made by all the window 
 glass workers, figuring on twelve months to the vear, under the McKinlev bill was 
 $79.27. 
 
 The average wages made by all the same class of workmen under the Wilson bill, 
 covering a period of two year.**, figuring at twelve months, amount to $57.90 a month. 
 This shows a reduction in the amount of wages earned under the Wilson bill as com- 
 
 1)ared with the McKinley bill, of 27 per cent. The nnmber of weeks our workmen 
 lad employment for two years umler the McKinley bill was 78, or an average of 39 
 weeks per year. Tiie total number of weeks they h:vd employment for the same 
 time un«ler the Wilson bill was 82 weiks. or an average ol 31 weeks per year. 
 Hesides a largf reduction in wages and a loss of tiiuf to the workmen, there were a 
 nnmber of window-glass plants that did not operate that had run continually before 
 the passage of the Wilson bill. The increase in the imjiorts of 1><9G over 1895 shows 
 an average of .30 per cent. The window glass business has grown to such an extent 
 that the producing caj)acity is large enough to 8uj)ply the demand of the American 
 market, liut to do this and give steady employment to all interested, you must 
 advance the tarifl on window glass to a figure as high an it was under the McKinley 
 bill. The manufacture of window glass is largely developed, covering sixteen 
 States and Icrritories. There is a large amount of capital invested and a largo 
 Dumlier of men depending on the business for a living. 
 
 We consider that it is a great ileal better for the American workmen to have plenty 
 of work an<l high wages, even though they must pay high prices for everything that 
 they need, than to have cheap prices, low wages, and little or no employment. You 
 gentlemen who come from manufiicturing .•>tates, uniierstand what protection has 
 done for the industries uf this country, and how ner-essary it is to protect the work- 
 men against foreign competition. We realize that you do not wish to be burdened 
 with long statements. You desire facts in regard to our condition, and the work- 
 men we rejireseut. This we have endeavored to do honestly, and to the best of our 
 ability. We know that you are going to do something to improve the condition of 
 this country, and belter the condition of many. We believe the best way to do this 
 is to restore the McKinley taritl. 
 
 BiMON Burns, 
 
 PreHdent. 
 Patrick Claret, 
 Georgk Ambos, 
 R. D. Kroeskn, 
 Frank B. Yourison, 
 ExtcutWe Board of the Window Gloat Worker^ Astociation. 
 
 Proposed schedule submitted by Mr. Burnt. 
 Stoee. Cents. 
 
 10 by 15 If 
 
 16 by 24 1| 
 
 24 by 30 2| 
 
 24 bV 36 2|' 
 
 30 bv 40 3jJ 
 
 40 by 60 3 J 
 
 All above 4|
 
 256 SCHEDULE B.— EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 I would say tliat we would like to have, iu addition to the old Mclviu- 
 lej' taiiir. the additional biackrts i)ut in to proteet the inanulacture of 
 the laiuer .size of glass in this country. This rountry ha*; establish- 
 ments which can uianulacture what is e<iual to any ghiss in the world. 
 They can make as good glass as can be produced in any country. 
 
 Tiie condition of our workmen since the passage of the Wilson bill 
 lias been such that many ot them have been unable to secure employ, 
 ment at all. There are a great man\ in different portions of the c«>un- 
 . try— in the East and North, and also in the West — win) have had no 
 employment, or scarcely any employment, for the last few years. They 
 have been unable to keep themselves. We have been assisting them 
 from time to time in hopes that something might be done to better the 
 condition of the window glass trade and give our i)eopU' employment. 
 It is a matter of fact that tiiey are at the present time, to a large extent, 
 unable to find work. And if they shouhl find a plai-e to work, tliey are 
 unable in many cases to furnish themselves with transportation to reach 
 the place where they will be al>le t<» get employment. 
 
 We have furnished transjjortation largely during the past two or 
 three years for our workmen. We have furni>lied ;i very great many 
 during this year, ^^'ehave a lot of idle men on oui han«ls at this titne 
 who can not secure employment. \\'e tliink under the McKiidey tariff 
 the American nnmufacturer can run. They can start all their phtnt8 
 again. There are plants enough in this country to nninufaettire all the 
 glass required, but there are a huge number ot them idle just now, and 
 there is no leason why the American manulacturer and the Anu-rican 
 worknuui can not supply the country with all the glass nee<led. 
 
 'Jhat is about all 1 have to say, and 1 will be ghul to answer any 
 questions that may be put to me by gentlemen of the committee. I 
 want to say we represent all tlu' window glass com]>anie8 in this 
 country. 
 
 j\lr. McMiLLiN. To what sizes do von proiK>se to apply the new 
 brackets? 
 
 I\lr. Burns. To the largest sizes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Von want to put a bracket in that is covere<l by the 
 one reading "24 by .'{<» and not exceeding 24 by 3lJ"; is that where 
 you want this new bracket? 
 
 :Mr. Burns. Yes, sir; we want to a<ld the bra<ket^ 30 by 40. 
 
 INlr. iSTEELE. Twenty four by .'.O and not ex<e»'ding 24 by .^0. 
 
 Mr. Burns. 1 want to add two brackets, .in by lo and 40 by DO. 
 
 Mr. ]\I('MiLLiN. All above 24 by ;?(J, and want to embrace iu tbose 
 two brackets 
 
 Mr. Burns. Yes, sir; with the understanding we have an "all above" 
 bracket. 
 
 ]Mr. McMiLLTN. Under tiiat bracket, all above 24 by M) inches, there 
 was imported .'<321,()lKi in lsi»;{ umler the McKinley Act and only 
 $21(),0()b under the Wilson Act, and of (juantities tln're was imported 
 12,118,00b ])ouiuls under the McKinley Act and oidv (),4<l{,000 pounds 
 under the Wilson Act, leaving the iVactions off. *It seiMus that the 
 importations have fallen ofl' under the verv number you seek to put a 
 higher duty on. 
 
 Mr. Bi KNs. Y^es, sir; to a certain extent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you propose to make the duty i)rohibitoryt 
 
 Mr. Burns. No, sir; we do not want to make it i»roliibitorv. 
 
 Mr. Mc'MiLLiN. There was brou-ht in of one kind onlv .*;$(";. (MM); why 
 do you want to increase it? And there has been a fa'lling oft" of the 
 amount imported. Why do you want to increase that rate if you do 
 not want to make it i>roliibitory ?
 
 WINDOW GLASS. 257 
 
 Mr. Burns. The importations, as you say, usually decrease iu the 
 larp* sizes iu the amount of glass that is imported iuto the country. 
 
 Mr. McMii.LiN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. IU KN.s. And the same reason, I presunie, would apply to the 
 otli«*rs in the smaller sizes. You refer to what vear? 
 
 .Mr. McMii.LiN. 18a{, the McKlnley law. and'lS'X], the Wilson Act>— 
 the two acts under which they were both in full operation. 
 
 Mr. liriJNS. Tiicre is one way to account for tiiat. 1 think in 1894-95 
 there was but little lar^^e j;lass made in llelf^inm. That was when 
 there was a strike <»vei- there, aiul there was not so much produced. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. How about 189G? 
 
 Mr. HruNs. In l.s9r)-9»; they had their strike there, and curtailed 
 their production to such an extent that I presume it caused this falling 
 off of oui- importations in the larger sizes. 
 
 Mr. Mc-MiiJ.iN. ]'>ut you say that you do not want to exclude impor- 
 tations. You want a jtrohibitory duty, yet there has been a falling off 
 in imjKirts. »Still you want to increase tiie rate? 
 
 Mr. IJIRNS. W »• want a prohibitory dut\ snllicient to ])rotect Ameri- 
 caii Workmen, so they can make living wages and have some chance to 
 HUp|>ly tiie .\meri<*an market with this glass. 
 
 Mr. McM N.LIN. Hut the amount that comes in undi-r the new rate is 
 less than what came in under the old rate, and yet you want the old 
 rate. 
 
 .Mr. Btrns. Tliero is a very small amount of large glass made here. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLIN. I am speaking of wiiat is imported. 
 
 Mr. Hi KNs. Yes; and 1 iM'lieve tlie same rule would apply to foreign 
 comjKinies also. It is hard to make the largi* glass. In fact, there are 
 very tew men of ability and sulhcient skill to make the large sizes of 
 double thi«k plat«* to which thosi' luackets apply. 
 
 .Mr. TuuNKU. Is it made now iis formerly — made into a cylinder and 
 cut? 
 
 .Mr. Bi'RNs. Yes, sir. A large double thick is made that way, and 
 the number of workmen that can make that are very few indeed. 
 
 .Mr. Stkklk. In 1S9.{ there was a demand for this glass, while in 1896 
 there was n«)t a demand for hardly anything. 
 
 .Mr. liiKNS. Very little demand for glass at that time. 
 
 The Chairman. Yet the projxMtion of our consumption furnished by 
 foreigners, in view of our diminished consumption, has been greatly 
 in«rease«l ? 
 
 .Mr. Br KNS. YVs, sir. 
 
 Mr. .McMiLLiN. I have not been able to lind out what the domestic 
 I>ro(lnction of this glass is. Can you tell usf 
 
 Mr. Burns. No, sir: not of tliat size. 
 
 Mr. Mc.MiLLiN. Then you do not know whether or not the produc- 
 tion of glass in this country has decreased so nuich as the Chairman 
 suggests! 
 
 .Mr. HuivNS. We Judg«' it by the numl)er of men that were emi)]oyed 
 and the number now unemployed in making that j»articular ware. It 
 is, as 1 have said, a dillicult work, and tliere are but few men wh<) can 
 do it. A few years ago a big establishment woiiM have one, two. three, 
 or four men on this work, where today they only have one man engaged 
 on tliis particular size. Very few are able to make it. 
 
 Mr. Turner. You are a practical glass blower! 
 
 Mr. Burns. Yes, sir; a practical glass man. 
 
 Mr. Turner. For what rate of wages do you gcuerally work! Are 
 you one of the lirst-class blowers t 
 T n 17
 
 258 SCHEDULE B. EAETHS, EARTHENWARE, AKD GLASSWARE. 
 
 Mr. Burns. I prefer to leave that to somebody else. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Please state wbat your usual earnings are, if you do 
 
 not object. , • • . 
 
 Mr. Burns. Do you mean the average rate of wages at this timer 
 
 Mr. Turner. I mean what wages do you get. 
 
 Mr. Burns. Well, the last work that 1 did I averaged about $78 per 
 month, and out of that $78 I had to pay an assistant $2 a week. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Why did you require an assistant? 
 
 Mr. Burns. Simply because the work can not be done without the 
 assistance of a helper. It is customary for every blower to have an 
 assistant — what they call a snapi)er. 
 
 Mr. Turner. An apprentice? 
 
 Mr. Burns. Yes, sir, to a certain extent; apprentices (Ire selected 
 from this class of workmen. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. You say you received that much wages the last time 
 you were employed. How long ago has that been? 
 
 Mr. Burns. Alter tlie i)assage of tin* ^^■ils()n bill I was employed in 
 Indiana prior to taking tlie ])resent position I hohl. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Do your wages always respond !<• im n-Msrs in the 
 tariif? 
 
 Mr. Burns. I think so, to a great extent. 
 
 Mr. Turner. When the tarilf is raised your wages rise! 
 
 Mr. Burns. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Did your wages rise when the .M<lvinley act passed! 
 
 Mr. Burns. I tliinii so; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Turner. What were your wages then in the same class of work; 
 do you remember? 
 
 Mr. Burns. No; I can not rec.ill tliat. Our list has changed some- 
 what since that time. We have adopted a new list with some changes 
 since then. I could not give you the exact tigures. 
 
 Mr.TuRNER. Your business has perhaps felt the general depression, 
 as 1 judge from your answer to the Chairman; the demand for glass 
 has fallen olf! 
 
 j\Ir. Burns. Yes, sir. The window glass business felt the dej^ression 
 like others, but I doul)t whether there is any business that sullered such 
 a reduction as the window glass business did. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. Wliat is tiie nature of a heli)ert 
 
 Mr. Burns. A young man, generally from L'i to 25 years old: and 
 some helpers are larger men and have been selected on account of tlieir 
 strength, as it is necessary to have strong men to helji the blowers, 
 especially those men who handle the large sizes of glass to which you 
 refer. 
 
 Mr. McMtllin. Does each man have to have a helper, or does o!ie 
 helper do the work for more than one man engaged on different workt 
 
 Mr. Burns. Each place, you might call it, has to have a helper to 
 help the men at that i)articular place. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You ]»ay him ."?'2 a week, you saidT 
 
 Mr. Burns. Yes; and the gatherer i)ays .*L' a week, and in some cases 
 the blower pays $4 to .<!"), and in a few cases more than that. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. That is, the ditlerent ones contribute to his compen- 
 sation ? 
 
 Mr. Burns. Yes; each one contributes. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Is the heat as detrimental to the workmen in this busi- 
 ness as to the blowers of glass bottles? 
 
 Mr. Burns. Yes, sir. I do not think there is any business where the 
 heat is more than it is in ours.
 
 WINDOW GLASS. 259 
 
 Mr. TuKNKR. Then your bttbiuess is best carried on in the winter — in 
 extrniie coM weather? 
 
 Mr. JJi RNS. Yes; but at the same time the extreme cold is not the 
 best lor the men, because they go out in it after standing up before a 
 hot furnace and they are apt to catch cokl, having been overheated and 
 perspiring. Tliey can do more work in winter than in the warm weather. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE BOSTON PLATE AND WINDOW 
 
 GLASS COMPANY. 
 
 Boston, January 5, 1897, 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As importers and Jobbers of cylinder common window glass, we beg 
 U) recpiest that there be no advance in the rates of duties over those 
 now imposed on this article by Schedule H of the present hiw of August 
 28, l.SDi, and that if any <liange be made in the same there be a reduc- 
 tion of said rates, and for the following reasons: 
 
 The total yearly consumijtion <»f such glass in the United States is at 
 present about ;{,0(M»,(M»o to 3,r>00,0(K> boxes of oO scpiare feet each. .Of 
 this total there is imported about GOO,(K>() to 8(M>,()(K) boxes (of 50 square 
 feet). At the present rate of duty there is a i»roteetion to the American 
 manufacturers which enables them to supply about three fourths, at 
 least, of the total consumption. 
 
 The present duty is a specific <me, but as our own importations of this 
 article are at least as large in (piantity as those of any other importer 
 in the Inited States, they niay safely be taken as a guide to siiow what 
 ])en-enfage the rate of duty now paid on tlie total importations of this 
 article into this country bears to the foreign cost to the importer of the 
 sanu*. 
 
 The total duties paid by us on our total importations of common 
 cylimler window glass during the year ISIMI amounts to 91 ,^^ per cent 
 of the total cost abroad to us of these importations. This "total cost 
 abroad'' includes the cost there to us, on board stenmer, of all such 
 glass, and the cost of the l)oxes and envelopes in which it is packed. 
 In addition to the al>ove, there is the freight from Europe to this coun- 
 try and other charges. 
 
 The i>r»'sent tariff, therefore, gives the American manufacturers of 
 this article the enormous ])rotection of nearly IdO per cent over the 
 average cost abroad to tlie imjjorter. We beg also to strongly oppose 
 the adoption of any additional brackets or divisions to the present 
 tarift". it is now so adjusted that the rate on small-sized glass is lower 
 than that assessed on larger sizes. The small sizes are used principally 
 by the poorer classes of the community and for factories. Any increase 
 of duties on such sizes will bear heavily on these classes. Few, if any, 
 articles of such large use, ami the cost of whicli atiects the whole coin- 
 munity to the extent that <loes the cost of window glass, are protected 
 so enormously as is this article. 
 
 We have thought it best to state simply the above facts and not 
 trouble your committee with further figures' and details, trusting that 
 the above i>lain statement will be enough to convince your honorable 
 committee that an increase of duties over the present tariff is unwar- 
 ranted, and that a decrease of 1*5 per cent on all the schedules of the 
 present tariff would be lessening a tax which bears heavily on the liv- 
 ing and business expenses of the whole people, and would increase the
 
 260 SCHEDULE B.— EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 revenues of tlie Government by enabling us and other importers to 
 increase importations. 
 
 We would add that the business is conducted by us without any 
 combination or agreement on selling prices with any of our comi>etit<>rs 
 or Willi any maiiulacturers, and that the maiiuracturers abroad, from 
 whom we and other iniiM»rters obtain our sujtplics. sell in competition 
 with each other and without any combination on selling prices between 
 
 themselves. 
 
 Boston Plati: and Window Glass Co^ 
 By E. A. LI ILLS, rreaident, 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY VAN HORNE. GRIFFEN & CO., 0^ 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 New York, January 6, 1897. 
 CoivraiiTTEE ON Ways and Means: 
 
 The following is a statement of onr<M»mplete imiK)rtation8of common 
 window glass tor the year IS'.m;, with tull value of rach shipment, exact 
 duty paid, and the percentage ad valorem. It shows that (Uir tirm 
 paid an average ad valorem duly on our c«>mm(tn window glas.s impor- 
 tations for the year of ;>L* per cent. This should be argument enough 
 against any advance in duty on this article, either by change of rates 
 or brackets. We should prefer an ad valorem duty, as no Congressional 
 body would be likely to impose a duty of over ">(» per cent on an article 
 of common use, unless disguised under some specious specific iate«, as 
 at present, which amount to ncaily KHi per <-cnt wlien figure<l ad valorem. 
 
 Vajn Uubne, Gbipfen & Co. 
 
 Importationt of common irindow gla$$ by Van Ilorne, Griffem if- Co.. Sne York, for yr^r 
 
 Dat«. 
 
 Steamer. 
 
 January 9 St.Cuthbert ... 
 
 February 24 do 
 
 March 7 SL Enorh 
 
 March 25 liritUh King... 
 
 Aprils St, C'uthhfTt ... 
 
 April 29 St. Kn<>ch 
 
 May 7 Brili»h gurr-n . 
 
 May 21 St.('iithh4>rt ... 
 
 June 3 HritinhKing... 
 
 June22 Britiiihgup.ii. 
 
 July 5 St. IHithlwrt... 
 
 July 20 Itritinh KioK... 
 
 Augusta Britiih 4u««n 
 
 AuRHStlS St.Ciithl>«rt... 
 
 August 31 British KinK- ■ - 
 
 Septtnihcrl2 British yn«>*n . 
 
 September 28 St.Cuthbert... 
 
 October 12 Brit i»h King... 
 
 October 2:t British Quwn. . 
 
 ^,o^erabcrll St. Cuthbert ... 
 
 J. oveniber 20 British King. . . 
 
 Uecemberg British yuc<»n . 
 
 December 21 St. Cuthlwt ... 
 
 Total I 87,148.00 
 
 YtlOA. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 Per 
 ont. 
 
 K. 215 00 
 
 9S.04&.58 
 
 •3 
 
 4.f<10 00 
 
 4.S&0.96 
 
 91 
 
 2.810 00 
 
 2.6Ml.ff7 
 
 n 
 
 3. 270. 00 
 
 3.040.00 
 
 n 
 
 4. 5M. 00 
 
 4.412.06 
 
 9« 
 
 2. Mil. 00 
 
 a, 713. 47 
 
 91 
 
 2,(HIO.00 
 
 2,S«0.52 
 
 88 
 
 l,li<t 00 
 
 B96. 13 
 
 87 
 
 1,^03. UO 
 
 1.411.24 
 
 89 
 
 1,670.00 
 
 1. MO a 
 
 D3 
 
 1.2MS.00 
 
 1. 339. 77 
 
 104 
 
 740.00 
 
 745.39 
 
 101 
 
 1.C30.00 
 
 1.709 00 
 
 lOS 
 
 1 4*^ OO 
 
 1,4M 50 
 
 99 
 
 
 
 ini 
 
 .-, .,:,.. .-1 
 
 ^. " ■ 
 
 ^,, 
 
 3. 080. (K) 
 
 2.:i ■■ ■ 
 
 -- 
 
 4.770 i»o 
 
 S,7''-. 
 
 . 
 
 2,371 
 
 ; 
 
 
 4. «■: 
 
 
 
 2,1»'. 
 
 -' ■ 
 
 
 87, 148. 00 
 
 61. 641. 44 
 
 91
 
 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 2G1 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HOLBROOK BROS., OF NEW YORK. 
 
 New York, January 9, 1897. 
 ComiiTTEE ON Ways and Means: 
 
 We befj to take the liberty of entering our protest ajjainst any 
 increase in the duty on window glass, for tlie reason that we ehiim the 
 duty already excessive, being very nearly 100 per cent. Taking as an 
 average for the whole country our own importations for the past year, 
 you will see by the inclosed scliedule, which can be readily verified at 
 the customs department, that our average ad valorem duty is 08..")S per 
 cent. As an offset t<» Mr. H«»diiie's aigunieiit that the increase in 
 importation.s since the Wilson bill is over 70 per cent, we beg to give 
 you a list of the iniportations at this port of entry since 1890: 
 
 Boxes 
 
 1«90 ."194, 784 
 
 1H91 481,350 
 
 1892 522. 014 
 
 1893 4 30. 267 
 
 1894 .393.33.5 
 
 1 89.") 22*). 4 1 1 
 
 1896 337,274 
 
 We sM'count for the increase of 181)0 over IHVK') as being due to the 
 lockout by the manufacturers. 
 
 The total e<Misumpt ion of this country is about 4,000,000 boxes. per 
 year, and yon can readily see that the imjjortations amount to only 
 about one-seventh. It is needless for me to say that a large part of 
 this glass is consumed in building the poorer class of houses, and it 
 wotild therefore intlict a serious injnry to them as well as the tlorists 
 and gardeners, who are large consumers. 
 
 IIOLBROOK Uiios. 
 
 Importations of unpolithcd cylinder window glass by Holbrook Bros., from An twerp for 1S96. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Jannkry 3 
 
 Jaiiiinry 10. .. 
 Febniiity 4... 
 
 Mar.hT 
 
 March 'JO 
 
 April 8 
 
 April 28 
 
 Mav 7 
 
 May 22 
 
 Jane 4 
 
 June 22 
 
 Julv6 
 
 July 20 
 
 Auffunt .'I 
 
 Au>;uHt 1.") 
 
 Aujjunt 31 
 
 S*iitciiilM'r 12. 
 Septvinln'r 28. 
 
 October 12 
 
 October 24 
 
 November 6. . 
 Novoiiiber 2-1. 
 December 8 . . 
 December 19 . 
 
 Steamer. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Rialto 
 
 St. Ciithbert ... 
 Hritinh Kin;; . . 
 
 .St. Kn»>ch 
 
 KritiHh KinK-- 
 St.Cnthbert ... 
 
 St. Knocli 
 
 liritiHh Qiieeii . 
 .St. Cuthbert ... 
 Kritinh King. . . 
 Britinh Qiie«n . 
 St.Cnthbert ... 
 BritiBh Kinjj... 
 Ilritinh (jueen . 
 •St. Cuthbert... 
 British King.. 
 British Queen . 
 St. Cuthbert . . . 
 British King... 
 British Queen . 
 St. Cuthbert . . 
 British King. .. 
 British Queen . 
 St. Cuthbert . . . 
 
 Boxes. 
 
 2.521 
 1.255 
 1.H52 
 2.245 
 2.220 
 1,885 
 2.806 
 2,8:« 
 
 909 
 2, 931 
 3,678 
 4,800 
 1.&39 
 1,600 
 1,794 
 1,825 
 
 104 
 3, 032 
 1,484 
 1,716 
 2,190 
 3,091 
 2,507 
 3,488 
 
 Value. 
 
 54,287 
 
 $3, 105. 00 
 1,213.(K) 
 1, 09.5. 00 
 2. 408. 00 
 2, 795. 00 
 
 1, 773. 00 
 
 2, 698. 00 
 2,771.00 
 1.304.00 
 2. 749. 00 
 3, 347. (10 
 5, .'V40. 00 
 1,781.00 
 2, 199. 00 
 2, 330. 00 
 2, 45K. 00 
 
 193.00 
 3,715.00 
 
 1, 73(5. 00 
 1,701.00 
 2,924.00 
 4,231.00 
 
 2, 465. 00 
 4, 460. 00 
 
 60,991.00 
 
 Duty. 
 
 Per 
 cent. 
 
 ♦3,158.87 
 ^oa.v 54 
 1,332.28 
 2,312.23 
 2, 393. 42 
 1,872.49 
 2. 979. 32 
 2, 79S. 53 
 1,. 511. 20 
 
 2. 507. 90 
 
 3, 670. -10 
 6, 3.52. 61 
 1,6x7.71 
 1,801.20 
 2. 397. 10 
 
 2. 585. 47 
 171. 10 
 
 3, 647. 38 
 1,64S.03 
 1,701.79 
 2, 763. 94 
 3,817.62 
 2, 432. 38 
 4,485.49 
 
 60, 124. 00 
 
 101 
 
 101 
 
 96 
 
 85} 
 105 
 110 
 100 
 116 
 
 91J 
 1119] 
 
 96j 
 
 90J 
 
 82 
 
 102i 
 105 
 
 80 
 
 98 
 
 95 
 100 
 
 04 
 
 90 
 100 
 100 
 
 Arerage duty, about 98.M.
 
 262 SCHEDULE B. — EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 WIRE GLASS. 
 
 (Paragraph 93.) 
 
 New York. December 29, JSBG. 
 Committee on Ways and ^Means: 
 
 We desire to call the attention of your comniittee to a new article of 
 manufacture, viz, fluted, rolled, or rou;,'h plate glass, which contains 
 a wire netting within itself, or what is kii(>wn in the trade as wire glass. 
 This glass was not made at the time of the i>assage of the Wilson tariff 
 bill, but is a more recent invention, and thercfon' is not specified in the 
 present law. Tiie glass is, in all respects, the same as tinted, rolled, or 
 rough plate glass, as provided for by ]»aragraph U.i of the present law, 
 excepting that during the i»rocess of manuta<-ture a wire netting has 
 been embedded within it. We recjuest that your committee will specify 
 this glass in such manner that it will be properly j-lassified in para- 
 graph 9.'3, and that the same duties which are specitied for fluted, 
 rolled, or rough plate glass will be made to apj>ly to wire glass; and 
 we would suggest that the paragrajdi be made to read: 
 
 "Fluted, rolled, or rough plate glass, or the same contaiDing a wire 
 netting within itself." 
 
 We esi)ecially ask this in order to jtrevent tlie importation of such 
 glass " as a manufacture of glass" under jjaragrajdi 102, which provides 
 for a duty of 3") ]»er cent ad valorem. 
 
 We do not ask for any increase in the jiresent ratesof duty as provided 
 by paragra]>h \Y^, but are satislied witli the rates as therein mentioned. 
 
 We hoi)e your committee will grant our recjuest in giving jiroper 
 protection to this new and growing industry; and we remain, 
 
 Mississiri'i (Jlass Comtany. 
 
 E. W. IIUMPiiEEYS, Vice VrenidenU 
 
 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 (Pnracrnph 04.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN PITCAIRN. OF PHILADELPHIA. EEP- 
 RESENTING VARIOUS PLATE-GLASS COMPANIES. 
 
 Friday, January 8, 1S97. 
 
 Mr. PiTCATRN said : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of tlie committee, 
 from a very small indu.stry lilteen years ago the i)late glass business of 
 this country has develojjed into a large business, which now gives 
 employment, directly and indirectly, to at least lo.ouo ])ersons, and is 
 a striking example of what can be aeconi]»li>lie(l under a protective 
 policy, for, without any material change in the duty ]>rior to that fixed 
 by the Wilson bill, i)roteetion has established this very large in<lustry, 
 and comi)etition has reduced the cost to the consumer fn»m •i'l'.r.O ])er 
 foot, at the incei)tion of the business in this country, to an average 
 price of less than 50 cents per foot. So that while jilate glass was 
 originally considered a luxury, it has now become a necessity within 
 the reach of all. 
 
 We come to you as business men, apjireciating that the best interests 
 of the country demand that the new tariff bill shall be a conservative 
 one, and we are in favor of a measure that will stand the test of time 
 and retain the support of the country, and for that reason do not ask
 
 PLATE GLASS. 
 
 263 
 
 for a restoration of the old tariff, the McKinley bill having made no 
 material <;]iaiiixe in the previous tariff which had existed for years. 
 
 The Wilson bill made a reduction of 1') cents per square foot on the 
 fourth bracket of the plate-glass schedule, which covered fully 75 per 
 cent of the American product. On the next bracket (the third) it 
 made a reduction of 2A per cent per square foot; this bracket covered 
 15 per cent of the American product, so that you can readily see that 
 we sustained a very heavy reduction under the Wilson bill. 
 
 We do not ask for a restoration of any part of the cut that was made 
 on the fourth bracket, and while we would very much like to have the 
 small reduction that was made in the third bracket restored, we are 
 contiMit t4) leave this to the discretion of your committee. What we 
 do ask is some assistance on the first two brackets, which only cover 
 about 10 i>ercent of our product and which we have always been forced 
 to sell very much below the cost of pro<luction. In evidence of this 
 we have given a schedule of the imports of plate glass from LSS3 to 
 1SI>G, inclusive. The imports for 181UI are not subdivided into the 
 various brackets, as we have not yet received these figures from the 
 Treasury Department showing the subdivision. 
 
 Imports, in feet, of uiuilvered polished plate glass for the years ending June SO, ISSS, to 
 
 June SO, 1^96, inclusive. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Duty 3 
 ci-nu. 
 
 Duty 5 
 eeiiia. 
 
 1883 117,1>-J3 
 
 1884 208.499 
 
 IBW IW.IM 
 
 188« 137.317 
 
 1887 219.1«8 
 
 188% ; 151.294 
 
 1889 1 98,872 
 
 1890 83,810 
 
 1801 
 
 1892 
 
 1893 
 
 1894 1 
 
 170. 
 187. 
 148. 
 IM. 
 229. 
 •JM. 
 23<>. 
 193. 
 330, 
 210. 
 375, 
 177. 
 
 1895 857.289 1,569,278 
 
 18»« 
 
 Duty 8 
 cenU. 
 
 393,525 
 
 390.ii;to 
 
 378. 202 
 
 488,901 
 
 822.950 
 
 737, 647 
 
 792,810 
 
 956, 182 
 
 l,8h5. 152 
 
 1, 162, 855 
 
 1,8:18.408 
 
 890,094 
 
 Duty 25 cenU. Duty 50 cents. 
 
 852. 606 
 756. 778 
 762. tM-4 
 
 990. •::<■: 
 
 1, 2l*<'>. 2'.'^ 
 1. 422. r,-n 
 
 ;. 127. iiim 
 1. i:t2,fi'.i9 
 
 1. 2H4. .'.07 
 
 85«. :i2i 
 
 1,081.890 
 809.632 
 
 Dutv tH eenlJt. 
 1, 000, 577 
 
 1,477,378 
 
 1. 188.310 
 
 1,187.318 
 
 1,126.673 
 
 1, 7oC. 735 
 
 1, 387. 550 
 
 813. 902 
 
 447. 865 
 
 305. a*8 
 
 303. 5r>fl 
 
 346. 9:<8 
 
 213, 196 
 
 Duly SS emU. 
 162,084 
 
 Total. 
 
 3.011.678 
 2. 7-29. 189 
 2. rm, 697 
 
 2, 887. 156 
 4, 074. 178 
 3, 965, 573 
 
 3. OtKl. :!85 
 
 2. 82:<. 964 
 
 3. 628, 401 
 2. 538, 684 
 3. 442, .'>50 
 1, 890, 777 
 
 3, 089, 208 
 3, 349. 201 
 
 It is interesting to note that these imymrts have averaged about 
 3,(MH>,(>00 s(|iiare leet per year, and also that there has been less and less 
 of the large glass imported in recent years, and about a corresponding 
 increase in the imports of the small sizes. Hereon rests our request for 
 an advance in the duty on small glass. 
 
 The very character of the.se imports is in itself suflScient evidence 
 that the cost of import is less than the cost of manufacture in this 
 country, becau.se there is idle capacity enough in this country today to 
 jiroduce every foot of glass that is now being imported, and the matter 
 of cost is the only factor that jnevents the American plate-glass worker 
 from receiving the money which now goes abroad to |)ay foreign work- 
 men. Fully 1.50(1 men not now employed could be given steady work 
 in the manufacture of this glass, and all we, as manufacturers, ask is a 
 suHicient advance in the duty to enable us to get cost for these small 
 sizes based upon the averages that would bo obtained under the sched- 
 ule herein suggested. Furthermore, this would mean the keeping in 
 this country of a very large sum of money annually which now goes to 
 the Euroi)ean market. As to why the cost of manufacture should be 
 more in this country than in Europe, we simply wish to say that the 
 average wages in the American ]>l:ite glass factories are fully $1.75 per 
 day, whereas that in the Belgium plate-glass factories is only 65 cents
 
 264 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EAKTHENWAKE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 per day and as our labor is from 60 to Go per cent of the total cost of 
 our production, you will readily appreciate bow much of an advantage 
 tbe foreigner enjoys. 
 
 In view of tbe foregoing, all of wbicb you can easily verify, we, the 
 undersigned, rei)resentiiig all tbe plate-glass works m tbis country, 
 feel tbat we are fully justified in respectfully suggesting tbe following 
 as a new schedule for duties on plate glass: 
 
 Cast polished plate glass, finished or unfinished, and ansilvered, not 
 exceeding 10 by 1'4 inches square, present duty, "> cents per scpiare foot; 
 proposed duty,' 10 cents per s<iuare foot. Above tbat, and not exceed- 
 ing 24 by 30 inches square, present duty, S cents per s<iuare foot: ])ro- 
 posed duty, 15 cents per square foot. Above that, and not exceeding 
 24 by 00 'inches square, present duty, L'L'i cents i)er scpiare foot; pro- 
 posed duty, 25 cents per square foot. All above that, present duty, 35 
 cents per square foot; proposed duty, :i'> cents i)er s«pi;ire foot. 
 
 Under what was popularly known as tbe McKinley tarifl" these 
 brackets were 5 cents, 8 cents', 25 cents, and 50 cents jkt scjuare foot, 
 respectively, and, as stated above, the duty on plate glass had been 
 substantially those figures for many years prior to the adojition of tbe 
 McKinley tarilf. 
 
 The undersigned, therefore, would respectfully ask the adoption of tbe 
 schedules as herein suggested, 
 
 [Standard Tlate (Ilass Co. 
 TiiK PnTsnrR{j Plate Glass Co., 
 
 •loilN PiTCAlRN, Chairman. 
 Penn Plate Glass Co., 
 
 \V. L. Kann, VrfHiilent, 
 
 American Plate Glass Co., 
 
 I>. ^I. liANDSELL, ISicntary. 
 
 'hm\uon PL ATKS. 
 
 (ParagrnphB 94 and J>5.) 
 
 New York. January fJ, 1997. 
 C0M:\nTTEE ON Wats and Means: 
 
 We call your attention to the so called (German mirror ])lates exported 
 into this country in direct comj)etition and to the cb'triment of mirror 
 plates manufactured by the many manufacturers in this country. The 
 trouble lies in the fact that the duty on so calle<l mirror plates is too 
 low, the dilVerence between i>late glass unsihered and silvered (or 
 mirror plates) being too siuall. Here is tbe taVde of ]iresent «luties on 
 both minor ])lates ;uid i)late glass. In addition to this, tln' thickness 
 of tlie glass coming over here as German mirror jdates is thicker than 
 formerly used for the same ]»urposes. and can be used where the thicker 
 or American i)late glass <'ould be used, much to tbe detriment of the 
 manufacturers of mirror plates in this country. 
 
 Ijot overlGby 24 inches square, pqn.il to 3S4 sqiinro inrhcR 
 
 Over 16 by 24 inches square, but not over 24 by 30 incheA Hqiinrc, 
 
 equal to 720 square inches 
 
 Over 24 by :w inches square, but not over 24 bv 60 inctiea Rqnans 
 
 enual lo 1,440 square inches ." 
 
 And all above 24 by 60 inches square 
 
 Duty on plate 
 kIoss. 
 
 CmUprrtq.ft. 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 22| 
 
 Dnty on sflvercid 
 or mirror pUtas. 
 
 Cent* prr tij./t 
 « (Fig. A). 
 
 10 (Flg.B). 
 
 2n (Fie. O. 
 
 U (Kig.D).
 
 POLISHED PLATE GLASS. 2G5 
 
 On Fip:. A, 16 by 21, the difference between unsilvered plate glass and silvered 
 plates is liut 1 cent i)er square foot. 
 
 < >n li;;. B, 24 by 80, the difference between unsilvered plate f^lasa and silvered 
 plates is but 2 cents per square foot. 
 
 On Kifj- C. 24 by t>(), the difference between unsilvered plate glass and silvered 
 plates is bnt one-half cent per s(|uare foot. 
 
 On Viii. I), all aliove and larj^er. the difference between unsilvered plate glass and 
 silvered jdates is Ijut 3 cents ]»er square foot. 
 
 To justly encourage the nianufacturiiifj of mirror plates in this coun- 
 try, the (iitierence ought to be at least as follows: 
 
 Fig. A, 16 l»y 24^384 scpiare inches, ought to be 8 cents per square foot. 
 Fig. 15, 24 by 30^=720 square inches, ought to be 12 cents per squiire foot. 
 Fig. (J, 24 by <}<)= 1,440 square inches, ouglit to be 25 cents per square foot. 
 Fig. I), and larger, ought to be 40 cent« per square foot. 
 
 The actual average co.st of silvering mirror i)lates in this country is 6 
 e<Mits i)er square fctot. as against 3 cents j)er s(juare foot in Europe. You 
 can readily uiHlcrstand why it is necessary to have no greater duty than 
 is necessary to give the manufacturers in this country a protection 
 ecjual to the actual ditlcrence of excess of cost of labor in this country 
 as comjjarcd or against the cost of sanje in Europe. There are to-day 
 in this country about one hundred manufacturers of mirror plates, who 
 employ in their factories from ten to <uie hundred and lilty i)er.sons each, 
 Ko you can understand the magnitu«le of this industry. The manufac- 
 turers ami importers of the so tailed (Jerman mirror plates will ]»rob- 
 ably <-ont«'iid that the pro<liiet which they import (and is manufactured 
 in ICuropcj is not made in this country. The fact of the matter is, on 
 account of the low duty the so called (lerman ])late is sold and takes 
 the i)la<-e of the manufactured mirrors, or what is known as "])late- 
 glass mirrors," and cuts deei)ly into the consumption of the sanu'. 
 There are actually mor«' persons dependent uik»m the manufacture of 
 plate glass niirrors, indirectly, than in the manufacture of plate glass 
 in this country. 
 
 Blum, Tocu & Co. 
 
 POLISHED PLAJ i: GLASS. 
 
 (Paragraphs 94-97.) 
 
 Boston, -hnntayy 6, 1807. 
 Committee ox Ways and Means: 
 
 W'e beg to i)rotest against any increase in the i)resent tariff on pol- 
 islied plat<' glass and to j)ray for a <lecrease on same of 50 jter cent. The 
 annual consumption of this article in this country is about 1 '_'.()(>(). ()(•() 
 sipiare feet. Tiiis manufacture in this country is almost wholly in the 
 hands of one company, which is a monopoly, and substantially cop'rol 
 the business of the country, and by selling Just under the cost of 
 impoitation is now succeeding in excluding tlie inqiorted article. 
 
 The present duty on this article averages more than 100 per cent on 
 the i>resent cost abroad. If the duty was made at one-half of present 
 rates there would l>e larger importations, larger addition;il revenues to 
 the Government, and a large reduction to consumers on present selling 
 price of this article. 
 
 Boston Plate ajjd Window Glass Co., 
 
 E. A. Hills, President.
 
 266 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 LOOKING-GLASS PLATES. 
 
 (Paragraphs 95 and 97.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. F. WILLIAM VOGT. OF LOUISVILLE. KY.. REPRE 
 SENTING VARIOUS MANUFACTURERS OF LOOKING-GLASS PLATES. 
 
 Friday. January 8, 1S96. 
 Mr. Yogt read the following paper: 
 
 We respectfully snbniit for Tonr consiilerat ion tlif niatiti m ;» Wetter acljuRtment 
 of flnties on lookiug-glass plates, sizes of 10 feet sfpiare aixl under. (See jiresent 
 bill, Schedule B, paragrai)hs U."> and H7. ) 
 
 Paragraph 95. — We would suggest in this a (liffen-utial rate of 3 cent* per square 
 foot over and above the rate now lixt'd (or may be fjxe«l ) in paragraph 94, ho para- 
 graph 95 would read (if the prest-nt rate of tariff in niaintaiii.d > as follows: 
 
 "Cast polished plat« glass, Hilvere.l, and Itx, king-glass plates, not exceeding 16 
 by 24 inches square, 8 <'entH por square foot; above that, and not exco«'ding 24 by 
 30 inches square, 11 centH per Hquare foot; above that, and not exceeding 24 by 60 
 inches square, 25 cents jter square foot." 
 
 Paragraph 97. — 'l"o road : 
 
 "Cast poli»hed plate glass, silvered or unsilvered. and looking-glass p1at««, cylin- 
 der, crown, or coiiinion window glass, when bent. groun«l, obscuriMl, fn»«te«l, sanded, 
 enameled, beveled, etched, emboHSfil, engrav« d. liashrd, stained, colnre<l, painted, 
 or otherwise ornamented, or dei-orated, shall be subjiM t t<i a duty of 10 per centum 
 ad valorem in addition to the ratos othrrwise cliarg»ald»« ihcrfon." 
 
 Respecting the change in paragra]>li 9."», yon are aware that the law of 18!*0 gave ns 
 sufhcient protection on si/fs over and above 24 by 3<i but not on sir^s under 21 by 
 30 inches square. We therefore Bu;rg<-t a moro proper rat** fixed wliidi will not 
 stimulate the importation of sizes under 24 by ^iO im hes square ti> the injury of nn 
 industr}' at home in small looking-glass plattvt on which tbi* (■x]>ense of silvering is 
 as great ])er foot as one of larger dimensions. 
 
 Respecting the change in paragrajdi 97, it would seem as if the omiMton of look- 
 ing-glass ])late8 was an over8i^;ht in the framing of this article, for certainly if an 
 extra 10 ]>er cent ad valorem is (harmed on cast jioiisbeii ]>l.ite. cylimler, ero wn, ami 
 common window gla.ss, when beveled, et< bed, embossed. <!<■., or when any addi- 
 tional labor is put upon them, why should not the same apply t« looking-glaiM 
 plates. The plate glass being our raw material, it should l>y all means l>e a basis, 
 and all duty on mirror plates should conform to those of polished plat«« glass. The 
 manufactiire of mirror plates in this country is an imliisf ry which employs hundreds 
 of workmen, a large amount of capital, and is a nii ig busiiie-ns that coiibl 
 
 be very much increased were the duties e«|uital' Most of the plattvt 
 
 come from Germany, where women and children a;- .. . . ■ <1 at very low wages 
 and rents are only nominal. The prodtict of these plafe«« sent to this country lias 
 been controlled for a number of years by the (Jerman Looking (ilass Plate Company, 
 of New York, which was a combination of the five importers. 
 
 About a year ago the I'nited Hnvarian Comi>any |>ut a traveling man out from 
 Chicago, and soon they agreed with the (Jerman coiii)iany to (ix prices. The travel- 
 ing men and ofhce men are the only employees in this roimtry, while here we employ 
 skilled labor and every small factory has its own traveling men to sell the output. 
 
 We do not want anything unreasonable, but anyone familiar with the eircum- 
 stances will see that the request is a Just one. A number of mirror nmnufaeturers 
 have failed or quit business, and unless some relief is given others miist follow. 
 
 The following prices and importations will show that they deserve better, fwipe- 
 cially when it can be shown that a 5-foot mirror, or 24 by 30. which was sold ten 
 years ago at from $9 to $10. now sells for less than $3. The change asked will stop 
 the manipulation of prices by the importers' tnists or combinations and give the 
 American consumer a better plate for less money. It will also save the furniture 
 manufacturers great losses by llnctuating prices. lUlow we give i>rice8 showing 
 that we now furnish a French plate at $2.40, while four years ago » German or 
 inferior plate was sold for $3.60,
 
 LOOKING-GLASS PLATES. 
 Prices. 
 
 267 
 
 
 1801-92. 
 
 1893-M. 
 
 1895. 
 
 1896. 
 
 
 $3.60 
 
 $1.82 to $2. 25 
 3.00 
 
 $2.02ito$2.35 
 (•) 
 
 $2. 63 to $2. 024 
 2.40 
 
 Pric« of looking g\ana p1at« made here. . . 
 
 * Factory closed. 
 Looking-glasB plate importationt under articles 95 and 97. 
 
 
 1888. 
 
 18e9. 
 
 1890. 
 
 1891. 
 
 PoliMiAd plat« illvprwl 
 
 4,785,003 
 
 2,085,888 
 
 625,700 
 
 457,829 
 
 
 6, 101, 371 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Polished plate rII vercd 
 
 Polished cyliDder glaxi silvered . 
 
 18BX 
 
 1893. 
 
 803,765 
 4, 103, 21$ 
 
 55.573 
 4,002,601 
 
 1804. 
 
 243,228 
 3, 006, 010 
 
 1895. 
 
 46.061 
 3, 173, 574 
 
 1800. 
 
 77,738 
 3,820,683 
 
 Krriin tlie inrlosod rirriilarof Mi'Hsrs. Bcndit Drey & Co., New York, there appears to 
 be a <liHrii|itii>n in tlie(i«Tiiian Look ing(Jla«s Plato Company, and a Krench mirror j>late 
 maniifactiirer intontls uHini; Ins I'rencli Hiirroi biiHinesA to hcII his German product 
 in thJH eoiintry— nnotlier reason for the change, substantiating that looking-glass 
 plates can b«t produced divapcr in Kurope than at home. 
 
 iCespeotfuly submitted. 
 
 Hkroy iV Markknnkk a.nd F. Wm. Voot. 
 
 Representing the following tlrms: Louisville Silvering and Heveling Company, 
 Louisville, Ky.; We»t4'rn .Mirror I'late Company, Cincinnati, Ohio; C. D. Widmen & 
 Co., Detroit. Slich. ; Robert A. S.hlegel «V Bro., St. Louis, Mo. ; H. L. Anderson A: Co., 
 Chicago, III.; .Fackson < ilass Works, Jackson, Mich.; Tarentiim Mirror and Art 
 (Jl.iss Works, Tareiitum, I'a. ; .Milwaukee Mirror and .\rt Glass Works, Milwaukee, 
 Wis.; Daniel Stewart A Co.. Indianapolis, Ind.; Ford City Mirror Compaoy, Ford 
 City, Fa.; Indiana French Mirror Company, Connersville, Ind. 
 
 New York, Iiecembtr — , 1896. 
 Dkar Put: We take pleasure in announcing that in connection with our manufac- 
 ture of Irench j)late mirrors we have resumed the importation and exclusive sale of 
 the celebrati-d "crown brand" of German looking-glass plates made at our own fac- 
 tories in Fuerth, Havaria. 
 
 We solicit your kind patronage and a.ssnro you that all orders intrusted to nn will 
 meet with our ])rompt and careful attention, and will always bo billed at the lowest 
 market pri<'es. 
 
 Vours. truly, Bendit, Drky & Co. 
 
 (Our rejiresentatiTes will be Mr. Joseph S. Hart, Mr. Simon H. Bodenheim, Mr. M. 
 Morgenstern.) 
 
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS FURNITURE MANUFAC- 
 TURERS. 
 
 We, the uiKlerpijriicd turnitiire manufactuiers, indorss tlie American 
 minor iiiaiiutaetiirers in their eflort to have the tariff advanced on 
 German lookinjj-^jjhiss ])lates, for the following^ reasons, viz: 
 
 It will advance the indii-stryof mirror manufacturing in this country 
 by pivinj; employment to a hirge increased number of American 
 mechanics and workingmen.
 
 268 SCHEDUCE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 It will make it possible for us as furniture manufacturers to use 
 American mirror plates on sizes under 5 scjuare feet in jilaoe of Ger- 
 man plates. 
 
 It will stop the manipulation of the market and ^rive us a more steady 
 price on mirror plates, which will be a benefit to all consumers. 
 
 The SciiiRMER FurnitireCo. 
 
 K. Duciischkr & Co. 
 
 H. II. \Vig(;ers cV Sons Furnitire Co. 
 
 The Steinman lS: Meyer Firnituee Co. 
 
 The Kkkimkr ^: Brotuee Co. 
 
 C. «& A. Kreimer Co. 
 
 \Vm. Becker ^: Co. 
 
 Stille cS: Duhlmeike. 
 
 A. Keuesch & Co. 
 
 CTXrKDER CI^OA\'X A^^^n()W GLASS. 
 
 (rariijjrn|ih 97.^ 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE SUESS ORNAMENTAL GLASS 
 COMPANY OF CHICAGO. 
 
 CnicAiiO. Ili... January €, 1897, 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We take the liberty of tlrawinj; the attrntion (»f your honorable com- 
 mittee to the subject of window jjhiss. 
 
 In Scliedule B, para^rajdi UT, we recommend as folUtws: 
 
 Cylinder, crown, or conuni>n window ^Inn*. wln-n l>«>nt,(jrouiul, ob8rnri'<l, froiit<"«l, 
 Banded, eniinielcd, cliijuu'd, ••tched. liovcltd, rnll)o^srd, (•ni;riiM>(l, lliislicd, Rtiiined, 
 colored, ]>.iinted, or otliorwise ornamented or decoruled. sluill be subject to n duty 
 of $6 i)er box, including' ^la-ss nnil bo\in;;, and tbe wi-i^bt thereof not cxeeedinn 'JIO 
 pounds or under, and if exrecdin;: UK) pounds, lif centH for each additional pound. 
 
 We be*:: to explain tliat in otir e\i>ericnce we are aware that hun- 
 dreds of boxes of jjlass ha\ e brrn imported where in one box of ;;la.'<fi 
 there has been as much as !'(»(» square feet of plass. and sucli boxes of 
 glass averajre in wii^^lit about ."^(id ])ouiids, and further that all the 
 colored, enameled, {jrouiid, chipjied, and otherwise decorateil phiH.s has 
 always been imported in boxes containing not less tlian HK) s(|uare feet. 
 A box containino- 1(K> square feet tloes not ex«"eed LMO pounds. 
 
 It is further the custom that all plain window ^dass is shipped in 
 50-foot boxes, and therefore it may be easy when the schedule calls for 
 50-foot boxes for ulass to be ini]>orted in boxes exceeding ."iO stjuare 
 feet as above explained, and the Government would be losing a revenue 
 on all additional weight from 50 feet to 200 feet on such glass as above 
 set out. 
 
 We are manufacturers of decorated glass of every description, and 
 manufacture enameled glass as a specialty, but according to the present 
 tariff it is impossible to coniitete with the imi>orters: therefore the 
 manufacture of the same has been decreased almost to a standstill, 
 and all the glass since this last taritf was passetl has been imported, avS 
 your committee can see in the increase of importation of enameled 
 glass. 
 
 In {Kldition, we beg to draw your attention to Schedule B, paragraph 
 ^'—^^e following words: ''Cast polished jdate glass, .silvered or un.sil- 
 vered. We left out the above wording in our suggestion for pai^agraph
 
 DECORATED PLATE GLASS. 2G9 
 
 07 for tilt' following: reasons: Wc notice that "-Cast polished i>late jjlass, 
 8ilv«'n'(l or iinsilvered." is pri'viously in Schedule ii, para^iraph O"), and 
 as it appears now i)aiaj;raph 1)7 allows the importer on the same (piality 
 of fjlass as set out in i»ara<,'raphs lU and 'J5 to pay less duty for polished 
 jtlate, silvered or unsih ered (or looking; glass). As an example to prove 
 this to be a fact 1 suhmit the following: 
 
 In paragraph U4, one polished plate glass 24 by 30 containing 5 square 
 f«'et, at s cents duty i)er >«|uarc foot, costs 40 cents per light. In para- 
 graph 05, if the same i)olished jilate glass is silvered, the duty for a 1'4 
 by ;iO is 10 cents per s(juare fo(»t, therefore the importer ])ays 50 cents 
 for a 24 by M) plate when silvered. In the i)resent schedule, paragraph 
 07, the importer would pay for a i)olished jilate glass, plain or silvered, 
 lA cents per i>ound, ami 2 1 by 30, silvered, weighs 17 jKiuuds. at 1.^ 
 cents i)er pound; 25.^ cents in additi(Ui, and duty of 1(> per cent ad 
 valorem, 12 cents, would make a total of duty for one silvered polished 
 l)late glass or looking glass of 'M^ cents. 
 
 If the "cast polishe<l plate glass, silvered or unsilvered," would not 
 app«*ar in i»aragraph 07, this 24 by 30 looking-glass would come in par- 
 graph 05, ami the (loveinment would receive 50 cents instead of .37A 
 cents; and, fuither, a 21 by 30 plain iM»lished jdate, where the (Jovern- 
 ment would receive 10 cents in paragrajth 01, the importer only pays 
 37A cents ii<<or(liiig to |)aragraph 07. 
 
 f'or th(^ reasons given above we thought it advisable for you to 
 amend jtaragraph '.»7 as we have recommended, as the "cast i)olished 
 jilate glass, silvered or unsilvered,'' is set out ]>lainly in paragraphs 04 
 and 05. We further would recommend you to raise the duty in i)ara- 
 graphs 04 and 05 35 per <ent. 
 
 If any one should ship plate glass ])olished, silvered or unsilvered, as 
 window glass gnamd, etc., the rate of duty on this class of glass would 
 figure, when properly weighed in luoportion. the same as in paragraphs 
 04 and '.>5, and no fraud whatever could be possible. 
 
 We would lurther suggest that you leave out paiagrai)h 03 entirely, 
 l>ro\ iding you wonld adopt our suggestion as to pai agia]»h 07, the words 
 "llnte«l. rolled, or rou;;h plate glass.'' 
 
 This would make the schedule much jdainer and every article of glass 
 I)erfectly covered, and foreign competition shut out. 
 
 fcjLliSS OUNAME>'TAL GLASS CO. 
 
 DECORATED PLATE GLASS. 
 
 (Paragraph 97.) 
 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., January 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are manufacturers of beveled, silvered, and decorated plate glass, 
 and would respectfully ask that an increase of duty be given our man- 
 ufactures. The same comes under the head of ijaragraph 07, which 
 reads as follows: 
 
 Cast polished jilate glass, silvered or unsilvered, aud cylinder crown, or common 
 window glass, when bont, ground, obscured, frosted, sanded, enameled, beveled, 
 etched, embossed, enirraved, llashed, stained, colored, painted, or otherwise orna- 
 mented or decorated, shall be subject to a duty of ten per ceutum ad valorem in 
 addition to the rutcb otherwiise chargeable thereon.
 
 270 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Should your committee be pleased to place an ad valorem duty, we 
 would recommeud at least 35 to 40 per cent. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, , . ,. 
 
 J. A. Donnelly & CJo. 
 
 BELGIAN WIKDOW AXD PICTURE GLASS. 
 
 New York, January 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 We beg to give below memoranda showing all the imiwrtations of 
 Belgian window and picture glass made by us in the year 18(H», the dat« 
 and steamer on which they arrived in New York, the number of boxes 
 in each shipment, the foreign cost of same, the duty paid on same, and 
 the ad valorem percentage of such duty to the foreign cost. 
 
 We respectfully submit tliis as the best argument we can make why 
 the duty on these goods should not be increasrd. They are goods of 
 everyday use and of absolute necessity. The percentage of the duty 
 shows for itself. Our only argunnMit is that iluties averaging over S7 
 per cent should certainly be high enctugh for all just purposes of 
 protection. 
 
 Date of entry. 
 
 January 8 WMtemland 
 
 February 21 South wark .. 
 
 March 11 Kfiisincton. . 
 
 April 22 WfstpriiUiid 
 
 May 6 Koordland. .. 
 
 May 20 Krnsinjfton . . 
 
 Junes Southwark .. 
 
 June 30 We«t<Tuland 
 
 August 4 KrnslnKion . . 
 
 August 19 Stiutbwark .. 
 
 Sejiteniber 8 Kensinclnn. . 
 
 Sepli'iuber 13 South wark .. 
 
 October 6 FriMlaml 
 
 Do do 
 
 Novniber do 
 
 SU'.-imer. 
 
 Total. 
 
 BOXM. 
 
 Talott. 
 
 *M 
 
 11.014.90 
 
 1.M3 
 
 1.2M.S1 
 
 l,t» 
 
 1 l«ft.70 
 
 1.3'^ 
 
 : ««■ 16 
 
 1. 
 
 ■ 72 
 
 1.4 
 
 ; . 00 
 
 1.0- 
 
 vi* »9 
 
 1, IM 
 
 1.012 4H 
 
 2.VI 
 
 2J<« 01 
 
 «P7 
 
 1.044.54 
 
 530 
 
 K: OH 
 
 l.CMl 
 
 1. 05». 90 
 
 1.311 
 
 1.317.44 
 
 7»0 
 
 80« 61 
 
 1.803 
 
 l.»2«.»4 
 
 Doty. 
 
 r«rc«D(- 
 
 «76».Si 
 
 i.S2.n 
 1.016. a 
 
 1.308.10 
 1. 225. 10 
 
 i,3w.n 
 
 810 88 
 853.18 
 280.00 
 
 1.046 33 I 
 532.65 : 
 ft53. S5 I 
 
 1.141 38 
 fli4. 71 
 
 1.524.51 
 
 7« 
 06 
 87 
 88 
 88 
 
 n 
 
 86 
 84 
 
 08 
 
 100 
 06 
 00 
 86 
 81 
 70 
 
 16.386 16.810.06 14,647.88 
 
 .8714 
 
 DOI GHEETY & MOBISON. 
 
 orncAL (iooDS. 
 
 (Paragraph 98.) 
 
 STATEMEirr SUBMITTED BY THE SPENCER OPTICAL COMPANY 
 OF NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 New York, January 7, 1897, 
 Dear Sir: I wish to call your attention to the manufacture of spec- 
 tacles and eyeglasses, and other optical goods. With the exception of 
 gold spectacles and eyeglasses, none was manufactured in this country 
 previous to 1861. At that time the foreign maimfiuturers were charg- 
 ing about four times the price for goods that they are bt-ing sold for 
 now. To be enabled to compete with the foreign makers, wc were com- 
 pelled to devise and invent machinery in order that we might overcome
 
 OPTICAL GOODS. 271 
 
 the great difference in the price of labor between Europe and this 
 country. 
 
 From time to time since 18G1 some eigchteen or twenty parties have 
 commenced manufacturing' these floods in this country, but on account 
 of the continuous reduction in i)riees in Eurojie and the home competi- 
 tion, many of them have been obhj,'ed to give up business. 
 
 In 18'J0 the duty was advanced on these goods 15 per cent. About 
 that l^ime the European uKuiufacturers succeeded in getting patterns 
 of most of the latest and improved machinery in this country, and 
 caused this machinery to be nnnle, wliich cost them, on account of their 
 cheap hib(»r, altout one fourth to onelifth the original cost to the per- 
 fectors of these tools and machinery in this country. In many instances 
 they would buy one machine and n)ove it to France or Germany and 
 have it dujibcatcd tliere. I have knowledge of the swedging machine, 
 wliich is i)at«nte(l here, and costs .*L'IO in this country. One was sent 
 to (lermany and duplicated for "r'BO forour competitors' use. This is a 
 sample of many other transactions. They are now prei)ared to compete 
 witli us, using the same machinery as ourselves, and with tlie labor to 
 work tlu'se machines for one (juarter, and many times less than what 
 is being paid in this country, the manufacturers of optical goods have 
 great dilliculties to contend with. 
 
 They also take American patterns and designs of goods which are 
 l)opular here and manufacture an imitation of the same at less price 
 than it is |>«»ssible to produce the articles here, in some instances these 
 goitds liave l)een reduced 7."» per cent since 1800, and with scarcely an 
 exception have been reduced as much as L'^jter cent. 
 
 They also import a very inferior article of lenses in their goods. l»ut 
 through the ignorance of the purchaser they think they are practicing 
 economy, thereby bringing irreparable injury upon themselves. These 
 lenses are made from refuse of wiiulow glass — imperfect parts cut oft" 
 and one side ground so as t<» magnify. A noted optician of New York 
 tohl me recently that these lenses would have the etfect of ])roducing 
 artihcial astigmatism, and were «»therwise very injurious. I consider it 
 would be good pulley if these cheap g(H>ds were not j)ermitted to come 
 into this country at any i)rice, as they are more injurious than adulter- 
 ated food. 
 
 We are now importingsome twelve grades of spectacles and eyeglasses 
 which were formerly made in this country, as we find it impossible to 
 produce these goods here at their price, after taking into consideration 
 our experience, improved facilities, and the lowest price of labor obtain- 
 able. We will be ])leased to make these goods in tliil country again, 
 and with the schedule submitted we think we will be capable of doing 
 so, but the margin will be exceedingly small. 
 
 I considered myself well jMtsted in regard to the price of labor in 
 Europe; but in a recent visit there I was surprised to find girls of 17 
 and 18 years old working for the beggarly sum of 48 cents per week, 
 e(piivalent to 8 cents per day. The manager assured me that he had no 
 ditliculty in securing all the help he required at these figures. 
 
 The slight advance in the duties which we desire will nuike no differ- 
 ence whatever with the consumer of these goods, as the margin to the 
 retail dealer is liberal. Many importers bill the goods from France 
 direct to their houses here in New York, and I am informed by the 
 highest authority that in many instances it is utterly impossible to 
 detect undervaluation, as they are continually changing the styles so 
 as to make detection the greater. For that reason we have asked a 
 specific duty, and very materially reduce the ad valorem duty. After
 
 272 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWAKE. 
 
 consulting the best authority in the custom-house, they have given it 
 as their opinion that this would be the most desired form of jtreventmg 
 frauds on the Government. We are importers as well as manufacturers 
 of these goods, and consider ourselves compet-ent to judge of many of 
 these transactions. 
 
 The freight from Euroi)e is no protection, as we have paid as much 
 on freight from New York to Newark, N. J., as it costs us from Ha\Te, 
 France, to New York by tramp steamers. 
 
 The question has been argued many times whether it would bot be 
 better for us to move our entire plant to Germany, for if we can not 
 obtain another reduction in labor, many styles of goods now made here 
 will have to be abandoned. The labor on our goods is on an average 
 00 per cent of their value. We often take 1 pound of steel, worth L'O 
 cents, and before it is finished there has been |3 worth of labor laid out 
 on it. 
 
 The production in this country in 1S1>2 for v.uh working day in the 
 year exceeded 30,000 i>airs. Tliere are manufa<turer8 of thest- goods 
 in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Peunsylvaniti, 
 Michigan, and Illinois., 
 
 We also would like to have spectacle and eyeglass wises listed by them- 
 selves, and tlie duty to be same as stated on dor<iment inclosed. This 
 is quite a little industry in this <ountry, and <-ould be inerease<l very 
 materially with a moderate prote<tion, as stated on list t'urnished. 
 
 Si'K.NrKK Optical Manufactikino Co. 
 John S. ^spencer. 
 
 memorial and sohedulk suumitted by various manupacturee8 
 
 OF Of I KAI. (tOoDS. 
 
 New York, January 7, lf^97. 
 
 The schedule on optical goods given below is recommended by the 
 American manufacturers with the object of equalizing, to some extent, 
 the dillerence between the rates of f«)reign and domestic labor. We 
 earnestly recomujcud the conil)ination of specitic and a<l valorem duties 
 wherever practicabk", pi incipally because sucli a form would assist in 
 preventing the present evil ot undervaluation, which has worked greatly 
 to the detriment of the Americ;u» numulacturers as well as being a 
 fraud against the Government. To corroborate our views in regard 
 to the value of couil)ine(l duties we respectfully reter you to the lion. 
 George V. Tichenor, who has given the snbi««ct his ])crsonal attention. 
 
 In goods of average grade the items of labor represent IM) per cent of 
 the cost of manufacture. The wages of skilh'd nuihanics abroiyi are 
 but one-quarter to one half tiie amount which the same skill commands 
 here. In unskilled labor the disparity is even more marked. Besides 
 this, the cheaper grade of goods are ujade in part by pauper labor, by 
 night labor of families in their homes, and even by enforced labor in 
 State penal institutions, goods from the latter source being imi>orted in 
 such a way as to render detection quite impossible. 
 
 Within the last few years changed conditiiuis in Kurope and the use 
 of labor saving machines imported ln»m this iduntry and dupli<'ate<l by 
 the foreign manufacturers hare reduced the prices of iniiK)rted goods 
 in most cases 23 to ."iO jier cent* 
 
 We submit you the following schedule : 
 
 Spectacles and eyes;l:i^ses, .ind si)o<t.i('li' and evoulans frnme.H. valued i»t not more 
 than 75 cents per dozen, L'5 cents per dozen and Jo pt^r cent ad vali.reni. 
 
 Valued at over 7") cents and not exceeding $1.50 per do^en, 50 c«uU per dozen ftod 
 20 per cent ad valorem.
 
 
 STAINED GLASS. 273 
 
 Valned at over $1.50 per dozen, 50 i>er cent ad valorem. 
 
 PurtH of Hpectacle and eye;;la8S frames, parts of spectacle and eyeglass mountings 
 of same, 50 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Lenses of gla.s8 or pebble, ground and polished to a spherical, cyliudrical, or pris- 
 matic form, and ground and polished piano co(iuille glasses wholly or partly manu- 
 factured with the ed^es unground,45 per cent ad valorem 
 
 Lenses of glass or jiebble, ground and jiolished to a siiherical, cylindrical, or pris- 
 matic form, iind ground and poli8he<l piano and coquille lenses wholly or partly 
 manufactured, with their edges ground or beveled, 10 cents per dozen and 45 percent 
 ad valorem. 
 
 Strii)8 of glass not more than :} inches wide, one or both surfaces of which are 
 ground and polished U> a cylindrical or j)riHmatic form, 45 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Opera and field glasses, niicroscop«N, telescopes, i)liiitograidiic, and projecting 
 leuHi s. and other optical instruments and frames (or mountings) for the same, 45 per 
 cent ad valorem. 
 
 (jliaHH plates or disks, Hat or co()nille shape, rough cut or uuwronght, for use in the 
 manufacture of optical inHtriiuients, spectacles, eyeglavS.ses, and suitable only for 
 huch use, provideil, however, that such tlisks exceeding 8 inches in <lianu'ter may be 
 polihhe*! sullicieiitly to er)able the character of the glass to be determined, free. 
 
 (Signed:) .**pencer Optical Manufacturing Company, New York; American 
 Optical Company, Southbridge, Mass.; ISousch &, Lomb optical Com- 
 pany, Rochester, N. Y. ; National Optical Company, I'liiladelphia, Pa.; 
 T. A. Willson Si. Co., Keadini:, I'a. ; .standard < )ptic:il Company, (ieneva, 
 N. Y. ; .'^<»iithbridge optical Company, ."soiiibbridge, Mass.; Dupaul 
 Young Company, &>outhbridge, Mat>s., and olhera. 
 
 STAFFED GLASS. 
 
 (Paragraph ICJ and Free list 686.) 
 MEMORIAL OF THE GLASS STAINERS OF THE UHTTED STATES. 
 
 Committee op Ways and Means: 
 
 Tlif iihisn stainers of tht^ United States respertfully petition year 
 lioiiorabU' body to u ctMi.sidcratioii of the following .statement: 
 
 ( iider tlM' pre.sent taritV law.s our industry receives no protection. 
 All f^rade.s and .sortH of sfaiiu'd and painte<l or painted and stained 
 pla.ss windows are on tlu' fr«'e list win-n jui'St-nted to any cliureli, ciia])el, 
 natituial iuHtitution, or municipal corporation, society, coUe^^e, or other 
 public institution. 
 
 Fully four lift lis of the stained glass windows i»roduced are used solely 
 iu these institutions. 
 
 The Kuropean numufjwturers have so many advantages over us, 
 esju'cially cheaper labor an<l material, that it is a matter of impossi- 
 bility for us to c«»m|)ete with them. 
 
 The avera;:e rate of wages paid in this industry in Europe is $9 to 
 $10 per week, while the average wages paid iu this country are $18 
 to $LM» per week. Moreover, our material, stich as glass, lead, iron, and 
 enamel »-olors, which are used in large (piantities. can be procured for 
 fully li.") per cent less by the foreign manufacturers than we can purcha.se 
 them. 
 
 The cost of the production of staine<l glass is mainly that of labor, 
 the labor being nine tenths of the value of the whole window. 
 
 The process of making a staine<l-glass window entitles it to rank 
 only as an industrial art, or decorative work, the most artistic produc- 
 tion of our imlnstry being sold by the square foctt at regular market 
 rates. The rnitecf States Supreme Court, November 7, LS'.lL'. decided 
 in a case on appeal that stained glass windows are not entitled to rank 
 as a tine art. such as jKiintings on canvas, drawings, elcliLugs, and 
 sculpture, but that such windows are a manufacture. 
 T H 18
 
 274 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EAKTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 For these reasons we claim that a stained-glass window, because of 
 being placed in a cliurcL or institution as a gift, should not be admitted 
 free of dutj^ Avhile other articles that enter into the construction of 
 the same buildings, such as cut or carved stone altars, lecterns, wood 
 carvings, church furniture, and other decorative work, pay no duty, 
 especially as such works are frefiuently more artistic than the stained- 
 glass windows which arc now free from duty. 
 
 Under the tarili" laws of 1890 our industry was in a highly i)rosper- 
 ous condition with a protection of 45 per cent, but since the enactn»ent 
 of the tarift" of 1894 foreign manufacturers have beeu enabled to take 
 almost the entire possession of this industry. 
 
 A duty of 45 per cent ad valorem jjermits the foreign manufacturers 
 to compete with us and leave them a fair margin of profit. 
 
 The result of this unjust discrimination by our Government against 
 our industry has been to cause lar;;e sums of money to be spent abroa<l, 
 while many of our shops have been obliged to close and the workmen 
 to crowd into other emi)loyments. 
 
 With a fair i)rotection, wliich we are justly entitled to, tlie beautiful 
 art of making stainedghiss windows wouhl become a llourisliing imlus- 
 tiy and give employment to a large number of designers, juiinteis, and 
 skilled workmen. Without this i)rotection <»ur business must languish 
 and will fall entirely into the hands of the foreign manufacturers. 
 
 For the foregoing reasons we ask that the tariff of 1890 of 45 per cent 
 ad valorem be reimposed upon all stained and ))ainted or ]>ainted and 
 stained glass windows, ami tliat all such windows shall be "exempt" 
 from the oi)oration of the free list, ami tlnis eiiuali/.e the great discrep- 
 ancy of wa^es and c<»st of material whi<-h jilaces the American mauu- 
 lacturers to day at sucli an intolerable disadvantage. 
 
 John Morgan, 
 lilCIIARD Lamk, 
 I'l'WARD S. Arnold, 
 
 Committee. 
 J. Morgan & Sons, 53 Bleecker street. New York; J. & II. 
 Land), 59 Carmine street, New York; Arnold iJc I>ocke, 
 250 l<'ulton street, lirooUlyn; Keystone (Limite<l; (ilass 
 Works, A. J. Smith. ])io|>rietor, L'Tl South Filth street, 
 Philadcli)hia, Pa.; Theo. Y. Friser, li5 South Second 
 street, IMiiladeli.hia; John Gibson, 1L':J-1L»5 South 
 Eleventh street, I'hiladelphia, Pa.; Francis D.Kramer, 
 12L'8 Walnut strict; Wm. lieith, KU North Seventh 
 street, riiiladelphia, Pa.; P. S. Groves, G17 South Hroad 
 street, Philadeli)hia, Pa.; Dukes & Sehmitt, L'1'J9 Market 
 street, Philadelphia, I'a.; Allied Godwin, l'>25 Market 
 street, Phila<lclpliia, Pa.; Ibmy Lameke, I'hiladelphia, 
 Pa.j Fernando J. liiester, liullalo, N. Y. 
 
 MARBLE. 
 
 (ParagTiiphs 103, 104, an<l 105.) 
 STATEMENT OF ME. S. T. PARTRIDGE, OF RUTLAND, VT. 
 
 Mr. Partridge said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the commit- 
 tee, there is no general associati(»n of the marble industry in this 
 country, but 1 represent a conference which was held in this city two
 
 MARBLE, 275 
 
 days ago of the leading represeutatives of the marble industry in the 
 country. That is to say, at the conference tliere were representatives 
 of the producing interest — the quarry men, who cut the marble out of 
 the ledge into blocks; the mill owners, wlio are running mills for the 
 sawing of tljose Italian or American blocks into sawed slabs; the 
 ujanulacturers of marble, who take this sawed nuirble after it leaves 
 the mills and by cutting, carving, turning, polishing, etc., ])rei)are it 
 for its linal use; and the importers themselves, wlio are engaged in the 
 importation of Italian marble in this country. Of course it often hai>- 
 pens that the same con(;ern is interested in more than one branch of the 
 industry. The producer is often a mill owner, and an importer is often 
 a mill owner, and he may be a manufacturer of marble also. Hereto- 
 fore it has not been possible for these ditferent branches to agree and 
 harmonize theii- views as to the taritf — as to what it ouglit to be on 
 marble — but for the first time in tlie history of marble taritfjegislation 
 all of tiiese four branches of the industry — that is, the importing inter- 
 est as well a.s the i>ro<lucing interest in its various branches — have 
 united. They have designated me to present to you their views. 
 
 1 ask the committee's attention, in the lirst j>lace. to two or three gen- 
 eral considerations touching the duty on marble. In the lirst place, 
 marble is a proper commodity upon which to raise a revenue, because 
 it is a luxury and not a necessity; that is to say, f«)reign marble is a 
 luxury, because foreign marble is high priced marble or highly colored 
 marbh'. The jjcople of this country, of moderate means, use consider- 
 able marble, but it is almost entirely for cemetery purposes and they 
 use American marble. They would use it for that purpose anyway, 
 because it has developed that Italian marble is not suited, except it be 
 in the extreme [Southern States, for outdoor purposes, whereas the 
 American marble is; and besides that, American marble which comes 
 into use for cemetery purposes is sold at a price which is chea]>er than 
 the i>rice at which tlie Italian marble wouhl be sold, even if there were 
 no duty. The highly colored marbles, for instance, are only a lad. 
 They are wanted oftentimes simply because they are expensive; they 
 are wanted because they do cost so nuich, and they are, therefore, as I 
 say — the imjjorted and high, ])riced marbles — a luxury, and they are an 
 e8i)ecially approi)riate comniodity ui)on whicii to raise revenue. 
 
 Conse(iuently, 1 call especial attention to this: That a duty on the 
 higher grades of marble brought into the country results in the reduc- 
 tion of the juices of the ciunuKUi and cheaper gra<les of marble which 
 the peo])le at large use. The reason is that the American (juairies are 
 so constituted — the layer is so laid in the ground — that the liner giades 
 of marble — the higer ])riced American grades — are found in the same 
 quarries with the cheaper grades, and made in the quarry with the 
 higher priced marbles. You can not fiuairy the higher priced marbles 
 without quarrying the cheaper marbles. The large majority of the 
 product of American marble quarries is sold for less than it can be pro- 
 duced. It can only be produced and sold at the cheai)er price because 
 there is i)roduced at the same time, out of the same quarries, this higher 
 priced marble which is in competition with the Italian marble. 
 
 I have the figures to illustrate this. This is the largest maible-pro- 
 ducing company in the country, and this company has a larger percent- 
 age of higher i)riced marbles in its quarries than any other company. 
 J^uring the last live years 51 per cent of the entire ])W)<luction of that 
 company, namely, 1,-IU(),0(>0 cubic feet, has been sold after it left the 
 mill for less than 81 a cubic foot. It can not be produced for that. 
 Eighteen per cent is sold between $2 and $3 a cubic foot, a price below
 
 276 SCHEDULE B. — EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 that for which Italian would be sold if tljere was no duty upon it. 
 That is the sawed marble. Twenty-tliree per cent sold between $L' and 
 $3, and 9 per cent over $3 a cubic foot. It wa.s only a part of the third 
 and fourth classitications that is in with the Italian marble. But it is 
 only through the production of that higher grade of marble that we are 
 able to produce the cheaper marble. Whatever increases the price or 
 increases the quantity which is i>roduced of the higher priced marble 
 will at tlie same time increase the ciuantity produced and make the cost 
 cheai)er of the cheaper grades of marble. 
 
 The third consideration is that the duty uixm marble does not re- 
 strict the trade in marble. We iiave never had the exj>eriment of 
 increasing the tarift' upon marble, but we know how it has worketl 
 when the tariff was reduced. Tlie act of ISIK) did not increase the 
 tariff on marble. It was reduced in 1SM3, left alone in 1S9(>, and reduced 
 again in 181)4. The total importation of marble into the country shows 
 that the changes have come generally with timtuati«»n8 of the times. 
 Actually, in 1883 there was, under a higher rate of duty, more marble 
 imported than in 1884 under a less rate of duty. The im]>ortation of 
 nnirble has kept up at a fairly me«lium rate, and it will continue to 
 keep up even if a higher rate ot<lufy were put up<»n it. The importa- 
 tion of marble at this time is probably '>0 per cent more than it was 
 from 1870 to 1880, but the revenue at tliis titne dcrive<l fr(»m that impor- 
 tation is less than it was in those years. 1 lall the committee's alti'ii- 
 tion to that fact for this reason, that if the purpose of the cojnmitte*^ 
 be to raise revenue, we feel conlident of the result that an increased 
 rate of duty on marble will not result in restricting the impoitation of 
 marble. We do not rely ui)on the exclusion of marble for the jirolec- 
 tion of the interest. Many of my jvssociates here are interested in the 
 importation of marble. What we do rely upon is the protection which 
 may come to us through maintaining the price of those higher grades 
 of marbles. 
 
 1 want to call the c(»nunittce's attention to some of the reasons why 
 we think the duty on marble ought to be increasetl. The chief reasiui 
 is in order to ]>rotect our American lalxuer against the labor of Italy; 
 and, in order that you may see how direct the comprtition is between 
 our workman and their workman, 1 call attenticui to the fact that block 
 marble, which is the crudest form in which it is merchantable, repre- 
 sents at least DO ])er cent of labor. The value of a marble <juarry is 
 largely in accordance with the extent to which it is developed. 
 
 Mr. Turner. You are speaking from your experience at KutlandT 
 
 IMr. Pakthii)(;e. 1 am speaking partly from my experience at Kut- 
 land, and also from the (igures of the last census re|)ort, and from such 
 observations as my associates and myself have made in Italy. 
 
 Mr. Tuknek. What is the depth of the strata below the'surfaco at 
 Kutlandt 
 
 Mr. I'ARTKIDGE. At the present time they are working at West Rut- 
 land 1*00 or 300 feet d(»wn. Marble comes to the surtace, but that on 
 top has to be taken off. A very large expenditure is necessary. There 
 is a great ditlerence between t>ur (piarries at Kutland and most of the 
 quarries in America. The (puirries in this country are generally below 
 the ground, however, and you have to cut down into them. Y(Ui have 
 to cut the marble out by tools or machinery in order to avoid shatter- 
 ing it, whereas, in Italy it is largely on the surface. The quarries at 
 Carrara are so situated that they can bore down a hole and blast oflF 
 the marble. We use machinery;' they do not use it in Italy. Dul the
 
 MARBLE. 277 
 
 marliinery plves as no protection wliatever, because the machinery does 
 not conipt'iisatr for tlie wapes which exist. 
 
 The leadinjj Italian pidducinfj firm has at its head an Entjlishman 
 who understands the best methods, but they can not atVord to use to 
 any ^leat extt'nt the raacliinery tliat we use. I have seen in their mills 
 niaciiines lor sawing marble which were made in Rutland, the same 
 kinds tijat we use. Jiut when it comes to the qnarryintr they can not 
 aHoid to use ma<-hinery, because they can blast it oil with simply hand 
 Iab<»r cheaper than they can employ machinery to do it. Tlieiefore, 
 that is wiiat I woidd like the committee to bear in mind, that the use 
 of machinery does not afford us any protection. 
 
 Neither does frei;,'lit afl<»rd us any proteetion, because the fact is that 
 the fieight from Italy to the ]>rintipal distributing points in this conn- 
 try is, <in an average, or certainly is, not more than from any of the 
 marble (juarries in N'ermont, CJeorgia, or Tennessee. I have some of 
 the ai tual figures here. 
 
 It is more, in many cases, from one of our American quarries to the 
 distributing jmint; but I think tlnongliout the country, on an average, 
 you can get Italian marble, so far a^ the freight rate is concerned, as 
 cln'ai» as you can get it from the Anieriean (juarries. Take New York 
 for example: The freight by steamer from Italy is 30 cents a cubic foot; 
 tiie rale from Vermont, which is the nearest quarry to New York, is lio 
 cents; and, as a matter of fact, there is not that difference, because 
 there is a great <leal of marble handled by sailing vessels, where special 
 rates are made, which reduces the freight very much indeed. The rate 
 to Baltimore by sail is only M) cents, and that is very much reduced by 
 the chartering of sailing vessels, and it is imjKtssible, in the transpor- 
 tation of marble, to loail t<» the full cai)acity of the vessel, but some 
 other lighter commodity must help to make up the cargo, and the char- 
 terer of that vessel gets the benefit of that, which goes to leduce the 
 lrci;:ht from .'{0 cents. It costs us to put marble into JJaltimore 33 cents; 
 and tiom Tennessee it costs 50 cents. The rate from Italy to New 
 Orleans is 3G cents, and from Vermont to New Orleans <)3 cents, and 
 from Tennessee it is 40 cents. New Orleans is the <listributiug j>oint 
 from the Mississip]»i northwest. \\'lien you go to the Pacific Coast, the 
 freight rate from Italy is 4S cents a cnl)ic foot. We can not send mar- 
 ble Irom Vermont, for instan<e. to San Francisco, even b}' sail to New 
 York City and around Cape Horn, for less than 1>7 cents, and if it were 
 Sent by rail it would «'ost ^\ SO; and from Tennessee it costs $1.08 per 
 cubic foot. And the same relative rate <d" comparison will exist — ]ier- 
 haps more favorably for Italian quarries — if we take the rates from the 
 Georgia «]uarries. 
 
 Mr. .McMiLLiN. You have said that that form of marble into which 
 labor goes is the block? 
 
 Mr. I'AUTKIDGK. Very largely into every form of it; but I say into 
 the first merchantable form, the block, more labor goes. That is almost 
 wholly labor. 
 
 Mr.' McMiLLFN. The Wilson bill reduced the duty from 39 to 29 per 
 cent — that was the equivalent ad valorem. I see, however, there was 
 a falling off of the imports to the extent of $89,000, less being imported 
 under the Wilson bill in ISOO tlian under the McKinley law in 1893. 
 
 Mr. PARTUinGE. I think the fiict is, in regard to the importation of 
 marble, that during the last three years the importation has been 
 increasing, 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I was looking at the quantity.
 
 278 SCHEDULE B. EAKTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Mr. Pahtridge. I have it here in dollars in value. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The difference in value is ^eater than my G^rea 
 would indicate. The value of the importations in 1893 was $<o8,0U0, 
 and in 181)6 it was $027,000. t ,ono *. . ,. , i 
 
 Mr Partridge. The history of that is this: In 1803 the total value 
 of the importations of marble was $1,135,000, and without any change 
 in the tariff whatever it fell off 40 per cent the next year, and went off 
 to a total of $711,000— the total value of all kinds of marble. 
 
 Mr.' DOLLIVER. How do you account for that? 
 
 Mr. Partridge. By the proposition which I made in the first pla^'e, 
 that it is a luxury, and on account of the strin^'cncy of the times there 
 was less surplus money which jieople cared to spend. Tombstones are 
 not imported very largely. The home marble producing establishments 
 are relied on to supply this trade. Now, since 1804 the importation of 
 marble has been increasing. It was more in 1895 than in 1894, and 
 more in 189G than it was in 1895. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But it was less, according to the figures, in any of 
 thcvse years than it was in 18!>3T 
 
 Mr. Partridge. Yes. In 1893 the total importations were larger 
 than any other year. 
 
 Mr. MCiMiLLiN. It was imported then at the rate of 65 cents per 
 cubic foot, and subsequently, under the Wilson bill, at 50 cents. 
 
 Mr. Partridge. Yes; bnt the importation of marlde, of course, is 
 divided between the imitortation of sawed marble antl of manufactures 
 of marble, and there is a question there whether the tendency has not 
 been to force imi)ortation out of blocks and into manufacturea of marble 
 and sawed marble. I will come to that in a moment. 
 
 Kow, upon the line I was sjteaking. There is no protection, we say, 
 to the marble industry of this country through freight or through 
 machinery, and the ]»roducts of marble in any form are in a large part 
 labor; and that brings us face to face with the (luarry labor of Italy 
 and our own labor. Theprieeof labor in Italy 1 know something about, 
 and I also have figures from an ollieial of the I'niteil States consular 
 agent at Carrara in 1S03. They were lurnislied by Mr. Boccacci, our 
 consular agent at that ]»lace. TJie first figures, however, are not from 
 him. I will give first tlie price i)ai»l to the common laborers. Common 
 quarrymen in Italy receive only li lire i)er day, winch in our money 
 would be equal to 39 cents. According to Mr. Boccacci, skilled foremen 
 receive in Italy from 4 to 5 lire per day, which in our money would be 
 77 to 90 cents; marble cutters in the Italian works receive from 3 to 4 
 lire, which would be 58 to 77 cents; and carvers, which is a high grade 
 of work, from to 7 lire, or $1.10 to $1.35 ]>er day. 
 
 The price of labor in this country in marble works with which I have 
 been connected is very much higher. Even tlie commonest tram]) whom 
 we might hire to ditch, who knows nothing about the business, would 
 receive at least $1 a day. We would not think of paying anyone less 
 than that. That is the minimum. You can not get a marble cutter in 
 New York City for less than $4.50 per day, but I should say for this 
 class of workmen that we i>ay here from ^Tto $5 a day. There is nec- 
 essarily a large range in the price paid at different places, and varying 
 according to tlie skill of the workmen. 
 
 Now, I will ask the committee's attention specifically to the condition 
 in which the marble industry finds itself. We say that an increased 
 duty would yield more revenue and that it would yield that revenue 
 upon a luxury. We say that it would tend to decrease the price of th«
 
 MARBLE. 279 
 
 cheaper grades of marble, and the use of the cheaper grades of marble 
 for cemeteiT purposes is entirely peculiar to this country. 1 'fv do not 
 u^etXSper grades in othe? countries so much. It Nvouhl tend to 
 drvelop the^emlrkable marble industries which this country has 
 There is marble all throu-h this country. You may put a ruk on the 
 marf mn Ahban.a extending up along the Appalachian range and 
 Tvirv Stite the rale touches, tVuin Alabama to Maine, is a State that 
 has marWe. It is wo ked m<:re extensively in some States than others 
 ut some twelve States in the United States work it to some extent and 
 I believe marble is f.,und in eighteen States altogether, although in 
 some of them it does not amount to very much as an industry. 
 Mr Wheeler. None of it is equal to Italian marble, is itT 
 Mr* PARTRIDGE. Yes; some of it sells for more than Italian marble, 
 bnt ti.crt is onlv a certa n part of it that grades along with the Ita ban 
 n ul^" " "e^nd^llere il a great deal of it tl-t isimu-h ch^per than 
 tlu- Italian marble. For monumental purposes, as I lune alieac > saui, 
 e Ame i can marble, which is comparatively cheap in price, is the best 
 11; ute This is Ihc n'.arble that is the best for all c. door purposes. 
 
 \\r TiTKNER In transluccnt marble do you tiud 
 
 Mr' I'AR?K k/e I am not perfectly familiar with that. During the 
 listlVw vearsof depression the importation of marble has varied. We 
 icTn t o. lai. ..f hat, bnt wc think if the rates of ^1"V-;'''%''S ; 
 i ni t- tionsof Italian marble would result and the condition ot that 
 stVv wm^^^ stan.l ahmgside of our own; when it liounshes, we 
 1 lours a when we are depressed, it would be depressed 
 ler luM resent tariff" the total importation of marble has actually 
 „..;[« ..A per cent in the last three years, and yet the »l"ty wh ch 
 Ic ovcrnn cut is receiving is less than three years ago. In the 
 ,!an n C prodncti<.n ot^narble in this country has been go ng 
 c^w The (luarrics in Tennessc-e, I have been told, are practically 
 shiTt d<.wn I had a letter from the presi.lent of one of the 'lennessee 
 c H. 1 U's who said he did not believe there were more than (Mghty 
 en le in t^ e <,narric-8 of Tennessee. The millsare sullenng. Ihose 
 ne w o n in. rting Italian marble into the country at the present 
 iime are bcYng force.l t(. shut down their mills. Tlu«y are bc-mg torced 
 to tri^^^Ifer their mills, which gave employment to laborers, mo a com- 
 niI^h n or br ke aire business Thev are obliged to take marble in is 
 S cdTt/Zt^f. .rth;/c>ther side of 'the water, and the Itaban mai^ e 
 im ortcM-s all of whom practically have interests in mills, are sut er g 
 fr m the present c<.ndition with respect to marble just as much as the 
 m u Vers of marble are sulVerinn. That is the reason why they \m^e 
 it M n a o un.on rcuest to this committee. There have t3een more 
 ft lures in the marble business, in the amount ot capital inv()lved, in 
 the hst Iree years than in the precc-ding twc-nty-tive years, ^ow the 
 nu- ical s uggis i<>ns which we wish to oiler to the (;ommittee are these : 
 '"l^. " lieseTit classitication <.f marble was adopted -' l«'J^.^-\f^f ^ 
 time the rate on blocks or slabs was made ^l^^^^'';';-^^,^^,/^ >^,* f.^Js 
 ritrht. The specilic duty has been more satistactorj. ^^l^""^f J^"^^'^^ 
 ot- inarble wcmc left on an ad valorem basis, and on account of the 
 nature of tU article it is perhaps dithcult to 'depart fron^^^^^^^^^ 
 We believe however, it would serve the interests ot the re^ erne aim 
 serve the purposes of the taritl'to substitute at least a compound duty 
 
 "Z Tu^l" Do vou include in manufactures works of artt 
 Mr. Partridge. Statuary is imported tree ot duty.
 
 280 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARB. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Do you propose to do that? 
 
 Mr. Partridge. We are only referring: to the common nses of marble 
 for mantels and such purposes. Formerly the duty upon slabs, which 
 is the chief part of the sawed marble product, was estimated by the 
 superficial foot, but in 1883 it was placed by the cubic foot, and the result 
 has been a disadvantage to the mil! industry. Slabs are always sold 
 by the superficial foot, in fact, and it would be more convenient to treat 
 them upon that basis; and there are various reasons known to the trade, 
 in the sawing of marble and the inecinalities of it, so that when you 
 undertake to bunch the slabs together, and take it by the cubic; foot, it 
 ■works favorable to the importation ot the slab in preference to the block. 
 Also, a great many of these slabs, and in la<t most of them, come in 
 rubbed, which is a partial manuf;icturing i)rocess, and yet there is no 
 provision by which the duty is increased, but actually, under the present 
 tariff, it results in reducing the duty. Kor an illustration, suppose you 
 had boards which were originally one inch ami they were planed down 
 and nuuleseven eighths of an inch an<l were a<lmitted for seven eighths 
 of the duty for which an inch board would pay. That is the situation 
 with reference to slabs. 
 
 One of the suggestions we have to niake is that there shall be a 
 difference of rate upon slabs which come in ]t;irtially manufa«-tun'd and 
 slabs coming in in the rough. 1 have some figures I want to show you 
 of how it operates with reference to slabs at the present time. Wo 
 claim that a block laid down in New York, with freiglit and duty i)aid, 
 will cost a little over ^'2 a cubic foot. The ligures we have are i^L'.U-i a 
 cubic foot. There are some variations. Now, if you liad for sawing TK) 
 cents a cubic foot, which is really too little, and estiiiuited that 9A 
 slabs might be sawed out of a cubic foot of marble — of course there is 
 a waste — it will cost about 77 cents a superfi«-ial foot to ])n»ducea slab 
 from Italian blocks, and under the impetus that has been given to the 
 mill industry in It;il\ (mills are springing ui> there) they can bring in 
 marble slabs, pay the duty, and ])la(e tliem in New York for about 20 
 cents a sui)erficial loot. So, asi«le from tlie fact that it is sometimes 
 necessary to saw for the ])urpose ot" matching, on any general ordinary 
 basis it results in its being impossibh> to saw slabs. That is why the 
 marble industry has been going ('own and wliy the importation of 
 marble has been facilitated in that particular line. 
 
 In reference to manutactures of marble, we don't suppose that any 
 rate of duty that is likely to be ])ut ui)on it would compensate American 
 artisans in the higher scale of work for the difference of wages i)aid 
 them and the wages that are paid in Kuroi)e. Of course tliere is in the 
 manufactured maible a larger pentMitage of work in proporti<»n to the 
 amount of marble — that is, tlie original cost of the marble has been redu- 
 cing relatively. We think, however, that it would be a proi)er thing to 
 make a com])ound duty, and that if a c(Mni»ound duty were adopted by 
 the necessity of the case— a sjuM-ific rate, and then add an ad valorem 
 duty — it woi*Jd result in giving us more jirotection in that line and 
 would help out the situation. We have a menutrandum here which 
 covers some of the points and which gives si)ecifically the rate of duty. 
 
 Mr. Partridge then tiled the following additional statement: 
 
 TARIFF ON MARBLK. 
 
 By the tariff of 1883 (act of M.irrli .3, 1S83) flip rates of dntv on all clawM of mar- 
 ble wore materially rcdnced. The McKinloy act (Ortoher 1, '18W) nia«le no chanRe; 
 biit the rates were again considerably reduced on all classes by the act of Anirust 
 27, 1894. J f. 
 
 I
 
 MARBLE. 281 
 
 The firet procew in the production of marble is the qnairying of blocks. The 
 conditions of qiiarrying in this lonntrv and in Itnly are very diverse. The deposits 
 in tin- ruit«'<l .States are often deej) below the siirfaie of the ;;round, and in all cases 
 it is neeessary to actually cut the blo<kH out of the quarry by machinery or tools to 
 avoid shatterinjj the marble. In Italy the deposits are exposed on the Rnrfa< e of 
 the mountain, and the blorks are simply blasted oflf and afterwards pointetl or scab- 
 bled into regular shapes. These Italian (piarries furnish blocks constituting over 
 two-thirds in value of all the marble imi)orted. and a considerably larger projtortiou 
 than that in cubic ftet. Formerly, under a duty less favorable relatively to the 
 importation of sawed marble, blocks constituted a still larger portion of the entire 
 im)>ortation. The second process is the sawing of these blocks into slabs the full 
 size of the block, or int«) smalb-r pieces, sawed to si/e, for parts of monuments or 
 other specitic jjurposes. Tin' full-size slabs are finally coi)ed or broken into slabs 
 of smalU-r dimeiisions. Slabs, or marble sawid to size, are the form in which the 
 larger part of the ]iroduct of American marble producers and mill owners is sold to 
 the traile. The third iirocess is the linishing of sawed marble by rubbing, cutting, 
 carving, turning, ]>olishing, et<'., for it« Hnal use. 
 
 With respect to the duty on marble, we respectfully submit the following: 
 
 First. Foreign marble is a j)roper commodity upon which to raise revenue. 
 
 People of mo<ierate means use little marble exeejit for cemetery purposes. For 
 that tliey use a large amount, but they now use and tliey will continue to use Ameri- 
 can marble almost exclusively, whctiier the duty on foreign marble is high or low. 
 American marble is better (or outdoor use and that mainly nsed in cemeteries is 
 cheaper than any foreign marlde would be even i( admitted free of duty. Foreign 
 marbles imported into the I'nited States are either colored marbles or expensive 
 grades <tf light marble. 'Iliev are a luxury and tiieir use depends but little ujion 
 variations of cost. A man w ho wants any of the imjiorted colored marbles is going 
 to have them no matter what they cost, and it is ehietly because they do cost that 
 they want them. Heing luxuries, their use is alVected, tiowever, by the conditions of 
 general prosperity. For exauijde, under the business depression beginning in ]^U'A 
 the total im])ortation ot marble fell from II, Kin, 17(5. L'3 for the year ending . I nne ;>(', 
 WXi. to .f711,JH!t.Ki) for the year ending .June .SO, 1M'J4, and manufactures of marble 
 during the same period from $177.sni.7t> to f>!7,3_'4.50. 
 
 Second. The duty on foreign m.irble tends to reduce rather than increase the price 
 of the medium and cheaper grades of marble, such as are used by the peo])Ieat large. 
 
 The ]iroduction of Italian marble is conlined to a small territory about t'arrara, 
 an<l its exjtort price to this country is controlled by a few Italian firms, who have 
 had, (or a number <)f years, an ai^reement to maintain price*. It rests with them, in 
 the tirst instance, whether any change in duty sh.ill allect the price of Italian marble 
 in this country. In so Car ax the duty on marlde is not, in effect, paid by them, it 
 operates to tax the wealthier consumer who buys ex])ensive ornamental marbles, while 
 the buyer of grailes of marble in cnmmon use bj' the ])eople at large gets them at a 
 lower price by reason of the taritf. The chea]>er grades of American marble are so 
 mixe<l with the finer grades in the same quarries that they must be worked together. 
 The more of the (iner there is jiroduced the more o( the cheaper grades must be. and 
 the lower their price. The tot.d output of sawed marble tor the last five years of 
 one .\meric!in pro<liicer, whose (piarries produce the highest-priced marble in thia 
 country, sold .xs follows: 
 
 l,20fi,5.'W cnbic feet 5\ y>er cent for less than $1 per cubic foot. 
 4L'S.(>;W cubic feet IS per cent tor .f 1 to $1» per cubic foot. 
 6.3'_',!«r>l cubic feet 'J'2 per cent for $2 to $3 per cubic foot. 
 214,L\'>0 cubic feet 9 per cent for $3 and over per oabic foot. 
 
 2,382,375 cubic feet. 
 
 None of the first and second divisions above and only a part of the third and fourth 
 are in competition with Italian marble. Considerable of the third division is sold 
 below the jirice of It:iliau marble, and considerable of the fourth above it. The 
 marble in ordinary use for cenn-tery ]>urj)o>es and much of that used for building 
 jturposes 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 mar- 
 bles competing with foreign marbles that admits of the production of the cheaper 
 marble at all. Whatever increases the price or quantity produced of the higher- 
 priced marble will increase the quantity produced and decrease the coat of the 
 •heaper grades. 
 
 Third. A duty on marble does not restrict trade.
 
 282 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 The total value of marble and raannfactures of marble and the duty collected 
 thereon since 1880 are as follows: 
 
 Year, 
 
 Value. 
 
 Daty. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Doty. 
 
 
 $553. 900 
 57.5, 145 
 6(17,631 
 502, 057 
 627, 881 
 5i:fi. 887 
 574, 365 
 641,543 
 
 $34 n. 075 
 
 3;- 
 295. 41.0 
 
 293. ii;o 
 
 302. 133 
 2^4,099 
 
 ]R89 
 
 $672,613 
 763,706 
 762,640 
 872,893 
 
 1,186,176 
 711,290 
 861.970 
 932. 760 
 
 r»3,697 
 
 1882 
 
 ■ 
 
 360.977 
 390.699 
 426. tfJl 
 
 1883 
 
 
 
 18:13 
 
 6U7,351 
 
 
 1894 
 
 343,027 
 
 
 1895 
 
 820,746 
 
 
 1696 
 
 838,669 
 
 
 
 
 From tbi.s table it appears that the importation of marblo was increaHinp np to the 
 year ending June SO, 1^^3. and then nn<ler a decreased duty it actually ht-jjan to fall, 
 and contiiiiie<l fulling until 1886. It then began to inm-aHe ajjain. slowly at tirst, 
 but rapidly from 1888 to 1893, when, un<l»T the inliuence of the general deprckHsion in 
 business, it fell otTST per cent. Since then it ha.M been increasing again. 
 
 Fourth. An increased duty is necessary to i)rutoct our own labor against the cheap 
 labor of Italy. 
 
 The Italian quarries have certain natnral advantages over the qnarries of tho 
 United States. In the first jdace, almo.st tlit-ir entire pro<luct is high-iiriced marble, 
 and hence the cost of (piarrying it is a unuh Ic.hh piT(«iit;ig«< of its helling price than 
 in the case of American marble. The cliaracter of the Italian deposits, a«« herein- 
 before explained, more than oliset any advantages accniing to American quarries 
 from the use of machinery. Machinery is u.xed in onr quarries from necessity, and 
 it is not used in the Italian rpiarrie."*, by the l.irger ]iroducer8 at least, because the 
 present method is ciie:i]ter. I lie American (piarrn > derive no ]>rotecti)>n from freight. 
 To the principal distributing points in tlie I'liitetl .*>tatrs tlie freight >Tili average as 
 much as Iroui Italy. For examjile, the present rates jut cubic foot are: To New York 
 from Italy, by steamer, 30 cents; from Vermont, "J,') cent«, and from Tenness«e, .*>•) 
 cents; to iialtimore from Italy, by sail. 3*> <ents; from Vermont. Ii3 centa, and from 
 Tennessee, ;")() cents; to New Orleans Irom Italy, 3«i cmtn; from Vermont, tW cents, 
 and Irom Tennessee. 40 cents; to San I'mncisco from Italy, by sail, 4H cents to 64 cents; 
 from Vermont, !t7 cents by sail from New York or $l.Wl all rail, and from Tennessee. 
 $1.!'8. The comparison from the (Jer)rgia quarricM would l>e quite us favorable to the 
 Italian quarries. ( )ur (juarries, theretore, even iu our own markets, have no natural 
 protection against those of Italy. 
 
 The product of r|uarries, i. e., blork marble, is not raw material, biit it represents 
 almost entirely lalior. The raw material iu the mountains in Italy is of little value, 
 but the co.st of the blocks is measured by the labor rojuired to i|uarry them, and move 
 them to the seaboard. In this country also an unilev<-loped quarry is of little value, 
 and it is fair to say that the jirc^cnt value of our <|u:irries represents what has bc«'n 
 exjicnded in devel<q)ing tiiem. Two tliinis of the rxpetise of producing marble 
 in this ciumtry is lor lai>or iliie«t, and about one fourth for supplies ajid material, 
 including machinery, iron, toids, coal, etc. It is estimated that iHI per cent of the 
 expense of the])roduction ot nmrble is for labor. The competition between Italian and 
 American marble, therefore, is simply a competition between Italian ami American 
 lalior. Common quarrymen in Italy receive only 2 lire (39 cents) ])er daj-. According 
 to the report, in 1803. of Mr. Ilocaeci, then United States consular agejit at Carrara, 
 skilled ioremen receive from 4 to r> lire (77 to 5H> cents), marble cutters from 3 to 4 lire 
 (.08 to 77 cents), and carvers from G to 7 lire ($1.16 to $1.3,">). There are more grada- 
 tions among nuirble workers in this country, and their wages vary from $1 per day 
 for the cheapest labor to .$.") per day for marble cutters. The present duty does not 
 compensate on any class of marble for tho diiVerencein the cost of labor between this 
 country and Italy. 
 
 Fifth. The jiresent rates of duty on all classes of marble ought to be increased. 
 
 An increased duty would yiebl an increased revenue, for it has been shown above 
 the rate of duty has not restricted the atuount of importation. It would raise that 
 increased revenue on an article which is a luxury. It would tend to decrease the 
 cost of the cheaper grades of marble whic h are used by the jieople at large, it is 
 the protection alVorded the high-]>riced marbles by a dnty which, however, lias 1>een 
 gradually reduced, that has made possible the production and use in the United 
 States of great quantities of medium and cheaper jzrades of marble for cemetery 
 purposes, buildings, etc. Such use of marble is entirely peculiar to our own coun- 
 try. It would aOord protection direct to American labor, which would receive 
 protection, not by lessening the im]>ortatiou, but by keeping up the pries of the 
 Bigh-priced colored marbles. It will tend also to further develop the remarkable
 
 MARBLE. 283 
 
 marble deposits of this conntry. Marble is abnndant in all the States along the 
 Ajipalachian rarifje from the (iiilf of Mexico to the Canada line, nanitly, Alabama, 
 Georgia, 'lennneBsee, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, 
 Connecticut, MasHachusetta, and Vermont. It is also found in Missouri, Colorado, 
 Idaho, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, California, Washington, and other sections. 
 The ornamental or colored marbles found in Tennessee, Georgia, Missouri, Arizona, 
 and many other sections of the country can not be surpassed by any foreign marble. 
 Hut the obstacles to be overcome in developing these natural resources can not be 
 appreciated except by experience. 
 
 During the la«t three years of general depression in this eonntry the importa- 
 tion of marble under the present tariff ha-s flourished. The importation of foreign 
 marble has increased from $711,l.'yO for the year ending June 30, 1894, to $932,760 for 
 the year ending June 30, 1896, an increase of 31 per cent, yielding the Government, 
 however, less duty in 1896 than in 1894. In the meantime the production and sale 
 of American marble has decreased even more rapidly. The quarries in Tennessee 
 which compete more directly with the foreign colored marbles are practically shut 
 down. There have probably been more taiiures in the marble business in tiie United 
 States djiring the jiast year in amount of r;ij)ital involved than during the preceding 
 twenty-five years. The American marble business was never so depressed as it is 
 now, and more men are out oJ employment in tliis country in the marble business 
 than ever before. American mills for sawing Italian marble are also suffering. In 
 this conntry they are shutting down, and in Italy new ones are starting up. They 
 are unabU to successfully compete with Italian mills, and the tendency is more and 
 more to import marble from the saw rather than in block. 
 
 Tlie i)re8ent tariff classilication of marble was adopted in 1883, and at the same time 
 the rates on all classes eTcejit manufactures of marble were made wholly 8j)ecilic. 
 We believe that spec itic duties on maride have been more satisfactory both to Amer- 
 ican jiroducers and to importers. The nature of maride manufactures renders it 
 «lilticult to make a wholly s]>ecific duty for this class. There are abuses in the valu- 
 ation of marble manufactures which it is impossible for the custjtmsollicers to detect 
 from want of expert knowledge. We believe that they would bejiartially corrected, 
 at least, by thesulist itutiono^ acompound duty forthe j)resent wholly ad valorem one. 
 
 The rate of duty on marble slabs wa« formerly by the 8u]>erficial foot, but sinie 
 1883 it has been by the cubic foot. Slabs are always sold by thesuj)ert1rial foot, and 
 we believe that it would be more convenient ami would prevent irregularities in 
 measurement to again make the rate of duty on slabs by superlicial measurement. 
 Slabs are oftentimes iin|>orted sand rubbed, an<l thus ])artially manufactured and 
 increasetl in value, and they ought to pay a higher rate of duty on that account. 
 At jtresent, however, this rubbing retluccs the measurement, and thereby actually 
 re<lures the rate of duty. A parallel case would be to admit boards which have been 
 planed from 1 inch to seven-eighths of an in<h in thickness, and thus made of 
 more value, at seven-eigliths of the rate on rough inch boiirds. We Ixdieve that 
 when rubbed the rate on slabs ought to be made higher than when they are lelt 
 from the saw. 
 
 Thepresentrelativedntyon blocks and sawed marble is favorable to theimportation 
 of sawed marble rather than blocks, and works against the American mill owners 
 who desire to saw blocks. For example, the present average cost of Italian blocks 
 landed in our ports, freight and duty pai<l.i8 $L'.04 per cubic foot. Adding r>0 cents 
 a cubic foot for sawing, which is a low figure, and estimating 9^ inch slabs to a 
 foot, which is all that can be produced, the cost to American mill owners lor inch 
 slabs sawed in their own mills is L'7 cent.s per superficial foot. The same slabs sawed 
 in Italy can be imported at a cost, freight and duty paid, of 19^ cents per foot. This 
 difference is due to the fact that blocks for importation are scabbled, and all waste 
 and imi)erfectioiiB removed, ad<ling materially to their cost. This expense is obviated 
 in flie main when sawed in Italy. This fact, the waste of marble in sawing, and 
 th«« saving of freight and duty on that waste. an<l, princi]ial]y, the cheaper price of 
 labor in Italy, makes it possible, under the present rates, to import slabs 33J per 
 cent cheaper on an average than they can be produced from the blocks by our mills 
 in this country. For this reason we think that the duty on slabs ihoubl be increased 
 more, proportionately, than the duty on blocks, and that it should be so increased 
 that American mill owners can saw Italian marble in this conntry as against the 
 mills in Italy. 
 
 No rate of dnty which can be imposed will afford ample protection to skilled 
 American artisans in the highest class of artistic work in marble. Take, for 
 instance, icrtain styles ofmantels, of which there are a great number imported. These 
 are bought in Paris for $t)0; the present rate of duty and freight will bring the cost, 
 laid down in New York, to about $1CK), while the production of snch mantels under 
 existing labor conditions would cost $375 in New York City. Marble altars and 
 church decorations in marble are largely imported under the present rates of duty, 
 and can be delivered in New York at the same relative cost as the mantels referred
 
 284 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 to in the above illustration. Other manufactures of marble can he brought into th« 
 United States under the present rate of duty for 50 per cent less than they can be 
 produced in America, paying current rates of wages. 
 
 We recommend that the marble schedule be made as follows: 
 
 Marble of all kinds in block, rough or 8quare<l, 80 cents per cable foot. 
 
 8awed marble, including marble slabs, over two inches in thickness, $1.50 per 
 
 cubic foot. . ., .,,,,.. ,, ^,- 
 
 Marble slabs and marble paving tiles, if not rubbed in whole or part. Id cents per 
 superficial foot not exceeding one inch in tliicVuesH, and if rubbed in whole or piirt, 
 20 cents per superficial foot. If more than one inch in thickness, and not over two 
 inches, 30 cents per superficial foot if not rubbed in whole or part, and 35 cents per 
 superficial foot if rubbed in whole or part. 
 Mosaic cubes, whether of marble or stone, 5 cents per pound and 50 per cent ad 
 
 valorem. . .^ , ^- , . 
 
 Manufactures of marble, onyx, or alabaster, not otherwise specified. $ii per cubic 
 
 foot, inside case measure, and in addition thereto 50 per cent ad valorem. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Vermont Marble Company, Vermont; Adams & Bacon, Vermont; Burling- 
 ton Manufacturing Company, Vermont; Harney Marble Comi>any, 
 Vermont; Columbian Marble Ciunpany, Vermont; Wheaton Quarry 
 Company, Vermont; John Kinde, of Hatterson A; Eisele, K. B. lomp- 
 kins, of K. C. Fislier «V Co., J. W. Harrif>oii, <if Kllin, Kitson iV Co., 
 W. K. Fertig, of I'ertig A. Co., Committee of the Marble Industry 
 Emi>li)yers' Association of New York, representing 4M manufacturing 
 firms ami corjiorations; Tmnessee I'rcxlucers' Marhle Comjmiiy, Ten- 
 nessee; East Tennessee Stone and Marble Company, Tennessee; T. 8. 
 Codfrey Marble Company, TeiineAsee; Concord Quarry Comi>any, Ten- 
 Bessee; John M. K«)s», Tennefwen; J. Ed. IJoss, reiinessee; Columbia 
 Marble Company, TeiinesHee; Cedar lUufl" .Marble Company, Tennes- 
 see; .John J. Craig Company, Tennessee; Hart-(iodfrey Marble (om- 
 jiany, Tennessee; Knoiville Marl>le and Stone Company, Tennessee; 
 Hugh Sisson & Sons, Baltimore; Evans Marble Ctuiipany, Haltimore 
 and Tennessee; .lolin Hainl & Sons, J'hiladelphia; Chas. E. Ilnll »St 
 Co., Boston; Itowkt-r, 'i'oriey A- Co., Boston; (Jeorgia Marble Com- 
 pany, Georgia; Southern Marble Company, Georgia; Kenuesaw ^larble 
 Company, Georgia. 
 
 AvoNDALE, Pa.. Tfecemher 5.S Jf^OS. 
 
 Dear Str: In the July (ISOC.) issin' of <Mir tiado Journal Stone, on 
 page lua, is given an extract from the lejiort of Mr. Towsey, tlie Hritinb 
 vice consul, on Italian marble for 18;>5. in wliich wages are given as 
 follows, counting the Iranc as 20 cents: Wages jier day of foreman, 75 
 cents to $1 (we i)av •i'.'ioO to $.">): qnarrymen. «i(> to To cents (we pay 
 $1.40 to $1.80); laborers, 40 to 'A) cents (we i>ay ••j'l.lO to $1.30). 
 
 This Italian marble comes over in sailing vessels at very low rates of 
 freight, and frequently, I understand, it comes as ballast. 
 
 The duty on marble of all kinds, in bjuck. rough or s(|uared only, is 
 now 50 cents per cubic foot: under the McKinlcy act it was r»5 cents 
 per cubic foot. ^larble, sawed, dressed or otherwi.se, inchuling marble 
 slabs, mosaic cubes, and marble paving tiles, is now S.") cents per cubic 
 foot; under the McKinley act it was $1.10 per cubic foot. 
 
 In view of the very great dilVerence jtaid in wages and the low freight 
 rates, we feel that the rate under the ^IcIvinley act should be reinstated, 
 but in any case it should wot be less than GO cents per cubic foot in 
 block, etc., and $1 per cubic foot sawed, etc. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 E. H. Hepburn, 
 President Avondale Marble Company.
 
 FREESTONE. 285 
 
 niEESTo:N:E3, 
 
 (Paragraphs 105i and 106.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. JOHN J. ALLEN, OF 
 BROOKLYN, N. Y. 
 
 Friday, January 8, 1897. 
 
 Gentlemen of the Committee on Ways and Means: I desire to pre- 
 sent to you some considerations bearing' ui)On the tariff ujjon sandstone 
 or freestone, I represent more particuhiily the interests in the brown- 
 stone quarries at I^jrtland and Cromwell in Connecticut, but speak 
 also in behalf of similar interests elsewhere in this country. 
 
 The Connecticut brownstoiie (piarries have been operated for many 
 years, and for more than half a century on a considerable and increasing 
 Bcale. A large amount of capital is invested in them, running into the 
 millions, and this investment is one which the nature of the business 
 has made i>ermanentin character and incapable of withdrawal and rein- 
 vestment in other directions. This is due to the fact that the capital 
 thus invested has been emj)l()yed in purchasing quarry lands costing in 
 instances over $K>,(M)(» and perhaps more than .*5(),()IM) per acre, and in 
 quarrying and stone handling machinery, none of which, either lands 
 or machinery, are valuable for other purposes. 
 
 The industry thus established, through years of effort and exj^eri- 
 ence, is one of the i)rin(ipal industries of the State, as it is an industry 
 of inijiortance in each State where freestone quarries are operated. 
 
 In the Connectnut (piarries a very large number of men are employed, 
 and these workers constitute a sixth or more of the poi>ulation of the 
 towns in which the quarries are situate«l. Indeed, it may be said that 
 in tliese instances the quarries are the town, other business industries 
 and enterprises there being incidental to and dependent upon the quar- 
 ries for their existence and continued support. 
 
 Without taking the time necessary to give exact statistics of extent 
 and cost of ])rodu<tion, wages ]>aid, and [lersons employed, I will only 
 say, in a general way, that of late between L',(Kl(M><K) and 3,(HK),(»0(» cubic 
 feet of stone, or periiaps more, have gone into the market annually from 
 the Connecticut (luariies. I will not now undertake to state any strictly 
 average price because, as the stone is of different grades according to 
 quality, etc., and adapted t<) various purjxjses, ditVerent methods of 
 averaging the prices woidd give varying results, but I think a fair gen- 
 eral statement would jtlace the average at a figure between 75 cents and 
 $1 or thereabouts, per cubic foot. The wages paid in these quarries each 
 year may be stated roundly at $1,()0(),(IU0 and upward for ordinary labor, 
 and, of course, to this must be added a very considerable amount for all 
 the expenditures essential to the conduct of this business. 
 
 There is probably no other industry involving so large a percentage 
 of wear and waste. Speaking generally, upward of 60 per cent of that 
 which is taken out of the quarries is worthless and must be carried 
 away as refuse. This is an important fact as showing the extent to 
 which the item of labor enters into the cost of producing the market- 
 able stone in its natural undressed state. When the marketable stone 
 is laid upon the bank ready for shipment, in its natural condition, its 
 cost may fiom different causes reach the vicinity of between 1)0 and 95 
 per cent of the price at the quarries. Therefore, standing in the market,
 
 286 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 a rough, unhewn block, this stone is in fact a manufactured article and 
 one representing in its production much more labor of a manufacturing 
 or skilled nature than many of the recognized manufactured articles 
 of commerce. 
 
 No doubt these rough blocks of stone have been generally regarded 
 as so much raw material. This is gross error. This stone as delivered 
 in market — in a rough or undressed state— is in no respect raw mate- 
 rial. It is as truly a manutactured article, to all practical intents, as 
 many things which exhibit in their texture and completeness the result 
 of intricate mechanical processes extending through successive stages 
 of manufacture. 
 
 This industry, by the employment in this tountry of so much labor 
 and the expenditure of so large a proportion of the first cost of the prod- 
 uct, not only furnishes an article of general utility but contributes 
 largely to the pennanent improvement of tlie country. It shouhl, 
 therefore, unquestionably receive from the (lovernment the s;ime meas- 
 ure of protection as that extended to any similar product of labor and 
 skill which enters into general use. 
 
 What has been said of the (Connecticut brownstone interest* is true 
 to a large extent of all freestone interests in the United States. 
 
 These interests represent very many millions of investt-d capital, 
 which, as has been shown, can not be witlnlrawn and placed elsewhere. 
 Taking the country at large, there are many thousands of men employed 
 in the ])ro(luction of this stone, and several millions of dollars are paid 
 out annually as wages, besidt-s the a«l(iitional large sums necessarily 
 expended for the other essential items of cost of i>lacing the stone in 
 market. 
 
 To all this, in a proper consideration of the subje<'t, should be added 
 the cars, vessels, and other vehicles of transi)ortation and C4ipital and 
 labor employed in connection therewith, and the large amounts spent 
 in placing the stone in the consumers' hands and in the operations inci- 
 dent to the final use of the stone. 
 
 The brownstone or freestone industry is therefore essentially au 
 industry to be fostered. Sandstone has so largely entereti into use uh 
 a building material that it may jjrojierly be regarded as a necessity and 
 not a luxury. It has become a standard article of architectural use as 
 well as of ordinary masonry construction. 
 
 To enable this industry to continue, the aid of the (iovernment must 
 be invoked. The reason is that foreign countries, chietly Nova Scotia, 
 New Brunswick, ami Great iiritnin, produce ami send int«» tlie markets 
 of the United States stones of the same character as our freestones and 
 which come in direct competition witli them. The freestones of those 
 countries are used here in the same classes of buildings and work as 
 those in which ours are emi)loyed. They can successfully enter into 
 competition with our stones for several reasons. 
 
 The quarries of Nova Scotia an<l New Ilrunswick which send tlieir 
 stones here are generally on tide water, and the stones can be rea<lily 
 placed in large vessels and cheajtly freighted to t»ur ports. It has been 
 shown you at this hearing that in the matter of marble the freight to 
 New York troiii Italy is less than from Vernnuit, and the reduction is 
 stated as much less on sandstone from (ireat Britain. Besides sand- 
 stone from the latter country can be largely brought as ballast, reducing 
 the average cost of freight to a minimum. Lal>or at those foreign 
 quarries is far lower than here an<l the <'ost of supplies, etc., used in 
 quarrying is very much less. 
 
 The cost of the lands of these foreign quarries is understood to be
 
 FREESTONE. 287 
 
 less than one-third the cost here. The quarries there are of such a 
 formation that the waste or portion of the stone unfit for use is only 
 ah(mt two-tliirds the wortliless portion in our home quarries. 
 
 Because of the causes enumerated and others the foreign stone can 
 be brou{,Mit into the United States with the present duties paid and 
 l)hiced ui)on tlie market at prices wliich aflord a considerable profit to 
 the foreign producer. Indeed, it has been asserted that with the pres- 
 ent duty on rough sandst4jne trebled the foreign stone could be landed 
 heie so as to compete at a profit with sandstone produced in this 
 country. 
 
 Much of what has been stated to you at this hearing in respect of 
 marble is apjdicable to freestone, and the argunients presented in sup- 
 port of a high tarift" upon marble may be rejicated as of force, in a large 
 degree, in the case of the stone of wliich 1 speak. Asking therefore 
 that those statrments and arguments may be considered also in this 
 counecti<»n, I will not occui)y your attention with their lepetition. 
 
 I would, however, request you to consider that tliere is now a duty of 
 50 cents per cul)i(; loot upon undressed marble and this will doubtless 
 be increased. The duty upon undressed sandstone is but 7 cents per 
 cubic foot: aii<l 1 ask you whether, in view of all the facts bearing ujmn 
 the two stone products, it is possible for any rational legislator to con- 
 jure a reason lor so wide a difference between the two rates of duty. 
 It appears impossible to assign any satisfactory reason for the broad 
 distinction made between marble and sandstone in the tariff rates. 
 
 The Canadian duty on undressed sandstone is stated as considerably 
 more than double our rate. Our duty should at least equal any foreign 
 rate. 
 
 If I am not mistaken, at a former revision of the tariff, the Committee 
 on Ways and Means recommended a duty of §5 i)er ton of 13 cubic feet 
 of rough stiMie, or (»ver 3.S cents i)er cubic foot. The reasons which 
 prom])ted such action are substantially in force at the j)resent time. 
 
 The duty fixed by the tariff of 18'.MI, of 11 cents per cubic foot on 
 rough and M) per cent ad valorem on dressed stone, did not prove suffi- 
 cient, and the reduction of the duty to 7 cents per cubic foot in the 
 tariff of 18J>4 has worked great injury to the brownstone interests as 
 similar reductions have to otiier industries. 
 
 If these interests are not sutlicieutly ])rotected by a proper tariff', the 
 quarries can not be ke]tt in operation. The cessation of these industries 
 means the destruction of whole towns and communities dependent ui)on 
 them, and the total l(>ss of the caiiital invested, which, as has been 
 shown, can not be withdrawn and invested elsewhere. 
 
 Nor can there be any ret-ipr<»city in respect to the tariff on sandstone 
 for the reasons shown, which are, in brief, that the cost of j)lacing in 
 our hitme market our own stone is so much in excess of that of the 
 foreign product landed here and placed in competition with it. 
 
 \\e therefore ask a large increase of duty over the present rate. 
 We ask this, first, to meet the greater cost of our product due to the 
 larger cost of our quarry lands, tlie lesser waste in (juarrying for- 
 eign stone, the ditference in price of labor and supi>lies, and the low 
 cost of freighting the Ibreign jiroduct: second, to protect a numerous 
 class of workers, skilled in their present employment, but who could 
 find in this country no other similar field for their skill totakeits place; 
 third, to save from total loss the investments of those who have carried 
 on this, one of the (ddest industries in this country, at much risk and at 
 times without profit, and, lastly, to provide for this country a certain 
 amount of revenue, the giving up of which will not only benefit no one,
 
 288 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 but will drive from us and buiUl up abroad an important industry, which, 
 nurtured here, will ('ontiime to sustain other industries and largely 
 contribute to the material interests of the country and the people. 
 
 GRAXTTE. 
 
 (ParafjrapliH 105^ an<l 106.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY GRANITE MANUFACTDRERS' 
 ASSOCIATION OF QUINCY, MASS. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We desire to file a brief at this time rehitive to our granite industry. 
 In a former memorial in IS'.IO we askod that a «luty of .">(» prr cent ad 
 valorem be established, but in view of the immenst- iiKTea.>%e in importa- 
 tions we find that a .")0 per cent ilut y is entirely inad«Mpiate to enable us 
 to con)pete with the chea]> rorei;,Mi labor. Tin* imp«>rtations of foreign 
 granite at the port of Jioston for the year ls.s<> was .*."»l-',(»L'«;, increasing 
 until in the year 1S95 (which is the latest we have at hand) to ;Ji:i."».l,'7l>. 
 
 The average pay of a skilled granite cutter in the city of (^uiucy 
 is $2.75 per day; in Aberdeen, Scotland, :?1.08; granite iioiishers in 
 Quincy, $2.40; granite polishers in Aberdeen, 75 cents. >'iue hours 
 constitutes a day's work in both countries. 
 
 We desire also to <-omment on the evidence of Jones Hrothers, of 
 Boston, Mass., imjtoiters, tiled in IS'.M). in which tln'y make reference 
 to a plain block of stone containing 4(» cubic leet. This block of stone 
 in its dressing requires a small amount of labor compariMl to its size, 
 and while the dincrence in cost of labor on this i)articular stone is only 
 about $1.S, the gross cost in favor of American granite is ^HK The 
 reason for that is the diflereuce in «piarry juices of the raw material. 
 Blocks of this description are rarely if ever imported, lus in IK) |»er cent 
 of all importations no one ])iece exceeds 12 cubic feet, and at least 50 
 per cent do not exceed cubic feet in the block. 
 
 Furthernmre, we can ]>resent. if re<|uired. to your committee evidence 
 of the fact of our granite being sent to Scotlaiul to be tinished for 
 monumental i)urposcs and then reimportcti at a much less cost than 
 the same tinished jirotluct here. 
 
 In view of the al)ove i)resentation, we would submit that a duty of 
 100 per cent ad valorem is not excessive t«» et|uali7,e cost of lalK)r 
 between that of Scotlaml and this country, an<l pray your committee 
 to impose said duty to protect 2,000 workmen employeii in this industry 
 in the city of Quincy. 
 
 Granite Manufacturer.^' Association 
 
 OF QtiNcv, Mass., 
 .Iamks TiioMFsoN, I'tixidenL 
 T. .1. DuNFiiv, ^iecretary, 
 
 PROTESTS AGAINST INCREASE OF DUTY. 
 
 COMiVnTTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 Iteferring to the matter of duty on imi)orted granite monuments, we, 
 as importers of granite, wish to»all your attentiun to the fact that under 
 the Wilson bill it was first proposed and thought that lo jter tent duty 
 was suthcient. If we are not mistaken, it was later made at M) per cent, 
 at which rate of duty we think it should stand. We will not writ© you
 
 GRANITE. 289 
 
 at sucli l(n<;th in order to present argiiinents in favor of this position, 
 inasnnich as yon i)robabIy have them noni otlier parties. The facts ot 
 the casr are, if anybody wants a ^'ood red jrrauite monument it has got 
 t<) be imported. Tliere is no good red American granite in the market 
 at tlie present time suitable for monumental purposes. 
 
 Cook & Watkins. 
 
 MoNTPELlER, Vt., January 6, 1S97. 
 Committee on "Ways and Means: 
 
 The tariff on granite is now M) ])er cent, under the McKinley bill it 
 was 1(» per cent, and before that time it was'J(»per cent; but 30 per cent 
 is snllicietitly high for the ])rotcctinii of American labor. 
 
 Ninety-nine per cent of the granite imi)orte<l into this country is red 
 granite. The red granite of the I'nited States is very limited. There 
 is some found at Ked i;ea«-h, in Maine, but it is of a (puility that will 
 not hohl its color and is not very tlesirable, and if the people of the 
 United States want a red granite they can not obtain a good article in 
 this country. The result is that excessive duty (Mi this granite will take 
 it from the consumer antl will nut be any advantage to the American 
 woi kmen. 
 
 If yon will look at the schedule of granite imported into the United 
 States within the i)ast year, you will liiid under the .'.<> jut cent tarill a 
 large de<reaMe, and we hope the duty will be left as it now stands and 
 not increast'd. 
 
 We are large handlers of llarre granite, and know that it does not 
 afle<t the trade in our native st^ine and would n«it in any other granite 
 centers in the United States, 
 
 i;. ('. Bowers (Jranite Company, 
 K. C. UowEKS, rnsitUiit. 
 
 Boston, January 5, 1897. 
 Co:sniiTTEE on Ways and Means: 
 
 1 wish to enter my jjrotest against any change in the i»resent rate of 
 duty on imi>orted granite, as I know, from juesent cost of the same 
 style work in both Scotch and American granite, that the i)resent rate 
 of duty is more than amjde to prote<t the American product. The 
 jirincipal reason for sales being made in the imported granites is that 
 purchasers have a larger variety of colors from which to make their 
 select i(»ns, in Scotch and Swetlish, which colors the American granite 
 (piarries do not produce. Urom this you will see that it is not the 
 prices named to purchasers that elVect the sales ami bring in the im- 
 ported granite work. You will lind, by careful reference, that the 
 iujjiortations of gray granites are very slight. This is owing to the 
 fact that our American quarries produce princii)ally gray granites, and 
 we can, as far as ])rice is concerned, sell American granite at a much 
 lower price than the same article in imported granite can be sold for. 
 
 1 am largely interested in granite (juarry proi)erty at West (^uincy, 
 Mass., as well as handling all other American products, and do not 
 consider that my interests in the American granite industry require 
 any further protect i(>n than the present tariff provides. 
 
 Charles Clements. 
 T n 19
 
 290 SCHEDULE B. EARTHS, EARTHENWARE, AND GLASSWARE. 
 
 Boston, January 5, 1697. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We wish to protest against any proposed advance in tariff on imi>orted 
 granites. The price is now much in excess of our American granites, 
 both red and gray, and a liigher duty means a heavy loss to the Gov- 
 ernment in revenue, and will benefit none. We trust that the present 
 duty, on investigation, may be found, in the opinion of your committee, 
 sufficiently high, and that there will be no change for the present. 
 
 E. C. Wlllison. 
 
 Boston, January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are large owners of quarries and manufactories of granite at 
 Barre, Vt., and Hingham, Mass., and from i)ractical experience we are 
 satisfied that an increase in tariff is unnecessary for i)rotection i)uri>ose8. 
 On the contrary, it unsettles juices and disturbs the monumental busi- 
 ness generally. The Americiin nuinufacturers have facilities far superior 
 to those in Scotland, and with the natural advantages in the formation 
 and lay of our granites we can (piarry granite at a much less cost, not- 
 withstanding the dill'crence in labor. 
 
 With the present tariff we can successfully compete with the manu- 
 facturers of Scotland in manufacture; besides, the only granite that is 
 imported at the present time is red granite, of whicli we have very few 
 quarries suitable for monumental purposes, and we believe it is fur the 
 interest of the monumental business that we should be able to supply 
 a variety of colors, both from an artistic and business standpoint. 
 
 We therefore most earnestly protest against any increase in the 
 present tariff. Jones Bhotukks. 
 
 WANTS PRESENT DUTY REDUCED. 
 
 Kew Yokk, January 6, Ih'JT. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Your committee will no doul»t consider the rate of duty on foreign 
 granite in the near luture. The old rate was I'O ]>er cent. This rate 
 was advanced to 40 i»er cent, ami then jilaced at M) per cent, the jiresent 
 rate. In considering such matters the intention »)f your committee is, 
 of course, to do justice to all interests concerned, and my belief tliat 
 such is the case is my only excuse for tresi)assing u]>on your valuable 
 time. An examination of the imports will show that <s.j ])er cent ot 
 same is red granite, for which we have no e<iuivalent in the Tnited 
 States. The gray granites (piarried in this country are superior to 
 anything possible to secure abroad, lied graiutes, such as Hill O'Fare, 
 red Peterhead, and the red Swede granites, are not to be found on this 
 side, and when our citizens recpiire such material it is necew.sary to 
 import it. 
 
 A reduction of the rate to the old basis of LM> i)er cent would advance 
 the interests of everyone concerned, as there is no conllict ot interests, 
 as the gray granites quarried here are so much sui)erior to anything it 
 is possible to secure abroad that the market is jiractically closed to 
 im])ortations of that class. 
 
 For red granites, however, it is necessary to go «uitside, and a rate of 
 duty of over 20 per cent idaces a buideii upon jieople who wish to ]»ur- 
 cliase material that, on account of the ditlerence in c<»lor, beautifies the 
 dirterent cemeteries by value of contrast. If any imlustry in this coun- 
 try W(mld be advanced or ])rotected by leaving'the duty at its i)re8ent 
 rate of oO per cent. I should be the last to enter a protest. At least 70 
 
 per cent of my business is in home material. 7, a.- t. 
 
 D. >> . riJANcis.
 
 SCHEDULE C. 
 
 METALS, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 291
 
 Schedule C -METALS, AND MANUf ACTURES OF. 
 
 IROX OUE. 
 
 (Parajjraph K>9i.) 
 
 MEMORIAL OF WESTERN IRON ORE ASSOCIATION. PROTESTING 
 AGAINST REDUCTION OF DUTY. 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio, January 7, 1S97. 
 Co>r>nTTEE ON Ways and Means: 
 
 The iiu'iiibers of the Western ln»u Ore Asaoeiation, represent in j: an 
 annual output of 1(>,(I(K»,(H»(> tons of American ore, produced i)rincii)ally 
 iu the States of Micljijran, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, at their recent 
 meeting discussed carefully the .[uestion of import duty on iron ores 
 comiuf? into this country/ The j^encral opinion was that the duty 
 shouhl be hij^lu-r, and the meeting,' instructed this coniinitt^ie to tile an 
 earnest protest a^^ainst anv reduction of the present duty of 40 cents 
 per ton, calliuf; attention to the fact that the cost of these ores at the 
 furiuice consists larj;elv in the labor of niiniu}; and tiansportinj; them, 
 so that any reducti(Ui would have to be met by lowerinjj: the compensa- 
 tion of labor, already low enough iu consequence of former reduction of 
 duty. 
 
 L. 0. IlANNA, 
 
 E. W. Ogleijay, 
 Sam'l Mather, 
 
 Connnittee, 
 
 D. Z. Norton, 
 
 ISecretary. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF RICHARD HECKSCHER & SONS, OF PHILADELPHIA, 
 PA., ASKING TO HAVE DUTY REMOVED. 
 
 PHlLADELPniA, Pa., January 6j 1897, 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We desire, as an individual firm which has for many years been 
 miners of coal and ore and manufacturers of pig iron, as well as unswerv- 
 ing Kepublicans, to submit for the earnest consideration of your com- 
 mittee the following reasons for the admission of iron ores free of duty: 
 
 (1) The supply of raw material, i. e., iron ore, in the East has been 
 enormously curtailed, owing to ihe exhaustion of many of the Eastern 
 mines and' the unavailability of many others, due to their low percent- 
 age of metallic iron. 
 
 293
 
 294 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 (2) The iron interests east of the Allefjlianies can not at the present 
 cost of ores retain even the small local proportion of Eastern business, 
 being unable to compete with the Western producers, who have all their 
 raw materials at their doors. 
 
 (3) The retention of any considerable proportion of the said business 
 by Eastern furnaces and mills is largely dependent upon a lower price 
 of pig iron, which can not be produced at lower cost unless ores are 
 made available at lower prices, and in the event of the blast furnaces 
 of the Eastern districts being compelled to close, the mills manufactur- 
 ing structural iron, etc., will be obliged to follow, thereby resulting in 
 the destruction of enormous vested interests. 
 
 (4) Such free admission of ores would not be inimical to the Western 
 producers of iron, inasmuch as no iron made in the Hast can be shipped 
 west, being debarred botli by the higher cost of juoduction, as well as 
 by the freight of 8- to $2.50 i)erton from the Eastern seaboard to Pitts- 
 burg and other points west of the Alh^ghanics. 
 
 (5) The present conditions are such t'.tat while no East<'rn pig is 
 shipped to the West, a large tonnage of Western pig iron tinds a nmrket 
 in the East. 
 
 (G) The blast-furnace interests are entirely uncond)ined, and act under 
 natural con<litions, while the Lake Superior ore interests act in i-oneert 
 or combination, and it the l^astern furnaces are relegated to the sjiid 
 Lake Superior ores for a supply thereof, on which the cost of transporta- 
 tion is trom ^^.~^i) to 81.75 ])er ton, they are doomed to utter annihilation, 
 together with all the otlier said interests, so vast in extent, which are 
 dependent on them for cheap ])ig iron. 
 
 (7) The admission of iron ores free of duty would result in our ability 
 to i.se a much larger pro|»ortion of Eastern domesti<' ores, which are 
 high in iihosphorus, and thus prove indirectly a benelit to producers 
 of such ores. Many ot these high phosphorous iron ore nunes, espe- 
 cially in New Jeisey, are not in operation owing to the present impos- 
 sibility of obtaining at reasonable cost a supply of low phos]thoroa8 
 ores to make their use practicable in the manufacture of ordinary neu- 
 tral iron. 
 
 (8) Cuban and other foreign ores possible to imi>ort to the rnite<l 
 States are almost exclusively Ilessemer l(»\v i)hosj>horous ores of high 
 grade, and therefore not a detriment but rather, as stated, an aid to the 
 consumi>tion of ores i)r()(ln<ed in the East. 
 
 (9) The issue is of vital im[)ortance to the general iron and steel 
 interests of the East, and the re(|uest for the admission of free ores not 
 inequitable to the Western producers there(»f, who not only command 
 an inexhaustible sui)ply of cheap ores, but also a large and growing 
 proportion of the business of the Eastern territory, to which we are 
 absolutely restricted. 
 
 (10) The enormous combined capital existent in the West, as well as 
 the recent consolidations of capital there, controlling to great extent 
 the ore supply of the Lake Su])erior region, make this matter of i)ara- 
 mount interest to the Eastern manufacturer of iron and steel, and one 
 that concerns their very existence. 
 
 We therefore urgently petition for the abrogation of the tariff on iron 
 ores. 
 
 BiCHARD ilECKSCnEE & SONS.
 
 ANTIMONY. 295 
 
 AXTOrOXY. 
 
 (Free List, paragraph 376.) 
 STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES B. STORRS, OF ESSEX, N. J. 
 
 Saturday, January 9, 1897. 
 
 ^fr. Storks said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 this, 1 believe, is the first time the snbjeet of antimony has ever been 
 presented to a Committee of Ways and .Means of Confjress. It is a 
 new industry. Mines have been developed in several Western States, 
 ^yhi«'h mines are now merely waiting; a home market for the sale of 
 their prodnct and to snjtply additional labor in the States where, as 
 was evidenced by the last eh'ftion, there is a fjreat deal of discontent, 
 and where it will be, I think, the ha])py duty of the next Coiijxress to, 
 So far as may be jxissilde, ])rovide additional employment and additional 
 labor, tliereby dismissing the discontent in that part of the country 
 and lessening the chances of free coinage of silver. I have been struck 
 as 1 have been sitting here by (juestions which have been put, based 
 npon a pamphlet entitled Taritl S( hednies. 
 
 On page li.S of this document, paragraph 187 under the law of 1800, 
 antimony is mentioned as regulus (»r metal. There is another (Tovern- 
 nu'iit i>ublication, known as the Production of Antimony, issued by 
 the Department of the Interior, with special reference to the minerals 
 of this country, and the statistics given in the Tarilf Schedule and in 
 that other document are entirtdy different. The document that bears 
 jtarticularly on antimony as the refined j>roduct or as an ore shows 
 clearly that uiMler the act of ISUo the importations fell oft', and under 
 the act of 18*.(4 the imjiortations were renewed, showing almost <'on- 
 clusively that if we are to have a new industry here — the ])ro(luction of 
 a new metal which is re<iuired by the Navy Department and which is 
 called for in specifications, a metal entering into alloys, babbitt metal, 
 smokeless powder, and other things re(pnred by the Navy — if we are 
 to have that produced here, we must protect ourselves against foreign 
 labor, whicii is lower than ours. 
 
 We have prepaied in this statement I have here a showing of the 
 cost of a ton of regulus in this country, England and Jaj)an. 
 
 .Mr. Tawnev. What is the difVerence between this tariff statement 
 we have here and the one you have obtaiiu'd from the Interior Depart- 
 ment with reference to tlu' statistics bearing on the matter you speak of? 
 
 Mr. Storks. We will take the year 1890. Importations into this 
 country were 8411,000 worth. 
 
 Mr. Tawney, Commence with 1^03. 
 
 Mr. Storks. I wanted to show how it fell oft" after 1894, then how it 
 began again. In 1893 the importations into this country were 1-',89G,927 
 pounds. 
 
 ]Mr. Tawney. As shown by the statement prepared by the Interior 
 Department? 
 
 ]\lr. Storks. Yes, sir. The Treasury Department statement is incor- 
 rect. 
 
 INIr. Tawnev. What does the Treasury Department statement show? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What evidence have you that the Treasury Depart- 
 ment statement is incorrect? 
 
 Mr. Storks. The statement of the refineries and the knowledge of 
 those in the business.
 
 296 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. To complete your statement, what does the Treasury 
 Department statement show importations to hv in 1893? 
 
 Mr. Payne. Before that I would like to ask a question. Is not one 
 of those statements for the fiscal year and the other for the calendar 
 
 year'? , , . ... 
 
 Mr. Stores. Of that 1 have no kn».wledjre, but takinj; it either way 
 the amount of imi)ortatioiis as shown for the calendar year is a dccn-a^se 
 in quantity under the act of LSt'O; it shows an increase in quantity 
 beginning in 1805, and the importations were larger in 18Dt> than then. 
 We ask a restoration of the duty. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. This is for the tiscal year. I wanted to get at the 
 difierence in these statements. 
 
 Mr. Stours. They are very dilVerent. This shows a million pounds 
 more than that [indicating j. in 189.?, by the Interior Department 
 statement, there weie L',sy(i,927 pimnds imported. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Please give tlie importations from the other statement. 
 
 Mr. Storks. In 1893, from tlie otlier statement, there were ;),8iHi,l.'>3 
 pounds iinjjorted. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Is there any discrepancy in the subsequent years in 
 the importations? 
 
 Mr. Storks. In the next year, 189.".. acrurding to the Treasury state- 
 ment, there were 4,l(!8,r)ll pounds imported into this country. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Where do y«)u tind that? 
 
 Mr. Stokrs. I have addetl it wrong; 1895, as given by the Dejiart- 
 ment of Interior, shows 4,108,511 ])ounds. 
 
 Mr. Tawnkv. That is the Treasury Department stalementt 
 
 Mr. Storks. That is the Interitu- Depart ment statement. 
 
 Mr. Tawnev. Now. what is the Treasury Dtpartment stat«'mentT 
 
 Mr. Stokks. The Treasury Dei»artment statement is 3,3l.'0,0(M>, in 
 round numbers. 
 
 Mr. Tawnev. How is it for 189l>f 
 
 Mr. Storks. I have not that. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. 3,1(>5.()(K) pounds? 
 
 Mr. Storks. The statistics for 189(i do uol ctune (Uit until the 1st of 
 March. 
 
 The Chairman. One is the cah-ndar year and one is the fiscal year? 
 
 Mr. Tawney. No; they are both the tiscal year. 
 
 Mr. Turner. What is your object in showing discreiiancies? 
 
 Mr. Storrs. 1 want to show that under the MeKinley Act. which 
 turned 10 percent ad valorem duty into a speiific duty of three fourths 
 of 1 cent a pound on regulus, the importations began to fall oil", and 
 under the act of 1894 the importations began to grow. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. 1 Mould like to call your attention to the fact that 
 according to the Treasury statement, and that is the one by which we 
 should have to go, 1 presume, there has been a tailing oil" in the.se 
 importations into this country, with this commodity on the free list, of 
 about 800,000 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Stokrs. 1 so understand it, sir. 
 
 Mr. ^McMiLLlN. There has been a reduction ol impo; laiions since it 
 was put on the free list, but America is still able to <-(»ntrol the nmrket. 
 
 Mr. Stokr.-^. That Treasury statement is incorrect, and you can not 
 base your argument on that. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What anwrnnt is ]»ioduced in this country? 
 
 Mr. Storrs. The mines have been idle for two years: ever since the 
 Wilson bill became a law. 
 
 ^Ir. MoMiLLiN. What was the amount of your production befme the 
 Wilson law was enacted ?
 
 ANTIMONY. 297 
 
 Ml. Stokus. The mines were only discovered in 1889. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What was the i)rodu<'tion prior to 1S93! This work 
 of yours of eude^vorinjx to reliabilitate a disattected country is so 
 laudable that 1 think you ou;rl»t to be given an oi»portunity. 
 
 Mr. Storks. As I have said, the mines are now idle and the men are 
 out of emi)loyment. We have expended .*(K),0(H) in ruuninj; tunnels 
 and levels and in putting in machinery and building the mill, and to- 
 diiy we have no market. It costs us §-0 to lay down our ore at the 
 seaboard. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Your trouble is transportation, then! 
 
 Mr. Stouus. If we could get a home market 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Even then you are a long ways from the seat of your 
 market. 
 
 Mr. TuKNEU. What is the ditierence between crude antimony and 
 regulusT 
 
 Mr. Stokrs. This report shows crude antimony and regulus and ore 
 [referring to Geological Survey report j. Tliese are the quantities. 
 This includes all the antimony of every description that comes in. 
 
 Mr. Ti KNEU. An<l the Treasury I)ei)artment simply shows antimony 
 and regulus or metal. You are trying to make a discrepancy between 
 the (leological Survey an«l the Treasury reports. 
 
 Mr. SXdUUS. There is a discrepancy. 
 
 Mr. TUUNEH. 1 don't see it. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. STOKES. 
 
 We earnestly ask your committee to recommend the restoration of a 
 duty on antimony that shall be commensurate with the nee<ls ot the 
 American refiners and protlucers; the rate that was fixed by the McKiu- 
 ley taritVact was satisfactory, and would seem to be sulVicient. 
 
 Former tariffs fixed a 10 })er cent ad valorem duty on iini)oits of this 
 metal; but this duty was obviously for purposes of revenue only, for 
 until (juite recently merely nominal ipiantities of it were produced and 
 manufactured in the United States. 
 
 About ten years ag(» laigt* deposits of native antimony began to be 
 discovere<l and developed within this country ; prolific mines are now 
 known to exist in several of our States. 
 
 The discovery and develoinnent of these mines created a new industry 
 among domestic mining enterprises, and added a new business to the 
 industries of the country; but little will be nee<led to unfold it to an 
 extent more than ecpial to every domestic requirement. 
 
 The McKinley tariff law enconragcd the extension of these mining 
 and refining operations, and. by affording suilicient i)rotection against 
 f()reign rivals, enabled the business to be i)rosecuted with fair success. 
 The home markets, at a large expense of money and time, were being 
 gradually gained and held by the domestic ]>roducers. and the new 
 industry seemed to be on the eve of successful acc(»mi)]isliment when 
 the Wilson tariff act, by i)nttiiig antimony antl antimonial i)ro<lui'ts ou 
 the free list, dealt it a mortal stroke: the mines closed down, and have 
 been idle for more than two years, aud the reliners, exi)Osed to unre- 
 strained and unequal comjtetition with foreign juoducers and manufac- 
 turers, princii)ally the English, have been doing a losing business. 
 The restoration of a fair rate of duty on imports of this article is abso- 
 lutely required or this new and promising industry will be lost to the 
 country. 
 
 The rate of duty under the ^McKinley schedule is not oppressive or 
 prohibitory. ^Vhile it was in force imports of the metal were continued,
 
 298 
 
 SCHEDULE C. — METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF 
 
 though in lessening quantities, due to the growing occuiiation of the 
 home market by the domestx producers. 
 
 Antimony as sold in the markets is a refined ])roduet. It is produced 
 after long, delicate, and complicate*! mechanical and smelting processes, 
 and requires for its production highly skilled labor. 
 
 The ore as it comes from the mine is in the form (»f sulphide or oxi«le 
 of antimony, being comi>osed mainly of tbe metal, antimony snlphnr, 
 and a greater or less qnantity of silica or gangne rock, h'arely is ore 
 found of suflbcient richness to sbip direct to the reliners, and so the 
 miner must treat or reduce his ore before delivery. This reduction is 
 accomplished either by mechanical concentration or by "cruding.*' 
 which is concentration by heat. In this form, save in exceptional 
 cases, the mined product is delivered to the reliners Ibr treatuient. 
 
 The refiners produce ihe commercial regulus of antimouy by repeated, 
 laborious, and expensive smelting processes. 
 
 In this country the mining and refining of antimony were just begin- 
 ning to develop nndcr the ^IcKinlcy hiw, and domestic demands to 1)6 
 met in increasing measure by domestic production. I'revious to its 
 passage the American market had been supplied almost entirely with 
 the products of ICnglish and .lajtanese refiners, the English i>nHluct 
 largely piedf>minating. 
 
 In illustration of this bst statement, some years ago a plant for 
 refining antimony was built in ("alifornia, and after several years of 
 very small production it was, after the jKissage of the act of IS'.Ml, 
 removed to New Y'ork, with a reasonably certain assurance of enlarged 
 production. After this removal it jtrospered until adverse taritV legis- 
 lation, placing relined antimony and other antiinonial products on the 
 free list, i)rost rated it. 
 
 Upon the enactment of the Wilson bill, and since then, all ellbrts to 
 compete successtully with forei;:n producers have shown that unless a 
 moderate duty shall be restored ami reimposed it will not be jKissible 
 to carry on the business in the rnitetl States. 
 
 The competing l)usiness rivals of the United States in this branch of 
 industry are iMigland and .lapan. The cost of the raw material, i, e., 
 the ore or mined ])roduet used by the retiners. may be .-md to be equal 
 in the three countries (though in Japan it is actually much less); l)ut 
 the cost of fuel and Huxes necessary to the ])rocess of refining and the 
 cost of labor are so unequal as to recjuire an efjualizing by the imposi- 
 tion of a duty that shall make good to the American retiners the diff<M- 
 ence of cost in the materials for smelting and in the ])rice for labor. 
 
 Preparing the mined ore for the retiners and the actual refining proc- 
 ess involve larger cost in this country than elsewhere. In refining 
 alone, the item of labor is about 20 i)er cent of the whole cost of the 
 product, and a protecting duty is imperatively required if the industry 
 in this country is to be successful. Uitter experience proves this. 
 
 For the purpose of showing the cost of producing a ton of regulus of 
 antimony, the following schedule is presented, giving items and cost ot 
 each in the United States, in England, and in Japan: 
 
 
 ruite4l 
 States. 
 
 Kngland. 
 
 Japan. 
 
 Ra'^ inntcri.nl (ore) 
 
 20 
 20 
 
 185 
 
 15 
 
 20 
 
 2 
 
 $«5 
 
 15 
 10 
 6 
 
 Fuel and Duxes 
 
 Labor 
 
 Freight, etc 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 131 
 
 123 
 
 lis 

 
 BAUXITE. 299 
 
 As appears from this sclietlule, the cost in the United States is 
 greater than in either of the other countries, not because of the price of 
 the raw material, but because the other items of cost involving domestic 
 labor are hi<;her here tlian there, and to et|ualize business conditions 
 and to promote this new domestic industry the American i)roducers and 
 reliners ask such legislation as will secure to them this position of 
 equality. 
 
 The American antimony miner asks no protection for his raw prod- 
 uct; he is willing to enter the markets in open i-ompetition with the 
 rest of the woihl in rcspoct to his raw ore: but. while paying American 
 wages for labor in adding to the value of his raw material, either by 
 concentrating or "cruding"' it. he also claims and asks such equalizing 
 protection as will enable him to comi)ete with those who produce the 
 same grade and (|uality of metallic ])rodncts by similar or other jirocesses 
 in countries where the rate of wages is lower. 
 
 As lately as 1S87 there ha«l been no discoveries and exploitations of 
 real antimony miTies in the United States. C'ommencing, however, in 
 the year named, discoveries were made of large <leposits in various 
 Western States. Several mines have been opened and are awaiting 
 opptirtunity to lind \i'nt for theii- output in a home market. Tiiese 
 mines aie located in Idaho, Montana. Nevada, and Arkansas. Large 
 amounts of capital have been invested in them, but they have been 
 idle, and pntducing little f»r nothing for the j)ast two years and longer. 
 Should the Anu'rican reliners be enabled to take and use their output, 
 they will naturally be worked, and employment will be given to con- 
 sidr'rable numl>ers of men. These mines contain an abundance of 
 metal to sui)i>ly the home markets, and there will thus be established 
 in the United States an industry which may be said hardly to have 
 existcil heretofore, because foreign i)roducers and reliners have monop- 
 olized and sui»|tlied our mirket; they have drawn from our country 
 about half a million of dollars annually, all of which can and should 
 be kept here and pai«l to American miners and American reliners. 
 
 We accordingly res|)ectt'ully suggest to the committee that, in the 
 interest and for the advancement of this industry, the following tarirt" 
 rate of duty on antimony be recommended, viz: 
 
 Antimony ore, native suljthide or oxide of antimony, free. 
 
 Antimony, as rf;,Milii8 or metal, or if at\vance«l in quality, value, or con<lition by 
 retininjj:, criHling, nr other pniccss of troatmont or manufactine, n. y. 8., per pound of 
 metallic autimuuy therein, threo-lonrths cent. 
 
 Mathison & Co., 
 
 The Idaho Antimony ^Fining Co., 
 
 Smelters and Jiijintrs of Antimony, 
 
 BAUXITE. 
 
 (Free list, paragraph 396.) 
 
 MEMORIAL OF THE REPUBLIC M. AND M. CO., OF PHILADELPHIA, 
 ASKING FOR IMPOSITION OF A DUTY. 
 
 rniLADELPiiiA, L'a., January 5, 1897. 
 CoioiiTTEE ON Ways and Means: 
 
 This company respectfully requests that paragraph 300 of tlie present 
 tariff, referring to bauxite or beauxite, should be stricken off from the 
 free list, and a duty of $1 per ton should be placed on the ore. We
 
 300 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 urge that "bauxite or beauxite, or any form of aluminum ore not other- 
 wise specified," should have a duty of $1 per toii. 
 
 We submit most briefly the followiug facts: Bauxite is at present 
 mined only in one locality in this country, namely, in northwest Georgia 
 and northeast Alabama. Here it was discovered about 1882, but the 
 first carload shipments were made in 18,VJ. tSince that time the busi- 
 ness has struggled against foreign competition, French and Irish bauxite 
 
 being imported. , i • 
 
 The French ore is mined by very low-priced labor m extensive 
 deposits near the port of Cette, in the south of France, and is put on 
 board of vessels at extremely low figures. 
 
 Both steam and sailing vessels which would otherwise come to this 
 country light, or nearly so, otter to carry this ore at extraordinarily low 
 rates, sometimes at about .•?'J per ton. A rate of freight in actual use 
 during the past year from the south of France was sl'.7.">, an«l tliis may 
 be taken as ])erhaps an average rate to >ew York. Fhiladelphia, and 
 Boston. Irish freights are still lower. ( Uir rail treights from shipping 
 points in the South to New Y(uk and Fhiladelpliia are at present, say, 
 $4 per ton, and to Boston ><r>.3i). The f.treign shipi»er has, therefore, 
 the advantage in freights alone of .^l.L'o per t4)n toNew York mid IMiiia- 
 delphia, and 82.75 per ton to lioston. The railroads claim that the 
 present rates of freight are entirely too low, so that material relief in 
 that direction is not to be hoped for. 
 
 The financial results of the ettbrt to build U]) the business of mining 
 bauxite in the Georgia Alabama district so far have been discouraging 
 to the several conii>anies engaged in it We believe that a duty of ^l 
 per ton on bauxite would materially ;«id in tlie maintenance of this 
 undeveloi)ed industry, which is in a section where diversified industries 
 are greatly needed. 
 
 Eepublic M. and M. Co., 
 Wm. (i. Nkilson, 
 Freaiatnt and Ircunuter, 
 
 MAXGAISTESE OHE. 
 
 (Free list, parajjrai)b .546.) 
 
 MEMORIAL OF CITIZENS OF ALABAMA. PRAYING FOR A PRO- 
 TECTIVE DUTY. 
 
 ^VASIIINGT()N, D. C, JttiiiKinj 13, 1S9T. 
 Cu:\rM;iTTEE on Ways and Means: 
 
 The undersigned citizens of the State of Alabama r<\s])ect fully state 
 that there are large bodies of manganese and manganiferousore in the 
 States of Alabama, Virginia, and (Georgia, from which large quantities 
 of that mineral may be ol)tained for the varit)us purposes in manu- 
 factures and the arts requiring its use. 
 
 Before the passage of the ])resent tarifif act the industry of man- 
 ganese mining was a i)rosi)erous one. especially in the States of (Geor- 
 gia and Virginia, and citizens of Alabama were i)reparing to Mpcii mines 
 and ship large (luantities of manganese to the steel manufacturers of 
 the country. 
 
 The placing of this ])roduct on the free list com]»letely destroyed the 
 industry, which had been but lately established in the States named, so 
 that at present the mining of manganese ore in competition with the
 
 IRON PYRITES. 301 
 
 forcigrn article is impracticable, since tbe mines in the Sontli, notwith- 
 standing the low jnit-e of labor in that section, are not able tocomi>ete 
 with the lower-priced labor of the foreign manganese-producing 
 countries. 
 
 Tliat the Southern mineral sections referred to have large bodies of 
 this ore can not be doubte<l, and sufficient, in our judgment, to fully 
 supi)ly the wants of American manufacturers. 
 
 \Ve resjK'ctfulIy urge that if the incidental ]»rotection which has 
 given iron ore and other minerals that exist in abundance iTi American 
 countries be accorded manganese ore, a jirotitable and thriving indus- 
 try may be established in this country of great material value to the 
 laborer and miner, and that such a tarilf would result in great benefit to 
 the revenues of the country. A rate of $1 i)er ton is reijuested. 
 
 P. Kowan, i)resident Tredegar National Bank, Jacksonville; 
 \V. H. Dean, C. 1). Martin, Emmet Crook, judge of 
 probate: (t. (', Kills, .Joseph W. I'.urke, president 
 Tredegar Mineral K'ailway: T. H. Aldiich. L. \\ . (Irant, 
 S. I>. if. W. Brothers, Geo. P. Ide, cashier Tredegar 
 l^ational Bank. 
 
 TROX P^T^TTES. 
 
 (Fre« list, j)ara«rr"p'i 612.) 
 
 IffEMOPtlAL OF VARIOUS SULPHUR-MINrNG COMPANIES. ASKING 
 
 FOR DUTY. 
 
 New Yoiik, N. Y., Jauuari/ 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We res]»ectfully ask the attention of your committee to the status of 
 iron and co])per pyrites. Previous to 1S81 all the sul|)huric acid in the 
 United States was made from imported Sicilian suljjhur. In that year 
 two plants began to burn copi)er pyrites imported from Spain, and this 
 movement has spread until it is now estimated that some 3(l(>,(KK> tons 
 of pyrites are consumed annually in the manufacture of sulphuric acid 
 in this country. This sujiply is furnished by American mines to the 
 extent of about l(M>,(t(K> tons; by Spanish mines, owned exclusively by 
 English companies, about LMio.OdO tons. 
 
 Since the renioval of the duty in ISIIO the domestic mines have been 
 seriously cripjded by the competition of the Spanish ores, which are 
 mined near the coast in Spain by labor receiving less than onethir<l 
 what we pay here, and brought over at nominal rates of ballast freight 
 to the consuming points on our coast, while the American mines are situ- 
 ated in the interior, and, after paying the American price for labor, have 
 as a rule to incur both railroad and water transportation costs to the 
 chief points of c<»nsumption. 
 
 The business of our mines is being destroyed by the ores on the free 
 list, and there is absolutely no incentive to discover and develop similar 
 deposits in this country, altliough many exist in the ditlerent mineral 
 regions, while with a reasonable duty thereon we believe that a large 
 porticMi of the pyrites required by our nmnufacturers will soon be 
 furnished by domestic mines. 
 
 We further submit that it is suicidal for the United States to pursue 
 a policy which is killing oti" the domestic supply and forcing us to rely
 
 302 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 entirely on a single foreign source, and that, too, Spain, with which 
 country our relations are already straint-d. 
 
 Should the supply from that country be cut oft', we would be in a sad 
 plight, for thereVould be for a long period of time no ade<|uate source 
 from which to draw this basis ot sulphuric acid, which article enters so 
 largely into the manufacture of dynamite aud other necessaries for both 
 war and peace. 
 
 We therefore request that a duty of .*2.'_'5 i)er ton be pla«-ed on all 
 iron aud copper pyrites in its natural state, and an additional duty of 
 2^ cents per pound for the copper contents of all pyrites containing 
 over 1^ per cent of <opper, aud ^li.oii per ton on the leached or washed 
 pyrites. Such a duty would not proliil)it iuiports, but would ])robably 
 yield from $300,000^0 $4(Mt.(M»(i jx-r aniium of revenue, while at the 
 same time it would enable the abundant deposits of the article in many 
 parts of this country to be utilized. 
 
 The -500,(100 tons That is being in)ported annually cost fully -f 1. '_•(»(»,( HK), 
 which large amount ot money go«'s abroad, instead of being exjtended 
 among our own i)roducers. 
 
 Wo beg to ask that the following be incorporated in the new bill: 
 
 Sulphur ore as pj-ritoH, or Hulphuret of irou in its uatural 8t4t«, $2.25 per ton; 
 leached or washed i)\ rites, •f;^. 50 j)er lou: I'roriilrd, That all i)yritw« contniniii); more 
 than 1^ per centiiiii of copjier hhall i>ay, iu addition tbiTuto, 2^ cento per pound for 
 all copper contaiiifd ilHMcin. 
 
 Sulphur Mines Coini)any of Virginia, by \\'. <i. Oensliaw, 
 Jr.. i)resident, Kichniond, Va.; Davis Suli>hur Ore Com- 
 l)any, by 11. .1. Daxis, president. Davis. >lass. ; Carolina 
 J'yrites romi)any. Ciiarlotte. N. C; II. .1, Davis, (>5 
 Wall street. New York: Arminius Chemical Company 
 ol Mineral Citj', \'a., by .1. I'rederick Kernochan. vice- 
 l)resident. New York City: (i)uanti<o Tyrite-s C«Mnpany, 
 Virginia: The Dominion Mining and Chemical Company 
 ot Mineral City, ^'a.. by H. M. McDonald, secretary and 
 treasurer, 34 Broad street. New York; Cabin Branch 
 IMiiu'S of Virginia, by L(tuis F. Ditrich, jMesident. 
 
 PEOTEST OF GEASSELLI CHEMICAL COMPANY AND OTHEES 
 
 AGAINST DUTY. 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio, January 7, 1897, 
 Committee on Ways and ]\Ieans: 
 
 Paragraph 518 of the law of liSl)4, known as the Wilson bill, uiuler 
 the title ''Free list," is as follows: 
 
 Irou ore, inchuliuy maiifxanifi-rous irou ore, also the dross or rewiduum from hurnt 
 pyrites aud 8ul])hur ore, as pyrites or sulplmret of iron iu its natural state. 
 
 The act of 1890, known as the McKinley Act, Schedule C, i>aragraph 
 133, provides as follows: 
 
 That suli)hiir ore as ]>yrit»'8 or sulpluiret of iron in its natural sUit** coutaininj: in 
 excess of tweuty-live iterc«ntuui of sulphur sliall be free of dutv, except on the cop- 
 per contained therein, as ahove pn)\ idod. 
 
 Prior to the passage of the act of isno sulphur ore as i)yrit<'s, or 
 sulithuret of iron in its natural state, was dutiable at 75 cents jmt ton. 
 In 18!)0 the ^IcKinley Act placed this law material on the free list for 
 good reasons then furnished Congress, and this change in the iron-ore 
 schedule met with the ai)proval, which was given the Committee on
 
 IRON PYRITES. 303 
 
 Ways and Means iu 1890 in writing, of both the Eastern and Western 
 associations of iron ore men. 
 
 The jdarjii;; of sulphur ore as pyrites, or sulphuret of iron in its nat- 
 ural state.on tlie free list in IS'.X) was only done after full e<»n-<i(lerati(>n 
 and for the liest interests of all businesses usinji' this ore for the maiiu- 
 factuie of sulpliuric acid. 
 
 The un(lersij,Mied is advised that an effort is being: made before your 
 committee to restore sulphur ore as ityrites, or suli>huret of iron in its 
 Datural state, to the dutiable list and to impose a duty of 75 cents a 
 ton thereon, notwithstaiidiu^f the fact that both the McKinley Act of 
 18!)0 and the Wilson bill of l.S'.M ]>laced it on the free list. 
 
 We desire to state that we beliive we are the larjjfest users of this 
 class of ore for the manufacture of sulphurii* acid in this country, and 
 believe ourselves to be the largest manufacturers of sulphuric acid iu 
 the United 8tates. 
 
 We are a corporation, under the laws of the State of Ohio, to whom 
 this question is ]»rob;d)ly ot more importance than to any other single 
 concern in the Initcd States. 
 
 AVe have ex])euded sever;il hundred thousand dollars in our elVorts 
 to secure in this country an adequate su])])ly of sulphur ore to me«'t the 
 needs (»f our liusiness. and have failed. Tiiere is no »*xisting available 
 8ui)i»ly of sulpliur ore as pyrites, or sulphuret of iron, in this country 
 to supply the demands of the trade in sulphuric acid. 
 
 The only existing available deposits, limited in (juantity and com- 
 paratively i)oor in <juality, are the Davis mine in .Massachusetts and 
 the Sul|»hur Mines Comp;iny and the Arminius Mines Company in 
 Virginia. 
 
 The ability of tiicsc tlirec c(»ncerns and the extent of their deixtsits 
 will not enable them to supply to exceed one tenth of the needs of the 
 sulphuric acid manufacturers of tlie I'nited States. It is impossible 
 for the manufacturers of sulpliuric acid, including those who manu- 
 facture it exclusively for fertilizers, to secure in this country, nntler any 
 circumstances, more than one t«Mith of what is necessary to supply the 
 aggregate needs, to say nothing ot the liiture growth of the trade and 
 needs of the country, especially in the line of fertilizers in the enornums 
 tracts of farming lauds east of the .Mississippi IJiver, which must be 
 large consumers of fertilizer, in the coming years, as they now are. 
 
 We therefore protest earnestly against any clmnge in the i)Osition 
 of sulphur ore as ])yrites, or sul])huret of iron in its natural state; it 
 ought to be retained on the tree list, where it now is. 
 
 We desire to state that Me are not opposed to the reasonable i)rotec- 
 tionof any home industry; on the contrary, »ve believe in su(di protection 
 to the extent that the same is necessary to efpialize the tlitlerence 
 between home labor and foreign labor: but this is not a case to which 
 this argument is applicable, as our own experience with the mines will 
 demonstrate. 
 
 We call the committee's attention to the following reasons why this 
 class of ore shouhl remain, where it now is, on the free list: 
 
 The price now received by the Davis mine owner, the Sulphur Mines 
 Company of Virginia and the Arminius mine is as great, and in some 
 of these mines greater, than they received from 18.S.J tolsjM), when this 
 class of ore was on the dutiable' list at !'> cents a ton. We are to-day 
 paying to the largest of these three mines a larger ])rice per ton for the 
 ore we use and purchase from them than we did in 1886, 1887, 1888, 
 1881), and 1890, when foreign ore of this class was dutiable at 75 cents 
 a ton; therefore the removal of the du^y of 1800 and the placing of
 
 304 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 this class of ore on the free list did not reduce the price of the ore to 
 the owners of the few limited deposits in this country, being the three 
 we have niinied. 
 
 If tliese mines will show to the committee the prices at which they 
 sold their ores prior to the ])assageof the McKinley Act. and tln' jnices 
 at which they have sold their ores since the itassajre of the McKinley 
 Act, it will be found that there has been no such reduction in price, if 
 any, as would warrant Con^rress in takinji tliis class of ore from the 
 free list and placin.u- it on tlie dutiable list. 
 
 We are prepared to furnish this committee, if it so desires, the exact 
 prices paid by us for the ore purchased fiom these three mines i)riorto 
 the passage of the McKinley Act and the same ore purchased from the 
 same mines since the passage of the McKinley Act, when the ore was 
 placed on the free list. Except in the case of a single small purchase 
 made in the greatest ])eriod of dei)ression in ISlMI. under exceptional 
 circumstances and for exccjitional reasons, at a slightly reduced juice, 
 every purchase of ore made by us from the thre4' mines nametl since 
 this class of ore was ])laced on the free list by the McKinh-y Act has 
 been at as huge and in most cases at a larger j)rice than when this 
 ore was on the dutial)le list i)rior to IS'.H). 
 
 Therefore the owners of these limited deposits, local in their char- 
 acter and only capable of supplying a very limited territorj'. have no 
 just cause of comjtlaint as to tlu^ oi>eration of the .McKinley Act in 
 placing this class of ore on the free list, where it now remains and 
 where we trust it will c(Uitinue to remain. 
 
 In this connection we ciill the committee's attention to the fact that 
 the ])rice of labor since IS'.Xt to this hour in mining has not incr«'ased 
 in these mines, but, as we are inlbrnu'd, is lower than it was prior to 
 18t>(), and certainly the cost of supplies in the operation of the mine is 
 cheai)er to day than at any time in the history of the oju'iation of 
 thcvse limited de])osits, and which are comi)aratlvely jxior in (juality. 
 
 Again we call the committee's attention to the fact, alrea<ly briefly 
 Stated, that the sulphuri(; acid manufacturers of this country must 
 depend for the raw material in the form of this class of ore to the 
 extent of at least nine tenths of their needs ujion foreign ore. There is 
 not known to the trade to day any su])])ly of ore in this country of this 
 class adecpiate to one-tenth of the needs of tlie tra<le, and tlie limitetl 
 deposits of the three mines which are seeking to take this class of ore 
 from the free list and i)ut it on the <lutiable list are so un<-ertain in 
 extent and (|ualify that the business interests using this ore could not 
 predicate thereon with any certainty their supply for even a brief 
 period. 
 
 To idace any duty on this raw material would simply bo to impose a 
 tax to that extent upon the home manufacturer, without any corre- 
 spondinu" benelit to labor in this country or to the home producer in 
 this country of that class of ore. This is manifest from the fact that 
 of necessity nine-tenths of the supply nnist come from abroad, and duty 
 would be levied on thatsui)ply coming from abroad which the resources 
 of the bmited de]>osits of this country can not sni)ply. This would 
 simply be the imposition of a tax to that extent upon the'manuliKturers 
 of sulphuric acid in this country. 
 
 If the manufacturer, with the comparatively small margin of profit 
 which now exists in that business, is to pay any duty ni)on this raw 
 material which can not be sui>])lied from any sources in this country, 
 then, of necessity, he will be comi»e]led to levy that on the consumer, 
 and the principal consumer of sulphuric acid in this country today is
 
 IRON rYRITKS. Si'f) 
 
 tlic f<Mtili/.or trndc. imd tlicrofnre tlic duty will be levied directly ou the 
 t'iiriiiiii,ir interests of tlie country. 
 
 If tlicie were deposits in tliis country of a proper <iuality and sufficient 
 in extent, witli reasonable certaint.N' to supjily the present and the g:row- 
 in*i' needs of the manufacturers of sulphuric acid in this country, and 
 it' thecompetition from abroad by reason of cheaper labor attected these 
 deposits of the lionie i)roducer, there would be a reasonable jiiound for 
 ])rotection, but the basis for a duty and for such protection tloes not 
 exist in this case. 
 
 There are no liome deposits of a ]>roper quality suffi<ient in extent, 
 or known to exist in the I'nited States, to furnish the manufactiirers of 
 sulidiuric acid in this country with toexceed one tenth of their presmt 
 needs, and such d<'))osits as exist are obtaining; as hijih if not a tiiylier 
 ]»rice and a laijicr piotit with this ore on the free list tlian tliey did 
 jirior to the i)assajt<' of the McKinley Act, when it was on the dutiable 
 list at 7.~) cents a ton. 
 
 It therefore seems clear to us that the committee and C'onfrress 
 should leave sulphur ore as pyrites, or suljdiuret of iron, where the 
 McKinley xVct of 1800 and the Wilson Act of 1SU4 placed it — ou the free 
 list. 
 
 The Grasskli.i Chemical Co., 
 By C. A. (liJAssELi.i, 
 
 rrenident. 
 
 New York, .Januarys^ 1f^D7. 
 
 CoivrVTITTEE ON WAYS ANT) MEANS: 
 
 We respectfully hand you herewith i)rotests from a numl)er of man- 
 ufacturers of fertilizers located in Atlanta, (Ja., and vicinity ajraiust 
 the ])ioposed duty on iron ])yrites. The reasons for their oi)positi<>u to 
 the tax are very clearly stated in the protests, and we feel sure they 
 will meet with very careful consideration by your honorable body. 
 
 Permit us to say that as importers of iron jiyrites we have had an 
 opportunity of informinj; ourselves as to the etVect the adoption (»f a 
 measure of this kind would have upon the interests reitresented, and 
 can state jiositively that it would work a jjreat hardship on every 
 consumer. 
 
 In having sent the protests to us, you can readily see that the con- 
 sumers are lookiu«,' to the importers to aid them in propeily i>utting 
 this matter before you, ami in submitting them we are acting entirely 
 in their interests, not in our own. 
 
 Yt)urs, respectfully, Naylor & Co. 
 
 Atlanta, Oa., January 5, 1897. 
 Dkau Sir: Yonr telojjrain of the 4th in rep;ar(l to the proposed duty on brimstone 
 and ])yrites ore h:is liccn presoiited to me for my ODnsiderjition. I, .as president of 
 the comiiaiiii's her<':it'ter named, inter protest in tlieir behalf ajjainst any import duty 
 whatever that would so seriously atVeet the interest of tlie puMic jjencrally and more 
 especially the farmin<j interest of our country, which is the rootand branch of every- 
 thing. Tliis projiosed import duty of $2 per ton would bring about .an advance in 
 the price of fertili/irs and thereby aflfcct a class of people who can not atiord it. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 Thr Atlanta Guano Company 
 Amkricus Gitano Company. 
 Walton Gcano Company, 
 
 John M. Grken, President. 
 Messrs. Naylou i^- Co., Xew Vorl-, .V. F. 
 
 T H 20
 
 30G SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Atlanta, Ga., Januanj 5, 18S7. 
 Gentlkmkx: Moasnres are being: tal^en, we learn, to nifje the adoption oJaduty on 
 sulphur in pyrites and on brimstone, by two or tiirec owners of American mines of 
 liuiited production, before the Committee on Ways and Means now in session at 
 Washington. If this duty is adopted, it will result iu a considerable intre:i<e in cost 
 of sulphuric acid and innumerable products dependent thereon — especially fertilizers, 
 ■which would most vitally affect the farming interests of this cot.ntry— and as the 
 farmers' interests are our own interestSj we urgently protest against this projjosed 
 duty, which will only help a few mine owners at the exi)eu8e of the great funning 
 interests of the whole United States. 
 KespectfulJy, 
 
 Furmav Farm Improvemknt Co., 
 By O. W. McCahty, Secretari/ atid Treasurer. 
 A. D. Ai>Aiu & McCarty Hros. 
 Maddo.x Kitker Hkg. (u. 
 Mauiktta (iiANo Co.. 
 K. H. Noniini'TT, J'ice-I'rc«idcnt. 
 
 KlNN|-..SON GCANO Co. 
 
 O. A. Smith & Co. 
 Messrs. Naylor & Co., Kew Tori-, N. T. 
 
 J ANT- AH Y fi. ISOT. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Wo learn tliat an olloir is to bo made to inrorporaio in |nnilin- (arilT 
 bill a i)rovisi()ii tliat siilpiiur as brimstone, and ^nlplmr as jiyrites. I)e 
 subject to a duty. These articles have hcictofore been int-inded on the 
 free list, and we be;; to respect fully submit our juotest a;;ainst tlie 
 imposition of a duty on the i)articular articles in point, and in this con- 
 nection wouhl call your attention to the following facts and arguments 
 as o])i)Osed to this uu'thod of i)roci'dtire. 
 
 With reference to the subject of <bity on the intportation of foreign 
 pyrites, as bearing on the |)ro(luction of cheap sulphuric aci«l in the 
 United States, tiie following facts are respectfully submitted: There 
 are about ITf) acid works in the United States, jiroducing upward of 
 1,."»()0.0()() tons of sidphnric acid j>er annum; 1~> per cent of this em)r- 
 nious ]>roduction is obtained fiom foreign jiyrites, which in (|uality, 
 regidaiity, and economy is without a rival. The limited deposits in 
 Virginia and Massachusetts have been tbund by comparisiui to be 
 uneconomical and inferior to foreign ore. To stop or restrain tin* use 
 of the latter would be disastrous in the extreme to the general <hemical 
 interest of the country. 
 
 Foreign ore contains an average of oO per cent of sulphur, 4") per 
 cent of iron, and 1 to 1' i)er cent of cojjper. in its natural state as 
 mined it is absolutely unlit for any other purpose than the manufac- 
 ture of sulphuric acid; that is to say, it is oidy a substitute for <-rude 
 sulphur, and has i)ositively no value either to the iron manutacturer or 
 copper smelter. It k a fact that no iron ores containing as little as 4't 
 per cent of metallic iron are import«Ml or even used in this <'ountry, 
 (piite irrespective of the lact that the large (|uantity of sulphur obvi- 
 ously renders this pyrites in its natural state unlit for the nuuiufactnre 
 of iron. 
 
 It has been well stated by the celebrated chemist. Daron Liebig. that 
 the civilization and prosperity of a nation is to be estimated by its pro- 
 duction aiul consutui)tion of 8nlj)huric acid. This valuable* reagent 
 enters into the composition oris used in the i)rodnction of almost every 
 textile ami metallic article manufactured, besides being directly thV 
 base of the paper, glass, soap, and fertilizer trade tlie product of which 
 latter business contains 50 per cent sulphuric acid). A duty placed on
 
 NORTH CAROLINA ORES AND MINERALS. 307 
 
 sulphur or pyrites would increase the cost of the followinij articles 
 Ix'sidcs tliose iiieutioiied above: (Quinine, sheet iron, tagjieis iron, tin 
 l)late, wire, fence wire, nails, tacks, uitro<;]ycerin, relined oil. straw- 
 board, and a vast nunil)er of articles essential to our civilization. 
 Nearly all the other acids are produced by the aid of sulphuric acid. 
 Crude sulphur and sulphur as i»yrites liave been ou the free list for 
 many years. The questiou was thorouirhly discussed in committee prior 
 to the adoption «jf the act of 18U0, and both articles, as stated, have 
 since been admitted free of duty in conformity therewith. 
 
 Both in the ISOO and 1>11>4 tariifs the paraj^raphs read as follows: 
 
 Act of 1S'J4. — G42. 8iilj)biir, lac or jiiciipitatcd, and siilpliur or brimstone, crude, iu 
 bulk, Bulplnir ore, ii» p.vritt'H. <»r sulitiiuret of iron iu its natural state, uuntaininj; iu 
 excess of twenty-live ]nr centum of sulphur, and sulidinr not otiicrwise j)rovidcd for. 
 
 Act of 1S90. — 727. .Suljiliur, lac or ])r«'cipitated, and sulphur or brimstone, crude, in 
 bulk, sulphur ore, as jiyrites. or suli»liuret of irou in its natural state, containini; in 
 excess of twenty-live per centum of sulpluir (^excepton the copper contained therein) 
 and sul]»iiur not otlierwise provided for. 
 
 Wilson l»ill rate, free. 
 
 Mills bill rate, free. 
 
 And the undersigned, repre.senting the ])rincipal manufacturers of 
 suli)huric acid in the I'liited States, re8i)ectfully ask that no chanjics 
 be made in the proposed new tarilV, as tlie restilting injury to a multi- 
 tude of inilustries would be a thousandfold greater tlum the benelit 
 dei ived by the two or three owners of the Massachusetts and Virginia 
 deposits. 
 
 Penns\lvania Salt MANUFACTriMNCr Co., 
 
 Of Philadelphia, Pa., and 59 others. 
 
 NORITr r \T?()LrN"A ores A^T> MrXERALS. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY J. A. HOLMES, STATE GEOLOGITS OF 
 
 NORTH CAROLINA. 
 
 Raleigh, N. C, January 9, 1897. 
 A thorough examination of the mineral deposits of North Carolina 
 and the i)roblems connected with the development of these deposits 
 leads me to join with others in asking Congress to phice the following 
 taritf on certain nnneral products imi)orted into the United States: 
 
 (1) On irou ore, including mangauiferous irou ore aud pyrites orsulphuret of iron, 
 a specific ilufy of 75 cents i)er ton. 
 
 (2) On chiua clay, or kaolin, a specific duty of $3 per ton. 
 
 (IS) Ou uionazite, or monazite sand, a specific duty of not less thau 4 ceuts i^er 
 pound. 
 . (4) Ou mica, a duty both specific aud ad valorem, as follows: 
 
 (A) On cut mica, all grades — 
 
 (a) A specific duty, as follows: On sizes less than 9 square inches in area, 10 cents 
 per pound ; ou sizes D to 12 square inches in area. 20 ceuts ])er pound ; ou sizes 13 to 
 15 square inches in area, 30 cents ])er pound ; on sizes Ui to 21 sijuare inches iu area, 
 40 ceuts per ]>ound ; on sizes larger than 24 s(|uare inches, 75 ceuts per pound. 
 
 (b) Au ad valorem duty on all cut mica of 10 per cent. 
 
 (li) On crude mica, block mica, sheet mica, aud mica waste — 
 (<() A specific duty of 10 cents jier pound, (b) and au ad valorem duty of 30 per 
 cent. 
 
 (1) Iron ores iu the United States are so widely distributed and the 
 demand for a reasonable tariff has been so general that nothing need 
 be said here in behalf of the imi)ositiou of tliis duty, except that I may 
 add that the extensive deposits of iron ores iu many of the counties of
 
 308 SCHEDULE C— METALS AND MANIEACTUKES OF. 
 
 midland and western North Carolina and the large deposits ol" pyrites, 
 especially in Jacl<son and Gaston connties, niakt- it to tlie interest of 
 many of our people that the tarill' asked for on these artieles sliould be 
 
 granted. , , , . ^■ i 
 
 (2) Extensive deposits of china clay, <>r kaolin, have been discovered 
 recently both in central and western North Cainlina, and there lias 
 been during tlie past few years a considerable demand for this product; 
 but the large quantities of foreign clay of this cliaracter which have 
 been introduced during the last few years, and esi)ecially since the 
 reduction of the tarilf from $;3 to $1' per t<m, have gone far toward up- 
 setting the trade in American kaolins and in reducing the profits con- 
 nected with the mining operations, and it is highly important that we 
 should return to the tariff of 1890. 
 
 (3) The mining of monazite, or monazite sand, which began in North 
 Carolina on a commercial scale in the year 181»;?, increased rajtidly in 
 extent and importance during the two succeeding years. It was located 
 mainly in lUirke, McDowell, liutherford, and Cleveland counties. N.C., 
 and Spartanburg County, S. C, amonntmg in IS'.U to more than half 
 a million pounds. Abcmt this latter date was begun the importation of 
 Brazilian monazite, which is gathered Iroin the sands of the seaslntre in 
 Brazil, where labor is cheap and the mining operatittns are so simple 
 and inexpensive that they do not really deserve to be designated by 
 this name. Meanwhile the mining f(U- monazite in North Carolina has 
 steadily diminished until daring the past year there lias been very little 
 demand for oiu monazite, although the (piantity of this mineral already 
 discovered and now availal»le for mining ojierations in both North ami 
 South Carolina is very large. The si)ecific duty asked for, while not 
 large enough t(» fully meet the demands of the mining interests, will be 
 suflicient to encourage the mining oiterations in this country. W itliont 
 such specific duty on monazite «>f at least 1 cents i>er pound 1 am unable 
 to see how this industry in North and South Carolina can be expected 
 to revive. 
 
 (4) The need for a sjiecific duty on mica may be illustrated and empha- 
 sized by the statement of the following facts. 
 
 The chief competitor with mica products in the Cnited States for 
 stove purposes is that imi)orted from India, and for electrical ])urposes 
 that imported from Canada. The imitortation of Imlia mica began in 
 1884-S5. For five years, 1S81 U) ISS.'), inclusive, the aggregate value 
 of the mica produced in the Cnited States was >'l,.'n4,.~>2.">, and the aver- 
 age value ])er year for these five years was .'<1J()L'.J>0."». The total value 
 of the mica imported during this time was •i'77,8(»7. an average of >'l."»,."t73 
 per year. Ten years later the total value of the mica mined in the 
 United States for five years, 1801 to 180"). inclusive, was !?:{L'ii.s;5(», or 
 an average of 804, oOO per year. During these five years the value of 
 the mica imported was $779,074, with an average of $l."»."i,094, thus 
 showing a decided increase in the amount of mica imported and a «-or- 
 responding decrease in the amount of mica produced in the Uniteil 
 States. 
 
 This change is all the more striking in view of the fact that in 1890 
 a duty was placed on imported mica of 3.") jjcr cent ad valorem. It 
 must be borne in mind, however, that owing to the undervaluation of 
 the imported mica — due to the incompetency of custom li(»useofiicials — 
 the duty of 35 i)er cent ad valorem has been far less etVective than one 
 might be led to expect from a casual examination. Indeed, it may be 
 fairly claimed that it has been of but little value in the directittn of 
 protecting and encouraging the American iudustry.
 
 NORTH CAROLINA ORES AND MINERALS. SOlJ 
 
 To illustrato: The Noitli Carolina niiiun- now receives for liis mica 
 an aNeia]L;e of ><l.r)() per pound, and at the present rate of duty (IM) per 
 cent ad valorem) the tarirt' on this mica woukl be M) cents j)er i)ound; 
 whereas, owin^ to the undervaUiatiou of imported mica by custom- 
 house officials, the amount actually collected as 20 per cent ad valorem 
 is less than 3 cents per i)ound on the mica imported. Thus, bearing iu 
 mind that tlie averajje value of the product of cut mica in North Caro- 
 lina is $1.")(» per pound, it will be readily seen that the Government 
 derives but little revenue and the Ameiican laborer receives but little 
 advantage — practically no advantage — from the existing tariff, and as 
 we ascend the scale of juices on mica the absurdity of the situation 
 becomes more apjiaient. 
 
 This lu'obably has come largely from the fact that it is impossible for 
 ordinary custom-house oflicials to deterudne the true value of the micu 
 imported, aiul it is of course to the interest of the imixuter to uiuler- 
 value rather than overvalue bis material. It would be exceedingly 
 ditlicult to remedy this condition entirely, even were it practicable to" 
 have app(»inted elVicient custom house olllcials. 
 
 After a careful stud.N of tlw problems connected with the mica 
 industry in North Carolina and adjoiiiing States, and after consulta- 
 tion with many of the moie intelligent mica miners, I am satislied that 
 a tarilV on mica endtodying Ixjth the specilic and ad valorem duty, as 
 outlined above, is the only one which will produce results that are 
 satisfactory to the American miner. Nor «lo 1 believe that the imposi- 
 tion of duties smaller than those mentioned above will be elVective 
 either in i)rodueing a revenue for the Government or in protecting the 
 American laborer. 
 
 liy far the larger part of the nnca importe<l. esjiecially that used for 
 stoves, furnaces, etc., is mined in India, where lal)or is exceedingly 
 cheai> and other conditions fav(U'al>le. The better (lualities of this mica 
 are sold in the Americati market as North Carolina mica. With this 
 exceedingly cheap Indian labor and cheap transpoitati<»n, thl' ndca 
 industry in the South Atlantic. New England, and Western States is 
 in great need of a reasonaldy high ])rotective tarilf. 
 
 On careful examination of the mica producing region of the South 
 Appalachian States during the past year, I am led to believe that the 
 nunes in this and other mi< a producing areas of the United States can 
 easily produce all of the mica recpiired by the American market; and 
 a reasonable tarilV on ndca, such as asked for above, would so stimulate 
 the industry that improved miiung machinery would be introdnced and 
 many of the mines which aie now in an abandoned condition would be 
 oi)ened up anew, and they would be found as productive in the future 
 as they have been in the i)ast. A vast majority of these mines have 
 been operated in the crudest way, without mining pumps or other 
 modern machinery. Without adecpiate protection against the largo 
 imjiortations of India mica, the owners of these properties feel but 
 little inclined to eidarge or improve their mining plants; but with ade- 
 quate protection hundreds of the now abandoned mica mines in the 
 South Api)alachian region would be opened up anew, operated with 
 improved modern ai>pliances, and the output of mica from these mines 
 would be greatly larger than it has ever been in the past. If there is 
 any American mineral industry which to-day needs more adequate 
 protection, it is the mica industry. 
 
 J. A. Holmes, 
 JState (j€olo(jititj lialtiglt, N. C.
 
 310 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTLKES UF. 
 
 PIG rno^. 
 
 (Paragrapli 110.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM A INGHAM. OF PHILADELPHIA, 
 REPRESENTING EASTERN PIG IRON ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Mr. Ingham said : Mr. Cliairman and ^'entloiiipii of tlie ooininittee, 
 I represent the Eastern J^ijj-Jron Assoeiation, Avliich is formed of the 
 owners east of the Allef;hany i\lountaiMS making' ])i{X iron for !<ali' on 
 tlie market, bnt we liave jjrepared a ])rint<Ml statement whicli is luMn^ 
 laid on the table before each meml)er of the committee. Tliat is onr 
 case, and I have very little to say except if anybody wishes to ask me 
 any qnestions I am ready to answer them. Onr jxiint is simi)ly, we ask 
 the restoration of the duty of the act of 1^00. The present duty on i)ip: 
 iron is $4, and the duty under the act of ISOO was •i'n.Ti;, and tlie reascms 
 why we ask that are contained in tliis ])ampldct. and I do iidt know 
 that I can jjive it any more force by any further remarks. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. I see the importations nntb-r the ]>resent law were less 
 than they were in IS'.ii' under the act of ISlKi. 
 
 Mr. Ingiia:m. Tliey are, and the reason is <,Mven in that pamphlet. 
 Ther is a fallinji" olf, and tliere is no doul>t iibout that fact. 
 
 Mr. Taavnfa'. That is e.xphiined in your l)rief? 
 
 Mr. Ingham. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Dalzei>t.. You want an increase of duty on some other thinjrsT 
 
 Mr. Ingham. We have asked that the men wlio buy pi;,' iron and 
 turn it into bar iron should be protected, too. Otherwise":^ 
 
 The Chairman. Vou want a raise all alonu the line? 
 
 Mr. Ingham. No, sir: we do not ask that, because I think that .'some- 
 times the duty may be too liijrh. 1 am not prejiared to <^t) into a crit- 
 ical exffmination of the schedule. I know some are too low, and \vr 
 want a revision, and wherever they are to() low we want them raised. 
 
 Mr. Dalzei.l. If we raise the duty on \)\>!: iron, you will have to have 
 a raise on bars? 
 
 Mr. iNfiHAM. Not necessarily. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. And sheets? 
 
 Mr. Ingham. Well, a certain class of sheets oupht to be raised. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. There is less pip iron imported under the present law 
 than under the McKinley law. How are you hurt by the present law? 
 
 Mr. Ingham. I do not say we are hurt to day, but we are lookinj; 
 to the future. The prices may <,'o up a little, and then we will be hurt 
 by the $4 duty very much. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Mow do you know you will lie hurt ? 
 
 Mr. Ingham. I know about what it costs to make it in Knpland.and 
 what are the frei.uiit rates, and how soon tht>v will .send it over here. 
 
 Mr. I\IcMii,LiN. What does it cost to make it in ICiruland? 
 
 •Mr. In(;iiam. I said I knew what it co.st to make it fliere. 1 know 
 wliijt they have been selling- it for— about $8 a ton. 
 
 Mv. MoMiLLiN. Where? 
 
 i\Ir. Ingham. At the shippino- points. 
 
 Mr. ]\I c:\riLLiN. F. 0. b. on the other side? 
 
 Mr. Ingham. I believe it is f. o. b. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. Is it not a fact that one comiiany tVom the South has 
 sldjiped within the last four or live months more that 7(»,0U(> tons to 
 Great Britain?
 
 PIG IRON. 311 
 
 Mr. Ingham. Tliey have shipped some. I do not know how much. 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. 1 was informed by a gentleman connected with the 
 Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company last November that within 
 sixty days next preceding they had shipped 70,0U() tons, 
 
 Mr. iNciiiAM, 1 have no doubt they have shipped some, and the reason 
 is very clear to me if it is not to you. They are getting rid of unsala- 
 ble stiilf. Tliey might Just as well dump it in the Atlantic as to sliip 
 it to England. 
 
 Mr. Mc.MiLLi.N. Do you think they were selling without any profit 
 on it? 
 
 Mr. InCtIIAM. I do not know, but 1 simply have a strong suspicion 
 they are doing just that thing to get rid of it. 
 
 Mr. Mc.MiLLiN. Vet the company is paying the fixed charges and 
 interest account and all, and running its furnaces? 
 
 Mr. iNdiiAM. Have they paid dividends lately? I never heard of it. 
 
 Mr. McMii.i.iN. They started with a large indebtedness, and have 
 nevi-r dcfaulUMl; they have kept on in business? 
 
 Mr. In(;ham. At last accounts— it is a company that is growing so 
 fast I ilo not Ivuow— but at last accounts the Tennessee Iron anil Coal 
 Company liad about .•?10,(K>i>,i)0t> capital and was *10,(H)(l,(MM» in debt. 
 They have talked abont increasing it to ,i54O,O(K»,O0O, but whether they 
 dill so I do not know. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. They have a very large number of furnaces, and I 
 happen to be familiar with that because I was a mend)erof the legisla- 
 ture that chartered the parent company, and that was twenty-two years 
 ago nearly. 
 
 Mr. iMillAM. It was calleil the ISouth 
 
 ]Mr. .McMiLLiN. Tliey are now, 1 am informed, shipi»ing iron to Lon- 
 don, and virtually fixing the price of the market there. 
 
 Mr. S'J'EKi.E. Do you know whether or not they are in favor of free 
 pig iron? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. 1 do not kiu>w how they are on tluit sub)ect. I know 
 they were formerly not for free pig iron; that is, this gentleman who 
 spoke to me. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Who was het 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I can tell you — not to go on the record, because it 
 was a private conversation, 
 
 Mr. IxaiAiM. 1 know of but two Southern furnaces that have been 
 what I call successful. 1 know a great many making iron aiul steel at 
 very low figures, but I do not think they have been paying dividends. 
 
 Mr, .McMii.iJN, If they iiave a charge on the other side of 8S a ton 
 for nuiking iron, what does tiie transportation cost to this side? 
 
 Mr. Inguam. To bring it over here? That is a Ihictuating (luantity. 
 I have known it as high as $1.25 a ton, and then I have known them 
 to take it for ballast. 
 
 Mr, MclMili.in. It has come in ballast very seldom? 
 
 Mr, Ingham. It is done when there is a tremendous grain trade going 
 abroad. 
 
 ^Ir. JIcMiLLiN. But the rule is there is a charge upon it? 
 
 Mr. Ingham. Yes, sir; I suppose the charge would be about 50 cents, 
 and I have known it as low as a quarter of a dollar. 
 
 Mr. McMiLT>iN. Four dollars for import duty would be 812.50 on 
 dock on this side, and do you not know the fact that there are a number 
 of comi)anies in the United States who are now making vast quantities 
 of pig iron very much lower than that? 
 
 Ml-. Ingham. I do not know what is their cost, for I am not in their
 
 312 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MAMIACI IKl.S OF. 
 
 counsels, but I kuow tliey are selling very much lower tlian that, and 
 that is wliat we complain about. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. So the home manufacture is at a less rate than the 
 foreign price with the duty added? 
 
 Mr. Ingham. It is exactly what we state in this jtapcr and explain. 
 At present tbere are practically no importations and some slight expor- 
 tation of pig iron, but we want to look to the time wlien the price of 
 pig iron will go up higher than it is; to go up 5*- or $3 a ton. and make 
 a little money. 
 
 Mr. MCiMiLLiN. Is not your liercest coini»ctit<»r now the Southern 
 producer of i)ig iron? 
 
 Mr. Ingham. They are our competitors to a great extent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Are not they your greatest competitors, and is it not 
 so that they have hitherto not been competing for the purpose of mak- 
 ing steel, but are now the strongest comjuMitors in pig iion for steel 
 purj^oses ? 
 
 Mr. Ingham. I do not kuow they are making anv llesscuier pig at 
 all. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Is it not a fact that they have large orders from the 
 Chicago works and from other Northern works for tlu' purjiose of con- 
 verting that iron into steel T 
 
 Mr. Ingham. That I do not know. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. I think you will tind it is so when you examine it. 
 
 Mr. Ingham. It is jiossible, but tiieydo not have the ores to make 
 what is called Besseiuer ]»ig; but there is another class of steel for 
 which tlu'y have the ores to make and that is the basic. The ore is t<M 
 high in phosphorus t(t make iJessemer steel, but it w ill make the basic. 
 
 Mr. McMiLMN. Do they not in fact use that basic process! 
 
 Mr. Ingham. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. TnuNER. Do you know anything abnut the condition ot tin- 
 properties on Lake Superior, the new tind of ores up there! 
 
 Mr. Ingham. I have never been there, but 1 have stuilied the tliin;; 
 up and read the geological rejiort on it, but 1 do not know anything ot 
 it i)ersonally. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Is not that an ore very easily mined, load«'d. :ind 
 shipped? 
 
 Mr. Ingham. That is mined by what w»- call a steam >' paddy,'* which 
 sliovels it up and puts it on the cars. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Are you familiar with the ore! 
 
 Mr. Ingham. I have seen it often. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Where is ycmr business! 
 
 Mr. Ingham. The present furmice to which I behmg is in Phillips 
 burg, X. J.; the Andover Comj^any. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Do you deal in these <»n's at all? 
 
 ]Mr. lN(iHAM. No, sir; we make all our iron from our own mines. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Can uot that ore be min«'d so that pig iron can be sup 
 plied for less than sl2 a ton in normal times? 
 
 ^Ir. Ingham. Yes, sir; I think it is de]iendent up(»n what is paid for 
 fuel. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Is there any other range on Lake Superior exceiit 
 Messaba range where iron ore in mined with a shovel? 
 
 Mr. Ingham. That is the only one. The other ores are mined 
 
 INlr. Tawnev. Is it not true of the Vermillion range and is it not true 
 of all the mines in the Messaba range? 
 
 Mr. Ingham. I do not think it is true. 
 
 Mr, Turner. The charcoal iron is not largely jtroduced in the country
 
 PIG IRON. .TIS 
 
 HOW, but is it not a fact tliey produce it down South for about $8 or s'.i 
 a ton? 
 
 ]\Ir. 1n(;ha:\i. i ^uess the last charcoal luruace — well, at xVnuistoii 
 tliey claimed tliey could make charcoal iron for about '^l'^ a ton, but 
 Anniston has ^one into bankruptcy or assigned or something. 
 
 JNlr. Ti'KNEii. Do you know anything about the imlustry near Cedar 
 town, (la.? 
 
 Mr. Incjham. No, sir; I do not. 
 
 Mr. lugham then submitted the following report: 
 
 Okntlkmkn: The (lepn-ssed < omlitioii of the nianiifactnre of pig iron is nnpha- 
 eizeil by the folh)\vin{; statoineiit coiacrniiig the iiulustries roproseuted by this asso- 
 ciation) whii h iiu'Iiides all blast furnaces east of the Allegheny Mountains, making 
 pig iron for sale in tlie market: 
 
 In the Lehigh \ alley and New Jersey distrirts, the Hudson Kiver district, includ- 
 ing the Lake Chaniplain i)laut8, the Schuykill Kiver district, including the Lebanon 
 and tlie Last reniisylvania valleys, the SuK(iuehaniia 1,'iver district, and the .luniata 
 Iviver district, there are lOl furnace stacks; of these. 11.' are running and 82 an- idle. 
 
 ."^ome of these i«lle furnaces will never start again without reorganization, whidi 
 nu'ans practically an absidiite loss to the ori;:inal stockholders and that the bond- 
 liolih-rs will have to take tlu' ])roj(erties and reorganize. 
 
 Tiie lii.story of the \ ir^inia and the West Virginia furnaces would tell the same 
 story. 
 
 In the above are Dot inchubd those furnaces which make ])ig iron for their own 
 use and not for market, viz, those owned and operated by the Hetlilclicm Iron 
 Company, the rennsylvania Steel Company, and the Lackawanna Iron and St<el 
 Coni|>!>ny, for this statement shows, and is only intended to show, that the pig iron 
 numiifactiire for the open market ea.st of thf Allegheny Mountains is in a most 
 depressed condition. 
 
 In November, 1^(92, tln-nf were in this eastern district, excluding as above all fur- 
 naces making iron for their own use, a total number of LJS sta<ks; in blast 51', 
 idle 71. I'lierelbre 2!( furnares have disa|i)iearcd entirely, reducing the number from 
 V.V.i to 101, and of the balance, 'M have suspendetl, reducing the number of active 
 furnaces from ."iD to 22. 
 
 In December, is;t2, the lowest grade of English pig iron sold tor 378. 6d. ($9.18). 
 In former years the lowest grades of Lnglish ]iig iron have sold as low as 29s. to 
 328. ($7.10 to $7.84) and foreign iron has been carried to this country without charge, 
 as ballast. 
 
 In December, 1890, the lowest grade of English pig iron sold for 41s. ($10.04). 
 
 In Dec<-mber, 1S92, the cheai)cst brands of American pig iron sold for $12.75 to $13. 
 During IS'.Hi the cheapest brands have been delivered at the consumers' works for 
 $9.()0 to $10. 
 
 These figures show an atlvance in Knglish iron of nearly $1 per ton and a de<line 
 in the jiriies of American iron of $3 to $3.15 per ton in four years. 
 
 For convenience the above comparison is made between the lowest i>riced irons, 
 foreign and domestic, but the dilVercnce will run about the same through all grades. 
 
 GruHs toiiH. 
 
 In 1892 the production of i)ig iron in the I'nited States was 9, 1()>!, 600 
 
 Impcuted irons, all sorts 494,468 
 
 Add decrease in unsold stocks 90,217 
 
 Lstimated consnmjdion 9, 753. 285 
 
 In \^W the i)rodu(tion of pig iron in the United States w.is *8, 200. 890 
 
 Imported iron, all sorts * 300, 000 
 
 8, 500, 890 
 Deduct increase unsold stocks *467, 297 
 
 Estimated consumption '8, 033, 593 
 
 Showing a falling off in consumption of about 1,700,000 tons between 1892 and 1896. 
 Even the few furnaces now running are making little if any profit. The operators 
 are holding on, ])artly owing to excejitional circumstances which enable them to run 
 without sinking their capital and largely in hope of better times to come. Many 
 of these furnaces will be forced to suspend unless there is a speedy advance in prices. 
 
 'Estimated for December.
 
 314 SCHEDULE C. MET.VLS AND MANUl-ALTl 1C1.> Of. 
 
 We believe that tbis depression is largely due to tbe snccess of a fn-e-trade policy 
 
 ^"^Aud w^'^nrg"" thatthe present depressed prices do not allord a basis oa which to 
 readjust the duties on pig iron. ,• , , • i •. i 
 
 The dutv on pig iron under the present law is -fi per ton, whuh by sonic is clu.m.'d 
 to be a sumcient prutertiou, bcranse (a) very little foreign pig iron is now impurud, 
 and (b) some few tbonsand tons uutof the niillious made have recntly been exported. 
 
 These two claims may be considered together, and answered by the simple state- 
 ment that the market is at present abuormal. I'orei-ii pig iron is abnormally high 
 abroad and domestic pig iron is abnormally low at homo. \ nder this peculiar and 
 we hope temporary, condition, there is no inducement to imi.ort pig iron, :ind there 
 mav be a sli-lit inducement to export it. Hut note, it is not alU-ged that there is 
 any i)rotit in exporting jiig iron, even at present. It seems to be done to clear oil 
 unsalable stocks, a ])erformance universally jtracticed in all business. 
 
 l!ut when the price of foreign pig iron abroad drops to its normal, and when (if 
 ever) the i)rice of domestic jjig advances to a point where the manufacturer will 
 receive a fair return on his investment, then it will bo found that *1 per ton is not 
 protective. We will be deluged with imports of j.ig iron, our home market will bo 
 invaded, and our prices must be reduced. In -hort, whenever our home price rises 
 to a paying ]ioiut, in will come the foreigner, down will go our prices, and we will 
 be eveiituallv just where we are now. with no hope of anything I.etUT. 
 
 We thercfor(3 ask for the restoration of the duty. fii.l\l \»er t«»n, imposetl by the act 
 of IbW), under which we enjoyed a fair measure of |iroH!terity. 
 
 As the present cajiacity of the fiiriia.es in the I'liito.! States is largely in exi-eiw of 
 the probable demands of the market for souie years to i ome, there is no danger of 
 the i»rices rising to an unreasouable limit by virtue of the lestoijition of the duty 
 named in the Mi Kinhy bill. I he putting of iiUe furnaces in blast will, by com- 
 petition, jirotect the consumtTs. 
 
 We further ask for a revision of tlie duties on bar iron, black sheets, and tin plat«, 
 and that lottoii ties and feme wire be subjected tothe same rates asother like mate- 
 rial. We ask this because it is for our interest that our customers, the makers of 
 bar iron, black sheets, tin plate, fence wire, and cotton ties, should be protected. 
 And further, betuuse a duty depeiidiiii; on the purpoM) for which an article is iiih-mb d 
 opens a door tooutnigeous frauds cm the revenue. Wr re. | nest the rommittee to :i.i(i|it 
 as a basis for the new tarilV the so-called Mclvinlcy Ait. and not the Mo-callcd Wil>un 
 Act. The former is the most logical and systematic tarilV ai-l ever passed. The latter 
 is in most respects iire;;ular ami in^■onsi■^tellt. 
 
 We do not ask for an absolute restoration of ail the McKinley rates of iluty. In 
 the changes of biisinos some of these may now be too high. «<mim' t«»o b.w. 
 
 hut we ask the committee to take that law as a basis for ' especially 
 
 its provisions f(»r specilic duties in all i ases where such du: 
 
 We ilo not come asking this restoration of iliitirs, h' • ' ■ ■ ' — .:•• 
 
 of comlitions ;is \\ ill make all luinaces prolltablc in 
 
 iug that c\ cry thing that can be should be done to ;,; '•* 
 
 have spent in the aggn-gate millions of dollars to improvi* an<i eijuip lln ir pliiuis in 
 the most modi rn maniii>r. There are sullicient tirst-dass blast furnaces in the Cnited 
 States to jirotluce every ton of pig iron, of all kinds and giad.cs. that can juissibly be 
 needed to siijiply the iron and stttd market and ha\e an e\ci ss iur years lo come. 
 
 They re])re.sent American cai>ital. .\meri< an eiitc-i prise, ;iml, when in oieration, 
 add to the demand for the labor «)f men living within our borders, and to that 
 extent promote the general prosperity of all our prople. 
 
 Wll.l.l.VM A. IN(III,\M, 
 
 J'naidntI /.'. /*. /. A 
 .lo.sKi'ii Iv Tiiuorr, 
 Chairman of the Kxentlirr Cummittce L. I'. I. A. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN N. M. SHIMER. OF PHILADELPHIA, REP- 
 RESENTING THE DUNBAR FURNACE COIiPANY. 
 
 Saturday, Januarif n, l&!t?. 
 
 Mr. SniMER said: ?ilr. Cliainnaii and .oentleiiieii of the committer, 
 we ask tor a restoration of duty to wliat it wa.s bi'fore. We a.sk it 
 because it is too low now, and we ask it lieeanse of the abnormal con- 
 tlitions which are now oveishadowin*;" the iron trade. The price of iron 
 ia All, erica is lower than the price of iron in ICnghmd.
 
 riG iKox. 315 
 
 The CliAiKMAN. Tliat is, the hoiiio competition has carried the i)rit'e 
 of it down ? 
 
 Mr. SiiniKR. The internal conii)etition, 1 call it, of :ill around has; 
 broujrht down the ])ricc of pip iron to such an extent that there have 
 been shiiuncnts of ]t\<x iron to Mn;xland. 
 
 Tiie CliAilJMAN. That is, it is not forei^jn eoiujietition, hut doiiieslic 
 eoiMjKMition which has reduced the price? 
 
 Mr. Siinii:!:. Ves, sir; the domestic competition. 
 
 INIr. McMiiJ.iN. IJijiht there, if it will not interrupt you, how will an 
 increased rate ot' tarill" help y()n a;;ainst home competition without the 
 home manufacturers combine and put up j^rices by reason of the 
 additional duty? 
 
 Mr. SniMKi:. We do not expect this connnittee to do anythinir that 
 will in any way eliminate competition that there is at home, because 
 we are not afraid of our home peojile. If we di» not j^et the money, 
 tbey do. 
 
 Mr, Mf'MiLi.iN. Will the taritf help y<Mi uidess you combinet 
 
 >ir, I.Ncii \"\i. We <lo not combine. 
 
 Mr. M< .Mii.LiN. Y(ui .say the home competition is troubling you. 
 Will an increased duty remedy that trouble! 
 
 Mr. 8hi"\ie!;. An increased duty will prottn-t, not remedy. If we 
 can ^'ct into the condition of trade we lu'ld before the last four years, we 
 will not then be at the mercy of forei;,Mi competition. Why? JJecause 
 our juices will ;jo uji. and their jMices will jjcrhaps <;o down. I do not 
 know; they may stay uj), but they have heretolbre been p-ttin^ down 
 when our ]»rices got nj*. and they make the I'nited States thedum])ing 
 giound of I^uro])e Ibr tin* suri)his itriwluct of their milN. The conse- 
 (pUMK-es are we are trying to create a little dumping groun«l <ui the 
 other side by a paltry "shipment of 50,()(»n. Oo.ooo. ..r 70,000 tons of pig 
 iron out of a ]»roduction of between 8,000,000 and 0,ooo,ooo tons. We 
 can take care of ourselves, comjiaratively si)eaking, at luMne, but we can 
 not take care against the foreigner. Now, why should we need to be 
 protected 
 
 Mr. MrMiLT.iN. Is not the present duty prohibitory on imports? 
 
 Mr. lN(inAM. It is true. If you can tell nu^ whether it will be next 
 ye.ar or the year after, the i)resent duty is enough, 
 
 ]\lr, McMiLLiN, How much has the i)resent price of iron to increa.se 
 before it exceeds the ])resent rate of duty? 
 
 Mr. SimiKii. About mI.oO a ton. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN, If you can have *1,."»0 adtled to the luesent i)rice, 
 would not the manufacture of pig iron be lucrative in the I nited States? 
 
 i\lr, SuiMKR, No, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLi.iN. Not in all parts of the United States, but it would 
 be in the southern portion of it. 
 
 Mr. SiiiMER. It might be for 100,000 or r)00,0(M> tons. It might be to 
 theDuquesne furnaces, we may say, which have a set of furnaces which 
 1ms been creeled with a capacity of O.'iO to TOO tons ]>er <lay as against 
 the furnaces of the Lehigh and Schuylkill valleys of 70 to SO tons a day. 
 Now, for the lour furnaces at Dmiuesne the i>resent rate of duty uiight 
 be for twenty years sulliciently high to make those furnaces remunera- 
 tive whether tliere was a duty or not. 
 
 3Ir. McMiLLiN. Von have stated that the price of iron in the United 
 States is lower than it is in England to day? 
 
 Mr. SiiiMER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. How is it, then, that only $1.50 added would give
 
 316 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 British comi)etition, as the duty is $4 and the freight a.UU'd would be 
 still more? 
 
 Mr. SniMEB. Let me understand you. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The present rate of duty is $4, and iron is cheai>er 
 in the Ignited States than in Enghiiid, not takinj; into account the 
 freio-ht, so you woukl have to raise tlic price •* I here before tliero 
 coiifd be any material cora])etition from tlie other side, if the price of 
 iron remains the same on the other side ? 
 
 Mr. Shimer. But we are sending; iron to lOn^dand at the present 
 
 time. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. So it wouhl take 84 added to the i)resent price to 
 give you British competition? 
 
 Mr. SiiiMEE. Less the freight. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF J. N. M. SHIMER. 
 
 Satikii AY. .Iiinuiinj .9, If^O?, 
 
 Mr, SnrvrER said: Mr. Chairman and ucntlemeii of the committee. I 
 desire to say tliat we wonhl like to have the original .McKiidey bill 
 restored, so far as its tariff appbes to oiii industry, for the reason that 
 we are unable to pay expenses. 
 
 The Chairman. Wliat article do you represent ? 
 
 Mr. SniMEiJ. Pig iron, sir. We want tlie original duty restored on 
 pig iron, ij^d.TL* i)er ton or three tenths of a cent jier ]>ound, for tlie r.'U 
 son that the last four years under the Wilson bill w«' have only been 
 able to pay 81 a day — !?1 to ^1.10 a day — for the laboring men engaged 
 in the production of iron at the furnace. We have no stoics. We «'an 
 have no stores in Pennsylvania. We manufacture the <'oke that goes 
 into the ])ig iron from bake Su]>erior ores. 
 
 With the very lowest point of wages that has ever be«Mi known in our 
 section we have only been able to gi't along. We an* only «•<> cents 
 from market for our pig iron, and it se«'ms to im- we have been working 
 from year to year to try to get down to a point to make some money, 
 but even with the $<».7l* duty there was an enormous tonnage of ]>ig 
 iron which came into the Cnited States, but since tlie <lepression there 
 has been so poor a market, so few customers, for i)ig iron that the mar- 
 ket could not even take the pig iron in the Unit«Ml States, and <'on- 
 sequently could not take that from abroad, even with the $4 duty. 
 But as soon as the conditions will wariant tlu' sale of pig iron of the 
 normal capacity of the United States you will see plenty of pig iron 
 coming in from abroad with the $i duty. 
 
 ]Mr. Tawney. What was the annual production of pig iron fn the 
 three years i)rior to lSi)4? 
 
 Mr. Shimer. About !),000,POO tons. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. What has been the annual production since 1S041 
 
 Mr. Shimer. About S,000,()()() tons. The P>essemer iron, previous to 
 1894, formed a large ])art of the importation to the steel works, such as 
 the Pennsylvania Steel Company, the Cambria Iron Com])any, and steel 
 works east of the Alleghany Mountains. The ordinary iron was taken 
 into the New England market in conqietition with the Southern irons, 
 and within the last year or ^vo there has bet'ii a considerable amount 
 of basic. There have been preparations Ibr basic furnaces. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Was not the production prior to 16'J4 consumed in the 
 United States? 
 
 Mr. Shimer. Yea.
 
 PIG IRON. 317 
 
 Mr. Tawney. lias tlie anuual productiou since 1894 been consumed 
 in tlie I'nitcd States? 
 
 Mr. Shlmeu. It has been consumed from only the best equipped and 
 most ebgibly situated jreo^rrajdiically to the market. Tlie other liirnaces 
 have pone out ol' blast. They could not live. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I low mucii was imported in 181)0 of the class of which 
 you s]»eak ? 
 
 Mr. SiiniER. I do not know; very little. 
 
 Mr. McMiLi.iN. Vou have stated that substautially we supplied the 
 United States? 
 
 Mr. SiiiMHK. \es, sir. 
 
 Mr. Tawnev. And that market has been a million and a half tons 
 less ? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. A million, he said. 
 
 Mr. Siiimi;k. One million seven hundred thousand tons. 
 
 Mr. M<.MiLLiN. It has l>een affected like other things by the general 
 dei)ression that has existed throughout the country? 
 
 Mr. SniMKU. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Ti KNKK. Are you concerned only in the production of jtig iron; 
 have y»»u any (»ther rehiti<»n to the great iron trade? 
 
 Mr. SiiiMEK. As a manufacturer of coke. We have introduced into 
 the I iiited States within tiie past few years — in fact we have had them 
 running about three years — the new by juoduct ovens of (lerman make, 
 and we have erected those in our Connellsville works, and we are mak- 
 ing coke from the regular Connellsville coal and saving the by-i)roduct, 
 saving a heat which represents '),()(>(»,(>(>(> tons of fuel i)er annum. 
 
 Mr. TuKNEU. Are you familiar with the iron business generally! 
 
 .Mr. SiiiMEH. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. Ti KNKU. Manufacture ol iron of every kiudt 
 
 Mr. SiiiMEK. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Ti'RNEK. The Wilson bill aftbrds pretty large protection, does it 
 not, lor iron and steel products? 
 
 y\r. SiiiMER. If you will specify — in tin plate, no; in sheet iron, no; 
 but in bar irons and in that class, of beams and forged iron, the protec- 
 tion is such that they can live under it. 
 
 Mr. Turner. You think that only the sheet iron and the black plates, 
 tin jdates, are beneath Avhat you think should be the standard of i)ro- 
 tection f 
 
 Mr. SiiiMER. The McKinley duty suits me. It is consistent, and in 
 all respects is e<|uivalent to an alisolute i)rotection to tiie iron interests 
 of the United States, and it is only weak wherever it specities an ad 
 valorem duty as against a si)ecilic (luty. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Do you complain of the pig-iron duty! 
 
 Mr. SiiniER. At 4^1 
 
 Mr. Turner. Y^es. 
 
 Mr. SiiiMER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Then, exce])ting the pig-iron and sheet-iron duty and 
 the tin-plate duty, you think that the rest of the rates i)rovided on the 
 iron and steel schedule are adeipiate under the present law? 
 
 Mr. SH13IER. No; 1 do not think so. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Ilow about cotton ties! 
 
 Mr. Shimer. I do not know what the duty is on cotton ties. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. They are on the free list. 
 
 Mr. Siii:mer. It is simi)ly preposterous. 
 
 Mr. Turni:r. In sj)eaking of cotton ties, there is a little matter of 
 history connected with it, as my friend from Pennsylvania knows. I
 
 318 SCHEDULE C. MI<:TALS and MANUFACTUKE8 UF. 
 
 am tryiDg to get at this concession which has been made by one of the 
 aeutlemeu preceding you, that the rates under the present hiw, under 
 various items of the metal schedule, are fairly liberal to the i)rotectiou 
 Bide. Is not that true? . . . i • », 
 
 Mr. SnoiBR. Why, no. Under existiuji circumstances, taking the 
 abnormally high prices abroad and the abnormally low prices in the 
 United States, they atibrd a certain amount of i>rotectiou, but when 
 thino-s get into their normal condition again they will not atfoid the 
 necessary protection. I mean the present \Vilson-(Jorman bill will lu.t 
 afford the necessary protection, and therefore we ask the McKinley 
 
 Mr. TUKNEK. You are not willing to make the comession whi«h was 
 made by one of the gentlemen preceding you not long since; you heard 
 him? 
 
 Mr. Shimer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Who was it! 
 
 Mr. Shimer. I do not remember. I do not know of any conceHsion 
 made except on something he was iu>t intereste«l in. 
 
 Mr. Turner. You are not interested in all these lines! 
 
 Mr. SuiMER. 1 am interested in pig iron: 1 am interested in the base, 
 and so 1 am interested all the way through. 
 
 Mr. Turner. So you can not be as liberal as he was? 
 
 Mr. SuiMER. Ko, sir; I can not be as liberal as lie was. 
 
 Mr. TriJNER. Has it not been understood among the iron and steel 
 people tluit they were fairly satistied with the existing rates umler that 
 schedule? 
 
 Mr. SiiiMER. That was the best they could get, and they had to be 
 satislied. 
 
 Mr. TUKNEU. l>ut they have another opportunity now! 
 
 Mr. Shimer. And we are trying to make the best of it. 
 
 j\Ir. TuRNEK. An' all of you doing that! 
 
 3Ir. Shimer. 1 do not know; I am. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Vou want all you can u;et? 
 
 ^Ii-. Shimer. We want what is projjeraud right. When the M<'Kin 
 ley bill was under consideration, long hearings were had upon it, and 
 we were put down from ■'t'S to •i'O.TL' per ton. I nder the NN'ilson bill t\u: 
 hearings were not so long. A great many things were put «>n tiie fr« e 
 list. The gentleman has referred to cott<u» ties, which wen* put on t'le 
 free list. That was not right. I think the ad valorem duty should be 
 eliminated from the iron schedule in every way, because 1 have stood 
 up in the Philadelphia custom house and entered steel blotuns shipi)ed 
 from the Kiver Tyne on the same day and com]ielled to enter my goods — 
 my foreign invoice — at a higher rate than an English lirm that had a 
 resident partner in the United States. They entered their blooms on 
 the same day. 
 
 Mr, Tawney. Under what tariff law has your bu.siness been the most 
 prosperous f 
 
 Mr. Shimer. Under the McKinley bill and previously, and it has not 
 been })r(>sperous at all umler the Wilson bill. 
 
 Mr. Turner. ])o vou attribute that lack of jtosperitv to the Wilson 
 bill? 
 
 Mr. Shimer. I attribute the lack of contidence 
 
 ]\Ir. Turner. Do not you know those things would nf)t have llour- 
 islied under the ]McKinley bill during the conditions that have existed 
 during the last three years? 
 
 Mr. Shimer. Do 1 know sol
 
 ri(; IKON. 319 
 
 Mr. TiRNEj;. Do not you know under the conditions tliat b;ive 
 existed in tlie iron and steel trade your business would have languished 
 anyhow? 
 
 Mr. yuiMHU. lUit about -"> per cent less; there would have been 
 tlnit niueh dillerenee; li~> per eent better under the McKiuley bill than 
 under the Wilson bill. 
 
 Mr. TuRNEi;. How do you make that estimate? 
 
 Mr. SiiniKR. On the general prices. 1 blew out on the 27th of 
 August, tearing Mr. Cleveland would be eleeted in ISUl*, and I was out 
 twenty months. 1 blew out on the 3d of September of this year for 
 fear that Mr. liryan would be elected, and I am going in on next ^Ion- 
 day because Mr. MeKinley was «'1eeted, and 1 am going to make -oO 
 tons of i>ig iron every day. 
 
 Mr. Ti KNEK. Do you expect a rise in the duty on i)ig iron; and if so, 
 bow much f 
 
 ]\Ir. SuiMER. To 6'<i.7-! a ton. 
 
 Mr. TrHNi;R. And you expect all the rates, or you would like all the 
 rates, raised to what thev were under the McKiuley Act? 
 
 Mr. SiiiMEK. What is'that? 
 
 Mr. I'UKNEK. You would like to have the McKinley rates restored t 
 
 :\Ir. SiiniEif. I woidd like to have all the McKinley rates in reference 
 t<» the ir(»n scheduh' restored, because I know about that. J do not 
 know about other sclu-chdes. 
 
 Mr. Tawnev. Are you resuming operations next Monday in conse- 
 qnence of anticipated' increased duties or anticipated increased conti- 
 dence? 
 
 Mr. SuiMEi:. Anticipated increased conhdence and I lupe increased 
 duties. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOSEPH E. THROPP, OF EVERETT, PA. 
 
 Saturday, January 9, 1^97. 
 
 Mr. TnRorp said: Mr. chairman and gentlemen of the committee, a 
 rei)ort of the Eastern Tig lion Association, which was inejiared by 
 the executive committee in the otlices of the association, has been imt 
 in printed form and submitted by Mr. Ingham. There were one or two 
 questions which 1 understood you wished to ask as to the present cost 
 and selling price of iron and what might be the possibilities in tlie 
 future. 
 
 We look upon tlie condition of the pig iron market to day as l)eing 
 abnormal. In other words, prices are so much lower than they should 
 be, and prices abioad so much higher than usual, that this duty of 
 $4 is ample juotection to day, and under the Wilson bill, as Mr. ^McMil- 
 lin has said, the importations have decreased; yet should we have a 
 tair market and fair prices over here, the duty of A4 a ton would not 
 be an ample protection, and therefore we ask the restoration of the 
 McKinley duty. 
 
 Some little iias been said and some questions asked by Mr. ^McMillin 
 as to the cost of iron in the South. We of the Ncu^tli are not su|)posed 
 to be accurately posted as to the details, but I have visited the South 
 and I know a number of men who are interested in the works down 
 there— a number of my friends— and I have yet to see or hear of any ot 
 them who have been inaking much money on their investments in the 
 South in the manufacture of pig iron.' The president of one of the 
 large comi)anies down there tohl me that he had lost 25 to 50 cents a 
 ton on every ton sold in the last few years, but that they had paid the
 
 320 SCHEDULE c. — mi:tals and manufactures of. 
 
 interest on their bonds because they had made .*4S,000 out of their 
 stores. In the North we are not permitted to do tliat. Another presi- 
 dent of one of tlie Soutliern comi)anies— one of the liest eipiippi'd in 
 the South, in the Birmingliam district— talked to me about his business 
 the other day, and J asked him wliy it was he was not running liis estab- 
 lishment, and lie toUl me that the iron mills in the South which were 
 running to day were running for the sheritf. He was connected with 
 the Pioneer Works. 
 
 The CiiAiKMAN. Are the difticulties you are encountering to day the 
 result of foreign competition or domestic comi)etitiont 
 
 Mr. TiiROPP. Domestic competition and the reduction in the con- 
 sumption at home. If we had a normal condition of trade here thronuh- 
 out the country, we estimate that we would produce and consume from 
 l,5()(),(l()0 to li,ni)0,()(H) tons more iron, and then ]iossibly we wouhl get 
 remunerative prices here at home if we were not injured by the impor 
 tations from abroad. 
 
 The CUAIRMAN. What is the annual consumption of iron in tiie 
 United States or what would it be likely ro be now under normal con- 
 ditions? 
 
 Mr. TilRorP. Tl^nder normal conditions it should be iVom !t,(HM».ooo to 
 9,r)()(),()()(> tons. Last year it was about S.ooo.oimi tons. 
 
 The ('riAiRMAN. So the consumption fell olf at least lT) per cent! 
 
 Mr. TiiRoiT. Last year tiie falling olV was l.TOD.ono tons as eom- 
 pared with 1S'.>l', in round numbers. 
 
 The Chairman. Ibit we hav«' a larger jxipulation now an<l we on^ht 
 to have an increase in consnmjttion. 
 
 Mr. TiiROrp. Ves, sir; w»^ oii;:ht to have a laiger consumption. 
 Last year the railroads consumed only about >()(>. 000 tons of rails. 
 They have consumed L'JOO.OOO tons in a year. If you lake that a.s :in 
 unusually high year, we would possibly be sale in saying that we ought 
 to consume annually 1,000,000 tons or double what they consumed last 
 year. We have from .'J.'^OOO to .{7,000 locomotives in the Tnited Stat«'s, 
 and the average life of a locomotive is about ton years, therefore wo 
 ought to buihl about 3,."iOn locomotives a year in this country. There 
 were built last year only 1,100. The same facts wouhl apply to cars. 
 If we had normal demand the production of iron wt»uld be greatei- and 
 the prices would rise, and then this duty would not be a safe protec- 
 tion. We can prodin-e so much iron in this country under a normal 
 demand that the consumer will be protected by the competition anyway. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Can you tell at what i)rices this pig iron sold? 
 
 Mr. TiiROPP. It sold for about *S a ton at the furnaces in Virginisu 
 It had to be delivered to the consumer at that price. 
 
 Mr. Wiikei-er. Do you know what the cost of making ])ig iron is in 
 the l>iriningham district, in Alabama! 
 
 Mr. TiiROPP. I understand that they can make ]tig iron down there 
 for $7 a ton or possibly a little less. When I asked the (piestion <»f the 
 presidentofthePioneerCom])aiiy why it was that tlu-y had blown out ami 
 stoi)ped7naking iron, he said that it was no use to run, because they were 
 running for the sheritV. I think the mistake is perliajts that they are 
 exhausting their properties without charging royalties to thos«' pr()per- 
 ties. Iron and coal properties are not like wheat properties. You can 
 not sow another crop of iron or <'oal. They will eventually without 
 doubt exhaust those valuable proi>ei ties they have in the South. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you lurnished any intbrmation to this commit 
 tee in regard to the cost of producing irou in this country and the cost 
 of producing it abroad!
 
 PIG IRON. 321 
 
 Mr. Thuopp. I liave not, but we li;ivc given in tliis statement the 
 selliii^^ price of our iron nowaiid the selling priceof our iron four years 
 ago, and the average selling price. This statement will show that iron 
 has fallen during these four years $3 to $."5.15 a ton on our priee at 
 home. Abroad the priee of iron has advanced. Therefore the condi- 
 tions now are abnormal. I understand you gentlemen desire to fix a 
 taritt' bill that will give the business men some rest; in other words, 
 one that will be fixed for some time. Therefore the duty ought to be 
 high enough on articles where competition at home can protect the 
 consumer. Where the productive cai)acity is sufliciently great to ]>ro- 
 tect the consumer, the duty ought to be high enough to keep out foreign 
 l»ro«bicts. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Do you know the i)rice at whicli this iron has been 
 selling that Alabama has been sending to lOurojie? 
 
 Mr. TnROPP. No; but they have not been exporting as much, I 
 thiidv, as one gentleman said before the recess. As I understand the 
 total exports from the South have oidy been from33,0(K) to 37,000 tons. 
 They claim to have ha<l more than 00,000 tons for export, but I under- 
 stand that it has not been exported. They are meeting one of the «li Hi- 
 cult ies which will beset them even more in the future. The moment 
 tliey (!omniem'e to export in any great (piantity there will be a demand 
 for tonnage Irom the Southern p(trts to the foreign ports and as soon 
 as ther«' is that demand for tonnage the lrei.i:hts will go up, and there- 
 fore that means of unloading our surplus will be snut oil'. 
 
 Mr. Ti iiNKU. Are you a manufacturer of pig iron? 
 
 Mr. Tiiuopp. I am. 
 
 Mr. TiTHNER. Where? 
 
 Mr. Thhopp. At Kverett, Bedford County, Pa. 
 
 Mr. TuRNKU. Where do you g»'t your iron ore? 
 
 Mr. TiiROPP. Taitly from my own i)roperty, partly fiom the adjoin- 
 ing county, and partly from the Lake Sui)erior regions. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Wliat kind of coal do you use? 
 
 Mr. TiiROPP. Our own coke. It is manufactured within 10 miles of 
 our works. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Do yon have the limestone near at hand too? 
 
 Mr. TiiROPP. Our local ores are very lean. I have to bring the 
 richer ores from the lakes. Alxut oiu'third of the ore I get from our 
 local ])roduction 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. And about two thirds from Lake Superior? 
 
 Mr. TnROPP. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Can you state about what it costs you on the i)resent 
 basis of affairs to make pig iron, the furnace iron or Hessemer steel? 
 
 Mr. TiiROPP. I do not make Hessemer because the ores at my place 
 are high in i)hosphorus, ami possibly they are a little cheaper than 
 those used for the Bessemer purpose. The average cost in our region 
 is from 5*10 to !<10.50 a ton. That is for an iron not made from mill 
 cinder. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Do you lind it cheaper to get the Lake Superior ores 
 than the ores from the South which you could get if you were prepared 
 to use the phosithorous ores? 
 
 Mr. TiiRopp. We could not get them from the South, because the 
 freight rate is from !?4 to $ l.oO — that is, from the Alabama district to 
 the North. If you put that on the price of ore, remembering that it 
 takes U tons of ore to make a ton of iron, yon would have $9 right there 
 tor your freight. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Could you use the rivers to send your pig to market? 
 T H 21
 
 322 SCHEDULE C. METALS A^D MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 jVFr. TiiKOPP. No, sir; we have to transport it by rail. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Where is your market? 
 
 Mr. Theopp. Philadelphia principally, and we send it np into Tren 
 ton, Newark, and the vicinity of New York, and some of it even U) 
 New Eiifiland. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Is this pig iron that you manufacture from pbosphorous 
 ores about the same grade as that which they make in Alabama and 
 Tennessee? 
 
 Mr. Thropp. Not exactly; the ores they use, as I understand, are 
 rather higher in manganese than the ores we use. We are careful to 
 select them for that purpose: and, then, too, we make a si)ecialty of 
 our better foundry iron, whidi we seiul to the North and produce a 
 soft iron whidi is high in carbon. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Is the r.essemer process being extended among the 
 furnaces in your section? 
 
 Mr. TiiRo'pp. Not except wliere tlie furnaces are owned by Hcssenu^r 
 companies themselves. On the other hand, it is being rather contracted. 
 Furnaces outside that were making Bessemer iron at one time are 
 going now onto foundry iron. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Is there aiiy ]>rospect of any means by which this 
 foundry iron can be nunc readily converted into Bessemer steel? 
 
 ]\lr. TUROPP. Not foundry iron. We would not nuike it as foundry 
 iron if we were going to convert it: but they might make mill iron or 
 iron designed for conversion by the oj^en hearth i»ro<'ess. 
 
 ]\lr. Ti RNER. That is an old i)rocess? 
 
 Mr. Thropp. It is an (dd ]>rocess in one sense, but it has not been 
 perfected until recently. They are now perfecting it so it can be used 
 to some extent. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Profitably! 
 
 Mr. Thropp. As 1 am not engaged with steel works I can not say. 
 
 JNlr. Turner. You are only concerned in the manufacture of i)ig iron? 
 
 iMr. Thropp. Yes, sir. Only with pig iron. 
 
 The Chairman. Where are' your works — east or west of the Alle- 
 ghanies? 
 
 i\Ir. Thropp. Southeast of Huntingdon and east of the Alleghanies. 
 
 The CnAnniAN. Where do you get youi- ore? 
 
 Mr. Tiiuopp. Two thirds from tlie lake regions — from Erie. 
 
 The Chairman, lieing on theeast of the Alh'ghanies. yon are at a 
 disadvantage so far as getting your raw material )•. concerned with 
 those who are engaged in the business on the west of the AlleghaniesT 
 
 Mr. Thropp. Yes, sir; to that extent. 
 
 Mr. ]\IcMiLLiN. What does the transportation cost on a ton of ore 
 from the ore beds in the Northwest to your furnace? 
 
 Mr. Thropp. I could hardly tell that. I will answer it in part. First, 
 they have the cost from the mines to the lakes, which is a rail cost, and 
 that I am not familiar with. Then they have the lake cost, which varies 
 from 50 cents to 81 and §1.25. 
 
 J\Ir. McMillin. W'hat is the average on the lakeT 
 
 Mr. Thropp. Seventy-five cents. i)ossibly. Then it has to be trans- 
 ported from the lake port again to the furnace. 
 
 I\Ir. McMiLLiN. How much is that? 
 
 Mr. Thropp. One dollar and a half a ton. about. 
 
 Mr. jNTcMillin. That is $2.25 on your ore. 1 am going to ask yon 
 what the value of the ore is at the lake portt 
 
 Mr. Thropp. I buy at the lower lake port. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. What is it worth there!
 
 PIG IRON. 323 
 
 Mr. TiiROPP. $2.10 to $3.50; it depends upon the quality of the iron. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. So that the oie that will make a ton of pig laid down 
 at your furnace costs you about what? 
 
 Mr. TiiiioPP. From j^O.L'o to -if 7 a ton. depending on what kind of iron 
 you are making,'. That is for the ore alone. 
 
 Mr. .Mc'MiLLiN. And is it not a fact that they turn out the pig in the 
 South at >'I to .*- cheaper than that? 
 
 Mr. TiiiiOPP. I understand so. Some of them down there have 
 advantages in ])roducing it that we have not. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. That is, they have the coal, iron, and limestone close 
 together ? 
 
 Mr. TiiRopp. Vcs; there is another point. In our State we are not 
 allowed to liave the stores, and comi)el our men to deal at those stores. 
 In the South it is virtually compulsion, and I can give you a little 
 instance that was told to me by the president of a V^irginia furnace. 
 I do not wish to mention any names, as it is his private business, but 
 will give the facts. An item that costs ^^lA't they were selling at the 
 miners' store to the miners for ^'2.1~). I was buying that same article 
 of goods for my men and was selling it to them at =^1.40, and thinking 
 that was a good prolit. It was costing us both the same. That year 
 he told me that he made !?1S,000 in the stores, but admitted that he 
 had lost on every ton of iron produced. 
 
 Mr. lOvANS. Instead of making the profit out of their ores or iron they 
 have made it out of their labor? 
 
 Mr. Thropp. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you know of any other instances like that? 
 
 Mr. Tiiuopp. I can give you another instance. Two furinices made 
 $LMM),0(K), and one of the otlicers admitted that this was made alto- 
 gether out of the stores. 
 
 Mr. M(;.MiLLiN. What is that furnace? 
 
 Mr. TuROPP. That is an Alabama furnace. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Which onel! 
 
 Mr. TuROPP. I do not like to give names, as I do not suj)pose these 
 gentlemen expected when they told me that I would make it public. 
 Do you insist? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Does your ore come by way of Pittsburg? 
 
 Mr. Thropp. No. sir: it comes to Krie. and then it is shii)i»ed down 
 by Emporium and into Tyrone, and in that way to our furnace. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Do you know the ditlerence between the freight rates 
 on your ore and the freight rates on ore to I'ittsburg? 
 
 Mr. TiiEOPP. 1 understand I'ittsburg rates are from 95 cents to $1.15 
 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. And yours cost you $1.50? 
 
 Mr. Thropp. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. AVhat diflt'erence would that make between the 
 Pittsburg cost of ore and the cost of your ore on sullicient ore to make 
 a ton of pig iron? 
 
 Mr. Thkopp. About 50 cents a ton, owing to the fact that those ores 
 are richer ores, and will possibly run GO per cent, while our ores will 
 not run that high. Therefore it would not take quite two tons for them 
 to make a ton of iron. The ditference would i)robably be 55 cents. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. IIow do the commercial values of Birmingham and 
 Sheffield pig iron compare with your pig iron? 
 
 Mr. Thropp. I think I am getting about $1 a ton more. 
 
 Mr. WiiElfLER. For what general use is your pig?
 
 324 SCHEDULE c. — metals and manufactures of. 
 
 Mr. TniiOPP. For foundry purposes, siicli as making light castings 
 tor sewing macliines, nialleal^lo iron, wire, and lor machine iron that 
 is to go under tools to be liuished, 
 
 Mr. WnEELER. -Uo you use it for stoves? 
 
 Mr. Thropp. It is used for the fine work for some stoves. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Alabama ])ig iron is used in the same way! 
 
 Mr. TiiKOPP. Yes; mixed with Northern iron, as a rule. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. At one time considerable was shipped from Sliel!ield 
 to Pittsburg, I understand. 
 
 Mr. TiiKOPP. It was not shipi)ed successfully, I should think, or else 
 it would be continued. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. It was shipped from Sheflield to points east of Pitts 
 burg. 
 
 Mr. Thropp. I know; it is shijiped to the Eastern markets. I have 
 a customer whom 1 used to have several years ago; he is buying Everett 
 iron to mix with some of the Alabama irons for the light castings, 
 plumbing w(»rk, etc. 
 
 Mr. Whkeli:ij. Do you know whether there is anybody here from 
 Alabama ? 
 
 Mr. TUROPP. 1 do not luiow of an\ouo. 
 
 SWEDISH I>,A1J IIJON. 
 
 (Paragraph UL; 
 
 MEMORIAL OF WILLIAM & HARVEY ROWLAND. OF I HILA- 
 DELPHIA, ASKING FOR RECLASSIFICATION. 
 
 PniLADELPUIA, January 8, ls07. 
 Committee on Way.s and Means: 
 
 The last clause in paragraph 111, Schedule C, in the tarilf act of 
 August U7, 1894:, reads as follows: 
 
 Piovidid I'lirlliir, Tliat all iron bars, Itldoms, hillcts, or sizi's or Hliapua i»f any kind 
 in tlio iiiauufacture of which charcoal is used as Inel shall he suhjcct to u duty of 
 $11.' i>er ton. 
 
 This same clause originally ai>peared in the tarilf act of July, 18.S.i, 
 and was no doubt inserted for the l)enelit of the makers of charcoal 
 pig iron and was undoubtedly eminently proper at that time, but since 
 then nuiny changes have been made in furnace construction and coke 
 production and the quality of coke iron has been so much improved 
 that it has to a great extent sui)planted charcoal iron for many pur- 
 poses, and about the only elfect of the law is to allow all kinds of 
 shapes and sizes, -whether in the shajjc of raw material or finished 
 product, to come into this country at the same rate of duty (.*1L' i>er ton). 
 Now we would resi)ectful]y ask you to have iron in the manufacture of 
 whidi charcoal is used as fuel subjected to the same classilication as other 
 iron, as set forth in paragraidis 110, 111, and 111', in order that the roll 
 ing mills in this country may have the work that is n<jw mikI has been 
 done since July, 1883, in mills in Sweden. 
 
 William & Harvey Eowland, Incorporated, 
 
 Edw. Koavland, rn.sidenU
 
 TIN PLATE. 325 
 
 PROTEST OF THE WILCOX AND HOWE COMPANY AGAINST ANY 
 
 INCREASE OF DUTY. 
 
 Derby, Conn., January 11, 1897, 
 Committee on Wats and Means: 
 
 Aloii;; with otlior inanufacturers in our line, our attention reverts to 
 the <lnty on Swedish bar iron. On jj:eneral principles, we are in favor 
 of all reasonable i)rotection to domestic industries, and desire our own 
 covered within reasonalde limits, but there is nothiiif; made in this 
 country that we know of that takes the place of Norway and Swedish 
 iron. Quite lar;;e (pnintities of this material are still used in the manu- 
 facture of cania.ue hardware, tacks, and various other hardware, and 
 from our own standjioint we feel that any increase in the present rate 
 of fluty, which, we understand, is ^Vl per ton, would work a detriment 
 to said industries. Were it a (piestion of protectiuf:: a similar quality 
 of metal nuide in this country, we would not make this request, but any 
 increase in duty we think could oidy be justified on the plea of increas- 
 ing the revenue. The result, however, would be a decrease in revenue, 
 we thiidc, owing to the curtailment of importations. 
 
 The Wilcox and Howe Company, 
 F. W. Benuam, Receiver, 
 
 TEST PLATE. 
 
 (Parnjrrni.il 12L) 
 
 STATEMENT OF W. B. CRONEMEYER, OF PITTSBURG. PA, REPRE- 
 SENTING THE TIN-PLATE MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 Saturday, January 9, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Cronetvieyer said : .AFr. Chairman and gentlemen of the commit- 
 tee, wo are here representing the tin plate manufacture of the Tnited 
 States. We have a statement written out which we would like to sub- 
 mit for the consideration of the committee, and we would like brietly 
 to make a few statements in regard to the same. 
 
 We have come here to reipK-St you to consider a few propositions for 
 changes in the present law. 
 
 The first thing we desire is that paragraph 121 of the present law, 
 where it now reads " li cents per pound," shall be changed to "l| 
 cents per pound." The second change we ask for is i)aragraph 120 of 
 the present law, which reads: 
 
 .Slioet iron or slioet steel, planielied or planoed, by whatever name designated, If 
 ^ontH per pound: Providrd, That plate or sheet or tagj^er.s iron or steel, hy whatever 
 name designated, other than the polished, planished, or glanced herein provided for, 
 wJiicli has been ])iclvled or cleaned b\ acid or by any other material or process, or 
 Avhich is cwld rolled, smoothed only, not ])olished, shall pay one-eighth of 1 cent per 
 pound more duty than the corresponding gauges of common or black sheet or 
 taggers iron or steel. 
 
 In the last part of that paragraph we would like it to read "one- 
 fourth'' instead of "one eighth." Those plates are the foundation of 
 tin plates. 
 
 And the third change we ask is in paragraph US of the present law. 
 It reads: '' Thinner than No. 20 wire gauge, 1.1 cents per pound." That 
 applies to all sheet iron and taggers iron tlmt is lighter than 25 gauge.
 
 326 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTUKES OF. 
 
 In later years throiigli other conditions tliat have come about we make 
 taggers iron liglitcr than 32 gauge, Avliicli was not done in former years, 
 and when it comes to such light sheets the duty is not adc(juate to 
 cover those very light sheets, and we ask that there be inserted ''not 
 thinner than 32^ gauge," and that to include all that is tliiuner than 2'. 
 gauge. Twenty-live gauge is the tliinnest that is s]»ecitied under tlie 
 present law. We ask that the duty on this thin plate be 1.2 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 j\lr. McMiLLiN. You want to make another bracket there? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir; an a<lvance on the sheets that are lighter 
 than 32 gauge; we ask for a further a<lvance on such sheets, or oue- 
 tenth cent per pound. 
 
 j^Ir. Dalzell. Your new bracket will include sheets from 25 to 32 in 
 thickness? 
 
 i\lr. Crone:meyer, Tliat bracket will be changed from 2") to 32, and 
 there would be a new bracket 32 and lighter. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Tlieu on your last bia(k<*i you want an addition of one- 
 tenth of a cent? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. JMcMiLLiN. Tiiat now bears a duty of 55 per cent! 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes; on that class of iron that is import eil now, 
 and that includes most of that class of iron over 32 gang*'. 
 
 ]\Ir. JMcMiLLiN. 1 see under that clause there was imported under the 
 McKinley law 7,!)ll'J,(MiO jjounds. There was imi>orted. aftei' the tariff 
 had been reduced from 1.4 cents a i)ound to 1.1 cents per i»ound in 1S'.»G, 
 oidy 2,120,(i(H> ]>ounds, or about three times as nuich under the Mclviidey 
 Act as under the Wilson Act. How is it that when there has been a 
 reduction of the duty there has been a decrease in imiiortations? 
 
 ]\lr. Cronemeyer. On account of the introduction of the tin idate 
 industry into this country there was a very large increase of rolling- 
 mill capacity for that class of work. I suppose that 7,n()0.(M»0 ]>ounds 
 is largely made up of black jdates that go into tinning and stock of 
 that kind and go into similar work which make up that large aggregate. 
 Siiu-e then the tin plate industry has been intrtjduced and thetin ])late 
 manufactuiers have made most of it themselves. Still they imjjorted 
 more than 2,(K)() poumls that is ]uinci]>ally made up of the lighter gauge 
 and we could not reach that. 
 
 Mr. INIf^MiLLiN. liut you want to ])rc\cnt the imjiortation of that? 
 
 Mr. Ckonemeyek. Yes, sir, to some extent: because we have the 
 workmen here and we have this product, which ought to be made in 
 this country. 
 
 Mr. Mr^Ui.LiN. liut you want a prohibitory duty for the purpose of 
 letting them make it! 
 
 Mv. Cronemeyer. If you want to call it prohibitory, but the duty 
 would not really be prohibitory. 
 
 jNlr. Dalzell. Will you tell us what ])roi>orti<m of the tin plates 
 made last year were made from American black sheets? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. 1 think, if I recollect right, it is pretty nearly 
 all; about 9S^ per cent, according to Ayers's rei)ort. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. So that the black-sheet industry has grown just as 
 the tin-plate industry has grown ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemevi:r. Yes, sir, in lact more; because in the year pre- 
 vious to that I think only 80 per cent of the tin plates were made of 
 American plates, and last year it was practically all. 
 
 Mr. MgjNIillin. What was the other amendment you wanted!
 
 TIN PLATE. 
 
 327 
 
 Mr. CRONE]\rKYER. The other ameiulments relate to bhick phites, as 
 in pai'M^rraph 120 of the present hiw. 
 
 Mr. .McMiLLiN. Please read the.' paragraph so I can locate it. 
 
 Mr. CuoNEMEYER. ^'Parajiiaph 12(>. Sheet iron or sheet steel, 
 planished or glanced, by whatever name designated, If cents per 
 pound: Proruhd. That taggers sheet or taggers iron or steel, by what 
 ever name designated other than planished or glanced, herein provided 
 for, which has been pickled or <-leaned by acid or by any other mate- 
 rial or i)rocess, or whicli is cold rolled, smoothed only, not polished, 
 shall i»ay one-fourth of 1 cent per pound more duty than the corre 
 si)ondi!ig gauges of common or black sheet or taggers iron or steel." 
 Ir now reads "one eighth.'" 
 
 Mr. :McMillin. What impoitations were made under that in the 
 last year; have you the lignrcs before you? The proviso is not laid 
 down here, and it is a little dillicult to trace it. 
 
 Mr. ('ko-NEMi;yer. On page s they are enumerated according to the 
 ditfeieiit gauges. The last item is in paragraph IL'O. 
 
 Mr. M( .MiLLiN. Thinner than No. '1') wire gauge? 
 
 Mr. Cronemever. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Are you talking about sheets cleaned by acids or any 
 otlier process? 
 
 Mr. Crone.mever. Yes, sir; that is what Mr. McMillin is asking 
 about. 
 
 Mr. McMiLT.iN. Theie were several brackets after that, and I wanted 
 to know which it applied to. 
 
 Mr. CRnNE.MH\ EU. The importations of that have been brought down 
 for the same reason 1 explained betbre. 
 
 Mr. .McMiLLiN. You want it raised! 
 
 Mr. Cronkmever. I'rom \'l'2h to 135. 
 
 Mr. MrMiLEiN. What is the necessity for that change! 
 
 Mr. Cronemhver. The fact is, that the i)resent rate, under <irdinary 
 circumstances, is too h)W. Just on the same basis, as 1 have said before, 
 that we would desire to have the tin-plate duty raised to U cents i)er 
 pound. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. What proportion of the article embraced in that is 
 produced here and what projtortion is imi)orted? 
 
 Mr. Cro^emever. As I stated l)efore, the amount for the tin-i)late 
 making has practically all been made in this country, with the excep- 
 tion of \\ per cent. 
 
 Mr. ^McMillin. It is practically all made in this country? 
 
 Mr. CR()Nemeyei{. Yes, sir; for tin plate purposes; but there are 
 other purposes for which they imjiorted somewhat. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. The tin plate industry, then, has nourished under the 
 reductions made in the Wilson bill, has it not; the manufacturing of 
 it has increased in volume? 
 
 Mr. Oronemeyek. Yes. I would not call it nourishing, because we 
 have been running on the ragged edge all the time. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. lUit it has increased? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Y^s; that is, works that were contemplated 
 previous to the i)assage of the bill were linished, and the companies 
 that were organized for the purpose before the repeal of the McKinley 
 law lune in some cases gone into operation since the repeal of that 
 tariiV, having previously made all arrangements to do so. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. The output has been largely increased! 
 
 Mr. CR0NE3IEYER. Y'CS.
 
 828 SCHEDULE C. — iMETALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Mr. Mc^IiLLiN. The iiuinber of establishmeuts iu operation has 
 largely increased? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Steele. Are there not some establishments that are not oi)er- 
 ating now? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir; several of them, and several of them 
 are for sale to-day. 
 
 Mr. Steele. There have been strikes, have there not, on aee(»niit ol 
 low wages? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. After the i»assage of tlie Wilson bill we had u 
 strike that lasted four or live months. We re«lncrd tlie wages of the 
 men from 10 to 25 i)er cent. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. And your statement in regard to the bad condition of 
 the factories is still true, is it not ". 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. The rate of wages exists now that we estab- 
 lished after the passage of the Wilson bill. After the four or live 
 months' struggle with the workmen they accepted a reduction and we 
 went to work again. It was fortunate that we could go to work at all. It 
 seemed as if Providence was taking care of us when the Covernment 
 of the United States had gone back on us. 
 
 Mr. Daj.zell. This interest was kept alive merely on account oi the 
 low rates for steel billets? 
 
 ]\Ir. Cr()Ni:mf,yer. Yes; and several times the price of stc<'l raised, 
 and we were trembling in our boots, F<utunately the manufacturers 
 in the business had nearly all bought low; so they were able to carry 
 along until the price was reduced again. IJut there has been a largo 
 amount of money lost on account of the steel going up, and our prices 
 would not corresi)oml with the ])rice of the steel if it w«Mit up. We had 
 this constant menace abroad against us — that we could not raise our 
 prices any more than to tin* import line. 
 
 Mr. J)alzi;ll. You think this you ask for is necessary in connecti«>n 
 Avitli the wage rate, ami to cover the jiossible Nariations in the price of 
 raw nniterial? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. That is the very lowest that we could get along 
 with, to i)rovide against such contingencies as have arisen in these 
 times; and another thing, workmen will lil<«'ly want their ohl rate of 
 wages again when times gel i)rosi)erous. We will have to i)rovide f<tr 
 that. If we had to i»ay the old wages n()w we could not get along at all. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Is your mill located in Pittsburg? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. It is located in McKeesport, near Pittsburg; 
 about 15 miles distant. 
 
 ]\Ir. TuRxNER. Are you familiar with the business at (»ther points! 
 
 Mr. Crone:\ieykr. To some extent. 
 
 Mr. TiTRNER. You went in at the beginning of this industry, 1 believoT 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Turner. You rocked its cradle? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. I have been engaged in it since 1S7.'3. 
 
 ]Mr. TuNRKR. Have you e.\i>laiiied why there seems to lie, at least to 
 my eye, a diminution of imiKu talions under the reduced duty? 
 
 Mi: Cronemeyer. I do not know that i have explained that, but I 
 can exi)lain it. 
 
 Mr. Turner. I would like to know the truth about it. 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. The facts are these: When the McKinley bill 
 was passed we weie guaranteed, as we understood it, six years* time to 
 develop that industry, on the condition, or the promise which was
 
 TIN PLATE. 329 
 
 extracted from us, tliat we would agitate so much in the industry as to 
 coax others — capitalists and men whom we mijjht interest in the sub- 
 ject — to ;ro into tlie industry, ami on that condition we were jjuarauteed 
 Kix years' time lor developing;. We did our i)art; our mill was thrown 
 oi>en to any man who wanted to investijiate how we manuiactured our 
 jroods; an\()iie could come into our mill and see what was j?oin.i;- on. 
 We explained everything; to tliem. We j^ot the people into the mind of 
 investing; in it. tSeveral cai)italists were ready to invest in it. Several 
 larjre companies were fornu'd. We a.i^itated this subject, and for a 
 while they hesitated to go into it. lint tliey did ;;o into it. They had 
 their money ready when the Wilson bill was passed. At that time 
 some of them had already started building;, and they could not .yo back. 
 Others had not started, but had their orjjanizations in shape. They 
 hesitated for a wliile whether to start up or not, but to them it appeared 
 very likely that they mi;;ht be able to get along, as everyrhing was 
 getting very low then — labor was low, nuichincry was low, and raw 
 material was low. 
 
 On acconnt of the cheap cost of erecting buildings at that time they 
 decided to build, in the hope that some day this inc(»ngrnity in the bill 
 would be renu'died. A (luty of 1.- cents a inmnd was left in the 
 bill when everything else in the schedule was left at a higher rate. 
 They thought it wouhl be corrected some time, and as they had bought 
 their mills at a low price, and that they would be still in their operative 
 capacity in the same shape that we older works were in who had to 
 pay 7") to -SO per cent unue for building our mills than they had to pay 
 ibr building theirs, and so they went ahead. ISieel came down for 
 a while, w liich led them to believe jierhaps that they could goon at that 
 rate. Steel did not sta\' down, and then they found that they could 
 not get a new dollar for an old dollar that they put in. Scxeral of the 
 works had to shut down after they started. Some of them have been 
 running and have had to shut down, and some of them have been 
 running on half time. The works are there now, and they are there 
 from the fact that we agitated the (piestion and got capital to go into 
 the business, and on account of the promise which we made and kept 
 the industry has been built i\\) to the extent it has. Other favorable 
 circumstances have been our American enteri»rise in adopting every 
 improvement and new method by which the cost could be brought 
 down. Americans have been abroad where this is manufactured and 
 studied the (pieslictn, and base come back home and made iin[)rove- 
 ments. If we had not made the improvements we have made, we could 
 not get along at all with lA cents. If we had the same facilities and 
 methods of manufacturing that we had six years ago, we could not get 
 ah)ng with 1.8 cents. 
 
 Mr. TuuNElJ. You mean that you have been able to keep out the 
 importations and actually to cause them to diminish even under this 
 lower duty by the other advantages you have had in the improvements 
 of manufacture? 
 
 ]\Ir. Ckonkmeveu. Yes; to some extent. As 1 have said. Providence 
 seems to have helix'd us to overcome ditliculties the Government has 
 imposed upon us. Fortunately for us, it happened that the commodities 
 which enter into the manufacture of our goods have been very low 
 during these hard times. 
 
 Mr. Steele, IJut Providence did not help the men who are employed 
 by your manufacturing establishment so far as their wages were con- 
 cerned.
 
 330 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Mr. Croa'EMEYEE. IS'o, sir; it didn't. We could not help it. Weluitl 
 to cut dowu their wages in order to tio-ht for our existence. We hiid to 
 go back on the workman and take it out of him. 
 
 Mr. McMlllin. Is it not also true that improved methods of treat- 
 ment have been adopted by which machinery does a great deal that 
 formerly in the old country had to be dune by hand? 
 
 Mr. CRONE3IEYEK. Only to a small extent. By imimiving- the ma- 
 chinery we can get a somewhat larger production, and we have d«)ne so, 
 but not to such an extent as in tlie cruder materials. In the manufac- 
 ture of steel billets and other articles like that one machine now often 
 does the work that it formerly took 1(><> men to do. While we, as 1 
 have said, have increased our jjroduction some, we have k«'pt the 
 same number of men ; we have not been able to do away with one single 
 man. The only result of the improved machinery has been to enable a 
 man to produce perhaps 10 per cent more work than he did before wo 
 had the machinery — that much more than the man on the other side 
 can produce. We have not been able to disi>cnsc with the help of any 
 one man they employ on the other side. 
 
 ]Mr. Dalzell. Have you a written paper! 
 
 Mr. Cronemever. Yes; 1 have a statement here that I said at the 
 beginning I would like to submit. 
 
 Mr. TuRNEK. I would be glad to know whether there is competition 
 to any extent between those who make roofing iron and the tin plate 
 manufacture? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. 1 do not call that comix'tition. 
 
 Mr. Turner. The one pnxluct does n(»t displace the other? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Not exactly. The rooting iron is generally used 
 for factory buildings and for barns, while the tin rooting is used for 
 house gutters and spouts and Hashing around the house, for wiiich 
 they could not well use the rooting iron. 
 
 Mr. 'I'URNER. They do not amount t^> competitors with each other? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Those two industries could get along by the side 
 of each other very nicely. 
 
 There is one thing as to how we could, with the capacity we have or 
 the force we have now. produce more than we do produce. One trouble 
 in our industry has been that these works were mostly startetl in the 
 central district of the country and the industry became congested. 
 There is a very large amount of tin plate «'oming into this country with 
 which we can never comi)ele. because it is used tor reexport, and UJ) 
 per cent of the duty is paid back on that. So, even if they import 
 plates about -rl a box higher than we are willing to sell it, we could not 
 touch that anyway. 
 
 We would like the committee to abolish the drawback clause on tin 
 plates. I find that about SO per cent of all the diawbacks are ]>aid out 
 on goods that are made on tin ]ilates — such as tin cans, the meat pa<-k- 
 ages such as are going out of the country canned. That is a very 
 important point for us to gain, because we have the capacity in this 
 country, or can get it veiy soon, to make that here. The prices of tin 
 plates have been reduced. The lowest price that was ever reached 
 under the 1 cent duty previous to the passage of the McKinley bill 
 was 4.30 cents, I believe. At that time the ]>ackers of meat, and so on, 
 had to pay as much, otten, after getting back the duty, as they woidd 
 have to pay for American tin plate to day, and for that reason I do not 
 think it would be a hardship to those people to day if they were to buy 
 their stock iu America.
 
 TIN PLATE, 331 
 
 Mr. ^VIIEELEK. Does uot the Standard Oil Company get a rebate on 
 tin to day! 
 
 Mr. Ckonemeyer. It does. I think last year there was about 
 $1,000,000 worth of duty paid back to those people. We think that 
 ought to reinaiu in this country. ICither the country ought to keep 
 that here as a revenue, because we can supply it if it is wanted, or we 
 ought to make that stock in this country and get our workmen 
 employed to that extent. That represents about §5,000,000 of labor to 
 our people in this country. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. 1 believe you have the right to manufacture in bond, 
 but I ])resume it is imjiracticable to trace that which goes into the 
 casing of the meat products, and you are not able to get the benelit 
 of the law to numnlacture in bond. 
 
 Mr. Cronemeveii. Tliat would be too hard to keep trace of. It has 
 been reported to us that there are imported into this country say 1,000 
 boxes or so of tin i)late and at the same time the importers get 1.000 
 boxes of the American and they get the boxes mixed, and it is never 
 traced whether that is the stock they get a rebate on or not, whether 
 it is the imi)orted stoek that goes out or not. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you think there are instances in which a rebate 
 is i)aid on domestic jnodncts in that way? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeveij. 1 have heard of tliat; yes. 
 
 Mr. Wiii;eler. There would be no more detriment to the Govern- 
 ment than to the ]»eo])le under such a case, because you say 1,000 
 boxes are imported and they are getting no more rebate than the 
 quantity they prove are imjiorted. 
 
 Mr. (jRf)NEMi;vER. Yes; l>ut if "lOO are nmde into goods and stay 
 Lere and ^OO boxes are made in this country and are reljatcd. that is 
 our detriment. They have imjjorted that much, but whether those are 
 the identical goods is the question. At the same time the oOO boxes 
 would stay in this country and substitute boxes are taken away from 
 us, taken away from our legitimate tields, and are rebated. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. CRONEMEYER IN BEHALF OF 
 THE TIN-PLATE MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We address you in behalf of the tin-plate manufacturers of the 
 United States. The tin-plate industry, as you are aware, is of recent 
 growth in this country, having been established under the operation of 
 the tarii!' act of 1800.' Previous to the act of 1800 the rate of duty on 
 imported tin i)lates, terne plates and taggers tin was at no time suffi- 
 cient to enable American enterprise to successfully establish the indus- 
 try in this country, notuithstanding the fact that very earnest and 
 strenuous etlbrts had been made by several parties to do so. The rate 
 of duty on tin plates ]irovided for in the act of 1804, according to a 
 decision rendered by ]\lr. Fessenden. then Secretary of the Treasury, 
 was 15 per cent ad valorem. In 1875 the duty was made specific, the 
 rate being 1.1 cent per i^ound. This rate of duty was in force until 
 1883, when an act was passed reducing the duty to 1 cent per pound, 
 and this rate again was continued in force until the first of July, 
 1891. 
 
 Under the tariff act of 1890 the duty on tin plates, terne plates and 
 taggers tin was raised from 1 cent per pound to 2.2 cents per pound,
 
 332 SCHEDULE C. — METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 but this was not to become operative until July 1, 1891. Immediately, 
 however, on the passaoe of the act of ISJIO, a few firms be;Lian to make 
 arrangements for making tin plates an*l constructed works for tliis jtur- 
 pose. Many dilhcnlties contingent upon tlu' starting and establisliing 
 a new industry had to be encountered and overcome. It was feared by 
 some that even the rate of IM' cents jier iiound provided by the act of 
 1800 would hardly be suihcient, judging from past experiences, to enable 
 the American makers to overcome all tlie dillicultics, but happily tliese 
 fears were f(mnd to be grouiuUcss, the results of the elTbrts of those 
 making the start in tin plate making under the new conditions brought 
 about by the act of 1800 i^roving themselves to be in every way suc- 
 cessful. The i)rogress of these ])ioneers of the tin-plate industry was 
 watched with intense interest by a large number of persons who ha«l, 
 in the event of the success of the movement, concbKlcd to embark in 
 the business. In the experimental stage of the industry, the general 
 interest was confined chieliy to the tinning ])rocess, the successful 
 demonstration of which wiis necessary to prove the feasibiUty of the 
 successful establishing of the industry in this country. Those, how- 
 ever, who had embarked in the business of tin-jilate making regarded 
 the production of black plates to be fidly as important as the tinning 
 process. It should be remarked here that these firms were practically 
 the ones who between 1.S72 and 1877 made very strenuous ellbrta to 
 establish the industry of tin jdate making in this country, but failed, 
 because, as already stated, the rate of duty then in force was insulli- 
 cient to enable them to nu'ct the competition of foreign makers. These 
 old, but now fresh, pioneers entered with energy into the manufacture 
 of black plates, the result being that the lirst tin and terne plates nuide 
 in this country under the operation of the act of \s[m were made from 
 American black ])lates, which were also made from American raw 
 materials — iron ore, coal, limestone, etc. 
 
 The production of tin and terno i)lates during the first fiscal year 
 under the law of 1S0(> amounted to i;i,(»K»,710 pounds, of which 0,L.'0(»,- 
 55.'} ])ounds were made from American bhu'k ])Iates and l,.'ir>o,l(50 were 
 made from foreign black jtlatcs. During the lirst quarter the i)roduc- 
 tion amounted to Sl'(;,Oi'l> jjounds, of which only 11, .".7.") jiounds w«'ro 
 made from foreign plates. The production of bhick plates did not keep 
 pace with tliat of tin ami terne jdates during the second fiscal year of 
 the law of 18!)0. Several dijiperies (tin houses) were (•onstructed, ami 
 these used chieliy imi)oited black jtlates. This was ]terhaps a natural 
 state of things, as tin houses (;oul(l be constriu'ted in a short time an<l 
 at a comparatively small outlay of capital, while to produce black plates 
 large and expensive rolling mills were necessary. 
 
 We desire here to call your attention to the following provisions in 
 the act of 1800: 
 
 Provided further, Tlmt on and after October first, eiplitoon hnndrfd an<l ninoty- 
 sevcn, tin ])lates ami lerno plates liulitnin \vei;;)it llian sixty-tliree pounds jter Imndred 
 8(inarefeet8hall be atlniitte<l tree ofdnty, nnloi<s it sball be made to ajipear to tlu-a.-itift- 
 laetion of the I'residfiit ( who shall thereujion by proclamation make known the fact) 
 that the aimreiratoiiuanlity of smh ]ilateslii;ht<T than sixty- three pounds j>er Imndred 
 s(|uare feet produced in the Initcd States iliirinj^ t-ither of tlie six years next jtrcced- 
 ing.lune thirtieth, eijilitem hnndied and ninety-seven, has (qiialed one-third the 
 amount of such plates im]iorted an«l entend for eonsuniption during; any fiscal year 
 after the passage of this act. and ])rior to said October lirst, eiizhteen hnndied and 
 ninety-seven: J'n><:i<letl, That the amount of such jdates mannla(tured into arti<lefl 
 exported, and upon whitli a drawback shall bo paid, shall not be included in asccr- 
 taininjx the amount of such importations: .Ind prori<lnl fnvlhcr. That thi" amount 
 or weiijht of sheet iron or sheet steel manufactured in the 'United States and ajiplied 

 
 TIN I'LATE. 333 
 
 or wron^jht in the in an u fact ii re of articlee or wares tinned or teriie plated in the 
 lluiti'd States, with wcigiit a]h)waiicc as sold to niamifacturers or others, shall ho 
 considered as tin and terne plates produced in the United States within the meaning 
 of this act. 
 
 These ijrovisions were regarded by those who had interested them- 
 selves in tlie business of tin-plate making and embarked therein as a 
 bona lide contract, or at least the assurance on the part of the Clovern- 
 ment to those who engaged in the manufacture of tin plates, that the 
 act of l.sOO, so far as it related to tin plates, terne plates, and taggers 
 tin, would not be disturbed until the expiration of the period referred 
 to, viz, October 1, 1S*J7. Under this impression and with this under- 
 standing, the parties who invested in tin-]»late plants did so Avith the 
 fullest conlideni.'e in the enterprise, the enthusiasm in which seemed to 
 have no bounds. AVithin a jieriod of two years from May, 1892, plants 
 aggregating 140 hot black i)late mills were projected and under way of 
 construction, the greater part of which were completed and ready for 
 operation in the fall of 1894. 
 
 Notwithstanding the fact that the general situation brought about 
 by the change iu the majority in the House of Kepresentatives in 1890 
 and tlie election of Mr. Cleveland as President of the United States in 
 181)2 was one of uncertainty so far as tarilf legislation was concerned, 
 those who had engaged in the manufacture of tin plates seemed to have 
 a general feeling of conlidence that under the i)rovision of the tariff 
 act of 181)0 above mentioned there would be no interference with the 
 duty on tin i)lates, and to this nuiy be attributed the great activity that 
 marks the growth of the tin-plate industry in this country. 
 
 The ]»assage of the tarilV act of isiM was therefore a very severe 
 shock to the new industry, particularly in view of the fact that the act 
 discriminated veiy unjustly against the industry by reducing the duty 
 on tin plates, terne plates and taggers tin out of all proportion to the 
 reductions adopted on other manufactures of iron and steel. The duty 
 on tin plates was made actually less than the duty on black [dates, 
 which of itself is a manifest incongruity and can not be accounted for 
 on the basis of intelligence or common sense. It was very much feared 
 at the time that such a radical reduction in the duty as that provided for 
 in the act of 1891, viz, from 2| cents to 1>, cents i)er pound, would prove 
 disastrous to the new industry, and for a period of about six months 
 its destiny seemed to be in the balance. To meet foreign competition, 
 which now seemed to have taken on new life and become more pressing, 
 the Welsh makers reducing jirices to a lower level than ever before 
 and making heavy shipments of tin plates to our market, the situation 
 became alarming, and cheaper cost of making tin plates became imi)era- 
 tive. This necessitated adjustments of wages on a lower basis and the 
 introduction of every jiossible economy. The attempt to reduce wages 
 met with strong opposition on the part of the workmen, particularly 
 those associated with the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel 
 Workers. Long and protracted strikes ensued, but after a sto])pageof , 
 tUe works for about four months the workmen accepted reductions 
 ranging from 15 to 25 per cent of their previous wages. During the 
 progress of these strikes and stoppage of the works the price of steel 
 billets and bars decreased in price from 819 per ton to $11.50 per ton 
 for billets, and bars from ■'<20.75 to !?1G.25 per ton. With the reduced 
 wages to labor and the unexpected and unprecedented low price of 
 steel that had come about, the tin-plate manufacturers were able to 
 start up their works. This was iu February, 1895. Iu the month of
 
 334 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 April of the same year the price of steel ailvaured very materially and 
 kept ou advancing until in the month of July the price of steel billets 
 had reached $24 per ton. 
 
 The situation again became very alarming to the tin-i>]ate manufac- 
 turers, but fortunately they had Itouglit heavy supplies of billets before 
 the advance had set in, and before these stocks were exhausted the 
 price of steel billets became reduced to -"^lO per ton. 
 
 The price of steel lixed by the makers in the spring of ist»0 again 
 threatened the existenee of tin-iilate manuiacturiiig, and if it had not 
 been for an unexpected advance in the price of foreign jdates, because 
 of improved conditions and higher (;o.st of material in Kurope, manu- 
 facturers in this country could not have continued in operation, except 
 to supply the limited demand of the middle West, where dilferentials 
 in freight oi)erate in their favor and against imported plates, while east 
 of the Alleghany Mountains, where consumption is over one half the 
 total of the whole country, this c<»ndition is reversed, and freight rates 
 from Welsh mills are less than rr(»m the central districts in this country. 
 
 There are yet many markets in this country that we can not reach in 
 competition with the imi»oited jdales on account of the high cost of 
 freight from American mills as coinpan'd with cheap ocean lieight from 
 Wales. This is nolably the case with the Pacitic Slope, which is a most 
 imj)ortant and growing market. The lowest treight of American mills 
 to the Pacitic Coast — and it must be conceded it is not any too remun- 
 erative to the carriers — is (]"» cents per box IC plates 14 by 20, against 
 18 cents by vessel from Liverpool and Swansea. 
 
 When i)rosperous times return — and this we are all hoi)eful]y looking 
 for — no important consuming iK)int in the I'niled States can be rea<'hed 
 with any prolit to the nninulacturers under the existing duty on tin 
 plates; even under ordinary conditions the present rate is inadetjuate. 
 We have given this snltject the best attention at <»ur <'omman(l, and 
 after mature deliberation have concluded to i>etiti<Mi Congress through 
 you and your Committee to raise the duty on tin i)lates from II c«'ntsto 
 li cents per ])ouml. We also desire to say that the present duty on 
 sheet iron or sheet steel which has been jyickled or cleaned by acid or 
 by any other material or i>rocess, and which is cold rolled, is insunicient 
 to meet even ordinary contingencies, ami we ask that the rate of one- 
 eighth of 1 cent i)er pound more duty than the corresponding duties of 
 comnmu or black sheet ov taggers iron or steel, now ])rovided for in 
 paragrajdi IL'O of the act of l.S!t4, be increased to < me fourth of 1 cent 
 per i)oun(l. 
 
 Asa rule tin idatcmanulacturers are aggr<'gations of small investors; 
 small plants are owned by as nuiny as L'()(> stockholders: woikmen em- 
 X)loyed in the mills are in a large number of cases also owners to the 
 extent of their savings. There has been no better demonstration of 
 the ability of the American w<u'kmen to master a new tra<le and of 
 American managers to compete with the kmiwledge that came with 
 nuiiiy years of exjterience to Welsh makers than that found in the tin- 
 plate industry. It also demonstrates the utility of a protective tariff 
 in giving consumers the benefit of lower i>rices, and so far as we have 
 been able to discover we do not know of an instance in which the oppor- 
 tunity to establish an industry by reason of a i)rotective tarilf has so 
 quickly resulted in lower cost to consumers than has been alfonled by 
 tin-plate manufacturers in the Liuited States. This is illustrated by 
 the trend of prices on tin plates during the last six years. I'lior to the 
 passage of the act of 1890 the lowest wholesale price at which 1(3 Hes- 
 semer coke tiu plates sold at Kew York was $4.1i5 per box. For the
 
 TIN PLATE. 
 
 335 
 
 eijrliteon months before July 1, l-SiH, the date on which the tin ]>l;ite 
 duty under tlie hiw of 1890 wcni into eftect, the prices at IS'ew York 
 were as folhjws: 
 
 Munth. 
 
 1800. 
 
 Price. 
 
 January 
 
 FoliriiaVy 
 
 Marrli 
 
 April 
 
 May 
 
 Juno 
 
 July 
 
 August ' < <j'> 
 
 Sc'iii<'inbcr 5. "Ju 
 
 O»;tol.rr 1 5. "io 
 
 November I 5- <5 
 
 $4.75 
 4. GO 
 4.. "50 
 4.46 
 4.45 
 4.45 
 4.50 
 
 !&Iunlh. 
 
 1890 -Continued. 
 
 December. 
 
 1831. 
 
 Price. 
 
 January .. 
 February . 
 
 Man-h 
 
 April 
 
 May 
 
 Juiie 
 
 $5.45 
 
 5. 10 
 5. 45 
 5. 35 
 5. 25 
 5. 2l» 
 5.33 
 
 We have at ])ro.<<ent in tlie United States 35 tlistinctive tin phi te 
 wovk.s — lollinj; mills fur i)ro<lucinfr black i)lates. Of tlie.se .'U have 
 excellently e<iuip|>e(l tinnin-i- establishments, while t produce black 
 plates only. In addition to these there are .some 3(> dipi)iii}; i)lants in 
 this country, several of which have done but little work diiiiiij; the 
 last y«'ar, and quit*' a number have suspended operations. Of the roll- 
 iug mills for making' black i)lates 3 are idle, the business havin<>- been 
 unremunerative an<l eoiiseipiently operations sus])ended. 
 
 The amount of capital invested in tin plate works is ajiproximately 
 $S,r)00,(M>(>, and the number of hands directly emidoyed a little over 
 12,()()(). 
 
 We desire also in thisconnecti(Mi to call yonratt«'ntion tothe ]U'oduc- 
 tion of black tajj^ers iron in this cmuitry. This is a product of the black- 
 plate mill, and is now imported under paraj^raph 118 of the tarilf act 
 of lS9t. This ])arairraph <-lassifies all alieets thinner than No. 25 in the 
 same class. Tagf^crs iioii usually runs from 82 fiauj^e to as lif^ht as 40 
 gauge, and we tiiid that tlie i»resent duty is not auflicient to enable the 
 American manutacturers to meet foreign comi)etition. The output of 
 a mill is much smaller on the lighter gauges than on the heavier, and 
 consequently the wages paid labor are much higher. We therefore 
 ask t!iat a duty of 1^ cents per ])ouiid be provided for blaclc taggers 
 iron lighter than No. 32 gauge. 
 
 We would also ask your favorable con.sideration to the law relating to 
 drawbacks. About 25 jx'r cent of the tin ])hites consumed in this 
 country is atfected by this law, and conse(pientIy the tin-plat<' manufac- 
 turers of the Knited States are unable to enter into any competition 
 with the Welsh manufacturers to the extent of the (piantity of tin 
 plate atlected by drawback. The gentlemen of your coiiHiiittee no 
 doubt know that the large iu'o]iortion of the tin plate upon which the 
 duty is refunded is used by the large exporters of oil and canned meats, 
 and the tin-i)late manufacturers would not urge as strongly as we do 
 the alteration of the drawback clau.se, so far as it relates to tin plates, 
 were it not for the fact that .since the tbundation of the tin-plate indus- 
 try in this country tin plates have been sold at prices varying from 50 
 cents to •"•'1. 75 per box lower than at any time prior to the making of 
 tin plates in the United States under the act of ISOO. So that practi- 
 cally the firms who take advantage of the drawback clause would, in 
 our Judgment, be in noway discriminated against, as they would, on 
 acconnt of the lower prices established by American tin-plate i)roduc- 
 tion, be in a better position than they were when tin plate sold from
 
 i>36 
 
 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 $5 to $6 per box, and upon wliicli they luul roftinded 99 per cent of 
 duty paid. 
 
 The importance of this matter will no doubt su^^jrest itself to you 
 when we say that the re-exports of tin i>lates in lh9G were approxi- 
 mately 1,500,000 boxes. This quantity, if mamifaetured in the United 
 States, would have afforded steady employment to 4.000 i)ersons in 
 tin-plate work, and required the investment of .ri'.aOCKOitO cajtital. 
 We submit herewith a statement, furnishe<l by the Treasury Depiiit- 
 ment, of amount of drawback, by customs districts, paid by the United 
 States on export articles manufactured from imi)orted materials dnrinj: 
 the year ending June 30, 1893. This is the last statement we have 
 been able to procure, as the items for the last three years have not 
 been tabulated. We believe, however, that the corres]»ondin<; amounts 
 would be practically as shown in the statement submitted. We desire 
 to call your attention to the item of tin plates, which is nearly 80 per 
 cent of the whole amount subject to drawbacks. 
 
 W. C. Crone:meyeb, 
 
 W. T. C.KAHAM, 
 
 C. M. Stuaut, 
 John Jaruett, 
 Committcerepresentim/Ihe Tin Plate ^famlfa^'tnrcrs of the Unitcil States. 
 
 DRAWBACKS. 
 
 Amount of drairhnrV, hi/ cuntoms dintnrti>, paid hi) thr Fnifrd .^tatrt on erporird nrticlet 
 manufatturtd from imj*or/frf mateiiala during the year ending June ,io, IsnS. 
 
 Article. 
 
 Aiax niotal 
 
 Alciiliol 
 
 Almonds, slicllfil 
 
 Aininoni;), hiiI 
 
 Aiiiinoiiiii, 8uliilint(< of.. 
 
 Aiitiinoiiy 
 
 Antiiiioiiy and bmiiiutli. 
 HiivVv 
 
 BotUea 
 
 JSrass 
 
 ]5u««r 
 
 CiLstor beaii8 
 
 Canatio amla 
 
 ('art ridges 
 
 Coinent 
 
 Clotliiii};, oiU><l ._ 
 
 CodlivtT oil, liy]io.siili)liato of lime 
 
 and soda ... 1 
 
 CopiHT ore 
 
 Copper and copper ore 
 
 Corka 
 
 Earthenware 
 
 (iclatin 
 
 Glass, window 
 
 Gla.sa, plate 
 
 Glycerin, crude 
 
 Glycerin, retined 
 
 Goatskins 
 
 Hairclot h 
 
 Hemp, jute, siaal jirass, andburliips; 
 
 llcmp 
 
 Jnte 
 
 Sisal grass 
 
 Bnrlajis 
 
 Hops 
 
 Iron and ateel : 
 
 Iron 
 
 Paid. 
 
 Article. 
 
 lfiO.70 
 
 3, 877. ^•.; 
 
 148. »P2 I 
 
 24.65 
 
 7u5.ai 
 
 1. 1« 
 
 7, 20.'.. 82 
 
 9,2:18.19 I 
 
 62,092.55 I 
 
 4.46 
 
 544. 21 
 
 2,88ti.42 
 
 13, 0'.t2. 39 
 
 28.63 
 
 99.50 
 
 1,478.95 
 
 2.081.07 ] 
 
 121.75 
 
 20, H71.3.'i 
 
 3,072.67 
 
 31. 05 
 
 17.42 
 
 1,071.65 
 
 927. 82 
 
 1, :;96. 82 
 
 18,009.44 
 
 1,819.90 
 
 138.00 
 
 4. 337. 06 
 
 CJ.r.lS. 55 
 
 8. K-.>7. 22 
 
 197,877.81 
 
 4, 303. 74 
 
 33, 880. 83 
 
 Iron and atei-l — Continuc<l. 
 
 Iron ore 
 
 Iron, scrap 
 
 Iron, sheet , 
 
 Iron wire 
 
 Iron, taggers 
 
 Iron and steel 
 
 Steel 
 
 Stwl tires 
 
 Lea<l 
 
 LinsM'd nil 
 
 Linen tlirea<l and filling- • 
 
 Licorice 
 
 LunilM>r 
 
 Mola.ssca 
 
 Nickel 
 
 Omngc mineral 
 
 Pajwr 
 
 Percussion cups 
 
 rorcelalii 
 
 rotasli and mercury 
 
 Kattan, Hplit 
 
 Uice 
 
 nice, nnelenned 
 
 Kice paper 
 
 Salt 
 
 Saltpeter 
 Silk 
 
 So<)a ash . 
 Solder ... 
 Spelter... 
 
 Siig.ir 
 
 Till 
 
 Tin toil.. 
 Wo.il.... 
 
 Paid. 
 
 Grand lota 
 
 »5,305.88 
 
 4, 075. 36 
 
 3. 522. 60 
 
 4. 7:w. 50 
 
 3. 052. o« 
 
 154,082.50 
 
 28.048.63 
 
 11.839.38 
 
 l.H, 740. 83 
 
 178.08 
 
 700.75 
 
 12, .5.58. 10 
 
 9, MX. 33 
 
 711.95 
 
 75.8:1 
 
 33.26 
 
 190.91 
 
 23.76 
 
 14.3.21 
 
 2.58.38 
 
 606.07 
 
 758.60 
 
 . 6, 0:19. 72 
 
 2,66.5.00 
 
 361.19 
 
 118.80 
 
 176. 77 
 
 767.42 
 
 13.5. 52 
 
 221.99 
 
 4, 062. 95 
 
 2, 650. 792. 55 
 
 -88.86 
 
 4. 745. 24 
 
 3, 380, 977. 17
 
 TIN PLATE. 337 
 
 Amount of drawback, by customs districts, paid by the United States, etc. — Continued. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 District. 
 
 Paid. 
 
 District. 
 
 Arizona 
 
 lialtituore, Md 
 
 Bangor. Me 
 
 Boston aud Cliarlestowu, Mnss 
 
 Brunswick. Ga 
 
 Clianiplain, N. Y 
 
 Charleston, S. C 
 
 Chicago, U\ 
 
 Corpus Cliristi, Tex 
 
 Delaware 
 
 Detroit. Mich 
 
 DuliitU, Minn 
 
 Fairtield, Conu 
 
 Galveston, Tex 
 
 Hartforil, Coiin 
 
 Huron, Mich 
 
 KnuAas City, Kans 
 
 Midiig.Tn, Mich 
 
 Milwaukee, Wig 
 
 Mobile, Ala 
 
 Is'ewark, N. J 
 
 New Bedford, Mass 
 
 New Haven, Conn 
 
 Newport News. Va 
 
 New Orle.THS, La 
 
 New York. N. Y 
 
 Niagara, N. Y 
 
 Norfolk, Va 
 
 $26.95 i 
 
 63,245.43 1 
 
 301. 19 ] 
 
 83, 120. 02 I 
 
 435. 60 
 
 482.91 
 
 05.34 
 
 IW, 706. 91 
 
 22.18 
 
 327. 00 
 
 482. 97 
 
 3,981.57 
 
 463.51 
 
 1, OoO. 15 
 
 569. 58 
 
 66.89 
 
 824.03 
 
 2.96 
 
 U, 632. 60 
 
 24.65 
 
 # 43.56 
 
 91.32 
 
 950. 36 
 
 19, 431. 08 
 
 7, 385. 68 
 
 , 292. 772. 92 
 
 3, 599. 18 
 
 11. 065. 97 
 
 North and South Dakot.i. 
 
 Oregon, Oreg 
 
 Oswegatchie, N. Y 
 
 Paso del Norte, Tes 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa 
 
 Pitt^bu^g, Pa 
 
 Portland, Me 
 
 Providence. It. I 
 
 Paget Sound, Wash 
 
 St. Louis, Mo 
 
 Saluria, Tex 
 
 Savannah, Ga 
 
 San Francisco, Cal 
 
 Superior, Mich 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Willamette, Oreg 
 
 Total, 1893. 
 1892. 
 1891. 
 1890. 
 1889. 
 1888. 
 1887. 
 1886. 
 1885. 
 1884. 
 
 Paid. 
 
 $412.71 
 
 18, 709. 72 
 
 811.91 
 
 116.79 
 
 463, 746. 34 
 
 333. 58 
 
 595. 44 
 
 2, 524. ?1 
 
 2, 593. 78 
 31,008.57 
 
 456. 54 
 
 1,837.49 
 
 187, 459. 54 
 
 3, 990. 25 
 1, 308. 49 
 
 847. 22 
 
 3, 390, 
 3, 410, 
 4,911, 
 2,771, 
 2, 906, 
 2, 889, 
 
 7, 286, 
 7,544, 
 
 8, 524, 
 3, 162, 
 
 977, 17 
 736. 88 
 189. 54 
 224.99 
 473. 94 
 356.60 
 831.88 
 254. 40 
 934. 61 
 221.27 
 
 Trs. 
 
 District. 
 
 Paid. 
 
 District. 
 
 Paid. 
 
 
 $18, 750. 99 
 
 Philadelphia, I'a 
 
 $406, 9S9. 48 
 9 73 
 
 
 18, 795. 48 
 
 435. 60 
 
 CJ.34 
 
 167. 642. 02 
 
 124. 00 
 
 824.03 
 
 43.56 
 
 1. 890.255.03 
 
 Portland, Me 
 
 Brunswick. Ga 
 
 
 45 46 
 
 
 2, 593. 78 
 
 Chicago, 111 
 
 Detroit, Mich 
 
 
 86.58 
 
 
 1 837 49 
 
 Kansas City, Mo 
 
 
 121 870 70 
 
 
 372 23 
 
 New York, N. Y 
 
 Willamette, Oreg 
 
 847. 22 
 
 North aud South Dakota 1 41"' 71 
 
 Total 
 
 
 Oregon, Oreg 18. 7u'J. 72 
 
 2. 650, 792. 55 
 
 
 81.40 
 
 
 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN JARRETT, OF PITTSBURG, PA. 
 
 Saturday, January 9, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Jaerett said: Mr. Cliairmau and <rentleiiieii of the committee, 
 I do not think 1 need detain tlie committee more than live minutes. 
 Mr. Crouenieyer lias made a very clear statement of the facts in the 
 case. There is one point in reference to the last question about 
 imported plates and domestic plates used for export purposes. In 
 importing the plate they have to pay the foreign price, witli the duty, 
 and they get 99 per cent with that duty, when they can get the domestic 
 plate and export it without that dillerence in the duty. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, one of the most important points in this case is this 
 question of drawbacks. The statement has been made, and we have a 
 statement of the Treasury Department which has been filed, and it 
 appears from that statement that 80 per cent of the goods subject to 
 
 T H- 
 
 Ji'2
 
 338 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OP. 
 
 tliis drawback are tiu plates. So far as tin plates are concerned, it is 
 such a large item, and the beneficiaries are large concerns, and they 
 are getting more than the benefit had the tin plates not been made iu 
 this country. Mr. Crouemeyer said the lowest price at which imported 
 tin plates ever sold in this country prior to the act of 1800 was $4.25. 
 He said for eigbteen months before the duty went into effect the lowest 
 price was $iA5 and the highest price 8o.50. Vor ten months before 
 that act went into effect, or that clause pertaining to the tiu plate 
 business, the lowest price for imported tin plates was 8o.35, and since 
 the act the ])rice has gradually decreased. Of course for a while it 
 remained almost stationary, but went down to $5.20 within two years, 
 and before the act of 1804 the price of plates had reduced under the 
 operation of the act of 1804 to as low as $4.25 in this country. 
 
 Mr. McOIiLLiN. What is the commercial price now? 
 
 Mr. Jarrett. At the present time, taking 100-pound plates, about 
 $3.50. 
 
 Mr. Mc^NIiLLiN. Do you remember that at the time the Wilson bill 
 was passt'd it was said that under the small duty imposed by that act 
 the manufacture could not be maiiiiaiiicdHU the country? 
 
 Mr. Jarrett. At that time it was true, nor could it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you remcmlter when it was jiroposed to reduce 
 the duty, as it was reduced in the Wilson bill, it was said by those 
 engaged in the manufacture that it would destroy the manufacture to 
 reduce that duty? 
 
 Mr. Jarrett. It almost did destroy it. It brought about this con- 
 tention and resulted in a reduction of wages of about 25 per cent. For 
 tunately, in the meantime, while these contentions were going on, the 
 l)rice o^ steel billets declined to $14.50 a ton frcmi $10 per ton, the price 
 at which they formerly were. That is what saved the industry. As 
 Mr. Crouemeyer ])Ut it, I'rovidence seemed to be upon the side of the 
 tin-]»late nuinufacturers. Another little important circumstance that 
 took i»lace WiK> that there was a giadnal increase in the old country, 
 
 Mr. ^IcMiLLiN. Hcfore you depart from that do you concur in his 
 statement that the domestic nianufarturer is doing the bulk of the work 
 in su])i»lying the American people now! 
 
 j\lr. Jarrett. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Steele. And that greatly reduced the wages? 
 
 Mr. Jarrett. As 1 stated, the wages of the workmen were reduced 
 over two years ago. Just after the i>assage of this Wilson act they had 
 a long strike, and the strike resulted in the workmen accepting a reduc- 
 tion in wages. And the wages remained reduced. 
 
 Mr. Steele. Are wages very low in that industry? 
 
 I\Ir. Jarrett. Lower than they ought to be iu some directions — a 
 long way. 
 
 Mr. Payne. So the reduction of the duty practically came out of the 
 workingman? 
 
 Mr. Jarrett. Undoubtedly. You can see that. I want to make 
 the broad statement, although it is hardly germane to this question, 
 perhaps, that the reduction of duties has always operated in that 
 way. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I understood you to say a while ago that one of the 
 principal reasons that enables you to continue manufacture was the 
 cheapening of the billets. 
 
 Mr. Jaukett. I said that it was very fortunate at that time that the 
 price of billets went down. Mr. Cronemeyer made his statements very
 
 TIN PLATE. 339 
 
 clear that the tin-plate manufacturers bought at tliis low price of bil- 
 lets, and afterwards the price of billets went up and then they began 
 to shake in their boots again. They got very much excited, but they 
 had bought sufficiently to tide over that, and the price came down again 
 to $10, and 1 presume that *.>5 per cent of the tin plates manufactured 
 in this country in the last two and one-half years have been made from 
 these low-price billets. 
 
 Mr. Steele. Do you hope to get billets at $14.50? 
 
 Mr. Jarrett. We do not, by any means; and, besides, do not forget 
 this fact, gentlemen, that the price of plates has been high in Ejigland, 
 that she has had a period of prosperity for the last eighteen months, 
 and the price of iron and steel product in our production is high over 
 there at the present time. Tin plates have been invoiced in this country 
 as low as 8s. 8d.. but they are 10s. 4d. and lUs. Od. to-day. Take otf that 
 and we are left in the lur<-h. In other words, it is possible the price 
 will be as low over there as it has been. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. iSui))>oseyou i)rovide against the emergency of high 
 billets, and the high billets do not ccmie; then you get an increase duty 
 and an increase wall againstimportation, and the danger you apprehend 
 is not here. 
 
 Mr. Steele. What is the ])resent jirice of billets? 
 
 Mr. Jarrett. Seventeen dollars a ton in Pittsburg, and in some cases 
 less than that. That is for immediate delivery, of course. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. R. TYNES SMITH, REPRESENTING THE 
 CANNED GOODS EXCHANGE OF BALTIMORE. 
 
 Saturday, January .9, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Smith said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 my associate on the committee who is with me here is ]Mr. John Dlack, 
 also of Baltimore. I have reduced our views to writing. Something 
 in it, however, may suggest some (juestions which I shall be glad to 
 answer if possible so far as I am able to do so. I will first read my 
 paper and then answer any <|uestions that may be put. 
 
 Mr. Steele. Are you a manufacturer or workman? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I am a manufacturer of tin cans and canned goods. I 
 represent the Canned Goods Exchange of Baltimore and am one of its 
 committee. 
 
 Mr. Smith read the following paper: 
 
 The Canned (ioods Exchange of Baltimore, Md., respectfully pro- 
 tests against any increase of the tariff on tin plates for the following 
 reasons : 
 
 (1) An increase of tariff would result in a further decrease of revenue 
 from this source. 
 
 (2) The domestic manufacturers are amply protected by the existing 
 tariff. 
 
 (3) An increase would simply produce a condition which would enable 
 the domestic manufacturers to make exorbitant profits. 
 
 Our first reason needs no argument. The Treasury reports of the 
 last few years show that the increased tariff' has resulted in decreased 
 revenue. 
 
 We present a few facts in support of our second proposition. The 
 cost of raw materials, chiefly steel bars and pig tin, is substantially
 
 340 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 the same in this country as in Wales, so that, so far as his raw material 
 is concerned, the domestic manufacturer is practically on even terms 
 with his Welsh comi)etitor. Labor and salaries are higher in this 
 country, and we indorse the policy of protecting the domestic manu- 
 facturer to the exteut of enabling him to pay tlie higher labor and sal- 
 aries. Of these two, labor is by far the more important in relation to 
 total cost. 
 
 In producing tin i)late8,from the ste«l bar to the finished plate, boxed 
 and ready lor delivery, the cost of labor in Wales for many years has 
 beeuandisnowaboutone halfcentpcri)Ound. It haalluctuated slightly, 
 but one-half cent per pound is about the average. 
 
 Some domestic manufacturers have claimed that their labor is 100 
 per cent higher than the Welsh; others do not claim more thau aO i)er 
 cent difference. We ask your committee's careful attention to repre- 
 sentations which may be made along this line. 
 
 It is i)robably true that in the cases of a few of the highly skilled 
 operatives the wages paid may be more than double those jjaid in 
 Wales; but on the other hand, the great majority of the cuiployees 
 receive less than double. From th()r()Ughly \\ell infornu*d and reliable 
 sources we gather that the average wages paid is less than double the 
 foreign. Conceding them to be lUO per cent higher, this would be the 
 measure of protection necessary to i)ut the domestic nianufacturer on 
 a labor eciuality with the foreign. The total foreign labor being one- 
 half cent per ])ound, then atarilVof one half cent per jjound would 
 accom])lish this result. 
 
 The i)resent tariff' is 1-^ cents ])er jiound. Deducting from this the 
 one-halt cent i)er ])oun(l necessary to otVset his diJlerence in labor, leaves 
 him seven-tenths cent per ]»oun(l, together with ocean freights, etc., to 
 offset differences in salaries, etc. Surely this is liberal enough i>ro- 
 tection for reasonable ])eoj)le. 
 
 The best i)roof we can offer, ])erhaps, that the existing tariff" a lVor«ls 
 ample ])rotection is the fa<t that tor more than a year the domestic 
 manufacturers have been selling tin plates at from 15 to 30 cents per 
 100 pounds less than tbreign plates could be bought for at seaboard, 
 duty paid, and at greater ditleiences at inland points, and that they 
 are now offering to contract six months ahead at prices from 1"> to 25 
 cents per 100 pounds less than foreign contracts can be made at for 
 delivery at seaboard, duty i)aid. 
 
 Under these circumstances, upon what grounds can the tariff' 1)0 
 increased? The only answer to this is, that it would i)roduce a condi- 
 tion under which the domestic manufacturers' association could safely 
 increase i»rices largely, thus securing, by means of (lovernment heli), 
 exorbitant iirotits. 
 
 We claim that this would be injurious and manifestly unfair to those 
 many industries in which tin plate itself is a raw mat<'rial, of which the 
 canned-goods business is one of the most important. 
 
 John Black, 
 K. Tv>E.s Smith, 
 Committee of Canned- Ooods Exehantje of Baltimore, Md. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. I understand you to say that you are a manufac- 
 turer? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Manufacturer of cans, a" id also a packer of goods and a 
 manufactiH'er of cans for use in canning goods. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. In Baltimore?
 
 TIN PLATE. 341 
 
 Mr. Smtth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Do you know how many tin-plate factories there are 
 in Baltimore now? 
 
 Mr. Smith. There are three, I think. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Uow many of them are running under the present 
 duty? 
 
 iVir. Smith. None, that I know of. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. At what time were they instituted and built up? 
 
 Mr. Smith. One was started as a dippery, importing black plates 
 from Wales. Subsequently tliey reorganized and are now buying their 
 own bars, or rather were buying their own bars. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. When was that? 
 
 Mr. Smith. About two years ago. They then began to roll their 
 sheets and make their own plates. They st<ipi)ed about a year ago. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. They stopped since the Wilson bill was passed, did 
 you say ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir: but I think the stoppage was due — perliaps I 
 had better not say anything on that point, Mr. Black. I think 1 am 
 safe in saying that the stoppage was not due to the lowering of the 
 duty. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Did you have some rolhng mills in Baltimore making 
 a black plate? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Not for tin idates, except this mill, which made its own 
 sheet from the bars bought in Pittsburg and other bar markets. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. 1 think you said that that mill made its tin plate from 
 foreign sheets. 
 
 Mr. Smii II. I said it started originally as a dippery, and imported its 
 plates from Wales. Snbseciuently it <»rgani/,e(l itself into a regular tin- 
 plate mannlact^ry and then began to roll its own sheets from bars 
 bought chirlly in^ the Pittsburg market. One of the other mills that 
 was contemplated has never started at all, owing to the lack of capital, 
 as I have been told. 
 
 Mr. Payne. When did that organize? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I can not say it has been organized at all. It is a branch 
 of an old-established steel works in Baltimore. 
 
 ]\Ir. Payne. When did they tirst make the attempt on tin plates? 
 
 Mr. Smith. This dipi)ery that 1 speak off 
 
 Mr. Payne. No; the rolUng mill— the one that did not go on because 
 of lack of capital. 
 
 Mr. Smith. That has not made any effort. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It is a recent thing — the tin-plate enterprise is a recent 
 thing with them? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes; they have not made any plates at all with that. 
 
 Mr. Steele. Supi)ose it was possible to manufacture all the tin plates 
 necessary for use in this country; do you think it would be necessary 
 to amend the law on tin-plate importations? 
 
 Mr. Smith. It does not seem to be wise, because of the manufacturers 
 who use tin plates who get the benefit of the drawback. If the benefit 
 of the drawback was taken away I think we would lose that business 
 in a large measure. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Is not that growing very largely? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I can not say very largely, but it is growing. We use 
 the cans to can salmon, lobsters, and meats, etc. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Do fruits go abroad in that shape? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Some; yes, sir.
 
 342 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Mr. Turner. What kind of goods do you pa<;k and exijort? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Personally, nothing except enii)ty cans lor packing goods 
 in the West Indies. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. How long have you been engaged in making tin 
 cans? 
 
 Mr. Smith. On my own account since 1872. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. IIow does tlie price of your raw material from which 
 you make your cans — that you pay now under the operation of the 
 Wilson law — compare witli tlie price you i)aid before the Wilson law 
 was enacted? 
 
 Mr. Smith. The prices at the present time are lower, but you have 
 to understand a good deal about that before you get the true gist of it. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. 1 simi)ly wanted to know if it lias been lower since 
 the repeal of the McKinley law. 
 
 Mr. Smith. The price woukl not be so much lower as one would bo 
 led to suppose when he simply considered the i)rice of a box of tiu 
 plates then and now. Tlie tin is now much poorer iu (piality. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Did you make the statement that you are selling 
 cheaper than abroad? 
 
 Mr. Smith. 1 said we can buy American plates from IT) to 25 cents i)er 
 100 ])0unds less tlian we can buy the foreign phite of similar weight, 
 duty paid, delivered at seaboard; and we <an contract now at from 15 
 to 25 cents a iiundred ])ounds less than we can make foreign contract 
 for a similar article, 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Are these tiu-plate factories making such contracts T 
 Are they running at a loss? 
 
 Mr. Smith, 1 don't know. 
 
 Mr, Payne. Do they make those contracts for all yoii can use at your 
 factory? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes; I can make a contract for ;ill 1 can use, and more 
 too 
 
 Mr. Payne, The fact that you export a large i)ortion of your tin 
 plates and then send your gooils abroad and gel the rebate 
 
 Mr. Smith, My export trade is a very small pioportion of my busi- 
 ness, 1 exi)ort some cans to the West Indies, and that is alxuit all of 
 my foreign trade. 
 
 Mr, Payne. You buy the foreign i>lates for that and get the rebate? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. These domestic tin plate men are trying to get your 
 entire trade, and have made these prices in order to do it? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes. 
 
 Mr. jNIcMillin. As a matter of fact, caTi you can an<l export in the 
 domestic tin in competition with the tin that is ])roducc<l free in other 
 countries? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Ko, sir; I could not in such lines as I am in. 
 
 Mr, McMiLLiN, You would either have to avail yourself of the rebate 
 clause or give ui) your foreign market — and that is on account of the 
 rate imposed on tin here? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; that is right. 
 
 Mr. Steele (to IVIr. McMillin), He manufactures goods out of tin 
 plates, and the (juestion is whether he will take the tin plate made hero 
 or the foreign ])late that is olfered. 
 
 Mr. Smith. But Mr. McMillin was asking about exporting for the 
 benefit of the drawback — that is, we can buy the American less than 
 the foreign; yet when we buy the foreign ^
 
 TIN PLATE. 343 
 
 Mr. Steele. I understand ; but do you buy tbe plate tbat sells for 
 20 ceiitH lower, or the foreign jilate? 
 
 Mr. Smith. 1 think that uiue-teuths of all the plate used last year 
 was American plate. 
 
 REASONS FOR RETAINING THE PRESENT DRAWBACK ON TIN 
 
 PLATE. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Kcfeninj; to views recently i)iesented to the committee advocating 
 the abolition of drawback on inijiorted tin when exi)orted in the form 
 of packajfes contaijiing American products, it is n)anifest that only by 
 means of the drawback is any American maker of tin cans enabled to 
 compete with liis forci^jn conii)etitor in foreifrn markets. 
 
 The effect, therefore, of abolishing the draw])ack would be to drive 
 the tin-can industry ont of our country and give it to other nations. 
 
 Take the great petroleum industry as an example. The Russian 
 ex]>orter of petroleum in cans is able to-day to compete with Ameri- 
 cans in all the great markets of the Kast, and the margin of protit to 
 the American manufacturers, after the drawback has been paid, is very 
 small indeed. 
 
 Abolisliing the drawback would uot have the eft'eot of compelling 
 the American exi)orter to use American tin, as Mr. Cronemeyer evi- 
 dently assumes, but it would force him to either abandon that part of 
 his trade which re<|uir('S tin cans foi- successful competition in the 
 countries where bad roads au<l ])oor facilities for internal transporta- 
 tion demand small and airtight i)ackages like a can, as in China, 
 Jai)an, India, West Indies. Australia, etc., or to go there and establish 
 tin-can factories, transporting his oil to those countries in bulk-ships 
 (which is already being done by tlie Russians); and the Americana 
 would be driven to do the same if the drawback on tin plate shouia be 
 discontinued. 
 
 Thus America would certainly lose an important industry giving 
 employment to nniny thousands of men, and the tin-j)late makers in 
 this country would rea]> no beuetit. 
 
 At ])resent over 4(i. (•()(>,()(>() tin cans are made in the United States 
 annually, in which ■10(),00(>,U(K> gallons of jietroleum are exported to 
 China, Japan, India, -lava, Australia, and South America. 
 
 It is the drawback alone which enables Americans to maintain this 
 trade. The Russians meet us in all these markets, and a snuill fraction 
 of a cent per gallon will turn the trade to them. The American tin- 
 plate manufacturer can not supi)ly the tin for this trade until he is able 
 in some way to overcome the ditticulties in wages paid to labor. The 
 Kussian oil producers can now buy in England all the tin plate they 
 require at 10s. *Jd., or, say, $2.70 ])er box of 110 pounds. American tin 
 plate of same size and ecpial (juality readily sells at $3.50 to $3.00 per 
 box. Should the drawback be abolished, one of three courses would 
 become a necessity — 
 
 (1) The large American users of tin for export would move their can- 
 making machinery to other countries; or, 
 
 (2) They would be forced to manufacture their own tin plate in order 
 to reduce the cost to the lowest possible limit; or, 
 
 (3) They would be compelled by the Kussian competition to abandon 
 all their trade requiring tin cans.
 
 344 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 This would take away annually a market now enjoyed for over 
 400,000,000 gallons of petroleum, also the closing;- of factories which 
 now produce 40,000,000 cans per year, the closing of box factories which 
 now turn out over IJO.000,000 boxes a year, using nearly lL'0,000,000 feet 
 of lumber, and over 040,000,000 of American-juade nails. 
 
 This result would not oidy seriously atfect all producers of petroleum 
 in this country, but would deprive our railroads of the transportation 
 of the 120,000,000 feet of lumber, and take away the enii)l(>yment of 
 thousands of men now profitably engaged in making the 40,000,000 cans, 
 the 20,00(>,000 boxes, and the 040.000,000 nails. 
 No American industry would be benefited. 
 
 Paul Babcock, 
 Representing The Standard Oil Comitaiiy. The Devoe 
 Oil Works, of New York; The Atlantic IJetining 
 Company, of IMiihiddphia; The Kings County 
 Works, Brooklyn, N. Y.; The Pratt Works, Brook- 
 lyn, N. Y. 
 
 WORKMEN ASK FOR MORE DUTY. 
 
 Pittsburg, Pa., January 7, 1P97. 
 
 COMlvnTTEE ON WATS AND MEANS: 
 
 We are aware that the new taritf schedule is now being considered 
 by the Ways and !^Ieaiis Conimittce, and as additional duty <>n tin plate 
 is absolutely necessary to lielp tlie industry in the United States, we ask 
 careful consideration of this ie(iuest for an increased duty. 
 
 The present duty of 1.2 cents per jmund is not sutlicient, and for the 
 proper protection of the industry against Welsh competition, and in 
 order that the workmen may get a fair living wage, the schedule should, 
 in our opinitui, be advanced seven-tenths of a cent pi'r pound. 
 
 Kepresenting the voice of the workmen engaged in the tin |)late 
 industry in the United States, we ask favorable action t^) the above 
 request. 
 
 y\. M. Garland, 
 President Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Worken. 
 
 IRON AND STEEL SHEETS. 
 
 (Paragraphe 118 et seq.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. J. G. BATTELLE. OF PIQUA, OHIO. 
 
 Saturday, January 9, 1897. 
 Mr. Battelle said : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 am here with some few otlicr gciiilenK'ii to rejircsent the iron and stcd 
 sheet industry of the large States. 1 am president of the Piqua Rolling 
 Mill Com]iany of Piqua. Ohio, and treasurer of the ^Midland Steel Com- 
 pany of JMuncie, Ind. I'or a short time back 1 have been, with some 
 other friends, corresponding and meeting ])ersonally the manufacturers 
 of iron and steel sheets throughout the United States, with the excep- 
 tion possibly of a few in the extreme East, in order to consult with 
 them in regard to their views as to the tariff subject.
 
 IRON AND STEEL SHEETS. 345 
 
 I find thfit the mannfactiirers of the higher-finished iron and steel 
 sheet, more particularly those winch comj^ete with the Russian sheet 
 iron and similar grades of highly finished — either hot or cold finished — 
 iron and steel sheets, are not satisfied altogether with the present tariff"; 
 but as to that tliey will probably present a written communication on 
 their own belialf. The grade of sheets which are sometimes called tag- 
 gers iron or taggers sheets we think, with scarcely any exception, are 
 at present rate of duty too low in the tariff" law of 1894. But that item 
 has also been (juite thoroughly covered by Mr. Cronemeyer in his 
 address. The manufacturers of iron and steel sheets thoroughly indorse 
 his views on that point. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. That is what is embraced in paragraph 118, "sheets 
 of iron or steel, common or black, including all iron and steel commer- 
 cially known as common or black taggers iron or steel, and skelp iron 
 or steel T " 
 
 Mr. Battelle. That is it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I see that the values of importations of that under 
 the McKinley law, which imposed a duty of 1.4 cents, was only $4,561, 
 and under the reduced duty of the Wilson bill, which duty was 1.1 
 cents per pound, the imports amounted to ^l.'JOL'. Ilow do you account 
 for the decrease of importations if the reduction in the rate of duty 
 has been destructive to you? 
 
 Mr. liATTKLLK. lically. I had expected to leave that matter where 
 the other committee had left if, so far as the accounting for that part. 
 I only know in a general way that the manufacturers in our line do not 
 consider the duty sufficient. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Don'tyou think if you were to increase it wlien there 
 has only been that small importation you would make it prohibitory? 
 
 Mr. llA'iTELLK. Practically. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And your i)urpose is to make it ]>roliibitory? 
 
 Mr. Battkli.e. Practically. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Vou say that under the McKinley Act 
 
 Mr. Battelle. It was higher under tlie .McKinley Act. 
 
 Mr. Tawnkv. And the importation was larger? 
 
 Mr. Battelle. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. It was not prohibitory then? 
 
 Mr. Battelle. No, sir. 1 think it is iair to assume, without specify- 
 ing, that all gentlemen of the committee recognize the fact that the tariff 
 variously affects these difierent manufactories owing to the different 
 conditions in this country aiul countries that we are protected from. 
 The item of taggers iron, liowever. I may explain, is not a large item in 
 any event; it is very small as compared witii the aggregate of tin plate 
 or even of black i)late tor tinning, and the added tariff" is only asked 
 for 32 and lighter, which would cover only a portion of the taggers 
 iron. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Wliat was tlie other section that you suggested — or 
 the other bracket? Was it "sheets of iron or steel known as common 
 or black taggers iron or steel and skelp iron or steel valued at 3 cents 
 per pound or less?'' 
 
 Mr. Battelle. I will give that information in a minute. Further 
 than that, the manufacturers that I represent cover the line of iron and 
 steel sheets wliich includes the largest volume of such articles manu- 
 factured in the United States. The investment in the industry is 
 between .$14.()U(>.0U0 and slo,000,()(iO, and there are from 13,000 to 
 14,000 skilled mechanics employed in the industry. The volume of the
 
 346 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 business is larger tban that i)art you have just considered — that of the 
 tin plate, and is such as would be familiarly instanced by sheets for 
 galvanizing, and sheets for corrugating, and for rooting, and also by 
 the immortal stovepipe, with which you are familiar. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. Could you give us any idea of the domestic produc- 
 tion of all that section covers? You say that the cai»ital employed 
 amounts to about $12,000,000. About what is their output of that 
 class of goods ? 
 
 Mr. Battelle. There would be Do you know, Mr. Jarrettt 
 
 Mr. Jarrett. About 320,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Worth about how much! 
 
 Mr. Jarrett. From $17,000,000 to *18,ooo,000. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And I see that the total im]>ortations, as I add it up 
 without the use of a pencil, are less than half a million dollars. 
 
 Mr. Battklle. That is about correct. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. It is only about a third of a million. There are 
 about $17,000,000 or $18,000,000 produced here. 
 
 Mr. Battelle. I simjily wish to add that having consulted the 
 manufacturers of this line of goods very thoroughly, 1 am able to rep- 
 resent their almost unanimous opinion that they are satisfied, with the 
 exception that I have given, witli the tarill of 1804. 
 
 KTJSSIA SHEET TT70N. 
 
 (Paragraph 120.) 
 
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY THE W. D. WOOD CO.. OF PENNSYL- 
 VANIA, AND OTHERS. 
 
 McKeespoet, Pa., Jauuaty 7, 1897. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The sheet iron usually known in commerce as llussia sheet iron is of 
 very fine tiiii.'^h, a large amount of labur being bestowed upon it. and 
 also upon our American manufacture comiietiug with it, and the labor of 
 Russia being the cheapest in the working of iron in the world. 
 
 For a series of year.s the duty was 3 cents ])er ]>ound; under the 
 McKinley bill 2i cents ])er })0uml; present law, 1.^ cents. 
 
 The American manufacture has successfully comjteted with this foreign 
 article, ami has aft'orded to the American consumer a decreasing cost, 
 invariably forcing imi)orters to reduce ])rice, when in former years, 
 without domestic competition, they arbitrarily exacted large profits of 
 the buyers. 
 
 In the tariff of 1894 the reduction of duty on above manufacture was 
 30 per cent from the rate on the McKinley Act. 
 
 By the imi)orts of above (United >?tates statistics) it is shown that 
 the present duty has afforded for the last two years but an ad valorem 
 equivalent of protection of about only 28 ])er cent, when other sheet 
 irons and steels are receiving from 57 to 00 i)er t-ent. 
 
 We, as manufacturers, must represent that the labor cost of the 
 American comi)eting article is more than double that of any sheet iron 
 or steel manufactured, requiring also an unusually large outlay in 
 complicated machinery and furnaces, and capital; and further, being
 
 CRUCIBLE CAST STEEL. 347 
 
 required to be made of high -priced charcoal irons, and not from the 
 cruder forms of cheap steel. 
 
 Imports have been reduced for several years, yet those of 1896 were 
 double those of 1895, exhibitinfj the possibility of enlarged receipts in 
 the future, and a consequent loss to American labor. 
 
 We liave the honor to request that the duty as per paragrai)h 120 be 
 graded so as to be more on a parity with the protection on other sheet 
 iron or steel, and even at about wliat is afforded by the basket clause — 
 35 per cent; and on such unit of value as the last imports exhibit this 
 would warrant 2.13 cents i)er i)0und, whereas we will limit our request 
 and re(}uirement to L' cents per i)ound (specific). 
 
 We indorse the required rates on other sheets, and on tin and terne 
 plates, as submitted by the other manufacturers. 
 
 W. Dewees Wood Co., 
 
 McKeesport and nttshnrg, Pa.j 
 Alan Wood Co., 
 
 C<»isJiohoi'len and rhUa<Jelphia^ Pa., 
 Wellsville Plate and yuEET Iron Co., 
 
 WellsviUcy Ohio.f 
 Per CiiAS. L. Cilpin. 
 (Manufacturers of every grade and tinish of sheet iron and steeL) 
 
 CniTCIBLE CAST STEEL. 
 
 (Paragraph 122.) 
 PROTEST OF VARIOUS FIRMS AGAINST ANY INCREASE OF DUTY. 
 
 Brooklyn, January 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are to a considerable extent users and consumers of high-grade 
 crucible cast steel for tool use in our shops. For some purposes we 
 consi<ler it to our advantage to use imported steel, and beg your con- 
 sideration of the fact that the duty on this class of steel is already at 
 a very high figure, averaging over ^H) per ton. In our opinion an 
 increase is unnecessary for the protection of the domestic article, which 
 now sells at very much below the price of imported steel, and we believe 
 that an increase would tend to check importations and thus defeat the 
 object of the proposed new tariff" bill, which is, we understand, for the 
 purpose of producing more revenue, rather than the protection of 
 domestic articles already sufficiently ]>rotected. 
 
 We beg to call your i)articular attention to paragraph 114 of law of 
 1894, which by interpretation of the l>oard of Api)raiser8 includes all 
 high-grade sheet steel 10 gauge and thicker used lor tools and segment 
 saws, althougli such was not the intention nor spirit of the framers. 
 We would res])ectfully suggest that the words "crucible steel and" be 
 inserted after the word " except," which would more clearly define the 
 intent of this paragraph. We wish also to call your attention to para- 
 graph 124 in the same law, and suggest that the words "sheet steel in 
 strips" be stricken out, as this clause has had the effect of entirely 
 checking importations of many kinds of sheet steel other than the kind
 
 348 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 intended tx) be reached by this clause, wherely all, or nearly all, revenue 
 from this class of steel has been stoi)ped. 
 
 The favor of your consideration of the above suggestions is respect- 
 fully asked for. 
 
 MURCOTT & CAilPBELL. 
 
 Bequests of a similar purport were received from the following: The 
 Cincinnati Milling Machine Company; Star Electric Company, Bing- 
 hamton, N. Y.; Southern Saw Works, Atlanta, Ga.; Jonathan T. 
 Turner's Sons, Sing Sing, N. Y.; E. Andrews & Sons, Williarasport, 
 Pa.; Nichols Bros., Greenfield, Mass.; K. II. Brown & Co., New IJaven, 
 Conn. ; Truss and Cable Fence Company. Ilornellsville, N. Y. : The L. S. 
 Starrett Company, Athol,Mass. ; A. llankey & Co., Kochdale, Mass.; 
 James A. Coe & Co., Newark, N. J.; Fowle Bros. «& Clemen, Woburn, 
 Mass.; C. E. Jennings .& Co., New York, N. Y.; The Kidder Press 
 Manufacturing Company, Boston, Mass.; ^Morse Manufacturing Com- 
 pany, Trumansburg, N. Y.; Ithaca Drop Forge Company, Ithaca, N.Y.; 
 Taylor, Stiles cS: Co., Kiegelsville, N. J.; S. Sternau «.^' Co., New York, 
 N. Y.; The. Standard Tool Company, Cleveland, Ohio; Henry Perkins, 
 Bridgewater, Mass.; Central Cycle Manufacturing Company, Indian- 
 apolis, Ind.; Lidgerwood Manufacturing Company, New York, N. Y. ; 
 Wm. Schiniper «!v: Co., lloboken, N. J.; F. Wesel Manufacturing Com- 
 pany, New York, N. Y.; Sebastian Wagon Company, New York, N.Y.; 
 Buck Bros., Milll)ury, Mass.; The Jas. Cunningham, Son «S: Co., Koch- 
 ester, N. Y. ; The T. & B. Tool Company, Danbury, Conn.; Columbus 
 Bolt Works, Colum])Us, Ohio; .Alirhigan Iron and ^Vire Works, Detroit, 
 Mich.; Tlie Ashton A'alve Company. Boston, Mass.; William McNiece & 
 Son, Philadelphia, Pa.; F. F. IJecd Coini)any, Worcester, Mass.; The 
 Dangler Stove and Manufacturing Comjiany, Cleveland. Ohio; Coates 
 Clipper Manufacturing (.'ompany, Worcester, Mass.; White \- Middle- 
 ton Gas Engine Comi)any. Baltimore, Md.; Gillis <S: Geoghegan, Kew 
 York, N. Y.; The Gillette <Mipi»ing Machine Company, New York, N. Y.; 
 Jarecki MaTiufacturing Company, Erie, Pa.; American Shear Company, 
 Tlotchkissville. Conn.; Tlie Peerless Manufacturing Comj)any, Cleve- 
 land, Ohio; D. Pousseau. New York, N. V.; Lindner »S: liemig Manu- 
 facturing Company, New York, N. Y.; Patterson, (Gottfried \ Hunter, 
 New York, N. Y.; llolVman Bicycle Comjiany, Clevehmd, Oliio; The 
 Council Tool Company, Councils Station, N. C; J. J. Wilson, Dunn, 
 N. 0.; W. F. Ford Surgical In.strumeut Company, New York, N. Y. 
 
 Htghlandville, Mars., December 30, 1896. 
 Committee on Wats and Means: 
 
 It has Just been brcmght to our attention that your committee are 
 contemplating an increase in duty on Jessop's tool steel, which we use 
 to a considerable extent in the manufacture of parts for our bicycles, 
 and we wish to enter our protest against any increase in the <luty on 
 that article, as we consider that the present duty is quite as high as it 
 should be. 
 
 We believe that the contemplated increase in the duty is intended for 
 the purpose of increasing the revenue, but we believe that such an 
 action would tend to decrease it.
 
 CRUCIBLE CAST STEEL. 349 
 
 We do not find any steel made in this country that is quite of the 
 same quality as the Jessop's tool steel, and we do not leel that we should 
 be put to additional expense in obtainino- our supply of imported raw 
 material wlien we can not obtain a similar grade of steel of domestic 
 manufacture, and we certainly hope that your committee will give this 
 matter thorough consideration before deciding to increase the present 
 duty. 
 
 Union Cycle ^Ianufactukinct Co:mpany, 
 By 11. C. DoiktLAs. 
 
 Newark, N. J., January 8, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir : The old tariff rates of duty on tool steel were made when 
 English tool steels were manufactured from Swedish iron. To protect 
 American umnufacturers against this competition, you have had a duty 
 of l.UU cents per pound on tool steel costing from 7 to 10 cents per pound. 
 A great nuijority of Anu'rican mills have almost discontinued the use 
 of Swedish stock, and we have had in the market American tool steels 
 selling at less than 5 cents per pound and Englisli tool steels selling at 
 from 13 to 15 cents i>er pound. The cheapest (piality of Knglish tool 
 steel nuide from Swedish stock is about \) cents per ])ound at Shetlield. 
 The nearest approach to this grade in American steels made without 
 the use of Swedish stock is a steel worth about OjV cents per pound 
 delivered at New York. The general tendency of almost all mills manu- 
 facturing tool steel in the United States has been, during the last year, 
 toward furnishing lower grades of steel at lower selling prices, nmkiug 
 price rather than ([uality the governing princi])lo to secure manufac- 
 turers' orders. There have been very few exceptions to this rule, and 
 even the (pialities that are now produced at these low prices are sought 
 for by exporters, which can be attested by Eastern manufacturers, some 
 of whom are continually patrolling the 02 exporting agents' offices 
 located in New York City. A healthy export trade has been secured. 
 We need, however, in our market better grades of American tool steel. 
 This fact has been so impressed upon JMiglish manufacturers that at 
 least one large concern, representing English capitalists, will be put in 
 operation in a few months at Pittsburg, where 1,000 tons of Norway 
 bars have already been ordered to be shipi)ed. 
 
 The i)resent tariff rate of l.'JO cents per i)ound gives a protection to 
 American manufactures of at least 1.40 cents per pound beyond the 
 cost of American tool steel manufactured from Swedish stock. A 
 reduction of the duty from 1,1)0 cents to 1^ cents per pound, I would 
 respectfully state, would, in the oi)inion of many of the merchants, 
 cause a temporary increase in revenues and give an incentive to the 
 American manufacturers of tool steel to show their ability to produce 
 a quality of steel fully equal to the English standard. Our machine 
 shops demand a quality of steel fully equal to the Englisli standard. 
 I have full confidence in the ability of American manufacturers to pro- 
 duce the best ([ualities of tool steels made from Swedish iron stock, and 
 believe that the temporary reduction in duties, as above suggested, 
 will turn their attention toward this grade of steel and give our Ameri- 
 can jobbers opportunity to more fully represent American products. 
 
 KespectfuUy submitted. 
 
 James A. Coe.
 
 350 SCHEDULE U. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FAVORING AN INCREASE OF DUTY. 
 
 iSEW York, X. Y., January 7, 1S97. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are to a considerable exteut users ami eonsiiiners of liig:li-j,'ra(le 
 crucible cast steel lor tool use in our shops. For .some imrposes we 
 consider it to our advantage to use imixirtod steel, and are perfectly 
 willing to pay any increased i)rice made necessary by a higher rate of 
 duty, but as a matter of fact Jessop's steel is cheai>er than liighgrade 
 steel. We are "consumers," but we want more ''consumers" for our 
 products aud hope to get tbem by putting more Americans to work. 
 
 Wheeling Hinge Co., 
 J. C. Brady, IStcretary. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are to a moderate extent users and consumers of higli grade cru- 
 cible cast steel for tool use in our shops. I'or some i)urpost's, we con- 
 sider it to our advantage to use imported steel, and beg your consid- 
 eration of the fa<'t tliat the duty on this class of steel is alrca<ly at a 
 very high figure, averaging over !?10 per ton. In our opinion an 
 increase is necessary for the ])rotection of the domestic arti( le. which 
 now sells at very much below the ])ri(;e of imported steel, ami we beheve 
 that an increase wouhl not ten<l to check inii)iMtations and tlius defeat 
 the object of the projxtsed new larilV bill, which is, we understand, for 
 the purpose of produiing more revenue and the protection of domestic 
 articles. 
 
 TuE WatsonStillman Co. 
 
 TVniE ROBS A]Sn> WIIJE. 
 
 (P!irajirai)lis 123 aud lUl. ) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE WASHBURN & MOEN MANU- 
 FACTURING COMPANY, OF WORCESTER, MASS. 
 
 Worcester, Mass., January 6", 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We desire to present to your committee some facts and suggestions 
 in regard to the wiie rod and wire section of the proposed tariff. We 
 recognize the desirability <>f making as few changes as possible. Never- 
 theless, the altered conditions which obtain at ditlerent times make it 
 necessary for the proper i)rotectiou of American manufacturers to intro- 
 duce some changes. 
 
 We i)resent what we most seriously recommend as the .schedule for 
 wire-rod and wire duties, and beg that you will give serious considera- 
 tion to our suggestions, for we know that they embody that which is 
 right both for the manufacturer and the consumer. 
 
 The law of 1883 ami subsequent tarilf laws made swee])ing reducttions 
 on wire rods, which resulted in a great loss to manufacturers of iron 
 and steel rods, but to those changes the manufacturers have adapted 
 themselves as far as they could.
 
 WIRE RODS AND WIRE. 351 
 
 Since 1883, and more i)articulaily since the times of dci^vessioii begin- 
 ning witli 18;>3, the usors of iron and steel rods for screws and rivets 
 have almost entirely abandoned the use of imported Swedish and other 
 rods, for which a low duty was provided iu the taritls of 1883, 18UU, and 
 1894, and are using almost exclusively cheaper uuiterials made from 
 domestic steel, so that it is no longer necessary, while making provision 
 that their raw materials may be imported at a very low rate (always too 
 low since 1883), to inclndc in the same specifications the vast quantity 
 of very high-priced rods wliicli, since 1883, have begun to be imported, 
 and still continue to be imported, at an unwarrantedly low rate of duty. 
 
 Our business and the business of other American manufacturers of 
 st€el and steel wire rods is being seriously damaged by the continuance 
 of a low rate, intended for other articles, but which: for lack of proper 
 provisions, applies to almost every class of rod now imported. 
 
 Some importers and some large manufacturers ot wire continue to 
 import rods, although it is perfectly i)ossil)le for them to obtain domes- 
 tic rods of equal or superior (piality to the foreign, and at no higher 
 prices. This we think will sulliciently explain our reasons for asking 
 for a readjustment of tlie duties on wire rods according to their quality 
 and value. 
 
 In the wire schedule only slight changes have been made, by nmking 
 ])rovision tor certain classes of llat steel, made either from wire or slit 
 from sheets or long llat strips, which are n(»w admitted at far below 
 their i)roper rate of duty. 
 
 We have endeavored to so word that ]tortion of the wire clause which 
 covers flat (rold rolled steel as to make the duties of the ajtpraisers and 
 other customhouse oflicers more easy of performance and more accu- 
 rate. The uncertain wording of ])revious tariff clauses covering flat 
 steel has been prolilic. during the last ten years, of m(»re litigation and 
 conse(|uent <'09t to the (lovernment than almost any other single clause 
 in the tariff acts. 
 
 There are prominent wire manufacturers who do not make this class 
 of goods, now assuming largi* ]»roi»(»rtions, and as we can not have 
 opportunity to present our views in person, wc most earnestly request 
 that you will give our written communication all the weight that a per- 
 sonal argument would have. 
 
 The present law provides that iron and steel wire rods for various 
 purposes, naming jiarticularly wire rods for the manufacture of rivets, 
 screws, fence wire, and nails, shall ]>ay a «luty of four-tenths of 1 cent 
 per pound (.t8.0<! a ton) when the rods are valued at 4 cents a pound 
 ($8i».(;() a ton) or less. 
 
 The duty provided for similar wire rods in the tariff law of 1890 was 
 six-tenths of a cent a pound, or >'13.44 a ton. In the law of 1883 the 
 duty on wire rods was six-tenths of a cent a pound, and in the law of 
 1879 the duty was either '^\ cents a jjound (S.'»(>.4() a ton) when tlie value 
 of the rods was 7 cents a pound or less or 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 It was the evident intent of the law of 18,S3, in response to the very 
 proper demand of the States engaged ])rincipally in agriculture, that 
 the steel wire rods from which i)lain fencing and barbed-wire fencing 
 w^ere made should pay a very moderate rate of duty. That rate was 
 fixed by the law of 1883 at six tenths of a cent a pound, a reduction 
 from the tariff" act of 1879 of 1,05 cents per pound, or $36.9(i per ton, 
 except where rods were imported under the 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 The act of 1894 still further reduced the duty on steel fence-wire rods 
 from six-tenths to the present rate of tour-tenths of a cent a pound, a 
 reduction of $4.48.
 
 352 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 FENCE WIKE RODS. 
 
 Fence wire rods are made exclusively from Bessemer steel. TLey 
 have been made from tliat metal for over twenty years. Bessemer is at 
 once the cheapest and most suitable material. The market price of 
 Bessemer fence wire rods to day is not over £5 10s. per ton, or, say, not 
 to exceed $-7 a ton free on board at European i)orts. The highest price 
 for foreign Bessemer fence rods during the last ten years has been $40 
 a ton delivered at New York, Baltimore, or Boston, and for nearly the 
 whole of that period the price has been less than ^'.iO a ton tree on 
 board at European ports. The domestic price is even lower. 
 
 Therefore, the present rate of four-tenths of a cent a pound is an 
 entirely adequate protection, and if the maximum prii-e on which the 
 duty on fence wire rods is levied was tixed at _ cents a jtouud, or •i'44.S0 
 a ton, it would sutliciently guard against any undue increase in the 
 price of fence wire made from these rods, even if the domestic price 
 should be incieased to that ligure, which is most highly improbable. 
 
 As a matter of fact, galvanized barbed wire made from Bessemer 
 rods, being drawn, galvanized, and barbed, has sold in the open market 
 for several years at about L' cents a pound. No lowering of tiie duty 
 on fence wire rods would accomplish a further reduction in the pri(;e 
 of barbed wire, wiiich has been so thoroughly ellected by domestic 
 competition. 
 
 SCllEW AND KIVET RODS. 
 
 In the same year (1883) the duty on feuce wire rods was reduced to 
 $18.44 a ton (six-tenths of a cent a pound), the duty on wire rods suit- 
 able for making rivets and screws was lowered from $2- a ton to $13.44 
 a ton, and later, by the law of 1S!>4, to .*S.*Mi a ton. 
 
 AVhen the tarilf act of 180(i an<l previous taritf acts were passed, the 
 wire rods inijiortcd for the nuumfacture of screws and rivets were prin- 
 cijjally charcoal iron, charcoal iW'ssemer steel, and occasionally char- 
 coal oi)en hearth (or Martin Siemens) rods. The value of these rods 
 ranges (rom a minimum of about .CS 10s. fiee (Ui board at l-^uropeau ports 
 to upward of JCKi i)er ton, or, say, from $11 to nearly $'.•() a ton. 
 
 Few if any ro«ls are now importe«l or have been imported in any con- 
 siderable (juantities for several years ft»r the nmnufacture of either 
 fence wire, screws, or rivets, and the place of the imported rods formerly 
 used for these pur[M)ses has been supplied by steel rods of domestic 
 make, which sell at the present time at from $L'2 to $3.j a tou. 
 
 The makers of iron and steel screws, wliile they are i)aying, in case 
 they import screw rods as their raw nniterial. only four-tenths of a cent 
 a i)ound, or $8.".I8 a ton, have a minimum ])rotection on manufactured 
 screws of 3 cents i)er i)ound, which is 7^ times the duty levied on the 
 wire rodf. and a maximum jtrotection of 10 cents a pound, or L'5 times 
 the duty levied on the wire rods from which, if imjtorted, they are made. 
 Substantially the same condition exists in regard to rivets, which are 
 protected in the present law by a duty of 25 ])er cent ad valorem. 
 
 Owing to the phraseology of the wire-rod clause in all the tariff" acts 
 since 188;5, all kinds of iron and steel-wire rods, and not alone those 
 intended for screws, rivets, and fence wire, i)ay a minimum rate of four- 
 tenths of a cent a imuiul, or $8.1)0 a ton, if they are valued at 4 cents a 
 pound or less. Since the law of 1883 was passed there has been a very 
 large imiuutation, which now continues, of high-quality steel rods 
 (BesTiemei-, open hearth, and crucible) not intended for either screws, 
 rivets, nails, or fence wire — rods which, previous to 1883. i)aid a duty of
 
 WIRE RODS AND WIRE. 353 
 
 $40 or $50 a ton, or at least 30 per cent ad valorem, witli a result that 
 all iron and steel rods, valued even as high as $89.G0 a ton, i)ay no more 
 duty than the very cheapest inijjorted Bessemer rod. This is wrong, 
 and a manifestly unjust disci imination against the manufacturers in 
 the United States of rods which are valued at between $-i:o and 8'JO 
 a ton. 
 
 There are many steel and rod manufacturers in the United States 
 who can make and who do make rods fully equal to the foreign rods of 
 the (jualities r«*i)resei.ited by the values Just given — between 645 and $90 
 a ton. We believe it to be true that the number of works in this 
 country which are caj)able of making such rods is greater than the 
 number of users of those rods, and it is almost equally certain that 
 the price to the consumers not only would not be increased if a suit- 
 able duty were levied on the higher-cost rods, but, following all the 
 analogy of the iiast, the juices wonld decrease through domestic com- 
 petition below tlie prices at which tliey are now imported, just as they 
 have fallen on the (•hcai)er Bessemer rods to a point below the import 
 value, without any duty added. 
 
 It is probable that any suggestion of changing the duties on wire 
 rods would be met with opposition from wire makers who import for- 
 eign rods. Nevertheless, we submit that the righting of an injustice, 
 even if it should result in a slight increase in the duty on certain 
 articles, is to be preferred to an unjust discrimination against American 
 manfacturers wlio have already sulfered lor more than a dozen years by 
 une(|ual foreign competition. 
 
 The reduction of the duty on chaicoal-iron rods by the tariff of 1883 
 and the placing of charcoal iron and charcoal-steel aiul crucible-steel 
 rods worth over *5(> a ton, and from that uji to $90 a ton, on the same 
 basis as the commonest and (•iioapest lU'ssemer steel rods, caused the 
 loss of many thousands of dollars in plant to American manufacturers, 
 and has resulted in throwing many hundreds of men out of employ- 
 ment. The plants still exist, but the workmen are not enqdoyed. 
 
 We do not ask for a high duty on any of the rods subject to importa- 
 tion. We do ask that proper consideration be given to the relative 
 values of the rods imported, and that the duties levied be in conformity 
 to those values. And we earnestly recommend, in view of the facts 
 given, that in any new tarilf act to be formulate<l in the place of the 
 l)resent schedule (art. 1-3, customs law of 1894) the wire-rod clause 
 should read : 
 
 ff'iie rodx. — Kivet, 8<Tew, fence, and all other iron or steel wire rods, whether 
 round, oval, Hat, or square, or in other shape, and nail rods, in coils or otherwise, 
 valued at two cents or less jier ])oun(l, four-tenths of one cent i)er pound; valued at 
 over two cents and not aliove three cents per poifnd, six-tenths of one cent per 
 pound; valued at over three cents per pound, eiglit-tenths of cue cent per pound. 
 
 This wqtdd be a duty on the highest priced rods, valued at, say, 4 cents 
 a pound, of oidy LH) per cent, which is a less proportionate duty than is 
 now levied on common Bessemer rods, and which pay 33 per cent, as 
 named. 
 
 KATKS IIECOMMKNDED. 
 
 Wire rods. — Rivet, screw, fence, and other iron or steel wire rods, whether round, 
 oval, Hat, or scjuare, or in any other shape, and nail rods, in coils or otherwise, 
 valued at two cents or less per" ponnd, four-tenths of one cent per pound; valued at 
 over two cents a pound and not above three cents a pound, six-tenths of one cent 
 per jiound; valued at over three cents a pound, eight-tenths of one cent per pound; 
 
 I'roriduJ, lliat all, round iron nr steel rods smaller than number six wire gauge 
 shall be classed and dutiable as wire; 
 
 rrorided further, That all iron or steel wire rods which have been tempered or 
 treated in any manner or partly manufactured shall be classed and dutiable as wire. 
 
 T H 23
 
 354 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OP. 
 
 Wire. — Round iron or steel wire, all sizes, not smaller than number thirteen wire 
 gauge, one and one fourth cents per pound; smaller than numher thirteiii wire 
 gauge, and not smaller than nnmlier sixteen wire gaujje, one and one-half ceutii per 
 pound; smaller than iiumher sixteen wire gauge, two cents per pound; 
 
 And provided, That iron or steel wire having a tensile strength per square inch of 
 sixty tons and not over ninety tons per sijuare inch, shall jiay an additional duty of 
 one cent per pound; that iron and steel wire having a tensile strength ])er square 
 inch of ninety tons or more, shall pay an additional duty of two cents per pound; 
 
 And provided further, That all other iron or steel wire and all r<dled steel or wire 
 or Btrip steel, in the coil, commonly known as <rinolin<'; wire, corset wire, corset bone 
 wire, corset back wire, drill rods, needle wire, piano wire, clock and watch wires, 
 hat wire, and all steel wires, whether j)olishfd or unpolished, tempered or untem- 
 pered, in coils or straightened and cut to length, drawn cold throu^'h dies or rolled, 
 and fat steel wire, or sheet steel in strijis, and ail cold-rolled steel in the coil, of 
 whatever width, thinner than number sixteen gauge, whether tempered or untem- 
 pered, i>oIi8hed or unitolished, uncovered or covend with cotton, pajier, silk, metal, 
 or other material, of whatever shape or form, shall pay a duty of lifty per cent ad 
 valorem ; 
 
 And provided further, That articles manufactured from iron or stoel wire shall pay 
 the maximum rate of duty wliich would be imposed upon any nn ire used in the manu- 
 facture of suth articles, and in addition tli<reio one cent per ]>ound ; 
 
 And provided further. That iron or steel wire cloths, an<l iron or stot-l wire nettings 
 made in nieslies of any form shall pay a duty equal in amount to that imi»osed on 
 iron or steel wire used in the manufacture of iron or steel wire cloths, or iron or Hteel 
 ■wire netting, and two cents per jiound in addition thereto; 
 
 And provided further, Ihat there shall bi> paid on iron or steel wire coated with 
 zinc or tin or any other metal (except f<<nce wire), one-half of one cent per pound in 
 addition to th«^ r;ite imposed on the wirr o( wliicli it is made; on iron-wire rope and 
 wire strand, one cent jut jiouud in addition t(» the rate im|>ose<l on the wire of wliich 
 they or either of them is made; on steel -wire rope aud wire strantl. two cent.-* per 
 poun<l in addition to the rate imposed on the wire of which they or either of them is 
 made. 
 
 Wasiihurn ^: M(»i;n Manufactiring Co., 
 PuiLir \V. MttEN, Trtdsurcr and Manaijer. 
 
 RATES RECOMMENDED BY IRON AND STEEL WIRE MANUFAC 
 
 TURERS. 
 
 TuenTdN, X. -I.. .I'lnintrif 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The uiKkMsijiiied are tlie itrincipal inaniilai liiuis «»f tlie lii^jfhor 
 grades of iron and steel wire and of tlie maniilact tires thereof; in these 
 there are involved many intrii-ate i»roet's.ses, mneli niannal labor and 
 Avaste of raw material, tor whieh we ask a fair and eipiitahlr protection. 
 That part of the tariff aet in which the snbscribers are interested he^iins 
 with iron and steel wire rods. The dut> i)aid u))on them under the act 
 of 18!>4 is satisfactory. In addition to this we ask that when these rods 
 are tem])ered or i)artly mantifactured that they shall lie classed as wire, 
 the process of tempering being; expensive and in\ olvin;; considerable 
 waste. The duty on ordinary .iirad«'s of iron and steel as i)rovi«led by 
 the act of 18i)l is satisfactory, bnt it is entirely inade»|n;iti' to protect 
 American mannlactnrers of hi;.'h class wires: we therefore ask that an 
 additional sjiecilic duty, graded iiikmi tensile stu-njith, be iinpo.sed. 
 The ad valorem duty ])rovi(led by the act of IS'.H lias l)een largely 
 inoperative on acconnt of nndervalnations. These <"in be absohitely 
 sto])i)ed in the case of wire, by ]>rovidiii_i;- a classilication based ttpon 
 simjde jdiysical tests. AVe ask that wire which has a tensile stren;,Mh 
 equal to ()(> tons i)er square inch shall pay an additional duty of 1 cent 
 per i)ound, and that wire which has a tensile streiijixth of 90 tons or 
 more i)er stjuare inch shall pay an additional duty of li cents per pound. 
 Wires of these sti en jrths «'an not be jiroduced from common metal or 
 by the ordinary methods of wire drawing, and are necessarily costly. It
 
 WIRE RODS AND WIRE. 355 
 
 will not require expert work to detemiine the strength of wires in any 
 given importation; a laborer of ordinary education can decide, by use 
 of an inexpensive testing machine, how many pounds are required to 
 break a sample, and it is only the work of a few hours to prepare a 
 table covering all sizes of wire, which will show what each size must 
 bear to come under cither classification. As an example, No. 10 wire 
 has practically an area of one seventieth of a square inch; therefore, if 
 it breaks at 1,!>U<) pounds, it is at the rate of (10 tons per square inch, 
 as l,lii.*0 multiplied by 70 equals 00 tons. The same size of wire break- 
 ing at 2,880 pounds would show a strength equal to 90 tons. It would 
 be useless to attempt undervaluations in the face of the above-outlined 
 method of api>raisement, as deception l)ccomes iinpossil)le. 
 
 One testing machine in New York would answer for the l'last,asonly 
 samples 10 inches long are reciuired, and trhey can be forwarded by 
 mail from any other port of entry. 
 
 For the higlier grades of wire we propose figures giving an ad 
 valorem rate which is very low for the best kinds of wire. That pa^-t 
 of the schedule including Hat strip wire, watch and clock wires, cov- 
 ered wire and strips, i»ays, under the act of isin, 40 per cent ad 
 valnrem. That affords rather inadetpiate protection for these wires 
 and the manufactures thereof because they are all products of expen- 
 sive labor and involve a large rejection and waste. An ad valorem 
 duty of oOper cent is asked for, being the same as was provided by the 
 act of ISOO. It is impossible to ])rovide specific rates for this clause 
 because the articles comprised in it are too numerous and vary greatly 
 in valne. For the articles manufactured from iron and steel wire a 
 specific rate of 1 cent additional is asked because the rate can be 
 made specific, and we consider it a very small <»ne, and it is at present 
 so provided in the act of 1801. The additional duty of L* cents per 
 pound cm woven wire cloths is the same as was imposed by the act of 
 1800. It does not more than cover the difference in labor actually 
 expended on the great bulk of woven- wire cloth which is made of very 
 small wire and of fine meshes, in some kinds there being as many as 
 100 meshes to the inch. Wire cloth woven from brass and copper wire 
 has been added, as it has heretofore not been provided for. 
 
 No provision was made in the act of 1894 for wire coated with zinc, 
 tin, or other metals, and we respectfully ask for the same duty which 
 was imposed by the act of 1890. It is a just protection and we know of 
 no reason why it was not included in the act of 1894. 
 * We herewith submit the complete schedule for your consideration: 
 
 Wire rods. — Rivet, screw, fence, Jiinl other iron or steel wire rods, wliether round, 
 oval, lliit, or square, or in any other 8bai)e, and nail rods, in coils or otherwise, 
 valued at four cents or less per pound, four-tenths of one cent per pound; valued 
 over fonr cents per ]iound, three-fourths of one cent per pound: 
 
 rrorided, That all round iron or steel rods smaller than number six wire guage 
 shall be el.is.sed and dutiable as wire: 
 
 rromded/iirihiT, That all iron orsteel wire rods which have been tempered or treated 
 in any manner or partly manufactured shall bo classed and dutiable as wire. 
 
 Wire. — Round iron or steel wire, all sizes not smaller than number thirteen wire 
 gauge, one and one-fourth cents ]>er j)Ound; smaller than number thirteen wire 
 guaj^e, and not smaller than number sixteen wire j^uaj^e, one and one-half cents per 
 pound; smaller than number sixteen wire gauge, two cents per pound: And provided, 
 That iron or steel wire having a tensile strength al)ove sixty tons and not of more 
 than ninety tons per square inch shall pay an additional duty of one cent per pound; 
 that iron or steel wire having a tensile strength of more than ninety tons per square 
 inch shall pay an additional duty of two tents per pound: And provided further, 
 That all other iron or steel wire, corset wire, drill rods, needle wire, clock and 
 watch wires, and all steel wires, wliether polished or un])(dished, in coils or straight- 
 ened and cut to lengths, drawn cold throngli dies, and hat wire, flat steel wire, or 
 Bheet steel in strips, uncovered or covered with cotton, silk, or other material, or
 
 356 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 metal and all the foregoiu;;;; luanufactures of iron or steel, of -whatever shape or form, 
 valued above four cents per pound, shall pay a duty of tifty per centum ad valorem: 
 And prorided further, That articles manufactured from iron or steel wire shall pay 
 the maximum rate of duty which would be imposed upon any wire used in the niau- 
 ufafturc of such articles and in addition thereto one cent per pound: And provided 
 further, That wire cloth and wire nettinj; made in meshes of any form from iron, 
 steel, brass, copi»er, or any other metal shall pay a duty equal in amount to that 
 imy)OScd on the wire used in tlie manufacture thereof and two cents per i)onud in 
 addition thereto: And provided further. That there shall be paid on iron or steel wire 
 coated witli zinc or tin, or auy other metal (except fence wire), one-half of one cent 
 per pound in addition to the rate imposed on the wire of which it is made. 
 
 Joliii A. Roebliujj's Sons Co., per F. W. Koebling, secietaiy, 
 Tieiiton, N. J.; The Ha/.anl Mann tact iirin«,' Co., Walter 
 GastOD, general manager, Wilkesbarre, Pa.; K. H. 
 Wollt" & Co., per K, U. VVoltt", presideut, New York; 
 The New Jersey Wire Cloth Co., per Frank D. Briggs, 
 secretary; Clinton Wire Cloth Co., by Chas. F. Fair- 
 banks, treasurer: Fdward llarley & iSons; Strawbridge 
 & Chase; De Witt Wire Chith Co., by F. .3. IJartlett, 
 president; A. Leschen cV Sons Kope Co., per J. 11. Jam 
 way, jr., St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 STATEMENT MADE BY MR. R. H. WOLFF, OF NEW YORK. N. Y. 
 
 New V(»kk, January 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 1 beg to inclose resolutions passed by a number of wire manufactur- 
 ers, located in various Stateis of the Union, authorizing me to repre.>^ent 
 their interests as large wire manufacturers before your honorable com- 
 mittee. Notwithstanding the fa<'t tliat wages arc much lower in l^urope, 
 the rolling machinery in this country is .so perfect ami so nuieh supe- 
 rior to the Ivuropean.s' machinery for that jmrpose, that owing to tliis 
 wire rods can now be rolled at less than half in the United States what 
 it would cost to roll them in Furope. 
 
 These Americim rod mills are almost automatic and hardly employ 
 any labor. A rod mill, giving emi»loyinent to IM hands only, can turn 
 out enough rods to kee]» live or six laigc wire mills going. lOach of the.se 
 wire mills might employ fi(»m .">()() to lod hands, and the ca])ital in\ ested 
 in the wire mills would be very much larger than the investnuMit in the 
 rod mills. Wiiile lOO to aOd hands would easily cover the total number 
 of hands cmi)loyed in tiie rod-rolling industry in the United States, the 
 total number of hands employed in the wire industry woidd be nearly 
 one hundred times as many. 
 
 While, owing to patented imptroved mai-hiiiery, the wire ro«l intlustry 
 in the United States is i)ractically indepencU'iit of the tariff, the mak- 
 ers of the hner grades of linished steel wire in the United States have 
 a haid battle to liglit, as they are constantly being undersold by wire 
 manutacturers in lMiroi)e, who are vising the United States as a dump- 
 ing gntund lor their goods. 
 
 The i)roeess of making wire is the same here as in I'urope. It is the 
 old juocess all over and can not be im])rovetl upon. The line steel wire 
 drawer must be an exi)erienced and skilled workman, antl earns in the 
 United States at least three times the wages he earns in Fuiope, ami 
 can not do any more work than the Furopean wire drawer. Tin- line 
 steel wire business is one of the most scientific imlustries in the wiu'ld 
 and ]>ays higher wages than the majority of manufacturing industries, 
 as we can not enii)loy boys or girls or women, like the cotton, woolen, 
 and silk industries.
 
 WIRE RODS AND WIRE. 357 
 
 Tlio cost of labor In ^vlro rods does not exceed from 8 to 10 ]>er oent 
 the total value of the wire rod. 
 
 E. H. Wolff. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF WIRE MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 New York, January 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and :Means: 
 
 At a mt'ctinjj held on Monday, December 21, 1896, at the Manhattan 
 Hotel, Forty-second street and Madison avenue, New York, the follow- 
 ing wire mannfactnrcrs, who are large consumers of wire rods, were 
 represented, either in person or by letter, and adopted the following 
 resolutions to petition the Comniittee on Ways and Means to make no 
 change either in the wording or in the rate of duty on M-ire rods. The 
 clause referred to is i)aragraph 123 of the metal schedule of the Wilson 
 bill, and reads as follows: 
 
 Wire rods: Kivet, screw, fence, and other iron or steel wire rods, whether round, 
 oval, llat, or square, or in any other shsijie, and nail rods in coils or otherwise, valued 
 at four cents or less i)er i)onnd, four-tenths of a cent per pound; valued over four 
 cents per pound, three-(iuartorn of a cent per pound: I'ror'uied, That all round iron 
 or stoel rods, smaller than number six wire gauge, should be classed and dutiable 
 as wire. 
 
 The following are the true facts in the matter: Ninety-five per cent 
 of all the wire rods used in the Tnited States are now manufactured in 
 tliis country and could not be imported even if the rate of duty would 
 be reduced to one-half of the rate of the present Wilson bill. Only a 
 few special brands are being imported on which the above makers rely 
 in order to continue the business. Only two or three mills in the 
 United States make similar special qualities for their own use. In case 
 the duties are raised, all the named wire manufacturers and others 
 would l)e cither forced to discontinue business or be at the mercy of a 
 few powerful competitors who roll their own rods, which would be 
 almost equal to ruin. 
 
 Fnrtlicrmore, if the rate of duty on wire rods should be raised above 
 the rate in the present taritV, while it would only benefit the few large 
 corporations, wlio are rollinu- tlieir own wire rods, it would cripple or 
 ruin a great number of smaller manufacturers distributed all over the 
 United States. While the (iovernment is receiving under the present 
 law some revenue on wire rods, an advance of the rate would make 
 the wire-rod clause absolutely prohibitive, and would not yield any 
 revenue whatsoever to the (iovernment. 
 
 It was also resolved to appoint Mr. K. H. Wolff, president of R. H. 
 Wolff & Co., Limited, to represent their interests before the honorable 
 Committee on Wavs and Cleans. 
 
 Wickwire Bros., Cortland, N. Y. : The Salem Wire Nail Co., 
 Salem, Ohio; Garden City Wire and Spring Company, 
 Chicago, 111.; Horace Latnb & Co., Northampton, Mass.; 
 C. C. ^^ E. P. Townsend, New Brighton, Pa.: Pliilips- 
 Townsend Co., North Penn Junction, Philadelphia, Pa.; 
 New ilaven Wire Manufacturing Conq^any, New Haven, 
 Conn.; Grand Crossing Tack Company, Grand Cross- 
 ing, Chicago, 111. ; Wright & Colton Wire Cloth Com- 
 pany, Worcester, Mass.; Laidlaw Bale-Tie Company, 
 Joliet, III., and Kansas City, Mo.; J. Wool Griswold, 
 Trov, N. Y.\ K. H. Wolf!" cS: Co., Limited, New York 
 City, N. Y.; Port Townsend Steel Wire and Nail Com- 
 pany, Port Townsend, Wash.
 
 358 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF, 
 
 RECLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDED. 
 
 Pittsburg, Pa., January 5, 1897. 
 
 CoionTTEE ON Ways and Means: 
 
 We, as inauufactiiieis of drill rods and liigli-yrade steel wire, come 
 before yoii to ask that drill rod bo taken out of itara^Maj)!! Vli and be 
 given a separate paragraph under Seliedule C. We submit the follow- 
 ing paragraph as covering the ground, should it meet your approval: 
 
 Drill roils and all tohl-drawn tool steel rods, of whatever size or section, whether 
 jiolislied or unpolished, in coils or iu straij^ht len^jths, v.ilued at above 4 cents per 
 ponud, sliall pay h duty of 40 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 We do not ask a change in the rate of duty, but simply such a state- 
 ment of the matter as shall make clear the intent of the act. The last 
 clause of paragraph 12.i provides ''that all round iron or steel rods 
 smaller than No. «i wire gauge shall be classed and dutiable as wire.'' 
 In view of this the ai)prais('rs have decided that the only drill rods 
 referred to in paragraph llit are those which c<»nu* under the head id' 
 wire, and are smaller than No. (I wire gauge, and that all the larger 
 sizes of drill rod, though nnide by the sauie process, come under para- 
 gTai)h 122 and pay the same duty as hot rolled rods, which are (Uir 
 raw material. Thus, under tiiis decision we are unjustly left, contrary 
 to the intent of the law, without any protection whatever on the bulk 
 of our manufacture. We specify this rate on colddrawn tool steel 
 rods, and not on hot-rolled rods, which are the raw material from which 
 colddrawn drill rods are manulactiired. 
 
 Drill ro<ls and drawn wire are the highest forms of manufactured 
 steel. JJot rolled i»ars must be turned in the lathe to get rid of the 
 rough outside before they can be linishcd into tools. \\'e polish and 
 draw the rods to size more accurately than they can be turned. Drill 
 rods are used to make watch and clock ]tarls, small taps, dies, reanu'rs, 
 punches and drills, dental tools, surgical instruments, etc. 
 
 We draw the line at 4 cents for the same reasou that it is done iu 
 the wire schedule, because this is the highest price at which open 
 hearth rods are valued, a i)roduct with which we have no connection. 
 The schedule of wages paid by us tor drawing drill rods and steel wire 
 is double that paid iu lOngland. while, owing to the delicate nature of 
 the work, we are unable to make a larger output with an equal nundier 
 of employees. Hence the absolut*' necessity of protection. 
 
 Under the shield of a tarilf this industry has giown from one concern 
 in 1S8S, em]d()ying less than a do/en hands, to six concerns at the pres- 
 ent time, enii)loying upward of 2(i(l hands. 
 
 On the incei)tion of this industry in this country the imjiorters cut 
 the price in drill rods iu half, hoping to crush competition. They have 
 been unable, through the aid of Congiess, either to accomplish this or 
 to restore their old extortionate profit. The industry is stea<lily gain- 
 ing in the United States, and the consunu'rs are enjoying the benelitof 
 the cheai)est prices that have ever prevailed for tins class of goods. 
 The Kidd Brod. & IUrgiier Steel Wike Co., 
 Per 111 THEREORD BuRGHER, ISantary and Treasurer.
 
 WIRE RODS AND WIRE. 359 
 
 PROTEST OF BBX)DERICK & BASCOM ROPE COMPANY, OF ST. LOUIS, 
 AGAINST INCREASE OF DUTY. 
 
 St. Louis, Mo., January 6, 1897. 
 Committee on "Ways and ]\rEANS: 
 
 We are niaiiufactiiiers of w ire rope, and we desire to enter our pro- 
 test afi^aiiist any advance on wire in 8clie(lnle C, for the following rea- 
 sons, which we will give as brietly as possible, namely: 
 
 Wire is our raw material. Tlie i)re.sent duties under the Wilson bill, 
 ■while specific, are equal to an ad valorem duty of 40 per cent on the 
 wires that we import. None of the cheaper grades of wire are imported, 
 as the American mills on Bessemer steel and iron wire can compete with 
 the worhl. The market prices abroad and in America will show that 
 there is little or no dillerence in the jJiice of these common wires. There- 
 fore none can be imported, especially when there is a duty of any kind 
 on wire. Therefore, the duty imjtosed on wire has reference to the higher 
 grades of crucible steel wire. Now, if the present duty equals an ad 
 valorcmof over 10 percent, we believe that you will agree with us that the 
 wire industries of this country are sulliciently protected. We propose to 
 submit to you i)roofs which, we think, are indisputable, and therefore 
 inclo.se you a letter from Mr. li. Dalton, surveyor of customs in St. Louis, 
 under date of January 2, 1807, in which he gives the importations of 
 wire at the port of St. Louis during the years of 1805 and 1806. 
 
 St. Louis. Mo., January S, 1897. 
 CiiAfl. H. Wyman & Co., 
 
 (iilumbia llnUdinti, City. 
 (iKNTi.KMKN : III rc'itlv to your vorbiil inrpiiry for si Hfatenient of the amount of 
 Btot'l wire wliidi was eiitcreil lor ( oiisuiiii»tii>n at tin- port of St. Louis during the 
 years 18;»r> and ISMC, 1 li.tvi' to advise you that thn rt-cords of this oliice sliow as 
 follows: 
 
 Ye.ir. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 1805 
 
 $150. C07. 00 
 114,970.00 
 
 $63, 569. 17 
 
 181)6 
 
 
 50,117.86 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 271,637.00 
 
 115, 687. 02 
 
 
 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 R. Dalton, 
 Surveyor of Customs. 
 
 The imi)ortati<»ns for 1895 were $100,007, duty $05,509.17, equal to an 
 ad valoii'iM of a little over 40 j)er cent. 
 
 The iinportati(tns for 1S0<» were -^slU.OTO, duty $50,117.85, equal to an 
 ad valorem duty of a shade less than l-l per cent. 
 
 The total importations for 1805 and 1800 were $271,037, the total 
 duties ]taid were *115,0S7.0-!, and the average ad valorem duty for the 
 two years, all of which was under the Wihson bill, was a little over 42.59 
 per cent. These ligures can be veritied; in f\\ct you will find that they 
 will not vary but little, if any, when the total importations for 1895 and 
 1890 for the United States' are considered by your committee. The 
 question naturally arises: Is a duty that is equal to 40 per cent ad 
 valorem sutticient'cnough for the wire mills of this country? If not, 
 we say give them more, liut au investigation will convince anyone
 
 360 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 that it is more tlian eiioufrh. We doubt whether there is an article in 
 the metal schedule that bears as high rate of duty as the sjiecitic duty 
 on wire. And the jiioof we submit is as lV>lh»ws: 
 
 During tlie last tliree or four years every mayufacturer of crucible 
 steel wire have increased their plants very largely; that during the 
 past two years two new ])lants have been started in this country, show- 
 ing that they can com]>ete with toreigu goods under the Wilson tariff 
 law. The present duty is more than ample and should not be advanced. 
 If any change is made there ought to be a reduction. This is shown 
 conclusively by the fact that a very prominent factory purchases large 
 quantities of No. 10 wire, paying 1;^ cents per jiound duty, and draws 
 this wire to finer sizes than No. IS wire guage ami up to No, 1(5, which 
 pays a duty of 1^ cents per pound, and from these draws the wire to 
 finer than No. lO" guage, which ])ays 2 cents per jiound <laty, showing 
 conclusively that it does not cost said factory a quarter of a cent i»er 
 pound to draw from No. 10 to sizes between No. 1.'5 and No, HI, and that 
 it does not cost three quarters of a cent per jiound to draw wires to 
 sizes No, 10 and smaller; that there must be a good profit to said manu- 
 facturer, otherwise he would not have started this factory under the 
 Wilson tariff. 
 
 This agrees with the information we have from abroad as to the coat 
 of producing tiiese high grades of crueilde steel valued at from 1* to 3 
 cents per i)ound, according to the (piality in No, •• gauge. 
 
 In conclusion, i)ermit us to say that we tirndy believe in the principle 
 of ])rotection. Ijut we do not believe in a ])r(»hibitive tariff. We would 
 gladly buy our wire in America, but. unfortumitily, every manufacturer 
 of the wire we use is a competitor in our line, an«l we consider it unwise 
 to buy our raw niat'Mial fnun a competitor. Still we are willing to 
 acquiesce in a diity that will give them ample i)rotection. The duty on 
 all products of wire, which covers the article we manufacture, is 1 cent 
 per pound in addition to the duty on wire. That is to say, that if a 
 wire rope made of a wire that has a <luty of 1\ cents ]>er pound the 
 duty on the roi)e made of that wire would be 1:^ cents per pound on the 
 wire and 1 cent i)er pound additional on the rope. If nuide of a wire 
 bearing 2 cents per jjound duty the duty would be 2 cvnts i)er ])onnd on 
 the wire and 1 cent ])er i>ound on tlu' rojie, I'.ut maik this, that the 
 duty on rope is only 1 cent i)er jiound, and no one familiar with the 
 manufacture of wir«' and wire rope will deny for one moment that it 
 does not cost more to make wire rope than it does to make wire. The 
 duty on wire ro]»e ought to be at least 2 cents per ]>ound over and above 
 the price of wire, because foreign wire is the basisof ninetenthsof the 
 ropes that are used in this country, and, therefore, must be imported 
 either in the rod or in the wire for rope ])uri)oses. 
 
 BnoDEiticK vV Rascom Kope Co. 
 
 P. S. — The duties on both wire and wire rope ought to be specific and 
 not ad valorem. 
 
 WoKCESTEB, Mass., January C, 1897. 
 Deati Sm: We take the liberty to ad<lrcss you on the subject of wire 
 rods, n jiroduct (^f whii-h we are large consumers. The duty of four- 
 tenths cent per pound on rods valued at 4 cents per pound or less, in 
 our opinion, is a just one. Considering that 95 per cent of all the
 
 WIRE RODS AND WIRE. 3GI 
 
 rods used in this r/>uiitry are made lieic, and are made at a lower fig:iire 
 than they can be made ibr abroad, it would seem to us inexpedient to 
 advance t he dnt}' on this article. The other 5per cent, which is imported, 
 is made up of the higher grades of material, such as Norway iron, and 
 various grades of cast-steel stock designed for the manufacture of 
 springs, umbrella ribs, steel-wire ropes and cables, clock springs, and 
 many other simihir articles. Very little of this stock is rolled in this 
 country, except by one or two concerns who always finish it into the 
 above-named and other similar finished ])rodncts. 
 
 Should the duty be advanced on rods it would not give the Govern- 
 ment any revenue on tlie i>') per cent which is now made here, and 
 would tend to drive out a dozen or fifteen concerns now manufacturing 
 wire who do not have the e.\i)ensive facilities required in rolling the 
 billets into wire rods. It would then throw the business toward one or 
 two large concerns here who have the facilities for rol'iug wire rods and 
 who can import tlic billets at only a very small duty and roll them into 
 rods for the various purposes above mentioned. This would greatly 
 affect the mills who are now dependent on wire-rod manufacturers for 
 their raw nuiterial. Therefore, while the Government is now receiving, 
 under present rate, some revenue on wire rods, an advance of the rate 
 would make the i)resent <'lause prohibitive, and would not yield the 
 Government the revenue that it does now. 
 
 It would become a hardshii* to the smaller wire manufacturers, and 
 wouhl either eripple or ruin them, while it would benefit but a very few 
 large cor j)orat ions. 
 
 We trust that you will oppose any advance in the duty as it now 
 stands in the Wilson bill on wire rods. 
 
 We are thorough protectionists, but feel tiiat this article is now well 
 protected from the fact that nearly all the wire rods used in this country 
 are made here, as above .stated. 
 
 Wright vS: Colton Wire Cloth Co., 
 By Geo. W. Weight. 
 
 .TOLIET. III., Jan vary 7, 1897, 
 CoarynTTEE on Wats and Means: 
 
 We are reliably informed that there is to be an effort made by parties 
 interested in adviincing the taritV on wire rods inii)orted into the 
 United States. We under-^tand that the total consumption of foreign 
 rods at the present time in the I'nited States is .1 per cent of the whole, 
 and these are special (lualities manufactured only by a tew rod manu- 
 facturers in thfs country. In view of this and from the fact that we are 
 naturally interested, being consumers (»f this ])roduct, it is our belief 
 that the interests of all concerned would be better served by the tariff 
 on this product being left as it now is, or at least we think it should 
 not be advanced, as even a slight advance would shut out all foreign 
 rods and would result in these special (qualities being controlled by three 
 or four manufacturers in this country, and all revenue from this product 
 would be cut oti" from the Government. 
 
 The Laidlaw Bale-Tie Co., 
 By A. T. Weaver, Manager.
 
 362 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 SnARPSBUEG, Pa., January 4, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are large users and consumers of wire rods in our shops. We 
 give preference to rods of domestic manufacture whenever we can obtain 
 same of suitable quality, but for some purposes it is necessary to use 
 imported steel. We think that any change iu duty on either wire rods 
 or upon the liiiished wire would have a tendency to unsettle business 
 in our special line of manufacture, and we therefore ask you to let the 
 duty remain unaltered as it exists in paragraphs 123 and 124. 
 
 KiDD Steel Wire Co., Limited, 
 Per Geo. P. Loomis, iSecretary. 
 
 AXLES. 
 
 (Paragiai.h 127.) 
 
 Com:viittee on Ways and Means : 
 
 We, the undersigned axle manufacturers of the United States, desire 
 to call your attention to the fact tliat the present duty <tn a\h*s, namely, 
 1.;^ cents per j)ouml in wliatever state or stage of manufacture the artii-le 
 may be imi>ortetl. is entirely insnthcient for the proi)er protection of 
 nianuliicturers of this class of goods. 
 
 Jn the manufacture of axles the cost of the raw material is small. The 
 principal item of cost is the labor item. It is therefore of particular 
 imi)ortance that the tarilf on this j)roduct be proi)erly adjusted, for the 
 ditference in cost of labor in this country an<l abroad is so great tliat 
 the small diity imposed on these goods under the present law ren<lers it 
 im])ossible to coniitete in price with the foreign manufactured article. 
 
 Under the McKinley law the duty on carriage liardware was 45 per 
 cent. The labor item in carriage axles bears a larger proportion of the 
 cost than in so-called carriage liardware. and slutnid be protected by at 
 least as high a duty. 
 
 r>y referring to the Wilson Act, article 11~», you will see "that no 
 forgings of iron or steel, or forgings of iron or steel combined, by what- 
 ever ])rocess made, shall pay a less rate of <luly than 3") per cent ad 
 valorem," it l)eing the evident intention of the Wilson law to atford a 
 rate of duty on this class of goods of 35 per cent. Now, the class of 
 goods known as vehicle or carriage axles are linished forgings — pri- 
 marily forgings, but with the addition of a large anjount of labor 
 expended in linishing the same. Why this class of manufactures known 
 as vehicle axles should be admitted at lA cents j)er i)ound duty while 
 the rough forgings are taxed at 35 per cent, is unknown to your peti- 
 tioners, but it is so obviously an injustice that we pray the law maybe 
 amended so as to afford us an e(]ual amount of protection with other 
 tinislied manufactures of iron and steel. 
 
 The ju-esent duty on carriage axles of 1.^ cents i)er i)ound amounts, in 
 point of fact, to only about lo per cent on the value ot the goods. The 
 class of goods we manufacture should beatforded as much ])rotection as 
 cutlery and other highly linished ])roducts of iron or steel, and we pray 
 you that the law may be so amended as to give us at least 45 per cent 
 duty on vehicle axles in whatever state or stage of manufacture. 
 
 Wo would ask a discrimination between car or locomotive axles ot
 
 ANVILS. 363 
 
 forfjinf^s and theliiohly finislied carriage or vehicle axles made by your 
 petitioners. The present rate may aliord sufticieiit protection for the 
 maker of car axles, but is entirely inadequate for the protection of the 
 maker of the highly finished product known as carriage or vehicle axles. 
 Praying that this matter may receive due consideration at your 
 hands, we are, very respectfully, 
 
 Sheldon Axle Company, 
 Per Chas. II. Gill am, 
 
 Secretary and Treasurer. 
 Mt. Carmel Axle Works, 
 
 IS^ew Haven, Conn. 
 Dalzell Axle Co., 
 ToMLiNSON Spring Co., 
 
 Kewaric, N. J. 
 
 Wm. G. Park, of the Liggette Spring and Axle Company, of Pitts- 
 burg, Pa., forwaids a siniihir petition, but recommends a specitic duty 
 of 5 cents per pound. 
 
 (Paragrapb 128.) 
 
 P.i;()OKLYN, N. T., January 7, 1S97. 
 Co:NrMTTTEE ON WAYS AM) .MkANS: 
 
 We respectfully submit for your consideration the following facts, 
 data, etc , pertaining to the anvil industry, and i)ray your honorable 
 body to grant our rcijuest for an increase in the tarilf on these goods. 
 
 Anvils, the eml>h'Mi of the hardware trade, the tool from whicli all 
 others spring, and the necessity to the beginning of all enterprise con- 
 nected with the iron and allie<l industries, areonly manufactured in this 
 country in a limited way. 
 
 Prior to tlie Mclvink'v law there were ])ractically no anvils made in 
 this country, it being ini]tossil»l(' with our higli piiced labor, which isG5 
 per cent of the cost, to compete with the foreign manufacturers. 
 
 About the time the McKinley law went into ellect, which increased 
 the duty from 2 to 2^ cents per pound, this company entered into the 
 manufacture of anvils. With a duty at 2i cents per i)Ound, we found 
 that it was in)possible to meet the lowest prices of our foreign competi- 
 t<irs. Furthermore, several of the foreign brands having been in the 
 market ever since the country has been discovered, we had considerable 
 prejudice to overcome. However, with American skill and ingenuity 
 we soon improved on Old World methods, and were on the road to get 
 some of the ti ade that rightfully belonged to us wlien the Wilson law, 
 which reduced the duty from :l.\ to 1^ cents per jiound, was enacted. 
 As before stated, we have never been able to meet the lowest prices of 
 our foreign competitors, and as our i)rice was one-fourth of a cent per 
 pound helow the highest-i)riced anvil in the market, we were compelled 
 to reduce our price one-half of a cent per pound, or ^^lO per ton, to partly 
 meet reduction in tariff. This has proved to be a serious slap to us; 
 but, as we lived in hojies, we continued our business, made still further 
 improvements, and did our best to maintain the industry, with the hope 
 that some day conditions would change and that we could succeed.
 
 364 
 
 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 We luH-o r]k)w flares of Imjxirtations deduced from statlsttoe ftir- 
 nisUed us by the Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics: 
 
 Tears inclusive. 
 
 
 Cent*. 
 
 1884 to 1800 
 1892 to 18'J4 
 1896 
 
 n 
 
 Pounds. 
 1,588,317 
 1,463.229 
 1,004,452 
 
 Average 
 yearly 
 ralne. 
 
 «05,202.89 
 04, U06. 44 
 64, 213. 78 
 
 Average 
 yearly 
 uuties. 
 
 $31, 706. 35 
 36. 49C. 56 
 18, 627. 97 
 
 These fijrures show that the best results to the Government in the 
 way of revenue were derived from the highest rate of duty. These 
 figures also show that the average annual ('unsumption of anvils in this 
 country is 800 tons. It al.'^o sliows that during 1890 a.'iO tons were 
 imported, leaving 270 or about 33;^ i)er cent made in this country. 
 Tliese figures prove what we know to be facts. Why is this so, you 
 will ask. The reasons are: 
 
 (1) There are several brands imported that are sold for less money 
 than we can sell ours for. 
 
 (2) Peo])le will not buy American goods for the sake of patriotism. 
 They demand an inducement in the way of ])rice. They demand this 
 to overcome prejudice. Tiiis we have been unable to grant. 
 
 There is to day invested in the business -tTrtjioo. which has never 
 earned even ordinary interest. One hundred and twenty live men are 
 employed, and we have held on and improved facilities, all with the 
 hope that some day we would be granted sullicient protection to keep 
 the foreign anvil out ot the market. 
 
 In view of the above facts, wc feel justified in asking your committee 
 to place a duty of 2A cents per pound on anvils. This will keep the 
 foreign anvil out of the market. \V(^ will not raise our price, but hope 
 to gain by increased output. This increased output will give employ- 
 ment to 2r)() additional men and a<ld to the general prosperity of 375 
 men. No one will sutler exci'pt our foreign competitors, but by giving 
 employment to even such a small number of additional men it will add 
 to the general prosi)erity of our country. 
 
 IlAY-BuDDEN Manufacturing Company, 
 Walter F. IIing, Semfari/. 
 
 BOILEK OJl OTIIKK TUBES. 
 
 (Parajp'aph 130.) 
 
 New York, January 7, 1S97. 
 Com:mittee on Ways and ]\Ikan.s: 
 
 In the proposed revision of the tariff I beg leave to call your atten- 
 tion to the fact that the present duty on tlie articles enumerated in 
 paragraph 130, Schedule C, of the present tariff is juactically prohib- 
 itory, and they are so im])ortaiit to a \ery large and growing inten'st 
 in tins country, viz, to all those who use boilers tor any i)urpose what- 
 ever and steam as a motive power, that 1 beg to be allowed to give my 
 reasons why a very considerable reduction in duty should be made on 
 tliem. 
 
 The paragraph reads : 
 
 Boiler or other tubes, pipes, flues, or stays of wrought irou or steel, twenty-five 
 per centum ad valorem.
 
 BOILER OR OTHER TUBES. 365 
 
 Ko boiler of any description, whether for hmd or marine purposes, is 
 at present constructed without the use of one or the other of the arti- 
 cles named, or of all of them combined. And to show you how import- 
 ant these articles are in theconstruftion of boilers for marine purposes 
 alone, I will state specifically the number of tlues that are used in some 
 of the principal transatlantic steamers as well as in several of the 
 United States cruisers. 
 
 The Majestic and Teutonic of the "White Star Line are each fitted with 
 72 flues, 37 inches in diameter by nine-sixteenth of an inch thick and 7 
 feet lonj^. Each of these fines wciglis about 1,875 pounds, which, 
 multii>lied by 72, amounts to 135,000 pounds in each of these ships, or 
 270,000 pounds for both of them. 
 
 The Paris and Keic Yurk of the American Line, running" between 'New 
 York and Southampton, are each fitted with 5i flues 4(5 inches in diame- 
 ter by nine-sixteenths of an inch thick and 7 feet hmg. Each of these 
 flues weighs about 2,025 ])ounds, which multi])lied by 54, amounts to 
 109,350 pounds for each ship, or 218,700 pounds for both vessels. 
 
 The St. Louis and ISt. I'aul of the American Line, running between 
 New York and Southauii)tou, are each fitted witli <I4 flues 30 inches in 
 diameter by nineteen thirty-seconds of an inch thick and 7 feet 4 inches 
 long. Eacli of these flues weiglis 2,240 i>ounds. which multiplied by 
 64, amounts to 143,300 pounds for each ship, or 280,720 pounds for both 
 vessels. 
 
 Two of the United States cruisers built by Messrs. William Cramp 
 
 6 Sons, Philadeli)hia, are each fitted with 08 flues of the following- 
 dimensions, viz, 48 flues 42 inches in diameter by nine-sixteenths of an 
 inch thick and 7 feet 10 inches long, each weighing- about 2,210 pounds, 
 or 100,080 pounds for the 48. Each of these vessels also has IG flues 
 41 inches in diameter by seventeen thirty-seconds of an inch thick and 
 
 7 feet long, each weighing 1,S20 pounds, and 4 flues 35 inches in diame- 
 ter by lifteen thirty-seconds of an inch thick and 5 feet 10 inches long, 
 each weighing 1,100 pounds, making the total weight of the flues lor 
 both of these vessels 270,080 i)Ounds. 
 
 I might go on and enumerate other steamers, both foreign and 
 domestic, in which these flues are used to the same or even to a greater 
 extent than in those named, but I think those given will be sullicient 
 to convince you of the great importance of restricting as little as pos- 
 sible by unnecessary legislation the competition for the supply of these 
 important articles, if we hope ever to regain our lost position as ocean 
 freight carriers and to build u}) our merchant marine. 
 
 Since the enactment of the present tariff, August 18, 1894, the whole 
 number of flues that I have been able to import to date is 42, not 
 enough, as you will observe, to equip any one of the steamers whose 
 names I have given you, and the total weight of which amounts to 
 134,245 pounds. 
 
 There is but one manufacturer of these flues, which are patented arti- 
 cles, in the United States, whose establishment is in Brooklyn, X. Y., and 
 before I came into the market as an importer and competitor the ])rice 
 charged for this article by the above manufacturer was from 20 to 25 
 cents per pound. And to show you what a little healthy competition 
 has done, this same manufacturer t4Jok a large order from the Cramps 
 for the St. Louis and St. Paul of the American Line when he had me 
 for a competitor at about Hi cents per ])ound, and the price now ranges 
 from 12 to 12i cents per pound in small quantities. To protect a single 
 manufacturer of a patented article who is enormously wealthy every 
 individual iu this country from Maine to Texas and from the Atlantic
 
 3G6 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 to the Pacific oceans, including tlie Great Lakes, wbo is interested in 
 steamers, if be wants to use the best device obtainable for the purpose, 
 has to pay an enormous tribute that this one mauufacturer may heap 
 up unnecessary wealth at the expense of the whole nation. 
 
 By law the importer is debarred from supplyiug- anything retjuired 
 in the construction of United States naval vessels that can be obtained 
 in this couutry, so that the AmcricaTi manufacturer has no competition 
 whatever so far as the requirements of our Govennnent is (•(uicerned, 
 and I have never been able to sell a single Hue, or anything else, lor 
 that matter, even for repairs, on a Govern inent vessel. 
 
 We can not all be manufacturers, aud yet we must all live, and I 
 resix'ctfully submit that before men who are imi»orters are deprived of 
 their living, aud who are beneliting their country far more by the com- 
 petition which their ijni)ortations create than the manufacturer who 
 seeks to intreuch himself for his own advantage behind a high i)rotec- 
 tive duty, should receive some consideration, and 1 trust and believe 
 they will receive it at the hands of your honorable committee. 
 
 C. W. WUITNEY. 
 
 SEA]VrLESS TUBES. 
 
 (Parii},'iai)li 130.) 
 STATEMENT OF MR. H. W. HAETMAN, OF ELWOOD CITY, PA. 
 
 ISaTURDAY, January 9, 1S97. 
 
 Mr. llARTMAN said: Mr. Chairman ami gentlemen of the comnuttee, 
 I have l)ut little to say, except in a geneial way, with regard to the 
 seamless-tube industry, and that shall be in a very few words. I am not 
 here to ])lead for any increase of duties, oi- at least not for any material 
 ones, for ours is what the world calls an infant industry, and we have 
 nothing to say derogatory of the Wilson bill, because this industry has 
 sprung up within the last few years, and it was not provided for by the 
 previous revenue bill, but, on the contrary, by reason of a peculiar con- 
 struction of the act by the Treasury Department we were unable to 
 make this class of goods until the Wilson (Jorman bill was passed, when 
 that apparent error, and a very ilagrant one it was. was corrected. For 
 the past three years this indtistry has grown, ein])loying a handful of 
 men at tirst, unfll now several thousands are engaged, and from 
 $;3,()(H>,()(M) to s(i.(M)(),()OU of capital, and we have virtually excluded 
 foreign tubes Irom tiiis country. 
 
 We simply ask the gentlenu'n on this committee to give some care 
 and consicleration to the suggestions which we may make in regard to 
 the errors under the ad valorem rates of duly. 1 will eiteoiu> particular 
 cause. Last year during the phenomenal growth of the bicycle busi- 
 ness — and this is an article from which all bicy<'les are made, that is, 
 the frames, it is the great nmterial article entering into the construc- 
 tion of the bicycle — last year, 1 say. the phenomenal growth of the 
 business was such that considerable tubing came from abroad. A 
 great increase in the value had taken place between the time the tariti' 
 act was made and the time these tubes were delivered later in the year, 
 many contracts having been made ])reviously, but no change whatever 
 was made in the a<l valorem rate. So the Treasury Depart nniit suffers 
 to the extent of many thousands of dollars, aiul incidentally the Amer- 
 ican nianulacturer suflered to a considerable extent. They were injured
 
 CYLINDRICAL FURNACES. 367 
 
 because these goods came in at a lower rate. But we did such a huge 
 business that to take care of it caused us to overlook in a great measure 
 the complaints that would come in regard to undervaluation. 
 
 As to what rates we may suggest, 1 would ^ay they will not be mate- 
 rially higher in any instance, and we will be obliged to this committee 
 to give serious tliought to it, because it has beei\ a great fraud on the 
 Treasury Department tlius far. 
 
 We occu])y anotlier peculiar position, and that is the tact we use 
 exclusively foreign steel — a Swedish i)rodnct — so, you might say, we are 
 ou both sides of this buzz saw. We are not here to ask for a reduction 
 CD the Swedish steel, for the reason we might be unjustly injuring our 
 neighbors, who perhaps are entitled to a lair degree of protection on 
 that steel, which is used for other purposes than the purpose for which 
 we use it; but we feel that it is a great hardship, by reason of tlie fact 
 we are compelled to use Swedisii steel exclusively. That is a specitic 
 duty. We know what to expect and have no cause for complaint, but 
 the ad valorem duty that was given us under the Wilson bill has been 
 grossly abused, and we would like to have it corrected. 
 
 CYLrSDllICAL rXJI^XACES. 
 
 (Paragraph 130.) 
 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., January i, 1807. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Plate-metal, seam-welded, cylindrical furnaces, for use in high-pres- 
 sure steam boilers, are of com{)aratively recent invention, as less than 
 a score of years have elapsed since the tirst introduction of the corru- 
 gated type of said furnaces, and only within the past decade has the 
 other tyi^e, known as "the ribbed," seam-welded, cylindrical furnace, 
 been i>ut upon the market in this or any other countr5\ Both types 
 are of foreign design and manufacture. Since 1887 the corrugated 
 type has also been manufactured in the United States. Neither type 
 of furnace, nor any equixalent thereof, has been specially classified in 
 •the present or any pri'vious tarifT lists. All im])ortations have been 
 entered in accordance with Schedule C, rating with the clause, "Boiler 
 or other tubes. Hues, or stays, of wrought iron or steel, etc." None of 
 said articles at all lesemble or bear any i)roper relation to plate-metal, 
 weldedseam, cylindrical furnaces. These latter articles are i)roduced 
 by entirely dillerent methods from any which are necessary for the 
 production of the former. A much higher class of labor is also neces- 
 sary, costing from three to four times as much as the plate metal from 
 which the furnaces are made. Whereas the articles mentioned above, 
 with which cylindrical furnaces have been classified, are ])roduced by 
 inferior labor, and at a cost not exceeding one and one-half times that 
 of the raw material from which thej' are made. 
 
 Plate-metal, seam welded, cylindrical furnaces have now become of 
 almost universal use in the boilers of steam vessels of all nations. It 
 is an established fact that boilers thus supplied admit of very high 
 steam i)ressure, and have much larger factors of safety than obtains 
 in steam boiler furnaces of older methods of construction. 
 
 The prime imi>urtauce of these furnaces in the boilers of naval and 
 merchant vessels is instanced by the great fuel economy attending
 
 3G8 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 their use. No steam vessels unsupplied with boilers contaiiiiug plate- 
 luetal, seam-welded, cylindrical furnaces have ever crossed the ocean at 
 a speed exceeding 16^ knots per hour, whereas steamers with boilers 
 which do contain these furnaces are constantly navigating the ocean at 
 au average speed between port and port of at least 20 knots per hour. 
 These furnaces are of equal importance in boilers to be used upon the 
 land, and the growing demand for them is abundant reason why the 
 manufacture of them should be prosecuted and fostered iu the Uiiited 
 States. 
 
 The industry iu this country is as yet in its infancy. The Continen- 
 tal Iron Works has installed improved machinery and invested its 
 capital in the manufacture of these furnaces, and its otlicers respect- 
 fully jx'tition for protection to the extent of having i»late-metal, seam- 
 welded, cylindrical furnaces distinctly classitlod and made subjects of 
 specilic duty of at least 2^ ceuts per pound of their weight. 
 
 The Continental Iron Works, 
 Tlios. F. K<)WLAND, I'nsidcnt. 
 Warben E. Uill, Vice-Pnuident. 
 
 BOLTS, ISTTTS, WASHEKS, A^^) RIVETS. 
 
 (Paragraphs 131, 148, and 153.) 
 
 PiiiLADELrHiA, Dccertibcr 22, 1896. 
 
 Dear Sir: In looking over the ju-csent tariff duties I find in para- 
 graph l.n. Schedule C, that bolts, with or without threads or nuts, and 
 bolt blanks are rated at I.} cents per ])0und; in paragraj^h Us, Sched- 
 ule C, nuts and washers are rated at _") i>er cent ad valorem; in para- 
 giaph l.V), Schedule C, rivets of iron or steel are rated at -5 i>er cent 
 ad valorem. 
 
 Bolts, nuts, washers, and rivets are kindied articles and should have 
 a uniform rate of duty. In my judgment, if tlies«' products were sub- 
 ject to a unilnrm duty of 1 cent per pound it would be protective and 
 entirely satislact<,)ry to the makert*. 
 
 James M. lluiiis. 
 
 CARD CLOTHING. 
 
 (Paragraph 132.) 
 
 Providence, K. \., January 7, 1S07. 
 
 The demand for card clothing is very limited in amount. It is an 
 article that is never on the general marlcet. and can not l>e sold in that 
 manner, but is manufactured on si)ecial orders to correspond with the 
 kinds of goods to be produced iu the cotton, woolen, and worsted mills 
 of the eountiy. 
 
 This industry probably requires more cai)ital in proportion to the 
 amount of goods ])roduced than almost any other iudustry known to 
 the manufacturing trade. 
 
 The capital invested is estimated at about $1,500,U<>0, and the amount 
 of goods produced iu the most prosperous years is valued at only about 
 !=«i,;i()n,()uo. 
 
 The card-clothiug iudustry reciuires the most skilled and intelligent
 
 POCKKT KNIVES. 3G9 
 
 mecliaiiics, wliose wages are at least 100 per cent higher than are paid 
 ill foreign countries. 
 
 For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1893, the importations of card 
 clotliing were oiie-tifth of the total sales. In 1896 tlie imi)ortations 
 were one-third of the total sales, showing increase in importations from 
 one-tifth in I89.'i to one third in IS'.Xi. 
 
 The present duties on card clothing encourage excessive importa- 
 tions, whicli prevents the machinery in the United States from being 
 employed to a reasonable extent. 
 
 The card-clothing manufacturers of this country have recognized the 
 great improvements made during the i)ast few years in all kinds of 
 machinery, and have adopted the most improved machinery and methods 
 at great exi)ense. 
 
 The amount of protection needed for this industry must of necessity 
 be largely determined by the duties to be placed on the raw materials 
 used in its manufacture. 
 
 In view of all the circnmstances we ask for a duty of 45 cents per 
 S(|uare foot on card clotliing manufactured from steel wire, and on all 
 other 20 cents per square foot. 
 
 Geo. a. Fuller, 
 Eepresentinfj American Card Clothing Manufacturers. 
 
 POCKET K^rn ES. 
 
 (Para«,'raph 138.) 
 New York, N. Y., Jamiary 9, 1S07. 
 
 CO^HTTTTEE ON WaVS AND Ml^ANS: 
 
 1 desire to call the attention of y(tur committee to the disadvantage 
 to honest importers of levying coniiilex duties on such goods as cutlery. 
 I fought this system very hard in 1S90, and predicted at that time that an 
 honest importer could not successfully prosecute his business under such 
 a system. The subsequent facts have certainly more than borne out my 
 contention, and I am (luite satisfied that today the great bulk of this 
 trade is in the hands of nnconscieritious men. I inclose herewith a 
 statement (Fxhibit A) whicli shows how very ejvsy it is for dishonest 
 imi)ortors to swindle the Government, and at the same time to obtain 
 a monopoly of the importations. I also inclose a pro forma calculation 
 (Fxhibit Ij) wliich brings out the result which it is not only possible but 
 very easy to obtain by anyone who is not careful about violating his 
 oath. These statements and calculations can be varied ad infinitum, 
 biit in order not to weary your committee with many details I have 
 considered one example, carried out to a final result, sufficient to bring 
 out the clear fact that the complex duties under both the McKinley and 
 Wilson bills are distinctly vicious. 
 
 1 should be very glad if it were possible, and at the same time equitable, 
 to levy sjiecific dnties only on cutlery, but this will be found an absolute 
 impossibility; it can only be done on an ad valorem basis, which brings 
 about the present condition. One-blade knives, for instance, vary in 
 price from 1 shilling sterling to 10 shillings sterling per dozen. If you 
 make the specific Tluty 81 per dozen, you get an ad valorem equivalent 
 of 400 per cent on the cheapest and lio per cent on the highest price, 
 and when you come to two, three, and four blade knives the diflerence 
 TH 24
 
 370 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 will be much greater, and all the time the medium grade knives nsed 
 by the masses must pay the greater duty, and whether the rate is more 
 or less the ine(iuality will continue. Under the older tarifls, and for 
 many years prior to the ]\lcKinley bill, every merchant had a chance 
 under the law to obtain his share of the trade, but with the Govern- 
 ment, through the present system of complex duties, working directly 
 in favor of dishonesty, the honest man's clianceis gone. 
 
 The importation of all cutlery has been steadily on the wane for over 
 twenty years. Under a 50 per cent ad valorem tariff" on ])ocketknives 
 the average importations from 1881 to 1S8!), inclusive, were $l,l(i(),32L', 
 and during this term of nine years everj^ year but one was less than for 
 the first year (1881). In LsllO Mr. Thoinas W. Bradley, president of 
 tlie New York Knife Com]):iny, stated to the Committee on Ways and 
 Means that in 18S3 the combined cutlery manufacturers in the I'nited 
 States produced 8l,3r)(),00(> worth of pocketknives, and that 8l.«MM>,()(H) 
 was imported, ami he was about correct so far as to the imports. There- 
 fore, if he was correct as to the amount produced in the I'nited States, 
 we have a total of )*«w,.sr)0,(M){), to which ."»(> per cent added for duties on 
 the ini])orts gives $L',8r)(),()(H) as the total consumption of jmcketknives 
 in the United States in 1883. In the i)rotest of the Wholesale Hard- 
 ware Association, dated .lune 3. 18'.)(>, it was demonstrated beyond any 
 possibility of intelligent contradiction that the consumption of pocket- 
 knives ill the I'nited States was over 8l,(t(H>,(KK) more than the above 
 figures, and as the value of the inijiortations was readily ascertainable 
 it followe«l that the value of the United States ]u*o<lu('tion was over 
 $1,0()1>,(H)0 more than claimed by the paities inteiested, and the real 
 consunii>tioii was in rouml ligures 83,.sr»(>.(K)0. of whi(di 8-,35(),()00 was 
 nuuU' in this country and si,r){!(>.(»(m importe<l, duty jiaid, so that in 
 1S.S3 the trade was divided as follows: Sixty i)er cent American make 
 and 10 per cent impoited. If we come down to the fiscal year ISUo and 
 de(bictthe estimated value of erasers winch are incduded in the jmcket- 
 cutkMy total, it is found that the importation for the year 1805 is just 
 about 11'^ per cent less than the im])ortations for 1881, I"'© one can 
 tell with accuracy the natural increase in consum])tion during these 
 fifteen years, but taking the best judgment of the trade, 2A per cent 
 per annum is adndtfed to be a very low estimate; so that if imjiorfationa 
 had simi)ly held tluMr own the importations for IS!).") would iia\e been 
 31^ per cent nn)re than in 1.S81, instead of 11;^ ])er cent less, as is the 
 case. It will tlierefore be clear that under a 50 per cent ad valorem 
 duty this trade, lu) matter wliat niisuj)]>orted statements are nmde to 
 the contrary, has been steadily losing ground tor many years. 
 
 In table cutlery, but( her knives, etc., it can be readily demonstrated 
 that the ratio of decrease in imported lines is much larger tlian in 
 pocketknives. 
 
 It is therefore urged, in the interest of the (lovernment and of honest 
 merchants, that a moderate ad valorem tariflon cutlery of all sorts be 
 adopted. 
 
 A. H. Saxton. 
 
 '
 
 POCKET KNIVES. 
 
 o i 1 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 POCKETKNIVES. 
 
 Calculation showing the facility loith ichich dishonest importers could swindle the Govern- 
 ment on and mouopoUze the importations of pocket cutlenj under the complex duties of 
 the AfcKinley tariff law. 
 
 Foreign cost. 
 
 Custom- 
 house 
 value. 
 
 Duty at 
 
 50 per 
 
 ceut ad 
 
 valoreiu. 
 
 Specific 
 duty. 
 
 Foreign 
 cost not 
 invoiced. 
 
 Total 
 cost. 
 
 Ad valorem 
 
 e(iuivalcut 
 
 (about). 
 
 Cost 2(1.38 
 
 $0.55 
 
 no OTl 
 
 $0. 50 
 
 .12 
 
 1.00 
 
 .50 
 
 2.00 
 
 1.00 
 
 
 il!1 '!'>1. 
 
 Per cent. 
 lin 
 
 Cost 2d. 38., but invoicetl at 28 
 
 .49 .24 J 
 1 52 7fi 
 
 $0. 06 1 ' 91 A fi.i 
 
 Cost 68. 3(1 
 
 
 3.28 
 2.75 
 6. 50 
 5.50 
 
 IIG 
 
 Cost 68. 3(1., but invoiced at 68 
 
 1.46 
 3.04 
 2.92 
 
 .73 
 1.52 
 1.46 
 
 .06 
 
 81 
 
 Cost 128. 6d 
 
 110 
 
 Cost 128. 6d., but invoiced at 12a 
 
 .12 
 
 81 
 
 Calculation showing as above under the Wilson tarift' law. 
 
 Foreign cost. 
 
 Cost Is. 4d 
 
 Cost l8. 4d., but invoiced at Is. 2d 
 
 Cost 4.x. :!d 
 
 Cost Is. 3d., but invoiced at 48 . . . 
 
 Cost 6s. 3d 
 
 Cost 6s. 3d., but invoiced at 6h ... 
 
 Custom- 
 house 
 value. 
 
 $0.32 
 
 .28 
 
 1.03 
 
 .97 
 
 1.52 
 
 1.46 
 
 Duty at 
 
 25 per 
 
 cent ad 
 
 valorem. 
 
 Specific 
 (luty. 
 
 $0.08 
 .07 
 .26 
 .24 
 .38 
 .36 
 
 $0.12 
 
 .40 
 .25 
 .75 
 .40 
 
 Foreign 
 cost not 
 invoiced. 
 
 $0.04 
 
 .06 
 
 "."oo 
 
 Total 
 cost 
 
 $0.52 
 
 .39 
 
 1.69 
 
 1.52 
 
 2.65 
 
 Ad valorem 
 
 equivalent 
 
 (about). 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 70 
 22 
 64 
 
 48 
 75 
 50 
 
 EXHIBIT B. 
 
 Proforma calculatious showing result of iniportationa of pocket cutlery under dis- 
 honest methods. 
 
 m'kinley tariff. 
 
 1,(KX) dozen knives costing 28. 3d. and invoiced at 2s. 3d. equal .$1.32A per dozen. $1, 325 
 1,000 dozen knives costing 68. 3d. aud invoiced at 6.s. 'M. eciual !f;3.28 per dozen. 3, 280 
 1,000 dozen knives costing 128. lid. and invoiced at 128. (id. e(iual.$6.i56per dozen. 6, .WO 
 
 11, 165 
 1,000 dozen knives costing 28. 3d., bat invoiced at 2s. equal 91i cents per 
 
 dozen $915 
 
 1,000 dozen kniA'es costing 6s. 3d., but invoiced at 68. equal $2.75 per 
 
 dozen 2, 750 
 
 1,000 dozen knives costing 12s. 6d., but invoiced at 128. equal $5.50 per 
 
 dozen 5, .500 
 
 9,215 
 
 Gain by undervaluation 1,950 
 
 It will be seen that by an undervaluation of less than 5 per cent the diflFerence of 
 cost in favor of dishonesty is over 21 per cent, which result could not be accom- 
 plished under a purely ad valorem sytdem representing the same rates of duty with- 
 out an undervaluation of about 40 per cent. It will be apparent that while tiie 
 average ad valorem eijuivalent on the honest imjiortation is about 120 i)er cent, the 
 average of the dishonest importation i.s only alwut 80 per cent. 
 
 WILSOX TAIUFF. 
 
 1,000 dozen knives costing Is. 4d. and invoiced at Is. 4d. equal 52 cents per 
 dozen 
 
 l,0O0dozen knives costing48. 3d. and invoiced at 48. 3d. equal $1.69 per dozen. 
 1,000 dozen knives costing 6s. 3d. and invoiced at 6s. 3d. equal $2.65 per dozen. 
 
 $.520 
 1,906 
 2, 650 
 
 4,860
 
 372 
 
 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 1,000 dozen knives costing Is. Itl., l>nt invoiced at Is. 2d. oqnai 3'J cents 
 ])er dozen $3IK) , 
 
 1,0(10 dozen knives costing 4s. 3d., bnt invoiced at 48. eiinal ^1.52 i>er 
 doi^en 1. ni'O 
 
 1,000 dozen knives costing 6s. 3d., bnt invoiced at Os. e<inal $2.28 per 
 dozen 2. 2S() 
 
 n, 190 
 
 (iaiii liy nudiTvaluation 070 
 
 It will be seen that by an nndervalnation of about 5V jier cent the diUVrenci! of 
 cost in favor of dishonesty is 16 jxr cent, which result <ould not bo accomplished 
 under a purely ad valorem system ropresentin;j the same rates of duty without an 
 nndervalnation of about 31i ]ier cent. It will be aii]>arenl. that while the average 
 ad valoicm eijuivalent on the honest importation is about 70 percent, the averaj,'e of 
 the dishonest importation is only about -16 per cent. 
 
 Imintrtiitionn of piicketkvives. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 1881 
 
 1882 
 1883 
 18S4 
 18S5 
 188U 
 1887 
 1888 
 188'J 
 18<J0 
 1891 
 
 1802 
 18<I3 
 1S94 
 1895 
 189U 
 
 Amount. 
 
 11,310,291 
 l,2:i6, 198 
 l,245,8r,:{ 
 1,12.% 9851 
 
 801,743( 
 1, U24, 412f 
 1,169,881) 
 1, 243, U12) 
 1.359,542} 
 1,406,716) 
 
 745, 801 
 
 654. 479 
 
 KGl. 140 
 
 41)>. ties 
 
 1, 156, ;I80 
 
 1,302, !<74 
 
 Keniiirks. 
 
 Tlic (iovornnipnt HtatiHtirx inrliiiU'rnzont — hjivfiU-ihirted 
 $250,0(K) each year Cur e«UuiiiU-il viiliie ul razorH. 
 
 The ( ioviTiinii'ii t slntiKtirH incliule ra/.tirs — have tlcdiirted 
 #300, 000 vacli year fur estiiuatcsl value of ra/.<ini. 
 
 Have dtNliicteil $120,000 for e8tiiiiat«Kl value nf ray.om 
 prior to Melviuley tarill anil $60,000 eHtiniated value uf 
 erasert uutler MeKiuley tarill'. 
 Have ileilueted .$50,000, e.Htiiuated value of eraners. 
 
 Ho. 
 Have de«hicted ^'J.'i.OOO. e.stimated value of cra.s«T». 
 Have deducted .$100,000, ostiuuitcd value of erasiTx. 
 Do. 
 
 Xfav YiniK.JtnuKirif S, 1S'J7. 
 Committee on Ways and ]Me.\ns: 
 
 As importcr.s of jxickcd^iiivt's, ra/.i»rs. .sc-i.^^.^^ors. etc., ami as reidosmt- 
 ativc'SoT Aineiifan Hiaiiurait\nrrs<>r tlic same j;(»<)(ls, we are iiitcrrsted 
 ill the rates of duty wliicli may be einhodied in tlio new tarill" bill now 
 beiiiy: prepared. We do not know wiiat cliaii;;es may bo siigofested to 
 you or what views may be held by your eoininitteeiii ie;,Mrd to the rates 
 on cutlery. If such compound dutiesotspecitic and ad valorem rates as 
 wc have been told would be submitted to you are analyzed, you would 
 liud tlicm 1o iMjual in many instances ."»(K>or KK) per t'ent ad valorem, and 
 wedoubt very much it' such rates would be adopted by you knowiii<;ly. 
 
 WiKinscii vS: TIiLiJEK, LniiTEi), 
 
 CUAllLES F. WiEUUSCII, rnsidi iit. 
 
 SllJ^AKS .VX]) SCISSOKS. 
 
 (Paragrai)b 140.) 
 
 Newaek, N. J., January !>, 18'J7. 
 Dear Sir: We will attem])t to briefly state our position in regard 
 to the tarilf on shears and scissors, in which we are particularly inter- 
 ested. On account of the style and manner in which American shears 
 are made the present taritf t)f 45 per cent has l)een satisfactory on the 
 larger shears until recently, but of late Ibreigu goods similarly made
 
 PRUNING AND BUDDING KNIVES, ETC. 373 
 
 arc l)(4iij>" introduced. On small-size scissors this tariff lias never been 
 adequate, and in consequence there are practically none made in this 
 country. We think it can be safely stated that at the present time 1*0 
 per cent of all scissors sold under G inches in length are imported. 
 There are also large (pian titles imported that range up to inches in 
 length, but the proportion of these is not near so great. 
 
 A protective duty of say GO per cent, or if more practical a specific 
 duty i)roportioiiatcly greater on the small than on the large sizes, 
 would give American manufacturers an incentive to enter into the 
 niannfaf'turing of this class of scissors. The disadvantages under 
 which we labor arc due both to difference in wages and to the foreigners' 
 long experience. After nmking scissors for a i)erio(l of time under 
 favorable conditions honic competition wonkl undoubtedly bring down 
 prices to as low a figure as the present price of the imported goods. 
 
 During the last ten years our scissors trade has practically been 
 reduced to almost nothing, and we were obliged to import some scissors 
 to compete with other manufacturers -who are doing the same thing. 
 
 J. Wiss ^K: SoN«. 
 
 Xeavaiik, X. J., January 11, ls97. 
 
 Dear Sir : Our experience under the ])resent tariff has convinced ns 
 of several facts which have decidedly inlluenced our business and which 
 we know to be true. 
 
 Tiider the present conditions, scissors are imported into this country 
 from (iermany and other count rics at a price below that which Ave arc 
 able to sell them and i)ay <»ur help the luesent wages — three-fourths of 
 the cost of i)roducing our i)rodnct being the labor ujton them. We find 
 the goods imported are moi-e ]>articularly in tlic smaller sizes of scissors 
 and barbers' scissors. The imported barbers' scissors are now being 
 sold to a, large extent in this country, and to compete with these goods 
 means a large, reduction in our workmen's wages. 
 
 Our wishes are for a specillc rateof tarilf on shears and scissors, and 
 GO cents seems to us about right to enable us to compete with foreign 
 ma<le goods. 
 
 \l. Heinisch's Sons Co. 
 
 (rara<,nai)h 110.) 
 
 New York, X. Y., Jannary 9^1^97. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 ' r would respectfully re(piest that in paragraph 140 the word "artists" 
 be omitted, and in the same place be inserted "pruning and budding," 
 for this reason: The articles enumerated in i>aragrai)h 140 arc knives 
 used in trade and household uses, and the above pruning and budding 
 knives are the necessary tools of an imi)ortant but poor class of citi- 
 zens. Undi'r present rulings they are placed with penknives and 
 pocketknives, but are neither, pen and pocket knives being the knives in 
 general use and not a tool of trade. 
 
 Also in paragraph 140 it is requested that the words "scissors and 
 shears ' be changed from 45 per cent rate to .'Jo per cent, or that in the 
 35 per cent rate should be inserted "sheep and gardener's sliciijrs,'' for 
 the reason that both are tools of trade, and not made in this country
 
 374 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 successfully, as the demand here is for a short season, whereas the 
 doniaiid abroad covers the Southern Hemisphere Avhere they are mostly 
 used. Tlie -vvoolgroAver has been compelled to pay, to satisfy makers of 
 wouien's scissors and tailors' shears, of which 1 now and have for years 
 exjiorted a considerable quautity. 
 
 llEZEKiAir King. 
 
 KAZOKS. 
 
 (Paragrajth 140.) 
 
 Committee on Ways and ]\Ii:ans: 
 
 AVe address your honorable <(>nimit tee, respectfully askiufj that the 
 existing;' larilV law, so far as it relates to razors, be so changed as to read 
 as follows: 
 
 Razors and razor liladcs, finisheil or iiiifinislied, vahied at lose thau llireo dollars 
 ]if>r doze.i, Olio dollar ]ier dozen ; valned at tlirt'o dollars or more piT dozen, two d<d- 
 iars ]nr wozen ; and in additinn thereto on all ibo a1>ove razors and razor Idades, 
 thirty ]ier centnm ad valorem. 
 
 We ask for this ]»rotection because of the jrreat difl'erencc in wap^es 
 paid to razor makers in this iind foreign countri^'s — :in aNcrajre diller- 
 ence of more than 3 to 1. 
 
 We ask lor the <;reat«'st duty on the lowest jjradc (»f razors, because 
 a lowprade of work always culls for a low priced workman, and against 
 the coinin'titioii (»|' This low ])riced foreign workman we recpiire the most 
 ju^otection. 
 
 Much has been said l)y imiH)rters abont foreign razors costing $1 ])er 
 dozen in England, and even less. They claim that all such razors will 
 } e prohibited. We nniintain that it is for the best int«'re.st of this 
 country that they shonld be i)rohibited. Tliey are tra.shy imitations of 
 razors, absoluiely worthless for use, and never bear tlie name of a 
 resi)onsible maker. 
 
 We can sin »w from foreign manufacturers' ]»rice lists, and from our 
 own sixteen ytars' experience in competition in this nuirket with foreign 
 razors, that the l<»west ])riced razor sent to this conntry by a responsi- 
 l)Ie maker, sncli as lUitcher, West«'nholm, or l{odgers, costs in JCngland 
 G shillings, or si..")!), ])er dozen. This is the lowest i)riced razor that we 
 recognize as snitable for shaving. All below that price are worthless 
 imitations, unlit for use. 
 
 Under our proposed change in the tariff the above English razors, 
 fall duty i);iid (no undervaluation), will cost the importer in New York 
 (who often ])roves to be the immufacturer himself) about l2.") cents each; 
 and to-day the same class of razor is generally being sold to the con- 
 snmer at .lO cents each, thus showing a margin of lOOjJercent to be 
 divided between tiie im])ortei- and dealer, which seems an ami)h> piolit. 
 
 In 1S8(), when we connnenced business, a fnllconcaved razor, ground 
 on a 2-inch stone, was selling to the retail de;!lers at {?1S ])er dozen, and 
 even more. Today, notwithstanding the inc-rease in tariff duty, that 
 sanu^ (juality of razor is selling to the same trade at $12 ])er dozen, 
 and even less. 
 
 This reduction in price we claim is a direct result of home <'om])eti- 
 tion, brought into existence by a lu'otective tariff"; and we submit that 
 with the ju'eseut facilities for production in this country, and the strong 
 competition which necessarily follows, the rate of duty we ask foe can 
 not increase the i)rice of even cheap razors to the consumer, but it 
 will guarantee to the man of small means a good razor for oO cents.
 
 RAZORS. 375 
 
 Regarding tlie second clause of our request, viz, razors at $3 or more 
 per dozen, 81i specific and 30 per cent ad valorem, we have to say: Our 
 competition on tliis class of goods (full concave) is from Germany, 
 where the workmen labor eleven hours i)er day, and at less tlian one- 
 third what we i)ay for same grade of work. A competent razor gi iuder 
 in Germany gets from $.") to ^ii) per week, and, as in England, the 
 workmen, as a rule, are obliged to furnish their own power, grind- 
 stones, and all other tools, which virtually reduces his wages from 15 
 to ."JO ])er cent more. In this country men labor but ten hours, and all 
 necessary tools and power are i)rovided by the manufacturer. 
 
 In closing we desire to say the .J. E. Torrey liazor Company, of 
 Worcester, jMass., incorporated in 18S0, are the oldest existing razor 
 manufacturers in the United Status, We have invested in our jdant 
 nnne than $100,000, uiid emi)loy when running full time about 100 work- 
 men. There are in tliis country four other manufacturers whose com- 
 bined product about e<iuals ours. We estinuite from best obtainable 
 statistics tliat fully 33 per cent of the razors consumed in this country 
 to-day are of home manidacture. And as fully 85 per cent of the value 
 of a razor consists in the wages paid to labor, it is obvious that a protec- 
 tive tarittto the extent of the ditlerence i)ai(l in wages in this and foreign 
 countries is absolutely essential to the industry. With such a tariff 
 we know that this country will soon supply the American market with 
 razors without any increase whatever in i»rice to the consumer. We 
 are not seeking UKJie i)rotit on raz(»rs, but more razors to maiuifacture. 
 
 For sixteen years we have struggled against the greatest obstacle 
 of competition from low priced foreign goods, and thus I'ar have been 
 unal)le to sell our razors at a living ])rolit to the largest dealers; but 
 have at great e.\i)ense sent out our representatives to the small trade, 
 to which we have soM in small lots, and gained a reputation for good 
 work and established the fact beyond question that as good razors can 
 be made in this country as anywhere in the world. 
 
 We feel conlident that when you consider this matter you Avill 
 readily see the Justice of the case and grant our request and thereby 
 enable the i>eople of this country to supjdy themselves with razors of 
 their own ])ro(luction; and we contidently pledge our re[)utatiou that 
 no man living in tliis country to-day will see an advance in the price of 
 razors to the consiuuer. 
 
 .1. Iv. Torrey Kazor Company, 
 .1. K. Torrey, Treasurer. 
 
 Committee on Ways and ]\Ieans: 
 
 The Electric Cutlery Company, of Newark, X. J., respectfully suggest 
 that the duties on razors and razor blades be made $1.50 per dozen 
 specific and 30 percent ad valorem. The annexed schedule (Exhibit 
 A) shows that since the McKinley tariff (which was also both specific 
 and ad valorem) was changed to i)ure ad valorem the number of dozens 
 imi)orted has increased over a third, the value one-sixth, while the duties 
 colle(;tedhaA e decreased over one-quarter. Homemanufacturehas been 
 almost ruined. 
 
 The Electric Cutlery Co. 
 
 Exhibit A. — Razors and razor blades. 
 
 McEinlcij hill. — I'p to 11 per dozen, $1 per dozen specific and 30 per cent ad valorem ; 
 $4 ])er dozen and upward, $1.75 per dozen specific and 30 per cent ad valorem, 
 Wilson bill. — Forty-five per cent ad valorem.
 
 37<) SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Proposed (titty. — Oue dolhir iiml lifty teiitM jtcr dozen specilif ami SD per tent ad 
 viiloieiii. 
 
 Year. 
 
 1892 
 18i):i 
 189C 
 
 Dozen. 
 
 ^''"®- [collected. 
 
 83, 992 $253, 019 $167,823 
 
 8!t, 242 I 268, HO 177,451 
 
 114. 275 ! 293, 735 132, 180 
 
 Tiiiportatioiis incn^ascd in IH^Ct over 1S92 abuut one-tliird. Dnties collected in 18110 
 over IS! 'L' have dccn-ased ncaily onc-<jnarter. The labor cost on razors is about tK) 
 l»er cent of tlie linished article. 
 
 FILES. 
 
 (I*ara<,'r.qili 111* 
 
 ClII('A(;n. priciiihir J7, IS'JG. 
 OOMMITTKE ON WAVS AND MkANS: 
 
 Voiir :itt<'iiti(tn is ifSix'ctl'nll.N' <;ill<'<l to ScluMhile C, )»;ii;i;;rai)li 1 11, 
 AVilsoM l)ill,r('r(Mriiij;- 1<> tiles and lilc Idaiiks. Tlic liist duty is .{."itH'nls 
 per dozen, wliicli 1 lind eoiiiiiaies in ad valorem on some Ides to L'(>()j)er 
 cent. Those are "needle tiles,"' I inch, used hy all inaniila<turin<; 
 jewelers in tlic United States aiid by tool and die makers. 1 liavo 
 been in tlie tile business for over twenty years, and the price on those 
 files has not been chan<;ed by manutaeturers H) per cent in all that 
 lime, it bein.n" l.'{ francs i)er ^ross, 10 to M ])ercent discount. At ])res- 
 eiit 1 oet l.-) per cent discount. So the net lactory pi ire in I'^urojje is 
 J \A)~} francs, or !$-.b'5 pel- j;ross, and the tarilV on the same is s4.2() per 
 j^ross at 3") cents per <l<t/.en. Files of the sam<' shape and si/e, of 
 domesti(^ make, can be bought m the factory for less than *I,LM> jter 
 oross, and if there was no protectivi^ tariff eonid be bon^dit foi- much 
 less, and still there would be a handsonu' j)rotit to domestic tile manu- 
 fa«'tnrers. These tiles are all ma<le by machinery, as are over \M per 
 cent of all lih-s manutactured in the Tnitcd States or Eur«)pe. 
 
 The lilecuttinfj; machinery is made jjiincipally in the rnited States 
 lor domestic and foreij;n tile makers. If the files are mad«» by Ameri- 
 can machinery here and in Europe, I claim that said machinery will 
 l)roduce nearly an eipial number of tiles, if used here or in I'uroiie. 
 And if there be any dilierence at all. it will be in the American manu- 
 facturers' favor. 
 
 Now, let us compare American saw tiles, as sold by all liardware Job- 
 bers in the L'nited States. Manufacturers' and Jobbers' ]»rotits are 
 included in ])rices given below, viz, .i.^-inch saw tiles and smaller are 
 j;o!(l here lor less than 'M) c«'nts per dozen. The taritVon imi>orti'd tiles 
 is o5 cents per dozen ; 5-inch saw files are sold here for 45 cents per 
 dozen, the tarilf on imported tiles beinn' <!() cents per dozen. American 
 round tiles (10-inch) are sold lor 81,15 i)er dozen, the tariff on imi)orted 
 round files (10-inch) beino- §1 ])er dozen. To get at the original inanu- 
 lacturers' i)rices, it would be fair to deduct, say, 1*5 to 35 per cent. That 
 much ])i()lit is a fair estimate for both manufacturers and Jobbers. So 
 that anyone can see that the tariff alone on imported liles is more per 
 dozen than domestic files are sold for. 
 
 Ordinary foreign tiles, 0, 8, 10, 12, or 14 inch, would not compete in 
 ]>rices with American liles if the Ignited States would otter as much 
 boiuis on each dozen as there is tarilf onthem at present. Such as are 
 imported and sold here arc used exclusively by the best mechanics to
 
 FIREARMS. 377 
 
 produco the hijjliest class of work iu every shop in the United States 
 where tlic finest tools, machinery, dies, models, etc., are made for home 
 use and export trade, and are in fact of such quality and workmanship 
 that United States' best metal workers must have them more or less in 
 every shop. 
 
 Now, as the protection on files is not needed — at least not 200, 100, 
 or even 30 percent — I am in favor of a revenue tarilf, and think 25 per 
 cent would be fair, and it would be a great benefit to those who must 
 use such files. It would enable our machinery manufacturers and 
 metal workers to reduce their file expenses to a great extent, and they 
 would be able to compete with all the world's machinery and tool 
 makers. 
 
 The high prohibitive tariff may induce a few file makers to ex])eri 
 inent in producing a better quality of files in the United States than 
 they <lo at i)res('nt; i)erhaps they would employ 100 fine file cutters, but 
 the ])rotection for 100 men would be a great detriment to 1,000 manu- 
 facturers and 10,000 meclianics who use such files if the tariff remains 
 as it is or if made higlu'r. I do not think it just to protect a few, 
 thrreby doing an injury to a great number of our manufacturers and 
 mechanics. 
 
 John U. LuKANiTScn. 
 
 FTREAIfMS. 
 
 fParagnipim ill' ami 113.) 
 STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS HUNTER, CAYUGA COUNTY, N. Y. 
 
 Saturday, .lanuanj 9, ls<j7. 
 
 Mr, IIUNTEU said: ^Tr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 I come before you the representative of a comparatively small industry. 
 Although small and young, we need the protection that we ask for as 
 much, if not more, than many of the larger ones to whom you have 
 listened to-day. 1 represent the sporting-gun manufacturers of the 
 c(nintry, I may say, and it is only for some twelve or fifteen years past 
 that they have made this i)ro(luct to any great extent in this country; 
 but we consuler that we have now nearly, if not quite, sufiicient facili- 
 ties, with additions that have been made under prosperity, to suj)i)Iy 
 the deniaiul \\\ this country without any assistance from the foreigners 
 at all. Our product is essentially a luxury; consequently, in my hum- 
 ble judgment, it ought to bear its share of the burden of revenue more 
 than the necessities should; hence, 1 think we are entitled to a larger 
 1)rotection than we have ever had. We ask this protection for the rea- 
 son that the foreigner manufactures his guns with very cheap labor, 
 applying very cheap labor in a very cheap manner, and also he makes 
 a very cheap gun. Also, the finished gun is a very light product, easy 
 of transportation. The average weight of a finished double barreled 
 si)orting shotgun does not exceed 8 ])ounds. They run from 5^ to 11 
 pouuds. I am speaking of the gun of American manufacture. I do 
 not know about the Ibreigu gun, because they are clumsy and not so 
 well made. 
 
 Mr. Turner. What kind of guns are those? 
 
 Mr. Hunter. The double and single barrel sporting shotgun. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Finished? 
 
 Mr. Hunter. Finished. In that term finished and complete lies the
 
 378 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 milk in the cocoamit. Wc suft'er most in the matter of labor. Our 
 industry is i)eciiliar in this fact, that Me have to use almost entirely 
 skilled labor. We use very little common labor and the diflerence 
 between the ])rice of our labor and similar labor in Germany, where 
 the jiieat bulk of the <iuns is manufactured, is just about the difference 
 between SO cents and '-^l in Germany to $2 to ^3.50 in this country, so 
 you see the labor is greater and that is enhanced largely by the method 
 that the German manufacturer pursued. A Gernian manulacturer will 
 produce '2,W0 to 3,01)0 guns in a room not much larger than this room, 
 ileuses little macliinery, and deals out the parts of the gun to the heads 
 of the families. They are taken home and there the work is done by 
 hand. Of course, 1 am speaking now of the cheaper grade of guns. 
 
 The better grade of guns that dime into comjtetitiou with us are not 
 m;inulacture(l to any great extent m Germany. They are manufactured 
 in f^n.ukind a .d France. Hut owing to the radical dillercnce between 
 HO cents and ^\ on the other side and from -t^L' and s.)..'*'.) ]it'r day on this 
 side, and owing to the i»ecuhar methods which they i)ursue in working 
 thewh(tl('f;unily, weareatagrcatdisadvantage. In speakingof working 
 the whole family 1 would say that the lather gets his bundle of work to 
 do and takes it home, and at honu' the mother, the brothers, and the 
 sisters, and even tlui (ihildren, 1 am credibly int<)rmed,down to 3 years 
 of age, are i)ut to work upon it. This informali(»n is not hearsay or any- 
 thing of that kind, for it was obtained by the treasurer and general 
 iii;iii;iger of our com[)any who last year, in connection with other busi- 
 ness, visited I'iUrope and took at that time-ji tiij) into JJelgium for the 
 jiurpose of looking into the maiiufaetiiit' of gun barrels, and also the 
 maiiufactuie of the cheap i;an, and he ol)taiiied this information direct 
 Irom the, Ibiiiitam head. 
 
 Mr. TuiJM'.K. Do you import the rough shapes or do you make them 
 from the ground up i 
 
 i\lr. lIrN'n:K. \Ve import our barrels entirely, because bairels are 
 already on the tree list and «iugiit to remain there. They have experi- 
 mented time and time again on the manufacture of forged barrels in 
 this country and they have never made a success of it. ^^'e manufac 
 tuie part of our stocks. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Why can not we make thosi' gun barrels here? 
 
 yiv. Ill nti;k. Tliat is a (piestion that tar wiser men than 1 am have 
 been unable to answer. They have gone so far in America as to iiiii)ort 
 the water for temi)eiiiig from lU'lgium. Germany, and still they have 
 not made a success of it. I have heard seientiliir men say that the difh- 
 culty is atmosi)heric. I have heard also that in many places in Euroi)e 
 they have undertaken to manufacture gun barrels and have failed; 
 that there are only certain places in Germany or Uelgium where this 
 manufacture can be successtully carried on. 
 
 j\lr. McMiLLiN. What grade of guns do you manufacture? 
 
 Mr. IliNTiCR. It is the double and single barrel s|>orting shotgun. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Valued at what; there are dilfeient grades here? 
 
 JNIr. Hunter. The Mclvinley law gave us a specific duty of $1.00 on 
 guns valued iiiMler si); fiom s() to $12, a speeilir duty of 84: and from 
 s]'2 upward a si)ecitic duty of 8(5. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And 35 i>er cent ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. Hi NTEK. Yes, sir. Now all we have is the 30 ])er cent ad valo- 
 rem. r>ut owing to th(* dilfeience in labor, as soon as we came under 
 the Wilson (lorman bill, just as soon as we felt its inlluence, our ])roduct 
 being a luxury, we felt it among the lirst, and we were much injured.
 
 FIREARMS. 379 
 
 During- tlie year 1803 we bad ordered euougli to keep our factory run- 
 niug to tlie utmost capacity; and, indeed, had to increase our capacity 
 the first of the year in order to fill our orders at that time. But about 
 the 1st of May of that year they began to say "hold on." A month or 
 two later they began to say strike out our order. And the result was 
 we had to reduce our labor. We gave our men the option of submit- 
 ting to a reductujn of 25 per cent in their wages iu June or stopping- 
 work altogether. Later on, in August, we found it necessary to make 
 a further reduction in their wages of 10 per cent or stop work, and we 
 had to reduce the number of our men more than one-half during that 
 year. And we have remained virtually in that condition ever since, 
 tinder the Mclvinlc}' bill, J Mant to readjust for a moment 
 
 ]\Ir. Steele. The im])ortations under the McKinley bill amounted 
 to $300,000 and under the Wilson bill something over 8000,000. 
 
 Mr. Hunter. 1 was going to read that in detail, as we have it here 
 compact. 
 
 Imimrtations have been as follows: In 1880, 8860,000; in 1887, 
 $058,000; m 1888, 81,070,000; in 1880, $1,150,000; in 1800— that is, from 
 June 30, 18.S0, to June 30, 1800— 8l..'»38,000. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Those are the importations? 
 
 Mr. Hunter. That is the value of the importations. Then in 1801 
 they fell to 81,070,000; 1802, to 8047,000; 1803, 8321,000; 1804, thev fell 
 to 8122,000. Then m the latter part of 1804 the Wilson-Ciorman bill 
 began to take effect, and then in 1805 the importations increased to 
 $458,000. During the calendar year 1800, according to the statistics 
 which we have obtained from public sources, the iini)ortation has 
 amounted to $S23,700. That is for the calendar year of 180C. Tliat 
 shows very perceptibly, gentlemen, the effect of tlie tariff upon this 
 industry. Under the old tariff there was 35 per cent ad valorem. The 
 imi)ortation, you see, gradually increased until it went up to almost 
 81,400,000. Under the McKin'ley bill and the prevailing infinence of 
 that l)ill belong it went into effect — because it really had no effect in 
 the year 1801 l)iit was foreshadowed — we increased our output, every- 
 l)ody did in the maimfactnre, and the imixtrts decreased to 81,070,000. 
 Then in 1S!>2 it stdl continued to go down and in 1801 the importations 
 amounted to 8122, 00(>. 
 
 JMr. McMiLLiN. What is the extent of the American manufacture! 
 
 Mr. Hunter. Well, that is a very hard matter to say, because iu 
 1802 we were at our zenith, but we were not near where we contem- 
 l)lated getting, because we intended, iiom the character of the article we 
 made, to drive the ioreign luoducer out of the market eventually, and 
 as soon as we thoroughly get on our feet we will do it without any 
 duty at all. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLTN. About what would the annual output be? 
 • ]\Ir. Hunter. 1 could not give you any idea of that, because I am 
 really an officer of the company, one of the organization, and am not 
 directly connected with the manufacture. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. What is the value of the barrels! They come free? 
 
 ]\Ir. Hunter. The value of the barrels, that is the general run of the 
 cheaper gun barrels, is about 81.40 to 81.50 a i)air. You are familiar 
 with them, I suppose. That is a cheaper gun, but in our higher-priced 
 guns we use a higher-priced barrel. 
 
 Mr. IMcMiLLiN. Running up to what value? 
 
 Mr. Hunter. They run up to $5, $6, $7, and $8, and somehigher than 
 that.
 
 3<^0 SCnEDTTLE C. METALS AND MANUFA< 'TURES OF. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Now you ^ct j-our barrels free to linish the gim and 
 the gun tliat comes into competition Avitli you pays a duty not only on 
 the work that has been done on it and the other material, but also of 
 the barrel itself, does it not — the whole gun ? 
 
 ]Mr. nu>^TER. A nominal duty on the barrels as a part of the gun, 
 but that is where we are hurt 
 
 .Mr. ^Mc^IiLLiN. But you get the benefit of a tariff upon that, upon 
 which 3'ou never paid any tariff — you getting your barrel free when you 
 come to comjiete with the foreign manufacturer — whatever value there 
 is in it. 
 
 ]\rr. ITuNTER. One dollar and tifty cents a pair is :i trifling thing, of 
 course. We did for a while i>ay a duty on the guii barrel, and then it 
 was made free. I do not know whether It was made fre<' before that or 
 not — that is, entirely in the rougli. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. That duty would amount to .")(» cents to ^l on a $4 
 gun, according to the values y(»u have given. 
 
 ]Mr. Hunter. r>nt if you will think of it, it is an excessive anu)unt 
 of labor that is put in the gun, taking all the raw material, the l)arrei 
 in tlic rough si. 50. and the steel in the lock ])latcs, and the stock in the 
 rougli bloclc. The labor cost of the cheai)cst gun ma<le in this country 
 exceeds SO ])cr cent of its value, and a higher juice gun '»."> to *.>7 per 
 cent. So the entire ])ro(lnet is almost all labor. Of course we n.si' a 
 great deal of machinery in this country which the l'>elgians <lo not use. 
 Their work is all done i>yhand. by family, and you can not «'stimatethe 
 vabie of wages there at all. 
 
 You can not estimate the \alue of work done by children ~> or (> 
 years old, or girls, or women, but the. skilled mechanic win* makes the 
 locks and the intricate i)arts of it receives oidy Irom so cents a day to 
 $1 a day. Sometimes under contract he will get as much as ><1 a day 
 over there. That was the information my nephew got when he was 
 at headquarters last year. I>ut 1 have said enough on that ]>oint. 
 Now, allhougli we think it is riiliculously low, the ju'esent duty of .'50 
 per ci'nt ad Aalorem, so far as ;id \ al<»rem is <*oncerned, is all we ask. 
 l>ut the idea of'^l.rtO duty on a riiiishe(l gnn, and -"jidon a gun that may 
 be worth .*L'(K> or s.KlO or s."»oo, is simply ridiculous. We have to meet 
 in competition such guns as tliat. The great dilVicidty is tlie im]<orfc- 
 ing in i)arts. They will send a box of l)arrels to Host on, a box of 
 stocks to New York, and send a box of locks and other traps to riiila- 
 deli)hia. They will assemble all of these in New York City, put them 
 all together, and escape, the specific duty and very largely the ad 
 valorem duty by undervaluation on these parts, because no onlinary 
 man can form any accuratt! estimate of what they are worth. 
 
 ]\Ir. Payne. Did they actually do that umler the law of ISOO? 
 
 :\Ir. Hunter. They actually <lid it under the McKinley law. 
 
 Mr. Payne. ^Vnd un<ler the interjuetation of the Treasury ])ei)art- 
 nuMit they escaix'd the s])ecific duty? 
 
 Mr. Hunter. Yes; yim will lind that Schoverling, Daly vS: Gales, of 
 New York. i)aid the full duty under ])rotest and c(»nlested it with the 
 (loN'ernment and beat the (Government. So this kind of importation is 
 l)ossible, and that is the main thing you want to stop. Then, again, 
 the undervaluation. I have a sami)le of that right in the im])ortation. 
 
 i\rr. Payne. Have you, among yourselves, hit upon any i)lan by which 
 you can stop the imitortation of the parts of the gun and have them 
 afterwards assend)led in this manner that you have described f 
 
 ]\Ir. ITttnter. We have a good many crude ideas, but we are not 
 lawyers. We do not know the legal value of a word or sentence, and do
 
 FIREARMS. 381 
 
 not kuow how to i)ut words together so that the importer Avill be imable 
 to get around tliem. 
 
 1 want to eall your attention to the importations of the year ending 
 June 30, 189.J. This is on the i>oint of undervahiations. This is some- 
 thing 1 have not said anything u])on. You will notice that the inix)orta- 
 tions of shotguns, double-barrel sporting, are 40,842, of which the unit 
 value was $4.55. Now, go on to the next class. They were valued at 
 not more than >*<), Of tliose valued at $0 and not more than $12, there 
 were 1)20 iini>ortcd; valued at more than $12, there were 1,15G im- 
 ported, which makes over 50,000 guns of this character imported in 
 that year, and 47,000 of that 50,000 which came in were under the 
 valuation of $4.55. 
 
 Some of you gentlemen have seen finished guns. What would you 
 think of a gun that would bear the value of $4.55'? The barrels in that 
 gun ought to cost only $1.50. That is taking for example the freight 
 from IJelgium here, and the stocks and the steel is all the raw material 
 that is in it; so it amounts to $2. Do you suppose that any man or 
 any set of men can build a shotgun fit to i)ut u])on the market for $2.55 
 labor? It is not among the things possible. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. What is the relative value of a barrel and lock and 
 stock, or ditferent parts of the gun ? 
 
 ]Mr. lIiNTEE. That is a (luestion, too, that it Avould require a manu- 
 facturer to answer. I do not know whether Mr. Livermore could answer 
 that or not. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. That might be important. 
 
 Mr. lli^NTEU. We will give you all that information in our brief. 
 
 We will say tliis to the committee, that Avliile Me all think that the 
 specific duty ought to be mucli larger than it is, if this committee will 
 ]nevent the im]>ortation in ])arts and the undervaluation, we will take 
 the ]McKinley bill, ami I believe we can go ahead under it and manu- 
 facture all the guns that the L'nited States wants of that kind. 
 
 Tiien there is another thing, gentlemen, the foreign gun that is i)ut 
 on the market, that is the cheap gun — and that is what 1 am speaking 
 of particularly — is not worth even the money that they ask for it. 
 This is a boy's gun. They bring it to this country and they i)ut it on 
 the shelves of our gun stores and sell it for about $10. We can not 
 make a decent gun short of $20, do the best we can. It is true there 
 are other manufacturers here that make a cheaper gun than we do, and 
 I have understood that double-barreled shotguns can be made in this 
 country so as to sell for $15 and any one of those guns would be worth 
 more than double what the foreign shotgun would be worth to the boy. 
 Often the better class of guns imported from abroad are not made 
 Avell; we are often brought such guns and asked to repair them. We 
 will not do it. We will now and then fix a gun of a fellow-manufac- 
 turer, but we do not want to repair these foreign guns. 
 
 I have told you the condition of this industry. This is essentially a 
 luxury, and consequently the production or the demand for them is 
 necessarily less during hard times. The falling off of these importa- 
 tions is not entirely due to the reduction of tariff", but to the general 
 condition of the country, because our best customers are manufacturers. 
 These manufacturers employ workmen, and when their wages are 
 reduced they would not buy a gun. If the manufacturer's product is 
 cut off he will not buy a gun. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. You did not .finish stating what the objection is to 
 these cheap guns? 
 
 Mr. Hunter. The objection to the cheap gun is you can not get its
 
 382 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 charge outo a barn door when it is lired, and a flock of birds will go 
 through the charge. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. 1 did not know but wliat you were going to say these 
 guns are dangerous implements for boj'S to handle. 
 
 Mr. Hunter. No, I should not say that; but it is an unfinished 
 thing; it is an ungainly thing, and Avhen it gets out of repair it is 
 almost imi)ossible to restore it. 
 
 iMr. DoLUVER. Can you give us any idea of the comparison of the 
 importations under the ])resent law with the consumption .' 
 
 JMr. Hunter. 1 could give you an idea of the output of the factories. 
 
 IMr. DOLLIVER. Tlie output of the factories under tlu; i)resent law 
 and the importations, and the output of the factories under the act of 
 ISIM) and tlie importations? 
 
 Mr. Hunter. I will do that. Hut 1 think you will liiul that the out- 
 put in 1892 was more than double in this country of what the out])ut 
 of 1806 was. 
 
 I have the following statement in reference to this matter, whii-h I 
 will subnnt : 
 
 As iiiiiniil'ai tnrers of double and siu;ili> l>arr<l Ijreocli-loadinjj sjtortiiig sliutjiuus, 
 wort'8i)e(ttiilly snhiiiit tlio I'ollowiiif^ facts for your considrratioii : 
 
 We have :i caiiacity <>f 1(),(K)() ^'iiiih jut year, and <liiring the iiast four years imd<^r 
 existuifi tai ilf laws have lu-eii praitically idle, jnodiu in<j imt inoro than o jht cent of 
 our cajjacity. At lliis time wo wish also to call your attfiUiou to statislirs show in j^ 
 iinportations for > <>ar ISi'ii, showiuj; that durinj^ that year tlu-io wtTO iui|M)rteil into 
 tliis country 4M,ti(M) ilouldi'-bai rt 1 linerh-loailini; Bportinix shotguns, of w hicli 1(5,812 
 were gun8iiivoi<<Mlat an average < ostof $4.r)5ca< h in Liiropc These guns, although 
 niurh lower in jiriet^ than any low-jiriied Auieriean make, are serious eoiupetitois of 
 our low-iiriced guns, and are so clicaidy uiadc that thty are a fraud on the i>unha8er 
 and h(< sliould he jnoteeted as well as the Anu-rican nianulaiturer of guns into whieh 
 they eonie into eoni])etiti<u> regardless ot' th^^ ditVerenee in ])riee. During the i>ast 
 four years the American manufacturers have struugled hard to secure a little trade, 
 and we ourselves have sold guns at ruinously low |iric<s, in fact, at less tliau cost of 
 ]>roduction, with the result as given aljovc, i. c, we have only produced ahont ."> per 
 cent of our capacity. 
 
 We otVer as the reason for a large ])art of this ditVerence in cost of American and 
 foreign guns the dilference between wages in I{(dtrinm aiid the United States, 
 their wages lieing ahont one-(|uarter of ours. Hy pla<ing a sutlicient si)ecilic duty 
 ou (loui>le-l«arrt'l brcccli-htading sjiortiiig Nhotguns. the American manulacturers can 
 l)roiluce a su]ii>ly of guns sulhiient for the markets at prices so low as to ho within 
 the reach of all, and aUhough tliere is no pretense that wo can jjroduce douhle-harrel 
 shotguns for $1 or !fr» each, still the guns that can he produced will be honest, safe 
 articles, ami will give jmire value for the money than the worthless, einap importa- 
 ticuis of tlie jinsent, while home com|>elition and now improvements will all the time 
 have the tendency to reduce their jirice. 
 
 We submit that the Wilsun-tiorman tarilfact has been jiroved to be wholly inade- 
 ([uate and valueless as a jtrotectiNe measure, and that no argument is neetled on this 
 point. The i>rcsent condition of th(> s|)orting tirearms imlustry and the statistics of 
 inijiortations prove it. We contend th.it the schedule of the McKinhy bill in regard 
 to double-barreled sporting breech-loading shotguns was correct in principle, but 
 the initial protection was insntlicient for the eheai>er grades of guns, anti in the 
 advaming duties the series of prices would lead to undervaluation and the schedule 
 could not be lume^tly enforced. 
 
 We contend that a specilic duty of :ffi should bo placed upon all double-barreled 
 sporting breech-loading shotguns and in addition :>5per cent ad valorem, and wo call 
 tlie attention of the committee to the practice of im]>orting parts of guns under tlie 
 general 15 pt>r cent ad valorem of the McKinley bill and jiutting them together in 
 this country, thus avoiding the specilic duty ui)on the comph^te article, and we ask 
 that the committee so frame the schedule as to prevent this. 
 
 Li supjiort of our contention that the initial and succeeding speiitic duties in the 
 McKinley bill are insullicient to give jirotection, we cite the fact cjuoted above that 
 more than 'lt),(>(iO guns invoiced at a unit value of ^4. .55 each were imported during 
 th(^ fiscal year ending .fune :W, b*<!i;?, out of a total importation of less than 19,000. 
 Nor does this, as far as we cai\ discover, take into consideration the number of guns 
 whiih, in order to avoid the duty, were imjiortcd in iiarts aud jmt together in this 
 country.
 
 FIREARMS. 383 
 
 "We tlierefore ask for tlie following schedule, and believe that it gives no more 
 than the protection needed: 
 
 Firearms: All double-barreled sporting breech-loading shotguns, also all parts 
 comprising whole guns, to bo completed and assembled here, $6 each and 35 per cent 
 ad A'alorem. 
 
 All single-barreled breech-loading shotguns, also all parts comprising whole guns, 
 to be completed and assembled here, same as in McKinley bill, $1 each and 35 per 
 cent ad valorem. 
 
 Shotgun barrels, forged, rough bored, to be on Ihe free list, as now. 
 
 K. R. Davis & Sons. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MESSRS. THOMAS HUNTER AND 
 GEORGE LIVERMORE, REPRESENTING VARIOUS MANUFAC- 
 TURERS. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Kepreseiitin,i,^ tlio manufacturers of donble and single barrel breecli- 
 loadiiig shotguns, wo rosj^'ctfully submit tlie ibllowing facts for your 
 consideration: 
 
 AVe have had experience under the ad vahn^em duty of 35 per cent 
 uj) to August, ]S!>(», the increased duties of the McKinley Act, and the 
 ad vahtreiii duty of .'>() i)er cent under tlie Gorman-Wil.son bill. From 
 this experience can state that the 3.") per cent prior to ISDO was not 
 suihcient. Im].>orlations were large, increasing yearly, and competition 
 growing more ruinous. 
 
 Under the increased duties of the .McKinley bill some impetus was 
 given to the industry. A large amount of money was expended in plants 
 until the capacity in this country was able to turn out more than 19(>,000 
 guns. Being able to manufacture in a large way, the cost of ])roduc- 
 tion was less and the cost of marketing the ])roduct much less. Wages 
 were increased, and the selling price of guns reduced. This prosperous 
 <;ondition continued until .Alarch, 1S93, when the reduction of the tariff 
 was foreshadowed and liiially resulted in the Gorman- Wilson bill, mak- 
 ing the duty 30 per cent, since which time the business has grown 
 worse and remains in a deplorable condition. Prices of guns were 
 reduced until our ])r()tits were entirely surrendered, wages of workmen 
 reduced, and the number of men emi)loyed diminished until not more 
 than one fourth tlie number remained. The unemployed not being able 
 to find employment in other factories have been for the most part idle, 
 and the loss to them has been very great. 
 
 A continuation of the ])resent duties, or a failure to restore adequate 
 protection to the sporting-gun industries of the United States, is abso- 
 lutely certain to result in its extinction. 
 
 This is a question of labor. Eighty to 90 i)er cent of the cost of a 
 gun is labor, the cost of material for the cheaper guns being about 
 $3 to 83.50. On this account it should have a protection sufficient to 
 enable our laborers to com]>ete with aliens and market their labor 
 through this product at least in their own country. 
 
 The Belgiums, having taken the trade from England, as shown by 
 the royal commission which inquired into the causes of the decline of 
 British trade in 1885, are our competitors, and the cost of labor in that 
 country is about one-third that paid for the same labor in this country. 
 This is not guesswork, but we are able to make this statement from 
 actual observation and investigation in their country. 
 As further proof of the effect of the three tariffs under which we have
 
 384 
 
 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUEACXrRES OF. 
 
 labored, we quote froui statistical abstracts of the United States as 
 
 follows : 
 
 Guns imported into the United States. 
 
 Year I'liiliiig June 30 — 
 
 IflSG. 
 1P87. 
 1888. 
 188!). 
 1K90. 
 1891. 
 1892. 
 189:i. 
 1894. 
 1895. 
 1890. 
 
 V;Uu<>. 
 
 Ivcmarks. 
 
 $800,009 
 
 X'l per coiit. 
 
 958, 972 
 
 Do. 
 
 1, 070, C85 
 
 Do. 
 
 1,159,157 
 
 1)0. 
 
 1.38:1,208 
 
 Do. 
 
 1,070.779 
 
 MiKinlcy Art. 
 
 647, 751 
 
 Do. 
 
 :i21, 510 
 
 IV.. 
 
 122,710 
 
 Do. 
 
 458, 592 
 
 Hominii-AVilsDii .\( f 
 
 a G23, 7G0 
 
 Do. 
 
 nCalenrtar year ending .THniinrv 1, 1890. 
 
 ]i('iir in hiIimI, tli;it iiotwitlistanding the importation in the calendar 
 year end in ji: .lanuary 1, 189C, was more than four times that of 1S!>4, 
 more than thiee-tburths of the American lal)or<'is in tliis industry in 
 onr own country were idle duriii},! this time. 
 
 Tlie fact that of less than l!l,(t(>0 onns impoited in the year ending' 
 .Iniie ."!(), l.S'.>3, 4n,S,S4 passed customs at a unit of value of !?t. ."».">, and 
 that the raw material of a {;un costs >^.'J to s.i.oO, w ill fjive some i«lea of 
 the undervaluation, and we earnestly urj;e tliat thi.s be correc-ted. 
 
 We also ask that the rates of duty imposed by the McKinley bill 
 should be restore<l and at the same time a jjiovisioii made for j)revent- 
 inpf a renewal of a system of evasion of tlie law w hicli was carried on 
 by im])orters. I'Mnished ;iun barrels were bron«;ht here in one box and 
 the balance of the fjiin in other boxes, the jiarts all beinfi" nnmbeiv<l so 
 that the pun could be put togfether in this country. Your new bill 
 should im]io.se the same site(Mfic duties on tinished pun barrelsaml other 
 linishe<| ])arts imjjorled to be asseml)led here (except those ronph bor<'d 
 now imported free of duty) as tlie <(»ini>leted pun. So far as l>anels 
 rouph bored are concerned, llwy should <'(»ntiiine to be a<lniittcd iVee of 
 duty, as none are made in this country. 
 
 (tun blocks (wood), roupliliew n (tr sawed oiil\. sliould be admitted 
 free of duty. 
 
 The decreased iiu))ortatiou of foreipn-made puns, tlie; expansion and 
 prowth of factories in the l'nite<l States, increased employment of lab(»r 
 and wapes, topether with the fact that the jirices of puns were reduee«l, 
 furnished suflicient facts to justify the wisdom of the rates of ISDO and 
 their restoration; besides, it should be borne in mind that puns are 
 w liolly luxuries, and every arpiiment to be urped in favor of a i)rotective 
 tarilf ai)plies with the greatest force to an industry of this character. 
 
 Trios. JliTXTEK. 
 Geo. Livekmork, 
 Mamifttcturers' Committee. 
 
 RATES AND CLASSIFICATION SUGGESTED. 
 
 Brooklyn, N. V., Januarii .s\ 1Fi9G. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We would like to venture a few suppestions relative to puns, arms, 
 revolvers, etc. The McKiuley bill put some breechloaders, No. 
 12 paupe, at such a jirice as to jjiohibit the im])ortatioii of the same
 
 FIREARMS. 385 
 
 gun in No. 10 gauge, b'ecause the Xo. 10 gauge cost 20 cents more than 
 the iSTo. 12 gauge to make. The best way to chissify guns would be 
 according to their grade, which is in breech-loading guus as follows: 
 Cheapest grade, single-barrel breech-loading guns; next cheapest 
 grade, Lefaucheux action guns; next grade, side snap action guus; 
 next grade, top snap action, with back action locks; next grade, top 
 snap action, with bar locks; next grade, hannnerless breech-loading 
 shotguns. 
 
 According to my idea, it wonld be a good plan to put on a specific 
 duty, as follows, for example: 
 
 Ou Lelaucheux action breeth-loaclinjf guu8 tl.50 
 
 On single-barrel breech-loading guns 50 
 
 On side-snap breedi-loading gnns 2. 00 
 
 On top-snap breecb-loading guns, with back-action locks 3.00 
 
 Ou top-snap breech-loading guns, with bar or sham bar locks 3. 50 
 
 On hannnerless breech-loading shotgnus 4.00 
 
 On rifles the duty has always been about 25 i)er cent ad valorem. 
 The principal imi)oitations are Flobert rifles, costing from 80 cents each 
 to $1.7") or $L* each. A tiiriff of 2~) cents per rifle might cover this line 
 of goo<ls. On muz/le-loading shotguns the duty does not make much 
 difterence, as tliey are almost <>bsolete. 
 
 I would suggest designating those at a duty, say, of 50 cents on the 
 cheapest single-barrel muzzle loading guns; next grades, double-barrel 
 muzzle loading, say $1. Kevohers can be covered by one line, say $1 
 on each revolver. Those princii)ally imported cost $1.20 to $2. Car- 
 tridges vary in i)rice and are a voluminous business to go into in detail. 
 
 Pin-fire paper shells and pin lire cartridges are imported in limited 
 quantities. 1 think none are made in this country. 1 should say $1 
 per thousand would cover this item. 
 
 I do not know how gun caps are now covered, but think 10 cents per 
 thousand would cover this item. (Junmakers' repair material, such as 
 forged and filed or cast gun iuinimers, to replace broken ones, is a volu- 
 minous thing and could be designated as "gun parts, revolver parts, 
 and rifle parts." This could be best treated in ad valorem, as values 
 are so small. 
 
 Fred Biffae. 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y., January 7, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir : A meeting of the manufacturers of double-barrel shot- 
 guns was held in this city yesterday. The meeting was largely attended, 
 representatives being present from New York, Pennsylvania, and the 
 New England States. Central New York is largely interested in the 
 manufacture of guns, factories being located at Syracuse, Ithaca, and 
 Fulton. The gun manufacturers seek the protection that was given 
 them under the McKinley bill, w hich was as follows : 
 
 An ad valorem duty of 35 i^er cent, to which was added a specific 
 duty as follows: $1.50 on guns valued at $6 and under; $2 per gun on 
 guns valued from $6 to $12; $6 on guns valued at $12 and over. 
 
 By an unfortunate provision in the McKinley bill these duties were 
 largely evaded. The guns were shii^pcd in a knocked-down form to 
 this country. For instance, the barrels were consigned to one party in 
 New York and the locks and stocks to another party, and they were 
 shipi^ed as goods not manufactured. These guns were then assembled 
 or put together, the work already having been done, and they were at 
 once a complete gun that had been imported as raw material. This 
 T H 25
 
 386 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 error ue seek to correct, and we want the ad valorem and specific duty 
 restored as above noted. Seventy-live jier cent of the cost of guns is 
 represented in hibor, and we can not successfully manufacture guns 
 unless we are protected, for skilled labor in the old country is to be 
 had at a less price than the price that we pay. 
 
 The Lefever Arms Company. 
 
 PiiiLAPELrniA, January C, ]S9?. 
 Dear Sir: We wish in a few words to place before you what we 
 deem best as the rate of duty on firearms for the manufacturer, the 
 importer, and the general public. An ad valorem rate for this line of 
 goods is free from the danger of undervaluation, because the qualities 
 of arms imported are so well known that detection would be almost cer- 
 tain. The dilfereuce that could be made is so slight that even if 
 imjjorters were disposed to be dishonest it would not repay them for 
 the risk. 
 
 (1) An ad valorem rate is the most fair, because it does not discrimi- 
 nate in favoi of the rich. For e.\ami»lc, take a gun costing in Liege or 
 Birmingham 8»i at a specilic duty of $- i)er gun, and we have an ad 
 valorem eiiuivaleiit of 33;\ per cent, whereas at this same specific duty 
 of 82 on a gun costing j^IOO at |)ort of shipment we have an ad valorem 
 rate of 2 ])er cent, making a dilference of 31;', per cent in favor of those 
 who have plenty of moiu'V. 
 
 (2) ('heap breech-loading double guns can not be made in this countiy. 
 Themedium (jualities can.andthe Aiiiericaii manufacturer may in'cd pro- 
 tection on these grades. The cliea]iest American breechloading doultle 
 gun is sold to tin' consumer for about >'2(). Tlie cheajJCst imported 
 breech loading double gun, perfe<'tly safe and sei\ iceable, sells to the 
 consumer for from *>! to .*10. These last arms will stand an increased 
 rate of duty for revenue, but not for protection of the American manu- 
 facturers. A duty for protection here would mean ])rohibition, with 
 nothing American to take its jilace. 
 
 It is not to the interest of the American manufacturer to ])reveiit the 
 importiition of tlie chea}ier grades of arms, lor the habit or love of gun- 
 ning is formed while young and while the purse is yet light. If legisla- 
 tion prevents this education in the use of lirearms, the gunnersof a riper 
 age will be very much fewer in number, and consequently there will be 
 a lessened demand for American made arms of a higher price. There- 
 fore we resj^ectfullN' recommend the following duties on arms: 
 
 IJreech loading (loiible guns (now i)aying 30 per cent). 40 ])er cent. 
 
 Muzzle loading guns (now paying 25 per cent), 35 per cent. 
 
 ISi)ortiug ritles (now paying 25 per cent), 35 per cent. 
 
 Edw. K. Tryoj^, Jr., & Co. 
 
 Xew York, JanHary 8, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We do no know whether it is your intention to make any change in 
 the rates of duty ap])licable to firearms or not. We are importers of 
 guns and ritles, and if the ad valorem rates now ruling M'ere to remain 
 no suggestions would come from us; but if it should be suggested to 
 reestablish the rates of duty as comprised in the ]McKinley bill, or to 
 adopt any other rates which would be unjustified or prohibitive, we
 
 ENAMELED IKON PLATES TACKS. 387 
 
 would respectfully request to be given an opportunity of communicating 
 with your coinniittee before a final decision is reached. There are cer- 
 tain grades of breech-loading guns imported to-day which are not made 
 in this country, and to increase the duty on those would simply mean 
 to put additional burdens upon the consumers without benefiting any 
 American manufacturers. 
 
 WiEBUSCH & HiLGER, Limited. 
 
 Chas. F. Wiebusch, President. 
 
 ENAMELED IROX PLATES. 
 
 (Paragraph 144.) 
 
 New York, January 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We call your attention to the following points concerning the importa- 
 tion of the class of goods we manufacture, enameled iron plates for adver- 
 tising purposes. Under the Wilson bill tlie duty imi)0sed on sucli work 
 is 3") per cent ad valorem, but the plates are landed, duty and freight 
 paid, at a less cost than we can manufacture them, the result being that 
 several American firms have had to go out of the business. Within 
 the last few weeks an English lirm brought action against the United 
 States in this district to permit them to land their plates at 3 cents per 
 pound duty. The district attorney brought sufficiently strong evidence 
 to show that this was decidedly wrong, and in consequence the jury 
 decided in favor of the United States. 
 
 We would respectfully suggest, as these goods are made and sold by 
 the square foot, that a specific duty of at least 25 cents per square foot 
 should be imposed on all iron enameled signs used for advertising 
 purposes. ' 
 
 Caesar Bros. 
 
 TACKS. 
 
 (Paragraph 119.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. E. A. MORSE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
 THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Saturday, January 9, 1897. 
 Mr. Morse said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 I will detain you only two or three minutes with my statement. I rep- 
 resent a large part, 45 per cent, 1 think, of the tack-producing inter- 
 est of the country. There are factories in Taunton, Whitman, and 
 Braintree, in my district, Avhich, when running on full time, give employ- 
 ment to about 1,000 men. Under the Gorman- Wilson law there is an 
 ad valorem duty on tacks of 25 per cent. This duty, owing to under- 
 valuation, has had the effect to liood this country with German tacks, 
 and all these establishments, I think, have gone into the hands of 
 receivers or will have to go into such hands, in consequence. These 
 manufacturers of tacks ask for a change from an ad valorem duty to a 
 specific duty. In the McKinley tariff bill the duty on tacks for 16 
 ounces and under, was 2:^ cents per thousand; over IG ounces it was 
 2f cents per pound.
 
 388 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Tlie former president of one of these large establishments to which 
 I have referred writes as follows : 
 
 Dear Sir: At tbis time, while yon have under consideration the qneetion of a 
 revision of the tariff", I hejj to call yonr attention to the present inadequate duty on 
 tacks. It is but 2.5 ])er ctnt ad valorem, and has been the means, by reason of 
 undervaluations and other causes, of opening the markets of the I'nited .States to 
 German tacks, at prices with ■which we can not successfully compete. What has 
 been said to you <m this subject by our Representative, Hon. Elijah A. Morse. M. C, 
 in his letter to you dated January 6, 1897, I fully indorse. The McKinley tariti on 
 tacks was specific, and as follows, viz, 16 ounces and under, at 2^^ cents per 1,000; 
 over 16 ounces, at 2J cents per pound. 
 
 Ishouldbe pleased if your honorable committee would decide to restore specific 
 duties on tacks, at these or not less than 33i^ ])er cent off these rates. Unless some 
 such suitable protection is afforded us, the manufacture of tacks will continue in its 
 present depressed condition on account of the unequal foreign competition to which 
 I have referred. 
 
 Please have this request and the Hon. Mr. Moree'e letter to you dated January 6, 
 1897, i)rinted in the evidence before the committee. 
 
 J. H. I'AKKS. 
 
 I do not desire to detain the coniniiltee any further except to add 
 that I certainly hope i)araj:rai>h 149 of the >Vilson law, Schedule C 
 (reatlinj;), ''Cut tacks, brads, or si)rigs, of all kinds, L*5 per centum 
 ad valorem," will be changed from an ad val<»rem duty. whi<-h in this 
 case is sim]>ly no duty at all, to a si)ecilic duty, and so allord some pro- 
 tection to this great iiulnstry Avhich 1 re]>resent. 
 
 Mr. Tl K^•EK. \Vhat duty do you desire? 
 
 Mr. MoRsi:. ^^'«'ll. we will be conteut with <>6 ]»er cent of the s])ecific 
 duty allowed us in the ^IcKinlcy I)ill, if we can get a specilic duty. 
 
 Mr. DoLEiVER. Does this dei»ressiou iu business extend to all these 
 factories of which you hav»' spoken ? 
 
 Mr.MoRSE. I thiukso. IMr. Simpkins represents «)ther tack factories, 
 which are all running on ])art time, aiul 1 think he will tell you the same 
 tiling iu regard to those factories — that they have gon«' into receivers* 
 hands under the \Vilson bill, and under the McKinley law they were 
 doing a prolitable business. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SIMPKINS. A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
 THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 8aii KDAY, 'hntuari/ 9, 1S<J7. 
 
 Mr. SiMPKiNS said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 I sinii)ly wish to ein]iliasi/.e what my colleague (Mr. Moise) has said. 
 1 have received coininunications fiom those re})re.senting tlie tack indus- 
 try in my district and I am inlbrnu'd that they can not li\e under the 
 present ad valorem duty, and tliey desire that the duty be changed to 
 a specific duty. 
 
 They also ask one other change, the im]>ortauce of which will be 
 readily seen. They say in previous tarifis the word "sprigs" has been 
 used and that that word is now obsolete and has no meaning to Ameri- 
 can ta<'U manufacturers; and 1 therefore suggest the words ''small 
 nails'" be used, limiting the api)licati()n to those 1^ inches and shorter, 
 so as not to conllict with cut nails. 
 
 ]Mr. Tawnev. What duties do they suggest — specific duties? 
 
 Mr. SiMPKi^JS. 1 don't think they have wholly come to an understand- 
 ing, but will be satisfied with the duties under the ^IcKiidey Act, and 
 as ]\Ir. Morse suggests, they say they will be much bettei- off with a 
 third reduction under the McKinley bill than with an ad valorem duty.
 
 TACKS. 389 
 
 Mr. DOLLIVER. No importations were made under the McKinley bill 
 to speak of. 
 
 Mr. Morse. I think the manufacturers will be satisfied with 33 per 
 cent less tliau the rate in the McKinley bill, provided it can be made a 
 specific duty. I want to add that I agree with my colleague in regard 
 to the striking oat of the word " sprigs." 
 
 Mr. lirssELL. L wish you would specify the wire gauge of these short 
 nails you suggested as substitutes for sprigs. 
 
 Mr. SiMPKiNS. 1 will give it attention. 
 
 Mr. Mc^NIiLLTN. Which one of these brackets do you seek to affecf? 
 Under the Wilson bill cut tacks, brads, or sprigs of all kinds bear a 
 duty of 25 per cent ad valorem, 
 
 Mr. SiMPKTNS. 1 think all the tacks and small nails less than 1^ inches. 
 I am not familiar witii that table or with the tack business. 
 
 INIr. Turner. Are you familiar with the mode of the manufacture of 
 tacks? 
 
 Mr. SiMPKiNS. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Are you familiar with the machines used for their 
 manufacture? 
 
 Mr. SIMPKINS. No ; except 1 will say it is owing to the importations of 
 American machines into Germany that they have been able to compete 
 with us. 
 
 Mr. Turner. It is a process of manufacture almost entirely done by 
 machinery f 
 
 Mr. SiMPKiNS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Turner. They put in the rod and the machine digests it into 
 tacks? 
 
 Mr. SiMPKiNS. I have never seen it work. 1 understand that the 
 Germans, on account of the labor cost, which is no more than one-half 
 as much as ours, they having adopted American machines in Ger- 
 many, can compete with us and drive us out of the market. 
 
 Mr. Turner. With our own machines ? 
 
 Mr. SiMPKiNS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I see that of one of these classes there was only 83 
 worth imported in 1805; of another class only $15 w<n"th, and another 
 $12,300 worth, and that altogether less than $18,000 worth were 
 imported for the whole tack business. 
 
 Mr. SiMPKiNS. The Atlas Tack Corporation, I understand, is at 
 present in the hands of a receiver. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The first is for the importation of 1895, the second 
 is one class importation for 1895, $8,000; 1890, $12,000. 
 
 PiTTSBTTRG, January .5, 1897. 
 
 Dear, Sir : As manufacturers of tacks we would state that the present 
 ad valorem duty of 25 per cent on tacks is inadequate and a hardship 
 to American manufacturers, in that foreign goods in this line are con- 
 tinually being underrated through our entry ports. Under the McKinley 
 bill we had a duty of 2^ cents per 1,000 on IG ounces and smaller, and 
 2f cents per pound on sizes over 16 ounces. 
 
 If we could have a specific duty of 1^ cents per 1,000 on 16 ounces 
 and smaller, and li cents per pound on larger sizes, we are confident 
 American manufacturers would be able to hold the trade of our country 
 against foreign makers. 
 
 Chess Brothers.
 
 390 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Boston. January 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I beg to call your attention to the present inadeciuate duty on tacks. 
 It is but 25 per cent ad valorem, and lias been the means, by reason of 
 undervaluations and other causes, of opening the markets of the 
 United States to German tacks at prices with Avhich we can not suc- 
 cessfully compete. The McKinley tariff on tacks was specific, as 
 follows, viz: ](J ounces and under at 2;| cents per 1.0(10; over IC ounces 
 at 2'1 cents per i»ound. 
 
 I should be i)leased if you would decide to lestore specific duties on 
 tacks at these or not less than 3">;'i ])er cent olf these rates. Unless 
 some sucli suitable i)rotection is alioidcd us, the manufacture of tacks 
 will continue in its i)rescnt dei)iessed condition, on accovmt of the 
 unequal foreign comi)etition to whicii I have referred. 
 Yours, respectfullv, 
 
 .1. II. I 'AUKS. 
 
 Derby, Conn., .lanuarn .9, 1897. 
 
 COMTVriTTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 While no representative of the tack-making iiulustry has been sent 
 to confer witli your committee, so far as we know, there has been consid- 
 erable talk among the leading tack manufacturers, and we are united in 
 our ojiiiiion that nothing short of s])eci(ic duties of the old ]\IcKinley 
 bill are sullicient to reasonably prote<'t our industry, 'fhe major i)or- 
 tionof the tack manufacturers in the United States are in the old colony 
 of Massai'liusetts, and it is our impression that the leading manufac- 
 turers located in that section have meinoriali/ed your committee 
 through the lion. lOlijah A. Morse, who rejtresents that district. Ileit- 
 eration nuiy seem unnecessary, but we beg ou'-e more to ask that in 
 the luoposed new bill the old specific «lutics will be rephued. 
 
 The class of workmen employed in the tack-making industry are 
 above the average in ability ami standing, and the ad valorem latesof 
 the Wilson bill have worked disastrously against l)oth the manufac- 
 turers ami worknuMi. Some of the largest tack niakingeonii)anies have 
 failed. Large (juantities of tacks have been inijiorted. esju'cially tlu)se 
 on which the i)ercentage of labor is the greatest. 
 
 SiiEi.TON Company. 
 
 I'. ^^ . liENilAM. Treasurer. 
 
 Washington, J). C., Jauuari/ J I, ]S97. 
 
 COMlVriTTEE on WaYS AND .MEANS: 
 
 I have the honor to submit for the consideration of your committee a 
 letter from I\Ir. C 1). Hunt, managei- of the Fairhaven branch of the 
 Atlas Tack ('or])oration, in wliicli he states tliat he concurs in the rate 
 of duty which was submitted to the committee by Hon, lOliJah ^lorse, 
 at the recjuest of Mr. Parks, treasurer of the same corjioration, and 
 asks that the schedule shall be lA cents per thousand on tacks not 
 exceeding 10 ounces to the thousand, and 1 ;: cents per i)ound on tacks 
 and short nails exceeding 10 ounces to the thousand and iu)t longer 
 than 1^ inches in length. 
 
 I desire toc;ill the sj^ecial attention of the committee to the assertion 
 that is made that these small nails, not exceeding 1{ inches in length, 
 are the exclusive manufacture of tack manufacturers, but that importers
 
 TACKS. 391 
 
 in past time have imported Iluiigaiian (tack) nails, altliouiih exclu- 
 sively the i)roduct of tack mauufacturers; also chair nails, samples of 
 both of which I inclose. 
 
 I understand that these goods, being a i)roduct of tack manufactur- 
 ers, should be subject to the same duty as their other products, but, 
 being known as "small nails," they have in the past evaded their 
 intended duties and may do so again, uidess they can be distinguished 
 from "cut nails"' by some detinition, which I understand can be done 
 by limiting the term "small nails" to the length, namely, 1.^ inches 
 long. 
 
 I also understand that the rate of duty asked for is two-thirds of the 
 duty imposed under the McKinley bill. I again call the attention of 
 the committee to the importance of making the duty on tacks sj)ecilic 
 and not ad valorem. 
 
 JOUN SlMPKINS, M. C, 
 
 Thirteenth Massachusetts District. 
 
 Faikhavkn, MAi>.s., Jaituarn 11, IS07. 
 Hon. John Simpkixs, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deak Sik: As Mr. Tarks lias named two-thinl.s of the McKinley duty on tacks as 
 what be desires, I fully <()ii<iu' with his fij^ures, and fav<ir the two-thirds of 2^ and 
 2i respectively, uiakin;^ the duty U cents jxt 1,000 not exceeding lG-oiin<e; V^ cents 
 per pound exceeding li!-oimco and not longer than 1| inches. 
 
 I think that lA cents per 1,0(M) and the same per pound would he ample and not 
 arouse tlie ire of the tarilV reformers, but leave the adjustment of the rate if not 
 less than 1} cents i)er 1,000 and same per i)ound for exceeding Itl-ouiue and not longer 
 than If inches. The small nails are the exclusive manufaeture of tack manufac- 
 turers, but the importers ha^ni in times past imported lluiigariau (tack) nails as 
 rails, although exclusively the product of tack manufacturers, and with a tack 
 point, but a round head; also chair nails. These goods are the products of tack 
 manufacturers, and ought to be subject to duty the same as other yjroducts, but being 
 known as (small) nails may evade th(! intended duty unless tiie term which the 
 importers have used in the past to evade the duty, viz, nails, be incorporated iu the 
 act, yet distinguishiug these small nails from cut nails by limiting the term by 
 the length, viz, If inches long. 
 
 C. D. Hunt. 
 
 Sandwich, Mass., Jannary 15, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir: I learn that thei^e is a movement being made by the 
 tack manufacturers of this country to have the McKinley tariff on tacks 
 and small nails restored, at least m a hu'ge measure. If the tack man- 
 ufacturers expect to control the business of our own country, it is very 
 important that something should be done, for at the present tariff rate 
 these goods can be largely imported. AVe do not ask that the tariff" 
 should be fully restored, but about 75 per cent of the McKinley tariff' 
 we think would be about right, or say 1.^, cents i)er 1,000 on IG-ounce 
 tacks and smaller and V^ cents per 1,000 or pound on the larger sizes. 
 
 A specitic duty is what we want. 
 
 H. H. Heald.
 
 392 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 SEWING-MACHINE NEEDLES. 
 
 (Paragraph 150.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL NEEDLE COMPANY, 
 OF SPRINGFIELD, MASS. 
 
 Springfield, Mass., January 5, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir: The present duty on sewing-machine needles is 25 per 
 cent. The duty under the McKinley bill was 35 per cent. The duty 
 on sewing-machine needles was revised by the committee appointed by 
 President Arthur. Before that time it stood at 35 per cent and 81 per 
 1,000. 
 
 We believe that this duty is more needed to-day than ever before, 
 and we feel that we require 35 per cent a.id 81 ])er 1,000 to enable us 
 to compete witli foreign manufacturers. Our goods consist very largely 
 of labor. On the stock itself, which is mainly all ini]>orted, there is a 
 duty of 40 per cent and the average diHerence in labor is certaiidy not 
 less than 100 per cent. We have until recently been able to hold most 
 of our trade against foreign competition, but in the last two or three 
 years we have lost considerable trade Avhere we can not meet the price 
 and leave anything in the business. 
 
 Hardly any business could more justly ask for ])rotection than the 
 sewing-machine needle business, as we do not get any ]>rotec(i()n from 
 incidental matters like freight and time, which form an almost sullicient 
 protection for some other goods, and it is mostly labor which we sell, 
 probably as largely as nine ])arts out of ten. 
 
 The foreign competition is daily becoming worse, owing to their 
 adopting American machinery. This is an industry in Avhich the I'nited 
 States has stood tirst, and it employs several hundred skilled workmen 
 at good wages. There are about seven i)roducing factories of sewing- 
 machine needles in the United States, employing from 750 to 800 skilled 
 hands. These employees consist in the majority of men, less than one- 
 half being girls and a few boys. Here the wages ol the men are from 
 $1.50 to $3 per day, Avith only a few over or under those ligure.s. A 
 skilled workman's wages in England is from 85 ])er week to 81.1*5 per 
 day. The wages here for girls are from $1 to 81.-5 i)cr day, the Eng- 
 lish wages being from 25 cents to about -10 cents per day. IJoys here 
 earn an average of $1 per day and in England 2(» cents to 25 cJnts ])er 
 day. 
 
 The German wages right through average a little lower than these 
 figures for English labor. The number of hours of labor per day aver- 
 age about the same. 
 
 The difference in cost of labor here is, as before stated, fully 100 per 
 cent, and other items of expense are much higher here than in either 
 England or Germany. As stated, the stock is mainly imported and 
 under a duty of 40 per cent, and what we sell is nearly all labor, this 
 labor being about nine parts out of ten, and we think that tlie duty of 
 35 per cent and $1 per 1,000 should be restored on sewing-machine 
 needles to enable us to compete with the foreign product, and to hold 
 our present trade and regain that lost under the present condition. 
 
 National Needle Co., 
 E. W. Makepeace, Treasurer.
 
 SEWING-MACHINE NEEDLES. 393 
 
 TOERINGTON, CONis., January 1, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The duty on sewing macliine needles nnder the Wilson bill is 25 per 
 cent ad valorem ; the duty under the McKinley bill was 35 per cent ad 
 valorem; the duty, until clianged by the commission, under President 
 Arthur was 35 per cent and si per 1,(»00. We believe that this duty of 
 35 per cent and $ 1 per 1 ,000 would be a moderate duty under the present 
 conditions, and that such a duty is necessary to give proper and just 
 protection to the sewing-machine needle business under the conditions 
 that exist to-day. 
 
 The production of sewing-machine needles in the United States would, 
 we should think, be about 250,000 a day. Of this amount our produc- 
 tion in our two different factories would be about 140,000. 
 
 Number of hands employed in the United States on sewing-machine 
 needles, probably from G50 to 800; the average selling price to the 
 largest buyers, about 88 per 1,000. 
 
 Sewing-machine needles are about one-tenth stock and nine-tenths 
 labor. Stock used is wire, and virtually entirely of English manufac- 
 ture and bears a duty of 40 per cent. 
 
 Of the employees a little less than one-half consists of girls, a few 
 boys, and the majority skilled men. On men, the wages run here from 
 $1.50 to $3 a day, with i)ossibly a very few under and over. 
 
 In England, men's wages are Irom $5 a week to 81.20 a day; some- 
 what lower than this in Germany. Girls here from 81 to 81.50 a day; 
 mostly between 81 and 81.25. English wages for girls from 24 cents to 
 40 cents per day ; German, about 24 cents. IJoys here about 81 per day; 
 in both England and Germany abcmt 20 cents. It should, however, be 
 taken account that the average Avorking day in England is nine hours 
 and in Ciermany eleven; here it is ten hours. 
 
 General expense in the items of taxes, coal, interest, etc., is consider- 
 ably higher than in cither England or Germany. We obtain our figures 
 as to England from our own factory at Eedditch and as to Germany 
 from one of the largest Aix la Chappelle sewing-machine needle facto- 
 ries, with whom we are connected in business. 
 
 The sewing machine needle makers of the United States have been 
 so far ahead of their foreign competitors in machinery and methods that 
 they have heretofore paid but little attention to the tariff, but tlie for- 
 eign makers are improving their machinery and arc increasing their 
 trade here. 
 
 We do not see how any change in the tariff' will increase our prices 
 as there is a fierce competition here, nor do we think that it will increase 
 the cost of needles at all to the consumer, except possibly a little to a 
 small portion of the Xew York tailoring trade. 
 
 We hope, under an increased tarift", to hold some trade which is gradu- 
 ally slipping away from us and to gain some trade which we can not at 
 present possibly get and leave any profit in the business. 
 
 Under the competition which exists here we can not increase our 
 present prices or our i)resent profits on the trade that we already have. 
 Under the j)resent duty we can bring the wire from England, paying 
 the duty, put part of the work on here, send the goods to our Eedditch 
 (England) factory, and bring the needles in here and undersell ourselves. 
 While the duty aslced for would not be sufficient to protect us against 
 ourselves if we were to thoroughly rig up our English factory, we still 
 think that it is sufficient as against any foreign needle makers with the 
 machinery and methods that they at jiresent have. 
 
 Excelsior Needle Co., 
 J. F. Alvord, Secretary.
 
 394 SCHEDULE C. — METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 LATCH :N^EEDLES. 
 
 (Paragraph 150.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NEEDLE 
 
 MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 Gentlemen: We believe a specific duty of $3.50 per 1,000 is neces- 
 sary to give proper protection to the latcli-needle business iu the United 
 States. 
 
 The production of latch needles iu this country will average about 
 150,000 per day, employing about 700 people. The average selling )>rice 
 is about $10 per 1,000. Nearly four-fifths of the production is sold from 
 $9 to $11 per 1,000. The lowest price is $8, and some sell as high as $li5. 
 
 Of the employees about 35 per cent are girls; average price here per 
 day, $1.10. Fifteen per cent are boys; aveiage price per day, $1. Fifty 
 per cent are men; must be skilled workmen; price from $1.35 to $3 per 
 day; average price, $1.75. 
 
 Price paid for labor in Germany is for girls, '24: cents per day; boys, 
 20 cents per day, and men, 00 cents per day. Working hours in Ger- 
 many, eleven hours per day; here, ten hours. 
 
 Our information as to the price paid for labor in Germany was obtained 
 from men who have worked on latch needles there and from men who 
 have visited the manufacturers in Ebingen and Chemnitz. 
 
 Stock used is wire and costs 10 per cent more than in Germany, owing 
 to the duty. Of this we do not comphiin, as the wire makers of this 
 country need the protection. 
 
 Importations of latch needles from Germany began about six years 
 ago and have increased rapidly the last three years. 
 
 Manufacturers in the United States have been so far ahead of Ger- 
 man manufacturers in machinery and methods that they have paid 
 very little attention to the tariff. But the German manufacturers are 
 improving their machinery and the results are now apparent in our 
 markets. 
 
 It is not possible to pay the present price for labor in this country 
 and compete with German manufacturers. Fierce competition here 
 will prevent an increase in price or profits. 
 
 In 1807 an inferior quality of latch needles were sold at $G0 per 1,000 
 and labor was as cheap then as it is now; the competition has been so 
 sharp that better needles are sold to-day for $10 per 1,()0(>. 
 
 German needles are used almost exclusively in England ; the cheaper 
 labor and longer hours made it possible for them to ruin the needle 
 business in England. 
 
 We object to ad valorem duty, as the chance for undervaluation is 
 great and the temptation strong. Duty should be on needles in process 
 of manufacture as well as finished. 
 
 We believe the specific duty named will be no more than the difler- 
 ence in cost of labor iu Germany and here. Other expenses we do not 
 take into account. 
 
 We would call your attention to the way German needles are brought 
 into this country. They are put u]> in i):i])er packages with from 100 
 to 500 in a package and sealed. Enough of these packages to make 
 1,000 needles are put into a bundle. 
 
 There is a great difierence in the size of needles. If one is disposed, 
 there might be four or five thousand of the smallest kinds put in a
 
 WOOD SCREWS. 395 
 
 package of the same weight and bulk as 1,000 of the larger needles, 
 and it would not be possible to detect the difierence unless the packages 
 were opened, which would be difficult. 
 
 In this country all the manufacturers put their needles in boxes to 
 hold, as a rule, 250 or 500. Should the German needles be imported in 
 such boxes, the customs officer could open the original package and 
 in a few moments satisfy himself whether the number invoiced agreed 
 with the number in the package, and it would be much more difficult 
 to defraud the Government. 
 
 We would suggest that any latch needles imported should be in boxes 
 that could be oi)ened and counted without breaking seals, and that 
 would not show that the package had been opened, as it must in the 
 present iiackages imported. 
 
 William Corey, 
 Edward H. Sturtevant, 
 Committee for the Needle Manufacturers. 
 
 WOOD SCREWS. 
 
 (Paragraph 155.) 
 
 Hohjol^e, Mass., Jamiary 15, 1897. 
 COMlVriTTEE ON WATS AND MEANS: 
 
 Kepreseuting the wood-screw manufacturing industry in the United 
 States, we desire to lay before you facts relating to the needed import 
 tariff' duty upon wood screws to retain the industiy in this country. 
 There are sixteen manufacturers of wood screws located in the six sev- 
 eral States of Massachusetts, lihode Island, Connecticut, Pennsyl- 
 vania, Ohio, and lUiuois. 
 
 These companies use an invested capital of about $0,000,000, and 
 employ more than 4,000 i^ersons, and produce and market all the wood 
 screws this country consumes and at prices in the market averaging, for 
 fifteen years prior'to the passage of the U'ilson bill, less than 40 per cent 
 of the average i)rices prevailing at any previous like j)eriod. Since the 
 enactment of the Wilson bill prices have been still further largely 
 reduced; not only by excessive competition and short demand in the 
 United States, but also threatened danger of foreign manufiicturers 
 taking and holding this market under the Wilson rate of duties. 
 
 It has been a well-recognized fact, with all wood-screw manufactur- 
 ers that, to provide for the daily product of each 1,000 gross of screws 
 of average sizes, the investment in permanent ])lant, machinery, tools, 
 fixtures, and working capital is equal to the value of wood screws that 
 can be manufactured and marketed in from two to three years of time — 
 that is, it requires the market product of two to three years' time in 
 which to turn the capital once over. 
 
 Wire drawn to required sizes is the raw material of the screw manu- 
 facturers, and costs more than similar wire used in England and in 
 Germany and other foreign countries. 
 
 Investigations made in foreign countries, regarding comparative wages 
 paid upon similar processes in the manufacture of screws, show that 
 whereas manufactures in this country pay $1, in P^ngland there is paid 
 52 cents, in Germany 40 cents, in France 47 cents, in Belgium 43 cents, 
 while in Norway and Italy wages are still lower, showing that the wages 
 paid by foreign makers to workmen in this industry is only 40 per cent 
 of that paid in the United States.
 
 396 
 
 SCHEDULE C. — METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 We are interested in works near Hamburg, and are able to verify tliis 
 comparison of wages. About 60 per cent of the cost of the finished 
 product is labor. The majority of foreign makers use the same pat- 
 tern machinery as is used in this country, and the speed of the machine 
 is governed by the power applied, and measures the product. In this 
 country we are not ahead of our foreign competitors in the production 
 or application of power for rapidity of production; consequently one 
 day's wages of foreign labor will produce as many screws as the same 
 time of American labor. No screws of any amount have been imported 
 the last two years, or in fact for many years. No revenue has come to 
 the Government from wood screws under the Wilson bill, and, therefore, 
 no loss of revenue can come from the restoration of the McKinley bill. 
 
 Practical illustration of one size in each of tlie four rates of duty on 
 iron and brass and the average per centum of duties on wood screws 
 under the McKinley bill and under the Wilson bill is found to be as fol- 
 lows, English list price and export discount: 
 
 IRON SCREW^S. 
 
 
 List. 
 
 Discount. 
 
 Net. 
 
 Specific. 
 
 Ad valorem. 
 
 size. 
 
 Wilson. 
 
 McKinley. 
 
 Wilson. 
 
 McKinley 
 
 ibv5 
 
 .18 
 .27 
 .39 
 .80 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 77i 
 
 77J 
 77i 
 
 .0405 
 .0608 
 .877 
 .18 
 
 .025 
 .0406 
 .05 
 .10 
 
 .035 
 .0667 
 .07 
 .16 
 
 Percent. 
 61.73 
 
 77.00 
 57.00 
 55.00 
 
 Per cent. 
 86 
 
 a by 8 
 
 109 
 
 IJby 10 
 
 80 
 
 2iby 12 
 
 90 
 
 
 
 
 4)251.00 1 4)365 
 
 
 63.00 1 91 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 BRASS SCREWS. 
 
 J by 5... 
 3by8... 
 IJ by 10 . 
 2^ by 12 , 
 
 Average of tbe four sizes. 
 
 .38 
 
 02i 
 
 . 1425 
 
 .025 
 
 .64 
 
 62J 
 
 24 
 
 .0462 
 
 .0118 
 
 62i 
 
 .4425 
 
 .05 
 
 .0264 
 
 62i 
 
 .99 
 
 .10 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 .035 
 .0666 
 .07 
 .16 
 
 17| 
 
 11.25 
 
 10.00 
 
 4)58.00 
 
 14.50 
 
 24.56 
 
 m 
 
 15 
 
 17 
 
 4)84 
 
 From the above average ad valorem duty : 
 
 Wilson. , McKinley. 
 
 _ Per cent. 
 
 ?ra«s 14 50 
 
 Iron 63.00 
 
 2)77.50 
 Average on brass and iron 38j 
 
 2)112 
 
 50 
 
 Under the Wilson bill, 38a per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Under the McKinley bill, 50 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 We ask that the rates in the bill which you are about to frame be the 
 same as the McKinley law, as below, for two reasons : 
 
 1. That this industry may be retained and profitably employ labor 
 and capital in the United States.
 
 ALUMINUM. 397 
 
 2. Because the revenues of the Government will not be affected by 
 its adoption. 
 
 Screws, commonly called wood screws, more than two inches in length, five cents 
 per pound; over one inch and not more than two inches in length, seven cents per 
 pound; over one-half inch and not more tlian one inch in length, ten cents per 
 pound; one-half inch and less in length, fourteen cents per pound. 
 
 John C. Newton, 
 AIAJMINVM, 
 
 (Paragraph 157.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PITTSBURG EEDUCTION 
 
 COMPANY. 
 
 PiTTSBURa, Pa., January 6, 1897. 
 Dear Sir: For the consideration of the Ways and Means Commit- 
 tee at their forthcoming session regarding metal schedules, we would 
 advise the following rates for aluminum: 
 
 157f. Plates, sheets, bars, and rods of aluiiiinuni, of any kind, in which aluminum 
 is the component material of chief value, lifteen cents per pound. 
 
 157^. Manufactured articles or wares of aluminum of any kind, in which aluminum 
 is the component material of chief value, anil whetlier partially or wholly manu- 
 factured, forty-live per centum ad valorem. 
 
 Alfred E. Hunt, 
 President of the Pittsburg Reduction Company. 
 
 ARGUMENT REGARDING CHANGE IN SCHEDULE. 
 
 We have not asked for any change increasing the duty on aluminum. 
 We do not think the duty should be reduced below 10 cents per pound; 
 but we believe that with the development of the aluminum business in 
 the past the rate of 10 cents per pound is a fair and adequate one for 
 ingot aluminum. 
 
 Aluminum is now sold in the form of plates, sheets, bars, and rodvS, 
 in the same way tliat zinc, lead, copper, iron, and steel are sold, and 
 there are the same reasons pertinent for the increase of duty upon 
 rolled and hammered bars of aluminum that there are for similar 
 increases of duty over that required on ingots with tlie other metals. 
 
 We do not think that the rate of 35 per centum ad valorem on manu- 
 factured articles or wares composed wholly or in part of aluminum, 
 and whether ]>artly or wholly manufactured, is sufficient protection. 
 We think that it will be a source of added revenue to the Government, 
 and one which will allow more protection to home industries, to make 
 their rate 45 per cent ad valoreu). 
 
 Upon the bauxite or beauxite — the ore of aluminum — we would 
 recommend the placing of a duty of 81 per ton, provided raw materials 
 such as iron ore are to be similarly protected by a rate of 40 or 50 cents 
 per ton. If iron ore and similar raw materials are not thus protected, 
 we would withdraw our recommendations on this point. 
 
 Bauxite is at present on the free list. 
 
 The Pittsburg Reduction Co., 
 Alfred E. Hunt, President.
 
 398 SCHEDULE C. — METxVLS AND MANUFACTUKES OF. 
 
 GOLD, SILVEK, AND ALUIMIKIJM LEAF. 
 
 (Paragraphs 160, 163, and 164.) 
 STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. HASTINGS, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
 Saturday, Jmiuary 9, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Hastings said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 I have a petition on behalf of employers, more especially on behalf of 
 employers of these poorer industries which to you seem very small, con- 
 sisting of the manufacture of gold leaf, silver leaf, and aluminum leaf— a 
 composition leaf commonly known as Dutch metal. 
 
 These industries combined employ about 3,000 peoj^le, and they are 
 pretty well scattered from Boston on the north to Baltimore on the 
 south, and New York on the east to Chicago, Covington, and Cincin- 
 nati on the west. We confidently hope that you, gentlemen, will take 
 the view that although a workingman learns a trade that employs but 
 few persons he is eutitk^d to as good wages as those who learn a trade 
 employing a good number. These industries are very attractive to the 
 German population, for the reason that the value of the metal is very 
 small and the leaves, in order to get them to a very thin state, reciuire 
 a good deal of labor, and consequently it appeals to the German laborer 
 rather than the American. 
 
 Mr. TuENER. What is the difference in the cost of labor? 
 
 Mr. Hastiis'GS. I visited most of the factories in Europe, and the 
 highest price of the German workman was 87.'^0 a week, and that 
 workman did exactly what the American workman does for 818 a week. 
 No, I won't say exactly, ibr onr men work ten hours a day and otf at 
 4 o'clock on Saturday, while the Germans work twelve hours a day. 
 We treat the aluminum leaf which you have seen in decorating. The 
 value of the metal — 500 sheets — is 5 cents, yet it sells at So cents, 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Before you go from gold and silver leaves, is it not 
 a fact that importations of these leaves have been very small under the 
 present law? 
 
 Mr. Hastings. Gold leaf has not been imported for the reason that 
 the men suffered all the reduction. For instance, under the ^Iclvinley 
 bill the specific duty was $2 for .300 leaves. The cost of nmnufacture 
 was $6.65 and they sold for §7. Under the Wilson bill tin- ad valorem 
 duty was 30 per cent, and the Germans could lay it down in America 
 for $5.79 duty paid. The employees were reduced so that the American 
 now costs $4.90 to produce. You understand tliis reduction fell entirely 
 upon the men and girls engaged in the manufacture of this product in 
 this country. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. And it is because of the reduction of wages that the 
 importations have not been greater? 
 
 Mr. Hastings. Yes, sir. The men of this country were told that 
 they must take the choice of lower wages or no work at all. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is it not a fact that the importations of gold leaf 
 under the Wilson law as compared with the McKinlev law are less than 
 $200 additional ? 
 
 Mr. Hastings. None were imported under either. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Both duties were then prohibitory? 
 
 Mr. Hastings. At $6 a week they are prohibitory.
 
 GOLD, SILVER, AND ALUMINUM LEAF. 399 
 
 Mr. Evans. The law did not proliibit; it was your reduction of 
 wages. 
 
 Mr. Hastings. It was our reduction of wages, as I say. If tbe men 
 could get $12 or $15 a week as tliey did under the McKinley law, or if 
 we were forced to pay them that, the result would be that they would 
 all be imported. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. If you pay the same wages now that you were paying 
 prior to 1894, what then would have been the importations in your 
 judgment? 
 
 Mr. Hastings. It would all have been imported. Xone would have 
 been manufactured here. I think I can make it plain. London is a 
 city with a population of 4,000,000 people, and I have been unable to 
 find a gold leaf manufacturing establishment in London employing over 
 10 persons. Nuremburg, with 400,000 people, has factory after factory, 
 all shipping into London. New York, with 2,000,000 of people, has any 
 number of factories employing 100 people. Philadelphia has had as 
 high as 300 factories. Yet London, with free trade opening her doors 
 to Germany, has not one factory with more than 10 people. Paris, that 
 protects itself from Oermany, has a number of factories. And so I say 
 that these people want to be*^ protected from (iormaiis. I think London 
 is a striking example of what happened with free trade against Ger- 
 many. 
 
 ]VIr. McMlLLlN. Is tliere no import duty on it in Germany? 
 
 Mr. Hastings. Imported into Germany? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Hastings. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. It enters into Germany free? 
 
 Mr. Hastings. Germany supplies the world where there is no duty. 
 Nobody can make it cheaper than Germany. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. I was inquiring as to Miiether there was any tariff 
 levied by Germany upon this product — Germany has protection on many 
 things. 
 
 Mr. Hastings. I can not tell you whether she has any protection on 
 this or not. But speaking of German protection, 1 can give you an 
 illustration: I was once taken sick in tlie Black Forest, and I sent to 
 London and had a i)air of trousers sent to me, and the duty on the pair 
 of trousers was 50 cents. I asked a German there what it meant. He 
 said that Germany worked for the world. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. Do you know that Germany does not put a duty on 
 gold leaf? 
 
 Mr. Hastings. I do not know; but it would be of no use if they did. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. Their new system of tariff duties imposes a duty 
 on nearly everything that they manufacture. 
 
 Mr. Hastings. The reason, as I stated in my preliminary remarks, 
 that this business is attractive to Germans is because it is almost all 
 labor, and there is where the Germans have the great advantage over 
 all other countries. 
 
 memorial submitted by MR.- HASTINGS. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The manufacturers and employees engaged in manufacturing gold 
 leaf, sih^er leaf, aluminum leaf, and composition leaf or Dutch metal 
 present the following facts bearing on these industries, which facts are 
 positive and not visionary, inasmuch as they contrast the conditions
 
 400 SCHEDULE C— METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 of the trades referred to uuder the bills known as the McKinley and 
 
 Wilson tariff bills. ^^ ,, , ^.. 
 
 Nicholas Schultz, New 1 or A- City, 
 Charles A. Brice, Kew Yorl- City, 
 William Bock, Brooklyn, N. Y., 
 Daniel Froeschauer, Broollyn, X. Y., 
 Robert E. Hastings, rhiladelpMa, Pa., 
 John H. Riley, Baltimore, Md, 
 Frank H. Caffin, Hyde Park, Mass., 
 A. A. Lauriat, Boston, Mass., 
 F. W. Harwood, Sprinf/Jield, Mass., 
 Julius Hess, Chicago., 111., 
 Edward Schultz, Jersey City, X. J., 
 Alexander ]M. Eraser, Red Bank, X. J., 
 James W. Newman, »sVnj Francisco, CaL, 
 David Reeves, Cincinnati, Ohio, 
 Thomas Swift, Rochester, N. Y., 
 W. T. GOODNOW, Sayre, Pa., 
 
 Committee. 
 
 GOLD LEAF. 
 
 McKinley bill, specific duty $2 per pack of 500 leaves: 
 
 Best skilled beaters received per pack sfL 55 
 
 Best skilled cutters (girls), per jiack 50 
 
 Molds, books, rent, etc 35 
 
 Value of gold in oue pack 4. 25 
 
 Cost to manufacture one pack G. 65 
 
 One pack of gold leaf sold for from $7 to *7.25. Under this law a 
 skilled workman could earn $15 per week. 
 
 Wilson bill, 30 per cent ad valorem : 
 
 Oue pack German gold leaf, value $4.42 
 
 Tbirty per cent duty 1. 326 
 
 Freight, insurance, etc 05 
 
 One pack German gold leaf delivered in United States 5. 796 
 
 Wages for same workmen reduced under the Wilson bill to, per pack $0. 80 
 
 Cutters (girls) 50 
 
 Molds, books, rent, etc 35 
 
 Value of gold in one pack 4.25 
 
 Cost to manufacture one pack gold leaf in United States 5. 90 
 
 One pack of gold leaf selling for from $0 to .$0.25. Under tbis law 
 skilled workmen earned $8 per week when on full time. 
 
 The profit to the manufacturer is so small that ho received a very 
 inadequate compensation botb for his work and the capital invested. 
 The manufacturers are comparatively few and the working people 
 many, and they bad to stand the loss, Vhich reduced their wages to a 
 point that barely gave them a living on full time, but they have only 
 averaged about two-thirds time, thus making their lot a peculiarly hard 
 one, to say nothing of those who have from necessity been thrown out 
 of work. 
 
 The manufacturers therefore pray that your committee fix a specific 
 rate of $2 per pack of 500 leaves.
 
 GOLD, SILVER, AND ALUMINUM LEAF. 401 
 
 SILVER LEAF. 
 
 McKinley bill, 75 ceuts per pack of 500 liimdred leaves. Best skilled 
 labor was cettius 05 cents per pack and working- full tune. Men could 
 earn from $12 to 8U per week; girls, $5 to $0 per week; pack ot silver 
 leaf sold ior 81.30. ,<,„..-- ^ 
 
 Wilson bill, 30 per cent, pack of silver leaf selling for -a cents— no 
 wages; all factories closed. „, , , , 
 
 Up to the time of the Wilson bill, silver leaf had always been manu- 
 factured in the United States, but after the passage of said bill every 
 manufacturer was obliged to close, as silver leaf is now de ivered in 
 this country for about 05 cents per pack, including silver, labor, duty, 
 and sundries, which is lower than the McKinley duty was, exclusive ot 
 
 We therefore pray for a specilic duty equal to that of the McKinley 
 
 ^The closing of this industrv worked especially hard on the tradesmen 
 engaged in manufacturing gold leaf, as it lorced these men into that 
 business, which was already seriously hurt by the eliects ot the ^\ ilsou 
 bill. 
 
 ALUMINUM LEAF. 
 
 McKinley l)ill, specilic duty of S cents per 100 leaves. Men could 
 earn from $ll' to SM per week; girls, $5 to $0 per week; pack ot 
 aluminumleaf (500 leaves) sold f(U- sl.L»5. ^^ ^ oc 
 
 Wilson bill, .'.O per cent. Men in work earning Irom >0 to sh j.er 
 week; girls, 82 to 8i per week; pack cf aluminum leal selling tor bo 
 
 Under the Wilson bill a comparatively small portion of this article 
 has been manufactured in this country, and if the employees could 
 have obtained situations in other trades they would not have accepted 
 such wages, in which case all of this article consumed m this country 
 would have been imported. The ad valorem duty caused the importers 
 to put this articleup in boxes of 5,000 to 10,00(» leaves, which are invoiced 
 at very low prices, and we therefore pray for a specilic duty ot lo cents 
 per 100 leaves in order to cover that put u]) in boxes as well as in books. 
 
 The reason for asking for this rate is that the value of the metal m 
 500 leaves is not over 5 cents, the labor being the principal item. 
 
 COMPOSITION LEAF, OR DUTCH METAL. 
 
 McKinley bill, 8 cents per 100 leaves, specific. 
 
 Wilson bill, 40 per cent. 
 ■ Previous to the McKinley bill there was none of this article manu- 
 factured in this country, but under said bill its manufacture was com- 
 menced, but it was tbund almost impossible to manufacture it and 
 compete with the imported leaf even with the protection afforded by 
 the McKinlev bill, the wages paid being very small. 
 
 We therefore respectfully pray for a specific duty of lo cents per 100 
 leaves in order to enable those who established the factories under the 
 McKinley bill to reestablish them at fair wages, and thus give employ- 
 ment to American citizens. 
 
 The reason for asking for this rate is that the value of the metal m 
 500 leaves is not over 5 cents, the labor being the principal item. 
 T H 26
 
 402 SCHEDULE C. — METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE AMERICAN BRONZE POWDER 
 
 COMPANY. 
 
 New Yoek, January 12, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The undersigned, Henry Ablborn, president of tbe American Bronze 
 Powder Company, office No. Murray street, New York, factory at 
 Verona, in the State of New Jersey, respectfully submits the following 
 for your consideration and approval : 
 
 The present duty of 40 per cent ad valorem has worked great injury 
 to this branch of our business; also has deprived the United States Cov- 
 ernment of considerable amount of revenne. Under the la w of October 
 1, 1890, the duty was a specific one at 12 cents per pound, equivalent to 
 from 34 per cent minimum to 3G i)er cent maximum ad valorem. 
 
 The revenue to the Government averaged from $117,090.24 to 
 $108,642.28, and the general average for the four fiscal years from 1891 
 to 1894 amounted to §142,101.09, while under the jn-esent law the gen- 
 eralaveragefor the two years 1895 and 1890 amounted to only $102,990.20, 
 a loss to the revenne of about 40 ])er cent. This loss is readily ac- 
 counted for, the direct cause being the undervalnation in invoices. 
 
 Under the specific duty of 12 cents perjiound theimi^orters declared 
 the actual value of their goods, as shown by the returns to the custom- 
 houses. In 1891 the unit of value of bronze powders averaged .".4 cents 
 per pound; in 1892, 33 cents; in 1893, 33 cents; in 1S94, 35 cents per 
 pound; but as vSoon as the 40 per cent ad valorem duty became the law 
 the declared values decreased Irom 35 cents per pound in 1894 to 30 cents 
 in 1895 and to 28 cents in 1890, The dilVerence from 35 cents in 1894 
 down to 30 cents in 1895 is ecjual to within a fraction of 17 per cent in 
 undervaluation. Encrmraged by this first attempt, the year following, 
 ending with June 30, 1896, the invoice values fell to 28 cents per jmnnd, 
 a further undervaluation of 21 per cent. Just to that amount the United 
 States Government has been defrauded in revenue and the American 
 manufacturers injured in their legitimate business. 
 
 The following carefully prepared tables, compiled from oflicial records 
 in the Treasury Department in Washington, show conclusively how the 
 United States Government is deprived of revenne by undervaluation: 
 
 1891— Imports 999,007 pounds, valued at $339,382.30; unit of value 
 34 cents per pound, upon which a specific duty of 12 cents per pound 
 yielded a revenue of $119,952.89, equal to 35 i)er cent. 
 
 1892— Imports 1,405,352 pounds, valued at $467,057; unit of value 33 
 cents per pound, specific duty 12 cents per pound, yielded $168,042.28, 
 equal to 36 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 1893— Imports 1,350,928 pounds, valued at $447,062.50; unit of value 
 33 cents per pound, specific duty 12 cents per pound, yielded $162,111.36, 
 equal to 36 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 1894— Imports 980,827 pounds, valued at $341,087; unit of value 35 
 cents per ])ound, specific duty 12 cents per pound, yielded $117,099.24, 
 equal to 35 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Under the jiresent tariff law : 
 
 1895 — Value of imported bronze powders, $241,845; unit of value 
 declared by the importers 30 cents per pound, duty 40 per cent ad 
 valorem, yielded $96,738, undervalued 17 per cent; loss to the United 
 States Government, $16,445.46.
 
 GOLD, SILVER, AND ALUMINUM LEAF. 403 
 
 1896: Value of imported brouze powders declared by the importers 
 at $273,13(i, equal to 28 cents per pound; duty, 40 per cent ad valorem, 
 yielded $109,254.40; undervalued 21 per cent; loss to the United States 
 Government, $22,943.42. 
 
 Total loss for these two years under the ad valorem duty to the 
 United States Government, 839,388.88. 
 
 From the aforementioned official facts it will be noticed that, although 
 the specific duty was 12 cents per pound, the duty paid was only 35 
 per cent ad valorem in 1891, 30 per cent in 1892, 36 per cent in 1893, 
 and 34 per cent in 1894, on the declaration of the importers, who had 
 then no interest to undervalue their invoices, but as soon as the specific 
 duty was changed to an ad valorem the invoice price was changed by 
 the importers to 30 cents and the year following to 28 cents. 
 
 Since June 30, 1896, some invoices of tlie importers of bronze powders 
 to their own agents in this city have been declared as low as 80 ijfennigs, 
 etjual to 191; cents per pound. On these thus luidervalued goods 40 
 per cent ad valorem is equal to about 8 cents per pound. 
 
 As a further proof of undervaluation, the following from Treasury 
 Department Circular No. 40, di\ ision of customs, dated March G, 1896, 
 page 2, confirms it: 
 
 No. 10851: Brouzo powders, from Adam Kiessuer, Xnremberg, brocade, 2a and 3a, 
 enterctl at 85 pfeuuigs, advauced by the United States appraisers to i<d pfennigs per 
 pound. 
 
 Brocade, 2c, entered at 71 pfennigs, adv.anced to 71 pfennigs. Brocade, 3b, entered 
 at 82 pfennigs, advanced to 81 pfennigs i)er pound. 
 
 For the manufacture of bronze powders we are obliged to import the 
 raw nniterial, known in comnierce as Dutch metal clippings. We i)ay 
 for the same in Germany !I9 pfennigs, or 24 cents, i)er pound for the com- 
 moner grades and as higli as 125 ])fennigs, or 30 cents, per pouiul for the 
 finer quality. We buy these clippings in the same market as tlie Ger- 
 man manufacturers of bronze powders do, and yet the German manu- 
 facturers invoice their finished bronze ]iowders to their own agents here 
 in New York City at 71 pfennigs, equal to 17 cents per pound, or 28 
 pfennigs, equal to 7 cents, per pound less than what they i)ay for the raw 
 material. This transaction alone proves conclusively how the United 
 States (Jovernment is defrauded of revenue by undervaluation. 
 
 The duty on these Dut(!h metal clii)pings, the raw material in the 
 manufacture of bronze powders, was changed from 1^ cents per pound 
 to 10 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 The cost in Germany, the lowest, is 99 pfennigs, or 24 cents, per ])ound, 
 and again as high as 125 i)fennigs, or 30 cents, per pound on their fine 
 grades. The duty on the lowest grades is now 10 per cent, or 2.4 cents, 
 per pound, an advance of 60 per cent on the higher grades. It is now 
 3 cents per pound, or 100 per cent, over the former duty under the 
 McKinley bill, viz, 1.^ cents per pound. Thus the duty on the raw 
 material which the American manufacturers are bound to import is by 
 60 and even 100 per cent higher, while the German manufacturer 
 receives a bonus of from 17 to 21 per cent by reason of undervaluation, 
 to the detriment and loss of revenue to the Government and injury to 
 the American manufacturers. 
 
 This raw material, the Dutch metal clippings, which receives the 
 benefit of labor in this country, has been advanced 60 to 100 per cent 
 in order to keep it out of this country, while the finished article, bronze 
 j)Owders, by undervaluation has been accorded a premium or profit to 
 the foreign manufacturers of from 17 to 21 per cent.
 
 404 SCHEDULE C. — METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 COST OF LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE. 
 
 The average pay to the workmen iu our factory is §10 per week 
 of sixty hours. This includes the women who are employed to do the 
 packing and receive $5 per week, while in Gennauy, according to the 
 United States official publication, "Labor in foreign countries," vol- 
 ume 1, page 315, the workmen in the bronze powderies in Germany 
 receive: Highest, $4.45 ; lowest, $3.35: general average, 83.90 in our 
 money per week ; but the working women in these German factories, 
 according to the same United States official publication, page 551, 
 receive only from 50 to 70 pfennigs per day, equal to not quite 12 cents 
 to 16| cents per day in our money, or 72 cents to $1 per week. They 
 work from 6 a. m. to p. m., and often from (5 a. m. to 9 and 10 p. m., 
 for which they are paid 10 pfennigs, equal to 2| cents, extra per day, or 
 a fraction over 14 cents per week. Thus the highest wages they can 
 possibly make for 15 to 10 hours' work per day is about 81.15 per week. 
 These factory women slaves receive theii meals at the factory at the 
 expense of the proprietors at 9 a. m. and at noon, the meal consisting 
 of a dish of potatoes and a cui) of rye coffee, and at 4 p. m. black rye 
 bread and a mug of beer, the value of which is only a tritle in cost. 
 
 In consideration of these facts, gathered from official sources, and 
 the injustice in the undervaluation to the detriment of revenue to the 
 Government and loss to the American manufacturing interests and 
 labor, we respectfully petition yon to restore the duty on bronze powder 
 to 15 cents per pound, and the clippings of Dutch metal to li cents per 
 pound, for labor is the principal part in the manufacture of bronze 
 powders, this being the true and exact proportion which the manufac- 
 tured article bears to the raw material, which by right ought to be on 
 the free list, but as the Government is in need of increased revenue 
 we cheerfully desire to contribute our share to that end. 
 
 Henky Ahlbokn, 
 President American Bronze Powder Manufacturing Co.- 
 
 MEMORIAL OF IMPORTERS OF BRONZE POWDERS AND DUTCH 
 
 METAL LEAF. 
 
 New York, January 8, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The undersigned firms, engaged in the importation of bronze powders 
 and Dutch metal leaf, finding that an ad valorem duty, such as at 
 present exists, affords opportunity for undervaluation, which they have 
 reason to believe has been taken advantage of, beg to respectfnlly urge 
 your honorable committee to consider the expediency of changing the 
 duty on both bronze powder and Dutch metal leaf from the existing ad 
 valorem to a specific rate. 
 
 J. Marsching «S: Co., 
 
 27 ParTc Place. 
 The Fuchs & Lang M'f'g Co., 
 Julius Lang, President, 
 
 29 Warren Street, 
 Benham Meiner, 
 
 49 Murray Street. 
 George Meier «& Co., 
 
 12 Barclay Street.
 
 BRONZE POWDERS — ART WORKS — BRONZE STATUARY. 405 
 
 BROXZE POA^nDEES. 
 
 (Paragraph 160.) 
 
 New York, January 9, 1897. 
 Com:mtttee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We take the liberty of addressing? yon personally regarding the duty 
 on bronze powders and metal leaf, which at present is 40 per cent ad 
 valorem. With this duty unscrupulous importers can easily under- 
 value their goods, as the merits of these articles are shown onlj^ after 
 use. We are the largest importers of these goods and we would most 
 respectfully suggest to have the specific duties of the McKinley tariff 
 restored, which were: On bronze powders, 12 cents per pound; on metal 
 leaf, 8 cents per 100 leaves; on metal clippings, 1^ cents per pound. 
 
 Sliould these duties be too high to meet the views of your honorable 
 committee, we would ask for a specific duty which would be between 
 the i)resent and the jNIclvinley tarift's, as follows: On bronze powders, 
 10 cents per pound; on metal leaf, cent per 100 leaves; on metal 
 clippings, 1^ cents per pound. 
 
 Gerstendorfer Bros. 
 
 AET WORKS. 
 
 New York, January 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As one of the oldest bronze fimndries in the United States, we write 
 to protest against the free entry into this country of art works cast in 
 Europe and paid for by the United States Government and individuals. 
 Wages are in Europe about one-third of what we pay our men here, and 
 it is impossible for us to compete against European prices. The finest 
 work in this line can be and is done here, which fact can be verified by 
 architects and sculptors. We ask your earnest consideration on this 
 subject, as art works are luxuries, and those who go abroad to purchase 
 works of art can well afford to pay duties on sucli work. The bronze 
 industry is in its infancy in the United States and needs all the protec- 
 tion possible. 
 
 The Henry-Bonnard Bronze Co. 
 
 Arthur Merritt, Secretary. 
 
 Eugene F. Aucaigne, 
 
 General Superintendent. 
 
 BEOXZE STATU AEY. 
 
 Pheladelphia, January 8, 1897. 
 Co^niiTTEE on Ways and Means: 
 
 Being manufacturers of bronze statuary, we can say that our business 
 has been seriously affected by free art, and we can not understand why 
 the United States Government sends its work abroad, or any of the 
 States in the Union. There should be a tariff on all bronze metal 
 works imported into this country, whether it is by an American artist
 
 406 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 or not. We are American artists, and thiuli we should be protected. 
 Thej' sometimes allow public monuments to be imported free of duty, 
 but we can not see why, as that is 80 per cent of our work. The for- 
 eign artist also comes in competition with us, and has his work entered 
 free of duty as public monuments, which seriously affects us, owing to 
 the difference in labor, which is 50 per cent higher in this country than 
 
 abroad. 
 
 Bureau Bros. 
 
 bullio:n^s JlKd metal theead. 
 
 (Paragraph 162.) 
 
 Windsor Locks, Conn., December Si, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The corporation which I represent has a capital of $350,000 engaged 
 in the manufacture of cotton yarn and warps, novelty yarns, bullions 
 and metal thread. It is to the rate of duty upon the bullions and metal 
 thread that I desire the attention of your committee. Referring to 
 Schedule C of tariff' act of 1894, paragraph 1G2 — 
 
 Bullions and metal thread of gold, silver, or other metals, not specially provided 
 for in this act, twenty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 
 That your committee may understand more perfectly what the articles 
 are referred to by this paragra])h, [ submit herewith samples of bullions 
 and metal thread. These articles are made with a core or base thread 
 of cotton oi- silk, and twisted or wound about this core is a tinsel wire, 
 so twisted or wound as to produce striking and novel eliects. These 
 bullions and metal thread are used by the inanufacturer.s of cuitains. 
 upholstery goods, dress goods, trimmings, theatrical good.s', and in other 
 goods, to ])rodu(*e novel and i)ecnliar effects. 
 
 Under the tariff of 1890, Schedule C, paragra])h 19(J, these articles 
 were subject to a duty of M) per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Prior to 1890 these goods were not nninufacture<l in this country, but 
 after the passage of the tariff act of that year we commenced the 
 manufacture of them, and although the duty of 3(^ per cent placed 
 upon the foreign goods did not allow us a sufficient measure (»f protec- 
 tion, our proximity to the market enabled us to compete in seasonable 
 goods, but not in the cheaper and more staple ones. 
 
 The import prices of these goods landed, without duty, is now about 
 60 cents per pound or $1.32 per kilo, but under the present system of 
 ad valorem rates there has been a great amount of undervaluation. 
 
 That our industry may be properly ])rotected, and that the Govern- 
 ment may collect its legal rate of duty, I desire that the present ad 
 valorem duty be changed to a specific duty of 20 cents per pound or 44 
 cents per kilo, for I believe such a change will prevent undervaluations 
 and be more easily administered. 
 
 I therefore suggest to your committee that paragraph 162, Schedule 
 C of tariff act of 1894, be changed to read: 
 
 Bullioiifi and metal thread of gold, silver, or other metals not specially provided for 
 in this act, twenty cents per pound or forty-lour cents per kilo. 
 
 J. E. Montgomery, 
 President of the J. R. Montyomcry Co.
 
 LEAD ORE. 407 
 
 LEAD ORE. 
 
 (Paragraph 165.) 
 STATEMENT OF MR. W. H. ALEXANDER, OF OMAHA, NEBR. 
 
 Saturday, January 9, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Alexander .said : 
 
 ]\Ir. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here to-day in 
 response to yonr jjublished invitation as the representative of the 
 Omaha and Grant Smelting Company, whose principal smelting and 
 refining works are in Omaha, Xebr., and Denver and Durango, in Colo- 
 rado. What 1 shall say concerning tariff matters afl'ecting the interests 
 of this company, and of other great institutions of like character, is 
 the result of thoughtful observation, not only in recent years as an 
 interested party, but as an officer of the Government from 1889 to 18!M, 
 when, as surveyor of customs at Omaha, it was my duty to interpret 
 and execute tariif regulations. While making these observations I 
 have iMideavored at all times to consider both sides of disputed ques- 
 tions, and, whether right or wrong, jny opinions have been honestly 
 formed. 
 
 The act of 1890, commonly known as the McKinley bill, corrected 
 certain items in the then existing schedules relating to lead ores and 
 lead in other ores, which experience had shown to be inequitable, but 
 it contained other and new provisions which, in my own judgment and 
 the judgment of the company which 1 have the honor to represent, 
 have proved scarcely less objectionable than the ones they were framed 
 to correct. Some of these provisions were embodied in the act of 1891, 
 and are still in force. It is to these particular items, and to the absence 
 from the schedules of another very essential jjrovision, that I desire to 
 call your attention at this time. Paragraph 165 of the so-called Wil- 
 son bill, relating to lead ores and lead in other ores, is so constructed 
 as to be susceptible of widely difl'ering interpretations, some of which 
 have already resulted in oihcial disagreements and considerable vexa- 
 tious litigation. As a basis for this discu.ssion, therefore, I beg to sub- 
 mit the following modification of that paragraph, which, it seems to us, 
 will accomplish the full purpose of revenue and be acceptable to all 
 concerned: 
 
 All ores of wliidi lead is a couipoueut part shall he dntiahle at the rate of three- 
 ([uarters of oue cent per pound on the lead contained thirein, according to sample 
 and assay at the port of entry : Provided, That on ores carrying less than five per 
 cent of lead the lead contained therein shall be admitted free. Th(5 method of 
 sampling and assaying to he that usually adopted for commercial purposes by public 
 sami)liug works in tiie United States. 
 
 It will be observed that we have no quarrel with the rate of duty in 
 the existing paragraph, the chief features of the modification being the 
 elimination of the misleading terms "lead ores" and "silver ores," for 
 which elimination there is abundant cause. 
 
 I assume at the outset, gentlemen, that Congress desires, so far as 
 may be possible, to deal fairly and justly with all concerned in its pro- 
 posed revision of the tariff schedules, and that its purpose will be to so 
 frame each provision as to leave the least possible chance for miscon- 
 struction. I also assume that when Congress decides to impose a 
 specified duty on crude lead, it does not desire to make it possible for 
 customs collectors to so interj)ret its language as to assess duty upon
 
 408 SCHEDULE C. — METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 great Quantities of waste material, uor upon other metals associated 
 with the lead which would otherwise be free. 
 
 Unfortunately, however, paragraph 165, as it now stands, either per- 
 mits or requires both of these unjust constructions. This conclusion, 
 with your permission, I will endeavor to substantiate. 
 
 The first clause in the paragraph provides that lead ores shall be 
 dutiable at three- fourths of 1 cent per pound. Commercially speaking, 
 any ore containing as much as 5 per cent of lead, provided it carries 
 no other metal more valuable, is known as lead ore. On the other 
 hand, ores carrying GO or 70 per cent of lead would, under like condi- 
 tions, be classified as lead ore. Now, for the purpose of illustration, 
 suppose A imports 100 tons of low-grade ores containing 15 per cent 
 of lead. Under paragraph 165 he would be compelled to pay duty 
 on 200,000 pounds of substance, of which 170,000 pounds would be 
 waste, and worse than waste, because of 'the expense involved in the 
 process of separation. The remaining 30,000 pounds Avould be com- 
 pelled to bear the whole burden of duty, amounting to $1,500, equal to 
 250 per cent ad valorem, or nearly twice as much money as the finished 
 in^oduct would sell for in the markets of the East. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I suppose where there is only 15 per cent of lead there 
 is a large jiroportion of silver! 
 
 Mr. Alexander. Not always. 
 
 Now, suppose B imports another hundred tons of ore running 70 per 
 cent lead. He would pay the same amount of duty that A i)aid, but 
 he would have nearly five times as much lead. It is clearly numifest, 
 so that he who runs may read, that a substance varyiug.so widely in 
 the proportion of its dutiable elements, can not, with any sort of jus- 
 tice, be subjected to a single, indexible rate of duty. Specific duties, 
 to be equitably applied, can only cover the specific and well defined 
 commodities on which those duties are laid, and should never be per- 
 mitted to extend to a varying quantity of other and' useless material 
 which happens to be associated with them. It is an underlying i)rin- 
 ciple of barter that no man shall give something for nothing, and it 
 should be farthest from the spirit and the letter of a statute to compel 
 a citizen to pay a price, and get no e<[uivalent for the outla5^ Pig lead 
 is a finished product, and upon this pure and absolute commodity a 
 duty is laid in the present schedule of 1 cent per pound. An elabo- 
 rate and costly process is required to separate this pure metal from the 
 crude substances with which it is i)riniarily associated, and in consid- 
 eration of this required exi)enditure of labor and money a lower rate 
 of duty is very properly imposed on the metal in crude form. This 
 being the clear and just interpretation of the (lovernment's intent and 
 purpose, there would seem to be no excuse for any sort of jtrovision 
 which can be twisted into authority for the collection of a greater duty 
 on the crude material than is levied on the product when refined. We 
 claim, therefore, to be entirely consistent, and certainly riglit, in asking 
 for such modification of this particular item as shall i)rovide for the 
 assessment of duty onl^^ on the lead contained in ores. Upon this 
 phase of the proposition much more could be said, but having brought 
 the matter before you we are confident that the equity involved will 
 challenge your careful consideration. 
 
 With your permission, gentlemen, I will now take up, very briefly, 
 another and equally important feature of our proposed modification of 
 paragraph 165. 
 
 By a peculiar and somewhat strained use of terms, silver bearing 
 ores in which the value of silver contained therein preponderates, are
 
 LEAD ORE. 409 
 
 Classed as silver ores, thougli the quantity of silver may be an insig- 
 niiicant number of ounces, while the remaining metals are figured in 
 tons. Ores of this sort are said to contain the lead, which is an exceed- 
 ingly ridiculous proposition on its face. With equal propriety one 
 might speak of a iiouse being contained in one of its closets. In the 
 case under discussion the injustice of this unique classification is par- 
 ticularly conspicuous. For instance, A imports 100 tons of silver-bear- 
 ing ore containing GO tons of lead, nearly 40 tons of waste, and the com- 
 paratively insignificant physical item of 4,000 ounces of silver. This 
 enormous proportion of lead is valued at $2,40(>. The few ounces of 
 silver, by the same regulation, is valued at $2,000, and, presto, it becomes 
 at once a silver ore, and the imjiorter pays duty only on the 120,000 
 pounds of lead therein, amounting to $900. B imports another 100 tons 
 of similar ore, from the same mine, containing 60 tons of lead, nearly 40 
 tons of waste, and 3,000 ounces of silver. The lead, as in the previous 
 illustration, is valued at $2,400, while the silver, happening to be 400 
 ounces less in quaiititj^, is valued at $2,340. Presto, again, and Ave have 
 lead ore, and duty is assessed and collected on the entire importation 
 of 200,000 pounds. Does it not strike you, gentlemen, as somewhat 
 absurd, that a paltry difference of $60 in valuation of the two metals 
 should determine the character of the ore and compel the payment of 
 $600 additional duty on 80^000 x)Ounds of useless substance? 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. That can be corrected by j)utting the duty botli on 
 silver and lead ore ? 
 
 Mr. Alexandek. The paragraph I have the pleasure of i)resenting 
 this morning is that instead of saying '•• lead and silver ore," 1 want the 
 paragraph so modified as to read, "All ores of which lead is a com- 
 j)onent part shall be dutiable at the rate of three-quarters of 1 cent jier 
 pound on the lead contained therein," etc. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I see the proviso is this: " Provided, That silver ore and 
 all other ores containing lead sliall i)ay a duty of three-fourths of 1 cent 
 per pound on the lead contained therein." 
 
 Mr. Alexander. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Bo you mean to say on that kind of ore tliey exact three- 
 quarters of a cent on the whole weight of the mass? 
 
 Mr. Alexandeu. If tlie silver is worth a cent more than the lead in 
 the ore. Now, the lead may be 75 per cent of the whole ore and the 
 silver only a few ounces, but if it is worth more than the whole quantity 
 of lead, whj^ that determines the duty. I think that is an entirely 
 erroneous construction of the law. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Where the silver is of chief value it comes in free! 
 
 Mr. Alexander. Where the silver is of chief value they only collect 
 on the lead in the ore. If the lead in the ore happens to be a little more 
 yaluable than the silver they collect on the whole importation, and there 
 may be 70 x^er cent of waste material which does not amount to anything. 
 
 The Chairman. That was not the intention of the framers. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. That is not a fair construction under the act. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Is not your remedy with the Treasury Department 
 rather than with Congress, a modification of the construction of the 
 statute? 
 
 Mr. Alexander. On the lead contained in the silver ore, I agree to 
 that; but you can see how the method of determining whether or not 
 it is silver ore is unjust, because 
 
 Mr. Payne. They interi^ret that if the silver is of chief value that it 
 is silver ore, and if the lead is of chief value it is lead ore? 
 
 Mr. Alexander. Yes, sir; the value determines the weight.
 
 410 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Now as to specific duties. Specific duties can ouly be laid upon well- 
 defined provisions. You can not make a general application of it ; and 
 if you have a duty on ore to-day of 15 per cent and to-morrow 75 per cent, 
 and all classed as the same material, you can see bow much better 
 
 Mr. Payne. I do not think that was the intention of the law. 
 
 Mr. Alexander. I do not think it is the intention of the law. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Has the attention of the Treasury Department been 
 called to that construction? 
 
 Mr. Alexander. The Treasury Department authorized it. Let me 
 cite a case that comes from one synopsis. 
 
 I may cite an actual case in point, in which the collector of customs 
 at St. Louis determined the value of 22,000 pounds of ore to be as fol- 
 lows: Lead, $231.88; silver, $230.42, a difference of only $1.40. This 
 paltry difference of less than $1.50 was held to be the determining 
 factor in the case and duty collected on the whole importation, of which 
 only 30 per cent was a dutiable metal. Had the collector's estimate on 
 lead been $1.47 less, the ore would have been classified as silver ore, 
 and on the difference of a single cent, 70 per cent of the whole impor- 
 tation would have passed the custom-house free. Appeal was made 
 from the collector's valuation, ami the United States General Apprais- 
 ers discovered that an advisory circular issued by the Department con- 
 cerning valuations had been construed as mandatory, a course which 
 the appraisers took occasion to condemn, and the entry was ordered to 
 be reliquidated as silver ore containing lead. 1 have in mind other 
 cases of varying magnitude, but they need not be cited now. I have 
 shown the injustice of two features of the present ])arngraph, and I 
 can not think that a provision so clearly open to oltjection, so manifestly 
 inequitable, and so liable to misconstruction and' abuse, will be per- 
 mitted to remain in the statutes. 
 
 One other item in connection with this paragraph remains to be dis- 
 cussed, and I beg j'our indulgence for a few moments Ibr that purpose. 
 
 The paragraph as it now reads calls for three-lburths of 1 cent per 
 pound on crude lead, and this provision Ave have no desire to disturb. 
 We believe it to be as equitable an adjustment of that feature of the 
 bill, for all concerned, as is likely to be arrived at. ^Vs patriotic citi- 
 zens, we believe in that measure of protection in the way of tariff which 
 will guarantee to American producers of raw material a reasonable 
 safeguard, without jeopardizing the success and ])rosperity of other 
 and far greater interests equally entitled to protection. To fix a rate 
 of duty on lead in crude form so high as to make it imjjossible for 
 American smelters to deal justly with the great producers of other and 
 far more valuable ores, simply for the benefit of a minor interest, would 
 defeat the aim and purpose of true protective princijiles, and might, 
 with considerable propriety, be termed class legislation. A duty of 
 three fourths of 1 cent per pound on lead in ores is equivalent, at aver- 
 age prices, to about 40 per cent ad valorem. This generous discrimina- 
 tion in favor of native lead ought to be suflicient, even if no necessity 
 existed for the importation of foreign ores. But such necessity does 
 exist. I may say in a general way that great (|uantities of so'called 
 silver-lead and galena ores are absolutely essential to the treatment of dry 
 ores carrying other and more valuable metals. This phase of the ques- 
 tion was elaborately argued by able men when the act of 1890 was under 
 consideration, and doubtless again when the Wilson bill was framed. 
 I need not now repeat the arguments then employed, but 1 may refer 
 to one feature of smelting which has not been touched upon at length, 
 but which is exceediugly'important as a factor in this discussion.
 
 LEAD ORE, 411 
 
 Very much lias beeu said conceniing tlie necessity of flaxes, and it 
 lias been clearly shown that the ores under discussion are particularly 
 desirable for that purpose. It is true that other substances, under cer- 
 tain conditions, may meet this requirement in part, bat for very good 
 reasons neither limestone nor iron fluxes can do more than assist in the 
 smelting of precious metals. It is a fact well known by smelters that 
 bullion can not safely carry more than 400 ounces of gold and silver to 
 the ton. A greater proportion would increase the percentage remain- 
 ing in slag to such an extent as to necessitate resmelting, which would 
 add very materially to the cost of treatment. While iron fluxes and 
 limestone go entirely to waste, the greater portion of lead fluxes is 
 retained, and becomes a sort of carrier or collector of the precious 
 metals. An ordinary charge for a furnace might consist of 90 to 95 per 
 cent of other material, to 5 or 10 per cent of lead, but such a proportion 
 would so increase the i)ercentage of valuable metals in the slag as to 
 make the process disastrous. The addition, therefore, of liberal qnan- 
 tities of free melting galena ore, carrying GO to 70 per cent of lead, 
 would keep the bullion at a proper grade. 
 
 There is a sort of affinity between the precious metals and lead, so 
 that its presence in the charge is a pretty sure guaranty that those 
 metals will be carried down into the bullion instead of being left to an 
 unprofitable extent in the slag. I may illustrate this carrying quality 
 by the rain on a window. Drops accumulate on a rainy day until the 
 whole surface is covered by the clinging globules, each too light in 
 itself to move, but by and by a big drop strikes where two or three are 
 staying, and they all start together to zigzag down to the bottom, car- 
 rying with them all the weaker drops that lie in the way. 
 
 Having shown the necessity for the free use of lead fluxes, it only 
 remains to discuss the matter of supi)ly. 
 
 In the year 1892 tlie Omaha & Grant Company imported into this 
 country from Mexico lor use in the Omaha works alone 20,000 tons of 
 lead-bearing ores. In 1893 they imported 21,000 tons, but in 1891 less 
 than 2,000 tons, and since that time none at all. The reason for this 
 remarkable change was twofold — the high rate of duty imposed by the 
 McKinley bill and the discouraging methods of valuation. The result 
 of these conditions was the building, by individuals of this company, 
 of extensive smelting works in Mexico which deprived American labor- 
 ers of that much employment, deprived American railways of large 
 receipts from transportation, and cut off from the revenue a great many 
 thousands of dollars. The reduction of duty by the Wilson bill was 
 something of a relief, for in the meantime great difficulty had been 
 experienced in the purchase of sufficient native ores of similar charac- 
 ter to maintain, economically, the great operations of their several 
 •plants, and the Mexican ores were being smelted in that country. 
 
 ]\rr. Hopkins. Do they not get those ores from Idaho and Nevada? 
 That question was raised during the passage of the act of 1890, and as 
 we had some smelters at Aurora, 111,, my attention was called to it. 
 
 Mr. Alexander. I remember the circumstance. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. The opinion I have had is that they have developed 
 mines in Idaho and Nevada, where they got fluxing ores as good as 
 those imported. 
 
 Mr. Alexander. Yes, sir ; but they do not get them in sufficient 
 quantities. The Coeur dAlene mines, which are in the northern part 
 of Idaho, use a great deal of that, but for the last two or three years 
 they have had strikes and trouble with the miners which has abridged 
 the production.
 
 412 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Another source of supply was being developed, liowever, in British 
 Columbia, and American smelters came into sharp competition for 
 those desirable ores. By reference to the 1895 report in the Mineral 
 Industry, we find that while 269,000 tons of lead were produced by 
 American smelters in that year only 150,000 tons came from American 
 ores. I think I state a fact which no well iuformed smelter \m11 ques- 
 tion when I say that the outjuit of silver lead ores from American mines 
 has proved to be altogether inadequate for the treatment of so called 
 dry ores, and that any abridgment of facilities for the importation of 
 foreign silver-lead ores would work an incalculable injury to the whole 
 smelting and mining interests of this country, except the few pro- 
 ducers of those particular ores. Our company imported from British 
 Columbia last year for the Omaha works alone over 0,000 tons of 
 galena ore, and even with this increased supply there were times 
 within the year when it was almost impossible to keep the mixtures up 
 and the furnaces running. Overtures have already been made to this 
 company for theerection of extensive smelting works in British Colum- 
 bia, but under existing conditions they have not been inclined to accept 
 them. 
 
 I may say, with considerable confidence, however, that if the condi- 
 tions of 1892 and 1893 are restored, or a near approximate thereto, the 
 same incentive which took millions of dollars of active American capi- 
 tal into Mexico will take other millions into British Columbia. To 
 handicap the enormous smelting interests of this country, and through 
 them the great i)rodncers of precious metals, simply to give an unnec- 
 essary protection to a single minor element in our mining industries, 
 would be exceedingly ill-advised, if not disastrous. The sharp lesson 
 which a high tariff furnished in connection with Mexican ores is furtlier 
 set forth in the following excerpt from The Mineral Industry, which 1 
 ask permission to read. This is in the report for 1894: 
 
 In the Western States, especially in Idaho, the rate of wages and the antocratic 
 rule of miners' unions have interfered so seriously with tlio working of silver-lead 
 mines that the question lias almost reached the point where the existence of the 
 industry is in danger. The steady increase in the output of Missouri and Kansas 
 (nonargentifevous) lead through the lowest markets, is a satisfactory dcnioustration 
 of our ability to compete with any country. Competent experts state that with 
 large, well-designed works Missouri and Kansas can produce with profit down to 
 very near the cost of lead in Spain. 
 
 The heavy decrease of 9,522 tons, or 32.5 per cent, shown in the amount of lead 
 smelted from foreign ores, is the direct result of the short-sighted and nustakeu 
 policy of iin]>osing a heavy duty on lead in ores. The result of this has been the 
 establishment of an important smelting industry in Mexico, with American capital, 
 and the heavy importations which should now come to the American smelters from 
 Mexico will not be received, for the industry has become firmly established in that 
 country. This is directly shown by the taijles. The lead imported in ore in 1894 
 was only 19,748 tons, as against 29,270 tons in 1893, and 2(5.734 tons in 1892. On the 
 other hand, the lead imported in foreign bnllion for refining increased from 14,149 
 tons in 1892 to 35,000 tons in 1893, and 40,345 tons in 1894. As the duty on lead in 
 ore was relatively higher than on lead in bullion, a further inducement was olVered 
 to Mexican mine owners to do their smelting at home, and the natural result was 
 manifest. 
 
 Nearly all the lead imported in ore and most of that in bullion came to this conntry 
 from Mexico. Some, however, is imported from Canada, and especially from the 
 Kootenai region, where silver-lead mines are being opened up to a considerable 
 extent. 
 
 I beg also to submit another brief excerpt from the same authority for 
 1895: 
 
 The increase in the quantities of siver especially produced or refined in this conntry 
 was due largely to the treatment here of base bullion from Mexico. The unwise impo- 
 sition of a high duty on silver lead ores some years ago has not only deprived onr 
 smelters of a large amount of work which they formerly had, and of a class of ores
 
 LEAD ORE. 413 
 
 which were particularly desirable for treatment in connection with our own; it has 
 also built up in Mexico a large and flourishing smelting industry which is now well 
 established and able to hold its own. This is shown in the extraordinary increase in 
 the quantity of bullion obtained by smelting given in the Mexican returns. The 
 greater part of the base bullion made in that country is sent here to be refined, and 
 to this is due the fact that while our own output of silver showed a decrease of 
 3,515,640 ounces, there was an actual gain of 6,247,485 ounces. 
 
 These facts which are now disclosed in connection with Mexican ores, 
 and the transference of great smelting interests from this country to 
 Mexico, are almost sure to be repeated in British Columbia, if an 
 oppressive duty is levied on silver lead ores. 
 
 It is proper to say in this connection, that in the production of galena 
 ore in British Columbia, M'hich is the chief source of our present impor- 
 tations, American miners are not pitted against peons, but they are in 
 honorablecomi)etitionwith well-paid, intelligent workmen, chietiy Amer- 
 icans, and the necessity for a prohibitive protective barrier for native 
 mines and miners, which has been urged heretofore, does not, in fact, 
 exist. For the greater good, therefore, of the greater number, and 
 of the greater interests involved, we respectfully urge your careful con- 
 sideration of the points I have j)resented. 
 
 LEAD IN BULLION. 
 
 In one of the excerpts from the Mineral Industry, which I have sub- 
 mitted, there is a brief reference to the relatively higher duty on lead 
 in ore than on lead in bullion. 
 
 The present difference of only one-quarter of a cent per pound 
 between lead in ore and lead in pigs is clearly out of proportion. There 
 is no duty fixed on bullion, or the lead contained therein, and this omis- 
 sion from existing schedules is the important item referred to in the 
 early part of my remarks. 
 
 Pig lead and base bullion are entirely distinct commodities, and an 
 elaborate process of separation is necessary to produce the refined 
 product after the ores have been reduced to bullion. 
 
 It is our deliberate judgment that if duty on lead in ores is fixed at 
 three-fourths of 1 cenc per pound, there should be laid on pig lead a 
 duty of 1J| cents per pound and on lead in base bullion a duty of 1;^ 
 cents per i)Oun(l. 
 
 Under the present tariff act, collectors have been entirely at sea as to 
 the classification of bullion, and as a sort of compromise it has been 
 rated as pig lead. Importers protested vigorously against such classi- 
 fication, and showed to the satisfaction of the United States General 
 Ai)praisers that in the nature of things they could not be alike. While 
 admitting that base bullion was not pig lead but a crude metal contain- 
 ing lead, and that duty could only be assessed on the lead so contained, 
 the General Appraisers were unable to find in the tarift' schedules a 
 provision under which they could properly rate it, and collectors were 
 instructed to continue the assessment of duty at the pig-lead rate. It 
 is well understood by smelters of silver-lead ores, in conjunction with 
 other ores carrying precious metals, that base bullion is about half way 
 along from lead in ores, to pig lead. It having been officially decided 
 that base bullion is not pig lead, and that the lead contained therein 
 can not be used for commercial purposes until, by a process of melting 
 and refining, it shall have been separated from its associate elements 
 and run into bars or pigs, it is entirely clear that a rate of duty rela- 
 tively less than that on pig lead, and relatively higher than that on lead 
 in ores, should be applied.
 
 414 SCHEDULE C. — METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 It also having been decided that dnty shall only be assessed on the 
 lead contained in the bnllion, the duty of Congress to fix an intermedi- 
 ate rate seems clear. We beg to urge, therefore, that the rates of duty 
 on the three forms of lead imported be fixed as follo\Ys: On lead in 
 ores, three-fourths of 1 cent per i)Ound ; on lead contained in base bullion, 
 1^ cents per pound; and on lead in pigs and bars, l'| cents per pound 
 These rates are relatively just, and whatever the initial rate may be, 
 this proportion should be preserved. 
 
 We approve the purpose of this committee and of Congress to fix a 
 duty on finished or partly finished products high enough to give ample 
 protection to American labor and to American producers, but Ave also 
 desire that American capital and American institutions for the conver- 
 sion of raw material into finished products be also considered. A high 
 duty on crude lead and a relatively low duty on pig lead and bullion 
 would be the most effective means that could be adopted to encourage, 
 if not absolutely force, American smelters to set up works abroad and 
 to injure and make uncertain our American market for finished lead 
 products. Against such adjustment of duties we earnestly and 
 patriotically protest. 
 
 This is all I have to say at present, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman 
 and gentlemen of the committee, for your courtesy and patience. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN F. DAVIS, OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Saturday, Januayy !), 1897, 
 
 Mr. Davis said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 I am very much ])leased with the explanation that has been made by 
 the gentleman who just preceded me, and he has practically stated 
 just what I would have stated to the committee in reference to a dnty 
 to be imposed upon these various lead ores, Avith this excei>ti(»ii, that 
 I am in favor of a little higher protection than he has suggested ni)ou 
 the native ores of our country, and for a reason perhaps he does not 
 know, and I would be quite willing to meet him aiul make a farther 
 explanation in the matter. We have in southern California, in San 
 Bernardino County, an immense bod}- of galena ores partially pros- 
 pected, to which an impetus was given by the JMcIvinley bill, which I 
 have stated in my brief which I Avill hand to the committee, and then 
 following that the Wilson bill came in and destroyed our enterprise 
 because we could not get out our ores. There is a large deposit of ores 
 on the dump now. I have had various consultations with the ])eople of 
 El Paso and with Mr. Allen, of Pueblo, in reference to these very mat- 
 ters, saying some provision should be made by which these ores could 
 be gotten out. 
 
 Now, with the duty under the McKinley bill of a cent and a half a 
 pound it stimulated that enterprise there and enabled these people to 
 open these vast fields of lead ores. But, gentlemen, this enterprise has 
 stopped. The gentleman thinks that the country could not be supplied. 
 I can say I Avill give one instance. We can sui)ply all the smelters of 
 this country from San Bernardino County alone. There are thousands 
 of tons on the dump running from 30 to GO per cent of lead, 25 to 30 ounces 
 silver, and $4 to $20 of gold per ton, and if the duty is so arranged as 
 suggested — if we can have a little higher rate of duty, if only 1 cent a 
 pound — that will probably enable us to utilize those ores in that county 
 and certainly give to California and that county a large impetus in
 
 LEAD ORE. 415 
 
 their industries. When we started out under the McKinley bill, open- 
 ing these mines, it took some time to get them fairly under way, and 
 then we were stopped iu consequence of the difference in the duty. If 
 the duty is restored we can open those mines through that lead country 
 so that these smelters can have all the ore they want. They have now 
 to go to Mexico for the purpose of getting ores. There is an abun- 
 dance for all the smelters. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. How large are your mines? 
 
 Mr. Dayis. Oil, there are thousands of tons. There have been taken 
 out and are lying on the dump to-day more than 100,000 tons that could 
 be immediately delivered, enough to run all the smelters for sometime. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Why is it that American capital has gone to Mexico, 
 then, and to British Columbia? 
 
 Mr. Davis. Jjecause, in the first place, they did not understand the 
 wealth of our deposits. Since it has been called to the attention of 
 capitalists I have been offered capital — all the capital I wanted — from 
 $500,000 to 81,000.000 to open and conduct the business in these mines. 
 
 i\Ir. Hopkins. Have you any communication with the Omaha and 
 Chicago and Aurora smelters? 
 
 Mr. Davis. Yes, sir ; and they are ready to take our ores. 
 
 Mr. Payne. To what extent did they use these ores under the McKin- 
 ley bill? 
 
 Mr. Davis. They used all they could get, but the trouble was just 
 when we got our business of mining started and were ready to deliver 
 the ores the duty was taken off under the Wilson bill. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Practically they have not been able to use much? 
 
 Mr. Davis. No, sir; they are on the dump there. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. How rich are these oies? 
 
 Mr. Davis. They run from 30 to CO per cent lead, and 25 to 30 ounces 
 of silver, and 81 to 8-0 of gold per ton, so a very fair average would be 
 30 per cent lead, 30 ounces of silver, and 8<^ of gold. I am prepared to 
 furnish any smelters in the United States when things get in shape 
 with all the ores they want. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you a written statement? 
 
 Mr. Davis. Yes, sir; and I will furnish it to the committee. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Where is the princii)al market for these ores? 
 
 Mr. Davis. We are dependent upon P21 Paso, Pueblo, and the smel- 
 ters this gentleman referred to. ]Mr. Allen, of the Pueblo works, went 
 so far as to agree to furnish me an assayer at the dumping ground any- 
 where on the line of the Atlantic and Pacific Eailroad we would deliver 
 these ores, and, as that gentleman stated, he agreed to smelt the higher 
 grade lead ores if we would deliver them. 1 will submit this written 
 statement : 
 
 I beg respectfully to submit a plea for the restoration of a duty of li cents per 
 pound on lead ores, as formerly operative under the McKinley tariff. The smelters 
 of Colorado, Kansas City, and elsewhere necessarily require an enormous quantity of 
 lead ore for utilization as "llux " in the working of dry ores. At the present time, 
 because of the tariff under the Wilson bill, almost all the necessary ore is imported 
 from Mexico. And this condition prevails in the face of the fact that within our 
 own borders — close by these same smelters — we have an inexhaustible supply of 
 argentiferous galena, sufficient to run all the smelting -works of the United States 
 for many years to come, which can not be utilized profitably until a protective duty 
 (as under the McKinley bill) is enacted. 
 
 Fully 100,000 tons of necessary lead ores per annum are now imported from Mexico. 
 Surely we should first utilize our own mineral riches before sending millions of dol- 
 lars annually, and unnecessarily, into a foreign country. The peculiar nature of the
 
 416 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 land in that part of California and Nevada where these enormous deposits of argen- 
 tiferous ore lie actually in "dumps," ready for transportation, being arid and almost 
 a sandy desert, render it an imperative necessity that the men (and capital) who 
 ■would brave the hardships entailed should he protected, i. e., by a duty. 
 
 In San Bernardino and Inyo counties of California, but a few miles north of the 
 Atlantic and Pacific Railroad, there lies a trackless region rich in argentiferous ores. 
 Hitherto transportation across this sandy waste was difficult (by pack tram only), 
 but this ]noblem has now been solved through the advent of the traction engine. 
 
 The present low price of lead (and silver) makes the development of these immensely 
 valuable deposits (and mines) of lead ore almost impossible, since the Wilson bill 
 discriminates in favor of foreign competition. 
 
 Increase, i. e., restore, the duty of U cents per pound and billions of tons of ore, 
 much of it the accumulation of work done during the luief term of the McKiuley 
 bill, which had given an impetus to this district, would speedily find its way to our 
 smelters. 
 
 A busy mining camp would spring up in the desert and the wealth that nature 
 has there so l)ountifully showered upon our country would startle the world, I have 
 spent much time "prospecting" that ])arti( mar section and know whcroof I speak. 
 The deposits are immense and of great depth and richness. Our smelters must have 
 lead ores. Let's help oiir miners to supply all thar is necessary, which we can do if 
 protected by a reasonable tariff, so wo may b.uld roads and procure that scarce 
 necessity, water, and thereby add countless millions to the surplus capital of our 
 country. 
 
 The permanent prosperity of our country can find no more available factor to snch 
 an end than the ])rotection and conse(|uent development ot its mineral deposits, 
 wheresoever found, and a superabundance of capital awaits only the favorable action 
 of Congress upon this vitally importaut question. 
 
 Jno. T. Davis, 
 San Francisco, CaJ. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. DWIGHT A. JONES, OF NEW YORK. REPRE- 
 SENTING THE ST JOSEPH AND DOE RUN LEAD COMPANIES. 
 
 Saturday, January 9, 1S97. 
 Mr. Jones said: Mr. F. E. Camp and I represent the St. Joseph Lead 
 Company and the Doe Kun Lead Company, both corporations carrying 
 on business in Missouri. I liave a brief statement I would like to pre- 
 sent to the committee, and before doing so 1 would like to say in refer- 
 ence to the matter advocated by the gentleman representing the Omaha 
 refineries: He asked a reduction of duty upon two articles which are 
 now coming into this country and bothering the producers of lead in 
 this country, those are the Mexican ores, the Canadian ores, and the bul- 
 lion. He is willing to have the duty raised a little upon pig lead, which 
 does not bother us any, but he wants to have the duties reduced on the 
 Mexican ores and bullion, which are causing all the trouble in this 
 country. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The St. Joseph Lead Company, organized in 18G4, and the Doe Run 
 Lead Company, organized m 1880, are the largest producers audsmelteis 
 of pure galena lead ore in the United States. Their mines, mills, and 
 smeltings plant are located in southeastern Missouri, and the indus- 
 tries there carried on have built up and greatly enriched that section 
 of our country, which is entirely dependent upon lead mining for its 
 lirosperity. These companies produce nothing but pig lead, find are 
 therefore concerned solely with the duties affecting "lead ore and lead 
 dross," and "lead in pigs and bars, molten and old refuse lead, run 
 into blocks and bars, and old scrap lead tit only to be remauufactured."
 
 LEAD ORE. 
 
 417 
 
 These duties since the year of the organization of the St. Joseph 
 Lead Comi)any are shown in the following table: 
 
 [Duties in cents per pound.] 
 
 Lead ore and dross . . . 
 Lead in pigs and bars 
 Scrap lead '. , . . . 
 
 1864. 
 
 1875-1882. 
 
 1883. 
 
 1890. 
 
 ^h 
 
 H 
 
 14 
 
 n 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 n 
 
 U 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1894. 
 
 '}iOTE.— Provided, That silver ore and all other ores containing lead shall pay a duty on the lead 
 contained therein, according to sample and assay at the port of entry, the method of sampling and 
 assaying to be that adopted for commercial purposes by public sampling work.s in the United States. 
 
 From an examination of the above figures it appears: 
 
 (1) That from 18G4 to 1894 the duty on lead ore was li cents per 
 pound, on ])ig and bar lead 2 cents per pound, and on scrap lead li to 
 2 cents per pound. 
 
 (2) Tbat the McKinley Act did not raise the duties in force at the 
 time of its adoption. 
 
 (3) That the, Wilson Act reduced the duties on all three products 
 below any amount collected since 18(14 and established them at the fol- 
 lowing figures: Lead ore and dross, three-fourths cent per pound; lead 
 in pigs and bars and scrap lead fit only to be remanufactured, 1 cent 
 per i)ound. 
 
 This, it wifl be seen at once, was a startling change in policy, and 
 we respectfully submit to your committee, and shall endeavor to show, 
 that this departure from tlie precedent of a long jieriod of time prior 
 to 1804 and the reduction of duties brought about by this tariff of 1894 
 have crijjpled the lead industry, have transfered a large portion of the 
 home market of this country to foreigners, and have also failed to 
 materially increase revenue. 
 
 First. It is needless to bring proof to show the crippled state of the 
 lead industry of the United States. During the year 1890 the official 
 price of lead at New York Oity touched the lowest point ever recorded 
 there, namely, 2^ cents per pound, and for a considerable time the 
 New York price was on a par with the London price. Wages in Mis- 
 souri have been reduced to the lowest possible point, many mines have 
 been closed, and others are at the point of closing. Those who continue 
 to operate their works do so by exercising the greatest economy, by 
 increasing their production in a vain endeavor to compete with the 
 flood of foreign ore, by cutting wages, and by neglecting all repairs. 
 This cannot continue indefinitely, and unless some relief is afforded, 
 these home i)roducers mu'st surrender the industry to their foreign 
 competitors, a result that would be disastrous to this country both in 
 times of peace and war. 
 
 Second. The extent to which foreign lead ore has taken possession 
 of our home market is graphically shown on the diagram taken from 
 the Iron Age of January 2, 1896, and attached to the next following 
 page. 
 
 FLLX^TUATtONS IN THE SUPPLY OF LEAD. 
 
 Until 1883 the production of lead in the United States showed an almost continu- 
 ous advance, rapiiUy accelerating as one by one the leading districts rn tlie Rocky 
 Mountains were developed. This is clearly exhibited in the accompanying diagram, 
 drawn on the basis of data collected by the United States Geological Survey. Until 
 1870 we depended almost entirely upon the output of the mines of the Mississippi 
 
 T H 27
 
 418 
 
 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Valley and upon imports. How the latter fluctuated, particularly during the war 
 period, is shown in the engraving. From 1865, and for a number of years, the United 
 States Government resold the surplus accumulated during the war, these additions 
 to the supply being neglected, however, in the graphical presentation. Imports 
 ceased in 1876, to be resumed on a moderate scale in 1S78 for a number of years. In 
 1885 beoan the imports in the form of Mexican lead ores, to which recently ores from 
 Cauadaliave been added. We have shaded the area indicating the additional supply. 
 Above it runs the line which represents the further supply in the shape of imports 
 
 The rroduction and Imports of Lead from 1860 to 1895. 
 
 of foreign pig lead, to w^hich must be added that quantity of Mexican lead refined 
 in bond which has been retained either as "exempt" lead or has been diverted, by 
 payment of duty, into the channels of our homo consuui])tion. To what extent for- 
 eign material has conquered a share in supplying the American market is evident at 
 a glance. 
 
 The large supply of silver-lead ore in ^Mexico enables that country at 
 present to control our market. For, as soon as the price of lead reaches 
 a point that the manipulators of Mexican ore consider favorable they
 
 LEAD ORE. 419 
 
 put upon the market all the lead it cau make to prevent any such increase 
 in the price as will protect our home producers. They thus hold the 
 power to keej) down the industry absolutely and to limit any tendency 
 in upward prices. This power they used in the calendar year 1895 to 
 the extent of putting on the market twenty thousand tons of lead from 
 Mexican ores, and twenty-seven thousand tons of lead from Mexican 
 bullion. (See tables attached hereto.) 
 
 The effect was to drive down our home price, to create the dejiression 
 from which we are now suffering, and to destroy the Government's 
 revenue for the calendar year 1896, as we shall subsequently show. 
 
 It also appears from the diagram submitted that in the years 1891, 
 189l*, 1893, great quantities of these ores came over our borders and 
 that the effect was to louver the price from 4.33.^ cents per pound in 
 New York in 1890 to 3.G1 cents per pound in 1893, and when the new 
 rate of duty was established and increased importations arrived the 
 price fell steadily until in 1896 it was 2.83 cents per pound, the lowest 
 recorded yearly average. (See tables prepared by Mr. E. A. Caswell in 
 volume 4, part 3, of the Report of the Secretary of the Interior for 1895, 
 showing the mineral resources of the United States, and see tables for 
 1895 and 1896 prepared by Mr. Caswell and hereto attached). 
 
 This has produced a crisis and American producers are threatened 
 with extinction. They are making every effort to keep their laborers 
 at w^ork, and they piopose to light every inch of ground, but they are 
 gradually surrendering their own market to foreigners. With the low 
 cost of Mexican labor and the low water transportation rates from 
 Mexico, this ore seeks our market whether the duty is 1^ cents or three- 
 fourths cent a ])Ound. Much of this has come to us in recent years as 
 lead bullion, which is much more easily transported, and which comes 
 here in bond and has tlie advantage of being in this countrj^ without 
 the payment of duty and of using our market if the price is such that 
 Mexican owners can sell profitably, and of also going to the European 
 market if that promises a better result than the payment of duty and 
 a sale in this country. During the extremely low price of lead in the 
 summer and fall of 1896 the exports of bonded lead from the port of 
 Ntiw York kept about even pace with the imports, but during Decem- 
 ber, 1896, with the sligiit rise in price to about 3 cents per pound, the 
 exports fell off largely, there being 3,800 tons imi)orted in that month 
 and oidy L',121 tons exported. The balance of 1,679 tons was added to 
 the stock in bond, which, on December 31, was reported to be 7,008 
 tons (see daily report of New York Metal Exchange, January 4, 1897), 
 and this stock stands as a threat to our market at a figure which will 
 yield a profit from the mining and smelting of Mexican ores after the 
 payment of only three-fourths of a cent a pound duty. 
 
 The request for a lower duty on this bullion than that imposed on 
 pig lead should not be granted. The bullion is in convenient shax^e for 
 shipment, and although it needs additional refinement, pig lead also 
 needs further refinement before it can be used for corroding purposes. 
 The lead bullion is more injurious to the producers of pig lead than pig 
 lead itself would be, owing to the privilege of importation in bond which 
 has been extended to it, but we ask only for the same duty on both. 
 
 The idea that the Mexican lead is needed for fluxing purposes is 
 thus exiDosed by the minority report of the Committee on Ways and 
 Means, made May 11, 1892 : 
 
 The argument of the majority goes on the idea that Mexican ores are different from 
 American ores ; that, while all the mountain and mineral characteri.^tics of the United 
 States and Mexico are the same, while the same range of mountains runs through 
 both, at the boundary of Mexico all these things change, and we are then in a
 
 420 SCHEDULE C. — METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 land of flux ores, made by nature for the purpose of fluxintj American dry ores, 
 and only kept from doing so by the unwisdom of protectionists whose hearts are 
 hardened against free raw materials. 
 
 It may further be said tbat we do not advocate a prohibitory duty, 
 and therefore these ores may be obtained for fluxing, if smelters are 
 willing to pay a fair price for them. 
 
 The following quotation from an article written by Mr. E. A. Caswell, 
 and published in the Iron Age, January 2, 1800, gives an unpreju- 
 diced view of affairs in this country at the beginning of last year : 
 
 The lesson of all the data we have on lead appears to be that this cDuntry is 
 down below cost price at the present, and that it will remain so unless the entire 
 range and scale of labor and transjiortation go down. Not only are the factors of 
 cost higher in this country than in Europe, but we are at a serious disadvantage in 
 regard to freights. The average cost from the mines to the market in Europe is 
 probably not over $4 per ton. Spain can send its product directly to London l)y 
 water easily at ^2 per ton. On the other hand, freight from the .Missouri mines to 
 the nearest consumptive point, St. Louis, costs $2 or $3 per ton, and $7 on an average 
 to New York City, while Idaho and Utah must pay at least $5 to the nearest jioiut, 
 and close on to $20 to the farthest point. We may therefore fairly state that it 
 costs the American miner $12 to $14 per ton on the average, against one-third of that 
 sum in Europe. It is therefore fair to state that, with tlie added cost of iieight, the 
 American producer, even with 1 per cent per pound of protection, is practically sell- 
 ing on the European basis. The American miner of to-day is receiving less for his 
 product at the mines than any producer in the Avorld. 
 
 The Mexican miner and the Mexican smelter have a greater advantage 
 in respect to freight than the European miner, even, and within the last 
 year or two the importations of lead ore from British Columbia have 
 been most threatening. With these doors o])en and opening, is it to be 
 wondered at that the average price to the American producer is 
 steadily falling f 
 
 Third. We consider it of great importance to emphasize the fact that 
 the tariff of 1890 produced a revenue from importations of lead and 
 lead ore which practically equals the revenue obtained under the tariff 
 of 1894, and at the same time it guarded tlie industry and i)rotected 
 labor. The total revenue from lead and its manufactures for the calen- 
 dar years following is shown in the Monthly Summary of Finance and 
 Commerce for March, 1896 (published by the Bureau of Statistics), at 
 pages 1 145 and 1140 : 
 
 For 1891 it w^as $686, 864. 74 
 
 For 1892 it Avas 867, 916. 74 
 
 For 1893 it Avas 9.58, 760. 90 
 
 Making a total for the three years of 2, 513, 542. 38 
 
 For 1894 it was 758, 662. 75 
 
 For 1895 it A\^a8 1, 385, 437. 84 
 
 For 1896 it was (estimated) ' 372, 762. 92 
 
 Making a total for the three years of 2, 516, 863. 51 
 
 'Note. — The reAenue for the calendar year 1896 has not been completely returned, 
 but the Bureau of Statistics gives the following figures for the lirst three quarters 
 of the year : 
 
 Quarter ending — 
 
 March 31, 1896 $190,776. 46 
 
 June 30, 1896 60,846.98 
 
 September 30, 1896 71,139.48 
 
 The revenue for the quarter ending December 31, as exportations of 
 Mexican lead retiued in bond about equaled importations, and as to 
 months of October and November were exceptionally inactive, is esti- 
 mated at !50, 000. 00 
 
 372, 762. 92
 
 LEAD ORE. 421 
 
 It is to be observed in comparing these figures that the revenue for 
 1896 has fallen astonishingly from that of 1895, and it shows that the 
 great importations in 1895 have not only ruined our market, but that 
 they have destroyed the Government's revenue for the current j-ear. 
 The imposition of a higher duty will benefit the American price and will 
 bring back duties to the level of the McKinley tariff. The faithful col- 
 lection of duties must also be insisted upon, and governmental sam- 
 pling works should be erected at once. 
 
 Fourth. We ask the committee to carefully distinguish our position 
 from that of the large smelting companies and large purchasers of pig 
 lead, such as the National Lead Company. The interests of the former 
 are to secure lead ore at the lowest possible figure, and they are there- 
 fore opposed to the increase of duties on Mexican and Canadian ores. 
 They wish the market transferred to the cheapest labor wherever it can 
 be found. So the National Lead Company desires to purchase pig lead 
 at the lowest possible figure, and is opposed to an effective increase of 
 duties. On the other hand, the ^lissouri companies rely on the pro- 
 duction and sale of pig lead for their existence, and tliej' desire a fair 
 price and a chance to get the benefit of the American market. 
 
 We ask, therefore, that the schedule of the tariff of 1890 be restored. 
 We particularly ask that the dutj' on lead ore and upon the lead in all sil- 
 ver or other ores shall be not less than 1.} cents per pound, and that the 
 duty on lead bullion, which is coming to this*couutry in great quantities, 
 shall be 2 cents and the same as the duty on pig lead. During the year 
 1859, 27,000 tons of th is lead bullion were used in this country at an average 
 price of 3.12 cents per pound in New York, and this in addition to 20,000 
 tons of ore (see tables), which in itself is sulficient proof that American 
 producers can not compete with Mexican labor and the low cost of 
 water transportation of these lead bars. If the duty is made 2 cents 
 instead of 1 cent per pound, the price at which they can be put down 
 in New York will advance materially and it is believed will give needed 
 protection to American producers. The fact that this bullion has been 
 for the most part exported during the last year only shows that our 
 prices kept below European parity when the duty is taken into account 
 and as soon as our prices advance even to the low point which obtained 
 in 1895, our markets will again be flooded with this lead refined in bond 
 as well as with lead made from Mexican and Canadian ore, unless the 
 duty is increased. 
 
 Fifth. These companies ask additional protection for an industry 
 essential for the comfort as well as the defense of the country. They 
 ask protection that will enable them to conserve their lead supply and 
 permit the mining towns built up where the industries are located not 
 only to continue to exist but also to thrive. They believe that the 
 destruction "of a mining industry means not only throwing out of work 
 the men who are actually employed and the destruction of capital 
 invested when the avowed policy of the Government was to protect this 
 field of American industry, but that it means also the abandonment of 
 the enterprises carried on by the communities which have grown up 
 around these mining centers. It means the wiping out of towns, the 
 scattering of their inhabitants, and the loss to the country of millions 
 of dollars of wealth. These companies are not, however, unmindful of 
 the country's revenue nor of the desirability of keeping the price to 
 consumers at a fair figure, but they believe that by judicious legislation 
 their interests may be protected, that the prices may be kept at just 
 figures, and that at the same time the revenue of the Government may 
 be increased; and with these ends in view they respectfully submit the 
 foregoing statement.
 
 422 
 
 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Price of common pig lead in New York City, 1S95. 
 [Year's average, 3.12.] 
 
 Day. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 May. 
 
 June. 
 
 July. 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Oct. 
 
 Kov. 
 
 Dec. 
 
 1 
 
 H. 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 
 3.024 
 
 3.024 
 
 S. 
 
 3.024 
 
 3. 02* 
 3.024 
 
 S. 
 3.024 
 3.024 
 3.024 
 3.024 
 
 3.05 
 3. 05 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 S. 
 
 3.00 
 2.95 
 2.95 
 2.95 
 
 S. 
 
 3.074 
 
 3.12* 
 
 3.374 
 3.374 
 3.374 
 
 3." 374 
 3. 374 
 3.374 
 3.37* 
 3.37* 
 3.374 
 
 S. 
 3.374 
 3.374 
 3.374 
 3.374 
 3. 374 
 3.374 
 
 S. 1 
 3.37* 
 3.37* 
 3. 374 
 3.374 
 3.374 
 3.30 
 
 S. 
 3.30 
 3.30 
 3.30 
 3.30 
 3. .30 
 3.30 
 
 S. 
 
 H. 
 3.30 
 3.30 
 3.30 
 3.30 
 3.25 
 
 S. 
 3.25 
 3.25 
 3.25 
 3.25 
 3.25 
 3.25 
 
 S. 
 3.25 
 3.20 
 3.20 
 3.20 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 
 S. 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 
 S. 
 3.15 
 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 
 S. 
 3.15 
 3. 15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 
 S. 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 
 S. 
 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3. 15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3.10 
 
 S. 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 
 S. 
 3.15 
 
 H. 
 3.15 
 3.20 
 3.10 
 3.20 
 
 S. 
 3.10 
 
 S. 
 
 2 
 
 S. 3. 124 
 3.074 3.12* 
 3.124 H. ' 
 .3. 12i 3.12* 
 
 3.20 
 
 3 
 
 3.20 
 
 4 
 
 3.20 
 
 5 
 
 3.00 ] 3.02i 
 S. 3.02i 
 3.00 3.02J 
 3.00 1 3.02* 
 3.00 3.02* 
 3.00 S. ■ 
 
 3.274 
 
 6 
 
 2. 95 3. 12* 3. 124 
 2.95 1 3.12*1 S. 
 2.95 3.12* 3.12.1 
 
 3.274 
 
 7 
 
 3.274 
 
 8 
 
 3.024 2.95 
 
 S. 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 2.95 2.95 2.95 S. "l 3.12* 
 
 S. 2.95 2.95 3.I24I .3.124 
 
 3. 00 1 2. 95 2. 95 3. 12*' 3. 12* 
 
 3.2-4 
 3.27* 
 
 11 
 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 
 S. 
 3.00 
 
 3.02* 
 3.024 
 3.024 
 3. 02* 
 
 3.17* 
 
 12 
 
 3.00 2.95 
 3.00 1 2.95 
 3.00 ' S. 
 3.00 , 2.95 
 3.00 2.95 
 S. ' 2.95 
 3. 00 i 2. 95 
 
 S. 3.124 3-124 
 2.95 1 3.124 :^-12* 
 2.95 3.12* S. 
 3.15 \ 3.12* 3.124 
 3. 15 1 S. ' 3. 20 
 3.00 3.124 3.20 
 3.00 a. 124 3.20 
 
 S. 1 3.12* 3.20 
 3.10 ; 3.12* 3.20 
 3.00 3.12* S. 
 
 3. 10 3. 15 
 
 13 : 
 
 3.10 3.15 
 
 14 
 
 3. 10 3. 15 
 
 15 
 
 3.02^ 3.024 
 3. 024 3.02* 
 
 3.0241 S. ' 
 
 3.02* 3.02* 
 
 3.10 
 3.05 
 
 S. 
 3.10 
 3.10 
 3.10 
 3.20 
 3.20 
 3.20 
 
 s. 
 
 3.20 
 2.20 
 3.20 
 H. 
 3.20 
 3.20 
 
 .S. 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 3.15 
 3.15 
 
 
 3.10 
 
 19 
 
 21 
 
 3.024 
 
 S. 
 3.02* 
 
 3. 024 
 3.02* 
 3.024 
 
 H. 
 3.024 
 
 S. 
 3.02* 
 3. 02* 
 3. 02l 
 3. 024 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.05 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.05 
 
 S. 
 
 3.05 
 
 3.05 
 
 •3.05 
 
 3.05 
 
 3.05 
 
 3.05 
 
 S. 
 
 2.95 
 2.95 
 
 S. 
 2.95 
 2.95 
 2.95 
 2.95 
 2. 95 
 2.95 
 
 S. 
 2.95 
 3.00 
 
 3.10 
 3.10 
 3.10 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 25 
 
 26 
 
 27 
 
 28 
 
 29 
 
 30 
 
 31 
 
 3.02* 
 3.024 
 3.024 
 3.02* 
 3.^024 
 
 3. 02* 
 3.02* 
 3. 024 
 3.024 
 
 3. 15 3. 124 
 3. 05 S. 
 3.074 3.124 
 3.074 3.124 
 
 S. 3.124 
 3.074 3.12* 
 3.074 3.124 
 3.074 3.124 
 
 H. 1 S. 
 .3.074 
 
 3.20 
 3.20 
 3.30 
 3.30 
 3.30 
 3.374 
 
 S. 
 3.374 
 3.37* 
 3.374 
 
 S. 
 3.10 
 3.05 
 
 H. 
 3.05 
 3.05 
 3.05 
 
 s. 
 
 3.15 
 3.00 
 
 Average 
 
 3.01 
 
 
 
 3.024 
 
 3.02 
 
 2.97 
 
 3.02 1 3.12 
 
 1 
 
 3.20 
 
 3.36 
 
 3.21 
 
 3.15 
 
 3.15 3.15 
 
 1 
 
 Prices as shown in tables in Secretary of Interior's Report for 1S95, 
 volume 4, Part III, are as follows : 
 
 1894 
 1893 
 1892 
 1891 
 1890 
 
 3.12 
 3. 61 
 1. 0.3 
 4.32i 
 4.33i 
 
 1889 3.80i 
 
 1888 4.41 
 
 1887 4.46* 
 
 1886 4. 63 
 
 1885 3.94i
 
 LEAD OEE. 
 
 423 
 
 Price of common pifj lead in New York City, 1896. 
 [Year's average, 2.83.] 
 
 Day. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 May. 
 
 June. 
 
 Jtdy. 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Oct. 
 
 Nov. 
 
 Dec. 
 
 1 
 
 H. 
 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 
 S. 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 2.87i 
 2.95 
 2.90 
 
 S. 
 2.90 
 2 90 
 
 2.90 
 
 S. 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 3.00 
 
 S. 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 
 H. 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 
 s. 
 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 
 H. 
 
 S. 
 3.00 
 3. 12i 
 3.12J 
 3. 12* 
 3. 12j 
 3.12J 
 
 S. 
 3.12J 
 3.05 
 3.05 
 3.05 
 3.05 
 3.05 
 
 S. 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 
 S. 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 
 S. 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 2.90 
 
 S. 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 
 3.00 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 
 S. 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 
 S. 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 
 S. 
 2. 90 
 2.90 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 
 S. 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 2.90 
 3.00 
 
 3.00 
 2.90 
 
 S. 
 2.90 
 3.00 
 2.90 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 2.90 
 
 S. 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 
 S. 
 2.90 
 2.97i 
 2.97J 
 2. 97J 
 2.97J 
 2.90 
 
 S. 
 2.90 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 
 H. 
 
 S. 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.00- 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 S. 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2. GO 
 2.00 
 
 S. 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 
 S. 
 2.90 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 
 S. 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 
 3.00 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 
 H. 
 
 S. 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 
 S. 
 2.00 
 2.90 
 2.00 
 2. 90 
 2.90 
 2.85 
 
 S. 
 2.85 
 2.85 
 2.85 
 2.85 
 2.85 
 2.85 
 
 S. 
 2.85 
 2.80 
 2.80 
 2.80 
 2.80 
 
 2.80 
 
 S. 
 2.80 
 2.80 
 2.70 
 2.70 
 2.70 
 2.70 
 
 S. 
 2. 70 
 2.70 
 2.70 
 2.70 
 2.70 
 2.60 
 
 S. 
 2.00 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.50 
 2.50 
 
 S. 
 2.50 
 2.50 
 2.50 
 2.50 
 2.50 
 2.50 
 
 S. 
 2.50 
 
 2.50 
 2.50 
 2.50 
 2.50 
 2.60 
 
 S. 
 
 H. 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.60 
 
 S. 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 
 S. 
 2.60 
 2.00 
 2.60 
 2.00 
 2. 60 
 2.60 
 
 S. 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 
 S. 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 
 S. 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 
 S. 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2. 60 
 2.60 
 
 S. 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 
 S. 
 2.60 
 H. 
 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 2.60 
 
 S. 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 
 S. 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 
 S. 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 
 H. 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 
 S. 
 2.75 
 
 2 75 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 2 75 
 
 5 
 
 2 75 
 
 6 
 
 s 
 
 7 
 
 2 75 
 
 8 
 
 2 75 
 
 9 
 
 2 75 
 
 10 
 
 2 75 
 
 11 
 
 2 75 
 
 12 
 
 2 75 
 
 13 
 
 S. 
 
 14 .... 
 
 2 75 
 
 15 
 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2. 90 
 
 S. 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 
 S. 
 2. 90 
 2. 90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 
 2 75 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 
 )8 
 
 2.75 
 
 19 
 
 2.75 
 
 20 
 
 s 
 
 21 
 
 2 75 
 
 22 
 
 2.75 
 
 23 
 
 2.75 
 
 24 
 
 2.75 
 
 25 
 
 H. 
 
 
 2.75 
 
 27 
 
 S. 
 
 
 2 90 
 
 29 
 
 2.90 
 
 
 2.90 
 
 31 
 
 2.90 
 
 
 
 
 2.93 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.01 
 
 2.93 
 
 2.97 
 
 2.95 
 
 2.88 
 
 2.63 
 
 2.58 
 
 2.60 
 
 2.72 
 
 2.77 
 
 
 
 [From the Official Daily Market Report of the Xew York Metal Exchanj^e, January 11, 1897.] 
 
 Imporiaiions of foreign lead into the United States during 1806, as per returns of the 
 United States Bureau of Statistics. 
 
 Month. 
 
 January 
 
 February 
 
 March 
 
 Ai)ril 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 July 
 
 August 
 
 September 
 
 October 
 
 Novumber 
 
 December a 
 
 Total 
 
 Equal to tons of 2,240 pounds 
 
 From 
 Europe. 
 
 Pounds. 
 654, 274 
 
 66, 154 
 124, 495 
 714, 630 
 
 66, 089 
 290, 403 
 132, 933 
 224, 100 
 
 None. 
 
 32, 648 
 
 73, 291 
 250, 000 
 
 2, 629, 023 
 1,174 
 
 From British 
 
 North 
 
 America. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1, 690, 266 
 3, 895, 246 
 
 2, 510, 489 
 1,986,491 
 1, 299, 160 
 
 1, 919, 568 
 
 2, 040, 398 
 2, 560, 450 
 2, 452, 263 
 2, 254, 643 
 
 953, 015 
 1, 000, 000 
 
 From 
 Mexico. 
 
 24, 567, 989 
 10, 968 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 10, 786, 584 
 
 9, 298, 064 
 
 9, 677, 374 
 
 10, 639, 118 
 
 9,108,120 
 
 12, 976, 533 
 
 15, 122, 573 
 
 10, 602, 800 
 
 9, 483, 274 
 
 12, 167, 836 
 
 10,001,014 
 
 10, 000, 000 
 
 From sun- 
 dry coun- 
 tries. 
 
 129, 923, 380 
 58, 001 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 180, 601 
 
 448 
 
 93, 555 
 
 172, 329 
 
 25, 676 
 
 24, 992 
 
 20, 002 
 
 9,274 
 
 681,940 
 
 410, (189 
 24, 113 
 
 100, 000 
 
 1, 749, 679 
 781 
 
 Grand total, 70,924 tons. 
 
 a Estimated.
 
 424 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Exports from ihe United States of foreign lead refined in hond, durimj 1S96, as compiled hy 
 the New York Metal Exchange. 
 
 [In tons of 2,240 pounds.] 
 
 To United Kingdom "J' 2!?^ 
 
 To France .I'ooa 
 
 To Germany ,' , !>o 
 
 To Holland 1.1^^ 
 
 To Belgium 'f^ 
 
 To Austria - ' ^'^ 
 
 To Italy 100 
 
 To Canada -^^^ 
 
 Total 45,254 
 
 rig-lead statistics of 1895, compiled hxj E. A. Casn-ell, Xo. 109 John street, Xetc York. 
 
 [Tons of 2,000 pounds throughout.] 
 
 1892. 
 
 1894. 
 
 1895. 
 
 Produced : Tons. 
 
 United States desilverized, total 148,080 
 
 ISIissonri-Galena -JS, 895 
 
 Total United States production [ 180, 075 
 
 Made from imported ores I 26, :t80 
 
 Made from imported bullion ! 1, 300 
 
 Foreign pig ' 575 
 
 Total supply 209,230 
 
 Reexported manufactured 400 
 
 208, 830 
 
 Decrease ( — ) or increase ( + ) in stocks : 1, 500 
 
 Total consumption 210, 330 
 
 Stocks December 31 3, 000 
 
 Refined in bond I 12,000 
 
 T071S. 
 
 126, 793 
 32, 859 
 
 Tont. 
 120, 081 
 38, 113 
 
 Tons. 
 116,281 
 38,189 
 
 159, 652 
 
 29, 270 
 
 2, 000 
 
 2,424 
 
 158, 194 
 
 17, 470 
 
 11,810 
 
 8,572 
 
 154, 470 
 20,254 
 27,766 
 22, 947 
 
 193, 346 
 1.335 
 
 196,042 
 950 
 
 225, 437 
 2,048 
 
 192, Oil 
 1,000 
 
 191,011 
 4,000 
 34, 000 
 
 195, 092 
 2, 000 
 
 197, 092 
 
 2, 000 
 
 42,445 
 
 223, 389 
 1,500 
 
 221, 889 
 
 3, 500 
 
 50, 389 
 
 [Increase +, or decrease — .] 
 
 1892 over ! 1893 over 1894 over 1895 over 
 I 1891. I 1892. 1893. 1894. 
 
 I Per cent. Per cent. 
 
 Production I +0.04 , —10.2 
 
 Consumption i +3.5 | — 9.2 
 
 Yearly average price of ' ' common ' ' at Now York 4. 05 i 3. 61 
 
 Per cent. 
 —0.9 
 +3.7 
 
 Percent. 
 — 2.4 
 
 +12.6 
 
 3.12 
 
 3.12 
 
 [From the Engineering and Mining Journal, January 2, 1897.] 
 Lead supply in 1S9G. 
 [Tons of 2,000 pounds.] 
 
 Stock, January, 1896 
 
 Desilverized 
 
 Soft 
 
 Antimonial 
 
 Total domestic 
 
 Imported in all forms. . . 
 
 Total supply 
 
 Export, iu ail forms 
 
 Consumption 
 
 Stock, December 31, 1896 
 
 1895. 
 
 12, 634 
 119, 057 
 
 32, 797 
 
 5,000 
 
 156,854 
 
 100, 471 
 
 269, 959 
 
 18,130 
 232, 854 
 
 38,975 
 
 1896. 
 
 18,975 
 137, 478 
 
 33, 803 
 
 4,912 
 
 175, 717 
 
 79,000 
 273,692 
 
 52,590 
 206, 102 
 
 15,000
 
 LEAD ORE, 
 
 425 
 
 Pi(j-lend utatiatics of 1892, compiled by E. A. Caswell, No. 109 John street, Xew York. . 
 [Tons of 2,000 pounds throughout.] 
 
 1890. 
 
 1891. 
 
 Produced : 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Utah 
 
 Montana-Idaho. 
 Other States 
 
 54,288 
 31, 180 
 
 28, 400 
 13. 709 
 
 United States desilverized, total. 
 Missouri and Galena 
 
 127, 577 
 27, 400 
 
 To<al United States iiroduction. 
 Imported : 
 
 lu ores 
 
 In pig 
 
 154, 977 
 
 24, 650 
 283 
 
 Total supply. 
 Keexi)orted 
 
 179, 910 
 1,904 
 
 Decrease ( — ) or increase ( + ) in stocks 
 
 Total consumption , 
 
 Stocks December 31 
 
 Rctined in transit 
 
 178, 006 
 + 10,040 
 
 188, 046 
 18, 400 
 
 51,450 
 34, 132 
 
 18, 300 
 10,664 
 
 58, 950 
 43, 360 
 28, 000 
 20,168 
 
 114, 546 
 33, 840 
 
 150, 478 
 29, 763 
 
 148,386 180,241 
 
 14, 064 
 10, 174 
 
 21, 575 
 3,651 
 
 172, 624 
 2,245 
 
 205, 467 
 2, 921 
 
 170, 379 
 + 14, 660 
 
 185, 039 
 3,740 
 
 202, 546 
 —760 
 
 203, 300 
 4,500 
 2,058 
 
 48, 400 
 45,553 
 32, 600 
 21, 527 
 
 148, 080 
 32, 895 
 
 180, 975 
 
 20, 380 
 1,875 
 
 209, 230 
 400 
 
 208, 830 
 + 1,500 
 
 210,330 
 3,000 
 12, 000 
 
 [Increase + or decrease — .] 
 
 
 1889 over 
 1888. 
 
 1890 over 
 1889. 
 
 1891 over 
 1890. 
 
 1892 over 
 1891. 
 
 Production 
 
 Per cent. 
 — 1.3 
 
 +15.7 
 
 Per cent. 
 -4.25 
 —1.6 
 
 Per cent. 
 +21.5 
 + 9.9 
 
 Per cent. 
 + .04 
 +3.5 
 
 
 
 
 Average yearly price of "com 
 
 3.80 
 
 4.83 
 
 4.32i 
 
 4 05 
 
 
 
 Pig-lead statistics of 1SS9, compiled by E. A. Caswell, No. 109 John street, New York 
 [Tons of 2,000 pounds throughout.] 
 
 Produced : 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Utah 
 
 Montana-Idaho 
 
 Other States 
 
 United States desilverized total . 
 Missouri and Galena 
 
 Total United States production.. 
 ■ Imported ; 
 
 In ores 
 
 Ill pig 
 
 Total sujiply 
 
 Reexported 
 
 Decrease ( — ) or increase (+) in stocks 
 
 Total consumption 
 
 Stocks, December 31 
 
 1886. 
 
 1887. 
 
 1888. 
 
 1889. 
 
 48, 480 
 24, 332 
 12. 632 
 19, 500 
 
 55, 722 
 
 22, 900 
 16, 000 
 22, 400 
 
 56, 916 
 
 22, 283 
 31,400 
 15, 201 
 
 54,288 
 31, 180 
 28, 400 
 13, 709 
 
 104, 944 
 22, 460 
 
 117, 022 
 27, 958 
 
 125,800 
 31, 252 
 
 127, 577 
 27,400 
 
 127, 404 
 
 8,800 
 9,700 
 
 144, 980 
 
 15, 060 
 4,312 
 
 157, 052^ 
 
 27, 018 
 1,642 
 
 154, 977 
 
 24, 650 
 283 
 
 145, 964 
 1,754 
 
 164, 352 
 1,400 
 
 185, 712 
 1,250 
 
 179, 910 
 1,904 
 
 144.210 
 
 —2, 332 
 
 102, 952 
 
 + 1,464 
 
 184, 462 
 —21, 972 
 
 178, 006 
 + 10,040 
 
 141, 878 
 7,932 
 
 164, 416 
 6,468 
 
 162,490 
 28, 440 
 
 188, 040 
 18, 400
 
 426 
 
 SCHEDULE C— METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Fig-lead statistics of 1S89, etc. — Coiitinuetl. 
 [Increase +, or decrease — .] 
 
 1886 over 1887 over 1888 over 1 1889 over 
 1885. 1886. 1887. 1888. 
 
 Production 
 
 Consumption 
 
 Average yearly price of " common " at New York 
 
 Per cent. , Per cent. Per cent. ] Per cent. 
 —16. 7 +13| I +8. 3 I — 1. 3 
 — 3.6 +15J I —1.2 +15.7 
 
 4.63 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.41 
 
 Pig-lead statistics of 1885, compiled bij K. A. Castvell, Xo. 100 John street , Xew York. 
 [Tons of 2,000 pounds tbroughout.] 
 
 Produced : 
 
 Colorado 
 
 rtali 
 
 Nevada 
 
 California, New Mexico, Montana, Idaho, etc 
 
 1883. 
 
 1884. 
 
 1885. 
 
 60,988 
 
 '_'9, 947 
 
 8, :>90 
 
 3,700 
 
 70,800 
 
 33, 330 
 
 5,775 
 
 15,840 
 
 72, 600 1 53, 500 
 
 30,432 29.160 
 
 7. 718 3, 600 
 
 14,470 27,993 
 
 Desilverized total ; 103, 225 
 
 Missouri and Galena 29, 015 
 
 125, 745 
 21,600 
 
 125,220 
 18, 140 
 
 114,253 
 21, 265 
 
 Total United States production I 132,240 
 
 Imported 2, .")! 8 
 
 147, 345 
 1,085 
 
 143, 360 
 2,508 
 
 Total supply 134,7r>8 
 
 Reexported 2, 4(i5 
 
 148, 430 
 730 
 
 145, 868 
 1,708 
 
 135, 518 
 2, 082 
 
 138, 200 
 000 
 
 Decrea.se ( — ) or increase ( + ) in stocks 
 
 132, 353 
 +365 
 
 147, 700 
 —7,105 
 
 144, 160 
 + 4,600 
 
 137. 300 
 + 8,000 
 
 Total consumption 132,718 140,535 1 148,760 I 145,900 
 
 Stocks, December 31 11,635 , 18,800 
 
 14,200 
 
 5,600 
 
 
 1882 over 
 1881. 
 
 1883 over 
 1882. 
 
 1884 over 
 1883. 
 
 1885 over 
 1884. 
 
 Production 
 
 Pt'r re tit. 
 + 12.9 
 + 13. 1 
 
 Prr cent. 
 + 11.4 
 -1- .'• 9 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 -2.7 
 +6.4 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 -5.5 
 
 1.9 
 
 
 mon " at New 
 
 York 
 
 
 
 Average yearly price of "com 
 
 $4. 90 lU 32 
 
 $3.73 
 
 $3.95 
 
 
 
 
 Mr. Payne. What do you say tx) the proposition that the duties on 
 
 ores, whatever the specific rate is per pound, should be on the actual 
 lead contained in the ores, silver-bearin<? ores or otherwise? 
 
 Mr. JOjSES. The statute says now that silver ore and all other ores 
 containing lead shall pay a duty on the lead contained therein, so tliat 
 it was simply never meant to provide that these ores which are silver 
 ores should pay the duty upon the lead contained in thosi^ ores. Per- 
 sonally it does not seem to me there is anything^ unfair in the proposi- 
 tion that duty should be collected simply upon the lead in the ores, 
 provided you should make a sufficient determination ol" the (juantity of 
 lead; but I think the Government has had great ditliculty in determin- 
 ing- that accurately, because they had no sami)le works, and it seems to 
 me that is a matter of administration and a matter for the Treasury 
 Department, and this committee can hardly go into all the questions 
 bearing upon this question. 
 
 The Chairman. A bill was passed in the House at the last session 
 providing for sami)ling ores for the purpose of testing them. Has it 
 passed the Senate'^
 
 ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI LEAD MINERS. 427 
 
 Mr. Jones. I think not. There was an appropriation of $40,000, but 
 that was fonnd to be inadequate. 
 
 The Chairman. And thi^ is just what the Treasury Department is 
 asking for! 
 
 Mr. Cobb. As a matter of fact there are no samiile works on the 
 border! 
 
 Mr. Jones. Iso, sir. 
 
 ISfr. Hopkins. You see no objection to having a duty on the ores 
 provided tliey have sani])le works to make the test? 
 
 Mr. Jones. I think the duty has been on lead ore, and as to deter- 
 mining at tliis moment what lead ore shall be I should hardly under- 
 take to say. That is a question. There might be a number of elements 
 entering into it, and 1 think the duty on many ores where there is some- 
 thing besides lead is collected at the full weight of the ore, it being 
 classed as lead ore by the Government. 
 
 ASS()( lA TIOX OF ^rTSSOirRT LEAD MIXEES. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. H. J. CANTWELL, OF MISSOURI. 
 
 Saturday, Jamiary 9, 1897. 
 
 Mr. CANTWELL said : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 the statement I have to make is made on behalf of the Association of 
 Missouri Lead .Miners, an organization of those engaged in lead mining in 
 Missouri. The only object of this organization is to collect and jmblisb, 
 for the use of its members, information relating to the business of lead 
 mining. As the representative of the men composing this organization 
 I api)ear. 
 
 In order to remove any impression which the name might create that 
 this is a trade combination, I will say that there is not now, nor has 
 there ever been, among the members of this organization, nor among 
 any other persons engaged in lead mining in Missouri, any combination 
 to regulate or restrict i)roduction, or to regulate or control the sale or 
 price of their products. Each mine sells its own product absolutely 
 independent of all others, and without any arrangement, agreement, or 
 information as to prices at which the others may sell. We are miners - 
 of lead oves, and sellers of lead ores and pig lead in fair and opeu com- 
 petition each with the other. 
 
 If there be any combinations or "trusts" in the lead trade we have 
 no coiinection, immediate or remote, with them. If such combinations 
 exist they are limited to those engaged in the manufacture of goods 
 .from our product, such as white lead, lead pipe, etc., in the man- 
 ufacture of which none of us have any interest. 
 
 We are engaged in the hazardous branch of the business, and while 
 our product may have come under the definition of "raw material," 
 adopted by some statesmen, yet the capital required in the production 
 and the proportion paid to labor of the amount received from the prod- 
 uct is much greater than in any of the manufactories in which these 
 improperly called raw materials are used. 
 
 There are employed in the State of Missouri alone in the mining, 
 milling, and smelting of lead ores over 5,000 men. In the counties of 
 Washington and Jefferson, whose surface deposits once gave employ- 
 ment to many men who were paid by the ton of ore mined, operations 
 are practically suspended, the remuneration at present prices being too
 
 428 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 low to induce even the agricultural laborer to work in these mines 
 during the season when there is no work on the farm. 
 
 In the disseminated lead district of southeastern Missouri, which is 
 the great lead producing district of the State, the surface deposits have 
 long been exhausted or are no longer worked because of low prices. 
 The mining now being carried on is comparativelj^ deep mining— that 
 is, by shafts from 300 to 400 feet deep, the ore occurring in a limestone 
 formation, through which the lead is disseminated. 
 
 The average of the ore mined contains less than 7 per cent of lead, 
 and the quantity of metallic lead extracted does not exceed 5 per cent. 
 Tlie concentrates contain from 1 to 2 ounces of silver to the ton. This 
 yield in silver is too small to pay for the cost of extraction and it is not 
 saved. 
 
 The mining and concentration of this ore requires expensive machinery 
 and an enormous expenditure of capital. The capital employed by the 
 companies now operating is as follows: 
 
 St. Joseph Lead Company $2,500,000 
 
 Doe Eun Lead Company T-W, 000 
 
 Deslooe Consolidated Lead Company 1, 0<)0, 000 
 
 Central Lead Company 450. 000 
 
 MinelaMottc (R. Ilazzard, owner) 400,000 
 
 Total 5,100,000 
 
 The other companies in this district whose operations are now sus- 
 pended by reason of present low prices are: 
 
 Capital. 
 
 The Leadington Lead Company $200,000 
 
 The Flat River Lead Company 300.000 
 
 The Donnelly Lead Company 200, 000 
 
 These three companies have ex])ensive plants, but have not mined 
 any ore during the past year. The St. Joseph Lead Company is the 
 only company that has earned or paid a dividend for three years. 
 
 This company has paid a dividend regularly of per cent per 
 annum, but tliey have exceptional facilities and sources of revenue, 
 other tlian mining, from wlii(;li tliis revenue is derived. It should 
 always be considered tliat the dividend of a mining com])any is to some 
 extent a distribution of its capital — their ore body being diminished to 
 the extent of the ore mined. 
 
 I was the president of the Central Lead Company until the loth of last 
 September; am still a director, and I know its afinirs intiuuitely. We 
 have at this mine all of the improved methods of mining, hoisting, mill- 
 ing, transporting, and smelting ores. We have able engineers, no fancy 
 salaries, no wasteful experiments, and as expert miners as can be found 
 anywhere. 
 
 While our production of pig lead during 1890 exceeded $250,000, the 
 difference between our receipts and our actual current operating 
 expenses did not equal $20,000, When an allowance is made for wear 
 and tear of machinery, pro])ortionate cost per ton mined for shaft sink- 
 ing, and for diminution of ore body, it is a conservative statement to 
 say tliat our loss on the operations for the year IcSOO exceeds 82r),000. 
 
 I am quite sure no other company in our district has done better. 
 While in the Southwestern or Joplin districts, instances may be found of 
 individuals who may have madesmallprofitsbecauseof their good fortune 
 in discovering a "pocket" of ore, yet it is not believed that there has 
 been an average of 1 per cent per annum return on the whole capital 
 invested there during the past three years.
 
 ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI LEAD MINERS. 
 
 429 
 
 While tbe price of pig lead has steadily declined from $3.75 in the St. 
 Louis market in 1893 to the present price of $2.75 per 100 pounds (run- 
 ning as low as $2.40 in August last), the wages of our employees have 
 remained the same. Following is a table of the present prices paid men 
 emi)loyed at the Central Mine, and also a statement of wages paid men 
 engaged in similar occupations in Mexico. The statement of wages 
 paid in INIexico was i)repared by Walter B. Stevens of the St. Louis 
 Globe-Democrat, published in that paper, and veritied by inquiries made 
 since of many men engaged in mining in Mexico, and not disputed by 
 any. 
 
 At smelter: 
 
 Engineers...... 
 
 Furnace men 
 
 Bullion meu 
 
 Slag men 
 
 Ore weighers 
 
 Ore men 
 
 Feeders 
 
 Outside men 
 
 At mine : 
 
 Miners 
 
 ^line bosses 
 
 Hoister runners and pump men 
 
 Common mine labor 
 
 At Central 
 ■•r • • mine, aold 
 
 ver prices. Mexican price'}. value 
 
 In Mexico, sU- Gold value of 
 
 $1.00 
 1.00 1 
 .6 
 
 .62i' 
 I. 00 I 
 .62J 
 . 75 
 .50 I 
 I 
 
 fO. 75 to 1. 00 
 
 1.25 to 1.50 
 
 1. 25 to 2. 00 
 
 .50 
 
 8. 374 to 
 . 62J to 
 .62Jto 
 
 0.50 
 .50 
 .32 
 .32 
 .50 
 .32 
 .38 
 .25 
 
 .50 
 
 .75 
 
 1.00 
 
 .25 
 
 $1, 
 
 $1.50 
 1.75 
 l.-iO 
 1.40 
 
 i.io 
 
 1.40 
 1.50 
 1.25 
 
 1.50 
 
 2.50 
 
 50 to 1. 75 
 
 1.25 
 
 There is no labor union among the men in our district. Our labor is 
 more effective than the Mexican labor, but not in comparison with the 
 difference in wages. ]5ut we believed that the present rate of wages 
 paid our miners was low enough, and we have refrained from cutting 
 \^ages, hoping month by month for some relief from the ruinous com- 
 petition from the silver lead ores that have been flooding the United 
 States from Mexico, and which have come in only by evasion and frauds 
 upon the present tariff law and by improper and insufticient regulations 
 and by the system of bonded warehouses, which nullify the protection 
 intended by the existing law. Temporary increase of production may 
 be and has been caused by low prices. 
 
 Anticipating what may superficially seem an argument against us, I 
 desire to call the attention of the committee to the paradox that in cer- 
 tain mines in ^lissouri, particularly in our district, the prodaction has 
 increased during this period of low prices. This increased production 
 is only temporary. It is caused by the fact that in deep mines, where 
 the expense of pumi)ing water and the cost of necessary equipment is 
 great, when prices fall, the sanguine miner (and they are all sanguine 
 or they would not be miners), hoping that the low prices are only tem- 
 porary, more rapidly exhausts his ore body, for he can only make both 
 ends meet by decreasing his cost for pumping and general expenses 
 per ton of ore extracted. The shaft being down, the machinery in 
 place, which would be worthless elsewhere, he will, and does, continue 
 to produce from that ore body so long as the returns from the sales of 
 his ore equal the daily cost of extraction, counting nothing for the 
 diminution of what he once fondly considered his capital, that is, his 
 ore body, and nothing for expenditures already made for development, 
 and for erection of his equipment. This continues until his ore body 
 is exhausted. 
 
 Observation shows this phenomena is universal in mining. It is con- 
 sonant with the axiom of political economy, that the labor cost of an
 
 430 SCHEDULE C. — METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 article, already expended, bears no relation to the present value. Cost 
 determines future production, however, and when the present developed 
 ore bodies are exhausted, unless prices improve, no more ore bodies will 
 be developed, except by birds rare in this country — that is, fools with 
 capital. We believe that the present condition of affairs in our industry 
 is due to lop-sided protection, and that the benefits which should have 
 accrued to us from the policy of protection have been engrossed by other 
 interests more cunning in the art of legislation than we are. 
 
 We complain that the present schedule on lead ores is not carried out, 
 and that in the present shape it is almost impossible to carry it out; 
 we complain of the system of smelting; ores in bond, which benetits but 
 a very small class — i. e., the refiners — is of great expense and little reve- 
 nue to the Government, and is a constant menace to the home producers. 
 
 As to the present schedule, the language is as follows: 
 
 Paragrapli 165. Lead oro and lead dross three-foiirtbs of one cent per ponnd: Pro- 
 vided, That silver ore and all other ores containini; lead shall j)ay a duty of three- 
 fourths of one rent per pound on the lead contai.ied therein, according to sample and 
 assay at the port of entry. 
 
 The method of sampling and assaying to l)e that usually adopted for commercial 
 purposes by public sampling works in the United States. 
 
 Under the settled constiuction of the Department, both before and 
 since the passage of this bill, as shown by the attaclicd brief, according 
 to the language used, a duty is laid of three-fourths cent ])er pound on 
 the full weight of " lead ores," and on other ores not lead ores a duty 
 is laid of three fourths cent per p(mnd (m the lead contained therein. 
 
 The difficulty seems to have been- in determining what are "lead 
 ores." It was early ruled that when the chief coinpcment in value was 
 lead, that the mass was a lead ore. It was also ruled, the question 
 being one of definition only, that in determining values of the mass 
 imported the values taken should be the values in the market of tl\e 
 United States. 
 
 Notwithstanding these regulations, all sorts of rediculous rulings 
 and decisions, all favorable to the imi)orters, have been adopted by tlie 
 Board of General Appraisers. It is a]>parent that, the (»b)ect being to 
 determine relative values of the components, the values lor comparisiui 
 should be of the components in the same relative condition — that is, the 
 value of the lead in ore should be compared with the value of the silver 
 as ore; or the contents in lead should be calculated at the value of lead 
 in pigs and should be compared with the value of the contents in silver 
 calculated at the value of silver in bullion. It seems this obviously 
 correct idea, that the object should be to determine the relative values 
 of the components in the mass, has never occurred to the Department 
 nor to the Board of General Appraisers. The Treasury I)ei)artment, 
 early recognizing that there was no real market lor eitiier of the com- 
 ponents at the usual ports of importation, assuming that the i)ropor- 
 tional value between the components in the refined state was the same 
 as in the crude state, issued a circular directing that ".>5 ]ier cent of the 
 market price of silver bullion in Xew York be taken to arrive at the 
 value of the silver content and that the New York price of pig lead, 
 less 11 cents per pound, be taken for the value of the lead. AVliy this 
 deduction of 1^- cents per pound from the New Y'ork value of lead should 
 have been made has never been explained. In a subsequent circular 
 the Department advised the officers of the customs that this method of 
 arriving at the value of the lead content was advisory and not mandatory. 
 
 It may here be stated that it is universally known to all who have 
 any knowledge of the business, except, perhaps, the Board of General
 
 ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI LEAD MINERS. 431 
 
 Appraisers (who seem to acfiuire no information other than that volun- 
 tarily presented by interested parties), that the value of the crude lead, in 
 a mass composed of lead, silver, and gangue, is comj^aratively of greater 
 value than the crude silver — that is, the relative value of lead in the 
 crude state in such a mass is greater than in a refined state. This is 
 due to the fact that the lead is absolutely essential to the smelting of 
 the silver, and however the importers may attempt to disguise this 
 by the ^proportionate prices paid miners for the components — the miner 
 looking only at the total amount of price received for his silver and 
 lead together, and caring nothing about the means used to determine 
 the price of the whole — no expense for smelting is properly chargeable 
 to the lead in such ores. The method adopted by the Department, how- 
 ever, practically charged the entire cost of smelting to the lead and 
 nothing to the silver. When even this method imposed the full duty 
 on the mass, upon the protest of the importers, the Board of General 
 Appraisers of New York has heard biased testimony as to the value of 
 the lead in ore at the time and place of importation, reducing the value 
 below that reached by the departmental method, and hearing no evi- 
 dence as to the value of the crude component of silver, but improperly 
 assuming it to be of the value of silver bullion, changed the classifica- 
 tion of the mass offered for importation from a "lead ore" to a "silver 
 ore 
 
 V 
 
 The Department early issued stringent regulations prohibiting the 
 mixing of ores in order to raise the silver contents and thereby change 
 the classification (Synopsis No. 9492.) 
 
 Upon such an imi)ortation — that is, one of mixed ores — being seized 
 by the collector at ICagle l*ass, Tex., as a fraudulent importation, the 
 Board of General Appraisers held there is nothing in the law prohib- 
 iting the mixing of ores. From this decision of the Board of General 
 Appraisers the Department appealed to the United States circuit court 
 for the western district of Texas, which court (In re Chichester, 48 Fed. 
 Rep., 281) reversed the decision of theBoard of General Appraisers upon 
 jurisdictional grounds, leaving the question whether or not it is lawful 
 to mix ores undecided ; and the question is undecided yet. The Depart- 
 ment still adheres to its first regulations, but the mixing still continues 
 in reliance upon the opinion of the Board of General Ai)i)raisers. 
 
 A table of these and all other decisions aliecting this question is 
 hereto appended, and an examination of them with the notes of the 
 evidence on which they aref(mnded, will show how farcical the taking 
 of testimony may be in cases where there is practically but one side 
 represented, those injured by the decisions being the Government, and 
 those engaged in mining in the West who are never heard of at 
 "Court." 
 
 Furthermore the act of 1894 required the sampling and testing of the 
 ores to be made at place of importation, and no appropriation was avail- 
 able for the erection of sampling and testing works there or elsewhere. 
 None have been erected, and under the provisions for bonded smelting 
 warehouses, hereafter referred to, it is doubtful if they would have been 
 used if erected. 
 
 Practically all the ores now come in in bond, and so helpless is the 
 Government in the matter at this time that the Treasury ofiicials inform 
 me the Government now acccepts the statement of the refiner as to the 
 classification of the mass imported, the weight of the mass, the assay 
 and value of the lead contents, and also the loss in smelting or refining. 
 As a consequence, no "lead ores" are imported, at least so far as the 
 custom receipts show; though it is reasonably certain that most of
 
 432 SCHEDULE C. — METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 the ores wliicli liave come iu would be classified as "lead ores,'' aud 
 dutiable as sucb, bad the Government the means of correctly testing 
 the ores, and would pursue proper methods of carrying out what is 
 conceded to be the proper construction of paragraph 105. 
 
 The last Congress provided an appropriation for the erection of 
 sampling and testing works, but the supervising special agent reports 
 in his annual report for 189G which follows, that even this appropriation 
 of $45,000 is insufticient for the purpose, and nothing has been done. 
 
 GOVERNMENT SAjMPLING WORKS. 
 
 TJeforrinp; to tlie antliorization by Congress (deficienry act, Jnno 8, 1896) for the 
 erection and eciiiipniont of suitable buildings for sampling works at places Avliero 
 lead-bearing ores are imported, I have to suggest that certain re(|u:rements of the 
 act relative to the sampling of ores involve an expenditure of numey which will 
 increase largely the deficiency in the appropriation for the expense of collecting the 
 revenue from customs, which appropriation is even now inadequate to meet all tho 
 demands made upon it. Ores containing lead are imported at El I'aso, Eagle Pass, 
 aud Corpus Christi, Tex.; Nogales, Ariz., and Deming, N. Mex., on the Mexican fron- 
 tier; Portal, N. Dak. ; .Jennings, Mont. ; Northport and Sunias, Wash., on the north- 
 western frontier; Taeoma, Wash., and San Francisco, Cal. No ores were imported 
 at Bouners Ferry, Idaho, during the last fiscal year, owing, it is said, to lack of trans- 
 portation facilities on the Kootenai River, though it is claimed that measures are 
 being taken to obviate this difficulty, and that large quantities of ores from the Brit- 
 ish Columbia mines will be brought into this country by that route during the coming 
 season. 
 
 Preparations are being made also for extensive importations from Mexico by way 
 of a point near Boaquillas, Tex., on the Rio Grande River, whence they will be brought 
 by wagon route to the nearest railway station at Marathon. Tex. The ai)pro]>riation 
 of $4,5,000 for tlie erection and ef(uipment of sampling works at the poinfs indicated 
 in the iict referred to will perhaps lie sulticient to jirovide the necessary builduigs 
 and plants; but when it is taken into consideration tliat the act alsoreiiuires at least 
 one-fifth of each importation when arriving at a place where there is no Government 
 sampling works to be conveyed to the nearest (Jovernnient sampler for 8ami)ling, and 
 the .attendant expenses of handling, transfer, and transjiortation of the ores to be paid 
 by the (iovernment, it will be seen that tlie outlay will lie very great. The cost, also, 
 for the running and maintenance of the sampling works will add largely to the ex])ense 
 of the same. 
 
 If ])aragraph 1G."5 of tho tariff act of 1894 was amended so as to allow importations 
 of lead bearing ores to go forward from tlie port of entry under warehouse aud trans- 
 portation bond to])roperlyequijiped smelting establishments, jirovisioncoiild be made 
 l)y the (iovernment for the assignment to the smelting works of competent ofTicers, 
 whose duty it would bo to supervise personally the sampling of the ores according to 
 commercial methods, after which a regularly ajipointed Government assnyer could 
 ascertain the dutiable quantity of lead contained therein. Th(> same results, equita- 
 ble alike to the Government and to the importer, in my opinion, would be obtained 
 by this procedure, and with far less expense to the Government than in the erection, 
 equipment, and running of independent sampling works. Plans for suitable bniid- 
 ings at El Paso, Tex., Bonnets Ferry, Idaho, and Northport, Wash., the three ])laces 
 mentioned in tho act referred to, have been prepared, and estimates of the cost of 
 machinery for same secured, so that no further or unnecessary delay will intervene 
 should it be deemed advisable to proceed with the constrnctiou of the works at those 
 or any ither points designated. 
 
 J. .1. Crowley, Superrixinf/ Special Agent. 
 
 We suggest the ametidment of paragrai)h 105 by the enactment of 
 the following: 
 
 All ores, mattes, and slags, containing eight per cent or more of lead, three-fonrths 
 of one cent per pound ; lead dross, one and one-quarter cents per pound. Lead in ]ngs 
 and bars, in which lead is the chief component in weight, one and one-half cents 
 per pound. The duties on the articles mentioned in this section to be levied on the 
 full weight of the mass as offered for imijortation. 
 
 Also, we suggest the following : 
 
 All smelted products, not specially enumerated, containing lead in any quantity, 
 two cents per pound on tho quantity of lead contained therein.
 
 ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI LEAD MINERS. 433 
 
 The Western lead miners have an interest in the duty to be paid on 
 lead products to the extent that it be difierential — that is, that the duty 
 laid be sufficient to correspondingly protect us against the importation 
 of goods maiuifactured from the Mexican ra^r product. We believe 
 the following clause would effectually do this: 
 
 Lead in sheets, pipes, shot, glazier's lead, and lead wire, two and one-half cents 
 per pound. All other manufactured products in which lead is the chief component 
 in weight, not herein specially enumerated, two and one-half cents per pound. 
 
 White lead and other articles made by chemical action from lead 
 would not be included in the words "manufactured products," accord- 
 ing to an early decision of the Supreme Court. As to these we are 
 also interested tliat the rate be dift'erential, and that the language be 
 broad enough to include all articles made by chemical action from lead. 
 
 The enactment of this clause suggested, in lieu of paragraph 165, 
 will i)erniit the importation free of duty of all ores containing less than 
 eight per cent of lead. We are now mining in Missouri ore containing 
 an average of about 7 per cent of lead, and this clause admits free 
 such ores as are the same character as ours, if imijorted in the raw 
 state; that is, as we take it from the ground in Missouri. This clause 
 will permit the mixing or concentration of the Mexican ores to raise the 
 lead contents as high as desired, but will lay a duty of three-fourths 
 cent i)er pound on the full weight of the mass imported. It will remove 
 all necessity for the erection of sampling and testing works. The col- 
 lector has but to sample and weigh the ore. If it is claimed that the 
 ore carries less than 8 per cent, he may sam])le the ore and send the 
 sam]>le to the nearest United States assayer, and, if an affidavit is 
 reipiired from the importer, if this affidavit be found false, the entire 
 mass may be confiscated as a fraudulent imi)ortation. 
 
 This provision to be effective should be supplemented by the repeal 
 of all pro^isions for the smelting and refining of ores and metals, and 
 particularly ores, in bond. 
 
 We ask the repeal of all provisions for the smelting of ores and the 
 refining of metals in bond; substituting, in lieu of the present provision 
 for refining pig lead in bond, a provision allowing a drawback of the 
 duty paid on pig lead by ])roof of the exportation, within six months 
 after payment of the duty, of refined lead or lead products made directly 
 from pig lead equal to the full quantity of pig lead on which duty has 
 been paid. The allowance for wastage in refining the crude pig lead 
 should, liowever, be expressly limited to not more than two per cent. 
 This provision for drawback to be confined to duties paid on pig lead 
 alone, and not to be extended to the ore — the provision for drawback 
 to expressly exclude ores, for reasons hereafter given. 
 
 The smelting of ores in bond benefits but a small class of persons; 
 and the benefits to them, except when frauds and evasions are made 
 possible, is very slight. The expenses to the Government of prevent- 
 ing frauds are enormous, and if the ores are exported the Government 
 receives no revenue from the system. If the product of the ores is 
 withdrawn for home consumption, at practically whatever the importer 
 choses to pay, the Government then receives some revenue (little more 
 tiian enough, however, to properly compensate it for the expense), but 
 in this event the throwing of this lead on the home market demoralizes 
 it. The system permits the holding of a large supply of bonded lead 
 in abeyance as a constant menace to higher prices in the home market, 
 the importer being able to throw it either on the American or foreign 
 market at will, and makes our market absolutely dependent in the end 
 upon the London market. 
 T H 28
 
 434 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 In anticij)atiou of the suggestion that these ores are required to smelt 
 the "dry" silver ores in America, we answer that the differential tariff 
 between ores and pig lead will permit the importation of all necessary 
 Mexican ores, the importer receiving an enhanced price for his pig lead 
 equal to the duty paid — that is, if the ores are concentrated so as to 
 raise them high in lead, as we in Missouri are compelled to do with our 
 ores; but even should the result be to shut out a part of the ores now 
 coming in, the increased price of ores and pig lead in America, which 
 would be the result of a schedule which requires the collection of the 
 full duty laid, would stimulate the production of American lead mines, 
 even in the States where dry silver ores are now found, to a quantity 
 sufficient to smelt all the silver ores which may now or hereafter be 
 produced. 
 
 The act of October 1, 1890, contained a provision permitting the smelt- 
 ing of metals in bond for exportation, and i)rovidcd for a susi)ension of 
 the duties, unless the metals were afterwards withdrawn for home con- 
 sumption. We can not see what j^articular benefit is derived by the 
 Government, or by any considerable number of its citizens, by the estab- 
 lishment of these smelting warehouses, even limited as they were by 
 the act of 1890 to warehouses in which metals might be smelted. The 
 expense to the (Tovernment is great, the opportunities for fraud are 
 many, the number of men employed therein is inconsiderable. In addi- 
 tion, under the clause permitting the regulation of these establishments 
 by the Secretary of the Treasury, manifest injustices have been done 
 to the American manufacturer who manufactures for export from home 
 materials. 
 
 I refer to the provision j)ermitting a credit on the warehouse bonds 
 for the tonnage of lead imported and 10 per cent in addition thereto as 
 provided for the customs regulation of 1892. The loss in refining base 
 bullion rarely exceeds 1 per cent, and to permit an allowance of 10 per 
 cent gives the manufacturer 9 per cent to throw on the home market 
 absolutely duty free. The Treasury Dej^artmcnt subsecpiently reduced 
 the allowance for wastage on metals refined to 2 per cent, and against 
 this action of the Department all sorts of protests have been made 
 and all sorts of biased testimony manufactured to support the protest. 
 It can not be truthfully said that the a(;t()f I890c»)ntejnplated anything 
 more than the refining of crude metals in bond, although the customs 
 regulations assumed that ores were included in the provision. The 
 smelters succeeded in securing the insertion of the added word "ores" 
 in the act of 1894, well knowing that ores were not intended to be 
 included in the act of 1890. This addition of the word " ores '■ in the 
 act of August 28, 1894, is what we most earnestly object to. Under 
 this paragraph of the existing law the smelting in bond provision is 
 extended to ores where before it was confined to metals. 
 
 All importations of any considerable importance arc of course now 
 made in bond and no duties are collected at time of importation. Under 
 present conditions the government is powerless to jireveut frauds, and 
 unable to ascertain the quantity of duty to which it may thereafter be 
 entitled without going to an expense almost equal to that of smelting 
 the ores themselves; and when it is considered that it is only in case the 
 materials are withdrawn for home consumption, that the government 
 will receive any revenue therefrom at all, the iniquity of the scheme is 
 plainly revealed. Practically the goverimient shall go to the expense 
 of samj)ling and testing the ores when received, and sampling and test- 
 ing the mass at every stage of the processes to which it may be subjected
 
 ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI LEAD MINERS. 435 
 
 particularly when mixed with ores of home production, (if no frauds 
 are to occur) simply and only for the purpose of providing employment 
 in America for a force of men which can not exceed at the utmost 300 
 in number. 
 
 Even though no frauds are committed and the Government should go 
 to the enormous expense necessary under this system, the injury to the 
 home market by piling up this large stock of lead which may be thrown 
 on the home market whenever the home market advances, makes it 
 indefensible, and it has often been thrown on the home market when 
 the price in the home market was much less than the foreign price plus 
 the duty. 
 
 The customs regulations of 1892 were amended by a Synopsis jSTo, 
 15481, and the allowance for loss in smelting ores was reduced from 10 
 per cent to 8 per cent. When the ores are purchased on a "fire assay," 
 the loss in smelting is little if anything. The present assays of the 
 ore, when made at all, are made on "tire assays", as the "wet analy- 
 sis" always shows a higher percentage of lead than the "fire assay" 
 does. In the process of "fire assay" there is as much loss of lead as 
 in the operation of smelting; that is, if the operation of smelting is 
 carried on with a view of saving the lead. This is the universal expe- 
 rience in the lead smelters of Missouri where anything but primitive 
 smelters are used, and this statement can be proven by indisputable 
 testimony, had we the opportunity to produce it. The clause proposed 
 by us, relating to ores, clears the whole subject of the difdculties and 
 intricacies that have so long puzzled the officers of the customs. As 
 an instance of the difficulty involved in every consideration of the 
 present law, I call the attention of the committee to the figures con- 
 tained in the statement of " Imports of merchandise for the tiscal year 
 1890, prepared by the IJureau of Statistics. On page 148, the lead in 
 pigs and bars is not separated from, but is confounded with, "lead 
 ores," and "lead in silver and other ores." I also call the attention of 
 the committee to the statistics as to quantities in bonded smelters, 
 withdrawn for consumption, and exported, in all of which (except as 
 to the quantities withdrawn for consumption) the quantities of ore and 
 pig lead are confounded, and which statistics show a quantity of lead 
 not accounted for of 21,000,000 i)ounds. 
 
 I obtained yesterday from the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics the 
 following figures : 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 In warehouses, beginning of fiscal year 1896 21, 000, 000 
 
 Imports 187, 522, 267 
 
 Total 208,522,267 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Ketained for home consumption 109, 000, 000 
 
 Exported 64, 888, 000 
 
 Iti warehouses at end of 1896 13,634,267 
 
 187, 522, 267 
 
 Unaccounted for 21,000,000 
 
 When it is considered that the figures as to the quantities imported, 
 all of which was in bond, are practically made by the refiners themselves 
 (deduction being made for wastage) while the figures as to export in 
 bond are obtained from the ship manifests and furnished to the Bureau 
 of Statistics by the New York Metal Exchange, the discrepancy is 
 singular, to say the least of it. The decisions of the Board of General
 
 436 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Appraisers, the statements of the Treasury officials, all show that par- 
 agraph 165 is the most technical section in the present law, and when 
 conpled with the smelting-in-bond provision is the most expensive and 
 difficult to properly enforce even though proper regulations should 
 hereafter be adopted. 
 
 We assert that under the duty as laid in the present schedule, and 
 under the provision for smelting ores in bond, it is absolutely imprac- 
 ticable — nay, it is impossible — for the Government to protect itself 
 against possible fraud without going to an expense equal to the full 
 cost of the operation of smelting. Missouri, the fifth State in popula- 
 tion, the first in natural resources, has but this chief industry for which 
 it now receives any protection. If the small benefits which it receives 
 from the system are to be filched from those engaged in this hazardous 
 branch of production — the branch employing thousands of men at ftiir 
 wages, the business which more than any other industry has conferred 
 benefits on the remainder of the community more than compensating 
 for the bounties conferred upon thb lead producers — then the system 
 of j)rotection can not receive and doos not deserve to receive the 
 support of any of the citizens of that State. 
 
 Those engaged in lead mining are widely separated; each is unac- 
 quainted with the other. We have had no lobby and our case has 
 never before been j^resented to Congress in its luoper shape. ^leu 
 have stolen the livery of the lead producers to serve their enemies in. 
 The word of promise has been held to our ears but broken to oui- touch, 
 and we now appeal to this committee to carefully consider the injustices 
 and inequalities of which we complain and to give this interest the con- 
 sideration which its importance deserves. 
 
 If the IMexican ores are i)ermitted to come in as they have under the 
 present law thejjrice of lead in America will not permit any new lead 
 mines to be opened in this country. The present mines will shutdown 
 as soon as present ore bodies are exhausted, and this country would 
 then be at the mercy of foreign producers for this necessity of modern 
 civilization, both for uses of peace and war. In event of war with the 
 nation from which our then sup])ly wouhl be received our supply would 
 be entirely shut off, and it would be impossible to at once resume the 
 production of lead in America; for the sinking of deep shafts and the 
 erection of the plants necessary to work these deposits could not be 
 completed within one year after the resumption of operations. 
 
 It is immaterial Avhat my opinion may be as to the general policy of 
 protection, but it is apparent, to any one who -will examine the matter, 
 that in so far as the duties laid by this government on lead goes — 
 viewed x)nrely as a bounty — the ettect has been to give our citizens 
 cheaper lead than they would otherwise have had. The stimulus to 
 production in America by the protective duties since IStU has decreased 
 the price of lead in London from s-l.OO per 100 pounds in 18G4 to $2.33 
 in 1895, and if the American lead production is shut off, the United 
 States being the consumer of one-third of the world's consumption of 
 lead, it is reasonably certain that the prices of 18(U would be imme- 
 diately restored, plus the freight to^'ew York— at least until tlie Amer- 
 ican mines could again be put in operation. 
 
 The total imports of lead in pigs, bars, and ores (lead contents), in 
 bond and otherwise, given in pounds, for the fiscal vear ending June 30, 
 1895, were 174,546,752; for 1896, 187,522,207. 
 
 I also submit a statement of the quantities of such im])orts which 
 were withdrawn from consumption in the United States— that is, of the
 
 ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI LEAD MINERS. 
 
 437 
 
 quantities ou which duties were collected (in number of pounds, lead 
 contents of lead in pigs, bars, and ores). 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Duties col- 
 lected. 
 
 1891 
 
 Pounds. 
 48. 260, 241 
 53. 282, 258 
 63, 787, 893 
 41, 572, 278 
 84, 192, 786 
 109, 598, 025 
 
 $822, 766. 82 
 812, 936. 24 
 976, 695. 95 
 642 253. S8 
 
 1892 
 
 1893 
 
 1894 
 
 1895 
 
 840 009. 95 
 
 1896 - --- - 
 
 988, 427. 13 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 Quantities of drawbacks not ascertainable from published statistics. 
 
 The consumption of lead in the United States in 1895 was 232,000 
 tons; in 1806, owing to gonernl depression, it decreased to 206,000 
 tons. It is fair to assume that the average annual consumption, owing 
 to increased uses for lead, under normal conditions of general business 
 will exceed 225,000 tons. 
 
 The i)resent domestic ])roduction is 175,000 tons. Until the domestic 
 production is increased by stimulus of higher prices we require 50,000 
 tons of foreign lead. The question for this committee to decide is : Shall 
 the Government receive the revenue to be derived from this 50,000 tons 
 as pig lead, which will not demoralize the market and which revenue 
 can be easily collected, or will it receive a less revenue by permitting 
 this quantity to come in as ore and destroy the value of the prices of 
 the domestic production ? I believe the exclusion of the ores and a duty 
 of 1 J cents per pound on pig lead will make a stable jirice for pig lead 
 in America, equal to the London price plus the duty, less the cost of 
 transportation of pig lead to London. » 
 
 This at present j)! ices in London and under normal conditions would 
 make a price in iS^ew York of about 83.(!0 i)er 100 pounds, which price is 
 not excessive. 
 
 I desire, further, to state that no deduction whatever can be drawn 
 from prices during the summer of 1896. Lead could not be sold then at 
 any price. The effect of offering it for sale was simi)ly to lower quota- 
 tions, licad was unsalable in the West in large quantities at any price, 
 for there was no money available for any pur])ose. 
 
 ^Ye insist that on one side of tliis question is the Government, whose 
 revenue will be increased under the proi)osed duty until the American 
 lead mines shall i)roduce all lead required for domestic consumi)tion, 
 and the thousands of miners. On the other side are a few men engaged 
 in smelting, Avho alon.' are beneiitod by permitting the ores to come in. 
 
 Which side will this committee think entitled to its consideration? 
 
 1 will make one additional statement which I have not covered, and 
 give it in answer to a question asked nie by Mr. Cobb. He asked. What 
 would be the price with a i)rotective duty on pig lead with all ores 
 excluded; what would pig lead sell at in America f I said, in my opin- 
 ion the price of pig lead in Kew York, if the ores are excluded, would 
 be the London ]nMce, i)lus the duty, less the cost of transi)ortation from 
 ISTew York to London, and the schedide which we advocate is practi- 
 cally an exclusion of the ]\rexican ores. 
 
 Mr. ]\rcMiLLiN. What rate do you advocate, if it will not interrupt 
 you there? 
 
 jMr. Cantw^ell. The present duty is three-quarters of a cent a pound 
 ou lead ores and three-quarters of a cent a pound on the lead contained
 
 438 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 in silver ores. We contend the whole question of lead ores has 
 been so confused by the regulations and by the decisions and by 
 improper construction as to the relative value of components that there 
 are no lead ores which come in now at all. They all come in as silver 
 ores, and pay three-quarters of a cent per pound on the lead contained 
 therein. The suggestion we make is that that whole question be 
 removed by the adoption of a clause which shall declare what ores shall 
 pay duty without regard as to whether they are silver ores or lead ores, 
 and we put that in a clause as suggested here at 8 per cent; that is, 
 on all ores containing 8 per cent of lead a duty of three-quarters of a 
 cent per pound shallbe laid on the full mass as imported. The duty of 
 the collector would be then simply to weigh up the importation and 
 collect the duty at three-quarters of a cent per pound on the full weight. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Where there is a combination of silver and lead you 
 put the import duty on silver"? 
 
 Mr. Cantwell. That is practically an import duty on silver, and if 
 it is less than 8 per cent of lead it comes in under this suggested clause 
 free, and an 8 per cent ore is a higher grade of ore than we are com- 
 pelled to mine in Missouri to-day. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is the extent of the importation now? 
 
 Mr. Cantwell. The im])ortation last year shows there were with- 
 drawn for home consumption about 54,500 tons. It is all confused in 
 the statistics of ore, lead in ore, lead in lead ore, and lead in silver 
 ores, and lead in pig lead. They are all contused in the statistics pre- 
 pared by the Bureau of Statistics, and I desire to call attention par- 
 ticularly to one singular thing which I learned yesterday u|)on inquiry 
 of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, that they are 21,000.(100 jmunds 
 short in their statistics as to the quantities received for the imjjortation 
 in bond, and the quantity withdrawn and the quantity remaining in the 
 warehouses — 21,000,000 jmunds short. 
 
 Mr. MclMiLLiN. Is it not a fact that since the rate was reduced from 
 the McKinley bill there has been a reduction of inipoitations? 
 
 Mr. Cantwell. I think not. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The statistics so show. 
 
 Mr. Cantwell. That there has been a reduction ol" importations t 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Yes, sir; in quantity. 
 
 Mr. Cantwell. I think not. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. lender \)aragra])h 105 at the rate of H cents a ])ound, 
 equal to 75 per cent, the importations were 50,000.000 ])ounds, and after 
 tbe change of duty the importations in 1890 were only 42,00(1,000 jjounds. 
 
 Mr. Cantwell. The importations Avere only 42,000,000 ])ounds for 
 1896? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. That is, lead contained in silver ores; ;ind of lead 
 contained in other ores the importations were 303,0(«> i)oun(ls. 
 
 Mr. Cantwell. The importations were much larger tlian that, 
 because, according to the statistics as shown of the lead contained in 
 pig lead, lead ores, and lead in silver ores 
 
 Mr. Payne. The pig in lead for 189.1 was about 4,000,000, and in 1896 
 it was 00,000,000 pounds. That is Avhere the ditierence is. 
 
 Mr. Cantwell. 1 desiie to say the (|uantity withdrawn for home 
 consumption during the last year, I think, is not to be determined by 
 these statistics, for the reason large quantities of crude bullion and ore 
 which came in bond were actually exported last year because the price 
 in London was much higher than the price in New York plus the duty 
 less the rate of transportation. 
 
 Mr. Alexander. May I ask the gentleman one (juestion, which will
 
 ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI LEAD MINERS. 439 
 
 throTT a little light on the subject? He proposes to have you fix the 
 character of the lead as auy ore containing 8 per cent of lead, that that 
 shall be classed as lead ore and the duty assessed on the whole thing, 
 and at that rate, calculating the weight of lead at one-twelfth, it would 
 make it.9 cents per pound on the raw material? 
 Mr. Cant WELL. That is, practically exclusive; yes, sir. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL METAL COM- 
 PANY, OF NEW YORK. 
 
 ]^EW York, N. Y., January 12, 1897. 
 Committee cm Ways and Means. 
 
 Gentlemen : We desire to be heard in regard to changes proposed 
 to be made in sections 105 and 160 of Schedule C of the present tariff 
 law now before you for revision. Brielly stated, these sections impose 
 the following duties: Lead ore and lead dross, three-quarters of 1 cent 
 per pound; lead contained in silver ore, three-quarters of 1 cent per 
 pound; lead in pigs and bars, etc., 1 cent per pound. 
 
 The quotations on foreign pig lead to-day (January 12, 1897) are £11 
 13s. 9d. per long ton, and have been ranging at about that price for 
 some time past. This sum redu<,-ed into United States money equals 
 $2.55 per 100 pounds, or 851 per ton. 
 
 The president of one of tlie largest smelting works in Mexico stated 
 to-day (January 12, 1897) that lead in ore in Mexico ranged in value 
 from 1 cent to 1.^ cents i^er pound, and had held within that range tor 
 a long time past. 
 
 These figures are indisputably correct and are based upon actual 
 quotations reduced to their eijuivalent in Ignited States currency. 
 They are easily capable of verification and abundant proof of their 
 entire reliability can be placed before your honorable committee when- 
 ever it so desires. 
 
 As has been shown, Mexican pig lead is worth to-day $51 per ton, 
 and as under the present law it bears a duty of 1 cent per pound, or 
 $20 per ton, the ad valorem equivalent is 39 per cent. 
 
 INIexicau lead in silver ore is now, and has been for some time past, 
 worth ill INlexico from 1 cent to Irj^ cents per i)Ound; and as it bears a 
 duty of three-quarters of 1 cent per pound, its ad valorem equivalent 
 is from 00 to 75 per cent. 
 
 Lead ore in Mexico is also worth from 1 cent to l\ cents per pound 
 of the lead contained in it, and an ore containing 70 per cent lead, or 
 1,400 ])0unds, is worth from $14 to $17.50 per ton, and as this ore bears 
 a duty of three quarters of a cent upon its gross weight, or $15 per 
 ton, its ad valorem equivalent is from 80 per cent to 108 per cent. 
 
 In order to impress upon the minds of your honorable committee that 
 this giving of prices upon the commodities mentioned is no mere care- 
 less statement of ligures incapable of verification, Ave repeat that we 
 are able and anxious to place before your honorable committee absolute 
 proof of the truth of the facts above given. 
 
 Mexican smelting works produce large quantities of what is known 
 as base bullion, which is the first result of the smelting process of ores 
 containing silver or gold and lead, and consists of a mass of lead con- 
 taining the precious metals. As there are no refineries in Mexico, this 
 product is largely brought to the United States to be refined and its 
 metal contents separated. As no specific mention is made in the present 
 taritt" law of this class of material, customs collectors in the United
 
 440 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 States have found it difficult to properly classify it. As it is practically 
 pig lead containiug- precious uietal, it Las beeu Leid dutiable at 1 cent 
 per pound, but this is hardly fair, since it does not really become ]>ig 
 lead until the metals are separated by the process of retiuiug, -s^hich 
 I)rocess is by no means as expensive as the one by means ol which the 
 metals Avere originally extracted from the ore — that is, the smelting 
 process. This material, Avhile it is not pig lead, is much nearer to it 
 than is the lead in ore, and being properly subject to duty should bear 
 a little less charge than pig lead and a considerably greater one than the 
 nnextracted lead in ore, the difference being regulated to some degree, 
 at least, by the existing difference in cost of smelting and retining. 
 
 It is the well understood purpose of your honorable committee to so 
 change, regulate, and reform the present tariff law as to cause the new 
 bill proposed to be made to yield to tlie support of our Government 
 an increased revenue and at the same time to afford proper protection 
 to American industries. With these tuo purposes in view Me respect- 
 fully suggest to your honorable body the following changes in the lead 
 schedule of the present tariff law: 
 
 First. A duty of three fourths of 1 cent per pound upon the lead con- 
 tents of all ores containing over 10 per cent lead. 
 
 Second. A duty of 1 ^ cents per pound upon lead dross and base bullion. 
 
 Third. A duty of 2 cents per pound upon lead in pigs or bars, etc. 
 
 This would, in our opinion, be a projjer and logical ratio of duties 
 upon all that product, and certainly produce the desired result. 
 
 Lead silver smelting has grown to be recognized as one ef the leading 
 indi.stries of the United States. It gives employment to large numbers 
 of A merican workmen, brings business to railroads, transi)ortatiou com- 
 panies, and various other industries in this country, and by constantly 
 cheapening the processes of extracting metals from ores encourages and 
 stimulates the business of mining. Within the past few years a rival 
 industry of this kind has grown up in Mexi( o, whose location in that 
 country was at least in some parts due to certain mistaken provisions 
 in our tariff" laws. These Mexican smelters have undoubtedly come to 
 stay, and in behalf of the smelters in the United States we most earn- 
 estly beg your honorable committee to permit no further errors in our 
 tariff laws to give them encouragement or bring about the constructiou 
 of more smelting works across our northern borders in Canada. 
 
 The advantages at present held by Mexican smeltere under our law 
 are easily shown. Silver-lead ores are known as fluxing ores, and are 
 as useful to a smelter in the operation of his work as the coke he burns 
 in his furnaces. There is not now, and has not been for years jiast, 
 enough of these ores produced in the United States to smelt with 
 proper economy the other silver ores found here. This is proved 
 beyond cavil by the fact that no charge is ordinarily made for smelting 
 silver-lead ores, or was it so made even prior to 1890, when this class of 
 ore came into our country free of duty. Smelters are anxious to obtain 
 this ore, even though they lose money in smelting it, since they need it 
 to enable them to smelt at all, and they make up the loss they suffer on 
 smelting this ore by charging a proportionately higher price to smelt 
 the dry ores which are smelted by means of it. 
 
 A duty equivalent to an ad volorem rate of between 00 per cent and 
 75 per cent, as shown above, secures the JMexican smelter against the 
 competition of his American rival in the purchase of this lluxing oreiu 
 Mexico, and being thus protected by our own laws against the com- 
 petition of our own i^eople in the buying of raw material, the Mexican 
 smelter concentrates this ore at his works in Mexico into base bullion,
 
 ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI LEAD MINP:RS. 441 
 
 and at a freight rate of less thau one-fourth of that charged upon the 
 lead in ore, he ships it to the United States, where he finds that only 
 39 per cent is demanded of him as duty upon liis finished ]3roduct. In 
 other words, our present tarilf law affords a premium to Mexican smelt- 
 ing works against our people engaged on this side of the line in the same 
 industry. This statement may seem strange in view of the volume of 
 importations of Mexican t-ilver-lead ore during 1S9G; but it will be under- 
 stood when the statement is made that the company who imported about 
 90 i)er cent of these ores from Mexico smelted them in bond and did not 
 market a single pound of their lead contents in the United States, but 
 exported it all to Europe. 
 
 Upon the above statement of facts, all of which we hold ourselves 
 capable of absolutely proving to be true, we submit the following con- 
 clusions: That the new lead schedule, in order to protect all citizens of 
 the United States engaged in the production of lead and yield to the 
 Government proper revenues, should be about as follows: 
 
 First. A duty of three-fourths of 1 per cent per pound upon the lead 
 contained in all ores whose lead contents are more than 10 per cent. 
 Au ore containing less than 10 per cent is of no lead value, as its lead 
 contents is iiractically lost in smelting. Three-quarters of a cent per 
 pound duty, together with the disadvantage in freight, is ample pro- 
 tection for this class of ore produced in the United States. 
 
 Second. A duty of 1^ cents per pound upon base bullion and lead 
 dross will ])rotect the United States producer and smelter fully against 
 the admission of lead in this sbape. 
 
 Third. A duty of 2 cents per pound upon lead in pigs and bars, etc. 
 This will protect our home market against importations of foreign lead 
 and cause a rise in lead value. 
 
 A lead schedule, framed in accordance with these suggestions, will, 
 in our opinion, equalize the duties upon the various forms of lead, pro- 
 tect our i)roducers, and give to our smelters at least an equal chance 
 with their rivals upon this continent. 
 
 At the hearing held before your honorable committee upon January 
 9, when the lead schedule of the present tarilf bill was under discus- 
 sion, permission was given by your chairman to submit whatever com- 
 ments or exi^lanations might be desired by either side in writing before 
 the expiration of a week. 
 
 The St. Joseph and Doe Eun lead companies, located in southwestern 
 Missouri, submitted a written statement. In this paper they contend 
 that they are solely interested in duties affecting " lead ore and dross" 
 and " lead in i^igs and bars," and will discuss nothing else. They show 
 that the duty upon lead ore and lead dross from 1864 to 1891 was 1^ 
 cents per pound upon its gross weight, and although they do not say 
 so, this duty was an absolutely prohibitive one. 
 
 . In tables i^repared for your honorable committee, showing the rates 
 of duty, imports, values, etc., of the lead schedules of the present and 
 past tariff laws, it is shown that in 1893 "lead contained in other ore 
 (other than silver-lead ore) and dross" yielded our Government in rev- 
 enue $49.91. The importations of lead ore are not given, but under the 
 heading "lead contained in other ore and dross " a revenue of $10,583.86 
 is shown in 1895, and the smaller one of $2,783.84 is shown in 1896. 
 This shows the total revenue arising from importations of lead in all 
 other ores than silver ores, and also lead dross. No statement is made 
 of the amount of lead ores imported, and it is hardly possible to believe 
 that any are imported, since they at present bear a duty of three- 
 fourths of 1 cent per pound upon their gross weight.
 
 442 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 In fact, the miners of Missonri are now, and liave been since 1864, 
 protected against the production of foreign ore similar to that they pro- 
 duce themselves; between 18G4 and 1894, by a needlessly high duty 
 of IJ cents per pound upon the gross weight of the ore, and since that 
 time" by a duty of three-fourths of a cent upon its gross weight and a 
 geographical protection due to its location and consequent heavy freight 
 rate. Like everybody else, however, the Missouri miners are suffering 
 from the present low price of pig lead, which causes their product to be 
 of much less value than formerly. This they attribute to the "Hood of 
 foreign ore" (not their own kind, but silver-lead ore, which they were 
 not going to discuss), while as a matter of fact it was not so much due, 
 in fact not due at all, to the importations of ore, but to the tlood of 
 Mexican lead in pigs and bars which is coming into our country. It is 
 shown in the schedule prepared for and used by your committee that 
 during the years 1895 and 1896 the entire importations of lead in silver 
 ores, lead in all other ores, and lead dross amounted to over 89,000,000 
 pounds, and yielded a revenue of $674,000, and it also shows that these 
 importations are notably decreasing. On the other hand, it shows that 
 the importation of lead in pigs and bars during 1895 and 1896 amounted 
 to over 149,000,000 pounds and yielded a revenue of $1,490,000. 
 
 Thus it is shown that Mexican silver lead ores are im]>orted only as 
 American smelters are comi)elled l)y their scarcity in this country to 
 bring them in, while Mexican pig lead seeks and linds a market here. 
 The Missouri lead miners need fear no foreign (•om])etition in the pro- 
 duction of ores similar to those they nune. Geography and the present 
 duty of three-fourths of a cent per pound gives them complete protec- 
 tion. The American smelting works are all located at interior i)oints 
 of the Uiuted States away from the Atlantic seaboard, and the silver 
 lead ores brought to them are carried entirely by railroad, which 
 fact, in addition to the present duty of three-fourths of 1 cent per 
 pound, is ample protection against the lead market of this country 
 being affected to any great extent by the lead contained in these ores. 
 But the lead refineries are all located upon the Atlantic (Joast, and to 
 these by cheap water transportation comes the concentrated product 
 of Mexican labor, in the shape of base ])ullion, which pays much less 
 duty proportionately than lead in other unrelined forms, and finds a 
 market in the United States, and is the real cause for the present 
 depression of lead values here. 
 
 Silver smelters desire, as much as anyone else, to have a high, active, 
 and buoyant lead market in the United States, which is natural enough 
 when it is known that they produce in this country yearly over 80 per 
 cent of all the lead made here, and it is Avith the hope and honest pur- 
 pose of bringing about this hapi)y condition that it is asked of your 
 honorable committee to follow their suggestion in the making of a new 
 lead schedule, framed upon the following lines: 
 
 Lead in pigs and bars, etc., 2 cents per pound. 
 
 Lead dross and base bullion, 1'^ cents per pound. 
 
 All ores containing over 10 per cent lead, three-fourths of 1 cent per 
 pound upon their lead contents. 
 
 Mr. John G. Davis, of San Francisco, made a statement before your 
 committee. He asked for the restoration of the duty of li cents per 
 pound upon lead ores, claiming that certain mines located in"California 
 can not be opened up and operated unless this is done, but he does not 
 quite explain how by doubling the tarifl" which now exists upon lead 
 ore this happy result can be brought about. He states that the ore 
 produced by these mines runs "from 30 per cent to 60 per cent lead, 
 from 25 to 30 ounces in silver, and from 84 to $20 in gold per touj"
 
 ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI LEAD MINERS. 443 
 
 that " a very fair average would be 30 per cent lead, 30 ounces silver, 
 and 88 gold." He further said: " There have been taken out and are 
 now lying on the dump to-day more than 100,000 tons that could be 
 immediately delivered." According to his statement, the following is 
 about the value of this ore, San Francisco prices : 
 
 30 per cent lead = GOO pounds, at 3 cents per pound $18. 00 
 
 30 ounces silver, at 65 cents per ounce 19. 50 
 
 Gold value 8.00 
 
 Total 45.50 
 
 Less cost of smelting on ground and freight on bullion to San Francisco, about . 15. 00 
 
 Net value of ore 30. 50 
 
 This seems to show that the ore upon the dump pile in these mines is 
 worth something over $3,000,000, and yet the gentleman is certain that 
 this property can not be profitably worked until the duty upon lead 
 ores is doubled. 
 
 Mr. Cantwell, in his verbal statement before your committee, pro- 
 tested against smelting ores in bond. The provisions by which citizens 
 of the United States are given the privilege of manufacturing foreign 
 raw material in this country are too obviously beneficial to all classes 
 of our citizens to need discussion before your honorable committee. 
 Employment is given to American workmen, business is done by Amer- 
 ican manufacturers, and yet our home market is perfectly protected. 
 We will make no extended comment upon this suggestion of Mr. Cant- 
 well, since the benefits of this provision are too thoroughly well under- 
 stood by your honorable committee to make this necessary. Mr. Cant- 
 well further suggest that " upon all ores containing 8 per cent lead a 
 duty of three-fourths of a cent per pound shall be laid on the full mass 
 imported." 
 
 According to this suggestion, a ton of ore containing iron, nickel, 
 copper, silver, gold, or whatever metal may be concealed within its 
 bulk, would be dutiable to the extent of three-quarters of a cent per 
 pound, if in addition to the other metals 8 per cent of lead should 
 happen to be found in it. Articles which are now, and have been since 
 the beginning of our Kepublic, upon the free list would become duti- 
 able, and in many instances the extracted metal would bear a less duty 
 than the metal in ore, if this idea were carried out. Further on in this 
 connection Mr. Cantwell said: "An 8 per cent ore is a higher grade of 
 ore than we are compelled to mine in Missouri to-day." Yet it never 
 seemed to occur to Mr. Cantwell that the railroad freight upon an ore 
 of that kind, carrying 92 per cent of waste material, would be so great 
 that it could not be imported into this country if there was no duty 
 upon it at all. In fact, to carry it a hundred miles would be worth 
 much more than the lead contained in it. 
 
 While the lead industry of Missouri, Kansas, Wisconsin, Illinois, and 
 whatever other nonargentiferous-lead producing States there are, is 
 certainly of importance to this country and deserves to be cared for 
 and protected by an American Congress, it is also true that the lead- 
 silver smelting business of the United States is likewise an industry 
 that has as great, if not greater, claims upon the public and its repre- 
 sentatives, since legislatian is supposed to be an effort to obtain the 
 greatest good for the greatest number. In order to call Mr. Cantwell's 
 attention to the comparative sizes of these two industries, we will sub- 
 mit below some statistics which, while we do not vouch for their cor- 
 rectness, being Government publications, are at least more or less 
 reliable.
 
 444 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 In the report of the mineral industries of the United States at the 
 Eleventh Census, 1890, on page 167, the following will be found: 
 
 STATISTICS OF mSSOURI LEAD MINES. 
 
 Total number of employees— foreman, mechanics, laborers, and boys — 
 1,118; average daily wages, $1.25. In the Washington County mines 
 $1 per day is the general rate, and as low as 70 cents per day is paid 
 for what is not skilled labor. 
 
 On page 173 of this same volume a table giving the lead product of 
 the United States and showing the percentage of lead produced in 
 Missouri, Kansas, Wisconsin, Illinois, and all other nonargeutiferous 
 lead producing States is given, and from 1883 to 1890, and presumably 
 since that time to date, it is shown that n on argentiferous lead amounted 
 to somethmg less than 16 per cent of the lead made in the United States 
 and that the smelting works produced the other 81 per cent in argen- 
 tiferous lead. 
 
 On page 172 of this same volume, under the head of "Smelting and 
 refining works," the following statistics are given: 
 
 Number of men employed : 
 
 Foremeu 173 
 
 Mecliauies 354 
 
 Laborers 5, 595 
 
 Average daily wages : 
 
 Foreman $3. 98 
 
 Mechanics '. 2. 93 
 
 Laborers 2. 15 
 
 Total yearly expenditures of smelters $11, 457, 367. 25 
 
 Wages 4,228,634.14 
 
 Salaries 510, 715. 97 
 
 From these statistics it may be seen that the relative importance of 
 these two industries is in favor of the smelter; but, in giving tliese 
 figures, we simply wanted to show that our industry was of enough 
 importance to entitle us to a patient and careful hearing by your honor- 
 able committee. 
 
 International ]Metal Co. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL LEAD COMPANY OF 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 New York, N. Y., January IS, 1897. 
 Committee on Wats and Means: 
 
 The National Lead Company, with a paid-up capital of 830,000,000, 
 is the owner of developed and undevelo])ed load ore bearing proper- 
 ties, of smelters for the reduction of lead ores and ores containing 
 precious metals, of a refinery for the parting of precious from base 
 metals, and of a number of plants for the manufacture of lead pipe, 
 sheet lead, litharge, red lead, wbite lead, lead acetates, solder, and 
 other articles from i)ig lead. It is therefore interested in the duty m\ 
 each of these items, but more particuUirly in their proper relation to 
 each other. In a general way it may be said that the world's produc- 
 tion and consumption of lead is about 700,000 tons annuiilly, of which 
 the United States is the largest single consumer, and in point of ])ro- 
 duct ion stands second with about 25 per cent of t]ie total. 
 
 With but few exceptions the price of pig lead in the IJuited States
 
 ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI LEAD MINERS. 445 
 
 has for the past six years been below the London price plus the duty. 
 Since the Wilson bill became law and the duty was reduced from 2 
 cents to 1 cent per i)ound, the price in this country has been quite 
 uniformly lower tban the London market plus duty, averaging for over a 
 year j)ast, and being now, about one-half cent per pound less than the 
 foreign price plus the duty. Considering this and the fact that for five 
 years the price in Loudon has not been over 2^ cents per pound, at 
 which price tlie present duty of 1 cent is equivalent to a protection of 
 40 per cent ad valorem on a staple material of large consumption, we 
 submit that much if any additional duty is of debatable advantage, the 
 present duty having failed to aftbrd the protection sought, but proving 
 a source of considerable revenue. Should the duty on pig lead remain 
 at 1 cent per pound, we respectfully submit the following as a symmet- 
 rical schedule and adjusted to such duty: 
 
 Schedule C. — Paragrajili 167, lead pipe, If cents per pound; paragraph 167, sheet 
 lead, If cents per pound; paragraph 167, lead iu shot, glazier's lead, and lead wire, 
 1^ cents i>er i»oiind; ]iaragraph 171, type metal (on lead contained therein), 1 cent 
 per ])Onnd; paragraph 171, new types, 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Schedule A. — Paragraph 19, litharge. If cents ])er pound; paragraph 52, white lead 
 and white i>aint and ]>iguient containing lead, dry or in pulp or ground or mixed 
 with oil, IJ cents per pound; i>aragTaph 51, red lead and nitrate of lead, 2 cents per 
 pound; paragraph 51, orange mineral, 2^ cents per pound; jtaragraph 49, acetate of 
 lead (white crystals), 3i cents ])er pound; paragraph 49, acetate of lead (yellow, 
 brown, and gray), 2^ cents per pound. 
 
 The duties above suggested are duly related to the cost of production 
 iu each instance. If any cliange is made in the duty on pig lead, like 
 changes shouhl be made in the above. 
 
 It will be noted that with the single exception of acetates of lead 
 and red lead, the duties suggested never exceed and are, relatively to 
 pig lead, lower than under the tariff act of 1890, though higher than in 
 the act of 1894, under which last act the importations, though small, 
 averaged an increase of 70 per cent. 
 
 This increase would have been much greater but for the prompt 
 reduction of prices on our enormous output to the level of foreign 
 competition, making them lower than ever before known. 
 
 Since the passage of tlie tariff act of 1894 the returns on the actual 
 capital invested in this business have been less than 4 per cent. 
 
 National Lead Company. 
 By K. A. Cole, President. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. T. B. CATRON, DELEGATE FROM NEW 
 
 MEXICO. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 11, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 In the Territory of New Mexico, which I have the honor to represent 
 as Delegate, there are a large number of mines which produce lead ores 
 suitable for smelting purposes and which are used very generally for 
 such purposes. The price of miners' wages per day in that Territory 
 was, until the passage of the Wilson-Gorman bill, $2.50 on the average. 
 After the passage of the Wilson-Gorman bill, wages dropped to about 
 $2 or $1.50 per day. 
 
 Under the IVIcKinley bill, which placed a duty of 1^ cents on lead 
 ores and 2 cents on lead, every lead mine of any consequence was able 
 to carry on business and produce lead. The fact was that they were 
 unable to supply all of the lead needed for fluxing iu the smelters then
 
 446 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 in New Mexico at tbe price which was current iu the States, which was 
 about 4 cents, less freight rates. But under the Wilson-Gorman bill, by 
 the taking off of about one-half of the duties, lead dropped practically 
 more than the amount of the duties. The current rate since the pas- 
 sage of that bill has been from $2,30 to $2.50 a hundred pounds— a loss 
 of nearly a cent more than the reduction in the duties. This was caused , 
 of course, by the reduction on the lead ores, which, owing to various 
 causes, made a greater reduction than was made upon the lead itself. 
 
 As a result of this reduction, no produecT of lead could afford to 
 work his mines, as it cost at the very lowest, including freight rates, 
 $3.00 a hundred to produce the lead and put it on the market. Every 
 miner lost money; he therefore closed up his mines and dis(;harged his 
 men. There were about 2,000 men (miners) who were receiving $2.50 
 on an average per day thrown out of emploj^ment, and the market for 
 the products of the garden and farm were in many places destroyed. 
 
 These mines can be opened and these smelters can be si arted up if the 
 duty can be again placed upon lead at the same rate that it was under 
 the McKinley bill. Not only will the mines which were formerly 
 worked, and the smelters which Avere formerly operated, be started up, 
 but other mines will be opened and other smelters will be built, con- 
 tributing greatly to the pros])erity of that Territory. The loss to New 
 Mexico by the Wilson-Gorman bill was not less than $5,000 per day ou 
 account of the matter of lead alone. 
 
 I hope that the committee will see its way to place the same duty 
 upon lead which was placed upon it by the McKinley bill. It may be 
 that some other localities in the United States can produce lead cheaper 
 than it can be produced in New Mexico, but I am conlident that lead in 
 New Mexico can not be worked at a profit at a lower rate than it 
 commanded during the continuance of the McKinley bill. It is certain 
 that it can not be worked at a profit, nor can any of the smelters in 
 New Mexico be operated at a profit under the operation of the Wilson 
 Gorman bill. 
 
 These smelters were smelters of silver ores, and the shutting down 
 of the lead mines closed the smelters, and also ctmtrilnited to close up 
 every silver mine in the Territory of New ]\Iexico, which threw out of 
 employment many more than 2,000 employees. It also contributed to 
 close up several mines which ])roduced gold, in which mines silver was 
 produced along with the gold, and in some of which there was lead; 
 especially those mines which did not produce in value a greater amount 
 in gold than they did iu silver were nearly all closed. 
 
 T. B. Catron, 
 Delegate from Neic Mexico. 
 
 STATEMENT OF W. W. ALLEN, OF PUEBLO, COLO., RECOMMENDING 
 NEW CLASSIFICATION. 
 
 Pueblo, Colo., December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 On the part of the Pueblo Smelting and Kefining Company, I desire 
 to submit the following remarks upon the question of duties upon lead 
 in ores and refined lead coming into the United States, 
 
 A certain amount of lead ore is an absolute necessity to the lead-silver 
 smelter to enable the treatment of nonlead-bcaring ores at a cost which 
 they can afford to pay. The lead mines of the United States can not at
 
 ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI LEAD MINERS. 447 
 
 present supply lead-beariug ores sufficient to smelt the nonlead-beariug 
 ores of the United States. There have lately been developed some con- 
 siderable deposits of lead ore in British Columbia and some new deposits 
 in Mexico. The mines of British Columbia are largely owned by citizens 
 of the United States and pay a schedule of wages practically equal to 
 that paid in the United States, consequently the mine worker of the 
 United States requires no i)rotection as against his brother worker of 
 British Columbia. 
 
 On the other hand, Mexican lead ores are produced by workers receiv- 
 ing a much lower schedule of wages, and the United States mine worker 
 should be protected as against this cheap labor. 
 
 The high duties charged under the so-called McKinley law of 1890 
 resulted in the establishment of large smelting plants in Mexico, under 
 ownership of citizens of the United States. Up to the time these 
 plants were built, Mexico was furnishing the principal supply of foreign 
 lead ores to the United States smelters. The result was a shutting off 
 of that source of supply, and for the last few years very little, if any, 
 lead ore from the great lead deposits of Mexico has been imported into 
 the United States, except such as originated in outlying districts and 
 upon which the transportation charges to Mexican smelters would 
 have been more costly than to United States smelters. 
 
 The market price of pig lead, since the taking effect of the act of 
 1890, has been steadily decreasing, partly, it is believed, because of 
 advantages i)ossible to be taken under that and the act of 1894, and 
 partly because of large bodies of lead ore discovered in foreign countries 
 at about the same time, the lead contents of which could be marketed 
 much cheaper tlian American lead. The market price of American 
 lead has been depressed as the result of the action of large consumers 
 in the United States in taking advantage of the low rate of duty on 
 foreign retincd lead to import large quantities, warehouse the same for 
 its effect on the home nuirket, and later either withdraw the same for 
 consumption or reexport it as might be most advantageous. Under 
 the present tariff" law the market for the American product is practi- 
 cally at the mercy of consumers, but it is believed that a plan may be 
 devised which, while working no hardship upon the lead consumers 
 themselves, will result in a reasonable market price to the American 
 lead miner. 
 
 It is thought that a tariff" arranged as follows will bring about the 
 desired result, will protect the American mine worker and mine owner, 
 while the consumer is already fully protected by the condition of the 
 market and the cost of foreign lead: 
 
 ' Three-fourths of a cent per poxmd on all actual metallic lead contents of ores, 
 ■whether more or less valuable for silver or load. 
 
 One and one-half cents per pound on refined lead, vrhetlier in the refined form or 
 in the form of base bullion coming into the country to be refined. 
 
 Under a tariff as above the United States lead-silver smelter may 
 import foreign lead ores, and if the home market has been depressed by 
 manipulation it will be more profitable for him to smelt the ore in bond 
 and export the relined lead under the rules now in force; whereas, if 
 the home market is in a normal state, the lead maybe either sold in this 
 country or exported, as the temporary conditions of the home and for- 
 eign markets may at the time dictate. 
 
 It is believed that such a tariff" will result in an increased price for 
 home lead in a general market more evenly balanced than has been 
 realized for years, and tend to increase the revenue by increased impor- 
 tations of raw material, which is not now in adequate supply in the
 
 448 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 United States; further, that it will tend to raise the seaboard price of 
 home refined lead to the level of the price at which foreign lead can be 
 laid down duty paid. 
 
 The clause in the act of 1894, which fixes a duty of three-fourths of a 
 cent per pound of the entire ore, in cases where the ore is more valuable 
 for lead than silver, should be eliminated and the duty fixed at the same 
 rate for actual lead content as is charged when the ore is more valuable 
 for silver than lead. 
 
 It is prohibitive and unjust to collect a duty of $15 per ton on ore 
 worth less per ton than an ore upon which a duty of say '*?0 is col- 
 lected, when such difference in value is due to difference in silver con- 
 tents alone. It is believed that this anomalous charge crei)t into both 
 laws through error, and it is clear that it should be removed as serving 
 no good end, while at the same tune iu effect discriminating against the 
 less profitable mine. 
 
 It may be well to illustrate this: Thus, under the present law, an ore 
 carrying 80 ounces of silver i)er ton and <I0 per cent lead would ]>ay a 
 duty of 89 per ton, while an ore carrying 30 ounces of silver and 00 per 
 cent lead would pay $15 per ton. It is clear that, since it is the lead 
 which pays duty, both ores should pay the same rate per ton. 
 
 W. W. Allen, 
 
 General Manager. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE CONSOLIDATED KANSAS CITY 
 REFINING AND SMELTING COMPANY. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 It being understood tliat there is iu preparation a bill revising the 
 Xirovisions of the tariff' law of August, 1894, and that you would receive 
 and consider iji the i)reparation of said bill expressions of the vieAvs 
 of citizens conducting business enterprises in tliis country whose inter- 
 ests were affected by its provisions, your jietitioner, The Consolidated 
 Kansas City Smelting and Kefining Company, begs leave to call your 
 attention to certain provisions of the tarilf law which are in our opiu- 
 ion unjust and illogical and should be changed. 
 
 Your i)etitioner is engaged in the business of smelting ores contain- 
 ing gold, silver, copper, and lead, and of separating and refining said 
 metals. 
 
 It has large works located at Argentine, Kans., Leadville, Colo., and 
 El Paso, Tex., all of which points are within the boumlaries of the 
 United States, where the operations of smelting and refining are car- 
 ried on, and in which are annually smelted and refined between 300,000 
 and 400,000 tons of ore whose metal contents, marketed by this com- 
 pany, are of a net value of betAveen §15,000,00(> and 820,000,000. 
 
 It can be easily undei'stood that in the mining, transporting, smelting, 
 and refining of this large amount of ore almost an army of American 
 workmen are directly and indirectly emi)loyed, and u])on tlie continuance 
 and success of its operations they are dependent for employment and 
 support. 
 
 Your petitioner can therefore fairly claim to be an American industry 
 of im])ortance, built up to its present magnitude by the care, energy, 
 and capital of American citizens and upon whose success depends a great 
 variety of American interests. For that reason it feels justified incoming 
 before a committee of an American Congress and asking protection 
 against unjust and discriminating laws which hamper and retard instead 
 of foster its growth.
 
 ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI LEAD MINERS. 449 
 
 Sections 1G5 and IGG of Scliednlc C of the tariff laws of 1894 contain 
 the following provisions : 
 
 165. Lead ore and lead dro.ss, tbree-fonrths of one cent per pound: Pror'ided, That 
 silver ore and all other ores eoutaiuing lead shall pay a duty of three-fourths of one 
 cent jier pound on the lead contained therein, according to sample and assay at the 
 port of entry. The method of sampling and assaying to be that usually adopted for 
 commercial purposes by public sampling works in the United States. 
 
 1()6. Lead in pigs and bars, molten and old refuse lead run into blocks and bars, 
 and old scrap leail lit only to be remanufactured, one cent per jiound : Proi'idrd, Tliat 
 in case any foreign country shall impose an export duty upon lead ore or lead dross 
 or silver ores containing lead exported to tlic United States from such country, then 
 the duty upon such ores and lead in i>igs and bars, molten and old refuse lead run 
 into blocks and bars, and old scrap lead lit only to be remanufactured, herein provided 
 for, when imported from such country, shall remain the same as fixed by the law in 
 force prior to the passage of this act. 
 
 Your petitioner claims tliat these provisions are unscientific and illog- 
 ical ; that they discriminate against and greatly injure the business that 
 is carried on in the United States, and that they confer no correspond- 
 ing benefit upon any other American industry or ui)on American labor, 
 but, on the contrary, serve to protect, benefit, and foster certain foreign 
 manulacturers and bring them into direct and advantageous comijeti- 
 tion with American manufacturers of a similar kind. That as a tariff 
 measure these provisions ai'C a mistake, regarded from either a protec- 
 tive or revenue-producing standpoint. 
 
 ]^rietly stated, the following are the reasons for tliese conclusions of 
 your petitioner: 
 
 Pig lead has been dutiable since 1840. The tariff law of that year 
 imposed a duty of 20 per cent ad valorem, which continued until 1857, 
 when it was made 15 i)er cent, and that continued until the law of 18G1, 
 which changed the rate to a speciHc duty of 1 cent per pound, and sub- 
 sequent acts of the same year increased it to U cents per pound. It 
 continued at this rate until the act of June, 18G4:, when it was increased 
 to 2 cents ])er pound, and so remained until the law of 1894, known as 
 the Wilson bill. 
 
 In 18G2 a duty of 1 cent per pound was placed upon lead ore, which 
 was the lirst time any duty hnd been imposed upon that material. This 
 was increased in 18G4 to li cents per pound, and so remained until the 
 tariff law of 1890. This law did not change that rate, but added a pro- 
 vision imi)0sing a duty of l.J cents per pound upon the lead contents 
 of silver ore. 
 
 Prior to the provisions of the tariff act of 1890, the Treasury Depart- 
 ment had held that ores containing silver should l)e classified as silver 
 oi es when the value of their silver contents exceeded the value of their 
 lead contents. 
 
 Silver and gold ores are now and always have been admitted free, 
 and an ore classified as a silver ore would be admitted free of duty 
 whatever other jiietal it might contain. 
 
 In the smelting of ores containing precious metals lead plays a very 
 important ])art, and is, in fact, in the operation of a great majority 
 of smelting Avorks the basis upon which all such smelting rests. 
 
 Silver ores containing lead are known as fluxing ores, and the lead 
 they contain is not only a means of assisting in the extraction of their 
 own silver contents, but also serves to extract the silver in other ores 
 which contain no lead, and which are smelted in connection with them. 
 By this it will be seen that this class of ore is of great value in smelt- 
 ing; and if lead silver or flux ore were as plentiful as silver ores con- 
 taining no lead or dry ores, all would be well. But in the United States 
 the proportion of Mux ores is less than 25 per cent of the entire silver 
 ores produced there. As a consequeuce, the owners of mines producing 
 T H 29
 
 450 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURED OF. 
 
 silver-lead ores pay little or no smelting cLarge for having their ores 
 reduced, and the smelting charge which properly belongs to these 
 ores must fall upon the dry ores which are smelted by their aid, or 
 otherwise the smelting of such ores must be done at a loss. 
 
 AVhen the tariff law of 1890 shut out Mexico as afield for the supply 
 of this class of ores, it at once became apparent to American smelters 
 that, since they could not bring Mexican ores into this country to be 
 smelted, their proper course was to erect smelting works in JNIexico 
 where there was an abundance of both classes of ore and smelt them 
 there. Accordingly smelting works were at once built in Mexico, and 
 it is estimated that something like $10,000,000 of American money was 
 invested there in this industry. The first conse(iuence of this move 
 was that a new lead ])roduct of between 40,000 and G0,000 tons per 
 year,equal to about one-third of the American product, was thrown upon 
 the markets of the Avorld, most of which was shipped by water to New 
 York and its vicinity, there to be refined in bon<l, and either marketed 
 in New York or Europe, as the ])revailing ])rices would ])ermit. And 
 it can be easily understood that with Mexican load in such large quan- 
 tities always upon the ])rincipal market of the Ignited States, namelj^, 
 New York, our ])ig-lead market has been so seriously depressed that 
 lower prices have ruled than ever before, to the serious loss of the 
 American producers of lead ore and ])iglead. 
 
 The result of this ccmdition was that the price of i)ig lead fell as low 
 as $2.G0 i)er hundred ])ouii(ls in 180G. The railroads complained of the 
 loss of traffic; dividends on most smelting stocks ceased to be declared, 
 and a large number of works were closed down. The ]\Iexican smelt- 
 ers, however, continued to grow because in addition to cheaper labor 
 and cheap transportation by water from gulf ])orts to New York, and 
 our tariff law in their favor, they could maiket their product in the 
 United States cheaper than the same ores could be imported into the 
 United States and smelted there and the ])roduct delivered in New 
 York. Thus, the ])roduct of Mexican labor was biought into direct 
 and destructive comi)etition with that of the Ignited States. 
 
 In 1891 the tariff laws were again revised, and eil'ort was made to 
 correct these very apparent mistakes by giving to the American smelter 
 at least an eciual opportunity with his Mexican comi)etitor. But when 
 the tariff bill of that year finally became a law. it contained the ])ro- 
 visions first above quoted. 
 
 Ujion a careful estimate being made of the real elVect of these pro- 
 visions it was found that the following amazing result was produced : 
 The specific duties above stated show, when figured intoad valorem equiv- 
 alents, that lead ore carries a duty of about 100 per cent, that the lead 
 contents of silver ore carries a duty of over (50 per cent, while the fin- 
 ished product of pig lead is taxed about 30 per cent. In other words, 
 pig lead, the product of Mexican smelters, bears the lowest duty of all. 
 And this law was not passed by a Mexican Legislature, but by an 
 American Congress, who were supposed to have American interests at 
 heart. 
 
 An American tariff law is enacted with a double purpose — the ]U'o- 
 duction of Governmental revenue and the protection of ^Vmerican inter- 
 ests. It can be shown that these provisions serve neither purpose, and 
 for that reason they should be altered. 
 
 Ores of gold and silver have never been protected by an American 
 tariff. Between To and 80 per cent of the ores produced in this country 
 containing precious metals have no lead contents. The miners of these
 
 ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI LEAD MINERS. 451 
 
 ores are not protected and have never sought protection. Their wages 
 are satisfactory and foreign competition does not seem to affect them. 
 The miners of silver lead ores are injured because the present tariff law 
 lowers the price of lead. 
 
 On the other hand, an injury has been done to the dry ore miner by 
 reason of the increased smelting charges he has been obliged to bear 
 upon his ores, due to the high j^rices paid for lead flux ore. The rail- 
 road has been injured by the loss of freight and the American smelter 
 by the scarcity of fluxing ore, an implement much needed in his busi 
 uess. 
 
 No citizens of the United States are reall}^ benefitted by this law. 
 As a revenue measure it is also a failure; for while a considerable 
 amount of duties have been paid into the Treasury upon the importa- 
 tion of silver lead ores, the business of importing such ores has ceased 
 almost entirely, there being now really but one importer, your petioner, 
 who imported 90 per cent of all the lead flux ores that entered the United 
 States from Mexico. 
 
 For these reasons your petitioner urges upon your honorable com- 
 mittee that in justice to American interests the duty upon the raw 
 material, i. e., tlie lead in ore, should be either reduced to at least the 
 ad valorem rate that obtains on i)ig lead — the manufactured product 
 of ]\Ie\ican smelting works — or tlie duty upon pig lead increased to 
 at least the ad valorem equivalent of lead in ore. 
 
 Consolidated Kansas City 
 Smeltino and Refining Company. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY WARNER P. SUTTON, OF WASHING- 
 TON, D. C. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 21, 1S97. 
 
 Present sniEDULE. — Lead ores, three-fourths cent per pound on 
 total contents, or $15 per ton; value in Mexico — ores carrying 15 to 75 
 l)er cent lead is, at 1 cent a pound, $3 to $15 x)er ton. Computed as ad 
 valorem, this is from 300 to 100 per cent duty. This duty is prohibitive. 
 
 Silver lead ores, three fourths cent jier pound on lead contents or on 
 ore running 25 per cent of lead, 500 pounds per ton; value of lead,l 
 cent per i)ound or $5 per ton, duty Avould be $3.75, or an ad valorem of 
 75 per cent. This duty is all right. 
 
 rig lead, etc., 1 cent per pound, or $20 per ton; value, $51 per ton, or 
 an ad valorem of 30 per cen.t. This duty can be increased. 
 
 McKiNLEY SCHEDULE. — Lead ores, \h cents per pound on total 
 contents, or $30 per ton; value in Mexico — ores carying 15 to 75 per 
 cent of lead is, at 1^, cents a ])Ound, $3 to $15 per ton, and this counted 
 as ad valorem is from COO to 200 per cent duty. Of course it is pro- 
 hibitive. 
 
 Silver lead ores, li cents on lead contents — on a 25 per cent lead, 500 
 pounds per ton, duty would be $7.50 per ton. The value of this is $5 
 and the ad valorem duty would be 150 per cent. 
 
 Pig lead, etc., 2 cents per pound or $4:0 per ton. On a valuation of 
 $51 per ton duty is 78 per cent. 
 
 Note. — The lead ore is too heavily burdened, silver lead ores also, while pig lead 
 has a rate which wo do not criticise. The trouble was that the crude materials were 
 more heavily taxed; proportion ran the wrong way.
 
 452 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Proposed Schedule. — All ores carrying- over G per cent of lead, 
 three- fourths cent per pound on lead contents.' ThisAvould work thus: 
 
 Lead ores carrying 75 per cent lead, 1,500 pounds to ton, duty $11.25. 
 This on valuation of 815 per ton equals 75 per cent duty. On other 
 per cents ratio would be the same. 
 
 Silver ore carrying lead wmildbe the same — 75 per cent. 
 
 All ores carrying less than C per cent of lead, lead contents iree. 
 
 Lead dross and base bullion, If cents per pound; duty, $or> per t(»n; 
 value in Mexico, $45 per ton; rate, 80 per cent. 
 
 Pig lead, etc., 2 cents per pound; $40 a ton; value, $51 per ton; duty 
 rate, 80 per cent. 
 
 Pig lead, etc., 2A cents per pound; $50 per ton; duty rate, 100 pur 
 cent. 
 
 ^(,xj5. — Tliere is a loss of from 6 to 10 per cent of the leail contents in ores by 
 reason of suieltiujj;. For tliis reason all under 6 per cent are asked as free. From 
 this tact also the ratio of 75 i)er cent on all ores at three-fourtlis cent ])er jiound on 
 lead contents would actually he raised from ?."> i>er cent ad valorem to Ki per cent. 
 
 W'AKNEii P. Sutton, 
 For Consolidated K. G. IS. il li. Co. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY EAGLE WHITE LEAD COMPANY, OF 
 
 CINCINNATI, OHIO. 
 
 Cincinnati, January 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 AVe desire to call the attention of your committee fo the present tarilf 
 on lead oie, pig lead, and wliite or carbonate of lead, now three fourths 
 cent, 1 cent, and l.\ cents, respectively, and to suggest that the duties be 
 increased to 1 cent on ore, 1.] cents on pig lead, and 2J, cents on white 
 or carbonate of lead. Prior to tlie Wilson bill the duties were 2 cents 
 on i)ig lead and .'J cents on white lead, but the rates asked for above 
 we believe to be sufficient and not in any way excessive. One great 
 difficulty with which we have to contend in competing Avith foreign 
 products in our line — which includes also red led, litharge, and orange 
 mineral — is our greater cost of labor. Several years ago the writer 
 visited the largest white-lead factory in London, and found women 
 working in the "yard,'' "corroding beds,'' and "dry kilns" at 18 pence 
 per day, where we employ men, i)aying them from $11 to $14 per week 
 of sixty hours, according to their earning capacity. Our luill men and 
 mixers earn from $14 to $1G per week, Avhere the English laborer was 
 receiving for a full day's Avork of ten hours but 3 shillings. 
 
 We employ altogether from VA5 to 150 men in all de])artments, and 
 these great differences run through all the grades of labor employed by 
 us. It is hardly necessary for us to state that no wliite-lead factory in 
 this country employs women inany of the departments of manufacture, 
 Avhile the care exercised by the American manufacturer over tlie health 
 of his employees is such and the expense and efficiency of the health- 
 protecting devices which he employs are so far in advance of those in 
 English factories that no comparison can be instituted. Indeed, the 
 condition of the women in English white-lead factories was such as to 
 provoke a long and searching investigation by Parliament some three 
 years since, but Avith Avhat practical results the writer does not know. 
 The business is an unhealthy one for the workmen, and while in England
 
 Missouri's lead ores. 453 
 
 the disabled employee goes to the poorbouse at tbe public exi)euse, bere 
 tbe employer is expected to care for tbe sick to tbe extent of at least 
 half wages until be recovers. 
 
 Tbis is not only a humane provision, but a wise one as well, since self- 
 interest, if no higher motive, will prompt tbe manufacturer to ijrovide 
 every necessary jjrotection, to be on the watch for every device tending 
 to make the business less hazardous, but in every event tbe cost fiills 
 directly upon the manufacturer. In comparing wages we are ready to 
 admit that we get better and more willing service, more intelligent and 
 more hearty cooperation on the part of our employees, but tbis has its 
 limits, and we still remain confronted with tbe xevy much lower scale 
 of wages of our foreign competitor. 
 
 Should tbe committee decide to make no change in ore and pig lead, 
 we would then ask, at least, that tbe difference between pig lead and 
 white lead be made 1 cent per pound, which would make the new 
 schedule, under such conditions, f cent, 1 cent, and 2 cents, respec- 
 tively. We, however, believe in the full protection of the miner on bis 
 ore, and of the smelter on bis lead, and we do not think that these 
 three interests should be sei)arated in a readjustment. In x)resenting 
 our claim for consideration at your bands, we do not do so as a member 
 of any combination, consolidation, or trust, being entirely independent 
 in everj^ respect, but in tbe general interest of our particular line of 
 business, which, in common with so many others, has suffered from the 
 unnecessarily Iom' rates under which the industries of this country are 
 now working. 
 
 The Eagle White Lead Co., 
 J. Gordon Taylor, Secretary. 
 
 MISSOITRI'S LEAD ORES. 
 
 FarmingTON, Mo., Jannary 7, 1S97. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As. an interestested party in the ]ead-]iroducing section of the State 
 of Missouri I would suggest a duty of I^, cents per pound on pig lead 
 and a specific duty of three fourths cent on lead ore, without any refer- 
 ence to its proportionate value in either silver or lead. The increase of 
 one half cent on })ig lead over tbe i)resent rate of 1 cent will prevent 
 tbe importation of foreign lead for tbe i)urpose of depressing tbe price 
 of domestic load, which has been done even at a loss to importer, such 
 loss being made good by dei)ression in domestic prices. 
 
 The INIexican lead ore averages about 00 jier cent lead, the duty of 
 three-fourths cent on which is equivalent to \\ cents on lead contained in 
 said ore. In view of the necessities and rights of tbe silver-lead smelt- 
 ers, Missouri lead producers should be content with three-fourths cent 
 on lead ore, provided it applies to all ore, no matter what its value in 
 either silver or lead may be. In 1894 the United States consumed 
 about 102,000 tons of pig lead. Of this, Colorado produced 50,000 tons, 
 Missouri, 40,000, other States, 32,000. There was imported from Mexico, 
 etc., 70,000, making a total of 102,000 tons. This, St. Francois County 
 Missouri, is tbe cliicf lead-producing section of the State, furnishing 
 about three-fourths of State's production. 
 
 Geo. J. Cole.
 
 454 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 XICKET^. 
 
 (I'aragrapli 167J.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. BINGER HERMANN, A REPRESENTATIVE 
 FROM THE STATE OF OREGON, IN BEHALF OF NICKEL PRO 
 
 DUCERS. 
 
 Saturday, January !), 1SD7. 
 
 Mr. Hermann said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the eommittee, 
 I have been requested by some of my constituents -svlio are interested 
 in the development of nickel to address you just for a few moments. 
 In 1891 the gentleman from Ohio, General (irosvenor, called before the 
 House of Eepresentatives a Joint resolution ])roviding 8l,<>00,()0() for 
 the purcliase of nickel ore in Canada. At the time lie made the 
 remark that so far as he had in<[uired lie could not learn that there was 
 any nickel ore in the United vStates, or at least, if there liad l)een. that 
 the deposits had become exhaust-.'d. I remarked to him that I was 
 personally ac(iuainted with a very large dei)osit upon the Pacilic Coast, 
 especially in my own State and in my own county, and 1 assured him 
 that that nickel ore could be i)la('ed upon the market cheajier than it 
 could be from Canada with a jiroper protection. 
 
 The resolution was called up under suspension of the rules and ])assed, 
 and immediately afterwards the Secretary of the Xavy entered into a 
 contract with the Canadian nickel mine owners for tlie purchase of such 
 an amount of nickel as was required. This nickel was recommended 
 by the Secaetary of the Navy, who had by experimenting with it dis- 
 covered that nickel won.ld form a very material ])art of armor plate, 
 and inasmuch as he repoi'ted that no nickel existed in the United States 
 and it did exist in Canada it would be very desirable for the Covernment 
 to make necessary ])reparations to purchase nickel to the extent of a 
 million dollars in Canada. Xow, sir, since then iiupiiries have been 
 conducted and it has been discovered that nickel ore has been found 
 fully developed in various portions of the i'nited States. For instance, 
 it has been found in Nevada, and I lind from a memorandum which I 
 hold in my hand in Churchhill County nickel ore deposits have been 
 found in large quantities which will have an average as large as la per 
 cent of nickel. 
 
 In North Carolina, in Jackson County, nickel ore has been tested and 
 analyzed, and it has been discovered to be very similar to the condition 
 of the deposits in Oregon, AVashington, and in the Xew ( 'aledonia mines 
 of Canada. In Calilornia, in Fremont County, it has been found of a 
 width of 3^ feet, containing from 12 to -M per ceut of nickel. Shi])ments 
 were made of that ore from that country in 1S8L* to a very large extent. 
 The value of this ore, as mineralogists testify, is described by L'hilip 
 Argoll in an address before the Colorado Scientific Society and pub- 
 lished in the proceedings of that society. Then again in Arkansas, in 
 Saline County, described in Volume I of the Proceed ings of the Arkansas 
 Geological Society for 1888, the committee will tind a very interesting 
 address upon the rich developments there. In the State of Washington 
 nickel ore has been found recently to a very large extent. Some of the 
 ore carries as high a per cent of nickel as 30 and it will average 5 per 
 cent. Ores have been discovered in North Carolina similar to those of 
 New Caledonia.
 
 NICKEL. 455 
 
 In my own State, in tlie southern portion, in the counties of Douglas, 
 Jackson, and Joseph, very extensive developments have been made. In 
 my county there are three large companies now operatiug nickel mines. 
 The first is the International Nickel Mining Company, of Chicago, which 
 owns 285 acres; the next is the Oregon Nickel JMining Company, of 
 California, which owns 815 acres, and tlie other is the Southern Oregon 
 Nickel Mining Companj', which owns 430 acres. The last-named com- 
 pany has 3,000 tons of nickel ore now piled nj) ready to go to the smelter 
 as soon as sufficient encouragement is given it. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Do you want an increase of duty? 
 
 Mr. Her:*.iann. They require not an increase of duty, but a duty of 
 at least 10 cents on the pound. 
 
 The Chairman. The present rate of duty is G cents"? 
 
 Mr. HermainN. At present there is no duty upon nickel ore. In 1883 
 under the customs act, there was a duty of 15 cents per pound. That 
 duty, however, was omitted from the act of 1890. I am referring now 
 to nickel ore and nickel matte. The duty Avas omitted from the act of 
 1890. So now there is no protection whatever on the nickel ore, and 
 the result is large (quantities of nickel ore are coming constantly from 
 Canada, and as you will discover from the statistics, following the act 
 of 1883, very large (piantitiesof nickel ore were produced in the United 
 States, and comj)aratively few importations from abroad. 
 
 Mr. TuRNEK. What year was that? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. Following 1883. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. There was a duty once? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. In 1883, as I remarked, and that continued up to 
 1890, Ijut it was taken ott" by the act of 1890, or at least was omitted 
 by tliat act. 
 
 Mr. Payne. In 1890 it was developed before the committee there 
 was only one mine in the United States and that was nearly exhausted? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. 1 will say, Mr. Chairman, that our development was 
 known by the best-informed men, and subsequent developments dis- 
 closed the facts that it exists in the States I have mentioned and in 
 very large quantities, and in my own county there is a vast mountain 
 with a vein at least 20 feet in width within 3 miles of the Southern 
 Pacific Eailroad. I have photographic views of the mines and the 
 general topograi^hy of the country [exhibiting same]. I have also 
 another view of the works. 
 
 The Chairman. Have vou anv data of the importation of the nickel 
 ore? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. 1 have nothing at the moment, sir; but I will give a 
 statement of that. 
 
 The Chairman. The official report here does not seem to separate 
 the items. 
 
 Mr. Hermann. I shall submit this data to the clerk later on. 
 
 The Chairman. If you know the exact importation of ore, I wish you 
 would file that with your remarks. 
 
 Mr. Hermann. Yes, sir; I will do so. 
 
 The Chairman. And also as to what the evidence is as to the exist- 
 ence of these ores in commercial quantities so that they can be used. 
 
 Mr. Hermann. I have that data. 1 will ask the indulgence of the 
 committee for a moment more while I quote from the report of the Sec 
 retary of the Navy in reference to what I have already remarked in 
 reference to these ores in Canada. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. What do you think would be a proper duty to be 
 imj)osed upon nickel ore?
 
 456 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Mr. Hekmann. Well, sir, since the developments to which 1 have 
 referred it is my impression a duty of 15 cents. The old duty is 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Fifteen per cent ad valorem! 
 
 Mr. Hermann. I think 10 cents per pound is suflicient. Formerly it 
 was 15 cents. 
 
 The Chairman. On the ore itself? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. Yes, sir; nickel ore. That was under the act of 1883 
 and not under the act of 1890, because in that act nickel ore was 
 omitted. 
 
 Mr. WnEELER. How rich are these ores? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. They average 5 per ceut in the State of Oregon and 
 2i in Canada. That nickel we are purchasing from Canada is produc- 
 ing 2h per cent, whereas our nickel ore yields 5 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. We imported nickel ore last year to the extent of 
 9,850 tons free at a valuation of 802 ])er ton, which is below 3 cents per 
 pound, foreign valuation. Now, what duty do you want on 3 cents per 
 pound ? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. The parties interested in tlie develojimeut on the 
 Pacific Coast suggest to me the duty should be at least 10 cents i)er 
 pound. 
 
 The Chairman. That is 300 per cent? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. They refer to the nickel, I imagine, and not the ore; 
 but I will^ — 
 
 The Chairman. Undoubtedly they refer to the nickel. 
 
 Mr. Hermann. Now I beg the indulgence of the committee while I 
 quote what the Secretary of the Navy said upon this subject in 1892. 
 This is from the anuual report of the Secretary of the Navy for 1892, 
 page 21 : 
 
 III consequence of the liigli eflicicucy of nickel steel as ii material for armor, dis- 
 closed at the Annapolis trials in September, I8it0, and the absolute necessity that the 
 Department should be able to control a sullicieut supply of nickel, M'hich the terri- 
 tory of the United States, as far as known, did not all'ord, api»lieation was made to 
 C'ongress for an immediate a])pr()priati(tn fur tlie purchase of nickel matte. By 
 resolution of September 29, 181)0, an appropriation of $1,000,000 was made for this 
 purpose. 
 
 liefore entering upon extensive purchases, however, it was thought pnulent to 
 make further tests, and with this in view, as stated in the annual reiK)rt for 18iHi, a 
 limited quantity, amounting to $r)0,000, was purchased from the Canadian Cojiper 
 Company. After making further experiments the De])artment came to a decision, 
 the correctness of which subsequent developments has fully coulirmed, to employ 
 this material in the manufacture of armor. A contract was entered into .lime 15, 
 1891, between the Canadian Copper Company and the United States, represented by 
 the Secretary of the Navy, for the purchase of 4,000 tons of nickel and copper matte. 
 
 So I would think a duty of 10 cents a pound on nickel will carry suf- 
 ficient protection to develo}) the nickel ore and nickel matte. 
 
 The Chairman. The duty is G cents a pound on nickel itself? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. I am aware there is a duty on nickel itself. 
 
 The CHAIR3IAN. Under the act of 1890 the duty was 10 cents? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. Yes, sir; and these constituents of mine who are 
 interested in the development in that section of the United States 
 declare that we are able to produce the nickel itself at a price i cents 
 less than they can produce the Canadian nickel. 
 
 Mr. Turner. What is nickel worth? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. I think the Government is now paying 20 cents a 
 pound for nickel, but the price to the ordinary consumer is larger than 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The import price was 33 cents on nickel and nickel oxide 
 last year?
 
 NICKEL. 457 
 
 Mr. Hermann. I thiuk the price under this contract with the Cana- 
 dian Copper Company is 20 cents, and for the customer at large it 
 exceeds that. 1 have here specimens of the ore showing the character 
 of it, and have tests and analysis of the United States mineralogist 
 which developed the fact that this ore contains 5 per cent of nickel as 
 against 2A per cent of nickel in the best Canadian mines. 
 
 JVIr. DoLLiVER. I noticed the act of 1883, which put a duty of 15 
 cents a i)0und on nickel, reckons it on the nickel contained in the ore and 
 not on the ore itself? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. I understand that is regulated very largely by the 
 quantity of nickel which is contained in the ore. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. I understand you think the duty should be put on 
 the metal and the ore should be left on the free list? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. So far as the ore is concerned? No, sir; I think not. 
 We Avould not think of that at all, because very often it would be a 
 great injury to the development of our nickel mines of the West. 
 
 Mr, Tawney. Have you any figures showing the cost of producing 
 that ore in Canada as compared with the cost of i)roduciug the ore here ? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. Except simply the statement I have made here that 
 it can be produced in the United States fori cents less per pound than 
 in Canada. 
 
 Mr. Turner. It can be produced in your State 
 
 Mr. Hermann. For 4 cents less than it can be produced in Canada. 
 
 Mr. Turner. What do you want with a duty then? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. Simply for the reason that the ore coming free, as it 
 is as the present time, there is no encouragement whatever to our 
 people 
 
 Mr. Turner. If you can beat them at the rate of 4 cents a pound, it 
 would seem you would have to give a bounty to get it to come at all? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. Just as soon as we are left open entirely, as at the 
 present time, combinations at once form upon the part of tlie foreign 
 producers, so as to stifle and at once drive out our own people. We 
 have discovered that. 
 
 Mr. Steele. How could they be driven out if you could produce it 
 for 4 cents less than they can in Canada? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. If, after a while, we have protection, I am satisfied 
 we can hold our own. In the meanwhile there must be some protection. 
 
 Mr. Evans. What do you need protection against if you can produce 
 it in this country 4 cents cheai^er than they can in Canada? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. Well, I am speaking now of the producer at that 
 particular locality, and also in North Carolina. These localities are 
 remote from transportation, and as to railroad trauvSportation it is so 
 costly when you take the difl'erence between rail transportation to the 
 East and to the commnuities where the nickel ore is used, you will find 
 "at once the difl'erence will far overset that of the ordinary duty, and so 
 far as the manufacture of the nickel itself right ujioii the ground, I 
 admit it can be done there much cheaper than it can anywhere else, 
 but it is n])ou that point they make this basis of the 4 cents difference, 
 but when we take into consideration the very costly transportation 
 between the far Pacific and the East 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Where a mine has been located and found to produce 
 ore in paying quantities a rate of duty is more to stimulate the develop- 
 ment of the mines ? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. And, further, I will say to my friend there is this great 
 obstacle in the way at the present time which I referred to, and t'lat is 
 the great charge of transportation and the distances from the East.
 
 458 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Mr. TuKNER. Would not a charge of anything like 4 cents a pound 
 bring the ore from your country to the East? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. The transportation charges are very great between 
 the extreme portions of the Pacific and the Atlantic. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. On heavy-weight products in large quantities as 
 this would necessarily be, if they undertook to control the entire Eastern 
 market what would the cliarge be per ton by water or by rail? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. I do not think, sir, there is any heavy-weight articles 
 such as this brought across the transcontinental railways. It usually 
 reaches the waterways at some point convenient to the Pacific coast 
 and then it goes around Cape Horn. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. How much a ton would it cost going that way ? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. I am satisfied it would be utterly impossible to bring 
 any such ore as this by rail across the mountains, and no ore has ever 
 been shipped from those localities by water and no attempt has been 
 made to ship it by land. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Ho they smelt it before shipping? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. No, sir; the ore is out there lying in one place 3,000 
 tons in the dump. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You think they can ])roduce it for 4 cents per pound 
 less than they can in the Canadian mines? 
 
 Mr. Herrman. That is the infornuition given to me. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. How much more than 4 cents a pound do your people 
 demand by way of a ])r()tective taritf as ]irofit ? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. That could be very readily ascertained b.v discover- 
 ing the cost of transportation between the l*acilic coast and the 
 Atlantic seaboard, and as to those rates I am not informed. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Where are the Canadian mines? 
 
 Mr. Hermann. The i)recise location I am not fannliar with. I think 
 they are at some point near the St. Lawrence River: that is my imi^res- 
 sion. It is my impression that it is not very far from the navigable 
 waters of the St. Lawrence Eiver, and this diflieulty with us on the 
 Pacific arises from the (piestion of transportation. It is utterly impos- 
 sible for them to even undertake the transjjortation of those ores with 
 the duty such as it is at the present time. They can not possibly 
 compete. 
 
 M V. McMiLLiN. You want to extend the doctrine of j^rotection beyond 
 labor, and make it overcome distance and transportation as well ? 
 
 >'r. Hermann. AVell, the difierence would not be so very great, for 
 the veason I have stated. 
 
 THE :n^icket. reftxebs. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ME. ROBERT M. THOMPSON. OF NEW YORK. 
 
 ]\] r. TnoMPSO-N said: Mr. Chairman and geiitlemen of the committee, 
 I an a nickel lefiner and have refined all the nickel that has been 
 delivered to the Government. The Government is the i)rin('ii)al i)ur- 
 chaser of nickel in the United States. At the time referred to when 
 the Secretary of the Navy was seeking to obtain nickel, the price of 
 nickel in the markets of the world was about GO cents a i)ound. As 
 soon as this inquiry came upon the market it advanced to $1 a pound. 
 The Canadian Copjier Company, in which 1 have not a penny of inter- 
 est. Avas owned and controlled by a number of American citizens, 
 an^ong whom was Senator Payne, of Ohio. They came forward and
 
 THE NICKEL REFINERS. 459 
 
 sold to the Government the supply of nickel at 11 cents a pound in the 
 matte, purely as patriotic a thing as was ever done by any set of men 
 in America. 
 
 In my business of refining I am anxious to buy my supplies in the 
 cheapest market. I have had all the mines this gentleman referred to 
 examined by experts. I am familiar with all these deposits in these 
 various States to which he has referred. There is not oiic of those mines 
 to-day where they can be made to pay at any reasonable duty. If they 
 were 1 would be in the ownership of them. As a matter of fact, the nickel 
 market as comi)ared with the ordinary metal market is a baby one. We 
 deal in ounces almost where other metals deal in tons, and you have got 
 to have the metal in some position where it can be treated and the great 
 cost is in the treatment of the ores. These Oregon ores are a t^ilicate and 
 refractory nickel. Now, in regard to tlie transportation to the Eastern 
 coast, they are bringing from that section of country — Butte, Mont. — 
 an enormous quantity of copi^er matte, the freights on which are from 
 half a cent to six-tenths of a cent a pound, or from 810 to $13 a ton. That 
 would give the cost of transportation ; but the fact is these ores can not 
 be treated economically. Mr. Whorteu, of Camden, N. J., is another 
 nickel refiner, aiul both he and myself, and he especially, have been in 
 anxious i)ursuit in America of nickel, and if such a thing can be found 
 Mr. "NVhorten woukl be here to advocate an increased duty as the owner 
 of that deposit. If you put that duty in the bill it is sinqdy the Ameri- 
 can ( rovernment woukl have to ])ay the duty. The consumption outside 
 the Government for steel purjioses is perha])s 300 or 400 tons in the 
 whole United States. 
 
 The Chairman. You have examined j^ersonally these California, 
 Nevada, and Oregon deposits! 
 
 Mr. Thompson. I have liad them examined by experts ; not personally. 
 I have had them examined by experts who were more competent to 
 examine them. 
 
 The Chairman. What seems to be the difficulty in respect to these 
 mines ! 
 
 jMr. Thompson. The ores are very much scattered there, and to a ton 
 of rock moved the ore will be very low in grade. You can find samples of 
 rich ores in a deposit, but after it is obtained it is very difficult to treat; 
 the expense of extracting the ore is very great. Nickel is called one 
 of the refiactory metals. It is very hard to treat. In Nevada the 
 deposits are in pockets. Occasionally you find a small pocket contain- 
 ing 10, 15, or 20 tons of very rich ore. In some of these pockets you 
 will find ores so rich there is no price at which they would not mine and 
 ship it. Now, the assaying of nickel is a very difficult thing, and local 
 assayers not accustomed to assaying nickel are constantly making mis- 
 takes, ami 1 have had reports that such a mine had an enormous deposit 
 of very rich ore. I would send experts and have careful samples sent on 
 and find out there is a not a trace of nickel in it. That has been my 
 experience. I have spent in the last year not less than $5,000 on an 
 expert who has been traveling over the country from p]nce to place all 
 the time in my anxiety to find a supply. I should be glad if any gentle- 
 man will find it for me. 
 
 Mr. ]\[cMiLLiN. Do you concur in Mr. Hermann's statement when 
 he says that nickel ore can be produced in Oregon at 4 cents per pound 
 less than it can be produced in Canada? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. He is in error in his statement. He has undoubtedly 
 been told so by persons interested in the property. Those ores of 
 Oregon resemble in their nature the ores of New Caledonia belonging
 
 460 SCHEDULE C. — METALS AND MANUFACTURES OP. 
 
 to the Frencli company. Those ores in New Caledonia run a maximuin 
 of 7 per cent and a mine which will pick up to 9 or 10 per cent in com- 
 petition with the Canadain ores would practically drive them out of 
 the market. 
 
 Mr. Hermann. I will ask the gentleman whether or not it is a fact 
 there is considerable cost in the extraction of copper, which forms a 
 very material part of the nickel of Canada, as against that found on 
 the' Pacific Coast, wherein there is a very little trace of copper? I am 
 so informed. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. The reason why the Canadian ore can be sold so 
 cheaply is, it contains such an amount of copper ore — you can call it 
 nickel ore or copper ore, as you choose— and because the copper is a 
 source of material value has been the reason why they could sell their 
 ores so cheaply. The United States Government when they made 
 their i^urchase paid for the nickel 11 cents i)er pound and 4 cents lor 
 the copper in the ore, and then turned around to the refiner and sold 
 that copper at G cents a pound, making a profit on the transaction. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. AVill the gentleman state the extent of the mines in 
 Canada 1 
 
 Mr. Thompson. They were very large; and they belong to a number of 
 parties. There are a number of deposits of ore there. One company is 
 the Canadian Copper Company, of which .Judge lUirke here is president. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Are the mines of the Canadian Coi>per Company 
 owned entirely by Americans! 
 
 Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir; and in treating ores, I wish to say, they 
 use American coke. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. STEVENSON BURKE, PRESIDENT OF THE 
 CANADIAN COPPER COMPANY. 
 
 Saturday, 'lanuary '?, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Burke said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen <tf the committee, I 
 am president of the Canadian Cop])er Company, and tlierefore may be 
 l)resumed to know something about it. I wish to say this, that the 
 Canadian Copper Company, so called, is an Ohio corporation, incorpo- 
 rated under the laws of Ohio, with possibly one little stockholder in ( 'an- 
 ada holding i)erhaps 100 or 200 shares of stock; but it is absolutely an 
 Ohio corporation, and the property was developed altogetlier by Ohio 
 capital. The mines are owned in fee simple by the corporation. The 
 land itself was purchased out and out, and I wish to say that, for the 
 very purpose of having the Government and the people of the I'nited 
 States get the benefit which would come from the use of nickel as a 
 component part of steel, that I myself, on behalf of this corporation, 
 sold to the Secretary of the Navy not ore, but matte, nickel matte, at 
 11 cents a pound for the nickel contained therein, Avhile witliin a month 
 of the same time before that we had sold to a French company the 
 same kind of nickel product at 22 cents, or a trifle over, per pound. 
 
 Wo desired to have the nickel tested l^or the purjwse of its being used 
 for armor plate. I wish to say it was our com])any which suggested to 
 the Secretary of the Navy the use of nickel steel for armor plate. I 
 wish to saj^, in addition, that every pound of this nickel is refined, 
 and that the chief labor of that is in this country. The amount of 
 money paid out to laborers in that resj^ect the past year would be about 
 $300,000; and, of course, the putting of a duty ui)on eitlicr nickel ore 
 or nickel matte would result, necessarily, in the relining of this product
 
 THE NICKEL REFINERS. 461 
 
 in Oauada, or iii Great Britain, or in Germany. For instance, at the 
 time this ({nestion came up in 1890 or 1891, the matter was investigated, 
 and the company with which I am connected was selling its nickel 
 matte at that time in Germany and in Great Britain; and I wish to say 
 at the present moment we are offered by a very x)rominent Englishman — 
 a man who has very great wealth and who has a process of refining 
 this nicliel — a market for every pound of nickel matte we have — every 
 pound of it. We have preferred to have this work done in this country. 
 AVo have preferred to give our people the benefit of it; and inasmuch 
 as our institution is absolutely an American institution in every resj)ect, 
 an Ohio corporation, with Ohio stockholders, and the property over 
 there owned in fee simple — and we are treated exceedingly well by the 
 Canadians, so far as I have any reason to know — we do not see any 
 special use of practically destroying as far as possible the investments 
 of Americans in Canada. Of course, if a duty should be put upon 
 nickel ore or nickel matte, why that is the end of its coming to this 
 country. Instead of that it goes to England, Germany, France, and 
 elsewhere to be refined. Then I wish to say in addition to that, that 
 if these gentlemen have nickel as rich as they talk about, then they do 
 not need any protection. 
 
 Of course I do not believe their story that they have any nickel as rich 
 as that. They say the nickel runs from 10 to 15 per cent on the average. 
 I can show you samples from our mines of nickel ore running 51 per 
 cent; and I wish to say in that connection the average is only about 
 3 per cent. Of course you can find rich sami)les anywhere of products 
 of this kind. Now, in view of the fact, it seems to me it would be wise 
 to allow those people to demonstrate with their money that they can 
 supply the Government with that nickel or nickel oxide that it needs 
 in its armor plate; that they should show that they have put up 
 smelting works, put some money into the institution here; and if they 
 have as rich ore as they talk about, let them put up their refineries and 
 treat the ore there. Assuredly nickel itself is worth moving even upon 
 cars across the continent where nickel ore may not be. 
 
 Mr. Hermann. Just one inquiry. Before 1890, when nickel ore was 
 placed on the free list, you were unable in Canada to compete with 
 the nickel mine owners of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Burice. No, sir; we supplied these men absolutely with our 
 matte. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. ROBERT M. THOMPSON, OF NEW 
 
 YORK. 
 
 . If a duty of 10 cents per pound were placed on nickel in ore, this 
 would not raise the price of refined nickel 10 cents unless the duty on 
 refined nickel was also increased. The actual facts of the nickel trade 
 are these : 
 
 The estate of Senator Payne, the estate of Cornell, of Akron, Ohio, 
 and Judge Burke, Cleveland, are t he principal owners of certain nickel 
 deposits in Canada. 'They produce there a matte carrying copper and 
 nickel at a cost to themselves of about $25 a ton of matte. All of this 
 matte is shijiped to our works in New Jersey for treatment, and of the 
 railroad freight about one-half goes to the Canadian roads, making a 
 total expenditure per month, under present conditions, of about $28,000 
 expended in Canada. On the other hand, the expenditure at my works 
 and at those of Joseph Wharton, of Philadelphia, and to the American
 
 462 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 railroads for transportation amount to about .$100,000 jier month. You 
 will tlius see that the interest of the United States is four times as 
 "Teat as that of Canada in the working of these mines. 
 "^ Of the nickel brought into the United States for treatment, about 
 one-third is consumed'in this country, and one-half of this consumption 
 is by the United States Government direct. The consumption of nickel 
 in the United States outside of the Government did not last year 
 exceed 800,000 pounds. The effect of putting a duty upon raw mate- 
 rial would be to at once transfer the refining of the Canadian nickel 
 mattes to Liverpool; but this would not give the market to American 
 ores, as the refined nickel would be shippped back here. 
 
 But assuming that the American mines could be given the American 
 market, it is about 800 tons of nickel a year. The gentleman from 
 Oregon was quite sure that it could be produced chea])er than the 
 Ca:iadian production. Assuming that it could be produced at the same 
 cost, it would represent an expenditure of abont a little over sO,000 a 
 month, say $110,000 a year. In order to secure the expenditure of this 
 $110,000 a year in America, it would be necessary to tax the consumers, 
 of America' $100,000 a year, of which $80,000 would have to be expended 
 by the Government direct. On the other hand, we would lose the 
 expenditure of money now made in refining nickel for the foreign mar- 
 ket, say one-third of $100,000 a month, or $400,000 a year. Naturally 
 the American labor would not b(» benefited by this transaction. 
 
 Tlie fact is that nickel is a small and special business, and can not 
 be placed upon the footing of any of the great industries which employ 
 large numbers of men. 
 
 { KoBERT M. Thompson. 
 
 QUICKSILTEB. 
 
 (Paragraj)!! 170^.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY W. B. BUCKMINSTER, REPRESENTING 
 VARIOUS MINING COMPANIES. 
 
 Washington, ]). C, December 11, 1S96. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Sulphide of Mercury, or Cinnabar, from which (^»uicksilver is pro- 
 duced, is an ore found in the United States only in California. Its 
 production is an important interest there, giving employment to over 
 5,000 men, at good wages, and representing a large amount of invested 
 capital. The only other countries producing this mineral are Spain, 
 Austria, and Italy; the first two producing by far the largest amount, 
 and owned and worked by the Spanish and Austrian Governments — 
 Italy producing but a small amount. The Austrian and Spanish prod- 
 uct is controlled by the Rothschilds and sold by them; the Spanish 
 product being mortgaged to the Kothschildsfor a period of thirty years 
 from 1870, in repayment of a loan made by them to the Spanish Gov- 
 ernment of £1,69(5,000, with interest at 8 per cent per annum. 
 
 Until the discovery of the American quicksilver mines, quicksilver 
 brought a very high price, more than three times what it is selling lor 
 at present, and the production of the California mines has, therefore, 
 since their discovery j)ractically controlled the price of Quicksilver in
 
 QUICKSILVER. 463 
 
 tlie •world by preventing tlie Spanish and Austrian mines from liaving 
 a monopoly. These two mines, Almaden in Spain, and Idria in Austra, 
 are very rich and hold immense reserves. The ore is found in two 
 immense bodies or chimneys in the Almaden, and shafts have been 
 sunk to a depth of 1,000 feet, finding the mineral fully as rich as it 
 goes down. The grade of the ore in the Almaden and Idria is about 
 11 per cent. On the other hand, in the California mines the mineral is 
 found in scattered bodies at long distances apart, and does not occur 
 in any regular formatious; veins often being barren and carrying no 
 ore for distances of 1,000 feet or more, and it is generally found at no 
 great depth below the surface. The grade of ore in the California mines 
 averages but little over 1 per cent, and they have practically no reserves, 
 but are dependent upon their yearly developments of ore. 
 
 Comparing year by year the Spanish mines with the New Almaden 
 of California as to the amount of rock mined, we find that in the Spanish 
 mines 98 per cent of the rock mined is good enough to run through the 
 furnaces, while in the New Almaden of California 24 per cent only could 
 be used, showing three-quarters of tlic rock mined was waste, the New 
 Almaden being taken as affording the most complete figures and a fair 
 sample of tlie whole. 
 
 The average wages per man in Spain are GO cents. The average wages 
 per man in California are $2.43. The average cost of a llask of quick- 
 silver at Almaden, Spain, is 87.86. The average cost in California is 
 $33.31, of which 78 i)er cent is labor. Comi)ariug the two, and allowing 
 for sake of comparison that the wages paid in Si)ain were equal to those 
 ])aid in California, we have the cost of a tlask of quicksilver in Spain, 
 $7.8G, of which there was paid for labor 78 per cent, or $0.13. The cost 
 of producing a flask in California is $33.31, of which there is paid for 
 labor 78 per cent, or $25.98, showing a difference paid in wages to the 
 American workman of $19.85 per fiask. A standard flask consists of 
 70.} pounds of quicksilver. The production for the past five years has 
 been as follows : 
 
 Flasks. 
 
 1888 33, 250 
 
 1889 25, 650 
 
 1890 22, 615 
 
 1891 25, 584 
 
 1892 27. 993 
 
 1893 30, 164 
 
 1894 28, 016 
 
 The amount produced in this country is equal to its needs at present. 
 But little has been imported for a long series of years since the impo- 
 sition of the duty, and during this past year none at all. I beg to call 
 your attention to the fact that were the mines of California to be closed 
 down, as they must inevitably be unless some protection is afforded, 
 that the whole power of making the pri(;e would lie with the Spanish 
 and Austrian governments, as represented by the Rothschilds, and we 
 should be at their mercy. When this duty has been so low as to cause 
 a shut down of the American mines, this has been the case heretofore. 
 We are now protected by a duty of 10 cents per pound. This is little 
 enough, and we ask in consideration of the capital involved, and the 
 labor of 5,000 men employed at good wages, that it be kept at the 
 present rate. 
 
 Quicksilver is an article which can be used only for specific purposes 
 within narrow limits, and the price has little to do with the consump- 
 tion. A low price will not extend its uses, which are confined to
 
 464 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 auialgamation of ores, vermilion, and mercurial preparations. As it is 
 used over and over again in mining, the slight duty cuts no figure there, 
 and all preparations of mercury are protected by a duty higher than that 
 on quicksilver, so that no detriment is worked to their interest. Again, 
 a specific duty of 10 cents gives protection when most needed, i. e., when 
 the price is low, which an ad valorem duty does not do, but affords 
 great protection when least needed, i. e., when the price abroad is higher. 
 The quicksilver mines of this country are struggling for existence 
 because of the low prices existing, and were lower prices to comoAvould 
 have to succumb to foreign comi^etition. The average of ore now being 
 worked is but little over 1 per cent, yielding 20 pounds of quicksilver 
 to the ton, while the Almaden of Spain yields between W and 11 per 
 cent, or over 200 pounds to the ton — a diflerence in favor of the Spanish 
 mines of 180 pounds per ton. 
 
 You may ask why we are able to compete with quicksilver produced 
 in Spain at $7.80 per flask, while the cost of production here is 
 $33.31. Siiain authorized the loan in 1870, from Messrs. lJoths(;hilds, 
 of £1,690,000, hypothecating the Almaden mines and stii)ulating therein 
 that they should not sell quicksilver outside the United Kingdcmi at 
 less than £G per flask (which at the present rate of exchange amounts 
 to $29.75 per flask) — and as much more as they can get. If to £(\ 7s., 
 the present selling price, we add the duty of $ 7.0.5 jier flask, we have 
 $37.50, which we can obtain ior quicksilver in competition with them. 
 By article C of the Spanish agreement with the Rothschilds, the 
 
 Messrs. I* enjoy without interest all the money which collects from 
 
 the sale of quicksilver in London during the year until settlement in 
 July. By article 9, Messrs. Bothschilds have the right to half the 
 amount they obtain above £6 per flask in London, for trying to improve 
 the selling price of quicksilver. 
 
 Finally, by article 10, in the same agreement, they are authorized to 
 sell such quicksilver for £6 per flask, but no less, as .Messrs. lioths- 
 childs think desirable to send to other markets, whatever tlie price 
 may be in London. So that though the ])rice may be £8, £0, £10, or 
 £11, in London, as it has been within the last throe years, thoy can 
 use this country as a dumping grouiul ior their suri)lns product at a 
 l^rice of not less than £0 i)er flask. In other words, it is only the jtro- 
 duction of quicksilver in California which keeps us from being sub- 
 jected to a gigantic monopoly. It is an article which we must have to 
 reduce our gold and silver ores, and did we not i)roduce it in competi- 
 tion with the Eothschilds, we should have to ])ay their price of not less 
 than £0 in any event, and as much more as they could force us to do. 
 (See speech of Senor Marcoarto, delivered in the Spanish Senate May 
 8, 1890.) 
 
 In other words, we are at the mercy of a gigantic monopoly which is 
 controlled by the Messrs. Bothschihl, if we do not produce sullicient 
 quicksilver, or nearly enough, for our own needs in this country. Since 
 the California mines were opened, the price has been steadily declining, 
 except in the instances where the low price caused by importations 
 from abroad at the time of no duty have shut down our mines and 
 reduced our supply, so that we Avere obliged to buy from abroad. It is 
 not only in the interest of the producer, but also in that of the consumer 
 as well, that the American mines should be kept oi)on, and stimulated 
 to the extent of their production. Were this duty removed and quick- 
 silver allowed to come in free, there is no <piestion but what witli the 
 low grade of ore which we are now mining, the California mines must
 
 QUICKSILVER. 465* 
 
 sliut down. Once sliiit down, it is not only a question of enormous 
 expense to reopen them, owing to tbeir becoming filled with water and 
 shafts and tunnels caving in, but it is a question of time as well, and 
 it would take many months, if not jears, to put them in active working 
 order if they were once closed down. Capital is timorous of investment 
 and would hesitate to seek again any employment in which it had been 
 'so grievously disappointed. Again, quicksilver can in no sense be 
 called a raw material. It is a manufactured article, into the producti(m 
 of which labor largely enters — quite as largely as any manufactuied 
 article produced, averaging 78 per cent of the total cost in wages alone. 
 
 To summarize: The ores of Almaden, Spain, and Idria, Austria, run 
 11 per cent ore; the ores of the California mines averagebut 1 per cent. 
 The cost of a flask of quicksilver in Spain and Austria is $7.80, which 
 price is increased to the consumer by the Rothschild monopoly to £6 
 at the least, and as much more as they can increase it; the cost of a 
 tlask of quicksilver in California is $33.31, 78 per cent, or $25.98 of 
 which is in wages alone. The industry gives employment in California 
 to about 5,000 men. Were the mines closed doAvn these men would be 
 out of employment and drixeu to seek work in other branches, thus 
 displacing a like number of men or lowering the wages of all, for sup- 
 ply and demand govern the labor market. Our own country produces 
 sufficient quicksilver for its own needs, in which case any importation 
 from abroad must displace an ecjual amount of American product, and the 
 money paid for the same goes into the cofters of the Rothschilds instead 
 of into the American workingmen's pockets. The admission free of 
 duty of a product manufactured exclusively by foreign Governments 
 (which themselves have a high protective tariff), to the detriment and 
 ruin of an American industry, is an anomaly in our revenue laws which 
 we beg may not take place. The foreign mines are owned by Govern- 
 ments; our own mines are owned by individnal citizens. 
 
 Under this statement of facts, which are reliable, will the members 
 of the Ways and Means Connnittee keep this mineral on the free list, 
 cause the consumer to i)ay at least twice the present price, and drive 
 into other industries 5,000 laborers earning unequaled wages? For this 
 will be the inevitable result of such determination. In my opinion it 
 would be wise to increase the tariff to insure the continuance of this 
 industry to com])ete with a monopoly of ioreign bankers in an article 
 that has no equivalent. Our consumers must have it at some price or 
 abandon enterprises requiring its use. Such a course would violate 
 no i)rinciple of i)rotection or free trade, as this industry is an excep- 
 tional one subjected to no principle or argument except that of nature's 
 first law, self-preservation. 
 
 W. B. BUCKMINSTER, 
 
 Vice-President and General Manager 
 JEtna Consolidated Quielcsilver Mining Company. 
 And representing the following quicksilver mining com])a.nies: The 
 Quicksilver Mining Comi>any of ]S^ew Almaden, Cal.; The Stand- 
 ard (Quicksilver Mining Comi^any of California; The Sul[)hur Bank 
 Quicksilver Mining Company of California; The Reddington Quick- 
 siver Mining Company of California; The New Itli'ia Mining Company 
 of California; The ISTaj^a Consolidated Quicksilver Mining Company of 
 California; The Great Eastern Quicksilver iNfining Company of Cali- 
 fornia; The Great Western Consolidated Quicksilver Mining Company 
 of California; The Great Eastern No. 2 of California. 
 T H 30
 
 466 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Exhibit A. 
 
 Comnarative statement of rates of import duty on quicksiher under the several tariff 
 acts from July 30, 1S4G, to May 21, ISOO. 
 
 Act of July 30, 1846 20 per cent 
 
 Act of March 3. 1857 15 per cent 
 
 Act of March 2, 1861 10 per cent 
 
 Act of August 5, 1861 10 per cent 
 
 Act of December 24, 1861 10 per cent 
 
 Act of July 14, 1862 10 per cent 
 
 Act of March 3, 1863 10 per cent 
 
 Act of June 30, 1864 10 and 15 per cent 
 
 Act of March3, 1865 10 anil 15 percent 
 
 Act of March 16, 1866 10 and 15 per cent 
 
 Act of May 16, 1866 10 and 15 per cent 
 
 Act of Juno 1, 1866 10 and 15 per cent 
 
 Act of July 28, 1866 15 per cent 
 
 Act of March 2, 1867 15 per cent 
 
 Act of March 22, 1867 15 per cent 
 
 Act of March 25-26,1867 15 per cent 
 
 Act of March 29, 1867 15 per cent 
 
 Act of February 3, 1868 15 per cent 
 
 Act of July 20, 1868 15 per cent 
 
 Act of Fel)ruary 19-24, 1869 15 per cent 
 
 Act of July 14, 1870 15 per cent 
 
 Act of December 22, 1870 15 per cent 
 
 Act of May 1, 1872 90 per cent of existing duties 
 
 Act of June 6, 1872 90 per cent of existing duties 
 
 Act of Februarys. 1875 Free list 
 
 Act of March 3, 1883 10 per cent 
 
 Act of May 21, 1890 10 cents per i)onnd 
 
 Wilson bill 7 cents per pound 
 
 The act of May 21, 1890, was as follows: "Quicksilver, 10 cents per pound. The 
 flasks, bottles, or other vessels in which quicksilvir is imported shall be subject to 
 the same rates of duty as they would be subjected to if imported empty. 
 
 "Free list. — Quicksilver flasks or bottles of either domestic or foreign manufacture 
 which shall have been actually exported Iroui the United States." 
 
 Exhibit B. 
 
 WAGES. 
 
 The wages paid at the Spanish Almaden Mine, so far as I have been enabled to 
 obtain them, are reliable. 
 
 Miners, ore contract, per day $0. 81 
 
 Miners, rock contract, per day 57 
 
 Masons, in quarries, per day 1.03 
 
 Lumbermen, per day 55 
 
 Furnace men, per day 40 
 
 These deijartments command the highest wages. Hence we may conclude their 
 wages to be from 50 cents to 60 cents per day. 
 
 The amount of wages paid in California for relative positions is : 
 
 Laborers in ore chambers, per day $2. 00 
 
 Miners 2. 80 
 
 Laborers on surface 2. 00 
 
 Firemen 1. 75 
 
 Timbermen, including captain 3. 20 
 
 Carpenters ,$3.00-3.50 
 
 Blasters 2. 75 
 
 Surface mining 1. 50 
 
 Ore. — Of all the rock mined in Almaden, Spain, 98 per cent is sufficiently good ore 
 to be put through the furnaces. In California of all the rock mined only 24 per cent 
 is sufficiently good ore to go through the furnaces.
 
 CLOCKS. 
 
 467 
 
 Price. — In 1850, wheu the cinnabar was discovered in California, ttie ruling price 
 per Hask of 76i pounds standard weight was $114.50, or $1.50 per pound. It is now 
 $37 per flask, or 48.3 cents per pound, and though great fluctuations in price have 
 occurred during the forty-two years of its production in California, yet notwith- 
 standing these fluctuations its price has in the main been steadily declining. 
 
 Exhibit C. 
 ProduoUon of quickailver in California, and prices from 1S49 to 1893. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 1850 
 1851 
 1852 
 1853 
 1854 
 1855 
 185G 
 1857 
 1858 
 1859 
 1860 
 1861 
 1862 
 1863 
 1864 
 1865 
 1866 
 1867 
 1868 
 1869 
 1870 
 1871 
 
 Number 
 
 Highest 
 
 of flasks. 
 
 price. 
 
 7,723 
 
 $114. 75 
 
 27, 779 
 
 76.50 
 
 20, 000 
 
 61.20 
 
 22, 284 
 
 55. 45 
 
 30, 004 
 
 55. 45 
 
 33, 000 
 
 55.45 
 
 :iO, 000 
 
 51. 65 
 
 28, 204 
 
 53.55 
 
 31,000 
 
 49.75 
 
 13, 000 
 
 76.50 
 
 10, 000 
 
 57.35 
 
 35, 000 
 
 49.75 
 
 42, 000 
 
 38.25 
 
 40, 531 
 
 45.90 
 
 47, 489 
 
 45.90 
 
 53, 000 
 
 45.00 
 
 46, 550 
 
 57.35 
 
 47, 000 
 
 45.90 
 
 47. 728 
 
 45.90 
 
 33,811 
 
 45.90 
 
 30, 077 
 
 68.85 
 
 31, 686 
 
 68.85 
 
 Lowest 
 price. 
 
 $84. 15 
 57.35 
 55.45 
 55.45 
 55.45 
 51.65 
 51.65 
 45.90 
 45.90 
 49.75 
 49.75 
 34.45 
 34.45 
 38.25 
 45.90 
 45.90 
 45.90 
 45.90 
 45.90 
 45.90 
 45.90 
 57.35 
 
 Tear. 
 
 1872 
 1873 
 1874 
 1875 
 1876 
 1877 
 1878 
 1879 
 1880 
 1881 
 1882 
 1883, 
 1884 
 1885 
 1886 
 1887, 
 1888, 
 1889, 
 1890 
 1891, 
 1892 
 1893 
 
 Number 
 of flasks. 
 
 31,621 
 27, 642 
 27, 756 
 50, 250 
 75, 074 
 79, 396 
 63, 880 
 73, 684 
 
 59, 926 
 
 60, 851 
 52, 732 
 46, 725 
 31,913 
 
 32, 073 
 29, 981 
 
 33, 800 
 33, 250 
 25, 650 
 22, 015 
 25, 584 
 27, 000 
 
 (a) 
 
 Highest 
 price. 
 
 $66. 95 
 91.80 
 118. 55 
 118.55 
 53.55 
 44.00 
 35.95 
 34.45 
 84.45 
 31.75 
 29.10 
 28.50 
 35.00 
 32.00 
 39.00 
 48.00 
 48.00 
 50.00 
 58.00 
 51.00 
 44.00 
 40.00 
 
 Lowest 
 price. 
 
 $65. 00 
 68.85 
 91.80 
 49.75 
 34.45 
 SO. 60 
 29.85 
 25.25 
 27.55 
 27.90 
 27.35 
 26.00 
 26.00 
 28.50 
 32. 00 
 36.00 
 37.00 
 40. 00 
 49.00 
 42.00 
 36.00 
 36.00 
 
 a Xot yet known, but will probably be less than 1892. 
 
 A strong point which I wish to make is that with the increase of the California 
 production prices have declined; as it decreased prices advanced, showing Califor- 
 nia production has for forty-two years controlled the price of the world. 
 
 CLOCKS. 
 
 (Paragraph 173.) 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., December 30., 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 In April, 1895, we started the manufacture of cuckoo clocks, an article 
 •which before that time was imported altogether. As the clocks made 
 of American wood stand this climate a great deal better than the 
 imported ones, the latter warping and sj)litting all to pieces in a year 
 or two, we think we ought to be protected in i^roducing a superior 
 article for the American people. 
 
 We have established a good trade in these clocks in this short space 
 of time, but unless we are protected by a higher tariff we will not be 
 able to carry on this new industry without losses. 
 
 In our opinion a duty of 45 per cent, such as was on clocks before 
 1894, would be the right thing, and would enable our American work- 
 men to comi)ete successfully with the cheaper labor in Europe. 
 
 American Cuckoo Clock Co., 
 Per Lewis Beeitingek, Secretary.
 
 468 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 ZINC. 
 
 (Paragraph 174.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE EDES, MIXTER & HEALD ZINC 
 COMPANY, OF TENNESSEE. 
 
 Plymouth, Mass., January 7, 1897. 
 Dear Sir : I beg to call your atteution to the fact tliatiiio zinc spelter 
 has been produced in the State of Tennessee since the reduction of the 
 tariff in 1894. Up to the time of tlie Wilson bill the Edes, Mixter and 
 Heald Zinc Compau5''s works had been run continuously twelve years, 
 and we were contemplating enlarging our works. Had already just 
 finished building one new block of furnaces when we <vere obliged to 
 shut down on account of the low price of spelter. Our company has 
 $200,000 invested in zinc properties in Tennessee, all lying idle. We 
 sincerely hope and trust that the duties on zinc spelter will be increased. 
 
 Edes, Mixter & Heald Zinc Co., 
 Jason W. Mixter, President. 
 
 combun atio:n^ plier. 
 
 (Paragraph 177.) 
 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, December 29, 1896. 
 
 Dear Sir: We have made for a few years a combination plier, as 
 represented by inclosed cut. These cost us, apiuoximately, 87.50 per 
 dozen, being made of the finest tool steel and by the very best work- 
 men, fully 95 i)er cent of the cost being labor. These goods have been 
 copied in Germany and France, and since the reduction of the tariff 
 similar goods have been imported into this country in immense quan- 
 tities, glutting the market with low-priced goods to the deterioration 
 of the American-made goods. From what we can learn from the trade 
 these imported goods must cost the importer less than $G per dozen 
 delivered in New York. The imiiorter sells them at a less price than 
 it costs us to manufacture them. We can very easily compete with 
 European manufacturers, provided we have a labor scale of wages on 
 the same basis. But as we must pay an average of $15 a week for the 
 same labor that is hired in Europe for between 60 and $8, we stand no 
 show whatever with the i)resent tarilf. Had we had a 50 per cent or 
 60 per cent duty during the last few years instead of the low one as at 
 present, we believe that in spite of the hard times we could have had 
 from ten to twenty more men and boys at work on this one article 
 alone. 
 
 One of three things is absolutely necessary, we honestly believe, for 
 the interests of the manufacturing element of the country — either a 
 sufficient tariff to allow American manufacturers to pay the present 
 wages, a deduction of 50 per cent in the wages, or else a closing up of 
 two-thirds of the manufacturing plants of this country. 
 
 Manufactured goods, whose cost, as in our case, is princi])ally labor, 
 we believe should be highly protected. We have no objection what- 
 ever to our home competition, because they must pay practically the 
 same for labor that we i)ay. But while we can make finer and better
 
 HAND-MADE SHOE PINCERS. 469 
 
 goods than the Europeans, we find the American dealer very unpatri- 
 otic in that he will buy an imported article in jireferenee to one Amer- 
 ican made, even at only a very slight difference in favor of the importer. 
 We trust the committee in charge of the new tariff bill will be able to 
 give to the American workman the protection that he needs. 
 
 The Cincinnati Tool Co. 
 
 ILAJND-MADE SHOE PI:N^CEES. 
 
 (Paragraph 177). 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY FRANK W. WHITCHER & CO., OF 
 
 BOSTON. 
 
 C03OIITTEE ON Ways and Means: 
 
 Having for a number of years been interested in the manufacture of 
 patented shoe jjincersfor lasting boots and shoes, at Beverly, N. J., and 
 as the business has declined considerably of late, owing to the intro- 
 duction into shoe factories of lasting machines, we have given our 
 attention recently to the question of making what is commonly known 
 as the English hand-forged j)incers, for repairing and other leather 
 work, and thinking that if we could include that branch we would be 
 able to keep our men busy and employ others where now we are unable 
 to do so. 
 
 The English pattern pincers have never been made in this country on 
 account of their cheapness, and although we have attempted to get up 
 a few to compare the cost of production we found the cost so much 
 against us that we concluded it impossible to continue making them 
 unless we could have a protection which would enable us to compete 
 with the English. 
 
 The principal item of expense in making these goods is the labor, as 
 steel costs but little, and while we do not pay our men more than reason- 
 able wages yet weare informed it is fully twice what English workmen get. 
 
 The duty is now 35 per cent on them aud below we give you the cost 
 of English goods landed here, duty paid : No. 00 and No. 0, $2.57; No. 
 1, $2.7G ; No. 2, $3.01 ; No. 3, $3.18 ; No. 4, $3.35 ; No. 5, $3.70, per dozen. 
 
 The goods which we have made have been of the same pattern, but a 
 better finish, and the actual cost of those was as follows : No. 00 and 
 No. 0, $1.50; No. 1, $5.50; No. 2, $5.50; No. 3, $6; No. 4, $6; No. 5, $6.50, 
 per dozen. 
 
 This of course is very much above the English, but had we made the 
 same quality as the English the cost would have been about $1 per 
 dozen less. 
 
 These costs are based on a very small quantity, and we feel confident 
 that if we could have a protection which would equal 60 per cent ad 
 valorem, or $1.25 per dozen specific duty, we could develop methods 
 which would enable us to reduce the cost so that we could supply our 
 make at the the same prices the English could be brought in for, and 
 we believe that our make of goods would have the preference. 
 
 We also think that ours would be superior to the English. 
 
 This difference would not necessitate any material change in the 
 price to the purchaser, and we would give them a more durable article. 
 
 These i)incers are sold to the shoe- findings trade, aud are also used 
 in some other branches than the shoe business.
 
 470 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 All of the English make are hand forged, and we should have to 
 make them here the same way with the exception of forming and mak- 
 ing the teeth, but it is a matter of transferring the work from England 
 to this country and gi^^ng a larger number of men employment. 
 
 F. W. Whitchee & Co. 
 
 TEN^ FOIL AKD BOTTLE CAPS. 
 
 (Paragraph 177.) 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., January 8, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 In view of prospective changes in the tariif law which may affect 
 our business, we beg leave to make the following statement: 
 
 We manufacture a foil of which lead constitutes the chief com- 
 ponent part, also bottle caps, consisting chielly of lead. Any increase 
 of the duty on pig lead witliout a corresponding increase of the ad 
 valorem duty on our manufacture would j^lace us at great disadvantage 
 in competing with the foreign manufacturers, who have already an 
 advantage in the way of cheaper labor. 
 
 The above-mentioned manufactures are not especially provided for 
 in the tariff act, but are included in the miscellaneous manuiactures, 
 paragraph 177 of the Wilson bill, dutiable at 35 i)er cent ad valorem. 
 
 The average price of i)ig lead in London at ])resent is 2i cents per 
 pound. On this basis, if the present duty of one cent per pound on 
 pig lead renuiius uiu-hanged. the ad valorem duty should be 40 per cent 
 to equalize the specific <luty; and a corresponding increase in case the 
 specitic duty be increased: For instance, if the duty on pig lead be 
 increased to li cents i)er x>ound, the ad valorem duty on above manu- 
 factures should be GO per cent. 
 
 The above products not boiug esi)ecially provided for, it is desired 
 that they be classified as follows: 
 
 Foil such as is used hy tobacconists, manufactured from metals 
 
 or their alloys 50 per cent ad val. 
 
 Bottle caps, such as arc, used by ]ierfuniers and bottlers, manu- 
 factured from metals or their alloys 50 per cent ad a al. 
 
 Patent Metal Company, 
 Thos. E. Casseleerry, Manaqcr. 
 
 STEEL BUTTOXS AINT) BXTCIvJLES. 
 
 (Paragraph 177.) 
 
 PETITION OF AMERICAN STEEL BUCKLE COMPANY AND THE 
 ALMA BUTTON COMPANY, OF BALTIMORE. MD. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The American Steel Buckle Company and the Alma Button Company 
 respectfully submit the following facts and figures, upon which they 
 base their appeal for relief, for your consideration: 
 
 Shortly after the passage of the tariif bill of October 1, 1890, com- 
 monly known as the jMcKmley bill, there were established in the city 
 of Baltimore valuable plants for the manufacture of steel buttons and
 
 STEEL BUTTONS AND BUCKLES. 471 
 
 buckles. This was the first attempt to produce steel buttons aud buckles 
 in the Uuited States. The act of 1890 offered an opportunity for the 
 enterprise of our citizens in this branch as in most other departments 
 of industry. A duty of 45 i)er cent ad valorem, which seemed to offset 
 in a measure the tremendous difference in labor cost between Germany 
 and the United States, temi)ted your petitioners to invest a large sum 
 of money in establishing a new industry. The machinery required for 
 the economic production of steel buttons and buckles could not be 
 obtained in the United States aud had to be imj^orted from Germany. 
 Our Government immediately levied a duty of 35 per cent uj^on the 
 machinery, which we had to im^^ort, and one of your petitioners paid for 
 the duty on his plant alone the sum of $2,994.65. The act of August 
 28, 1894, known as the Wilson bill, reduced the duty from 45 to 35 per 
 cent ad valorem, and the expansion and development of this new indus- 
 try, with the consequent employment of our people, were checked. 
 
 OUR EXCEPTIONAL DISADVANTAGES. 
 
 Steel buttons and buckles are a highly finished and polished product 
 that pass through not less than fifteen hands in the course of manufac- 
 ture and require more labor and more skilled labor than any other class 
 of button or buckle. In spite of this they are unelassitied and are 
 brought under miscellaneous articles manufactured from iron or steel. 
 The only explanation that can be given why steel buttons and buckles 
 have been overlooked when all other grades of buttons have been 
 specifically considered is that it is a new industry and was not in exist- 
 ence at the time of the passage of the McKiuley bill. Steel buttons 
 and buckles have never therefore received the attention of Congress. 
 
 HOW THE WILSON BILL WORKS. 
 
 We have experienced what the Ways and ISIeans Committee in their 
 report of April IG, 1890 (^STo. 146G), allege — goods are imported into and 
 sold in this country for less than they can be manufactured for abroad 
 after allowing for duty, showing that flagrant undervaluati< ns are tak- 
 ing place. We would especially call the attention of the committee to 
 the minority report of the Ways and Means Committee, filed December 
 19, 1893 (Keport No. 324), in which they say, at page 19, "An ad valorem 
 duty, as the name imples, is one which varies according to the price. 
 If prices could be exactly determined nothing would seem to be fairer 
 than an ad valorem duty. But unfortunately prices are very much mat- 
 ters of opinion, in which honest men may differ much and rogues much 
 more. Inasmuch as the duty depends on the price, a cheat on the price 
 is a cheat on the duty. If a piece of goods is wortli $0 a yard and the 
 duty is 25 per cent, the correct duty is 81.50. If the price be invoiced 
 at 85 a yard and the fraud not detected the duty collected becomes 
 81.25, and the ad valorem, which seems to be 25 per cent, becomes about 
 20 per cent, aud not only is the Government cheated out of its quarter 
 of a dollar, but the manufacturer is cheated out of one fifth of the pro- 
 tection his Government has promised him. So great have been the 
 objections in actual American practice to the ad valorem duties that 
 among the names which can be cited against it are some of the most 
 illustrious in American historj- — Hamilton, Gallatin, Crawford, Web- 
 ster, and Van Buren, with Buchanan and Daniel Manning. Such, too, 
 has been the exijerience of all other nations, and their tariff bills show
 
 472 
 
 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 such an exclusion of ad valorem duties as makes even tlie act of 1890 
 seem objectionable on that veiy account. That the example given 
 above of a piece of goods lowered from $6 to $5 is reasonable, is evi- 
 dent from this very bill, where an undervaluation has to reach 40 per 
 cent, which in this case would be from $6 to 83.60, in order to create 
 presumption of fraud." 
 
 Ad valorem duties are mere inducements for fraud, and fail to attain 
 the end desired. What is needed is a graduated specific duty. 
 
 AMOUNT OF DUTY REQUIRED. 
 
 All the imported steel buttons and buckles are made in Germany, 
 and especially in the mountainous districts of the province of West- 
 phalia. The difference in wages paid to the i)easantry inhabiting the 
 mountains of Westphalia and those paid the American laborer are 
 astonishing, as will appear from the following table of wages: 
 
 Scale of toages per tveek. 
 
 Die makers 
 
 Engravers 
 
 Pressmen 
 
 Stampers 
 
 Process men , 
 
 Dyors 
 
 Anuealers 
 
 Unskilled labor (boys) 
 Unskilled labor (girls) . 
 
 Average wages . . 
 
 In Germany. 
 
 ^-^- ^ieT^^- 
 
 32 
 •10 
 20 
 18 
 12 
 20 
 32 
 4-8 
 2-4 
 
 $8.00 
 10.00 
 5.00 
 4.50 
 3.00 
 5.00 
 8.00 
 $1.00-2.00 
 . 50-1. 00 
 
 In United 
 States. 
 
 $25. 00 
 
 30.00 
 
 12. 00 
 
 9.00 
 
 8.00 
 
 15.00 
 
 15.00 
 
 $2. 00-5. 00 
 
 2. 00-5. 00 
 
 5.03 
 
 13.44 
 
 We pay more than 250 per cent more to our employees than do the 
 German manufacturers. 
 
 As before stated, our jjroduct is highly finished and polislied, the so- 
 called raw material, whicli is steel in t'oil, enters only nominally into 
 the cost of the finished and polished button or buckle. Unlike other 
 buttons, the manufacture of which is a simple process, and in which 
 the material forms a large i)art of the cost, our i)r()duct is the result of 
 numerous processes. By actual calculation the cost of labor to com- 
 plete the bntton or buckle from the steel, omitting all other labor costs, 
 is more than 6(5^ i)er cent of the cost of the finished button or buckle. 
 In all our tariff bills additional duties have been imposed where the 
 articles were tempered, dyed, colored, polished, blued, or brightened, 
 to allow for the difference in the cost of the labor on tlie same — as 
 much as 25 per cent was allowed in the McKinley bill for the additional 
 cost of producing tempered over untempered metals. In this case the 
 product is tempered, colored, polished, blued, and brightened. To place 
 us in a position to successfully compete with the German manufacturer 
 aiKl pay American wages, we ask for the imposition of the following 
 duty: 
 
 Steel buttons — made of iron or steel — 50 cents per great gross on 
 buttons up to and including L*7 line buttons of a measurement of 40 
 lines to the inch, and in addition thereto 35 per cent ad valorem; and 
 for every additional line, 1 ceut per great gross in addition to the afore- 
 said duties.
 
 THIMBLES. 473 
 
 Buckles made wholly or partly of iron or steel, of all kinds, or parts 
 thereof, wholly or partly manufactured, valued at not more than 5 cents 
 per 100, 2 cents per 100; valued at more than 5 cents and not more 
 than 8 cents \)er 100, 3 cents per 100 ; valued at more than 8 cents and 
 not more than 10 cents per 100, 4 cents per 100; valued at more than 
 10 cents and not exceeding 15 cents f)er 100, 5 cents per 100; valued at 
 more than 15 cents and not more than 25 cents per 100, 6 cents per 100; 
 valued at more than 25 cents and not exceeding 30 cents per 100, 7 
 cents per 100 ; valued at more than 30 cents and not more than 35 cents 
 per 100, 8 cents per 100 ; valued at more than 35 cents and not more 
 than 50 cents per 100, 10 cents per 100; valued at more than 50 cents 
 per 100, 15 cents per 100 ; and in addition thereto on each and all of 
 the above buckles or parts of buckles 35 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 EFFECT OF INCREASED DUTIES. 
 
 It is simply a question whether this industry is to be encouraged 
 and developed, thereby giviug employment to hundreds of our people, 
 or whether our plants are to be abandoned, our employees thrown out 
 of employment, and the work done abroad. The consumer is not affected 
 by the change of tariff. 
 
 The average selling price — the cost to the clothing manufacturers — 
 is $2 per great gross. The small fraction of a cent of a possible 
 increase of price which might result for a time until this industry is 
 solidly established can not increase the retail price of buttons or 
 buckles or the price of garments. 
 
 THIMBLES. 
 
 (Paragraph 177.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY D. PRATT, OF THE UNION CITY 
 THIMBLE COMPANY. 
 
 Union City, Conn., January 6, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 Our factory has not averaged two days per week under the Wilson 
 bill. The alteration in the tariff from 45 to 35 per cent ad valorem shut 
 out our help from labor and ourselves from the fruits thereof. The 
 Germans are our bugbears in this market. They were bad enough under 
 the McKinley bill, and now have the market. This does not arise so 
 much from the amount of the tariff as it does in the system of evading 
 under the ad valorem duties. There is only one remedy for this, and this 
 we resijectfully ask the committee to give us — specific duties on these 
 goods. We then shall be able to hold our own against all comers, and 
 the Government will also insure what the tariff' calls for: so we both 
 shall derive benefit. We have had a sorry time under the Wilson bill. 
 
 D. Pratt, 
 The Union City Thimble Co.
 
 474 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 SURGICAL rN^STEUMEKTS. 
 
 (Paragraph 177.) 
 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., January 8, 1S97. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Our business, the mauufacture of surgical iustruineuts, has suffered 
 much under the Wilson bill. The bare tacts art these: The reduction 
 of the tariff on our line of goods caused a glut of German goods in this 
 market at ruinous i^rices, on long and unreasonable credit, thus reduc- 
 ing the output here as far as we are concerned to about one-third of the 
 volume of a few years ago. We have kept the wages of those em- 
 ployed by us at the same figures in hopes that legislation would place 
 such duty on our goods as to enable us to compete against foreign labor, 
 which is paid about 50 per cent of what we have to pay; and as the 
 labor is the principal item of cost of goods in our line, the present rate 
 of duty is inadequate to warrant a continuation of manufacturing of 
 surgical intruments in the United States. 
 
 We would respectfully request that you consider the feasibility of 
 advancing the duty on surgical instruments to at least 00 per cent ad 
 valorem. While this would not supply the dillerence in wages paid, 
 still it would help to encourage the industry here, and thus increase the 
 number of those employed. 
 
 Shepakd & Dudley. 
 
 cotto:n^ machtnery. 
 
 (Paragrapli 177.) 
 
 Saturday, January 9, lSf)7. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM F. DRAPER, A REPRESENTATIVE 
 FROM MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Mr. Draper said: IVIr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 I simply desire to submit a memorial from certain buiUlers of machinery 
 dutiable under paragraph 177, Schedule C, and 1 would be glad to have 
 the committee consider it when that schedule is reached : 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 "We, the imdersiguetl, builders of American cotton machinery, respectfully present 
 to your liouorable body the following statement of facts relating to our industry, 
 with the desire to aid you in your consideration of our interests in your iireparation 
 of ii revised tariti' bill. 
 
 In the present law cotton machinery is classed in Schedule C, clause 177. "Manu- 
 factured articles or wares not especially provided for in this act, composed wholly 
 or in part of any metal, and whether partly or wholly manufactured, '6b per cent ad 
 valorem." 
 
 For a long period prior to the present law the rate of duty remained at 4.') per 
 cent. It was not increased by the McKinlcy bill. That rate was not prohibitive, 
 nor did it materially restrict importations, which were large and aft'orded consider- 
 able revenue. This foreign competition has so far restricted the profits of American 
 cotton-machinery builders that very little new caj)ital has been attracted to this 
 industry. 
 
 It would appear, upon a careful consideration of the question, that there are good 
 reasons why our industry should be protected, and jiermanently maintained in a 
 healthful condition. 
 
 The character of workmen employed is of the highest order in morals, intelligence, 
 and skill, so that they form a class of valuable citizens. 
 
 Cotton-machinery manufactories have been for lifty years the nurseries and tr.ainiug 
 schools from which many of the best mechanics in this country have graduated, who 
 have become leaders in the development of our national resources.
 
 COTTON MACHINERY. 475 
 
 Cotton-machinery bnilders have furnished invaluable aid to our Government in 
 times of perils l>y inventing and improving machinery for the equipment of arsenals, 
 and by makiug great numbers of muskets and other implements of war, at a time 
 ■svhen foreign vendors of such articles were taking undue advantage of our dire 
 necessities, by demanding exorbitant prices. 
 
 The great strides which have been made in the improvement of cotton spinning 
 during the past twenty-five years Avere the results of the inventions of American 
 mechanics, developed by American capital and labor. 
 
 We instance the fact tliat the latest imi^roved spinning frames, which have recently 
 been built by New England shops for (Southern mills, have a |n'oducing capacity 
 80 to 100 per cent greater than those which were built twenty-live years ago. and 
 are now being sold at 25 or 30 per cent lower prices than similar machines, with less 
 producing capacity, were sold at the fonner period. 
 
 To the American cotton-machinery builders belongs the credit of this most valu- 
 able contribution to cotton manufacturing, the reduction in prices of all cotton 
 fabrics tothe people, the enlarged consumption of cotton, and the consequent increase 
 of the material jn-osperity of the whole country. 
 
 The value of some of these American inventions is attested by their adoption by 
 the English machinery builders, who advertise them as inducements to purchase 
 their products at home and abroad. 
 
 Labor constitutes the chief element of cost in our industry; taking all lines of 
 cotton machinery together it probably averages from 50 to 75 per cent of the cost. 
 
 The wages avo ])ay average about double those which are paid by English cotton 
 machinery builders; that is, it appears, from the best obtainable evidence, that the 
 actual labor cost on the same machines is aljout one-half as much in England as it 
 is here. From the foregoing facts, we think the following conclusions can fairly be 
 drawn : 
 
 That whatever protection is granted us by the National Government is mainly the 
 l^rotection of American labor of a most desirable clas-;. 
 
 That it is a wise i)olicy to properly protect an industry which does so much to 
 cheapen the cost of one of the great necessities of life to the common people, and 
 contributes so largely to the groAvth and Avealth of our country. 
 
 That we have never enjoyed any special favoritism from the Government by tariff 
 legislation, the rates of duty having always been so low that a very large propor- 
 tion of the cotton machinery used in our country has been imported. 
 
 That the higher cost of our labor makes protective duties an absolute necessity. 
 
 That in the interest of the great cotton industry of our country, and particularly 
 its development in the cotton-growing States, we should be sustained and encour- 
 aged as a most important factor in this line of progress of the nation. 
 
 That we do not enrich ourselves at the expense of the common people; but, on 
 the contrary, we contribute to their comfort, and reduce the cost of their household 
 goods and clothing, 1)esides giving many of them healthful employment ami means 
 of support and education, Avithout receiving inordinate gains from our cajntal and 
 work. 
 
 As the result of these conclusions, we respectfully petition your honorable body to 
 restore our old rate of 45 per cent, which prevailed' beibre anil during the McKiuley 
 bill, which we believe, under all the circumstances, to be reasonable and Just to 
 buyers, importers, and ourselves. 
 
 Masox Machine Works, 
 
 W.Ai, H. Bent, Treasurer, Taunton, Mass. 
 
 LoAA'ELL Machine Shop, Lou-ell, Mass., 
 ByRoi3T. H. Stea'enson, Treasurer, Boston. 
 
 AVhitin Machine Works, 
 
 C. W. Lasall, President, indtinsrille, 2Iass. 
 
 Geo. H. Draper & Sons, Hopedale, Mass. 
 
 Davis «fc Fcrber Machine Company, 
 
 Geo. G. Daa'is, Treasurer, North Andover, Mass. 
 
 Saco Water Poaver Machine Shop, 
 
 Spencer W. Richardson, Treasurer, Biddeford, Me. 
 
 Pettee Machine Works, 
 By Frank .T, Hale, Agent, Xetvton Upper Falls, Mass. 
 
 Woonsocket Machine and Press Company, 
 By Malcolm Campbell, General Manager. 
 
 Providence Machine Company, 
 By William C. Peirce, Treasurer, Providence, R. I. 
 
 Fall River Machine Company, 
 By Geo. H. Bcsh, Treasurer, Fall Paver, Mass. 
 
 KiTSON Machine Company, 
 By Haa'en C. Perham, Treasurer, Lowell, Mass. 
 
 Fales & Jenks Machine Company, 
 By Stephen A. Jenks, Treasurer, Patvtuclet, R. I.
 
 476 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 METALLIC BEDSTEADS. 
 
 (Paragraph 77.) 
 
 Mr. Eussel (Connecticut) of the committee submitted the following 
 letter from the Wliitcomb Metallic Bedstead Company, of Derby, Conn. : 
 
 Derby, Conn., December S2, 1896. 
 
 Dear Sir: I "n-ould say that the tariff on furniture of metal, which was 45 per 
 cent under the Mclviuley bill and which was the same under the act even prior to 
 the McKiuley hill, was a satisfactory and fair rate of duty and should never have 
 been reduced. It was (satisfactory to us and not an excessive tarilf, and it is our 
 desire that this rate should be restored. 
 
 Under the present bill there is a great deal of evasion practiced and goods are sent 
 in in parts and in an unfinished state so as to reduce their valuation, and the impor- 
 tation of these goods at present represents almost exclusively the surplus product of 
 foreign manufacturers dumped upon this market on undervalued invoices and at 
 prices which upset everything here. 
 
 We do not want a prohibitory tariff, but we do want a reasonable protective tariff, 
 and a 45 per cent ad valorem is low enough. The tarilf would seem to be of necessity 
 an ad valorem one, as it can not be made specific very conveniently. Could a specific 
 one be levied intelligibly, it would be preferable, but styles, etc., vary so greatly that 
 a specific duty would be almost impossible. As before stated, this whole subject was 
 gone over and made a matter of record before the Ways and Means Committee of 
 which Mr. Wilson was chairman and the arguments made at that time cover the case 
 to-day. 
 
 The Whitcomb Metallic Bedstead Co., 
 W. O. Whitcomb, President. 
 
 BOLTES^G CLOTHS. 
 
 (Paragraphs 177 and 407.) 
 
 jSTew Yokk City, December IJ, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We respectfully invite your consideration to what the wire-weaving 
 trade in general considers a flaw in i)liraseology of ])revious acts 
 repeated in (numercally varying) sections, though verbatuni in words 
 in several successive acts. 
 
 We feel that upon perusal of our argument j'ou will appreciate that 
 the simple addition of a word will best subserve the interests of tlie 
 Government and confer reasonable protection to a widely extended 
 industry. 
 
 We quote the sections entire from the act of August 28, 1894, for 
 ready reference : 
 
 407 (of the free list). Bolting cloths, especially for milling purposes, but not suit- 
 able for the manufacture of wearing apparel. 
 
 Act of August 28, 1894: 177. Manufactured articles or wares, not specially pro- 
 vided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of any metal, and wbether partly 
 or wholly uumufactured, thirty-five per centum ad valorem. 
 
 As widely as these provisions are removed in classification of mate- 
 rial, conflicts occur in interpretation by customs officials, although the 
 substance of both has been embodied in successive acts since 1857. By 
 the act of that year bolting cloth (meaning silk) was placed on the free 
 list. It was not then, nor is it now, to our knowledge, manufactured 
 in this country. 
 
 We do not oppose its free entry, because it does not seriously compete 
 with wire cloth, which has largely superseded it hy reason of various 
 features of sujieriority. At the periocl mentioned, wire weaving in the 
 United States was in conii)arative infancy, the product being largely 
 confined to coarse screenings.
 
 BOLTING CLOTHS. 477 
 
 By the term boltiug cloth then, as now, was and is meant silk, and 
 none other material, a provision in the paragraph carefully excluding 
 from free entry of sillv ''suitable for the manufacture of wearing 
 apparel." (See paragraphs 298 to 302, act of August 28, 1894.) 
 
 Now, under paragraph 177, act of August 28, 1894, we import at a 
 duty of 35 per cent ad valorem certain grades of fine composition metal 
 wire cloth, which we can make, but not so cheaply as purchasable 
 abroad, even with duty added. We are content that the present rate 
 of duty shall remain in operation. 
 
 Our grievance is based on one circumstance, which we cite as illus- 
 trative of perversion of legislative intent, revenue lost, and domestic 
 industry imx)eriled. 
 
 Some months ago there was imported a quantity of composition- 
 metal wire cloth. The collector, in conformity with practice and i)rece- 
 dent under paragraph 177, act of August 28, 1894, correctly imposed a 
 duty of 35 per cent. The importers took exception, appealed from the 
 decision to the Board of Appraisers on grounds of free entry, para- 
 graph 407 same act, bolting cloth, and said board, after hearing testi- 
 mony of which none was contributed by the wire-weaving trade, put a 
 literal interpretation on the paragraph referred to and reversed the 
 collector's decision. 
 
 We, conjointly with the De Witt Wire-Cloth Company, the Wm. 
 Cabbie Excelsior Wire Manufactuiing Company, and F. G. Kichardson, 
 addressed a letter to the Treasury Department, sustaining the col- 
 lector's decision and dissenting from the reversal of such by the Board 
 of A])praisers. 
 
 Said protest was entertained, and we have a communication from the 
 Department, dated November 25, advising that under the circum- 
 stances set forth the collector had been instructed to tile an applica- 
 tion for review of the decision, and pending judicial determination to 
 im])ose a duty of 35 per cent ad valorem on all composition-metal wire 
 cloths, whether (jualitied on invoices as bolting cloth or otherwise. 
 
 The case is now on the calendar, and from testimony which Me shall 
 offer, we think a decision will be reached favorable to the legislative 
 intent of paragraph 407, irrespective of its phraseology, and serve as a 
 precedent until the precise meaning may be pronounced by revisiouary 
 wording. 
 
 At its best, the term "bolting cloth" is ambiguous. The act of 1857 
 recognized it as " suitable for milling i)urposes," and the testimony given 
 to secure the appraisers' reversal of the collector's decision was such 
 as to imply its exclusiveness of use in sieving crushed cereals or flour. 
 Woven-wire fabrics, while used extensively by flour mills, are also used 
 in "bolting" (sieving) as filtering, scouring, conveying surfaces, for 
 steam jiacking, in sugar, rice, paper, drug, color, wood-pulp, lampblack, 
 gunpowder, starch, gypsum, sumac, emerj^ mica, phosphates, snuff, 
 coffee, flint, linseed, cotton-seed, cement, precious ores, and scores of 
 other industries. 
 
 Under the guise of bolting cloth and protected by the broad descrip- 
 tion in paragraph 407, metal-composition wire cloths may be imported 
 from abroad and entered for free entry to an enormous extent for use 
 of mills as above enumerated, to the detriment of Government revenue 
 and part destruction of the wire- weaving industry, in which, in New 
 York citv alone, is invested in its manufacture capital to the extent of 
 about $1,500,000. 
 
 The assistant appraisers, of course, are deficient in mechanical expert- 
 ness to discriminate bolting cloth of metal composition for flour mills
 
 478 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 and material of the same manufacture which is used for a multitude of 
 other "boltings" (sievings). 
 
 Iron and steel netting- are dutiable under paragraph 124 and are also 
 used for bolting, and any avenue for free entry of composition-metal 
 bolting cloth should be closed as a barrier to invidious distinction. 
 
 Howard & Morse. 
 
 AETiriCIAL ABRASr^^ES. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PITTSBURG CRUSHED STEEL 
 COMPANY, OF PITTSBURG, PA. 
 
 Pittsburg, Pa., January 11^ 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are manufacturers of an artificial abrasive, manufactured from 
 steel, the material being a substitute for quartz, emery, corundum, and 
 other natural abrasives. The cost of manufacture, labor and raw mate- 
 rial, based on results of seven years' business, is 3.7 cents per pound ; the 
 labor item in the manufacture of this material is a fraction over 3 cents 
 per pound, showing that labor constitutes the larger element in the 
 manufacture of this class of goods. 
 
 The European manufacturer, with his natural aptitude for piracy on 
 all good things made by the American manufacturer, took advantage 
 of tills class of material and is importing the same into this countrj^, 
 and we therefore ask that steel or iron abrasives, whether in a spheri- 
 cal or angular slmpe, should be classed specifically. By referring to 
 the tariff act of 1804, Schedule C, metal and manufactures of iron and 
 steel, jjaragraph 122 states : 
 
 And steel in all forms and shapes, not specially provided for in this act, of certain 
 yalues, shall be levied, etc. 
 
 Paragraph 177 : 
 
 Mannfactnred articles or Tvares, not specially provided for in this act, composed 
 wholly or in part of any metal, and whether partly or wholly mannfactnred, shall 
 be levied 35 per centnm ad valorem. 
 
 When the I^uropean manufacturer first started to import this steel 
 abrasive into the I'nited States, tlie survej'or of the !New York port 
 assessed this material under paragraph 177. The importer, to evade 
 as much duty as possible, insisted that there should be a levy for import 
 tax under paragraph 122, and to further evade the rate of duty insisted 
 that he should only be assessed under paragraph 122, and naturally 
 undervalued his invoices by i)roducing the manufacturers' bills, charg- 
 ing him for this material at a fictitious valuation. 
 
 The protest of the importer against the collector was allowed by the 
 United States General Board, reducing thereby the duty from 35 per 
 cent ad valorem to about 22J per cent. The surveyor, however, 
 appealed from this decision, and he was again reversed and again took 
 an appeal, which up to the present time has not been decided. The 
 importer in his claim strongly insisted that the steel abrasive was an 
 unmanufactured material, and was only partly manufactured. This, of 
 course, is not a fact, for, as we stated above, labor in producing this 
 steel abrasive constitutes the greater part of the cost. This material 
 is not a bj-product in any sense, but is produced from raw material in 
 merchantable shape for the specific purpose of an abrasive. 
 
 The European manufacturer, to evade as much duty as possible, has
 
 RAILROAD SUPPLIES. 479 
 
 even tried to bring this abrasive into this country under the guise of 
 steel filings, a by-product. 
 
 We hope that your committee will take into consideration that a 
 classification be given to artificial abrasives of any character, and that 
 a duty be placed upon the same specifically, not an ad valorem duty, 
 and a duty of at least 2 cents per pound, as the European manufacturer 
 can produce this material, on account of the excessive cheap labor at 
 his command and the cheapness of raw material, for about 2 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 Pittsburg Crushed Steel Co., Limited, 
 M. M. Kann, Secretary and Treasurer. 
 
 EAILKOAD SUPPLIES. 
 
 PROTEST OF REPRESENTATIVES OF RAILROAD COMPANIES 
 AGAINST INCREASE OF DUTIES. 
 
 Chicago, January 6^ 1897. 
 OoivrvnTTEE on Ways and Means: 
 
 W^hile it is a matter of common notoriety that the business of the 
 railroads in the United States, taken as a whole, has in recent years 
 given no adequate return upon the capital invested in them, it may not 
 be amiss to call your attention to the fact tliat the reports of the Inter- 
 state Commerce Commission show that during the year ended June 30, 
 1895, the owners of the 810,290,838,902 of railroad stocks and bonds 
 received only $337,800,163, being at the rate of 3.28 per cent per annum ; 
 and that these payments resulted in a deficit for the year of $29,815,211 ; 
 and farther, that the general balance sheet of all the railroads showed 
 during that year a decrease in the amount at the credit of profit and 
 loss of $53,572,917. 
 
 Those reports show further that the railways will be required during 
 the next few months to make very large outlays in order to comply 
 with the act of Congress requiring the use of automatic brakes and 
 couplers on their freight equipment on January 1, 1898. Unless the 
 provisions of this law be modified or the time extended, it will there- 
 fore be necessary for nearlj^ all of the railroads to still farther and 
 greatly curtail their expenditures for supplies during the coming season. 
 
 The distress which has so long affected the railroad interest is keenly 
 felt in many branches of trade. 
 
 Bad as the situation is, it is still to be hoped that the railroad com- 
 panies may be able to adjust their affairs to the conditions which Con- 
 gress and the State legislatures have seen fit to impose. Taken as a 
 whole, they can not stand further burdens. 
 
 I beg, therefore, on behalf of the Illinois Central Railroad Company, 
 the Yazoo and Mississippi Valley Eailroad Company, and of the Chesa- 
 l)eake, Ohio and Southwestern Railroad — which, together, are operat- 
 ing some 1,111 miles of railway in the Mississippi Valley — to urge upon 
 your committee and through them on the Congress that changes be not 
 made in the iron and steel tariffs, looking to an increase of duty on any 
 class of articles. 
 
 In this connection permit me to submit that there are classes or 
 articles of specially high character which are needed by the railroads 
 and consumed in considerable ([uautities which are not manufactured in 
 the United States, and that any increase in the duties on those articles
 
 480 SCHEDULE C. METALS AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 would simply add to tlie burdens of the railroads without benefiting 
 any domestic manufacturer. 
 
 These are, however, minor considerations. The main point is, that as 
 the railroad companies are staggering under grievous burdens and 
 carrying all they can, to impose upon them further would simply add 
 to the depression in general business and continue for a longer period 
 the distressing condition now so widely prevailing. 
 
 Stutvesant Fish, Fresident. 
 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 In behalf of the railways I represent 1 would ask that no advance be 
 made in the tariff on iron and steel goods used by railways, such as 
 rails, boiler steel, locomotive and car wheel tire«, steel-tired wheels, etc. 
 The duty certainly is enough to-day for protection, and if raised it would 
 only force the railways to pay more for the'r goods, which they can not 
 well afford under present circumstances to do. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 M. E. INGALLS, President, 
 
 RECrPBOCITY keco3^i:me:nt)ed. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE MIDVALE STEEL COMPANY, OF 
 
 PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 8, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 The Midvaie Steel Company respectfully appears before your com- 
 mittee to request that no change be made in the present schedules of the 
 tariff relating to the manufacture of metals and to the materials, either 
 raw or in a partly made state, which are used in the manufacture of 
 metals. 
 
 Premising that the object which the committee has in view is twofold : 
 First, the obtaining of sufiicient revenue to meet the requirements of 
 a Government wisely and economically administered; and, second, the 
 alleviation of the burden of the cost of living bearing most heavily on 
 those of our fellow-citizens who are least able to bear the load, because 
 of their not being sufficiently provided with means of subsistence and 
 who have to earn their daily wage by the labor of their hands: 
 
 The Midvaie 8teel Company ANn)uld represent to the honorable mem- 
 bers of the committee that any increase in the rate of duty on articles 
 imported into this country must necessarily diminish its revenue, 
 because it would shut oft' or diminish to a certain extent the importa- 
 tion of such articles. 
 
 On the other hand, by increasing the cost of the article to the con- 
 sumer to the extent of the increase of the tariff would diminish the 
 market for such articles and at the same time increase the cost of living. 
 
 The very objects, therefore, that the committee seeks to attain would 
 be defeated by any change of the tariff in the direction of any increase 
 of rates, but would be prom])tly and efficaciously reached by the dimi- 
 nution of the present existing duties. 
 
 While this additional tax might, to a small extent, increase the busi- 
 ness of the manufacturer, any profit coming to him in this i^idirect man- 
 ner must necessarily inure to his sole benefit, because the (juestion of 
 wages is one of supply and demand, and can not in any way be affected.
 
 RECIPKOCITY RECOMMENDED. 481 
 
 by tariff legislation, aud no manufacturer would i^ermit any false seuti- 
 nieiit to influence biin to pay the laborer one dollar more for wages than 
 the market supply of labor would warrant. 
 
 It is well known to the members of the committee that the price at 
 which nearly every article manufactured in this country is sold is not 
 based on its cost as much as it is fixed by agreements or understand- 
 ings between manufa(;turers, who regulate the amount of produ(;t and 
 the output of the factories, points of deliveries, and the jirices and terms 
 at which the manufactured article is sold. 
 
 The Midvalc Steel Company is engaged in the manufacture of steel 
 solely; and as an instance of the effect of the tariff" on its business, it 
 would mention that the price of tires (one of its products) ha«not been 
 affected in the slightest manner by the difference between the existing 
 tariff" (the Wilson bill) and the tariff formerly enforced, commonly 
 known as the McKinley bill. 
 
 Whereas the schedule under the former tariff law M-as 2^ cents per 
 pound and the base price of tires was 4 cents per pouud, to-day the 
 base price of tires is still 4 cents jier pound and the schedule is 1^ cents 
 per pound. 
 
 Nor has the Wilson bill aff'ected the number of tires manufactured in 
 this country to an^^ ai)i)reciable extent. The Midvale Steel Com])any 
 is the largest maker of this product in the United States and one of the 
 largest in the world; and its business has steadily increased from year 
 to year. 
 
 The chief importer of tires from abroad into this country is Fried 
 Krup]>, of Essen, and the tires of that maker are invariably sold at a 
 much higher figure than the price charged by the American makers to 
 the railroad companies, and his business would not be in anywise 
 alfected by any tariff' legislation. And any slight increase in the busi- 
 ness of this foreign corporation that may have taken place of late years 
 is due not to the action of the Wilson bill, but to the superior ability 
 of their New York agents in distributing the Krupp product, owing to 
 a change in the personnel of the firm of these agents, by which younger 
 men have come to the front and assumed the management of the 
 agency. 
 
 Another branch of manufacture in which the Midvale Steel Company 
 is engaged is steel castings. That the rate of duty on steel castings is 
 more than sufficient for the protection of this branch of industry in the 
 United States, is best evidenced by the fact that castings made of steel 
 are sold in England at between 30 and 50 per cent higher prices than 
 obtain in this country, and in France at over 100 per cent higher i)rices 
 than prevail in the United States, 
 
 The Midvale Steel Company is at present earnestly engaged in increas- 
 ing its trade abroad, and it greatly fears that any increase of duty in 
 the metal schedules, by exciting retaliatory measures on the part of 
 foreign nations, may have disastrous results to this new expansion of 
 trade. 
 
 While not wishing in any way to point out to your committee the 
 method by which American manufacturers might be encouraged, the 
 Midvale Steel Company would respectfully oft'er to the consideration of 
 its members the suggestion that by making such treaties with neigh- 
 boring friendly nations on a reciprocal commercial basis that would 
 induce them to build up a more intimate commercial intercourse with 
 the United States, the members of the committee would be doing a 
 patriotic act, and deserve well at the hands of their felloAv-citizeus. 
 
 The Midvale Steel Co., 
 By CiiAS. J. llANAH, President. 
 T H 31
 
 SCHEDULE D. 
 
 WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF WOOD, 
 
 481
 
 Schedule D -WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 :n^atio:n^al lumber interests. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. C. W. GOODYEAR, OF BUFFALO, N. Y. 
 
 Thursday, December 31, 1896. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear said: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Ways and 
 Means Committee: A number of gentlemen, including- myself, are here 
 as a delegation api^ointed by a convention of the lumbermen of the 
 United States, which met in Cincinnati, at an early day during the 
 present month. At that convention there were representatives from 
 nearly every section of the United States which is represented by the 
 lumber industry. That convention was called by two gentlemen who 
 represent the prominent lumber-trade i^apers, and in pursuance of the 
 call, as I have already stated, a very general assemblage of representa- 
 tives from various sections of the country met in convention at Cincin- 
 nati, and at that convention a committee of twenty to twenty-live 
 gentlemen was appointed to inesent the views of the lumbermen of the 
 United States upon the (question of a tariff bill. That committee met 
 in Washington yesterday, and it is preparing a memorial or written 
 statement of its views, which it desires to present to the Committee on 
 Ways and Means at a subsequent date. It is not yet fully in form, but 
 if you will grant us that time, we will be pleased to hand it to you in a 
 few days. 
 
 The Chairman. That can be done at any time between now and Mon- 
 day, the 11th. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Gentlemen, the recent events of the country — theelec- 
 tion of 1894, and the election of 189G — have convinced us, as I suppose 
 those events have convinced the entire country, that the protective idea 
 is toj^revail in this country at least for two years, or until another Con- 
 gress shall be elected. The emphatic verdict of the people on this prop- 
 osition assures us in the assumption that protection to American indus- 
 tries and American labor is to be one of the features of the incoming 
 Administration, and to be the policy of Congress until at least the people 
 shall render a verdict to the contrary. So, standing upon that basis — 
 that protection to American industries is to be the policy of the Govern- 
 meut — we are here to ask at your hands such protection as we think 
 we can reasonably and fairly demand. The industry which we rei)resent 
 is the largest of any single industry in the whole United States. 
 
 By the census of 1890 it was shown that there was invested in lumber 
 industries in the United States $750,000,000, and I think it is fair to 
 say, with the growth of the country and the natural growth of the 
 industry, which of late has been very slow indeed, that that investment 
 is equal to at least $1,000,000,000. Therefore, gentlemen, we are here, 
 as we claim, as representatives of one of the most important industries 
 in the whole United States, and of an industry that certainly, by reason 
 
 485
 
 486 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 of its magnitude and its general extent, is deserving of consideration at 
 your hands. There were employed at the time these figures as to the 
 extent of capital invested were made, at least 600,000 persons in the 
 lumber industry alone, and that, gentlemen, did not include the people 
 engaged in the retail trade, but purely those engaged in logging and 
 manufacturing and preparing the product for the market, and not for 
 distribution among the people generally; and this number of 000,000 
 o( our population does not include those who are engaged in the trans- 
 portation of this product either by water or by rail. We say not only 
 these 600,000 men of our population were engaged in this industry, but 
 in addition to that a very large percentage of our population is engaged 
 in the carrying trade of this product who are dependent directly upon 
 it for their'livelihood, and in addition there are still those men who are 
 engaged in the manufacture of machinery, of railroad material, locomo- 
 tives, cars, rails, and who are engaged in the manufacture of those arti- 
 cles, and numerous others that I need not mention, that are recpiired in 
 the business. So, gentlemen, 1 think it perfectly fair for us to say that 
 there are over 3,000,000 of our population, including those dependent 
 upon the toilers, who are directly rec<uving their livelihood from this 
 great and important industry which we represent. 
 
 Now, I will not take up your time to enlarge on this branch of the 
 subject. I think that the suggestions' 1 have already made arc amply 
 sufficient to indicate to you that we come here on no trilling aftair, but 
 we have something that is fully worthy of deep thought and fair con- 
 sideration. Now, with these outlines I desire to say one word in addi- 
 tion ^o far as the extent of the industry is concerned. We are not 
 confined to a single State; we are not confined to a single section of 
 our country, but our industry is as broad as the land itself. It extends 
 from the coast of Maine to California, from the northernmost limit of 
 our Union down to the very Gulf. We find that the lumber industry 
 is the leading industry in over thirty of our forty-five States, and we 
 find, where it is not the leading industry, it is in existence in everyone 
 of the States. Now, it is said that there is not a single State in the 
 Union that has not to some extent this industry within its limit. More 
 than thirty of the States claim it as their leading industry, and it 
 exists in every State and section of our country. Now, gentlemen, we 
 have had in the past tariff legislation. We have had ])rotection to 
 some extent for the competition which comes from foreign importations. 
 On examination of the various tarift" acts we find that under the tariff 
 bill of 1874 a tax was im])osed upon "timber, hewn or sawed; timber 
 used for building wharves, and sjiars, 20 per centum ad valorem.'' For 
 "timber, squared or sided, not otherwise i)rovi(led for, 1 cent per cubic 
 foot." For " sawed boards, planks, deals, and other lumber of hem- 
 lock, white wood, sycamore, and basswood, $1 per thousand feet, board 
 measure." 
 
 That was the tariff of 1874, and I wish particularly to call the atten- 
 tion of the gentlemen of this committee to the language that Avas used 
 in that subdivision: "Planks, deals, and other lumber of hemlock, 
 whitewood, sycamore, and basswood." Now, you will note there wi-re 
 two very important items of the lumber product left out of that section, 
 to wit, white pine and spruce. The next ])aragraph is, "All other 
 varieties of sawed lumber, §2 per thousand feet, board measure." So 
 under the act of 1874 there was imposed a tax upon white pine and 
 spruce and variety of other kinds of woods (but I mentioned those 
 two kinds on account of their im|)ortance) of 82 per thousand feet, but 
 upon hemlock, whitewood, basswood, and sj^camore the tax was put at
 
 NATIONAL LUMBER INTERESTS. 487 
 
 $1 per thousand feet. I have read enough of this tariff act for my 
 purpose, for the gentlemen whom I represent and whom we all repre- 
 sent are engaged chiefly in the manufacture of those two articles of 
 the lumber industry. ISow that act stood substantially as I have read 
 it until 1883, when there was a revision of the tariff act, and that time 
 there was a very slight change made in the act, which reads as follows: 
 
 Timber, hewn and sawed, and timber used for spars and in building wbarves, 
 twenty per tentum ad valorem. 
 
 Timber, squared or sided, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, one 
 cent ])er cubic loot. 
 
 Sawed boards, planks, deals, and other lumber of hemlock, wliitewood, sycamore, 
 and basswood, one dollar per thousand feet, board measure. 
 
 That was substantially the same as the act of 1874, 
 
 All other articlesof sawed lumber, two dollars per one thousand feet, Ijoard measure. 
 
 So in the act of 1883, under the revision, there was included in the 
 $1 tax provision hemlock, sycamore, whitewood, and basswood, and 
 all other lumber, including white i)ine and spruce, was taxed $2 per 
 thousand feet. Now, under the act of 1890, known as the McKinley 
 bill, the act provided, that — 
 
 Timber, hewn and sawed, and timber used for spars and in building wharves, ton 
 per centum ad valorem. 
 
 Timber, squared or sided, not specially provided for in this act, one-half of one 
 per tentum per cubic foot. 
 
 Sawed boards, planks, deals, and other lumber of hemlock, whitewood, sycamore, 
 white pine, and basswood, one dollar per thousand feet, board measure; sawed lum- 
 ber, not aiiecially provided for in this act, two dollars per thousand feet, board 
 measure. 
 
 Now, you will notice there under the act of 1890, known as the 
 McKinley bill, white pine was taken out of the provision that made 
 the tax |2 and put into tlie paragraph which made the tax only -$1 per 
 thousand feet, but spruce was lett still at $2, and as that came within 
 the language, " all other planks, deals, etc.," the spruce was not enu- 
 merated among the first mentioned. Now, under the act of 1894, 
 lumber was placed practically upon the free list. There were a few of 
 the articles of lumber Avhich were brought to a higher degree of manu- 
 facture which were taxed to a very limited extent, so that, gentlemen, 
 we have under the act of 1890 white pine ymt in tlie $1 division 
 and spruce, of all one of the leading items of lumber in the country, 
 taxed still $2 per thousand feet. Now, gentlemen, we are not here 
 to-day asking at your hands anything exorbitant, anything extraordi- 
 nary, or anything beyond what we deem a reasonable and a fair request. 
 What we substantially ask you for, without going into all the details of 
 the bill is, as we suggest in our written paper, that you ijlace white pine, 
 hemlock, basswood and sycamore, and all the other items which were 
 included in the $1 list, under the $2 rate. We can not understand why 
 the white pine, the hemlock, and those great staples of manufacture 
 should not receive as fair a consideration at your hands as spruce. 
 Spruce was taxed |2 per thousand under the McKinley bill and white 
 ])ine $1, and hendock $1. Now, if spruce is $2, why should not white 
 pine and hemlock and the other items be $2? 
 
 The Chairman. Kight at that point, if you will allow me, is the sup- 
 ply of white i)ine in this country ample for all our ijurposesl 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. It is as ample, I take it, as the spruce. 
 
 The Chairman. You think it is the same? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Or something that could take the place of it as 
 well. It has been found in actual experience that it is not necessary 
 to use in all instances white pine where it has been heretofore used.
 
 488 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 The Chairman. But it is used generally in linisliing? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. In a great many instances Southern pine has taken 
 the place of finishing in the place where white pine used to enter into 
 tlie finishing and beregarded as absolutely essential, and that is true 
 of hemlock also. The clearer grades of hemlock are to-day occupying 
 the place in some instances that white pine formerly occupied, so that 
 this question of taxation can not be confined, it strikes me, to the fact 
 of the scarcity of any particular item, for the reason there are many 
 varieties of other woods to take the place of that which may become 
 scarce. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, that being so, we can only divine one good reason 
 for this, and I say to you I believe that the lumbermen themselves are 
 chargeable with the condition of the tarilf bill. The State of Maine, 
 be it said to its everlasting credit, has always, so long as I can remem- 
 ber, been represented by the most eminent statesmen that the country 
 has produced. It had its James G. Blaine, than whom there was no 
 more devoted servant to the interests of his State, and to-day it has 
 within the halls of Congress Eepresentativos who stand in the foremost 
 rank of our nation's great men. It has its lieed, and if I were allowed 
 to whisper it, I would say it has its Dingley also; it has its Boutelle, 
 and it has men who have come here year after year looking after the 
 interests of their constituents, and you will notice in all tliese tariff agita- 
 tions during all the various changes through which these tariff sched- 
 ules have gone, spruce has at all times and forever remained in the $2 
 list. From 1874, with the change of 1873, and again with the change 
 of 1890 under the McKinley bill, I never failed to find the great product 
 of the State of Maine protected to the extent of the $L*. White pine 
 and h.emlock and basswood and sycamore and all the rest got only $1, 
 but through the vigilance, I may say, and the Justice of Maine's Kepre- 
 sentatives spruce has always been granted a tax of $2. 
 
 The CiiAii?MAN. Y^ou forget we are the Pine Tree State. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Without any pine, but with a whole lot of spruce, 
 and spruce tliat you can raise another crop of every thirty years. It is 
 unlike white pine and hemlock, which disappear practically when the 
 first crop is removed, but it grows rapidly to saw-log proportion in about 
 thirty years. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. How do you accimnt for the dropping of white pine 
 from the $2 list? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. The lumbermen are to blame — not their Kepresenta- 
 tives. I beg to say to you, gentlemen, until 1892 they never seemed to 
 have awakcMi from their lethargy. They came down here at that time, 
 but the tables were against them and the sentiment at that time was 
 decidedly against the protective idea, and they failed to accomplish what 
 they asked for. Now, I say to you, gentlemen, the lumbermen of this 
 country are aroused ; they have learned of the importance of the features 
 of a tariff bill better than they have ever known it before. They have 
 Ibund out under free trade as existing under the Wilson bill that their 
 industry has gone into decay, and to-day they are suflering from foreign 
 competition in such way as they never before have sufiered. They find 
 that throughout the United States the failures of lumbermen have been 
 of greater proportion than any other leading industry. Indeed, it 
 amounted to almost paralysis in some sections of the State of Michi- 
 gan and in the Northwest, and if one will take \\\) the pay rolls of the 
 inills of that country they will find that the pay rolls of labor up in that 
 country have fallen off more than 10 percent since this free-trade tariff 
 bill has been in operation.
 
 NATIONAL LUMBER INTERESTS. 489 
 
 J^ow, gentlemen, I say, therefore, we are not asking here any more 
 protection for the general lumber list than the spruce had under the 
 McKinley bill, and if you take the great States of Pennsylvania, Min- 
 nesota, Wisconsin, the great States of the South, Mississippi, Louisiana, 
 and all that great list of States on the Atlantic Coast that are produc- 
 ing lumber, jon, I think, will find that this industry throughout the 
 United States is not unreasonable in its demands, and it simply asks 
 of you to protect it to the extent that spruce has been protected in the 
 tariff bills heretofore. 
 
 The Chairman. And if spruce is made $1 you are content that the 
 rest shall be made $1 also"? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Not at all. We do not say you did wrong when you 
 taxed foreign spruce $2, but we do not want you to <lo Avrong by taxing 
 these other woods $1. 
 
 Mr. Dolliver. What countries compete with sycamore? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. It is used as a finishing wood. 
 
 Mr. Dolliver. I know, but what countries send it in here ? Canada, 
 perhai)s ? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. That is true. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiYER. I understood you to ask that hemlock, whitewood, 
 basswood, sycamore, white pine, and spruce be restored to the $2. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Yes, sir. Now, nearly every one of these items 
 received their competition from Canada. Now, the difference between 
 the conditions in the United States and the conditions in Canada, I 
 apprehend, are well known to you gentlemen, and I only desire to sug- 
 gest a few words concerning the Canadian industry. The conditions 
 prevailing there we find are very much more liberal to the lumbermen 
 of the country than in the United States. For instance, I mention 
 only one item in this connection. The United States Government has 
 established a price of $3 per acre for its stumpage on Government 
 lands, and while in those days, x>erhaps, the estimates and measure- 
 ments of that standing stumi^age were very liberal, indeed, to the pur- 
 chaser, to-day a very strict estimate and a very exact measurement is 
 made when the sales are contracted, and the United States Govern- 
 ment, therefore, in putting the price at $3 per thousand upon its stump- 
 age receives practically the full measurement and the full value at the 
 l)rice mimed. 
 
 Now, one other item or suggestion there, and it is this, that the 
 United States Government recpiires pay for the purchase of its stump- 
 ago when the contract is made. Now, what is the condition on the other 
 side ? The Crown lands, the Government lands of Canada, are disposed 
 of under their rules and regulations and they demand only 50 cents per 
 thousand for their lumber instead of $3 as our Government demands. 
 That 50 cents per thousand is not j)aid until the lumber is practically 
 ready for shipment from the mill. So, gentlemen, you see if a man in 
 the United States were to go into the lumber industry here and go and 
 purchase Government land, he would be compelled to pay $3 per thou- 
 sand at the very outset on the stumpage before he could start his 
 operations at all; and for the further reason, which 1 will suggest in 
 connection with this operation, he must build a sawmill, and before he 
 can build he must have stumpage, because the sawmill without the 
 stumpage is useless j therefore he is compelled to make his investment 
 in a sawmill and stumpage before he can proceed to operate at all, while 
 upon the other hand the Canadian Government says to him: "You 
 need not make any investment in stumpage at the outset at allj we will 
 make the contract with you for that stumpage and you may pay us
 
 490 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 when your lumber is practically ready lor shipment.'' Now, I ask you 
 if it is fair that this Government should demand this $3 per thousand 
 feet cash and ask us to compete with our foreign com])etitors who are 
 not asked to pay over the 50 cents per thousand until the lumber is 
 ready for shipment? 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVEii. Is there any large part of the lumber industry of 
 this country interested iu Government lands? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear.. Well, I do not know that there is any large part — 
 do you mean in this country? 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVEH. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Interested in Government lands? 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. No, I mean to say does any large part of the lumber 
 supply of the United States come from the public domain by this proc- 
 ess of buying the stumpage? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Ko, sir;- and I do not wish to be understood as con- 
 tending tliat. I have simply undertaken to present these facts as 
 showing the attitude of the two Governments toward their lumber 
 manufacturers, not for the purpose of stating to you that any consider- 
 able portion of our lumber men have contracts with the Government 
 tor Government stumpage, but to show you simply one illustration of 
 the ditterent conditions between our own lumbermen and the lumber- 
 men of Canada. 
 
 Ml'. Tawney. Is it not a fact the price fixed by the Government for 
 its stumpage virtually controls the price of all stumpage owned by 
 private in<lividuals ? 
 
 Mr. GooDY'EAR. So far as that is concerned, I am not familiar 
 enough 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Is not that the ordinary price in the Northwest? 
 
 Mr. Evans, it may be in that i)articular section. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. For instance, where t liere are any Government lands 
 in a particular locality the Government price in another locality would 
 have very little to do with it. It is the conditions which prevail in a 
 l)articular neighborhood which control it more largely. Mr. Gardiner, 
 did you wish to make a suggestion ? 
 
 Mr. Gardiner. I was going to call attention to a point. Mr. Good- 
 year has illustrated the difference of cost of the American going into 
 the business here and in Canada. If the Government charges 8"> ]>er 
 thousand feet for stumpage, and he wished to buy of a private i)erson, 
 he would have to pay as much or more. In Canada he can, at all times, 
 get it at the Crown price. 
 
 Ml'. Goodyear. I think the gentlemen understand the point I was 
 undertaking to make on that, and that is the attitude of the two Gov- 
 ernments toward their lumber manufacturers. In the one instance the 
 Canadian Government encourages the manufacture of lumber within its 
 borders by making the most liberal terms to i)eople wishing to engage 
 in that industry. They practically otter a premium to peoi»Ie to buihl 
 sawmills on the other side of the river and lakes, and as an inducement 
 for them to come over there and take their stumpage they are permitted 
 to buy at 50 cents per thousand, and they need not pay it until they 
 are ready for shipment. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. What is the difference between the tax on the stump- 
 age of Canada and the tax on the stumpage in the United States? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. I do not understand there is any tax on stumpage 
 in the United States purely as stumpage, but a tax ou the timber 
 land. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. It amounts to the same thing?
 
 NATIONAL LUMBER INTERESTS. 491 
 
 Mr. GrOOBYEAR. I should say the tax on timber lands in the United 
 States was very much in excess of the tax on timber lands in Canada, 
 but I can not give the exact price. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Is it not a fact the tax on Canadian stumpage is vir- 
 tually a nominal tax? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Yes, sir; that is true, and of course the timber 
 lands of the United States are valued in their respective localities by 
 the assessors of that locality at the full value, and taxation is imposed 
 upon them at the same rate as farm lands and other lands of the com- 
 munity are assessed, while over there the lands being (Tovernment 
 lands largely, they impose a very light tax, the valuations of the land 
 being of course very much less, therefore the taxation upon it would 
 be lighter even at the same rate of taxation it would be here. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Before you leave that, let me ask you this question. 
 Suppose that a lumberman in Canada wanted to ship his logs to the 
 United States, what would be the difference in the price of the stump- 
 age in that contingency and in the contingency the lumber was manu- 
 factured over there "^ 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Well, I understand now there is no export duty 
 imposed upon logs, but 1 understand there has been at times an export 
 duty, and the difference in cost would be determined, I should say, by 
 that export duty. 
 
 Mr. Evans. And by no other test! 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. The cost of the logs in Canada is much less than in 
 the United States witli equal facilities for removing them, for the reason 
 the labor cost is so much less. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I am only speaking of the Government charge. If there 
 is any difference in the price, the purchaser would have to pay for logs 
 you manufacture there with what he would have to pay for logs that he 
 exported *? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. You would have to ask some of my friends here who 
 are more familiar with that than I am. 
 
 Mr. W. S. Eddy. The question of the tax on Canadian lumber is so 
 much per square mile, $3 for ground rent, and our taxation is fixed 
 upon the value of the timber and land. 
 
 Mr. Evans. What would it average? 
 
 Mr. Eddy. The average I could not give, but the tax in Canada is a 
 nominal tax — very small. It is not considered there. 
 
 Mr. Evans. That does not get to my question of the price the Gov- 
 ernment charges for the stumpage. 
 
 Mr. Eddy. Their lands are sold at auction; that is, all the timber on 
 the lands is sold at auction. You pay the Government so much for a 
 license to cut from those lands. When you remove the timber you then 
 pay the Crown price. 
 
 . Mr. Goodyear. Is there any difference ou logs going to Canada or 
 the United States"? 
 
 Mr. Eddy. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Now, I want to mention another circumstance that 
 has just been called to my attention by a gentleman connected with 
 the Census Bureau, who prepared the statistics of the lumber interest 
 for the census of 1890. He states that the taxation on the land held by 
 the lumbermen of the United States is over $3,000,000 per annum, while 
 the taxation on lands held by the Canadian Government is nothing, so 
 there is an item to which we are subject, as against tlie Canadian, which 
 is of enormous importance; as any man knows who has been engaged 
 in the lumber industry that very soon, if not at the outset, there arises
 
 492 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 a farming community around liim, and the whole effort of the farming 
 community, in the matter of taxation, is to see that the lumberman 
 does not get off any too light. We are perfectly well aware of that, 
 and we do not complain of it, but we simply mention it as a fact that 
 our valuations are high, and we are subject to a high degree of taxation 
 in those localities where we have our lumber. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. If you care to go into it I would like to hear a little 
 further as to the reasons for treating white pine differently from the 
 treatment it received since 1880. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. In 1874 to 1883 white pine was under the 82 list. It 
 was only in the 1890 bill it was put under the 81 list. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Now I would like to know sometliing about the extent 
 of the white pine industry in the country, the location, and the reason 
 for reversing the verdict of 1890 on the subject? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Now, Mr. Dolliver, I prefer to let some of your 
 friends who come from the Northwest give you some information on that 
 subject. They are here and I should be glad to have them cnligiiteu 
 you upon that subject and they will undoubtedly do so if you give them 
 the opportunity. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Is it your contention that the $1 classification ought 
 to be advanced to $2? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Tliat is to say, all included in the act of 1890 under 
 the 81 classification should be put u\) to 82? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Yes, sir; that is all we ask. In other words wo ask 
 to have the 
 
 Mr. Payne. You ask the restoration substantially of the duty of 
 1883 so far as the great bulk of the lumber industry is concerned? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. So far as we know we can not conceive any reason 
 why the same tax should not beimi)osed upon all tliese items. 
 
 Mr. Payne. But that is simply an argument either to have all under 
 the 82 classification or all under the 81 classification, it does not go any 
 further than that? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. That is all. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You have not advanced any reasons that I have heard 
 why they vShould not all be incliuled under the 81 <'lassification ? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. When we get out of the other i)art of it I hope to 
 say something on that subject, and if I do not say anything somebody 
 else will. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I want to ask for information on one ])oint. Tiie cedar 
 telegraph poles, railroad ties, and articles of that descrii)tion M-erc for 
 the lirst time in 1890 put on tlie dutiable list at 20 i)er cent ad valorem. 
 Do you favor the restoration of the duty? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Why? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Because there is so large an importation of those 
 various items from where they can be produced under more liberal 
 advantages and much less labor cost than in this country. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What has been produced in other countries and brought 
 here in a number of years? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Quite a large percentage of them, I tliink. 
 
 Mr. Payne. A very large percentage? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. I could not give you the figures. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Can you suggest a way by which tliat ad valorem duty 
 can be changed to a specific form, on telegraph poles, for instance?
 
 NATIONAL LUMBER INTERESTS. 493 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. I have never had anything to do with telegraph 
 poles or ties, except to buy them, and I could not help you out on that 
 question. The manufacture of telegraph i)oles, fence poles, railroad 
 ties, etc., is a large industry in this country. West Virginia and the 
 South i)roduce enormous quantities of railroad ties that are shipped to 
 the northern part of the country, and those ties come over the border, 
 ■where tliey can be produced under the conditions in regard to Crown 
 lands that have been talked about, in competition with our land and 
 our people, in large quantities, and we think they ought to be taxed. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I want to suggest that what complaints have been 
 heard relate more ijarticularly to the ad valorem part of the duty than 
 to the duty itself. If we could change it to the specific equivalent of 
 the ad valorem I think they will be satisfied. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. May I suggest that you let Mr. Priest say a word 
 on this subject; he is the statistician I referred to. 
 
 Mr. EUSSELL. Would you restrict the duty on telegraph poles, rail- 
 road ties, etc., to cedar wood? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. No; I do not see any reason for doing so. They use 
 cedar ties on cheap roads, lumber roads, but oak is used on the main 
 trunk lines. 
 
 Mr. Russell. Is that wood peculiar to telegrai)h and telephone poles 
 or do they use other woods"? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Yes, sir; but not to any general extent. 
 
 Mr. Russell. Would you still make chestnut free? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. I do not think that cuts any figure whatever. I do 
 not think the importations of chestnut amount to anything. The great 
 bulk is cedar, as cedar is the most durable in the earth. 
 
 Mr. Payne. IIow about railroad ties ? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Cedar is a very good tie for light tra^c, but it is too 
 soft to hold the spike for heavy traffic. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Are imported ties mostly cedar? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. I think they are largely of oak. 
 
 Mr. Russell. Under the act of 1894, under the paragraph of paving 
 posts, railroad ties, telephone and telegraph poles of cedar, there was 
 an imi)ortation of a million and a half in value? 
 
 ]\Ir. Goodyear. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. And for 189G there was more than a million and a half 
 in railroad ties. 
 
 Mr. Russell. Would you restrict that paragraph to which Mr. Payne 
 called attention to cedar wood ? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Russell. What would you include? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Oak. 
 
 .Mr. Russell. Anything else? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Those are the two items, except what we make in 
 this country. There is a large amount of Southern pine used in this 
 country. 
 
 Mr. Russell. Why not include chestnut? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. I do not know, but I should if I investigated the 
 matter and found there was any considerable traffic in it. 
 
 Mr. BouTELLE. What is the harm of putting a duty on and test- 
 ing it? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Nothing. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Before leaving that point, what do the lumbermen think 
 about i)utting logs, as such, on the free list?
 
 494 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear- We are not liere to ask you to tax logs. 
 
 Mr. Evans. How would you ditfereutiate logs from these cedar posts, 
 telegraph poles, aud ties? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. As to the telegraph pole, perhaps it may be consid- 
 ered that there is no greater process of manufacturing to it than there 
 is to the logs, but a railroad tie is sawed out and it has gone through 
 a sawmill or has been hewn out of the log. 
 
 Mr. Evans, You could import tlie logs and make them into ties'? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Yes, sir; but there is this about logs. The reason 
 why we have not contended for a tax on logs and are not here to ask it 
 is because tliereare a large number of lumbermen in the United States 
 who are giving employment to a great many laborers in tlie State of 
 Michigan, along the Lakes, by importing logs to localities where the 
 timber supply has been exhausted, so we thought, perhaps, more as a 
 matter of policy than strictly one of tariff, that it would be better not 
 to ask for that tax. 
 
 Mr. Evans. There is a large part of the country where the log indus- 
 try is a very important one? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. That is very true. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Canada logs come in corapetiton with this section! 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. The expense of towage and transpoi-tation across 
 and the risk they run in transi)orting the logs in rafts is such a consid- 
 erable item that we think to some extent it is an offset. 
 
 Mr. Evans. What per cent of the h)gs imported into the United 
 States comes from Canada, Avill you say? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Is there anyone here who could state that? 
 
 Mr. Eddy. Substantially all the importations of logs come from 
 Canada? 
 
 Mr. Evans. Any from Mexico? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Not except tlie high grade, such as mahogany, etc. 
 
 Mr. Evans. You could not transport tlie logs from Canada to the 
 northern boundary of tlie United States so cheai)ly as to bring them in 
 competition with the great Southern lumber region. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. The logs ex}»orted from Caiuida are manufactured 
 along the lakes? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. I think they are manufactured along the lakes, the 
 high-grade white pine, etc. 
 
 Mr. Payne. A protective duty on logs would shut u]) a great many 
 mills and throw thousands of i)eoi)le out of em])loyment? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. That is the basis Ave take it on. We are not here to 
 antagonize the industries that will protect American labor, and if you 
 can foster these mills perhaps for a few years in those communities, and 
 not destroy them in the valne of their i)roperty and investments which 
 they have made there, it should be done. What we are contending 
 against is the importation of the manufactured article upon which they 
 offer so great premium for the purpose of making those establishments 
 in Canada. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. The only practical change I understand you desire in 
 the act of 1890 is to have white pine, spruce, hemlock, ash, basswood, 
 etc., i)ut in at the $2 rate? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. That is substantially so. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. And the rest of the schedule under the act of 1890, I 
 understand you, is satisfactory generally to the lumbermen? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. I would not say that exactly. We have prepared a 
 schedule on that subject which we think is better in some respects, but 
 it is only a moditicatiou in a slight degree of the act of 1890. For
 
 NATIONAL LUMBER INTERESTS. 495 
 
 instance, we tliink we are more familiar with the subject than when 
 the bill of 1890 was prepared, with the cost and expenses of plants, 
 matching, phmiiig- two sides, sizing it, and the like. Now, therefore, 
 we have made our schedule based upon the $2 tax on the rough lumber 
 to conform to these further processes of manufacture which may be 
 applied to it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You speak of importations of lumber. Is not there 
 substantially as much lumber coming in in the shape of logs which ulti- 
 mately go into lumber as in any other wayf 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. No, 1 think not; I think the quantity is much less. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But there is a large quantity which comes in ? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And that ir. one of the main supplies of timber that 
 comes from other countries heref 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Well, I could not say the main supply. I should 
 say it is one of the sources of supply. 
 
 Mr. Mc^IiLLiN. I think from tlie little investigation I have made of 
 it that it is one of the main supplies, if not the main sup})ly. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. It seems to me it would be very fiir I'rom the fact if 
 you state it is the main supply. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN, Is it not a fact it can be brought very cheaply across 
 the Lakes in enormous rafts, with millions of feet in a raft? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. When you take into consideration the towing charges 
 and the risk of storms and ditticulties they labor under, and the loss 
 that they suffer by reason of the elements, it comes to a very consider- 
 able cost. 
 
 Mr. Eddy. The cost of towing across Lake Huron and the Georgian 
 Bay is $1.50. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLTN. What is it by rail? 
 
 Mr. Eddy. They do not bring it by rail. There is no insurance, and 
 tlie risk is entirely with the man who owns the logs. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. You see you take -$1.50 a thousand, and add the risk, 
 which will be 50 cents more, it is substantially equal to this tax of $2 
 which we ask here. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I would like to know the amount imported and the 
 amount exported from the LTnited States'? 
 
 Mr. Tawney. 318,000,000 feet imported in 1880. 
 
 Mr. Eddy. That is not entirely across Lake Huron? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. How much is exported from the United States 
 annually? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. I would ask for some statistician again to state that. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. I would state that 318,000,000 feet is the importation 
 of logs, and between 0(>0,000,000 and 700,000,000 feet of lumber. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. It is nearly 800,000,000 feet of lumber imported. 
 ■ Mr. McMiLLiN. How much was exported from all the ports, of lumber? 
 
 Mr. Priest. It is impra(;ticable to give the quantity, but the value 
 Is about ^27,000,000. There are but two industries in the United States 
 which show greater increase in exportation in the last ten years, from 
 1880 to 1890, than lumber; one is flour and the other is mineral oil, 
 and lumber comes next. 
 
 Mr. Evans, What per cent goes from the Pacific Coast? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. A very large percentage goes from the Pacific Coast, 
 but of course the Pacific redwood is exported to Oriental countries. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. You mention white pine, spruce, hemlock, and bass- 
 wood, but you did not mention fir. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. That would be included in the schedule if you state 
 all lumber. Now, gentlemen, I am afraid I am taking up altogether too
 
 496 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 much of your time, and tliere are other peopk' liere I wouhl like to 
 have speak upon the subject as I do not wish to monopolize tlie time. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I would like to ask one question. You said you stated 
 generally the labor cost was higher here than in Canada! 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Have you a statement you cau submit, giving- the 
 actual cost on this side and on the other? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Tiiere are some of these gentlemen here who are 
 nearer the border and know these things nnich better than 1 do. I will 
 state, however, we are preparing a written statement of that. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. And that will be included in that statement? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Yes, sir; if that is satisfactory. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. I will say that the Northwest lumbermen who have 
 investigated this find that the rate of wages in the woods in Canada 
 is from $8 to ai-S, and in the United States from $16 to $24. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I hope you will include in that statement not only the 
 wages in the woods but the wages at the mill. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Yes, sir; and the same inoportion will hold true in 
 the woods, mills, and all. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, one of the important effects which this free trade in 
 lumber has had up to date is the great rednction in the rate of wages 
 of the lumbermen of the United States,\and I uiulertake to say 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Pardon me, as I want to ask you one thing in order to 
 make it clearer. Is it a reduction in the rate of wages or the number of 
 days employed? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Both. There is an important reduction in both 
 respects. I venture to say if you take the mills in the Northwest since 
 the bill of 1894: has been in force you will lind that the number of days 
 employed has fallen off 40 per cent in the woods and mills; and if you 
 will take the rate of wages — I am sj^eaking of my own personal ex])e- 
 riencc — I think it has faUon oft" upward of IM) per cent. Now, gentle- 
 men, I know that to be so in oui' own ])lant that therateof wages whi.-h 
 they are i)aying to-day is more than L'O jx-r cent less than it was when 
 wo had the beneiit of the tariff law. Now, to go hastily along on some 
 of these ])oints, because my time is short, I want to call your attention 
 to another fact, Canada has made the United States the duuiping 
 ground for all of its chea]) grades of lumber. They take the ui)pers 
 and better classes of their i)ine and other lumber and they export it to 
 Englaiul or European countries, and take their commons, and culls, and 
 low grades and duni]) them into the United States, so they compete 
 with the other lumber that has been put upon the free list; and not- 
 withstanding the depreciation in business throughout the T 'nited States, 
 you will lind from the statement which we shall ])resent to you the 
 importations of Canada lumber, notwithstaiuling the low price, have 
 gone up gradually year by year until in 189() they aie the largest they 
 have been for several years. Now, of course, these trade conditions and 
 de])rcssions have had a great deal to do with it, so when you see these 
 enormous importations of low-grade lumber into this country that come 
 in competition with other species of lumber we i)roduce; when we see 
 that the hendock, the spruce, and the Southern pine all are suffering 
 from this competition, I say to you, geiitlemen, it strikes me it is time 
 we should do something to protect this iiulustry and relieve this country 
 of that operation which has been going on in Canada for so long a time. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you allow me to say at that i)oint (as you are 
 covering the ground very thoroughly), relative to the effect U])on the 
 revenues of the country by the transfer of the lund)er to the free list 
 by the act of 1894, was that in the year 1890 the imports of lumber free
 
 NATIONAL LUMBER INTERESTS. 497 
 
 of duty in this country were only $4,250,000 in value; in 1890 the 
 imports of lumber free of duty into this country were a little over 
 $10,750,000, an increase of $12,500,000 in value ; and in 1890 we received 
 a revenue of $2,250,000 from lumber, and in 1890 only $712,000. That 
 is to say, we surrendered $1,300,000 in revenue and gave the Canadians 
 the privilege of importing $13,000,000 worth of lumber without anything 
 in return ! 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. I thank the chairman very much for that statement. 
 It furnishes the answer at once, that the Government has not only lost 
 an enormous amount in revenue, but it has also invited a most disas- 
 trous com])etition to one of the great industries of the country. 
 
 Mr. KussELL. You spoke about the large importation of low-grade 
 lumber from Canada. We had, sometime back, a box-shook industry. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Yes, sir; a very important one. 
 
 Mr. Russell. I remember a few years ago we used to receive in the 
 East carloads of box shooks from the Western country. 1 think that 
 1ms been entirely cut ott' now. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. To a very large extent, and I do not know if it is 
 not almost completely. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I suppose the cheaper grades of lumber would hardly 
 bear exportation from Canada to Europe! 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Evans. So it is forced over here? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. It simi)ly ])uts the refuse of their lumber here; that 
 which they can not sell anywliere else they sell in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. At what point does the Canadian lumber come in com- 
 petition with the lumber of the Northwest, so to speak? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. It comes in competition at Chicago and at every 
 port on the Lakes, and extends way down to very nearly the Ohio 
 River; I do not know but what quite to it. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. But how about westward; does it cross the river? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. I know it does in Washington. The Tacoma people, 
 I think, have been complaining most bitterly of the difference of con- 
 ditions under which they labor. One of the gentlemen representing 
 that country Avas in the Cincinnati convention, Mr. Foster, of Tacoma, 
 and he was a member of this committee, but for some unexplained 
 reason he has not been able to come here. We hoped to have him tell 
 you of the difiRcnlties and the embarrassments under which they were 
 laboring by reason of this free trade in lumber they have there. Of 
 course, as 1 stated at the outset, this industry of ours is so widespread, 
 so large, and has so many features, we are only closely familiar with 
 those in the locality in which we live. The Washington and Puget 
 Sound lumberman has been one of the most bitter in his complaint 
 of this free trade in lumber. 
 
 Mr. BouTELLE. I found very serious complaints in that respect when 
 I was in that country. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. I will say that at a meeting of the lumbermen of the 
 Northwest in Minneapolis last Saturday, it appeared that the lumber 
 for a large bridge spanning the St. Louis Eiver at Duluth and West 
 Superior is being imported from Canada, while both ends of the bridge 
 are abutted in American lumber yards. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear, I have occupied more than an hour of the two and 
 a half hours you have given us. Of course these various reasons why 
 the tax should be $2 could be presented to you, but there are other gen- 
 tlemen here whom I think it would be worth your while to hear,and I 
 beg leave to suggest as the next speaker. Congressman Boutelle, if he 
 will favor us. 
 
 T H 32
 
 498 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I would like to ask a question which you may answer, 
 or someone else who is more of a statistician, and that is to what extent 
 will this change in the duty affect the retail buyer of lumber on the 
 prairies of the West? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. I think perhaps you had better ask somebody who 
 knows about the market conditions out there, which I do not know, 
 but I know about Pennsylvania, and I know something about the con- 
 ditions in New York; but w^hat the freight rates and all those things 
 which enter into consideration out there are, I can not tell you very 
 well, but I think somebody here who has given that subject more gen- 
 eral attention can do so. Mr. Irwin, of Chippewa Falls, represents a 
 section of country interested in this matter. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, as I have said, so far as the contention we make 
 here applies to the rate of duty, I have undertaken in a general way 
 to indicate to you the disadvantages of our condition as compared with 
 those in Canada, and to demonstrate to you that the $2 tax is not an 
 uniair or an unreasonable one. 
 
 1 will add simply one suggestion and then I will ask you to hear these 
 other gentlemen, and that suggestion is this: Now, the general aver- 
 age tax of the bill of ISOO was, in round numbers, TjO i)er cent ad valorem 
 of the dutiable list. The general average tax of the bill of 1894 was in 
 round luimbers 35 per cent ad valorem. Now, the tax of $2 per thou- 
 sand on the importation of lumber, in my judgment, and so far as J am 
 abie to state from examination, is less than 20 per cent ad valorem, so 
 that we are not asking for the highest rate of duty. We are asking 
 very nearly the lowest, but in any event it is away below the average of 
 any tariff bill that has been framed in the last thirty years; aiul when 
 you take into consideration tlie extent of the industry, the Southern 
 States of this country are as largely interested in this matter as any 
 section of the ITnited States because of the facilities for transportation 
 that now exist in bringing their lumber in competition with that which 
 comes along the coast of Canada, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. It 
 is only a few days ago that I saw the lirst cargo of lumber shipped 
 from Newfoundland, shipped down along tlie coast into this country. 
 That being the first shi])ment from Newfoundland, it shows that i)er- 
 sons in the (>)ueen's Dominion have found the conditions such under this 
 free-trade tariff act that they can ()i)en u]) the large forests and send 
 their lumber down to the United States. I tell you, gentlemen, that 
 the lumbermen of the country feel, generally, that if there is any indus- 
 try that demands protection to-day, if the protective idea is to be 
 enforced in regard to to any of them, that we come here standing on as 
 lirm ground as any industry represented by any body of men from any 
 section of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I want to nuike one single suggestion in view of your 
 statement that the average duty under the law of 1S!)4 was 35 jx'r cent. 
 I have belbre me the statistics for the year ending June, 189G, showing 
 an average of 40 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. So nuich the better for my argument. 
 
 The C1JA.IKMAN. That arises entirely from the fact that all rough 
 lumber was on the free list and nearly all the manufactured was on the 
 dutiable list. 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. I thank you very much for the suggestion, Mr. Payne. 
 
 Mr. Evans. What is the average numufacturer's price for the sort of 
 lumber you now have the $2 rate for? 
 
 Mr. (iooDYEAK. At the mill? I think the average i)rice at the ship- 
 ping point or custom-house would be at least upward of $10.
 
 NATIONAL LUMBER INTERESTS. 499 
 
 Mr. Evans. And tlie domestic manufacturer's price is about that, plus 
 the duty "? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. Not iu all instances that. The freight rates come 
 into consideration there, and there are a variety of causes. Now, I 
 know in our own business we have not had a dollar's profit in two years 
 on our lumber. If you will allow me to make a personal statement that 
 pertains to things perhaps I know better than anything else, if we 
 should go and undertake to buy timber laud to day, we could not get 
 it and manufacture the timber into lumber and get back the money 
 we put into tlie enterprise; we could not begin to. Now, for instance, 
 if we could get logs delivered to the railroad at $4 a thousand — I am 
 speaking of hemlock lumber — with the transportation distance varying 
 anywhere from 20 to 25 miles, and the loading and unloading and 
 putting them into the mill would equal at least $1 a tlnjusand, and the 
 saw bill would be at least $1.75, making $0.75; and if you gentlemen 
 take into consideration all the expenses of selling and commissions 
 and loss on bad debts, insurance, and a variety of other incidental 
 expenses that comes into every lumberman's account — without taking 
 those into consideration at all, we would meet with a loss, then, of about 
 25 cents a thousand. Our average selling price at the mill to-day would 
 not be $0,50. I should say, if we should start right out and go into the 
 lumber business now and try to bring about profitable results on the 
 lumber, the result is every man feels that he is got to scrimp every 
 fellow who comes near him and get the last cent out of him he can to 
 make both ends meet. I tell you the conditions are deplorable to-day, 
 not only in that branch of the industry, but if you will look at the list 
 of failures which have taken place in the white-pine district in the last 
 few years you will find that it is even worse than with us. We can not 
 begin to get the money back. 
 
 I have not gone into the consideration of the forest fires and the 
 difficulties which the lumbermen have to contend with, and the con- 
 stant menace of the elements to the property, the winds and everything 
 else, and the vast amount of timber that is frequently thrown upon the 
 lumberman's hands by fires and winds which he is compelled to cut, 
 whether at a profit or not— he has got to get it out of the way — I say 
 I have not gone into this question, but probably some gentleman here 
 will make a statement of those facts to you. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Belbre you take your seat I desire to ask you one 
 question as the princij^al representative of the lumber interests. There 
 is an impression prevailing iu certain quarters that there is in existence 
 among the lumbermen a combination or trust for the purpose of con- 
 trolling their output or profit, and I would like to ask if such is the 
 fact"? 
 
 Mr. Goodyear. I am glad you suggest it. There is no such insti- 
 tution in the United States and it is not possible. Now, gentlenien, 
 you can form a trust in the iron trade, you can xierhaps make a variety 
 of other trusts, but without making any invidious distinctions I want 
 to say this, that you could not combine the lumber industry of this 
 country into a trust any more than you can combine all the people in 
 the country into a trust against themselves. It is just as impossible to 
 do one as the other. Why, we have got at least 25,000 establishments 
 in the United States, and they run all the way from the little sawmill 
 that takes two men to run it, with an up-and-down saw jigging away 
 all day sawing out 0,000 feet of lumber, to the great, big mill which 
 produces 300,000 feet a day. Again, you have got every kind and 
 variety of wood in the United States. There is the white pine man,
 
 600 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 who IS sawing out lumber worth in tlie market $40 atliousand; aud 
 here is the cherry uuin sawing out lumber worth $75 a thousand; here 
 is the hendock man, these poor sliver fellows, who only get about $0.50 
 a thousand, so you liave got everybody and every kind and conceivable 
 condition throughont the United States; you have the Northerner, the 
 Southerner, you have the Westerner and the Easterner, and you have 
 got him in every variety of form in which lie exists in this great country 
 of ours, and you could not combine him togetlier any more than you 
 could combine all, and that you know is an absolute impossibility. 
 
 isTATioKAi. litmbeeme:n^'s association. 
 
 MEMORIAL or THE NATIONAL LUMBERMEN'S CONVENTION. 
 
 Gentlemen: In j)rescnting the claims of lumber for your considera- 
 tion a brief statement of its magnitude and scope is essential, because 
 comparatively few realize the vast territory interested in this great 
 industry. A popular impression seems to exist that a dozen States or 
 less are largely interested in the manufacture of lumber. Such an 
 impression is entirely erroneous. Lumber-manufacturing plants are 
 h)cated in every State in the Union, and in more than thirty States 
 lumber is a leading industry. It is, above all others, one whicli recog- 
 nizes no section, but is, in fact, a strong force in binding together the 
 East and the West, the North and the South. 
 
 This is an element of great safety to the public, for it would be abso- 
 lutely imi>ossibIc to form any combination in the nature of a trust in 
 an industry ha\ing over l!5,000 separate plants, extcn<ling irom Maine 
 to California, and from tlie Great Lakes to the Gulf They embrace 
 every form and variety, from the portable mill, employing two or three 
 men aud sawing 5,000 feet per day, to the great sawmills, emph>ying 
 hundreds <»f men and sawing 500,000 feet ])er day. It embraces every 
 variety of wood — the si)ru('e of New England, the Virgiiuas, and the 
 Pacilic Northwest; the white pine and hemlock of Pennsylvania, 
 Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota; the long and short leaf yellow 
 pine of the Southern States; the cypress of the South Atlantic and 
 Gulf Coast States; the pojdarand hard Avoods of the Ohio and ]\Iissis- 
 sippi valleys, and the lir, cedar, and red woods of the Pacific Coast. 
 The manufactuied ])roduct of these woods, varying in value at the 
 mills from $5 to $75 per thousand feet, and competing with each other, 
 make itabsulutely impossible to form any ('«»nd)ination to control i)rices. 
 
 According to the Eleventh Census o\er $750,000,000 of cai)ital is 
 invested in lumber manufacturing, and a conservative estinuite shows 
 over 600,000 men directly engaged in the manufacture of this com- 
 modity. In other words, more than 3,000,000 of people are directly 
 dependent for their living on this great industry ; this estimate would 
 be vastly increased were the lleet of vessels whose carrying trade 
 depends ui)on the lumber business, the railroads that in whole or in 
 l)art depend upon it for their tonnage, and the production of the great 
 amount of machinery used in the manufacturing plants be taken into 
 account. 
 
 The lumber industry, embracing two coordinate branches, those rep- 
 resented by the saw and planing null, is the greatest single industry 
 in this country in the amount of capital invested, the value of its 
 products, and the amount of wages ])aid, and this was the one industry 
 selected by the framers of the present tariif on which to make the 
 exi)eriment of absolute free trade. 
 
 The result has been deplorable in several ways.
 
 NATIONAL lumbermen's ASSOCIATION. 501 
 
 When tlie Wilson bill was enacted, niakiug imported lumber free from 
 tax, it was urged that this act would preserve the forests of the United 
 States by admitting to competition with lumber manufacturers in the 
 United States the lumber cut from the Canadian forests. This is an 
 erroneous promise. On the contrary, the facts show that the free deliv- 
 ery of Canadian lumber in this country results in great waste and the 
 useless destruction of a vast amount of the white-pine timber still left 
 here. As the amount of timber grows less year by year, the exposure 
 to fire increases because of the chopping by loggers, the fires created 
 by settlers in clearing up land, the traversing of the country by rail- 
 roads, and other causes which need not be enumerated. The loss by 
 fire annually increases as the tracts of virgin i)ine are broken. There 
 now remains in the white-pine districts of the United States little or 
 no unbroken timber where loggers or settlers have not entered. Under 
 these conditions the lumberman or timber owner is not able to preserve 
 his timber if he would without entailing an enormous financial hazard. 
 The present low prices for lumber forced by free Canadian lumber make 
 it impossible for us to utilize the large per cent of the inferior and defect- 
 ive trees remaining in our forests. This timber produces the same 
 character of lumber with which our markets have been flooded during 
 the last four years by Canadian manufacturers, rendering it impracti- 
 cable for us to convert this class of timber into lumber and cover the 
 cost of manufacturing. These trees left in the forest greatly multiply 
 the dangers from fire. The report of tlie chief firewarden of the State 
 of INIinnesota shows that in the year 1894 340,000 acres of timbered 
 land in that State alone were l)urned over by fire. Ko data are obtain- 
 able as to the total amount of timber in the whole country destroyed by 
 forest fires, but it is known to have been not less than 500,000,000 feet 
 in the State of Minnesota. Fully as much was burned in Wisconsin 
 during the same year. The reports made to the chief firewarden by 
 his suijordinates scattered throughout the timber region indicate very 
 clearly that the fires occurring during 1895, which fortunately were less 
 extensive, can be traced to the increasing number of settlers, and the 
 other conditions enumerated above, incident to the development of the 
 great forest area in the northern i>art of Minnesota. Bearing on this 
 state of the case it may be stated that Otis Staples, who was the chief 
 ofiicer having charge of the duty of estimating the timber of the Chip- 
 pewa Indian Reservation in JMinnesota, expresses the opinion, in a letter 
 to the State firewarden, that more pine has been destroyed by fire than 
 has been cut. In this opinion other lumbermen who have reported to 
 the State firewarden practically agree. 
 
 In the Southern States the necessity for promoting conditions that 
 will enable better utilization of the standing timber is even more press- 
 ing and effects a greater number of individual interests, especially 
 farmers, than in the Northern States. Here the practice largely pre- 
 vails in clearing the land for agricultural purposes, of girdling the trees 
 and letting them die to be cut down and burned, unless a market can 
 be found for their product as saw logs. Vast areas of timbered land 
 are thus annually burned over and the timber destroyed, simply because 
 it does not pay to manufacture it. These statements can easily be 
 verified by official data contained in the annual reports of the forestry 
 bureau of the United States Department of Agriculture. 
 
 The derangement of our market by the encroachment of foreign 
 lumber also affects the turpentine industry, so important in the Southern 
 States. It is estimated that there ^re at least 2,250,000 acres of tim- 
 bered land in the South that are constantly "in orchard" producing 
 turpentine. Thess orcliM'ds are usually con tinuouslyorked wbut about
 
 502 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 four years ; thus, at least 800,000 acres of virgin forest must be invaded 
 annually in order to supply the turpentine stills in operation. 
 
 If the old orchards left to rest could be properly thinned they would 
 not only be better protected from fire, but the trees left standing- would 
 renew more quickly and a great iiidustry thus be stimulated. At the 
 present prices of Southern lumber the utilization of this class of timber 
 is utterly impracticable. 
 
 On the Pacific Coast vast areas of the most valuable timber are 
 annually destroyed by fire, largely owing to the fact that so much waste 
 Miaterial is left on the ground, because it can not be utilized under 
 existing conditions. 
 
 Your attention is invited to these facts as evidence of the great 
 expense and extraordinary hazard entailed on tlie lumbermen of the 
 United States, and which is not imposed on the Canadian lumbermen, 
 because the Canadian (iovernment carries the timber until it is cut 
 without interest or hazard to the manufacturer, besides improving the 
 streams and supporting a corps of forest rangers whose duty it is to 
 watch for fires and remove conditions likely to cause them. It will be 
 seen, therefoi-e, that the tlieory that the forests of the United States will 
 be preserved by the comi»etition of Canadian lumber is not sustained by 
 the iacts, and that the business interests of this country fully warrant 
 the imposition of a duty which will put the lumber manufacturers in 
 Canada upon terms, in some measure, corresponding with our own. 
 
 From the standpoint of invested capital, the chief cause of complaint 
 is based on the ditt'erence of tenures of timber holdings in this country 
 and in (Janada. It is not our ])urpose to discuss whether or not our 
 Government has been wise in its methods in disposing of the natural 
 forest resources — we can onlj- consider facts as we find them. 
 
 The Canadian (Jovernment does not sell its timl)er lands, but only 
 sells the right for a given length of time to cut timber from certain 
 territory. There is no tax on the owners of these limits, and tlierefore 
 no carrying charge excei)t a nominal annual rental ])y the acre or square 
 mile. There is an investnuuit, varying in dilferent localities, in the 
 shape of a so-(;alled "bonus," i)aid for the i)rivilege of accjuiring timber 
 limits. When the timber is actually cut there is a charge known as 
 "Crown dues,'' amounting to from 50 cents to J^l.30 ])er tliousand feet, 
 board measure. This, however, is only ]»aid at .about the time when 
 the lumbermen's i)rodu('t is ready for the market. Canadian lumber- 
 men are, therefore, relieved from the necessity of a heavy investment of 
 capital in their timber lands and of the necessity of j)roviding for a 
 heavy carrying chaigc which, in this country, is one of the controlling 
 factors of the luml)er business. 
 
 In the I'nited States the timber lands are actually owned by private 
 indivadaals; whetiier the policy of such ownership be wise or not is at 
 the ])resent time immaterial. The policy of selling timber lands to 
 imlividuals Avas established at the very foundation of our Government, 
 and from its beginning until 1890 an imjKJSt duty practically averaging 
 $L* ])er thousand feet has been imposed upon the rough lumber, except 
 on a few comparatively unimportant varieties, for the last eight years 
 of the period named. It was under these conditions that the present 
 holdings of timber were secured and their valuation fixed. To single out 
 tliis one industry, and thus by so unusual a discrimination change the 
 financial conditions surrounding timber holdings and imperil the cai)i- 
 tal invested under an a])parently settled ])olicy of the Government, is 
 an injusti(;e of which this country should not be guilty. 
 
 The land thus held in fee sim])le and bought under such conditions, 
 unlike similar i)roperty in Canada, is subject to all the various forms
 
 NATIONAL lumbermen's ASSOCIATION. 503 
 
 of local taxation and to loss by fire or other accidents peculiar to tlie 
 forest, as well as to an interest charge on the investment. The Cana- 
 dian lumberman is free from all these charges, for the reasons explained. 
 
 In addition to the carrying charges, the American manufacturer pays 
 higher wages than the Canadian. This broad statement may be, at the 
 moment, successfully contradicted as to some sections, for the stress of 
 unequal competition and the necessary curtailment in production have 
 resulted in some cases in a lower scale of wages than formerly prevailed. 
 From a purely selfish standpoint the lumber manufacturer may not be 
 concerned with this fact; but, from a broader standpoint, that which 
 has resulted in even a partial and sectional depreciation of the rate of 
 wages paid to American labor in an industry attecting, directly or indi- 
 rectly, millions of people, is a matter to be regretted, and we urge this 
 phase of the question upon your consideration. Senate Eeport l!s'o. 
 1894, Finance Committee, shows (vide pp. 47 and 144) that, while the 
 price of lumber rose from a basis of 100 in ISOO to a comparison of 130.4 
 in 1891, the wages increased to 193.1 during the same period. 
 
 The evil market results of the free importation of lumber from Canada 
 into the United States arise from the character of the importation, 
 which has been radically changed since the abolition of the tarift". In 
 this country, under normal conditions, the supply of the l)etter grades 
 is barely sufficient to meet the demand, and the (juality of the product, 
 as far as its natural defects are concerned, is steadily deteriorating. 
 The difficult question is how best to dispose of the coarser product. 
 
 Canada exports to England and elsewhere by far the greatest part of 
 its better grades of lumber, and in the main, since the removal of the 
 duty, uses the United States as a " dumping ground " for its coarser 
 grades, burdening a market already oversupplied with this class of 
 stock, thus disarranging and disorganizing the entire market. 
 
 It is the character of the lumber imported from Canada, rather than 
 the quantity, to which the American lumbermen most strenuously object. 
 
 While it will be seen that the quantity of free lumber imported has 
 not largely increased from the time it ])aid a duty of $2 per thousand, 
 the concurrent facts as to the American demand, and as to the char- 
 acter of the importations, are absolutely convincing as to the disastrous 
 character of this competition. 
 
 There is not and never has been a dispositiim on the part of the lum- 
 ber interest to ask the imposition of excessive duties on Canadian 
 lumber. The average rate of duties on the dutiable list under tlui 
 Mclvinley bill was equivalent to nearly 50 per cent ad valorem, while 
 the present dutiable list averages about 35 percent; so that lumber- 
 men feel that in asking a duty ecpiivalent to less than 20 per cent ad 
 valorem they are not demanding anything that is unreasonable. 
 
 Lumber is spoken of by some as raw material, but this is entirely 
 incorrect, for (50 to 85 per cent of the value of the rough product at the 
 tail of the mill represents labor. The only raw material of the lumber 
 industry is the standing timber in the forests. The labor involved in 
 felling the timber and transporting the logs to the mills averages much 
 more than the value of the standing timber. It is, therefore, evident 
 that rough lumber, while the raw material of some industries, is the 
 finished product of the great sawmill and timber industry of the 
 United States. 
 
 If free trade were the settled policy of this Government and that 
 policy were impartially applied, lumbermen would not make this claim, 
 or if lumbermen thought that, by the imposition of a tariff on lumber, 
 they personally would benefit at the expense and loss of the rest of 
 the country, they would not ask that the wrongs they have suftered
 
 504 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF, 
 
 should be corrected; the experience of the last few years has shown 
 beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is impossilde to cripple or ruin 
 an industry of this magnitude without injurin^ij: the entire country. 
 This is shown by the number that have been thrown out of emi)loy- 
 ment and, as a natural result, the decrease of per capita consumption 
 of farm products. 
 
 As every foot of lumber in this country is obliged to pay a tax for 
 the sui)port of the institutions of the country, it seems to the lumber- 
 men manifestly unfair that the benefits of our markets shall be given 
 to the foreigners Avho do not contribute one cent to the support of our 
 institutions. 
 
 And, therefore, in asking for a protective duty equivalent to no more 
 than one-half the i)rotection given to other industries, the lumbermen 
 feel that they are not demanding anything unreasonable. 
 
 Experience has taught the lund)er trade that specific rather than ad 
 valorem duties, as applied to lumber, are the more eijuitable, particu- 
 larly in view of the fact that low-grade and coarse lumber is not needed 
 in this market, and that its importation produces a most serious and 
 demoralizing competition. 
 
 National Lumber Convention, 
 
 Ways and Means Committee. 
 South Atlantic: 
 
 John L. Roper, (/haimian, Norfolk, Va. 
 
 E. J. Marsh, (ieorgetown, S. C. 
 H. P. S3IAIIT, Savannah, Ga. 
 
 Middle South: 
 
 I. C. Enochs, Jackson, Miss, 
 S, VV, Gardiner, Laurel, Miss. 
 
 F, M, Hamilton, Nasliville, Tcnn, 
 
 A, IL Winchester, Luckhannon, W, Va. 
 
 F, B. Williams, Patterson, La. 
 
 TiiEOPiiiLUS Tunis, Washington, 1). C. 
 
 William A, Wimsatt, Washington, D. G. 
 Southwest: 
 
 W. E. Kamsey, Lake Charles, La. 
 
 J. A, Freeman, Millville, Ark. 
 
 J. E. White, Grandin, ]\Io. 
 New l^jii gland: 
 
 W. W. P,ROWN, Portland, Me. 
 
 Smith S. Randall, Augusta, Me. 
 
 James W. Parker, I'ortland, Me. 
 New York and I'ennsylvania : 
 
 C. W. Goodyear, Rulfalo, N. Y. 
 
 (', M. Betts, PhihuU'lphia, Pa. 
 
 Elias Deemer, Williamsport, Pa. 
 Northwest:. 
 
 S, T, McKnight, Minneapcdis, Minn. 
 
 T. B, Walker, Minneajmlis, Minn. 
 
 Wm, Irvine, Chippewa Falls, Wis. 
 
 John W. Blodgett, Grand Rapids, Mich. 
 
 W, C, McOlure, Duluth, Miuu. 
 
 Fred W. Upham, Chicago, 111. 
 
 W. S, Edd i', Saginaw, Mich. 
 Pacific Coast: 
 
 A, G, Foster, Tacoma, Wash. 
 
 E. J. Holt, San Francisco, Cal. 
 
 Chas. W. Wells, Secretary, Chicayo, III.
 
 NATIONAL LUMlJEKMEN S ASSOCIATION. 
 
 505 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 Comprehensive data relatiui;- to timbered land in the United States aud its relative 
 value in ditferciit States will be found on pa^e 603 of Eleventh Census Keport on 
 Manufacturing' Industries, Part 3, Selected Industries. 
 
 This exhibit comi)rises timbered land owned by 9,757 establishments, embracing 
 an area of 27,664,(52(5 acres. The actual capital invested in carrying this land was 
 $19.5,440,827. At that date its estimated value was .+■409,620,990; but this has now 
 become greatly depreciated beca,use of unfriendly legislatiou by the Federal Govern- 
 ment, from which your petitioners ask relief. 
 
 Reference is also invited to page 597 of the report named, touching the average 
 distribution of each $100 of capital by lumber manufacturers, according to principal 
 classes of investment. In computing the average all the 21,011 establishments 
 reported are included, whether owning timbered laud or not. 
 
 Classes of investment. 
 
 Tho United States 
 
 Eastern group 
 
 Lake grouj) 
 
 Cpiitr;il uroiip 
 
 SdiUlieni uroup 
 
 I'arili<' i;niup 
 
 Miscellaneous j;roup 
 
 Timbered 
 land. 
 
 $26.01 
 
 24.21 
 32.46 
 9.76 
 20.48 
 27.13 
 19.73 
 
 Logging 
 plant. 
 
 $12. 18 
 
 10.50 
 13.63 
 
 7.65 
 14.09 
 13.02 
 
 8.96 
 
 Mill 
 plant. 
 
 7.10 
 
 30.59 
 19.21 
 39.14 
 38.82 
 32.49 
 21.27 
 
 Stock on 
 hand and 
 miscellane- 
 ous assets. 
 
 $34. 71 
 
 34.70 
 34.70 
 43.45 
 26. 61 
 27. 36 
 50.05 
 
 It will be seen from the foregoing that over 26 per cent of the entire cajiital 
 employed in the nuinufacture of lumber is invested in timbered land. It is a class 
 of investnu'ut that is especiially subject to great losses by fire, wind, and other 
 natural causes, and these losses, together with the interest-carrying charges, are 
 eciuivalent to 3 per cent on tiie entire average investment covering the business 
 from the stump to the huLshed product. In individual cases they largely exceed that 
 percentage. 
 
 As an indication of the unusual and extraordinary expenses incurred i)y American 
 lumbermen for the improvement of streams, attention is invited to Table 45 in Extra 
 Census Bulletin No. 5, showing tlie operations of incorporated boom companies in 
 Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Twenty-eight such compauies have $2,367,691 
 invested in river improvement alone — an expense that is largely carried in Canada 
 by the tiovernment. 
 
 Table 41 in the bulletin refeiTcd to furnishes valuable data relating to tho fire risk 
 on standing timber. It appears froui the reports of 166 establishments that the 
 average annual damage to standing timber by fire was equal, in the year 1889 and 
 ])receding years, to an annual charge of nearly 1 per cent of the value of the lumber 
 manufactured. Since the entire removal of the duty this risk has become increased, 
 for the reasons set forth in the memorial relating to inability to utilize anything 
 but the best timber standing. 
 
 These otticial data, carefully compiled without prejudice, are adduced as confirm- 
 ing the statements in tho memorial. 
 
 Another large item of ex])ense to the owner of standing timber, and one in a great 
 measure pi^culiar to th(* United States, is the great loss caused by the action of high 
 winds on the timber, blowing it down in largo quantities, so that it nuist be manu- 
 lactured at once or it l>ecomes worm-eatisn and worthless, cumbering the ground and 
 increasing the fire risk. In individual cases the quantity of such timber blown 
 down annually has ranged from 100,000,000 to 300,000,000 feet, thus causing a heavy 
 loss and increasing the carrying charges for standing timber, referred to in the 
 memorial. 
 
 As in Canada the timber, up to the time it is cut, is owned by the Government and 
 not by the lumbermen, all losses by fire, wind, and other natural causes fall on the 
 Government instead of on the lumbermen. This also relieves them of taxes and 
 interest, their only risk being the mere nominal investment; of the so-called bonus. 
 
 ON A FIRMER BASIS. 
 
 New York, January S. 
 R. G. Dun & Co.'s weekly review of trade will to-morrow say: 
 "Tlie year 1897 begins with one clear advantage — the last year has swept out of 
 the way a great number of unsound concerns Avhich in any time of activity would
 
 506 
 
 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 have been dauserons to business. Of the 15,286 commercial and bankin,!;- failures in 
 1896, with liabilities of $276,815,749, a large share represented crippling losses in pre- 
 vious years, or the violence of spetvulative storms in 1895 or the first half of 1896, 
 while thousands more resulted from the fury of the political tornado last fall. Bank- 
 ing failures amounting to $50,718,915 during the year averaged $156,156 each, and 
 were 145 per cent larger than in 1895. 
 
 AVERAGE OF LIA15IL1TIES. 
 
 "The commercial failures amounted to $226,096,834, a little over $1,000,000 having 
 been added by the last day of the year, but the average of liabilities, $14,992, was 
 smaller than in some years of great prosperity. 
 
 "The failures of Itrokerage and other commercial concerns averaged $58,418 each, 
 and increased 183 per cent over 1895; manufacturing failures averaged $28,808 each, 
 and increased 34 per cent; trading failures increased 18 per cent, and averaged only 
 $9,606 each. 
 
 "Over four-fifths of the increase in manufacturing and trading failures was in lum- 
 ber and manufacturing, which was 170 per cent; dry goods, 50; woolen manufactur- 
 ing, 161; clothing trade, 20; shoo trade, 87; leather and shoo manufacturers, 167; 
 grocery trade, 33; machinery, 70; milling, 117; furniture, 90; and ])rinting, 97 per 
 cent. In 10 other brancluNS the increase was moderate in amonnt, and in 5, with the 
 unclassified manufacturing and trading failures, the liabilities were smaller than in 
 1895." 
 
 EXHIBIT B. 
 
 The business failures among lumber manufacturers and dealers, carjJenteTS, and 
 coopers during the last three a ears show conclusively the very bad con(lition of the 
 industry, a condition wliicli has .assumed an already alarming stage during the last 
 year, as shown by the following figures from Dun's Mercantile Agency : 
 
 Month. 
 
 Jaim.iry . . . 
 February . . 
 
 March 
 
 Ai.ril 
 
 M.iy 
 
 Juno 
 
 July 
 
 August 
 
 Septenibor. 
 
 October 
 
 November . 
 December . 
 
 Total . 
 
 1894. 
 
 Number 
 
 of 
 establish- 
 ments. 
 
 Liabilities. 
 
 $1,314,477 
 548, 230 
 1,236,717 
 660, 256 
 351,905 
 336, 940 
 318, 345 
 292, 493 
 118,075 
 197, 107 
 409, 097 
 
 297 I 5,783,642 
 
 1895. 
 
 Number 
 
 of 
 establish- 
 ments. 
 
 Liabilities. 
 
 $238, 243 
 484. 478 
 489, 010 
 372, 850 
 344,621 
 322, 494 
 125, 006 
 125, 348 
 719, 156 
 1, 576. 220 
 503, 524 
 
 269 I 5, 300, 950 
 
 1896. 
 
 Number 
 
 of 
 establish- 
 ments. 
 
 Liabilities. 
 
 $1, 263, 016 
 617, 511 
 
 2, 838, 321 
 1, 560, 705 
 
 50 J, 239 
 
 700, 673 
 
 1,461,028 
 
 3, 787, 220 
 1,313,970 
 
 731,634 
 500, 228 
 
 15, 339, 745 
 
 It is hoped that the culmination of disaster was reached in 1896 when the liabili- 
 ties were nearly three times those of preceding years. 
 
 That this deplorable state of aH'airs among lumbermen is due to market condit ions 
 largely the result of unwise tariff legislation is demonstrated by the quotation from 
 a Canadian document which we make below. 
 
 While we admit that the business conditions generally during the three years 
 referred to have been very bad in the United States, yet the fact is substantiated that 
 the failures among lumber manufacturers have largely exceeded those of any other 
 industry, while during all preceding years the reverse has been the case, the failures 
 among lumbermen having been much less than those in any other manufacturing 
 indu.stry. For the data relating to failures, by branches of business, reference is bad 
 to the monthly summaries of finance and commerce of the United States prepared in 
 the United States Bureau of Statistics. 
 
 Our memorial sets forth as one of the chief reasons why a tax should be placed on 
 imported lumber, first, that without such tax our market is greatly demoralized 
 and a loss caused to the lumber iudustry without corresponding benefit to tiie con- 
 sumer, by the unusual quantity of coarse lumber throAvn on the market. This fact
 
 NATIONAL lumbermen's ASSOCIATION. 507 
 
 is not made apparent by the United. States Treasury statistic^ of importation, because 
 the values returned by Canadian lumber exporters are not, as a rule, the true values. 
 No effort has been made by customs oflScials to verify these values because the duty 
 has been a specific sum per thousand feet, and it has only been necessary to verify 
 the quantity and not the value. Under the free list no verification of anj^ sort has 
 been made. The fact that the quantity of coarse lumber imported has been largely 
 increased during the last four years is, however, a matter generally known and is 
 clearly shown below. 
 
 Bearing upon this point the following quotation from Pamphlet No. 10, published 
 at the Ontario general elections of 1894, will be of interest: 
 
 "The lumber trade is of Dominion concern, and perhaps ranks second in impor- 
 tance in Canada. All the provinces are more or less affected by the prices obtained 
 and the markets available for sawed lumber, but to Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, 
 and British Columbia — all large exporters of sawed lumber — the prosperity of the 
 trade is of vital importance. The United States is practically our only market for 
 sawed lumber and shingles, and its value may be judged from the fact that Canada 
 sent there last year 1,031,000 feet of sawed 1 nmber, valued at $8,900,000, and 357,000,000 
 shingles, valued at $734,000, or a total value of $9,634,000." 
 
 Touching the necessity for abolishing the Canadian export duty on logs, in view 
 of the proposed abolition of the United States duty on sawed lumber, the pamphlet 
 says : 
 
 "Under the operation of this system of reciprocity the money gain to Canadian 
 lumbermen on lumber sent to the United States in 1892, including shingles, byreasou 
 of the reduction of the duty, would bo $1,000,000, but this is only a small ])art of the 
 gain. The rougher grades of lumber were now capable of being marketed there at 
 a]»rofit, and it has been estimated by Colonel O'Brien, M. P. for Muskoka, and other 
 competent authorities, and corroborated by the reports of the Crown timber agents 
 and rangers of the Government, that from 30 to HO per cent more ])ine timber is cut 
 and marketed from the same area of licensed territory than was formerly the case. 
 This means a large increase in the revenue of the province for materia! which had 
 formerly gone to waste. It also means a large increase in the employment of labor 
 and markets for ])roduce." 
 
 And this gain to Canada has worked a deplorable loss to the chief manufacturing 
 industry of the United States, without any com])ensating benefit to the people, but 
 has caused the loss of a large amount of revenue to our (iovernmeut. 
 
 To clinch the argument Ave will make one more quotation from the Canadian 
 state paper referred to : 
 
 "The question of the wisdom or unwisdom of permitting the exportation of logs 
 as a quid pro quo for a reduction of the duty on sawn lumber need not be argued in 
 provincial politics. If there is blame anywhere it lies at the door of the Ottawa 
 Government for removing the duty and thus enabling the logs to be taken out of the 
 country.* This was done, however, at the instance of the lumbermen, who con- 
 vinced the Government tliat there was more money to be made for the country by 
 obtaining a removal of the American duty on imported sawn lumber than by retain- 
 ing the export duty on Canadian logs. If the Province had imposed tlie manufac- 
 turing condition, and the United States had subse([uently reimposed the duty of $2 
 or $3, or, indeed, $4 per thousand feet on sawn lumber, tlie immense loss to the Pro- 
 vince and to operators would instantly have been laid at the door of the Provincial 
 Government by the opposition and the Tory press, and the charge would have been 
 difficult to answer." 
 
 Had we collected a duty of $2 per thousand on the lumber imported in the past 
 three years we would have secured a revenue of $3,802,958. 
 
 That a duty of $2 on rough lumber will not be prohibitive is shown by the statis 
 tics of lumber imi)ort8 under the tarift" laws previous to 1890, when there Avas a 
 duty: 1887-88, 603,326,000 feet; 1888-89, 747,342,000 feet; 1889-90, 659,703,000 feet. 
 
 We therefore believe that Avith the duty restored the importation of Canadian 
 lumber will continue, but at the same time it Avill pay a revenue into tlie United 
 States Treasury amounting to $1,250,000 and tiiis fact Avill serve as a check to pre 
 vent these importations being sold at prices that imperil the prosperity of our own 
 manufacturers. 
 
 EXHIBIT C. 
 
 According to the official r3ports for the Eleventh Census (1890) the facts respect- 
 ing labor cost are elucidated as follows: 
 
 "Labor enters very largely into the manufacture of forest products which become 
 materials for the mill. In order to obtain the ratio which labor aiul material each 
 bear to the total Aalue of the products of tlie lumber and sawmill industry it is nec- 
 essary to start at the stump and separate the cost of each in all stages of the process
 
 508 
 
 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 of converting standing timber into the mill product. The data presented in the fol- 
 lowingstateraentshow by groups of States the division of cost, in each $100, for labor, 
 materials, and all other items of exjiense : 
 
 Items. 
 
 Valiio of stumpago 
 
 Logging .supi)lie8 
 
 Keepot'aniiuals 
 
 Mil) .supplies and all othrr material 
 
 Miscellaneon.s ex)»enses, taxes, insur- 
 ance, etc 
 
 Wages 
 
 Total 
 
 United 
 States. 
 
 $25. 13 
 1.53 
 4.47 
 4.38 
 
 C.72 
 57.77 
 
 Eastern 
 group. 
 
 $21. 08 
 1.24 
 4.30 
 2.67 
 
 6.73 
 63.98 
 
 Lake 
 group. 
 
 $33. 96 
 1.58 
 3.00 
 6.69 
 
 7.68 
 47.09 
 
 100. 00 
 
 Central 
 group. 
 
 $24. 39 
 0.63 
 4.95 
 3.03 
 
 5.53 
 61.47 
 
 100. 00 
 
 South 
 groap. 
 
 $12.16 
 1.54 
 7.97 
 3,23 
 
 5.39 
 09. 71 
 
 Pacific 
 group. 
 
 $10. 95 
 2.83 
 5,15 
 3.36 
 
 7.26 
 70.45 
 
 Since items Nos. 2 and 3 consist of farm prodncts, the cost of which is .-ilmost 
 entirely labor, it is evident that items Nos. 2, '^, and 6 should be aggregated, thus 
 showing that tiic proportion of labor in each $100 cost of manufacture varies from 
 $.51.67 in the Lake group to $78.13 in the Pacific group of States. These are the 
 averages obtained from tin; reports of more tiian 20,000 establishments. The rates 
 of wages ])aid in the lumber industry during the census year 1889-90 are shown with 
 great detail in Table 3, on jiages 621 to 631, inclusive, of the report jirevionsly 
 referred to. 
 
 These were the conditions in 1890. To-day, owing to the extremely low price of 
 lumber, the percentage of labor to the total value of the product is greatly increased, 
 and is from HO to X'l ))cr cent, as stated in the nii-morial. 
 
 Taking 317 establishments in Minnesota as an exam])le, we find that 9,311 mill 
 operatives worked an average of nearly si.x and one-half months that year and 
 received an average wage of $43.57 ptT month. Under ordinary conditiims these 
 mill operatives are employed in the woods during the winter season, when the mills 
 are idle, but under existing conditions, principally due to adverse tariff legislation, 
 both the mill season and the woods season have become greatly contracted, 
 
 Dui'ing tlic year 1S96 the datarclafing towages are in strong contrast to wh.athas 
 previously been i)resented. Six concerns from Minnesota and Wisconsin show the 
 following decrease in days employed and wages paid: 
 
 
 Days employment 
 given all employ- 
 ees. 
 
 Amount paid in wages. 
 
 
 1892. 
 
 1896. 
 
 1892. 
 
 1896. 
 
 1 
 
 72, 320 
 75, 309 
 53, 650 
 54, 187 
 25. 402 
 136, 192 
 
 42,160 
 34, 176 
 40, 230 
 26, 638 
 24, 148 
 70, 296 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 $141,477.75 
 
 99, 798. 53 
 
 87, 802. 71 
 
 39, 585. 51 
 
 210, 310. 92 
 
 $54, 935. 90 
 
 3 
 
 73, 570. 95 
 
 4 
 
 30, 23(1. 57 
 
 5 
 
 34, 282. 28 
 
 6 
 
 110,874.74 
 
 
 
 The district from which these figures are taken produced between 30 and 40 per cent 
 of the total white-])ine cut of the United States, or something more than 10 percent 
 of tlie entire cut of all kinds of wood. The Lake grou]) of States, which produces 
 the greater ])art of all white ]>ine cut, in 1890 ])aid in wages $48, 3 1. "i,. 593. If the per- 
 centage of decrease shown by tlie companies reporting holds good for the entire Lake 
 group it would show a shrinkage of wages paid to labor of between $20,000,0 )0 and 
 $23,000,000. That this is apt to bo the case is borne out by reports so far received, 
 showing the .shrinkage in the cut for the past year. The four districts, Duluth 
 Superior, Minneapolis, west Wisconsin, and Saginaw show a falling off in 189ti from 
 1895 of over S50,(i00,0(,)0 feet; while Menouiince-iMarinettc, Chequamegon l\:\x, and 
 Merrell and Wau.sau show a falling off of 149,000,000 feet, or a total of 1,000,000,000 
 feet from five districts reported.
 
 UNITED STATES LUMBER MANUFACTURERS. 609 
 
 [j:ntted states lumber mais^xtfacturers. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. S. W. GARDINER, OF MISSISSIPPI, 
 REPRESENTING THE LUMBER MANUFACTURERS OF THE 
 UNITED STATES. 
 
 December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Your petitioners are here as the accredited representatives of the lum- 
 ber niannfacturers of the United States, who, by delegated authority 
 and as individuals, met in convention in the city of Cincinnati on Decem- 
 ber 15, and who did then and there authorize these your j)resent visitors 
 to appear before your honorable body and present to you their reasons 
 for asking that in the drafting of a tariff bill to be acted upon by either 
 the present or the incoming Congress, lumber, whether rough or dressed 
 or remanufactured, shall be taken from the free list where it now stands 
 and placed ujion the list of dutiable imports. We ask this not only 
 as an important revenue measure, but at the same time a measure to 
 relieve the largest manufacturing industry of the United States of the 
 unjust and damaging discrimination to which the present tariff laws 
 subject it. 
 
 According to the census of 1890 there were over 21,000 lumber manu- 
 facturing establishments in this conntry, and if we add the planing mills 
 and otlier allied industries, tlie number is swelled to over 45,000, giving 
 em])]oynient to over 000,000 laborers. 
 
 These establishments are located in all parts of the country, from 
 ocean to ocean, and from the EritishCanadian line to the Gulf and 
 Mexican boundary. Our proposition, therefore, is neither sectional nor 
 class in its significance. 
 
 Wie are not here to discuss what may have been the reasons for sin- 
 gling out the products of this one of all the great manufacturing indus- 
 tries for the free list; but simply to convince you of the rank injustice 
 of the measure. It does not seem possible that the reason for doing it 
 was to illustrate or exemplify any of the broad claims that have been 
 advanced for a general free-trade policy. No champion of free trade 
 will argue that either the truth or error of his theory may be demon- 
 strated by its application to one or two industries, while all the remain- 
 ing ones are subject to contrary and oi>posing conditions. 
 
 We are equally loth to believe that the present status of lumber as 
 related to tariff was brought about by the assumption that it is a raw 
 material. If there is any such factor in our business as raAv material 
 it is logs, and Ave are not here to ask that any duty be laid upon logs 
 of either hard or soft woods, but when these logs have been converted 
 into lumber by the use of expensive machinery and skilled labor it 
 becomes a manufactured article, and is ready for the consumer's imme- 
 diate use; and, again, when this lumber is taken into the planing mills 
 and dressed and remanufactured into the various forms comprehended 
 in general planing-mill work, such as flooring, ceiling, moldings, etc., 
 it becomes still further removed from the raw material, and in justice 
 to American planing-mill interests should be treated accordingly in 
 making up your schedules. 
 
 The amount of lumber imported into this country from Canada dur- 
 ing the last fiscal year was over 785,000,000 feet, amounting to over 
 $8,000,000, and if we add the importations of box shocks and other
 
 510 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 items which are really lumber, although otherwise specifically desig- 
 nated, we get an amount* approaching $10,000,000 paid for Canadian 
 lumber products, with no corresj^onding or comi)ensating advantages 
 derived by our own citizens. These figures are in excess of those of 
 any previous year, notwithstanding it was during a period of extreme 
 financial and commercial depression. 
 
 It will be seen that had there been a duty of 15 or 20 per cent col- 
 lected on these imports, our revenues would have been increased by 
 $1,500,000 to 82,000,000; and at the same time the Canadian product 
 could not have been sold at so low a price as to imperil the interests of 
 American manufacturers, as is being done under present conditions. 
 
 What good shall be derived from all these millions of money sent to 
 Canada! IIow much food, clothing, furniture, or other supplies shall 
 we sell to Canada by reason of these vast purchases "? Very little, indeed. 
 The Canadian shrcAvdly says, as does the Frenchman: "It is our policy 
 to make as nearlj'^ as possible everything that we use in our own coun- 
 try." And it is a pretty good i)olicy, too, let me assure you. 
 
 That the present tariff laAvs unjustly discriminate against the lumber 
 industry will be conceded by all fair-minded thinkers when it is remem- 
 bered that every article that goes into its production is dutiable, from 
 the axes and saws and other imj)lenients and supplies of the woodsmen, 
 the steel rails and rolling stock of their laihvays, the engines, boilers, 
 belting, saws, and nuichinery in their mills, to their clothing, furniture, 
 and utensils and those of their emi)lt>yees aiul their families. 
 
 In addition to the protection given to other manufacturers by the 
 tariff laws, nuich of the machinery used by the lumber and planing jnill 
 industries is controlled by patents, and still other supplies are regu- 
 lated as to i)rices by combinations of those who manufacture and deal 
 in them. This is notably true of steel rails, boiler and structural iron, 
 saws, belting, files, etc., while on the other haiul with lumber, the 
 creating of fictitious values by trusts or combinations among 21,000 
 manufacturers located in all ])arts of the Union Avould be an utter 
 impossibility. There is no patent on lumber and no combination or 
 monopoly to control its i>rice. 
 
 For the purpose of comparison we may say that the labor required to 
 produce 1,000 feet of rough lumber is approxinuitely the same as is 
 re([nired to i)ro(luce a ton of pig iron; whicli is dutiable at the rate of 
 $1 ])er ton. Again, we might compare 1,000 feet of higher grade 
 dressed finishing lumber or flooring with a ton of structural iron or 
 steel rails, which connnodity is ])rotected by a duty of about SS per ton, 
 while the lumber is at present listed free, all of which we insist is unjust 
 and unfair. 
 
 It has been charged that a duty on lumber would benefit no one but 
 a few wealthy lumbermen. Gentlemen, the being known as a rich 
 lumberman is ra])idly becoming an extinct species. I venture the 
 assertion that a search-light expedition conscientiously conducted 
 among the ])roprietors of the 21,000 lumber-manufacturing establish- 
 ments would not reveal one. 
 
 In conclusion, we submit that in ^iew of the fact that all of our 
 American cstablislnnents are faxed for the su])port of national. State, 
 county, and municipal institutions, and the further fact that the aver- 
 age duties on all dutiable imports are about 35 i)er cent ad valorem, a 
 specific duty on lumber i)roducts equivalent to 20 per cent is not excess- 
 ive. Such a duty, not high enough to be prohibitory, would yield a 
 handsome revenue to the Government, and would at the same time 
 serve to check the growing increase of such importations, and the
 
 CALIFORNIA AND FLORIDA LUMBER INTERESTS. 511 
 
 unloading of surplus stocks of Canadian products ui)ou our markets, 
 especially in times of business dei)ression, at prices to compete with 
 which leaves no protit to the American manufacturer. It would also 
 encourage the closer manufacture of the coarser logs that are now left 
 in the forests to burn or decay, and would thereby increase by a large 
 percentage our natural resources of Avealth, aiul would be measured by 
 millions of dollars earned by the employees engaged in manufacturing 
 and marketing it. 
 
 CALIFOTllSTA LUMBER i:^TERE8TS. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE CALIFORNIA DELEGATION. 
 
 Thursday, December 31, 1896. 
 
 Gentlemen: California is largely engaged in the luniber business. 
 To illustrate the change wliich has taken ])lace in this branch of busi- 
 ness since the ])assage of the Wilson tariff we call the attention of the 
 counnittee to the fact that in one county in a territory 80 miles long- 
 by 10 miles wide (we think a fair example) in this year there are 3,000 
 men less employed in the mills and logging camps than were employed 
 in 189U, and at ranch reduced wages. 
 
 Many hundreds of mills have closed down and the ones in operation 
 are running at an actual loss and on half or quarter time. The mills 
 of British Columbia have taken our markets. Their niills are operated 
 by cheap Chinese labor. 
 
 It has been thought by men engaged in the manufacture of redwood 
 lumber that the tariff was of no real benelit to their business because 
 there is no other redwood in the world. But having suffered on a line 
 with others who make })ine or other lumber, they are now demanding 
 the restoration ^)f the former tariff. We believe the example given 
 fairly shows the ccuidition of the lumber business in California. 
 
 We ask that the tariff of 1890 on lumber be restored. 
 
 FLORIDA LUMBER EN^TERESTS. 
 
 Milton, Fla., January 9, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir: We have in this county several of the largest lumber 
 mills in the State, viz, Simpson & Co., J. A. Choffer & Co., Milligan Mill 
 Company, and others, and I am advised they are very much in favor of 
 the i)roposition to place a duty of $2 per thousand on lumber, and are 
 greatly in hopes that such will be incorporated in the new tarilf measure 
 that is in process of framing and now in tlie hands of the Committee on 
 Ways and Means. 
 
 The lumber industry, as you are aware, is paramount in this section, 
 and though all of these firms named are in politics strictly Democrats, 
 they believe under existing circumstances it is nothing more than jus- 
 tice to them that this duty be imposed. 
 
 With regards, and wishing for you, jiolitically and otherwise, a pros- 
 perous and happy New Year. 
 
 C. J, Perrenot.
 
 .12 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 I.OUISIA]S^A LUMBEB INTERESTS. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY F. B. WILLIAMS, REPRESENTING THE 
 LOUISIANA CYPRESS MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 Thursday, JJecemher 3J, ISDG. 
 
 Gentlemen: I appear before your committee as a representative of 
 tlie luinber industry of tlie United States, viz, the cypress lumber man- 
 ufacturers of the State of Louisiana. This important brancli of the 
 kimber trade is, for certain legitimate and useful iiurposes, organized 
 as tlie Louisiana Cy])ress Lumber JManufacturers' Association, with an 
 annual lumber production of about .30(),( 100,000 feet, of an ai>proximate 
 value of §r)',000,000, emi)loying" thousands of workingnien in the 
 swamjjs, mills, and yards. 
 
 We are are greatly concerned for the welfare of all interested, and 
 knowing as we do the mutuality of interests involved, we have no hes- 
 itation in saying to your committee that in the removal of the duty 
 upon the Canadian product, serious damage has been wrought to the 
 lumber industry in all of its branches. The trade has been languish- 
 ing for several years, and one of the main causes leading to the demor- 
 alization of the markets of the Northern and Eastern States, where a 
 vast portion of our products linds a market, is demonstrated to be the 
 ojiening of these same markets to the free entry of low-grade lumber 
 from Caiuula. 
 
 Cy])ress lumber is a direct competitor of white pine for the trade in 
 the States bordering upon the Great Lakes, which were first and per- 
 haps more seriously affected by the larger receipts of free lumber; our 
 interests have been grievously injured, and our investments have been 
 rendered well nigh unprofitable. We liave been obliged to lessen ]>ro- 
 duction, reduce the hours, days, and wages of labor Intherto furnished 
 American workingmen, and we therefore un(pialifiedly petition for a 
 reimposition of the $2 dutj' u])on the Canadian ])roduct as a necessary 
 step in the direction of lestoring our industry to its normal condition, 
 and lostering tlie welfare of the army of men mainly dependent upon 
 the lumber business. 
 
 MAEN^E EtlMBEK IXTERESTS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. C. A. BOUTELLE, M. C, OF MAINE. 
 
 Thursday, December 31, 1896: 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it is necessary tliat 
 someone sliould represent tlie lumber interest, which is a subject of 
 deep and abiding interest to the manvifacturers. The j^osition of our 
 people on the subject is well known. There has not been any question 
 so important to tlie lumber manufacturing interest as the necessity as 
 well as the public i)oli(;y of an adequate i)rotection to that interest. 
 There has been doubt in the minds of some ])eo))le interested in lumber 
 in other sections, but we have always believed that they would get 
 light on the question, and would come around to our views, so that I 
 have been glad to hear the sentiments expressed here today.
 
 MAINE LUMBER INTERESTS. 513 
 
 In a speech delivered iu the House in January, 1894, I spoke of this 
 subject, and I am glad to see that the truth of the sentiments then 
 expressed has become more and more obvious to our friends in tbe Middle 
 section of the country. 
 
 I want to say on behalf of the lumber manufacturers of the East 
 that they have never sought any invidious or special protection in 
 regard to matters of the tariff; and, as some allusion has been made 
 by one of the gentlemen to the discussion on the McKinley bill as to 
 the undue efficiency of the Eastern delegations in keeping the tariff 
 upon si)ruce while white pine was decreased, I desire to say, on my 
 own behalf, and as a representative of my people, that the lumber man- 
 ufacturers of Maine and elsewhere appeared before the subcommittee 
 of the Committee on Ways and Means in behalf of a retention of the 
 original duty on white pine. 
 
 Mr. McCormick, of Pennsylvania, and other gentlemen in connection 
 with myself, appeared before the subcommittee and urged u])on it the 
 importance of maintaining the duty on wliite ])ine at a high rate, because 
 the importation of the poorer grades of pine must inevitably work to the 
 disadvantage of hemlock and the manufactures of pine, and the spruce 
 manufactures of other sections. The subcommittee, and subsequently 
 the Ways and Means Committee, restored the duty on pine to $1.50, 
 but it was reduced to $1 in the Senate. Of course, the considerations 
 which brought that about are well known to the members of the 
 committee. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. They had the impression that the industry was so 
 strong that it would stand a reduction. 
 
 Mr. BouTELLE. 1 think that was so, and possibly the large acces- 
 sions of pine interests on the other side of the line affected the matter to 
 some extent. Spruce is tlie staple of our country, but there is no desire 
 to interfere in any way with others or to keep any other section from 
 securing an adecjuate protection for all classes of manufactured lumber 
 in this country. In my section it is the basis of support of a large 
 part of our population. On my own river, the Penobscot, the lumber 
 interest is everything. I find that the statistics show that our lumber 
 manufactured in 1893 amounted to 819,000,000 feet, and that the value 
 of tbe lumber cut on the Penobscot River was practically $1,000,000, 
 employing 2,000 men. The same facts are true of other sections of our 
 State with which the chairman of this committee is familiar, making a 
 grand aggregateof employment, output, and wages, that isof controlling 
 and far-reachingimportance to the people of Maine. We are on the border, 
 and are brought into direct competition with the Canadian product. 
 For many years we have been threatened with a reduction of the lum- 
 ber tariff", and we have dreaded it ; it has been in the realm of expect- 
 ancy and hypothesis, but there is nothing hypothetical about the 
 lumber business of to-day. The people engaged in it come in direct 
 competition with the lumber of Canada. 
 
 This committee is in great part composed of the same gentlemen who 
 framed the tariff" law of 1890, and, as the gentlemen of the committee 
 are perfectly aware of the opinion of the American people, we in the 
 East feel perfectly safe in the expectation that not only this committee, 
 but the Fifty-fifth Congress will enact legislation for the American 
 people which will revive this business that has been interrupted, and 
 will see to it that this great industry, employing a large number of 
 men, and an industry in which the proportionate employment of labor 
 and ])ayment of wages is one of the largest with which I am familiar, 
 will receive adequate protection. 
 TH 33
 
 514 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 I will submit some statistics. I also want to say that during- a quite 
 extended although somewhat rapid trip on the Pacific Coast, in Cali- 
 fornia, Oregon, and Washington, during the last fall I found as earnest 
 and anxious complaint in regard to the condition of the lumber busi- 
 ness there as prevails in my own section, and they are determined to 
 secure protection to their industry as well. 
 
 KEIS^XEBEC (MAIXE) LTJ^IBER ASS0CIATT0:N^. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY SMITH S. RANDALL, SECRETARY OF 
 KENNEBEC (MAINE) LUMBER MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Thursday, Becemher 31, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen: We appear before you in l)eha]f of the American man- 
 ufacturers of lumber, to ask you, in framing a new tariff law, to impose 
 a specific duty on spruce and pine lumber of not less tlian si2 per 1,(K)0 
 feet. TheCanadianmanufacturersof lumber, by reason of their clieaper 
 labor and cheaper habits of living, are able to i)lace their manufactured 
 products on the American markets at prices with Avhich the American 
 manufacturer can not compete. 
 
 The Maine lumberman furnishes his camp with a variety of supplies, 
 and the best to be obtained. The camp fare is up to the standard of 
 the prospenms New England farmer. The traditional pork and beans 
 diet lil times a Aveek is ol" the remote past. Xot so witli the Canadian 
 lumberman. Ills table is sup])li('d with a black bread, dried fish, and 
 ixu'k and beans. With tliis food the Canadian l-'renchman is satished, 
 because it is what he is a(H'Ustomed to provide for himself and family 
 when he is at home. The wants of his family are lew and so easily sat- 
 isfied that proportionately 81 does more for him than $2 can do for the 
 Amei'ican workman. 
 
 It has never been the policy of the Xew England manufacturers to 
 encourage their workmen to live without buying. On the contrary, 
 they are purchasers. The .Vmerican workman wears boots and shoes 
 appropriate to the season of theytar; the Erench Canadian makes him- 
 self a pail' of moccasins and wears them every day in the year. The 
 American wears clothing which lie buys; the I'^rench Canadian wears 
 homespun, made by liis wife. The American is seiuiing his well-dressed 
 children to the i)ublic schools; the Erench Canadian can neitlier read 
 nor write and lias no desire for his children to do so. The American, 
 by the expenditure of his earnings, is constantly furnisliing eini)loy- 
 nient to (►tlieis; the Erench Canadian does nothing of tlie kind. We 
 can not ask the Aiiieiiean workmen to approach this standard of living. 
 The American standard of living is i»rogressive, never retrogressive. 
 The cost of labor to the American lumberman is double that cost of same 
 amount of labor to Canadian lumbermen, cost of food included in each 
 case. The value of standing timber in Maine is probably, by average, 
 $2 per thousand feet for merchantable spruce. l']very dollar of value 
 added to this stumpage value at any period of the business, whether it 
 be the cost of logs in the mill boom or cost of lumber on the wharf, 
 represents the cost of the labor. 
 
 1 herewitli submit some figures of tlie comi)arative cost of tlie differ- 
 ent items which represent the cost of logs in the mill boom at different 
 spruce-lumbering centers.
 
 MAINE LUMBER INTERESTS. 
 
 515 
 
 Items. 
 
 New 
 Brunswick. 
 
 Loggin jr crew, average per month 
 
 Man anil pair liorses, per mouth 
 
 Baled liay, i)er ton at camp 
 
 Helativocost of supplies 
 
 Kiver drivers, per day 
 
 Cost of logs at mill, not including sturai>age 
 
 Excess of cost in Maine over average Canadian , 
 
 Province of Quebec. 
 
 $15. 00 
 
 24.00 
 
 10.00 
 
 1.00 
 
 1.25 
 
 4.50 
 
 Eastern 
 townships. 
 
 $14. 00 
 24.00 
 10. on 
 
 1.00 
 1. 25 
 4.00 
 
 Lower 
 counties. 
 
 $12. 00 
 
 20.00 
 
 8.00 
 
 .00 
 
 .80 
 
 3.00 
 
 Maine. 
 
 $23. 00 
 50.00 
 20.00 
 2.00 
 2.25 
 7.00 
 3.00 
 
 The Canadian timber land is owned by the Government, and the 
 lessee of a tract has a licen.se to cut on said tract and ])ay stumpafte to 
 the Government on what he cuts, at 05 cents ])er 1,000 feet, at Canadian 
 Government scales, which gives 10 i^er cent more product than the 
 Scribner rule, used in Maine. He also pays one-half a cent per acre each 
 year on his whole permit, whether he cuts or not, but as fast as he cuts 
 off the timber lie is allowed to cancel his permit on the part cut, thus 
 reducing the annual tax. This annual tax is about one-half of our State 
 tax on wild lands. 
 
 By the Canadian arrangement it can readily be seen that large capital 
 is not necessary to engage in business on a large scale. It is diHerent in 
 our business. The lumberman has to bear the expense of the interest 
 on tlie land investment, also the fire risk, which is large in the New 
 England forests. 
 
 The lumber industry is the principal industry in the United States, 
 employing the largest capital as well as the greatest number of men. 
 More than s.-)()0,000,000 are invested in this business, and 8250,000,000 
 is the annual i)ay roll of the lumber manufacturers and loggers in the 
 United States. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF LUMBER MANUFACTURERS OF THE STATE OF 
 
 MAINE. 
 
 Bangor, Me., December 26, 1896, 
 In the formation of a new taritf bill the undersigned, representing 
 the manufacturers of lumber in the State of Maine, would respectfully 
 urge upon the committee the reenactment of the tariff bill of 1800 on 
 lumber. This was the unanimous expression, without distinction of 
 party, at the business men's meeting lately held in this city for the 
 imrpose of considering this matter. 
 
 We respectfully refer the members of your committee for information 
 relating to the number of mill establishments, capital invested, hands 
 employed, wages paid, and total value of mill jiroducts in the United 
 States to statistics carefully prepared by George A. Priest, special 
 agent of the Census Department, and contained in the speech of Hon. 
 Eugene Hale in the Senate, April 11, 1804. 
 
 The effect of free lumber has been to transfer a large number of 
 lumber operations from the northeastern forest lauds of Maine to the 
 Canadian side of the St. John Kiver. The cost of getting supplies and 
 labor on the Maine side of the river will average about 25 per cent 
 greater than on the Canadian side. The difference in expense is largely 
 in the cost of getting supplies to the lumber camps on the Maine side 
 of the river. There are several hundred thousand acres of land in this 
 section of Maine inaccessible by rail or public highways, and to take 
 supplies from points in Maine often costs for hauling from the railroad 
 stations as high as !§25 or $30 per ton. The Canadian railroad system 
 has been extended from the Province of Quebec to St. John, and in this
 
 516 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 northeastern section more lands have been improved than in the forest 
 section of Maine. 
 
 The Maine lumbermen who conduct operations in this territory are 
 obliged to buy their hay and many other supplies on the Canadian side. 
 On their hay they must pay a duty of 82 per ton, and on other sup- 
 plies a corresponding duty. This section of Canada has been settled 
 largely by French Canadians, who, as a rule, are first-class woodsmen, 
 and as they have no other work in winter are willing to work for less 
 wages than the woodsmen of our State. We had free lumber during 
 the reciprocity act from 1854 until March, 1866. At this time the con- 
 tract labor law did not exist, and our lumbermen had the right to bring 
 iree of duty their hay, oats, and other woods supplies. 
 
 The right of transit for the products of Maine on the St. John River 
 was specially reserved in the Ashburton treaty, and as the forests of 
 Maine and Kew Brunswick are only separated by an imaginary line, 
 this is sufficient reason why the citizens of a foreign country should 
 not have an advantage over our citizens ^or reaching our market. 
 
 When it is remembered that the St. John Kiver and its tributaries 
 are the only way for the lumber from the forest lauds of that section 
 of Maine to reach market, it must be admitted that if we are to have 
 free lumber our lumbermen should be i)laced ujion an equality with 
 the Canadians. They should have the right to eu)i)loy these Canadians 
 without being hampered as at present tjy the contract labor law, and 
 should have the right to take hay and other supi)lies from these settle- 
 ments across the St. John River free of duty, for it is an inconsistency 
 when lumber on the Maine side must be carried to market in the same 
 river with lumber cut on the Canadian side and our lumbermen obliged 
 by law to i)ay duty upon articles which are being used in Canadian 
 camps within hearing distance. 
 
 Formerly our Maine lumbermen ]»urchased their heavy horses largely 
 in Canada, but they now purchase Western horses almost wholly; also 
 feed, corn, oats, pork, etc., is purchased almost entirely from the West, 
 which shows that other sections of the country are benefited by the 
 lumber business in ]\Iaine. 
 
 It is estimated that about 75 per cent of a cargo of sawed lumber is 
 expended for labor, which is a larger percentage than on almost any 
 other article. A duty of less than 20 per cent was collected on lumber 
 under the tariff act of 1800. 
 
 We believe that duty should be collected upon articles purchased in 
 foreign countries, in the production of which the greatest amount of 
 labor enters. We believe that sawed lumber can as well afford, with- 
 out any hardship to the consumer, to pay the revenue provided in the 
 McKinley act to the Government, as any other article of merchandise 
 upon which duty is placed. The Canadians use the products of their 
 own country while the lumbermen of the United States use millions of 
 dollars worth of our farm products. 
 
 An industry which, according to the last report of the United States 
 census, had $561,913,429 capital invested, giving employment to 797,108 
 persons, paying in wages in a single year $215,235,282, with a total 
 value of mill products in one year of $392,568,964, is certainly worthy 
 of your highest consideration. Not only are the lumbermen of the 
 State of ]\Iaine interested in this question, but those of the Central, 
 Western, Southern, and Pacific States are equally so. 
 
 On the part of the business men of Maine, without distinction of 
 party, we respectfully urge the reenactment of the McKinley schedule 
 on lumber in the act of 1890. Joseph P. Bass. 
 
 E. & I. K. Stetson.
 
 MICHIGAN LUMBER INTERESTS. 517 
 
 MEMORIAL OF CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF MAINE. 
 
 Portland, Me., Deceviber 30, 1896. 
 
 Whereas the lumber industry of the State of Maine is the largest in 
 dustry in the State, employing the greatest capital and the largest 
 number of men, and being so universally distributed that scarcely a 
 single town in the State is without a branch of it, conferring its bene- 
 fits directly or indirectly on almost every individual in the State; and 
 
 Whereas since the enactment of the Wilson tariff law, admitting 
 lumber free of duty, manufacturers of Canadian lumber along the bor- 
 der of the State of Maine, by means of their cheaper labor, rendered 
 still cheaper by their methods of store payment and their proportion- 
 ately cheaper transportation, are able to import into our markets and 
 sell at prices with whicjh the lumbermen ot this State are unable to 
 compete; and 
 
 Whereas the lumbering industry is now suffering from a depression 
 whicli has closed many mills and reduced the output of others, and 
 entailed a loss upon all: 
 
 Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of the State of Maine, ear- 
 nestly urge your committee, in framing another tariff law, to imi)ose a 
 specific duty of not less than $2 per thousand feet on spruce and pine 
 lumber, 20 cents per thousand on laths, 35 cents per thousand on cedar 
 shingles, $5 per thousand on dressed clapboards, and $2.r){) per ton on 
 wood i)ulu, such duties being absolutely necessary to enable the man- 
 ufacturers of this State to compete with foreign manufacturers. 
 
 James P. Baxter 
 And 305 others. 
 
 J^nCKIGA]^ LUlNIBEli INTERESTS. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. SELWYN EDDY, OF BAY CITY, 
 
 MICHIGAN. 
 
 Bay City, Mich., Deeemher 30, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As the interests of Michigan, and especially of Saginaw Yalley, are 
 affected by tariff legislation different from any other district, and we 
 are numbered among the larger operators, al.so the larger part of our 
 standing timber being situated in the Georgian Bay district, Canada, 
 I feel we are worthy of consideration on this issue. I sincerely believe 
 protection is the true doctrine for Americans; and if such legislation 
 is to be made for other interests, certainly lumber should have its just 
 consideration. There are about thirty sawmill plants on the shores of 
 Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay which depend largely on Canadian 
 timber for their supply of saw logs, and if they are deprived of that 
 source of supply, will have to be abandoned entirely, which can readily 
 be seen will be a most serious loss to the whole State of Michigan, as 
 it would throw an army of men out of emi)loyment. The Georgian 
 Bay district, on account of the very rough and broken character of the 
 country and its inaccessibility, is an extremely bad place to establish 
 manufacturing plants (which the Canadian Government are trying hard 
 to force the lumbermen to do). If they succeed in forcing us to abandon
 
 518 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OP. 
 
 our plants here, only a very limited number will ever be built tbere for 
 reasons given above, and in order to ])rotect us, it must be done mainly 
 by a retaliatory clause in tlie tariff bill. There are four different ways 
 in which the Canadian Government can seriously interfere with the 
 exportation of saw logs from Georgian Bay district to the mills in 
 Michigan, which is the principal point where saw logs are exi)orted 
 between any two countries. The first, and i)rincip;d, is by the impos- 
 ing of an export duty on same. This should be dealt witli something 
 as follows: Any country imposing an ex])ort duty on saw logs to tliis 
 country, alike duty or double the amount should be added to the im])()rt 
 duty of the products of the forest from that country, or, in other 
 words, if the Canadians impose 82 a thousand export duty on saw 
 logs, it would increase the duty on lumber and other products of the 
 forest double the amount of the ex])ort duty vso imposed. The next 
 would be by discriminating stum})iige dues, and is done in this way: 
 Anyone operating in that country for export to this country could be 
 made to pay larger stnm])age dues than they would if said logs were 
 manufactured in that country. Still another way is to impose a duty 
 on boom sticks, in which said logs have to be towed across the lakes 
 from one country to the otliei'. This is the metliod of trans])ortarion, 
 and thcirbooms are continually returning for otlier rafts, and by customs 
 regulationsmakingtheboomsi)ayduty every time they enter the conn try, 
 ])ractically makes it im|)Ossibh' to remove such logs on account of excess- 
 ive duties. The last is making a ruling absolutely i>roliii)itiiig the 
 exporting of saw logs to this country. These last thiee should be met 
 by a bill imposing double the duty on imjjorts of lumber or i)roducts of 
 the forest from any country inflicting such penalties on the exporting 
 of saw logs to this country. 
 
 It has never been the custom of this Government to impose an export 
 duty on saw logs or duties on boom sticks, but the Caiuidian Govern- 
 ment has made attempts to enforce su(;h regulations against this (coun- 
 try, but so far we have succeeded in getting th'em to witii<lraw such 
 rulings. With the clauses in liiu' with the above suggestion we would 
 have no trouble in regard to the exporting of logs, as the Canadian 
 Government is exporting to this country about three times as much 
 lumber as saw logs. It becomes evident that if the ])enalty clause is 
 inserted in our bill they will not attem])t to interfere with the export 
 ing of logs. If such a clause or clauses as I have suggested were 
 inserted in the bill the whole ^Michigan interests should be jierfectly 
 satisfied with any duty on rough and dressed lumber that will satisfy 
 the greatest number. Peisonally, a duty of $1 a tliousand on rough 
 lumber would be satisfactory to me, but I believe a greatei- nund)er 
 believe a higher rate should be imposed, and dressed lumber should 
 have eipially as strong i)rotection. 
 
 1 do not believe that Ameri(;ans whose whole interests are now in 
 Canada should have any great intluence in tariff legislation, as their 
 interests are too nnu'h of a seltish nature. Many of them have huge 
 operations there, and in no way contribute to the exi)enses of our 
 Government, either in its national, estate, or municipal affairs, and 
 de]>eiul very largely on the American market for the sale of their ])r()d- 
 ucfs. Now this is not Just to the home operator, who is taxed in 
 various ways to meet these general exjjcnses incurred by our form of 
 government. 
 
 The result of such legislation would be to increase the amount of 
 labor iu the States instead of in Canada and at the same time raise a
 
 MICHIGAN LUMBER INTERESTS. 519 
 
 a revenue with which to assist us in ruuniiisf tliis Government. This 
 slionld be of interest to all Americans, both as manufacturers and 
 laborers. 
 
 Selwyn Eddy. 
 
 KOTJGII ANT> DRESSED EUIStBEIl, SHIKGEES, 
 
 AXD LATHS. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF SAGINAW LUMBER MANUFACTURERS AND 
 
 DEALERS. 
 
 Saginaw, Mich., January 9, 1897. 
 At a meetinjj of Sajjinaw lumber manufacturers and dealers, lield at 
 Board of Trade rooms, Saginaw, 31ich., December 29, 1890, the follow- 
 ing? resolutions were unanimously passed: 
 
 Wluireas we are in full sympathy with the action of the lumber tariff convention, 
 hel<l in Cincinuati, Ohio, Deoemlter 15, 1896. 
 
 Jlcsolred, Tliat this convention, representing the Saginaw lumber manufacturers, 
 whoh'sale and retail dealers, are earnestly in favor of placing rough and dressed 
 lumber, shingles, and lath on the dntible list. 
 
 llisolved, That we are earnestly in favor of the schedule recommended by the 
 National LumbernKMi's Comn\ittee and presented on December 31, 1896, to the Ways 
 and Means Committee of Congress, and we specially ask that the clause guarding 
 against export duty on logs, or <liscriminating 8t.uni])ag(' dues, be a part of same, 
 and we also specially protest against the clause in the tariff law of 1883, known ae 
 the rebate clause box shooks for export. 
 
 We, the undersifjned manufacturers, wholesale and retail lumber 
 dealers of Saginaw, by our signatures below, signify our approval to 
 above resolutions. 
 
 D. Wright & Co., Louis O. Slade, J. A. Whither, Arthur 
 Barnard, Kust Bros. & Co., C. H. Eddy & Co., A. T. 
 Bliss, W. K. Burt, H. M. Youmans, O'Donnell, Spencer 
 & Co., Linton Manufacturing Co., and 45 others. 
 In connection with the above, we explicitly protest against the unjust 
 discrimination that was the practical result of what is known as the 
 rebate clause existing in the present tariff law and did exist in the 
 McKinley tariff law. It enabled a few manufacturers to purcliase lum- 
 ber in Canada, making ])acking boxes therefrom, andujion the packing 
 boxes being tilled an(l exported, the duty that had been ])aid on the 
 lumber was rebated, thus making us competitors with Canadian lumber 
 for the benelit of a few only. 
 
 W. B. MuNSON & Co., 
 W. B. M UN SON, President. 
 Edward Germain. 
 O'Donnell, Spencer & Co., 
 Linton Manufactukingt Co., 
 Per C. E. Linton, Treasurer. 
 
 STATEMENT OF Z. C. JESSOP, OF DETROIT. 
 
 Detroit, January 4, 1897. 
 Dear Sir: In relation to the question of duty on lumber coming 
 from Canada to the United States, I would say that I have been in the 
 lumber business since 1SG8, and have watched same very carefully and
 
 520 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OP. 
 
 must say that I believe it is for the best interest of the lumber mauu- 
 facturers in the United States to have a reasonable duty on all lumber. 
 The owners of timber in the United States have been obliged to pur- 
 chase their lands and carry the same for years, paying taxes, also hav- 
 ing the interest on their investment accumulate, while the holders of 
 Canadian timber are only required to deposit a small amount when 
 engaging their limits and then pay the Canadian Government the bal- 
 ance when the logs are cut and in the water. You can readily see that 
 in this way the Canadian is rid of much expense. Under the McKinley 
 law tbere was exported to this country from Canada about L'00,0()0,()00 
 feet of lumber annually, while under the Wilson bill the amount has 
 increased to over 900,0U0,(H)0 feet annually. A large amount of this is 
 coarse lumber, which comes in direct competition with lumber sawed 
 in Michigan and tlie West. Prior to the enactment of tlie Wilson law 
 the manufacturers of lumber in Michigan and Wisconsin found market 
 for a large amount of coarse lumber in the J^ew England and Middle 
 States, but since that law became operative their sales have been 
 merely nothing, and coarse lumber in these parts has become a drug, 
 and consequently the value has depreciated, until it is hard work even 
 by the closest economy in manufacturing and handling to realize a new 
 dollar for an old <me, say nothing about ])rotit. 
 
 Under such circumstances you can see that tlie wages of the woods- 
 man, and all others concerned in any way with the business, has been 
 reduced. The farmer who raises the supplies for the lumber cami)S has 
 been obliged to sell his products for next to nothing. The true wealth 
 of the country comes from the ground and labor, and when the farmer 
 and laboring classes are not prosperous the merchant and business man 
 must sutler. 
 
 I am a lirm believer in the protection of American industries, and 
 consequently favor a reasouiible duty on lumber coming from Canada, 
 say $1 ])er 1,()()() feet on rough lumber and $U on dressed or that is 
 manufactured in any way, and certainly hope that Congress will pass 
 such a law, and the bouuer the better. 
 
 Yours, truly, Z. C. Jessop. 
 
 THE DELTA LUjVIBER COMP^V^TT. 
 
 Detroit, Mich., December 31, 1896. 
 Dear Sir: There has been so nuich said in the newspapers in the 
 last few days, and interviews had with all of the prominent lumbermen 
 in this district, that we regard it as suportluous to furnish statistics or 
 any special brief of our views in relation to the proposed lumber tariff 
 further than to say that any duty higher than $1 ])er thousand feet on 
 rough sawn lumber will, in our opinion, be a mistake. For dressed, 
 planed, grooved, or worked in any manner, a duty of at least $2, if not 
 $2.00, should be imj)osed. 
 
 Would add that we have a pay roll in Detroit of about $200,000 ])er 
 aiuium which, in the future, will largely depend upon the sup])ly of 
 logs we can obtain from our Geoigian Bay limits, where we have hold- 
 ings that will stock us for ten years to come. Timber tributary to our 
 upper peninsula plant suflicient to run three years is still on hand. 
 
 Delta Lumber Company, 
 E. L. Thompson, President.
 
 MINKEISOTA LUxMBEK INTERESTS. 521 
 
 MEST^ESOTA LUMBER EN^TERESTS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. PAGE MORRIS, OF DULUTH, MINN. 
 
 Thursday, December 31, 1896. 
 
 Mr. Morris said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of tlie committee, 
 as Mr. Boutelle has already said, I expect to be present in Washing- 
 ton during the consideration of this matter by the committee and in 
 its consideration before the House of Representatives, and will perhaps 
 have other opportunities to present such facts and arguments as I may 
 be able to get before the committee. I expected the representatives of 
 the lumber interest, being practical men engaged in that business, 
 would be the ones who would present the case of the lumbermen before 
 this committee at this hearing. I only received notice of the hearing 
 a week or ten days ago, and immediately upon receiving that notice I 
 notified and sought a conference with a number of lumbermen in the 
 district which I have the honor to rei)resent in the next Congress. 
 Those gentlemen gave me a large amount of information, but I have 
 not had the time or the opportunity up to the present time to verify 
 the statements which they have made to me by the official statistics, 
 and I, therefore, would speak with some modesty in giving those sta- 
 tistics to the committee. 
 
 As I stated, I do not desire to occupy any time, or very little time, 
 before this committee this morning because I desire that these practical 
 gentlemen who are connected with the business of lumber operations 
 should be heard before the committee. I have in my possession one or 
 two statements given to me by practical lumbermen who understand 
 what they are talking about, and which I am sure will hereafter be veri- 
 fied in the memorial which will be presented to this committee by the 
 subcommittee of the committee ap]iointed by the recent Cincinnati Con- 
 vention of Lumbermen, which I will give, and which will probably throw 
 some light and answer in a measure certain of the questions asked by 
 some of the gentlemen while Mr. Goodyear was speaking. I do not know 
 that the committee desire to hear anything about the disadvantage to 
 our lumbermen in tlie matter of stumpage. There is a great disadvan- 
 tage to our lumbermen in the matter of stumpage as between Canada 
 and this country. In this country our lumbermen acquire stumpage by 
 purchase from private owners. Something was said about the Indian 
 reservation lands. That is a recent thing; that is the sale of pine stump- 
 age upon certain Indian lands by the Government. The Government, 
 being guided by the usual price that is paid for the stumpage, fixed the 
 minimum limit at which that stumpage could be bought from the Gov- 
 ernment at $3 and placed it upon the market at competitive bids, and I 
 think there are lumbermen here, certainly one from my district, who will 
 sustain me when 1 say I do not think that any of that stumpage has 
 been sold tor a price, I know none has been sold for a price less than $3, 
 and most has averaged a price considerably over $3. 
 
 A Voice. That is right. 
 
 Mr, Morris. Now, here the lumbermen have to buy that stumpage 
 direct from the private individual or the Government reservation. 
 They pay not less than $3, and within recent years it has become nearly 
 $4. That is the price for stumpage. They have to pay that money in. 
 They have to carry that lumber and have to pay the taxes. Now, on 
 that question of taxes the nominal charge for holding the right to cut
 
 522 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 stuiiipiiiie fiom CaiKuliaii lauds per annum is less tlian a cent an acre. 
 We in our country have to pay the full tax on tlie value of our stunip;ige 
 lands, and I am informed by a gentleman from my district, who is a laige 
 owner of those lauds, that he had to pay as high as SlOO a singk- 40 
 acres. He told me the other day if he did not saw a plank, if he did 
 not hiie a man, if he did not operate his mill a day, his expenses for car- 
 rying his stumpage, paying taxes on his plant, aud the taxes on the 
 stumpage land would be more than $100 a day. Those are the things 
 our lumbermen have to do. They have to take the risk of fire; they 
 have to allow an amount on the stumpage land, aud when you have a 
 large ])laut that amounts to a great deal. 
 
 No company is going to construct railroads and build great mills 
 without havinga su])i)ly of lumber for at least ten years to come, aud that 
 means for one concern, with whose manager I was talking, an invest- 
 ment for that one concern of considerably more than $1,000,000. Now, 
 that oneconcerji has to carry the interest charge on that $1,000,000, it 
 has to pay taxes on the land, it has to run the risk of tire on the stump- 
 age, aiul that is a very great risk in our country, now that it is being 
 settled up so rapidly. It has to carrj' all the insurance on tlie plant, 
 and all of those charges which make it necessary and i)roper that they 
 sliould have some discrimination in their favor if our mills are to 
 be ])ieserved. Now, in Oauiula what is it in that respect? In Canada 
 they i)ut the lauds up to be bid for in what they call samples, with com- 
 petitive bidding, aud I am informed they buy the right to cut that 
 stumi)age from the land at from 50 cents to -ifl.L'S i)er thousand feet. 
 When they cut the stumpage from the laud they pay tlie additional 
 (Jrown charge of from 50 cents to $1.25. That, however, does not have 
 to be i)aid until the huuber is actually cut, aud usually it does n<>thave 
 to be i)aid until the lumber is actually ready for market, and sometimes 
 not until it is nuirketed aud sold. Now, they have no tire risks, they 
 have this nominal tax of less than one cent an acre, and they have as 
 an original investment on that laud from 50 cents to $1.25 a thousand, 
 where our people have from $3 to $4 a thousand. The Government 
 carries the tire rislc, the Government cariies the tax risk, the Govern- 
 ment improves the streams, the (iloverument in Canada gives every 
 advantage to its lumbermen. Now our lumbermen have to carry those 
 charges. 
 
 Now, again, this question was asked, What about the wages? Now, 
 during the canvass last fall, aud there is a gentlenuiu here who will 
 corioborate my statement — as 1 say, 1 have not had an oi)i)()rtunity to 
 verify these statements by the otiicial statistics as I ought, but 1 think 
 it will be shown, when we come to present the memorial here, that in the 
 lumber milling the differences in the wages paid to the laborers in 
 this country will not average less than 30 per cent in our favor, aud I 
 think we will go up to .50 per cent. 1 know that last fall, when the 
 I)()litical campaign was being made, I inquired Irom lumbermen at my 
 own home, and 1 had lumbermen in Canada written to without letting 
 them know what the i)urpose was, in regard to what were the wages 
 l)aid to laboring men in the mills in Canada and in our own mills. At 
 our place we range from $5, the highest wages per day, down to $1.25, 
 the lowest wages paid to labor. In their mills they range from S2.75 
 to $3 a day down to 00 cents. That is my recollecttion of the tigures. 
 AN'lien we averaged it we found that the wage was $1.80 in this country, 
 as against $1.20 in Canada. Now, the difference between S1.20 aud 
 $1.S0 is (50 cents, and 00 cents is exactly 50 ])er cent of $1.20, so that 
 our wages were exactly 50 per cent higher in this country for the mill
 
 MINNESOTA LUMBER INTERESTS. 523 
 
 products at tliat time, and the wages were less tlian they had been, on 
 account of the depression in the industry, but they were just exactly 
 50 per cent greater in this country than in Canada. 
 
 Now, w^hat in regard to the wages of the laboring men in the woods'? 
 I have been recently informed, Mr. Chairman, that the wages in this 
 country at the present time for men in the woods ranged from 810 to 
 $24, and that the wages in Canada for men in the woods range from $8 
 to $18. There is the difference at the present time. Four years ago, 
 in 1892, the lowest wage we paid in the woods was $26 to men and their 
 board, and it ranged from that to $40. There is the difference between 
 the two conditions of 1892 and the trade conditions of 189(3, the differ- 
 ence of from $16 to $24 as compared with $26 to $40. That is as to the 
 wages in the woods in this country. Those are the labor comUtions. 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, after all, whether a man be for tariff" for revenue 
 only or a tariff" for protection, they all say, at least they do up in our 
 country, 1 do not know what they say in the balance of the country as 
 I have been kept pretty busy attending to my own affairs in my own 
 country, but they all say "we are perfectly willing to give you a dis- 
 crimination." These rank tariff-for-revenue-only men all say "we are 
 jjerfectly wdlling to give you a discrimination which will com })en sate for 
 the difference in what we paid for wages and what the Canadians or 
 anybody else pay for wages." When they want the laboring men's votes 
 they talk just that way. If they be sincere let us make a little compu- 
 tation about that. You take a $10 plank — and I put it at even figures 
 because it is easier to compute — you take a set of planks that are worth 
 $10 a thousand, and I am informed by the lumbermen in the Duluth 
 district from $6.50 to $7, well, I will put it a little lower, say, $6 to $6.50 
 of that represents the labor. Now, if the wages of this country be from 
 30 to 50 per cent higher than they are in Canada, if we take 30 to 50 
 per cent of the $6 you will find it will be just about $2, it will not be 
 any less than that, and that is just exactly what we ask. That is just 
 exactly the discrimination we ask, and we ask that, leaving out of con- 
 sideration all tJiese fixed charges, about stumpage and fire risks and 
 taxes, insurance, and all that. 
 
 Mr. Taavney. Have you any statistics showing the effects from the 
 importation of lumber upon the trade in any i)art of your district! 
 
 Mr. Morris. I made some inquiry as to the effect upon the trade for 
 the last four years, and I got a statement from one of our very best 
 lumbering institutions, and the statement made to me by a man who 
 stands as high in onr community as any man in it, a man who has 
 worked himself up from being a boy packing shingles in the lumber 
 mills until he is now at the head of the operation of one of the largest 
 establishments in our country or in the whole country. Now, these are 
 the comparative figures which he gives us. In 1892 that concern paid 
 its laboring men for 75,309 days of work. That is the number of 
 days' work paid them. That same concern in 1896 paid only for 34,176 
 days of work. That means so many days' work paid there ranging 
 from $5 down to $1.25 per day. The percentage would be as between 
 75,309 in 1892 and 34,176 in 1896. Now, we find when we go further— 
 these are taken from the books of the company— they i)aid for logging 
 during that year $266,000, inround figures, and inl896 they paid $115,000. 
 Then you find they paid lor labor in the logging operations $141,000 in 
 1892, as against $55,000 in 1896. You find in 1892 logs sawed 55,000,000 
 feet, as against 23,000,000 feet in 1896. You find lumber shipped, 
 62,000,000 feet in 1892, as against 27,000,000 feet in 1896. 
 
 There is the relative comparison of the difference of the trade in that
 
 524 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 one establisliment, and I have no doubt, Mr. Chairman, when we come 
 to compile the figures, and I am quite sure the representative of the 
 trade here from the city of Duluth operating the h\rgest mill we have 
 will bear me out that his own figures will not difler very much from 
 these 
 
 Mr. McOlure. Just about the same. 
 
 Mr. Morris. That is the condition of the trade in our district, gen- 
 tlemen, and it is no wonder tliat these people are here, not onlj- from 
 our district, but from Michigan, from Maine, from the Gulf, from every- 
 where all over this broad land, asking that they shall have some con- 
 sideration before this committee when this bill comes to be made up. 
 
 One word before I close, and I am sorry I have s])oken as long as 1 have, 
 but I thought perhaps the figures 1 have given here would throw some 
 light upon these matters. Now, as to the question of the importation ol 
 logs brought from Canada, it is principally to that section of Michigan 
 known as the Saginaw district. Now, these men do their business by 
 importing these Canadian logs. We do not desire to have any duty 
 placed upon these logs, because when these logs are brought into this 
 country they furnish just that much work for our people. What we 
 want to do is to have these mills located on this side of Lake Huron 
 instead of on the other side of Lake Huron. We want these wages paid 
 to our own citizens instead of to the Canadian citizens. That is what 
 we are after, and we are willing that they shall be allowed to bring 
 these logs in here free, and thus maintain their industry, but we do 
 say, and we say for their benefit, if they attempt in Canada as they 
 have done — these revenue reformers have a great way of criticising 
 others, but we do not hear of much criticism of the other side, we never 
 hear a chir}) about the Canadians imposing an ex])ort duty on logs to 
 keep their mills going, not a word — if we are going to have their logs 
 imported into this country in the Saginaw district, if they attempt tx) 
 keep the mills oti that side of the water l)yimi)osing an export duty on 
 logs or any discrimination at all which will keej) them from coming on 
 this side, then there ought to be some way to retaliate on them to pre- 
 vent that very thing and to keej) our mills open to saw their logs. Now, 
 that is the ])olicy wliich our people pro]>o8e, and at the proi)er time, Mr. 
 Chairman, 1 will be glad, tlirough my friend, Mr. Tawney, and other 
 members of the committee, to communicate to the committee such other 
 facts and arguments as 1 may be able to gather. I thank you very 
 kindly for this hearing which you have accorded me. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY S. P. MKNIGHT, OF MINNEAPOLIS, 
 
 MINNESOTA. 
 
 Thursday, December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 If the tariff on Caiuidian lumber was justified by the conditions which 
 prevailed when the schedule of 1883 was put in force, then a return to 
 the tariff which prevailed between 1883 and 1890 is justified and would 
 seem to favor an even much higher tariff". Instead of the conditions 
 under which the American manufacturers have been comi)ened to i)ro- 
 cure their logs changing for the better, the cost to the American manu- 
 facturer of getting his logs has constantly increased. The logger in 
 the United States is compelled to go longer distances for his logs, 
 whereas the Canadian lumberman is still able to cu* his timber from 
 virgin pine situated contiguous to streams. Some attention has been 
 given to the discrepancy which is always in favor of the Canadian
 
 MINNESOTA LUMBER INTEKESTS. 
 
 525 
 
 lunibeiniaii in the way of timber, which costs him less than half what 
 timber of the same (quality costs the operators in the United States; 
 or rather the Canadian lumberman is able to secure his lumber without 
 any considerable investment therein, while the o})erator in the United 
 States invests his capital and assumes all the risk which attaches to 
 holding timber. This is exclusive of the greater cost of labor, facts 
 concerning- which are before your committee. To illustrate the increas- 
 ing disadvantage under which the lumbermen of the United States are 
 working, the following facts maybe recited: The surveyor-general of 
 the second district of Minnesota, whose district covers the headwaters 
 of the Mississippi and all the timber tributary to Minneapolis, finds 
 from the official records on file in his oflice that the amount of timber 
 cut in the regions indicated was as shown in the accompanying table, 
 and tl)at there were the percentages shown within territory 150 miles of 
 Minneapolis, most of it within 100 miles. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Amount cut. 
 
 Percent- 
 ages cut 
 below 
 Grand 
 Kapids. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Amount cut. 
 
 Percent- 
 ages cut 
 below 
 Grand 
 Kapids. 
 
 1880 
 
 275, 000, 000 
 
 Per cent. 
 75 
 60 
 
 1 
 
 1890 
 
 450, 000, 000 
 650, 000, 000 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 40 
 
 1885 
 
 350, 000, 000 
 
 1895 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 The greater part of the cut covered in the percentages was made on 
 the Kum Kivcr, which is the most important tributary of the Missis- 
 sippi nearest to Minneapolis, and that logs out of this stream were 
 brought a distance of only about 100 miles. Only a small portion of 
 the remainder of the percentage named came from distances not to 
 exceed 150 miles in main streams of good size, so that the cost of driving 
 was reduced to the minimum. 
 
 Accepting these figures as substantially correct, the lumbermen of 
 Minneajjolis who were able to secure 75 per cent of their logs within 100 
 miles of Minneapolis in 1883, when the tarift' law imposing a duty 
 of $2 a thousand was enacted, are now compelled to secure 85 per cent 
 of all their supplies from points varying from 350 to 500 miles north. 
 This involves not only larger cost for the transportation of the logs, bnt 
 a corresponding increase in the cost for transporting the supplies. A 
 large proportion of all the logs are cut along small tributaries, where 
 the dillicnlties of driving the logs are multiplied, and where, in a large 
 number of instances, large sums of money have been invested by pri- 
 vate parties to construct artificial flooding dams and improving the 
 streams so as to make them navigable for logs. The Canadian govern- 
 ment, on the other hand, spends large amounts in clearing the streams 
 so as to permit the driving of logs belonging to their lumbermen. In 
 some instances logging railroads have been constructed to reach timber 
 remote or inaccessible to streams of sullicient size to bring out the logs 
 in the spring. These roads represent a large investment of capital and 
 naturally increase the cost to the lumberman of his logs delivered at his 
 mill, as compared to the cost of logs to the Canadian lumbermen, cutting 
 from virgin pine contiguous to important streams. 
 
 But the increase in the cost and the difficulties with which the logger 
 in the United States is obliged to contend in securing his logs is not 
 entirely expressed by this statement of the longer distances which he is 
 obliged to bring his logs. Loggers who have been operating on the 
 Upi)er Mississippi for the past twenty years, and during the period cov- 
 ered by this review, state that the average haul in 1880 was not to exceed
 
 526 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 2 miles to enable them to deliver their logs in the nearest stream. As 
 tlie timber has been removed, it has become necessary to go back from 
 thestreainslongerdistancesuntn in the opinionot'thesesame loggers, the 
 present average haul is not less than (J miles. Experience has shown 
 that the cost of hanling logs, building and maintaining roads, boarding 
 teamsters, and feeding teams does not vary far from 25 cents a mile per 
 thousand. Here then is an added fixed charge of fully $1 a thousand 
 on all the logs being obtained in Minnesota, on the head waters of the 
 Mississippi. This amount does not include the actual cost of driving 
 over distances over three and four times as great as those which prevailed 
 between 1883 and 1890, when the $2 tariff on Canadian lumber was in 
 force. But the disadvantage does not end with the increased cost of 
 driving and hauling the logs to the stream. The longer the drive the 
 greater is the percentageof loss in gettinglogs to market. Logs goastray 
 and are sunk. It is not possible every year to get all the logs out of these 
 remote tributaries and deliver them to the mill the same year they are 
 cut. This means interest on the investment, dei)reciation in the quality 
 of the logs before they get to the mill, ami large loss in the number of 
 logs themselves. The log owner on the Mississii)pi River who escai)es 
 with a shrinkage between the scale of these logs on the bank and at the 
 mill no greater than 10 per cent regards himself as fortunate. 
 
 The conditions here recited are not peculiar to tlie ^lississippi River. 
 They are common to all the white pine regh)n, and might be even more 
 strikingly illustrated from the experience in Michigan, where the white 
 pine is more nearly cut oft", or iu Wisconsin, where lumbering has been 
 carried on longer and more extensively than it has iu Minnesota. The 
 Mississippi has been chosen to illustrate this point because upon its 
 waters remain the most considerable body of white and Norway pine 
 in the United States. 
 
 When the McKinley bill was enacted, reducing the tariff" on Canadian 
 lumber $1 a thousand, it was urged tluit this act would i)reserve the 
 forests of the United States by admitting to competition with lumber 
 manufacturers in the United States the lumber cut from Canadian 
 forests. It seems to me that the continuance of the free delivery of 
 Canadian lumber in this country will result iu great waste and destruc- 
 tion of a vast amount of standing white pine timber still left in this 
 country. As the amount of timber grows less year by year, the exi)o- 
 sure to fire increases because of the chopi)ings by loggers, the lires 
 created by settlers in clearing up land, the traversing the (country by 
 railroads, and other causes which need not be enumerated. The loss by 
 lire annually increases as the tracts of virgin pine are broken. There 
 remains in the United States in the white i)ine districts now little or no 
 unbroken timber where loggers or settlers have not entered. Under 
 these conditions the lumberman or timber owner is not able to preserve 
 his timber, if he would, without entailing an enormous financial hazard. 
 
 The present low prices for lumber forced upon us by Canadian manu- 
 facturers make it impossible for us to utilize a large per cent of the 
 inferior and defective trees remaining in our forests. This timber pro- 
 duces the character of lumber with which our markets have been flooded 
 by Canadian manufacturers, rendering it impossible for us to convert 
 the timber into lumber and cover the cost of manufacturing. These 
 trees left in the forest only multiply the dangers from fire. The report 
 of the chief fire warden of the State of ^linnesota shows that in the 
 year 1891 310,000 acres of timbered land in the State of IMinnesota alone 
 was burned over by fire. No estimate is given as to the amount of 
 timber which was de^stroyed by these fires, but it is known to have been 
 not less than 500,000,000 feet in the State of Minnesota. Fully as much
 
 MINNESOTA LUMBER INTERESTS. 527 
 
 timber was burned in Wisconsin during the same year. The reports 
 made to the chief lire warden by his subordinates scattered thron|:li the 
 timber region indicate very clearly that the tires wliich occurred during 
 1895, which fortunately were less extensive, can be traced to the increas- 
 ing number of settlers and the other conditions enumerated above, 
 incident to the development of the great forest area in the northern 
 part of Minnesota. Bearing on this state of the case, it may be stated 
 that Otis Staples, who was the chief officer having charge of the duty 
 of estimating the timber on the Chippewa Indian Eeserv^ation in jVlin- 
 nesota, and who is probably as well informed a timber cruiser as there 
 is in the State, expresses the opinion, in a letter to the St;ite tire warden, 
 tliat more i)ine has been destroyed by fire than has been cut. In this 
 opinion other lumbermen who have reported to the State fire warden 
 agree in whole or in part. 
 
 I wish to call your attention to these facts as evidence of the great 
 expense and extraordinary hazard entailed on the lumbermen of the 
 United States who own their timber, and which is not imposed ui)on 
 the Canadian lumberman, from the fact that the Canadian government 
 carries the timber until it is cut, without interest or hazard to the 
 manufacturer, besides improving the streams, and in some instances, I 
 am creditably informed, rebating a i)ercentage of the Crown dues ou 
 all lumber exported. It will be seen, therefore, that the theory that 
 the forests of the United States should be preserved by the competi- 
 tion of Canadian lumber is not sustained in the facts, and that the 
 busim^ss interests of the country warrant the imposition of a duty 
 wliich will admit the lumbermen on the other side of the Canadian 
 line u])on terms in some measure equal. 
 
 It has only been within the past ten years that the timbered resources 
 of the United States have become fully appreciated and accessible. 
 Trior to 1885 the white ])ine of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, 
 and some of the New England States furnished about the only lumber 
 su])ply of the country. White pine was then the almost only factor in 
 the market. Since that time the limitless forests of the Southern 
 States and of the Pacific Coast have been opened and penetrated by 
 railroads, which have made possible the marketing of the product of 
 innumerable new mills whicli have been constructed in this newer terri- 
 tory, fiooding the country with lumber made by our own mills from our 
 own timber. It has been within the period named that our own best- 
 in tbrmed lumbermen have fully aj)preciated that the tiuiber supply in 
 this country is adequate for all demands likely to be created for an 
 indefinite i)eriod. While the white pine of the Xorth has been sujjjile- 
 mented by the yellow pine, cypress, and poplar of the South, the fir, 
 (!edar, and s]n-uce of the Puget Sound region, the redwood and sugar 
 .pine of California, the hemlock of Pennsylvania and white pine States, 
 theie has grown up also an increasing use of the hard woods of every 
 ixivtion of our comnu>n country. There is hardly a tree which now 
 grows of a size sufficiently large to admit of its being cut into lumber 
 which does not afford material which is not in demand either in the con- 
 struction of buildings or in some stage or process of manufacturing in 
 this coutitry. Under these circumstances it seems to me that so far as 
 comi«atible with the common interests our first purpose should be to pre- 
 serve our own markets for our own lumber, made by our own labor, the 
 labor constituting about three fourths of the market value of the lumber. 
 
 During the past four years the construction of sawmills upon Cana- 
 dian soil lias been greatly stimulated by the throwing open of our 
 markets for the disposition of their low grade and cheaply manu- 
 factm-ed lumber . The full eifect of this increase in the sawing capacity
 
 528 
 
 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 on the Canadian side has but begun to be felt, and without adequate 
 protection the importations will steadily increase. 
 1 append hereto figures and facts which may interest you. 
 
 Northwestern Lumber Company, Porterville, Wis. : 
 
 Average cut, past ten years 35, 000, 000 
 
 Cut of 1896 14.000,000 
 
 Montreal River Lumber Company, Gile, Wis. : 
 
 Usual cut 20,000,000-25,000,000 
 
 Cut of 1896 11,353,000 
 
 Each of these mills carries over a full stock of logs for the coming year iu its 
 pond at the mill. 
 
 Statement of coat of production of lumber. Per 
 
 Stnmpage iu— thonsaud. 
 
 Michigan ." $6- 00 
 
 AVisconsin 5.00 
 
 Minnesota 3 50 
 
 Cost of cutting, skiflding, and landing 4.00 
 
 Cost of driving, including booniage 1-00 
 
 Cost of sawing and ])ntting pile 1.50 
 
 Cost of marketing, including planing mill 1.50 
 
 Imports from and exports to Quebec and Ontario. 
 
 
 1889. 
 
 1890. 
 
 1891. 
 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 IMPORTS. 
 
 Free: 
 
 Wood,nninaimfac- 
 
 
 $1,683,884 
 
 
 $1, 377, 799 
 
 
 
 $1,840,679 
 
 Boards, plank, etc. 
 Otlier, and mauu- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dutiable: 
 
 Hoards, plank, 
 
 deals, etc 
 
 Olhei.and uiiman- 
 
 616,664,0*0 
 
 7,660,653 
 
 1, 120, 228 
 
 94,319 
 
 348,527 
 
 829, 491 
 349, 945 
 962, 177 
 691, 891 
 
 634, 598, 000 
 
 7, 531, 831 
 
 91."'), 557 
 22G, 224 
 305, 366 
 
 335, 917 
 447, 084 
 966, 426 
 690, 859 
 
 716,917,000 
 
 8,074,971 
 907, 519 
 
 
 
 
 
 432, 070 
 
 
 161,492,000 
 20, 439, 000 
 
 140, 768, 000 
 22,228,000 
 
 201,961,000 
 21, 650, 000 
 
 430, 335 
 
 KXPORTS. 
 
 Boards, plank, deals, 
 
 357.542 
 
 
 16:j. 304 
 
 
 
 
 
 1,174,993 
 
 
 
 
 
 535, 327 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1892. 
 
 1893. 
 
 1894. 
 
 
 Qaantity. 
 
 Valne. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Valne. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 IMPORTS. 
 
 Free: 
 
 Wood, unmanufac- 
 
 
 $1,640,804 
 
 
 $2, 642, 094 
 
 
 $3, 415, 403 
 
 Hoards, plank, etc. 
 Otber, and manu- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Duti.ible : 
 
 Boards, plank, 
 
 deals, etc 
 
 Other, and unman- 
 
 627, Oil, 000 
 
 7,238,833 
 
 1, 204, 1 16 
 41«. 415 
 569, 260 
 
 487, 809 
 28, 819 
 614,619 
 615, 620 
 
 703, 043, 000 
 
 7, 880, 122 
 
 1, 347, 804 
 4U0, 4:i8 
 746, 358 
 
 435, 006 
 
 37. 385 
 
 816,321 
 
 702, 119 
 
 486, 976, 000 
 
 5, 912, 191 
 1,207,564 
 
 
 
 
 
 360. 123 
 
 
 285,035,000 
 25, 193, 000 
 
 379, 970, 000 
 21,497,000 
 
 320, 415, 000 
 22,601,000 
 
 616, lUl 
 
 EXP0RT8. 
 
 Boards, plank, deals. 
 
 480,284 
 
 
 40, 903 
 
 Timber 
 
 
 
 
 949, 521 
 
 
 
 
 
 1, 264, 100 
 
 
 
 

 
 MINNESOTA LUMBER INTERESTS, 
 Imports from and exports to Quebec and Ontario — Continued. 
 
 529 
 
 
 1895. 
 
 1896. 
 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Valae. 
 
 IMPORTS. 
 
 Free: 
 
 Wood, unmanufactured ... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 408, 734, 000 
 
 $4, 981, 449 
 4,259,216 
 
 647, 293 
 223, 869 
 341, 735 
 
 79, 616 
 
 486, 467 
 
 80, 655 
 968, 176 
 881, 430 
 
 786, 102, 000 
 
 a$8, 504, 607 
 a 4 1.54 281 
 
 Other, and manufactured 
 
 Dutiable: 
 
 Boards, plauk, deals, etc 
 
 656,249,000 
 
 
 
 Other and unmanufactured 
 
 
 e 1 263 OOC 
 
 Manufactures of 
 
 
 
 
 Shingles 
 
 41, 873, 000 
 28, 730, 000 
 
 
 
 EXPOETS. 
 
 Boards, plan k, deaLs, etc . 
 
 38, 267, 000 
 
 588 044 
 
 All other 
 
 id) 
 (d) 
 1,207 348 
 
 Tiinl>er 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a Includes al British America. 
 b See free. 
 
 e Data incomplete. 
 dNo data. 
 
 Imports from and exports to Nova Scotia and Neio Bruntwick. 
 
 1895. 
 
 IMPORTS. 
 
 Free: 
 
 r.oards, planks, deals, etc. 
 
 A 11 other 
 
 Dutiable : 
 
 Sawed lumber 
 
 Value of same 
 
 Shingles 
 
 Value of same 
 
 Other lumber 
 
 EXPORTS. 
 
 Wood, and manufactures of. 
 
 $564, 201 
 (a) 
 
 24, 302, 000 
 $204, 386 
 
 53, 400, 000 
 $108,981 
 $233, 858 
 
 $205, 674 
 
 $502, 888 
 (o) 
 
 39, 982, 000 
 $330, 433 
 
 58, 687, 000 
 $122, 934 
 $261, 262 
 
 $161, 292 
 
 $413, 536 
 (a) 
 
 35, 796, 000 
 $296, 021 
 
 77, 903, 000 
 $162, 794 
 $284, 060 
 
 $115, 110 
 
 $340, 680 
 (a) 
 
 38, 275, 000 
 $323, 035 
 
 78, 739, 000 
 $169, 124 
 $396, 630 
 
 $92, 208 
 
 $334, 207 
 (a) 
 
 26. 820, 000 
 $212, 689 
 
 58, 057, 000 
 $115, 623 
 $330, 494 
 
 f208. 737 
 
 $1, 119, 394 
 
 853, 491 
 
 4, 839, 000 
 6 $37, 551 
 
 9, 640, 000 
 
 .$20, 174 
 
 $121,704 
 
 $190, 196 
 
 a Not given. 6 See Free. 
 
 Imports (British America only). 
 DUTIABLE IMPORTS (AS PEK GK)VERNMENT REPORTS) JUNE, 1804, TO JUNE, 1895. 
 
 
 Values. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 Averajie 
 per cent. 
 
 
 $639, 908. 40 
 
 732, 364. 09 
 
 37, 736. 92 
 
 465,251.89 
 
 263, 729. 63 
 
 74, 487. 88 
 
 1, 034, 487. 48 
 
 $91, 002. 82 
 97,951.85 
 11,321.08 
 
 139, 575. 59 
 92, 305. 37 
 29, 795. 14 
 
 362, 140. 74 
 
 14.22 
 
 
 13.36 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 35 
 
 
 40 
 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 3, 249, 182. 59 
 
 824, 256. 98 
 
 25.37 
 
 
 
 T H- 
 
 -3i
 
 530 
 
 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Imports {British America only) — ContiuuecL 
 FREE IMPORTS. SAME PEHIOD. 
 
 Quantities. 
 
 Value. 
 
 ITnmannfactured cabinet woods : 
 
 Mahofjauy 
 
 All other free 
 
 Lojrs and round timber 
 
 Timber hewed, sawed, squared, or tiat, free 
 
 Timber hewed, sawed, squared, or flat, dutiable. 
 
 Board.s, plank, deals, and other sawed 
 
 Boards, plank, deal.s, and other sawed, dutiable. 
 
 Otlier lumber, dutiable 
 
 All other manufactured, dutiable 
 
 Shingles, dutiable , 
 
 .feet. 
 ..do., 
 .do., 
 .do.. 
 ..do.. 
 
 11, 554, 000 
 
 153, OoG, 000 
 5, 048, 000 
 
 do.. 
 
 do.. 
 
 do.. 
 
 , do.. 
 
 .number. 
 
 539. 574, 000 
 61,224,000 
 
 $579, 473 
 
 665, 730 
 
 1,140,764 
 
 52. 842 
 
 3, 041 
 
 6, 172. 494 
 
 687, (138 
 
 300, 106 
 
 1,781 
 
 99,790 
 
 LOGS AND ROUND. 
 [From Canadian Blue Book.] 
 
 Year. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 1882 
 
 Feel. 
 
 46, 450, 000 
 43,812,000 
 45, 717, 000 
 
 47. 792, 000 
 66, 035, 000 
 66, 007, 000 
 72, 049, 000 
 
 1889 
 
 Feet. 
 93. 507. 000 
 
 1 883 
 
 1890 
 
 11)3,410, (100 
 
 1 884 
 
 1891 
 
 105, 1 2(1, 000 
 
 1885 
 
 l,Sit2 
 
 149. 7S.'). 000 
 
 1880 . 
 
 1893 
 
 198.(121.000 
 
 1887 
 
 1894 
 
 153, 056, 000 
 
 1888 
 
 1895 
 
 215, 495, 000 
 
 
 
 
 Wood imports from all sources, June 30, 1S04, to June 30, 1S95. 
 
 
 Quantities. 
 
 Value. 
 
 A vcrage 
 value. 
 
 Lumber, rough 
 
 Planed or dressed 
 
 feet.. 
 
 do... 
 
 number.. 
 
 feet.. 
 
 do... 
 
 number. . 
 
 542,746,000 
 17, 757, 000 
 
 427,371,000 
 3, 083, 000 
 8, 045, 000 
 
 289, 658, 000 
 
 $6, 310. 788. 48 
 158, 359. 14 
 784, 8.17. 89 
 40, 420. 00 
 106, 543. 00 
 358,511.00 
 
 61, 525. 31 
 1,570,864.79 
 
 88, 683. 00 
 145, 066. 34 
 
 $11.63 
 
 8.92 
 
 Timber 
 
 UlaT)boards 
 
 Lath 
 
 o 13. 113 
 
 Posts and poles : 
 
 1894 
 
 
 1895 
 
 
 
 Ties: 
 
 1894 
 
 number.. 
 
 do.... 
 
 501,364 
 869, 341 
 
 
 1895 
 
 
 
 
 a Per cent. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. T. B. WALKER, OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 
 
 Thursday, December 31, 1896. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, just before leaving 
 home 1 dictated a i)ai>er which I understood would be wanted hero 
 ratlier than oral discussion of the question. 1 have made it brief, and 
 while it does not present the question just as I would present it at the 
 present time, I will read it. 
 
 The i)a])er was read, as follows: 
 
 As rc[)resentatives of the lumber trade, we would respectfully pre- 
 sent to you certain facts and ligures with a view of satisfyiiiij your 
 honorable conimittee of the pro])riety of fixing a sufficient duty on 
 imported lumber to give reasonable protection to the capital and labor 
 involved in this important industry.
 
 MINNESOTA LUMBER INTERESTS. 531 
 
 The lumber trade employs a larger number of men, pays tliem a larger 
 aggregate amount of wages, and the product is of greater value than 
 the iron and steel industry, which is the next larger of the manufactur- 
 ing interests. 
 
 And while we do not intend you to understand that on account of 
 its relative importance the lumber interests should have sjiecial advan- 
 tages not conceded to other industries, or that would not be in accord- 
 ance with the best interests of the whole country, yet, inasmuch as it 
 involves so large a number, it should appeal to you as a reason for 
 giving the subject due consideration. This is evidently your view of 
 the matter, as you have favored us with an especial hearing. 
 
 And in rej)resenting our views we would not consider it aijpropriate 
 to undertake to advise you upon the general advantages of high or low 
 tariffs, yet, as we are to ask you to favor us with a certain rate of pro- 
 tection, it would seem appropriate that we should give the reasons for 
 believing that the amount for which we ask Avill not reflect upon other 
 occupations an equal degree of advantage and profit: That is to say, 
 if you give to us the amount of tariii' which we would ask, it will not 
 be a burden upon other occupations, but will indirectlj'^ give to them 
 an equal share of advantage in their labors and to measure to them a 
 sufficient return to cover the prospective additional prices which they 
 will pay for our product. In other words, if a tariff of $2 per thousand 
 is placed upon imported lumber, although it will raise the price of this 
 commodity, yet, those who piuchase our product will derive a corre- 
 spondingly increased price for their productions to cover this advance. 
 If our industry stood alone, and a tariff was placed on lumber and 
 other industries not; protected to the same general or relative amount 
 as they may require to meet the competition from abroad, then a tariff 
 would be of no use unless temporarily, as in a very short time the 
 unfavorable conditions of competition with other countries in the other 
 industries would soon render our occupation as undesirable as any of 
 the others. So that in a general way we have the same desire to have 
 all other industries protected to their reasonable and proper extent that 
 we have in asking for a very moderate duty on lumber. 
 
 And in considering the question of the relative advantages to the 
 lumbermen and other interests which would come from granting our 
 request we would compare first with the farmer, whose interests are 
 only to a comparatively small extent directly protected by the tariff 
 schedules. . The lumber industry deals more largely in proportion with 
 the farmer than does any other industry or occupation. The cutting 
 of logs and bringing them to market, and the sawing, sticking, plan- 
 ing, and handling of lumber, not only involves large numbers of men 
 who consume a more than correspondingly proportion of food, but the 
 extraordinarily large number of teams, horses, and oxen emi:>loyed, both 
 in the logging and in the manufacture of lumber, makes a demand for a 
 greater amount of feed than is found in any of the other occupations 
 in proportion to the number of men employed. Now it will readily be 
 seen and recognized by you all as a common principle that these lum- 
 bermen can not pay a g'reater amount for food and all other necessary 
 expenses than the amount which is derived from their labor, and the 
 proportional amount for their food is in proportion to this sum. So 
 that the rate of wages necessarily determines the amount which can be 
 paid for the farmer's products. And this can be more fully illustrated 
 by a comparison of the value of farm products and prices on lumber. 
 And in connection with this I would observe tliis one fact, that the 
 increase in the value of lumber is very soon followed by an increase in
 
 632 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 the price of labor, aud tliat if the lumber prices hold the value of 
 labor then will take a very large proportion or percentage of the increase 
 in price. And as the percentage of margin is not large with the man- 
 ufacture in this department, as it is in general with all others, a decline 
 in the price of lumber necessarily^, in the course of a limited time, neces- 
 sitates the reduction of wages to a corresponding rate. And although 
 this reduction may not, and generally does not, come in time to save 
 the manufacturers heavy losses, aud in many cases bankruptcy, yet it 
 is inevitable, as the accumulation of capital in any of the firms engaged 
 in the lumber trade would soon be exhausted by the excessive losses 
 from an attempt to pay for any great length of time a considerable 
 percentage more for wages than the market value of the product would 
 permit. 
 
 If it was necessary and api)ropriate to enter into a discussion in 
 detail of the manner in which the stimulus to trade, the increase in 
 activity in all occupations have, in all periods of our history, followed 
 a rise in tarifl", and corres])on(ling depressions always coming from taritf 
 reductions, it would supplement the special point made witli regard to 
 the I'armers and our industry, to show that a proper duty given to us 
 in common with a corresponding one to other industries, will benefit 
 the whole community to an equal degree. But this would be going 
 beyond what we understand is desired of us, or that would be appro- 
 priate for the business men to attempt to instruct the chosen represent- 
 atives of the people in matters of general legislative i^rinciples, with 
 which you are all probably more familiar than are those who would 
 attcni])t to instruct you. At the same time it seems ai)propriate that 
 we should give our judgment, coming from the experience of years, 
 that in the first place, in order that our industry may flourish and 
 prosper, it must have protection against the cheaper labor of British 
 America. A continuance of the ])resent conditions will result in a 
 marked increase in tiiis foreign productionof lumber and its imi)ortatiou 
 into this country, and this will result in still further crii)pling and 
 destroying the bunber trade of this country. It will imixiverisli the 
 manufacturers, will reduce large numbers of laboring men to idleness 
 and want, and crowd them upon other occupations that will render the 
 ])rofits of such overcrowded interests as unfortunate as will be the 
 lumbermen who crowd into it. And it will be verified, that although 
 this will result in as low or lower prices for lumber than we have to-day, 
 it will be still more dillicult for the American people to i)urchase their 
 lumber at these low prices, than it would to ])ay many dollars more 
 per thousand under the favorable conditions that would come from a 
 l)roper ])rote('tion of our labor and capital in common with the other 
 industries of this country. 
 
 In Minneapolis, which is the largest primary lumber producing point 
 in this country, and, so far as I know, in any other, the prices which 
 were in October 1893, $12, dropi)ed to $1).50 in October of 181M, and in 
 the same month of 1895 it was $10 and in 189() it was again to $9.50. 
 It cost $7.50 at the rates that have been ])revailing to bring the logs 
 and manufacture and ship the lumber. This would leave for the pres- 
 ent price of lumber, which is in this country mostly of the grade men- 
 tioiu'd here, only $2 for stumpage for profits, for renewal of plants, and 
 other necessary items to be considered before the expenses are covered. 
 And if conditions are continued during another year, the lumbermen 
 will be necessitated to make further reductions in labor rates and to 
 curtail their business for each year to the extent that it has beeii cur- 
 tailed during the past year.
 
 MINNESOTA LUMBER INTERESTS. 533 
 
 The produce of the Minneapolis mills in 1892 was 489,000,000; in 
 1893,413,000,000; in 1894,491,000,000; in 1895, 478,000,000, and in 
 1896 it was 300,000,000. As the other mill centers throughout the lum- 
 ber-producing States all curtailed their output to the same extent^, it 
 makes a proportion as between the average of these three previous 
 years and the present year of over 50 per cent, necessitating in this 
 way a reduction of employment for labor to the extent of over one- 
 third, and either requiring every third man to remain out of employ- 
 ment, or to reduce the number of days' work given to a considerable 
 proportion of them, and others to be entirely out of employment in this 
 line. If this shall continue during the coming year, and our lumbei 
 industry is to be turned over in large part to British America, it is 
 certainly not very reassuring to consider, what will be the ultimate 
 outcome of this policy. 
 
 There has been a general apparent impression in the tariff bills that 
 lumber is a raw material and does not need protection. The fact is 
 there is no raw material in the lumber interest excepting the tree stand- 
 ing in the woods. It requires hard and in some respects skillful labor 
 to turn it into lumber and furnish it to the market. In fact everything 
 almost, from the stump to the finished lumber delivered on the cars, is 
 labor, and as the prevailing labor rates in this country are considerably 
 higher than in Canada, averaging almost 50 per cent, it follows that if 
 other industries are protected and this one is not to an equally appro- 
 priate extent, then our iiulustry must go down, and it will help to pull 
 the others down with it, because the rates for labor must be reduced to 
 meet the present conditions. And if we get them below those prevail- 
 ing in other industries and occupations, it will turn them from this to 
 those that are more profitable, and this will help to pull them all down 
 to the common level. 
 
 As to the amount of protection which we should give to lumber, unless 
 we are intending to return to a lower rate of wages than has prevailed, 
 the amount of $2 i)er thousand would certainly not be more than suffi- 
 cient to balance the cost of producing the lumber. Its importations 
 from Canada into the markets along the lake is no more than would 
 be the cost to bring it from any of our competing points, and, in fact, 
 the Canadian railways are especially favoring their lumber interests 
 the same as their Government is helping the lumbermen in the purchase 
 of timber. The actual cost of the ])ine timber in Canada, which con- 
 sists very largely of white pine, is not more than one-half of the amount 
 charged by our Government, as shown in the recent sale of timber on 
 the White Earth Reservation in northern Minnesota. The Canadian 
 price averages from $1.25 to $1.50 all told, and the payments, excepting 
 in small part, are made on the scale of the logs after they are cut, and 
 time given to put the lumber into market, or at least to convert a con- 
 siderable portion of it. There are no large bills of taxes on the land, 
 as the lumberman here is charged, or more accumulated amount of inter- 
 est on carrying the timber. And, furthermore, they specially favor 
 their lumber industry by giving to one firm a certain large tract of laud 
 exclusively for their benefit. So that each lumber firm makes a location 
 of camps, roads, dams, or logging railways, and is secured in its hold- 
 ings for many years without any conflict or competition with others 
 in the mixture of ownership, as we have in our country. With us the 
 best that any lumber firm can do is to obtain certain pieces of land in 
 a given township or district where other lumber firms have ownership 
 of pieces mixed through the same territory, and this makes it more 
 expensive, troublesome, and unsatisfactory. And, when added to the
 
 534 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 general fact that Canadian timber is better quality and the stunipag-e 
 costs less than half as much and labor only two-thirds as much, it fol- 
 lows that there must be protection on the part of our lumber to cover 
 the difference in cost of production; and, in fact, the duty asked will 
 not let the lum.bermen outhold under present circumstances as compared 
 to the lumbermen in Canada. Their i^rotits Mill be large, while ours 
 will be small or a minus quantity. 
 
 We mi.uht enlarge upon the necessity for rendeiing the common kinds 
 of lumber suliiciently valuable to i)ay for saving tlic poorer grade of 
 logs and convert it into the commonest grades of lumber. If it costs 
 more to cut, haul, drive, and convert into lumber a cliea]) grade of 
 logs than can be obtained from it in the market, it will follow that they 
 will be left in the woods to be destroyed by fire or worms, and decay. 
 So that the depletion of our forests will go on to an extra extent, while 
 we at the same time offer inducements to Canada to double our supple- 
 mental supply from that country by offering inducements for them to 
 cut it over laster than they Avould otherwise do. For while the amount 
 of lumber that came to us I'rom Canada in 1880 to 18iK) was not so 
 gTcatly below even the larger amount sent here in 1895, yet, when <'om- 
 pared with the demand in the country and the prospective amount that 
 they will send in the future, with the increased mill capacity which they 
 are providing, and the exceedingly small demand lor our lumber in 
 these times and the times tliat will continue, without protection, it 
 makes a pi<)i)ortional comjjetition tliat is really several times greater 
 than under ordinary conditions. And this competition from the north- 
 ern line will crowd the competition from the northern i)ineries of this 
 country onto those of the Sontliern States and demoralize the lumber 
 business there to the same extent that it does where the direct compe- 
 tition comes. And the growing exi)ericnce of the past several years 
 with our southern neiglibors can be testified to by them. 
 
 In fact, this comjjetition from the IJritish line will cause a loss to the 
 people of this country, in wages and in sad exi)erience, much greater 
 than the entire value of the ]iroduci that comes into the country, and 
 there seems no possible esca])e excepting to at least equalize the condi- 
 tions of difference in labor in this country and in Canada. And the 
 minimum amount that seems in any manner adcMjuate to acconii)lish 
 this, and ])articnlarly in the dejiressed times under which we are living, 
 will be the sum asked for by >our petitioners of sii j)er thousand feet. 
 
 Mr. Tawnky. How does tlie price of lumber compare with the price 
 in 1890, when the duty was lower? 
 
 ]Mr. Walker. The ])rice of lumber in i\Iinneapolis, which is the largest 
 primary market in the world, is $!>.r)0. lu 1800 it was 811. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you think the reduction of the tariff on lumber has 
 been the nmin cause of the reduction of the ])rice of lumber in j\Iinne- 
 apolis? 
 
 Mr. Walker. The reduction in the tariff on our product and on that 
 of others and the conseciuent general depression in all branches of busi- 
 ness since 1801 has reduced the demand for our lumber to that extent 
 that the ])ro])ortional aiixmnt that came from (Canada has so oveibur- 
 dened the market that the excess has reduced the i)rice of lumber to an 
 amount which is more than the entire value of the lumber coming from 
 Ca.nada. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Is it not a fact that the lumber of the Xorthwest, in 
 October, 1800, when the duty was reduced from $2 to Si per 1,000 on 
 certain kinds of lumber, increased the ])rice from $1 to Sl.oO per 1.000? 
 
 Mr. Walker. The price ran from 811 to $11.50 in 1892. That was 
 owing not to the reduction in the tariff, but to other conditions that
 
 MINNESOTA LUMBER INTERESTS. 535 
 
 prevailed in the country, but partly to the tariff bill of 1.S90, which put 
 a larger duty on other commodities and that helped to make a demand 
 for our lun)ber. The increase of trade helped us. 
 
 Mr. BouTELLE. It stimulated the iudustries of the United States'? 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chaiuman. There was no decline until after 1892, when general 
 prices declined'? 
 
 Mr. Walker. It ran from $12 down to $9.50. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. The reduction was subsequent to 1892. 
 
 Mr. Steele. The prices of all commodities were then reduced. 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes, sir; and always will whenever you reduce the 
 tariff. 
 
 Mv. Steele. I do not see why that should be. It is a depression in 
 trade and business. 
 
 Mr. Walker. The depression in trade comes from the reduction of 
 the tariff'. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. The point is whether depression was caused by the 
 reduction in tlie price of lumber — whether it was the general depres- 
 sion in other articles or in this particular article? 
 
 Mr. Walker. I think it was on account of both, because the demand 
 for our lumber of course regulates the price. If American goods are 
 reduced to excessive competition from abroad it brings in goods which 
 we should be producing at home, and the lack of demand for lumber is 
 reflected in all industries. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And if the tariff' act of 1890 reduced the rate one-half, 
 still the price of lumber kept up under that tariff' until this general 
 depression of 1893 set in. 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes, sir; until 1893; and then it began to decline. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. How does the produi^tion of lumber in this country 
 compare with the production from 1890 to 1893'? 
 
 Mr. Walker. The products of the Minneapolis mills in 1892 were 
 489,000,000; in 1893, 113,000,000; in 1891,491,000,000; in 1895, 478,000,- 
 000, and in 189C, 300,000,000. 
 
 Mr. Tawnioy. Have you the production of the Minneapolis mills pre- 
 ceding LS91« 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. BouTELLE. Were the prices in your immediate section affected 
 by the unusual demand connected with the World's Fair at Chicago'? 
 
 JMr. Walker. Only indirectly. It absorbed lumber that would oth- 
 erwise come in competition with our product, aud gave us the advan- 
 tage of a better demand and i)rice. 
 
 Mr. Wheelicr. You stated that notwithstanding the duty on lum- 
 ber was reduced the price of lumber rose in 1892, whicii, you said, was 
 caused by the increase in other articles. What are those articles'? 
 • Mr. Walker. I mean that the duty on many manufactured goods 
 was increased, or, at least, maintained, by the tariff' of 1890, while other 
 articles — like our own — were reduced or put upon the free list. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. You can not designate any large class of goods? 
 
 Mr. Walker. I think wool and cotton and iron and steel. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. The general improvement in trade increased the price 
 of lumber? 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. I think the prices on woolen goods aud iron were a 
 little less. 
 
 Mr. Walker. I do not wish to say that the i)rice of lumber has been 
 increased. Several years ago the x^rice of lumber was $13.50, and it
 
 536 
 
 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 has goue down to $11, and then to $9.50. It has been declining since 
 188!) and 1890. In 1890 it was $11 as against $12 in 1889. In 1891 it 
 ran up a little — $1. Sometiuies there is a variation, owing to the amount 
 of logs cut for lumber, and sometimes the market is overstocked. If 
 you overstock the market 5 per cent, it may make a change in values 
 of 10 per cent or more, because if there is no demand sufficient to take 
 it up competition runs down the i)rice. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Is there any combine among lumber dealers to raise 
 the price of lumber? 
 
 Mr. Walker. I do not belong to any combine or organization what- 
 soever. There is no trust or combine in the Northwest — only a trade 
 association for general comparison of ideas on matters of general 
 interest. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Are you a manufacturer or a dealer? 
 
 Mr. Walker. I manufacture lumber and I sell logs — perhaps as 
 many of them as anyone else. I have been at it a great many years. 
 
 Mr. Walker submitted the following papers for the record: 
 
 P. C. Schmidt, of Duluth, a few weeks a<jo addressed a letter to several Canadian 
 luDiber inauuractnrers asking a statement as to the wages they paid rircular and 
 hand sawyers, filers, eduers, setters, pliers, and common laborers abont the mills, 
 and the foUowinif table shows the replies received, compared with wages pai<l at 
 Duluth for ten hours' work, while the Canadian wages are for eleven hours' work: 
 
 [Minneapolis Lunibcmian, September 26, 1896.] 
 
 Sawyers . 
 
 FiltTM 
 
 KcliiciS .. 
 
 PillTS 
 
 Common laborers. 
 
 T. &W. 
 
 Murray, 
 
 Nortli Bay, 
 
 Ontario. 
 
 $2. 25 to $2. 50 
 2. 00 to 2. .50 
 1.20 to 1.75 
 1.50 to 1.75 
 1.25 to 1. ,50 
 1.15 to 1.25 
 
 Keeling & 
 
 Brown, 
 Warren, On- 
 tario. 
 
 $1.75 to $2. 25 
 2. 00 to 2. .50 
 1.50 to 1.75 
 1.50 to 1.75 
 1.25 to 1.50 
 1.15 to 1.25 
 
 Blind River 
 Lumber 
 Coui));uiy, 
 
 Blind River, 
 Ontario, 
 
 $2.00 
 
 $2. 00 to 4.00 
 
 1.50 to 1.75 
 
 1.50 
 
 1.20 
 
 1.25 
 
 Duluth. 
 
 $1.75 to 
 1.25 to 
 
 $4.50 
 5.00 
 2. 22 
 2.25 
 2.00 
 1.50 
 
 The highest wages i^aid sawyers, for instance, is .$2.50 a day of eleven hours, while 
 Duluth wages are .^t.i^O for a day of ten hours. l-Mlers are paid $1 more for ten hours' 
 work at Duluth than the highest-paid Canadian liler who works eleven hours, and so 
 on through the list. Leaving out of consideration the cost of stumjiage, it is seen 
 that manufacturing can be carried on much cliea])er in Canada than in this country, 
 for wages is the largest item in any manufacturing bu.siness. 
 
 The Surveyor-General has ccmipleted his scale for the year, and the result shows a 
 very great falling off from last year, or from any one of the past three years. Since 
 the 1st of September up to the 2()th of this month, at which time the scaling was 
 finished, there were turned to the Minneaj)()lis mills .")75,087 logs, which scaled 
 50,llS,:jtiO feet, and this brings the total for the year up to 241,045,280 feet, the total 
 number of feet of logs that have been sawed into lumber by the mills of the city 
 during the present year in the sawing season that has just closed. Last year the 
 total ntimber of feet scaled was 386,576,630. The boom company started out the 
 year with instructions to turn only three-fourths the amount of logs that were 
 turned last year, as it was the intention of the manufacturers to restrict their cut to 
 that amount. Even at that it was found necessary to shut down earlier than was 
 expected, and the result is that the number of feet of logs turned to the mills is less 
 than last year by nearly 38 per cent. .\t the St. Paul boom there have been scaled 
 431,121 logs that have aggregated 50,989,360 feet.
 
 MISSISSIPPI LUMBER INTERESTS. 
 MINNEAPOLIS. 
 
 537 
 
 1893. 
 
 1894. 
 
 1895. 
 
 1896. 
 
 Scaled to June 4 
 
 June to July 
 
 July 1 to August 1 
 
 August 1 to September 1. 
 September 1 to close 
 
 Total , 
 
 31, 227, 400 
 67, 274, 420 
 63, 020, 190 
 .55, 321, 770 
 97, 432, 950 
 
 49, 500. 000 
 69, 500, 000 
 57, 840. 000 
 66, 761. 270 
 135, 378, 500 
 
 30, 835, 000 
 72,216,770 
 78, 894, 360 
 78, 835, 650 
 125, 594, 850 
 
 314, 276, 730 
 
 378, 989, 560 
 
 386, 576, 630 
 
 60, 750, 480 
 65, 132, 810 
 63, 743, 630 
 50, 418, 360 
 
 241, 045, 280 
 
 Days. 
 
 May 16 to October 16, 1893 131 
 
 May 6 to NoTOiiiber 2, 1891 154 
 
 May 15 to November 1, 1895 144 
 
 June 1 to September 25, 1896 100 
 
 The following is the wholesale price of timber, joist and dimension, at 
 Minneapolis on October 15, of the years named: 
 
 1879 $11.00 
 
 1880 12.00 
 
 1881 13.00 
 
 1882 15.00 
 
 1883 15. 00 
 
 1884 13.00 
 
 1885 13.00 
 
 1886 14.00 
 
 1887 14.50 
 
 1888 $13.00 
 
 1889 12.00 
 
 1890 11.00 
 
 1891 12.00 
 
 1892 12.50 
 
 1893 12.00 
 
 1894 9.50 
 
 1895 10.00 
 
 1896 9.50 
 
 Following is the cut of the Minneapolis mills for a series of years: 
 
 1870 118.233,000 
 
 1871 117,5.57,000 
 
 1872 167,918,000 
 
 1873 189,909,000 
 
 1874 191,30.5,000 
 
 1875 1.56,665,000 
 
 1876 200,317,000 
 
 1877 129,076,000 
 
 1878 130,274,000 
 
 1 879 149, 754, 000 
 
 1880 195, 452, 000 
 
 1881 234, 244, OCO 
 
 1882 314,363,000 
 
 1883 272,793,000 
 
 1884. 
 1885. 
 1886. 
 1887. 
 
 1889. 
 1890. 
 1891. 
 1892. 
 1893. 
 1894. 
 1895. 
 1896. 
 
 .300. 
 313, 
 262, 
 220, 
 337, 
 275, 
 343, 
 447, 
 188, 
 413, 
 491, 
 479, 
 300, 
 
 724, 000 
 998, 000 
 636, 000 
 822, 000 
 663, 000 
 855, 000 
 574, 000 
 713, 000 
 724, 000 
 581,000 
 256, 000 
 102, 000 
 235, 000 
 
 INIISSISSrPPI LUMBER INTERESTS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. I. C. ENOCHS, OF JACKSON, MISS. 
 
 Thursday, Beccmher 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 American citizenship and rights are sufficient explanation for the 
 presence on this occasion of a committee from a national lumber con- 
 vention. We appeal for proper tariff distribution. We assume prior 
 Ways and Means Committees, through their reports, have discriminated 
 against the industry in which we are interested. 
 
 I can not entirely agree with some of my fellow lumbermen that lum- 
 ber was singled out as one industry with which to make an experiment 
 of free trade. Rather, a misconception as to the quantity and availa- 
 bility of our unused forest resources is the explanation that commends 
 itself to my judgment for lumber being taken off the dutiable list.
 
 538 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Michigan and Wisconsin in a given period so lilled tlie attention and 
 admiration of our people by their superb lumbering as to oversliadow 
 and in a large degree lose to view the fact that the older States were 
 in any measureable sense factors in the lumber trade, nor was it 
 believed their methods and supplies could be duplicated elsewhere in 
 our own borders. White pine was specifically crowned " king of woods," 
 and generally it was believed to be the only material fit to make good 
 lumber. 
 
 Years ago, in the 70's, statisticians of a class and purpose adverse to 
 our national interest, named the dates in the 80's when the forests of 
 these i^orth sections should yield up their last saw log. 
 
 Kotice, here we have the seeding which came to fruitage iu the tariff 
 acts of 1890 and 1894, and it was not of our sowing. 
 
 The effect of advanced stumpage values iu stimulating better logging 
 operations, economic mill methods, and widened rangeof lumber in grad- 
 ing, all in conservation of our timber resources, had not manifested 
 themselves. 
 
 Under these powerful influences the timber yield was D)ore than 
 doubled as to the estimated available timber, and many times increased 
 by the hitherto tliought unavailable and vahieless forest covers in the 
 territory involved, in the statistical product and period already men- 
 tioned, which we class as of Canadian interest. 
 
 No more than GO per cent of the easy white i)ine stumpage was then 
 taken into service or estimated statistical count, even by luinbermen, 
 and untold millions — we might with better propriety say billions — of 
 feet were sacrificed, destroyed, outside the lumbernuin's operation. 
 
 Within the precincts and habitat of the Northern ])iiie other timber 
 was found serviceable and adapted for lundjering, and added a larger 
 quantity to the lumber supply than the adverse statisticians allowed 
 existence of in white pine. 
 
 lieyond this, and of great im])ortance, adequate knowledge and ai)pre- 
 ciation of Southern and Pacific Coast timber properties were, in a generic 
 sense, unknown even to lumbermen. North, South, and West alike. So 
 it is no offensive criticism to class the legislative c(»nce])tion that first 
 reduced and then struck our industry from the dutiable list as a mis- 
 conception of our national timber resources. 
 
 It is consistent with and inclusive of the matter to say that all the 
 facts incident to this industry and the timber it dei)ends on were not 
 within the range of legislative vision. The other timber sections were 
 simply waiting for their turn to come, and it was a losing as well as 
 waiting game for these unused timber sections before the fact of adverse 
 legislation as well as since. 
 
 The Saginaw Valley, within the earlier i)art of this decade, gave up 
 its supremacy as the largest lumbering section of the country, which 
 indicated to those who held that section in view as the dominating one, as 
 well as to those who took Canadian lumber interest into bosom, felt that 
 lumbering would radically decline in this country, and that a changed 
 policy as to Canadian product was admissible and desirable. That the 
 treeless sections Joined heartily in this view, although their sup])ly was 
 not from Canada, but largely from our own section (the South), is a 
 rather striking phase of this matter, and not a])preciable from the i)()int 
 of interest and sympathy of Southern, Northern, or Western lumbermen. 
 
 If we should allow this was right as to the Saginaw Valley or that 
 giving-out section, it was radically wrong as to all the other timber 
 sections of this nation if in any degree tins policy should hinder pro- 
 duction therein, because hindering production in this country has never
 
 MISSISSIPPI LUMBER INTERESTS. 539 
 
 yet been other than rank, outrageous waste of timber value and indus- 
 trial service. Service as to our industrial operations is of greater 
 national, community, or individual value than free imports of Canadian 
 lumber can be to the individual sections which were to be benefited 
 by inviting it into our country. 
 
 In the light and testimony of events, it was an error even as to the 
 Sfvginaw Valley, and emphatically a gross error as to all other timber- 
 bearing sections. We come testifying to this experience from Maine to 
 Washington, from Minnesota to Louisiana and Texas, all sections join- 
 ing in one common protest, all witnessing that waste, profligacy, and 
 loss are the result of this discrimination against this universally dis- 
 tributed industry. We offer not only our personal testimony, and that 
 of thousands whose delegates we are, but support it by startling statis- 
 tics gathered and stored in the census reports, which aftirm the present 
 and the prospect of the immediate future to our view as but the past 
 inverted. 
 
 Let us examine this industry in its relation to other industries. By 
 comparison : 
 
 In what does this industry differ from other industries listed in four- 
 teen classes from A to IST in the tariff acts of 1890 and 1891 "? 
 
 Not in hazard, save it is more hazardous if we may believe the testi- 
 mony of the fire insurance experience tables, and their provisions. 
 
 Not in permanency of mill plant, for the life limit thereof is several 
 times within the experience of the operator who survives the bank- 
 ru])tcy period. 
 
 Not in margins of profit compared with other lines, instances of which 
 are easily substituted from your own observation and acquaintance. 
 
 Not in ease and comfort as a life vocation; as to these items no refer- 
 ences are possible. They are only written in the experiences of our 
 class. 
 
 Why discriminate between our Southern lumber and Southern cotton, 
 both sold and utilized in the section in which we meet competition with 
 Canadian lumber? 
 
 Why discriminate between Alabama or Tennessee lumber and their 
 cotton, iron, firebrick, cement, marble, stone, tobacco, or even "moun- 
 tain dew?" 
 
 Why should the prairie farmer, in the treeless section, whose interests 
 were well watched in this antilumber-tariff matter, have his products, 
 to wit, animals, buckwheat, corn or maize, corn meal, oats, rye flour, 
 wheat and wheat flour, oatmeal, barley, and barley pearled i)atent or 
 hulled and barley malt, protected from 15 to 40 per cent, and disrobe the 
 timber sections, who are the best patrons he may have for his cereals'? 
 
 If lumber should be free of duty for the prairie sections, should not 
 the lumberman be free from tariff' payment on the provisions and supplies 
 bought of the prairie farmer ? 
 
 We challenge any man to name any great essential feature or element 
 to our advantage in the whole industrial range indicating necessity or 
 warrant for the difference of tariff' policy toward the lumber interest. 
 
 Next, notice how this industrial outcast contributes to the other 
 industries. 
 
 Take an inventory of a Southern, a Northern, a Central, a Pacific or 
 Atlantic Coast lumber establishment, and see how they contribute some 
 20 per cent, through Schedules B, C, G, M, and N, to governmental 
 support. To enumerate, notice firebrick, cement, all the items of iron 
 and steel, as well as steel rails, anchors and beams, nails, spikes, saws, 
 rivets, belting, and other items too numerous to mention. These
 
 540 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 additions of cost in the original investment must be distributed and 
 figured out of tbe investment with carrjing interest within a few years. 
 
 Again, we must pay for supplies in the daily and yearly operations 
 which have been increased in cost to us by the indirect-tax method we 
 have in discussion, and these figure constantly into our cost statement. 
 
 Now we are advised that none of these items, or at least but few of 
 them, are so increased in cost to our Canadian neighbors. To the extent 
 of these additional items of cost is not our legislation against us and 
 favorable to Canada? 
 
 It seems undeniable that this is the equivalent of assisting Canadians 
 to the extent of these items of cost in our operation. 
 
 Let us go rnto some detail as to the community service lumber ren- 
 ders. The operating cost "average'' in a Southern saw and i>Uiniiig 
 mill is approximately stated at $7 per thousand feet. What is tlie com- 
 numity interest in this item? First, 70 per cent is paid to labor, and 
 we have .$4.90. Kext, this fir-nishes as an average weight 3,000 pounds 
 tonnage to our railroads. An average rate is 25 cents ])er hundred 
 to territory north of Ohio River, equal to $7.50. Next, the laborer 
 spends 80 per cent of his proportion for sup])lies which are bought 
 from other industrial and agricultural ])e(tple, equal to $3.92. Next, 
 the mill owner s])ends for rails, feed, and otlier sup])lies, estimated, $1. 
 Next, the railroads haul the supplies of mill owner ami laborer to origi- 
 nal Southern mill point. Tonnage basis decreased, traflic, tariff" value 
 increased, so that the transportation interest in this return traflic is 
 safely estimated at $1 per thousand feet for the whole (piantity of 
 lumber hauled from our section into the territory competitive as to 
 Canadian lumber, $1. Is not this sununary, $18.32, an attractive item 
 as an exiuession of community interest from this industry? 
 
 I wonder what kiiul of a high-sounding policy the life-insurance 
 companies would call this, and what kind of '-a special^ they would 
 commit it to that it might be i)resented and accei)ted of the i)eople. 
 One national ])oli('y calls it protection. The other tariff for revenue. 
 Does this exhibit not argue inteichange of products between the forest 
 and the hold and the mine and all the vocations and professions of our 
 grand national community? We assert that the extension within rea- 
 sonable con('ei)tion and indefensible a])titude may be carried much 
 further than stated above. When a schoolboy, as a i)art of arithmet- 
 ical stu<ly, I was taught to place ]uoi)ositions for computation on a 
 line, "Ilobart's line," as my teacher named it. Let us so place this 
 pro})osition. 
 
 On the one hand we have Canadian lumber. 
 
 Assume a ])rice for comparison, let it be: Canadian price $10. Amer- 
 ican price, $10; American investment, su])plies, timber, labor, railroad, 
 professional, agricultural, and other vocations too numerous to mention. 
 
 Take any industrial or professional calling, and consider its interest 
 in relation to this formula, and how shall ycm find the price that shall 
 justify extraneous lumber trading? What is the economic character of 
 the act whicli buys lumber in Canada and allows our forest resources 
 to waste and our industries to dwarl? How shall the ]>olicy find 
 defense? As a means to an end, does not industrial lumber provide 
 "good gifts," "showers of blessing," commensurate with the distribu- 
 tion we ask? Is not the national unit and multii)licity of interests so 
 manifestly with the American lumbermen that no other or different 
 statement is necessary ? Doos not the community service which lumber 
 bears entitle it to cential i)osition in our industrial sheaf, and will that 
 motto, "United wc stand, divided we fall," not ai)ply in uncpiestioned
 
 MISSISSIPPI LUMBER INTERESTS 541 
 
 Ibi'ce and appropriateness as an essential of our appeal for right distri- 
 bution through tariff acts ? 
 
 We have stated belief in the original basis as that right distribution. 
 It has been said that by "industry and her handmaid commerce" man 
 onl^v comes into perfect development. If so, cruel is the conception and 
 savage the hand that will write an American statute that restrains any 
 industrial or commercial movement within our boarders. How can you 
 so effectually hold out the promised golden scepter as by assurance of 
 secure and constant employment of all the factors of our civilization ? 
 This means not one, but all alike, men, industries, and professions. 
 
 Keferring to and approving the statistics submitted by our memorial, 
 we ask attention to a few general conditions relating to the weliare of 
 the community which I have the jjrivilege of representing, a section 
 remote from the source of supply, which we ask restraint of because of 
 its competition. An industrial vocation is not unlike any or all other 
 highly wrought existences. To know law or medicine, you must prac- 
 tice law or medicine, so an industrial life must be lived that it may be 
 known. It is thus approi)riate that we come advising you of differen- 
 tials in product, trade, demand, and local special requirements, which 
 forbid a wide, comprehensive lumber operation or distribution save the 
 volume of business is large and the intelligence and knowledge neces- 
 sary, in direction thereof is of the best order of talent and executive 
 ability. 
 
 A small lumber operation is inadequate and incompetent for any- 
 thing save the inunediate local community wants, hence we must make 
 large quantities of lumber and distribute it or sell it in the large con- 
 sumptive centers of population or we must not enter this industrial field. 
 If tlie mills from the South should be stop])ed by adverse railroad rates 
 from sending their products north of the Ohio Itiver, not exceeding HO 
 per cent of the Southern mills need start up for the good year 1897. 
 
 Tlie whole Southern section is at a rate disadvantage as to Canadian 
 lumber products of from $3 to $0 per thousand feet. The rate situa- 
 tion from our section has already been stressed to a considerable 
 degree to enable Southern lumber to enter competitive territory in 
 suHicieut quantities to justify adaptation of mill and sale methods to 
 the demands of the North section. 
 
 This industry is an essential to the employment of both capital and 
 labor in our sparse-settled comnumity. A large percentage of our 
 product after it is made is now sacrificed because of restraint of non- 
 markets for it; that is, the coarser product so well brought to your 
 attention by Mr. Goodyear and others. I venture the assertion, and 
 every practical Southern lumberman and Northern lumberman as well, 
 who may have iuterlooked our operations will confirm the assertion, 
 that each year now finds as much waste stock unused iu the Southern 
 forest as comes as lumber from Canadian sections. 
 
 The trouWous issue in all lines of manufacturing is the difficulty of 
 providing the place and market for the unwanted product. 
 
 As this product is now esteemed of no value — that is, coarse stock— and 
 the imposition of a duty on Canadian product should make a partially 
 better market for this valueless product, does it not follow that it would 
 add to our national resources in proportion to the increased quantity so 
 saved and advanced to marketable relations'? 
 
 If the measure of economic conception was full and this waste was 
 beyond mind and hand, there should be no necessity for our appeal. 
 If the positions assumed are tenable and true as to our section— and we 
 stand ready to x^i'ove them in every essential quality— what shall we
 
 542 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 say of the policy that propagates aud fosters such waste and improvi 
 dence? 
 
 I remember the biiihling of a railroad through our section (Mississippi) 
 in 1859 — it is now the Illinois Central. The territory from the State 
 line north for a distance of 70 miles was then an unbroken forest, and 
 of the very best quality of yellow pine timber. It has been cut back 
 now uutil there is a strii) say 12 miles on either side that is wholly cleared 
 of timber suitable for lumbering, or 1,680 square miles, or 1,075,200 
 acres. An outside estimate as to what has been made into lumber in 
 that section will be 20 per cent. What is the loss of value, in its 
 national sense, of approximately 800,000 acres of timber which has been 
 sacrificed and wasted in the clearing process for agricultural purposes? 
 
 The mere suggestion of the proposition is in itself a criticism of 
 economics well nigh intolerable. Lying back of this strip are other 
 sections largely held by resident owners. If lumbermen extend their 
 railway tracks into these forests as fast as the residents wish to clear 
 and reduce them to agricultural lands, every foot of this product would 
 be available for community service and wealth making. This condition 
 is probably more aggravated in my own section than in others, because 
 our pine lands are somewhat better for agricultural i)urposes, but it is 
 bad enough in the least aggravated cases to be censurable in an 
 immeasurable extent. Kather, I might have said, this Avaste through 
 agricultural j^urposes is more in our section titan others, but the process 
 of turpentining which obtains in other sections and not immediately in 
 ours will make the case as to our section the lesser one as to the whole 
 long-leaf pine section. 
 
 Other witnesses are within your reach who are not interested in this 
 discussion save as an economic one. Confer with the honorable Kepre- 
 sentatives from my own State, and I refor to them without permission. 
 The gentleman who rei)resents the Seventh district will affirm the state- 
 ment of denudation and waste now matter of discussion as to the agri- 
 cultural section just mentioned. AVithin the past few months he has 
 made a personal canvass therein, and is able because of this inter- 
 mingling with Ids constituents to give direct and pertinent statement 
 or criticism of the matters 1 allege as facts. 
 
 The gentleman who rei>resents tlie Sixth district will give support 
 equally convincing as to the agricultural waste of yellow ])ine stumpage 
 as well as that greater waste through the turpentine industry. 
 
 Another gentleman from the Fourth district can be relied U])on to 
 advise of the difference between small, local mill operation — knowledge 
 of which came to him through an associate in a large lumber venture — 
 and such a large comi)rehensive one as we now state is necessary for 
 successful lumbering for the sections north of the Ohio River. He can 
 also tell you of the failure of an exceptionally heroic effort in yellow- 
 pine lumbering, caused by the restraint of nonmarkets in the north 
 section for Southern long-leaf yellow-pine lumber. 
 
 The gentleman who represents so ably our Mississi])])i River district 
 can tell you of hundreds of square miles of Mississippi River timber 
 resource sacrificed to the cotton planters' clearing ])rocess. He will 
 advise you of changed conceptions as to dealing with the timber re- 
 sources of the Mississippi Valley, where hard woods are being looked 
 to for lumbering, and if markets are assured for their product largely 
 increased indn.stry through lumber making will be the initiative of the 
 farmers' land-clearing operation, instead of the former methods, which 
 killed and destroyed the timber to make it ready for removing. In the 
 whole State I assume that not 5 per cent of the original timber resource
 
 MISSISSIPPI LUMJ5ER INTERESTS. 543 
 
 has been dealt with save as an expense of the initiation to agricultural 
 oi)eration. 
 
 Out of all these, not one of these gentlemen will tell you of riches, 
 or wealth as the increment of lumbering in our section, so that the 
 "lumber barons" are yet to come to our section. Industries generally 
 argue the social feature and quality of existence. They go in groups. 
 They can neither be outlawed or mistreated except at the cost of the 
 well-being of the commonwealth. How shall the South section hope to 
 attain to and participate in the prosperity which comes from industrial 
 lines if the natural resources she possesses shall not be utilized in the 
 initiative process, and what have we so well adapted and distributed 
 for this industrial introduction as our timber properties? It is a fact 
 that in certain North sections other industries have succeeded the lum- 
 ber industry; so that the impetus and progress installed by large 
 lumber operations have been saved to the community through other 
 industries. 
 
 What is the comparative prospect as to the coming of industries to 
 our seciion if hostility to those things we have is the measure of appre- 
 ciation which is to be manifested? How shall we expect native or 
 other energy to find that stimulus and security joined in superb effort 
 which is essential to the industrial growth, the dearth of which in our 
 section is universally deplored? 
 
 Are not justice and common honesty traits to keep faith with in the 
 national household? May not domestic reciprocity be written in the 
 equitable distribution we ask! In proportion as examination is thor- 
 ough will the conviction of our incontrovertible position be fastened 
 and riveted as a fact? 
 
 As a part of our explanation of the causes initiative of the adverse 
 legislation toward our product, we should add, the land investor's profit 
 is charged against and added as an offense to the lumber industrial 
 situation, and a degree of prejudice not unmixed with jealousy has 
 entered through this course. I refer to this in the hope of correcting 
 an error. The facts are that our governmental policy as to the public 
 domain has not been as conservative as it might have been, and when 
 great o])portunities came for acquiring timber properties, as in other 
 lines, some lumbermen had sagacity to see what was an opportunity, 
 and, as such, came into possession of some very valuable properties. 
 In the imture of things, this was not to be avoided nor censured; 
 neither should this misconception go unexplained, because it will 
 change the opinion that mill operation has been unduly profitable as 
 compared with other business ventures. 
 
 Those who improved the opportunities of that period were not unlike 
 other sagacious business men, and because a lumberman possessed the 
 large conception, energy, and capital to so utilize these opportunities 
 for his own account in the lumber industry should not be so much con- 
 sidered the fault as the virtue of the citizen who has fully used the 
 "talents" intrusted to his care and keeping. 
 
 But lumbermen not alone saw this opportunity, for the largest timber 
 profit has come to men not lumbermen in the industrial sense. The 
 land investor in timber has not fared better than the prairie-land 
 investor. Both bought at practically the same prices, and has not the 
 prairie man held in many instances until his profit was greater than 
 upon his timber purr^.hases? 
 
 We come not as political doctrinaires with unyielding convictions as 
 to the names or classification of the remedies to be applied, arguing 
 from that basis, but as plain, unassuming citizens, confessing the sense
 
 544 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 of uncertainty, pain and threat (notoifensive) of unemployed men, idle 
 factories, languishing business enterprises, inquiring if \ye may not, by 
 and witli the changed distribution of tariff which is in progress, have 
 the interest we represent and are interested in recognized, restored, 
 and preserved for the communities in which located. 
 
 It bas been said "the most important point to the landscape painter 
 lies in his selection of the position which will give him the best view of 
 all the elements going into the landscape." If this be true in art, how 
 shall we emphasize the necessity of getting the fullest, fairest, best 
 positional view of this incomparable industry, national in distribution 
 and interest ? 
 
 When you have taken this view, and your conception has engrossed 
 and absorbed all the determining factors as we know them, and as 
 they offer assistance and em])loyment to millions unemployed, unfed 
 American citizens, we well believe distribution based njxtn our ajjpeal 
 for fair, just, and ecjual treatment of all the members of our national 
 (industrial) household will commend itself to your judgment, and that 
 our product shall find itself restored to its original position in the 
 dutiable column. 
 
 :^rEW YOTJK T.TT]Srr,ETJ txteeests. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY DODGE, MEIGS & CO., OF NEW YORK 
 
 New York, December 28, 1896. 
 
 Dear Sir: No equally important industry has suffered as much 
 under the operation of the last tariff bill as has the lumber interest of 
 this country. 
 
 Prior to the adoption of the Wilson-Gorman bill manufacturers were 
 protected by a duty of $1 per thousand feet on all ]iine and *2 iier 
 thousand on spruce. All lumber was put upon the free list, and at once 
 every manufaciturer liad to jueet a loss varying from 10 to -0 per cent 
 upon his stock on hand. 
 
 Every manufacturer and dealer in lumber knows that all the logging 
 operations throughout the entire North are conducted during the winter, 
 and that those logs are sawed during the following summer and that it 
 requires from twelve to eighteen months from the time the money is ])ut 
 in the logging ojjerations until the money is returned again to the 
 investor. 
 
 The present tariff worked a great injustice to the lumber trade 
 because no suitable time was given to enable those in it to adjust their 
 business to avert tiie severe losses that were sure to follow. Anyone 
 acquainted with the business could foresee that disaster would inevitably 
 follow the ])assage of the present bill, though few couJd anticipate how 
 wide would be tlie extent of country affected by it. 
 
 We think it should be made clear to all our ( '(mgressmen that the 
 government of Canada is the real owner of nearly all timber lands in 
 the Dominion, and that by reason of the enormous amount of stump- 
 age held by it, which it sells to its citizens at very low prices and upon 
 easy terms, no competitor on this side of the line paying interest and 
 contributing to the supjmrt of our Government by paying taxes can 
 successfully compete with it. 
 
 The Canadian manufacturer has not only a great advantage in buy- 
 ing stumpage at low cost from the Government, but also he has an
 
 NEW YORK LIBIBER INTERESTS. 545 
 
 added advantage in the low cost of wages and supplies used. The 
 wages paid in Canada are 25 per cent less than paid in all the border 
 States and all camp supplies cheaper than south of the line. 
 
 In ijrotecting lumber an indirect protection is given to flour, hay, 
 oats, and pork, which are consumed in large quantities in all lumber 
 camps. 
 
 In order that owners of timber lauds and manufacturers of lumber 
 in the United States may be able to compete with Canadian mill men, 
 it is necessary that they should be placed upon equal footing as to cost 
 of lands and cost of wages, and as this can only be done by a protec- 
 tive tariff wo think all lumbermen should unite in urging Congress to 
 take immediate uction to afford the relief so necessary to this great 
 industry. We liave not the statistics before us, but we think the capital 
 invested, value of product, and number of men engaged in this indus- 
 try rank third in imi)ortance in the United States. It is bound in 
 with and affects all the great interests of the country. Thousands of 
 men are engaged in the manufacture of macliinery and mill supplies 
 who are directly affected by the prosperity of this industry, and thou- 
 sands more who are engaged in the transportation of lumber will unite 
 in urging Congress to take such action as will restore this great indus- 
 try to its former activity. Of necessity it is always to be a pioneer 
 industry, pushing its way into remote districts, making roads and 
 bridges, improving rivers aiul harbors, building towns in the wilder- 
 ness, and requiring for its support sui)plies from a greater number and 
 variety of producers than any other single industry in our great coun- 
 try. Its importance has never been fairly understood by the great 
 mass of our people, because its operations have been far remote from the 
 great centers of i)oIitical influence. The depression that. followed the 
 l)assage of the bill which so unjustly discriminated against this great 
 industry has attracted attention to it from North to South alike, and all 
 sections will unite in asking Congress to restore the former tariff", 
 which should cover not only logs and lumber, but also pulp wood, cord 
 wood, and all products of the forest grown or produced within our 
 borders. 
 
 Dodge, Meigs & Co. 
 
 Buffalo, N. T., January 9, 1897. 
 
 COIOITTTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 At a meeting of the Buffalo Lumber Exchange held January 9, 1897, 
 the following resolution was unanimously adopted : 
 
 ' It is the sense of the Lumber Exchange of Buffalo, N. Y,, that there should be an 
 import duty of $1 per 1,000 feet on hemlock, white and Norway pine lumber, $2 per 
 1,000 feet on all other woods in the rough, 20 cents per 1,000 on shingles, 15 cents 
 per 1,000 on laths, $4 per 1,000 on planed lumber, $5 per 1,000 on lumber worked in 
 any other way. 
 
 I am instructed to submit this to you for action. 
 
 Knowlton Mixer, Secretary. 
 
 T n 35
 
 546 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 IvTORTH CAROLINA LTJISIBEB rN^TERESTS. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF MAKUFACTTJEERS OF NORTH CAROLINA PINE 
 
 LUMBER. 
 
 Norfolk, Va., December 29, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 The undersigned manufacturers of Nortb Carolina pine lumber in the 
 States of Virginia and Nortli Carolina most respectfully petition your 
 committee to incorporate in your forthcoming tariff bill a duty upon 
 Canadian lumber and other forest products which are imported into 
 this country. In supjiort of our ])etition we beg leave to submit for 
 your consideration the following facts: 
 
 Total amount of ca])ital invested in the lumber business in Virginia and 
 
 North Carolina (estimated) $20,00,0000 
 
 Number of men employed (estimated) 2,0000 
 
 Annual output of mills, (estimated) feet. . 800, 000, 000 
 
 Amount expended annuallj' for labor (estimated) $6, 500, 000 
 
 Profits in the business during the i)ast two years has been nothing. 
 
 To your committee the latter statement may av)pear a startling one; 
 yet that it re])resents the plain, unvarnished trutli in regard to the con- 
 dition of our lumber business is attested by every one of the signatures 
 attached to this petition. The entire i)roduct of our mills seeks its 
 market in the Ivistern and New England States, which sections are 
 well known to be the dumping ground of the Canadian product, more 
 particularly of its coarser grades. 
 
 The liberality extended to Canadian lumber manufacturers by the 
 government of Canada in regard to their purchases of standing timber, 
 the cheapness of their labor as compared with ours, and the low cost 
 of transportation as a natural result of their proximity to our markets 
 are factors with which we are powerless to contend. During the past 
 two years dozens of mills have been either closed down or forced out 
 of the business, being unable to longer withstand the ruinous comi)eti- 
 tion caused by the Canadian oi>erators. Our manulacturers have by 
 no means been the only sufferers. Their lH),0()(> emi)loyees have seen 
 their wages cut down; in addition to which there are very few among 
 them who have not lost more or less time during the ])ast two years. 
 Hundreds of others have been thrown out of employment entirely, 
 causing untold want, ])overty, and suffering. Wlio can calculate or 
 even ai)proximate tlie injury to the business of every tradesman 
 throughout the luaiber-producing sections of Virginia and North Caro- 
 lina by the loss in the earnings of this great army of employees? The 
 injurj'^ extends even to our farmers who own small tracts of timber the 
 value of which naturally should be advancing as the supply of timber 
 (Iccieases. To their sorrow they have seen it constantly declining in 
 value during the i)ast two years. We earnestly believe that a careful 
 consideration of this nuitter by your committee will convince them 
 beyond doubt that there is no other protected industry in the United 
 States to-d;iy upon which the removal of its present tariff would bring 
 so much hardshi}) and pecuniary loss upon so large a number of peoi)le 
 as have already been affected by the removal of the duty upon Canadian 
 lumber. 
 
 Since the Canadian product has been placed upon the free list the 
 prices on our coarser grades of lumber, which constitute about 50 per
 
 SOUTH CAROLINA AND OREGON LUMBER INTERESTS. 547 
 
 cent of our total output, have declined in price $2 per tliousand feet, 
 which decline has had the effect of depressing to a very material extent 
 the prices on our better grades of lumber. We therefore pray that 
 your committee will recommend that a duty be placed upon Canadian 
 lumber of at least $2 per thousand feet board measure on all sawed 
 lumber, etc., 50 cents per thousand feet additional for all lumber dressed 
 on one side, $1 per thousand feet additional if dressed on two sides 
 or dressed on one side and tongued and grooved, and $1.50 per thou- 
 sand feet additional if dressed on two sides and tongued and grooved. 
 This duty that we now ask to have placed upon Canadian lumber is a 
 moderate one as comimied with that enjoyed by otiier protected indus- 
 tries, and we most earnestly pray that your committee will recommend 
 its adoption by the Senate and Congress of the I iiited States. 
 
 EOANOKE E. E. AND LrMJ^Ell Co. 
 
 (And 64 others). 
 
 SOUTH CAKOLIN^A LUIVIBEII rN^TEKESTS. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We, the undersigned manufacturers of lumber in the State of South 
 Carolina, respectfully ask that a duty be imposed on lumber imported 
 into the United States. 
 
 We are prepared to show that almost all the articles we use in the 
 manufacture of lumber are protected to the e.vtent of about 30 percent; 
 for iUvStance, steel rails, ST.O-i per ton; circular saws, 25 per cent; files, 
 $1 per dozen; machinery, 35 per cent; belting, 30 per cent; harness, 
 30 per cent, etc. The Canadian manufacturer pays none of these 
 duties, and shii)s his lumber free of duty across an imaginary line into 
 the United States in competition with ours. 
 
 We could all stand free trade, but as we have to pay a duty or tax 
 on the above, we respeatfully submit the above, believing your honor- 
 able body will see the justice of our request and grant us the equivn- 
 lent of, say, 20 per cent duty on lumber, and thus increase the re\ enne 
 of the Government, or ])ut us in a position to pay the above duties. 
 
 Stokes & Eayson. 
 
 J. W. WESf OAT. 
 
 Jno. Dannelly. 
 
 GOETUE & ULMER. 
 
 OEEGON ETJIMBEE INTERESTS. 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY W. T. RADER, OF PORTLAND, OREG. 
 
 Thursday, December 31, 1896. 
 
 Gentlemen: The problem that confronts every lumberman is the 
 disposition of and market for the inferior grades of lumber, for which 
 he is invariably willing to take the actual cost of production. 
 
 The natural market for this class of lumber for the forests of Oregon 
 and Washington, governed by our present means of transportation, is 
 San Francisco and ports as far south as Chile, of which, however, the 
 all important is the southern California market, whicli takes at least 
 00 j)er cent of all the rough or inferior lumber exported. Beiug deprived
 
 548 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 of tliis market for this class of lumber we are practically shut out from 
 the prosecution and development of this industry. 
 
 The lumbermen of the Pacilic Nortliwest, whose interests I am here 
 to particularly represent, are militated against, through the o])eration 
 of our present too generous relations with our Canadian neighbor by 
 being brought into uuftivorable competition with the lumbermen of 
 British Columbia in our available market for the rough or inferior 
 grades of lumber, in this way. 
 
 Our lumbermen, in order to successfully and economically, at a mini- 
 mum cost, j)roduce lumber, must own a plant of prodigious size. Thus 
 it is necessary, for example, that would warrant the investment in con- 
 struction of trams, logways, chutes, railroads, Humes, sluice dams, and 
 the many other paraphernalia wliich are only valuable in their place 
 and not subject to removal, could not be dependent upon the caprices 
 and ownership of the lands tributary thereto, but they must own the 
 lauds. This, you see, involves the investment of an average I'rom $10 
 to $30 per acre, and in tracts from three to Iwenty-five thousand acres, 
 upon which interest and taxes must be added to the cost of produc- 
 tion. Another and very important feature is the danger of forest fires, 
 which, when tiie operation of the plant begins, adds about 80 per cent 
 to the losses so incurred. On the (»ther hand, the I'.ritish Columbian 
 mill men receive large governmental concessions that gi\e them pro- 
 tection for the investment of their plant, as above described, and lor 
 which concession they i)ay in stumpage for the logs, as removed from 
 the land, a figure hardly coniniensurate with what the American pays 
 for the timber as it stands ui)on the land per acre, generally speaking, 
 of course. Thus you see but for the operation of none other than tlie 
 causes heretofore enumerated, the Northwest lumberman has an ahnost 
 insuriuountable barrier to overcome, and with only a few slight advan- 
 tages, particularly in the gi-eater amount of superior lumber. 
 
 There is still, however, a greater ditl'erence that enters as a factor in 
 the cost of production — the <iuestiou of labor. While it is true that 
 white labor will produce from one-third to one-half more of an outjjut, 
 yet it must be borne in mind that coolie labor is had at less than half 
 the cost. In both cases superior skill requires the employment of white 
 men, but, both in mill and camp, where agility, mechanical imitation, 
 and drudgery is the teature, eoolie labor is employed and i)aid for such 
 service at the rate of -"?-() ])er month, out of which they board them- 
 selves, and actual labor only is reckoned, while with us similar labor 
 is performed by white men who are paid from >^'.\~) to ><4."5 per nu)nth and 
 are boarded; this includes board during the time they are idle owing 
 to the inclemency of the weather or any similar cause. From this it 
 can be readily seen that the emidoyment of coolie labor enables the 
 manufacturer to reckon with mathematical nicety the actual cost of 
 production. 
 
 Someone asks the question, "Why not employ Japanese in American 
 mills? There is no law against it." This is only i)artially true; there 
 is no law enacted by legislature. There is, however, a more i)owerful, 
 inherent law than either in its operation, the enforcement of which 
 would be very prompt, and woe betide the millman who would so far 
 disregard public opinion as to attemi)t the employment of Japanese, 
 against whom there is a greater antipathy than is evinced toward the 
 Chinese even. 
 
 The cost of transjjortation is equal or slightly in favor of the Brit- 
 ish Columbian lumbermen. It must, however, be a])parent fnmi the 
 foregoing statement of facts, which are corroborated by statements
 
 OREGON LUMBER INTERESTS. 549 
 
 heretofore made, and are true iu every detail, and for the reasons enu- 
 merated, that the nonproductive capital invested in timbered land, the 
 interest and taxes thereon, the losses from forest fires, the discrepancy 
 in labor all become barriers prohibitive of successful competition in 
 our own market when no import duty is imposed. 
 
 We ask you to tax the peoi)le of southern California, part of Nevada, 
 Arizona, and Kew Mexico to support the lumbering industry of Wash- 
 ington, Oregon, and northern California f We do ; but, unlike the opera- 
 tion of similar tariff laws, there is reciprocity. We, in turn, import and 
 give them marketfor moie than the difference paid us iu lumber for citrus 
 and other fruits, and particularly vegetables of a kind and class largely 
 consumed by our laboring people engaged in lumbering in the winter 
 season, at which time California abounds in this class of product. You 
 must also bear in mind, under this head, that we are only asking this 
 Government to grant us, iu another form, just what the Canadian Gov- 
 ernment concedes to the British Columbian lumbermen. We are will- 
 ing to take just the actual cost of production for the grade of lumber 
 above enumerated ; and all that is asked for is the difference represented 
 by conditions favorable and unfavorable. 
 
 The feature above enumerated is still more important. The mer- 
 chants of San Fraiicis(H) and iSan Diego and other southern California 
 ports control the trade in tliis line of Mexico, Chile, and other Pacific 
 South American States. And if we have the vsouthern California market 
 for the very roughest of our lumber — which is manufactured largely into 
 fruit boxes, crates, fencing, Avalks, wharves, and railway construction, 
 with a host of other uses too numerous to mention — we will have an 
 abundance of a vsomewhat better grade that will bear the costof trans- 
 portati<)n farther south, and in which we could successfully compete 
 with our British neighbor, because, in this connection, we have an 
 advantage by having less percentage of the cheaper grade of lumber 
 to find market for. 
 
 All of the foregoing is not mere theory or conjecture, but is actual 
 demonstration, to "which our now silent mills bear tertimony. We are 
 willing to admit that there are other influences that contribute to this 
 condition, but that this is the main cause for complaint can not be 
 gainsaid. 
 
 Some one has graciously asked this committee to put logs upon the 
 free list and an impoi t duty on the manufactured product, for the osten- 
 sible purpose of giving employment to American workingmen. This 
 appears A^ery plausible upon the face of it, indeed, but none more partial 
 or partakes of the nature of class legislation than this. Why should 
 the latent resources of the Pacific Northwest from Keading, Cab, to the 
 British line, or of the South from Georgia to Texas be taxed to support 
 the denuded territory of Michigan and Wisconsin"? Why should not 
 such centers for this trade as Saginaw, Menominee, and a multiplicity 
 of others spring up all overthe South and the Northwest as well? Why 
 not give these sections a chance to unfold their dormant treasures, as 
 has been the good fortune of other States largely engaged in this 
 industry? Such persons can not with good grace ask us to wait longer 
 our development, which in the natural course of events has now about 
 dawned upon us. This they practically do when they ask of this com- 
 mittee to recommend any such proposition as above mentioned, and 
 which ought to have the most careful consideration in all its phases by 
 this committee. 
 
 Lumber in its various forms enters so largely into all classes of con- 
 struction and development, and as acommodity that gives in manufacture
 
 550 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 and transportation employment to sucli a vast number, tliat its interest 
 demands the most judi(;ious care and management. So many industries 
 owe their promulgation and development to the lumber trade that we 
 feel the extreme West and South ought now to have its share, tlie 
 importance of which is clearly demonstrated in the results as shown 
 in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and other lumber- 
 producing States, and that their interest should not be bolstered by 
 legislation thatmilitates against the natural development of the extreme 
 West and South, as is proposed in the admission of logs tree of duty. 
 Almost every jHoductive energy of the Pacific Northwest pays tribute 
 to foreign capital. Please do not ask us that so important an industry 
 as lumbering should contribute in any manner to Canadian wealth or 
 that the West and South should wait in its development the denuding 
 of the Canadian forests, but give us protection, not upon the manufac- 
 tured ])roduct only, but upon the logs as well, to such an extent of duty 
 that their importation will be prohibited. We do not want their com- 
 petition when from that competition we derive no benefit by reciprocity 
 or otherwise. 
 
 WASHrSGTOX LITMBETl TXTEEESTS. 
 
 LETTERS AND PAPERS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN L. WILSON, 
 U. S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 Port Gambi.k, Wash., December 14, 1S96. 
 Hon. .John L. AVilsox, 
 
 Uiiikd States Senate, WnHlnngton, D. C. 
 
 Dkai: Sir: Some timo ajjo I had the pleasure of a couversation with you in Seattle 
 on the subject of tarirt' legislation, so far as new taritf schedule would atlect the 
 lumber interests of the Patitie Coast in general, and the State of Washington in 
 particular. I trust the ideassubmitted herewith may be consiilered by you, and be 
 of assistance to you in determining what is for the best interests of this section. 
 
 In making uj) tariii' sche<lules heretofore little or no attention has been paid to 
 the interests of this coast. Now we are a growing State, and are being loolccd u))on 
 as an important State to our nation, and public men and bu>iucssmen are beginning 
 to notice our great natural resources, and growing trade anil couimcrce, and realize 
 the importance of legislation necessary to Ibster and assist in the development of 
 our fair State, and guard against the waste of its wonderful resources. Arguments 
 on the questions of free triale and protection of American industries are unnecessary 
 here; but it nuiy be advisable to say that our best and largest market, not only for 
 lumber, but also for coal, is the domestic market of the State of California. When 
 times are good inCalilornia, andlnmberand coal can be sold freely audat fairprices, 
 then business is active and lively in western Washington, and the productsof eastern 
 Washington are also in demand in western Washington. 
 
 I submit to you herewith statistics for 18U4 and 1895, reierring to the lumber busi- 
 ness of Washington and British Columbia, anil I desir(> to call your attention to the 
 amount of our liuiiber consumed in the State of California during those years, and 
 you will observe that C'alil'ornia absorbs a cry uuich more than half of all tlie lumber 
 sold by these three lumber districts of the Is'orthwest. These ligures can be relied 
 upon, as I have personally compiled them with care from custom-honse records and 
 other reliable sources. These figuri s do not include local consumption within Wash- 
 ington. Oregon, or liritish Columbia, as I do not believe that the amount consumed 
 locally can be obtained with any degree of reliability. 
 
 You will observe that in 1894 sometliing like 2,000,000 feet of lumber was shipped 
 into California from British Columbia, and all of this was sent in after the Wilson 
 bill became a law, and in 189.5 the amount of liritish Columbia shipments to Califor- 
 nia was increased to 15,000,000 feet, and as much more was shipped by rail to Eastern 
 points in the United States, disjjlacing so much capacity of American mills, now idle. 
 Previous to the adoption of the Wilson tariff practically no British lumber had been 
 shipped into California. 
 
 It needs only passing notice of the lower rates for labor and stumpage prevailing 
 in British Columl)ia. and even if Britisli Columbia lumbernu'u had no a(l\.autnge over 
 us in those respects the fact reuuiius that, with lumber on the free list, llie lumber- 
 men of Oregon and Washington must divide their best market (California) with 
 British Columbia competition, a fact conclusively proven by an examination of the
 
 WASHINGTON LUMBER INTERESTS. 551 
 
 lumber statistics above referred to. As California increases in population the con- 
 sumption of our lumber in that State will also be on the increase and that market 
 will be very much more important to the luuilier interests of tlais section. 
 
 Lumber has been put on the ivee list, and as a result we have had to meet the com- 
 petition of our British competitors in our own domestic markets, and prices have 
 been forced down, not only in home markets but also in foreign markets, and in .an 
 endeavor to hold prices we find American lumbermen of Washington, Oregon, and 
 Calilornia obliged to treat with British Colambia lumbermen on the same basis as 
 themselves, and agree to take their lumber on the same terms as the American prod- 
 uct, and tljat, too, with American mills shut down for the want of business and for 
 want of a market for their full product. Prices have gotten down so low that 
 American manufacturers .'ire fortunate if they can get out whole on cost of operating. 
 Any improvement in prices gives the British Columbia men still further advantages, 
 and gives them a stronger hold on the best market. 
 
 The lumber manufacturers have been obliged to reduce cost by reducing wages, 
 and loggers and woodsmen are now working tor 40 per cent less than a few years 
 ago; mill men about 25 per cent less as a rule, the labor bill being 80 per cent of the 
 cost of the manufacture of lumber. The cuts in wages are also felt by employees on 
 ships and tugs depending on the lumber business for employment, and all kinds of 
 business, farmers and others, have suffered in sym]iathy. I am informed that the 
 lumber industry of the State of Maine has suffered in the same way, being now sub- 
 jected to competition with New Brunswick and Canada in domestic markets, and I 
 think the middle West is sinnlarly affected. I am reliably informed that portable 
 mills of small cost are in operation in many places in Canada to manufacture and 
 ship lumber into the United States in competition with American mills in which 
 large capital is invested. 
 
 Now, after tliis object lesson which wo have before us, it seems to me that it is 
 clear that the American luuiber interests and coal interests need assistance by legis- 
 lation, and certainly Washington, to such an extent as to completely shut out from 
 our domestic market the foreign product of like varieties of lumber grown and man- 
 ufactured in this State, known as fir, cedar, spruce, pine, and hemlock. 
 
 I note that the Forestry Bureau is now designating what we have called fir, Doug- 
 lass fir, and Oregon pine (all the same variety of lumber), as Uouglass spruce, and 
 a t.aritf schedule should be broad enough to cover all varieties of wood grown in this 
 State. I do not consider a taiiff of $1 per 1,000 sufficient, because British Columbia 
 W(mld have at least 75 cents the best of us on stiimpat!,o alone, at present rates. I 
 would rcconunend a schedule like the memorandum following, which, I think, would 
 protect the cargo and car business of this State. There are probably other kinds 
 of lumber wliich could be mentioned, such as paving blocks (round and sr^uare), 
 moldings, etc., box boards, clapboards, etc., which could be otherwise provided for 
 as manufactures of wood. 
 
 Now, there is one other thing that should receive attention in this connection, and 
 that is tiie definition of the phrase " manufacture of wood," which appears in the 
 Wilson bill, paragraph No. 671. Under this i)aragraph, lumber, rough or dressed, 
 was put on the free list, while paragraph 181 of the dutiable list specifically states, 
 " manufactures of wood, or of which wood is a component part, or chief value, not 
 Hpeciticall,y provided for in this act, shall be assessed 25 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 Now, under the clause ])laciug lumber, rough and dressed, on the free list, Cana- 
 dian lumbermen were endeavoring to ship flooring into the United States, free of 
 duty, or at a minimum duty, as dressed lumber. But the Board of General Appraisers 
 in New Yorlc (a case coming before them) decided that flooring was a "manufacture 
 of wood." and so compelled a payment of duty on this class of material, the appraisers 
 ruling that dressed lumber is lumber that has been planed or surfaced on one or two 
 sides and brought to an even thickness. 
 
 When it is further advanced in manufacture by having edges planed or jointed, or 
 
 , tongued and grooved, or nosed, or worked to other shapes for a special purpose or into 
 
 moldings, it is then no longer known as dressed lumber, but as shelving, finish, 
 
 decking, flooring, sheathing, ceiling, wainscoting, stepping, rustic, siding, ship lap, 
 
 molding, etc., and is a manufacture of wood, and therefore dutiable. 
 
 An appeal has been taken to the United States circuit court of appeals. This 
 decision of the general appraisers has proved of great benefit to the lumbermen on 
 this coast, and has shutout certain classes of foreign lumber from our domestic mar- 
 kets, even under the AVilson law, and not being able to bring flooring duty free from 
 British Columbia mills, and on account of the ruinously low prices for lumber now 
 prevailing, it has not been profitable for British Columbia mills to ship good assort- 
 ments to California. California dealers luive been forced largely to stop buying lum- 
 ber cargoes from foreign manufacturers on account of a poor assortment. Although 
 free now, if the circuit court of appeals decided to reverse the appraisers' decision 
 (if they have not already done so), then we will have still stronger competition than 
 during'l89ti, and any improvement in prices in California will prove as much benefit 
 to our British Columbia competitors as to ourselves.
 
 552 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OP. 
 
 Therefore, when there is a high duty on "manufactures of wood'" and a low duty 
 or no duty on lumber, rough and dressed, the broader the definition of "manufactures 
 of wood," the better it is as a protection measure. 
 
 Now, really, it is a fine line to draw lietweeu raw material and manufactures of 
 wood. In my opinion, the only raw material in lumber is the tree as it stands grow- 
 ing; even in the log form a large amount of labor has been expended to prepare it 
 for the saw mill, a big industry of itself; and as rough and dressed lumber, it rep- 
 resents I'rom 85 to 90 per cent of the value in labor, which is rather peculiar raw 
 material even if the line is drawn according to the (General Appraiser's ruling. 
 
 The firm with which I am employed is the owner of four large mills for the manu- 
 facture of lumlier for cargo trade exclusi^ ely. Our capacity for a day of ten hours 
 is 400,000 feet, board measure, of hmg lumber, representing 120,000.000 feet, board 
 measure, yearly capacity, not including laths, pickets, and other small lumber. By 
 running nights our capacity could be more Ihan doubled, and we would then, so 
 far as quantity is concerned, be able to handle alone the total foreign lumber busi- 
 ness of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia and have a surplus of (iS.OOO, 000 
 feet, board ii.'eii8ure, for the California market. 
 
 On account of lower tariff duties on lumber, low prices, and dull times we have 
 two of our mills sliut down .-ind idle at this time, and we have only made about 
 60,000,000, board measure, for 18i).'> and 1S9(> instead of 120,000,000, board measure, as 
 we shouhi have done if trade and cora])etition warranted. Other American lumber 
 mills during the past two years have been totally shut down or cai)acity reduced 
 to one-third. 
 
 I see no way to start idle mills on this coast unless the industry can be fully pro- 
 tected by legislation, and even then, there is such a large mill capacity in AA ashing- 
 ton and Oregon, fully one-third of which is lujw idle, that com])etitiou among 
 American InmbernicTi will l)e very sharj) lor some time to come, even with an 
 increased demand in our domestic markets and without any more capital being 
 invested in new plants. 
 
 MKMOUANDUM OF TARIFF .SCHEDULE OX LUMBER PRODUCTS IX THE INTEREST OF 
 CARGO AXI> CAR lUSIXESS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 (1) Timber, round or hewn or sawn, and timber used for spars and piling, 20 per 
 cent ad valorem. 
 
 (2) Telephone poles, telegraph jioles. railroad ties, paving ])osts and fence posts of 
 cedar and other woods, split or hewn or round, 20 ]>(!r cent ad valorem. 
 
 (3) All sawn boards, fencing, battens, ]dank, deals, joist.s, scantling, fence posts, 
 railroad ties, bridge timber, and other lumber and timber of pine, fir, spruce, cedar, 
 and hemlock, in the rough, Avhen of a refuse or merchantable (juality, $2 per 1,000 feet, 
 board measure. 
 
 (4) All sawn boards, fencing, battens, plank, deals, joists, scantling, fence posts, 
 railroad ties, bridge timber, ship timber, shi]> ]>lank, deck ])l;iuk, and other lumber 
 and timber of pine, fir, spruce, cedar, and heiuloek, in the rough, when of a select 
 or clear quality, ^\ per 1,000 feet, board measure. 
 
 (5) All boards, fencing, battens, plank, deals, joists, scantling, fence posts, rail- 
 road ties, bridge timber, and other lumber ami timber of y)ine, fir, spruce, cedar, and 
 hemlock, of a refuse or merchantable (juality, when jtlaned or dressed, and or sized, 
 and or jointed, and or nosed, and or tongued, and or grooved, on one side, or on two 
 sides, or on one side and one edge, or on one edge, or on two edges, $3 per 1,000 feet, 
 board measure. 
 
 (6) All boiirds, fencing, battens, plank, deals, joists, scantling, fence posts, railroad 
 ties, bridge timlter, sbi]) timber, shi]) plank, deck plank, and other lumber and timber 
 of pine, fir, s])ruce, cedar and hemlock, of a select or clear (luality, when jdaned or 
 dressed, and or sized, and or jointed, and or nosed, and or tongued, and or grooved 
 on three sides, or on one side and two edges, or on two sides and one edge, or on four 
 sides, including fiooring, ceiling, wainscoting, finish, ste})ping, car roofing, siding, 
 rustic and ship lap, $6 per 1,000 feet, board measure. 
 
 (7) Rough pickets, palings, and staves, $2 per 1,000 feet, board measure. 
 
 (8) Dressed pickets, jialings, and staves, It per 1,000 feet, board measure. 
 
 (0) Laths, on(!-third inch by one and one-fourth inches, four feet, one-third inch by 
 one and one-half inches, four feet, 25 cents per 1,000 ideces ; all other sizes or lengths 
 in ]»roportion. 
 
 (10) Shingles, sawn or shaved, 16 inches long, in bundles 20 inches wide, not over 
 25 courses each end, and 4 bundles to a thousand, 35 cents ])er 1,000; all other sizes 
 in proportion. 
 
 (11) Manufactures of wood, or of which wood is the chief component p.art, not 
 specially enumerated or jirovided for in this act, 35 jier cent ad valorem. 
 
 Note — This memorandum is based on the law of 1883. 
 
 E. Cx. Ames.
 
 WEST VIRGINIA LUMBER INTERESTS. 553 
 
 WEST YTRGrNTA LUMBER I:^^^TEKESTS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. A. H. WINCHESTER, OF BUCKHANNON, W. VA. 
 
 Thursday, December 31, 1896. 
 
 Mr. Winchester said: Mr. Cbairman and gentlemen of the com- 
 mittee, I was selected on acconnt of niy locality to represent on this 
 committee the State of West Virginia, which covers the river and 
 mountain territory, and is especially interested in the hard-v\^ood trade. 
 I represent on this lumber committee the same district that Mr. McMil- 
 lin does in Congress. I represent the boyhood home of Mr. Dolliver, 
 and, next to Maine, I represent the spruce interest of the United States. 
 There is no time to go into anything like abstract or abstruse discus- 
 sion in this matter. It occurred to us that there might come up in the 
 discussion in regard to our locality, which is seldom represented before 
 this committee, except in coal, certain questions which I thought the 
 committee would desire to ask, and, owing to the shortness of the time, 
 I thought I would like to speak in regard to the tariff upon things con- 
 cerning our district. Our home is in the extreme head waters of the 
 Potomac, the Ohio, the Cumberland, and the Tennessee. We have 
 particularly to contend against the sentiment in regard to the preser- 
 vation of tlie forests on ac(;ount of their supposed influence upon the 
 great rivers of this country. Of that I have practical knowledge. 
 
 Mr. Dolliver. Why do vou want the duty on sycamore wood ad- 
 vanced to $2? 
 
 Mr. Winchester. There was a time when sycamore was used for a 
 particular purpose, and almost every kind of wood had its particular 
 use, but we find to-day that our woods are interchangeable, so that they 
 can use a cheaper wood and throw ours out. In regard to the wood 
 from (Canada, it grows in tlie richer valleys of the country. The penin- 
 sula near Detroit ])ro(lnces most of the Canadian wood. The rich 
 valleys never produce sycamore. 
 
 We are asked why white pine can not sell against others. Out in 
 our country we thouglit that the Canadian lumber only affected the men 
 along the border. We thought that when the duty was taken off that 
 it was i)retty hot shot for the lumbermen of the Northwest, and we 
 were mighty glad to have them take it. We were greatly rejoiced when 
 you hit them in the neck; but that was two years ago. We find that 
 this has cut our pocketbooks, too, and we are here to-day to repent in 
 tears; that is the difference between now and two years ago. We feel 
 in a different mood in regard to it. 
 
 There have been various things said by free traders about Canadian 
 timber, and that if it were allowed to come in free it would preserve 
 our forests and would increase the flow of our rivers. As to the real 
 effect of that, Mr. ]\Ic^Iillin knows and other gentlemen know, by their 
 boyhood experience, that the mountains are a far more excellent blue- 
 grass territory than any of the far-famed regions of Kentucky. They 
 are so utilized more and more every year. That is done by hacking. 
 They hack a tree and leave it. They put their herds upon it when the 
 blue grass comes in. That timber stays there and rots. 
 
 On these mountains we find native Americans. We do not find any 
 men there who talk broken English. They are people whose ancestors 
 were here before the Revolution. It costs us $1 to grow timber, and if 
 you take the time it costs $25 to $50 to manufacture it into lumber.
 
 554 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 We ought to be Laving our lumber manufactured, and be paying these 
 men $50 for removing that timber, which now falls and rots upon tlie 
 ground and kills their cattle in falling. That is the way that timber is 
 preserved by free timber from Canada. 
 
 Some time ago I went up the beautiful Shenandoah Valley, and I saw 
 the bleaching trunks of trees by the thousands wliicli had been felled 
 for the purpose of getting tan bark. That is not a hendock couiitiy, 
 but every one of these trees is an oak, and contnins as g(K)d timber as 
 is found in the best desk in this room. That tind)er is lying there and 
 rotting, because tor the last two or three years it has not paid for the 
 labor of taking it away. 
 
 We are tanning hides for South ^\merica in West Virginia; we are 
 tanning hides for Texas. The trees are cut down and peeled for the 
 bark. If you take a trip up tlie valleys you can see it. 
 
 Mr. Evans. How much chestnut-oak and hendock bark do you 
 produce in West Virginia? 
 
 Mr. Winchester. The bark is mostly Masted now, because the 
 lumber interest pays nothing. The largest tannery in the United 
 States is in (Jhattanooga, and the second largest is at Davis, which we 
 supply. 
 
 Mr. ICvANS. What do those engaged in the production of this kind 
 of bark say about its being i)ut on tlie free list? 
 
 Mr. Winchester. They do not like it. Something has been said 
 about cross ties. There are no "gentlemen" interested in cross- ties. 
 These are gotten out by the one-gallused, poor bare-iooted men in the 
 mountains. Their living depends on cross-ties. ^Vhen you t.ilk about 
 protection, they need a dollar as nuich as any of you need a dime. 
 
 Mr. Evans. What do you think the duty ought to be? 
 
 Mr. Winchester. It ought to be prohibitive. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Would $13 do that? 
 
 Mr. Winchester. Yes, just about. I can tell you thatour ideas about 
 protection have very much changed in the mountains. We thought a 
 good tning was done when you hit the keen-eyed Yankee, but it is our 
 poplar that has got it now. Our leading market was formerly in Xew 
 England. It was what was called be\cled siding, but for the last two 
 or three years they have been bringing in what they <all clapboard 
 (which is a spruce product) from Canada, and it has killed the trade in 
 poplar siding so that we do not ship it there any more. My entire trade 
 two years ago was almost exclusive in New England — and the Yankee 
 ■was pretty good i>ay — but for the ])ast two years I have not been able 
 to place any orders there, because luuiber comes in along the northern 
 lake border from Canada by water at a very cheap rate. 
 
 In regard to the preservation of the lorests, j'ou will see it exemplified 
 on the shores of Maryland where they have been endeavoring to pre- 
 serve their timber lands, but now they have begun to cut the timber 
 which in a few years would be large enough for lumber; but they have 
 cut it into cord wood and are clearing it away because there is no hope 
 for it. It comes in direct competition with the cheaper lund)er of Can- 
 ada, which comes up the bay from New York, I'hiladelidiia, and Boston, 
 and there is no longer any price for it. The transportation is the cheax)- 
 est on earth. You take the ])roduct of the mountains of the South up 
 to the lakes in Chicago, lUiftalo, and Albany, and it comes in direct 
 contact with this timber from Canada. 
 
 In regard to the State of Maine, her best grades are affected by the 
 timber from abroad. The lower grades are consumed oidy in this coun- 
 try. They can not aflbrd to i)ay freight on it. The freight is the same 
 from Liverpool and Glasgow . Our lumber does not go there now.
 
 WEST VIRGINIA LUMBER INTERESTS. 555 
 
 We keep the timber cut closer and closer, and in my boyhood days 
 this would have been left in the woods, and the result is that the per- 
 ceutage of coarse lumber is increasing. Canada does not shij) her best 
 logs, but only the low grade, and it takes the place of our lo^y grades. 
 The supply is already in excess of the demaud, and the result is that 
 we have already more than we are consuming, and every 1,000 feet of 
 this timber which comes from Canada leaves 1,000 feet of our lumber 
 in the mountains. It is felt in Maryland and eastern Caroliinis and 
 elsewhere. The result of that is that it you go into any lumber yard 
 south of the Ohio River you will find that it is full of low-grade lumber, 
 and the only value of it is to base collateral on it as so many feet of 
 lumber; but you can not move a foot of it. [Laughter.] 
 
 I want to impress upon the members of this committee the fallacy of 
 the idea of trying to in'otect our forests by admitting lumber iree from 
 Canada. They are making it so (!lieap that we can not sell ours. Take 
 West Virginia, about the increase of whose populaticm you have heard 
 so much through magazine articles based on the wonderful growth of 
 the New South, mostly composed of Poles, Huns, and Dagoes, who have 
 located in the coal regions; but take it in our mountains, there is a 
 natural growth, and I leave it to ]Mr. Dolliver to say if any man who 
 ever lived in West Virginia did not regret leaving it. [Laughter.] 
 
 Our men stay there. We have only got a poijulation of a fair-sized 
 city. Every man of affairs knows every other man of affairs in that 
 State. He is social in his disposition and the people are most clannish. 
 These mountain ])eople keep extending back on (uir mountains. They 
 are engaged in cutting this lumber and i)eeling the bark. After they 
 peel a tree it lies there. There is as good lumber in West Virginia, in the 
 trees of Cheat IMountain and on the waters of Tucky, now being cut 
 away for bark, as there is anywhere, and it is lying there rotting sim- 
 ply because lumber is brought in so cheap that we can not afford to pay 
 the labor to remove it. There is no stunipage value. It is a source of 
 destruction to the forests rather than preservation. 
 
 Another thing I would like to remark is that agriculture is not going 
 upon the top of these mountains. Tliey are not going there to locate 
 farms. We have in our mountains the same flora and fauna that New 
 Brunswick has, and God knows you can not make farmo up there, or 
 you ought not to. When the timber is cut it results in a chapparel 
 growth. Tliat protects the forests more than anything else, because it 
 holds the water. Wherever you find rocks covered with verdure you 
 will find that it retains water. The ground is shaded and the rocks 
 are covered with moss. I know that on these mountains where there 
 were roads thirty years ago they are now grown up with spruce and 
 hemlock, which is standing to-day. 
 
 Do not let anyone, under any circumstances, ever convince you that 
 our mountains will ever be anything else than forests. Efibrts, and 
 very noble eftbrts, are being made to ])lant forests now at Baltimore, 
 but they will never be required. There will always be mountains in 
 the district known as the Wilderness region of West Virginia! around 
 the Koane Mountains and through the Big Smokies that will always be 
 a lumber region. 
 
 While lumber is coming in free you can ride through the valleys on the 
 train and if you look at the ground you will see the bleaching trunks 
 of tan-bark trees. These stricken trees look as if they had been 
 blighted by lightning. Immense territories have been give up to cattle 
 ranges and are going to waste. There is birch and oak timber as line
 
 556 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 as any contained in the furniture of this room going to waste simply 
 because the duty on lumber is too cheap to pay for carrying it away. 
 
 We hear boasts about the woodman of the North. It is said that no 
 woodman can compare with the Frenchman who is located on the bor- 
 der, but the poor woodman of the South, who makes everything down 
 to his grist mill with his ax, is the best axman in the world, and they 
 are all American. We are keeping them out of employment and let- 
 ting our resources run to waste and doing nothing for the people in 
 the mountains, simply to build up an industry across the border in 
 Canada. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Tan bark is cut there through this whole mountain 
 region "? 
 
 Mr. Winchester. Wherever the mountains get 2,000 feet above 
 tide you begin to see chestnut oak come in. There is not a mountain 
 south of the Ohio liiver but has chestnut oak in it, which is oak tan 
 bark. We do not want the tariff on hemlock, and yet every stream 
 south of the Ohio River is lined with hendock. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY WELCH BROTHERS, OF HULINGS, 
 
 WEST VIRGINIA. 
 
 HULINGS, W. Va., January 1, 1897. 
 The lumber industry is probably the largest of all the great manu- 
 facturing industries of the country, employing the most men (about 
 600,000), reqniring the use of the largest capital, and turning out the 
 largest value in jiroduct, the total of forest products amounting to over 
 a billion dollars a year. This industry should be protected by a duty 
 of at least s2 per 1,000 feet on hunber. 
 
 (1) Because it is not now on an eijuality with the other great indus- 
 tries, about all of which are now more or less ])roteeted. 
 
 (2) Because it does not ask any unreasonable i)rotection. Two dol- 
 lars per 1,000 ieet would not average more than about 15 per cent, 
 while the average rate under the M(;Kinley bill was 4S per cent, and 
 under the Wilson bill about 3S per cent, we believe. Two dollars was 
 not a prohibitory rate before by any means, and it would not be now, 
 but it would restrict the importation of the cheaper grades of lumber. 
 
 (3) Because the industry is now suffering greatly from the fiee impor- 
 tation of lumber. Canada, for instance, can and docs now produce 
 lumber and deliver it in the greater i)art of our markets cheaper than 
 we can do it. This is because of the lower cost of stumpage, cheaper 
 labor, and cheaper transportation to our markets. The Canadian lum- 
 bermen can shii) their lumber to all the great markets in the New 
 England, .Middle, Border, and Pacific States largely or entirely by 
 water — the two oceans, the Great Lakes, the canals, and rivers. Our own 
 supplies for these markets are now very largely obtained from the 
 interior sections of the country and have to bear a much more expen- 
 sive transportation by rail. The result is that the Canadians can and 
 do undersell us in all the markets they reach. Their importations have 
 rapidly and largely increased under the Wilson bill. They have almost 
 driven us out of these markets on all the lower grades of lumber. A 
 large part of the whole lumber product consists of these grades, and 
 they have always been sold at a small margin. Unless they can be 
 sold, the whole industry is blocked. Under the Wilson bill there has 
 been and is now a large and a remarkable accumulation of these grades 
 all over the country, at the same time that the prices have gone down
 
 WEST VIRGINIA LUMBER INTERESTS. 557 
 
 largely, in many cases below cost. This is not a local effect confined 
 to the regions which supply the Northern markets. It reaches all over 
 the country and to the extreme south, because the congestion in the 
 nearest sections soon and necessarily affects all markets. It affects all 
 kinds of lumber also, directly or indirectly. In this vicinity there is a 
 great accumulation of low-grade spruce. Vv^e arc trying to sell our 
 own at cost and less and can not do it. The same thing is true of pine 
 and hard woods. 
 
 (4) Because this situation is sure to grow rapidly worse. The Cana- 
 dians have barely made a beginning at the new trade. They have not 
 heretofore been fully prepared for it, nor fully posted on its require- 
 ments. For instance, they have already shipped large amounts of spruce 
 from New Brunswick, etc., by vessel to Boston, etc., which they can do 
 very cheaply ; but not being cut of the required dimensions, etc., to suit 
 the market, it did not cut off' the demand for American spruce to nearly 
 as great an extent as it otherwise would. But with the experience 
 they have now had and the new mills they are building they will now^ 
 be fully prepared to supply the markets with what they want, both as 
 to dimensions, etc., and as to quantity. When that time comes the 
 accumulation of lower grades at our mills will be so great or they will 
 have to be sold at' such ruinously low prices that the entire business 
 will be demoralized. The loss in price to our mill men is just the same, 
 of course, on the higher grades, but as the volume of these is much 
 smaller and the margin of profit greater they can be and are sold at 
 the lower prices and do not pile up and block the business by tying up 
 capital as do the lower grades. 
 
 (5) Because the duty would be directly in the interest of, and would 
 largely go to, the laboring men, and not trusts or combinations or lum- 
 ber barons. There is, i)erhaps, no other industry in which labor makes 
 so large an element in the product as it docs in the lumber business; 
 probably about 80 per cent. The effect of the present law is to deprive 
 our laboring men of employment to the extent of four-fifths of the whole 
 value of the lumber imported, which would otherwise have been sup- 
 plied by our own mills, amounting in the case of Canada alone to about 
 $8,000,000 in the last year. There is probably also no other industry 
 in which, from the very nature of the case, it is so utterly impossible to 
 form combinations or trusts to control prices or in which prices are so 
 entirely determined by the untrammeled law of supply and demand. 
 
 (6) Because it would not in the end increase the cost of lumber to the 
 consumer. Just now prices are so low because, in addition to general 
 bad trade conditions, we are trying to keep the trade we had, and the 
 Canadians are trying to supi)ly it, and there is overproduction. In a 
 short time, however, we mnst surely be driven out of all the markets 
 the Canadians can reach; that trade will be entirely in their hands, 
 
 ■and our production will be lessened to that extent. Then prices will 
 return very nearly, if not quite, to their former level. The only thing 
 we can do to retain the trade is to make large reductions in the wages 
 of labor, and that is impracticable. Even if the lower grades of lum- 
 ber should cost the consumer a trifle more, the advantages to the labor- 
 ing men and the resulting increase of business and general prosperity 
 should more than counterbalance this. 
 
 (7) Because the development and prosperity of the country will to a 
 certain extent be injured by the present law. The lumber business is 
 probably the largest factor 'in the opening up and development of new 
 regions, the building of railroads, and the consequent increase of gen- 
 eral trade. At the head of the march of progress are the lumber mills.
 
 558 SCHEDULE D. — WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 They can not go any farther, however, than those points from which 
 tlie lower grades of their product, as well as the better grades, can be 
 shifjped at a living profit. The effect of the present law will surely be 
 to contract largely the zone from which such shipments can be made, 
 prevent the building of new lumber plants, largely restrict the opera- 
 tions of many present plants, deprive labor of present and future 
 employment to that extent, and destroy a large amount of general busi- 
 ness. Timber and land values in many localities will be decreased 
 and large amounts of timber will go to waste which would otherwise be 
 used. 
 
 We believe these statements will be fully justified by results if the 
 present policy is continued. 
 
 (8) Because it would aid in increasing the revenue of the Govern- 
 ment, for which there is a necessity. 
 
 Welch Brothers. 
 
 WEST YTRGHNXA SPRUCE. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE GAULEY COMPANY, OF WEST 
 
 VIRGINIA. 
 
 Camden-on-Gauley, W. Va., January 8, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 A tariff on all grades of lumber would be desirable, but so far as 
 West Virginia is concerned a tariff' on spruce is absolutely essential to 
 enable us to comi)ete with the Caimdian product. The larger part ot 
 the stumpageof this State is spruce, wliich is at i)resent of little value, 
 unless it is properly protected in its competition with Canadian spruce. 
 At best the margin of i>rofit is very small, less tlian 8li per 1,000, and 
 unless a tariff" of at least the amount sj);.'ciried in the Mclvinley bill is 
 put ui)on this i)roduct, both lumber and logs, the greater part of our 
 spruce forest will be unproductive — in fact, will not be in the market at 
 all, except in some particuhirly favored localities wliere low Ireight rates 
 can be obtained and logging expense reduced to the minimum. 
 
 We liopc that your committee will give this industry carclnl attention 
 and see your way clear to restore the tariff" of at least S'2 ]^ev 1,000 on 
 both spruce lumber and logs. We inclose letter from our New Vork 
 selling agents. 
 
 The Gauley Co. 
 
 New Youk, December 31, 1896. 
 
 Mr. J. A. FiCKINGER, 
 
 General Manager, 
 
 The Gauley Company, Monongali, TV. Va. 
 
 Dear Sir : With reference to the matter of tariflf" on Inmber coming into the United 
 States from other countries, chiefly Canada, would say that West Virijinia, like the 
 Adirondack region of New York State and nortliern Maine, is put at a decided disad- 
 vantajje, as huig as lumber remains on the free list, in converting her forests into 
 lumber and other ]>roduct8. 
 
 Under the present schedule of wages paid our laborers, it is almost impossible to 
 take advantage of the Northern markets, chiefly New Vork and New England States, 
 in selling them our dressed and worked poplar. Wo are also at a considerable dis- 
 advantage on account of our freight rates being considerably higher than are the 
 rates to the same points from Canada, iiowcver, we could stand the difterence in 
 freight rates i)rovided we could produce our lumber as cheaply as Canada does hera 
 through cheap labor. We are at <an appalling disadvantage with Canada, however, 
 when we come to our spruce timber, wliicli timber is one of the most important in 
 acreage and quantity that the State of West Virginia possesses.
 
 WEST VIRGINIA LUMBER INTERESTS. 559 
 
 Under the McKinley tariff there waa a duty on spruce, rough or dressed, of $2 per 
 1,000 feet; all other rough lumber was $1 per l,00u feet, aud 50 cents additional for 
 each side which Avas planed. Canada at that time reduced her export duty on logs 
 from $3.50 to $2 to meet this tariff, claiming that much of her timber was going into 
 the United States and being there converted into lumber. This, you will observe, 
 was and is true of pine, but, according to our information, very little spruce was 
 being brought to the United States and there manufactured. We think if West 
 Virginia would get the McKinley tariff restored it would be sufficient to protect the 
 present schedule of wages now obtaining in her forests, mills, and other woodwork- 
 ing enteri)rises. West Virginia spruce is just uow coming into consumption, and 
 the manufacture of this wood is going to be an important business in the future. 
 
 Spruce is the cheapest wood for construction purposes which comes into the United 
 States from Canada. Pine, being a very much more valuable wood, can stand upon 
 its own bottom. 
 
 We repeat, therefore, tliat we think a tariff of $2 on rough or dressed spruce lum- 
 ber or logs would bo sufficient protection, and we hope that your Eepresentatives 
 will be abl(? to secure this. 
 
 Youis, truly. Price & Hart, 
 
 SelliiKj Agents for The Gauleij Companii. 
 
 PULP AVOOD. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY A. H. WINCHESTER, OF BUCKHANNON, 
 
 WEST VIRGINIA. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 11, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 No material resource of our country can be more adequate to all 
 demands, either present or prosi)ective, than that of pulp wood for the 
 manufacture of wood pulp. This material is one of the crudest that 
 reaches market, being the product of the woodsman's labor, aided only 
 by ax, crosscut saw, and team, and being drawn from a size or from 
 varieties of timber of little or no other commercial value, it represents 
 at its final destination only a nominal price for labor and low transpor- 
 tation charges, with nothing, or at most practically nothing, for its 
 stumpage value. Llence lumbermen, as a rule, have little or no interest 
 in its production, except the incidental one of the great decrease of fire 
 risk from the removal of the tops and undergrowth from which it is 
 chiefly taken, and that (common to all good citizens) in seeing remu- 
 nerative employment provided for the settlers and woodsmen whose 
 sole dependence is upon tliis class of labor, and who, from their scat- 
 tered and isolated condition, are not able to present as a body their 
 own cause. 
 
 The spruce wood of Canada comes as far into the interior of this 
 country as the banks of the Ohio River in the southern pari of Ohio, 
 going more miles by rail after landing from the vessels in whicii it. 
 crosses the Great Lakes than would be required to bring it from the 
 many hundreds of thousands of acres of verdant forests of spruce that 
 crown so many of the mountain tops of West Virginia, in which hun- 
 dreds of the best axmen of the world are struggling for a bare existence. 
 And this state of affairs exists, apparently, not from any advantage of 
 price or of quality on the part of the Caimdian i)roduct,but more through 
 habit and an established channel of trade for that commodity from that 
 direction, and a lack of incentive for the consumer to look to domestic 
 sources for a supply. This was recently evidenced by the course of 
 large pulp aud paper mills at Steubenville, Ohio, who, learning by mere 
 accident of the uidimited resources and availability as regards trans- 
 jiortation of West Virginia spruce, iiomediately transferred their pur- 
 chases to that State, while theretofore buying entirely from Canadian
 
 560 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 sources, and througli this change there will be supported the families 
 of many American mountaineers from a fund for years expended for the 
 benefit of the citizeus of another land. This is but an instance illus- 
 trating the fact that only some incentive for investigating domestic 
 resources is required to tlirow this entire industry into American hands, 
 as with no value attached to it in the forests, and being the output not 
 of the great lumber camps but of the small farmer and the mountaineer, 
 no country can produce it cheaper, as none contain a population willing 
 to work for as small a return. 
 
 The American supply of pul}) wood is not only practically inexhaust- 
 ible, but is so distributed as to be Avithin easy access to all the points 
 of consumption, at lowest cost for transportation. 
 
 Spruce from Maine and other Xew England States, and the Adiron- 
 dack region of New York, is so located as to reach any point east of 
 the Great Lakes with as low rates of freight as from any of the mari- 
 time provinces of Canada, while that scattered throughout the white 
 pine regions of the Northwest is an abundant supply for the consumers 
 along the Great Lakes, or within easy rea(;h of thcii ])orts; and for 
 the interior points of consumption, centeiini; largely about Cincinnati, 
 there is a cheap and abundant supply for all tinu> to come from the 
 forests of West Virginia. And every stick use<l, drawn from any of 
 these sources for this ])urpose, is a stick saved from waste, and by 
 being taken from the land removes a great source of tire risk, as it is 
 chielly drawn from the timber otherwise destroyed in the process of 
 cutting logs for lumber, that i)ortion being used for pulp wood which 
 is too small in diameter, too coarse, or too short for use in saw logs, 
 and, unused, becomes a constant menace to all forest resources througli 
 becoming dry and intiamniable. 
 
 Cottonwood grows throughout the overflow regions of the Mississippi 
 and its tributaries below Cairo to an incalculable extent, and for gen- 
 erations was cut in vast quantities lor steamboat fuel. This trade has, 
 through the now universal consumption of coal by such cralt, passed 
 out of existence, and the ax of every woodsman formerly emi)Uiyed in 
 its production is now available for the output of ])ulp wood ; aiul, with- 
 out some such outlet for their labor, they nuist turn to the already 
 overciowded lields of agriculture for a livelilioo<l, and in the ])ro<'ess of 
 clearing the requisite amount of land must destroy vast areas of this 
 material resource. 
 
 This Cottonwood reaches Ohio Kiver points at nominal freight charges 
 through taking advantage of returning bai'ges, otherwise coming light 
 from tlie lower river after delivering their down ireight of coal. 
 
 Poplar is, perhaps, tiie best of all woods for i»ulp iiurjjoses, growing 
 as it does to gigantic ])roportions and being very soft, brittle, and cross- 
 grained, it breaks and wastes more in falling than any other of the 
 great lumber-producing trees, with the result that following i)0])lar 
 lumber oi)erations is a greater amount of wieckage left upon the ground 
 suitable for pulp uses than follows the removal of any other variety of 
 saw logs. These operations are principally in the mountain South, 
 w^ith a native ])opulation fully adequate to put every stick which is now 
 left to endanger the surrounding forests through lire into pulp wood at 
 the low est cost possible, and are ever u])on the alert for work of this 
 kind. And yet, throughout the entire field of ])roduction, there is an 
 amount of this material wasted annually sufi&cient to supply all the 
 pulp mills of this country. 
 
 Coast, or buck poplar, of the South Atlantic Coast is in abundant 
 sui)ply throughout the lumber regions centering at Norfolk, and is of
 
 WISCONSIN LUMBER INTERESTS. 561 
 
 no value for lumber uses, and except as cut for pulp- wood purposes is 
 left to stand iu the operations of lumbermen in removing pine and 
 other saw timber, the tops of which, left on the ground, usually burn 
 upon getting dry and destroy this resource if not removed at about 
 the same time as the saw logs. So that it is a case either of immediate 
 removal or of total loss; but, in spite of low-priced labor and best 
 facilities for transportation — owing to the innumerable sounds, inlets, 
 and streiims that indent this coast, aftbrding the cheapest possible 
 means of carriage to the great consuming points of Philadelphia and 
 Wilmington, where much now goes — miles of this material still goes to 
 waste where single acres are saved and marketed. 
 
 Farm production of pulp wood, not considered above, is very large. 
 From spruce in New England to cottonwood, i)0plar, and similar varie- 
 ties throughout the older agricultural States, it takes but a few years 
 for the timber growth to reach proportions sufficient for this use, and 
 it is a common thing to see it cut from the "old tields" of Delaware, 
 eastern Maryland, and tidewater Virginia, from laud still plainly show- 
 ing the rows of i)revions crops of corn. This farm production of pulj) 
 wood is largely within short wagon liaul of cheaj) water transportation, 
 or directly to the mills themselves. 
 
 In the face of these facts, may we ask at your hands a consideration 
 of the desirability of protecting by tariff an industry that conserves, 
 rather than diminishes, the forest resources of every farm, of every 
 mountain side, and of every swamp of every State throughout the tim- 
 ber regions of our entire country, and employs in its output that most 
 American of all our labor, the snuill farmer and the woodsman, who 
 because of their habits and environments will not leave home to seek 
 employment, but utilize their labor only in such avenues as are pre- 
 sented at their doors — a worthy class, largely overlooked and forgotten 
 in economic legislation. And will you allow us to suggest that for 
 spruce logs, and all woods imported for use in the manufacture of wood 
 pulp, •$! per 1,000 feet, board measure, on logs, and $1 per cord on wood, 
 would be ample. 
 
 A. M. Winchester, 
 0/ Buckhannon, W. Va. 
 
 wisco:n^si]s^ luimber interests. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. ALEXANDER STEWART, MEMBER OF CON- 
 GRESS, NINTH DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 Thursday, December 31, 1896. 
 Gentlemen : I am desirous of assisting you in the saving of favor- 
 able time, but desire to submit a few things iu favor of a tariff on lumber. 
 Personally I have had over forty years' experience in the lumber busi- 
 ness, and consider myself well qualified to speak on this very important 
 question. But I do not propose to state my own experience or my own 
 views; but in order that I may properly discharge my duties as a Mem- 
 ber of the House of Eepresentatives, I addressed letters to many of 
 my constituents largely interested in the question for the purpose 
 of obtaining their views and submitting the same in a brief manner to 
 this committee. Every person who has addressed me, and whose views 
 I submit to you, is well qualified to give an opinion on this subject. I 
 might add tliat as a citizen of the United States 1 cheerfully indorse a 
 T H 30
 
 562 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 tariff upon lumber as uecessary for the purpose of obtaining revenue, 
 and also for the purpose of protecting one of the greatest of American 
 industries. 
 
 I will give in order the replies I have received, to which I have 
 heretofore referred, I am personally able to testify to the high stand- 
 ing and business ability of every gentleman whose views I have sub- 
 mitted to the committee. They are all of large experience and well 
 qualified to speak. They represent all shades of political opinion and 
 speak purely from a business and not a political standpoint. The 
 district which I have the honor to represent in Congress is largely 
 interested in this question, and while I have received many other com- 
 munications asking me to favor a protective tariff" generally, but par- 
 ticularly on lumber, I have not received one intimation from a single 
 person in my district that they were not in favcu" of the Americai: doc- 
 trine of protection. I thank the committee for the opportunity to 
 furnish such valuable information in support of this very important 
 subject. 
 
 AJf.krili,, Wis., December 2S, 1896. 
 
 Dear Sir : Replying to yonr faror Deromber 17, vre, the nndersij^noil manufacturers 
 of lumber of Merrill, Wis., after carefully <ou8id<^rin}jj the matter of a tariff ou him- 
 ber in a meeting luld here Dtcember 2!, have unauimouslj' como to the following 
 conclnsions, ami do most respectfiillly ask you as our Representative in Congress, to 
 len<l your aid and indueuee to obtain lor u.s Ihe relief desired, we having conlidence 
 in your integrity and good judgment to <lo all that you can for our interests, and 
 assure you that we will cheerfully abide by the results of your labor and efforts in 
 our behalf. 
 
 1. Wo are most emphatically in favor of "American markets for American lumber," 
 and the benefits thereof for American labor. 
 
 (2) Knowing that the lumber industry is the largest one in the United .">tates, 
 eMi]tloying lal)or in larger numbers than any other, eomlude that its protection 
 against Ibreign competitiim cannot l)e underestimated and shouM receive the unan- 
 imous supjiort of Congress, as it certainly has been denioiistiated that protection to 
 lumber '■ means the greatest good to the greatest number."' 
 
 (3) Wo believe that when lumber was placed on the free list and all other manu- 
 factured products were made dutiable, a gross injustice was done to the largest 
 nianufai turing industry in the United States, and that Congress should as soon as 
 l)OSsible rei)air the injury. 
 
 (4) Wo are brought face to face with the fact that ahnost without exception every 
 article that enters into tiie numufacture of lumber is ])rotected by a tariff" or by a 
 ])atent far in excess of what we shall ask. Why, then, should not so important an 
 article as lumber be duti.ible to a reasonable extent? 
 
 (5) We do not wish that a tariff so high be ])laced on lumber as to make it prohib- 
 itory for our Canadian neighbors to sliip a rciusonable amount of lumber to our 
 markets, but we are unalterably opposed to allowing them the privilege of unloading 
 their large surjdus in this ( ountry atsucli prices as allow us no ])rotit8 in our business. 
 
 (6) W^c especially call your attention to the favorable rates of freight by water and 
 rail that Canadian lumbermen enjoy in ])lacing their ]iroilucts in the Eastern States, 
 and this to the detriment of the Western limibcr manufacturers, disregarding the 
 tariff, if you i)lease, altogether. 
 
 (7) We do not desire, expect, or ask that Congress will grant tis any favors that 
 will place us in a more favorable position than other manufaiturers, but we have a 
 right to expect that the industry in which we are engage<l should lie protected to 
 tiuch an extent as will give us a justcomjiensation for capital investeil and enable us 
 to ])ay such wages to our employees as will allow them to obtain the necessaries of 
 life and some of the luxuries. 
 
 (8) Every possible advantage that can be given to a Canadian ojierator in lumber 
 by their government is granted. We are all well aware that owing to the favorable 
 laws regarding the sale of timber limits, and their chea]) labor which they can emi)loy 
 from any country in the world, they have an advantage over the manufacturers of 
 the United States which nearly doubles the protection asked by us. 
 
 (9) We believe that the time has come for our legislators in Congress to carefully 
 consider the advisability of ailvocatiug the ajipointnu-nt of a tariff commission and 
 thereby practically take so important a matter out of politics and give to every 
 industry in the couutry such protection as will be uecessary to enable them to receive
 
 WISCONSIN LUMBER INTERESTS. 563 
 
 such returns as will be consistent with a reasonable proiit to all who are engaged 
 therein. 
 
 (10) In conclusion we have no hesitancy in requesting you to advocate for the 
 manufacturers of this city a $2 taritf on rough lumber, and $3 on dressed lumber. 
 
 Trusting that we shall receiA'c your best eftorts in our behalf, if found to be con- 
 sistent and right, we are. 
 
 Yours, very truly, Gilkey & Anson Company, 
 
 By .John Landers. 
 
 Illinois & Wisconsin Lumber Co., 
 By C. D. Clarke. 
 
 Merrill Lumber Co., 
 Per W. H. Foster, Treasurer. 
 
 P. W. Stange Co., 
 By C. H. Stance, President. 
 
 Champagne Lumber Co., 
 By W. G. Collar, Treasurer and Manager, 
 
 The H. W. Wright Lumber Co., 
 By H. W. Wright, Secretary. 
 
 Merrill, Wis., December 22, 1896. 
 Dear Sir: The tariff committee appointed by the Wisconsin Valley Lumbermen's 
 Association beg leave to report to you the result of their investigations on the lum- 
 ber tariff question among the various members of our association as follows: 
 
 It is the unanimous opinion of all members of our association that a protective 
 duty of at least $2 per 1,000 foot should be levied on all importations of lumber of 
 any description coming into this country from Canada. It is also their opinion that 
 the duty of $2 per 1,000 is in no way a prohibitory duty on Canadian lumber, and 
 that it will not give us any advantage over Canadian manufacturers, and in fact it 
 will not fully equalize the difference in cost of stumpage and advantageous freight 
 rates which Canadian lumber has over the forest products of the United States, but 
 that it will in a measure givo lumber manufacturers of this country an even chance 
 to comi)ete witii ('anadi;in manufacturers, while with free lumber American manu- 
 facturers and American labor is i)]aced at a very material disadvantage when the 
 extremely low cost of stumpage iu Canada is taken into account, and the Wisconsin 
 Valley Lumbermen's Association respectfully request that you use every effort pos- 
 sibhi to secure the passage of a bill which will place a duty of not less than $2 per 
 1,000 feet on all foreigu lumber. 
 
 C. A. Goodyear, Chairman, 
 Douglas D. Fluuen, 
 C. C. Yawkey, 
 Walter Alexander, 
 W. G. Collar, 
 Tariff Committee,- Wisconsin Falley Lumbermen's Association. 
 
 RniNELANDER, Wis., December 23, 1896. 
 
 Dear Sir: Your favor of the 17th instant is at hand, and in reply will say that we 
 are very much iu favor of a tariff on lumber, for the following reasons: 
 
 First. For the reason that pine stumpage is on an average from $1 to $2 per 1,000 feet 
 cheaper in Canada than in northern Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Michigan, and in con- 
 sequence a tariff would tend to equalize the difference in price of stumpage. 
 
 Second. Wages are less ])er month in the pineries of Canada, also at the mills and 
 in handling the lumber after it is manufactured, than in the territory mentioned, 
 and we therefore need a tariff' to overcome this difference in wages in order to protect 
 the laborer in our northern pineries. 
 
 Third. The manufacture of lumber in the northern States can supply all the needs 
 of the territory to which they can get favorable freight rates if Canadian opposition 
 is removed, and there ought to be sufficient tariff' imposed to allow our own manu- 
 facturers to compete for this home market. 
 
 According to statistics for the last fiscal year, there was imported from Canada to 
 the Ui.ited States 800,000,000 feet of lumber, which sold for about $7,000,000. If this 
 amount had been added to the sales of the manufacturers of the United States mills
 
 564 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 would have been runuing to their full capacity, labor would have been employed, 
 and hard times would not have been known in the lumber-producing sections. 
 
 What we would like to have done is to have Congress ]ilace a tarift" of at least $1 
 on rough and $2 on dressed or remanufactured lumber. This, on an average, would 
 not be $1.50 per 1,000 on all lumber imported, and would not be iu any sense a pro- 
 hibitory tariff. Iu our .judgment, it would simply place our own people on a basis 
 of lair competition, with the advantage, if any, iu favor of foreign manufacturers. 
 
 There are employed in the United States in the various stages of log and lumber 
 manufacture about 650,000 laborers, and the vote of these laborers at the late elec- 
 tion was almost unanimous for protection and honest money, and in this particular 
 section they voted for protection knowing that Canadian competition was curtailing 
 sales, and in consequence, production, and as a result their wages as well as amount 
 of emjiloyment, causing idleness, poverty, and discontent. 
 
 We are satisfied that there is no .single schedule in the whole list of dutiable goods 
 that will prove of a greater benclit to the laboring jicoplc than a reenactment of the 
 duties on lumber which were done away with in the M'ilson bill, and we feel that if 
 the tariff of 1890 on lumber could be reenacted manufacturers would start up their 
 plants, labor would be employed, and better times would follow iu the lumber- 
 producing sections. 
 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 Brown Bkotueks Lcmbeu Company, 
 By W. E. Bkown, Secretary. 
 
 Lumber and Log Owners' Association, 
 
 Ashland, Win., Uecembir 19, 1S96. 
 
 Whereas ths condition of the lumber industry in this section is a deplorable 
 one; and 
 
 Whereas we believe that condition brought about largely by the importation of 
 free lumber, mainly from Canada: Therefore, be it 
 
 Reaolred, That we urge upon our Kepresentatives in Congress to use all honorable 
 means in their power to procure the i)assage of a tariff bill giving us adequate pro- 
 tection against the im])ortatiou of sawed lumber. 
 
 lie it further reaolveil, That it is the sense of this association that any tarilf bill 
 that does not provide for a <luty of at least .$2 per 1,000 feet on sawed lumber will not 
 properly protect the lumber interests of this section. 
 
 The parties interested in and members of this association manufacture 225,000,000 
 feet of lumber yearly. 
 
 C. F. Latimer, Secreiunj. 
 
 Rhinelaxder, Wis., December 22, 1S96. 
 
 Dear Sir: Your letter is at hand. I referred it to a meeting of the lumbermen of 
 this territory, and they have asked me to state the opinion ex]>res,sed at this meeting. 
 
 It is the unanimous opinion that it is absolutely necessary for the laboring men in 
 the lumber regions of this territory, and 4ilso the manufacturers, to have a duty on 
 lumber, at least to the extent of the protection had in ISiU), and, if jiossible, even a 
 little more. This will no more than cover thf difference iu stumpage values between 
 standing timber in this country and Canada and other countries. 
 
 In order to reach and help the laboring men and manufacturers in this section 
 something unist be done, and done very soon. As it is, mills in this territory are 
 practically idle, and thousands of men are out of employment. The immense Repub- 
 lican majority in northern Wisconsin and Michigan at the last general election indi- 
 cates the strong sentinu'iit of our ]>eople in favor of juotection and their cxpectaticms 
 of obtaining relief under the administration of I'resident-elect McKiuley. There is 
 no difference of opinion on this subject in this entire territory ; it is absolutely unani- 
 mous; and we sincerely trust that at the si)ecial session it will be ])ossible to jtass an 
 adetjuate nu;asure protecting lumber at least as fully as it was in 1890. 
 
 Another thing that is of a good deal of importance to us is the necessity for a tariff 
 on pulp wood. This a great industry in this northern section, aud the amount of 
 pulp wood shipped in from Canadian points by water is practically destroying that 
 business iu this territory. It seems to our association that there ought to be a tariff" 
 on pulp wood. 
 
 We Avish yon success in your efforts toward accomplishing this end, and any infor- 
 mation we can furnish you will be cheerfully given. 
 
 Yours, very truly, G. S. Coon.
 
 WISCONSIN LUMBER INTERESTS. 565 
 
 MosiNEE, Wis., December 23, 1896, 
 Dear Sir : Your favor of the 17th is at haud and contents noted. It is our opinion 
 that the quicker some action is taken in regard to the tariff on lumber the better it 
 will be for the trade, and we would suggest that the tariff' that was in effect in 1890 
 be asked for. 
 
 Yours truly, The Joseph Dessert Lumber Co., 
 
 H. M. TnOMPSOX, Secretary. 
 
 Merrill, Wis., December 22, 1896. 
 Dear Sir : Your favor of the 18th was duly received and contents carefully noted. 
 I am pleased to be able to inform you that the lumbermen of this city had a meeting 
 yesterday, at which the situation was thoroughly gone over. We were very unani- 
 mous on "the basis of a $2 duty on imported lumber, and from a report that we had 
 from a meeting recently held in Cincinnati by lumbermen Irom all points of the 
 country that they were practically unanimous on a $2 duty, we concluded that it 
 would be about what we ought to have. Our meeting here requested Mr. Wright 
 and the secretary of our meeting to draft a letter setting forth our views and have 
 all the lumbermen here sign it and mail it to you within a very few days We trust 
 that our action in this matter will meet your approbation and that you will have no 
 difficulty in getting the Committee on Ways and Means to see the justice of our 
 request. 
 
 Yours, \ery truly, A. H. Stange. 
 
 Merrill, Wis., December 21, 1896. 
 
 De.\R Sir: A majority of the members of the Wisconsin Valley Lumbermen's 
 Association, representing an annual cut of about 500,000,000 feet, have requested me 
 to write you in regard to the proposed tariff on Canadian lumber, which we under- 
 stand is to come before the Ways and Means Committee very soon. It is the unani- 
 mous opinion of all of the members of our association, so far as any opinion has been 
 expressed, tliat a protective tariff of at least $2 per 1,000 should be put upon all 
 im])ort8 of lumber to this country. It is the opinion of our members that, aside 
 from the I'educed cost at which stumpage can be procured in Canada, the advanta- 
 geous freight rates Canadian lumber enjoys both by water and their proximity to 
 the Eastern market allowing them the benetit of low railroad rates, entitles American 
 stumpage and its product to a protective duty of at least $2 jier 1,000, and that a 
 duty of $2 per 1,000 will not in any way be a prohibitory duty on Canadian lumber 
 but that it will simply give American manufacturers and American laboran even 
 chance to compete in our home market with Canadian stumpage and labor. 
 
 Our members are Aery earnest in their desire that this matter should have your 
 best attention, and they hope that in asking for a duty of $2 per 1,000 on Canadian 
 lumber they will not be asking for anything that you can not give your hearty and 
 earnest support. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, W. G. Collar, 
 
 Secretary and Treasurer Uisconsin T'alley Lumbtrmen's Association. 
 
 Wausau, Wis., Deceviber 23, 1896. 
 
 Dear Sir : The lumber manufactiirers of Wausau and Marathon County, up to the 
 time the tariff on lumber was reduced, manufactured and marketed about two hun- 
 dred million of lumber each year, on account of which almost a million and a half 
 ■dollars a year was paid out to labor. After the reduction in tlie tariff the foreign 
 competition so affected the market that the output was materially decreased, and 
 the entire removal of the duty has so affected the industy here that we can now not 
 market more than half the former output. 
 
 Our product comes in competition with the Canadian output at various eastern 
 and lake points, and when the tariff of 1890 was in force we were able to pay our 
 labor good wages, both in the woods and in the nulls. Now by the reduction of our 
 prices and the curtailment of our market by Canadian competition, not only are 
 our own legitimate profits wiped out, but the wages of our laborers are reduced to 
 a lower level than is either right or satisfactory. 
 
 We ask of Congress thereimposition of the tariff" on the importationof lumber from 
 foreign countries of $2 per thousand feet board measure on lumber in the rough, and 
 an additional tariff' on dressed lumber equal to the sum paid extra for dressing. We 
 believe that this dutv would be clearly within the theory of a tariff which seeks to
 
 566 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 put American manufacturers and American labor on an equal footing with foreign 
 competition, and we feel that in asking this we are seeking no advantage in our 
 favor. 
 
 The cost of our standing timber to manufacturers is much higher than that in Can- 
 ada. The average cost of manufacturing and marketing is much higher, and Ameri- 
 can labor demands, and should receive, reasonably good pay. The duty asked for 
 does not more than represent the difference, if it fully represents it. 
 
 Alkxandkr Stewart Lumber Co. 
 
 E. P. Wansan & Co. 
 
 Geo. E. Foster & Co. 
 
 Waxsax Box & Lumber Co. 
 
 LiPMAN, Slimmer & Co. 
 
 E. SOXDHEIMER Sc Co. 
 
 J. C. Smith. 
 
 D. J. Murray Manufacturing Co., 
 D. J. Murray, Fresidevt. 
 
 Fox &, Wansan Lumber Co. 
 
 Curtis & Yale Co. 
 
 Fenwooi> Lumber Co. 
 
 MoRTKXsox & Stone. 
 
 Jacob Mortexsox Lumber Co. 
 
 WkRIIKIM M.XXIFACTURIXG Co. 
 
 Barker A: Stewart. 
 GooDwiLLiE Brothers Company, 
 
 .Ias. (i. GooDwiLLiE, President. 
 Joseph Dessert Limber Co. 
 Waxsax Novelty Co., 
 
 Geo. H. Kick, Secretary. 
 
 Marinette, Wis., December 24, 1S96. 
 
 Dear Sir: At a special meeting of the Wisconsin and Michigan manufacturers of 
 Menominee Kiver lumber (representing an annual business of $5,000,000), held at 
 Marinette, Wis., December 23, 1896, the following resolutions were unanimously 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Whereas our business is suflferiug severe depression, caused in a great measure by 
 the free and untaxed introduction of competing imi)ovted lumber into territory here- 
 tofore consuming a large portion of the output of our mills; and 
 
 Whereas, by reason of the low cost of ])ro(ln(tion and distribution of such compet- 
 ing Inmber, profitable and successful marketing of onr product is limited ami prac- 
 tically j;rohibited, not only to our own loss and disadvantage, but to the great injury 
 and distress of all persons dependent upon the lumbering industry and its allied 
 interests; and 
 
 Wliereas we consider the x>la<ing of lumber on the free list a manifest and unjust 
 discriminntion against an American industry second to none in magnitude of business 
 done, wages ])aid, and labor employed: Therefore, be it 
 
 Bisolred, That we are in favor of placing lumber on the dutiable liat. 
 
 liesohed, That we favor the enactment of a tariH" bill providing for a tariff of not 
 less thaTi $2. 
 
 nesolrcd, That the Hon. Alexander Stewart, M. C, be. and hereby is, requested to 
 make known our views to the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Kepre- 
 sentatives, and to use his best efi'orts to secure such favoraljle legislation as may be 
 desirable to atibrd us such reasonable relief as the present situation imperatively 
 demands. 
 
 Francis A. Brown, Chairman. 
 Wm. H. (;eoi:<;e, Secretani. 
 
 WISCONSIN VALLEY LX^MBEinrEX'S ASSOCIA- 
 TION. 
 
 Whereas the WiseoDsin Valley Lumbermen's Association and the 
 individuals composing it do thoroughly realize the injustice of the 
 existing tarift' law, which disastrously discriminates against the lum- 
 ber industry of the United States; and 
 
 Whereas tliis association, composing an important branch of the 
 lumber trade, in annual convention, having canvassed the sentiment of
 
 PEOM THE LUMBERMEN. 567 
 
 the industry in the territory embraced by our membership, and finding 
 complete unanimity of opinion as to a demand for a return to the old 
 duty of 82 upon foreign lumber; therefore be it 
 
 Resolved, That this association do hereby petition the Committee on 
 Ways and Means, who are now giving consideration to this subject 
 with the ultimate aim of formulating a tariff bill for early adoption by 
 the Congress of the United States, for an imposition of a $2 duty on 
 rough lumber; and be it further 
 
 Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be forwarded to the Rep- 
 resentatives in Congress from our respective home districts. 
 
 FROM THE LUMBERMEX. 
 
 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REaUESTS FROM VARIOUS LUMBER 
 MANUFACTURING FIRMS. 
 
 Texarkana, Tex., December 31, 1896. 
 Chairman Ways and ^Ieans Committee: 
 
 The most important industry of the iSouth is the manufacture of yel- 
 low jjine lumber. More money is invested in mill plants and stumpage 
 than in all other enterprises through the Southern belt. We have 
 been handicapped ever since the McKiuley tariff' bill was superseded 
 by the Wilson bill. 
 
 Canadian lumber has been forced into Northern markets, thus leav- 
 ing the white pine manufacturers to crowd their product into our terri- 
 tory, and the result has been steadily declining prices, until there is no 
 salvation or hope for the owners of mills and the manufacturers of lum- 
 ber except through a tariff" duty, which we hope will be speedily 
 enacted in Congress at the coming session. 
 
 This comi^any alone has nearly §1,000,000 invested in plants and 
 lands. 
 
 Yours, very truly, J: W. Amerman, 
 
 Manager Lumber Dept. Central Coal and CoTce Co. 
 
 St. Louis, Mo., December 29, 1896. 
 Dear Sir: The lumber business for the past few years, since the 
 duty was taken off", has suffered immensely, both North and South. 
 Canadian lumber, on account of its low-priced timber lands, can be 
 produced much clieaper than in the United States. To illustrate, we 
 learned last summer that the timber required for a lengthy bridge be- 
 tween West Superior and Duluth was brought from the Georgian Bay, 
 Canada, right into our northern lumber district (Duluth, Superior, 
 Ashland, etc.), where they have large supplies of lumber, and could not 
 sell it in competition with the price that Canada delivered it at. 
 
 The Knapp, Stout & Co. Company, 
 Per John H. Douglass, Treasurer. 
 
 SiNNAMAHONiNG, Pa., January 31, 1896. 
 Dear Sir: I am induced to address you in relation to the tariff on 
 lumber from the fact that I have noticed in the trade papers a schedule
 
 568 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 for lumber that does not address itself to my mind as being- based upoa 
 the proper considerations as to adjustments of the rates, with a view 
 to make the protective features bear a proper relation to the labor 
 expended in the j)rodnction of the lumber, and to the difference in the 
 price of stumpage, transportation, etc. The labor expended in manu- 
 facturing 1,000 feet of lumber, from the tree to the pile, can not be 
 put at less than an average of $5; the difference in stumpag-e, on pine, 
 in the United States and Canada at about $2. And owing to the facili- 
 ties afforded by water transportation, the Canadian manufacturer 
 would have a further advantage. If we suppose the difference in 
 wages to be only 25 per cent, we have a difference in cost of rough 
 lumber in the pile of $3.25 — that is, 82 in the stumpage and 81.25 in the 
 cost of labor — with the transportation facilities in favor of the Cana- 
 dian. I inclose herewith a lumber price list, which Avill throw some 
 light on the subject of a tariff" on dressed lumber. You will observe 
 in the left margin these words: "If rough, add 50 cents per 1,000; if 
 S2S (surfaced two sides), add 25 cents ])er 1,000; 2-inch piece stuff', if 
 rough, add 50 cents ])er 1,000." You will also see by marked paragraph 
 at the top of sheet that the prices named arc delivered, and the sheet 
 shows that the price of the lumber is not increased to the consumer, 
 but decreased by the ordinary working, for the reason that the reduc- 
 tion in weight, and consequent reduction in freight, more than pays 
 the cost of the working when shipments are made long distances. 
 
 You will readily see from the foregoing that the i)rotection should not 
 be so much on the labor expended in the working of the lumber, but 
 rather on the difference in the price of stumpage and the cost of man- 
 ufacturing the rough lumber. I find. ho\ve\er. there is a strong pressure 
 to have but a light dnty i)ut on rough lumber, and a heavy duty on 
 dressed and lumber otherwise worked. This is ])robably being done by 
 those who wisli to ])urchase their rough stock in Canada and ship to 
 their i)laning mills in tliis country. Such a distribution of duty is not 
 equitable in view of the fact that the working is often fully repaid in 
 the saving of cost of transportaticni. The actual labor cost of dressing 
 ordinary lumber one or two sides is only about 25 cents ])er thousand 
 feet. Of course, this cost increases as the lumber is narrower or is more 
 elaborately worked. You will readily see from the foregoing that a pro- 
 tection of $1 to $1.50 on worked over dressed lumber, as some so stoutly 
 maintain, is out of reason. I do not speak by mere guess as to the cost 
 of dressing lumber, but by actual test upon our own planing mill. The 
 lumbering interest is badly in need of protection, but it needs to have 
 the protection properly adjusted so as to protect in proportion to the 
 labor exi)endcd in manufacture and the difference in i^rice of the stump- 
 age. Lumbering is one of our greatest, if not our greatest, industry, 
 and is followed in nearly every State in the Union ; still it asks but very 
 little ])rotection — not over 15 to 20 per cent — while other less imi)ortant 
 industries get very much greater protection. 
 
 There is no one thing so destructive of our forests as cheap lumberj 
 for when it is too cheap our lumbermen can not sell the poorer grades 
 and realize the cost of manufacturing. Consecpiently, when cutting, 
 they only take the kinds of woods that find a ready market, and only 
 the best of the trees, leaving 25 i)er cent of the tree to decay on the 
 ground, and the smaller trees and the inferior woods to stand and burn 
 with the forest fires which are sure to follow. The tinil)er of Canada is 
 just as much a reserve for the United States as our own timber forests 
 
 Chas. F. Barclay.
 
 FROM THE LUMBERMEN. 569 
 
 St. Johnsbury, Yt., December 28, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 The general feeling with the lumber manufacturers in this section is that 
 the present depressed condition of the lumber trade comes largely from 
 competition with stock from the Canadian provinces, and we feel that 
 in any revision of the tariff a duty should be placed upon foreign lum- 
 ber. In our opinion, the rate on sawed rough lumber which will give 
 the greatest amount of revenue is $1.50 per 1,000 feet, and hope the 
 duty will not be less than this amount. This will have the effect of 
 restricting the importation of the lower grades and will hold the cost 
 of the higher grades nearer the prices made by the tJnited States mills. 
 For such lumber as is imported, it seems to us that our own mills and 
 workmen should have the benefit of any further labor in preparing it 
 for use, and in naming the additional rate of duty on lumber when 
 dressed or further manufactured than sawed it should be high enough 
 to practically i^rohibit importation in the finished state. 
 
 We condense our suggestions under numbers given in tariff' of 1890, 
 covering the items with which we are familiar. We also prefer to have 
 all rates specific instead of ad valorem. 
 
 Paragraph 218. — Sawed boards, plank, deals, and other lumber of all 
 kinds of wood not specially ])rovided for in this act, $1.50 perl,000 feet, 
 board measure, but when lumber of any sort is planed or finished on 
 one side or edge, in addition to the rates herein provided, there shall 
 be levied and paid $1 i)er 1,000 feet, board measure, and for each addi- 
 tional side or edge so planed or finished 50 cents per 1,000 feet, board 
 measure. If i)laned one side and tongued and grooved, S2 per 1,000 
 feet, board measure, and if ])laned two sides and tongued and grooved, 
 $2.50 per 1,000 feet board measure. In estimating board measure 
 under this schedule no deduction shall be made on account of planing, 
 tonguing and grooving. 
 
 Paragraph 221. — Pine and spruce clapboards, rough, $2 per 1,000 
 pieces; if dressed, $1 additional per 1,000 pieces. 
 
 Paragraph 228. — Packing boxes and packing- box shooks, of wood, 
 $3 per 1,000 feet, surface measure. 
 
 The Northern Lumber Co. 
 
 St. Johnsbury, Yt., December 21, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 After an experience of thirty years in the lumber business, I am 
 more and more confident that it is not good policy to allow Canadian 
 lumber to come into our markets free of duty. The supply of standing 
 timber in our country is ample for the supply of all the needs of the 
 .country at a moderate price. I hope that any bill you may decide 
 upon will include lumber among the dutiable articles. 
 Yery truly, yours, 
 
 L. D. Hazen. 
 
 Hinton, W. Ya., January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 As the representative of our corporation, and being also interested 
 in the manufacturing of lumber in Pennsylvania, I desire to say that 
 we feel the necessity of a tariff" on lumber. Both of our industries are
 
 570 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 sufiFeriug from the low prices at which we are obliged to sell our low 
 grades of lumber. We manufacture in Pennsylvania from 10,000,000 to 
 12,000,000 feet per anunm of hemlock lumber and on none of this lum- 
 ber have we a profit of more than from 50 cents to 81 per thousand, and 
 this is uot sufiBcient. Great quantities of timber are allowed to remain 
 in the woods, which are frequently overruu by forest fires, and the tim- 
 ber ultimatel}'^ lost for want of sufficient margin on it to permit its being 
 handled. In West Virginia we manufacture from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 
 feet per annum. Most of this is used in a local way, being met in the 
 markets both East and West by a competition in prices that forces us 
 to limit our shipments in this State to only the higliest grades of lum- 
 ber, consequently onr business is and has been suffering. W^e think 
 yon will act wisely if you will give us about a $2 tarifi'on rougher 
 undressed lumber. 
 
 The W^m. James' Sons Co. 
 
 Island Pond, Vt., December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 it is well known that the lumber manufacturers have made no money 
 for several years; under mistaken notions tliey have been made a target 
 of adverse legislation, culminating in putting lumber on the free list 
 under the ^^'ilson lull. 
 
 The i)eople who have urged putting lumber on the free list for the 
 puri)ose of protecting our forests can now see their mistake. The lum- 
 bermen, as a rule, did not cut trees of less than 10 inches in diameter; 
 but under the Wilson bill, in order to get any money out of their forests, 
 tliey have been obliged to sell their logs to pulp mills, and in conseciuence 
 are now cutting trees as snuill as 4 inches in diameter. 
 
 Every article that goes into a building to day, with the exception of 
 lunjber, is protected to from 20 to 40 ])er cent. This seems to me to be 
 a discrimination against lumbernu'ii. especially as less than ."50 percent 
 of manufactured lumber goes into the workingman's home, and To per 
 cent of the value of the lumber is labor. 
 
 We can not conq)ete with the Canadian manufacturer, who is practi- 
 cally subsidized by his government, in the form of developing streams 
 and rivers by building dams, i»iers, and wharves, and clearing streams. 
 Free lumber is a direct benefit to the Canadian government, and to no 
 others, as the government owns all the timber lands in Canada. 
 
 Just why dressed lumber was put on the free list is something that 
 I can not understand, and I believe certain Senators have admitted 
 that it was a mistake, for certainly a duty on dressed lumber is a direct 
 benefit to the laboring man. No lumber manuf icturer, to my knowl- 
 edge, has made any money since the duty of sj j,er thousand was first 
 reduced, and then wiped out entirely. 1 believe it is the unanimous 
 w i>li ami need of every lumber manufacturer that a duty of *2 per thou- 
 sand be restored to lumber. 
 
 Geo. 11. 1 ITZGERALD. 
 
 Malvern, Ark., December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and ]Means: 
 
 We beg to urge the passage of a bill putting a duty of from $2 to $3 
 per thousand feet on rough lumber and SI to 81.50 per thousand feet on 
 logs. The prices we now obtain for our product are only 50 per cent of
 
 FKOM THE LUMBERMEN. 571 
 
 what tbey were before lumber and logs were entered free, and unless 
 relieved by tariff legislation tlie lumber interests of the South must 
 die out. 
 
 Malvern Lumber Co. 
 
 Elliott, Ark., December 31, 1806. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Yellow pine industry has been impoverished by free trade. We have 
 run at a loss for two years; we need $2 on rough lumber and $1 on logs. 
 
 Lee Kirkland Lumber Co. 
 
 Eagle Mills, Ark., December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We would respectfully urge the placing of a duty of $3 on rough 
 lumber and $1.50 on logs. 
 
 Eagle Lumber Co. 
 
 Elliott, Ark., December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Since the protection has been taken off lumber and logs, we have 
 been forced to make our prices so low that we have been daily destroy- 
 ing our timber without any profit to us. We pray that you will exert 
 every energy to get a protection of §3 per thousand on lumber and 
 $1.50 on logs. This will enable us to pay our laborers who have for 
 the past scarcely provided for their families. 
 
 Camden Lumber Co., 
 J. r. Miles, Manager. 
 
 Pinebluff, Ark., December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 In the interest of all lumbermen we ask that Congress put a duty of 
 $3 per thousand on rough lumber and $1 to $1.50 on logs. The impor- 
 tations in 1896 have kept the market down so that manufacturers have 
 operated at a loss and laborers at starvation prices. The situation is 
 "serious and relief at once is imperative. 
 
 Bluff City Lumber Co. 
 
 Onalaska, Ark., December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We believe the present distressing condition of the lumber business 
 should be relieved by protection of $3 on lumber and $1.50 on logs. 
 
 W3I. Carlisle & Co. 
 
 Daleville, Ark., December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The Southern mill men for three years have sold lumber for less than 
 producing cost. Great distress exists among employees. Give us $3 on
 
 572 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 lumber and .$1.50 on logs, if possible. Protection is necessary to avert 
 general disaster to the industry. 
 
 Arkadelphia Lumber Co. 
 
 GURDON, Ark., Deeemher .91, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Circumstances demand a protection of §3 on rough lumber and $1.50 
 on logs. Late encroachments seriously demoralize labor, 
 
 Gurdon Lumber Co. 
 
 Texarkana, Ark.. December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Markets we could sui)ply, especially in the North and Northeast, are 
 lost through com])etition of imi)oitc(l lumber. We strongly urge a pro- 
 tective duty of 8."3 oil rough lumber and §1,50 on logs. We believe that 
 otherwise there will be no alleviation of the distress in which mills now 
 find themselves through being unable to dispose of the lumber they 
 can produce. 
 
 Gates City Lumber Co. 
 
 THE DUTY ON DRESSED LUMBER. 
 
 Providence, R. 1., December 30, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We think from what we have learned from carefully canvassing tlie 
 wholesale trade and from our own staiidj^oint as lumber mauufacturers, 
 that a duty of at least 81 per thousand would be advisable on sawed 
 rough lumber coming from Canadian Provinces, This would make 
 quite a revenue for tlie Government, and it seems to be the universal 
 opini(ni that the above duty would result in no retaliating duty being 
 placed on logs by the Canadians. 
 
 Should the duty by this country be made $2 per thousand feet on 
 sawed rough lumber, there will most assuredly be a corresponding 
 duty on logs coming from the Provinces, which would be serious to 
 lumber manufacturers near the border, who at ]>resent Iti a great- 
 measure depend upon Canadian logs. 
 
 On dressed lumber we think it Avould l)e the most advisable for all 
 parties concerned to have a heavy duty, so that our planing mills in 
 the States may be ami)ly protected from the cheaj) labor of the Prov- 
 inces, and this Mould undoubtedly be a great benefit to the laborers in 
 the States who fit the lumber for market. 
 
 We trust your committee will bear in mind the interests of the 
 dressing as well as the saw mills of this country, and impose a duty on 
 dressed lumber coming from the Canadian Provinces of at least 81 per 
 thousand feet, board measure, for one side, and 50 cents per thousand 
 feet, board measure, for each additional side or edge. If planed one 
 side, tongued and grooved, $2 per thousand feet, board measure, and it 
 planed two sides, tongued and grooved, 8-*. 50 per thousand feet, board 
 measure. 
 
 E. A. Smith »S: Co.
 
 NO TKUSTS IN LUMBER TRADE. 573 
 
 l^O TRUSTS IIS^ LUMBER TRADE. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS LUMBER FIRMS. 
 
 C0]VI3IITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 At a previous bearing of tlie lumbermeu before your committee the 
 question was asked — and it appeared to be an important one with your 
 committee — whether there was any trust or combination in the lumber 
 trade. The purpose of this conununication is to deny emphatically 
 that any trusts exist and exx)lain the character and purposes of certain 
 associations and organizations maintained by the manufacturers of 
 lumber and of which the undersigned have knowledge. 
 
 As was explained to your committee, no lumber trusts exist. The 
 interests are so diverse, the industry so vast and widely scattered, the 
 conditions under which lumber is made are so different, the source of 
 supply so extensive, and the kinds of wood so many that it is abso- 
 lutely impossible to control in any way the sui)ply of this product. No 
 one at all familiar with the conditions would attemi)t to effect an 
 organization for the regulation of price, much less a combination in 
 the nature of what is ordinarily known as a trust. None exists, none 
 has existed, and none is likely to exist in the white pine district. 
 
 There are, however, certain organizations among the manufacturers 
 of lumber, which we will attempt to explain. On the Chippewa liiver 
 there are corporations, which for convenience are denominated the 
 "pool." The purpose of these organizations is to cheapen the handling 
 of the logs from the stumj> to the mill, and the organizations were 
 effected as a necessity. A part of the timber tributary to the Chip- 
 pewa River is owned by manufacturers having mills at Eau Claire, 
 Chi])i)ewa Falls, and other points ah)ng the Chippewa Eiver. A ])art 
 of the timber is also owned by manufacturers at points along the 
 Mississippi Kiver, below the mouth of the Chippewa Eiver. It was 
 found imi)Ossible without great expense for the manufacturers in Wis- 
 consin to get the logs thej' put in out of the great mass designed for 
 their own mills and for mills along the Mississippi Kiver. To avoid this 
 the i)Ool was organized. The members of the organization continued 
 to be, as they had ])reviously been, competitors for the purchase of 
 timber, but tliey sold their logs to the organization at a price deter- 
 mined by the quality of the logs, and were then permitted to purchase 
 from the i>ool an ecpial quantity of logs, at the average cost to the 
 organization of all the logs so purchased, and to take them from the run 
 of the logs without regard to whether the same had been cut from the 
 land of the ])urchaser, or from the land of some other member of 
 the organization. All cooperation between the members of this organi- 
 zation terminates with the distribution of the logs from the entire body 
 .put in the river. Each manufacturer becomes a competitor with every 
 other member of the organization for the sale of the product of the 
 logs in open market, and no attempt has ever been made by this organi- 
 zation to restrain competition or to regulate prices. Neither has it 
 attemjited to regulate production. 
 
 There exists among the lumber manufacturers of Minnesota, western 
 Wisconsin, and those operating at points along the Mississippi River 
 between Minneapolis and St. Louis an organization known as the 
 Mississippi Valley Lumbermen's Association. The object of this associ- 
 ation as set forth by its constitution is "to secure a full understanding 
 of the conditions surrounding the lumber market in the territory cov- 
 ered by this association, and the establishment of uniform grades for
 
 574 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 the inspection of lumber." In this oroanization there are about sixty- 
 five manufacturers, but it does not include all the operators within the 
 territory it seeks to cover. The principal work of this organization has 
 been to secure information concerning the condition of the lumber 
 trade, and to disseminate it to its members, and, as stated by the consti- 
 tution, "to establish uniform grades for the inspection of lumber." 
 This latter function is to the lumber trade what a standard of grades 
 is to the grain trade. All the manufacturers making lumber according 
 to the grades established by the association are competitors in the open 
 market for the sale of lumber at such price as they may see fit to dis- 
 pose of it. These standard grades are as much in the interest of the 
 buyer as the seller, and the sj'stem has received the indorsement of the 
 retailers. 
 
 A similar association is maintained by the lumber manufacturers 
 operating in the Wisconsin Valley. The purposes of this association 
 may be said to be identical with those of the Mississippi Valley 
 Lumbermen's Association. 
 
 These are the only organizations among the white-pine operators 
 except purely local ones, with the exception of what is known as the 
 National Lumbermen's Association, composed of manufacturers, whole- 
 salers, and extensive dealers, i>rincipally in Michigan, at i)oints along 
 Lake Erie and Lake Huron. The interests of these association mem- 
 bers are so diverse that any combination among them would be entirely 
 impracticable. 
 
 During the year 1892 proceedings which were stimulated by the pub- 
 lisher of a paper with populistic tendencies and a desire for notoriety 
 were commenced against some of the otiicers and prominent members 
 of the Mississippi Valley Lumbermen's Association, and they were 
 indicted in the United States court, under what is known as the "Anti 
 Sherman trust law." The indictment was demurred to and the 
 demurrer promptlj"^ sustained by the court on the ground that there 
 was no cause ior action. 
 
 We trust this information will be of value to you, and will aid you in 
 your deliberations. 
 
 Nelson Tenney Lvmber Company, 
 By N. M. Tenney, YicePresUient. 
 
 S. T. McKnight. 
 
 H. C. Akellv. 
 
 E. W. Backus Lumber Company, 
 By E. W. liACKUS, rresiilcnt. 
 
 Cakpentkr Limber Company, 
 By E. J. Carpenter, Treasurer. 
 
 Brainerd Lumber Company, 
 By C. F. Welles, President. 
 
 W. S. Hill vS: Co. 
 
 CHAIR CAXE AXD REEDS. 
 
 (Paragraph 179.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. C. H. LANG. JR.. OF BOSTON. 
 
 Thursday, December 31, 1S96. 
 Mr. LanCt said : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 ai)pear hereto represent the rattan industry of the United States. 1 
 have a written memorial to the committee, signed by all the rattan
 
 CHAIR CANE AND REEDS. 575 
 
 manufacturers of tlie United States, who met iu Xew York yesterday 
 to consider this subject and who authorized me to appear to represent 
 them personally. This memorial is signed by the Wakefield Eattan 
 Company, Haywood Bros. & Co., American Rattan and Eeed Manu- 
 facturing- Company, P. Derby & Co., W. F. Whitney, and the Union 
 Rattan Manufacturing Company. I would also like to submit some 
 samples. In addition to presenting this memorial I would like to make 
 a short statement. 
 
 The Chairman. We will give you live minutes. 
 
 Mr. Lang. I represent an interest representing- a capital of sometning 
 like $5,000,000. I wish you would make it teu minutes. 
 
 The CHAIR3IAN. We will see about that; we want facts. 
 
 Mr. Lang. !Notwith standing the remarks 1 listened to this morning, 
 I have nothing to submit but facts. I am a business man and not a 
 lawyer or orator, I have simply come here to re])resent my own indus- 
 try and that of the others that have sent me here for that purpose. 
 
 We request that in lieu of the present taritt' of 10 per cent ad valorem 
 you will introduce in the bill now in preparation a clause to read in 
 this wise: 
 
 All manufactures of rattan not further advanced than split into reeds and strands, 
 five cents per pound. 
 
 Chair fane and other products of rattan, split and shaved, ready for manufacture 
 into chairs and other articles, ten cents per pound. 
 
 Now, we thought best to put that in that language, because all are not 
 familiar with this industry, and after considerable debate, it seemed to 
 us we would avoid all technicalities and all ambiguities if it were i)ut 
 in that way, and it would be easily understood, and we were led to be 
 very careful over it because of great misunderstanding which has pre- 
 vailed in regard to past tariffs pertaining to this industry. This will be 
 inefficient to accomplish what we need and desire unless the free list is 
 changed so that tlie clause pern)itting "reeds not further manufactured 
 thau cut iutolengthssuitablefur whips'' to come in free shall be stricken 
 out. The reed is the core of the rattan. It is an important part of the 
 industry, and if these reeds continue, as they have been, to be admitted 
 free of duty, under ruling of the Board of General Appraisers of New 
 York, in my judgment it will nullify this clause we wish inserted iu the 
 new bill, just as it did the old one. I represent directly the Wakefield 
 Rattan Company of Massachusetts, which company has something like 
 a million and a half invested in this business, and we utilize all portions 
 of the rattan. 
 
 I am in the position of the lumbermen who appeared before you this 
 morning; am willing to have logs come in free of duty. I represent 
 logs — small ones, to be sure, but logs, notwithstanding. We wish 
 rattans to be brought in free of duty as now, in order that we may 
 manipulate them and so furnish labor to a large number of people in 
 this country, instead of having it done in China and Germany, as it is 
 very largely at present. The beginning of this industry was in the 
 little red school house, where, I presume, some of you have come in per- 
 sonal contact with rattan. I have some of the material here represent- 
 ing the development of the industry and showing the results of splitting 
 rattans. At the present time, because of the lack of any adequate duty 
 on this material, it is being done largely in Chinese and German fac- 
 tories, a thing that ought not to be; the result of which is that large 
 numbers of our workmen are unemployed, and that is likewise true of 
 other concerns throughout the country. Within a comparatively short 
 time machinery has been shipped from the United States to China for
 
 576 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 the purpose of cuttiug up this material and shipping it here in ita 
 manufactured form. 1 wish to submit to you that it is not alone that 
 we utilize what the Chinese and the Germans do in this business, but 
 we utililize all the waste coming from rattans in the j^rocess of shaving 
 and development. 
 
 I submit here samples of a mat which we manufacture [Mr. Lang here 
 submitted various samples]. Here are two samples of mattings, which 
 we manufacture in live different widths and in large quantities — that 
 is, if we can have the material to undergo the first process here and so 
 have access to this waste, which no one else in the world utilizes except 
 the factory I particularly represent, although there are other concerns 
 in the country that do the first process of splitting the cane or the rat- 
 tan into caiie and into reeds or cores. To-day the tariff" i)rovides a 10- 
 per cent ad valorem (iuty on this pith or core of the rattan. As a mat- 
 ter of fact, no duty is beiug paid on it, or at least only an occasional 
 duty is paid. 
 
 JVir. Dalzell. Why is that? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Because through some carelessness in the New York 
 custom-house by the officials there no duty is levied ui)on it. The 
 house that 1 represent imjjorted a lot of reeds three or four months 
 ago and no duty was collected upon them. Our interest in having the 
 duty collected more than offsets any advantage we would get in 
 having a small lot come in free of duty. Two or three years ago, when 
 a duty was not collected on a lot that was sent to us, I called tlie atten- 
 tion of the t;ustoni-house authorities to the matter, but received no 
 satisfaction. At any rate, the brokers we employ in the custom-house 
 appear to have no difiiculty in i)assing this material through the cus- 
 tom house free of duty. 1 want to bear down hard on that fact. At 
 one time I called the attention of a special agent of the Treasury 
 Department to the fact that iu)duty was being collected on these reeds, 
 whereupon he took the matter up and secured a hearing before the 
 Board of (Jeneral Appraisers, and that hearing developed what I did 
 not know before — that in the free list there was a provision tliat "reeds 
 not further manufactured than cut into lengths suitable for whips" 
 should be admitted free of duty. 
 
 1 then held that the authorities should recpiire reeds coming in in 
 lengths suitable for wliips to be cut into a specilic length, anil they 
 should obtain some guaranty that those reeds were to go into whips; 
 but they held that the free list was always to receive the benefit of a 
 doubt as against the dutiable list, and further, that it was impossible 
 to require that wliij) ree<ls should be cut into any particular length, on 
 account of the fact that whips themselves were made in various lengths. 
 So they finally agreed that notwithstanding any reed imported might 
 be used for a large variety of purposes, they would not levy a duty on 
 certain sizes which they were informed were used for whips, or rather 
 they would admit certain sizes used for whips and levy a duty on the 
 smaller sizes. Tlie effect of that ap])ears to be that all reeds are com- 
 ing in free of duty, something that should be looked into very carefully. 
 1 also developed the fact at this hearing before the Board of (leneral 
 Appraisers in New York that our principal com])etitors, the (lermans, 
 were largely undervaluing their importations and that the present 10 
 per cent ad valorem, in view of the way they manipulate the busi- 
 ness, affords no adequate protection. 
 
 I secured an invoice of these materials which they were holding at 
 the appraisers" stores at that time and satisfied ^Ir. Cummings, the 
 special agent of the Treasury Department, that I was correct in the
 
 CHAIR CANE AND REEDS. 577 
 
 matter, at least I think I did. Then I undertook to discover how I 
 might have that matter rectified, and I was told that the only process 
 that I could go through to do that was to appeal to the Treasurj^ Depart- 
 ment and procure proof through European sources that the goods as 
 billed or consigned to agents of German factories in this country were 
 below the price at which they were sold in Germany at the time, a thing 
 almost impossible to do, because anybody going from this country to 
 any one of the German factories and undertaking to buy these mate- 
 rials there is simply informed that they are represented in New York 
 by agents, and if be wants those materials, that is the source to whom 
 he should apply. 
 
 I represent here four or five different concerns, as I have said, hav- 
 ing a capital of not less than 85,(100,000, and we are all in about the 
 same boat, employing less than half the hands we ought to employ, and 
 seeing the importations of rattans in this country gradually dwindling, 
 until within a few years, from being on an equality Avith us, the Ger- 
 mans are importing three times the number of rattans from Singapore 
 and the Straits Settlements that we do. These rattans grow on the 
 Islands of Borneo, Sumatra, and Java, and the shipping port is Singa- 
 pore for the great bulk of these goods. We are having vessels plying 
 between Singapore and Boston, and tliere are also vessels running to 
 New York for the supply of the factories located there. But the busi- 
 ness is falling off", and is bound to fall oft" continuall}'. The Chinese are 
 shipi)ing (juite a laige product to this country, and are bound to ship 
 more when they get the machinery into action that has been shij^ped 
 from this country to Chi)ia for the purpose of supplying the trade here, 
 via New York. 
 
 So it appears to us that we are not unreasonable iq asking this pro- 
 tection for this industry, an industry that was originated in this coun- 
 try and has been copied abroad. Factories abroad have imported 
 experts from this country in order to put them on their feet. That is a 
 condition reverse from what usually obtains, but anyone acquainted 
 with this industry knows that this country has developed it to the extent 
 that it occupies to-day. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. How do the Avagespaid to the employees in the manu- 
 facture of your goods in this country compare with the wages paid in 
 Germany ! 
 
 Mr. Lang. I am informed thej^ are very much less; that is the com 
 mon testimony. 
 
 Mr. Taavney. Can you give any definite information on the point? 
 
 Mr. Lang. No; I can not give any definite information on that point. 
 The Chinese more particularly use the outer surface of the rattan. 
 This stick here represents the surface before it is cut and this end 
 after it has been split — the outer surface — into strands, leaving the 
 so-called reed or core in the center [indicating with sample]. All sorts 
 of names have been applied to this in order to introduce it into the 
 country free of duty. We call it rattan cores, in order to identify it with 
 rattan, which is a raw material, and pays no duty and should not, not 
 being an article that is grown on this continent at all. 
 
 The Chairman. Reed is covered in j)aragraph 084 of the tariff" act 
 of 1894? 
 
 Mr. Lang. That is right, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And this was also in the tariff" act of 1890. There 
 
 is no difference in the language. It provides that woods not otherwise 
 
 specially provided for, in the rough, or not further manufactured than 
 
 cut into lengths suitable for sticks for umbrellas, parasols, sunshades, 
 
 T H 37
 
 578 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 wbips, or walking canes, aud India nialacca joints, not further maniifac- 
 tnred than cut into suitable lengths for the manufactures into which 
 they are intended to be converted, shall come in free of duty. It is 
 under that provision? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Yes, sir; that is under jjaragra|)h 684, under the ruling of 
 the board of appraisers of Kew York. They did exclude certain small 
 sizes, which they decided should pay the duty of 10 per cent ad valorem; 
 but in this process of undervaluation that cuts no figure, and if it is 
 abolished entirely in the new bill I should have no remonstrance to 
 make. It afibrds no protection whatever under the present condition 
 of things. 
 
 The Chairman. You desire that reeds should be put upon the 
 dutiable list'^ 
 
 Mr. Lang. We desire that reeds should be put u]>on the dutiable list 
 at 5 cents per jjound, and we i)ut it '^lattan not further advanced than 
 split into reeds and strands"; and not only do we desire the reed to be 
 on the dutiable list at a specific rate of duty, but we also ask to have 
 these strands i)ut on the list also — where thoy are not sliaved — at 5 cents 
 per pound. In the second clause of this reconunendation we allude to 
 chair cane and other pioducts of rattan, split and shaved, ready for 
 manufacture into chairs and other articles, and ask for 10 cents i)er 
 pound, which would be something like .'33:\ per cent ad valorem. There 
 is a large business (;ontingent uj^on this first process of spliffing the 
 rattan. If the business is diverted from this country and done in Ger- 
 man and Chinese factories, we are thereby deprived of a large variety 
 of uses to which we could ])ut the mateiial if we had the splitting of it, 
 besides affording emi)loyment to a large number of ])eop]e. I am sub- 
 stantially in the same i)Osition that the lumbcrnu'ii were this morning, 
 Avho were willing to admit Canadian logs free of duty for the sake of 
 giving employment to a large number of people in the working \\\) aud 
 manufacture of these logs. That is my position, except my log is a 
 very small oih> and of tin<^ textur*'. 
 
 1 am obliged to vou and the committee for vour atteutiou. 
 
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY MR. LANG. 
 
 New York, December 2n^ 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and ^NFeans: 
 
 Gentlemen, we, the uiulersigned, a large majority of tlie i-attan manu- 
 facturers of this country, res])e('tfully represent tiiat because of severe 
 competition from Geiinan and Chinese sources our business is greatly 
 prostrated. We therefore request you will introduce a clause into the 
 tariff act now in preparation as follows: 
 
 All numufactnros of rattan not further advanced than sjilit into reeds and straiidB, 
 five cents ))cr ])()un(l. 
 
 Chair cane and other ])roducts of rattan, split and shaved ready for manufacture 
 into chairs and other articles, ton cents per pound. 
 
 The present duty of 10 i^er cent ad valorem affords no adequate meas- 
 ure of protection, and it is under the si)ecific system alone that we can 
 see any chan«;e for relief. German manufacturers are represented in 
 this country by commission agencies, to whom are referred all i)arries 
 in this country who would purchase from these manufacturers. We 
 have every reason to believe that i>roducts of rattan are sent here on 
 consignment and are grossly undervalued.
 
 CHAIR CANE AND REEDS. 579 
 
 The present duty of 10 -per cent is largely nullified by article 684 of 
 the free list which has been so interpreted, by the Board of General 
 Appraisers to whom we appealed, that "reeds (a product of rattan) not 
 farther niauulactnred than cut into lengths suitable for whips" are 
 admitted free. This decision is manifestly unjust, because reeds of all 
 lengths and nearly all sizes are thereby admitted free. We would 
 therefore represent that, until this clause is eliminated from the free 
 list, the end we seek would not be accomplished. As we understaiul 
 it, you do not desire us to go into details regarding the presonr state 
 ot tliis industry as c()mi)ared with previous years, but anv information 
 desired will be cLecrruliy furnislied at any aubsequont date. 
 
 Wakefield Eattan Company, 
 
 By 0. H. Lang, Jr., Treasurer. 
 Haywood Bros. & Co., 
 
 By (Jr. H. Haywood. 
 
 American Rattan and Beed Mfg. Co., 
 By J. Salomon, Secretary. 
 
 P. Derby & Co., 
 By Arthur P. Derby. 
 
 W. F. Whitney. 
 
 Union Rattan Mfg. Co., 
 By F. H. CoiTEUTHWAiT, Treasurer. 
 
 Gardner, Mass., January 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 During the latter part of December we joined with several other 
 manufacturers in recommending for your consideration certain duties 
 on reeds, chair cane, and strands manufactured from rattan. We trust 
 this may receive careful consideration at the hands of the committee, 
 and that they may be willing to recommend in their report the levying 
 of snch duties as we have suggested, which we feel are little enough to 
 protect the domestic mauufactnreis fro!:i competition of foreigners. 
 
 Heywood Brothers & Co. 
 
 Gardner, Mass., December 34, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 We are anxious that a duty of 6 or 7 cents per pound be placed on 
 chair cane and reeds. This wonld come under f^aragraph 35(3, miscel- 
 laneous manufactures. 
 
 P. Derby & Co. 
 
 PROTESTS AGAINST IMPOSITION OF DUTY. 
 
 New York, January 6, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Learning of the request of Mr. Lang, representative of the Wake- 
 field Rattan Company, and of the Central Rattan Company, a combi- 
 nation of all the largest rattan manufacturers in the United States, lor
 
 580 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 a si)ecific duty of 5 ceuts aud 10 ceuts per i^oimd on tbe several inaiuifac- 
 tiires of rattaDS and reeds, before your committee ou the 31st ultimo, I 
 respectfully beg to oppose that request. 
 
 In the revision of the tariff of 1890, the subject of rattans aiul reeds 
 was thoroughly looked into by the Committee on Ways and Means, of 
 ■which President-elect McKinley was chairman, and altlumgh Mr. Lang 
 had then, as now, demanded a preposterous duty on these articles, the 
 result of that committee's deliberations finally were: Whii) reeds and 
 rattans, free (paragraph 756); chair cane or reeds, wrought or manu- 
 factured from rattans or reeds, and whether round, square, or in any 
 other shape, 10 per cent ad valorem (paragrapii 220). 
 
 In Hearings before the Committee on Ways and ^Nfeans, Fifty-first 
 Congress, First Session, images TOO to 777, you will find the entire 
 testimony on this subject. 
 
 In revising the tariff of 1804 this ground was gone over again and 
 no change was made. (See paragraphs 081 and 170.) I take the 
 liberty to lay a few fticts before you to show how impractical it would 
 be to i)lace any specific duty on the articles in question. 
 
 There are nuiny kinds of chair cane and manufiictures of reeds and 
 rattans, varying very much in ])rice and in quality. For instance, one 
 kind of split strands costs about 1 cent per pound; another, 10 cents. 
 How could a specific duty of 5 cents i)er pounil cover justly two such 
 kinds'? Also please note that on the former kind the duty would 
 amount to 500 per cent. So also with chair cane, which is sold by 
 measurement, not weiglit. One kind costs abont 820 per 100,000 feet 
 and weighs abimt 75 p(mnds: another kind-about $12 per 100,000 feet, 
 weighing 195 ])ounds, thns making at 10 cents per pound the duty ou 
 the latter kind 102 per cent ad vah)rem. 
 
 On the whole, you can readily judge how unreasonable the request 
 for a specific duty is when I am willing ])rovc to you, if you will grant 
 me a hearing, that on oneaiticle the duty Avonld be equivalent to about 
 550 per cent and on almost all other kinds of chair cane and mannfac- 
 tures of reed and rattan imported between 100 ])cr cent and 200 per 
 cent. The raw material costs abont the sanu^ to tlie native and foreign 
 manufacturer, and the labor involved in ])rodncing these goods is done 
 by autonmtic machinery, simply re(iniring to be fed. 
 
 The foregoing is respectfully submitted to yonr committee, and T beg 
 of you to cover the articles in (juestion in the tariff you are now revis- 
 ing with the identical wording and phrasing that is covering them in 
 the present, viz : 
 
 Whip reeds and rattan, free. 
 
 Chair cane or reeds, wrought or manufactured from rattans or reeds, 
 10 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 • Otto Gerdau, 
 
 Imiwrtvr <>/ Rattans, Heeds, and Chair Cane. 
 
 Columbus, Ohio, Jannary 6", 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We notice that an eflbrt is being made to have the duty on round 
 reeds, split, flat, oval, and molding reeds, reed winding, chair cane, etc., 
 increased from its present tax; in Schedule J), ])aragraph 179, at 10 per 
 cent ad valorem. We protest against any change from the present, and 
 beg that your committee leave it as it is. An increase simply means
 
 CHAIR CANE AND REEDS. 581 
 
 sliutting out such material, decreasing the revenue to the Government, 
 and still increasing- the price of the product to the consumer. We, as 
 well as many others in the interior, depend upon the importer for these 
 articles, and to prohibit our getting them in that way means another 
 monopoly in another line far from desirable in anything. 
 
 Joseph Lay & Co., 
 Br 007)1 and Brush Manufacturers. 
 
 EiCHMOND, Ind., January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are opposed to any increase of tariff on cane in any form. The 
 chair manufacturers of the nation have had a desperate battle for 
 existence during the past three years, and now the worst "trust" on 
 American soil against chair manufacturers attempts to destroy all 
 prospects of profit by an increased tax on cane materials. 
 
 We ask for the continuation of clause No. 229 of the McKinley tariff, 
 and hope the manufacturers will be protected against this most unjust 
 tax. Cane is a foreign article. 
 
 KicHMOND Chair Company. 
 
 M. J. O'Brien, Secretary. 
 
 Faribault, Minn., January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are informed that there is a i^roject on foot to raise the duty on 
 reed and cane, etc., to 5 cents per pound, and on split. Hat, and oval 
 reeds, also reed winding, chair cane, etc., to 10 cents per pound. As 
 the articles above mentioned do not grow in this country, and we are 
 entirely dependent on importing same, we deem it a scheme to hurt 
 every factory of our kind, of which there are several in each of the Cen- 
 tral States, in many of the Eastern States, and also in the far Western 
 States. We therefore most earnestly protest against any such duty and 
 urge you to have the interest of these many factories at heart, which 
 means, of course, also many thousands of laboring men. 
 
 Faribault Rattan Works. 
 
 Erie, Pa., January 6, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We read in the papers that Mr. Lang, president of the Wakefield 
 Rattan Company, has presented to you a memorial signed by the rat- 
 tan manufacturers of the East, asking that 5 cents per pound duty be 
 placed on all reeds, both German and China, that are imported, and 10 
 cents per pound on winding reed, chair cane, etc. We have to say that 
 we are very much opposed to same, as we consider it a great injustice 
 and solely advanced by our Eastern friends in the interest of monopoly, 
 thinking thereby to drive out some of the smaller manufacturers estab- 
 lished all over the country, and thus be in better shape to get their own 
 price in due time. Injustice to ourselves, as well as a goodly number 
 of smaller manufacturers, we deem it our duty to enter this, our humble 
 protest, and pray your kind consideration, in hopes same may meet with 
 your favor. 
 
 H. N. Thayer & Co.
 
 582 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Similar letters of protest Averc received from the followii:^;-: Francis 
 L. Hughes, of Eocheslcr, I\. Y.5 "SYiikiiisoii c^<; Eastwood, of Bingham- 
 ton, N. Y. ; the Kinley Manufacturing Company, of Chicago, 111.; the 
 Columbus Chair Company, of Columbus, Ohio; Murphy, Wasey & Co., 
 of Detroit, Mich.; the Gendron Wheel Company, of Toledo, Ohio; 
 Uochiuger Bros. & Co., of Baltimore, Md. ; the Adams Carriage Com- 
 pany, of Canal Dover, Ohio; IL Witte & Co., of ^Sew Y'ork; the Indi- 
 anapolis Manufacturing Company, O. A. Whitman, of Chicago, 111. ; the 
 National Carriage and IJeed Company, of Cincinnati, Ohio; A. ^leinicke 
 & Son, of jMilwaukee, Wis.; Fort Madison, Iowa, Chair Company; A. 
 D. Jenkins & Co., Wakefield, ]Mass.; Home liattnn Company, Chicago, 
 111.; Mayer Chair Conipany, Union City, Tenn.; Clement Chair Com- 
 pany, Clinton, Iowa, and others. 
 
 New York, December 29, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Wc respectfully call your attention to bamboo fiber and to reeds and 
 chair cane wrought Irom rattan. Bauiboo fiber or fine bamboo splints 
 or bamboo scraps are imported for the manufacture of street brooms 
 only. We claim that this article should enter free of duty, because it 
 is a crude material to be worked into brooms here. Beeds and chair 
 cane wrought from rattan, we respecfully beg you to leave as taxed now 
 per tariff act of 1894, under Schedule D, paragrai)h 171), at 10 per 
 cent ad valorem. 
 
 II. Witte & Co. 
 
 Westfield, Mass., Jamiari/ 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 A\ e, the undersigned. r(i)resenting the bidk of the whip manufactur- 
 ing industry ill the United States, having learned <if the recpiest, before 
 your honorable body 011 the ;')lst ultimo, of 31 r. Lang, ie])resenting the 
 Wakefield Battan Company, and also the Central Battan Coni])an3', a 
 combination of the largest manufacturers here, including the Wakefield 
 Comi)any, that a duty be i)laced on whip reeds, do hereby respectfully 
 oppose it and i)rotest against any duty being exacted on this article. 
 
 AVeare entirely dependent on these reeds — our raw material — for the 
 production of our whips, and the placing of a duty on them would 
 sim])ly be increasing the profits of the combination and place us at 
 the mercy of this monojioly. 
 
 Therefore we earnestly i)ray that whip leeds remain in the free list, 
 where they always have been and rightfnlly belong. 
 
 Standard Whip Co., 
 
 C. C. Pratt, President. 
 L. H. Beals & Son. 
 New I^ngland Whip Co. 
 Steiner i& Moore M'f'g Co., 
 
 L. W. Steiner, President. 
 C. A. Hastings, 
 Per G. F. Tyler. 
 
 A. C. Barnes & Co. 
 F. Ploise »fc Son. 
 Isomer OY & Yan Deusen. 
 Sbarle Whip Co. 
 Cargill, Cook & Co.
 
 OSIER OR WILLOW AND MANUFACTURES. 583 
 
 St, Louis, January 6, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir- Should tlie Wakefield Rattan Company, or tbo so-called 
 "combined trust,'' be successful in their efibrts to have the duty on 
 reed, TNindin-, cane, etc., raised 5 and 10 cents per pound it would be 
 a deathblow to all manufacturers outside ot this "trust," and would 
 oidv benefit the "trust" or the Wakefield Eattau Company. As a mat- 
 ter of fact rattan can not be arown in this country, nor can it be cut by 
 anyone in this country in merchantable quantities, as it is grown only 
 in China and the West Indies, and so owned and controlled by other 
 nations, and 75 per cent is cut and dressed where grown, and not in 
 this country, leaving very little to be cut here. 
 
 The natural rattan with the glazed skm is free of duty, and the 
 pealed rattan, so-called " leed," has a duty of 10 per cent, and the skiu 
 of the rattan cut iii small strips, so-called chair cane, as you find in 
 chair seats, has a duty of 10 per cent. ^ . ,, 
 
 The Wakefield Kattan Company formed a trust about eight years 
 ago in Wakefield, Mass., composed of about four or five manutacturers, 
 ill order to import the natural rattan and do the dressing, sphttiug, 
 etc., in this country in largo quantities and comparatively control tlie 
 
 "^ AsVou may be aware I employ about 250 men in the manufacture 
 of reed and rattan babv carriages and chairs out of the stocvk which 
 the aforesaid Wakefield Kattan Company is now trying to have an 
 exorbitant duty placed upon, which would be legislation to favor the 
 few and injure the masses, and would directly attect me and would 
 mean ruination to my business and hundreds ot others. 
 
 A. BOEKER, 
 
 American Rattan Worlds. 
 OSIER OR AYILLOW AOT) MA:NTTrACTlTRES. 
 
 (Paragraph 179.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HON. THEODORE L. POOLE, A REPRE- 
 SENTATIVE EROM THE STATE OE NEW YORK. 
 
 Washington, January 9, 1897. 
 
 GENTLEW.N: On behalf of the growers of o^ier or willow and the 
 mauulacturers of willow baskets, who have suliered greut ly from toreign 
 competition under the existing tariff law, 1 respectfully ask tor the 
 resioration of the rates provided by the tariff act of 1890-the McKinley 
 law. In this connection I present fi)r your consideration a statement ot 
 the willow-basket makers of Liverpool, Onondaga County,^. Y.,ma(ie 
 on the 15th of December, 1895. I am prepared to say trom personal 
 observation that the condition of the basket-makmg industry m this 
 locality has not improved since this statement was prepared, but has 
 become even more deplorable. .. - +,, ^ x^ •«> „„ 
 
 It is asked of the committee that in their revision of the taritt as 
 airects this industry, the rates be not o"ly incre<Yed, but tkatno (^ i^^^ 
 tinction be made between finished and unfinished baskets made oM^^^^^^ 
 low, as this is clearly shown to be a source ot fraud. These baskets 
 made of willow are what are known as clothes baskets, having small 
 handles upon each end, which do not interfere with "nesting or ship- 
 ping, so that there is no excuse for the handles being shipped here 
 separately except to defraud by undervaluation.
 
 584 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 The specific rates we ask for, upon baskets made of osier or willow, 
 in whole or in part, is : 
 
 Per dozen 
 
 On baskets 25 inches or less $1. 25 
 
 On baskets 27 inches 1- 50 
 
 On baskets 29 inches 1- T5 
 
 On baskets 31 inches 2. 00 
 
 On baskets 33 inches or over 2. 25 
 
 Upon osier or willow (raw material) it is asked that a duty of $5 per 
 ton be imposed. 
 
 In the cousideration of this branch of the tariff laws, it should be 
 remembered that the manufacturers of these willow baskets are not 
 capitalists, but are, without exception, ])()or men and women working 
 in their homes, making baskets with the aid of their children, and for 
 this reason they need the protection of the Government to a greater 
 degree tlian do large manufacturers in other lines of industry; they 
 are more easily affected by competition. 
 
 I respectfully ask that the statement of the manufacturers as made 
 by them in the paper herewith submitted be carefully read and given 
 proper cousideration by the committee. 
 
 Theodoiie L. Poole, M. C, 
 
 Ticeniif-HCTciifh Xew York JMstrict. 
 
 WILLOW 15ASKKT MAKKI5S. 
 
 The willow basket makers of the village of Liverpool and town of Saliiia have 
 appealed to Congressman T. L. I'oole to make an ttibrt to have tlie tarilf on willow 
 baskets and willows restoicd to where it was niMkr the McKiulev law and prior 
 thereto. The Congressman yesterday afternoon met at the town hall in Liverpool 
 about thirty of the growers of willow ami makers of baskets; the situation was 
 thoronghly discnssed, and everything possible will be done to lestore the tariff at 
 the earliest possible day. 
 
 One need not go away from homo to witness the disastrous effect of this Demo- 
 cratic tariff on home industries. The reduction of the tariff on willows and willow 
 baskets has crippled and almost ruined the industry in the towns of .Salina and 
 Clay. Few i»('0]tle are aware of the fact that more willows are raised an<l more 
 baskets made in the town of h^alina than in any other haltdoz»'n towns in the United 
 States. It is one of the important industries of Onondaga County. But a great 
 change has come to the industry in the i)ast two years. Where in 1803, and prior 
 thereto, a thousand persons were engaged in this business and were contented and 
 prosperous; to-day, f>n account of foreign ])rison competitinu ])ossible under the 
 Wilson tariff, they have scarcely enough work to keej) them busy, are glad to ^^ ork 
 for 75 cents a day, and it is likely that the town poor master will be appealed to this 
 winter by them. 
 
 The duty under the McKinley bill was 40 per cent ad valorem on manufactured 
 goods and 30 ])er cent on willows. This, under Democratic rule, was reduced to 30 
 and 25 per cent. Since the reduction great numl)ers of ioreign-mado baskets have 
 been shi]i])ed to this country, and the home manufacturers have been obliged to 
 meet the imported ]irices, until wages ha\e been reduced to the scale of the L'Tissian 
 prisons, and even then the home makers can not compete with the foreigners and 
 Lome trade is almost ruined. 
 
 It is discovered that willow baskets are being made in the Kussian prisons and 
 shipped to Cermany. From the latter country they are sent to America as (Terman 
 goods. Again, it is found that in order to get baskets through the custom-house as 
 "unfinished products" the handles are left off, to be ]>ut on in this country. False 
 statements are made at the custom-house as to the sizes of baskets. Foreign prison- 
 made baskets are to day sold in this city for just about what it costs to make baskets 
 in the village of Liverpool. The free trader, of course, says. "That's all right. It 
 may affect the basket makers in Liverpool, but the people at large get baskets 
 cheaper. It's the greatest good to the greatest number, you know." That is the 
 free-trade theory. But it is a condition and not a theory that confronts the basket 
 makers of Liverpool. lias the individual buyer discovered that willow baskets are
 
 OSIER OR WILLOW AND MANUFACTURES. 585 
 
 selling any cheaper? Those who will investigate will loam that the individual 
 buyer "doesn't get much benefit from the low tarilf on baskets. The price of baskets 
 has remained about the same, so far as the individual buyer is concerned, but the 
 dealer is now able to get goods made in Russian prisons at a much less price than 
 was asked by the home makers. 
 
 In two years the production of willow baskets in the village of Liverpool has 
 fallen otf just one-half, and where a man was earning $2.25 or $3 a day under high 
 tariff, he is now working for 75 cents a day. Two hundred persons have moved out 
 of the village of Liverpool in two years, and to-day 50 houses stand vacant. Those 
 who still remain in the village working at this business have in a number of instances 
 mortgaged their homes to live, and would gladly move away and go into other busi- 
 ness if they knew what to do or where to tind work. These statements are not 
 exaggerated in the least. They were made by the makers themselves at the meeting 
 yesterday afternoon. The crippled condition of the willow industry affects trade 
 in the village to a serious extent. 
 
 The founder of the willow industry in Salina was John Fisher, now living in Liv- 
 pool at the age of Ki years. In 1864 Mr. Fisher began to cut wild willows, and, car- 
 rying them on his back, peddle tliem around among his neighbors. In this locality 
 a'large number of Germans had settleil, who had learned tbe art of weaving bas- 
 kets in the fatherland, and they were glad of the opportunity to take Fisher's wild 
 willows and make them into i)askets. Mr. Fisher saw a chance to build up the 
 industry, and in 1868 ho inijxirted some osier willows from Germany. It was found 
 that under cultivation in this country tbey became better than those grown in Ger- 
 many. The industry grew rapidly, and as high as 200,000 baskets have been made 
 in one year. William Gleasou used to be one of the big buyers of baskets, and he has 
 been known to advance to the makers as high as $15,000 in a single month. But few 
 of the makers are growers, and all aromul Liverpool the farmers make a business of 
 growing willows. In the l)eginning they set sprouts in the ground ten inches apart. 
 The first year the willows are not worth harvesting. The second year there is a fair 
 crop, and the third year the crop is of the best and remains so for years, unless 
 interfered with by pests. For several years the growei-s have been bothered with 
 not only the tariff, but a pest known a-^ the cottonwood bug. Joseph Lintner, the 
 State entomologist, Las sjient consideraUe time in Liverpool in the past year endeav- 
 oring to find some moans to exterminate this pest. In the village of Liverpool at 
 the present time the visitor will see great piles of willows along the streets and in 
 the yards of the makers. The shops where baskets are made are in the houses occu- 
 pied by the makers. Here will be seen an interesting sight. The children of the 
 family'are found strip])ing the bark otf of the willows, while the parents are engaged 
 in weaving the prepared willows into baskets, an occupation that requires no small 
 degree of taste and skill. 
 
 At the request of the bnsket makers, Supervisor George Baxter invited Congress- 
 man Poole to visit Liverj)ool yesterday afternoon and inquire into the deplorable 
 situation with a view of taking measures for relief. The meeting was held at the 
 town hall. Congressman Poole, in opening the matter, said he had come to learn all 
 the facts possible about the willow basket industry. He knew in a general way that 
 the business was depressed as a result of the tariff; that the Wilson bill had had a 
 bad effect on many industries. The willow basket industry, Congressman Poole 
 said, was an important, one to this locality, and it had been damaged by the tariff as 
 much as any industry in the United States in any one locality. 
 
 "There is a peculiar condition of things," continued Congressman Poole. " Under 
 the McKinley law you had good times; under the new tariff law you have suffered. 
 You seek relief. Now, in one House of the Congress we have a large majority in favor 
 of protection to home industries, and undoubtedly we can get a bill through that 
 branch that would rectify many of the bad things in the present tariff. We do not 
 yet control the Senate, and will not until March 4 next. Then there will be enough 
 .Republican members taking the ijlaces of Democrats to give protection a majority. 
 But the President is still in the way. He remains in office until March 4, 1897. 
 While there is every prospect that a protection candidate will be elected President, 
 until we get the I'resideut and Senate with us the House is almost powerless to do 
 anything except in so far as it is necessary to raise revenues. And there has been a 
 deficiency in the revenue of about five million dollars a month ever since this tariff 
 went into effect. Something must be done without resorting to the sale of bonds. 
 With the tax on the wool industry alone, if restored, there would be a revenue of 
 from fifteen to twenty millions of dollars, and undoubtedly there will be made a 
 strong demand to restore the tariff" on wool. I shall do all in my power to put wil- 
 lows back on the list as they were. The old rate of tariff" on willows was 40 per cent 
 ad valorem on niaunfacture'd goods and 30 per cent on osier willows. This has been 
 reduced under the present tariff law to 25 per cent on manufactured goods and 20 
 per cent on willows. I suppose that if we can get the old tariff" restored it will cover 
 all that is required."
 
 586 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OP. 
 
 Congressmau Poole at this point read a letter that he had received from L. L. 
 Thnrwachter & Son, willow basket dealers in this city, in which they pictured the 
 prosperous condition of the business before the tariff Avas reduced, the demoralizing 
 effect of the present tariff", and said that the basket makers were being reduced to 
 such straits as would require them this winter to apply to the poorraaster for 
 assistance. They asked the Congressman to exert his iulluence to have the tariff 
 restored. The Congressman then asked those present to give him such facts in rela- 
 tion to the industry as they deemed important for use at Washington. 
 
 Fred Wykert spoke first. He said: "This low tariff has caused the shipment of 
 •willow baskets from Russian prisons into Germany and from there here. They are 
 made in these prisons and shipped to Germany and this country in an unfinished 
 state— that is, the handles are left off. In Germany the handles are put on, and 
 the baskets are shipped here as German goods. Germany can't compete with us; it 
 is the prison work that does the damage. If I understand it rightly, it is against the 
 treaties of the countries to ship and import prison work." 
 
 Congressman Poole asked Mr. Wykert at this point if he could give him any posi- 
 tive information as to the goods being made in ])risons, and Mr. Wykert readily 
 furnished the Congressman with the sources of his information, it l)eing from the 
 large denlers in New York. Mr. Wykert, continuing, said that Avhen he was in New 
 York he learned tliat baskets without the handles were being shipped to New York 
 and classed as "nntinishetl goods." Where bnskets here are worth $4 a dozen, the 
 importers rejiresent tiieir baskets without the handles as being worth $2 a dozen. 
 The handles c:in be jiut on in New York for 3.") or 40 cents a dozen. 
 
 "liy ciilling goods we value at $1 worth only $2, because the handles are off, they 
 chfsat nsjust so much," said Congressnum Poole. 
 
 "Yes, sir. ' rejilied Mr. Wykert. "They are now making false statements as to 
 the prices and value of their goods. They have got goods down as low as $1.25 a 
 dozen, when they would sell in Syracuse for $2.75." 
 
 "Wouldn't it be better," asked the Congressman, "to make a uniform tax instead 
 of an ad valorem duty?" 
 
 " It should be according to the sizes. We make five sizes. Tlie imi)orters make 
 four sizes. The tax ought to be arranged according to the sizes imported." 
 
 Congressman Poole then asked how many persons were engaged in Liverpool and 
 vicinity in the basket industry. Tlie reply w;is that there were at least L'.">0 basket 
 makers in the villager of Liverpool, and to raise the willows and get them into the 
 market re((nired at least 300 more. ISesides, there are strippers and steamers, so that 
 diiectly and indirectly there are at times as high as 1,000 persons interested in the 
 business. 
 
 "Last year," said Mr. Wykert, " about 22,000 baskets were made, 11,000 more than 
 we need on account of. the'imported bakets. Hefore this Wilson bill was i)as8ed, we 
 used to make from 37.0U0 to 40,000 baskets a year." 
 
 Tht^ Congressman then a-ked the effect of the change on labor. 
 
 "Well," said Mr. Wykeit, '• where we made 40,000 baskets in 1^93 we only made 
 22,000 in 1894. and ll,oi)0 are still on hand. We u.sed to ]iay .$2.25 per dozen for mak- 
 ing l)a8kets. Today there is an nusettle<l ])rice, from $1 to $1..50 ])er dozen. We 
 have had to cut out wages in order to make baskets low enough to have any sales at 
 all. The man who used to buy his willows and work at home made his $3 a dozen on 
 baskets. At the present schedule the same man can not earn more than from $1 to 
 $1.:"0 a dozen." 
 
 Congressman Poole asked how much a man could earn a day as compared with the 
 old tariir. 
 
 "He can earn now about 75 cents a day where he used to earn $2.25 to $3," replied 
 Mr. Wykert. "And the basket maker's day is from twelve to lourteen and eighteen 
 hours. When we speak of a basket maker at work, we mean his whole family, for 
 from early morning until late at night you find them ail at work." 
 
 Valentine Hahn, president of the late association, was the next speaker. He 
 indorsed everything Mr. Wykert had said. "We sold year after year from 7,000 to 
 8,000 baskets in New York City," said he, "and 1 wouldlike to ask Mr. Wykert how 
 many baskets he has sold there this yearf " 
 
 Mr. Wykert replied that up to the 20th of September, when they held the price up 
 a little above the imjiorters' i)rice, they only sold 276 dozen as against 6,000 or 7,000. 
 Since they had droi>ped the price to tliat of the importers tliey had sold 900 dozen. 
 " Hut," said Mr. Wykert, "we are below the tarifi' price, which is ruinous to us." 
 
 "I told my men,'' said Mr. Bahn, "that I would rather see them starve without 
 work than starve with work. I don't see how the buyers can do any better. They 
 have got enough baskets on hand now for another year. If wo had the tariff back 
 to where it was before the Wilson bill we woulil be all right. Our people will have 
 to work for most nothing this winter. There is no getting out of it. We used to 
 sell a good many baskets in Boston. After the new taritf we didn't sell them any 
 baskets until we dropped to below the importers' price. Since then we have sold a
 
 OSIER OR WILLOW AND MANUFACTURES. 587 
 
 few. The tariff affects tliis town inoro than a good many people have any idoa of. 
 There wasn't a basket maker in the place tfint tlidn't work from tweh'e to fourteen 
 hours a day, rnd they were contented and satislicd. Now if the men make 75 cents 
 a day on the average they are going to do welL I certainly can't pay any more." 
 
 Mr. Wykert said it was not only Liverpool that was affected. Rochester, Sche- 
 nectady, and Buffalo were likewise interested. Congressman Poole replied that he 
 had already taken steps to secure the cooperation of the Representatives from those 
 districts. He then asked as to the ])opulatiou of Liverpool, and was told that while 
 it was over 1,400 in 1893 now it is only 1,200. " There are lifty empty houses in this 
 village," said one of those present. 
 
 "There are a good many more who would get away if they could get work some- 
 where," said Supervisor Baxter. "A number of the men have been to me to help 
 them get work in the soda ash and other places, and they would nearly all move 
 to-morrow if they could iind something to clo." 
 
 Jacob Scharer, who has lived in Liverpool forty-three years, indorsed what had 
 been said by Messrs. Wykert and Lahn. 
 
 Congressman Poole asked if any imjiorted baskets were sold in Syracuse, and was 
 informed that imported baskets, supposed to be made in the Russian prisons, shijiped 
 to Germany and thence here, were sold in a store on South Salina street, the name 
 of which was given. 
 
 Mr. Wykert said that for some years he had sold a firm in Cincinnati 800 dozen 
 baskets a year. Since the new tariff the firm had not bought one dozen of him. 
 They get the imported goods. 
 
 Mr. Wykert further said : "When we used to get for our baskets $5, $6, and $7 we 
 bought willows for $30 a ton. Now the price of baskets is $2.75, $3.25, and $3.50, 
 and Avillows are $25 a ton. Willows have been down as low as $10 a ton." 
 
 .loseph Kennedy said: " I have been a grower of willows for ten years, and dur- 
 ing that time the market value for willows had ranged from $15 to $25 a ton," with 
 the exception of three years, when they went as high as $30 and $40 a ton." George 
 Keith, another grower, said he agreed with this. 
 
 "The importers," said Mr. Wykert, "])ut their baskets through at New York by 
 wrong sizes. If it is a 'large' basket they bring it in as a 'medium;' if it is a 
 'medium' they bring it in as a 'small;' if it is a 'small' they bring it in as an 'extra 
 small.' In that way they get the value down. The sizes we make are 33, 31, 29, 27, 
 and 25 inches. The importers have dropped their sizes half an inch on each, so that 
 they can get them through falsely, and yet they sell to our dealers according to our 
 sizes; that is, for instance, they bring a basket in as a 'medium' and sell it as a 
 'large.' That makes a dollar difference in value at the custom-house." 
 
 A. H. Crawford said that before the Wilson bill was passed he steamed 2,500 tons 
 of willows. Last year he steamed only 500 tons. It was then stated that the pay 
 of steamers and 8ti'iit])ers had remained about the same, because they had horses; 
 but these men were making only a bare living, because they could not get enough 
 work to do. As high as $12 a ton had been paid for peeling willows, but this year 
 the ])ay is only $6. 
 
 "I (an tell youof twelve families in this town — good, industrious people — who three 
 years ago hud their homes paid for, or nearly so, and now they have had to mortgage 
 to live,'' said Mr. Wykert. "The mortgages run from $300 to $1,400." 
 
 Mr. Kennedy said that three years ago, under the McKinley law, the growers got 
 $40 per ton for willows. Last year, under the Wilson law, they sold for $10 to $16 a 
 ton. The sujjply three years ago, under the McKinley law, was greater than last 
 year under the Wilson bill. 
 
 Congressman Poole again said that he would do everything in his power to get the 
 tariff restored on willow baskets and willows, and the meetiug adjourned. 
 
 State of New York, Onondarja County, ss: 
 
 Harvey D. Burrill, of the city of Syracuse, N. Y., being duly sworn, deposes and 
 8a\s : That on the 15th day of Novenii)er, 1895, he attended a meeting of the growers 
 x»f willows and makers of willow baskets, held at the town hall in the village of 
 Liverpool, Onondaga County, N. Y. ; that at that time Representative T. L. Poole 
 was present, and to him said growers of willows and makers of willow baskets made 
 statements concerning the effect of the present tariff on the industry in which they 
 are engaged ; that deponent is a stenographer and newspaper reporter by profession, 
 and that he at that time made a stenographic verbatim report of the statements .at 
 that time made; that subsequently deponent prepared and published an article in 
 the Syracuse Journal of November 16, 1895, which is hereto annexed, and that the 
 quotations therein made Avere taken by deponent in shorthand and accurately tran- 
 scribed and published by him. 
 
 Harvey D. Burrill. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of December, 1895. 
 
 [SEAL.] • H. F. Stephens, City Clerk.
 
 588 SCHEDULE D. — WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 CHAESS. 
 
 (Paragraph 181.) 
 
 Kew York, December 30, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 We desire herewith to call your attention to the item of chairs, wood 
 or willow, wholly or partly finished, on which the duty under the present 
 tariff is 25 per cent ad valorem, and to request your committee to sub- 
 stitute in its place the following: "Chairs, Avood, willow, or rattan, 
 wholly or partly tinislied, fifty cents per chair/' 
 
 This, in our judgment, would furnish a reasonable amount of protec- 
 tion for our home manufacturers and could not be evaded by under- 
 valuation of the goods, which we feel confident has been the case in the 
 past. The competition to which we are sjjecially subjected comes from 
 Austrian manufacturers of bent wood cliairs, where these goods are 
 manufactured by very cheap help. We are ourselves large manufac- 
 turers of cliairs, our principal i)lace of business being in (iarduer, Mass., 
 and we employ in our ditferent factories about li,(K)(> peo])le. 
 
 There are several other manufacturers of bent wood chairs in this 
 country, and we feel that the substitution of a specific duty as above 
 stated would be a vast improvement over the present ad valorem rate 
 and at the same time furnish no jnore protection to our home manufac- 
 turers than they are justly entitled to receive. 
 
 ITevwood Bkos. & Co. 
 
 New York, -Januarii ;.\ 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I take the liberty of writing you to make a suggestion as to the rate 
 of duty on imported chairs and furniture, in the hope that the proposed 
 new tariff" bill may correct some of the errors of tlie ])resent bill. 
 
 The McKinley bill fixed the duty on furniture an<l chairs at 35 per 
 cent ad valorem, and made tlu' duty apply on cost of i)ackages as well 
 as on the goods imported. The Wilson bill reduced the duty to 2.1 per 
 cent ad valorem and ik) duty on packages. The result was that the 
 manufacture of "Vienna chairs" in this country has been i)ractically 
 wiped out of existence. The valuation of these chairs under the McKin- 
 ley bill for dutj^ was -SO ])cr dozen, or $3.15 per dozen duty. Under 
 the Wilson bill the value for duty is reduced to 85 per dozen, or $1.50 
 per dozen duty. Now, the wages paid in the factories in Austria, Rus- 
 sia, and Germany, where these chairs are made, are so much lower than 
 American Avages that the chairs can not be made in this country with- 
 out protection. 
 
 The member of our house who visited the Austrian factories found 
 the highest paid emi)loyee in these factories received the equivalent in 
 .our money of 21 cents per day, while the same grade of men in our fac- 
 tories here receive 82 a day. Tlie wages in loreign factories grade 
 down to 4 cents a day, while the average wages paid in our factories is 
 $1.04 a day, including boy helpers. 
 
 We import these chairs because we can buy them cheaper than we 
 can paj' American wages and make them here under present duties, but 
 uuich prefer giving emijloyment to Americans at xVmerican wages. 
 
 A. D. UOUSTON.
 
 BASKET WILLOW — BUNDLED KINDLING WOOD. 589 
 
 BASKET WLLLOW. 
 
 [Free list, paragraph 417.] 
 
 JJARRTOWN, Ohio, January 5, 1897. 
 Dear Sir: I cultivate basket willows, but tlie Wilson bill ruiued my 
 business. Under the McKinley bill we had an ad valorem duty ot 35 
 per cent on willows, and that was really too low, because there are 
 many thousands of acres of swamp land that could be reclaimed by 
 planting willows, which would give employment to tens of thousands 
 of laborers who are not competent to perform any other kind of labor. 
 By a little reflection you will see that it would be -a charitable act to 
 the poor, as well as to protect a legitimate industry. Willows should 
 be protected in the new tariff bill. 
 
 Peter Winson. 
 
 bu:n^dled kixdlixg wood. 
 
 (Free list, paragraph 673.) 
 
 New Yorfv, December 24, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Until within about a dozen years the common kindling wood used in 
 the household Avas "cord wood," or "forest wood," cut in lengths of 4 
 feet and chopped by the consumer at home into suitable size for use. 
 This wood was also used very largely as fuel instead of coal. But as 
 coal was more and more being substituted for wood fuel in cities and 
 large towns, the idea was conceived that the immense amount of slabs 
 and edgings coming from the manufacture of lumber, and which was 
 not only an absolute waste but a large item of expense to every lumber 
 manufacturer, as there was no way to get rid of the stuff except to 
 throw it into some stream or burn it, could be made available for domes- 
 tic use as a kindler of coal fires. 
 
 But to turn a useless bulky material into a couv^enient article of daily 
 domestic use, in merchantable form that would stand transportation by 
 rail, delivery from cars to stores by teams, and retailed by storekeepers 
 to the consumer, needed the invention of dry kilns, special machinery 
 of many kinds, and the employment of many people. This was all done, 
 and to-day there has been built up a large manufacturing industry with 
 an invested capital in this country of perhaps $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 
 and employing and supporting several thousand people. 
 
 The large demand thus created for these waste slabs, which at one 
 time the lumbermen would gladly have given away free of cost to any- 
 one removing them, has now made them very valuable wherever availa- 
 ble for use in this industry. This has led the lumbermen in Canada to 
 want to make use of their waste slabs in the same way, and during the 
 past two or three years kindling wood factories have been built in 
 Canada and others are contemplated. 
 
 Naturally they look for a market where there is a demand for the 
 output and they depend on markets in the United States to sell their 
 product. This they can do, as they can undersell the home manufac- 
 turer on account of their cheaper material, cheaper labor, and free 
 import entry of goods. This Canadian competition has become so active
 
 590 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 and strong in the past two years that it has forced the liome manufac- 
 turers to greatly reduce their output, as we have been unable to com- 
 pete with their low prices even after making large reductions in wages. 
 We know of three factories in the State of Maine that were shut down 
 last year. We think it is time our Government gave this industry pro- 
 tection against the competition from Canada. 
 
 We estimate that there was paid out last year, by this industry, in 
 this country over $2,000,000 for raw material, labor, railroad freights, 
 sisal yarns, etc., and that about one-half of this amount was for labor, 
 about one-quarter for the raw stock— a large part of this was for labor 
 on same — and about one-quarter for freights, yarns, etc. 
 
 Unless there is a jirotective duty put on these goods we will either 
 have to reduce wages and other expenses, move our factories into 
 Canada, or lose a large part of the business to the Canadians. We 
 have been told that if we would go into Canada we could have slabs 
 free of cost, receive help from towns, etc., to get the industry. The cost 
 to manufacture and deliver in the markets in this country and i)ay fair 
 wages is about $1 per hundred bundles. The Canadian wood we know 
 is sold delivered on the market as low as 70 cents per hundred bundles. 
 We assume this leaves them some profit. We therefore think there 
 should be a specific duty of at least 30 cents per hnndred bundles, or 
 an advalorem duty of 40 per cent levied on' their goods, basing their 
 cost at say from GO cents to 70 cents per hundred bundles. 
 
 The first and only effort for relief ever made that we are aware of 
 was in May, 1893, when we took the matter u]) with the Treasury 
 Department, through the Hon. J. H. Crahani, Member of Congress 
 from the Fifth district of Kew York, when we were confronted by a 
 ruling, dated April 0, 1887 (S. 8171), made by Collector of Customs at 
 Kochester, N. Y., based on the act of March 3, 1883, treating bundled 
 kiln-dried kindling wood as ordinary firewood. 
 
 We claim that the intent of the framers of these tariffs was to cover 
 "cord wood" or "forest wood" in the rough or crude state, and had 
 they known of this industry of manufacturing this rough stock by 
 means of steam dry kilns, improved sawing machines, and patented 
 power i)ressing nuichines, thereby manufacttiring a new kindler, they 
 would withont donbt have i»rotected this industry. 
 
 J. W. Ulaisdell, 
 Of the Standard Wood Company, 
 
 • TEiLEGRAPPI AXD TELEPHONE POLES. 
 
 (I'ree list, jmninrapbs (;72 and 673.) 
 
 Oswego, X. Y., January .5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I beg leave to present for your consideration the following statement 
 relative to the lumber schedule in the prospective revenue or tariff" bill 
 which you are now considering. The tariff' law of 1883 placed tele- 
 graph and telephone poles upon the free list. The tariff law passed 
 in 181)0 placed telegraph and telephone poles upon the dutiable list 
 (see paragraph 219, duty 20 per cent). The law of 1894: placed tele- 
 graph and telephone poles upon the free list (see ])aragraph 672). 
 
 The subscriber fully realizes the fact, and recognizes the necessity oi 
 the Government increasing its revenue and incidentally fostering and
 
 TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE POLES, 591 
 
 protecting its home people, and I believe your honorable committee 
 desires any and all information tbey may be able to receive which will 
 tend to assist them in framing a bill that will increase the revenue of 
 our Government under lines that will be beneficial to our whole people. 
 
 It is with this object in view that I have referred to paragraph 219 
 of the tariff law of 1890 and paragraph G72 of the tariff schedule of 
 1894. 
 
 Having had many years experience handling telegraph and telephone 
 poles, both of domestic and foreign growth, and having been actively 
 engaged in that business during the enforcement of the tariff law of 
 1883, when poles were on the free list, also during tbe life of the law 
 of June, 1890, when they were dutiable, up to the preseut time under 
 the law of 1894, which admits of their free entry, 1 feel that I am quali- 
 fied to speak intelligently upon this particular portion of the lumber 
 schedule. Hence it is 1 desire to furnish you with my views and opin- 
 ions, which are substautially the views entertained and opinions held 
 by the lumbermen and corporations with which I have had extensive 
 business relations for many years. 
 
 I am fully satisfied that the interests of our country would be best 
 subserved by the placing of telegrai)h and telephone poles upon the 
 free list in your prospective tariff" schedule. 
 
 My reasons for tbis statement and request are as follows: That the 
 importation of telegraph and telephone poles does not in the least con- 
 flict with the growth of our domestic forests; an abundant market 
 under the tariff laws of 1883, 1890, and 1894 has always been found for 
 poles cut from our home forests; that their free importation does not 
 nor will not embarrass or conflict with the business interests of our 
 home people, but will furnish a production of which our ever-increasing 
 consumption makes a necessity. 
 
 As is generally known, the cedar forests of Michigan and Wisconsin 
 are almost devastated, it being almost impossible to procure any long 
 telegraph or telephone poles, while there is but a limited supply of the 
 short ones now standing. The placing of poles on the free list would be 
 a protection to our home timber lands and forests, which I am grieved 
 to say are fast disap])earing by the onward advance of civilization. 
 The business of handling poles and logs, as carried on between our 
 home people and Canadian neighbors, should bo continued as recipro- 
 cal, as it is at present. The larger portion of Canadian timber limits 
 are held by citizens and residents of the United States, many of them 
 controlling thousands of acres of our domestic forests. Hence it is, no 
 conflict of business interests can arise by the free admission of logs 
 and poles. 
 
 To place an import duty on logs or poles would practically invite an 
 export duty from our Canadian friends, which would seriously affect 
 the continued importation of thousands upon thousands of logs which 
 are every year received by ns in the rough and prepared for the market 
 in our domestic mills. 
 
 As your committee is aware, a retaliatory measure of this kind could 
 be adopted by the Canadians in a few brief hours, their privy council, 
 independent of Parliament, having the power to convene at any time 
 and make changes in their tariff" schedule of this character. In view 
 of all those facts and conditions, I am of the firm belief that the inter- 
 ests of the people and Government would bo best subserved by the 
 continuation of poles and logs upon the free list in your prospective 
 tariff" schedule. 
 
 H. D. McCaffrey.
 
 592 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 COOPERAGE STOCK. 
 
 (Paragraph 683.) 
 
 Sandusky, Ohio, December 29^ 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 In behalf of the lumber and coopeiaj^c manufacturing industry, we 
 respectfully submit the following: 
 
 There are no less than 100,000,000 barrel staves shipi)ed from Canada 
 to the United States each year, and these staves are for the cooper to 
 set u\) into barrels. We should sugg(\st that, in view of these Cana- 
 dians getting our money and taking it out of our country there be a 
 specific duty of 50 cents per net thousand imposed on all slack, cut or 
 sawed, barrel staves imported into the United States; also a specific 
 duty of 75 cents i)er net thousand on coiled or uncoiled barrel hoops; 
 also a specific duty of 1 cent per set on planed, jointed, and circled bar- 
 rel heading that are 20 inches and under in diameter, and 2 cents per 
 set on all heading finished as above larger than 20 inches, and one half 
 the above i)rice if heading boards are shipjied in the square. 
 
 On lumber we believe to lestore the ."NIcIvinley bill would be a just 
 and satisfactory duty. This duty would not be prohibitive, but would 
 give the Government a large amount of revenue. 
 
 The Sandusky Cooperage and Lumber Co., 
 O. ScHiMANSKY. Manager. 
 
 Toledo, Ohio, December 28, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 While your committee is considering a new tariff bill, I would call 
 their attention to Schedule I) of the tariff law of 1890. Said law put 
 lumber on the dutiaUle list at $2 per thousand feet, staves at 10 per 
 cent, all other wood i)roducts not mentioned in said schedule at 35 per 
 cent, which placed heading and hoops at 35 per cent. I do not under 
 stand why such a vast difference was made on cooperage stock, as the 
 cost of producing either sta^■es, hoops, or heading in carload lots is 
 about the same. The duty sliould be the same or at the same rate. 
 The tariff law of 1800 on said Schedule D should be restored, and 
 staves, heading, and hoops ))e ])laced at not less than 20 to 35 per cent 
 ad valorem. The Wilson bill placed staves on the free list, which placed 
 the manufacturers of staves at a great disadvantage to cope with 
 Canada in our home markets. 
 
 The annual output of my mills is 0,000,000 staves and 400,000 sets of 
 heading. 
 
 J. ]Sr. Soncbant. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 9, 1897. 
 
 CO^IMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 The writer was selected by the manufacturers of slack barrel cooper- 
 age in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan to come to you and asls for the 
 restoration of a 10 per cent ad valorem duty on " staves of all kinds." 
 The importation of staves from Canada since the Wilson bill became 
 operative has so flooded our markets with this product that with the 
 price for timber and labor we are obliged to pay it is impossible with
 
 BRIER ROOT. 593 
 
 the closest management to obtain anything but unsatisfactory finan- 
 cial results. 
 
 As our timber grew scarce we had a right to expect that staves would 
 appreciate in value, but the contrary has been the case, and the facts 
 are that staves depreciated in value as much or more than the 10 per 
 cent taken off by the Wilson bill. 
 
 The outlook has been so unfavorable that many of us have endeavored 
 to get out of this business, but stave property could be sold for little 
 or nothing, and we Lave waited a long time for a change for tlie better. 
 
 Canada has the advantage of us in timber, labor, and freights. Were 
 it deemed necessary we could go to great length, giving good reasons 
 for what we ask. The woods are full of them, but will close by giving 
 as one reason: We are American citizens, and claim that our interests 
 are entitled to first consideration. 
 
 Fitch Dewey. 
 
 Brooklyn, X. Y., January 8, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are deeply interested in that portion of the tariff which relates to 
 staves. We earnestly hope that your committee do not have it in mind 
 to reimpose a duty on staves. The claim that they are a manufactured 
 article is not true, as they are oidy roughly cut from original timber and 
 before they become fit to enter into consumption tbey have to undergo 
 treatment here at considerable expense before the staves are in proper 
 condition to be used to make barrels, which affords work to our factories 
 here and disburses money among our home labor. With staves con- 
 tinued on the free list, where they have been for a long time, also affords 
 protection to our own forests, because the quantity coming into the 
 country takes the place of native wood which would go to make the 
 staves. 
 
 Paul Weidman. 
 
 BRIER ROOT. 
 
 (Free list, paragraph 684.) 
 
 Beatyestown, N. J., December 19, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Permit me to call your attention to the fact that large quantities of 
 laurel root, commercially known as brier root, and used in the man- 
 ufacture of pipes, are imported from Italy, sawed in shape, free of 
 duty. This same kind of root grows in large quantities in the moun- 
 tains from Pennsylvania to Georgia. In the South it is known as ivy, 
 in the IS'orth as laurel. The importation of this root began in large 
 quantities about four years ago, and now the imports amount to about 
 $150,000 annually, so there was not $100 worth of domestic roots sold 
 in the last year. 
 
 As my business for the last twenty-three years has been the furnish- 
 ing of raw material for the manufacture of pipes, and we have the raw 
 material here, but can not compete with the cheap labor of Italy, I 
 would therefore respectfully petition and urge your honorable body to 
 impose a duty of at least 50 per cent on roots and 75 per cent on roots 
 sawed in blocks or slabs. This may seem high, but it will only add 
 one-half or three-fourths of a cent to each pipe. 
 
 L. T. La Bar. 
 T H 38
 
 594 SCHEDULE D. WOOD AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 FRUIT-BOX SHOCKS. 
 
 Bangor, 3Ie., December 26, ISOG. 
 
 Dear Sir: According to tlic present tariff fruit boxes wholly of 
 American nmnafacture and i)rodiiction are admitted into this country 
 free, while boxes containing American thin wood, viz, the to]), bottom, 
 and two sides (the two ends and middle ])iece being of foreign growth 
 aud manufacture), are taxed 15 per cent ad valorem, or for the standard- 
 size box, made by the Maine manufacturers, 2;^ cents, while boxes of 
 foreign i)roduction and manufacture are taxed 30 per cent, which for 
 the standard size box amounts to 4^ cents. The duty on fruit is 8 
 cents per cubic foot cai)acity. As the standard-size box made by ]\Iaine 
 manufacturers is estimated at 2i cubic feet, the duty on the fruit in 
 such size boxes is 20 cents per box. The McKiuley bill called for 10 
 cents duty per cubic foot capacity, or 25 cents for the fruit in a stand- 
 ard-size box (of 2A cubic feet), while the duty on boxes of foreign manu- 
 facture was, we believe, as it is to-day, 30 per cent, which for a standard- 
 size box is 4i cents. As you are aware, for thei)ast 25 years we have 
 worked constantly trying to build uj) a trade with foreign fruit-produc- 
 ing countries to use the JMaine standard-size box. AVe have succeeded 
 well iu lindiug customers for these boxes, as during the past season 
 there were exjjorted from this State to Italy material for 4,500,000 fruit 
 boxes, but at the present time this business is secured only by selling 
 the material at its actual cost on account of sharp competition with 
 Austria, which country being much nearer Italy, combined with cheap 
 labor, enables them to deliver shooks in Italy at a less cost to the ])ur- 
 chaserthan the manufacturers in this State are able to do. Now, going 
 on the supposition that Austrian shooks are equal in every resjject to 
 those manufactured in this State, there is really noreason why the pur- 
 chasers in Italy should give American shooks the preference, as the 
 small amount which would be saved them in duty by using shooks of 
 Americjin manufacture is m<n-e than oftset by theiutercst on the money 
 invested, as they can buy and have shipped to them small quantities 
 of Austrian shooks as needed by them, while Irom this country they 
 must ])urchase in cargo lots. 
 
 Only a short time ago our attention was called to the fact that the 
 chamber of commerce a't Catania, Sicily, had levied a duty of 1 percent 
 on all shooks imported into Catania from the United States. We at 
 once called the attention of the Secretary of State at AVashingtoii to 
 this, and he informed us that sucli a duty Mas in direct violation of the 
 treaty of 1871, and that he had instructed the United States embassa- 
 dor to Home to investigate tlie matter and take appropriate action 
 should the facts be verified. 
 
 There has never been, to our knowledge, any fruit-box shook material 
 exported from this country into Spain, which country ])ioduces annu- 
 ally about seven million boxes of fruit. Our desire is to have the new 
 taritf bill make such discrimination between Iruit boxes, barrels, etc., 
 of American growth, production, and manufacture and those of for- 
 eign growth, pioduction, and manufacture so that it will be for the 
 interest of all foreign fruit i)roducers to iiurchase and use boxes of 
 American manufacture (this Avill ai)ply to Italy, Spain, Mexico, and 
 the AVest Indies). 
 
 We furnish these conntiies a market for their productions. Why 
 should they not, in return, when it is in their power, furnish us with a 
 market for ours l The past has shown that they are not anxious to do
 
 FRUIT-BOX SHOOKS. 595 
 
 this, and we are now, therefore, obliged to ask for a tariff, which will, 
 in a way, oblige them to do so. We do not ask for such a high tariff 
 as will enable the manufacturers of this State to charge exorbitant 
 prices. All we ask is a chance for them to make a living profit, which 
 they have not been able to do for a number of years past. We do not 
 think that a duty of 10 cents per cubic foot capacity on boxes of foreign 
 growth, production, and manufacture is excessive, and we, in the inter- 
 est of the manufacturers of this State, request that you use your 
 utmost endeavors in their behalf; at the same time allowing boxes 
 wholly of American growth, production, and manufacture to be ad- 
 mitted free of duty, and boxes of American thin wood, viz, the top, 
 bottom, and two sides (ends and middle pieces of foreign growth, pro- 
 duction, and manufacture), to be assessed a duty of 5 cents per cubic 
 foot capacity. Are we asking for anything more than reciprocity? 
 
 T. J. Stewart & Co.
 
 SCHEDULE E. 
 
 SUGAR. 
 
 OO*!
 
 Schedule E.-SUaAE. 
 
 (Paragraphs 182, 182.V, and 183.) 
 
 IMPORTERS OF SUGAR. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN FARR, OF NEW YORK, N. Y., REPRE- 
 SENTING THE IMPORTERS. 
 
 Wednesday, JJeoember 30, 1S9G. 
 Mr. Farr said: In behalf of the sugar trade of i^ew York I will 
 submit the following prepared statement: 
 
 Committee on Ways axd Means: 
 
 At a meeting of the sugar trade, held in New York on the 21 st instant, it was nnani 
 monsly decided that an ad vaioreiu duty is unfair, unreliable, and exceedingly 
 difficult in practice, and has led to ninch trouble and dissatisfaction in its administnx- 
 lion. For this reason the nudersigucd committee was appointed to appear before 
 you and respectfully urge a change from an ad valorem to a specific duty. After 
 very careful consideration of all the dirt'erent graduated schedules, wo recommend the 
 following as being the nearest to an ad valorem basis in its working and represent- 
 ing fairly all interests: 
 
 On all sugars testing by the polariscope, when landed, 75^ or under, 1 cent per 
 pound on net landed weight, a<lding yj^fx t'ent per degree for each degree uj) to 100"^, 
 fractions of fi degree to be assessed in proportion. 
 
 The committeo also recommends an additional duty on sugars above No. 16 Dutch 
 standard in color, to prevent the foreign retiners from entering their soft reiiued 
 sugars here at the same rate of duty as raw sugars of the same test. 
 
 We recommend an additional discriminating duty on all sugars coming from bounty- 
 paying countries, with authority to the Executive to reduce or increase this addi- 
 tional duty in such proportion as the bounty-paying countries may from time to time 
 raise or lower their bounties. 
 
 We estimate that the average polarization of raw sugars imported into this coun- 
 try is about 92^, and according to the schedule below, sugars of 92^ would pay $1.51 
 per 100 ])ound3 duty, which would produce an annual revenue on this article of about 
 $50,000,000, calculating on importations of about 1,500,000 tons of dutiable sugar, 
 which has been the average of the jiast few years. 
 
 SCHEDULE. 
 
 On all sugars testing — 
 
 75 degrees or under per lb.. 
 
 76 degrees . . ." do 
 
 77 degrees do 
 
 78 degrees do 
 
 79 degrees do 
 
 80 degrees do 
 
 81 degrees do 
 
 82 degrees do 
 
 83 degrees do 
 
 84 degrees do 
 
 85 degrees do 
 
 86 degrees do 
 
 87 degrees do 
 
 Cents. 
 1 
 
 1.03 
 1.06 
 1.09 
 1.12 
 1.15 
 1.18 
 1.21 
 1.24 
 1.27 
 1.30 
 1.33 
 1.36 
 
 On all sugars testing — Cents. 
 
 88 degrees per lb . . 1 . 39 
 
 89 degrees do 1. 42 
 
 90 degrees do 1 . 45 
 
 91 degrees do 1.48 
 
 92 degrees do 1.51 
 
 93 degrees do 1 . 54 
 
 94 degrees do 1 . 57 
 
 95 degrees do 1 . 60 
 
 96 degrees do 1. 63 
 
 97 degrees do 1. 66 
 
 98 degrees do 1. 69 
 
 99 degrees do 1 . 72 
 
 100 degrees do 1. 75 
 
 Solon Humphreys, 
 Pierre J. Smith, 
 John Farr, 
 Wm. H. Lefferts, 
 Chas. p. Armstrong, 
 Commitlce of Siir/ar Trade. 
 599
 
 600 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 Mr. Fae,ii. I have some samples here in that connection which I 
 would like to submit to the committee. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you recommend any particular differential? 
 
 Mr. Faiir. Ko; we only recommend a sufficient one to protect us. 
 
 The Chairman. What is a sufficient one, in your judgment? 
 
 Mr. Farr. From the standpoint of the importers 1 should say one- 
 fourth of a cent was necessary. We have liere, for instance, sugars of 
 the same test showing that the element of color is as important m one 
 respect as the element of value. This white sugar tests lower than the 
 black sugar, but it would be impossible for the raw, dark sugar to come 
 up against those sugars and pay the same duty, as the tendency of the 
 white grades is to drive out the lower and also to drive out the retiniug 
 interests, of course. 
 
 The Chairman. You provide simply for the polariscope test! 
 
 Mr. Farr. And additional duties on sugar from 1(P sufficient to 
 prevent the importation of these low-test white sugars. 
 
 The Chairman. You think the color test should be provided also? 
 
 Mr. Farr. It is absolutely necessary, because these sugars have the 
 same saccharine test exactly. That grade of sugar tests tiie same as 
 that [illustrating], and that sami»le could be sold to the consumer with- 
 out refining, and tliis, of course, has to be relined so that the color is as 
 an important tactor up to a certain point as a polariscojie test. Here 
 are a number of samples of refined sugars and soft sngare retined abroad. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You say that the white sami>le has not beeji refined? 
 
 Mr. Farr. It has been refined abroad, but it is probably Sl)^ or 90°, 
 so you can see it is important to the imi)orters that the color element 
 shall be taken into consideration as well as tlie polariscope test. 
 
 The Chairman. AVhat do you say the polariscope test has been on 
 the average? 
 
 Mr. Farr. Ninety-two, and the duty on that would make an average 
 of 1.51. We figured out tliat schedule very carefully, and we think that 
 is the fairest schedule that could be gotten up. 
 
 The Chairman. Are undervaluations fre(juent under the ad valorem 
 system ? 
 
 Mr. Farr. No, sir; there is no possibility of it, but we find the 
 sugars pay more duty than the law calls for, owing 1o the system of 
 appraisement in New York. They figure out tlie valuation in New 
 York and are very liberal all through. There are a number of coun- 
 tries where it is difficult to get at the actnal value — Trinidad, Cuba, a 
 portion of the West Indies, ct(;. — and to get at the value of it, they take 
 the Kew York i)riec and take off 1.40, and they make up the duty on 
 that price, ignoring all nondutiable charges which enter into the New 
 York i)rice. 
 
 The Chairman. How does the London price compare with the New 
 York price without reference to duty? 
 
 Mr. Farr. The Lcmdon price of cane sugar is so well hardly any 
 
 goes there, and 1 do not tliink that London will pay as much for cane 
 sugar as Americans will. 
 
 Tlie Chairman. What do you say as to the statement that has been 
 furnished to the committee by Mr. Henry A. P.rown, of Massachusetts, 
 who is a soit of an expert in sugar, giving the valuation of sugar 
 . invoices for the fiscal year 1893 imported into this country, and the 
 value of the same sugar in the London markets, showing an average 
 undervaluation of three-tenths of a cent per pound; what would you 
 say as to that statement? 
 
 Mr. Farr. 1 should say there is no truth in it, from my knowledge 
 of the subject.
 
 IMPORTERS OF SUGAR. 601 
 
 The Chairman. Here are the statistics by Mr. Brown, in which he 
 purports to give the invoice value of sugar at the New Yoik custom 
 house, of various grades, and the market vahie at the same time of 
 the sugar of the same saccharine strength in London, where he pro- 
 fesses to reach the conclusion that there is three-tenths of a cent 
 undervaluation. 
 
 Mr. Farr. I should say that is purely theoretical. I do not think it 
 is jiossible for anybody to undervalue sugars under the present basis 
 of assessing duties. The sugars are polarized when they are sent to 
 the custom-house before the importers are allowed to test them at all, 
 and they pay a duty on the polarization on the net amount of weight 
 ascertained by the custom-house weighers, so there is no room and no 
 object of defrauding the Government under those conditions. It would 
 be too dangerous lor anybody to want to do it, and I do not think 
 there is any truth in the suggestion of Mr. l>rown at all. I do not 
 think there is any article in which there is less disposition to defraud 
 than that, and 1 will say in regard to this that in coming before you, 
 we have no interest whatever in getting an advance of duties or a low- 
 ering of duties or anything else in connection with the schedules. AVe 
 simply wish to ask that the duties be raised in such a way that we 
 may know what we are going to pay, and have the schedule fair enough 
 as not to discriminate against any grade, whether coming from the 
 Philippines, Java, Europe, or anywhere else. 
 
 The Chairman. This committee will furnish your committee with 
 the statement made by Mr. Brown of the market value in London of 
 each degree and test, etc., and would like to have you make an answer 
 to it. 
 
 Mr. Farr. Yes, sir; I would like to say that the London market for 
 cane sugar three years ago is not a representative of the value at alK 
 
 The Chairman. This is the last fiscal year, ending June 30, 1890, 
 and the prices are given by Mr. Brown in the London market? 
 
 Mr. Farr. I do not think the London market for cane sugar is a 
 representative market at all, sir. It is a purely nominal market for 
 cane sugar. There are very few refineries left there, as they have been 
 driven away by German competition, and I should say 95 per cent of 
 the cane sugars is bought in the producing countries. The Cuban 
 crop is sold locally, the Demerara is sold locally, occasionally some goes 
 to England, but very rarelj'', and it is only when London is willing to pay 
 a higher price that they get any cane sugar at all, because the charges 
 in London are excessive, and there are no men there to whom to consign 
 cane sugar for sale, owing to the limited market there, but I do not 
 think Mr. Brown's figures are really reliable in that respect. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is not the American Su ^ar Ketining Company the largest 
 customer of raw sugars in the world i 
 
 Mr. Farr. Yes, sir; they are the largest buyers. 
 
 Mr. Payne. They are the largest customers, the largest buyers? 
 
 Mr. Farr. Yes sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. From that fact are they not able to buy cheapen than 
 any other customer can buy anywhere"? 
 
 Mr. Farr. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You think the large quantities they buy will not make 
 any difference in the price? 
 
 Mr. Farr. Not a particle. I speak from knowledge, because I sell 
 those sugars; but we have 20 per cent of the refining interests of this 
 country which are not owned by the American Sugar Befiniiig Com- 
 pany. When we have a cargo of sugar to sell we offer it to the American
 
 602 SCHEDULE F. StfGAR. 
 
 Sugar Eefining Companyj and unless they pay as much as other i^eople 
 pay they do not get it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You sell to both the American Sugar Eefining Company 
 and to other refineries? 
 
 Mr. Fare. Yes, sir ; to all of them. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Of course, what you sell you sell at the same price; but 
 do they not go into other countries and buy sugars on their own 
 account? 
 
 Mr. Fare. I may mention my own business, which is selling Deme- 
 rara sugars and other West Indies sugars for shipment, and we sell on 
 account of tbe producer 
 
 Mr. Payne. Aside from that, do they not go into these countries, 
 send their own agents there? 
 
 Mr. Faee. I think there is only one agent in London, Mr. Newhall, 
 who buys beet sugars all over Europe, but in other parts of the world 
 they buy through the commercial houses, as anybody else, aiul tbey pay 
 the market price. They have no advantage except they are an immense 
 j)ower which any large custom would give them, of being able to buy 
 sometimes when nobody else is in the market, and get it sometimes at 
 a low price. Of course, they have got the money and can handle a 
 large quantity. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And in that way they are able to buy cheaply? 
 
 Mr. Faee. At times, certainly, like anj^body else, but I do not think 
 that the fact they are the American Sugar Retining Company gives 
 them much advantage over other corporations. 
 
 Mr. Payne. But being the largest buyers they have tliat much ? 
 
 Mr. Faee. I imagine they have tended to reduce the prices on all 
 sugars all over the world by having such an immense power. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is the amount of the differential on sugars between 
 the refined and those below No. IG, under the present law? 
 
 Mr. Faee. One-eighth of a cent. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What w\is the 40 per cent upon ? 
 
 Mr. Faee. They get also an indirect differential from the fact that 
 the f. o. b. price of German sugar is a shilling higher than the refined 
 beet sugar, and 40 i)er cent on that beet sugar gives another rate. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is the foreign value of the average raw sugar of 
 the 91° test? 
 
 Mr. Faee. The average foreign value as compared with the granu- 
 lated sugar? 
 
 Mr. Payne. What has been the average foreign value of the last six 
 months of the 91° sugar under the 10 test? 
 
 Mr. Fare. I should say 2 cents a pound in bond. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is the average foreign price of the refined foreign 
 sugars above 16 for the last month? 
 
 Mr. Faee. I should say 2| to 2f cents. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Then the additional duty is 40 and 3 per cent? 
 
 Mr. Faee. No, sir; you want to figure it at 96 for centrifugal sugars. 
 
 Mr. J*AYNE. But is the sugar bought there at 91 the average sugar 
 bought for the market? 
 
 Mr. Faee. That is the average test of the imported sugars, but all 
 the values of these sugars are always figured upon the standard of 96 
 test centrifugal, which is the standard of the raw-sugar test in the 
 world at the present time, and you have to take the value of that sugar 
 to ascertain accurately. 
 
 Mr. Payne. But the avernge they buy is the 91 test? 
 
 Mr. Farr. But they buy it on the basis of the 96 test.
 
 IMPORTERS OF SUGAR. 603 
 
 Mr. Payne. On the refined sugars above No. IG, what is the lowest 
 price for a fair quality? 
 
 Mr. Faer. I would like to have you ask that question over again, 
 because it is a little difficult to answer. 
 
 Mr. Payne. On refined sugars above No. IG, what is the lowest price 
 for a fiiir quality'? 
 
 Mr. Farr. They run down, some of them, a quarter to three-eighths 
 of a cent below the value of refined sugars. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And now up to what price? 
 
 Mr. Fare. Up to five eighths of a cent a pound for granulated to 
 three fourths of a cent above the price for 9G test centrifugal. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That is the extreme? 
 
 Mr. Fare. Tlie average difference the last eight years has been about 
 95 cents a hundred pounds for granulated sugar and for 9G test sugars. 
 At the i)resent the difference is not so nuich as that. Before the com- 
 mencement of the American Sugar Refinery Company the average dif- 
 ference was $1,()G. Since they have been formed it is aboiTt 95 cents. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Of sugar of 9Go, how many ])ounds of refined sugar will 
 100 j)<)unds of 90° produce, or put it in the other form, how majiy pounds 
 of 9GO sugar does it require to make 100 pounds of refined sngar? 
 
 Mr. Farr. It depends a great deal upon theefficiency of the refinery. 
 
 Mr. Payne. We will say, then, under the best conditions as to the 
 refinery? 
 
 Mr. Farr. I should think that 100 liounds of 9G test sugar would 
 turn out about 92 ])ounds of refined sugar. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That is the best result that can be obtained by the best 
 machinery? 
 
 Mr. Fare. To my knowledge. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Are you an expert refiner? 
 
 Mr. Farr. I have been through refineries, but have not had the 
 figures shown me. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Then it is problematical? 
 
 Mr. Farr. No; but I have heard a good deal of talk. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I was simply trying to get a definite opinion. 
 
 Mr. Farr. Tliere is a certain amount of dirt and water, and I should 
 say they made about 83 pounds of grannlated sugar and 7 or 8 pounds 
 of lower sugars out of 100 pounds of the raw. 
 
 Mr. Payne. On what do you base the estimate of a qnarter of a cent 
 differential duty? 
 
 Mr. Farr. From the fact that soft sugars testing 89, with a white 
 color, would have the advantage in this market to consumers over 
 refined sugars testing the same thing but of such color that would not 
 be of any use to the consumer. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That is the only fact on which you base it? 
 • Mr. Farr. That is an important fact. 
 
 Mr. Payne. But that is the only fact; I am not asking you about 
 the importance. 
 
 Mr. Farr. That is the only fact from our standpoint. Of course the 
 refiners also know they can not compete against the white sugars when 
 they only pay the same duties as sugars which had to be refined to 
 bring that color to them. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What you are basing it upon is to shut out the centrif- 
 ugal sugars or jilace them on an equality with refined sugars? 
 
 Mr. Fare. It would tend to shut out all refined grades of sugar, 
 and bring in all soft grades of sugar refined abroad. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And you think a quarter of a cent would enable them 
 to comi)ete? '
 
 604 SCHEDULE E. — SUGAR. 
 
 Mr. Farr. These soft white sugars; yes, sir; I think it would. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That is what you base your estimate on ? 
 
 Mr. Farr. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I did not get your answer you gave to Mr. Payne's 
 question as to how much more than the nominal one-eighth differential 
 the importers really get on the imported sugars? 
 
 Mr. Farr. You mean the importers or retiners get? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. The refiners get. 
 
 Mr. Fare. They get the duty of 40 per cent and the differential 
 f. o. b. of the value between the refined sugar abroad and raw sugars. 
 You see the refined sugar of Germany is worth a shilling more than 
 the raw beet sugar and they get that incidental ])rotection naturally. 
 
 The Chairman. The differential in the present tariff is three-tenths 
 of a cent, so it is three-tenths plus one eighth"? 
 
 Mr. Farr. Yes, sir; about that. The -10 per cent on a quarter of a 
 cent would be two-tenths altogether. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you mean to say it is only one tenth ? I under- 
 stood you to say one was 2 and the other 2.75. 
 
 Mr. Farr. The differential f. o. b. of German sugar is about a shilling 
 and 
 
 The Chairman. Then the differential 
 
 Mr. Farr. There is a duty of 40 per cent, and then this extra duty 
 of an eighth and the one-tenth of a cent on bounty-paying sugars. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Then you want another differential duty 
 
 Mr. Farr. There is a difference in the market v^lue 
 
 Mr. Payne. You say it is a shilling? 
 
 Mr. Farr. That is the present differential. It may be 2 shillings. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And 40 per cent on that would be one-tenth of a cent 
 per pound, and one-tenth and one-eighth is the entire differential duty 
 now? 
 
 Mr. Farr. That is about it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And there are very few refined sugars imported? 
 
 Mr. Farr. A great deal more than we have ever had before. 
 
 Mr. Payne. IIow large a (juantity? 
 
 Mr. Farr. About 05,000 tons this year, about three times as much 
 as ever before. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How much in value? 
 
 Mr. Farr. That would be about $6,500,000. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Of refined sugars? 
 
 Mr. Farr. Yes, that is the largest quantity ever imported into this 
 country. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Will you state about the aggregate importations from 
 the West Indian Islands last year? 
 
 Mr. Farr. Yes, sir; I should say they amounted to in round num- 
 bers from 400,000 to 500,000 tons. Owing to the failure of the Cuban 
 crop we only got about 250,000 tons from there. 
 
 Mr. Evans. How about the Philippines? 
 
 Mr. Farr. The Philippine and Java sugars were imjiorted to the 
 extent of about 300,000 or 400,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I mean in the aggregate how much of these were from 
 the Philippines and Java? 
 
 Mr. Farr. From those two places I should think about 400,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. Evans. How much of raw beet sugar do we import? 
 
 Mr. Farr. About 500,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. Evans. And how much of refined? 
 
 Mr. Farr. About 65,000 tons.
 
 IMPORTERS OF SUGAR. 605 
 
 The Chairman. You mean the last fiscal year! 
 
 Mr. Farr. This current year! 
 
 The Chairman. The calendar year"? 
 
 Mr. Farr. The calendar year. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you know what refined sugar came from Germany 
 this year ? Do we not import refined sugar from any other country 
 than Germany'? 
 
 Mr. Farr. Yes, sir; Dutch and French refined sugar. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Of any quantity? 
 
 Mr. Farr. Not an important quantity. It is mostly German. They 
 do not refine with bone black; they wash it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Of these sugars the importations have been largely of 
 bounty-paid sugars? 
 
 Mr. Farr. Yes, sir; of bounty-paid sugars. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I see the increase from 1893 to 1896 has been almost 
 entirely of bounty paid refined sugars'? 
 
 Mr. Farr. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. So if the bounty was properly taken care of there would 
 be no difiiculty about the present differentials being amply sutficient? 
 
 Mr. Farr. They have had a way of getting rid of their surplus 
 sugars, even if they lost on them, by shipping them over here. They 
 make more sugar than they want, and they simx^ly delight in sending 
 it here, whether they get anything for it or not. 
 
 Mr. Payne. They dump the surplus on our market? 
 
 Mr. Farr. Yes, sir; that is about it. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Have you any estimate of the quantity of the domestic 
 production of sugar last year? 
 
 Mr. Farr. I have not very accurate figures, as it is entirely out of 
 my line, and other gentlemen will t^ll you about the product of the beet 
 sugars and Louisiana sugars. [Exhibiting samples of sugar.] Now 
 here are some samples I would like* to show you. This is the sugar 
 brought from Scotland 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is the price of that"? 
 
 Mr. Farr. Three and three-fourths cents. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is the price of this sugar? 
 
 Mr. Farr. Three and five-eighths. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. SOLON HUMPHREYS, OF NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 Wednesday, December 30, 1896. 
 
 Mr. Humphreys said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the commit- 
 tee, I have the honor to be chairman of the committee appointed by 
 the sugar trade to come before you gentlemen to tell you something 
 about the existing difficulties of the existing tariff", an ad valorem tarifP, 
 as applied to sugar, and to ask that your new tariff" shall be based on 
 the line of specific duties. It would take too much of your time to go 
 into the difficulties and the reasons why the ad valorem system does 
 not work well as applied to the sugar tariff", and why it is essential and 
 necessary almost, not only for the ])urposes of the Government, but for 
 the purpose of collecting the revenue and the importers dealing with 
 the customs and the collection of the revenues. 
 
 These difficulties of dealing with the ad valorem tariff arise from 
 various causes, one of them being the different methods and customs 
 of doing business in producing countries in making values on which
 
 606 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 the ad valorem duty is based, which in different countries is quite dif- 
 ferent. For instance, in Cuba the value of the sugar — that is, the sac- 
 charine strength that is contained in the Cuban sugar— wouhl be 
 higher than the vahie oi the same class of sugar in Java. One is 
 near our door and the other is remote, and so you may go on through. 
 In one country the value is made up to-day at a rate of excliange that 
 is very diliereut from Avhat the rate of exchange may be next week or 
 next mouth. Tbe variation frequently occurs, Ave will say, of 5 or 10 
 per cent in thirty days in the current rate of exchange, so that the 
 sugar arriving here in the United States at the sauie time would pay 
 more or less by reason of the rate of exchange, and then again the item 
 of freight from different countries and near-by countries make a dif- 
 ference, so that there is (]uite a difference constantly arising and great 
 difficulty in dealing with the ad valorem rate. 
 
 In addition to that, the sugar i)roduced in one country of the same 
 class will pay a high rate of duty in another. Kow, Mr. Farr has read 
 to you this communication, which we will address to this committee, 
 and in this communication this committee was instructed by one of the 
 most unanimous and rei)resentative meetings of the sugar trade I have 
 ever attended. It is unanimous in the recommendation that an ad 
 valorem duty should be dispensed with, and that the new tariff" be a 
 specific duty for this reason. 
 
 It was unanimously decided that an ad valorem duty is unfair, unre- 
 liable, and exceedingly difficult in practice, and has led to nuicli trouble 
 and dissatisfaction in its administration. You will gather from what 
 I have said it is unfair first to the producing countries. It is not uni- 
 form, foi- the reasons I have stated. 
 
 The exchanges and customs of shipping and various charges are all 
 deducted in nuiking up an ad valorem duty, and Avhile they are more 
 in one country they are less in another, and it is unfair to the produc- 
 ing countries. It is unfair to the merchants and importers, by reason 
 of the condition of things, whereby a cargo of sugar consigned to half 
 a dozen or more consignees, bought at different dates while the vessel 
 is loading, perhaps each one of these different invoices would ])ay on 
 the ad valorem system a different rate of duty by reason of tlieir hav- 
 ing been bought at a higher or lower price. It says in our conununica- 
 tion it is unreliable, exceedingly difficult, and has led to much trouble 
 and dissatisfaction in its administration. I am told that in the early 
 days of the existing tariff" there has not been any article that has given 
 the Department so much trouble as this ad valorem duty. It is unfair, 
 as I said before, to the importers, because no man inqwrting sugar 
 knows what his'duty is to be until his entry is liquidated. It is unfair 
 to the Government as a revenue measure, unreliable to the Government 
 as a revenue measure. 
 
 As I understand it and am informed, the revenue for the last fiscal 
 year received from sugar was a little under !^;30,(>00.(K>(). Under the 
 existing conditions of the sugar markets of the world under the same 
 ad valorem tariff", I doubt if the revenues for the current fiscal year 
 would exceed $21,()00,()0(). As I understand it, and as I believe, wlien 
 this tariff" was established it was contemplated receiving something 
 over $40,000,000 of revenue — 843,000,000 — and if I am wrong please cor- 
 rect me. 
 
 The Chairman. That is it, I think. 
 
 Mr. TIuMPHREYS. $43,000,000, 1 recollect. Xow, vou ree, gentlemen, 
 instead of $43,000,000 we have got less than 830,000,000 for the last 
 current year; and for this current year, as I have stated, 1 am sure 
 you will not receive 82l',000,000.
 
 IMPOKTEliS OF SUGAR. 607 
 
 The Chairman. Ou what do you base that estimate for the current 
 fiscal year running down from $29,750,000 to $21,000,000? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Upon the cost of the sugars. 
 
 The Chairman. On account of the reduction in the invoice value'? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Ou account of the reduction in the invoice value j 
 yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The consumjition remaining the same? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. The consumption remaining the same. I should 
 say that there has been an average decline, speaking without having 
 examined into the matter carefully, but from general knowledge I should 
 say the average cost of sugar for the previous fiscal year would be 
 from five-eighths to three-fourths of a cent a pound more than the 
 current fiscal year. 
 
 Mr. Steele. Actual cost or invoice cost? 
 
 Mr. HUMPHREY'S. The invoice cost on which now you collect your 
 revenues. 
 
 Mr. Steele. How about the price to the consumers? 
 
 Mr. HUMPHREY'S. The consumers ought to get that benefit, and I 
 think they do. As you know, gentlemen, there is practically no raw 
 sngar consumed in this country. It is all refined over here or abroad, 
 and I imagine the price of refined sugar to-day wonld be about on a 
 parity with the cost of raw sngar this year and the cost of raw sugar last 
 year. I have not those figures, but they are easy to be ascertained. 
 
 Now, in justice to all producing countries of sugar, we should change 
 this tarifi", and, as 1 stated before, for the leason that sugar coming from 
 one country and sngar coming from another of the same character and 
 same intrinsic value would ])ay a different rate. Now we consume such 
 a large portion of the ])roduction of sugar of the world that we can not 
 aftbrd to antagonize any sugar-producing country. We want them all, 
 and it is only right we should place the sugar-producing countries upon 
 the same basis in collecting the duty. That can be done Avith the most 
 l)erfect simplicity, and it Avould Avork equal and exact justice in all pro- 
 ducing countries from whence we import our sugars. In this communi- 
 cation we have given you a schedule 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Farr has stated what that schedule is. 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chair:han. Have you made any estimate as to what probable 
 revenue will be derived by the Goverument from the schedule that has 
 been proposed by you ? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Please state it. 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. I should say that in this schedule, assuming that 
 the consumption of raw sugar will not change from the last two years — 
 and the consumption for the last two years has been i)retty regular, 
 tbere has not been much change, we have consumed of foreign sugars 
 about 1,500,000 tons — but assuming that we will consume 1,500,000 
 tons, and I believe we will consume considerably more than that, as the 
 consumption always 
 
 The Chairman.*^ You deduct the Hawaiian sugars, which come in free, 
 and make in your estimate 1,500,000 tons. You 8imi)ly take notice of 
 those which are paying duty? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir; those which are paying duty. There are 
 1,500,000 tons of those, as near as we can estimate it, and the revenue 
 would be about somewhere from $49,000,000 to $50,000,000. 
 
 The Chairman. You estimate the revenue under the existing ad 
 valorem duty would not exceed $21,000,000? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Of $21,000,000 or $22,000,000. Figuring that we
 
 608 SCHEDULE E. vSUGAR. 
 
 have no great speculation in sugar, and i>rices rising half a cent or a cent 
 a pound, that would make a difference, but I do not see any indications 
 or prospects of that in the next coming- year, because, as I understand it, 
 the production of sugar has reached the full consuming capacity of the 
 world. Therefore, the production and consumption governing each 
 other, I do not see any reason to expect higher prices for raw sugar for 
 some time to come. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Suppose that schedule you suggest were adopted, what 
 effect do you think it would have uponthe priceof sugarto the consumer'? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. It would undoubtedly advance the price of sugar 
 to the consumer, but it would be so iiitinitesimally small when you come 
 to consider it, I do not think anybody would know Miiether it was 
 assessed a duty of a cent a pound or a cent and a half a pound. 1 do 
 not think it would cut any figure worth speaking of in the expenses of 
 any family, and here I would like to remark that while we mention a cent 
 a pound we do not, as I understand the vitws of the committee, advocate 
 any rate. We liavejust given you this cent a pound as an illustration 
 of the views we entertain in regard to the method in which 
 
 The Chairman. At what i)oint do you start with the 1 cent per 
 pound*? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. At lij'^. We do not fix that as a recommendation. 
 It is for you gentlemen to determine how much revenue you want to 
 get out of sugar, but the ]»rinciple would be the same if you begin 
 with three-fourths, or a cent and a (juarter. It is only a method of show- 
 ing our views of the proper mode of collecting the duty on sugar. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you made any estimate as to tlie revenue to 
 be derived by commencing with three-fourths of a cent at 75°? What 
 would thei)robable revenue be? 
 
 A Bystander. About $3(1,000,000. From every lo points 
 
 The Chairman. The present tariff" is only about $21,000,000, ;iud 
 that will represent an increase of about $L'1,< 100,000? 
 
 A Bystander. Beginning at a cent would make it pretty near 
 $50,000,000, assuming the consumption <»f sugar would be the same, 
 and I think it is perfectly sale for you gentlemen to assume that the 
 consumption of sugar in this eountry is going to be as much. 
 
 The Chairman. What would be the duty if you commence at three- 
 fourths of a cent at 00^ ? 
 
 A Bystander. I have not that here, but some of the gentlemen 
 may have. 
 
 A Voice. One thirty-sixth. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Before you go on, will you tell me if you can approximate 
 the aggregate number of tons of sugars imported from the Hawaiian 
 Islan(ls? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. My impressions are that we shall import about 
 200,000 tons this current year. 1 mean the year the new crop of which 
 we are just now receiving. 
 
 The Chairman, The importations lor the last fist al year from the 
 Hawaiian Islands in ])Ounds were 352, LT;"),!*!)!). 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. I had an idea it was somewhere in that vicinity, 
 and, as 1 understand, the sugar which we are just now Ijeginniug to 
 receive will exceed last year probably 10 or 15 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Evans. It is something like 10 ])er cent of the whole importation? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir. 2^ow, the committee recommends in this 
 communication an additional duty on sugars above No. 10 Dutch 
 standard of color. Mr. Farr has shown you the reasons why we have 
 recommended making a higher duty on sugars above No. 1(3. We are
 
 IMPORTEES OF SUGAR. 609 
 
 not here to advocate the cause of tlie refiners, although we recognize 
 that sugar is a great industry, and it is just as much entitled to pro- 
 tection, in our opinion, as any other great industrj-; that is, a reason- 
 able protection. I think Mr. Farr stated, although I was not present, 
 something about a protection of a quarter of a cent. That would be a 
 quarter of a cent on sugars above 'So. IC, because that is the lowest 
 quality of sugar that would be imported and would go directly into 
 consumption. Xow, we recommend in this communication "an addi- 
 tional duty on sugars above jSTo. 1G Dutcli standard in color, to prevent 
 the foreign refiners from entering their soft refined sugars here at the 
 same rate of duty as the raw sugars of the same test." 
 
 Xow that of course would work great injury to the refining interests, 
 and if the consumers of this country can get this kind of sugar, which 
 is a very poor sugar and not fit for anybody to consume by reason of its 
 low test, of course it would militate ver\ much against the refining 
 interests; it would militate against the importation of raw sugars 
 direct. As I said before, we want all raw sugars that can legitimately 
 come and be used in this country in the shape of raw sugar, but we 
 recognize that unless there can be made a difference on sugars above 
 No. 10 color that the importation of this class of sugar that you gen- 
 tlemen have seen will goon increasing, very largely to the detrin^ent of 
 the sugar trade, because the sugars come directly from the refineries 
 of this country and it is very much against the refiners, and for that 
 reason we embody that recommendation in this communication to you 
 gentlemen. Farther on, we say: 
 
 "We recommend an additional discriminating duty on all sugars 
 coming from bounty-paying countries." 
 
 Now that is so manifest and unjust to the sugar producing interests 
 of the world for any one country to allow a bounty on sugar to be 
 exported which, of course, works great injustice to all oth«n' sugar pro- 
 ducing countries where no bounty is allowed. It is a disorganizing 
 factor in the sugar trade all over the world, and, therefore, we are 
 unanimously of the opinioji that not only the one-tenth of a cent which 
 is allowed now, which was based upon the export bounty at the time the 
 existing tariff was made, but it seems that is not enough to enable the 
 sugar producers of Germany to get rid of their sugars, so that within 
 a few months the export bounty on raw sugars has been raised so that 
 now, as near as it can be figured, it is about 27 cents, or a little over a 
 quarter of a cent a pound, so the one-tenth of a cent on raw sugar, ^s 
 you see, gentlemen, does not cover tlie case. So we, as importers and 
 dealers in sugar, drawing our sugars from all ])arts of the world, are 
 placed at a very great disadvantage for the benefit of the German sugar 
 producers. 
 
 I can not see how any justification can be made for that condition of 
 things whicli exists. 1 see that the sugar interests in London, I believe 
 even the high officials of the Government, have taken the matter in hand. 
 It has worked ruin, as I think I saw the expression, to all the British 
 ishmds that produce sugar, and it does not require any argument to 
 see why. Either the West India Islands and other islands must ado])t 
 the same method of allowing a bounty, or else they might just as well 
 stop the growing of sugar. If they stop growing sugar, where would 
 the sugar world be? Decrease the million and a half tons of sugar 
 produced in the West Indies of cane sugars and you see at once what 
 effect it would have upon the value of all other sugars. To ray mind it 
 is one of the most crying evils connected with the commerce of the 
 world, because sugar is one article of the great commerce of the world, 
 T H 39
 
 610 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 and this is a tiling that should be remedied and must be remedied, and 
 1 earnestly hope that the conclusions of this committee will be, instead 
 of one-tenth of a cent duty upon bounty sugar that is imported into 
 this country, that it shall be equal to the bounty. I am speaking from 
 a commercial standpoint of view, not from a producer's standpoint, and 
 not from a refiner's standpoint, but as a matter of justice. 
 
 1 see in this communication we estimate the revenue at $50,000,000. I 
 am quite sure it will come in that vicinity if this recommendation is 
 adopted. We beg to submit this communication. 
 
 I here omitted to state in regard to the bounty on refined sugar. The 
 statement I made was, on raw sugar exported the bountj^ averages 27 
 cents, or a little over a quarter of a cent on the raw sugar. On 
 refined sugar, based upon the same figures as to the A^alue in the Ger- 
 man currency, it would be three-eighths of a cent of bounty on refined 
 sugar. The bounty on refined sugar is about 10 cents, or one-tenth of 
 a cent a pound more on refined sugar than it is on raw sugar. 
 
 Mr. Evans. You mean a tenth of a cent a ])ound? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. 1 mean to say that while it is 27 cents on raw 
 sugar it is between 37 and 38 on refined sugar. 
 
 A Voice. 38.7. 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Between 37 and 38, I figure it. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Now, I will get you to state what you know about the 
 cost of refining sugars of different grades. 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Well, I submit, gentlemen, it is liardly fair to ask 
 that of a merchant. 
 
 ]\Ir. Evans. If you know it, I would like you to state it. 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. It is hardly fair to ask a merchant what is the 
 cost of refining sugar, but 1 have a general knowledge of what the cost 
 of refining sugar is, but I do not want to i)lace my knowledge against a 
 practical refiner, but I understand tliat the cost of refining a pound of 
 sugar varies very materially as to the quality of sugar that is refined. 
 For instance, the sugar goes to the refinery and may polarize 80^ or 00^ 
 or 90°. Very little sugar goes to a refinery polarizing over 96°. 
 
 Now, in every one of those grades the cost will be very materially 
 diflerent, as I understand it and as I have been informed, but I do not 
 vouch for it, because 1 have no practical knowledge; but the figures 
 stated by Mr. Sypher of the quarter of a cent a pound for raw sugar, 
 9CP test, would not be far out of the way, as I understand it, while I 
 believe taking the cost of refining a pound of sugar that tests 80^ costs 
 niore on account of the 1G° of impurities in it. You see by the colors 
 of the samples here what I mean. I believe the cost of refining 80° 
 sugar would l)e over half a cent per i)ound. I am told it is over five- 
 eighths of a cent. We are told by the refiners when we go to buy our 
 sugar that tests 80° they have to sell on these different lines. 
 
 Mr. Pay'ne. That includes waste? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Of course. 
 
 Mr. Pay''ne. You are calculating on a poujid of raw sugar and not 
 upon the refined sugar? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Upon the raw sugar; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Pay'NE. I suppose the price per pound to produce refined sugar 
 from the raw sugar would average about the same, would it not, reck- 
 oning it up upon the refined sugar? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Taking the saccharine strength it would be much 
 more. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Taking the saccharine strength of the raw sugar it 
 would average about the same?
 
 IMPORTERS OF SUGAR. 611 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. No, sir; the cost of refining SO'^ sugar would be 
 more than double what it would cost to refine sugar of 96°. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The 80° representing saccharine strength? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Now, it costs just about the same to make that 80° into 
 refined sugar as it would cost to make the 96°! 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. It would cost a great deal more, as the process is 
 different between the 80° and 9Go. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The difference is in the waste? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. In the waste and in the cost of elimiuatiug the 
 impurities which aie in the low-grade sugars. 
 -Mr. Payne. Ee(juiriug more processes to eliminate it? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir; and I think Mr. Benjamin Oxnard could 
 tell how many times it requires to pass the 80° test sugar through the 
 bone black, and, how many times it would 
 
 Mr. Payne. Mr. Oxnard is waiting to get the floor a little later, and 
 we will ask him. 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. I am speaking of Mr. Benjamin Oxnard. I know 
 he was a i^ractical refiner years ago, and I know he can answer your 
 question a great deal better than I can. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Y^ou say the refining has been improved in the last few 
 years ? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir; very materially. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The cost has been much reduced even since 1890? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Oh, undoubtedly; we produce sugar now, refined 
 sugar, for less than we did six years ago. 
 
 Mr. IMcMiLLiN. Suppose the raw sugar that will make 100 pounds 
 of refined sugar, what is the cost to convert that from raw to refined 
 sugar? I want, by the question, to eliminate the idea of waste and see 
 what is the cost of retining outside of the waste. 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. I am not sufficiently of a refiner to answer that 
 question. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is the sugar-refining industry of this country in a 
 trust or not? 
 
 . Mr. Humphreys. I can not answer that. You all know what is 
 known as the sugar trust is a combination of pretty much all the sugar 
 reHiiei'ies tliat existed four years ago. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The old refineries? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir; with the exception of a refinery in Bos- 
 ton and a refinery at Philadelphia, which since has gone into the trust, 
 but practically the trust, as I understand it, is a combination of all 
 the refineries which existed at the time the American Refining Com- 
 pany was organized; but since then there have grown up, I should say, 
 three, four, or five outside refineries, and if you let the matter alone I 
 believe in the next two or three years there will be half a dozen more. 
 I hear of the incipient organization of two or three refineries now. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. Y^ou are a sugar merchant? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Will you state to the committee the method in which 
 the sugar trust puts its ])roduct upon the market to the wholesale dealer 
 and thence through to the retail dealer ? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. I am not sufficiently familiar with it, and I might 
 make a mistake in that. I do not feel I ought to state that, but per- 
 haps some other gentleman could. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLTN. I have heard statements concerning it, and I wanted 
 to get, as far as I could, accurate information.
 
 612 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. I can find gentlemen, perhaps — 1 see Mr. Thurber, 
 who ])erliaps can give yon some information in regard to tliat. 
 
 Mr. Payne. As I nnderstand, tlie schedule you propose recommends 
 one-fourth of a cent a pound for refined sugar in addition to what is 
 paid on 100° below i61 The quarter of a cent is added to what is paid 
 on the 100° test sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys, No, sir; it is a quarter of a cent on all sugars 
 above Ko. 16, as you see from that sample. I think there is a sample 
 of sugar that is nearly No. 20, but testing only about 89, so that tUe 
 100° saccharine strength sugar does not cut so much figure as far as 
 the price is concerned. 
 
 Mr, Payne. As I understand yourschedule,itisoneand three-fourtljs 
 of a cent on 100° test sugar below 16, It commences at a cent 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. And advances three-hundredths on every degree 
 up to 100. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Where you have refined sugars 100° test, and I suppose 
 nearly all are 100° test, the quarter of a cent is added to the 1,75, 
 making it 2 cents? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. On sugar above KJ testing 100°. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Where the cost of 96° sugar of converting that into 
 refined sugar is a quarter of a cent, and 80° is five-eighths of a cent, 
 the ditterential on the 80° would be a quarter of a cent added to the 
 difference between the duty on 80° and 96°? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. So a quarter of a cent actually pays the entire cost of 
 refining or near to it on all the grades of sugar? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir; the quarter of a cent would be on all 
 grades of sugar. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The quarter of a cent would be equal to the entire cost 
 of relining, including waste of all grades of raw sugar below 16! 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Well, I would not want to say that. 
 
 The Chairman. I understand you to say in your judgment from your 
 ac(iuaintauce with the trade it is necessary, if you fix a specitic duty, 
 you should consider, not alone the polariscopic test, but that you should 
 also consider the color? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. You should consider the color. 
 
 The Chairman. How about that below No. 16? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. That does not cut any figure, because sugars below 
 16 would have to be refined. 
 
 The Chairman. But in fixing the duty you have stated there are 
 sugars of a high test by the polariscope of saccharine matter that are 
 very dark? 
 
 Mr. Humphreys. Y^es, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And there are sugars also of a low test which are 
 very light ? 
 
 Mr. Hu:mpureys. The quarter of a cent would apply to one and 
 would not apply to the other. 
 
 The Chairman. Then your idea is there would be no sugars possibly 
 consumed below 16? 
 
 Mr, Humphreys, No, sir, I imagine there is hardly a fraction of 
 the raw sugar that is consumed in this country — probably not 1 per 
 cent of the consumption of the sugar consists of raw sugar. They are 
 refined or partially refined. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Do you know when the American Sugar Refining Com- 
 pany was organized'? 
 
 IMr. Humphreys. Well, I can not say, but I should say i)erhaps some 
 gentleman here could tell you.
 
 SUGAR-CANE GROWERS. 613 
 
 A Bystander. It was organized iu 1887. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. It has not been stated, and probably these gentle- 
 men could state the product, both in beet and cane sugar in each 
 country, and the amount consumed and the amount exported, and I 
 would be very glad if they would add that to their statements. We 
 have got it from one country, but if we get it from each of the countries 
 it would be interesting and valuable, and also what portion is refined. 
 
 Mr. Henry Oxnard. I will answer that when I come to make my 
 statement. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. P. J. SMITH, IMPORTER, OF NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 Wednesday, Becemher 30, 1896. . 
 
 Mr. Smith said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 simply want to say we find the greatest objection to an ad valorem 
 tariff is that we never know what the sugars will cost laid down, and 
 we are offered sugars from all parts of the world for different ship- 
 ments. Say we have sugars to-day offered for shipment two or three 
 months from now — we go to a buyer and ask him to buy them, and he 
 asks us what is the rate of duty, and of course we are unable to tell; 
 why, because we do not know, the markets may be up or down, and on 
 that account the bnyer says, " I can not buy the sugar," and in that 
 way we have lost a great many sales by not being able to tell what the 
 duty will be. 
 
 For example, we sold some sugars from Java last year some two or 
 three months before they were shipped to a party, and he paid the 
 price for the shipment, but when they were shipped the market was 
 somewhat higher, and if he paid the high duty at the time the sugars 
 got to Gibraltar the difference in duty alone would be $20,000 on one 
 cargo of sugar, and the result was that the party could not aftbrd to 
 send the sugar to ISTew York, and the cargo had to be diverted to Liver- 
 pool. Most of the importers are willing to stand their losses on their 
 sugars and take their profits, but when they are also handicapped by 
 additional loss on duty of, say, $20,000 on one cargo, you can see exautly 
 how an ad valorem duty works on sugar. That is an actual example. 
 And that is all I wished to do, to impress upon you that under the 
 ad valorem duty you never know what the sugars are going to cost 
 and can not guarantee any price to refiner, purchaser, or speculator, or 
 whoever wants to buy them. That is all I care to say, and 1 simply 
 want to impress that fact upon you. 
 
 sitgar-ca:n^e growers. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. J. D. HILL, OF NEW ORLEANS, LA. 
 
 Wednesday, December 30, 1896. 
 Mr. Hill said: Mr, Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 it has been desired that the statement we make to this committee shall 
 be made as concise as possible, and so that we should not go over too 
 much ground we have determined to have it reduced to writing, and 
 with the committee's permission I will read it : 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We appear before yon as a committee from the American Cane Growers' Associa- 
 tion, wliich takes into its membership those engaged iu the cultivation of the sugar
 
 614 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 cane in (ihe South, as well as those engaged in sugar manufacture or otherTvise 
 interested in its advancement. 
 
 Our industry has be«n going through a period of transition from manorial estates, 
 with the sugar house as an adjunct, to lands cultivated hy tenant farmers, selling 
 their cane to central factories at a price almost universally based upon the value of 
 the sugar produced therefrom at the date of delivery of the cane at the factories. 
 You will observe from this system that the cane grower and sugar manufacturer have 
 a niutnal or identical interest, so the association speaks for both branches of the 
 industry. 
 
 In 1883, when the tariff was framed on the lines indicated by a special commission 
 authorized by Congress, the central factory idea had not begun to develop in this 
 country, and conditions ditt'ered widely from those existing at the present time. 
 For example, in that year all Europe produced very little more beet sugar than the 
 German Empire now does alone. Prices Avere more than double th<ise of to-day. 
 Our ])opulatiou was some 34 per cent smaller and our per capita consumption 35 per 
 cent less. The duty is now ad valorem, and amounts to eighty-seven one hundredths 
 cent against 2.08 cents specific in that year. The value in foreign countries was 
 4.37 and is now 2.18. It is thus made plain no injustice to any interest would be 
 done by reimposing the duty levied in the tariff law of 1^83, as the necessity for 
 producing our sugar supply at home grows with the increase of ])o])ulation and 
 increase of per capita consumption, and such a duty would jiroduce tbat result, while 
 anything less would be uncertain. When that tariff was displaced by the bounty 
 law, supplemented with a fair j)rotective dutj*^ on relintd sugar, the response to such 
 a stimulative impulse was ready, and were it not for the preiarious tenure of such a 
 law this committee wovild i)erhap8 urge the renewal of that method of building up 
 the industry. We therefore present our case upon the claim that the law of 1883 
 would invite the investment of capital, the cultivation of lands, and the active 
 cooperation of all those forces now <lorniant, necessary to the (lev flopmcnt of this 
 vast industry, on a scale whicli would t'uable the American iiroducvrs of cane and 
 beet sugar to supi)ly within the ])erioil named in the McKiuley bounty law the full 
 r<M|uirements of our home consumption. 
 
 It may be suggested that this would produce an excessive revenue — if such be 
 possible in the present state of the Treasury — but that it would not show any large 
 increase over the )>reseut revenue from this source for any great ])eriod is answered 
 by the assuraiue of a healthy and continuous develoimient of our home 8U])ply, les- 
 sening with each succeeding year the importations necessary for our consumj)tion. 
 We call your attention to the fact that the prodiu'tion of sugar in the South during 
 tlie years in which the law of 1883 was in force had the elleit of reducing the price 
 of sugar to the consumer during the months our crop was bein.i,' marketed to a ]>oint 
 whicli shows substantially the Itenelits to the country at large of home competition, 
 made jiossible only by lionie ])ro<lucti(Ui. 
 
 We sui)niit a chart ]>repared from the records of the Louisiana Sugar Exchange to 
 substantiate this statement, and also to show that during the period covered ))y the 
 ()])( ration of the law of 1883 the average \alue of vacuum-pan sugar was 5.68 cents 
 ]>er]>ound; and from the same records we have found that niuler the present law 
 such sugars have been sold at the average price of not over 3.45 cents. Now, if we 
 add to this ligure tlio difference between avcrag(5 duty in 188i), 2.02 cents, and the 
 present average duty of 0.87 cent, say 1.15 cents, we get 4.(i() cents as the selling 
 price under the higher rate of duty, and we beg to submit that nowhere on the Con- 
 tinent of Europe (where tiie5,000,(XX)tons of beet sugar are jjroduceil) can the retailer 
 procure his supply of consumable sugar so cheaply. It appears paradoxical that 
 this very sugar, which by its cheapness in outside markets breaks down the value 
 of cane sugar to the starving point, should be so costly at home, but the explanation 
 is easy. These countries imi)Oso a heavy tax on tlieir home consum^itmn in or<ler to 
 give a bounty on that increment of their crop which tliey e\])ort. The (ierman 
 Empire, for example, will this year produce 2,000,000 tons of sugar and consume less 
 than 800,000 tons, exporting 1,200,000 tons. All these countries have prohibitory 
 duties on foreign sugar, France levying on foreign raw a duty of G.31 cents and on 
 relined from 6 to 7.45 cents per pound, and on beet siru)>s for distilling 6 cents pei 
 gallon. (Sugar duties very recently increased 08 cents ])er 100 kilos on raw and 87 
 cents per 100 kilos on refined to offset <iermany\s increased bounty.) 
 
 (iermany, on foreign sugar, from 3.0 to 4.75 cents per ]>ound. 
 
 Austria and Hungary, from 3.09 to 4.11 cents, and on molasses and glucose IJ cents. 
 
 Helgium, from 3.94 to 4.36 cents, and 1^ cents per pound on sirups, etc., containing 
 less than 50 per cent sugar. 
 
 Holland taxes sugar ])roduced from foreign cane 4.80 cents ])er pound. 
 
 Russia a duty of 6.6 cents on raw and 8.88 cents on refined. 
 
 ftaly from 5.25 to 8.35 cents. 
 
 Spain 4^ cents on foreigUj 2.94 cents on Spanish colonial, and taxes peninsular 
 1.75 cents per pound.
 
 SUGAR-CANE GROWERS. 615 
 
 This brings us to consider a further demand, which we conndently submit to your 
 judgment. In the sugar schedule of the law of 1890 an additional duty of one- 
 tenth of a cent was imposetl to offset the effect of the bounty on export of European 
 beet sugar. Since that time Germany and Austria have increased their bounties; 
 France is about to follow suit, and Holland may do likewise. Some of us had a few 
 words to say to you on this subject last spring, just before the bounties were raised 
 by foreign Governments, and you are perfectly acquainted with the principle of 
 countervailing duties, and recjuire from us only the suggestion that in the new law 
 which you are about to frame you insert a clause embodying this idea and providing 
 for its execution. Such a proposition is now about to be introduced by the British 
 colonies in the British Parliament; and whatever rejily may be given to the Brit- 
 ish colonies by the British Government, the policy of our Legislature on this subject 
 in the past lias been so explicit that we can not doubt the course our Congress will 
 pursue in adopting a policy consonant with American interests, by providing a full 
 countervailing duty. 
 
 We hear from time to time much talk of voluntarily abandoning export bounties 
 by these Continental States, but no step can more surely be taken to produce such a 
 result than this action f)n the part of our national legislators. 
 
 We respectfully suggest to your honorable committee the speedy enactiuent and 
 enforcement of these changes, for, should the law take effect at a remote date, the 
 importation of sugar un<ler the present ad valorem duty would be extensive, and the 
 Government would lose a very large part of its anticipated revenue from this source. 
 
 With respect to molasses, in reenacting the law of 1883, you should also restore 
 the 4 and 8 cent duty on molasses, as otherwise heavy importations of stuff that 
 could be worked over and yield a large crop of crystals wctiiid be made, and the 
 refiners as well as producers would be seriously at a disadvantage, and the Govern- 
 ment would lose considerable revenue. You have seen that the European countries 
 levy heavy duties even on distilling molasses, which is low in grade, and wo would 
 further state that their laws, as amended, stimulate the production of sngar from 
 molasses to such a degree as to be complained of by the fabricants of sngar. To 
 summarize!, we ask: 
 
 i'irst. 'I'hat si)ecitic duties, dependent upon both polariscopic test and color 
 standard, should be imposed in lieu of ad valorem. 
 
 Second. That commencing with 1.40 cents for sugar testing 75 anil under 16 Dutch 
 standard, and ]>roceeding by 0.04 cent for each degree above 75, the duties on sugars 
 above 16 Dutch standard be proportionately increased. 
 
 NoTK. — In the report of the tariff commission to the Forty-seventh Congress you 
 will tiud on page 61 of that documi'ut recommended 1.50 cents on 75 and 0.05 cent for 
 each degree or fraction of a degree above that test, and upon molasses not above 56° 
 by i)olari8copic 5A cents per gallon, above 56^, 10 cents per gallon, and this was a 
 reduction on the preceding rate. 
 
 Third. That countervailing duties offsetting export bounties be imposed. 
 
 Fourth, That a ]iroportionate duty be imposed on molasses. 
 
 Fifth. That tiie new law should have force from the passages of the act; and 
 
 Sixth. That in the event of the adoption of reciprocity treaties or <'onventions it 
 shall be without injury to the domestic sugar industry, and on lines whiih fully 
 recognize the overshadowing importance of develo])ing sugar ])rodnction in the 
 United States, and by such methods as insure a protection eijuivalent to what we 
 have hereinbefore suggested. 
 
 The foregoing statement of facts and suggestions submitted to your honorable 
 committee involving the growth and development of the sugar industry of America 
 is one of universal interest and significance. To ])repare for the i)roduction of our 
 full requirements means the construction of untold quantities of machinery and the 
 cultivation of millions of acres of land now lying fallow. In this preparation alone 
 the investment of $300,000,000 will be required and the annual distribution of nearly 
 two hundred millions in producing our wants. It will euiploj^ armies of skilled and 
 unskilled labor; artisans of nearly every craft will find profitable work in their 
 various ])ursuits, and every industrial plant in our country will share in the general 
 prosperity which the ]>roductiou of our own sugar will so distinctly advance. We do 
 not hesitate to enumerate some of the many intlustries which will be largely affected : 
 The woodworker, the ironworker, the coal miner, the agricultural implement maker, 
 the lumberman, the brickmaker, the stave maker, the cooper, the carrier by water 
 and l>y rail, the lime producer, the chemical manufacturer, the western grain farmer, 
 packinghouse products, cattle growers, horse and mule breeders, fertilizers, and the 
 consumption by the vast army of men employed in producing our sugar, of every 
 article required for human needs, which must then be purchased in our home market 
 as against the support and patronage afforded all these industrial interests in foreign 
 markets, should we unhappily continue to import and not produce our own supplies, 
 as we so easily and ably can do under the influence of fair legislation. There is not
 
 616 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 an industry in onr country that offers so wide, so general, so distributive results of 
 a benificeut character as the growth and production of the sugar we consume. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Charles A. Farwell, 
 
 Chairman. 
 
 B. A. OXNARD. 
 
 \Vm. Adler. 
 Harry L. Laws, 
 
 Of Ciiichtnaii, Ohio. 
 E. H. Cunningham, 
 
 Of Texan. 
 J AS. D. Hill. 
 I. B. Lyon. 
 Attest : 
 
 D. D. COLCOCK, Secretary. 
 
 EXHIBITS MADE. 
 
 Colouel Hill submitted with liis statemeut tlio followiug- additional 
 papers : 
 
 THE NEW SUGAR EXPORT BOUNTIES IN GERMANY. 
 
 The sugar tax amendment law, over which has been waged in the German Parlia- 
 ment one of the longest and most determined battles of recent years, was finally 
 enacted as a concession to the agrarian iiitercst, and went into cHect on Monday of 
 the jircsent week. Its inllueuce will lie to imrcasc the sugar production of (Germany, 
 and, to that extent, exert a dojtrcssing effect ujiou the general market and the inter- 
 ests of producers in other beet growing countries. 
 
 The circumstauces which have led to the ])resent situation are, briefly, these : 
 From tho time when the Prussian Government began the systematic encouragement 
 of tho beet-sugar industry down t > ll-!87 the tax on sugar for home consumption was 
 calculated ujxui the (juantity of beets workc<l up by each se]iarat(' factory, it being 
 assumed that the (plant ity of roots re(|uired toi)ro(luce a given weight of sugar W(»uld 
 be uniform antl invariable. The jirojtortion adopted was 20 units of raw beet root to 
 1 unit of sugar, which, at the time when the law was enacted, was approximately 
 correct. 
 
 But, under the stimulus of the export bounties ]irovidcd by the same law, the Ger- 
 man beet growers and sugar makers worked hard and intelligently to improve and 
 increase their product. By careful selection and cnltivation, the beets w<'re so im- 
 proved that from 12 to 11 tons of roots would yield a ton of sugar. (Jreat advance 
 was also made in tho machinery and i)roci-8ses employed in the sugar factories, so 
 that, as a final result, the (ierm'an (ioveniment, which paiil nearly 12 cents ]ier hun- 
 dredweight bounty on all sugar exported, and charged a tax of tho same amount on 
 all sugar for home consumption that could be made lrom20 hundredweight of beets, 
 found that the export bounties comidetely absorbed the revenue derived from the 
 sugar lax. 
 
 This tendency of the system had become apparent as early as 18fi9, and an attempt 
 was made at that time' to revise the law, but the suirar-produciug interest was 
 powerful enough to resist this elVort, and during the sugar season of 186tj-G7 tho 
 Government was paying about $1.17 bounty on each 100 kilograms (220.4() jiounds) of 
 sugar exported to foreign countries. This was more than the imperial treasury 
 could well withstand, and the ex])ort bounty was reduced to 2.50 marks (.59.5 cents) 
 ])er 100 kilograms — a little more than one-fourth of a cent per pound. 
 
 Sugar growing still continued to be the nmst ])rofitable form of culture for German 
 farmers, the area of cultivation and number of sugar factories continued to increase, 
 loud complaints were heard against a system that favored one class of farmers at 
 the exjiense of the entire population, and, in 1891, the Imperial Diet reduced the 
 sugar export bounty by half— that is, to 29.7 cents jter 100 kilograms— and decreed 
 that such bounty should entirely cease on the 31st of .Inly, 1897, provided, that in 
 the meantime Austria, France, and other bouuty-])aying countries should likewise 
 reduce their bounties on exported sugar. Several attempts have been made to reach 
 such an international agreement, but without successful result, and under cover of 
 this failure to secure a general reduction or abolition of bounties the German 
 Agrarians have rallied and secured the adoption of the present law. which restores 
 the cxi)ort bounty of 1887 (59.5 cents per 220.lt) ]iounds) and raises the tax on sugar 
 for home consumi)tion from 18 marks ($4.28) to 21 marks ($4.99) per 100 kilograms, 
 or about 2.2 cents per ])Ound. This iiu'nased tax will, of course, be added to tho 
 retail price of sugar, already very high, and tend to still further retard the increase 
 of sugar consumption in Germany, which is now only 2s.is pounds per capita, against
 
 SUGAR-CANE GROWERS. 
 
 611 
 
 73.68 pounds per capita in England and 77 i:)ound8 in the United States. This low 
 rate of consumption will not appear unnatural Avhen it is remembered how largo a 
 percentage of the working classes in Germany must live with the utmost economy, 
 and that sugar, which sells in the United States at 4 and 5 cents per pound, costs at 
 retail 7^ cents per pound in Germany. 
 
 From the statistics that were brought out in the recent debate, it appears that the 
 whole system of beat culture and sngar manufacture in Germany has reached a higher 
 standard ofscientific perfection than has been attained in any other European country. 
 Every step, from the preparation and fertilization of the land to the smallest detail 
 in the factory process, has been reduced as nearly as possible to exact scientific meth- 
 ods. Comparing the results attained in this cotiutry with those in France, the country 
 probably next in rank in respect to the perfection of its beet-sugar industry, the 
 following statistics of the campaign of 1895-96 are presented: 
 
 Country. 
 
 Factories 
 operated. 
 
 Area of 
 
 beets 
 
 planted. 
 
 Beeta har- 
 vested. 
 
 Percentage 
 of sugar 
 obtained. 
 
 Beets 
 
 required 
 
 for unit of 
 
 sugar. 
 
 
 Number. 
 397 
 355 
 
 Hectares. 
 374, 174 
 200, 093 
 
 Tons. 
 11,672,000 
 5, 411, 000 
 
 Per cent. 
 13.25 
 12 
 
 T77iits. 
 7.25 
 
 
 8.08 
 
 
 
 All tlieso statistics were cited to prove that the German sugar producers are safe 
 from all Euro]iean competition and do not need the]irotection of an increased export 
 bounty ; but nothing could withstand the demand of the Agrarians, and their victory 
 is one of the iriost significant events in recent (Jerman legislation. 
 
 Whether Austria and France will follow this lead by increasing their export boun- 
 ties remains to bo seen; but, in any e\ent, the new law of Germany can not fail to 
 increase its future sugar crop, and thereby exert a more or less tangible effect upon 
 the general market. 
 
 Frank II. Masox, Comul-General. 
 
 FiiANKFOKT, June -J, 1S9G. 
 
 UETAIL.S OK THK LAW. 
 
 The new German sngar law. which was passed by the Reichstag on May 15, 1896, 
 has been ;ippro\ eil by the Biindesrath and signed by the Emporer. The main features 
 of the law are the following: 
 
 (1) The export bounty has been increased on Class A, raw sugar of at least 90 
 per cent, and refined sugar of from 90 to 98 per cent purity, from 1.25 marks (29.7 
 cents) to 2.50 marks (59.5 cents) per 100 kilograms (220.46 pounds) ; Class 15, candies 
 and sugars in white, full, hard loaves, Ijlocks, ])lates, sticks, crystals, and other 
 sngars of at least 99A^ per cent ])urity, from 2 marks (47.6 cents) to 3.55 marks (84.49 
 cents) per 100 kilograms (220.46 pounds) ; Class C, all other sugars of at least 98 per 
 cent purity, from 1.65 marks (39.27 cents) to 3 marks (71.40 cents) per 100 kilograms 
 (220.40 iK)iinds). 
 
 (2) The home consumption tax has been raised from 18 marks ($4.28) to 20 marks 
 ($4.76) iier 100 kilograms (220.46 pounds). 
 
 (3) The duty on imported sugars, including honey, natural or artificial, has been 
 raised from 36 marks ($8.57) to 40 marks ($9.52) per 100 kilograms (220.46 pounds). 
 
 (4) A tax is levied on the output of sugar factories, as follows: If producing up 
 to 4,000,000 kilograms (8,818,400 jiounds) of sugar, 10 pfennigs (2.38 cents) per 100 
 kilograms (220.46 pounds); if producing from 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 kilograms 
 (8,818,400 to 11.023,000 pounds) of sugar,' 12:V pfennigs (2.98 cents); if producing 
 from 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 kilograms (11,023,000 to 13,227,600 pounds) of sugar, 15 
 pfennigs (3.58 cents), and soon, adding 2i pfennigs (0.6 cent) per 100 kilograms 
 (220.46 pounds) for every 1,000,000 kilograms (2,204,600 pounds). 
 
 (5) The total output of raw sugar in Germany for the campaign year 1896-97 is 
 limited to 1,700,000 tons (1,873,900 short tons), which may be increased 2 per cent by 
 the Bundesrath, to facilitate the erection of new molasses-sugar factories. The 
 limits for the following years will be fixed by the Bundesrath in such a manner that 
 an amount e(iual to twice the increase in the home consumjition will bo added to the 
 limit of the i)receding year. 
 
 (6) The total limit of 1,700,000 tons (1,873,900 short tons) will be apportioned 
 among the various sugar factories according to their output during the last three 
 years and for new factories according to their estimated capacities. 
 
 (7) If a factory exceeds its allotted limit, it must pay on such excess a production 
 tax equal to the full export bounty — 2.50 marks (59.5 cents) per 100 kilograms (220.46 
 pounds) — instead of the above-stated rates of 12i, 15, etc., pfennigs (2.38, 2.98, and 
 3.58 cents).
 
 618 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 (8) As regards the home consumption tax and the duty, this law will go into effect 
 immediately. The other stipulations of the law will become operative on and after 
 Auo-ust 1, 1896. The new export bounties are to be paid only on sugar produced in 
 the campaign year 1896-97 and later. 
 
 This law is the result of the agrarian agitation which commenced about a year 
 ago. The German sugar industry has lately undergone a serious crisis, principally 
 the result of overproduction, and prices fell below the cost of production. An 
 unexpected relief, however, came through the disturljances in Cuba and the conse- 
 quent failure of the Cuban crop, so that prices again rose from tlie lowest level of 
 8.50 marks ($2.02) in January, 189.5, to 12.60 marks ($3) in the beginning of May, 
 1896. Although, owing to the Cuban troubles, the realization of continued good 
 prices was in view and the sugar industry thus relieved, the agrarians clamored for 
 the passage of the law. claiming that the relief was only temporary, and that other 
 countries paying large indirect i)remiums would soon threaten Germany's supremacy 
 in the world's sugar markets. 
 
 It will be remembered that Germany formerly taxed the beets 80 pfennigs (19.04 
 cents) per 100 kilograms (220.10 pounds) and refunded 8.50 marks ($2.02) on every 
 100 kilograms of raw sugar exported. As it required about 820 kilograms (1.807.78 
 pounds) of beets to make 100 kilograms of raw sugar, the Government received a tax 
 of 6..56 marks ($1.56). It refunded 8.50 marks ($2.02) on exportation, and therefore 
 paid a covert premium of about 1.94 marks (46 cents) per 100 kilograms of raw sugar. 
 Under this law the beet-sugar industry tionrished, but threatened to overstep tbe 
 limits of a healthy develojjnient, and therefore a new law was passed on May 31, 
 1891, to go into etfcct August 1, 1892, by which the tax on beets was abolished and a 
 home-consum])tion tax of 18 marks ($4,28) per 100 kilograms put on raw sugar. A 
 direct export bounty of 1.25 marks (29.7 cents) per 100 kilograms of raw sugar was 
 granted, wliich was to 1»e reduced to 1 mark (23.8 cents) on August 1, 1S95, and dis- 
 continued entirely on and after August 1, 1897. It was intended that this law should 
 restrict the overgrowth of tiie industry, yield more revenue to the Government, and 
 induce other sugar-producing countries to do away with the bounty system also. It 
 failed in these vital points, exctpt in increasing the revenue of the Government. 
 
 As the industry was greatly de])re.s8ed in the beginning of 1895, the intended 
 reduction of the bounty to 1 mark (23.8 cents) ap])eared uiiadvisable, and a tem- 
 ]iorary law was passed on JNIay 21, 1.S95, continuing the preniimn of 1.25 marl<s (29.7 
 cents) after August 1, 1895. Hy the new law .just passed, the export bounty has l)eeu 
 raised to 2. .50 marks (59.5 cents), a figure higher than ever before, even if the pro- 
 duction tax of 10 or 15 i)feniiig8 (2.38 cents or 3.58 cents) is deducted. It is claimed 
 that this was done not only to protect German sugar grow , against other European 
 comjjetitors, but also to force a tight with the latter, with a view to an ultimate 
 abolition of all export bounties. 
 
 It is my belief that this latter result will not be attained, because Germany, 
 through physical conditions and long training, has reached a perfection in this 
 industry wliieh is not ecpialed by any other nation, and, with i)remiums abolished 
 all around, she would l)eat all competitors on even terms. 
 
 The effects of this law ujton the I'nited St.ites will be various. It will furnish 
 cheaper raw sugar to our refiners, and should tlierefore also reduce the price of the 
 refined article, although German dealers deny that an increase of i)remium naturally 
 means a reduetion in the ex]>ort juice. With a short world's sui)ply. this may be 
 true; but in case of even ordinary crops, Germany will now be able to sell sngar for 
 export just 1.25 marks (29.7 cents) eheaijer than before, and be as well off. For 
 instance, if export sugar is now sold at 12 marks ($2.85) free on board at Hamburg, 
 under the new law this sugar could be sold at 10.75 marks ($2.55), because, in the 
 former case, the Government pays a bounty of 1.25 marks (29.7 cents), and, in the 
 latter, of 2.50 marks (.59.5 cents). 
 
 All European countries are speculating on a shortage of the next Cuban crop also, 
 and have considerably increased their beet area. We will, therefore, probably see the 
 Cuban shortage almost covered during the coming campaign, and then, if not before, 
 the increase in the bounty must and will be expressed in tlm i>rice of export sugar. 
 In fact, since the beginning of May, when the passage of the law seemed certain, the 
 price of sugar commenced to drop, and has now lost almost 1 mark (23.8 cents), thus 
 rendering (juestionable all the advantages expected from the law. 
 
 Ordinarily, we should not object if European countries outbid each other in fur- 
 nishing us with cheai> sugar. We have, however, a raw-sugar industry of our own, 
 anil es]iecially an infantile beet-sugar industry, which is seriously affected by any- 
 thing tending to decrease the value of its pi-oducts.. Sugar has a world's market 
 value, and its price is regulated l)y the world's supply and demand. If sugar goes 
 down on the world's market through foreign legislative measures, which help the 
 foreign grower, our producers will suffer, because they reieive from the refiners only 
 the world's market value, plus the ])rotection contained in our tariff of 40 per cent, 
 and one-tenth of a cent per pound on sugar Irom bounty-paying countries. 
 
 The United States revenue is no less interested iu the world's market value of
 
 SUGAR-CANE GROWERS. 
 
 619 
 
 sugar, as we levy an ad valorem duty on this article. Germany, beinj^ tbo largest 
 sugar-prodncing conntry, greatly influences the world's market price, which, through 
 this new legislation, will eventually decline liy about the difference between the 
 old and new bounty, and the United States will thereby suffer a corresponding loss 
 in revenue. 
 
 In conclusion, I desire to speak a word for our own beet-sugar industry. If we 
 consider the enormous wealth which has accrued to Germany and all other countries 
 that have introduced and fostered this industry, it is, indeed, to be desired that the 
 United States should bo init on such a footing as to T>e able to j)roduce its own sugar. 
 Witli our vast territory, -variud climates, and soil, Ave should find a sufficient area 
 adapted to grow all the sugar we consume, if we can suflicieutly protect the industry 
 against Eurojiean competition, unduly aided by direct or indirect bounties. 
 
 ,, ^r '^n ionr- JuLlus MuTH, Consul. 
 
 MACiDEBEKG, Ma)j 30, 1S96. ' 
 
 BEET-SUGAR LAWS OF AUSTRIA AND FRANCE. 
 
 The first reply to Germany, in reference to the increased sugar bounties, comes 
 from Austria. There the existing sugar law was amended as follows, viz : 
 
 (1) The consumption tax has been increased from 11 florins ($4. 45) to 13 florins 
 ($.5.26) per 100 kilograms (220.46 pounds) of raw sugar, net. 
 
 (2) The total amouut of export bountv to be granted by the Government has been 
 increased from 5,000,000 florins ($2,023,000) to 9,000,000 florins ($3,641,400). 
 
 This amendnient went into effect on August 1, 1896, and will expire on July 31, 
 1897. It furnishes a temporary relief for the Austrian sugar grower and enables him 
 to continue competition with his German neighbor. It will depend upon further 
 developments in the bounty-paying countries whether the provisions of this amend- 
 ment will be continued, extended, or curtailed. 
 
 Under the old law, the Austrian Government appropriated annually an amount of 
 5,000,000 florins ($2,023,000) for sugar export bounties, to bo paid as follows, viz: 
 On sugar from 88 jier cent and below 93 per cent polarization, l.,50 florins (61 cents) 
 per 100 kilograms net; on sugar from 93 percent and below 99A per cent jiolariza- 
 tion, 1.60 florins (65 cents) ; on sugar of not less than 99^ per cent polarization, 2.30 
 florins (93 cents). 
 
 If the Government, in payingtheserates, had exceeded theappropriation of 5,000,000 
 florins ($2,023,000) at tlie end of the year, such excess was collected pro rata from 
 the various sugar factories, according to the amounts received by them, the Govern- 
 mentrequiringsufficientsecurity from every factorv before paviugtheexport bounty. 
 While in the year 1888-89 the appropriation of 5,000,000 florins ($2,023,000) was 
 exceeded by only 323,115 florins ($130,732), the export of sugar grew so rapidly that 
 since 1892-93 the ab(»ve appropriation was regiilarly exceeded by over 4, 000, 000 florins 
 ($1,618,400), which amount had to be refunded by the various factories, so that with 
 tiie finer grades of raw sugar for exi)ort, the bounty, instead of 1.60fl()rins (65 cents), 
 real! V amounted to 1..5376florins (62 cents) in 1888-89, 1.2174 florins (49cents) in 1889-90, 
 1.1093 florins (45 cents) in 1890-91, 1.1252 florins (46 cents) in 1891-92, 1.0778 florins (44 
 cents) in 1892-93, 1.0357 florins (42 cents) in 1893-94, and 1.2106 florins (49 cents) in 
 1894-95. 
 
 Under the amended law the sugar growers will now be able to obtain from the 
 Government the above rates either in full, or nearly so, as the amount to be refunded 
 to the (iovernmeut at the end of the year, if anything, will be small. 
 
 France has, for the present, only increased the duty on raw sugar 3.50 francs (68 
 cents) and on retined sugar 4.50 francs (87 cents) ])er 100 kilograms net, to prevent 
 German sugar from entering France to compete with her own product; biitshe will, 
 no doubt, this fall, answer, either with an increase in her present covert export 
 bounty or pay an open bounty to meet German sugar on the world's markets. 
 
 Tir ^^„„^,„^ ( 4 .^i -lonn J TJLES MUTH, ConSul. 
 
 Magi>ebvrg, A u(f list 31, 1S96. ' 
 
 Average monthly qnolalious of Louisiana tmciium pan sugars in Xew Orleans for nine 
 
 years. 
 
 
 1884. 
 
 1885. 
 
 1886. 
 
 1887. 
 
 1888. 
 
 1889. 
 
 1890. 
 
 1831. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Average 
 
 for 
 9 years. 
 
 
 5.43 
 5.21 
 4.75 
 4.66 
 
 6.39 
 6.08 
 5.74 
 5.69 
 
 5.65 
 5.49 
 4.85 
 4.85 
 
 5.87 
 5.57 
 5.25 
 5.36 
 
 7.04 
 6.47 
 5.83 
 5.92 
 
 7.08 
 6.25 
 5.63 
 5.66 
 
 5.50 
 5.42 
 4.83 
 4.66 
 
 a4.42 
 3.78 
 3.27 
 3.27 
 
 3.89 
 3.42 
 3.44 
 3.64 
 
 5.70 
 
 
 5.30 
 
 
 4.84 
 
 December 
 
 4.86 
 
 « Averaged. No clarified sugar on the market. Crop sold iipqnickly ouaccuuutof removal of duty, 
 April 1, 1S91.
 
 620 
 
 SCHEDUIiE E. SUGAR. 
 
 Average monthly quotations of Louisiana vacuum pan sugars in Kew Orleans for nine 
 
 years — Continued. 
 
 
 1885. 
 
 1886. 
 
 1887. 
 
 1888. 
 
 1889. 
 
 1890. 
 
 1891. 
 
 1892. 
 
 1893. 
 
 Average 
 
 for 
 9 years. 
 
 
 5.20 
 5.51 
 5.50 
 5. 42 
 
 5.79 
 5.72 
 5.5U 
 5.68 
 5.88 
 5.58 
 5.64 
 5.60 
 
 5.08 
 5.12 
 5.15 
 5.30 
 5.30 
 5.50 
 5.76 
 5.85 
 
 5.62 
 5.71 
 5.66 
 5.77 
 5.79 
 5.88 
 6.69 
 6.96 
 
 5.78 
 5.88 
 6.52 
 7.30 
 7.50 
 7.87 
 8.23 
 7.54 
 
 5.53 
 
 5.59 
 
 5.69. 
 
 5.43 
 
 5.39 
 
 5.50 
 
 5.31 
 
 5.26 
 
 4.76 
 4.84 
 
 3.43 
 3.43 
 
 3.77 
 3.81 
 3.83 
 4.19 
 4.37 
 4.35 
 4.40 
 4.40 
 
 5 
 
 
 5.07 
 
 
 3.9b 
 
 3.57 
 
 5.04 
 
 
 4.31 3.64 
 4. 10 3. 62 
 4. 15 3. 62 
 a4.32 ; 3.79 
 a4.33 3.80 
 
 5.22 
 
 Mav 
 
 5.71 
 5.92 
 C. 39 
 6.39 
 
 5.30 
 
 
 5.38 
 
 July 
 
 5.61 
 
 
 5.57 
 
 
 
 
 5.50 
 
 5.77 
 
 5.33 
 
 5.84 
 
 6.83 
 
 5.90 
 
 4.60 
 
 3.63 
 
 3.96 
 
 5.24 
 
 
 
 aAveraged. No clarified sugar on the market. Crop sold up quickly on account of removal of duty, 
 April 1,1891. 
 
 Reduction in value during four months the Louisiana crop is marketed, say November. December, 
 January, and February, 0.45 cents, which on the five-sixths of that crop makes $2,250,000. 
 
 Louisiana Sugar Experiment Station, 
 Audubon Park, New Orleans, La., December 19, 1890. 
 Mr. CiiAS. A. Fauwell, 
 
 President Canc-drowers' Association, New Orleans, La. 
 
 Dear Sir : Your letter rclat i v(» to tlio progress of the .sugar industry and the possibil- 
 ities of its extension over larger areas has been received. In reply, I beg to state that 
 ill Louisiana there was grown last year, according to Houehereaus report, 266,247 
 t<nis of sugar and 21,663,.571 gallons of molasses. 1 rather think this an under- 
 estimate of the crop, though the jiaiustaking eflorts of this laborious statistician 
 would warrant approximate aceuracy. This was iipoii a slightly increased area over 
 1S94, when the crop was 3r>;"),!JSl tons, indicating a diminished yield, due to climatic 
 condition.s. 'Ihe area now in cane in Louisiana is about ;^()(),0(HJ acres in round num- 
 bers. This extends, as you know, only over the alluvial i)ari8hes of south Louisiana. 
 Were the entire availaltle lands of these j)arishcs alone, without further expense, 
 excei)t ])lanting, etc., jnit in caue the acreage would l»e doubled, and one-third of the 
 8upi)ly of sugar now consumeil by the Inited States could be grown in the present 
 limits of the sugar culture of this State, instead of one-sixth, tiie present ratio of 
 production to consumption. l?y drainage and clearing of forest the available land.s 
 in these parishes could again be doubled, and such a jirospect is inevitable if the 
 sugar industry is fostered by remunerative prices. Ibit the su-jiir industry is not 
 being conhned to our meadows by theCnilf. and it is fast ascending the hill lands 
 and pressing over the prairies. Last Baton K'ouge, Lafayette, Calcasieu, Acadia, and 
 St. Landry are beginning its culture, and factories for its purchase and manafacture 
 alone are wanting to rapidly develop the industry, and East and West Feliciana, 
 of this State, and Wilkinson and Amite counties, of Mississijijii, are now aiding East 
 Baton liongc in supplying the successful factory at Baton Ix'ouge. Kajiides, Avoy- 
 elles, and I'ointe Couy)ee ]iarishes are panting for more central factories, which under 
 wise and stable legislation will surely come. 
 
 It may therefore be saidwith truth and soberness that the entire southern half ofthe 
 State of Louisiana, from the mouth of lied Ix'iver to the (Julfof Mexico, is splendidly 
 ada]»ted to sugar-cane culture atid destined at an early day under ]uoi)er stimulation to 
 go into this industry. Indeed, nothing liut an unwise legislation witlaholdiugimmense 
 capital from us can ])revi'nt such a consununation. The aiea of this southern half 
 of Louisiana is not far from 2.'),000 square miles, of which the larger half is adapt- 
 able to cultivation. 'I'his would give us an acreage, which, if ]>voperly utilized in 
 the cultivation of sugar cane, would furnish all the sugar now eonsuinefl in the 
 United States. A simi»lo pro])ortion would show this. If our preseni, 300,0(10 acres 
 supply one-sixth or one-seventh of the amount now consumeil, an area of 3,000,0(X) 
 acres would uu>et all the demands of consumption for many years to come. To the 
 area in Louisiana there may be added enormous tracts in 'I'exas and a considerable 
 territory in each of the States of Mississippi, Alabanui, and Florida. I now re])eat 
 what I have so often uttered in public, that if ])roiier legislation could bo secured 
 and earnest elforts made to interest cai)ital in the investment of central factories 
 the lan<ls adaptable to sugar-cant^ growing in the Southern States ct)uld and would 
 supply all the sugar deulande^l by our country
 
 SUGAR-CANE GROWERS. 621 
 
 Bnt fortunately our country is not dependent alono upon sugar cane for its sugar. 
 Like Cit'sar's Gaul, our vast couutry is divided into tliree jiarts. Tlie extreme south- 
 ern is, by climate, rainfall, and latitude, adapted to the culture of sugar cane, as I 
 have already shown ; the extreme northern — i. e., north of the Ohio River and follow- 
 ing closely the political line of Mason and Dixon, is specially adapted to the growth 
 of sugar beets; while the belt between these sections is admirably adapted to the 
 growing of sorghum. These three plants, in their appropriate belts, would easily 
 supply not only the sugar of this country, but of the English-speaking people of the 
 world. 
 
 The great factor in the solution of the beet problem is its economic agricultural 
 production. The beets are rich in sugar, and their manufacture into sugnr is an 
 easily understood undertaking. The low price of sugar prevailing in recent years 
 has made their growing upon lands with heavy rainfalls an unremunerative industry ; 
 only in the arid or semiarid regions of Utah, New Mexico, California, and Nebraska 
 has the agricultural effort been productive of remuneration. In these and other 
 States of the AVest the solving of this problem will, with proper legislation, rapidly 
 develop the beet sugar industry of this country. The hand labor has been reduced 
 to a minimum, the tonnage is large, and the beet rich in saccharin and of a high 
 purity. With these conditions established, capitalists will, with national encour- 
 agement, furnish the means for central factories and our technical schools the 
 trained experts to conduct them. The area therefore adapted to immediate beet 
 culture is very large — much larger than the consumption of this country will demand 
 in the next century. It will require much higher prices than now exist to make the 
 agricultural production of beets profitable in the rainy northern and eastern por- 
 tions of the United States. 
 
 Sorginim, per contra, is agriculturally cheaply grown in the section assigned it. 
 Its great hindrance to development is entirely along manufacturing lines. No method 
 has yet been devised by which the greater part of the sugar undoubtedly existing in 
 the stalk can bo economically separated. But with proper .support from the Gov- 
 ernment and the encouragement of private enterprise by wise legislation the success- 
 ful accom])li8hment of this desired end will surely be attained. The difficulties now 
 f xisting in the removal of sugar from sorghum are not half so great as those pre- 
 sented in tliebeetto the persistent Germans and the ingenious Frenchmen of the 
 beginning of the i)resent century. Alreadj' the plant and the methods of extraction 
 and manufacture have been greatly improved l)y scientific investigations made 
 partly by (iovernment apjiropriations. You will thus see that we have the natural 
 taciliti«'8 of growing all the sugar needed not only by this country but, indeed, if 
 necessary, for the entire world. 
 
 But we grow only about one-sixth or one-seventh of what sugar we consume, and 
 spend over $100,000,000 annually in the purchase of the rest. This large sum could 
 easily bo exyjended at home for home-grown sugar, and that, too, without materially 
 lessening the areas now devoted to other crops. I have, in a published map, shown 
 the benefits to commerce and trade of a sugar industry. The sugar crop of this 
 State, estimated at $25,000,000 annually in value, creates an interstat<! trade of 
 $20,000,000, sending it in exchange to Pennsylvania, Alabama, and Tennessee for coal 
 and iron; Kentucky, Indiana, and Missouri for mules and horses; Kansas, Iowa, 
 Illinois, etc., for corn and pork; Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc., for flour; 
 Pennsylvania, Alabama, New York, etc., for machinery; California for fruits, wine, 
 etc.; Boston for boots and shoes; New York for dry goods, notions, etc., and the 
 entire Southern States for cowpease. Really, then, every section of the Union feels 
 the infiueuce for good or for evil of the vicissitudes of the sugar industry of this 
 State. 
 
 I trust the above may give you some of the information desired and serve the pur- 
 pose of assistance to you and your coadjutors. If I can render you further aid, please 
 command me. 
 
 Yours, truly, Wm. C. SxtiBBS, 
 
 Mr. Hill. I desire to state, in submitting this document, that we 
 have also attached to it a chart, of which I made mention a moment 
 ago, and some other statistics which go to sub.stantiate the statements 
 wliich are contained in this document which we submit. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you made any estimate of the amount of rev- 
 enues that woukl be secured by a return to the duties of 1883? 
 
 Mr. Hill. I shoukl, of course, be largely guided in making that esti- 
 mate by the results produced during the time that law was in force, and 
 the indications are, possibly, say $55,000,000. 
 
 The Chairman. The consumption of sugar is larger now?
 
 622 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 Mr. Hill. It may have increased somewhat during that time. This 
 estimate is made up to the act of 1890 at the rate of 855,000,000. 
 
 The Chairman. About $75,000,000, is it uot? 
 
 Mr. Hill. If a countervailing duty was imposed it might reach 
 $75,000,000; without that it may not. Our iinjiortations, as lias been 
 stated, amount to a million and a half tons, worth about $40,000,000, 
 and the percentage of 2.02 
 
 ]\rr. Tayne. That would make about $80,000,000? 
 
 Mr. Hill. $00,000,000. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The average is about 90 and 91 degrees, and the tariff" 
 you recommend would be about 2.01 on sugar, I suppose; perhaps these 
 are long tons, which would be about $11 a ton? 
 
 Mr. IliLL. I am, perhaps, not quite as well posted about the value of 
 the sugar as some other members of the committee. Of course you 
 yourselves will have all these facts before you on which to make that 
 calculation as to what the results will be. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I see you did not go back to the duty under the act of 
 1883. The act of 1883 provided for 1.10 on those below No. 13 Dutch 
 standard and 1.10 on those testing 75^^ and advancing four-tenths for 
 every degree, and you put it at No. 10. 
 
 Mr. Hill. No. 10 is understood to be the general way of expressing 
 it. There is no consumption of sugar taking ])lace under No. IG Dutch 
 standard. The old molasses sugar which used to be consumed made it 
 13 JJutch standard, and that has absolutely disappeared, and that is 
 the reason I mentioned Hi instead of 13. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How much differential duty do you ask above IG? 
 
 Mr. Hill. Whatever that act provided; I do uot recollect what the 
 provision was. 
 
 Mr. Payne. From IG to 20, that act provided for 3 cents; and above 
 20 it provided for 3.55. Do you suggest that duty? 
 
 Mr. Hill, Well, we have simidy brought it before this committee for 
 thei)iirpose of looking after the sugar that is produced by our home 
 producers. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you refine sugar? 
 
 Mr. IHll. We make sugar that is not refined, so far as refined sugar 
 that you know, coming from the refineries, is concerned. 
 
 Mr. I'AYNE. But you have refineries? 
 
 INIr. Hill. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. On your plantations? 
 
 INIr. Hill. They do not belong to the ]dantation. Our sugar houses 
 on the plantation make what is called yellow clarified sugar, which 
 approaclies closely to the white. That is made in the good sugar Iwuises 
 of Louisiana, and then that class of sugar is bought by the refineries 
 in New Orleans and refined by theiu and made into granulated white 
 sugars. There are very few places where any white sugars are made on 
 the plantations. 
 
 Mr. Payne. But some classes of plantations own refineries and their 
 sugars are refined in Louisiana, is not that so? 
 
 Mr. Hill. There are some refineries where the yellow clarified sugar 
 is nuide, but not the granulated white refined sugar to compete with 
 the refineries as you understand refined sugar to be. 
 
 Mr. Pay'NE. Have you had any experience in refining sugar? 
 
 Mr. Hill. None, except in my own sugar house; that is, only the 
 yellow refined sugar. 
 
 ]\Ir. Payni:. Could you give us any information on the subject of 
 refining white granulated sugar?
 
 SUGAR-CANE GROWERS. 623 
 
 Mr. Hill. ISTo, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is there anyone iu your delegation who coukn 
 
 Mr. Hill. I think probably Mr. Benjamin Oxnard could, as he is 
 pretty well versed in it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I would like to know, in the first place, how much 100 
 pounds of sugar which is at 1)1 degrees No. 13 standard would produce 
 of refined sugar? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. Ninety-one degrees would produce about 3 i)er cent of 
 moisture and dirt; say G per cent of molasses, which would liave to be 
 subtracted, and it would produce about 85 pounds of crystallized or 
 granulated sugar, I should say. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Now, by the best method of the best refineries, how 
 much would the entire cost, aside from the waste, be of refining that 
 per pound or jier 100 i)ounds? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. I should judge about 40 cents per 100 pounds, 
 
 Mr. Pay'NE. With the best appliances you think it is 40 cents'? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. I should judge thar. 
 
 Mr. Pay'NE. You are not able to state that? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. No, sir; 1 am not able to state that. But it is not far 
 from that. 
 
 Mr.^PAY'NE. You do not know whether 25 cents a hundred would 
 not cover the entire cost of refining and all waste, too? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard, Yes, sir; I know it would not. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Have you had experience in a refinery with the best 
 appliances? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. Yes, sir; to a certain extent I had some years ago. 
 
 Mr. Payne. But has not the cost of refining sugar been almost revo- 
 lutionized in the last fifteen or twenty years'? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. No, sir; not revolutionized. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Well, a great deal decreased; has not the cost of it 
 greatly decreased ? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. Yes, sir; it must have been. 
 
 Mr. Pay'ne. And the waste has a great deal decreased also, has 
 it not? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. I. do not think the waste has decreased very much'? 
 
 Mr. Payne. Where you speak of waste you speak of an ex[)erience 
 of a number of years ago? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Pay^ne. a good many years ago? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. Of twelve years ago. 
 
 Mr. Hill. In making this statement and presenting it to the commit- 
 tee, I would like to make this further statement — that we have presented 
 our cause ;is home i^roducers of sugar, and as we understand it is the 
 desire of the Government to raise a certain revenue by a tariil* on sugar. 
 If this be true, our hope is by the levying of a tariff that a widespread 
 development of the home production of sugar will take place iu this 
 country, and the result will then be, while the tariff requires now largely 
 to be increased in its revenues, as our home development continues 
 necessarily the amount of imported sugar will decrease, and in that 
 way this revenue will in time disappear. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I would like to ask whether, in your judgment, if that 
 protection to sugar is granted, could the cane industry be so extended 
 as to sup.ply the home markets ? 
 
 Mr. Hill. The cane and beet together could, and cane could very 
 largely enter into the furnishing of your supply. Our plant of sugar 
 cane now is literally confined to three States — Louisiana, the southern 
 liortion of it ; a part of Texas, the Brazos district; and a part of Florida.
 
 624 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. And to what extent would the condition of soil and 
 climate extend f 
 
 Mr. Hill. That could be extended so as to take in a large portion— 
 the southern portion of Mississippi, a part of Alabama, a part of 
 Georgia, the entire western portion of Florida, and a very much larger 
 portion of the State of Louisiana than now is devoted to it, and a much 
 larger portion of the State of Texas, and so far as the be(^t develop- 
 ment is concerned, there can not be more than one-fourth of the States 
 of the United States, at least so far as part of her area is concerned, 
 which will not produce beets which will pj-oduce sugar. 
 
 Mr. Payne, tinder the bounty act of 1890 the production of sugar 
 in Louisiana grew very fast! 
 
 Mr, Hill. Very rapidly. 
 
 Mr. Payne. If that bounty had continued would Louisiana, in con- 
 nection with the beet-sugar industry, have kept pace with the consump- 
 tion? 
 
 ]\[r. Hill. I have not the slightest doubt if this bounty had contin- 
 ued tiie stated period of fifteen years this country woukl have been 
 producing all the sugar consumed at home. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That is, at the end of fifteen years? 
 
 Mr. Hill. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That is, a bounty of If? 
 
 Mr. Hill. On the lower grades, and 2 cents on the higher grades, 
 above 90; one and three fourths cents between 80 and 90. 
 
 ^Fr. Evans. Can you give us an idea of the gross amount of cane 
 sugar produced in this conntrv last year? 
 
 ]\rr. Hill. It is about 300,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. Evans. How nuuh was it while the bounty was in existence? 
 
 Mr. Hill. It had reached about,350,000 tons at that time. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Could you state the amount i)roduced from beets in the 
 United States? 
 
 Mr. Hill. I presume there are about 37,000 tons, and I think prob- 
 ably under the bounty it reached in the neighborhood of between 25,000 
 and 30,000 tons. 
 
 j\Ir. Evans. What do you think is the average cost of the production 
 of a i)ound of cane sugar in this country? 
 
 Mr. Hill. Of course there arc certain factors which enter into that, 
 one the investment that is made on the land, which would make it 
 almost impossible to state what the cost of producing a pound of sugar 
 is, and I can only give my own experience on that subject. I was on 
 here a good part of 1894, and had the pleasure of meeting many of you 
 gentlemen while here last year, when asked about a countervailing duty 
 in order to have that imposed. During those days I made a calcula- 
 tion and found that up to 1891, when the Wilson bill was passed, we 
 had never produced sugar on the plantation I owned, Poydras, at a 
 cost of less than 3;^ cents a pouiul, and that is reached by dividing the 
 actual outlay of money during the year by the number of pounds pro- 
 duced, and does not include interest, cost of the land, machinery, 
 improvement, wear and tear, personal services, etc. Of course it may 
 be that that plantation is not as good as some other plantation, and I 
 do not think it is, as we have got some good stiff ground. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Do you know what it costs to raise a pound of sugar in 
 the West Indies? 
 
 INIr. Hill. I could not tell you, sir. 
 
 INIr. Evans. Nor in the beet sugar? 
 
 INIr. Hill. I have no experience with that; no, sir. I am very much 
 obliged to you gentlemen.
 
 SUG^K-CANE GEOWERS. 625 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. BENJAMIN A. OXNARD, OF HEW 
 
 ORLEANS, LA. 
 
 Wednesday, December 30, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 The statement that Louisiaua sugar has had a duty for nearly a cen- 
 tury without showing material progress is one which has found very 
 general lodgment in the public mind, and if true it would have some 
 bearing ui)on the request which Louisiana is here to make, suj)ple- 
 menting, as her producers will, the arguments i^resented by the pro- 
 ducers of domestic beet sugar, although on somewhat difi'ereut lines. 
 If the committee will indulge me with a few moments of its time, I will 
 try and present the claim of Louisiana for protection for sugar accord- 
 ing to present conditions. 
 
 That there are things that affected sugar from Louisiana which are 
 but imperfectly understood admits of no doubt, and some of the things 
 said may have provoked unjust prejudice. I shall speak for myself as 
 a x>roducer of cane sugar in St. Marys Parish, going there several 
 years ago from the North. Being, as I can sa}', in hearty sympathy 
 with the protective policy for domestic industries and engaged in the 
 cane sugar industry in Louisiana, I feel that neither domicile nor the 
 past should prejudice my views. The facts, as I understand them, are 
 that sugar prior to 181G was dutied i^rincipally for revenue. 
 
 Down to 1816 the duty ou brown sugar of 2;l cents a pound must 
 have been imposed "for revenue only,"' because Louisiana, our chief 
 sugar State, was not admitted into the Union until 1812, and there 
 could therefore have been no object in placing a duty on sugar except 
 for revenue. We had no sugar to protect. In i^roof of this we have 
 the Dickerson Senate report in 1831, which says: "The duty of 2i cents 
 per pound on brown sugar when we obtained Louisiana was evidently 
 imposed for revenue alone." 
 
 The object of Mr. Clay's proposition in 181G to place the duty at 3 
 cents (an increase of one-half cent) was stated by him to be for protection, 
 and it was the first duty on sugar ever laid for that purpose, the double 
 duty of 5 cents in 1812 having been for revenue or war purposes. 
 
 Before Louisiana was admitted the 2;l-cent rate was only sufiticient to 
 place domestic sugar and the foreign product on an even keel as to the 
 cost of production, climatic advantage, and acreage yield abroad. The 
 one-half cent of encouragement or direct jjrotectiou given sugar in 181C 
 and until the passage of the disa-strous "compromise" tariif of 1833, a 
 period of only seventeen years, was simply in line with the general " 
 policy of the country toward domestic products during that pe-riod. No 
 jjarticular favor was thereby shown over other articles and it met the 
 fate of all other products under the "compromise" act. In 1842 that 
 act had crushed the life out of domestic sugar production. 
 
 And yet, what was proi)osed by the " compromise" act? Mr. Galla- 
 tin's report in the Philadelphia ''free-trade" convention of 1832 shows 
 that the only idea was to reduce the duty ou sugar to a rate nearly 
 api^roaching a general uniform rate, and in doing that not to take as a 
 criterion the then depressed price of sugar. As this committee well 
 knows, the reductions in 1833 were not only gradual, but on all articles, 
 and yet this Gallatin or free-trade report i)roposed as the linal (or ulti- 
 mate) rate Ih cents x)er pound. We do not think the rate should be less 
 under a protective policy. Even when the final rate was reached in 
 T H 40
 
 626 SCHEDULE E. — SUGAR. 
 
 1842 the duty — because of tlie price of sugar — was far more protective 
 thau it is now, at the present values of sugar. The rate of 1833 was the 
 lowest duty placed on sugar from 1816 to 1891. And why was that rate 
 fixed ? Because, as says the Gallatin report, there was not then thought 
 to be " the slightest probability that the quantity wanted for the con- 
 sumption of the growing populatiou of the United States could ever be 
 supplied by Louisiana and the other districts where the cane may be 
 forced." 
 
 That is not the condition to-day. All that has changed, not only 
 because beet sugar has come forward as a factor, but because several 
 obstacles which then confronted sugar raising in Louisiana are melting 
 away. If they were not, she could not be making sugar at all. 
 
 In view of the generally accepted statement that Louisiana has not 
 made satisfactory progress in sugar under fairly liberal duties, certain 
 facts in explanation should be understood and go out to the world with 
 that statement, and what she had more recently done down to 1891 is 
 not credited. 
 
 Because of our fixed sugar policy in 1810 and down to 1833 the 
 planters had invested 850.000,000. All this was only not imi)eriled, 
 but at least one-half of it was swallowed up and lost in the final ruin 
 wrought by the act of 1833, prior to 1812. 
 
 Hundreds of sugar estates before 1812 were forced upon the market 
 at from 33 to 50 per cent of their value. For ten years the largest part 
 of the 850,000,000 of capital then invested in sugar i)aid no return. 
 Sugar fanners had borrowed money for extensions and improvements 
 in working power, which was swallowed up in the disastrous legislative 
 mistake of 1833. Many of the oldest and wealthiest families were tor- 
 tured into absolute poverty. Who can now say what the investment 
 of 810,000,000 of new capital in sugar, prior to 1833, would have shown 
 in increased j)rodu('t under a liberal law ? The act of 1833 destroyed 
 credit of the planters of Louisiana as eflectually as a civil war or a pesti- 
 lence, money lenders believing that the sugar industry had received its 
 death blow. They regarded sugar as doonunl to anniliilation. Xothiug 
 saved even a remnant of the industry except the charter of a bank in 
 which the planters took 10,000 shares, which enabled some of them to 
 obtain a loan of 82,000,000 for fifty years, at 2i per cent per annum, 
 payable 2 per cent of the principal annually. 
 
 ilere. then, was a period of only seventeen years, 1810 to 1833, when 
 sugar had a one-half cent per pound of encouragement or positive ])ro- 
 tection, in addition to 2A cents for revenue, followed by nine years, 1833 
 to 1812, of reductions, which resulted in disaster and ruin. The damage 
 resulting in the nine years far exceeded the advantage derived in the 
 seventeen. 
 
 In 18 12 the policy of 1810-1828 was substantially reenacted, and it 
 was maintained even under the acts of 1810-1857. 
 
 In three years thereafter came our civil war, carrying desolation and 
 destruction to sugar and all other pursuits in the South. So that twice 
 in thirty-five years domestic sugar was i)ractically annihilated. Few 
 agricultural ventures, so expensive and hazardous as that of sugar, 
 would ever have recovered from such legislation and such a war. And 
 this is especially so when we consider the high j)rice of cotton after the 
 rebeliiv^n, the severe task imposed upon i)lanters of meeting new labor 
 conditions, and the burden cast upon men who were bankrupt of ])ur- 
 chasing new and expensive machinery. The only wonder is that they 
 did not entirely abandon sugar and return to cotton and indigo. 
 
 So that, Mr. Chairman, if we consider these facts, the labor conditions,
 
 SUGAR-CANE GROWEES. 627 
 
 and the want of energy then extant in the South in sugar and other 
 occupations, there wouhl seem to be some defense for the want of 
 progress made in domestic sugar-cane production before the late war. 
 
 Nor should the conditions in Louisiana after the late war be over- 
 looked in considering the appeal which the cane planters make. Sugar 
 was practically annihilated, and it was not until 1878-79 that Louisi- 
 ana's product again reached 106,000 tons. 
 
 Since the war the increase of domestic cane sugar has been as 
 follows : 
 
 1870-71 : Tons. 
 
 Louisiana (about) 75, 392 
 
 Other Southern States 4, 208 
 
 Total 79,600 
 
 1894-95 : 
 
 Louisiana 317, 333 
 
 Other Southern States 8, 288 
 
 Total 325,621 
 
 This shows a 320 j)er cent increase for Louisiana and nearly 100 per 
 cent increase for the other Southern States. 
 
 The production in — Tons. 
 
 1888-89 144,000 
 
 1890-91 215, 000 
 
 1894-95 317,000 
 
 Here is a very steady and creditable increase in production, equal 
 to nearly 48 per cent between 1890-91 and 1894-95. 
 
 It is misleading, therefore, to say that domestic cane sugar has been 
 liberally protected for a century. During the intervals of time in 
 which it was not struggling to regain what it had lost by hostile legis- 
 lation and war it had only moderate protection. What it may have 
 gained by Congressional favor from 1816 to 1833 it lost between 1833 
 and 1842. For several years after 1842 it was struggling to recover 
 under the moderate rates of 1846 and 1857, and then, as I have said, 
 came the civil war and its results. 
 
 I have thus attempted to show that there may exist a very consider- 
 able amount of misapprehension about the domestic sugar industry, 
 the protection given it, and supposed profits therefrom down to the 
 close of the late war, following which we had twelve or fifteen years of 
 "reconstruction," when the principal business was politics, securing 
 credit, and a readjustment of labor and social conditions, which were 
 great obstacles to the advancement of the sugar industry. 
 
 It is another common belief among people that the cane-sugar indus- 
 try in this country, in its early days and now, was and is controlled by 
 men of opulence who have amassed fortunes from it. 
 
 From a circular in reply to the Secretary of the Treasury in 1845 the 
 profits of our sugar planters were clearly shown to be very moderate 
 on their heavy investments in lands, machinery, buildings, and slaves, 
 as follows : 
 
 The net profits in 1841-42 did not exceed 3 per cent; in 1842-43 
 they did not exceed 4.13 per cent; in 1843-44 the profit was 5^ per cent; 
 in 1844-45 the i^roflt was 9 per cent. 
 
 The price of "brown sugar" being 4 cents, 1841 to 1843, and cents 
 in 1844, and 10 to 12 cents in 1845, seems to account for an increase in 
 the percentage as given in the different years. At these prices the 
 average profit was a trifle over 5^ per cent.
 
 628 
 
 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 If we \rere to compare sugar with tobacco, we would discover that 
 tobacco has had the advantage. In 1850 the total domestic product of 
 sugar from 100,000 acres was 237,133,000 pounds, being 51)2 pounds to the 
 acre, and the value of which, per acre, was $23, the value of the crops 
 being $9,485,000. The same year the total domestic product of tobacco 
 from 400,000 acres was 199,752,000 pounds, or 500 pounds to the acre; 
 value per acre, 830, and the value of the crop 811,985,000. And it 
 must be remembered that you do not need the costly implements and 
 expensive machinery in tobacco culture as in sugar ])roduction. 
 
 In 1879*the area in cane sugar had fallen to 227,77(j acres. Would 
 this have been so if there had been the profits in sugar which many 
 suppose without very heavy investments? Profits must be tested by 
 percentage on investment. 
 
 The consideration that domestic sugar for many years lessened the 
 cost of sugar to our consumers is one never credited to that product. 
 The proof of my assertion that such was the effect is found in the 
 report from Mr. Dickerson, a Democratic Senator from New Jersey, on 
 a bill submitted to the Senate in 1831 to reduce the duty on sugar, who 
 made quite an elaborate report against it. Among other things the 
 report stated that "sugar which five years ago sold in our markets for 
 10 cents per pound is now selling for ('* cents. The competition between 
 foreign and domestic production h:is kept the price down." 
 
 1 offer the following table, showing imports of sngar and domestic 
 production with the ratio which the domestic product bore to the total 
 (in tons of 2,240 pounds): 
 
 Year. 
 
 Imports. 
 
 Domestic 
 product. 
 
 Ilatioof 
 domestic. 
 
 Ig98 
 
 21, 408 
 169, 822 
 204, 240 
 207, 322 
 203, 540 
 211,076 
 243.404 
 
 39,272 
 115, 197 
 164, 312 
 224, 188 
 177, 349 
 113,664 
 
 36, 813 
 
 Per cent. 
 65 
 
 
 40 
 
 1852 
 
 44 
 
 
 52 
 
 5 g54 
 
 46 
 
 1855 
 
 35 
 
 1856 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 And sugar rose in the United States the next year 1.3 cents per 
 pound, the crop in Louisiana having been almost a total failure in 1856. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 346, 868 
 1858 231,741 
 
 1857. 
 
 Imports. 
 
 Domestic 
 product. 
 
 136, 542 
 185, 206 
 
 Ratio of 
 domestic. 
 
 Per cent. 
 28 
 45 
 
 And the price of sugar dropped nearly 1:^ cents per i^ound. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Imports. 
 
 1859 ' 292,788 
 
 1860 310,105 
 
 1861 361,495 
 
 Domestic 
 product. 
 
 113, 411 
 117, 430 
 285, 856 
 
 Ratio of 
 domestic. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 28 
 27 
 44 
 
 The crop in 1801 was Ihe largest that had ever been produced in 
 Louisiana and the price of sugar fell off' three-fourths of a cent a i)ound.
 
 SUGAR-CANE GROWERS. 629 
 
 The ratio which the domestic crop bore to our total consumption must 
 naturally have had the etiect of lowering prices. 
 
 Because of an early frost and a consequent crop in Louisiana in 1835 
 (only 27,000,000 pounds), we imported 05,000,000 pounds more in 1836 
 than in 1835, and the price of mucovados advance from 2i and 4 cents 
 to 11 cents here, and to and 7 cents in Habaiia, showing quite clearly 
 the depressing effect which a good crop of domestic sugar had on prices 
 here. Our imports of sugar, because of this, in 1836 were 191,426,000 
 pounds; in 1835 they were only 126,000,000 pounds; increase, 65,126,000 
 pounds, and this increase cost us $2,851,016. The crop in Louisiana in 
 1836-37 was favorable, and our imports fell 55,000,000 pounds compared 
 with 1830 and i)rices of sugar receded to 5 and 6 cents a pound in New 
 Orleans and to li and 5 cents in Cuba. In 1812 the Louisiana crop 
 was heavy and prices fell off to 2>i and 4 cents. The crop in 1843-44 
 was short and prices again advanced to 5i and 7 cents. 
 
 The effect of supi)lying and deficit abroad has been the same as here. 
 In England, in 1S31, oversupply of sugar in the world, compared with 
 1833, produced a decline in the price to about 6i mills a pound. In 3835 
 a short supply, compared with 1834, produced a rise in price of about 
 If cents a pound. In 1836 an oversupply, compared with the previous 
 year, produced a decline in price of 3A mills per pound. In 1837 a short 
 supply, compared with 1836, produced an advance in price of li cents 
 per pound. In 1838 an oversupply, compared with 1837, produced a 
 decline of over 2i cents per pound. In 1840 a short supply, compared 
 with the previous year, produced an advance of nearly 4 cents per pound. 
 
 It can be claimed with some considerable degree of confidence that 
 these facts establish — 
 
 First, The importance to the people of this country of the domestic- 
 sugar industry in the past, in keeping a great deal of money at home 
 that otherwise must have been sent abroad for foreign sugar to fill the 
 void that would have existed but for the domestic product. 
 
 Second. Tlie importance of the effect of the domestic product in 
 steadying and reducing prices that would otherwise have prevailed, 
 clearly shown by the increase in j^rice of sugar in 1836 and in 1857 
 because of short domestic crops in 1835 and 1856, 
 
 For at least eleven years, 1851 to 1861, our people had the advantage of 
 the lower price of sugar which an average of 39 per cent of any domestic 
 product naturally gives. Our figures show that from 1851 to 1861, both 
 years exclusive, the average per cent of domestic production compared 
 with our total comsumption was nearly 37 per cent, making no allowance, 
 however, for the failure of crops in 1856; while, if we exclude 1856, the 
 average of domestic for the eleven years was 39 per cent. 
 
 Third. That the increase in domestic sugar production, comparirg 
 
 1851 with 18(31, was nearly 118 per cent, which fact, in connection wi' ti 
 
 ' what we have stated, disproves the oft-repeated assertion that " sugia- 
 
 has been protected a century without national benefit and withoi t 
 
 progressing." 
 
 The Farmers' National Congress, which met at Indianai3olis last 
 November, did not omit from its consideration of agricultural products 
 domestic sugar production. In fact, the memorial drafted and agreed 
 to for presentation to Congress discusses sugar and wool at consider- 
 able length. It asks for sufficient encouragement to develop the cane 
 and beet sugar industries. I will not further allude to the sentiment 
 of that great convention of agriculturists on the subject of domest"!C 
 sugar, assuming that the memorial will be laid before Congress, 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I thank you for your 
 attention.
 
 630 
 
 SCHEDULE E. — SUGAR. 
 
 Price Table for 1896, submitted by Mr. Osnard. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Jan. 2 
 
 9 
 
 16. 
 
 23, 
 
 30. 
 
 Feb. 6. 
 13. 
 20, 
 27. 
 
 Mar. 5. 
 12 
 19. 
 26 
 
 Apr. 2 
 9 
 16 
 23, 
 30 
 
 May 7 
 
 ■ 14 
 
 21 
 
 28 
 
 Jane 4 
 11 
 18 
 
 Musco- 
 vados. 
 
 Cents. 
 3.375 
 3.375 
 3.375 
 3.375 
 3.375 
 3.50 
 3.625 
 3.75 
 3.75 
 3.75 
 3.625 
 3.75 
 3. 75 
 3. 75 
 3. 75 
 3.75 
 3.75 
 3.75 
 3.625 
 3. 625 
 3.50 
 3.375 
 3.25 
 3.31 
 3.125 
 
 Centrifu- 
 gals. 
 
 Cents. 
 3.75 
 3.75 
 3.75 
 3.875 
 3.875 
 3.875 
 4.000 
 4.125 
 4.125 
 4. 125 
 4.125 
 4.18 
 4.18 
 4.18 
 4.25 
 4.375 
 4.31 
 4.25 
 4.25 
 4.25 
 4.00 
 4.00 
 3.75 
 3.81 
 3.625 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 4.72 
 4.59 
 4.59 
 4.72 
 4.65 
 4.58 
 4.65 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.84 
 4.84 
 4.84 
 5.08 
 5.20 
 5.20 
 5.14 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 4.84 
 4.97 
 4.72 
 4.78 
 4.66 
 
 Date. 
 
 June25. 
 
 July 2. 
 
 9. 
 
 16. 
 
 23. 
 
 30, 
 Aug. 6. 
 
 13. 
 
 20. 
 
 27. 
 Sept. 3. 
 
 10. 
 
 17. 
 
 25. 
 
 Oct. 1. 
 
 8. 
 
 15. 
 
 22. 
 
 29. 
 Kov. 5. 
 
 12. 
 
 19. 
 
 27. 
 Doc. 3. 
 
 10. 
 
 Musco- 
 
 Centrifu- 
 
 vados. 
 
 gals. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.50 
 
 2.94 
 
 3.44 
 
 2.875 
 
 3.375 
 
 2.875 
 
 3.31 
 
 2.875 
 
 3.31 
 
 3.125 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.375 
 
 2.875 
 
 3.25 
 
 2.81 
 
 3.25 
 
 2.75 
 
 3.06 
 
 2.75 
 
 3.00 
 
 2.69 
 
 3.06 
 
 2.625 
 
 3.00 
 
 2. 6J5 
 
 3.00 
 
 2. 625 
 
 3.00 
 
 2.875 
 
 3.25 
 
 2.875 
 
 3.25 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.44 
 
 2.875 
 
 3.25 
 
 2.875 
 
 3.25 
 
 2.875 
 
 3.31 
 
 2.875 
 
 3.25 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 4.47 
 4.60 
 4.47 
 4.47 
 4.35 
 4.35 
 4.60 
 4.60 
 4.47 
 4.47 
 4.47 
 4.47 
 4.47 
 4.47 
 4.24 
 3.98 
 3.86 
 3.86 
 3.98 
 3.98 
 4.23 
 4.10 
 4.10 
 4.10 
 4.10 
 
 STATEMENT OF GEN. J. HALE SYPHER. 
 
 Wednesday, December 30, 1S96. 
 
 Gen. J. Hale Sypher addressed the committee. 
 
 He said : iMr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have 
 given some attention to the matter, but I do not know that I couhl add 
 very much to tlie interesting lacts wliich have been presented to you. 
 I am not a sugar planter. As has been suggested, the cost of refining 
 has been reduced very greatly in the last half a dozen years. The 
 result of my investigation as to the cost of refining sugar by what is 
 known as the Sugar Trust is one-fourth of a cent per pound to the 
 American Sugar Ivetining Company, and about three eighths of a cent 
 to the Louisiana peojde. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is that statement? I did not get it. 
 
 General SvPHER. The cost of refining sugar by the Sugar Trust does 
 not exceed one-quarter of a cent per j^ound ; that is the result of my 
 investigation. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Does that include waste or not? 
 
 General Sypher. It includes everything. In Louisiana it would be 
 about three-eighths of a cent per pound. The methods in Louisiana, 
 of course, are not as perfect as the trust has them. Tliey have a large 
 plant and new appliances for carrying on this industry. In Louisiana 
 we have some large establishments whicli make the higher grades of 
 sugar. I have endeavored to get you, at the request of a member 
 of your conimittee, exactly what the cost was in Louisiana, but I have 
 been unable. There is the firm of Foos & Barnett, the Caflery Kefining 
 Company, which has a large establishment, and Lewis S. Clark, but I 
 have not been able to get it accurately; but I understand it is about 
 three eighths of a cent. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do they refine in connection with the production of the 
 raw sugar? 
 
 General Sypher. Some of those establishments refine what they pur- 
 chase from the plantations directly — that is, they work u^) cane directly
 
 SUGAR REFINERS AND DISTRIBUTERS. 
 
 631 
 
 off many of their neigflibors into the same class of sugars. I do not 
 think any of them buy raw sugar for the purpose ot' refining it in 
 Louisiana; none of those establishments I have named do so. 
 
 SUGAR REFI:N^ERS ^V^O) DISTBIBITTERS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. FRANCIS B. THURBER, OF NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 Wednesday, December 30, 1806. 
 Mr. Thurber said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 I have endeavored to concentrate the matter I have to say, so as to 
 take as little time as possible. I make this statement on behalf of the 
 distributing and refining interests, and incidentally that of the con- 
 sumer. I respectfully i)resent to your honorable committee a few facts, 
 some of which might not otherwise come to your attention. I do so as 
 a believer in the principle of revenue with protection. The late Peter 
 Cooper once said to me that " Nothing can be called cheap which leaves 
 our own good raw materials unused, and our own labor and capital unem- 
 ployed." And in this statement is epitomized the whole doctrine of 
 protection. In the game of politics the issue is often obscured, but, if 
 we can get at the real facts, appeals to prejudice fade away and justice 
 is secured. There is no just reason why American sugar interests, 
 whether engaged in production, refining, or distribution, should not be 
 entitled to the same degree of i^rotection as other industries. Some 
 citizens define patriotism as what is good for our country. Some politico- 
 economic students are so broad and catholic in their views as to desire 
 to take in the whole world. Be this as it may, no other product reaches 
 the consumer in this country with the same small margin of profit to 
 manufacturer and distributer as sugar. Each of them have often oper- 
 ated at a positive loss, and the much-abused refiner operates on a margin 
 of about one-third of a cent a pound profit, a smaller margin, consider- 
 ing the risks of the business, than any other branch of industry. And 
 yet for some occult reason every person rendering these services to the 
 community is criticised as no other laborer in the vineyard is criticised. 
 As a distributer of sugar for many years, I have done so at less than 
 the cost of the services rendered. When the organization of the indus- 
 try aimed to give distributers a commission equivalent to the cost of 
 the service rendered, a cry of combination and monopoly was set up 
 which was calculated to coerce legislators and courts into favoring 
 chaos instead of justice. At no time has there been a monopoly, and 
 to-day there are four competing refining organizations with a fifth 
 threatened. I would be the last to put a free press in fetters, but there 
 is riot in journalism, as well as in physical force. Only what is reason- 
 able will stand the crucible of the court of last resort, the court of ulti- 
 mate public opinion, and it is to this court that we must all appeal. 
 The wholesale price of granulated sugar in the United States has been 
 as follows : 
 
 Year. 
 
 Cents per 
 pound. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Cents per 
 pound. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Cents per 
 pound. 
 
 1880 
 
 9.60 
 9.66 
 9.23 
 8.50 
 6.78 
 6.44 
 
 1886 
 
 6.11 
 6.01 
 7.00 
 7.64 
 6.17 
 4.69 
 
 1892 
 
 4 34 
 
 1881 
 
 1887 
 
 1893 
 
 4.84 
 
 1882 
 
 1888. 
 
 1889 
 
 1894 
 
 4.12 
 
 188a 
 
 1895 
 
 4.15 
 
 1884 
 
 1890 
 
 1891 
 
 1896 
 
 4.57 
 
 1885 
 
 
 
 

 
 632 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 To-day the consumers of France and Germany, the largest producers of 
 sugar in tlie world, pay about 50 per cent more than those of the United 
 States, but those countries protect their sugar industries with a bounty 
 which enables them to dump their surplus on foreign markets at abnor- 
 mally low prices, which have broken down the refining industry in free- 
 trade England, and but for our barrier of protective duties they would 
 do the same for l)oth our producing and refining industries. A curious 
 side light on the discussion of free trade and protection is that England, 
 the great apostle of free trade, has protected her shipping under the 
 guise of bounties for mail service until her shipping industry is strong- 
 enough to successfully comi)ete with those of all the world. The Ameri- 
 can SugarEefiningCompany, or the so-called " sugar trust,'' was organ- 
 ized in 1887. Before the consolidation many refineries were driven into 
 bankruptcy or out of business, among them, in New York alone, being 
 Messrs. R. L. & A. Stuart; JJooth & Edgar; Williamson, Griffith & 
 Co.; 0. Durant & Co.; AVilliani ]\Ioller «& Co.; Moller, Sierck & Henken; 
 United States Refining Company; A. F. & J. H. Ockershausen & Co.; 
 Burger, Hulburt &; Livingston; Wintjen, Harms »S: Co.; Bradish, John- 
 son & Co.; Katterhorn, Ilopke, Olferman «K: Co. Since that time, owing 
 to the organization of the industry, consumers, distributors, and refiners 
 have been benefited. Foreign producers and refiners may have been 
 prejudiced, but no American interest has suffered. Tliey have bought 
 their raw material cheap, but they have not sold the manufactured inod- 
 uct dear. They have pursued a live and let live policy in manufacture, 
 distribution, and consumption. Representatives of special interests are 
 now seeking to change the basis of duty and minimize the i)rinciple of 
 protection, but divested of all ilhisions the question presented is whether 
 the work of refining should bo done abroad or in tl)e United States. 
 Specific duties in many lines have an honest basis for preference, but in 
 such commodities as sugar, in wliich i)ound values may vary as much as 
 100 per cent, the ])rincii)le is manifestly incongruous and injpracticable. 
 
 Raw sugar worth 2 cents a pound should not i>ay as much ])er i)ound 
 as refined worth -I cents per ]>ound, and, while a schedule based on grad- 
 uated saccharine strength, as defined by thepolariscoi)e, might approxi- 
 mate justice, it would not do so to an extent which would justify the 
 disturbance of the present l)asis to which trade has already adjusted 
 itself. After a great industry has adjusted itself to a system, it should 
 not be lightly changed. The officers charged with the collection of the 
 revenue on sugar will confirm my statement that the system they have 
 established for ascertaining values under the present ad valorem basis 
 assures a result in the collection of the revenue on sugar as satisfac- 
 tory, if not more so, than any basis of specific duties dei)ending uj)on 
 the manipulation of the polariscoi>e. The charges of fraud and under- 
 valuations when tlie i)olariscopc was the arbiter are still fresh in the 
 jiublic mind. The specific duty principle is not applicable to all com- 
 modities. It is like the principle of reciprocity which is subject to exist- 
 ing individual conditions. American capital invested in American 
 plants and real estate, paying American taxes and employing Ameri- 
 can labor in the sugar industry, should be entitled to the same degree 
 of protection as other American industries. I therefore trust that 
 your honorable committee will carefully weigh the A'arying conditions 
 as to products and not impose cast-iron conditions which will operate 
 to the detriment of American products, ca])ital, or labor. One feature 
 should not be lost sight of: Any differential imposed upon the product 
 of any country granting a bounty should only apply to the refined i^rod- 
 uct and not to the raw material required by our refineries.
 
 SUGAR REFINERS AND DISTRIBUTERS. 633 
 
 Mr. Evans. In wliat particular line are yon interested? 
 
 Mr. Thueber. I liave been a distribnter of sngar all my life, and in 
 making- these remarks I have done so largely from a distribnter's stand- 
 lioint, but not with a knowledge of the refining interests particnlarly, 
 but in connection with my work in the reorganization of the sngar 
 industry. It has transferred the price-making power from European 
 to American markets. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Do you represent in any sense the Havemeyer Com- 
 pany? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. Xo, sir. 
 
 Mr. Evans. You have no connection with it? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. None whatever. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. There have been various statements made — not here, 
 but elsewhere, because I have heard them from time to time — in refer- 
 ence to the distribution of the area for the sale of sugar by the Ameri- 
 can Sugar Refining Company. Will you please state to the committee 
 what methods they emiidoy, whether by way of a direct commission, or 
 rebate, or whether there is any agreement not to sell below a certain 
 figure ! 
 
 Mr. Thurber. The distribution is at wholesale and is now practically 
 on a commission basis. The sugars are consigned with the under- 
 standing that about three-sixteenths of a cent is paid to the wholesaler 
 as his profit, and while the wholesaler may sell t . anyone at a less 
 price, unless he is an appointed agent, he can not get that three- 
 sixteenths commission. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN, Do they require any undertaking on the part of the 
 distributing agent that the sugar shall not be sold beneath a certain 
 figure? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. Yes, sir; based on freight rates. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. At the time the sale is made is a payment made, or 
 is there a rebate from the list price? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do they give the rebate from this price at which the 
 goods are charged to them when sold? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mc'MiLLiN. Do those who deal in their goods make a statement 
 to them, before they can get this rebate, that they have not violated 
 their undertaking not to sell beneath the list rate? 
 
 Mr. '1'hurber. Yes, sir; they have to so certify. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Without that certification they do not get paid for 
 handling the goods? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Suppose that a man who handles their goods pro- 
 poses to sell to another party; is that party required to keep the under- 
 taking, too? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. No. sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. If the wholesaler sells to a retail dealer the retail 
 dealer can sell to whom he pleases? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But all their own agents are put under contract? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You liave been asked about the bounty paid on Ger- 
 man sugars. I ask you, for information, do they give the bounty on 
 both the raw and the refined when exported? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. I do not understand that question well enough to 
 answer intelligently upon it.
 
 634 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Are you acquainted ^vith the cost of refining sugar? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. I have a general opinion, but I liave not that intimate 
 practical knowledge that only the refiner has. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You heard the statement of Mr. Humphreys as to the 
 costof refining sugar when he mentioned five-eighthsof a cent as the cost 
 for sugar above 80^. Have you any criticism to make of that statement ? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. My opinion is that it varies in cost, depending upon 
 the saccharine strength, over three-eighths of a cent, the lowest, to five- 
 eighths or three-fourths of a cent, the highest ; within that range you will 
 find the average. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Where do you get your figures for saying that three- 
 eighths of a cent was the lowest cost for refining? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. From my contact with people and discission with 
 them, but I have not that practical knowledge with regard to refining. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Where did you derive your theory tliat tlie change in 
 the tariff, such as is proposed, will result to the detriment of the 
 refining industry in this country ? You seem to express fears. Now 
 ■what is your information in regard to the cost of refining sngar? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. In discussing the nmtter with the distributers of 
 sugar with whom I come in contact, and the fact that I have had expe- 
 rience, and the universal opinion that the industry has adjusted itself 
 to the present conditions, and that while the specific system of levying 
 duties is desirable in some lines, it is not sufficiently so in sugar to 
 justify a change in tlie method of the collection of the tariff. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How are you able to say that the differential duty of 
 one-fourth of a cent a i)Ound on refined sugar would not permit the 
 industry to thrive, if you were not informed as to the cost of refining 
 sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. You are speaking of the differential to be imposed on 
 other countries. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I refer to the one-fourth of a cent a pound over and 
 above the highest duties put on the raw material. 
 
 Mr. Thurber. I think one fourth of a cent a pound instead of one- 
 tenth Avould approximate about what is right. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Still you do not know what it costs to refine sugar? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. We know what the factories have been producing 
 under the i)resent system. We know that under the present differen- 
 tial large quantities of German refined sugars have found their way 
 into this market. 
 
 Mr. Payne. These are substantially bounty-paid sugars? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And you understand that that bounty -paid sugar has 
 more than a differential of one tenth of a cent a i)Ound? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. At what do you figure the differential duty on refined 
 sugar of 40 per cent ad valorem under the present law; what does the 
 40 per cent give the refiners ? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. Jt is a varying quantity with different grades of sugar. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Within what range does it vary? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. I would have to figure that out and submit it in a 
 statement to be at all accurate. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I wish you would do so. 
 
 Mr. Thurber, I will do so with pleasure. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It seems to me that would be one of the first things to 
 find out, to determine whether we should abandon the ad valorem duty 
 and go to a specific.
 
 SUGAR EEFINERS AND DISTRIBUTERS. 635 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You have no definite information? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. No, sir ; but there are other gentlemen present, doubt- 
 less, who could inform you. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Eecurring to the question of distribution of sugar 
 by the American Sugar Refining Company. Suppose that one of their 
 agents does not comply with this undertaking not to sell for less than 
 a certain figure; do they then refuse to sell him sugar afterwards? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. No, sir; he can go ou buying sugar, but he can not 
 get bis commission. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. He has to handle it for nothing in that case? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. You heard the statement of Mr. Humphreys that the 
 change from the present ad valorem duty to a basis of 1.40 .specific 
 would not cost the consumer one-eighth of a cent a pound. Is that 
 true ? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. I did not understand Mr. Humphreys to say that. I 
 understood him to say it would increase it, but his opinion was it would 
 be about one-eighth. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. It was small. What is your opinion about that; 
 how much would it increase the cost to the consumer? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. That would depend on the first cost of the sugar. 
 Since the organization of the iudUvStry they have succeeded in forcing 
 the producers to take very much less for the product, and hence have 
 been constantly reducing the price to the consumer, while maintaining 
 their own margin of profit in refining, and temporarily I should think 
 that a large advance in the duty might increase the cost to the con- 
 sumer more than one eighth of a cent. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Considerably more? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. I should think so, 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. What figures would you put it at, roughly? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. Perhaps one-fourth or three-eighths, maybe; but this 
 is onl}^ an opinion of mine, and might not be worth much. 
 
 Mr. Steele. Is the commission which goes to the refiner, based ou 
 freight rates, uniform? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. Yes, sir. The dealer is expected to add the cost of 
 freight to the list price of manufacture and he gets a rebate of three- 
 sixteenths as a commission. 
 
 Mr. Steele. Is it uniform? 
 
 Mr. Thurber. Yes, sir. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. W. J. McCAHAN, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
 Wednesday, December 30, 1896. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you a refiner? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Outside of the American Sugar Eefinery? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. I am perfectly independent. 
 
 We have now had two years and four months of the present tariff, 
 with a protection of one-eighth of a cent per pound, or about 4 per cent, 
 while beet-growing countries pay a bounty of about three-eighths of a 
 cent, giving foreign refiners of bouuty-iiaying countries about one-fourth 
 of a cent the advantage in our market. This has resulted, in ] 896, in an 
 increase of about 110 per cent in imports of refined, against 10 per cent 
 increased importationsof raw, whileourrefineries have been running less 
 than 60 per cent of their capacity. With the facilities for obtaining the
 
 636 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 market value of sugar in all parts of the world, there is little trouble 
 with an ad valorem tariff, and it seems the only equitable way of assess- 
 ing duty, as the jirices of the grades vary so much that a fixed tarifi' 
 would prohibit the importation of large quantities of low-grade cane 
 sugars, as appears from to-day's quotations, approximately : Java black 
 stroops, 1.25 cents f. o. b. ; Java centrifugals, 2.17 cents; other centri- 
 fugals, 2.25 cents; muscovadoes, l.CO to 2 cents. We therefore recom- 
 mend an ad valorem duty. 
 
 Wo think you are the best judges as to whether an article of uni- 
 versal consumption should be taxed more than 40 per cent. If an 
 advance is necessary, add whatever percentage is needed. In Great 
 Britain, Avitli free trade, about 50 per cent of the imports is refined 
 sugar, principally from bounty-paying countries, and we are fast losing 
 our market from the same cause. 
 
 Will you help us to keep our own market, or shall all sugar be refined 
 abroad 1 
 
 Molasses, being a residuum of poor quality and low value, can not 
 stand any additional duty, as the i>roducts from it have been declining 
 in price for years, and the only molasses refineries in existence are the 
 three in Pliiladeli)hia, only one of which worked on molasses, for but 
 one month, during the present year. In fact, it is one of those b\'- 
 products that should come in free, if the industry is to be perpetuated. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Have you figured up the schedule as to the 75° sugar 
 running up to three one hundredths, so as to say what the ad valorem 
 equivalent would be beyond the duty on the sugar? 
 
 Mr. JMcCahan. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Would you be surprised to find that it does not vary 5 
 per cent on the whole schedule? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. I think it would be close. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It would not vary much more than on the whole sched- 
 ule. Now, if the bounty is taken care of by an equivalent, for instance 
 of three-eighths of a cent per pound on German sugar, how much do 
 you think would be necessary in addition to protect the sugar refining 
 business? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. On what basis? 
 
 Mr. Payne. If Germany imposes «a bounty of three-eighths of a cent 
 and we impose a tariff of three-eighths of a cent, that would take care 
 of the bounty ? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. I think the difference now is 27 to 38 cents a hundred. 
 
 Mr. Payne, What is the cost of refining sugar? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. I calculate our sugar of 96° to cost five-eighths of a 
 cent to convert 100 pounds of raw sugar of 96°. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That in('ludes waste? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What do you say it costs in your factory to do it? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. That depends; it would cost one figure if you run 
 full time; it is a movable quantity. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Have you the latest improved machinery in your factory? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. We think so. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You are not using over 60 per cent of your capacity? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. Not quite that much. 
 
 Mr. Pay^ne. If you ran your factory to its full capacity, how much 
 would it cost you to refine 96° sugar? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. We refine sugar for 56 cents per hundred pounds. 
 
 Mr. Payne, Have you tried to refine sugar in your factory test- 
 ing 100?
 
 SUGAR REFINERS AND DISTRIBUTERS. 637 
 
 Mr. McC AHAN. No ; we have no money to waste. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Ninety-six degrees is the highest? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. Yes, sir; will you allow me to explain? 
 
 Mr. Payne. I will ask you some questions which I woukl like you to 
 answer and after that you can explain all you like. Do you liiid your 
 chief competition on this side or on the other side? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. On the other side. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What percentage of the consumption of refined sugar 
 is imported 1 
 
 Mr. McCahan. It is not large yet, but it is growing. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Then you don't care anything about the competition of 
 the American Sugar Kefining Company if the foreign competition is 
 taken care of ? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. No, sir; because we think that the American Sugar 
 Eefining Company will not sell its goods below cost if it can help it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. They would not sell without a jn-otit ? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. No, sir; we know that the Germans will put sugar 
 into our markets, and they have done so and taken one of our largest 
 confectioneries in Philadelphia. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Who has taken the 40 per cent of your customers which 
 you say you have lost? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. I suppose that we have that much more capacity 
 than the country needs, possibly. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You have never run your factory to its full capacity? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. Only for short spells. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Have you any figures that you could produce for the 
 time you have run your factory to its full capacity showing the cost of 
 refining sugar? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Have you ever figured it out on that basis? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Have you ever made any figures on anything to show 
 the cost of refining sugar in your factory? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. Y"es, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. For what period? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. For a year. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And during most of which time you only ran it half 
 your capacity? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. Possibly two-thirds of our capacity. 
 
 Mr. Payne. But you say it costs five-eights of a cent for 96° sugar. 
 Did you run through all the year on 96° sugar? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. J said we estimated it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What was the actual cost of the sugar refined in your 
 factory during the year? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. Fifty six cents per hundred pounds. 
 
 Mr. Payne. On all that you refined? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. AVhat degree did you use mostly? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. Ninety-six. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What portion of it was 96°? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. It was all of about an average of 96°; it was fig- 
 ured down to that. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I do not want to know what it was figured to, but what 
 it actually was ? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. I do not think there was 5 per cent of anything else 
 except 96°.
 
 638 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It was nearly all 96°? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. Yes, sir, 
 
 Mr. Payne. And that cost you 56 cents per 100 pounds to refine? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Have you any knowledge of the cost of the product in 
 England? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. Only from quotations which I see every day. 
 
 Mr. Payne. As to the cost of refining? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. IsTo; I mean market prices. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You know the difference between the raw and refined 
 sugar from the daily quotations, and you have no other method of 
 knowing! 
 
 Mr. McCahan, Xone whatever, 
 
 Mr, Payne, Is not the difierence in England between the market 
 price of raw and refined sugar greater than it is- here? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. It is a little less. 
 
 Mr, Payne. How much less ? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. It fluctuates from day to day. Take the market 
 to-day and the difference would be about 16 cents per hundred? 
 
 Mr. Payne. That is the difierence? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is it here? 
 
 Ml'. McCahan. It is 1)1 cents a hundred here to-day. 
 
 Mr. Payne, What is the capacity of your factory? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. Two thousand barrels per day. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Could vou refine it cheaper if you were refining from 
 10,000 to 15,000 barrels i)er day ? 
 
 Mr. ]\IcCahan. That we do not know. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Have you any opinion of that subject? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. AVe think we could. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You have no doubt about that, have you? 
 
 Mr. McCahan, I have some doubt about it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is it not a fact that sugar is refined cheaper in America 
 than in any other country on the face of the globe? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. That I can not say. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You would not say it was not true? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. I would think it was not true, because there is no 
 place where sugar is made where wages are so high as in the United 
 States. 
 
 ]\Ir. McMiLLiN. What proportion of the sugar consumed in the 
 United States is refined ? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. I should say 95 per cent of it. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Is it refined here ? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. Yes, sir, 
 
 Mr. McMillin. There are refineries in the East and the West? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. In the East, West, and South. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Do you know of any agreement between the Eastern 
 refineries and the Western refineries not to invade each other's markets? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. IS^o, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Has there ever been any such agreement? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. I don't know, 
 
 Mr, McMillin. Did I understand you correctly to say that the differ- 
 ence between the raw and refined sugar in England was 16 cents per 
 100 pounds ? 
 
 Mr. McCahan, I said the difierence between raw and refined in the 
 United States and in England that was used was about 16 cents more
 
 SUGAR REFINERS AND DISTRIBUTERS. 639 
 
 per 100 pounds. It may be 10 now, because the day before I left there 
 was a margin of 6 cents per 100 more in Philadelphia than it had been 
 previously. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You spoke of the fact that at the preseut time there 
 was a difference between the United States and England in refined 
 sugar. Is it not true that the refining business in England is depressed ? 
 
 Mr. McOahan. We think so; I think if they got that difference that 
 we get in duty they could live. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What proportion of the sugar used in the United 
 States is refined by the sugar trust? 
 
 Mr. McOahan. 1 should think about 70 per cent or 75 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I asked the question a moment ago, and was not 
 able to get the information, whether the exijort bounty paid by Germany 
 is paid on both raw and refined sugars when exported? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. It is paid on both. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. That is, the sugar refiners, in importing raw sugar 
 from Germany, get the benefit of that just as the sugar purchasers in 
 the United States get it on refined. 
 
 Mr. McCahan, Yes; but there is a difference in the amount. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is that difference? 
 
 Mr, McCahan. One is 27 and the other is 38.33. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Have you any knowledge of refined sugar being 
 adulterated in Germany f 
 
 Mr. McCahan. No; they never refine it. They inake it by a method 
 we call the plantation method, which is granulating it without the use 
 of boneblack. It is made from the juice without ever being made into 
 raw sugar. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Do you know what they put in the sugar they call 
 refined ? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. I do not know anything they put into it, but some 
 impurities are not taken out. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You stated that you wanted to say something as to the 
 cost of refining in your factory alter you had answered my question, 
 
 Mr. McCahan. I answered you that it was 50 cents per hundred. 
 There is 26 cents waste to come out of 56 cents, which brings down the 
 cost of refining to 34 cents, I think. When I say 56 cents I include 
 waste. 
 
 Mr. Payne. There is some waste abroad? 
 
 Mr. McCahan. But we pay 40 cents on our waste and they get theirs 
 free. 
 
 Baltumore, January 4, 1897. 
 Committee on Way^s and Means: 
 
 Having read with great interest the reports of those who spoke before 
 your honorable committee the day the matter of sugar duty was under 
 consideration, we found only one who spoke from the distributor's stand- 
 point. We kindly ask of you to let us present a few remarks from the 
 standpoint of a distributor of sugar since 1S37, under heavy, small, and 
 free duty. 
 
 We realize the fact that sugar should pay the Government a large 
 revenue, and at the same time a limited protection be given to the 
 refiners. The duty, a specific one, should be levied on all sugars, say 
 under 96° test, or as your committee may see fit as to test.
 
 640 SCHEDULE E. — SUGAR. 
 
 That the protection to the refiners of the country, the Sugar Trust, 
 should not be so great as to entirely stop the importatiou of granulated 
 sugar, let the i)rotection be no greater than now shown them. Our 
 reason for this is that for the last eighteen months there has been 
 imported granulated sugar to the amount of 4i to 5 j)er cent of the total 
 consumption of the country. This small amount, as au}^ distributor 
 will state, has kept the trust's prices down to such figures that the dis- 
 tributors have been able to place the sugars, ''which are now a neces- 
 sity, not a luxury, to the poor," at a price within the reach of all, and 
 at the same time allow our retiners, according to their statement of the 
 cost of refining made before your committee, to make splendid profits 
 for their shareholders; aud had not this small lot of refined sugar been 
 allowed to come to our countrj^ — a mere drop in the bucket — what would 
 the consumer have had to pay for sugar during the last year? Seven 
 and a half to 8 cents would, we think, have been the retail price. We 
 make these protests from the standpoint of one to whom the trust 
 and other American refiners have refused to sell or consign sugar, 
 excei)t at a price, 18 cents per 100 pounds, over that to which they 
 will ship to our competitors in trade. This stand they take, or boycott, 
 as we term it, from the fact that our account, so they tell us. Is not a 
 satisfactory one. Still, up to eighteen months ago it was eagerly solic- 
 ited by their agents, as we were large distributors of sugars, bought 
 all on a cash basis, and could do so with them now. Still, we claim 
 that their discontinuance was from the fact that we sold foreign sugars. 
 One refiner, as well as the trust agent, has made this statement to us. 
 Now, in a free country, when a trust takes such a stand, we claim that 
 our i)rotest against protection to the refiners to such an extent as to 
 put us out of business is one that should have some weight with your 
 committee, thereby allowing others than are under the direction of the 
 refining sugar interest to pursue their business and import this small 
 proportion of the sugar consumed in this country, and at the same time 
 give the i)eople sugar at a low cost, with refiners paying their share- 
 holders a fair return fi)r their outlay. 
 
 Asking that the protection now given will not 1)6 iucreased, we 
 remain, 
 
 Wilson, Burns & Co. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED JSY THE AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING 
 COMPANY, OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Janua-Ry 11, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The undersigned, on behalf of the American Sugar Refining Com- 
 pany, desires to submit the following observations respecting the sugar 
 schedule in the proposed new tariff bill: 
 
 1. The amount of duty to be laid on imported sugar is a matter to be 
 determined by your committee, having in view the amount of revenue 
 to be raised and the iiroj^ortion of same to be taxed on the consumption 
 of this food sta])le. 
 
 2. Assuming that the duties upon sugar are to be assessed with a 
 view to the incidental protection of the sugar industries of this country, 
 it should be borne in mind that at present 85^ ])er centof the consump- 
 tion consists of imported sugars which may all, with equal advantage
 
 SUGAR REFINERS AND DISTKIBUTERS. 641 
 
 to tbe revenue, be imi^orted unrefined and the work of refining per- 
 formed by American labor and machinery. 
 
 3. In order to secure to American refiners access on equal terms to 
 the unrefined sugars of the world, and thus enable them to produce the 
 refined sugars of the various grades at the lowest possible cost to 
 the consumer, it is absolutely essential that the duties be assessed with 
 regard to the actual value of each grade of sugar. 
 
 4. In fixing the difierential between raw and refined sugar, your 
 attention is most earnestly asked to a special condition which exists by 
 reason of the unprecedented development, under the bounty system, of 
 the beet-sugar production of Europe and the special eiibrts nuide and 
 being made to force foreign refined sugar into consumption in this 
 country at the expense of the American product. 
 
 In order to market here the surphis product of Germany, the pro- 
 duction of which is stimulated by a substantial bounty, their refined 
 sugar, which is made directly from the beet, without the additional and 
 independent refining process, is practically sold on the basis of raw 
 sugar, e. g., 100 pounds of refined sugar is sold for the equivalent of 
 the same amount of purity in raw sugar, and wliiie it may not be equal 
 in quality to the product of the American refineries, which is the best in 
 the world, it serves the purpose sutficiently to displace their product 
 to a constantly increasing amount. 
 
 Tlie importations of European refined sugar under the law of 1890 
 were — 
 
 For the fiscal year — 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1891-92 4, 53 1, 260 
 
 1892-93 2, 219, 058 
 
 1893-94 16,427,569 
 
 Under the present law in — 
 
 1894-95 16, 333, 468 
 
 1895-96 123, 845, 459 
 
 For the calendar year 1896 196, 689, 895 
 
 and tbe advices are that with the continuance of the present insufficient 
 differential in favor of refined sugars the substitution of refined for 
 raw sugar shipments will be enormously increased. 
 
 The inevitable result is amply illustrated in Great Britain, where, 
 notwithstanding the advantages of freedom from duty and easier access 
 to the raw sugars of the East Indies and her own colonies, the German 
 refined sugars are rapidly driving the English refiners outi of their own 
 market, the importatioiis, according to the official figures in the Bureau 
 of Statistics, showing the im^iorts of German refined to have been as 
 follows : 
 
 Pounds. I Pounds. 
 
 I880-. 27,430,240 1888 356,180,832 
 
 1881 46,879,392 i 1889 463.83.5,808 
 
 1882 39,275,712 1 1890 560,318,752 
 
 1883 65, 832, 256 ! 1891 736, 069, 040 
 
 1884 84,227,024 i 1892 676,860,3.52 
 
 1885 109,090,800 1893 743,026,704 
 
 1886 205,012,304 ' 1894 962,692,528 
 
 1887 317,275,280 , 1895 1,050,813,792 
 
 I desire in this connection to call your attention to another feature of 
 the existing law which should be remedied. 
 
 Under the law of 1890 the additional one-tenth cent per pound was 
 imposed on sugars above No. 16 Dutch standard in color to compensate 
 T H 41
 
 642 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 for the difference iu bounty, in Germany, between raw and refined 
 sugar. It was apparently intended to embody this feature in the exist- 
 ing law, but tbe law was left to read "one tenth cent per pound on all 
 sugars from bounty-paying countries," and the effect of this has been 
 to impose upon American refiners an additional tax on the raw material 
 from Germany in excess of that upon the refined by just so much as the 
 difference in purity between the two, while, on the other hand, the English 
 refiner finds himself able to i)urchase his raw sugar in the German 
 market one-tenth cent cheaper than the American refiner and then 
 export his refined product to this country without the payment of the 
 one-tenth on the refined, the customs authorities having ruled that 
 the identity of law beet sugar is lost when reiined. 
 
 The one-tenth is not the equivalent of the bountj^ paid by the German 
 Government; it simply represents the additional bounty paid on the 
 export of refined as compared with raw sugar, and hence should be 
 taxed against the refined onlj^, as was the case in the law of 1890. 
 
 In conclusion, the American refiners ask that in the fixing of the 
 duties on raw sugar they ]>e b;ised on the intrinsic value of the various 
 grades, and that the differential on refined be sufiicieut to offset their 
 disadvantages under the existing conditions in the European countries. 
 
 Jno. E. Searles, 
 Treasurer of the Ameriean Siujar Refining Company. 
 
 BEET SUGAH. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY T. OXNARD, OF NEBRASKA. 
 
 Wednesday, JJeeember 30, 18!)6. 
 
 Mr. OxNAKi) said : Gentlemen of the committee, I appear here in my 
 own behalf, representing three beet-sugar factories, two in Nebraska 
 and one in California, and aJso as president of the American Beet 
 Sugar Association, the object of which association is to foster and 
 develop the beet-sugar intlustry of the United States. I appreciate 
 the value of time and shall endeavor to economize it, but 1 hope not at 
 the expense of a fair presentation of the facts, and especially of the 
 conditions which surround the beet sugar industry, which is a compara- 
 tively new one, which opens up many economic-industrial phases of 
 material importance to the nation. 
 
 The present duty on sugar is not sufficiently protective to develop 
 the industry, and there is no encouragement in it for the investment of 
 additioiml capital. When I appeared before the Waj's and IMeans 
 Committee on the then pending McKinley bill, I made the prediction 
 that if adecpiate protection were given to sugar the beet-sugar indus- 
 try would make immense strides within a very few years. The very 
 year after the passage of that bill three beet-sugar factories were 
 erected. The fear of the repeal of the McKinley law and the enact- 
 ment of the present tariff" have retarded the investment of further 
 capital in the development of the beet-sugar industry, which, how- 
 ever, stands ready to embark as soon as it is satisfied that the United 
 States intends to carry out not only a fair but a liberal policy toward 
 sugar.
 
 BEET SUGAR. bAo 
 
 In 1876, when, as now, the Treasury required revenue, Congress did 
 not hesitate to increase the duty on sugar 25 ]jer cent, and that prece- 
 dent ought to have some little weight in determining our policy, 
 especially when our domestic sugar is more in need of jirotection than 
 at any time since the war. At 1;hat time revenue alone was the object, 
 while to-day the Government not only needs revenue but domestic 
 sugar requires additional protection, and capital is imperiled for the 
 want of it. 
 
 The revenue part of a continuous governmental policy toward sugar 
 was changed in 1890, because there was a surplus of money in the 
 Treasury, but the jirotective feature for domestic sugar was adhered 
 to substantially. 
 
 Prior to 1890, under the then existing law, the average ad valorem 
 equivalent rate on all sugars was 81 per cent. The Mills bill proposed a 
 reduction of but 18 to -0 per cent and it was expressly stated in the 
 report that this light reduction was made so as not to endanger the 
 I)rotitable production of sugar. 
 
 Its continued profitable production was considered an important 
 feature and the rates were fixed with that in view. We submit here- 
 with a table showing the rates of duty on sugar under the act of 1883, 
 under the Mills bill as it passed the House with Senate amendments, 
 the McKiuley bill, and the present law.. 
 
 Bates of iJaty on sugar. 
 
 Act of 1883. 
 
 Mills bill. 
 
 Senate amend- 
 ment to Mills bill- 
 
 Act of 1890. 
 
 Act of 1894. 
 
 Not above 75°, 
 
 Not above 75 
 
 Not above 75 test. 
 
 All sugars and molasses be- 
 
 40 per cent ad 
 
 1.4 and -^tu 
 
 test, 1.15. 
 
 jV„ cents. 
 
 low 16 Dutch standard in 
 
 valorem, aud 
 
 additional 
 
 For every addi- 
 
 ySo additional up 
 
 color were admitted free. 
 
 J on sugar 
 
 for every de- 
 
 tional degree 
 
 to ]:i Dutch 
 
 Ou all sugars above 16 Dutch 
 
 above 16 
 
 gree above 75 
 
 above 75, ^H,^. 
 
 standard. 
 
 standard in color there was 
 
 Dutch stand- 
 
 test. 
 
 No. 13 Dutch 
 
 Above 13 Dutch 
 
 a duty of i cent a pound. 
 
 ard, with ^\ 
 
 This made 80 
 
 standard and 
 
 standard and to 
 
 with a discriminating duty 
 
 on all .sugars 
 
 tfst 16, 90 
 
 to 16 Dutch 
 
 16 Dutch stand- 
 
 of I'o of a cent additional on 
 
 from bounty- 
 
 test 2, 94 test 
 
 standard, 2.2. 
 
 ard, ]§. 
 
 sugars coming from coun- 
 
 paying coun- 
 
 2.16, 95 test 
 
 No. 16 and 
 
 Al)ove 16 Dutch 
 
 tries giving an export 
 
 tries. 
 
 2.2, 100 test, 
 
 above, 2.4. 
 
 standard l|,and 
 
 bounty. 
 
 
 2.4. 
 
 
 1 cent bounty. 
 
 A bounty of 1| cents a pound 
 was given ou all sugars pro- 
 duced in tlie United States 
 which tested not less than 
 80°bythepolariscopeand a 
 bounty of 2 cents a pound 
 on all sugars testingover 90° 
 by polariscope. 
 
 
 During all this time there was no serious thought of our being able 
 to produce a sufficient supply of sugar for home consuin])tiou, aud these 
 rates of duty were largely for revenue and the needs of the Treasury. 
 To day the conditions have cl'.anged, and protection should be a mate- 
 rial consideration. 
 
 It is admitted beyond a doubt by all those conversant with what has 
 been done in the past five years that beet sugar can be grown and 
 developed as an industry in at least twenty different States of the 
 Union. Had the McKinley bill remained in force during the period of 
 fourteen years we would have seen beet- sugar factories erected in all 
 those States aud the United States supplied from its own soil with its 
 sugar.
 
 644 SCHEDULE E. — SUGAR. 
 
 The policy either adopted or suggested by the Ways and Means 
 Committee in regard to sugar from 1883 to 1894, if continued in a new 
 tariff bill, will see the United States in fifteen years producing all the 
 sugar which the people of this country consume, made at home by its 
 own inhabitants. It is admitted on all sides that the Government 
 needs more revenue. Why slsould it not get it in i^art from the same 
 source whence it was obtained during the thirty years of Republican 
 ascendency? In fact during the entire existence of the Government, 
 save and except since 1894. We say that any schedule on sugar wMch 
 has been in force since 1800, except the Wilson bill, would be satisfac- 
 tory to us, and would allow us to develop the beet-sugar industry. 
 
 From 18G0 to 1890, as evidenced by the tariffs in existence during 
 that period, the sugar consumer was never dissatisfied with that system 
 of raising revenue, which favored only one State in the Union (Louisi- 
 ana). It seems hardly possible that now, with the very low price of 
 sugar and with the promising aspect of a new industry for agriculture 
 in at least twenty States, that he should enter the least objection. In 
 fact, he does not, and we may tlius dismiss that from consideration. 
 
 Sugar is the most far-reaching and important factor in the tariff 
 question, and we think it unfortunate that the importance of its 
 domestic production has been so indifferently understood. 
 
 Several elements are interested in this schedule. It concerns not 
 only producers, manufacturers, and farmers, but the United States in 
 a national aspect, financially and industrially. 
 
 SUGAR IS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. 
 
 As early as in 1838 the House Committee on Agriculture investigated 
 the matter in its national iihase, and of sugar, said : We would respect- 
 fully insist that when the soil, climate, and other circumstances will 
 enable the peoi)le of this country to ])roduce, by their own labor on their 
 own soil, any article which is extensively consumed among us, it is the 
 duty of the Government to facilitate by all reasonable encouragement 
 the production of that article. This course has ever been pursued by 
 our nation and by every other enlightened country on the face of the 
 globe. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, we submit that this was sound reasoning, and that 
 when the jnoduction of cereal crops is in excess of home demand and 
 the ])rice abroad is lowered by competition, it becomes very imi)ortant 
 to div. rsify agriculture, which tends to at least relieve the depression 
 upon corn^ tobacco, and cotton. 
 
 Then, too, we find that sugar has cost our consumers in forty years 
 at least $5,000,000,000, or an average of $125,000,000 per annum. Our 
 increase in population was 30 per cent from 1870 to 1880 and 24 per 
 cent from 1880 to 1890. Our consumption of sugar per capita has 
 increased in the same percentum ratios. 
 
 At the risk of what may seem like repetition, we desire to call the 
 attention of the committee to the fact that in 1880, by the terms of the 
 Morrison tariff bill, the rate on sugar was fixejl at 06 per centum 
 ad valorem, which was 90 per cent of the then (73.0) rate. If we were 
 to apply the Morrison bill rate now, when revenue is required, to the 
 much lower jirice of sugar, it would make the specific on 90 centrifugals 
 about 1.5 and on refined nearly 1.9 cents ])er ])ound. 
 
 The Senate substitute for the Mills bill provided for a specific duty 
 of seven-tenths of a cent on all sugars not over 75 test, with two
 
 BEET SUGAR. 645 
 
 one-liundrecltlis of a cent for every degree or fraction over 75, while on 
 sugars above 13 and not above 10 Dutch standard the rate was If ; above 
 IG and not over 20*^, If; and over 20"^ the rate was 2 cents, and then, in 
 addition, a bounty of 1 cent was given, the bounty being thrown in to 
 encourage domestic production. No political party since 1883, until 
 1891, has proi)osed less for domestic sugar than an average of from 
 If as the lowest to 3i cents a pound, for both revenue and protection. 
 
 The McKinley bill increased tlie production of cane sugar nearly 100 
 l)er cent and of beet sugar over 1,500 per cent, comparing 1890 with 
 1890. There was nothing new nor novel in the bounty policj^, because 
 of surplus revenue we applied to sugar what had been often suggested. 
 Aside from the agricultural and industrial features of our bounty policy 
 of 1890, aud independent of its future saving to the nation, its economic 
 results while in operation have been frequently illustrated. It was 
 attacked as unconstitutional, but after a tedious, exasperating, and 
 expensive delay in the Treasury, the Supreme Court decided that the 
 appropriation for the bounty was for a debt, and that Congress had 
 l)ower to appropriate for it. 
 
 It has been argued that as well appropriate for the production of 
 corn, wheat, or oats, as for sugar production. The error in this is 
 fundamental. In the first place, Congress did not appropriate for beets, 
 but for sugar, a manufactured product; while, from the standpoint of 
 national policy or expediency, we appropriated for something of which 
 we did not raise sufficient and which cost us over $100,000,000 annually. 
 Nor was the bounty policy offered to aid a class. That idea ignores the 
 primary object, which was national in its character. As no person was 
 prevented from making sugar and participating in the bounty, it could 
 not have been offered to benefit any particular class of persons. 
 
 CAN WE PRODUCE OUR OWN SUGAR? 
 
 It is, of course, of material importance to consider whether we can 
 produce sugar in sufiflcient quantity within a reasonable time for home 
 consumption. The answer to this must xnnmarily depend upon the 
 question whether we have the soil and the climate requisite to obtain 
 desired results. That we have, has been demonstrated by the investi- 
 gation of practical sugar producers, as well as by Professor Wiley, of 
 the Agricultural Department, aud is proven by the seven factories now 
 in actual operation in California, Nebraska, New Mexico, Utah, and 
 Wisconsin, producing 75,000,000 pounds of beet sugar per annum. 
 
 Then, as to our soil, we have in a bulletin from Professor Wiley, of 
 the Agricultural Department, ample evidence to sustain the assertion 
 that we have beet-sugar soil in Colorado, California, Indiana, Illinois, 
 Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, New 
 Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, 
 Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. In view of this fact, and with 
 the lesson taught us by Europe, Brazil, Argentina, and even Sweden 
 before us, and with the advance we have made, it would be almost 
 criminal to throw away our opportunity. 
 
 As to cane sugar, the capacity of Louisiana is undeveloped, while 
 vast areas of land in Texas and Florida not yet under cultivation are 
 capable and will produce profitable cane crops if liberal and stable 
 encouragement shall be offered. So that we have the soil, the climate, 
 and we venture to say the energy and the capital. These things 
 being so —
 
 646 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 WHAT SHOULD OUR POLICY BE? 
 
 It seems to me tliat we may learu somethiug bj' looking to tlie pro- 
 duction of sugar abroad. There is hardly a civilized nation on earth, 
 except our own, cai)nble of producing its own sugar that does not do 
 so, even to little Sweden, Argentina, Brazil, and Queensland. Within 
 a very few years Sweden has come to export beet sugar. Kations have 
 been liberal to reach these results. Even Bulgaria lias a duty of 4 
 cents on sugar, and a bounty of 4 cents to home producers for ten years. 
 We should not delude ourselves with the idea that the five or six 
 States that may be producing sugar are the only ones interested in the 
 question. On the contrary, tlie mechanic, the laborer, the merchant, 
 and the farmer in many States aside from the cane and beet belts are 
 deeply interested, and especially for machinery; and railways also 
 obtain a great volume of traffic. And we have tliis advantage, that 
 we can start in at a point which it has taken Germany half a century 
 to reach. The increase of tlie world's ])roduct of beet sugar recently 
 has been: 1800-1)1, 3,(;;}3,(i30 tons; 181>r)-0(3, -t,o23,53() tons. In 1880 
 two-thirds of tlie world's sugar was from cane, while in 1805 two-thirds 
 of the world's supply was from the beet. The domestic beet-sugar 
 increase, in tons, has been: 
 
 1889 2,000 1893 20,000 
 
 1890 2,800 1894 22,443 
 
 1891 5,400 1895 20,000 
 
 1892 12,000 : 1896 (estimat.-d) 37,000 
 
 We are now producing of cane and beet sugar over one-seventh of 
 our home consumption. It is also of material importance to know 
 
 EOW SUGAR PROMOTES AGRICULTURE. 
 
 Beet-sugar factories on the Continent now number 1,302, Germany 
 leading with 40."), followed by France, which has 350, IJussia with 234, 
 Austria- Hungary 217, lielgium 111, Holland 30, and Sweden 14. 
 
 Are these great nations all crazy o]i the sugar (juestion ". Are they 
 so stujiid as not to be al»le to discover what ajtpreciates national 
 wealth and promotes agricultural i)rosperity ? Are they simplj^ taxing 
 their own people for the sake of ]»]acing burdens ujion them? We 
 apprehend not. They realize not only what sugar would have forever 
 cost them had Ihey relied uj^on cane sugar, because the prict? then 
 would have been twice what they ]>ay now, but they have learned that 
 the iiroper cultivation of land fin" beets i)rovokcs rotation in and larger 
 crops of cereals, with more cattle ibr meat, and that it aids many other 
 industries directly and incidentally. It so hapi)ens that some of our 
 wheat and corn States (products of which we have a surplus) are those 
 in which the beet will thrive best. 
 
 Consul-Creneral ^Mason, writing from Frankfort, under tlie date of 
 May 30, 1800, says: 
 
 If we consider tlio enormous wealth that has aoernefl to Germany and all other 
 countries that hav- produced and fostered tiiis industry, it is iuilecd to ho desired 
 that the United States should he put on sucli a footinj; as to bo able to ]>roduco its 
 own sugar. Witli our vast territory, varied climiti's and soil, we should lind a suf- 
 ficient area adapted to grow all the sugar we consume if we can sutlicieutly protect 
 the industry against foreign competition unduly aided by direct or indirect l)Ounties. 
 
 Consul Kyder, writing from Coi>enhagen. Denmark, under date of 
 March, 1886, says: 
 
 The rapid and very great development which has taken place in the manufiicture
 
 BEET SUGAR. 647 
 
 of beet sugar in tliis country, viz, from 4,000,000 pounds in 1880 to over 20,000,000 
 pounds in 1884, has been a source of material beneflt in these times of unusually low 
 grain prices to the agricultural classes. 
 
 Consul Merritt, writing from Cliemnitz, October, 1890, referring to 
 tlie fact that we paid Germany |1(),000,00() that year for sugar, says: 
 
 It does not seem proper nor consistent that an agricultural country like the United 
 States should bo depc^udent for any article of a purely agricultural character on for- 
 eign countries, especially when the United States h;is fully one hundred times as 
 much land adapted to the production of sugar as is available in the country from 
 which that sugar came. 
 
 Consul Keefer, writing from Stettin, says: 
 
 If I look at the astonishing results 1 can not lieli) thinking that in the cultivation 
 of this root a new and large field of enterprise and prosperitj^ would be given to the 
 American jieople. * * * Thousands of men would get work in the factories 
 needed for gaining the juice and for manufacturing the sugar. * * * The time 
 will come when the beet root will be for the North what the sugar caue is for the 
 South. 
 
 These gentlemen had carefully studied the sugar question with a view 
 of discovering why beet sugar should not be produced at home. They 
 were not mere theorists, but intelligent gentlemen who dispassion- 
 ately investigated the industry abroad. But in order to accelerate the 
 production of American sugar there are 
 
 OBSTACLES TO BE OVERCOME. 
 
 The cost of labor, want of knowledge on the part of our agricultur- 
 ists concerning a new industry, the low jirice of sugar, severe foreign 
 competition, export bounties, together with unstable and adverse legis- 
 lation at home, leaves the domestic capital already invested in a peril- 
 ous position, and additional money will not intelligently embark, and 
 yet that is just what it should be our policy to encourage. Once for all 
 the country should be told that intelligent American sentiment is not 
 only in earnest but fully determined to push this industry. 
 
 In order to produce sugar at all a very large outlay of capital becomes 
 necessary. Its production is not like that of rye, oats, or wheat, nor 
 even tobacco. Large areas of land, valuable implements, expensive 
 machinery, and factories are required. Great skill is also requisite, and 
 the man who would compare the production of sugar with tliat of corn 
 has little or no conception of the sugar industry in all the details which 
 go to make an effort successful. In the fact that al)road, beet sugar is 
 an old and well-establishetl industry there is a tremendous advantage 
 in many ways. There is always at hand there the requisite supply of 
 practical experience, and in the cooperative plan of production in 
 Europe we also find a very important leverage and stimulant to furnish 
 the best financial results. 
 
 •A very large i)ercentage of the beets abroad are grown by farmers 
 who have an interest in the factories as well as in thjj farm, which acts 
 as a strong incentive to'procure the largest tonnage of tlie richest beets. 
 In this country we have not only to educate our farmer to grow beets, 
 but we have to impress upon him the importance of raising the best 
 attainable product; prejudices are to be overcome, interest awakened, 
 and an intelligent understanding of the proper lands and the prepara- 
 tion thereof must be inculcated. No num appreciates what all this 
 means who has not been compelled to count its cost. Our producers 
 must meet the very highest conditions abroad, and it takes several 
 years to accomplish it. The foreign farmer knows just how to till his
 
 648 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 laud, liow to rotate liis beet crop with others to produce the best results, 
 aud all the by-])roducts from sugar are used to the best advantage, 
 
 Nor should we overlook the fertility of tlie lauds in Cuba, Hawaii, 
 aud the colonies, nor in those so highly and intelligently cultivated for 
 the beet in Europe. Aud in connection with 24 to 48 cent labor in some 
 cases, and coolie labor in other instances, the cost is much less than iu 
 California, Utah, or Nebraska, where we pay from 15 cents the lowest 
 to 30 cents an hour for labor; and hence Hawaii sugar planters no 
 longer need the favor or bounty which we refuse to extend to our own 
 producers. 
 
 And then, too, Germany pays only about $3.50 per ton for beets, 
 which is from 50 cents to $1 less than they cost our producers. In 
 this item alone we have a very important element of the cost of beet 
 sugar ill the United States compared Avith the European production. 
 Then, too, we have here double the cost of working the beets into sugar 
 in our factories, owing to the cheaper labor abroad, and our manufac- 
 turers have 1o keep a certain steady force on their ])ay roll of skilled 
 labor to insure its services the following campaign. Germany has so 
 ranch of this class of labor at hand that her manufacturers let it go 
 and hire anew. 
 
 Another obstacle, of serious importance at a critical juncture, is the 
 decline in price of sugar. A careful writer in a Erankfort i)aper states 
 the decline to have been from $3.02 per 112 ])ounds in 189 L to $2.20 
 in 189(3. Germany being the largest beet-sugar producing nation, her 
 product practically controls the world's market price, and whenever 
 there is a surjdus Europe tlirows her sugars on that market and they 
 sometimes sell for cost and even less. And the German persists iii his 
 methods and he is certainly destroying the cane-sugar industry in the 
 colonies. 
 
 FOREIGN EXPORT BOUNTIES. 
 
 Another obstacle to domestic sugar production, which our producers 
 are entitled to have Cougress consider, is the nnitter of foreign export 
 bounties on sugar, a continuous feature of their industrial policy. 
 Germany has only recently doubled her bounty, and she increased her 
 "consumption" tax to $1.70 per 220 pounds and raised her duty to 4^ 
 cents, her exi)ort bounty is now 27, 32i, and 38.3 per 100 pounds, de- 
 I)ending upon the grade of sugar. Under this law Germany can lay 
 down raw sugar in New York J3A cents cheaper per 100 than in 1894, 
 and importations would seem to indicate that she is prejjaring to advan- 
 tage herself of her legislation and the inadequate rates of (mr present 
 law. So that Gernniny now has — 
 
 (1) Practically a prohibitive duty on sugar to hold her home market. 
 
 (2) A consumption tax of nearly 2.2 cents per pound for revenue ; and 
 
 (3) An export bounty of from 27 to 38 cents i)er 100 to gain foreign 
 markets for her surplus sugars. 
 
 Give our domestic sugar in-oducers one-half only of the protection 
 and encouragement contained in Germany's duty provision alone, and 
 guarantee it for a reasonable time, and they will ])romise to astonish 
 the world in sugar production. 
 
 The extra bounty, the lieavy decline in the price of sugars, together 
 with the alleged undervaluations because of the ad valorem and "con- 
 ditional"' invoice policy, is a little more than our domestic producers 
 should be asked to carry without serious application for substantial 
 relief. 
 
 We have been asked, "Do you support the German policy j do you
 
 BEET SUGAR. 649 
 
 commend siicli legislation f We might readily answer that the policy 
 of France, Germany, and Austria we may not venture to criticise. It 
 is an industrial and iinancinl policy, ado^ited for their farmers and 
 against rivals; and in view of results attained by the agricultural 
 classes from sugar; considering also the money which has been made 
 and will be saved, and regard being had for the necessity of revenue 
 to support the armies there, we are not sure that Germany, France, and 
 Austria have paid too dearly for the whistle. But the answer better 
 adapted to the United States is, that to encourage domestic sugar pro- 
 duction, we do not need either prohibitive duties, a "consumption" tax 
 for revenue, nor export bounties upon sugar. All that domestic sugar 
 producing capital asks is, fair countervailing legislation, and such 
 encouragement and protection as sliall contain the essential elements 
 of stability and efficiency to meet existing unequal conditions. 
 
 How this foreign policy operates is shown by the fact that our imports 
 of refined sugars for the last fiscal year were over 187,000,000 pounds 
 at an average value of but 2.85 cents per pound. Even Japan and the 
 English in Hongkong sent us 43,000,000 pounds, and it invades 
 the very territory upon which our beet- sugar producers rely for their 
 markets, the Pacific Slope States and the Middle West. Figures will 
 show that the English must have landed this sugar at about 2.9 cents 
 per pound valuation, because it got in at about 4.2 cents. France and 
 Germany got theirs in a trifle below 4.1 cents; the Netherlands at 4.5 
 cents, and the United Kingdom at 3.8 cents. It is utterly impossible 
 for our domestic i>roducers to long maintain a struggle the severity of 
 which these low prices indicate exist. 
 
 And as if our domestic producers did not have enough in European, 
 Asiatic, and Hawaiian cheap labor and raw material to contend with, 
 double export bounty competition and the ad valorem operation of our 
 own law liave been thrown in. And as though all this did not suffice, 
 our sugar producers are forced to also meet the cheap labor from Africa. 
 Between January 1 and October 1, 1890, Egypt shipped us 02,850 tons 
 of sugar valued at $3,073,410, and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
 1890, she sent us $3,257,812 of sugar in British bottoms that took back 
 no return cargo. Her yield of sugar per ton of cane is over 200 pounds, 
 as against a maximum of IGO in Louisiana. 
 
 Germany is simply forcing the United States, as she is all other 
 nations and the colonies, to defend a home industry, which is in line 
 with her selfish policy toward our meat exports. 
 
 Imports will show how important to her the sugar consumption of the 
 United States is. Evidently during the current year Germany, because 
 of the war in Cuba and the rebellion in the Philippine Islands, will head 
 the list as our chief source of supply, and we can readily appreciate the 
 keen desire of German legislators to make sure of the American 
 market, which they hope to do by their increased sugar bounties, 
 increased avowedly in order to crush the sugar industry out of exist- 
 ence where it is not thoroughly organized and able to meet the severe 
 competition. At every point, Germany is invading our markets in 
 spite of our tariff. Baron Herman, agricultural attache of Germany 
 at Washington, visited every beet-sugar factory in the Unfted States 
 within the last three months. He was sent by his Government on a 
 special mission to investigate our new industry, and he has gone back 
 to Germany within a moiith and will make a report. Mr. Burr, of the 
 Alvarado factory in California, visited Europe and desired to attend a 
 sugar conference held in Germany, but his request was declined on the 
 ground that he was interested in trying to deprive Germany of its sugar 
 market; the market referred to was our own.
 
 650 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 Germany also recognizes the fact that Cuba has a war ou her hands 
 which is damaging' her sugar industry, and that, whatever the result, 
 recuperation will be a work of time. Germany realizes that now is 
 her opportunity, and she has had her agents over here to see what her 
 legislation should be, what our climate and soil are, as the latter may 
 affect our eliances to advance. Our domestic sugar producers also have 
 to contend with the natural effect of 
 
 HAWAIIAN COMPETITION. 
 
 For reasons ostensibly commercial and in the interest of our Govern- 
 ment and particularly the Pacific Slope, Congress in 187G entered into 
 a supposed reciprocity agreement with Hawaii which provided for the 
 free entry of her sugar into the United States. Our total exports at 
 that time to Hawaii amounted to about $1,000,0()(». In 1S95 they had 
 reached only $3,()()0,00(). On the other hand, our imports from Hawaii 
 in 1S77 were only $2,550,000, while the average for the past ten years 
 has been $10,000,000. I'^rom 1878 to 1895, both inclusive, our total 
 imports were $140,500,000, while we sent her only $50,500,000. Balance 
 against us, $84,000,000. Of the $ 140,000,000 which she sent us, upward 
 of $130,0(JO,000 was sugar "free." 
 
 We may have thought it prudent and desirable to secure a coaling 
 station in the I'acitic at one time, but in 1894 we had already obtained 
 Pearl Harbor from Hawaii by an absolute indefeasible grant, under the 
 extension of the treaty in 1884, and it was obtained as a i)art considera- 
 tion for the great trade advantage wliich Hawaii had already obtained, 
 and which it was supposed she would derive under the extension. This 
 Hawaiian agreement was never in favor with Congress nor the i)eopl«', 
 and it has always l)een and is now inconsistent with our professions of 
 encouragement for domestic sugar. 
 
 Senator 3IorriIl long since submitted a forcible report in favor of the 
 abrogation of this treaty as one most uneijual, unfair, and unjust. That 
 report suggested that it would liave been wiser to have bestowed the 
 whole of this bounty as a |)remium on sugar produced at home. The 
 rei)ort also said that we ouglitnot to handicap (mr own sugar producers 
 by this treaty. His report concluded by recommending that notice be 
 given of the abrogation of the treaty. 
 
 On the 2d of September, 1890, ]Mr. Sherman said, referring to this 
 Hawaiian treaty : 
 
 No country ever made so foolish n treaty as that. There prohably is not in the 
 history of the human race a contract so one sided, so absurd, and so iiidefensihle. 
 * * * That treaty has cost us $48,000,000. We jiot no advantages Irom it, and 
 our exportations to those islands did not larijely iucrease. 
 
 Mr. Dolph said : 
 
 * * * We could have tjiven to the Hawaiian Government all the exports that 
 we have made to that country, and then ])ai(l it a bonus of over ^ll), 000,000, if we had 
 charged the ordinary duties ou sugar, rice, and other articles admitted Irec under 
 the treaty. W(i have already given them between $11 and $12 for every acre of land 
 in the Kingdom of Hawaii. 
 
 When the agreement was originally entered into, something was said 
 about its effect on our American sugar producers, but this seems to 
 have been put aside by a statement that the Hawaiian sugar tonnage 
 was too infinitesimal to warrant any fears. l>ut it has developed under 
 this treaty from 30,000,000 pounds in 1887 to over 400,000,000 pounds 
 in 1890.
 
 BEET SUGAR. 651 
 
 We need revenue, and we pretend that we desire to protect and 
 enconrage domestic sugar production, and yet here we have a treaty of 
 questionable legality, continued, which deprives us of fi*om $4,500,000 
 to $0,000,000 of revenue and it certainly puts the stamj) of insincerity 
 upon our professions of friendship for domestic sugar. 
 
 This matter concerns our domestic sugar industry in this way: The 
 Hawaiian crop is equal to the entire demand of the States west of the 
 Missouri Eiver. Sugar can be produced very cheaply in the island 
 because of labor contracts with the Japanese, Chinese, and Portugese, 
 wages being from $10 to $12 a month, and when working under "cul- 
 tivation contracts" the rate is only $1 per ton for cane, as against $4 
 to $4.25 for beets. 
 
 The estimated duty that the United States remitted on sugar from 
 Hawaii from 1877 to and including 1891 was $55,200,000; the value of 
 the sugars from Hawaii in 1895-9(5 is estimated at $15,000,000, 40 ])er 
 cent duty on which would be $0,000,000, showing that on sugar alone 
 the United States has given Hawaii $01,200,000 by way of a bounty! 
 We remit more than the entire value of our exports to Hawaii, and yet 
 we pretend to be struggling for revenue! 
 
 But it may be said that Americans have invested in Hawaii about 
 $18,000,000 in sugar. What of it? It is foreign capital when it deserts 
 our shore and escapes our taxation. Is American capital invested 
 abroad in foreign competitive industrial pursuits to receive favor, at 
 the expense of needed revenue, aiul of home capital ? Is that to continue 
 to be the i^olicy of this Government? If so there must appear some 
 very powerful motives behind it. 
 
 This Hawaiian agreement also involves rice, another of our competi- 
 tive agricultural i)roducts that is struggling for continued existence 
 against cheap labor. From 1877 to 1893, inclusive, Hawaii has sent us, 
 duty free, $0,590,000 worth of rice— over 142,000,000 pounds. We may 
 be wanting new markets, but we do not need a continuance of any such 
 nonreciprocal bounty strain imposed upon our agriculture as that em- 
 braced in this Hawaiian agreement, that is not and never has been 
 reciprocal. Disguised as a " reciprocity " agreement, it is a fraud upon 
 its face and begotten to enrich foreign sugar planters at the expense of 
 our own. 
 
 Whatever may have been the policy of that agreement twenty years 
 ago, the conditions have so changed and its ox)eratiou and etfect are so 
 clearly detrimental that expediency, if not common honesty, consist- 
 ency, and fair dealing to our own industry require its cancellation. 
 It is not reciprocal, and the advantage it gives over our producers is 
 too great. 
 
 THE REFINERS AND OUR D03IESTIC PRODUCERS. 
 
 In framing a sugar schedule or policy we can not overlook the fact 
 that we have interests at home seemingly antagonistic. The meat and 
 flour people want legislation and they seek it through reciprocitj?^, which 
 in 1890 meant " free" sugar conditionally. Then we have the Ameri- 
 can Sugar Refining Company, which invariably a|:>pears when a tariff 
 bill is under consideration. It has millions of capital invested, and, like 
 all other corporations, its oflQcers desire to make the best possible show- 
 ing for its stockholders. It has been bitterly assailed, and our pro- 
 ducersare not itsapologists ordefenders. Thiscompany, which probably 
 refines, say, nine-tenths of the sugar consumed by the United States,
 
 652 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 naturally insists upon having its own interests secure, whatever disad- 
 vantages may flow to others from a schedule. The domestic producers 
 of sugar are not here to make a sugar schedule for the American Sugar 
 Refining Company, nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why they 
 should make war upon it. They simply wish to leave that institution 
 to Congress. The producers of domestic sugar, however, do desire it to 
 be clearly understood that the reasons which should give them encour- 
 agement and protection beyond that in the act of 1894 do not apply 
 with the same force to the sugar refiners, who simply buy aud refine a 
 foreign product. Their work does not consist in the advancemeut of a 
 great agricultural industry. They emi)loy no army of laborers in the 
 field; but for the great national objects which we liave in advancing 
 domestic sugar production, and but for the i)rinciple involved that calls 
 for fair protection for domestic as against foreign capital and cheap 
 labor, the United States might as well obtain its refined sugar from 
 abroad. 
 
 The natural interest of the refiners would seem to be to either control 
 or else crush out our dDmestic industry, because many of our producers 
 refine their own product. It should be borne in mind that in Just the 
 ratio that our domestic sugar producers ad\'ance tlie home industry 
 aud refine their own product will the demand for foreign raw and the 
 refined therefrom decline. The interest, therefore, of the domestic pro- 
 ducer and of the refiners is naturally antagonistic. 
 
 The producers of domestic sugar apprehend that Congress will deal 
 with the Ameiican Sugar llefining Company Just as it will with other 
 domestic capital similarly situated and euii)loyed, but, for the reasons 
 stated, the feeling which may have been incited against it, whether 
 rightfully or wrongfully, should not attach itself to the domestic sugar 
 producing industry lest prejudice operate to withhold the amount of 
 protection due the latter. 
 
 The great national object in view is to advance the production of 
 sugar from our own soil into such pro])ortions as to enable us to supply 
 the home consumption with the highest grades of sugar, relined in our 
 sugar-producing factories, and when that is done the occupation of 
 our refiners will have seriously declined. We wish to impress upon the 
 committee that the amount of protection which may do for the refiners 
 fails to reach that due to domestic ])rodncers; that the encouragement 
 extended our own manuiacturers and farmers should not be weighed in 
 an apothe(;ary's scale nor narrowed either by the profits nor the protec- 
 tion atibrded the refiners who deal in cheap foreign sugar. Give to the 
 refiners of foreign sugar what you will; deal with them, not as the 
 commune might, but Justly, because they emi)loy domestic capital ; but 
 when Congress comes to our domestic producers it should take a 
 broader view, because it is dealing with domestic and not foreign sugar. 
 It should be remembered that our manufacturers either produce or pur- 
 chase of our own agriculturalists their raw sugar or the material for 
 the finished ])roduct, and that they do so in comi)etition with many 
 favorable foreign conditions. Our refiners go into the markets of the 
 world which are surfeited with suri)lus sugar, produced by cheap labor 
 and encouraged by export bounties. They desire to have as low a 
 duty imposed on foreign raw as possible, because they must have it to 
 refine and they want as high a duty on refined as they can get. This 
 is the whole extent of their interest in sugar legislation. It will thus 
 be seen how diflerently situated are the refiners and our domestic pro-
 
 BEET SUGAR. 653 
 
 ducers, whose interests are too frequently classed as identical with 
 tliose of our refiners of foreign sugar. 
 
 Our producers of domestic sugar ought to be given a duty on foreign 
 sugars high enough to at least place their industry on a profitable 
 basis as against competing nations. Then, over and above this, we 
 will assume that Congress has a national interest in sugar, which is of 
 even greater importance than the interests of those who may be refin- 
 ing foreign sugar, and greater also than the interests of those produc- 
 ing- domestic sugar. In this light it is for Congress alone to say what 
 amount of encouragement, beyond the protection given to place indi- 
 vidual interests on an even keel, it will grant, in order to attract new 
 and additional capital into the domestic sugar industry. This really 
 is the grave consideration. Congress has a guide in the bounty act of 
 1890 of 12 to -J cents bounty and the one-half cent given to refined. That 
 act advanced our domestic production very rapidly. At a time when 
 Germany and other European powers were struggling to throttle com- 
 l)etitors — and more especially the United States — lest they lose the 
 second-best market they have, there is very little time to be lost in 
 splitting hairs over decimal i)oints in framing' a sugar schedule if it is to 
 contain protection and encouragement. It seems idle to simply offer just 
 enough aid to keep our present industry upon its feet. 
 
 The policy of the majority in Congress was clearly manifested in 1890 
 toward domestic sugar and it was a change in the method rather than 
 in the amount of jirotection, compared with the Senate amendment to 
 tlie Mills bill two years ])reviously, and this policy has recently been 
 reaffirmed in convention. But because of a change in the financial 
 condition of the Treasury it may not seem wise to fully readopt the 
 method of 1890, but the dual policy suggested in 1888 seems feasible. 
 
 The question, after all that can be said of it, is really an economic- 
 industrial one in which agriculture and labor are far more concerned 
 than the factory. The Kansas Farmer says: "Every sugar factory of 
 the seventeen which were started in Kansas is now silent. The reason 
 of this failure is to be found in the decline in the price of sugar." 
 
 And a writer from Assumption Parish to the Louisiana Planter last 
 October said : "The prevailing price of sugar must convince all that but 
 for the Cuban war the sugar industry of Louisiana was doomed. We 
 must obtain better protection, for the Cuban war can not last always, 
 or else the Avages of the laboring man will have to be reduced still more, 
 and it does seem that the limit in this direction has already been 
 reached." Then, too, Ave have to consider the loss of revenue from sugar 
 under the present law. While the great decline in the jiince of sugars 
 and the severe competition of the foreigner unite with his legislation to 
 shake our domestic sugar industry to its very center, our own legisla- 
 tion with its vicious ad valorem reduces our revenue below the intention 
 of the present law even, allowing the advantages therefrom to flow to 
 our foreign competitors rather than into the Treasury and in favor of 
 our domestic producers. 
 
 I here have a pami^hlet, which I will not read, but which I will hand 
 to the stenographer to be incorporated with my remarks (Exhibit A). 
 It is a document that was sent around in all the Western States by the 
 Eepublican National Committee, entitled "Pamphlet E, An American 
 Sugar Industry. What it Means to our Farmers and Mechanics." 
 That was circulated during the last cami^aign in every State that 
 was interested in or had j)rojected the beet-sugar industry west of the 
 Mississipj)i Eiver.
 
 654 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ON RECORD. 
 
 At least one great party in this country is on record in favor of sub- 
 stantial ]n'otection and encouragement fin- domestic sugar. The act of 
 1800 demonstrated that, and those who rein^esented the people at St. 
 Louis during the summer of 189G were presumably in accord with the 
 majority in Congress. It was that sentiment which gave the House of 
 Eepresentatives its present industrial and political complexion. While 
 the views of conventions and planks in party platforms may have no 
 binding force upon Congress, they certainly ought to, aud generally do, 
 bind the conscience of legislators of tlie majority. If so, then is that 
 majority here committed to the following, adopted at St. Louis during 
 the summer of 189G : 
 
 We condemn tlie present Administration for not keeping faith with the sugar pro- 
 ducers of this country. The Kei>nblican party favors such protection as will lead to 
 the production on American soil of all of tbe sugar whicli the American people use, 
 and for which they jiay other countries more than $100,000,000 annually. 
 
 Of all the various agricultural or other industries in the country, 
 sugar, hemp, and wool were the ones there designated by name for 
 s[)ecial consideration, and we api)rehend that if there is any binding 
 force in the policy voiced by any convention, that which embraces 
 domestic sugar, so far as the majority is concerned, was thereby set- 
 tled. Nothing seems to be left open cxcejit the mode or method of 
 encouragement. S.uch protection as will lead to the production on 
 American soil of all the sugar that the American people use embraces 
 something more than that nominal i>rotection which would simply 
 place our i)roducers on an even keel with foreign sugar. It signities 
 encourageiuent, the attraction of sutlicient capital to i)roduce the 
 results stated, and it is for Congress to say what the method and 
 amount shall be. It is an industrial-economic question of grave 
 importance, as it aftects revenue and agriculture. 
 
 The policy outlined in the resolution we have read is a mere dujilica- 
 tion of that which Avas suggested in 1S88 and enacted into law in 181)0, 
 and wi' can therefore assume that it has long been the tixed ])olicy of 
 the uiajority not only to protect but to encourage American sugar pro- 
 duction from the raw material grown on our own soil. 
 
 The question, then, is, Wluit, in view of existing conditions, should be 
 the method ein])loyed to accomplish results? Around this incidental 
 considerations revolve. AVe may not return to the i)o]icy entire of 1890, 
 because the conditions are not the same. We had at that time a redun- 
 dant revenue; to-day we sadly need as much additional as was then 
 taken otf. 
 
 In 1875, when the Treasury needed additioiuil revenue and 25 per 
 cent was put upon sugar, it was proposed to i)ut an increased tax ou 
 whisky, and also an additional $1 tax on beer, whi(-h was defeate<l. It 
 was also proposed to tax tea aiul coffee, which only got dS votes in the 
 House, ami was defeated in the Senate also, 5() to 0. Apprehending 
 that siuTilar propositions may again be brought forward, we desire to 
 say one word only in answer to those who may seek to again place tea, 
 coftee, and sugar in the same category. Between sugar and tea and 
 coli'ee this economic or industruil distinction exists, so forcibly' pointed 
 out by Mr. Buchanan in 1812, when, drawing a line between tea and 
 coffee and sugar, he said : 
 
 In regard to the article of sugar, the case is this: Although^ its use is equally 
 extensive with that of tea and cotfee, yet it is a domestic jiroduction, and its culture 
 iu Louisiana has reduced the price to the consumer. It is therefore a fair subject
 
 BEET SUGAR. 655 
 
 for revenue and incidental protection. The interest of agriculture is one whicli we 
 are bound to cherish. It has the higher claims on my regard because it is an agri- 
 cultural interest. 
 
 The act of 1890 was in operation only tliree years and two months, 
 but long enough to demonstrate that with encouraging legishition the 
 United States can eventually produce its own sugar; but as to coflee 
 and tea we must forever rely upon foreign countries. Sugar, tea, and 
 coffee are all necessaries in the common acceptation of that word, but 
 A\ hen it comes to legislating a discriminating rule is ai)plicable. Sugar 
 was never cheaper than it was from April to July, 1894, and from 
 December, 1894, to May, 1895; and $29,800,000 is certainly the minimum 
 of revenue from sugar. It does not even represent the policy of a tariff 
 for revenue only, as we understand that phrase, considering Treasury 
 deficits. 
 
 SUGAR AND KECIPROCITT. 
 
 We are not advised, of course, whether recii)rocity is to cut any 
 figure, iu connection with sugar, in the sugar schedule, as in 1890. 
 ^Vhile statistics Avill show that reciprocity was important to products 
 other than domestic sugar, and while we believe the principle where 
 applied so that it is recii^rocal is sound and economic, we enter earnest 
 l)rotest against its application in such cases as the Hawaiian Govern- 
 ment. The question may arise. Should we use sugar in any way in aid 
 of reciprocity ? On that jwint the friends of domestic sugar feel called 
 u])on to say that while they do not object to this, their industry must 
 not be used to advantage other products, regardless of iujurj- that 
 might come to it from harsh or unstable legislation. Facts which 
 should not be overlooked are these, that the domestic sugar industry 
 did not favor, but opposed, the substitution of the bounty for duty on 
 sugar iu 1890, The main objection was the fear that the bounty would 
 not be permanent for the time promised, and that fear proved well 
 founded. Sugar simply acquiesced in what was put upon it, and other 
 interests, equally with that of sugar, reaped the advantage. Sugar 
 got no more protection, nor as much, under the bounty law than it had 
 been obtaining under the duty policy. The bounty proved more stimu- 
 lating. The only advantage it supposed it obtained was the promise 
 of fourteen years' time; as fair a contract as the Government could 
 make with man, avoided and abrogated in 1894, in the face of the 
 House report, recognizing the equity in it and repealing it by easy 
 stages. 
 
 Domestic sugar stood forth, we claim, content to take less of protec- 
 tion by bounty than it had been receiving from duty, hoping that the 
 solemn pledge of the nation's faith as to time would be kept. That 
 l)ledge was repudiated, and the sugar industry does not now propose, 
 if it can help it, to be again immolated upon any altar so unsubstantial 
 as the act of 1890 proved to be, nor solely that other and even suri)lus 
 domestic interests might be benefited. 
 
 We think the hoped-for advantages accruing from reciprocity can be 
 secured in other ways than by any sacrifice of the interests of domestic- 
 sugar producers, and in the manner which M^e.will suggest later on. 
 
 The beet-sugar industry may properly be regarded as the child of the 
 Kepublic, an ''infant industry," if you please, and therefore, upon every 
 principle ever advanced by the Whig, the Eepublican, or the "inciden- 
 tal" i^olicy of the Democracy, it is entitled to superior consideration; 
 certainly equal favor with wool, surplus meats, flour, tobacco, or well- 
 established woolen and cotton manufactures.
 
 656 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 We beg- to note tlie rule laid down by President Jackson in 1829. He 
 said : 
 
 The general rule to be applied in graduating the duties upon articles of foreign 
 growth or manufacture is that which places ourowu in fair competition with those of 
 other countries. 
 
 And of coarse all the conditions, including hostile legislation, are to 
 be considered in applying this rule. He further said : 
 
 We must ever expect seltish legislation in other nations, and we are therefore 
 comi)elled to adapt our own to their regulations in the manner best calculated to 
 avoid serious injury, and to harmonize the conllicting interests of our agriculture, our 
 commerce, and our manufactures. 
 
 As we understand it, that was precisely what Congress desired to do 
 in 1890. The i)olicy of that act comprehended commercial and inter- 
 national as well as financial and industrial benefits. Certain conditions 
 existed abroad inimical to our interests, and we also found certain 
 financial and other conditions at home, and to induce foreign nations to 
 deal fairly, to reduce our surplus in the Treasury and at the same time 
 save from destruction and likewise encourage the important home 
 industry of sugar, a certain lineof policy, containing several units, was 
 adopted. It was beyond cavil, honestly conceived, patriotic in spirit, 
 wise, and economic, but because of a])oliticiil theory or tenet, it seems 
 to have lacked the essential element of stability, and yet it was just as 
 enduring as other protective features of tlie taiifi" of 1890. Protection 
 and encouragement for many industries Aveie swept away by tlje storm 
 in 1894. As an economic suggestion, as well as to extend additional 
 protection and adequate encouragement to our domestic sugar indus- 
 try, we are inclined to favor it as a basis for a sugar schedule. 
 
 THE DUAL POLICY. 
 
 In other words, a duty and a bounty on sugar. tSuch a schedule, prop- 
 erly adjusted, can be made as nearly fair to all interests as possible. 
 Jeopardizing none. It can be made to yield more revenue out of which 
 the bounty can be paid, while it Avill oiler sullicient protection and 
 adequate encouragement to develop the domestic indnstry. 
 
 If we Avere to snggest a dual sugar schedule for additional revenue 
 with fair protection and adequate encouragement, we would say, give 
 all sugars of 75 test and under 1 cent per pound, with three one-hun- 
 dredths of a cent additional for each degree or fraction thereof above 
 75 and below 9(5 test by the polariscopc, and four one-hnndredths of a 
 cent for each degree or fraction thereof above 9G test by the polarisco]K', 
 with a 4 and 8 cent rate on molasses. Then on all sugars above It) 
 Dutch standard in color and n^^on all sugars which have been discolored 
 make the difierential rate one iourth of a cent instead of one-eighth of a 
 cent per ])ound with a countervailing duty equal to export bounties, and 
 we should have to ])ut it on raw as Avell as refined. 
 
 The Chairman. Wliy a countervailing duty? 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. Because of the position in which we are placed as pro- 
 ducers of raw sugar here, and we then want the advantage that would 
 be derived from a tariff and a countervailing duty on that raw sugar. 
 
 The Chairman. Please extend your argument on that point. 
 
 Mr. OxNARi). What I mean to say is simply this, that if Germany 
 gives an export bounty to force raw sugar into this country we would 
 like to have this country lay a duty to meet that bounty in order to 
 protect our home makers of raw sugar. That is our interest in it, and 
 we also ask that an equal countervailing duty be put on the higher 
 grades for the benefit of the sugar refiners, and also incidentally of
 
 
 BEET SUGAR. 657 
 
 ourselves. But if you put tlie duty ou tlie refined sugar ouly, you allow 
 tliem to get their refined sugar tliatniucli cheaper and you do not pro- 
 tect tlie home i)roducer. You protect the refiner but not tlie home 
 producer. The sum might be tentative, to go off when export bounties 
 arc repealed. 
 
 This would place domestic refiners of foreign sugars on nearly the 
 same plane of protective advantage which they now have over the for- 
 eign refiner, and it would seem fair, in view of the importations of refined 
 sugar (187,453,701 pounds) during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1896. 
 Then, to further i)rotect, and especially to encourage, the ])rodnction of 
 domestic sugar, to attract into that industry additional capital, we 
 would, from the duty on sugar, pay our domestic producers three-fourths 
 of a cent i)er pound on all sugars testing not less than 90 degrees by 
 the i)olariscope produced from beets, cane, or sorghum grown in the 
 United States. If thought desirable, one-fourth of a cent of the bounty 
 could go oft' at the expiration of every four years, making it one half a 
 cent after four years, and one-quarter after eight years, the entire 
 bounty to cease in twelve years, which we claim as the unexpired bal- 
 ance of the obligation incurred by the United States Government 
 toward her home sugar producers in the McKinley tarifl' of 1890. 
 
 To this schedule we would add a provision, i:)roviding that as to 
 sugars from nations imposing unreasonable restrictions or exactions 
 that rei'use to enter into reciprocal agreements for a free and fair 
 excliangeof products the duties would be from 30 to 50 per cent above 
 the stated specifics. Or, instead of that, apply to such nations the 
 provisions substantially of section 2 of the so-called Kerr bill (II. R. 
 .■)212, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session), minus the tea and cotfee 
 clause, or the latter part of section 3 of the Hopkins bill (H. R. 8108), 
 
 Such a schedule would return on the basis of our imports of dutiable 
 sugars under IG Dutch standard for the fiscal vear ending June 30, 
 1890, about 819,000,000. If from this a bounty of three-fourths of a 
 cent per jiound be deducted, say 85,000,000, the net revenue from sugars 
 would be $41,000,000. This schedule Avould give only fair i^rotection and 
 suflicient encouragement for an increase in the production of domestic 
 sugar. It Avould not materially increase the price of sugar, and it would 
 allow it to play its part in the policy of reciprocity. ^\'e would get at 
 least 815,000,000 more of revenue from sugars and we would be aiding 
 the domestic product at a critical time, and the expensive educational 
 work in its behalf since 1890 would not be lost. 
 
 We need the revenue from sugar, and protection for the domestic 
 product, and finally, if a sugar schedule imposing a given rate of duty 
 is not increased too much, it by no means follows that tlie increase falls 
 on the consumer. AVe quite agree with what Mr. Wells said on this 
 point in his report of 1800 as one of the Internal Revenue Conunission: 
 
 111 advancing the customs and excise rates ou foreisju and domestic cane sugars 
 one-lialf a cent per pound, it is not certain that this advance will fall upon tlie con- 
 sumer. Unlike coifee, the ]n'odu(tioii of sugar tliroughout tlie world continually 
 tends to exceed the demand for consum])tiou, and thus the additional one-half cent 
 duty would fall mainly on the forei;^n ]iroducer and only slightly on our consumers. 
 
 We tliink this opinioti has the greater force at this i^articnlarjunc- 
 tuiein sugar i)ro(luction, when competition is strained to its highest 
 tension, and that it is ])roven true by the fact that foreign sugar-pro- 
 ducing nations arc ibrcing their sugars upon us at and perhaps below 
 cost, in order to gain an outlet and a market for their surplus. 
 
 It is certainly time that the "continental" system, equally as sure in 
 its operations toward thoi^e who do not employ it as were the Napoleon 
 and English edicts, should be firmly met, especially when the objects 
 T H 42
 
 658 
 
 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 are purely selfish and not for revenue, being neither free trade nor 
 fair trade, and intended and calculated to restrict our meat and flour 
 trade and destroy our domestic sugar industry as well. The American 
 people undoubtedly desire action in this direction. They have spokeu 
 several times with marked emphasis, and the appeals of our agricultur- 
 ists should be heeded "vrhen Congress has so favorable an opportunity 
 as is here presented. Whatever minor differences may exist as to our 
 policy, there is one consideration which should operate to allay all 
 dissensions. At a time when a great economic industrial and commer- 
 cial struggle between nations is going on, let us not delude ourselves 
 with the idea that theories will subserve our best interests. In such a 
 warfare, theories at home can not withstand the i^ractical results of 
 foreign policies based upon national aggrandizement. A great nation 
 like the United States can not afford to break into factions over its 
 own industrial and financial policy in the face of existing conditions. 
 It too greatly concerns agricultural development, commercial benefits, 
 and revenue, to admit of factional jealousies or party dispute. If we 
 desire to hold up and develop our domestic-sugar industry, no time is 
 more ausijicious, no moment so critical. 
 
 To all this we now add production of cane and beet sugar in the world, 
 population, consumption, exports, and cost of labor, etc. 
 
 Cane-sugar production of principal countries, and total in tons. 
 
 Country. 
 
 Cuba 240,000 
 
 Puerto liico 50 000 
 
 Britisli AVest Indies 153, 800 
 
 French West Indies ; 80,000 
 
 Haiti and Santo Domingo ' 50. 000 
 
 Deraerara I 105, 000 
 
 Brazil (exports) j 225, 000 
 
 Argen t ina 120, 000 
 
 Peru I 68, 000 
 
 Java (exports) ' 603, 259 
 
 Philippine Islands 245, 000 
 
 Africa I 276,700 
 
 1, 087, 000 
 
 60, 000 
 
 162, 700 
 
 79, 800 
 
 40, 000 
 
 102, 900 
 
 275, 000 
 
 50, 000 
 
 65,000 
 
 496, 400 
 
 195, 000 
 
 261,860 
 
 Total cane production of the world in 1895-96 tons . . 2, 822, 460 
 
 Total beet-sugar production do ... 4, 323, 900 
 
 Total hcet-sugar production of the principal countries of the world and recent increase. 
 
 Country. 
 
 1895-96. 
 
 1891-92. 
 
 Germany 
 
 Tons. 
 1,607,812 
 791, 405 
 667, 853 
 780, 000 
 230, 000 
 106, 830 
 
 Tons. 
 1, 198, 156 
 786, 506 
 650, 377 
 
 
 Franc© 
 
 
 550,600 
 180, 375 
 
 Belgium 
 
 Holland 
 
 46,815 
 
 
 The jiopulation of the several great beet-sugar producing nations of 
 Europe, the per capita, and the estimated total consumption of sugar, 
 and estimated exports, including surplus, are as follows : 
 
 Country 
 
 Population. 
 
 German Empire 49, 421. 000 
 
 France 38, 2in, OOO 
 
 Austria-Hungary 41 . 827. 000 
 
 Russian Empire 113,355,000 
 
 United States 70. 000, 000 
 
 .^e'" Total con-' Exports 
 
 capita con- ^^^^ and surplus 
 
 sumption. ' estimated. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 26j' 
 30J 
 20 
 
 11 I 
 
 62J 
 
 Tons. 
 642, 973 
 577, 107 
 418,270 
 623, 452 
 2, 100, 000 
 
 Tons. 
 900, 000 
 90, OUO 
 380. 000 
 160, 000
 
 BEET SUGAE. 659 
 
 Oousul Warner, under date of December, 1891, gives tlie followiug as 
 the exports of sugar (includiug candy) from Germany: 
 
 Tons. 
 
 1876-77 57, 953 
 
 1881-82 308, 260 
 
 1889-90 '718,985 
 
 Consul Edwards, in 1890, placed the export of sugar (exclusive of 
 candy) from Germany at 439,5.jJ: tons. In a recent report our consul at 
 Chemnitz says Germany exported the last fiscal year 958,128 tons, and 
 he estimates the consumption at 068,800 tons. 
 
 LABOR, COST OF, ABROAD. 
 
 The cost of labor in the beet-sugar industry in France runs about 
 the same as in Germany and Austria. 
 
 Consul Washburn places wages in Germany at from 45 to 85 cents 
 I)er day for men, 30 to 00 cents for women, and 10 to 20 cents for children, 
 and he observes tliat so important is this item regarded abroad "that 
 Germans of experience freely express the opinion that the relatively 
 high rate of wages in the United States would effectually prevent that 
 country from ever being a dangerous competitor." 
 
 Consul Hawes places the average wages in Austria-Hungary at 
 from 38 to 72 cents i)er day for males and as low as 10 cents a day for 
 females. 
 
 Average prices of granulated sugar in the United States. 
 
 Cents. ; Cents. 
 
 1892 4.4 
 
 1893 4.8 
 
 1894 4.1 
 
 1895 4.1 
 
 7.0 
 
 1889 7.6 
 
 1890 6.1 
 
 1891 4.6 
 
 The Chairman. What do I understand you ask for sugar, say, test- 
 ing 92°! 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. Mnety-two, li cents. 
 
 The Chairman. And then three-fourths of a cent bounty besides"? 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. That would be over 100 per cent; 2.18 cents is the 
 price of that sugar, and therefore you ask for over 100 per cent. 
 
 Mr. OxNAED. Let us see. For 90° test, 2.18 cents. We ask the 
 difference between 2.18 and IJ cents. That is not 100 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. But it costs 2.18 free? 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Then you want a duty of a cent and a half, besides 
 protection against the export bounty f 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. They have a bounty of half a cent to offset that, and 
 I ask really for half a cent because I scale it down. The idea is to 
 get it about on the equivalent with the McKinley bill, with which we 
 know we can develop the industry. Without it, I don't know. 
 , Mr. Payne. What degrees of test? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. It depends on what factories you take, and what years. 
 We have produced at different times different kinds of sugar. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is about the average test! 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. I suppose it is about 92°. 
 
 1 The candy being 215,736,
 
 6G0 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Uuder the bounty law of 1890 was not the industry very 
 rapidly dcveloi)ed ! 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It was fully ade([uate, was it not? 
 
 Mr. OxNABD. Yes; I should say it was under the law of 1890. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It was more than adequate for protection ? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. No; I should not say that. You remember that those 
 factories that refine their own sugar get the additional half cent. The 
 factories that made white sugar directly got a i)rotcction of 2i cents 
 under the McKinley bill. The factories that make relined sugar are 
 interested in the duty on rehned, but oidy to a snuill degree, as com- 
 pared with their interest as raw-sugar producers. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Why do you ask to have the four one hundredths (;eut 
 lor each degree after 90 degrees ? 
 
 Mr. OxNAiiD. I should think we ought to have it to give a little more 
 protection to the sugar refiners. 
 
 Mr. Payxe. 2Vftei- 90 degrees? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. After 90 degrees. 1 don't care. 1 am not standing 
 on that. Three points would satisfy me. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Are you aware that adding only three oiui-hundredths 
 al'ter9() degrees ibr every degree gives alarge»" equivalent i»ercentagead 
 valorem duty than it does on tlie degrees below 90 degrees adding 
 three oue-hundredths ' 
 • Mr, Oxnard. No; J don't know that, 
 
 Mr. Payne. That is simi»ly a fact. 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. I understand from the statements that have been sub- 
 mitted by the importers here, who have figured it out, that those three 
 ])oints give a variation of only o ])er cent in the ad valorem value of 
 the different sugars on the grades from To to 100 degrees. 
 
 Mr. Payne. If I understand you, in 1890 you were apprehensive that 
 a bonnty would not be a peinmnent institution ? 
 
 ]\Ir. Oxnard. Yes, sir, we were. If 1 remember correctly you were 
 on the committee before which we appeared here. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Now do you think that a bounty enacted in 1890 or 
 1897 would be permanent? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. 1 e\i)ect the Kepublican party to stay in power. 
 [Laughter.] 1 believe it would be i>ermanent simply on that account. 
 
 Mr. Wheelek. You believe it will stay in power on account of the 
 prosperity it has brought since the election, [Laughter.] 
 
 ]Mr. Payne. Do you think by tlie encouragement they will receive 
 from the beet sugar country and also from the fact that the vote is so 
 very close in the Senate that the situation is imi^roved in that respect 
 now ? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. I believe so. 
 
 ]\Ir. Payne. Or is tlie wish father to the thought! 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. I believe it. 1 believe if you wonld give th^ise agricul- 
 turists a diversified agriculture they would vote differently. 
 
 Mr. Payne. There was such a prospect in, 1890, 
 
 Mr, Oxnard, It was not materialized then; it had not gone far 
 enough. 
 
 INIr. McMiLLiN. This Hawaiian sugar was refined or is refined maiidy 
 by the refiners located in Utah and in the Avestern part of the United 
 States, I believe, beyond you! 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. Yes, sir; nearly all of it is refined in San Francisco. 
 
 Mr. ]McMiLLiN. Py what is known as the Spreckels refinery? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard, Y^es, sir.
 
 BEET SUGAR. 661 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Was there at any time, or is there now, an agree- 
 ment between that system of refineries and the refineries in the East — 
 the American Sngar llefining Company — that they will not invade each 
 other's territories ? 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. From hearsay and from ordinary general impression, I 
 think there mnst have been. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Does that exist now ? 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. I think so. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. They have substantially parceled ont the market of 
 the United States, and that treaty with Hawaii has been used as one 
 of the means of accomplishing that result, has it not? 
 
 Mr. OxNAED. I can not answer that. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I mean indirectly — it supplies the raw sugar! 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. It does; and that is why we are so anxious to have 
 that treaty abrogated. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I agree with you fully as to that. 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. They invade onr territory with the product of cheap 
 coolie labor. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. One part of the trust dominates one ]iart of the 
 United States and the other part dominates the other territory? 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. It would seem to me that that is so; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And they farm out the American people as con- 
 sumers ? You have spoken of the condition of the Treasury requiring 
 this increase of taxes. Were you bearing in miiul the fact that by 
 reason of the bond sales that were made last year there is on hand in 
 the Treasury an excess of the $100,000,000 gold reserve that is usu- 
 ally kept there, and that we have now between $100,000,000 and 
 $125,000,000 of surplus '? 
 
 Mr. EussELL. And deots to cover it? 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. I don't think I am competent to answer that. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. That has no connection with the issue. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. That has connection with what taxes ought to be 
 imposed to-day. 
 
 The Chairman. I am willing to admit it is there by reason of bond 
 sales. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I don't know of any method of getting it into circu- 
 lation again excei)t by the ordinary means of the Government. Let 
 me see if I understood yon. 1 believe you stated that you did not 
 think it probable that this beet-sugar industry could be developed 
 except on rates of duty you have suggested; that lower rates would 
 not accompMsh it. 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. That lower rates would certainly not accomplish it. 
 
 Schedule A. 
 
 SUGAR PLA^^*K IN T«IE liEPUBLICAX PLATFORM, 1896. 
 
 "We condemn the present Administration for not keepin<:i; faith with the sugar pro- 
 ducers of the United States. The Repuhlican party favors such i)roteetion as will 
 lead to tbe production on American soil of all the sugar which the American people 
 use, and for which we are sending abroad annually more than $100,000,000 to foreign 
 countries." 
 
 PAY THIS $100,000,000 TO OUR jFARMERS— THE REPUBLICAN POLICY WOULD GIVE 
 TO OUR OWN FARMERS AND WORKINGMEN $100,000,000 WHICH NOW GOES ABROAD 
 EVERY YEAR. 
 
 Mr. Bryan, in a speech delivered l>y him in the House of Representatives March 16, 
 1892, replying to the (luestion whether lie was opposed to any protection of the beet- 
 sugar industry (State or national), said: " I am, most assuredly."
 
 662 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 Beet sugar can lie successfully produced in all tlie States of the Upper Miesissippi 
 Valley and upon the Pacific Coast. The $100,000,000 which we now send abroad 
 every year to buy our sugar should l>e paid to the farmers of that section of the 
 United States and to those of the cane-produciug sections of the South. Had the 
 Republican party been permitted to carry out the policy inaugurated by the act 
 framed under Major McKiuley's direction in 1890, this great work would now be 
 fairly under way, and many millions of dollars being distributed among the farmers 
 instead of paying it lo foreign ])roducers of sugar. Probablj' the larger portion of 
 the arable lands included within our vast domain are adapted to the cultivation 
 of the sugar beet. The sugar beet does best on the Pacific Coast and in and about 
 Neljraslca. It does well in all of the great Northwest. It is very rich iu Wisconsin. 
 It can be grown to advantage in the State of New York. It is least adapted to New 
 England and the South. Even upon the arid jilains of the interior, wherever irriga- 
 tion is practicable, it is believed that the sugar beet might be made an exceedingly 
 profitable croji. 
 
 Louisiana aud Texas are the States in which cane sugar can be most successfully 
 produced. Sorghum is grown in many States, and much maple sugar is made in New 
 England and elsewhere. 
 
 The Rex)ublican party has been the friend of the sugar beet. With an eye keenly 
 on the alert for every opportunity for our own people to establish their industrial 
 and commercial, as well as ]iolitical, independence of other nations, it has not over- 
 looked the importance of protection for the sugar grower, whatever the vegetable 
 liroduct of which sugar is made. Judge William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, when 
 chairuuin of the Committee on Ways and Means, favored it. His patriotic and states- 
 manlike successor, William McKinley, now the Republican candidate for the highest 
 ofiice in the gift of tiie nation, whose name is attached to the tariff measure adopted 
 by the American Congress iu ISi'O, clearly saw the necessity and advisability of 
 "doing something for sugar," and included in the schedule of duties upon foreign 
 sugars .1 provision authorizing the ])ayment " to the producer of sugar testing not 
 Jess than 85 degrees by the ])o]ariscope, from beets, sorghum, or sugar cane grown in 
 the United States," of a bounty of 2 cents per pound. For the i)ayment of these 
 bounties the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to draw his warrants on the 
 Treasurer of the United States " i'or such sums as shall bo necessary, which sums shall 
 1)6 certified to him by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, by whom the bounties 
 shall be disbursed.'' The stinmlatiug elfect of this provision upon the producticui of 
 cane sugar was apparent in the increase of the amount made, from 250,000 tons in 
 1890 to o50,000 tons iu 1894. The elfect upon the ])r<Klu(tion of beet sugar was even 
 more nuarked ; it went from 2,800 t«ms in 1890 to 22.000 tons in 1894. 
 
 So great was the interest taken by the Republican ])arty in the sugar beet that it 
 distributed imported seed to farmers iu all i)arts of the country, required reports on 
 the cultivation of this root from the (iovernment agricultural experiment stations 
 created by law, and published a voluminous consular report on beet-sugar making 
 in Europe. 
 
 The Democratic party, bj' the Wilson-Gorman tariff bill, abolished the bounty on 
 home-grown sugars. It did more than that. It refused to pay the bounties due 
 under the McKinley Act. An approjiriatioii had l>een made for this i)urpose, when, 
 in January, 1895, Com])troller R. P. liowlcr, under cover of a decision by the court 
 of appeals in Washington, that the'bounty was unconstitutional, declined to pass 
 favorably upon the claims of the sugar producers accruing in 1893. A short but 
 forcible decision against Bowler'was rendered in the United States circuit court at 
 New Orleans iu December, 1895, by Judge Pardee, I'rom which an appeal was taken 
 to the Supreme Court, which held that the Comptroller was in the wrong, and that 
 the bounty nuist be paid. 
 
 The Tiltimate outcome of the dispiite over these bounties is told in the following 
 telegram from Washington, dated August 3, 1896: 
 
 " Wasiiixgtox, August 3. 
 
 "The warrants for the payment of the sugar bounties earnetl in 1894 (except maple 
 sugar), the payment of which was provided for in the apjiropriation of $5,000,000 in 
 the deficiency act of 1895, Avere issued to-day. The facts in connection with the 
 refusal of theComi)troIler to ])ass these claims and the long litigation which resulted 
 in the decision of the Supreme Court ordering their payment are familiar to the 
 public. The proved claims are prorated, each claiuKiut receiving under the $5,000,000 
 appropriation 84 per cent of his claim. The total amount of the 490 warrants issued 
 to-day is $4,988,036." 
 
 AAIEKICAN BEET-SUGAU INDUSTUY. 
 
 The following statement shows the benefits which will accrue to farmers, artisans, 
 and the various trades of the United Stat»s from the ibstering of tin; lieet-sngar indus- 
 try by means of a jtroper protective taritf, insuring home jiroductiDU of the 85 per cent 
 of sugar consunuHl in this country, which is now imported into the United States, and. 
 for which over $100,000,000 is paid to foreign farmers and manufacturers.
 
 BEBff SUGAR. 
 
 663 
 
 It has been compiled and calculated from the ofBcial statistics of the United States 
 Government for 1894-95, and from the actual experience of the beet raisers iii Cali- 
 fornia, Nebraska, and Utah ; also from official returns of some of the beet-sugar fac- 
 tories now in operation in the United States. 
 
 More particularly, it exhibits — 
 
 First, The amount of su,^ar consumed, produced, and imported into the United 
 States in 1894, and the amount of money paid on this account to foreign countries by 
 our people and thus withdrawn from our cirffnlation. 
 
 Second. The sources of supply and the countries benefited. 
 
 Third. The number of factories re(|uired and the number of people who would be 
 supported in producing the sugar now imported. 
 
 Fourth. The value, cost of production, and profits to our farmers from the growing 
 of the amount of sugar beets re(juired to i)rodnce the sugar now imported. 
 
 Fifth. The cost of construction of the number of factories necessary to produce 
 the sugar now inqjorted, and the amount of money which would be distributed among 
 our machine shoi)S, mechanics, and laborers for the erection of the plants. 
 
 Sixth. The amount of money w hich would be annually expended among our people 
 in the beet fields, and for labor and material in the iactories, if the sugar now 
 im])orted were produced at home. 
 
 Seventh. Recapitulation of benefits to farmers and the various trades were the 
 sugar now imported produced in our own country. 
 
 I. 
 
 CONSUMPTION OK SUGAR IN THE UNltTED STATES IX 1894. 
 
 Item. 
 
 Tona. 
 
 Value. 
 
 
 305, 800 
 l,718,89i 
 
 $20, 283, 014 
 108, 588, 946 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2, 024, 694 
 
 128,871,960 
 
 
 
 II. 
 
 SOURCE OF SUPPLY OK SUGAR IMPORTED IN 1895. 
 
 
 From — 
 
 Tons. 
 
 
 1, 005, 761 
 164 310 
 
 
 
 150 845 
 
 
 IKS 894 
 
 
 120 557 
 
 Brazil 
 
 87 646 
 
 
 45 757 
 
 Otliei- West Indies 
 
 45, 347 
 
 
 31, 402 
 
 
 15, 137 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 1, 804, 866 
 
 
 
 III. 
 
 FACTORIES REQUIRED AND NUMBER OF PEOPLE SUPPORTED, 
 
 To prodiice the amount of sngar now imported would require 920 factories with a 
 capacity of 350 tons of beets each for every working day of twenty-four hours. 
 Each factory would work ui) the product of 2,000 acres of sugar beets, and the 920 
 factories would utilize the product of 1,840,000 acres. At an average of 10 tons of 
 sugar beets per acre, this would equal 18,400,000 tons of beets, which would he the 
 amount of beets necessary to produce the sugar now imported. The total number 
 of men employed in the factories and in the beet fields would represent a jjopulation 
 of about 2,500',000 people. 
 
 BEET GROWING AS AN AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY, 
 
 The total average amount annually paid to our farmers for sugar beets required by 
 920 factories, in order to produce 1,718,894 tons of sngar now imported, would be: 
 For 18,400,000 tons of beets, at $4.20 per ton, $77,280,000, 40 per'cent of which (or 
 about $30,000,000) would on an average represent the farmers' share of the total sum 
 earned.
 
 664 
 
 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 COST OF FACTOKY COXSTRUCTIOX, KTC. 
 
 The average cost of construction of each factory having a capacity of 350 tons is 
 $400,000; or, for 920 factories, $368,000,000, Avhicli would be distributed among our 
 uuichine sliops and tbe building trades. Since 90 per cent of nearly all our fai)ric8 
 represents labor, it would follow that $331,200,000 would go directly into the hands 
 of our mechanics and of laborers. ^ 
 
 Tbe annual expenditure for materials and laV)or in extracting the sugar from tbe 
 18,400,000 tons of beets (the amountnecessary to manufacture the sugar now ini])orted) 
 and the amount of money placed in circulation tbrough the channels of this most 
 important industry would be as shown iu the following detailed statement : 
 
 Detailed estimate of cost of extracting the sugar from 18,400,000 tons of sugar heets. 
 
 Labor and materials. 
 
 For 1 For 920 
 
 factory, factories. 
 
 Labor as per pay roll 
 
 lieets, 20,000 tons, at $4.20 
 
 Coal, 2,800 tons, at $3.33 
 
 Limo rock, 1,200 tons, at $2 
 
 Coke, 144 tons, at $13 
 
 Filter cloth, 4,000 yards, at 17 cents. 
 
 Filter bags, SOO, at 25 cents 
 
 Sugar bags, 44,000, at 14 cents 
 
 Siilplmr, 4i tons, at $22 
 
 Hydrochloric acid, carboys, 60, at $3 
 
 ^>od;i, 200 pounds, at 35 cents 
 
 < '.\ Under oil, 'A) gallons, at 60 cents. 
 Machine oil, 200 gallons, at 30 cents 
 
 Tallow, 300 pounds, at 7 cents 
 
 Coal oil, 10 cases, at $1.80 
 
 Waste, 200 pounds, at 10 cents 
 
 ISeet knives, 1.50, at $1 
 
 Ciirlion tor 10(1 electric lights, at$l. 
 
 Chemicals for laboratory 
 
 Incidental and petty expenses 
 
 Taxes on$125,000, ij percent 
 
 I nsnrance, 1 per cent 
 
 Kepairs and maintenance 
 
 Total annual expenditure 
 
 $19, 130 
 
 $17,599,600 
 
 84, 000 
 
 77, 280, 000 
 
 9, 333 
 
 8, 586, 360 
 
 2,400 
 
 2, 208, 000 
 
 1,872 
 
 1, 722, 210 
 
 680 
 
 625, 600 
 
 200 
 
 184, 000 
 
 6, 160 
 
 5, 667, 200 
 
 99 
 
 91,080 
 
 180 
 
 165, 600 
 
 70 
 
 04, 400 
 
 30 
 
 27, COO 
 
 60 
 
 55, 200 
 
 21 
 
 19, 320 
 
 18 
 
 16, .'ieo 
 
 20 
 
 18,400 
 
 150 
 
 138,000 
 
 100 
 
 920, 000 
 
 250 
 
 230, 000 
 
 500 
 
 460, 000 
 
 1,875 
 
 1, 725, 000 
 
 1,000 
 
 920, 000 
 
 5,000 
 
 4, 000, 000 
 
 266, 296 
 
 122, 496, 160 
 
 VI. 
 
 LIST OK TRADES UENEFITED, WITH A.MOUXTS. 
 
 Tlie amount of money whicli would be paid per annum to our farmers and to each 
 of tlie various trades and industries if the 1,718,<S94 tons ot sugar now imi)orted were 
 produced in our own country would be as follows: 
 
 To farmers, for beets $77,280,000 
 
 To laborers in factories, for pay roll 17, 599, 600 
 
 To miners, Ibr coal 8, 586, 360 
 
 To (luarrymen, for lime rock 2, 208, OIK) 
 
 To coke manufacturers, for coke 1, 722, 240 
 
 To textile manufacturers, for lilter cloth, filter bags, and sugar bags.. . 918, 160 
 
 To nuichine shops and repairers, for annual repairs 4, 600, 000 
 
 VII. 
 
 UKCAI'ITILATIOX AXD CONCLrSIOX. 
 
 Previous to 1888 there was practically no beet-sugar production in the United 
 States. 
 
 The annual production of sugar iu the United States from 1888 until 1896 was 
 as follows : 
 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Cane. 
 
 Beets. 
 
 1889 
 
 
 Tons. 
 143, 745 
 252, 255 
 180, 250 
 228. 604 
 297, 737 
 355. 384 
 260, 000 
 
 Toru. 
 2,000 
 
 1890 
 
 
 2,800 
 
 1891 
 
 
 5,400 
 
 1892 
 
 
 12,000 
 
 1893 
 
 
 20. 000 
 
 1894 
 
 
 22, 000 
 
 1895 
 
 
 20, 400
 
 BEET SUGAR. 665 
 
 Sugar Leets can be successfully grown over the greater portion of tLe United 
 States, and States unable to grow beets produce sugar cane or sorglium. Farmers 
 receive from $4 to ^o a ton fortbeir beets, delivered, accordiug to location of factory. 
 
 One of tbe greatest advantages of this crop to the farmer is tlie knowledge wMch 
 he has when he puts his seed in the ground in the spring of the exact amount 
 which he will receive at harvest in the lall as the result of his year's work, since 
 contracts are made with the farmer in the spring stipulating the ])rice to be paid 
 for beets at harvest ; unlike oats, corn, wheat, and other crops, which are subject to 
 speculation and to iuanii>ulatiou by the boards of trade of New York, Chicago, and 
 London. If the crop of cereals is good the price is apt to be low, whereas with 
 beets the farmer gets all the advantage of a good crop. Why not help the farmer 
 when the opportunity is oftered ? 
 
 Another jioint to be considered, which farmers within a very considerable radius 
 of a sugar factory appreciate, is the increase in the value of their lauds. In fact, 
 land values around aud about sugar factories have increased 25, .50, and even 100 per 
 cent wherever beet-sugar factories have been located. Because of the thorough till- 
 age of land required for a crop of beets, other crops — when rotated — yield a double 
 product; when the pulp is used for feeding cattle, as it is used abroad, the increase 
 in number and jveight of stock becomes apparent. 
 
 There is no known industry which calls for the employment of such a variety of 
 labor and of material as the manufacture of sugar. There is no industry iu which 
 agriculture, manufacture, and transportation or inland commerce are brought so 
 closely together; none which so completely shuts out the middleman who is abroad 
 in the laud preying upon the people. The farmer has a sure market close at band. 
 He delivers his beets or cane and receives his money in cash, without deductions for 
 commission, storage, or other charges which reduce his profits ; aud he knows just 
 what he is to receive per ton, and when he is to receive it; so that he can calculate 
 very closely what his profit will be. It has been fully demonstrated that we have 
 the soil and the climate to produce our own sugar. If we do it we shall keep over 
 $100,000,000 at home annually which we are no^^ sending abroad. 
 
 Germany has just increased its bounty to sugar exporters, and France has increased 
 its productive duties for sugar producers. In this connection it might be well to 
 quote from a recent report sent to the Department of State, in which the consul at 
 Magdeburg, Germany, under date of May 30, 1896, says : 
 
 "In conclusion, I desire to speak a word for our own beet-sugar industry. If we 
 consider the enormous wealth which has accrued to Germany and all other countries 
 that have introduced and fostered this industry, it is indeed to be desired that the 
 United States should be put on such a footing as to be able to produce its own sugar. 
 With our vast territory aud varied climate and soil, ^ve should lind a sufficient area 
 adapted to grow all the sugar we consume, if vre can sufficiently protect the industry 
 against European competition, unduly aided by direct or indirect bounties." 
 
 If the United States is to compete with these and other countries in the produc- 
 tion of sugar, American manufacturers and producers must receive the same encour- 
 agement from their Government that Europeans receive from theirs. It goes without 
 saying that if the $100,000,000 which we now send abroad for sugar could be kept at 
 home this country would be much better oft' aud our farmers would be enormously 
 the gainers. The home iiroduction of sugar would diminish exportation of gold, 
 because the importation of sugar would be so reduced that the balance of trade 
 would be largelj' in favor of the United States; much money would, therefore, fiow 
 toward this hemisi)here which now flows away from it. This $100,000,000 would be 
 spent for American labor, and that would mean the employment of thousands.of idle 
 men. The farmers would have more money and could spend more; they could pay 
 oft' their mortgages and return to the times when they were prosperous and happy. 
 
 The candidate for the Presidency nominated by the Chicago convention is bitterly 
 opposed to helping the sugar industry. He worked aud voted when in Congress 
 against the sugar bounty; he worked aud voted against a taritt" for protection. 
 In his speech in Congress in January, 1894, when the sugar tariff was under c(m- 
 sideration, Bryan said : " If Congress can not properly give a Itounty directly to the 
 sugar industry, neither can it properly impose a tax upon sugar for the avowed 
 purjiose of protecting the sugar industry. It is as easy to justify a bounty as a pro- 
 tective tarift', aud it is impossible to justify either." Should he be elected no bill in 
 aid of the sugar industry would receive his sanction. 
 
 If, on the contrary, the Republicans succeed in electing McKinley, there will be 
 speedy legislation in favor of sugar, and not only will the jirice of beets be higher, 
 but new factories will go up all over the United States, in proof of which we quote 
 the plank inserted in the Republican platform at St. Louis last .June : "We condemn 
 the present Administration for not keeping faith with the sugar producers of the 
 United States. The Republican party favors such protection as will lead to the jiro- 
 duction on American soil of all the sugar which tbe American people use, aud for 
 which we are sending abroad annually more than $100,000,000 to foreign countries,"
 
 666 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 Since 1891 not a single new sugar factory has been built. With the probable 
 return of the Repul)lican party To power the erection of new factories is projected, 
 and hope and animation perv^ade this industry where gloom and despair have existed 
 for the last four years. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HERBERT MYRICK, OF NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 Wednesday, December 30, 1896. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I come before you 
 in all due modesty as representative of, I believe to be, the largest class 
 of i^eople in this country, and the class that is least heard from in these 
 committee hearings. I refer to the farmers of the United States. And 
 as my credentials to show that I represent these i)eoi)le, I maybe par- 
 doned for saying that nearly half a million of them are subscribers to 
 the journals which 1 have the honor to edit — the American Agricul- 
 turist, of New York and Columbus; the Orange Judd Farmer, of Chi- 
 cago and San Francisco; the XewEnghmd Homestead, of Springfield, 
 and also the Farm and Home, of Chicago and Springfield, Further- 
 more, during the ])ast year, convinced of the immense importance of 
 the sugar-beet industry to tlie farmers of this country, I have been 
 urging it upon their attention very constantly. 
 
 The result of this, together with the success of the sugar factories 
 already established, is that an intense interest has grown up in this 
 industry; so much so that after election, when it appeared that there 
 would be some legislation iavorable to the development of the beet- 
 sugar industry, we printed a short article asking the farmers of differ- 
 ent sections if they wanted a beet- sugar factory; if they did, to state 
 the county that wanted it, or the community, and to organize an exec- 
 utive committee to take charge of the work. Up to the present time 
 we have heard from about iour hundred counties scattered throughout 
 different parts of the United States, from the State of Xew York west- 
 ward. And that is merely the beginning; there are hundreds of other 
 localities that are extremely anxious to get beet-sugar factories. 
 
 It has been said that you can not protect the American farmer. Pos- 
 sibly you can not protect him very much in his wheat, of which he 
 produces a surplus, but you can protect him on sugar, and that is the 
 greatest proposition before Congress to-day — to take care of the farmer; 
 and I feel, and the farmers all over the country feel, that their interests 
 are the interests that are going to be properly considered and most 
 thoroughly and earnestly taken into account by tiie present Congress, 
 as well as the next one. 
 
 Now, as to this sugar ]iroposition, I want to call the attention of the 
 committee to the fact that it required every pound of the wheat and 
 every barrel of fiour exported by the United States during the past 
 fiscal year to pay for the sugar imported: also that the total value of 
 all live and dressed beef products and lard ex]iorted during the past 
 year barely equaled the amount paid for imi)orted sugar. Further, our 
 immense ex]wrt trade in cotton re])resents in value oidy twice as much 
 as the amount of our import sugar. Our vast exi)ort of tobacco must 
 be magnified thrice to counterbalance sugar imports. The barley, oats, 
 and rye, fruits and nuts, hops, vegetables, oils, oleomargarine, butter 
 and cheese, pork and hams, that were exported last year all put together 
 represent in value only two-thirds of the amount we paid for sugar. 
 
 Therefore, it seems to me, as a business proposition, that it is an
 
 BEET SUGAR. 667 
 
 economic crime to compel American farmers to raise staples in compe- 
 tition witli the cheap land and labor conntries witli which to pay for 
 imported sugar, besides standing the freight and commission both 
 ways. jSTo wonder agriculture is depressed, for not only are American 
 farmers deprived of the home market for 8100,000,000 worth of sugar 
 annually, but imports of other produce that can be grown in this 
 country amount to $120,000,000 i)er year in addition to sugar — wool, 
 hides, cotton, tobacco, vegetables, breadstufts, dairy produce, fruits 
 "and nuts, hops, hay, oils, rice, flaxseed, bristles, bark, eggs, hair, etc. 
 If you choose to add the imports of manufacturers of hides, wool, and 
 cotton, most of which could be made in this country from domestic prod- 
 uce, we have a total of nearly $300,000,000 a year, of which American 
 farmers could and should get a larger share, and they can have this 
 without necessarily reducing their exports. 
 
 The present Administration is very jubilant over agricultural exports 
 of over $570,000,000 a year, apparently blind to the fact that fully half 
 of these exports are required to pay for the sugar and the wool and the 
 other stuff that we import and which our farmers ought to produce. 
 Payments for these imports of raw produce and manufactures of them 
 during the past six years have been $1,750,000,000 — twice as much as 
 the entire interest-bearing national debt; and still we wonder why 
 agriculture is depressed. 
 
 jSTow, the American farmers demand a fair chance to produce every- 
 thing our people consume that can be grown in the United States, and 
 they don't understand that any political party — Democratic, Eepub- 
 lican. Populist, or any of the others — oppose them in that proposition. 
 They want to begin with sugar. They have Ibund by practical experi- 
 ence and scientitic tests that from the Hudson River to the Pacific, from 
 the Carolinas to the Lakes, they can grow sugar beets as rich or richer 
 in saccharine contents than those of Europe. 
 
 There seems to be a prevalent impression here that sugar beets can 
 be grown onl^' in Nebraska, California, and Utah. Why, gentlemen, a 
 sugar factory is about to be erected in central New York, at Rome, and 
 abundant experiments have been made to demonstrate that sugar beets 
 of the best quality can be grown in New York, Virginia, North Carolina, 
 Tennessee, Kentucky, and in pretty much all the country west and north 
 of that. The State of Iowa alone, from the result of one year of careful 
 experiments there, according to the statements of those who are well 
 informed, can, with sufiicient capital and the devotion of sufficient skill 
 and labor, produce all the sugar this country consumes; and the same 
 way with Wisconsin and Minnesota. 
 
 You have been talking politics here, and look at the vote of those 
 last-mentioned States! It was the hope for the sugar beet that made 
 those States vote that way. They thought there was going to be a 
 chance for that industry. Now, the farmers want factories established 
 to aUbrd a market for these sugar beets, which they are willing to fur- 
 nish at from $4 to $5 per ton. At these prices the crop is both a new 
 and profitable one. Every acre devoted to it will by so much reduce 
 the competition in other branches of farming. 
 
 An acre of corn at the West, yielding 40 bushels of grain worth 15 
 cents per bushel, will buy something more than 100 pounds of granu- 
 lated sugar at the grocery store. That same acre of land devoted to 
 sugar beets will produce 2,000 to 3,000 pounds of refined sugar, like the 
 finest white sugar you can buy. The corn under such conditions returns 
 about $6 per acre for all the labor and capital invested in that crop.
 
 668 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 Sugar beets yield $25 to $50 per acre, and while they require far more 
 labor they pay for it and leave a net profit of $10 to $25 per acre. 
 
 Mr. Steele. Under what conditions do they yield that per acre: 
 did they do that last year ? 
 
 Mr. Myrick. Yes, sir; the last sugar season — in 189G. 
 
 Mr. Steele. Fifty dollars an acref 
 
 Mr. Myrick. 1 say from $25 to $50, according to what the yield is. 
 
 Mr. Steele. What is the comparative labor cost in the liar vesting 
 of tliose two crops'? 
 
 Mr. Myrick. 1 have that point right here on labor, I say the corn 
 will return about $0 an acre for all the capital and labor exj^ended, and 
 the sugar beets will yield $25 to $50 an acre; and while tliey require 
 far more labor, they pay for it and leave a net profit of from $10 to $15 
 or $20 an acre, according to what the season is. Now, this labor item is 
 of vast importance. One of the best experiments on that point was 
 conducted by Mr. James Bardin, of California, who, from his experi- 
 ence, learned tliat for every man who gets a job on a grain crop 41 men 
 are employed on the beet cro]). The labor on 225 acres of beets grown 
 by l\Ir. James IJardin in tlie Salinas Valley, yielding 0,082 tons (includ- 
 ing $3,500 pay roll at factory during the manufacture of these beets), 
 was $15,000; that is, the total labor on this 225 acres of beets was 
 $15,000. The same laud in barley required only $300 tor labor. Beet 
 culture, liowever, can not be learned in a single season. It is high 
 farming, like the nuirket gardening near our great cities, which is the 
 result ol' lifty years of experience. 
 
 Under the best management it takes from two to four seasons for the 
 farmers in any locality to learn how to grow beets to the best advan- 
 tage, and they have to be bright to do it as quick as that. Until this 
 is done the sugar factory is not assured of an abundant supply of beets 
 of ])!op('r quality. ]Mean«iiile, the immense investment is at risk — 
 IVoiii $300,000 upward in each factory — and at best the factories can 
 run only one hundred or one hundred and filty days during the year. 
 10xi»erience in this country 1ms demonstrated that where the industry 
 has survived this first stage it has in every case become well estab- 
 lished to the satisfaction and ])rotit of the farmers, laborers, railroads, 
 and capitalists interested in the business. Xow, what stands in the 
 way of the American beet-sugar industry? It is lOuropean ('<)mi)etition, 
 and in speaking of the beet-sugar industry I would by no means slight 
 the cane-sugar industry, because their interests are mutual, except that 
 the cane croj) is limited by its environment to a comparatively small 
 section, soil, and climate, while the beet crop can be grown from the 
 Hudson to the Pacific. 
 
 l^hirope is now sending us nearly one hundred times as much beet 
 sugar as she did fifteen or seventeen years ago. She has developed 
 her beet-sugar industry by a liberal system of direct subsidies, high 
 protection, and export bounties, until the European beet-sugar industry 
 has practically ruined the cane-sugar industry of the tropics and monop- 
 olized the sugar market of the world. To complete the destruction 
 of the American sugar industry, or at least to prevent the further 
 develoinnent of the beet-sugar business in this country, Germany has 
 recently increased its export bounty. And France is about to follow 
 suit, thus enabling their sugar to be sold in the United States below 
 the cost of pnxluction in this country. What is needed is a reasonable 
 specific duty on all imported sugar, with an additional discriminating 
 duty from countries i)aying an export bounty, e<iual to tliat bounty. 
 Then with such aid as the various States and localities interested may
 
 BEET SUGAR. G69 
 
 offer to secure sugar factories, the beet-sugar industry could be put on 
 its feet in tliis country, within a very few years. It would afford farmers 
 tlie new and i)rofitable crop that they must have. It would also offer 
 a new market for labor and an immense business to machine builders, 
 railroads and others, and a fair return on the capital invested in the 
 business, and it would distribute among these peoi)le the $100,000,000 
 that are now paid annually for imported sugar — 1,000,000,000 during 
 the past ten years ! Americans being the greatest users of sugar in 
 the world, its consumption here has doubled in fifteen years and is 
 likely to increase in the same ratio in the future. Thus by 1910, if the 
 domestic industry supplies the home market as it should, it will be 
 putting into the pockets of our peojjle $200,000,000 a year that other- 
 wise would be sent out of the country. 
 
 I have frequently been asked. Why has not the American beet-sugar 
 industry developed more rapidly; why is it in its present condition, 
 after forty years of protection"? In the first place, when it was first 
 tried, twenty or twenty-five years ago, other crops paid so much better 
 that farmers did not have the patience to learn how to grow beets. 
 The first factories were not well located to secure an abundant supply 
 of rich beets. The chairman of this committee will j)robably remember 
 that one of the first factories was located at Portland, one of the poorest 
 possible locations that could be selected for a sugar factory. [ Laughter.] 
 
 The Chairman. The climate and soil proved to be ill adapted for 
 the cultivation of the beet. 
 
 Mr. Myrick. Yes, sir. The factory was not too far north, but the 
 land there is not suitable. There is no State that produces a richer 
 beet or nicer beet than Wisconsin or Minnesota or the Dakotas, which 
 are as far north as Maine and have as severe a climate ; but they have 
 a great area of beautiful land well adapted to this crop. Then, again, 
 when this industry was first tried, it was comparatively new and beets 
 were of poorer quality than now. Discouraged by a few failures with 
 the sugar beet, the United States Department of Agriculture led a wild- 
 goose chase after sorghum sugar. After it had been demonstrated that 
 sorghum was not a reliable sugar plant, the Government spent millions 
 of money and years of time upon it. And it was natural that the 
 Department of Agriculture, in this campaign after sorghum sugar, 
 should have the support of the Western farmer. Why? Because sor- 
 ghum was a crop that you could raise like corn without having to bend 
 your back to pull the weeds or thin the beets. You could ride on a 
 cultivator with an umbrella over your head and raise sorghum. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Why could they not do that with beets ? Here are 
 some photographs showing beet cultivation and the men are down on 
 their hands and knees. Why can sugar beets not be cultivated with 
 horse power 1 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. They are now, to some extent. Those photograi)hs were 
 taken five years ago. 
 
 Mr. Myrick. There have been improvements since then, but when 
 this industry was first undertaken, this work was nearly all done by 
 hand. The Germans had labor-saving machinery to some exent, but 
 the impression which was created all through the West was that yon 
 had to get on your hands and knees to pull the weeds and thin the 
 beets, and the farmers would not do it. 
 
 But finally the sorghum craze exploded and more work was done with 
 sugar beets until, when the McKinley law was enacted, exj)erience had 
 pointed out the way to the success that has since been achieved. 
 
 It Avas seen that under projier protection of this industry the fanmers
 
 670 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 could supply the American market with American sugar in place of 
 growing wheat and corn at a loss and making milk and butter at a loss. 
 The farmers are very emphatic in demanding and desiring that this 
 sugar industry be given a fair chance. During the past sixty days, as 
 I have said in my introduction, farmers' organizations have been 
 founded in several hundred counties to advance their interests in rais- 
 ing sugar beets, in securing factories to work up the crop, to obtain 
 needed legislation, to develop the industry, and to protect it against 
 the trusts. What we want Congress to do is to have it legislate for the 
 farmer, and not for the sugar trust. I heard one gentleman voice that 
 sentiment this morning, and say, "We can not afford to antagonize 
 any sugar-producing country." We want you to legislate so the Ameri- 
 can farmer, and not France or Germany, will supply this market with 
 sugar, even if it does antagonize them. Take care of the American 
 farmer lirst. 
 
 I must also criticise the attitude of the sugar trust. It comes here 
 and as4vs the highest possible protection on retined sugar, but wants a 
 low duty on raw. The trust even ojiposes a discriminating duty on 
 European raws equivalent to their export bounty. In other words, the 
 trust wants to buy its raw prodnct at i\)e lowest possible terms, so as 
 to make the largest possible profit in retiniug, and at the same time 
 help to hammer down the price of domestic raw sugar, thus keeping 
 the entire industry within the grip of the trust. Now, the larmers of 
 the United States oppose this policy, to a man. They want Congress 
 to so legislate as to divert capital from the refining of imported raw 
 sugar to the construction of factories in the interior and at the iSouth 
 to work up beets and sugar cane. ^Ve have been told here to-day that 
 the profits of the trust were so large that several new refineries were 
 likely to be established soon at Kew York or Philadelphia to compete 
 with it. Instead of encouraging a situation that permits this, we 
 believe the wiser policy will be to so encourage the production of beets 
 and sugarcane tliat capital will How into factories for the manufacture 
 of domestic sugar from these (a'oi)S instead of embarking in refineries 
 for imported raw sugar. In other words, we maintain that under an 
 equitable system of ])rotection for this industry the mainifacture of 
 domestic sugar will prove so attractive that ca])ital will rai)idly invest 
 in it, thus affording a market for this new and profitable crop, which 
 the farmer wishes to grow. 
 
 It is now proposed to unite these and hundreds of new organizations 
 in a national sugar beet growers society. The farmers realize that 
 the time has come for them to work together for their own interests. 
 They have been more or less misrepresented, they have been a good 
 deal frowned upon and laughed at. 
 
 Mr. Steele. By whom have they been frowned upon and laughed at? 
 
 Mr. Myrick. By the city press in general and largely by the city 
 population. Every gentleman here knows that if the farmers held a 
 convention, for instance in the city of Xew York, they would be the 
 subject of butt and ridicule for a week. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Well, Kew Y'ork is improving. 
 
 Mr. Myrick. They ought to be imi^roving, having had their milk 
 there so cheap; they can afford to improve. 
 
 Mr. EussELL. Is not one of the great difficulties the large cost of the 
 establishment of plants? 
 
 Mr. Myrick. Our vital trouble to-day is this: That with the present 
 low price of sugar and the conditions in the sugar trade, which have 
 been so far as i^ossible explained to you to-day, capital does not dare go 
 into the business.
 
 BEET SUGAR. 671 
 
 Mr. EtrsSELL. I imderstand you to say it costs $300,000 to establish 
 a paying xjlant? 
 
 Mr. Myeick. That would he n small one. 
 
 Mr. Russell. That is for the machinery and the plant itself ! 
 
 Mr. Myrick. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler, What would a plant costing $300,000 produce? 
 
 Mr. Myrick. Mr. Oxuard could answer that (piestiou better than I 
 could. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler (to Mr. Oxnard). How many tons would be pro- 
 duced by a $300,000 plant? 
 
 Mr. OxNAED. Three hundred tons a day, say for a hundred days. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLTN. What number of acres of product would a factory 
 of that size consume? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. It would depend on the number of tons you get to the 
 acre, and if the factory would work on an average of one hundred 
 days — from eighty to one hundred days — at 300 tons a day, that would 
 make from 20,000 to 30,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I was trying to get at the acreage. 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. That would be in the neighbourhood of 3,000 acres — 
 somewhere along there. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Of rich land? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. Of rich land, but you would have to rotate your crops. 
 The best results, from experience in Europe, are obtained by planting 
 only every fourth year. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLTN. Is it a very exhausting crop? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. ISTo; it is not a very exhausting crop — that is, if you 
 will return to the soil the ingredients of the by-products you take out. 
 
 If I am not interrupting Mr. Myrick, I would like to say a word on 
 a subject to which he referred. He said that the beet-sugar industry 
 had been attempted here many years ago, and the reason it had not suc- 
 ceeded better was on account of the poor location of the plants, and so 
 on. If I may be excused for saying so, that was not the real reason. 
 The real reason was that the sugar beet itself at that time was far 
 inferior to the sugar cane as a sugar-producing plant, and by that I 
 mean that with a given quantity of sugar cane more sugar could be pro- 
 duced than could be produced from a like weight of sugar beet. 
 
 Mr. Myrick. They figured about 10 per cent then, and they figure 
 about 15 per cent now. 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. They have gradually raised the percentage of sugar 
 in the beets raised in Europe from to 14 per cent, and they have not 
 stoi)ped there. That is why I am convinced the sugar beet is not only 
 going to equal but surpass sugar cane as a means of obtaining our 
 sugar. In exceptional cases beets have gone as high as 20 per cent. 
 The root of the wliole thing is that about the year 1885 the sugar beet 
 as- an agricultural plant caught uj) with the sugar cane and that now 
 it has passed it. 
 
 Mr. Russell. Is the machinery manufactured in the United States'? 
 
 ]\Ir. Oxnard. Yes, sir; and under the best conditions. There is a 
 factory in Cleveland, Ohio, that makes excellent machinerj^, and the 
 factory in Utah is equipped entirely with American machinery. We 
 had a clause inserted in the act of 1890 allowing the machinery for a 
 couple of years — or the models of the machinery — to come in free of 
 duty, but we would not ask for that to-day, because we can get as good 
 machinery here. It would take 8300,000,000 to build up the sugar 
 industry. 
 
 Mr. Russell. What would the machinery alone cost?
 
 672 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. I would say out of that tlie macliinery would cost any- 
 where from $100,000 to $125,000 per ])lant, and the erection of it per- 
 haps $50,000 more. 
 
 Mr. Steele. Wliat per cent of the cost entering into the manufac- 
 ture of beet sugar is for fuel 1 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. Fifteen to 20 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Please tell us the farthest South that any factory is 
 located. 
 
 Mr. Myrick. There was a comparatively small concern at Staunton, 
 Va. It was in operation for several years and linally burned. It was 
 a small affair, with a good deal of homemade machinery. O. K. Lap- 
 ham, of Staunton, Va., I thi)ik, had enough experience with tlie sugar 
 beets during the years he was running tliat factory, so far as the opera- 
 tion of the factory was concerned, to convince him the sugar beet was 
 the best proposition for the farmers of Virginia and the middle South 
 if they could get a iair market. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. How far South can the beet be grown to advantage? 
 
 Mr. Myrick. The most southeily experiments which have been made 
 in which any confidence can be pla(;cd are those made under the direc- 
 tion of the North Carolina Exi)eriment Station; whether it will grow 
 farther South than that or not I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. You spolce of South Carolina in your remarks 
 awhile ago. 
 
 Mr. Myrick. The experiments I spoke of werenmde in the iu)rthern 
 part of South Carolina, about on the border of North Carolina. Those 
 experiments were <i[uite satisfactory, as reported by the experiment 
 station. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Quite as satisfactory' as those in the Northwest? 
 
 Mr. Myrick. J'erhaps not, because they have not had as much 
 experience in raising beets. 
 
 Mr. l^^VANS. You think it quite possible that the beet can be culti- 
 vated down to the sugar-cane line! 
 
 Mr. Myrick. It is a question whether there is not a little gap between 
 the sugar cane belt and the sugar-beet section. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Have the beets been grown in Tennessee? 
 
 Mr. Myrick. Yes, sir. The Tennessee Experiment Station has con- 
 ducted the experiments, I should judge, in a dozen or twenty different 
 localities over that State, and they have obtained very satisfactory 
 results. Those tests were made for two years, and show a very good 
 sugar content. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. What character of soil is best for the beet! 
 
 Mr. Myrick. There are some gentlemen here who have grown beets 
 and who perhaps know better than I. It needs a rich, open, deep soil. 
 It is something of a question, I believe, whether the beet Avill do well 
 in a black, loamy soil. 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. We have had good results in diilerent soils; in black 
 and also in sandy loam. The seed has a great deal to do with it. 
 
 ]\Ir. Myrick. The beet is a iwsitive plant. It does not vary largely 
 under different conditions of soil and climate as compared with the 
 sorghum plant. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. No experiments have been made in Alabama, I sup- 
 pose, with the sugar beet! 
 
 Mr. Myrick. No, sir ; I don't know of any as far south as that. 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. I hear there have been some experiments in Missis- 
 si])pi which have been rather successful. Mr. .lames Richardson, a 
 cotton planter there, has made such experiments.
 
 BEET SUGAR. 673 
 
 STATEMEIJT OF THOMAS R. CUTLER, MANAGER OF UTAH SUGAR 
 
 COMPANY, OF LEHI, UTAH. 
 
 Wednesday, December 30, 1896. 
 
 Mr. Cutler said: Gentlemen of thecomnrittee, the native producer 
 of white sugar ready for dii"ect consumption begs to respectfully submit 
 the following facts, figures, and. hasty comments: 
 
 Havraiian Islands : The custom-house Tables of 1894 give the value of 
 domestic exj)ortof sugar to all other countries than the United States, 
 $525.08; to the United States, .$8,473,084:.02. The value of all goods 
 free by statute from the United States is only $989,043.30, 1. e., llf per 
 cent of reciprocity of the articles free of duty. 
 
 Coal and coke, $169,500.75; fertilizers — these are free, any way, from 
 any country — $227,233.49; hardware and agricultural implements, 
 $11,944.18; machinery, $27,475.75, making a fotal of $430,154.17, out 
 of a total list of $1,2G9,53(>.35 free from all countries; that is to say, 
 one-third of articles free by statute are tlie necessaries to sugar pro- 
 duction, or, in other M'ords, of those lines only in which it is to their 
 advantage of this chief export. 
 
 In 1851 coolies were engaged for five years at $3 per month in addi- 
 tion to their passage, food, clothing, housing, and medical attendance. 
 In 1894, 10,508 laborers were under contract, a little less than half. 
 As the labor commissioner puts it, '"The sugar interest has not 
 improved the body politic." The total population of the Hawaiian 
 Islands, according to the last official census tables, taken December 
 28, 1890, was 89,990, of which 10,080 were Chinese and 12,360 Japan- 
 ese, and only 1,928 were Americans. The estimated population on Jan- 
 uary 1, 1895, was ]01,6()1, Chinese and Japanese having increased by 
 10,141 to 38,581 and all other foreign by only 472; that is to say, out 
 of a total of 101,661 the Auiericans constitute less than 2 per cent of 
 the i)opulation of the Hawaiian Islands. 
 
 The reciprocity treaty went into effect in 1876. In that year sugar 
 exports were 13,036 short tons. In 1893 they were 155,411; in 1896 
 about 220,000; 220,000 tons, or 440,000,000 pounds, at 2.76 cents per 
 pound (the rate taken in custom-house tables), giving a value of 
 $12,144,000 for imports in 1896, and at 40 per cent a duty of $4,857,600 
 has this year been remitted to the island planters. 
 
 The " Awa" yield of Hawaiian sugar is 4^ tons, while the average 
 plantation claims 10 tons per acre. The average yield of California 
 sugar of the same grade, viz, of 96 per cent polarization, is not over If 
 tons, which is about the same as tlie yield in European countries. 
 
 The United States, brieily speaking, under its reciprocity treaty, 
 therefore exports llf jjer cent of reciprocal imijorts, and this year 
 rebates $4,857,600 of duty to what is largely contract-labor sugar, and 
 where Americans constitute less than 2 per cent of the population. 
 
 The output of sweet wines in California in 1895 was 4,233,116.44 gal- 
 lons. In the manufacture of this was used brandy, 1,027,909.8 gallons, 
 upon which no tax was paid to the Government. The tax being $1.10, 
 the Government has contributed toward this industry in 1895 the sum 
 of $1,130,700.78. 
 
 For 2 per cent of the population of Hawaii there was $4,857,600, and 
 for the brandy maker America had $1,130,700, but the faith of the 
 nation plighted to a legitimate home industry was broken. 
 
 The sugar truvSt of China is the Hongkong Sugar Refinery, with a 
 capital of £7,000,000, or $35,000,000. 
 
 The Hongkong manufactories ship refined sugar to San Francisco 
 
 T H 43
 
 674 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 on consignment. The price of low grade raw sugar in China is $1 to 
 $1.20 per picul (138^ pounds). This is equal to eight-tenths to nine- 
 tenths of 1 cent per pound. The wages of the day laborer is 8 to 10 
 cents in silver, and Hongkong is a free port for everything. 
 
 Of Chinese-made Hongkong sugar there was imported into San Fran- 
 cisco in 1891, 6,501,875 pounds; in 1895, 27,24(>,895 pounds, an increase 
 of 415 per cent in four years just after the American tariff was changed. 
 
 In 1890 America had 7 beet-sugar factories; in 1896 still only 7. In 
 1890 little Sweden had 4; to-day there are 19 there. From Egypt 
 within the last year 13 tramp steamships have brought sugar cargoes 
 to America. In 1894 Argentina protected relined sugar by 9 cents 
 per kilogram, and the product of that year, 84.000 tons, was the next 
 year 128,000 tons. No sugar is produced and little refined in free-trade 
 England. 
 
 While the consumer in America pays 5 cents per pound for dry gran- 
 ulated bugar, the consumer in Germany pays 8J cents per pound, in 
 Austria 8f cents per pound, and in France 10 cents per pound, and yet 
 by reason of their export and other bounties they are able to undersell 
 us in our own market. Germany in 189() produced 1,800,000 tons raw 
 sugar, and although she exports more than one-half of her product, she 
 has within four months doubled her export bounty, and France is clamor- 
 ing to-day for a higher one to meet her neighbor. 
 
 The manufacturer in Germany, beside the benefit of export bounty, 
 has a surtax of 20 marks per 100 kilos on imported sugar, which allows 
 him to make an advance of 2^ or 2| cents additional before foreign 
 sugar can compete, and two sjnidicates are now forming in that country 
 (one of tlie sugar manufacturers, and one of the refiners) to enable them 
 to advance prices and avail of tliis surtax. 
 
 In France the etfect of a similar surtax of 7 francs per 100 kilos 
 makes the selling price at the Exchange of Paris an average of 5 francs, 
 that is one-half cent higher than for export. 
 
 Germany in 1871-72 produced 188,376 tons of sugar, and then inau- 
 gurated her bounty system. This year, 1890, they doubled their export 
 bounty and limited tlieir producticm to 1,734,000 tons of sugar, but the 
 actual production will be at least 1,S(J0,000 tons of sugar. The reason 
 of that overproduction is easy to understand when it is said that the 
 penalty will be at the maximum 750 marks, or $187, to be paid in total 
 by each ofi'ending factory. 
 
 A parasite industry like the sugar refineries of America can thus 
 buy these European exported sugars and take a part of these German 
 and French (Kussian, Austrian, and Belgian) bounties to the grave 
 disadvantage of native-grown American sugar, unless the Litter be 
 assisted in its defense. 
 
 The consumi)tiou of this country is practically 2,000,000 tons of 
 refined sugar, which, at an average of 4 cents per pound, is worth 
 $lliO,OU(),000. 
 
 That is, it is the product of 400 such sized factories as the Utah Beet 
 Sugar Com})any, and of the Alameda Sugar Company, which this year 
 will each ])roduce about 5,000 tons of white sugar. 
 
 Based upon thestatistics of the Californiafactory, that meanstheuseof: 
 
 Capital $375,000 X 400= $150,000,000 
 
 Acres of laud 3.500 X 400= 1,400,000 
 
 Eentals, land 200,000 X 400 = j 5J; Joo; 000 
 
 Coal 4.5,000x400= 18^ OOo! 000 
 
 Coke 2.025X400= 1,050,000 
 
 I.iinerock 8. 325 X 400= 3.330.000 
 
 Factory labor 55,000 X 400= 22.000,000
 
 BEET SUGAR. 675 
 
 To grow, malce, and refine 1 ton of vsngar requires thirty-eiglit days 
 work of one man. To refine alone requires one and one-third days 
 work per ton. If the 4,000,000,000 pounds of sugar were grown in tliis 
 country it would giv^e direct employment to -J48,570 men during the 
 whole year, and indirectly to more than live times that number. 
 
 When we send abroad $125,000,000 for raw sugar we have secured 
 in exchange only the nearly manufactured material for a parasitic 
 industry to finish and sell, and our gold has left us forever, but if we 
 nuike all our own sugar from the ground u[)ward we shall have retained 
 in our country as well, whether for taxation, for investment, or for 
 other resources to the Commonwealth, just that $125,000,000. This we 
 shall do year after year, while we shall have given profitable employ- 
 ment to the intelligent labor of a multitude of liberty-loving Ameri- 
 cans, who now are either engaged in an agriculture which does not 
 repay them for their labor or who are idle while coolies work and 
 riches accumulate in hands already overburdened with wealth. Labor 
 in Germany is 28 cents per day; hibor in China is 8 to 10 cents per 
 day; contract labor in Hawaii is $3 per month and found; labor in 
 California and Utah sugar factories is $1.80 jier day, exclusive of skilled 
 technical labor, which is paid by the year. 
 
 The average duty upon all dutiable articles is 39.94 per hundred- 
 weight, while the present duty upon sugar is 40 per cent. Why then 
 do we require more than the average duty'? It is, first, because the ele- 
 ment of labor enters so largely into the problem, as against the simple 
 refining interest, being in the ratio of If to 38. It is because we wish 
 to retain the price of American labor at it present high standard of 
 comfort. It is because native grown sugar which in one year can be 
 made for 4 cents per pound may with unfavorable climatic conditions 
 the very next year cost over 5 cents per pound. 
 
 All foreign sugar-i)roducing countries have promoted their beet sugar 
 industries through bounties and surtaxes. The bounty is intended to 
 protect us temporarily against the American refining interest, whose 
 enormous capitalization enables it to fight a growing industry by artifi- 
 cially depressing prices of sugar in one section of our country while 
 raising it by a compensating amount in some other section which is 
 deprived of the competing benefit of a native sugar factory. 
 
 This is the personal experience of the few factories which have tried 
 to produce white sugar ready for consumption, and the deterrent effect 
 upon the minds of our enteri)rising capitalists has been such that not 
 one has dared to venture in any new undertaking. 
 
 A small bounty coming out of the duty derived from imported sugar 
 will encourage capital and promote rapidly the erection of needed sugar 
 factories to supply our home consumption. Exiiecting such relief, the 
 foundations are now laid for two new sugar factories in California, and 
 for one in Utah, and a third in California is only awaiting favorable 
 Congressional action before doubling its output to a capacity of 10,000 
 tons a year. 
 
 There is no greater heresy than this — that the workingman in one 
 overpopulated country has an inherent right to send the products of 
 his labor to another country and place it upon even terms with the 
 product of the labor of that county, and those foreign nations which 
 advocate this heresy most loudly to-day and clamor for our markets 
 are in their turn the most jealous of their own home markets. 
 
 Baron Hermann, a special agent of Germany, in the month of last 
 November, had visited every California sugar factory in order to make 
 a special report to his Government, that they may retain our markets 
 for their own labor.
 
 676 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 A word upon the vicious system of a return of duty on manufactured 
 articles exported. 
 
 Your memorialist chanced, upon the overland train hither from San 
 Francisco, to engage in tariff talk with a canner of the tinest grades of 
 California fruit and vegetables. He stated that he believed he had 
 bonght his last bill of Englisli tin. A few days ago, an Englishman in 
 the same line of trade invited him to his office and showed him a grade 
 of tin made in Indiana, and he pronounced it superior to any tin that 
 England could manufacture. 
 
 "That," said Mr. Hickmott, "is the result of protection." 
 
 "But where do you buy your sugar, Mr. Hickmott?" we inquired. 
 
 " Oh, I bought 2o0 tons of Hongkong sugar so that I might get the 
 drawback on exported canned goods for the sugar used therein." 
 
 Our system of recovery of drawback on sugar thus exported gives 
 the bulk of the large trade of the California canners directly into the 
 hands of the Hongkoug coolie-made English sugar trust of Asia. 
 
 If it be not presumptions now to suggest wliat to your petitioners 
 seems fundamental principles in the sugar schedule of a new tariff bill, 
 we resi)ectfully offer the following : 
 
 It is unnecessary to remind you, gentlemen, that in the tariff bill of 
 1890 the nation bound itself for a specific time to one item only, namely, 
 sugar, and to that for fifteen years. 
 
 Although at law we may have no redress, in equity we claim twelve 
 years of unfultilled obligation. 
 
 We claim also that 2 cents of protection then promised, the same to 
 be allowed in the manner which, in the wisdom of this committee, may 
 appear best for the Commonwealth. 
 
 As your memorialist stated on the introduction of this hasty i)lea, 
 the native-grown sugar ready for consumption is at bay. At bay, sur- 
 rounded by foes from Hawaii, from China, from Europe, and at home — 
 and at home both in the adverse interests of a great corporation and in 
 the adverse drawback laws upon our statute book. 
 
 First. A duty will protect us from foreign foes. Such duty should 
 not be ad valorem and uncertain, but specific and honest. 
 
 Second. A smaller bounty, to be paid out of the revenue derived from 
 the duty so collected, will protect from foes at home. 
 
 Third. The smaller bounty should at first be such as to encourage 
 new investments in sugar producing, and then gradually become less. 
 
 Fourth. The drawback system should also be revised so that every 
 exporting manufacturer using native-grown sugar might recover the 
 same drawback of duty as though he had used the foreign -made sugar. 
 
 In brief, gentlemen, we respectfully ask a specific duty of 1^ cents 
 per pound on the imported raw sugar of average polarization, say [)0°, 
 and in addition, a gradually disappearing bounty upon native grown 
 sugar, which shall average one-half cent per pound. Let that be 
 api)ortioned as follows: Three- fourths cent for the first four years of the 
 unexpired twelve above mentioned, one-half cent for the second four 
 years thereof, and oue-fourth cent for the remaining four years of this 
 term. 
 
 The average bounty would thus be one-half cent, while the three- 
 fourths cent paid during the earlier part of the {)eriod would provide 
 the needed incentive to the founding of new factories. 
 
 Such a sugar taritt' would yield the Government as follows, viz: 
 
 1,650,000 tons, at 1^ cents i)er ])oiinil $49, 000, 000 
 
 Less 350,000 tons rcturu bounty sugar, at three- touiths cent per pound. . 5, 250, 000 
 
 Net revenue from sugar 44, 250, 000
 
 BEET SUGAR. 677 
 
 Gentlemen of tlie Ways aiui Means Committee: Others will have 
 presented to you the historical and statistical side of tbis question. 
 The above is the practical view from the standpoint of the native pro- 
 ducer of sugar ready for consumption. 
 
 We have come across this broad continent from the respective States 
 of Utah and California to talk to you as man to man, and we respect- 
 fully present this our jilan to your wise deliberation. All of which I 
 submit in belialf of Alameda .Sugar Company, of Alvarado, Cal., by 
 James Coffin, secretary; Utah Sugar Company, of Lehi, Utah. 
 
 I will say that I have the honor to represent, I believe, the first 
 American machine-made factory in the United States, and iii answer to 
 the question as to what quality that machinery is, I will say that I 
 have visited several companies in (Tcrmany and France and the ma- 
 chinery there is not the superior of my macninery in any respect. 
 
 One of tlie gentlemen i)resent said he would think that at this 
 time American machinery for the cultivation of beets would have been 
 introduced. There are some parts of the labor that can be performed by 
 machinery. He spoke of the necessity of getting down on hands and 
 knees to weed and thin the beets, and I want to say that as far as Utah 
 and California and Nebraska are concerned the agricultural people there 
 would be very glad of the opportunity to get down on their hands and 
 knees to Aveed those beets. It is true that very many agricultural 
 implements have lately been invented to do away with a great deal of 
 this manual labor, but there are some parts of it that probably can 
 never be done by agricultural machinery. The beet is very tender, and 
 when it is weeded it must have that careful attention that can only be 
 given to it by getting down on the hands and knees to do it, in order 
 to save the tender i>lant. 
 
 There is another important industry in connection with this that has 
 not been mentioned, and that is the raising of the beet seed. To-day 
 the few factories in operation here pay to foreign countries very many 
 thousand dollars for this seed. Our factory alone has paid as high as 
 $40,000 for seed. We are beginning to raise our own seed, and there is 
 no reason why we should send one dollar abroad for seed, except probably 
 as a matter of education. 
 
 I respectfully submit this question, and shall be pleased to answer 
 any other question connected with the industry I represent. I think 
 there was a question asked sometime ago as to the sugar refineries — 
 some question that I should answer. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Tou say that it required thirty-eight days for one 
 man to work up a ton of beets'? 
 
 Mr. Cutler. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler, I think it was stated, although I am not certain 
 about it and would therefore ask you; on an average how many pounds 
 of sugar would that niakef 
 
 Mr. Cutler. On one ton of beets? 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Cutler. At the beginning of the factory, from 110 pounds the 
 first year to probably 140 to 150. That would grow. 
 
 Mr. Steele. You do not mean to say it takes thirty-eight days' 
 work to raise one ton of beets? 
 
 Mr. Cutler. One ton of sugar. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. You s;vid there was one point as to refineries. 
 
 Mr. Cutler. I understood that thero ^vas some question about that 
 that it was desired to ask me for the reasLU that Utah has felt the hand 
 of the trust.
 
 678 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Will you state wliat ycu !:uow in regard to the sugar 
 trust de.stroviiis>- competition'? 
 
 Mr. Cutler. I won't use tlie word " destroy," but simply say tins : That 
 the moment Utah gets into the market with its granulated sugar (the 
 people of Utah and Montana use the Western trust sugar) the American 
 8ugar Company of San Francisco reduces the price of the sugar to the 
 trade between San Francisco and Utah or San Francisco and Montana, 
 so that we have to accept from 50 cents to 75 cents per 100 pounds less 
 when we are in the market than the market ought to aiford us accord- 
 ing to the price of the trust sugar in San Francisco. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is that your most troublesome competition? 
 
 Mr. Cutler. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Utah is within the territory that is assigned to the 
 American iieflning Company of California? 
 
 Mr. Cutler. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Til at is the company that takes the Hawaiian sugars 
 that come in free under this treaty that has been referred to? 
 
 Mr. Cutler. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And that free raw material is used to lower the price 
 at your factory? 
 
 Mr. Cutler. Yes, sir; so it appears to me. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you know the method in which they make their 
 sales ? 
 
 Mr. Cutler. I do not. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The contracts they make with the people to whom 
 they sein 
 
 Mr. Cutler. No, sir; no farther than Utah. They simply sell on 
 prices in San Francisco. The consumer or wholesale dealer has to pay 
 the freight from San Francisco, but they don't iierniit any rebates in 
 that country. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The laws don't allow rebates ? 
 
 Mr. Cutler. We are a thousand miles from the Mississippi River 
 and pretty nearly that distance from San Francisco; so we are isolated 
 from the sugar markets. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Y^ou mean no rebate in freights! 
 
 Mr. Cutler, i^o rebate in freights or no rebate in the price of sugar. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. E. M. ALLEN, OF AMES, NEBE. 
 
 Wednesday, December 30^ 1896. 
 Mr. Allen said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 if it may not be regarded as unnecessary and irrelevant, I would like 
 to suggest to the committee the experience 1 have had west of the Mis- 
 souri Kiver as having some bearing on my opinion of the matter of 
 domestic sugar production in that section of the country. My experi- 
 ence of the transmissouri country began in September, 1877, and from 
 the spring of 1879 until the present time I have been engaged in the 
 range cattle business in that country, an occupation which has kept me 
 in communication with the agricultural district west of the Missouri. 
 Since August, 1886, my headquarters have been in the heart of the 
 transmissouri farming country, aJbout 50 miles west of Omaha. My 
 experience of the relation between the agriculture of that country and 
 the world's balance sheet of the production and consumption of bread- 
 stuffs dates from the time immediately after the highest point of wheat 
 consequent on the Russian and Turkish war, which was in operation
 
 BEET SUGAR. 679 
 
 when I made my home in the West. At that time it was stated that 
 75 cents a bushel for wheat was an extreme minimum price, rarely seen 
 in the experience of grain dealers in this country, a point at which it 
 was very safe to become a buyer of wheat, wLile the ordinary price in 
 Chicago of No. 2, the standard grade of the country, was about $1.10 a 
 bushel. At that time the Kansas Pacific was constructed through to 
 Denver and the Union Pacific through to the Pacific Coast, while the 
 Atchison was not yet built through to Pueblo. All the Pacific lines 
 we now have, except the Great Northern, were constructed by 1885, and 
 their completion marks a terminus of a constructive era which must be 
 considered as the end of one period and the beginning of another. 
 
 I speak of the trausmissouri country because, in my opinion, it has a 
 greater claim on tlie kindly consideration of the legislators of the 
 country, although the economic advantage of domestic sugar produc- 
 ion is as great in tlie country east as west of the Missouri. I would 
 prefer, if the committee will allow me, that my argument shall apply 
 particularly to that section and from .that by implication to the rest of 
 the country, because I am able to state better the necessities of the 
 trausmissouri country, being a citizen of it. 
 
 Nebraska is not a great wheat-producing State, but particularly a 
 beef and pork producing country, and the wealth of the most sub- 
 stantial citizens of that country is derived, first, from the advance in 
 the value of land, and then Ironi the sale of hogs and cattle. Since 
 the beginning of the period I have described — that is, in 1877, when the 
 production of staple food products was regarded statistically by dif- 
 ferent countries each for itself and not as at present — the whole world 
 as one producer — there is a great change; at least I would like to state 
 to the committee that it appears to me that there is a great change, 
 although I should be willing to defer to some more competent person 
 who should state that as early as 1877 the science of statistics was in 
 a more advanced stage than 1 appear to imply. I regard the perfec- 
 tion of statistics and the improvement of transportation as the great 
 reason for the steadiness of the low prices of food stufis in recent years, 
 and that while this steadiness is in the direction of civilization and the 
 interest of consumers it is discouraging to producers, who see no hope 
 for a distinct improvement in the price of the commodities they pro- 
 duce, because they know and everyone knows that there is more than 
 enough for the necessities of the world. 
 
 The expansion of the Russian Empire and the possibilities of Aus- 
 tralia and Argentina have completely changed the status of the United 
 States. This is a fact as to the production of breadstuffs and cattle 
 which it is absolutely useless for us to deny, and moreover it is a fact 
 which completely revolutionizes the agricultural status of our nation. 
 The extraordinary cheapening of transportation has of course largely 
 kept pace with the decline in the export value of our food stufls, so that 
 the net results to producers have not by any means fallen oft" as the 
 export price has fallen oft'; and to the factor of reduction in cost of 
 transportation I should add, of course, something for the cheapening 
 of the cost of protluction. But nevertheless the farmers of the trans- 
 missouri country of necessity feel the limitations of their eftbrts. The 
 condition in that section has been greatly aggravated within the last 
 ten years by several extensive and destructive droughts, as well as by 
 the fact that settlement has been made and agriculture attempted in a 
 district of very considerable elevation, where the average product is 
 too small to leave a margin of profit. In a portion of this country the 
 application of irrigation will correct the low average of product, but
 
 680 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 not the low average of price resulting from an abundant product. All 
 tbis portion of our country may be likened or compared to a foreign 
 country, since so large a portion of its total product is sent out of it to 
 tlie rest of tlie country. It is like a country tbat is exporting its prod- 
 uct, but at a price so low as to drain the energies and courage of its 
 people. 
 
 I do not care to be understood as speaking extravagantly m making 
 this statement, nor as saying that it applies to all the farmers of Kansas 
 and Nebraska. Ko person who lives outside of these two States has a 
 correct idea of them unless he understands that the ground rapidly 
 rises from an elevation of 900 or 1,000 feet at tbe Missouri Kiver to an 
 elevation of 5,000 feet at the western limits of the two States, and it is 
 in the western portions of the two States that the uncertainties of agri- 
 culture have been greatest. The eastern portions of the two States, at an 
 elevation less tban 1,300 or 1,400 feet, is like tJie adjacent i)arts of Mis- 
 souri and Iowa and has an equally stalDle agriculture. The line between 
 the sections of stable and unstable agriculture is not definite or fixed, 
 but fluctuating and uncertain. Sometimes excellent crops are raised 
 west beyond the Colorado line, while the drought of 1894: was almost 
 universal and was severe in the country east of the Missouri. The 
 extension of irrigation from the West is gradually correcting the uncer- 
 tainty of agriculture in the elevated plain region in those districts where 
 irrigation can be applied; and it was recently stated at tbe State irriga- 
 tion convention at Kearney that Nebraska has more miles of irrigating 
 canals than any other State in the Union. This seems almost incredi- 
 ble to those of us living in the State, as it was only very recently that 
 irrigation in this country was inaugarated. If this is true within the 
 short time since the beginning was made of the constru(;tion of irri- 
 gating canals in Nebraska, it makes it certain that tbe irrigating system 
 of Kansas and Nebraska will finally become very com idete, and incon- 
 sequence the volume of agricultural x)roduction in those States will be 
 increased many fold and will be very much steadier at tbe increased rate. 
 
 Tbe ordinary production of corn in Nebraska previous to 1894 was 
 about 150,000,000 bushels per annum, but in that year it was reduced 
 to 13,000,000, practically a total failure. It is, I believe, tbis year esti- 
 mated at about 285,000,000 bushels, and the crop of Kansas about tbe 
 same. These two States are producing in corn in 189G, 550,000,000 to 
 575,000,000 bushels, as comijared with a normal production for the two 
 States of perhaps 350,000,000, and as compared with the minimum 
 product of 'the drought year of 1894 of 55,000,000 or 00,000,000 for tbe 
 two States. 
 
 Within the last ten years the average price of corn in Nebraska has 
 been higher tban would commonly be supposed, i)artly caused by sev- 
 eral years of drought. Tbe period as a whole has been very fluctuating 
 as to yield and price, and in my opinion much more so than is probable 
 during the coming ten years. I submit herewith a table of the cost of 
 growing corn for eight years on tbe farm of which I have had super- 
 vision and the price paid for corn for ten years, which figures must be 
 taken with a good deal of qualification, because our yield was low for a 
 number of years on account of the imperfect drainage of our land and 
 the cost of raising corn per bushel consequently high; while tbe figures 
 for corn bought include tbe freight on a great deal of corn shipped to 
 us by rail for the purpose of feeding cattle, and that portion of price 
 representing freight is very uneven. In any event, we genei-ally i)ay 
 from 1 to 3 cents per bushel to farmers over the local inarket price, 
 which makes our figures for corw bought still more out of line with the 
 average price paid to farmers in Nebraska.
 
 BEET SUGAR. 681 
 
 In these ei>ht years corn lias cost us to raise per bushel 12, 2(); 22, 
 18.5, 15, 28, 18.6, and 11 cents. In 18!)5 corn cost us 18.6 cents pei 
 bushel to raise, and we bought at from 16 down to 14- cents, which was 
 higher than the averuge price paid in the State. This year the crop is 
 very heavy, and at the present moment the average price of corn is 10 
 cents, while we are buying it for 11. For the first time, therefore, Me 
 have two extremely cheap years in succession, an enormous crop in 
 1896 with a large stock on hand from 1895. 
 
 If it is a fact, as many citizens of the State are inclined to believe, 
 that we are entering upon a period of more abundant rainfall than the 
 last ten years and a period similar to the ten years before, it ajipears 
 likely that we are entering a period of a continuous low price for corn. 
 As corn differs greatly from wheat in that its production is much lesb 
 universal and largely confined to the great corn States of our country, 
 I have always considered it as a more reliable crop for our farmers than 
 wheat. I never believed that we should see such low xjrices for corn as 
 we are paying to-day. When I left home, we were receiving large 
 quantities of corn every day, and have witnessed the discontent of 
 farmers at the extremely low price. I do not believe in the permanence 
 of such prices and think it certain that we shall have a recovery, but 
 it may be a moderate recovery, and at present our farmers are feeling 
 in low spirits. 
 
 Conditions are now favorable for the expansion of the sugar-beet 
 industry, which has made no growth to speak of since 1891. The con- 
 dition is quite difierent from that previous to the passage of the McKin- 
 ley law on the important point that the difficulty of the introduction of 
 beet growing to farmers in the United States is, to an important degree, 
 overcome. The sugar factories already built are widely scattered and 
 the growing of beets and manufacture of sugar has been brought to 
 the notice of agriculturists in the entire country between the Missouri 
 and the Pacific. The farmers who have actually grown beets and sold 
 them to factories of course are an extremely small fraction of all the 
 farmers in the vast country I speak of, but the industry is talked of and 
 discussed throughout all this immense district, and in the State of 
 Nebraska the projected sugar factories are almost as numerous as the 
 towns on the map. 
 
 It is not an easy matter to organize the entire industry, including 
 beet growing, at one point, and as factories are built hereafter in new 
 places it will in each separate case require time to establish successful 
 beet growing among those farmers who have never tried it before; but 
 it is a very different matter to secure a sufficient acreage of beets in 
 any locality from what it was several years ago, and I am able to say 
 from my own personal knowledge that it is a crop as easy to produce 
 and as reliable in results as anything on the list of all our common 
 products. 
 
 There is entire unanimity of opinion between jieople of all parties 
 and occupations as to the desirability of the establishment of beet- 
 sugar production in this country, because it is easy to realize what 
 substantial results are to be gained. Without it we must look forward 
 to such progress of a large section of our country as it is able to secure 
 by the production of commodities which are already raised to excess 
 in various parts of the world, the surplus of which we are obliged to 
 sell in western Europe in close competition with ot]ieri)roduciug coun- 
 tries. This is not all, because this competition, which is already bear- 
 ing very seriously on the net price to our farmers, may be very much 
 more severe in future than it is now. In fact it is almost certain that 
 it will become very much more severe. The people of Argentina are
 
 682 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 importing the best beef animals in tlie world for the improvement of 
 their stock and will probably wverconie their difficulties of transporta- 
 tion to western Europe. The exaui])le of Argentina and Eussia in 
 wheat production is too often brought up to ueed repeating again. 
 Our fiirmers in the transmissouri will probably find some issue from 
 the present condition of things, and a more stable agriculture under 
 irrigation, with greater diversity of products that we can raise in our 
 climate, will probably give us a slight advance, but wo feel that the 
 future lias a great many uncertainties for us and that our geograph- 
 ical location will always be against us in the disposal of our surplus 
 commodities. 
 
 The charges of transi)ortation on our surplus commodities must 
 really be borne by the producer, because our product must go to a dis- 
 tant market in competition with other countries less distant from that 
 market. But in the case of sugar we are ourselves the' consumers of 
 the product of distant countries, and the sugar producers in those 
 countries must pay at least part of the charges on sugar to us. We 
 are somewhat in the same position with those detached and isolated 
 portions of our own country as to the present agricultural products 
 before the advent of railways, as, for instance, the Pan Handle of Texas 
 or the Black Hills of Dakota, at a time when the local price of grain, 
 even for grain raised i n such districts, was fixed by the cost of grain at 
 the Missouri River, for instance, with an expensive rail and wagon 
 carriage added. In 1881 the price of oats in the Black Hills was *i4 
 per hundredweight, or about $1.30 per bushel, and during my residenc-e 
 in the Pan Handle of Texas, in the early eighties, the price of potatoes 
 was -$3.60 a bushel. Perhaps the parallel is not a very good one, but 
 I think the principle underlying is true, that as long as we are produc- 
 ing less than our capacity for consumption the price will be fixed by 
 the cost of carriage to such a country from a producing country. The 
 position of sugar is of course very different from those other commod- 
 ities, and there is no expensive land carriage in its case. Sugar is 
 brought to us in Nebraska from New York for about one-third of a cent 
 a pound, and in the consideration of sugar we must acquaint ourselves 
 at once with the value of very small fractions. Our part of the coun- 
 try, instead of filling a want at a distance of 4,500 to 5,000 miles, will 
 begin by filling a place at home. The result will be a margin of profit 
 in the production of an agricultural commodity which our farmers 
 could not by any possibility secure in the production of any other on 
 the list of commodities that can be raised in our latitude. 
 
 The position of sugar in its relation to the agriculture of these 
 States is unique and absolutely unlike that of anything else, and we 
 can not, by the most careful examination of the whole catalogue of agri- 
 cultural commodities, discover another staple of anything like the impor- 
 tance of sugar which we do not already produce in excess. Therefore, 
 it is not only because we already raise a great excess of certain agricul- 
 tural connnodities, and that we may even regard as a detail the fact that 
 our surplus of corn is already so great that it is almost unsalable, but 
 because we must look forward to an immeasurable future of uncertainty 
 unless we can do something to make a valuable addition to our agricul- 
 ture. On one hand, we must look forward to a slow advance with a 
 very small margin of profit for the aggregate of the agricultural opera- 
 tions of our State, or possibly even a stationary or retrograding con- 
 dition, although the latter I do not really believe. On the other hand, 
 we quickly, within a quarter of a century, for instance, built up our 
 purely agricultural and rather crude transmissouri country into a
 
 BEET 8UGAR. 683 
 
 highly indiTstrial section, with vigorous life, a solid and successful agri- 
 culture, and a variety of manufactures. As far as our limited vision 
 can see, we believe that our only hope for a rich and prosperous condi- 
 tion lies in the introduction of this industry. We do not see how we 
 can become rich and prosperous without it, and we feel that we ought 
 to have a chance to become so, if we deserve it, by the use of our 
 possibilities, if we get a chance to make a start. 
 
 The i)olitical unrest of our part of the country will be so largely 
 quieted by a little prosperity that it will no longer be an embarrass- 
 ment and a menace to the business of the country. Just at i)resent we 
 a])pear to be at a deadlock in the securing of fresh capital to go into 
 this industry in our country, and it is to give assurance of a margin 
 of proiit to be divided among the agriculturists and manufacturers of 
 sugar that we hope that the sugar producers of other countries will no 
 longer have a monopoly of our market. Whereas, from 1890 to 1894 
 the price of sugar imported into the United States, exclusive of freight 
 and duty, ran as follows per pound for each year: 3.28, 3.03, 2.93, 3.09, 
 and 2,92 cents, this foreign value in 1895 dropped to 2.14 and for 1896 
 to 2.3 cents. There were other causes, of course, for the decline of 
 these prices besides the repeal of the McKinley law, but under date of 
 December 18 1 received the following letter from the Bureau of Statistics 
 of the Treasury Department: 
 
 Sir: In reply to your inquiry of the lltli instant, I have to state that the import 
 values of all imports are their cost in the foreign country whence shipped to the 
 United States, without the addition of freight or tariff duties imposed by this 
 country. There was no deviation from this rule during the years indicated. The 
 imposition of an ad valorem rate of duty has a tendency to decrease the price placed 
 upon the foreign valuation assigned by the importer. 
 
 This letter therefore happens to be an argument in favor of a specific 
 as opposed to an ad valorem duty. 
 
 A distinguished economist said to me the other day that while he 
 did not consider my statement of the advantages of domestic sugar 
 production exaggerated, he regretted that it was considered necessary 
 to establish it on an artificially protected basis, and wished that it 
 could grow naturally, standing on its own feet. Now it is well known, 
 and doubtless explained to the committee in great detail, that the laws 
 of France and Germany make it practically impossible for producers 
 in this country to get over the initial and expensive stages of planting 
 the industry here without aid. Austria, France, and Germany export 
 from a half to two-thirds of their entire product of sugar. 
 
 The entire product of Germany is just about equal to the consumption 
 of the United States, or very nearly equal to it. Germany has reached 
 the front rank in the production of sugar, and her policy is that of the 
 extermination of all rivals if she can. The price of sugar to consumers 
 in this country is cheaper than in any other except England, and a 
 slight increase in i^rice (if such should result from a specific duty) will 
 not be a burden upon consumers. Our consunjption of sugar was free 
 and liberal only a few years ago when our price was high, our consump- 
 tion ranging from 48.5 pounds in 1882 to 52.2 ijounds per capita iu 1890, 
 during which time the price of granulated had declined from 9.3 cents 
 in 1882 to 7.(3 cents in 1889. The price for 1890 declined to 6.1 cents, 
 doubtless from the admission of free sugar under the McKinley law, 
 and from 1891 to 1895 ranged from 4,6 to 4,1 cents. We shall never see 
 again a restoration of the prices prevailing during the eighties, when 
 our people consumed 50 pounds and upward per head. 
 
 The sugar producers of Euroi)e were so alarmed at the low price 
 resulting from the enormous crops of 1894 that they made every effort 
 to curtail their production; and yet, with the assistance of the
 
 684 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 enormous decline in tLe output of Cuba, tlie net result was a decline of 
 only 24:8,000 tons, altliough the crop of Cuba bad decreased over 
 750,000 tons; and the crop for the year ISOO-OT in Europe is larger than 
 ever before, nearly 5,000,000 tons. These countries are in continual 
 terror of a sugar crisis, and their efforts to maintain their position ;ire 
 so strenuous that we can not believe that we can be allowed to have a 
 chance to grow sugar ourselves if they can helj) it. 
 
 While the acreage that will be needed for the requirements of the 
 United States will never equal the breadth planted to other staple 
 crops, it is a crop peculiarly adapted to small proprietors and tenants, 
 whose entire family obtain all or a very large part of their support from 
 a very small acreage of land. Protection of this industry finds justifi- 
 cation in the great importance of the commodity in question, as it is 
 altogether the most important staple that we do not already produce in 
 excess, and because it will enpnge and support such great numbers of 
 people, and also because it wii! call into life and support so many allied 
 industries, and, looking at it from a Nebraska point of view, because it 
 will give new life to a section purely agricultural which is denied cer- 
 tain channels of development that are open to other sections of the 
 country. 
 
 It is only a very few years since it was commonly argued that the 
 American farmers would never consent to the cultivation of a crop 
 requiring such minute care as the culture of the sugar beet, being in the 
 habit of careless cultivation with the assistance of very perfect machin- 
 ery. In Bulletin No. 27 of the Division of Chemistry, Department of 
 Agriculture, Mr. John P. Reynolds, of Chicago, wrote Prof. H. W. 
 Wiley, under date of December 9, 1889, regarding tlie failure at Chats- 
 worth, twentj^ odd years before that time. The bnsiness was then car- 
 ried to Freeport, and, I think, afterwards became the present factory 
 at Alvarado, Cal. Mr. Reynolds says in this letter: 
 
 Witliont going into details further, I must say that I have given np hope for the 
 early success of beet-sugar industry in this conntry, be«:mse I believe the essential 
 conditions are not to be found here at present. These conditions relate to the pro- 
 duction of the beets. The manufacturer must grow his own beets, or have them 
 grown in the vicinity l>y others. He can not coniiuand the necessary labor to grow 
 them himseif except at a cost that the results will not justify. There is no crop 
 within the whole range of agriculture more dilficnlt to produce than a crop of beets 
 suitable for the manufacture of sugar. An army of women and children (being the 
 cheapest labor) is required imperatively at special times, and I know of no commu- 
 nity where this army can certainly be had when needed and at a fair cost. 
 
 If others grow the beets, contracts must bo made in advance for the entire crop of 
 each, a certain number of acres to be cultivated. The product per acre is variable 
 and uncertain in both quantity and quality. There may be superabundance for the 
 capacity of the factory or there may be a failure of the crop almost entirely. As 
 to i)rice per ton, the advantage is always on the side of the farmer. The manufac- 
 turer must pay what the farmer may demand or quit the business and lose his plant. 
 The farmer can use his land for other crops; the factory will make only beet sugar. 
 
 With irrigated lands and slave labor, or its etiuivalent, I can understand that 
 sugar from beets can be produced prolitablv in this country. 
 
 I would like to believe this industry will soon demonstrate the error of my pres- 
 ent convictions, thus briefly stated, and certainly the oifort to make it successful is 
 worthy any man's ambition. 
 
 If the statements in this letter were true about 1861 or 1805, it is 
 curious that such a complete change lias taken place at the present 
 time. In Nebraska we have found that, although care and skill are 
 essential the sugar beet is as reliable and stable as corn, and I regard 
 it as more reliable on our valley laud; and we found at Ames that it 
 survived the fierce drought of 1894 with a less decline of yield than 
 corn. 
 
 I have made several statements of the cost of growing beets, which 
 I have included in tliis argnment, but which are too long to read; but
 
 BEET SUGAR. 685 
 
 tlie result of my experience is tliat the cosL of growing beets to farmers 
 in Nebraska is from a minimuni of $3 |)er ton delivered up to a figure 
 ^vhere it becomes uuprolitable to raise them even at $5 a ton. In the 
 eastern part of the State, i)i the Phitte Valley, where our experiments 
 have been made we may probably expect conhdently a very large yield, 
 and I have talked with at least two very reliable farmers this fall whose 
 beets have been raised for less than the minimum price I nam.e. The 
 average cost to farmers probably ranges from $'JS)0 to $3.50 a ton with 
 an average yield of 10 or 12 tons. These figures do not include rent, 
 fertilization, or profit. 
 
 The first two large crops raised under my own charge cost $3.60 and 
 $3.80, respectively, the first being a year of very high cost and the 
 second a drought year of decreased yield. The cost of raising beets 
 per ton is a very tiuctuating and variable figure, according to yield, but 
 1 think it is entirely safe to say that the difficulty of growing beets, as 
 indicated in Mr. Eeynolds's letter, is certainly not true at the present 
 time, and as far a I know, in every place where beets are grown in the 
 United States. I take the newspapers from all these points, and the 
 invariable statement is that the farmers are clamorous for contracts to 
 grow beets. If it were not possible for farmers to grow beets at a rea- 
 sonably low cost in this country, there would be no use in attempting 
 to protect or promote the industry, and the truth is that our farmers 
 can and do grow beets at reasonable and moderate cost, and the most 
 important element for the future strength of the business is present. 
 The price of beets, unlike that of other commodities, is arranged not 
 by competition on the open market but by contract, and this fact of 
 itself induces an evenness and certainty of results that is an advan- 
 tage to farmers. 
 
 Experience in growing beets is as iuiportant for farmers as experience 
 to workmen in any other line, and every farmer who undertakes the 
 culture of sugar beets must learn how. His first cro}) will certainly be 
 an expensive one, besides which he must make a fresh investment in 
 machinery not used for otlier crops. It requires an experience of sev- 
 eral years to learn how to rotate his cro}>s so as to arrange his crops 
 of beets to the best advantage, and to learn that his best economy 
 lies in a much more careful and painstaking labor than he has ever 
 found necessary before. lie must learn the great economy he will 
 find in keeping his land in sucli perfect condition that weeds are not 
 allowed to make embarrassing growth. As the acreage tributary to 
 any factory increases and it becomes possible for it to receive a full 
 supply up to its capacity, it will become absolutely necessary for 
 farmers to bear the expense of putting their beets in silo and after- 
 wards to take them out and deliver as required for working at the fac- 
 tory. Although the great difficulty of the introduction of beet growing 
 to farmers has been overcome in the case of those who deliver beets to 
 existing factories, much work remains to recommend it to the attention 
 of all those that have never tried it. 
 
 I would like to Sj^eak particularly to the committee with regard to 
 the value of the beet-sugar industry to the growing and fattening of 
 live stock in the United States. In the winter of 1892-93 i made an 
 experiment of feeding cattle on beet i)ulp; and in fact it was for the 
 purpose of using our facilities for the fattening of cattle that I first 
 became interested in sugar beets. Xot only is the ]>ulp left after the 
 extraction of the sugar a cattle food of very great value, but it is 
 equally valuable for the feeding of sheep and also for hogs. The pro- 
 duction of beef and pork is by all odds the uiost important industry 
 west of. the Missouri, and after our years of drought and short crops
 
 686 
 
 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 the cost of preparing animals for market in that country is greatly 
 increased. After seasons of short crops the price of food stuff rises 
 rapidly and the cost of fattening cattle or sheep is easily doubled. The 
 market for fattened cattle in this country commonly rises after such 
 seasons,*but in the spring of 1891 and also' in the spring of 1895 it was 
 found that at a certain point our export business became unprofitable, 
 and the upward movement in prices of fattened animals received a sud- 
 den check, followed by a decline of prices very disappointing to our 
 producers of sheep and cattle. We are already feeling very keenly 
 the competition of foreign countries in the sale of food animals in the 
 English market, and the beet-sugar industry will be found to be a very 
 substantial assistance in the production of food animals at a steady 
 and level cost, assisting us to retain possession of our foreign markets. 
 
 I have been engaged in the cattle business west of the Missouri for 
 more than seventeen years, and for the last eleven years have fed cattle 
 very extensively in Nebraska. 
 
 In a proposition now being entertained for the construction of a sugar 
 factory in Nebraska, I regard it as probable that the profit derived from 
 feeding the waste production of the factory and those portions of the 
 beet left in the field will be almost as great as the profit from the manu- 
 facture of sugar. The proposition to day stands waiting for conditions 
 that will appear to make it safe to engage in, but the cattle feeding is 
 a branch of the business that we consider almost as important as sugar 
 manufacture. There is no reason in common sense why the farmers of 
 Nebraska should continue the excessive production of certain crops 
 and to consider that they are entitled to receive a remunerative price 
 for them, but it is nevertheless a fact that they do go on raising such 
 crops, and they feel a deep sense of grievance at the low prices, the 
 cause of which they can not understand, but which they attribute to 
 unfair treatment of some kind. 
 
 EXHIBITS MADE. 
 
 Mr. Allen introduced the following copy of letter and table as part 
 of his statement: 
 
 Indianola, Redwillow County, Nehk., August 10, 1896. 
 
 Dear Sir: I fiud from the report of the Beet Sugar Associatiou, of which you are 
 president, many interesting facts. Our farmers are much discouraged here on account 
 of the last three years' drought. Business is very much depressed. The corn looked 
 very good until about two weeks ago, now much of it is burning. Can not some 
 plan be devised to start a branch factory or some feasible means to justify the 
 farmers in putting in beets? Of course it is too far to ship beets to Grand Island 
 and we can not put up a big factory, but I think if a small plant for juice could be 
 started many farmers would go into it. 
 
 A. S. Houston. 
 
 R. M. Allen. 
 
 Cost of corn crop for seven years compared with cost of corn bought. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Total 
 acreage. 
 
 Total 
 bn.sh- 
 
 els. 
 
 Bushels 
 per 
 acre. 
 
 Kent of 
 land. 
 
 Operating 
 
 expenses. 
 
 Total 
 cost. 
 
 Cost 
 per 
 acre. 
 
 Cost 
 
 per 
 
 bushel. 
 
 Cost per 
 bushel 
 of corn 
 bought. 
 
 1887-88 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oents. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 28 
 
 1888-89 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 1889-90 
 
 1,4S5 
 1,485 
 1,825 
 1.825 
 1 , 325 
 1, 792 
 1,873 
 
 40, 000 
 33, 473 
 42, 000 
 51,344 
 60, 028 
 41,001 
 7C, 154 
 
 27 
 
 22.5 
 
 23 
 
 28 
 
 45.3 
 
 22. 8 
 
 40.6 
 
 
 $4 867 4' 
 
 *1 8R7 A9 
 
 $3.28 
 6.01 
 5.01 
 5.20 
 6.93 
 6.44 
 7.56 
 
 12.2 
 26.7 
 22 
 18.5 
 15.3 
 28.1 
 18.6 
 • 
 
 19 
 
 48 
 
 30 
 
 27 
 
 23.7 
 
 48 
 
 16.5 
 
 1890-91 
 
 
 8, 924 79 s 0'>.i 70 
 
 1891-92 
 
 1892-93 
 
 1893- 94 
 
 1894-95 
 
 1895-96 
 
 $1, 020 
 1, 020 
 1, 020 
 1, 17U 
 1, 200 
 
 8, 134. 20 
 8, 479. 97 
 8,178.80 
 10, 372. 38 
 12, 921. 48 
 
 9, 154. 20 
 9, 499. 97 
 9,198.80 
 11,542.38 
 14,181.48
 
 BEET SUGAR. 687 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. How does the beet stand drought as compared to 
 corn I 
 
 Mr. Allen. 1 have stated that in one portion of my statement. We 
 found from the severe drought of 1894 that our beets stood drought 
 better than corn stood it. They suffered a less dechiie iu yiehl than 
 the corn. That was in the valley of the Platte, a country well adapted 
 to the beet for the reason the subsoil is of sand and the water is only 
 10 or 15 feet below the surface of the ground, so the roots of the beets 
 can penetrate to the water. The success of that particular crop in that 
 drought year attracted a great deal of attention in Nebraska, because 
 it was very striking. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY UNITED STATES SENATOR GEOEGE C. 
 PERKINS, OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 A duty on sugar imported into the United States should be imposed 
 for the reasons that it would give rise to an industry that in a few years 
 would be second to no other. We are now consuming on an average 
 about 2,000,000 tons of sugar yearly, of which about 1,700,000 tons are 
 imported, for which we have to pay over $100,000,000. This money, 
 which now goes to foreign manufacturers, laborers, and farmers, should 
 be and can be retained in this country and paid to American farmers, 
 laborers, and manufacturers. This can be brought about by the impo- 
 sition of an import duty on sugar brought hither from countries beyond 
 our borders. 
 
 That we can produce all the sugar which we consume there can be no 
 doubt. The sugar beet, from which sugar is so cheaply made abroad, 
 is adapted to vast and widely separated sections of the United States, 
 which could easily raise enough of the root to supply, in a very few 
 years, our total consumption of sugar. California alone could supply 
 one-half the sugar used in this country. How varied may be the con- 
 ditions under which sugar beets may be successfully grown may be 
 understood when one contrasts the rich soil of California with the 
 treeless, alkaline valley of the Pecos Eiver in Utah, where beets are 
 raised containing as large a percentage of sugar as those of Chino. 
 Between these two extremes the United States ofilers lands, vast in 
 area, where beets can be grown sufficient in quantity to supply sugar 
 for our own consumption and for export. 
 
 There are now 7 beet-sugar factories in the United States — 3 in 
 California, 1 in Utah, 1 in New Mexico, and 2 in i^ebraska — and 
 the opportunities given by them to farmers to ascertain whether 
 beet growing is profitable have been sufficient to settle that question 
 definitely. At present prices for beets their cultivation is fairly remu- 
 nerative to farmers, and the acreage planted with this root is con- 
 stantly increasing and is limited only by the capacity of the factories 
 in operation and by the rate of freight to market. As an agricultural 
 industry it is in many cases more profitable than wheat, and the same 
 may be said of it in whatever country it is carried on. In France, 
 according to the United States consul at Havre, C. W. Chancellor, it 
 is not only more profitable than wheat, even in unfavorable seasons, 
 but pays better than any other agricultural ijroduct. In 1894 more 
 than 1,700,000 acres of lar.d in that country were planted in beets, pro- 
 ducing 18,400,000 tons of the root, of which 50 or 00 per cent was man- 
 ufactured into sugar, yielding about I'OO.OdO tons. 
 
 If aU the beets raised in France were manufactured into sugar, its
 
 Tons. 
 
 From Demcrara 45, 757 
 
 From other West Indies 45, 347 
 
 From Puerto Rico 31, 402 
 
 From other countries 15, 137 
 
 t)88 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 amount would be nearly sufficient to supply tLe coiisuiuption of the 
 "United States. The price received there for beets is about $3.50 per 
 ton, and the vast amount raised in France proves that it is profitable 
 to the farmer. Figures relating to production in Germaiiy and Austria 
 would doubtless give equally convincing results. Our own and the 
 experience of lb reign countries have not only demonstrated the foct 
 that the sugar beet is one of the most profitable crops that can be grown 
 by farmers, but have also shown that the industry can be made profit- 
 able only by means of either an import duty or a bounty on production 
 or export. 
 
 Germany, France, and Austria are the three great beet- sugar-pro- 
 ducing coiintries of Europe, and from them we probably receive nearly 
 GO per cent of the sugar imported, according to the following figures 
 for the year 1895 : 
 
 Tons. 
 
 From Europe 1,005,761 
 
 From Cub.i 164, 310 
 
 From Sauclwicli Islauds 150, 845 
 
 From East Indies 135, 894 
 
 From British Indies 120, 557 
 
 From Brazil 87,646 Total 1,804,866 
 
 Of the European sugar-producing countries Germany stands con- 
 fessedly in the lead, owing to the encouragement given to beet-sugar 
 producers by the Government, which allows an export bonnty. France 
 and Austria have also encouraged beet-sugar production in various 
 ways, but the competition of Germany has compelled them to adopt 
 still further measures to sustain an industry which is recognized as 
 being one of the most important within their resj)ective boundaries. 
 According to Julius Muth, United States consul at Magdeburg, Aus- 
 tria has just increased her consumption tax from $4.45 per 220 pounds 
 to $5.20, and has increased the export bountv fund from $2,023,000 to 
 $3,641,400. "This," says Consul Muth, "furnishes a temporary relief 
 for the Austrian sugar grower, and enables him to continue competition 
 with lier German neighbor." 
 
 France, according to Consul Muth, has increased the duty on raw 
 sugar 08 cents and on refined sugar 87 cents per 100 kilograms, but 
 " she will, no doubt, this fall answer either with an increase in her 
 present covert export bounty or pay an open bounty to meet German 
 sugar on the world's markets." 
 
 If the great nations of Germany, Austria, and France find it profit- 
 able to encouragetheproductionof beet sugar, surely the United States 
 will find it at least equally so; but it is probable that with adequate 
 encouragement given to the American sugar producer the benefits which 
 the entire country would derive from the industry would be greater 
 than those enjoyed by the European countries named. Here we have, 
 as has been pointed out, a vast territory suited to the successful culti- 
 vation of the sugar beet, the prices for which obtained by most farmers 
 are satisfactory. If an adequate protection in the shape of a protective 
 duty of, say, 1^ cents a pound on raw sugar be granted, these prices can 
 be nuiintained and perhaps increased^ while encouragement will bo 
 given to capital to invest in new sugar factories. New factories mean an 
 increased acreage demanded for beet culture, and this means increased 
 revenue to the iarmer. 
 
 Tlie beet-sugar interest of the United States practically had its start 
 in 1889, when 2,000 tons were produced. The production in 1890 was 
 2,800 tons, and then, in consequenceof the bounty law, which ])aid2cents 
 per pound for sugar of domestic mannlacture, it took a jump in 1891 to 
 5,400 tons, in 1892 to 12,000 tons, the next year to 20,0(io tons, and the
 
 BEET SUGAR. 689 
 
 next to 22,000 tons. The production of cane sugar was by tlie same 
 means increased fiom 250,000 tons in 1801 to 355,384 tons in 1894. 
 The abolition of the bounty sent the production down to 260,000 tons 
 of cane sugar in 1895 and beet sugar to 20,400 tons. These figures 
 show bow sensitive this industry is to protective measures and give 
 a means forjudging what would be the increase in beet-sugar manulac- 
 turing were it protected for a series of years by au adequate import 
 tax ou foreign sugars. 
 
 What the beet-sugar industry means to the United States, and why 
 it is so carefully fostered by Germany, France, and Austria, may easily 
 be seen by studying the history of a single factory, that at Chino, Cal., 
 for instance. Six years ago the Chino ranch was believed to be fit only 
 for grazing, and for that purpose it was used. It supported only cattle 
 and the herders necessary to care for them. There were only a few 
 houses and outbuildings. After it was shown that sugar beets could 
 be raised in large quantities there a factory was built, and to-day there 
 are about 3,000 people on the ranch, 900 of whom live in the town of 
 Chino. The following is taken from the Chino Valley Champion, a 
 paper published in the town : 
 
 Durhig the week ending last night there were delivered 4,756 tons, or an average 
 of 793 tons a day. The total harvest to date from Chino and vicinity is 57,569 tons. 
 
 The factory has sliced 82,000 tons for the season. 
 
 During the month of October there were delivered from the Chino ranch alone 
 22,537 tons gross, or 21,676 tons net, showing an average tare of 3.82 per cent. The 
 average percentage of sugar of the month's delivery was a trifle over 14 — remarkably 
 high for this late in the season. This is largely accounted for by the perfect ripen- 
 ing weather which has prevailed. 
 
 For the October delivery of beets the factory pays $87,180.97, or $4.02 a ton. 
 
 There are now 202 beet-sugar farmers on the Chino rauch, and their 
 earnings are approximately $400,000 per year. But this is not the whole 
 benefit to the locality derived from the beet-sugar industry, as it would 
 be if wheat or almost any other agricultural product had been produced 
 and had brought in the same revenue to the producers. There has been 
 invested in the factory to manufacture sugar about $1,000,000, which 
 pays out about $30,000 per month in wages during the working season. 
 As the factory uses for fuel the residue of coal oil, a large oil refinery 
 has been built there, manufacturing gasoline, benzine, and kerosene. 
 Then, there were required for this year's crop 150,000 sugar bags, 1,000 
 barrels, 120,000 yards of filter clotii, 9,000 tons of lime rock, 700 tons of 
 bulk lime, 1,000 tons of coke, 55,000 barrels of petroleum, 10,000 pounds 
 of tallow, 15,000 gallons of lubricants, 1,000 pounds of cup grease, and 
 smaller items, such as slicing knives, twine, thread, files, etc. In con- 
 sequence, a large population was gathered about the factory, which 
 must be supplied with labor and with all the varied articles which are 
 necessary in producing sugar. That is how the sugar beet benefits the 
 region where it is grown when it is rendered possible to extract its 
 sugar profitably, and that is the reason why Germany, France, and 
 Austria give to the beet-sugar industry such help as will enable the 
 factory owners to make a fair profit on the sugar produced. They give 
 this aid in order that their sugar producers may furnish the United 
 States one-half the sugar they consume, when, with equal favor shown 
 here, the United States, with its improved machinery, could not only 
 supply the demand of the whole country, but eventually, without doubt, 
 become a sugar exporting country, as have the European countries 
 named above. 
 
 The consumption of beets by the Chino factory is about 800 tons per 
 day; that of the Watsonville factory, 1,200 tons, at $4 per ton, with au 
 T H 44
 
 690 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 output of $1,100 a day in wages. The Alvarado factory consumes 
 about 400 tons per day. From tbe figures given it will be possible to 
 get a fair idea of tbe^ benefit to their respective regions of tbe three 
 factories in operation in Calitoriiia. The same benefit accrues to local- 
 ities in other parts of the country where beet-sugar factories have been 
 established, and with that protection which a duty of 1^ cents per 
 pound on raw sugar would give, factories would start up all over the 
 country, bringing a large revenue to farmers, giving wages to laborers 
 in many difi'ereut trades, and stimulating manufactures everywhere by 
 creating prosperous communities which have all the wants which pros- 
 perity creates. 
 
 The vastness of the interests involved in beet sugar manufacturing 
 can be readily seen from the following estimates of wbat would be paid 
 out each year by the factories engaged in making sugar enongb to sup- 
 ply the demand of the United States: 
 
 Filter bags $184,000 
 
 Sugar bags 5,667,200 
 
 Taxe.^ 1,725,000 
 
 Insurance 920,000 
 
 Repairs and maintenance. .. 4, 600, 000 
 
 Labor $17,599,600 
 
 Beets 77,280,000- 
 
 Coal 8,586,360 
 
 Lime rock 2,208,000 
 
 Coke 1,722,240 
 
 Filter cloth 625,600 
 
 Other smaller items bring up the total to the vast sum of 8122,496,160 
 per year. Tbe cost of the factories themselves, estimating each factory 
 of 3*50 tons a day capacity, would be $308,000,000, most of which would 
 have been distributed to members of the building and mechanical trades. 
 
 France alone raises beets enough to sui^ply tbe United States with all 
 the sugar it consumes, but only 00 per cent is used for sugar, the rest 
 being utilized by farmers in other ways. France and Germany together 
 to-day probably produce more sugar than the United States consumes, 
 and they do so because the sugar interest is assisted by their respective 
 Governments, and why it is assisted is plain. The beet-sugar industry 
 is one whose benefits are tar reaching, promoting the growth, prosper- 
 ity, and wealth of the country, and in consequence is worthy of such 
 protection as will enable it to withstand the competition from without. 
 The benefits to the community at large ar^ too great to be lost by a 
 policy of noninterference in behalf of the beet-sugar maker. France, 
 Germany, and Austria will continue to foster tbe beet sugar interest 
 within their respective borders, and will strive to secure the largest 
 share of the $100,000,000 which the people of the United States yearly 
 send abroad for the sugar they buy. United States Consul Muth, in a 
 report to the Department of State, dated May 30, 1896, says : 
 
 If we consider the enormous wealth which has accrued to Germany and all other 
 countries that have introduced and fostered this industry, it is indeed to be desire<l 
 that the United States should be put on such a looting as to be able to produce its 
 own sugar. With our vast territory and varied climate and soil we should find 
 sulhcieut area adapted to grow all the sugar we consume, if we can sufficiently pro- 
 tect the industry against European competition, unduly aided by direct or indirect 
 bounties. 
 
 Already there are protected, not only in California, but elsewhere, 
 beet-sugar factories, which mean so much to the localities where they 
 are built. Tbe farmers desire them, tbe builders and mechanics desire 
 them, the machine makers desire them, tbe transportation companies 
 desire them ; but they can not be established because of the competition 
 of the Government-fostered sugar j)roducers of foreign countries. With 
 an average protective duty of 1^ cents per pound on raw sugar they 
 would at once be built, and capital would rapidly be invested in other 
 factories all over tbe country, for capital would there find an o])portunity 
 for i^rofitable employment. Tbe biiiuli cds of widely scattered factories
 
 SUGAR COMMISSION SUGGESTED. 691 
 
 ■wonlfl break the power of the sugar trust, and natural competition would 
 coufer the benefits wbicli flow from it. The duty would render it pos- 
 sible to profitably exj)end $300,000,000 in factories and pay out yearly 
 $120,000,000 to farmers, miners, mechanics, laborers, and manufactur- 
 ers. Of this $120,000,000 the United States now sends $100,000,000 
 abroad, where it is paid to foreign farmers, miners, mechanics, laborers, 
 and manufacturers. This vast sum is building up or supporting flourish- 
 ing communities which should be built up and supported on our own 
 soil. A duty of 1^ cents per pound on raw sugar would transfer to this 
 country much of the prosperity and wealth of Europe, and prosperous 
 communities would spring up all over the land in places where there 
 are now fields as little utilized as were those at Chino six years ago, 
 or which had such an unpromising outlook as the alkali plains of the 
 Pecos Kiver district. 
 
 The benefits derived from the beet-sugar industry must, from its 
 nature, be widely distributed, and this fact makes it one which has 
 given it the national importance that it has attained in Europe. There 
 can be no concentration of capital. A single factory can not control 
 the business of a vast region. Its territory is at all times limited by 
 the cost of freight on raw beets. Within a certain radius from a fac- 
 tory it will be found profitable by farmers to raise beets for sugar- 
 makin'g purposes, but for those beyond this limit another factory must 
 be built. And so, all through the country, if the industry is given the 
 protection which it should have, factories will be established giving a 
 new source of revenue to farmers, and gathering around themselves 
 industrious and prosperous communities. For the general benefits 
 which will flow from the development and expansion ot an industrial 
 interest of such importance, a duty of 1^ cents per j)ound on imported 
 raw sugar is a small price to pay. 
 
 SUGAK COMMISSION SUGGESTED. 
 
 Tangipahoa, La., December 28, 1896. 
 
 Dear Sir: The question of the attitude of the Government toward 
 the sugar industry of the United States is again taking the attention 
 of Congress, and I beg to submit some observations and suggestions in 
 connection therewith. 
 
 It may be admitted that, with free importations of sugar, and withnut 
 Government aid or encouragement, the sugar industry in this country 
 would cease to exist. 
 
 Under the tariff system as it existed up to 1890, the production of 
 sugar increased, as it did also during the following four years under 
 the bounty system, but not sufticient to keep pace with the increased 
 consumption in the country. Aside from the revenue realized from a 
 tariff of 2 cents ]ier pound on imported sugars, it is enormously expen- 
 sive to the country by enhancing the price of sugar to the consumers. 
 The bounty system is also expensive, but not so expensive as the tariff 
 system. The expense of either system is out of all proportion to the 
 degree of encouragement given the sugar industry. It is thought that 
 the bounty system gave the greatest degree of encouragement to the 
 industry and was the cheapest for the country; but one of the results 
 of tliiit system as it existed would establish a condition repugnant to 
 American ideas. One trouble seems to be that the bounty was given 
 on the finished product, and there does not seem to have been a;iy 
 effort made to ascertain in what manner the sugar industry could bo 
 best encouraged and developed with the least outlay. The question of
 
 692 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 the amount of reveoiie the Govenimeut migiit want to raise from time 
 to time ou importations of sugar is not taken into consideration here, 
 for it is thought that the encouragement and development of the sugar 
 industry should be made a separate question. 
 
 It is suggested that the object sought could be most economically 
 carried out by a commission, under the direction ot the Secretary of the 
 Treasury. To meet the expenses a nominal tariff of, say, four-tenths of 
 a cent per pound could be levied on imported sugars. 
 
 The ways in which the industry could be encouraged are numerous, 
 and their adoption would be a question of serious deliberation by the 
 commission, which would, as a matter of course, utilize those methods 
 which promised the best returns for the least outlay. 
 
 To illustrate, lan.ds should be ofl'ered for Government inspection, sur- 
 vey, and supervision, and when accepted and surveyed would be regis- 
 tered in sections as sugar beet or cane lands. A small bounty per ton 
 on cane or beets might be given. A premium might be given per acre 
 on new lands brought under cultivation in sugar cane and beets when 
 in satisfactory condition. Small prizes might be given for the best con- 
 ditioned, best cultivated farm, and best crop of certain area in each 
 section, and a nominal prize to individuals who have attained certain 
 degrees of excellence in the different branches of the work. Model 
 factories might be built where needed with a view to their lease or sale. 
 There are many other methods by which the sugar industry could be 
 encouraged and developed which would present themselves from time 
 to time, but the above is only given as a rough outline. 
 
 The idea is to build up settlements of independent, industrious, 
 American farmers, on the most available sugar lauds, with well-equippetl 
 farms, who can maintain themselves, raising cane or beets for cheap 
 sugar, when the aid is withdrawn, and produce enough to supply the 
 country with sugar. 
 
 When this is accomplished, the hundred million of dollars sent abroad 
 annually for sugar would be saved to our own people, and the greater 
 benefit of securing cheap sugar to the American consumer would also 
 be gained. 
 
 It is impossible to go into this subject minutely and fully in a brief 
 and hasty communication. 
 
 P. J. McMahon. 
 
 SYSTEM SHOULD BE UINDISTUBBED. 
 
 Boston, Mass., December 21^ 1896. 
 CoBoiiTTEE ON Ways and Means: 
 
 We, the undersigned, importers and dealers in raw sugars in the city 
 of Boston, believing that a change from the ad valorem principle for 
 assessment of duties upon sugar would necessarily open the whole 
 question of sugar tariff and unsettle business for a long period, do 
 hereby recommend that the system be for the present undisturbed. 
 
 E. Atkins & Co. 
 
 Whitney, Pousland & Co. 
 
 eufus c. cushman & co. 
 
 Alfeed Winsor & Son. 
 
 James H. Shafleigh & Co. 
 
 Walter S. Swan & Co. 
 
 Albert M. Barnes & Co. 
 
 Bates & Barnet.
 
 WHAT DUTY SHOULD SUGAR PAY*? 693 
 
 WHAT DUTY SHOULD SUGAR PAY? 
 
 [Written by Mr. Frank Halpoii for the Grocery World.] 
 
 Before and since the election a nnmber of the daily papers have been 
 advocating a duty on sugar as the best and cheapest way to raise money 
 to meet the deficiency in the revenues, all of which would fell short of 
 the object, if we construe correctly what they write. They are also 
 discussing whether the sugar schedule of the new tariff bill which the 
 next Congress will enact will provide for specific or ad valorem duties. 
 
 That any measure of relief will be passed at this session of Congress 
 there is a doubt, so that it is useless to discuss what duty should be 
 levied now to meet the deficiency, except to call attention to the gen- 
 eral want of knowledge of the present rate of duty and revenue, and to 
 state what they are. The newspapers are very inexplicit in what they 
 -publish, as most of them state that a specific duty of 1 cent per pound 
 on all sugar would put $40,000,000 additional in the Treasury, forget- 
 ting or not knowing the fact that about that rate has been the duty 
 this year, and that about that sum is or will be collected by the end of 
 the year. If they had said an additional duty of 1 cent per pound, 
 these figures would be about right. 
 
 To be explicit, the duty on all sugars is 40 per cent ad valorem, with 
 an additional duty of one-eighth cent per pound on all sugars above 
 No. 10 Dutch standard in color, or those that have been discolored, 
 and if imported from a country that pays a bounty, there must be paid 
 one-tenth cent per pound more. The total importations of foreign 
 sugars in 189G will be about 1,600,000 tons, on which there will be paid 
 into the .United States Treasury duties amounting to ^30,000,000 to 
 $40,000,000. So much for the present tariff and revenue on sugar. 
 
 The next point to be considered is whether the sugar schedule in the 
 new tariff bill should declare for specific or ad valorem duties, and at 
 first thought everyone will declare that ad valorem duties on all 
 articles of merchandise are the only fair thing, as a cheaper and inferior 
 article should not pay as large a duty as a superior or fine aiticle, and 
 that the large mass of consumers who use the cheaper or medium class 
 of merchandise should not be taxed the same as the highest class. 
 Experience, however, has shown that ad valorem duties are not satis- 
 factory, that there are so many points and evasions that no tariff-bill 
 maker can foretell and no custom-house officer can prevent, so that the 
 results of such duties are disappointing. If this is true on general 
 merchandise, it is doubly so on raw sugars, as their selling price is 
 practically based on 90° test centrifugal (although we must admit that 
 88° analysis beet sugar is now making all prices), and all sugars that 
 will be purchased under a specific duty will only bring wliat tliey will 
 be worth to a refiner after that duty is paid. If, by polariscope, a 
 molasses sugar tests 85°, showing it to be worth 2^- proportionately to 
 centrifugal 96°, and the duty on both is 1 cent per pound, the refiner 
 would not buy it at that price, as the loss would be 11 per cent greater 
 than on the centrifugal. Consequently, the owner must seek another 
 market or else accept the offer of the refiner, with the probability that 
 the next year he will, if he is able, make better sugar, so that he can 
 get full value for his product. 
 
 In plain words, we think our Congress should legislate for ourselves 
 rather than to benefit a few planters who make sugars in the old way 
 rather than the centrifugal process, and then if they want to pay duty 
 on dirt, etc., they are at liberty to do it. We know that all refiners and 
 importers of low-grade sugars that vary in test are interested in having
 
 694 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 tlie new tnriff bill continued on the present ad valorem lines rather 
 than a specific duty, as they believe it would act injuriously to their 
 interests when applied to low-grade sugars, unless upon some ad valo- 
 rem basis of polariscopic test, but we have no doubt they would be 
 satisfied to pay a specific duty if it could be graded by the polariscopic 
 test. We hope this will not be brought about, however, as it opens the 
 doors to all sorts of bribery and cheating, as it is a well-known fact 
 that a sampler of raw sugars can sample and get a low test if he 
 wants to. 
 
 We can rest assured that if Congress makes a specific duty on all raw 
 sugars, then planters, factors, and others will ship to this country the 
 very best sugar that can be made. As to the ad valorem duty, the pub- 
 lic and often the custom-house officer does not know what that is, as a 
 quotation of 2 cents per jjound free on board at Hamburg does not neces- 
 sarily mean a duty of 40 per cent on that amount, as it has been decided 
 the value of the article must be taken from the place of its manufacture, 
 so that the sugar may have been made hundreds of miles from the ship- 
 ping point, where the shipping expenses are large, which must be 
 deducted. Then, again, there are the bags and lighterage and cartage, 
 so that the consular certificate may make the market value on that 
 sugar as low as $1.50 to Sl.CO, on which a duty is paid, so that instead 
 of paying 80 cents on 100 pounds they pay 60 to 65 cents as a duty. 
 
 There is another point against the ad valorem duty. The United 
 States Treasury ofiicials have decided that the duty to be collected on 
 sugars must be on the highest price. For instance, you believe sugars 
 will be higher in June next, and you buy a cargo to-day to be shipped 
 at that time. If the market advances you ])ay the duty on the advanced 
 price. On the contrary, if the market declines, you pay the duty on the 
 price originally paid. In this connection we will state that the imports 
 of sugars into this country during 1896 consist as follows: Centrifugal, 
 about 57 per cent; Muscovado, about 10 per cent; molasses sugars, 
 about 3 per cent; beet sugars, about 30 per cent. In 1805 the imports 
 were as follows: Centrifugals, 77 i^er cent; Muscovado, 10 per cent; 
 molasses, 5 per cent; beet sugars, 8 per cent. It will be understood the 
 decline in percentage in centrifugal was due to the Cuban insurrection. 
 
 Now, what duty should sugar pay? It is conceded by every man that 
 the placing of sugars on the free list in the McKinley bill was a griev- 
 ous error, as it took away $50,000,U00 from the revenue and $10,000,000 
 in cold cash out of the Treasury to pay bounties. That was a grave 
 mistake. If the next Congress will look on sugar as purely for revenue 
 purposes to bring $40,000,000 in the Treasury, they will put a specific 
 tax of 1 cent per pound on all raw sugars; but if they desire protec- 
 tion to the growers of cane and sorghum in this country as well as 
 revenue, they will put a specific tax of li cents per pound, and there 
 are many who believe that a tax of U cents per pound for twenty years 
 will so stimulate the production of sugar that at the end of that time 
 we will be able to produce in this country all the sugars we can con- 
 sume. In any case, whether the duty is ad valorem or specific, there 
 should be an additional duty of one eighth on all sugars above No. 16, 
 Dutch standard, in color, becanse there is so much dirt in 90° test raw 
 sugars that a refiner must pay duty on to bring it here to refine, while 
 the foreign refiner simply pays duty on the pure refined sugar. Besides 
 this, there should be an additional duty of one-tenth of 1 cent per 
 pound on sugars imported from all countries which pay a bounty, and 
 if any country increase its bounty there should be a correspondiug 
 increase of duty, 
 
 Feank Halpen.
 
 SPECIFIC VS. AD VALOREM DUTIES. 695 
 
 SPECIFIC TS. AD VALOREM DUTIES. 
 
 THE INJURIOUS EFFECT UPON THE EXPORT OF STAVES FROM THE 
 UNITED STATES RESULTING FROM AN AD VALOREM DUTY ON 
 SUGAR. 
 
 In i)reseiiting tliis brief to the committee, the object of the petition- 
 ers is to indicate oue of the many inconsistencies and far-reacbing 
 injuries resulting from an ad valorem duty on sugar, as an additional 
 reason for a return to a specific duty. Or, if there is no return to a 
 specific duty, the petitioners ask protection for their industry by pro- 
 viding in the new bill a clause exempting from duty casks containing 
 sugar, which casks are made from staves, the product of and exported 
 from tbe United States. 
 
 There has always been a large export business from the United 
 States in woods of all kinds, and the forests and their products con- 
 stitute one of the most important industries and resources of this 
 country. A careful examinatiou of our sundry tariff laws will develop 
 the fact that in all of them it has been an underlying principle that 
 they should not only not injure but should promote this general indus- 
 try. Among the woods exported from this country are many which 
 are used for coverings for articles of foreign manufacture, and the 
 underlying i^rinciple above referred to provides for either no duty what- 
 ever, or such a small one that it is practically nothing, on said coverings 
 when returned to the United States. 
 
 Now included in such coverings are oak staves exported from the 
 United States to the West India sugar-producing countries; tbere made 
 into casks to be filled with sugar and molasses, and then imported into 
 this country. Such is the effect of the present tariff laws that all such 
 casks containing sugar pay a tax of $2 per cask. The result can only 
 be to kill the export of staves. " If," says the foreign buyer, " the United 
 States will tax, on their being returned to United States, the materials 
 which we buy from the United States in order to ship our products which 
 are also taxed, we will not buy those materials." 
 
 Such a result as this is, it is claimed, not only at variance with the 
 general principles underlying all tariff laws, but is so inconsistent that 
 these very inconsistencies themselves form good and sufficient reason for 
 granting to the petitioners the protection for which they ask. 
 
 Note the following: Thirty-three staves, growth, product, and manu- 
 facture of the United States, are made in the West Indies into a cask, 
 the cask is tilled with molasses and imported into this country. This 
 cask is free. 
 
 Take the same 33 staves and the same cask, fill it with sugar, import 
 it into this country, and the duty is 82. 
 
 But note further: Ship from a foreign country, say Austria, to the 
 West Indies 33 staves, make into a cask, fill with molasses, ship to this 
 country; cask free. 
 
 Thus a cask made from staves from Austria, staves which never saw 
 the United States, can come into the United States free, if containing 
 molasses, while the cask made from American staves, if filled with sugar, 
 pays a tax of $2 upon return to the country where said staves were made 
 and whose export is one of that country's industries. 
 
 This inconsistency, resulting from an ad valorem duty 0]i sugar
 
 G^Q SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 (molasses being subject to specific duty), is thus apparent and needs 
 no fiutlier conuneut. 
 
 But note Inrtlier: Assmuiug 30 or 32 staves to be required for 1 
 cask, 1,000,000 staves would make, say, 30,000 casks. The value in 
 tills country of these 1,000,000 staves is about $40,000. The duty on 
 30,000 casks is $60,000. This country thus imposes a tax equal to the 
 fuil value in this country plus 50 per cent on an article of its own 
 growth. 
 
 The remedy is simple. Eeturn to specific duty on sugar, or insert 
 clause in new bill admitting free, casks containing sugar, which casks 
 are ma<le from staves, the growth, product, and manufacture of the 
 United States and ex])orted from the United States. 
 
 Submitted by li. Manson Smith, of Baltimore, Md., in behalf of 
 IMcssrs. Charles' Eeid &^ Sons and Messrs. Eeed Bros. & Co., of Norfolk, 
 Va., dealers in and exporters of staves. 
 
 STATEMENT OF SMITH & SCHIPPER. 
 
 New York, December J6, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 It is our opniion, alter much experience in the sugar trade, that a 
 specific duty, based on the landed test of the sugar, is the only fair 
 and satisfactory one for all concerned. The present ad valorem duty 
 is generally admitted by the appr.iisers, American produci'rs, importers, 
 and the trade generally to be an utter failure and impossible to assess 
 fairly and according to law. It has led to no end of trouble, disj)utes, 
 and dissatisfaction, and consequently made much extra work, aiul delay 
 in liquidations has been the result. In addition to this, it is almost 
 impossible to form any idea as t;) the probable amount of revenue it 
 will produce during any one year, owing to the fluctuations in the value 
 of sugai' in different parts of the world. It also tends to discriminate 
 ag;iinst sugars coming from one i)art of the world as against those from 
 another, as the duty is assessed on the first cost value at the port of 
 shipment. It also makes it imi)ossible to calculate accurately what 
 the sugars will cost, duty paid, owing to the fluctuations in the markets 
 between the time the sugars are bought an.d shii)ped. If sugars are 
 bought in a foreign market and the market declines while the sugar is 
 afloat, the owner not only has to stand a loss in the value of the sugar, 
 but also on the duty, which is assessed on the value at time of ship- 
 ment. For this reason w^e know of majiy sugars which owners intended 
 to bring here but had to divert them to other countries, where they 
 would only have to stand the loss on the sugar, and not on the duty also, 
 As sugars come from all parts of the world, and many from small ]»laces. 
 where the markets are very limited, it is often impossible to arrive at a 
 fair market value for duty. From the above you will see that an ad 
 valorem duty is impracticable, unfair, and unreliable, as far as sugar is 
 concerned. 
 
 The writer was one of a committee of the New York sugar trade 
 who went to Washington at the time the present tariff was being pre- 
 pared to advocate a specific duty and to show the necessity of having 
 an extra duty on sugars over No. 16 Dutch standard, in order to pre- 
 vent refined sugars coming in at the same duty as raw sugars of the 
 same test, although much lighter iu color. The following is a news- 
 paper account of this committee's hearing before the Senate Finance 
 Committee.
 
 SPECIFIC VS. AD VALOREM DUTIES. 
 
 697 
 
 THE SUGAR DUTIES. — AN AMENDMENT IS TROrOSED BY THE TRADE TO THE TARIFF BILL. 
 
 A comniittco of representative raw-sugar meia bave presented to the Senate 
 Finance Committee a protest against the sugar schedule in the tariff bill, in the 
 course of -which they nay: 
 
 ' ' Our reasons for objecting to the above schedule is that it really prohibits the im- 
 ])ortation of any raw sugars testing over P6 degrees and allows any refined sugar 
 testing below 96 degrees to come in at the same rate of duty as raw sugar of same 
 test. This would be .most unfair and cause great injury to everyone interested in 
 the importation of sugars from Cuba, West Indies, Denierara, Brazil, Europe, Java, 
 and Philippine Islands, as well as to the large number of shipowneis whose vessels 
 are employed in bringing those cargoes, and which is about the best trade now left 
 for American bottoms. 
 
 "As we believe a specific duty should be made as near ad valorem as possible in its 
 operation, wc beg to suggest the following schedule, which is made up on a basis of 
 40 per cent ad valorem, and does not discriminate against any interest: 
 
 Polar- 
 
 To-day's 
 
 Proposed 
 
 Polar- 
 
 To-day's 
 
 Proposed 
 
 iza- 
 
 value per 
 
 dntv per 
 
 iza- 
 
 value per 
 
 duty per 
 
 tion. 
 
 pound. 
 
 I)ouiid. 
 
 tion. 
 
 pound. 
 
 pound. 
 
 o 
 
 Gents. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 o 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 75 
 
 1.70 
 
 .68 
 
 88 
 
 2.75 
 
 1.10 
 
 76 
 
 1.79 
 
 .715 
 
 89 
 
 2.81 
 
 1.125 
 
 77 
 
 1.88 
 
 .75 
 
 90 
 
 2.87 
 
 1.15 
 
 78 
 
 1.97 
 
 .785 
 
 91 
 
 2.95 
 
 L17 
 
 79 
 
 2.06 
 
 .82 
 
 92 
 
 3.01 
 
 1.20 
 
 80 
 
 •2.15 
 
 .855 
 
 93 
 
 3.07 
 
 1.225 
 
 81 
 
 2.24 
 
 .89 
 
 94 
 
 3.13 
 
 1.25 
 
 82 
 
 2.33 
 
 .925 
 
 95 
 
 3.19 
 
 L275 
 
 83 
 
 2.42 
 
 .96 
 
 96 
 
 3.25 
 
 1.30 
 
 84 
 
 2.50 
 
 .095 
 
 97 
 
 3.31 
 
 1.325 
 
 85 
 
 2.56 
 
 L025 
 
 98 
 
 3.37 
 
 1.35 
 
 86 
 
 2.C2 
 
 1.05 
 
 99 
 
 3.43 
 
 1.375 
 
 87 
 
 2.08 
 
 1.075 
 
 100 
 
 3.50 
 
 1.40 
 
 The committee also aslc for an additional duty on sugars above No. 16 Dutch 
 standard, to prevent the foreign refiners from entering their soft-refined sugars here 
 at the same rate of duty as raws of same test, and also enable our refiners to com- 
 pete, to which no consumer should object. 
 
 The following signatures are attached to this protest: Perkins &. Welsh, 6. 
 Auisinck & Co., J. M. Ceballos & Co., Smith & Schipper, Nevers & Callaghan, More- 
 wood & Co., James S. Conuell, John Farr, L. W. and P, Armstrong, George W. Oak- 
 ley, Bartraui Bros., Moses G. Wanzor, Bowerman Bros., L. W. Minford & Co., Eluien- 
 hor.st & Co., James Lee & Co., MosleBros., Mecleod Bros. & Co., Buys & Co., Leay- 
 craft & Co., J. J. Francke, A. Lueder, Swift, Billings & Co., Charles Nordhaus, Jules 
 Sazerac & Co., Hugh Kelly, Foot^j & Knevals, Mi(tdletou &Co., G. F. Lough & Co., 
 Thomseu & Co., Stannard & Tiebout, Turner Bros,, Thomas J. Owen & Co., F. do 
 Zaldo, H. H.Pike, Carter, Hawley & Co., W. H. Perot, Son & Co., George Christall 
 &. Co., Gillespie & Co., Allerton'D. Hitch, Hewlett & Lee, Creighton, Morrison & 
 Meohan, and J. B. Vicini & Co. 
 
 At that time you will notice that the in bond value of 96-degree cen- 
 trifugals was 3.50 cents, while now the in bond value is only about 2.25 
 cents, so that with the 40 per cent ad valorem duty the Government is 
 now only realizing niuety one-hundredths cent duty on 96-degree sugars, 
 instead of 1.40 cents at time tariff was arranged. 
 
 As the amount of duty desired at the present time is greater, we 
 would therefore suggest the following specific duty: 
 • On all sugars, etc., testing when landed — 
 
 
 Per 
 
 
 Per 
 
 
 Per 
 
 
 Per 
 
 Polariza- 
 tion. 
 
 pound on 
 
 net 
 
 landed 
 
 Polariza- 
 tion. 
 
 pound on 
 
 net 
 
 landed 
 
 Polariza- 
 tion. 
 
 pound on 
 
 net 
 
 landed 
 
 Polariza- 
 tion. 
 
 pound on 
 
 net 
 
 landed 
 
 
 weight. 
 
 
 weight. 
 
 
 weight. 
 
 
 weight. 
 
 
 Centi-. 
 
 
 Cents. 
 
 
 Cents. 
 
 
 Cents. 
 
 a 75 
 
 1.00 
 
 82 
 
 1.35 
 
 89 
 
 1.G5 
 
 96 
 
 1.87 
 
 76 
 
 1.05 
 
 83 
 
 1.40 
 
 90 
 
 1.69 
 
 97 
 
 1.90 
 
 77 
 
 1.10 
 
 84 
 
 1.45 
 
 91 
 
 1.72 
 
 98 
 
 1.93 
 
 78 
 
 1.15 
 
 85 
 
 1.49 
 
 92 
 
 1.75 
 
 99 
 
 1.96 
 
 79 
 
 1.20 
 
 88 
 
 1.53 
 
 93 
 
 1.78 
 
 100 
 
 L99 
 
 80 
 
 1.25 
 
 87 
 
 1.57 
 
 94 
 
 1.81 
 
 
 
 81 
 
 1.30 
 
 88 
 
 1.61 
 
 95 
 
 1.84 
 
 
 
 a Or uuder.|
 
 698 
 
 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 Fractions of a degree in proportion. On all sugars over ISo. 16 
 Dutch standard in color, an additional duty of at least one-fourth cent, 
 to prevent foreign refined sugars coming in at same rate of duty as raw- 
 sugars of same test, although the latter are of much darker color, and 
 unfit for consumption before being refined. 
 
 We also think it would be a good plan to add an extra duty on 
 sugar coming from bountj^-paying countries to cover these bounties. 
 
 The increase in the bounties in Europe this year has apparently not 
 been a success, and has proved more of a boomerang, as it increased 
 sowings to such an extent that the additional duty has more than been 
 offset by the decline in sugar caused by the overproduction. The 
 question of reducing or abolishing these export duties is now being 
 greatly agitated, and such action by our Government as proposed 
 above would probably have its effect. 
 
 We consider such a duty on sugar gives protection to the producer, 
 sufficient revenue to the Government, is fair to all concerned, and can 
 easily, fairly, and honestly be collected. 
 
 The importation of the different grades of raw sugar varies somewhat 
 from year to year, but we estimate that the ai^proximate percentage of 
 the different testing sugars is about as follows: Under 80 degrees test, 
 3 per cent; 80 to So degrees test, 12 per cent; 85 to 90 degrees test, 25 
 per cent; 90 to 91 degrees test, 10 per cent; 91 to 96 degrees test, 18 per 
 cent; 90 degrees test and above, 2 per cent. 
 
 According to tLe above, the average test is about 90.895. As the 
 consumption of this country per annum is about 2,000,000 tons sugar, 
 including about 500,000 tons Louisiana, domestic beet, and Sandwich 
 Island sugar, which are free of duty, the total amount of sugar which 
 has to pay duty is about 1,500,000 tons per annum. 
 
 In case it is desired to raise $50,000,000 per annum revenue from 
 sugar, we figure that the duty should be about 1^ cents per pound on 
 the above average test of about 91 degrees. We would mention that 
 some of the trade seem to think that in the schedule in our previous 
 letter we have made the differences too great on the low-testing sugars. 
 
 Smith & Sohippee. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF SMITH AND SCHIPPER. 
 
 New York, December 24, 1896. 
 Dear Sir: As some of the trade consider our previous schedule 
 favors the lower grades too much, and as a duty of 0.75 on 75 degrees 
 test and going up by 2 points ])er degree discriminates against the 
 lower grades, we submit the following for the consideration of the 
 committee: 
 
 
 Value 
 
 
 Value 
 
 Per- 
 
 
 Value 
 
 
 Value 
 
 Per- 
 
 Teat. 
 
 duty 
 paid. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 iu 
 
 cent- 
 
 Test. 
 
 duty 
 
 Duty. 
 
 in 
 
 cent- 
 
 
 
 bond. 
 
 age. 
 
 
 paid. 
 
 
 bond. 
 
 age. 
 
 100 
 
 4.00 
 
 109 
 
 2.40 
 
 70 
 
 87 
 
 3.26 
 
 138 
 
 1.88 
 
 73 
 
 99 
 
 4.03 
 
 167 
 
 2.86 
 
 70 
 
 86 
 
 3.18 
 
 135 
 
 1.83 
 
 73 
 
 98 
 
 3.07 
 
 165 
 
 2.32 
 
 71 
 
 85 
 
 3.10 
 
 132 
 
 1.78 
 
 74 
 
 97 
 
 3.91 
 
 163 
 
 2.28 
 
 71 
 
 84 
 
 3.02 
 
 129 
 
 1.73 
 
 74 
 
 96 
 
 3.85 
 
 161 
 
 2.24 
 
 72 
 
 83 
 
 2.93 
 
 125 
 
 1.68 
 
 74 
 
 95 
 
 3.79 
 
 159 
 
 2.20 
 
 72 
 
 82 
 
 2.84 
 
 121 
 
 1.63 
 
 74 
 
 94 
 
 3.73 
 
 157 
 
 2.16 
 
 73 
 
 81 
 
 2.75 
 
 117 
 
 1.58 
 
 74 
 
 93 
 
 3.67 
 
 155 
 
 2.12 
 
 73 
 
 80 
 
 2.06 
 
 113 
 
 1.53 
 
 74 
 
 92 
 
 3.61 
 
 153 
 
 2.08 
 
 73 
 
 79 
 
 2.57 
 
 109 
 
 1.48 
 
 73 
 
 91 
 
 3.53 
 
 150 
 
 2.04 
 
 73 
 
 78 
 
 2.48 
 
 105 
 
 1.43 
 
 73 
 
 90 
 
 3.47 
 
 147 
 
 2.00 
 
 73 
 
 77 
 
 2.3'J 
 
 101 
 
 1.38 
 
 73 
 
 89 
 
 3. JO 
 
 144 
 
 1.96 
 
 73 
 
 76 
 
 2.;;o 
 
 97 
 
 1.33 
 
 73 
 
 88 
 
 3.33 
 
 141 
 
 1.82 
 
 73 
 
 o75 
 
 2.21 
 
 93 
 
 1.28 
 
 73 
 
 a Or under.
 
 THE SUGAR INDUSTRY. 699 
 
 Fractions iu proportion. An additional duty on sugars over 16 
 Dutch standard sufficient to give our refiners ample protection, and 
 an additional duty on sugars coming from countries paying bounties. 
 
 We consider the above scliedule fair for all concerned. As the im- 
 ports which pay duty amount to about 1,500,000 tons per annum, and 
 average about 01 degrjees test, we estimate the above schedule should 
 produce about $50,000,000 per annum revenue. 
 
 By reducing or advancing tliis schedule by 15 points per degree, the 
 revenue would be decreased or increased about $5,000,000 per annum. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 Smith & Schippee. 
 
 Mr. John Farr, 
 
 Secretary of Smith & Schipper, New York, 
 
 THE STJGAE, UNDUSTHY. 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio, December 28, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Tour committee having charge of revising the tariff law, we take the 
 liberty of asking your due consideration and careful investigation of 
 the sugar production of this country and the valuable interests con- 
 nected therewith, the nonpaying interests of the farmer, manufacturer, 
 and unemployed labor all over the States. 
 
 We only partly give you details of the agricultural interest and sugar 
 making, but more fully the benefit to the manufacture and its labor, 
 and herewith attach a statement of the necessary machinery and mate- 
 rial required to build the factories to take the agricultural product and 
 manufacture same into salable sugar — all of said machinery being and 
 has been manufactured in this country, and is working as well, if not 
 better, than the imported machinery, built in foreign countries. 
 
 We would refer you, for substantiating our statement regarding the 
 machiner^^ for information on cane sugar, to the Louisiana sugar plant- 
 ers, which is entirely of home manufactured machinery and material; 
 and as regards the beet sugar industry, to the Chino Valley Beet 
 Sugar Company, Chino, Cal.; the Utah Sugar Company, Lehi, Utah; 
 the Norfolk Beet Sugar Company, Norfolk, Nebr.; the Oxnard Beet 
 Sugar Company, Grand Island, Nebr. ; as well as to the Los Alamitos 
 Sugar Company, Los Angeles, Cal., and others. 
 
 The cane sugar, and more so the beet sugar production, did not find 
 confidence with capital to any percentage of the consumption until the 
 bounty of 2 cents per pound was awarded to the sugar producers, 
 when in 1892 five beet sugar factories were erected, with a capacity of 
 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 pounds of refined sugar each for the season ; and 
 as usual with an entirely new industry, with a 2 cents protection it was 
 but a very small financial investment for the factories and refineries, 
 but a valuable remuneration for the farmers raising beets on land 
 which had been practically unproductive, as the world's market for 
 cereals declined so low, that it would not pay to work these lands. 
 
 In 1893 when the tariff was revised, and instead of a 2 cents bounty 
 an ad valorem duty on sugar was decided upon, it was made impossible 
 for either cane or beet sugar houses to be operated without a loss; and
 
 700 SCHEDULE E. — SUGAR. 
 
 up to this date it is not an investment for capital to embark in the 
 enterprise, owing to an overproduction of sugars in foreign countries, 
 protected by export duties and cheap labor. And the United States 
 market has iiractically but one buyer to purchase surplus from other 
 countries, wliich fixes its buying price, and this price is so low that it 
 not only deprives the Government from realizing its revenue for the 
 expense of running the Government, but has made it impossible to 
 operate American sugar factories at a profit, by buying the product of 
 sugar plants from the farmer at a price which will induce its cultivation ; 
 and with the much higher price of farm labor here than in foreign coun- 
 tries, the farmer is unable to sell his crop at a more reduced price. There- 
 fore our vast agricultural districts in the West and South, with all 
 their productive land, is not tilled, and our labor unemployed, and we 
 are paying foreign countries over $100,000,000 yearly for a product of 
 which every dollar's worth can be produced by ourselves with the 
 proper help from our Government. If your committee will investigate 
 the now sugar-producing countries, it will find that in all these coun- 
 tries, when the industry was first taken up, each and every government 
 had to take a hand in same, and helped it until it reached a point where 
 the home consumption was produced ; and instead of having nonproduc- 
 ing lands and unemployed labor and sending money away, they have 
 reached a point where the lands are valuable and every soil suitable for 
 growing the sugar-producing plant is productive, and employs a vast 
 amount of labor, and furnishes the world with sugar by its surplus. 
 
 There is no reason to-day, with proper protection, why the United 
 States should not produce its home consumption within the next fifteen 
 years, leaving with its own laboring people the one hundred or more 
 million dollars now sent abroad, and while so doing cultivate millions 
 of acres of land and employ thousands of people in building sugar 
 factories. 
 
 We herewith give you an estimate of the smallest sugar factory and 
 refinery, which can be operated with one set of men, having a capacity 
 of working 350 to 400 tons of beets into refined sugar in twenty-four 
 hours. A house of a less capacity can be built, but is unprofitable. 
 First, its capacity is not proportionate to its cost; second, its operat- 
 ing expenses and labor are about the same. In this memorandum of 
 approximate cost of building a factory you can see at once the numer- 
 ous industries and manufactures receiving benefits by the sugar indus- 
 try being encouraged and our home consumption supplied by ourselves. 
 
 The consumption of sugar in the United States is approximately 
 2,000,000 tons annually, of which at present about 10 per cent is pro- 
 duced at home. The production of this amount of sugar requires the 
 additional cultivation of 20,000,000 acres of land and the paying of 
 labor for raising the sugar-producing plants on this land the sum of 
 $20 per acre, or $40,000,000, to harvest the crop ready for the sugar 
 houses. To work up this crop it will require at least 750 sugar houses of 
 a daily capacity of 350 to 400 tons; also refineries, which would involve 
 an expenditure of approximately $300,000,000 in stone, brick, cement, 
 structural iron, machinery, freights, textiles, copper, belting, etc.; it 
 will require to operate these 750 factories each season in labor, estimat- 
 ing to work 40,000 tons of sugar-producing plant and working the 
 refineries one hundred days each season, the sum of $3,500,000. This 
 does not include the labor of the railway employees, bringing and tak- 
 ing away the products.
 
 SUGAR AND TARIFF. 701 
 
 In addition to the aforesaid sum for labor for operating^ tlie 750 
 sugar houses, it Avill require for each sugar house each season, ap- 
 proximately, $15,0U() to 120,000 for fuel, $4,000 to $5,000 for lime rock, 
 $1,000 to $2,000 tor filter cloths, $10,(tOO to $15,000 for bags or barrels, 
 $1,000 for chemicals, $300 for oils, $60 for waste, and the necessary 
 exfienses for stationery, office force, salesmen, and railroad freights. 
 
 The ajiproximate cost of building a sugar factory and refinery of a 
 daily (twenty-four hours) capacity of working 350 to 400 tons of sugar- 
 producing plants is as follows: 
 
 Stonework, foundations, and floors $12, 500 
 
 Steel and iron structural frame and roofs 16, 500 
 
 Brickwork 12,000 
 
 Windows and doors 650 
 
 Hardware ■ 700 
 
 Painting- 800 
 
 Tarred paper for roofs 300 
 
 Vitrified pipe 900 
 
 Cornice, gutters, and leaders 300 
 
 Lumber 5,000 
 
 Freiglits on materials 4, 000 
 
 Erecting labor of steel and iron frame 2, 000 
 
 Beet sheds and storage for beets 5, 000 
 
 Pulp silo 4,000 
 
 Complete machinery for refinery 225, 000 
 
 Machinery foundations and masonry for boilers 5, 000 
 
 Fire clay, fire brick, etc., for boilers, kilns, etc 4, 500 
 
 Labor erecting and starting machinery' 20, 000 
 
 Pipe covering 2, 500 
 
 Hardware, belting, and other fixtures 5, 000 
 
 Freight on machinery 35, 000 
 
 Salaries, erecting superintendent and necessary help to superintend erecting 
 and starting of sugar house and refinery, includiug traveling expenses 
 
 and other expenses '. 15,000 
 
 Total 376,650 
 
 The Kilby Manufacturing Company. 
 
 suaAR a:nt) tareff. 
 
 STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY HENRY A. BROWN, OF WESTPORT 
 POINT, MASS., EX-SPECIAL TREASURY AGENT. 
 
 Westport Point, Mass., December 36, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 One of the most important schedules in the tariff with which your 
 committee must deal is that of sugar. That reasonable tariff protection 
 should be accorded to the sugar producing and refining industries in 
 this country is a fact that needs no argument; that with such reason- 
 able protection the United States will soon produce enough sugar for 
 home consumption is, so far as human judgment can predict, a certainty; 
 that this nation requires current revenue sufficient to meet its needed 
 current expenses and reduce its indebtedness is a fact; that a large pro- 
 portion of such needed revenue can be raised from sugar without injury 
 to any American interest, but with great and lasting benefit to home
 
 702 
 
 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 producers, consumers, and thousands of laborers and tradesmen throngn- 
 out this country can not be truthfully denied, No argument is required 
 to establish these facts. That the enormous production of beet sugar 
 in Kurope, nearly $5,000,000 tons in 1896, is entirely the outgrowth of 
 adequate tariff protection is also an established fact. 
 
 The magnitude of our imports of foreign sugars and the sums paid 
 foreign producers for cane and beet sugar maybe seen in the following 
 table, compiled from official data issued by the United States Bureau 
 of Statistics: 
 
 Sugar entered for consumption in the fiscal year ended June SO, 1S96, quantities, value, 
 coat per pound, and deductions. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 Per 
 pound. 
 
 Kot above No. 16 Dutch standard, dutiable 
 
 Above No. 16 Dutch stfindard, dutiable 
 
 Not above No. 13 Dutcli slaudard, Hawaiian, free 
 
 Above No. J."! Dutch standard, Hawaiian, free 
 
 Maple, dutiable 
 
 Total imports for consumption 
 
 Quantity dutiable 
 
 Caue and beet dutiable 
 
 Of dutiable sugar 
 
 3, 207, 764, 882 
 
 169, U36,984 
 
 350, 848, 137 
 
 1, 327, 132 
 
 907, 982 
 
 $67, 488, 418 
 
 4, 793, 646 
 
 11, 298, 209 
 
 38, 587 
 
 63, 168 
 
 Cents. 
 2.2 
 2.8 
 3.2 
 2.9 
 
 3, 729, 88.'5, 117 
 
 3, 377, 709, 848 
 
 3,376,801,806 
 
 62, 629, 304, 446 
 
 83, 682, 028 
 72, 355, 232 
 72, 282, 064 
 54, 087, 890 
 
 • 2.14 
 2.1 
 
 a Average. 
 
 6 This accounts for the low average cost of dutiable sugars entered, to wit, 2.14 cents. From duti- 
 able sugars entered for consumption as above, duty received $29,808,140 on invoice valuations that 
 average 2.14 cents per pound ; ad valorem duty received, 41.20 per cent. The evidence of undervaluii- 
 tion is clear, but this writer will make it clearer. 
 
 Your committee can not be too strongly impressed with the fact that 
 ad valorem duties can never be fully collected from sugar imports; the 
 temptation to undervalue under our tariff laws is simply irresistible, 
 and the only possible remedy against the fraud is to confiscate the 
 merchandise when undervalued more than, say, 5 per cent. Since the 
 Wilson tariff took effect more than one half of the invoice entries of 
 dutiable sugar have been raised by the General Appraisers — a fact easily 
 verified by the committee. The conditional valuation of imported 
 sugar on invoice entries that virtually permits the importer to fix wliat- 
 exer value he may see fit to sugars that have a fixed market value in 
 the foreign market or place of purchase and shipment, is a premium on 
 undervaluations that should be stopped, or be made to apply to all 
 imported merchandise as well as sugar; neither is it consistent with our 
 tariff' laws. 
 
 Your attention is invited to the following table of invoice valuations 
 of sugars imported into Great Britain, where there is no duty to pay and 
 no inducement for undervaluing imported sugars. It is a well-known 
 fact that London, England, is the great sugar market of the world, and 
 that London prices of sugar are a basis of cost. 
 
 The following is the average foreign cost or value, floating, of sugars 
 entered in London and Liverpool for the year ended June 30, 189(5, 
 reduced to dollais and cents of American money, for grades of foreign 
 sugar similar to the grades imported into this country, exclusive of the 
 grades of sugar fed to cattle mostly, called "jaggery," so low and i)Oor 
 that they are not used in tliis country to any extent for refining. The 
 grades q^uoted conform to those imported into this country for refining
 
 SUGAR AND TARIFF. 
 
 703 
 
 purposes, and are qnotod as a iierfectly fair comparison as to iuvoicing 
 for duty and invoiciug free sugars as in Great Britain: 
 
 Date. 
 
 1S95 
 
 July 
 
 August 
 
 Se|>t ember 
 
 October 
 
 Novein1>er 
 
 December 
 
 1806 
 
 January 
 
 February 
 
 March 
 
 April 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 Average for the year 
 
 Cwt. is 112 pounds, cost per pound . . . 
 
 Good re- 
 
 fiuiuff, 
 
 per cwt. 
 
 $2.62 
 2.59 
 
 2.02 
 2.71 
 2.71 
 2.74 
 
 2.81 
 
 3.00 
 2.96 
 3.06 
 2.7o 
 2.37 
 
 2.75 
 a2. 45 
 
 Centrifu- 
 gal, per 
 cwt. 
 
 2.84 
 2.96 
 3.12 
 3.03 
 3.12 
 
 3.18 
 
 3.50 
 3.12 
 3.43 
 3.H7 
 3.00 
 
 3.12 
 a2. 80 
 
 Low 
 grades, 
 average 
 per cwt. 
 
 $2. 18 
 2.11 
 2.11 
 2.21 
 2.21 
 2.30 
 
 2.45 
 2.68 
 2.62 
 2.71 
 2.44 
 2.15 
 
 2.35 
 a2. 1 
 
 a Cents. 
 
 Average foreign cost afloat, $2.45 per 100 pounds, against $2.14 per 
 100 pounds as invoiced and entered for duty in tbe same year iu this 
 country, showing average undervaluation of 31 cents per 100 pounds, 
 or ${).20 per ton of 2,000 pounds, amounting to a loss of duty for tbe 
 year of $10,470,U01 on 3,377,709,848 pounds dutiable sugar, or 1,088,855 
 tons. Tbat means a loss of revenue of 41.20 jjer cent on $10,470,901. 
 
 Wbile ad valorem duties are levied on imported sugars fraudulent 
 invoicing will continue, bence whatever duties are levied on sugar 
 should be specific and there should be as few classifications as possible. 
 Making a different rate for each degree of test in the polariscope leads 
 to frauds and should be avoided for levying duty on sugar. While it 
 is necessary to employ the polariscoi)e for detecting colorations and the 
 strength of sugar, in levying duty its use can be limited with advantage 
 and safety to the Government. In the above table English money has 
 been reduced to our money at the rate of 25 cents to the English shil- 
 ling and allowance made for exchange where fractions permitted, mak- 
 ing the comparison equitable, and the low grades include only refining 
 sugars similar to our importations. 
 
 With this brief analysis, which simply touches the matter of under- 
 valuation and relevant topics connected with sugar industries, tariff, 
 consumption, imports, etc., I have deemed it pertinent to suggest a 
 tariff" schedule that, in my opinion, will j)roduce at least $45,000,000 of 
 revenue from imported sugars and amplj^ protect American sugar-pro- 
 ducing and refining industries, without detriment to consumers and 
 taxpaj^ers, or any American interest or industry. In this connection I 
 may say that, in my opinion, all discriminating sugar duties should be 
 abolished. A uniform rate or rates should be levied on all imported 
 sugars without discrimination. "We have evidence euough that the beet- 
 sugar producers of Europe will increase the export bounty on sugar to 
 any extent we may discriminate against their sugars. I respectfully 
 suggest the following sugar-tariff" schedule for your consideration, 
 premising that, in my oijiniuu, it is absolutely essential to employ both
 
 704 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 the Dutcli standard of color and the polariscope in connection there- 
 with, to prevent frands, to facilitate the levying of dnty, and to protect 
 importers who import large quantities of sugars above No. 10 and Xo. 
 13, Dutch standard in color, but of low polariscope test. 
 
 There nball bo levied, collected, and paid on all sugars and on all tank bottoms, 
 sirups of caue juice and sirups of beet juice, uielada, concentrated melada, concrete, 
 and concentrated molasses, the following rates of duty, namely: On all sugars, etc., 
 not abov^e No. 7 Dutch standard in color and not above 85 degrees test in the polari- 
 scope, three-fourths of a cent per pound; on all sugars, etc., above No. 7 Dutch 
 staudard in color and not above No. 10 Dutch standard in color, testing not above 91 
 degrees in the polariscope, 1 cent per pound; on all sugars, etc., above No. 10 Dutch 
 stiuidard in color and not above No. 13 Dutch standard in color, not above 94 
 degrees test in the polariscope, 1} cents per pound; on all sugars, etc., above No. 13 
 Dutch standard in color and not above No. 16 Dutch standard in color, not above 
 97 degrees test in the polariscope, 1^ cents per pound; on all sugars, etc., not above 
 No. 16 Dutch standard in color, testing above 97 degrees in the polariscope, IJ cents 
 per pound; on all sugars above No. 16 Dutch standard in color, of any test in the 
 polariscope, 2 cents per pound. 
 
 I have named 97 degrees as the proper limit instead of 96 degrees, 
 because, in my opinion, dry centrifugals imported for refining largely 
 test above 90. Under the rates named the average grades of sugars 
 now imported for refining would produce about If cents per pound on 
 all dutiable sugars when sucli sugars are correctly invoiced for duty. 
 The quantity of refined sugar imported will be but a fraction of the 
 entire imports of sugar, and will be more and more limited as sugar 
 production increases under reasonable protection in this country. 
 
 Henry A. Brown. 
 
 ABOUT SUGAR DUTIES. 
 
 Westport Point, Mass., January 1, 1897, 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I have the honor to add to my letter of the 2Gth ultimo, addressed 
 to your committee, as follows: I suggested that discriminating duties 
 should be abolished, and generally why. Lest it might appear that I 
 was not bitterly opposed to the bounty on exports of sugar system of 
 Europe, I now give my reasons for opposition to the discrimination 
 duty against beet sugars. In the Wilson tariff the sugar schedule adds 
 10 cents per 100 pounds on bounty-fed sugars sent to this country. 
 When that was enacted the German Government allowed 13^ cents per 
 100 pounds export bounty on raw sugars, or 1.25 marks (29.7 cents) oh 
 100 kilos (220.46 pounds) and 21.62 cents per 100 pounds export bounty 
 on hard refined. Then it was understood that these rates were to be 
 first reduced and finally abolished August 1, 1897. The 10 cents per 
 100 pounds discrimination in our tariff, although it still left the Ger- 
 mans a margin against us of 3^ cents per 100 pounds, simply resulted 
 in doubling the export bounty on raw sugar and nearly doubling the 
 export bounty on refined; that is, the German bounty has been raised 
 from 1.25 marks (29.7 cents) to 2..50 marks (59.5 cents) per 100 kilos 
 (220.46 pounds) on raw sugars, or from 13.J to 27 cents per 100 pounds, 
 and on refined or hard sugars the bounty has been raised from 2 marks 
 (47.6 cents) to 3.55 marks (84.49 cents) per 100 kilos (220.46 pounds), 
 or from 21.62 to 38i cents per 100 pounds, as against our discrimination 
 of 10 cents per 100 pounds. 
 
 In order to offset the new German export bounty on sugar your com 
 mittee must discriminate against tlie bounty fed beet sugars of Europe
 
 SUGAR AND TARIFF. 705 
 
 at least one-fourth cent per pound on raw sugars, and at least three- 
 eighths of a cent per pouud on refined. Is it worth while to enter into 
 a contest with Europe in this matter, and is it not the proper way to 
 offset this sugar export bounty race with an increase of duty? IJoes 
 not a discriminating duty of the kind in question militate against con- 
 sumers, and ought not the sugar tariff to be adjusted for revenue with 
 ample protection to our home sugar iiulustries, but not to the extent of 
 prohibition of foreign sugars fitted for consumption"? For example, 
 this writer is aware, from past inquiries of foreign ofticials resident in 
 this country, that in order to get control of the American market the 
 bounty would be increased to 1 cent per pound or even to 1^ cents per 
 pound. I think that increased discrimination, that I notice is asked 
 for of your committee, if granted, would simply provoke higher export 
 bounty on sugar in the beet-producing countries of Europe. 
 
 The priuciple acted upon by the European beet-sugar producing 
 countries is to-day the same as it was in 1873, when England decided 
 to abolish the duty on sugar, and did so in 1874. The committee 
 appointed by Parliament to investigate the question reported in rela- 
 tion to export bounties on continental beet sugars as follows: "The 
 gist of the matter as regards the action of the foreign governments 
 referred to is that the majority of the people and legislatures think 
 that the beuetits which, in their opinion, accrue to the agricultural, 
 industrial, and shipping interests of the country by the development 
 of the sugar industry more than counterbalance any injury from the 
 bounties granted." The same protection and priuciple applied to our 
 home sugar industries that have obtained in Euiope since 1812 would 
 long since have made us a sugar-i)roducing nation second to none in 
 the world. 
 
 Prior to the abolition of duty on sugar in Great Britain in 1874, when 
 M. Thiers was urged by Euglish emissaries to abolish sugar bounties, 
 M. Thiers replied: " Never, never, never will I grant you that, as it is 
 the French industries you wish to destroy and the Eugli?»u industries 
 you ask me to protect." There has been no change in these sentiments 
 to this day, 18D7, and the result is that the beet sugars of Europe flood 
 the markets and rule the price of sugars in London and Few York, and 
 consumers in beet-sugar producing countries are content to pay high 
 prices for sugar in order to protect the industry that feeds and clothes 
 them, and without which industry they would suffer far more than 
 cheap sugars would benefit them, say their rulers. It is for your com- 
 mittee to decide whether it is worth while to race with Germany, 
 France, Belgium, Holland, Austria, and Eussia in the export-bounty 
 game against odds that we can only overcome by producing our own 
 sugar sufficient for home consumption, or whether it were better to 
 adjust sugar duties so that even the unjust foreign export bounty on 
 sugar shall be made to pay tribute to our revenue and benefit our 
 own sugar-producing and refining industries by increasing our own 
 production. 
 
 As regards raw sugars, they should be permitted to come into this 
 country without other hindrance than a duty that should apply to all 
 raw sugars, for the benefit of consumers; discrimination against raw 
 beet sugars would, in my opinion, be very unjust; and as to refined 
 hard and granulated beet sugars, the oidy refined sugars we get from 
 abroad of any account, the duty on refined suggested in my letter of 
 the 2(>th ultimo will offset the present bounty and can be raised if 
 necessary for our protection at auy time, while there could be no 
 injustice to other or cane sugar producing countries in the case, as the 
 T H 45
 
 706 SCHEDULE E. SUGAR. 
 
 sugars received from cane sugar producing countries are raw or but 
 partially refined centrifugal sugars imported for refining purposes ; and 
 as raw beet sugars are a necessity to meet the demands of consump- 
 tion, the only point seems to be the regulating of the duty on refined 
 sugars to protect our own industries equitably against foreign bounties 
 on refined sugar exports. 
 
 Heney a. Beown. 
 
 ANSWER TO MR. FARR. 
 
 Westport Point, Mass., January 4, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 My attention has been called to Mr. John Farr's reply to your inquiry 
 as to his opinion of my statement of the 26th ultimo to your committee 
 in the matter of invoice undervaluations of sugar. Mr. Farr is reported 
 to have said he "considered that statement untruthful and theoretical," 
 and that "London valuations were not representative, as Germany had 
 absorbed the business; London prices on cane were merely nominal." 
 Mr. Farr also declared that "there were no undervaluations on sugar 
 Imported now." Your committee will readily find that Mr. Farr and 
 all other importers of sugar quote the prices of sugar in the London 
 market daily, and that the prices of German sugars, of which Great 
 Britain consumes large quantities, are fixed in London just as the prices 
 of such sugar imported into this country have fixed prices in New York. 
 It is simply bosh for Mr. Farr or anyone to say that England, a country 
 that consumes nearly as much sugar per annum as this country and 
 consumes 10 to 1-! pounds more per cai^ita annually, has no market 
 values for imported sugars. The statement of Mr. Farr that "there 
 are no undervaluations of imported sugar now," in face of the fact that 
 nearly two-thirds of the invoice entries of sugar since the Wilson tariff 
 went into effect have been advanced, as the records of appraisers prove, 
 is, in my opinion, a barefaced attempt to practice upon the intelligence 
 of your committee. There is not the slightest evidence to warrant such 
 a pretense. 
 
 Neither do I rest my analyses of undervaluations wholly on the prices 
 of sugar entered and compared with the imported invoice prices in the 
 London market. There is abundance of evidence to be found in the home 
 market. The invoice or import valuations of sugar are given for each 
 month in the issues of the L^nited States Bureau of Statistics, and the 
 actual market prices of sugar afloat in New York for delivery, as given 
 by the best authorities, and the transactions themselves furnish evi- 
 dence that my statement to your committee, dated the 26th ultimo, will 
 fall short of the actual undervaluations that have been practiced under 
 the provisions of the Wilson tariff, as applied to sugar imports. Call- 
 ing me untruthful does not look well under the circumstances, neither 
 does it prove that there are no undervaluations of sugar now entered. 
 
 H. A. Brown.
 
 SCHEDULTt; f. 
 
 TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 707
 
 Schedule F.-TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 TOBACCO GEOWERS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. MICHAEL TOBIN, OF BALDWINSVILLE, N. Y., 
 REPRESENTING THE NEW YORK TOBACCO-GROWERS' ASSOCIA- 
 TION. 
 
 Monday, January i, 1897. 
 
 Mr. ToBiN said: Mr. Chairman aiul gentlemen of the committee, I 
 do not propose to occupy your time but for a few minutes. I came 
 here entirely unprepared. I was a])pointed to represent the ISTew York 
 State Tobacco-Growers' Association on Saturday at 4 o'clock without 
 my knowledge or consent, and I siniplj^ had time to get on the cars and 
 came down here to confer with some of my colleagues at Washington, 
 and really have not had time to do that. Therefore, gentlemen, what 
 I may say will be in a general way. 
 
 ] live in a tobacco section, I own tobacco warehouses, and I have 
 been president of the Tobacco Growers' Association for nine years, and 
 on two occasions I was inspector of tobacco under the old laws under 
 Secretary Fessenden and Secretary McCulloch, and am somewhat 
 familiar with the revenue laws. I came here to tell this committee 
 that the tobacco growers are badly in need of relief at their hands. 
 They are taxpayers, and the character of their product is such that it 
 is easy for the taxgatherer to find it, and therefore they can not avoid 
 their responsibilities in the support of this Government. They have 
 in times gone by expended fabulous amounts of money in warehouses, 
 sorting rooms, and tools and appliances for carrying on that branch of 
 the business, and for years, until Sumatra tobacco gained a foothold in 
 this country, they were reasonably prosperous, and farming lands in 
 tobacco growing sections were worth a fair remuneration, as the value 
 of i)roducts generally controls the price of the farm. Many of these 
 tobacco growers who purchased farms for $10i) and $125 an acre, when 
 their yield in growing tobacco would warrant them in doing so, and 
 built their appliances at enormous cost, enhancing the price of the 
 fiirm, paying half the value of the farm down at the time, could not 
 to day, if they were sold out or obliged to sell 'Jieir property, sell it for 
 the incumbrance. 
 
 Thereibre 1 say they are in a deplorable condition. Up to within two 
 or three years ago the section that I have the honor to represent grew 
 in the neighborhood of 35,000 cases of tobacco annually, and this last 
 crop, in my judgment, will not exceed 12,000 cases. Hence it will be 
 readily seen by this committee that a class of people who have followed a 
 vocation for years, with all the tools and appliances to conduct that 
 
 709
 
 710 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 vocatiou, would uot give up the business unless it was a loss to them. 
 This state of affairs, I understand, exists in nearly all tobacco-growing 
 sections. Inasmuch as we are taxpayers and pay taxes on large 
 amounts of property, as American citizens we think it hardly fair that 
 our dangerous rival, the Holland syndicate, which employs nothing but 
 cooly labor at an expense of 10 to 12 cents a day, should be allowed 
 by this committee to annihilate and ruin a prosperous business, and a 
 business of so much magnitude as the growing of leaf tobacco in the 
 United States. It is said by some that we can not grow tobacco suit- 
 able for wrappers in this country. I am here to say without fear of 
 contradiction that the tobacco-growing industry of this country never 
 was so prosperous as it was when the domestic leaf tobacco was used 
 exclusively for the wrapper of the cigar, and I am here to say, and 
 challenge the proof, that since the introduction of Sumatra in this 
 country the production of cigars has been constantly on the decline. 
 
 There is nobody who is accustomed to smoking cigars from tobacco 
 of this country who will stand by and argue for a moment that there is 
 any merit in this Sumatra tobacco except its looks, its luster, and it 
 has created a fad here, and by its importation has obtained a foothold 
 upon the people. Kow, in the old times, wheiLa man had the manufac- 
 ture of cigars and worked a hundred men, he had nearly oO people 
 assorting, casing, selecting, packing, and doing general work around 
 the factory. Now this class of work has all been transported over to 
 Holland. This Sumatra tobacco is fairly manufactured goods; that is 
 all there is of it. This Sumatra leaf is so carefully and precisely 
 assorted as to its color, elasticity, and thinness, even as to the spots, 
 that all the manufacturer has to do is to count over so many leaves and 
 exact so many cigars of his workmen. ZSTow, that deprives the Ameri- 
 can people of all this kind of work, and we think it is unreasonable 
 and unjust that we should be persecuted by that kind of competition. 
 Now, I do not propose, as I said in the outset, to keep you very long, 
 but there is ono thing I would like to say, and I would like to impress it 
 up(m the minds of this committee, that nothing but a specifically drawn 
 bill to cover the importation of leaf tobacco slu)uld be allowed on the 
 statute books; nothing with evasive language or double meaning, with 
 ambiguity of language that can be evaded easily, should be allowed. 
 In the first place I should have a specifically drawn bill to cover what- 
 ever the bill may be. The amount of duty should be enough to relieve 
 the depressed condition of the tobacco grower. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Before you pass from that I would like to ask if you 
 have had much experience in attempting to construe the meaning of 
 the language of the Wilson bill and the McKinley bill, and if you are 
 familiar wuh the schedules in each of those bills? 
 
 Mr. To BIN. I am familiar with both of them. I think I have the 
 credit of formulating in the McKinley bill 
 
 Mr. Evans. Would you suggest any improvements upon that now? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. I should be entirely willing that that should be substi- 
 tuted for the present bill. 
 
 Mr. Evans. What do you think of this long clause, paragraph 185, 
 of the Wilson bill? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Several clauses of the Wilson bill, so far as you will per- 
 mit me, I will criticise now. In the first place it says "percentage," 
 which never should be in the bill. In the next place it says "commer- 
 cially," which should not be in the bill. In the next place it says " per- 
 centage oyer 15 per cent shall be of a certain elastlcitv, fineness of 
 texture, quality, and looks to make it suitable for a wrapper," all of
 
 TOBACCO GROWERS. 711 
 
 .whicli is too much ambiguity, and the Goverumeut, in my mind, under 
 the construction of such a bill is simply offering- a reward to the im- 
 porter of the difference between 35 and whatever the duty might be. 
 
 Mr. Evans. The general language employed in the McKinley bill is 
 better and more easily understood than all this line-spun section here? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Yes, sir; we want it as plain as can be, and little or no 
 ambiguit}'. The law, as I said, should be specifically drawn. The duty 
 should be enough to relieve the depressed condition of this large and 
 important industry. Just the amount of that duty I am not here to 
 advocate to day, for, as 1 told yon, before I have not had time to consult 
 with our association. Now, a nominal duty will not amount to any 
 protection. We must divide up at least a portion of the cheap cigars 
 to be wrapped with domestic tobacco in order to give the tobacco 
 grower any relief whatever. Kow, 81 or oO cents a pound additional 
 would not amount to anything at all. They would continue to wrap the 
 cigars with Sumatra. You can buy cigars, and I have had them offered 
 to me within the last six weeks, wrapped with Sumatra tobacco, at $12 
 per 1,000. You know that Sumatra must be raised considerably in order 
 to present such a state of affairs as that. The American growers should 
 have at least a portion of the cigars made in America to wrap. As I 
 told you before, 1 will convince you by hard facts that no branch of 
 the trade has been improved or benefited by the introduction of Sumatra. 
 It will not be insisted upon that the grade of cigars has been raised in 
 consequence of its rse. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. When did they begin to introduce the Sumatra 
 tobacco? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. I did know, but I have forgotten; but it is just about ten 
 years ago. I did know the year. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. I notice a very large importation of Sumatra under 
 the terms of the McKinley bill, 2,500,000 pounds? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. There v^^as a fabulous amount brought over in anticipa- 
 tion of the McKinley bill, before the duty was put on under the 
 McKinley bill. 
 
 Now, no one, as I just stated, will argue the fact that the standard of 
 cigars has been improved. The American smoker has not been bene- 
 fited as a consequence. It makes no difference to the consumer about 
 the difference you put in your tariff bill, whether it be $1, $2, $3, or $6. 
 Their cigars will cost the same by retail. The consumer is not inter- 
 ested in it pecuniarily in any way. He gets his cigar for the same price 
 whether the tariff is high or low. 
 
 Mr. Turner. You have not considered the question in any other 
 aspect than a matter of protection to the grower? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. The tobacco grower. 
 
 Mr. DOLLIVER. Where in the United States is your cigar wrapper 
 grown ? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. It is grown in what is called the Onondaga district and 
 Big Fiats district. The Big Flats district embraces four or five counties 
 and so does the Onondaga; it is known by that name. It is grown in 
 Wayne, Onondaga, and several adjoining counties there. It is called 
 the Onondaga section. 
 
 Mr. Evans. In what State ? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. I am talking about New York. He asked what section 
 they grew this tobacco in. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Is it grown in any place outside of New York? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Yes, sir; certainly. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Connecti- 
 cut, Massachusetts, Maine, Ohio, and in several other States.
 
 712 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTUliES OF. 
 
 ]Mr. DoLLiVEii. The McKiuley rate appears to be nearly 350 per eent 
 of the value of the goods? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. I propose to explain in niy brief why that is not sufficient 
 protection. . 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Would you have any objection to explaining it now, 
 so that we can get the benefit of it? 
 
 Mr. ToBlN. 1 can not give the statistics to back up the explanation, 
 and I have not consulted with my association, as I explained at the 
 
 outset. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. When the duty was $2 per pound, as was just 
 remarked by Mr. Dolliver, it was nearly 250 per cent, and still there 
 Avere large importations under it? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. At what did your tobacco, that competes with the 
 Sumatra, sell in 1803? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. In the first place, in anticipation of the McKinley bill, 
 the country was flooded with Sumatra tobacco. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. 1 am talking now about 1893 — of what was imported 
 under the bill in 1893. 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. There was nothing imported under the McKinley bill in 
 1893, except fashionable colors, because the country was full of goods, 
 buttliey were faulty, they were gotten over in a rush to avoid paying 
 the duty, and they were faulty, and they imported these bright fashion- 
 able colors. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. There were several million pounds imi)orted? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. This is a big country, you know. 
 
 Mr. JMcMiLLiN. But to return to my question. During that time, 
 at what price did the tobaccos of which you speak sell in this country 
 in 1893? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. I can not tell exactly, but ray impression is a good crop 
 sold from 14 to 16 cents through at that time. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The import duty was 35 cents per pound on the 
 un stemmed and 50 cents per pound on the stemmed*? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Yes, sir. 
 
 jMr. McMiLLiN. Now, it must follow, therefore — you say you sold at 
 about 15 or IG cents all through — that the duty which was imi)()sed 
 was wholly insufficient to raise your crop to the value even of the duty 
 on it? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. There is more than that about it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Can not you give us the conclusions, and then give 
 us the facts and statistics afterwards? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. ]My conclusion is that $2 a pound is entirely inadequate 
 for the relief of the tobacco growers. 
 
 Mr. MoMtllin. Will you state what you propose, and then give us 
 the reasons? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. I have not had a consultation with the people interested 
 in order to do it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Will you give us your own idea on the subject? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. I would prefer if the gentlemen of the committee would 
 be kind enough to wait for my brief, Avhicli will verify my argument. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I beg your pardon if I liave trespassed improperly. 
 You were before the committee, and 1 supposed you would not object 
 to giving whatever facts you proposed to give them. 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. I do not think it would be advisable to give my individual 
 views without consulting the association sending- me to represent them. 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. An association sent you here?
 
 TOBACCO GKOWEKS. 713 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mc]MiLLiN. You do not want to give the data or your conclusion 
 until you liave conferred with the association? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. I have not the data in hand, and have not consulted 
 with the people who sent we here to represent them. 
 
 Mr. Turner. You have not considered this matter in reference to 
 its effect upon the revenues, but simi)Iy ujjon the i)oint of protection? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. I glanced over it on the train coming down. 
 
 Mr. Turner. You will give that in your brief iu regard to the ques- 
 tion of revenue? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Prior to the act of 1890 the duty on this tobacco was 75 
 cents a pound? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you remember whether during the year 1891 and 
 prior to when the law of 1890 went into effect the entire imi)ortation of 
 tills Sumatj'a tobacco amonnted to something over 7,000,000 [)ouuds? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Yes, sir ; I think so. 
 
 Mr. Payne. So that the cigar manufacturers had a supply for a 
 couple of years ahead? 
 
 Mr. To]UK. Yes, sir; it was the first large importation of tobacco 
 
 Mr. Payne. Now, is it not a fact there was a supply of tobacco on 
 hand from one of the principal competitors with American tobacco for 
 the two years following the anticipation of the McKiuley bill? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. 1 think it was. 
 
 Mr, Payne. And that had a large effect upon the market? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I believe it is a fact that of these Sumatra wrappers 1 
 pound will go as far as 3 or 4 pounds of the American wrapper? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Infinitely farther than that. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How far do you think? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Everybody is willing to admit that it does not require 
 more than 2 pounds of Sumatra to wrap 1,000 cigars, and you take 
 the small shops throughout the countiy where they have three or four 
 men to work under the direct snpervision of the man who emi)loys 
 them, he expects them to'wra}) 1,000 cigars Avith a pound iiiid a lialf. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How many pounds will it take of American leaf to wrap 
 1,000 cigars? 
 
 Mr. Tobin. That depends altogether upon how much of this fashion- 
 able kind there is in each pound. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That is what I want to find out; you can state the min- 
 imum and maximum. 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. If this tobacco was all suitable for the wrapper it would 
 
 be in the neighborhood of (5 pounds, with the waste, stem, and coarse 
 
 part of the leaf you would not use. But it takes more than that, 
 
 • because you have to >>elect from snch a large amount of tobacco to get it. 
 
 Mr. Dolliver. It appears from the Treasury reports that at no time 
 between 1867 and 1883 was the importation of leaf tobacco as small as 
 it is now, comparatively. It appears the importation ran from 3,000,000 
 pounds to 13,000,000 pounds every year prior to 1883, when the duty was 
 35 cents i>er pound ? 
 
 Mr. Tobin. Not only the unsettled condition of the country has had 
 a great influence upon the industry of manufacturing, but the revenues 
 will show also that the amount of cigars to be wra])ped fell off'. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The Treasury reports contained all kinds of tobacco 
 manufactured up to 1884?
 
 714 SCHEDULE F. — TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Mr. TOBTN. Yes, sir; I thiuk so. 
 
 Mr. ]30LLIVER. Is tlie cigar- wrapping' industry — I mean tlie farming 
 industry — a recent tiling in this country? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Oh, no, sir ; it alvyays has lieen a very important industry. 
 All cigars manufactured in this country up to the time to which Mr. 
 Payne referred were \yrapped in either Havana wrappers or domestic 
 wrappers grown in this country, and I propose to show in my brief the 
 trade never was so prosperous as during that time, and never made 
 such rapid strides. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. I understand you to claim the preference of the cigar 
 manufacturers for the imported wrapper is purely a fad? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. It is for convenience. They have only, as I stated before, 
 to count the leaves and give them out to the manufacturers and know 
 exactly how many cigars they are to have in return, which saves all the 
 labor which used to be done in cigar manufacturing and transferred it 
 to Europe, where it is done by coolies. 
 
 Mr. KusSELL. Has the quality of the wrapper leaf raised in the 
 United States improved ? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. I think the quality of the wrapper leaf of the last few 
 years has not improved, because it has been neglected. Tliere has been 
 nothing to encourage the grower to raise a good leaf or take good euro 
 of it. He is dead sure to raise it at a loss and has done so for two or 
 three years, and the consequence is it has been entirely neglected, and 
 it is only in Connecticut where a few manufacturers still stick to the 
 wrapper, the American wrapper, that they take pains in growing their 
 tobacco and looking after it, and providing fertilizers to grow it and 
 give it proper care. As a general thing, the tobacco growers have had 
 nothing to encourage them to grow good tobacco. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. is there any difference in the use of the American 
 and imported ])roduct as to the tenacity or toughness of the wrapper? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. No; you can find tough 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. is it tougher? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. You can iind tough tobacco in either. There is tender 
 and tough tobacco in all kinds of tobacco. That does not follow, because 
 any j)articular species of tobacco is tough or tender. The curing has a 
 good deal to do with that. The more thoroughly it is cured the less 
 stretch and tenacity it has, and as a consequence less toughness is in 
 it. That follows in all kinds of tobacco. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You consider them substantially the same in that 
 regard? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Yes, sir; it does not make any difference about that part 
 of it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is there a difference in the flavor? 
 
 Mr. TOBIN. Yes, sir ; decidedly. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is the difference? 
 
 Mr. TOBIN. The Havana tobacco has decidedly the best flavor, the 
 tobacco grown upon the Island of Cuba. I think' the Sumatra tobacco 
 has an infinitely worse flavor than any of these. I think any of these 
 advocates of Sumatra tobacco would rather accept a very high duty on 
 it than smoke a cigar made clear of it to-day, because they would be 
 afraid they would be afraid they Avould lose their breakfast before they 
 got home. 
 
 Mr. DOLLIVER. You say the McKinley rate on this imported leaf 
 was inadeqate and ineffective? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. I think it was. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Do you think we will have to increase that rate 
 before the protection will become effective?
 
 TOBACCO GROWERS. 715 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Before it would be of any benefit to the grower of leaf 
 tobacco. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. So if we leave the rate simply as the McKinley bill 
 had it 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. I do not think the growers would be benefited. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. You think it would be no good, and we would simply 
 throw away one-third of the revenue? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. I do not say that. I will explain those details later. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. if it will not burden you too much, or make too 
 large a document of the statement, will you kindly give the value in 
 the open market for the last ten years of the jiroducts which you design 
 to protect in the United States? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. As near as I can ; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. We will be obliged to you if you will. 
 
 Mr. Steele. You propose to prohibit the introduction of Sumatra 
 and use more of our tobacco? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. I i)ropose to show that the quality of cigars and the 
 prosperity of the manufacturing industry of this country has not been 
 improved at all by the introduction of this fad, and during the time the 
 American tobacco was used for wrapping we never were so prosperous. 
 
 The Chairman. In order that Ave may get the meat in the matter, as 
 I understand it, your contention for the growers rests entirely on 
 wrappers ? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Yes, sir; on wrappers. 
 
 The Chairman. You separate that from the other items'? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. We do not care about Havana fillers ; we think probably 
 that is a benefit. 
 
 The Chairman. The duty on wrappers under the McKinley law^ was 
 $2 per pound ; under the act of 1894 it was reduced to $1.50 per jjouud. 
 Now, the importations of 1893 were 2,30-5,531 pounds. In 1896, under 
 a reduction of duty of 50 cents, the importation jumped up to 4,191,015 
 pounds; in other words, about 80 per cent. Now let us see what the 
 efl'ect was upon the revenue. 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. As soon as the election was over it was given out there 
 ■was to be a reduction under the Wilson bill, and as a consequence the 
 importers ran their stock low and 
 
 The Chairman. Now, the first thing I notice occurred was this : The 
 average value per unit in quantity in 1893 on these wrappers was 84 
 cents per pound. Under the act of 1894 it seems to have been raiged 
 to $1.21 per pound. I notice then that the foreign value of these wrap- 
 pers increased just about the same as the duty was reduced. Now, is 
 there anything following those two things going to show the foreigners 
 simply took advantage of the reduction of duty and raised prices to that 
 extent? Is that the fact, or is there a diit'erent cause? 
 
 Mr. Tobin. I suppose the supply and demand regulate it there, 
 "because it is a notorious fact, it can be produced for infinitely less 
 money. The syndicate which employs this labor, which is an estab- 
 lished fact, divides as high as 100 per cent on the investment of the 
 capital, so it is sure they could produce the tobacco for infinitely less 
 money if they wanted, so all I can say is the fluctation of price is caused 
 by supply and demand. Then there is another thing about it,- As I 
 said during my argument, there are certain fashions of tobacco being 
 imported in such times when the country was filled With Sumatra 
 tobacco. Now, there are certain bright colors and spotted tobacco of 
 late which have been very fashionable, and the quantity contained of 
 a certain crop in Holland made it necessary to meet the demand, and in 
 consequence that tobacco would fetch a very much increased price.
 
 710 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 The Chairman. I notice in tlie year 1S95 tliat the average value of 
 these wrappers was $1.11) and in 189G $1.21 per pound, showing a 
 remarkable uniforiuity in the price of those two years. Now, I notice 
 this, that in the year 18i)3 the foreign valuation of the wrapper was 84 
 cents, with the $-5 duty. That made it worth $2.84, laid down and duty 
 paid. In the year 189G, with 50 cents reduction of duty, I notice that 
 the average v^aluation, duty i)aid, was $2,74, showing only 10 cents 
 difference to the imrchaser here, notwithstanding a reduction of 50 
 cents in duty. Now, is there anything that would indicate or have you 
 any fa(!ts to show whether Sumatra tobacco increased in price about 
 50 cents a pound, or whether it rose merely from the reduction of duty 
 50 cents a pound? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. Well, I have no facts of any kind to show anything here 
 today, as I said. I have no data with me at all. 
 
 Mr. KUSSELL. That is a fact, is it noti 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. I presume so; tliat is taken from the statistics. 
 
 Mr. Russell. That is the fact, that the increase in the ])rice of the 
 Sumatra tobacco was about 50 cents? 
 
 Mr. ToBiN. As I have explained, the ^Vmerican grower is being 
 frozen out all the while and has curtailed the acreage. Is there any- 
 thing further, geutlemeu? 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. J. S. VAN DUZEE, OF HORSEHEADS, N. Y., REP- 
 RESEHTIHG THE CHEMUKG VALLEY TOBACCO GROWERS. 
 
 Monday, January 4, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com- 
 mittee, I want to say that I am not a cigar manulacturer, but I am a 
 grower of tobacco and a farmer. I represent the Chemung A'alley, 
 which comprises a few counties in southern New York, as well as a few 
 counties of northern Pennsylvania. The association, of which 1 am 
 the president, was organized soon after the introduction of Sumatran 
 tobacco. This Sunmtra tobacco, which is taking the place of the better 
 grades of the product of the United States, began coming into this 
 country in appreciable (juantities about 1881. In January, 1885, we 
 organized the Chemung Valley Tobacco Growers' Association, and have 
 ever since been doing what we could to protect ourselves and get a 
 reasonably high protective duty on the tobacco that is coming in" here 
 arul displacing the wrapper part of the American -grown northern cigar 
 wrapper tobacco. We have been treated very kindly by the Ways 
 and Means Committee of two years ago, so far"^as it was possible to be 
 by men who have not all personal, direct knowledge of the situation. 
 
 I believe we were given what was characterized by many as a high 
 degree of protection, but, gentlemen, it is not a question of a rate ad 
 valorem as sought to be brought out by questions suggested to the 
 gentleman who preceded me. There was a remark made here on Sat- 
 urday that covered the ground very largely by a gentleman who, it 
 seemed to me, was very well informed as to matters under discussion. 
 That gentleman told you he had been through Japan, China, and India, 
 and had studied the rates of wages which had prevailed there. lie 
 had also studied the products, which he believed were soon to come 
 materially in competition with the ])rodncts of this country. It is 
 because of that condition of things, gentlemen, we ap])eal to you for 
 protection against a class of goods that lias not only reduced the i)rice 
 which we are receiving for our products, but it has 'nearly annihilated
 
 TOBACCO GROWERS. 717 
 
 this industry. And every time an industry of this nation is wij^ed out 
 or reduced the wealth of the nation is injured, and I want to say to 
 you, gentlemen, that from my experience here before this committee in 
 1890 that the bill that was then formulated was to my mind the grandest 
 measure in the interest of the American agriculturists that has ever 
 been formulated in the halls of Congress. 
 
 While it is occasionally referred to sneeringly and the further fact is 
 referred to that the farmers of the country did not seem to api)reciate 
 it, but allowed the defeat of the party that formulated it, I want to say 
 to you, gentlemen, that the more recent events have given the lie to the 
 statement, because to my mind the gentleman who presided over the 
 committee in 1890. and who has since been elected to the highest place 
 in the American Government, owes that election, owes that eminence to 
 the fact that he stood by and his committee stood by the interests of the 
 American agriculturists, and when the farmers had time to think over 
 the situation, had time to understand the effort being made to protect 
 their interests, they came grandly to his support and to the sujtport of 
 protection. I am a Eepublican; not aEepublican by inheritance, but I 
 am a Eepublican from principle. I do not hesitate to proclaim tliat to 
 the committee. I am a Republican because 1 believe in ])rotection. 
 
 The Chairman. If you will pardon me for interrupting, the committee 
 would like some facts bearing upon this question 5 as to all these other 
 matters 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. I want to say this to the gentlemen — I beg your 
 pardon for the digression, but I Avant to say that I recognize, gentle- 
 men, the dilhculties which surround this committee. Tlie same dif- 
 ficulties surround me. If 1 had the power to formulate a bill, knowing 
 the prejudices which exist, and knowing the fact that they do exist, it 
 would be difficult for me to say at this juncture just Avhat ought to be 
 done; but I would say this: There are 20,000,000 pounds imported of 
 leaf tobacco, and about 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 pounds of this in wrapper 
 tobacco. The rest comes in the country as filler; whether all filler or 
 not, it is a question of dispute — probably not all. In the importation 
 of this wrapper the rate of duty is of course 61.50, and the filler o5 
 cents. I notice the income or revenue derived from the wrapper is 
 about the same as the income derived from the filler; also that the valu- 
 ation of the 15,000,000 pounds of filler is not far different from the 
 5,000,000 pounds of wrapper. Now, we find the financial condition of 
 the Government differs from what it was six years ago. 
 
 Tour committee is seeking more revenue. The country is in a different 
 condition from what it was then. Then you were seeking to reduce the 
 surplus revenue. Now, it strikes me, in planning for more revenue, the 
 farmers are just as badly in want of protection as anybody. I have 
 nothing to say against protecting other industries. If it is possible to 
 derive that 15,000,000 from a less number of pounds, it would seem to 
 me to meet the case and also meet the needs of the farmers, and I 
 believe it could and should be done, because I believe you would be 
 told by gentlemen who represent the cigar manufacturers and leaf 
 dealers that at $5 or $0 duty a considerable amount of these foreign 
 wrappers would be imported into this country. Increased cost will not 
 exclude the foreign wrappers. It is due to the condition made possible 
 by the cheap labor that is employed upon it. It is not only growing 
 tobacco in Sumatra, but it is manufacturing it to a very high degree 
 there, so that the manufacturer of cigars who uses it is not obliged to 
 do very much work, which is made necessary when he attempts "to use 
 the American tobacco, because it is utterly impossible for the American
 
 718 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 to employ labor at from |1 to $1,50 a day to sort and re-sort tobacco, as 
 is done in the case of Sumatran tobacco, so tbat 
 
 Mr. Tawney. What does the labor cost on a x)L»und of Sumatran 
 tobacco ? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. The labor cost is from 5 to 10 cents a day. The 
 labor ranges from 5 to 18 cents. As a gentleman stated here Saturday, 
 there was no skilled labor which received more than 18 cents that he 
 found. jS"ow, we can not compete. It is plain to you even with a 82 
 rate of duty on this tobacco no protection can be afforded. While it 
 may even seem to be exorbitant when considered as an ad valorem duty, 
 it is not exorbitant when you compare it with the relative cost of the 
 labor put upon the tobacco there and the cost of the labor put upon 
 tobacco here. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The committee does not care so much about an argument 
 in regard to an ad valorem rate, but for fiicts and figures showing the 
 cost of raising Sumatra tobacco and tlie cost of raising tabacco here, 
 and especially the practical results of raising tobacco here, and what 
 portion of it is fillers and what portion Avrappers, and tliat sort of 
 information. That is what the committee desires information on more 
 tlian anything else. 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Perhaps some questions had better be asked, then. 
 I supposed this was the foundation point. I have been explaining the 
 difference between Sumatra tobacco and our tobacco, i^ow, I do not 
 wish to detain the committee, and if you will ask questions I will be 
 glad to respond if I can. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It appears the importing price of Sumatra tobacco was 
 from 84 cents over there to $1.22. That must be, of course, not less 
 than the cost. Now, what does it cost to raise wrapper tobacco in the 
 Chemung Valley, for instance. Explain what portion of the tobacco is 
 wrapper, how much it costs to raise tobacco for the purpose of wrapper, 
 filler, and all, and the cost of sorting, and how much it costs the farmer 
 to raise it and put it on the market, per pound of tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Well, gentlemen, that is a very easy question to 
 ask, but a very difficult one to answer, because there are no two (trops 
 of which the cost would be alike. For instance, the crop of 1800 is, I 
 believe, one of the best wrapper crops, and a larger proportion of 
 wrapper to the crop grown than in several years. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What does it cost to raise tliat crop? 
 
 Mr. A^AN Duzer, Do you mean all the crop through, or the wrapper? 
 
 Mr, Payne, I mean including the wrapjjer, filler, binder, etc, 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Well, let me ask, the cost toAvhat stage"? 
 
 Mr. Payne. I mean ready for the market. 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. I should say from 10 to 12 cents a pound, all grades 
 through. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What proportion is suitable for wrappers of this year's 
 crop ? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer, I was told by a dealer who has assorted a great 
 many hundred cases it would nearly average 50 per cent wrappers— 
 "heads," he called them. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That is an unusual yield"? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What proportion of the remaining 50 per cent is suitable 
 for binders'? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. More than 50 per cent of the remaining part is suit- 
 able for binders — probably 70 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Thirty per cent is suitable for liliers?
 
 TOBACCO GROWERS. 719 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Thirty per cent of the part not wrappers, or 15 per 
 cent of the whole. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What do the tillers bring per pound this year? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. To the growers? 
 
 Mr. Payne. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Yan Duzer! Two cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What do the binders bring per pound? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. I do not know of any growers who sell them sepa- 
 rately. Farmers usually sell their crops at one price, though but 
 recently buyers have insisted on naming a common price for the filler 
 part of the crop. Binders under present conditions are Avorth as much 
 as wrappers and are in much better demand. 
 
 Mr. Payne. So 25 per cent of the crop is sold for 2 cents a pound, 
 and for the other 75 per cent in order to get expenses back you must 
 get enough to make it worth 12 cents per pound all around. Is that 
 true"? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Yes, sir: I think it is. 
 
 Mr. Payne. ISTow, how does the foreign tobacco compete with the 
 tobacco that costs 12 cents a pound to raise. In other words, does it 
 take more pounds of your tobacco to wrap 1,000 cigars than the 
 Sumatra? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Y"es ; I have explained that the 12 cents applies to 
 all grades through. It is the average price of binder, filler, and wrap- 
 per. Of course, if we are considering a crop where 50 per cent is wrap- 
 per, the wrapper would not cost near as much as if the crop was 25 
 per cent of wrapper; so you see it would take about 20 cents for the 
 wrapper this year (between 20 and 30 cents, I think), even on the basis 
 of 12 cents through, with only 2 cents for the filler and 7 to 10 cents 
 for the binders. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What was the average last year? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. It was very much less. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How much ? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. I do not think it was over 25 to 30 per cent for the 
 wrapper yield. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The Sumatra leaf is a very thin leaf, is it not? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Yes, sir; such as we get of the Sumatra leaf. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Most all is suitable for wrapper? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. It is, of all im])orted here. 
 
 Mr. Payne. So a pound will wrap a great many more cigars than a 
 pound of our wrapper after it is selected? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. That is not altogether on account of the lightness. 
 If as many days' work were put on the sorting of our tobacco, we could 
 get out wrappers that would equal Sumatra, but then the wrapper 
 would cost more than Sumatran, duty and all, for our labor is so much 
 higher. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is it tougher? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. If*you will permit me, I want to say I have a letter 
 from this same dealer of whom 1 have been si)eaking, and he refers to 
 one or two jioints better than I can. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Eead the letter. 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. I received it yesterday, with some samples of 
 tobacco, which, of course, if the committee wants to see, I will show 
 later. 
 
 Elmira, N. Y., January 1, 1897. 
 Dear Sir: We have sent to yoii to-day, by express company, samples of wrapper 
 tobacco grown in tlie "Bi^- Flats" district and taken from tlae crops now being 
 assorted by us in our warehouse.
 
 720 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 The liands of tohiicco (tags marked sample No. 1, two of tlium) roprescnt a low grade 
 in our packiug, called niisoiuid binders, but because of the rusty spots on them aud 
 the fact that tlicy closely imitate the spotted Sumatra certain manufarturers ask us 
 to save such leaves aud pack them by themselves, as they can use them to wrap cigars 
 with and can mix them in with cigars wrapped Avith spotted 8unuitra, as they pack 
 them iu the boxes. Hands of tobacco with the tags marked sample No. 2 (three of 
 them) are the next close imitation of Sumatra because of the small vein and yield. 
 
 These three samples contain 70 leaves and weigh but 10^^ ounces. In other words, 
 they are as lino as Sumatra. 
 
 Those bauds of toliacco marked sample No. 3 (four of them) represent our dark 
 wrappers, which are now used for wrapping stogies ouly. 
 
 Those hands marked No. 4 lepreseut the light wrappers (ten of them). Five years 
 ago there was a ready sale for all the wrappers we could put up of these grades, aud 
 we could get from 35 to 50 cents per pound. Now we can sell every other grade iu our 
 packing before the wrappers, and Ave can only get from 12 to 20 cents for them. 
 
 In 1891 Ave packed 4,000 cases of Big Flats tobacco at an average cost of 17:^ cents 
 per pound, or 15^: cents per jyouud to the grower. Now our packing must not ( ost us 
 to exceed 9 cents per jiound, or, as Ave get it from the grower, to exceed from G to 7 cents 
 per pound. Why ? Because Sumatra hae driven our domestic wrappers out of use in 
 wrapping domestic cigars. 
 
 We are, sir, A'ery respectfully, yours, 
 
 Armstroxg & Mather. 
 
 Hon. .T. S. Van Duzer, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Mr. Van Duzee.. That is tlie whole of the letter, except a little Avliich 
 is personal at tlie bottom. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Will yon exi)lain right there hovv tobacco costing 
 $1.21 drives out tobacco whicli costs the rates he gives theie? 
 
 Mr. Van DuzEii. Yes, sir; it is because of the foolishness of the 
 American i)eoi)le in thinking that a thing because it is imported is of 
 necessity better. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You think that is all there is in it! 
 
 Mr. Van Duzek. That is all there is in it; it is a fad. Wc havo a 
 better wrapper, Ave grow a better Avrai)per, and grow it at a great 
 deal 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Thei-e is nothing then in the statement made a mo- 
 ment ago by your predecessor that 1 pound of Sumatra weighs much 
 less than a pound 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Sixteen ounces or 12? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What I mean is that American tobacco that will 
 wra]) 1,000 cigars weighs much less than foreign tobacco that Avill wrap 
 1,000 cigars! 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. He did not state that. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I so understood him. 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. You say to me he stated it took less pounds of 
 American tobacco than it does of foreign tobacco ? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. No; 1 said there was nothing in his statement that 
 the foreign tobacco that would wrap 1.000 cigars weighed less than 
 the domestic tobacco which would wrap 1,000 cigars. 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. That is true with this undersfanding, that it is 
 more due to the condition of the leaf than it is to the leaf itself. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is the condition ? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. The condition which I have explained is the 
 extreme amount of care and labor that has been put u])on tlie leaf, 
 amounting to an advanced stage of manufacturing — that is, the condi- 
 tion of leaf and its grading, Avhich is made possible by the extreme 
 cheapness of the labor. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. There is not much difference, then, in the thickness 
 of the texture "? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Not nnich. The statement in the letter is true; 
 here are the 70 leaves which weigh but 1()\ ounces. You know the
 
 TOBACCO GROWERS. 721 
 
 100-leaf clause in reference to a pound of tobacco was one of the leading 
 features of the old tariff. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What rate of duty do you suggest as a correct one? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. I do not wish at this time to advise the oouiuiittee 
 with reference to that. I would like to have a rate of duty that 1 do 
 not think the courage of the party is sufficient to meet. I would like 
 to have a rate of duty that I believe the cigar men and the leaf men 
 and the smokers and the consumers would all agree upon. We want 
 a rate of duty that will substantially- keep this thing out or at least 
 largely cut down its importation. I dare not suggest it, because I do 
 not believe you are in a state of mind to give it to us. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The revenue derived from that source, from those 
 two qualities, last year was above 811,000,000. Will you suggest if the 
 rate which you jiropose, if a prohibitory rate is imj^osed, from what 
 source you will get the revenue which will be cut off ? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzek. I would not impose a prohibitory rate. I think the 
 cigar and leaf men will agree with me that it is almost impossible to do 
 it within any bounds whatever. I would impose a restrictive rate; and 
 I state it here quietly and carefully, that it would be just as well to 
 raise that $11,000,000 on 2,000,000 pounds as it is to raise it from 
 20,000,000 pounds, and I believe instead of raising that $11,000,000 
 from 20,000,000 j)ouuds, as a matter of fact, if we put on a tariff of $5 
 or $6 a pound on wrapper leaf and 50 cents per pound on filler leaf, 
 instead of raising the $11,000,000 you would raise $20,000,000 or 
 $25,000,000, while the American tobacco farmers would have a demand 
 for their wrappers to take the place of half of the foreign wrappers 
 now used on our cigars. 
 
 Mr. Payne. A large per cent of the Sumatra wrapper grown is fit 
 for wrappers ? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. 1 think it is. I think it is absolutely worihiess for 
 anything else. 
 
 ivir. Payne. Will you answer my question "? Is a large per cent of 
 the crop fit for wrappers'? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Payne, You are not able to state that? Could you make a cigar 
 out of the Sumatra leaf, filler, binder, and wrapper, and all, that any 
 man has a strong enougii taste to smoke and live through the operation ? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. I could not answer from ])ersoual experience in that 
 regard ; but I will say I have heard reported from men who I think 
 knew what they were talking about that it was vile stuff that no 
 smoker would tolerate at all. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. What brand of cigars have you! 
 
 Mr, Van Duzer, I have some cigars that I would be glad to have 
 you examine. Let me say in reference to these cigars that I stopped at 
 Elmira — I live six miles from there — and I went around todifferent man- 
 ufacturers to see if I could not find some cigars of 10-cent grade wrapped 
 with American-grown leaf. There was not a man in the business that 
 had one. Every such cigar was wrapped with Cuban or Suraatran 
 tobacco. They had some cigars for 5 cents — nickel cigars — but I did 
 not want such, for I wanted good tobacco inside as well as on the out- 
 side; so I suggested to them that tliey pick out some wrappers good 
 enougli out of their domestic binders and put them on their regular 10- 
 cent cigars. There are three Sumatra- wrapped cigars in that box, and 
 the rest are wrapped with cigar wrappers picked out of binders. They 
 are 10-cent cigars, and there is the brand on the box. The filler is 
 Havana. They are all the same cigar except the wrapper of those 
 T H 40
 
 722 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 three, on wliicli the Avrapper is Sumatra, and the rest are cigars wrapped 
 with wrappers taken from domestic binders. Here is another cigar, a 
 brand made by Mr. Sullivan, and these cigars are also wrapped with 
 wrappers taken out of binders. The brand is regularly put upon the 
 market with Sumatran wrappers, but these are made to order for me 
 with domestic wrappers. 
 
 IMr. Payne. It appears that something over 4,000,000 pounds of for- 
 eign wrappers were imported? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzek. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What during the same time was the number of pounds 
 of domestic wrappers used in this country, can you state? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. I must rely more on statements of other men, but 
 1 am informed by Mr. Shroeder, who tells me as many cigars, taking all 
 grades together, are now wrapped with domestic wrapper as with 
 Sumatra; but I should say outside of such a statement that three- 
 quarters of the four thousand millions of cigars were wrapped with 
 foreign wrappers, but I think he ought to know more about this than I 
 do. I do not mean to dispute Mr. Shroeder, and I am frank enough to 
 say that there are some things he knows that I do not, and I may know 
 some things which he does not. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Would the rate of 1890 do the wrapper business any 
 good? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Very little. I think you can not raise it 50 cents 
 without having some effect, because people like to get the wrappers as 
 cheap as they can, and I think they would have a little better opinion 
 of the domestic wrapper witli a $2 duty, and a still better opinion if it 
 was 83 and 84, or 85 would nmke our wrapper look beautiful and good 
 to the manufacturer, and tlie smoker would lose his hankering for the 
 foreign leaf, and he would give it up. The more you i)ut a temptation 
 before them to restore the demand for the domestic groAvn leaf the more 
 you help the farmer. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Are these wrap])ers selected from the binders of the 
 same quality as the American wrapper? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Yes; they are grown in our own valley. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. I mean the same quality the wrapi)er would be? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Practically. These selections were not sorted 
 closely for wrappers, because we had no longer a demand for wrappers. 
 Wc try to i)nt off as binders everything tliat makes a good and service- 
 able binder, because there is a condition of things where the binder is 
 worth as much as tlie wrapper or more. 
 
 Mr. Evans. What is the difference between a binder and a wrapper? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. A binder is a leaf that would not change or affect 
 the flavor of the cigar. 
 
 Mr. Evans. What do you mean by binder? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. The leaf that is wrapped around the cigar just 
 under the wrapper, Now, they were generallj' grown on the lower 
 part of the plant, and these leaves were riper than the upper part and 
 hence the flavor was less marked — without flavor, you may say, and 
 that is what is desired in the binder. 
 
 Mr. Payne. In using these Sumatra wrappers is American tobacco 
 generally used for fillers? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. There are some American tobaccos used as fillers, 
 yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne, Do they use the American tobacco for bind'ers? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payke. You did not bring along any specimen of cigars made 
 out of Havana tobacco, did you?
 
 TOBACCO GROWERS. 723 
 
 Mr. Van Buzer. Havana wrappers ? I want to say, gentlemen, there 
 is the full Havana filler in all the cigars of both of the boxes before 
 you, so you need not be afraid to smoke them. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I would like to ask one question. In comi)uting the 
 cost of raising tobacco in New York at 13 cents a pound do you include 
 in that the expense of taxes on the farm and interest on the capital 
 invested in those high-priced lands! 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Oh, I think so; yes, sir. It is hard to get at the 
 cost of growing a crop of anything on a farm. I have been a farmer all 
 my life, and it is a very difficult thing to state what the crop costs, it 
 so varies with the seasons. I would like to have the committee, either 
 at recess or some other time, examine these samples; I think there is 
 some instruction in them. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. It is true, I believe, too, that one year it costs more 
 to raise a crop than another. 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Yes, sir; it is true of cotton, corn, and other prod- 
 ucts. The farmers are at the mercy of nature, the timely sui)ply of 
 water, and in many other ways. They grow a great many crops that 
 they do not get the cost out of. Sometimes they get a great crop and 
 get a good price. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. I understood you to say the manufacturers, smokers 
 of tobacco, and tobacco raisers would all agree in asking for a tariff 
 which would keep out all importations, l^ow, I want to ask you how 
 we would raise $11,000,000 or any revenue if that is so? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. If I said that I did not really mean it. I stated 1 
 was not in favor of a prohibitory, but a restrictive tariff duty. I said 
 some would come in, and I believe a duty of f 5 or $G a pound would be 
 so far restrictive it would probably do away with the competition of 
 that tobacco, and for that, if we thought you were willing to do it, 
 we believe that the cigar manufacturers and leaf dealers and smokers 
 would be altogether in favor of it, but they do not want us to throw a 
 little soj) to the farmer and increase the cost to them of this tobacco. 
 They say they would rather have a uniform rate of duty on everything 
 for which there is 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. You want it oOO per cent above the McKinley rate? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. I do not care what per cent you have. If we are 
 going to have protection — if it takes 300, or 400, or 500, or 1,000 per 
 cent, it is all right, for there is that much difference between our labor 
 and Chinese labor. The difference between $1 a day and 10 cents a 
 day is more than 300 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What proi^ortion of that now imported do you think 
 would be excluded under the $6 rate you mentioned? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Of course this is guesswork, gentlemen, and some 
 of these cigar men can tell you better than I, but I estimate a couple of 
 million pounds will come in anyhow. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. H. S. FRYE, OF WINDSOR, CONN. 
 
 Monday, Jamiary 4, 1897. 
 Mr. Frye said : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the conmiittee, I am 
 very sorry to say that I have, as a result of circumstances over which 
 I have absolutely no control, been unable to i^repare a brief for use 
 to day, which I would rather have done, for I am entirely unaccustomed 
 to public si)eaking. I do not care to occupy more than two or three 
 minutes of your time to i)lead for the industry which I represent, and
 
 724 SCHEDULE F. — TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 which industry the gentleman who preceded me, and doubtless some 
 who will follow, are perfectly aware will be wiped out of existence in 
 this country if the law which you are now considering be not adopted. 
 It certainly will be wiped out in New England if the duty that is advo- 
 cated, 50 or 55 cents a pound, is not enacted into law. The only sal- 
 vation of the tobacco industry in New England — it is not necessary for 
 me to go all over the whole United States in this matter— is to put the 
 duty high enough to in some measure protect for the domestic producer 
 what little there is left of the home market. We have nearly been 
 robbed of the whole of that market, having but a remnant of it left. 
 The fact is that nearly all the cigars manufactured in this country 
 to-day are covered by foreign leaf. We are the victims of circum- 
 stances. 
 
 The discovery was made in an island over in the Pacific Ocean, close 
 by the doors of China, that it would produce leaf tobacco whose wrap- 
 per in capacity and appearance made it a competitor on equal terms 
 with that raised in this country. 
 
 Prior to 1890 we asked protection against that competition, and suc- 
 ceeded in getting a nominally higher duty; but in reality it did not 
 amount to anything, because the law was evaded. That was the result 
 of the necessity of the gentlemen Avho are engaged in furnishing the 
 manufacturers in this country with wrappers. In 1890, as I say, we 
 succeeded iii getting a tariff that we believed, when we advocated it, 
 would be fairly ])rotective, and that it would leave us what was left of 
 our home market. Our establishment, and I presume the establish- 
 ments of others, found it did not prove as strongly protective as we 
 had hoped, and yet we did receive during 1891 and 1892 some benefit 
 from it, and those two years were prosperous years — at least more so 
 than we have had since the introduction of Sumatra tobacco became of 
 any moment. 
 
 1 want right here to observe that in the changes in the tariff' laws we 
 have never had the full benefit of those changes. The presumption 
 was, when the law of 1890 was passed, that we would have the full 
 benefit of that law for four years, but as a matter of fact we lost most 
 of that benefit, and only got it practically for two and one-half years, 
 because of the enormous importations that these xjeople were able to 
 bring into this country shortly after the law was passed. I have heard 
 some of these gentlemen who are dealers in foreign tobacco advocate 
 a high duty on tobacco, so that by bringing iu large quantities they 
 might get the benefit afterwards of the high duty. 
 
 Another noticeable fact — and that has been alluded to, and I think 
 there is no question about it — is that when the duty on tobacco, made 
 by the McKinley Act, was raised to $2, the price of tobacco imported 
 into this country immediately rose to about the same price as the 
 amount of the advance in the duty. I think that the reports of the 
 Sumatra companies, or the reports from Amsterdam, of the average 
 price of Sumatra tobacco will also show that there was an increase. 
 
 We believe, gentlemen, from the past history of the introduction and 
 use of that tobacco into this country, that the enormously high duty 
 would not be prohibitive even if it were made from $4 to $6 a pound ; 
 in fact, I have heard gentlemen who have advocated the duty say they 
 believed there would be about as much used if it were $4 or $5 a i^ound 
 as there is used now. If this is the case, I do not suppose that they 
 would say so here to-day; but if it is the case, you can see that it would 
 enormously increase the prospective revenue if you raise the duty on 
 that class of tobacco. 
 
 I
 
 TOBACCO GROWERS. 725 
 
 I want also to allude to the fact that the revenues from leaf-tobacco 
 imports were not considerably higher until Congress saw fit to add the 
 discriminating- duty upon this particular kind of tobacco. Now, 
 gentlemen, leaf tobacco is one of those things that varies in value 
 throughout the world, perhaps more than any other one thing that is an 
 agricultural product, for tobacco is worth anywhere from one-half cent 
 to $10 a pound, the lower price being its value for fertilizing purposes. 
 
 Why should an article which is very high in value be allowed to come 
 into this country, when confessedly and without question its high i^rice, 
 as is the case of this Sumatra tobacco, is because it is simply an article 
 of luxury and fancy, a thing that has simply captured the trade of this 
 country in cigars. Why should this tobacco be allowed to come here at 
 the same rate of duty as other tobacco coming from foreign countries at 
 the low rate? Why do we make a difference in the rates on silks and 
 other articles of clothing? There is a general principle underlying that, 
 I suppose, and that is that luxuries sliould pay higher rates of duty. 
 On that ground we ask a higher rate of duty on this article of luxury, 
 which is simply a fad, and that is perhaps a slang phrase, but it is an 
 article which has captured the home market for domestic wrappers. 
 I i^resume it will be said, if it has not been already said, that we can 
 not i)roduce wrappers for all the cigars made in this country. How 
 absurd? Up to 1880 we wrapped every single cigar made in this coun- 
 try, excei)t the clear Havana, and those were not a large factor. The 
 product used in wrappers prior to 1880 was entirely satisfactory to the 
 American public, so far as I know. I have heard men say that today 
 they can not get as good a cigar as the old-fashioned Connecticut- 
 Havana seed, called the seed-Havana cigar. Their quality has been 
 deteriorated by the use of this foreign wrapper. 
 
 Mr. Russell. Can you tell about what has been the decrease in the 
 production of wrappers in your State of Connecticut in the last two or 
 three years'? 
 
 Mr. Frye. I can not tell you that, but the other day I ran across a 
 report made by a paper in New England, the New England Homestead, 
 a local paper circulating through the tobacco districts, and wliich has 
 been taking x>ains to give the local tobacco news. I thought that ques- 
 tion would be asked, and so I preserved this slip. I see by this report 
 that the total production in cases for New England — it is not uniform, 
 but it will average about 300 pounds to the acre — the total for New 
 England in 1892 was 05,718 cases; in 1896 it was 55,910 cases, a differ- 
 ence of a little over 10,000 cases. 
 
 Mr. EussELL. It would not be more difficult to increase it in that 
 proportion than it has been to decrease it? 
 
 Mr. Frye. Certainly not. We can increase the production of tobacco 
 wlienever it becomes profitable. I will read this slip: 
 
 A New Milford correspoudent of the United States Tobacco Journal says: ''The 
 tobacco culture in this valley has declined very materially in late years. Four, tive, 
 six, and eight years ago tobacco raising was a flourishing industry with our farmers, 
 'llien most every farmer from Newtown, Conn., north to Lee, Mass., a distance of 75 
 miles, raised some tobacco. I could mention a dozen towns that formerly jiroduced 
 (|uite a large quantity of tobacco which now scarcely produce any. Notable among 
 them are the towns of Woodbury, Southbury, Newtown, Cornwall, and Canaan in 
 this State, and Ashley Falls, Sheffield, and Great Barrington in Massachusetts. The 
 town of Woodbury in former years produced about 75 acres of tobacco annually. 
 I'his year there are just 3 acres in that town divided among 4 growers. The whole 
 of the 1896 Housatonic crop will not exceed 2,800 cases, while in 1893 it was 3.000 
 cases. The decline is entirely due to the low prices that have prevailed for the last 
 three years."
 
 726 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Mr. Wheelee. What lias taken the place of the tobacco crop in your 
 State? 
 
 Mr. Frye. I do not know anything that can take its place. 
 
 M]'. Tawney. I suppose that General Wheeler wants to know what 
 the farmers are now raising in place of tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Frye. Absolutely nothing. There is no agricultural crop that 
 can be substituted for tobacco in New England. What other crop which 
 our soil will produce will give employment all the year round, which is 
 done in assorting and handling throughout the winter as well as the 
 summer? 
 . Mr. Tawney. Are you a grower of tobacco ? 
 
 Mr. Frye. Yes, sir; that is the only way that I have made my living 
 for twenty years. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. To what extent does the cheap labor of the island of 
 Sumatra enter into competition with the growers in this country? 
 
 Mr. Frye. The product of that labor has practically diiven out of 
 the home market the producer of wraj)per leaf. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Is it the difference in labor cost that injures you most, 
 or the difference in the quality of the wrappers? 
 
 Mr. Frye, Of course, if we have to pay the price of labor, which we 
 do, our wages are 150 per cent higher than others. We hear a great 
 deal said about percentages. There is a difference of about 150 per 
 cent. We are not competing with the cheap labor of Europe, but the 
 still cheaper Asiatic labor of the West Indies. If you want to know 
 what I pay for my labor to-day — I am only a small grower and can 
 not employ a great many people — but I am employing three through 
 the winter, and they get $1.50 per daj'. I ask the committee if they 
 know anywhere else that common foreign laborers received $1.50 per 
 day the year round. I can tell you what effect that reduction had upon 
 the labor in my section. I am speaking of things which I know. Prior 
 to the enactment of the McKinley Act about $1.50 a day was the usual 
 average wages on tobacco farms in New England, and for two years, in 
 1891 and 1892, I paid $2.25 to $2.50 per day. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Is not that the wages of certain people who are experts 
 or who are trained in that work? 
 
 Mr. Frye. Certainly. They are accustomed to working in tobacco. 
 I would not expect a man to milk cows as well as if he had been brought 
 up on a dairy farm. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. How much of the price that you receive for 100 pounds 
 of tobacco is represented by labor? 
 
 Mr. Frye. The cost of fertilizer will be $60 to $80 per acre. I would 
 have to figure that up; but it is about two thirds of the cost for labor 
 and the rest of it for fertilizer. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Will that percentage hold good on the Island of 
 Sumatra? 
 
 Mr. Frye. I could not tell you. 
 
 Mr. Steele. You say you paid $60 per acre for fertilizer? 
 
 Mr. Frye. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Dolliyer. Did I understand you to say that if we put $5 a pound 
 on that Sumatra tobacco it would still be used substantially? 
 
 Mr. Frye. I do not think it would be a prohibitive duty. I do not 
 believe the tobacco men generally in this room believe that $5 would 
 be prohibitive. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Then what substantial good would it do the growers 
 if that duty would not keep it out!
 
 TOBACCO GROWERS. 727 
 
 Mr. Frye. While $5 would not substantially proliibit it, it would 
 keep out about half of it. If you give us a duty that will allow us to 
 wrap a 5- cent cigar, the one that is smoked by the great masses of our 
 people, that is all we will ask. 
 
 Mr. Russell. How many cigars will a pound of Sumatra leaf wrap? 
 
 Mr. Frye. The largest mauufsicturers in New York ought to know, 
 and 1 have been told by them that they can now wrap 1,000 cigars with a 
 pound and a half. I think that statement can be substantiated, that a 
 pound and a half will wrap 1 ,000 cigars. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. You had a decided increase in the protective duty 
 under the McKinley bill as compared with the duty before that time ? 
 
 Mr. Frye. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. You came here and made an earnest support of 
 that increased duty, and your Eepresentatives in Congress were active 
 in procuring an advance in the McKinley bill? 
 
 Mr. Frye. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. But your people did not stand by them afterwards. 
 After the Eepresentatives took that action, tlie people turned around 
 and repudiated that action and defeated both of the Eepresentatives. 
 
 Mr. Frye. I am very sorry to say that they did repudiate that 
 action, but we have repented in sackcloth and ashes ever since, and if 
 you don't believe me, look at the vote of Connecticut at the last 
 election. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. How did the price of your crop in 1890 compare with 
 the amount received in 1895? 
 
 Mr. Frye. In 1891 and 1892 I sold tobacco in the field before it was 
 harvested. A broker came along and said, "I will give yon so much 
 for your tobacco.'' I said, "You can have it at 30 cents a x)ound in the 
 field." He agreed to that, and he came along in March or April and I 
 delivered the tobacco and got 30 cents for it. In 1890 I sold it for 19 
 cents. I got a higher price than the average price. I did not get as 
 much as one or two others who sold before me did. But as compared 
 with the average I got a high price. I have made a little money this 
 year in tobacco. 
 
 For some reason or other we pay more for labor in Connecticut than 
 they do in New York State. They say they can grow it for V2 cents, 
 but to grow it in my section costs about 15 cents. It costs me about 
 $2,500 a year to grow my tobacco. In 1893 and 1891, at an expendi- 
 ture of $5,000, I realized $1,700 for these two crops of tobacco. That 
 was partly accounted for by bad seasons and the competition, of course, 
 of foreign tobacco which has been constantly increasing. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Was it not caused by large importations? 
 
 Mr. Frye. Not mainly. I propose to be honest with the committee. 
 In 1891 the crop was damaged by a hailstorm so that I only got $600 
 ■ for it. It would not be right to lay that to the McKinley bill. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Y"ou made a strong argument in favor of an ad valo- 
 rem duty because you stated that tobacco sales throughout the world 
 vary in price from one-half cent to $0 per j)ound? 
 
 JVir. Frye. I think that is true. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. And therefore an ad valorem duty would be best? 
 
 Mr. Frye. I say that we would like two rates of duty. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. What are the other principal items of cost besides 
 labor in raising tobacco? 
 
 Mr. Frye. Fertilizer. We have to depend entirely upon fertilizer. 
 We are growing tobacco now on a system that we never thought we
 
 728 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 would be able to carry out. We are keeping tobacco on the same land 
 all tlie time. 
 
 Mr. Tav>^ney. Do you use fertilizer generally where tobacco is pro- 
 duced"^ 
 
 Mr. Frye. Yes, sir; but not so much on the soils m the Connecticut 
 
 Valley. 
 
 Mr.' Wheeler. Does that apply to the conditions of raising tobacco 
 on the Island of Sumatra? 
 
 Mr. Frye. It does not. They have used new lands. We did have 
 some hope that in time those lands would be exhausted and we thought 
 they could not continue to raise good tobacco, but we have had our 
 hopes blasted on that subject, because I understand that they are now 
 using fertilizer on the old lauds and doing it very successfully. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. H. S. FRYE. PRESI- 
 DENT OF THE NEW ENGLAND TOBACCO GROWERS' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Eepresenting directly the leaf-tobacco interests of ]S'ew England, 
 and speaking generally in behalf of those interests wherever they may 
 exist in this country, I respectfully submit for your consideration the 
 proposition that tariff legislation upon tobacco can not be based upon 
 any of the ordinary rules applicable to articles of necessity or of gen- 
 eral commerce; that it is recognized as a legitimate object for taxation 
 and a fruitful source of revenue in all civilized countries; that in many 
 it is a Government monopoly, made so for the sole purpose of exacting 
 the utmost revenue irom it. 
 
 I believe that in recommending tariff legislation on tobacco imports 
 by your honorable body, you will be governed largely not only by con- 
 sideration of revenue to be derived, but that it will be the intent and 
 purpose to frame a law upon leaf-tobacco imports that, while largely 
 increasing the revenue, will afford a fair and equitable protection to a 
 large agricultural industry engaged in the production of tobacco. It 
 is well known to your honorable body that within a few years a new 
 i'oreign competition in our home market has appeared in the lorm of a 
 foreign Avrapper for cigars, unique in the respect that it is imported for 
 no other purpose, and that is rapidly driving out of our home market 
 the product of our American farms, thus entailing serious loss to those 
 who have engaged in the cultivation of leaf tobacco for cigar imrposes. 
 I will in this connection only refer to the fact tliat our people have in 
 most instances invested the results of a lifetime of labor in the buildings 
 and appliances necessary to the industry, all of which has been largely 
 depreciated already and which would become an absolute loss when the 
 competition of foreign wrapper leaf shall have driven the American Avrap- 
 per leaf out of the home market, as it surely will do in the near future 
 unless higher rates of duty are ydaced upon it. So strong a hold in our 
 market has the latter obtained that it is now the consensus of opinion, 
 not only of the farmers, but of the entire leaf trade, that a higher duty 
 than ever before placed upon it will not to any considerable extent 
 restrict the use and consumption of it in this country, and therefore 
 the logical conclusion arrived at is that a largely increased revenue will 
 result. 
 
 A proposition is before your honorable body that the duty on wrapper 
 leaf shall be largely reduced, $1 per pound below the present rate, and 
 15 cents per pound of duty be added upon other leaf commonly known
 
 TOBACCO GROWERS. 
 
 729 
 
 as ''filler," thus making a uniform duty of 50 cents per pound. In view 
 of the fact that 95 per cent or more of our filler imports come from the 
 Island of Cuba, that these imports have practically ceased, and that 
 owing to the devastating effects of a war (the end of which no man 
 can tell) tobacco inijiorts from Cuba, if any, must be very small for one 
 if not two years to come, the folly of sacrificing $1 per pound revenue 
 annually upon 3,00l),0()0 to 4,000,000 pounds of wrapper becomes too 
 apparent to be considered for a moment. As the case stands to day, 
 and prospectively for some time to come, no material increase of lev- 
 enue from tobacco imports can be reasonably expected except from an 
 increased duty upon wrapper leaf. Laying aside all personal interest 
 in the matter, I am convinced that some point between $2 per pouiul 
 and $3 per pound would be that which would yield the most revenue. 
 The manufacturers insist that the trade demands now make the con- 
 tinned use of Sumatra wrappers an absolute necessity, and many say 
 that they would continue to use it if the duty was $5 per pound. 
 
 EFFECT OF THE REDUCTION OF DUTY BY TARIFF OF 1894 UPON THE 
 LEAF-TOBACCO INDUSTRY. 
 
 In the absence of estimates of crops by the United States Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture for the years 1889 to 1892, we have had to depend 
 upon a farm-to-farm census, as reliable, we believe, as the usual esti- 
 mates of the Department: 
 
 Xumber of planters and acreage. 
 
 'New Hampshire 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Masisachnsetts .. 
 Connecticut 
 
 Total is'e\r England. 
 
 New York 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Total. 
 
 Number o 
 
 f growers. 
 
 Number of acres. 
 
 1896. 
 
 1892. 
 
 1896. 
 
 1895. 
 
 1892. 
 
 29 
 48 
 953 
 
 2,970 
 
 32 
 
 69 
 
 1,165 
 
 3,353 
 
 43 
 
 120 
 
 2,849 
 
 8,262 
 
 54 
 
 108 
 
 2,768 
 
 8,170 
 
 85 
 
 164 
 
 3,666 
 
 9,851 
 
 4,000 
 
 4,619 
 
 11, 274 
 
 11, 100 
 
 13, 766 
 
 2.324 
 9. 500 
 
 7,500 
 2, 800 
 
 4,175 
 
 13, 425 
 
 8,000 
 
 5,160 
 
 4,535 
 17, 463 
 19, 000 
 10, 500 
 
 5, 712 
 19, 435 
 22, 500 
 11, 381 
 
 12, 272 
 30, 000 
 25, 000 
 20, 000 
 
 26, 124 
 
 35, 379 
 
 62, 772 
 
 70, 128 
 
 101, 038 
 
 Note. — In the absence of the complete system of keeping account of the crop in the States of Penn- 
 sylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin, as perfected for New England and New York by a farm-to-farm cen- 
 sus, the data for the three States named are partly estimated. 
 
 Yield per acre and total crop. 
 
 
 Pounds per acre. 
 
 Yield (cases of 350 pounds). 
 
 
 1896. 1 
 
 1895. 
 
 1892. 
 
 1896. 
 
 1895. 1 
 
 1892. 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Massachusetts -. 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 1,575 ; 
 I, 600 
 
 1, 700 I 
 1,750 1 
 
 1,750 
 1,575 
 1,681 
 1,721 
 
 1,634 
 1,624 
 1,633 
 1,664 
 
 222 
 
 548 
 
 13, 838 
 
 41, 338 
 
 270 ; 
 
 486 
 13,016 
 40, 19U 
 
 397 
 
 761 
 
 17, 104 
 
 47, 486 
 
 Total New England 
 
 \ 
 
 
 55, 946 
 17,492 
 74, 841 
 43, 429 
 30, 000 
 
 53, 962 
 20, 764 
 55, 528 
 38, 751 
 22, 762 
 
 65,748 
 
 New York 
 
 1,350 
 
 1,500 
 
 800 
 
 1,000 
 
 1,274 
 
 1,000 
 
 600 
 
 700 
 
 1,882 
 
 1,000 
 
 750 
 
 892 
 
 43, 381 
 85. 714 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 53, 600 
 51,428 
 
 Total 
 
 
 
 221, 708 
 
 191, 587 
 
 299, 871 
 
 

 
 730 
 
 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 PRICES AND VALUES. 
 
 Average prices at wliich the 1895 crop sold and at which the market 
 for 1892 leaf opened are given in this table, together with the total 
 value of last year's (1896) crop at (a) the prices paid in 1895, and (&) 
 could growers have received the average opening prices of four years 
 ago. 
 
 _ 
 
 Average price. 
 
 
 Total value of crop. 
 
 
 
 1895. 
 
 1892. 
 
 1895. 
 
 1892. 
 
 1890. (a) 
 
 1890. (6) 
 
 
 Cents. 
 9 
 9 
 9 
 9 
 
 Cents. 
 25 
 25 
 27 
 26 
 
 $8, 000 
 
 15, 000 
 
 410, 000 
 
 1, 265, 000 
 
 $35, 000 
 
 66, 000 
 
 1,445,000 
 
 4, 507, 000 
 
 $7, 000 
 
 17, 000 
 
 436, 000 
 
 1, 302, 000 
 
 $19, 500 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Jlassachusetts 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 48, 000 
 1, 308, 000 
 3, 702, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1, 699, 000 
 581, 000 
 
 1, 166, 000 
 675, 000 
 318, 668 
 
 6. 053, 000 
 
 2, 278, 000 
 
 3, 600, 000 
 1, 787, 500 
 1, 799, 980 
 
 1, 762, 000 
 90, 000 
 
 1, 580, 000 
 759, 000 
 420, 000 
 
 5, 137, 500 
 
 New York 
 
 8 
 6 
 5 
 4 
 
 15 
 
 12 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 918, 000 
 3, 143, 000 
 
 Ohio.... 
 
 1,368,000 
 1, 050, 000 
 
 
 
 Total . . 
 
 
 
 4, 439, 668 
 
 15, 518, 480 
 
 3, Oil, 000 
 
 11, 616, 500 
 
 
 
 There must be some reason for this large decrease in product and 
 still larger decrease iu prices. Perhaps the following will account for 
 part of it : 
 
 Imports of wrapper leaf and amount of cigars covered ivith same, based on the estimate of 
 :2 pounds 7'equired per 1,000 cigars. 
 
 [Tariff of 1890.] 
 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1893 
 
 
 2,362,531 
 
 1894 
 
 
 2,850,738 
 
 Total 
 
 
 ! 5.213.269 
 
 1 
 
 Average per year, 2,606,634 pounds, wrapped at 2 pounds per 1,000, equal 1,303,317,000 cigars. 
 
 [Tariff of 1894.] 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1895 . . 
 
 3, 109, 959 
 
 1896 
 
 4,191,015 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 7, 300, 974 
 
 
 
 Average per year, 3,650,487 pounds, wrapped at 2 pounds per 1,000, equal 1,825,243,500 cigars. Sub- 
 tracting 1,363,317,000, equals 521,426,000 more cigars covered with foreign wrappers annually than 
 during the previous two years. 
 
 That the great decrease in the price of the product from 1892, under 
 the tarift' of 1890, to that of 1895, under the tariff of 1894, is entirely due 
 to the reduction of duty of 50 cents per pound, I am not prepared to 
 say. Some of it is probably due to the inevitably increased use of 
 Sumatra that would have occurred had the duty remained at $2, as 
 events have proved that that rate of duty is not perceptibly restrict- 
 ive. Per contra, as showing the results of an increase of duty from 
 the 1883 tariff, average 40 cents per ijouud, to the 1890 tariff, of $2 per
 
 TOBACCO GROWEES. 731 
 
 pound, Secretary Rusk, in July, 1S92, reported " a decided revival in 
 tobacco planting in the Connecticut Valley, Massachusetts, showing- 
 19 per cent and Connecticut 10 per cent increase." That the years of 
 1891 and 1892 were far the most prosperous in all the leaf tobacco 
 sections known since the tirst introduction of Sumatra tobacco, in 1880, 
 is universally known and admitted. 
 
 EFFECTS OF INCREASED DUTY ON THE MANUFACTURE OF CIGARS. 
 
 If this unusual prosperity of the farmers was largely due, as we 
 believe, to the increase of duty upon wrapper leaf, it would be impor- 
 tant to know, from the legislative standpoint, whether the effects of that 
 increase of duty had been correspondingly disastrous to the cigar 
 interests. If so, the results would be shown in the Internal Revenue 
 reports, a reference to which brings out the following facts: The total 
 product of 1888, 1889, and 1890, under the tariff of 1883, was 
 11,800,002,273 cigars, while the total product of the three following- 
 years, under the tariff of 1890, was 13,837,889,301, showing a total 
 increase over the ])revious three years of 2,037,887,028 cigars, as the fol- 
 lowing tables from the report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue 
 will show : 
 
 Total annual product of cigars in the United States. 
 
 1888 3, 844, 726, 650 
 
 1889 3, 867, 385, 640 
 
 1890 4, 087, 889, 983 
 
 Total 11, 800, 002, 273 
 
 1891 4, 474, 892, 767 
 
 1892 4, 548, 799, 417 
 
 1893 4. 814, 197, 117 
 
 Total 13,837,889,301 
 
 Subtract 11, 800, 002, 273 
 
 Increase over first three years 2, 037, 887, 028 
 
 And the total increase of factories in 1891 and 1892 was 1,027. Add 
 to this the further fact, as stated by the manufacturers themselves, 
 that there was no increased cost of cigars to the consumer. If these 
 results followed an increase of duty on wrapper leaf from an average 
 of 40 cents a pound, tariff' of 1883, to $2 a pound, tariff" of 1890, it is 
 hard to conceive how an increase iu duty upon wrapper leaf of 50 cents, 
 or even $1, per pound can in any degree prove disastrous to the cigar 
 manufacturers, especially when it is an admitted fact that only about 
 2 pounds of wrappers per 1,000 are now required, while in those 
 years 3 pounds per 1,000 was the usual estimate. 
 
 In this connection it should not be forgotten that the only cigar 
 manufacturers who are asking Congress to reduce the duty upon wrap- 
 per leaf and who bitterly oppose any increase of duty on the same have 
 an absolute monopoly of the American market on their grade of goods; 
 and have it, too, by virtue of a prohibitive duty, no cigars of the grade 
 manufactured by them being imported, the specific duty alone, Slper 
 pound or $48 per 1,000, being more than the average entire price, wage, 
 material, and profits of these goods. The farmers are not asking Con- 
 gress to reduce the duty on cigars two-thirds or at all; but they are 
 asking Congress and especially your honorable committee to protect 
 them from the unreasonable demands of the manufacturers, who while 
 having 99 per cent of the home market for their j)roducts, ask addi- 
 tional favors in demanding a large reduction of duty upon wrapper 
 leaf, knowing as they do that such a reduction of duty must deprive 
 the farmer of that fraction of his home market for wrappers still left to 
 him, which is not quite 50 per cent.
 
 732 SCHEDULE F.— TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 In conclusion, I respectfully submit that as the only beneficiaries of a 
 lower I ty are, iu the order named, (1) the Sumatra syndicates (2 the 
 Zorter? and (3) the manufacturers; and that those injured by a 
 m uctTon'a^e, (1) the Government from a loss of revenue, (2) the farm- 
 ers and planters, and (3) their thousands of employees, those least able 
 to bo-ir it wliile the consumer has no interest m the matter whatever, 
 since any reduction of duty that can bo made will not reduce the price 
 of ciffars to the consumer. A considerable increase of duty on wrapper 
 leaf IS the only means by which any benefit to the interests last named 
 can be secured. H. S. Frye, 
 
 President of the 2ieic England Tobacco Oroioers' Association. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HON. BENJAMIN E. RUSSELL, A 
 REPRESENTATIVE FROM GEORGIA. 
 
 Monday, January 4, 1897. 
 The Chairman. Congressman Russell, of Georgia, being unable to 
 be present to-day, desires this statement to be entered upon the record : 
 
 Washixgtox, January J, 1S97. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The tobacco growers in my district (Second district of Georgia) are 
 very earnest in the hope that the tariff will not be reduced on wrappers 
 and fillers. Tobacco growing is already a great industry in southwest 
 Georgia and Florida, and with a fair showing will become much greater. 
 In fine, our growers would like the rate on their products advanced, but 
 under no circumstances would they have it reduced. I learn that the 
 tobacco schedule comes up for hearings to-day. I would appear in per- 
 son but for sickness, which confines me to my bed. 
 
 Ben. E. Eussell, M. C, 
 
 Second District of Georgia. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. MARRIOTT BROSIUS, A REPRESENTATIVE 
 FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 Monday, January i, 1897. 
 Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Cojoiittee: I represent 
 the greatest leaf tobacco producing county in the United States. My 
 constituents to the number of many thousands ar<', engaged in raising 
 the leaf or manufacturing it into cigars. The interests of the growers 
 are seriously impaired by the large imi)orts of Sumatra goods which 
 displace large quantities of our home product. Pennsylvania has for 
 many years devoted about 28,000 acres to the culture of tobacco. The 
 product until recently averaged about 30,000,000 pounds a year. In my 
 own county alone we have produced in the last thirty-five years in the 
 neighborhood of 450,000,000 pounds. We have for years had an 
 average yield of 15,000,000 pounds. Just before the passage of the 
 McKinley law, under the influence of the Sumatra invasion, the price 
 reached the lowest figure known in the history of tobacco culture in 
 Pennsylvania, about 5^ to C cents per pound. After the passage of 
 the McKinley law the price advanced and brought great relief to
 
 TOBACCO GROWERS. 733 
 
 the tobacco farmer. It has been estimated by some that the first year 
 uuder the McKiuley hiw increased the value of the leaf grown in Lan- 
 caster County at least half a million dollars. 
 
 The tobacco leaf industry in the United States needs protection from 
 the competition of the Asiatic weed i)roduced at so much lower cost 
 than we can produce it, and if there is anything in the principle of 
 American })rotection that makes it desirable for the help of our indus- 
 tries, surely there is no other field in which its benefits are more needed 
 or in which it can be more effectively applied than in the tobacco field. 
 Leaf tobacco for the manufacturer of cigars is one of those commodi- 
 ties of which our resources and facilities enable us to produce a full 
 domestic supply. In such a case it would be compatible with the prin- 
 ciples the Iiepublican party has long advocated to impose a duty upon 
 the competing foreign article that would secure the home market to the 
 domestic producer. If there is a demand for the Sumatra goods it is 
 suitable that those who wish to enjoy the fine color, the silken touch, 
 and the ravishing beauty of a Sumatra vrrapper should pay for such 
 exquisite luxury. These are the qualities which give the Asiatic weed 
 its chief value, and they appeal to the delight of the eye and the touch 
 of the finger ami not to the palate or the nerves. If people care to 
 minister to such sublimated tastes they ought not to comidain that such 
 luxurious enjoyments are costly. Luxuries ought to be taxed for the 
 relief of those who can not afford them. So I would irat a high duty 
 on Sumatra tobacco for the double purpose of raising revenue and j)ro- 
 tecting American growers. 
 
 Having in view these principles and the depressed condition of the 
 tobacco-producing industry in the country, the leaf growers of Penn- 
 sylvania unite with those of other leaf-producing States in demanding 
 the restoration of the McKinley rates on imported leaf. It was not the 
 least of the excellencies of the McKinley law that it called to mind the 
 forgotten farmer. That the present law has guarded the interests of 
 foreign producers rather than our own in no sense diminishes the obli- 
 gation which the decree of the people in the last election imposes upon 
 us to again recall the forgotten farmer and give him precedence over 
 alien competitors in the enjoyment of our own markets. 
 
 It is not possible for Pennsylvania tobacco growers to keep up the 
 level of American wages for farm labor and compete with the product 
 of cheap Asiatic labor. The progress of civilization is registered in 
 the scale of wages paid to labor. The United States would not have 
 held the rank they do to-day among the nations if they had had a lower 
 wage level. Franklin said, '-A cup of tea the cost of which helped to 
 pay the salaries of tyrants would choke any decent American." Simi- 
 larly I would suggest that the cheapness of goods which is secured by 
 cutting down American wages ought to be spurned by every patriotic 
 American citizen. 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED BY W. H. FARNHAM, OF ADDISON, N. Y., SECRE- 
 TARY OF THE CHEMUNG VALLEY TOBACCO-GROWERS' ASSOCIA- 
 TION. 
 
 Monday, January 4, 1897. 
 Mr. Chairman and Gentleimen of the Committee : In this kalei- 
 doscope view of the tobacco question that is submitted to you to-day, 
 the one particular point I wish to call your attention to is the protec- 
 tion to the American farmer and cigar-leaf tobacco grower. From the 
 statistics that are before you, you find that the value of all cigar leaf
 
 734 SCHEDULE F. — TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 imported during the fiscal year of June 30, 1896, amounts in round num- 
 bers to some $ 12,000,000. , • , «• W If 
 
 Does it not seem strange that this seductive weed, which- Sir Walter 
 K-ilei"h found growing upon our shores in a wild and luxuriant abun- 
 dance" and which he introduced to the Old World, with its far-reaching 
 effects, should iionv, in this day and age of progress of the American 
 people be sent back for consumption to the annual value ot some 
 $1*>000'H)0 every pound of which displaces that which should be 
 the'prodnct of American soil, and takes from the farmer that which 
 rightfullv belongs to him? 
 
 There was a time, not many years back, when an American-wrapped 
 cigar was thouglit to be good enough for any American citizen, but this 
 state of affairs has entirelv changed and at the present time the pro- 
 ducer of cigar-leaf tobacco are in anything but a prosperous condition, 
 owing to the heavy and increased importation of cigar leaf suitable for 
 wrapper. , . 
 
 The growing of cigar-leaf tobacco has become largely unprottable in 
 the section of country which I represent- -the tobacco-growing district 
 of southern New York and northern Pennsylvania. The production in 
 acreage has fallen off' since 1894 from 40 to 60 per cent, and what might 
 be one of the most remunerative crops to the American farmer is fast 
 being crowded out by the imported leaf. 
 
 The value of the cigar-leaf crop that we grow depends largely upon 
 the proportion of leaves tliat are suitable for wrappers, which in the 
 average crop will vary from 50 to 75 per cent. The lower-grade binders 
 aud fillers are not worth sufficient in the market to pay the cost of 
 production. 
 
 When the conditions are such that but little demand exists for the 
 American wrapper, then the value of the crop falls in proportion, and 
 at the same time the growers are either obliged to give it up or else con- 
 tinue an unprofitable business. The successlul (cultivation of tobacco 
 requires a large outlay in special farming implements aud curing barns 
 that are suitable for no other purpose. The cost of the croj) is largely 
 labor employed. Each stalk and leaf is handled in the various stages 
 of its preparation for the market five or six times, and the assorting 
 and casing process gives emi)loyment to many hands during the winter, 
 when, usually, there is but little demand for labor. You can not, there- 
 fore, call it '-class legislation," for in years of good prices the benefits 
 are more than individual. 
 
 It can be demonstrated to this committee that the United States, 
 with its great variety of soil aud climate, can produce a wrapper tobacco 
 that can not only supply this country, but furnish a great quantity for 
 export. 
 
 If there is one thing to-day needed to lift the American farmer from 
 this slough of hard times it is better protective laws that will encour- 
 age production of special crops and furnish a home market for his 
 products. The various States have appreciated this fact by appropri- 
 ating large sums for the maintaining of experimental stations which 
 will give to the farmer new ideas and methods in regard to cultivation. 
 
 It I could but digress a moment 1 would impress upon this committee 
 the extremely serious financial condition of the average farmer in the 
 great Empire State, and I do not believe the farmers of other States 
 are much better oft\ 1 refer to the farmer Avho depends wholly upon 
 the products of his farm to meet the necessary expenses of life and 
 educate his children. At the present time he is doing his work on farms 
 tnat cost 100 cents on every dollar, and which to-day will not sell for
 
 TOBACCO GROWERS. 735 
 
 50 per cent of this cost. The products of these depreciated farms have 
 sold for the hist two years for nearly the cost of production or less. 
 
 Let me give you the value of agricultural products that are in force 
 to-day throughout my section, and you may judge for yourselves of the 
 serious condition of affairs: 
 
 Wool, 8 to 11 ceuts per pound; wheat, not grown to any extent in southern New 
 York ; oats, 19 to 20 cents per bushel ; potatoes, 16 to 18 ceuts per bushel ; buckwheat, 
 oO to 31 ceuts per bushel; butter, 15 to 17 cents per pound; hay, $6 to $9 per ton; 
 barley, 29 to 30 cents. 
 
 Cattle and hogs are not an extensive product of our farmers as in 
 the West. 
 
 These are the crops and the prices that the i)rogressive American 
 farmer is receiving for his labor, and these same people are called the 
 conservators of American institutions and the backbone of Eepubli- 
 canism. Do you wonder that the American farmers are ready to jump 
 at any quixotic financial policy that promises a betterment of their 
 condition? 
 
 It is within the power of this committee to give a great stimulus to 
 American agriculture as well as to tobacco culture. It is the farmer 
 who, by dogged and laborious toil, draws wealth from the soil and sends 
 it broadcast over the land, and takes in exchange tbe manufactured 
 products of our cities. For so long as the soil shall remain in its ])lace 
 (and we have good authority for saying it will stay there), so long will 
 the value of its products determine the prosperity of our natiou. 
 
 It is my desire to show the true condition of the farmer as he exists 
 today, and leave to your honorable conmiittee the measures that will 
 place him on a prosperous footing. The present tariff laws on cigar 
 leaf give but little protection. A tariff that will protect in the true 
 sense of the word must largely restrict importation, and this the pres- 
 ent law does not do. Under the present law it takes an expert's opinion 
 to tell what is wrapper leaf and what is other than wrapper, and on 
 this opinion depends $1.15 a pound (difference between the two duties, 
 $1.15 and 35 cents); but as it is human to err, we would like to see all 
 temi)tation taken from the leaf appraiser, and be sure that the Govern- 
 ment gets its full revenue and the American farmer full protection. 
 
 Whatever tariff rates your honorable committee may think best to 
 adopt, please consider that while raising the wrapper rate will give 
 protection in even ratio, the raising of the duty on grades other than 
 wrapi)er leaf will also increase the demand for American-grown tobacco, 
 and will not only give ]>rotection but will largely increase the revenue. 
 
 It is the experience of the tobacco growers, as shown by the deplora- 
 ble condition which they are now in, that neither the tariff of 18'J0 nor 
 1892 had afforded them the protection that they should have. Protec- 
 tion must be given at a rate sufhcieutly high to shut out the interloper 
 that has taken prosperity from the American tobacco grower. 
 
 If any one schedule requires heroic treatment at the hands of this 
 committee, and the interests of American agriculture are to be pre- 
 served, it is that rate governing the importation of foreign tobacco. 
 
 It has been conceded in arguments before this committee that 84 a 
 pound would only be a mildly restrictive duty, but whatever the rate 
 is to be we want it to protect the American grower. 
 
 It is the vast army of farmers throughout this continent that are 
 bound by their occupation to the conditions of nature and the great 
 laws of su])X)ly and demand, that seek to maintain themselves in the 
 face of overwhelming disaster. 
 
 W. H. Farnham.
 
 736 SCHEDULE F. — TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 A GEORGIA TOBACCO-GROWER. 
 
 Attapulgus, Ga., December J?3, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are imdei- the impression that we are suffering a great injustice on 
 account of the tariff rate not being uniform. We are credably informed 
 that a great deal of wrapper tobacco is smuggled through our ports as 
 fillers, aud we see no way of correcting this evil except by a uniform tariff 
 rate, and that rate to be equal to the present rate on wrappers— $1.50 per 
 pouud. 
 
 We verily believe that if we could secure such a rate we could lur- 
 uish all the fillers as well as wrappers that would be needed to supply 
 the demands of trade. The industry in this immediate section is in 
 its infancy, and we are needing help; and especially do we need protec- 
 tion against the frauds that are being perpetrated on the Government 
 on account of the lack of uniformity in the tariff rate on fillers and 
 
 wrappers. 
 
 W. E. Smith. 
 
 A MASSACHUSETTS GROWER. 
 
 North Hadley, Mass., January 7, 1897. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 I am a tobacco grower in the Connecticut Valley, and have been for 
 a number of years. I have given quite a little thought to the matter of 
 duty lor several years past. My opinion is that, taking both protection 
 to the grower and the Treasury of the United States into consideration 
 and dealing justly and fairly with both, the duty on wrappers should be 
 somewhere from $2 to $2.75 per pouud, with 50 to 75 cents additional 
 where the wrappers are stemmed. I have heard that the wording of the 
 present law was not satisfactory, that it could be evaded, and that a 
 large amount of wrappers found their way here Avithout ])aying the duty. 
 If this be true, and a new law could be framed that would allow of no 
 such evasion, and with having competent men for inspectors at the 
 custom-houses, the $2 rate of 1890 might be suflicient. I have been 
 informed that about nine-tenths of thecigars manufactured in theUnited 
 States were wrapped with foreign wrappers. Dealers in leaf tobacco all 
 say that the demand for home wrappers grows less every year, aud that 
 only binders are wanted. A $2 duty, or even $2.75, might not decrease 
 the importation of Sumatra tobacco. I think sometimes it would not. 
 If so, it would certainly be a source of much more income to the United 
 States Treasury, and as it would make it cost nun-e, our home products, 
 what little we have now, would advance in corresponding ])roportion. 
 
 A. W. Field. 
 
 A NEW YORK GROWER. 
 
 Tyrinoham, Mass., December 4, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 In 1892 the tobacco raisers in this town were apparently fairly pros- 
 perous. The duty on Sumatra tobacco was $2 per pouud. How are they 
 situated in 1896 with the duty at $1.50? About one-quarter have gone 
 under, two went into insolvency, others lost their homes, while there is
 
 TOBACCO DEALERS AND IMPORTERS. 737 
 
 not one of ns but has lost money raising tobacco in tlie last three years, 
 while some are unable to pay their grocery bills and have given their 
 notes for same. We look to Congress to put duty on Sumatra wrappers 
 that will stop a foreign syndicate and importer from robbing us of our 
 home market and our homes. Last week an importer of Sumatra tobacco 
 was here trying to buy our 1806 crop at from 8 to 10 cents per pound. 
 It cost 15 cents to raise it. I believe that a duty of 8-.50 per pound on 
 unstemmed tobacco would bring in more revenue to the Government 
 than any figure of the i>ast. At 82 duty I have known it to be used to 
 wrap 5-cent cigars. We want the duty high enough to keep it oft' from 
 that class of goods, and 82.50 I think would do it and bring in a good 
 stiff revenue. This is of vital importance to thousands of farmers. 
 We do not ask the privilege < f importing slaves, but we do ask for an 
 adequate protection against the importation of tobacco raised by slave 
 labor. 
 
 F. S. Johnson. 
 
 TOBACCO DEALEES AND IMPORTERS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. FREDERICK A. SCHROEDER, OF BROOKLYN, 
 N. Y., DEALER AND IMPORTER OF TOBACCO. 
 
 Monday, January i, 1897. 
 Mr. ScHROEDER Said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com- 
 mittee, we deal as largely in domestic tobaccos as foreign, and 1 do not 
 wish to be represented here as the representative of the importers of 
 tobacco. The last time I appeared in Washington before the Com- 
 mittee on Ways and Means was in 1890 when this matter was up for 
 consideration. I then protested on the part of the importers against 
 a difierential rate of duty on wrapper leaf, and I stated at that time, 
 and my belief may be still on file, that you would not permanently 
 benefit the farmer, but you Mould very much disarrange and injure 
 the cigar manufacturing business. I think I can prove to day what I 
 said then has come true. I have put in writing my argument and with 
 your permission I will read it and then answer any cpiestions which 
 may come up. We are a committee of gentlemen representing the 
 leaf tobacco trade of New York City, a body organized under the laws 
 of the State of New York, which has been in existence for a number of 
 years. This body is made up of the dealers in domestic and importers 
 of foreign leaf tobacco of the city of New Y'ork : 
 
 The iindersigued, representing the New York Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, which 
 is made np of tlie dealers in domestic and importers of foreign leaf tobacco m the city 
 of New York, beg resjiectfnlly to recommend to your committee the change of imporc 
 duty on leaf tobacco from a difierential duty of $1.50 per pound on wrappers and 35 
 cents per pound on fillers to a uniibrm specific rate on all unstemmed leaf tobacco, 
 with a reasonal)le addition, also spefitic, not exceeding 40 per cent on stemmed 
 leaf. As these two grades can be readily distinguished by ocular inspection, there 
 is no valid objection to a discriminating rate. Our reasons for recommending the 
 ciiange are: 
 
 1. That the experience of the last six years has amply demonstrated that with the 
 most scrupulous and careful eft'orts of honest officials the present law can not be 
 justly and equitably administered. 
 
 2. Becaiise the large mass of the tobacco-growing farmers, upon whose request the 
 dual rate was first adopted, no longer care for it or are indifierent as to its continuance, 
 
 T H 47
 
 738 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFAi^TURES OF. 
 
 aud only iu the New England States the greater portion of the tobacco growers still 
 
 believe in its benefits. , . . . . .v • ^ 4. 
 
 3 Because this law in its results has proved injurious to the cigar manufacturers 
 making ci<rais covered with Sumatra wrapper. It has brought to a halt his business, 
 which%ri^r to the enactment of this law, had been prosperous, aud had shown a 
 constant and healthy increase commensurate with the growth in population, and, 
 while he is paying the Government all the law intended he should pay, finds himself 
 confronted by the competition of other manufacturers who, because of the defects of 
 the law, Avere more favored through its injustice and ineiiuality. 
 
 In support of our first objection we wish to state it as a tact that it is impossible 
 for anvono to define the dividing line between the wrapper and the filler grade of 
 imported tobacco, except of the product of the Island of Sumatra, where the bulk 
 of the farmers' crops are suitable for wrappers, and the small portion of fillers is 
 easilv selected and separated by the grower. In the product of other foreign coun- 
 tries' it is not possible to determine by ocular inspection what is a wrapper or what 
 is a filler, except on a very small proportion; hence the grades arc much mixed and 
 the percentage of each grade is determined by the arbitrary fancy of the manufac- 
 turer only, and so the result has been that when in contested cases the Government 
 has called for expert testimony the experts are always divided in their .iudgment, 
 and only iu rare instances has the Government been sustained; and it is a fact easily 
 ascertained from the customs records ' that iu the ports of Florida (the State), where 
 the principal portion of cigars covered with Cuban wrappers are produced, the leaf 
 coming direct from Havana, there is not wra]iper duty paid upon a quantity which 
 would suffice to yield 5 per cent of the foreign wrappers actually used for cigar 
 covers; the proportion paid upon Cuban wrappers actually consumed iu other parts 
 of the Union is slightly greater, but still out of all proportion to the total quantity 
 imported or used for wrapper purposes; and as to Mexican wrapi)er tobacco, tlie 
 collectorf^have never attempted to collect the $i.50 rate until the general appraisers 
 of the port of New York last month reudered a decision practically debarring the 
 importation of filler' leaf from that country by deciding that Mexican filler leaf is 
 not wanted for the American market, and all leaf tobacco imported from Mexico 
 must be appraised at the rate of wrapper leaf. Naturally the respect of the citizen 
 for a law which is administered in this inequitable manner, aud which can not, 
 because of its inherent defects, bo fairly and justly administered, is destroyed. 
 
 The second point we make is that the discrimination is no longer demanded by the 
 large mass of farmers, who had procured its adoption in former legislatures and who 
 had hoped that their condition might be thereby improved, but who have since dis- 
 covered that they can not overcome the demand for Sumatra except by a ])rohibitive 
 duty, which Avould be destructive to the cigar industry, and as their interests are 
 identical to themselves and they have Itecoiue reconciled to see their product go for 
 wrappers on cheaper grades and binders on fine grades, and fillers in medium and 
 common grades, hoping that by a uniform rate, which will necessitate a large 
 increase in the filler rate, the cigar manufacturing business will be benefited and a 
 larger demand will arise for fine domestic fillers and binders at remuuerative prices. 
 
 I wisli to explain here to the committee wliat is classed as filler leaf 
 by the farmers is hardly consumed at all in this country. It is nearly 
 all exported, and it is what was formerly classed by the farmer as binder 
 aud short wrapper leaf that constitutes to-day the filler used by the 
 American manufacturer of domestic cro]). 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. What is the duty on the filler leaf! 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. Thirty-fivc cents per pound. 
 
 ^ow, I have here a report of the Department of Agriculture on prices 
 of all the various cigar leaf growing States (Exhibit A), and they are 
 all the Northern States, the Southern States not producing any cigar 
 leaf, showing that the price in every State during the last three years 
 has averaged less than 11 cents. 1 do not say that was due to the fact 
 of the advance of the rate of duty, but I simply wish to show tlie 
 advance of the rate did not help the farmer permanently. 
 
 ionJ^® wrapper rate paid at Tampa and Key West was, in 1895, on 6,501 pounds; in 
 1896, on 5,844 pounds— not enough to wrap 1,500,000 a year, while the lowest estimate 
 of the output of Cuban wrapped cigars at those points for these years is 120,000,000 
 a year. The filler rate paid at Tampa and Key West was, in 1895, on 2,688,074 
 pounds; m 1896, on 3,792,238 pounds. ,
 
 I 
 
 TOBACCO DEALERS AND IMPORTERS. 739 
 
 They discovered, that the rise in wrapper duty did not result in any way in an 
 advance in the price of their product, and after a live years' trial they are satisfied 
 to accept the judgment of the manufacturers, who in the year 1890 had largely 
 favored the demands of the farmers, but are now almost unanimous in asking for a 
 uniform rate. We believe that the only body of growers who will still appear before 
 you in advocacy of maintaining the present distiuction, and even ask for a higher 
 rate on wrappers, will come from the States of Connecticut and MaSvSachusetts, but 
 even there many growers who have studied their interests closely will not be with 
 them. We will not deuy that they had reason to be satisfied with the immediate 
 result of the McKinley bill, for in the years 1891 and 1892, when they were favored 
 with good season and had succeeded in growing some fine wrapper leaf, they obtained 
 very high prices for crops well cared for and carefully assorted. ]Many manufac- 
 turers of fine cigars substituted the Connecticut and Massachusetts Habana seed 
 wrapper for Sumatra; but they soon discovered that it would not give satisfaction 
 to the smoker, and they abandoned its use and again covered their cigars with the 
 Sumatra leaf at much higher cost. 
 
 There is one f^entlemaii here from Philadelphia, a large manufacturer, 
 who informed me last evening- that he was in favor of this high rate; 
 that with good faith he tried to introduce the American wrapper, and 
 built a large factory after the passage of the McKinley bill, and bought 
 a large stock of Connecticut Havana seed wrappers aud made up a lot 
 of cigars with fine Havana tillers and set a lot of agents to work and 
 sold small orders to every important Jobbing house in the United States. 
 After a few months he found he received no duplicate orders, and the 
 business resulted in a loss to him of not less than $30,000. 
 
 The consequence was that the dealers who had paid to the groweis very high 
 prices for their 1892 crop in Massachusetts and Connecticut, in order to realize, were 
 compelled to sell their holdings of wrapper leaf at a loss of from 35 to 50 per cent 
 from first cost; and since then the farmers of Connecticut and Massachusetts have 
 not received high prices for their prodnct. In fairly good growing season, as in 1894 
 aud 1895, they realized a fair price for their work, while in 1893, when the growiug 
 season was adverse to them, they were not in any way compensated for their labor 
 or outlay. Still, there is a moderate proportion of smokers who prefer a fine Con- 
 necticut or Massachusetts wrapper to the Sumatra, and a good price is now obtained 
 and can always be obtained for a limited quantity, while this fancy lasts. It was 
 largely believed by these growers that the reduction to $1..50 from $2 by the Wijson 
 bill had caused this depreciation in the value of their product, but the fact is that 
 because of the increasing demand all over the world for the fine grades of Sumatra 
 leaf, which also the American manufacturer requires, was in the same year when the 
 Wilson bill took etiect, advanced suiificiently to more than counterbalance the 
 reduction in duty. 
 
 Other reasons are offered to account for the demoralized condition and stagnation 
 of the cigar and leaf tobacco trade, and the low price for domestic wrappers. It is 
 said that it was due to the hard times prevailing since 1893 ; that all business alike has 
 sufl'ered, and the cigar trade has done well in holding its ground, but it is a strange 
 fact that hard times did not, either in the year 1873 nor at any time of depression 
 since nor in the year 1893, or subsequently, cause a reduction in the general consump- 
 tion of tobacco. But the agitation for the high rate of duty at the time the McKin- 
 ley bill wasuuder consideration, the newspaper reports much magnifying the expected 
 increase in cost of the manufacture of cigars and conse(]uent reduction in quality, the 
 substitution of domestic wrappers when the smoker had been educated to prefer the 
 Sumatra, the lowering of the quality of the filler when the manufacturer again 
 adopted the use of Sumatra because unable to procure an advance from the jobber 
 to cover the increased cost of the wrapper, as happened in many cases, was largely 
 responsible for a change iu fashion among smokers, for, while the consumption of 
 tobacco steadily increased the whole increase went to the benefit of the cigarette 
 manufacturers, who use in their business mainly the heavy tobaccos of the Southern 
 States, which are not suitable tor cigar mauufacturing, last year alone showing an 
 increase of 800,000,000 cigarettes produced over the previous year, while the cigar 
 business for the same year sbill shows 4,000,000,000, the same as appeared by the 
 returns of 1890; and it is a point well worth considering when the arguments of 
 farmers are oft'ered that in spite of the increased consumption of the Southern 
 tobacco, the prices of Southern leaf tobacco are to-day as low as they have ever 
 been in the history of the trade. 
 
 Now it may be asked. What interest have the leaf dealers in this matter; what 
 brings us before your committee at this time? We have no interests apart from 
 those of the farmer and manufacturer. Most of us deal as largely in fhe domestic
 
 740 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 leaf as we do iu the imported tobacco, and would be as well satisfied to deal in the 
 domestic article alone if that would suit the buyer \Ve desire to see reestablished 
 a fair condition of business, so that all branches shall have a just and equitable 
 opportunity to do a legitimate business; this can be brought about, as we judge, 
 onlv bv a moderate specific and uniform rate of duty on all imported tobaccos. 
 We believe 50 cents per pound is as uiucli as the business can bear and prosper. We 
 understand that some of the manufacturers, rather than have the present inequality 
 continue would be willing to assent to a 55-ceut per pound rate. Whatever the 
 rate may have to be in your best judgment, considering the requirements of the 
 Government, we ask that you make it uniform and specific. , , , , . 
 
 It may be uro-ed against us that for the next year or two, because of the desolation 
 of the farming^districts of the Island of Cuba, the importation of the 35-cent-duty 
 tobacco will be greatly diminished, and so for some time to come the revenues will 
 be much impaired and the Government will not be compensated for the reduction in 
 the wrapper rate by a correspoudiug increase in the revenues on filler leaf. But as 
 against that argument it should be borne in mind that under existing circumstances 
 no tobacco can be obtained from Cuba until next October, when the 1897 crop of the 
 Santa Clara districts will be ready for market; hence large importations of the 
 article in anticipation of the increased duty can not be made, and all future importa- 
 tions which, with the pacification of Cuba, will be rapidly increased, would be 
 8ul)ject to the new rate. Nor would the proposed advance iu filler rates redound 
 much to the benefit of the holders of the filler leaf now stored iu the bonded ware- 
 houses in this country. Already the price of Cuban tobacco is double what it was 
 a year ago; a much greater advance would prohibit the use of this material except 
 to a very limited extent. By the time the new crop is ready and the island la at 
 peace it'is expected that more reasonable rates will again prevail, so that in the 
 aggregate the cost of the coming filler crops will be little, if any, above the present 
 market price for that grade of tobacco. 
 
 F. N. SCHROEDEK, 
 J. F. CULLMAX, 
 A. BlJl'R, 
 A. H. SCOVILLE, 
 
 Committee Represtntin(j the Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade of the City of Setc York. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 The $2 duty was exacted by the tobacco growers from the McKinley Congress as a 
 measure of high protection and as a sure means of enhancing largely the price of 
 their crops. But this expectation was, with the single exception of the Connecticut 
 growers, uot realized by any; quite the contrary. I'lie price of domestic leaf fell 
 far below the average; it was under the low-tarifi' rate on Sumatra, as the following 
 tables prove. 
 
 The average prices obtained for domestic tobaccos from 1880 to 1895, inclusive, are 
 as follows : 
 
 CONNECTICUT. 
 
 ^®^- pound. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Per 
 pound. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Per 
 pound. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Per 
 Ipound. 
 
 Gents. 
 1880 15 
 
 1884 
 
 Cents. 
 12i 
 12i 
 13| 
 
 Cents. 
 1888 IS 
 
 1892 
 
 Cents. 
 28 
 
 1881 16 
 
 1885 
 
 1889. 
 
 U 
 
 1893 
 
 g 
 
 1882 , 13| 
 
 1886 
 
 1890 
 
 1894 
 
 124 
 14 
 
 1883 i 134 
 
 1887 
 
 1891 i W 
 
 1 1895 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PENNSTLVANIA. 
 
 1881 
 1882 
 1883 
 
 1884 
 
 15i 
 15 
 Hi 
 12 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 
 1888. 
 1889. 
 1890. 
 1891. 
 
 10» 
 
 of 
 
 14 
 9 
 
 1892 
 1893 
 1894 
 1895 
 
 NEW TOEK. 
 
 1880 
 
 12 
 12i 
 12 
 13 
 
 1881 
 
 1882 
 
 1883 
 
 
 1884. 
 
 1885. 
 1886. 
 1887. 
 
 1? I 1888 
 
 10 1889 
 
 lUl 1890 
 
 llj: 1891 
 
 12 1892 
 
 12J ' 1893 
 
 9i 1804 
 
 9J 1895 
 
 7 
 74
 
 TOBACCO DEALERS AND IMPORTERS. 
 
 741 
 
 WISCONSIN. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Per 
 pound. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Per 
 pound. 
 
 ^-. 'JZ^\ 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Per 
 pound. 
 
 1880 
 
 Cents. 
 12 
 12i 
 12 
 12 
 
 1884 
 
 Cents. 
 12 
 
 8| 
 10 
 11 
 
 1888 
 
 Centt. 
 7 
 10 
 
 1892 
 
 Cents. 
 8 
 
 1881 
 
 1885 
 
 1889 
 
 1893. 
 
 
 1882 
 
 1886 
 
 1890 1 7 
 
 1891. ... .T 
 
 1894 
 
 4i 
 5i 
 
 1883 
 
 1887 
 
 1895 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For the 1893 crop.s of any description, there has hardly any offer been made, and 
 the few offers made are more than 50 per cent less than for the 1892 crop. 
 
 The tobacco grower does not -pay a cent of revenue into the National Treasury 
 from his crops. All the revenue the Government derives from tobacco it collects 
 from the duties on foreign leaf and from the tax on cigars. 
 
 The amouut of duties collected on Habana and Sumatra since 1880 is as follows : 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 i Tear. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 1880 
 
 $2,51,5,194.00 
 
 2. 670, 875. 00 
 3,389,118.00 
 4,864,931.00 
 
 3, 896, 405. 00 
 4,191,212.00 
 4, 904, 164. 00 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 $5, 503, 577. 00 
 6,768 586.00 
 
 1881 
 
 1882 
 
 1889 
 
 8 370, 293. 00 
 
 1883 
 
 1890 
 
 1891 
 
 1892 
 
 1893 
 
 10 252 269 00 
 
 1884 
 
 G 009 006 00 
 
 1885 
 
 5, 679, 166. 00 
 
 1886 
 
 10,437,825.40 
 
 
 The amouut of internal revenue paid on cigars every year since 1881 is as follows : 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 1881 
 
 $18,245,858.57 
 16,895,215.15 
 10, 368, 805. 27 
 10. 077. ■iil. 50 
 10, 532, 804. 05 
 11, 364, 916. 33 
 
 1887 
 
 $11, 534 179. 95 
 
 1882 
 
 1888 
 
 11, 602, 156. 92 
 
 1883 
 
 1889 
 
 12 263 666.95 
 
 1884 
 
 1890 
 
 13 424 678.30 
 
 1885 
 
 1891 
 
 13,646 398 35 
 
 1886 
 
 , 1892 
 
 14,442,606.35 
 
 
 
 Since the McKinley tariff went into effect there has been a direct decrease in the 
 price of labor employed in the cigar factories in New York and elsewhere amounting 
 to $1 per 1,000 and a much larger indirect decrease by more extensive use and multi- 
 plication of labor-saving machines not only, but al.so by opening branch factories l)y 
 tlie larger manufacturers in places where cheaper labor could be had than in larger 
 cities. 
 
 Before the McKinley Act went into effect the withdrawals of Sumatra nearly 
 equaled the importations, but thev fell in 1891 to about 18,000 pounds; in 1892 to 
 about 32.5,000 pounds, and in 1893 to about 2,300,000 pounds. Since the end of the 
 last fiscal year — that, is from Julv, 1, 1893 — the withdrawals were, up to February 1, 
 1894, as follows : 
 
 Month. 
 
 July 
 
 August ... 
 September 
 October. .. 
 November 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 134, 000 
 
 85, 577 
 130, 739 
 168, 775 
 147, 513 
 
 Month. 
 
 December. . 
 January . . . 
 
 Total 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 98, 665 
 139, 735 
 
 905, 064 
 
 The number of cigar factories in existence since 1885 is as follows : 
 
 STear. 
 
 Number. 
 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Number. 
 
 1885 
 
 20, 961 
 21,053 
 21,074 
 22, 055 
 
 1889 . . . 
 
 22, 837 
 
 1886 
 
 1890 
 
 23, 119 
 
 1887 
 
 1891 
 
 1892 
 
 24, 728 
 
 1888 
 
 25, 246 
 

 
 742 SCHEDULE F. — TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 The number of workmen emplovert by factories are estimated to amoiint to 150,000. 
 Tlie whole numher dependent on the cigar industry, the retail stores included, is 
 nearly liiilf ;i million. otn rinn ficn 
 
 The decrease in the output of cigars last year amounted to d40,OUU,OOU. 
 
 The Chairman. I find in the year 1896 there was imported from tlie 
 Netlierlands, from which comes all of that Sumatra tobacco, 4,3U2,62'J 
 pounds of cigar wrappers; that there was imported iu the same perio I 
 from Cuba l'G,74(),911 pounds of fillers, and from Cuba as wrapjiers 
 only 22,406 pounds. In other words, showing, as you have stated, that 
 the' importation from Cuba, whether wrappers or fillers, came iu as 
 fillers? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And it is your judgment that considerable of that 
 tobacco was really wrappers? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. It was used for that purpose. 
 
 The Chairman. And it came in under the filler rate? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. Ycs, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Instead of paying the Sl.SOduty? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Your proposition is to make the duty 55 cents for 
 both wrappers and fillers! 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. My proposition is 50 cents. 
 
 The Chairman. Your pro])osition is 50 cents for both? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. I Stated some manufacturers think 50 cents is a very 
 high rate of duty. 
 
 The Chairman. That would yield how much revenue? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. Fifty-two and a half cents is the average revenue 
 received by the Government during the last four years I think, and the 
 manufacturers will give figures in that respect, Mr. Chairman. They will 
 give you the exact figures. 
 
 The Chairman. In 1896 we imported about 33,000,000 pounds of both 
 the leaf and the filler? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Fifty centsduty would yield a revenueof $16,500,000? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. I liavc not gone into the figures. 
 
 The Chairman. We actually received a revenue of $ 12,500,000 from 
 all kinds? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. The importations from the Island of Cuba were 
 very much larger thau any other year because of the 
 
 The Chairman. Your proposition would increase the revenues 
 $4,000,000 on the basis of the importations of last year? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. What would be its etiect upon the importations? 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. Putting it all on the 50 cents basis? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. I thiuk it would certainly increase the importa- 
 tions of Sumatra tobacco, and it might impair somewhat the revenues 
 on Cuban tobacco at the start. 
 
 The Chairman. I think there is one item omitted in the statement 
 I gave as to what effect it would have upon the revenues. Mr. Russell 
 has figured it out. 
 
 Mr. KussELL. As I have roughly figured this while I have been sitting 
 here your ])ropositions for a uniform rate of duty of 50 cents on all tobac- 
 cos imported would reduce rather thau increase the revemues which we 
 received in 1896. 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. It would reduce the revenues, as I have been 
 informed.
 
 TOBACCO DEALERS AND IMPORTERS. 743 
 
 Mr. Russell. It would reduce the revenues by nearly $2,000,000, and 
 even at tlie rate of 75 cents a pound on all tobaccos on tlie basis of the 
 imports of 1896 the revenues would be increased less than $3,000,000. 
 Your proposition, in other words, reduces the revenues which we 
 received in 1896 on the basis of the imports of that year by nearly 
 $2,000,000! 
 
 Mr. Tawney. And affords no additional protection to the tobacco 
 grower. 
 
 Mr. Eussell. No additional protection to the grower of certain 
 classes of tobacco ? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. If you will permit me, I think you will find from 
 your statements that the imi)ortations of the Island of Cuba were very 
 much larger in 1896, caused by the decree issued by the Governor-Gen- 
 eral, Weyler, prohibiting the exportation of certain grades of Cuban 
 tobacco. On account of the fear that the exportations of other grades 
 would be prohibited that resulted in the export of all tobacco held then 
 that could be exported by Americans, formerly kept stored in Havann, 
 and therefore you will find the importation of Cuban tobacco for 1896 
 was increased very heavily. We received more Cuban tobacco than 
 ever before, and because of that reason it is not fair to make that com- 
 parison. I would suggest that the right way to make a comparison is 
 not to take a single exceptional year, but to take a series of years. 
 ^S'ow, we have here the lat seven years. That is since the higher rate 
 on Sumatra was in effect and we figured out an average of 51.38 cents 
 duty received. 
 
 The Chairman. In 1893 the average foreign value of Sumatra wrap- 
 per was 81 cents a pound. In 1895 and 1896, both years, the average 
 value after the duty was reduced 50 cents per ])onnd, was about $1.20 
 l.er pound. How do you account for that sudden rise of Sumatra 
 tobacco when the dutj- was reduced 50 cents? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. In the first place, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say there 
 being no ad valorem duty on tobacco 
 
 The Chairman. There was no ad valorem duty in 1891 and 1892. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. There being no ad valorem duty on tobacco, the 
 agents and exporters at Amsterdam are not very particular about 
 stating the exact cost of the article beciiuse it makes no difference. 
 
 The Chairman. Are they not more likely to state what it reall}' is 
 than when the duty is ad valorem? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. If the duty is ad valorem they are not likely to 
 state it, as you say, in many cases, but when it is not ad valorem the 
 agents will lump the whole crop and j)ut in their invoices the average 
 price for the crop, and let it go at that. 
 
 The Chairman. But there was no change in 1894; it was $2, and 
 therefore no inducement in that? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. I say it makes no difference to the Government, 
 and these stocks of tobacco lie on the Island of Cuba and in Amster- 
 dam, and the agent and exporter, not even being on his honor as against 
 the Government, puts in any figure ; but the fact remains for the crop of 
 1894 the prices were very much higher. For fine grades they were 
 fully 75 cents higher per pound than they were in 1893. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, I have the figures for 1895 and 1896, and they 
 seem to have been uniform those two years. Would the figures for those 
 two years be about a fair average? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. ISTo, sir; I do not think so. I think the three years 
 1894, 1895, and 1896 would be a fair average. 
 
 The Chairman. That would make it still higher?
 
 744 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDEE. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you find, as a dealer and importer, as a matter of 
 fact that Sumatra leaf fell off" in foreign price after the duty was 
 increased half a dollar ? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. IsTo, slr; it increased, as I stated before. 
 
 The Chairman. Did it increase very much in proportion to the 
 reduction of duty"? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. I do not think the reduction of duty had anything 
 to do with it. It was because of the fine crops and increased demand. 
 The Sumatra wrapper is almost exclusively used in Europe now. No 
 other wrapper is used in any cigar. 
 
 The Chairman. I was endeavoring to ascertain whether the fact that 
 in ]S93, when the duty was $2 per pound, the foreign value was found 
 to be for that year 84 cents, and the fact that after the 50 cents of the 
 duty was removed the foreign value increased almost exactly 50 cents 
 per pound, whether the two things had any connection whatever; 
 whether the foreign producer or seller took advantage of the reduction 
 of duty to raise his price to that extent? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. He .does not take advantage. He invariably in 
 every instance sells at Amsterdam — the sales at Amsterdam are made 
 at auction under secret bids, and it does not occur once in a hundred 
 times that the highest price is not accepted — and the market is open to 
 every bidder who comes there, Americans as well as Europeans. There 
 is no such thing as a combination. In oft" years they get small divi- 
 dends or none. In good years, when the quality of the tobacco is 
 superior and the yield is good, they make large profits. Fine grades 
 of tobacco ever since the McKinley bill passed have rated from $1.50 
 to $2.50 per pound at Amsterdam, four times the price any American 
 wrapper sells for. 
 
 Mr. Turner. You mean to say the bidder fixes the price and not the 
 seller? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. The bidder and not the seller. 
 
 Mr. Turner. And the reduction of the tariff" has nothing to do 
 with it? 
 
 ]\Ir. SCHROEDER. No, sir; none whatever. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. And the duty imposed is not taken into consideration 
 by the buyer over there when he puts in his bid, is it? 
 
 Mr ScHROEDER. Excepting as to its ett"ect upon general business. 
 
 Mr. Steele. Just as much if the duty was at $4 a pound as sl.50? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. The fact remains the consumption and production 
 of Sumatra-covered cigars to-day is no greater than it was before there 
 was imposed this higli duty. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Is this the chief market for Sumatra covers? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. No, sir; the whole world. That is the only wrap- 
 per outside of the Cuban considered a high-grade wrapper to-day. 
 America used to export a large quantity of wrapper leaf at a high price 
 to Europe, but since the Island of Sumatra Avas discovered as a tobacco 
 producer there is no market other than for this Sumatra wrapper. Y^ou 
 might just as well tell a woman that calico is just as good as silk, but 
 when there is silk on the market they will have silk. Calico may wear 
 as well as silk, but if they want silk' they will get it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do I understand you to say there was a difference 
 m the value of the wrapper between the years 1893 and 1894 that 
 amounted to nearly 75 cents per pound? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Then there was a greater diff"erence between the 
 years 1893 and 1894, when the McKinley bill was in operation, than three
 
 TOBACCO DEALERS AND IMPORTERS. 745 
 
 was between the year 1893 and the year 1896, that difference being 
 less than 50 cents per pound"? 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Then it would be about 36 cents diflFerence between 
 1893 and 1896, and seventy-odd cents between 1893 and 1894? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDEE. Ycs, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And you account for that and think it is attributable 
 to the superior crop! 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. Exactly. 
 
 Mr. Payne. There was a large importation of Sumatra tobacco in 
 1890, anticipating the act of 1890, was there not? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. More than double what it had been in any year previous? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. No, sir; it was some, but not double. 
 
 Mr. Payne. About 3,000,000 pounds were imported the year pre- 
 vious and about 1,500,000 the year previous to that, and in 1890 it was 
 some 7,000,000 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. Then it was double, as you say. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And there was very little of this imported in 1892 and 
 1803, was there not? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. Yes, sir. There was a great deal imported in 1893, 
 I believe. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Up to the time of the Wilson bill? Do you remember 
 what was imported in 1893? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. I have not the figures. I have not gone into these 
 figures at all, gentlemen. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It was about 2,000,000 pounds. Y^ou have not figured 
 the duty required on the importation of 1896 to make the same amount 
 of revenues we did actually receive? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. I have not figured on that. Mr. Chairman, there 
 is only one statement I made in my argument I would like to substan- 
 tiate 
 
 Mr. Payne. I want to ask one question — whether it would require a 
 duty of between 58 and 59 cents a pound on all tobaccos produced in 
 the year 1896 to produce the revenue we actually received? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. I believe that is so; it would require 59 cents a 
 pound to equalize the duty received in 1896. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Evans has made an exact statement here, and 
 I would substitute that statement. He finds that the revenue that 
 would be derived from the importations of last year of tobacco, at a duty 
 of 50 cents a pound, would be $10,584,955, or at a duty of 55 cents a 
 pound it would be $11,643,450, and the actual revenue last year was 
 $12,399,501). 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. If you will allow me to again call attention to the 
 fact that the importations of the years 1895 and 1896, of Havana 
 tobacco, were very large — were very nuich increased over the normal 
 quantity required for this market, and hence the total revenues for tliose 
 two years were very much increased. But what about the consumption ; 
 what was withdrawn from consumption, that tells the story better, I 
 suppose ? 
 
 The Chairman. This is with drawn, the figures which Mr. Evans gives. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me I will add 
 only a few words. It has been clainied the tobacco growers in the 
 State of New Y'ork were benefited by the increased rate of duty. 
 Now, if the reports of the Agricultural Department are worth any- 
 thing,^I think their claim is not based on facts. Now, for one year, 
 1890, that was the year of the McKinley bill — no, we will start with
 
 746 SCHEDULE F. — ^TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 1889— the average price received was 12^ cents; for 1800, 9i cents; for 
 ]891, dh cents; for 1892, 8 cents; for 1893, 7 cents; for 1894, 7i cents, 
 and foi"l89r), 7.^ cents, and the gentleman here claims that the expense 
 of orowing tobacco is about 12 cents per pound. If that be the fact 
 theii all the States except Connecticut and Massachusetts have con- 
 ducted the growing of tobacco for the last twenty-five years every year 
 at a loss of from 5 to G cents per pound, and that is not at all probable. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. I would like to ask one question. This i)aragraph 
 185, leaf, other than manufactured and not stemmed, that is what you 
 call filler"? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. You say thot the principal part of that American 
 product is exported! 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. The real filler leaf. That is just quoted as being 
 2 cents to the farmer; that is not used in this country, but there is a 
 better grade of American tobacco. About three-fourths of the tobacco 
 used in cigars on the American market is of the American i)roduct and 
 one fourth is imported. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Have you figures showing the production of tobacco 
 for the last few years, by years"? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. No; I have not the figures. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Do you know of any place where they could be 
 obtained ? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. In the Agricultural Department. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. You think they can be found in the Agricultural 
 reports'? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler, What place is this exported to — to what ports do we 
 export this tobacco mostly ? 
 
 Sir. Schroeder. Mostly to (iermany, some to Holland and Belgium. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. And whde we export a great deal, I see we imported 
 last year 15,872,000 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. Yes, sir; we do not export the greater part, sir. 
 We export from 20,000 to 25,000 cases a year of low-grade American 
 tobacco. I am speaking now of cigar leaf. The heavy Southern tobaccos 
 ari^an entirely different article, which is not' handled either by the cigar- 
 leaf merchants here or by the cigar manufacturers. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Do you call the Florida leaf a heavy Southern tobacco? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. I am glad you speak of it. I am myself an owner 
 of a tobacco plantation in Florida, and I can talk intelligently on that 
 subject. 
 
 Mr. Turner. In Gadsden County! 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Turner. It can be raised in Decatur County, Ga.; that county 
 raises some! 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Turner. I will be much obliged if you will state your experience 
 about that tobacco and the value of it. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. There is about, on the average, 1,000,000 pounds 
 raised in Florida and Georgia a year, and about 10 per cent of that 
 tobacco in a fairly good year is suitable for wrapper puii)oses and brings 
 a very good price, while the bulk of the crop is suitable only for filler 
 purposes, and is used more or less as a substitute for Cuban tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Is it a fair substitute! 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. W'ell, it is a matter of taste. It is used for mixing. 
 I do not think it is any more like Cuban tobacco in (lualitv or tlavor 
 than Ohio tobacco is, to tell you the truth, but it looks more like it. lu
 
 I 
 
 TOBACCO DEALERS AND IMPORTERS. 747 
 
 api)earance it is similar somewhat to the Cuban tobacco. They have 
 ])oor land there, but the tobacco looks like Oubau tobacco and it will 
 do very well as a deceiver. 
 
 Mr. Turner. And to keep up the plantation ? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Is it used for the purpose of deceiving? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. Oh, I have no doubt the cigar manufacturers are 
 perfectly honest and do not misrepresent the thing at all. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You spoke of three-fourths of the use being domes- 
 tic and one-fourth imported; you had reference in that to that used in 
 cigars, did you? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. Y^es, sir. 
 
 CINCINNATI SEED LEAF TOBACCO BOARD OF TRADE FAVORS 
 
 UNIFORM DUTY. 
 
 Cincinnati, January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are dealers in foreign leaf tobacco and beg to submit to your 
 favorable consideration our views and wishes as to what would be the 
 proi)er tar iff rate compatible with the interests of the Government, and 
 the necessary protection to the growers of domestic leaf tobacco. 
 
 (1) What is under the law commercially known as " wrappers " has 
 applied practically nearly altogether to the i)roduct of Sumatra and 
 Java. It can not be produced in the United States, is almost univer- 
 sally used, and our domestic wrappers hav > no higher monetary value 
 than ordinary binder and liller stock; this in the face of the i)resent 
 high rate of duty, which acts as a hardship to the smaller manufacturer 
 of cigars, and does not give the protection to the grower as intended. 
 
 (2) It is conceded that but a very small per ceut of the product of 
 Cuba imported into the United States pays over the 35-ceiit rate, yet 
 the vast quantities of clear Havana cigars manufactured here all 
 require wrappers, a manifest inconsistency, inasmuch as every pound 
 of the wrappers for what is popularly known as 5 and 10 cent cigars 
 pays a tax of $1.50. 
 
 (3) It is our opinion that a uniform, specific rate on all imported 
 unstemmed leaf tobacco would be to the best interests of the Govern- 
 ment, to the manufacturers and consumers of cigars, and be a better 
 protection to the growers of leaf tobacco than the present rates. 
 
 (^4) It is the consensus of opinion in our trade that the uniform rate 
 should not be over 50 cents, but recognizing the needs of the Govern- 
 ment, we find that based on the total importation for the past two years 
 at 50 cents the Government would suffer loss, but at GO cents uniform 
 on all grades the receipts would be increased, and it is our prayer that 
 the uniform rate be placed at not over CO cents per pound, 
 
 (5) This would result in an increased importation of Sumatra tobacco, 
 no decrease in Habaua, and an increased income from the manufacturer 
 of domestic clear Habana cigars. 
 
 (C) From the standpoint of protection it is a fact, singular but never- 
 theless true, that the increase in the tariff on Habana tobacco and 
 also the resultant decrease in the rate on Sumatra tobacco would both 
 together act as powerful stimulants to enhance prices to our growers 
 of the domestic article. 
 
 The Seed Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 
 Louis Newburgh, President. 
 Jno. St ANN, Secretary.
 
 748 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 LEWIS SYLVESTER & SON, OF NEW YORK, FAVOR UNIFORM DUTY. 
 
 New York, December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We respectfully submit the following brief in support of a cliange of 
 duties on leaf tobacco from the existing rate of $1.50 per pound on 
 unstemmed wrappers and 35 cents per i)ound on unstemmed fillers to a 
 uniform duty of 50 cents for both wrappers and fillers unstemmed; the 
 changes in stemmed tobacco to be in proportion. Foreign tobaccos 
 have become indispensable in the manufacture of cigars in the United 
 States. The average quantity of imported wrappers required to make 
 a thousand cigars is 2| pounds and of the fillers 15 pounds, yielding the 
 Government therefrom $8.(J2|, while a uniform duty of 50 cents per 
 pound on both wrappers and tillers shows an equal result. 
 
 The proposed uniform rate would relieve importers as well as Govern- 
 ment officials from disputes, ])rotests, and various other complications 
 frequently attending classification and appraisements as now necessarily 
 practiced, and dejnive unscrupulous parties of advantages. 
 
 Some tobacco growers in the Eastern States (which sections are the 
 only ones producing wrapper tobacco that could be used) may claim 
 that by reducing the duty on foreign wrappers their product would be 
 affected, overlooking the logical conclusion that under the proposed 
 change the production of cigars would be materially increased and a 
 larger demand be created for binder leaf, and at advanced rates. It 
 may also be remembered that not even under the most favorable con- 
 ditions do these farmers get more than 5 per cent of wrapi)era from 
 their crops. Under the changed tariff Pennsylvania and Western 
 tobacco growers who cultivate tiller leaf* would derive positive advan- 
 tage through the increased duty which would be collected on foreign- 
 grown tiller tobacco. At present a single package of imported wrappers 
 amounts to about $500, which sum is beyond the means of a great many 
 of the smaller cigar manufacturers. Thus, they are gradiuilly being 
 driven out of the business, and large quantities of both foreign and 
 domestic tobacco which would be used by them in the making of cigars 
 are left unconsumed. 
 
 Lewis Sylvester & Son, 
 Importers and Packers of Leaf Tobacco. 
 
 ROTHSCHILD & BRO., OF DETROIT, FAVOR UNIFORM DUTY. 
 
 Detroit, Mich., January 5, 1897. 
 Dear Sir : I take the liberty to lay before you the true condition in 
 regard to duties on tobacco. Duties on tobacco should be specific for 
 the protection to our Government and in justice to our manufacturers. 
 I say in justice to our Government, because under a uniform and spe- 
 cific duty fraud can not be committed, while under the jiresent law 95 
 per cent of all the Habana wrappers used in this country pay only a 
 duty of 35 cents instead of $1.50 per pound, as required "^by law, and 
 while this could not have been accomplished under the existing law it 
 is done under a ruling originally made by Mr. Gunby, appraiser at the 
 port of Tampa, and supported by our Secretary of the Treasury. I 
 say in justice to our manufacturers because a large manufacturer imuorts 
 his own tobacco, and when passed at 35 cents duty he gets the benefit, 
 whde the poorer and small manufacturer has to buy his tobacco of the 
 importer m small quantities. If such an importer gets wrapper tobacco
 
 TOBACCO DEALERS AND IMPORTERS. 749 
 
 passed at 3.3 cents he will sell it (out of bond) or duty paid, and the 
 poorer manufacturer has to pay the price for his tobacco as wrapper. 
 Tbe consequences are that the small manufacturers are wiped out as 
 clear Ha,baua manufacturers. 
 
 Going as importer to a foreign country to buy tobacco is a specula- 
 tion depending entirely on the treatment he receives when his tobacco 
 lands in America. That fraud and bribery are the result of such a law 
 can easily be imagined, and when the mauulacturer and importer beg 
 tlieir Government to give us a uniform duty, where the rich and poor 
 are treated alike, where the honest man and the thief have to j^ay 
 alike, when oar lawmakers don't listen to such requests, it is presumed 
 that they have a reason of their own, and we have to keep on import- 
 ing our tobacco as before, selecting the jiorts where they deal most 
 leniently with us. 
 
 What should be the average duty ? I claim a 50-cent duty per pound 
 will bring the best results and will be more protection to our farmers 
 than any protection given to any other product, whether raw material 
 or manufactured. 
 
 Wisconsin sells her average crop at G cents; .50 cents duty is over 800 
 per cent; Ohio, at 7 cents ; 50 cents duty is over 700 per cent; New York 
 State, at 7 cents; 50 cents duty is over 700 ])er cent; Pennsylvania, at 8 
 cents; 50 cents duty is over 000 ])er cent; Connecticut, at 12 cents; 50 
 cents duty is over 400 per cent; Florida, at 25 cents; 50 cents duty is 
 over 200 i^er cent. 
 
 The truth is, our farmers don't want protection; they want prohi- 
 bition, and have not the courage to say so. They ask protection on an 
 article they can not raise, and overcome it by claiming that the use of 
 llabana and Sumatra is a fad with the consumer. They have the 
 audacity to proclaim that millions of smokers don't know what they 
 want. They forget that this country exported in the year 1896 77,996 
 hogsheads of tobacco, aveiage 1,500 pounds, or 116,994,000 jiounds; 
 70,079 cases cigar leaf, average 350 pounds, or 24,527,650 pounds; and 
 besides this, in the form of smoking and chewing, 8,692,148 pounds; 
 besides this, 17,098 cases of cigarettesmade of American tobacco ; a total 
 export of over 150,000,000 pounds of American tobacco; and our entire 
 importation of foreign wrappers (Sumatra) was, in 1896, 19,150 bales — 
 lost at sea, 1,840 bales; entered in our country, 17,304 bales — at 160 
 pounds per bale, or 2,768,640 ijounds. Can we under this condition 
 afford to make a prohibitory law on foreign tobacco! 
 
 Fifty cents per i>ound on all tobaccos imported gives our Government 
 more revenue than the duty collected now, and is more protection than 
 any other article of commerce on our tariff" book. At present tillers pay 
 .'>5 cents and wrappers $1.50 per pound. It takes 18 pounds of Habana 
 for the average cigar at 35 cents, which will amount to a duty of $6.30. 
 Sumatra is worked with 2 pounds at $1.50 duty, or $3, or a total of 
 $9.30 duty pel 1,000 cigars— for filler, $6.30; for wrapper, $3, making 
 a total of $9.30, while 20 ponnds of tobacco at the uniform rate of 50 
 cents would be $10. Besides that, clear Habana cigars did not pay 
 more than 20 pounds of Habana at 35 cents, or $7 per 1,000, while 
 under an average duty of 50 cents, the duty would amount to 20 
 pounds at 50 cents, or $10, and a clear Habana cigar consumed by 
 the richest can stand the difference better than any other cigar, and 
 there need not be any bribery or collusion to cheat the Government. 
 
 If our Government wants more revenue, let the duty be higher, but 
 give us a uniform duty and do away with two different duties on tobacco, 
 for reasons given. 
 
 It is time that our farmers as well as our Committee on Ways and
 
 750 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Means should kuow that we need tlie foreign market for our produce 
 as well as tbey need us. It should, furthermore, not be forgotten that 
 the consumer,' who pays for all, should receive some consideration. Tbe 
 importer and the manufacturer will look for tobacco to satisfy the taste 
 of the consumer, and will not pay a oU-cent duty on tobacco if they find 
 such tobacco at home for 10 cents or 40 cents. 
 
 Therefore I hope that our Congress will make a law which will pro- 
 tect ojLir Government by making a specific uniform duty on tobacco, and, 
 second, a rate which will protect tbe farmer, the manufacturer, and the 
 consumer, which, to my best judgment, could be best accomplished by 
 a duty of 50 cents a pound on all unstemmed tobacco. 
 
 SictMund Rothschild, 
 Importer and Packer of Leaf Tobacco. 
 
 THE HENRY MEYER LEAF TOBACCO COMPANY, OF CINCINNATI, 
 FAVORS UNIFORM DUTY. 
 
 Cincinnati, December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Having been duly apprised of your intention to have hearings on the 
 different schedules of tbe tariff laws, we, as dealers and importers of 
 filler and wrapper tobacco, herewith beg to petition you to hear our 
 various reasons for asking a consideration to change the present rates 
 of duty, viz, 35 cents per pound on filler and $1.50 per pound on wrap- 
 per tobaccos. 
 
 We strongly urge your committee to place a uniform rate of duty, 
 and in accordance with our ideas and our experience we feel that a uni- 
 form duty of 50 cents per i^ound would be adequate for the needed 
 revenue of our Government; still if your committee deems it wiser to 
 place a uniform duty of 55 or 60 cents per pound on all imported 
 tobaccos coming, we will be satisfied, and beg to submit the following 
 reasons for our recpiest: 
 
 We consider the present rate of $1.50 per pound on all wrapper leaf 
 too high and virtually a prohibitory duty, inasmuch as it is conceded 
 by all who are directly interested in the manufacture of cigars that it 
 is an absolute impossibility to grow a cigar- wrapper leaf in this country 
 wbich will equal tbe imported wrapper, and also tbat we are unable iu 
 this country to supply the demand for wrapper leaf from the production 
 of our own soil, as we do not and can not grow enough desirable leaf 
 to supply the demand and at the same time please the consumer or the 
 general public. 
 
 Statistics will prove to you that but a small percentage of the tobac- 
 cos imported from tbe Island of Quba pay $1.50 per pound duty; thus 
 it will be seen tbat the manufacturer of a clear Habana cigar, meaning 
 thereby those who are using Habana wrapper on their cigars, are pay- 
 ing only 35 cents per pound on the wrapper used on their cigars, whereas, 
 tbe manufacturer of cigars using Sumatra wrapper, or any other im- 
 ported wrapper, is compelled to pay $1.50 per pound. Thus will be 
 seen the inequality of the present duty, inasmuch as it is giving one 
 manufacturer the preference over other manufacturers, and the desira- 
 bility of a uniform rate of 50 cents per pound. 
 
 From the statistics which we have received from the Treasury Depart- 
 ment for the years of June 30, 1891, to June 30, 1896, it has been shown 
 that 10,891,164 pounds of tobacco paid $1.50 per pound duty, and 
 48,702,113 pounds of tobacco paid 35 cents per pound duty. It is con-
 
 TOBACCO DEALERS AND IMPORTERS. 751 
 
 ceded by everyone that of the 48,70L',]13 poniuls a great deal of this 
 tobacco was wrapper tobacco and should have been placed under the 
 $1.50 rate, but owing to the present form of paying- duties and collect- 
 ing same, it is impossible for the various appraisers and examiners at 
 the custom house to go through each and every bale of tobacco imported 
 as filler leaf and find out the condition of the leaf. You will readily 
 see in this way a great deal of our so-called filler tobacco is virtually 
 wrapper tobacco of the very finest kind, subject to $1.50 per pound 
 duty. 
 
 It is conceded that our country is the greatest filler-producing coun- 
 try in the world. As we know our Government to favor protection to 
 its home industries at all times, it can readily be seen that the tobacco 
 industry of our country will be greatly benefited by this uniform rate 
 of duty, virtually advancing the price on all imported Habana filler 
 leaf to whatever rate your committee feels disposed to grant, thus giv- 
 ing our farmers and producers of tobacco a better x)rice for their produc- 
 tion. As we stated previously in our petition, we are virtually unable 
 in this country to grow a wrapper leaf which will compare favorably 
 with the imported tobaccos ; but inasmuch as any of this leaf can be 
 used for binder purposes, especially the Connecticut tobacco, it will 
 command a higher i)rice as binder leaf than now as wrapper leaf. Thus 
 it will be seen that by ])]acing a uniform rate on all the imported 
 tobaccos, that more Sumatra will be used by everyone, and it will place 
 the manufactnrers, large and small, on an equal basis, and in a position 
 where they can use Sumatra leaf on most of their entire production, 
 thus increasing the revenue of the Government by this increased 
 importation. 
 
 We sincerely hope that you will take into earnest consideration all 
 the ideas placed before you, and do that which in your judgment is 
 for the benefit of the trade at large and for our Government as well. 
 
 The Henry Mever Leaf Tobacco Co., 
 Per Henry Meyer, President. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. JOHN BARNES, TOBACCO DEALER, 
 OF CINCINNATI, OHIO. 
 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As I understand your committee is desirous of enacting a tariff 
 measure beneficial to the largest number, not subserving the interests 
 of the few, impoverishing the many, I feel it my duty to make a few 
 suggestions. 
 
 . The New York Tobacco Association having recently adopted the plan 
 advocated by a notorious free law material i)ublication (the United 
 States Tobacco Journal), whose readers are very limited, I feel it my 
 duty to furnish facts, and demonstrate that the action of the associa- 
 tion is radically wrong. It doesn't follow that because a wrong princi- 
 ple has been indorsed that a majority of the members approve it. Reso- 
 lutions of the character mentioned are generally put through such 
 organizations by schemers, who manage to get their element present, 
 and after much bluster and noise rush them through, overriding all 
 opposition. 
 
 Many of the Xew York dealers have amassed great wealth by import- 
 ing foreign tobaccos, and thus have been instrumental in depreciating 
 the value of the American product. Wealth is always assertive and
 
 752 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 influential in shaping the policy of associations with which it is con- 
 nected, and that this influence permeates the whole country is illus- 
 trated by the fact that a certain dealer in this city is striving to bring- 
 together such dealers as can be influenced, and passing resolutions of a 
 similar character to those of the New York association, declaring them 
 as representing the unanimous sentiment of Cincinnati dealers. No 
 doubt conspirators are moving in the same direction throughout the 
 nation. With this explanation no credence sliould be given to resolu- 
 tions emanating from such pretended organizations. 
 
 If the plan proposed by the New York association be adopted, the 
 holders of Habaua leaf, enormous quantities of which are stored in the 
 various bonded warehouses, who are so disinterestedly petitioning for 
 an increase of duty, would enhance the value of their holdings from 
 25 to 40 per cent, and not add to the nation's income a single farthing. 
 In fact, it is a matter of history that just as soon as the present supply 
 is exhausted these patriots will be in favor of a lower tariff, a game of 
 "heads I win, tails you lose," against the i)eople. 
 
 Who are the men who so brazenly attempt to dictate a seltish policy 
 to your committee! In what proportion do they represent the vitally 
 interested element? There are at least 400 growers of tobacco to every 
 dealer. Therefore the interests of tlie former (the many) should be con- 
 sulted instead of tbe few. What has been the effect heretofore of legis- 
 lating for the few, who assume to speak for all the people? Sumatra 
 wrappers, in which the few have been interested, have driven our 
 domestic wrappers out of the market, proportionately depreciating the 
 value of the whole crop, giving it a binder filler gradation instead of 
 wrapper, binder, and filler, as formerly. For three years many of the 
 Connecticut growers have not realized cost of fertilizer out of sales of 
 crops. Shall this state of affairs continue, benefitting only a few New 
 York importers and the employers of coolie labor on the Island of 
 Sumatra? 
 
 I am a Eepublican, and honestly believe in the principle of protection 
 to home industries. The honest way to encourage diversified interests 
 is to protect all. 1 know of no case where it can be more justly applied 
 than in the protection of the imi^ortant tobacco interest. I would, 
 therefore, recommend that a revenue tax on imported wrappers be fixed 
 so high that cigars, Sumatra wrapped, could not be sold profitably for 
 less than 10 cents each. A revenue duty of $5 a pound would bring 
 about this desired result. This would give the market to our domestic 
 tobaccos for all grades below 10 cents. 
 
 Suppose the New York Tobacco Association's idea should prevail.— 
 50 cents a pound on all grades of imported tobacco — what would be 
 the eflect on the hard-working producer who is "the people?" From 
 that time forth there would be no demand for home-grown wrappers, 
 not even for the commonest cigar. Again, I would suggest, protect the 
 growers and the dealers can take care of their own interests. 
 
 To conclude on this point, I urge in the interest of the tobacco 
 grower, whose interests alone should be considered, a duty of $5 on 
 wrapper leaf and 75 cents per pound on fillers. If such a plan is 
 adopted, we would have the happiest and the most prosperous tobacco 
 growers in the world. 
 
 As good citizens, as honorable and trusted representatives, I appeal 
 to you not to do anything to injure the common people, whose labors 
 and inspirations have made this nation great, the model for the world. 
 When we reduce our producers to the level of the poor slaves of the 
 outside world, we not only destroy their manly ambition but weaken 
 and imperil the props of the Government.
 
 TOBACCO DEALERS AND IMPORTERS. 753 
 
 Think of it — in free America — in the rich Miami Valley — growervS 
 being compelled to sell their Zimmer Spanish crops at 3, 4, and 5 cents 
 per x>ound, GOO to 800 pounds to the acre, 5 acres being as much as one 
 man can cultivate, labor continuing on same for nearly a year, making 
 the magnificent sum of about $100 for the whole crop, not considering 
 extra cost of fertilizer. As it is in the Miami Valley, so it is in Massa- 
 chusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New York, Wisconsin, Illinois, 
 and other tobacco sections. 
 
 I would suggest that your committee call upon Congressmen repre- 
 senting tobacco growing sections for information, and, in addition, bring 
 before your committee some of the intelligent growers of the many 
 districts interested in the tobacco product. By consulting these jieople 
 you can the more certainly arrive at a correct conclusion as to the needs 
 of the multitude represented in the tobacco industry. 
 
 As a dealer of upward of twenty years' experience, who has devoted 
 more attention to improving tobaccos in Ohio than all the rest combined, 
 I can say conscientiously that if your committee will approve the policy 
 recommended herein, that in a short period the United States will not 
 only produce all the tobaccos consumed within its broad domains, but 
 will eventually compete in the world's markets with those grown on the 
 Island of Cuba. 
 
 Give the growers the protection that is just and fair, and grand results 
 will follow. Instead of importing our tine cigars from abroad, home 
 dealers will patronize home markets, and our manufacturers be enabled 
 to compete with foreign products in the outside markets. 
 
 That your committee may not be deceived by high-sounding titles, 
 such as "The Il^atioual Association of Cigar Manufacturers," I deem it 
 proper to expose the character of this organization. The total number 
 of factories in the United States controlled by this association does not 
 exceed one hundred. The Cincinnati branch numbers six factories, and 
 Mr. Krohn only represents four of them, as two were opposed to the 
 uniform-tax scheme. Outside of the six there are upward of three hun- 
 dred factories in Cincinnati, whose managers are almost unanimous in 
 favor of excluding Sumatra, as they have been great sufferers by its 
 introduction. Ten out of one hundred of them could not buy more than 
 a bale of Sumatra at one time, and then have to pay an extra large 
 profit to the dealer, as compared to the large manufacturers, who mostly 
 import their own Sumatra. Yet still another class (and the largest) 
 buy Sumatra by the pound at a ruinous price, making the cost so much 
 greater that it is simply impossible to compete with the larger manu- 
 facturer. If something is not done soon to protect the small manufac- 
 turers (who are the majority), the larger ones will impoverish and absorb 
 them and eventually form a great trust. 
 
 Mr. Moses Krohn did not lack gall when he said before your committee 
 "the interests of the many demanded a uniform duty on tobacco" — the 
 "many" consisting of 100 factories out of 15,000 in the United States. 
 His counting the employees in the syndicate factories (he had no right 
 to include outside factories, as they are antagonistic) as "being in favor 
 of the uniform tax" smacks of the old slavery days, when laborers were 
 chattels. I know Mr. Krohn does not speak aright of his own employees, 
 as most of them are Eepublicans, and therefore in favor of protection to 
 producer and manufacturer. 
 
 Mr. Krohn represents a small body of wealthy manufacturers (100 
 in all) organized for the very purpose Mr. Krohn is seeking to accom- 
 plish before your committee — enrichment of themselves at the expense 
 TH 48
 
 754 SCHEDULE F. — TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 of the many. Therefore, whatever they shoukl propose, your committee 
 would be justified in treatiug- with suspicion, and branding, as the leper 
 of old, "unclean," "unclean." 
 
 Eeports of the 1896 crop of tobacco have reached me from several 
 States, which I propose to compare with that antidating the influx of 
 Sumatra. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Pennsylvania. 
 New Eugland. 
 
 1896. 
 
 Gases. 
 70, UOO 
 40. 000 
 40, 000 
 45, 000 
 
 Previous. 
 
 100, 000 
 
 80, 000 
 120, 000 
 90,000 
 
 Total 215,000 
 
 I 
 
 Difl'erence 
 
 390, 000 
 215, 000 
 
 185, 000 
 
 These four States alone show a falling off of 185,000 cases, or 4,500,000 
 pounds, which represent a loss to the growers in favor of the favored 
 Sumatra importers. In other words, we have been favoring the Sumatra 
 interests and impoverishing our own people. If the present duty ou 
 Sumatra is continued, our production of tobacco will continue to decrease 
 until it will cease to be an item in the market and the industry forever 
 destroyed. 
 
 Uur low duties are driving tobacco growers into other lines, making 
 overproduction and cheap prices. 
 
 I beg of you not to forget that you are Americans, and to stand by 
 your countrymen as against the cheap labor of the outer world. 
 
 John Barnes. 
 
 Cincinnati, Ohio. January 4, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As we believe in the principle of protection and think that the majority interested 
 In tobacco production and trade, and know that the best interests of all concerned 
 have been injured by the half-way measures heretofore adopted at the dictation of 
 the wealthy New York importers, we therefore heartily indorse the suggestions con- 
 tained in the letter now before your committee of Captain Barnee, as it aifords 
 ample and complete protection for all concerned. 
 
 W. H. ROFF, 
 
 Deala- in Seed Leaf Tobacco. 
 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, January 4, 1S97. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 We heartily indorse the letter written to you by John Barnes. 
 
 John Saur and F. A. Doeble, 
 
 Leaf Tobacco Dealers. 
 
 UNIFORM RATE OF DUTY WOULD COMPLETELY RUIN AMERICAN 
 
 TOBACCO GROWING. 
 
 Lancaster,. Pa., January 6, 1897. 
 Committee on Wats and Means : 
 
 The farming of leaf tobacco is an industry which has declined very 
 much in Pennsylvania, New York, and Connecticut during the last few 
 years. The large importations of Sumatra tobacco have compelled the 
 American farmer to abandon the production of fine wrapper loaf, and 
 as It IS unprofitable to raise fillers and binders at from 1 to 5 cents per
 
 TOBACCO DEALERS AND IMPORTERS. 755 
 
 pound, many farmers have abandoned the industry. Cigars with Su- 
 matra wrappers are sold as low as $15 per 1,000. The tiller used in these 
 cigars is very ordinary. The Sumatra wrapper sells the cigar. Sumatra 
 is a lad with a great many people. The consumer would secure much 
 better value if a good filler were used with a fine domestic wrapper. 
 Imported Habaua is indispensable to the finest grades of cigars. We 
 have no domestic filler equal to it in quality. To make a uniform rate 
 of duty would be to maintain the Habaua filler at a slight advance 
 per thousand cigars in the cost of their production, but it would com- 
 pletely annihilate our great American tobacco-growing industry by 
 fioodjng this country with Sumatra tobacco at very low prices. If the 
 duty on Sumatra were advanced sufficiently so that it would be used 
 on cigars the minimum retail price of which would be 5 cents, the Gov- 
 ernment, I believe, would not have its revenue decreased, and our farm- 
 ers would rise up and call our legislators blessed. 
 
 Walter S. Bare, 
 Packer and Dealer in Leaf Tobacco. 
 
 FRED SCHULZ, OF NEW YORK, FAVORS HIGHER DUTY ON SUMATRA. 
 
 New York, December 16, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I beg leave to state that when your honorable- body gets at the 
 Sumatra question that, to my observation, it would be of advantage to 
 this country to raise the duty thereon to at least $2.50 per pound, for 
 this country really does not need that tobacco. In other words, it 
 hurts our farmers in disposing of their tobacco — for instance Connecti- 
 cut, which product is as good as any Sumatra tobacco; the only differ- 
 ence is perha])s that the Sumatra looks a little bit better on the cigars, 
 but the smoke or the quality of the Connecticut is really better, so to 
 say, than any of the Sumatra tobacco. 
 
 Fred Schulz, 
 Dealer in Havana and Sumatra Tobacco. 
 
 CIGAR IMPORTERS FAVOR A COMPOUND DUTY. 
 
 Baltimore, Md., 'January 11, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The undersigned, importers of cigars, respectfully suggest that in 
 revising the tariff on cigars the duty should be fixed at not more than 
 $2 per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem, we believing that this rate 
 will produce a larger revenue than that received under the present 
 tariff', and at the same time amply protect the domestic cigar manufac- 
 turers. The average dutiable value of imported cigars is about $52 
 per 1,000, and average weight lof pounds per 1,000. On this basis the 
 proposed duty would be $31.90 per 1,000, equal to the 61.3 per cent of 
 dutiable value. 
 
 Taking as types "low-priced," "medium," and "fine" cigars, the duty 
 proposed would be: Low-priced, value $24, weight 10 pounds, $24.80 
 per 1,000, or 103^ per cent; medium, value $50, weight 3 2 pounds, $34 
 per 1,000, or Q^ per cent; fine, value $100, weight 15 pounds, $50 per 
 1,000, or 50 per cent. 
 
 Under the previous tariff' of $2.50 per pound and 25 per cent the
 
 756 
 
 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 imports of cigars amounted to less than 3 per cent of the quantity 
 manufactured in the United States. Under the present tariff it is less 
 than 1 per cent. This would indicate that the manufacturing industry- 
 has for some time been established here on a secure basis. 
 
 Under the previous tariff of $2.50 per pound and 25 per cent ad 
 valorem, the average annual receipts of the Government for the five 
 years, 1887 to 1891 inclusive, were $3,854,000: and from 1892 to 1890, 
 inclusive, at a rate of 25 per cent ad valorem and $4.50 per pound for 
 two years, and 25 per cent ad va' jrem and 84 per pound for three years, 
 tbe average annual receipts wer< $2,496,000, showing a loss of $ 1 ,358,000 
 yearly to tbe Government. At the rate suggested above, to wit,^0 per 
 cent ad valorem and $2 per pound, Ave feel that the Government would 
 soon receive a revenue equal to that for the years 1887 to 1891, stated 
 above, and at the same time afford ample protection to the manufac- 
 turers of domestic cigars. 
 
 Increase of consumption from 1870 to 1S96, as indicated hij tax-paid cigars returned by 
 Internal-Eevenue Bureau, and the imports of c'gars for same %)eriod, calculated on a 
 basis of 12 i)Ounds per 1,000 from total imports in pounds. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Tax-paid. 
 
 Increase or 
 decrease. 
 
 Imported 
 cigars. 
 
 iDcrease or 
 decrease. 
 
 1870. 
 1871. 
 1872. 
 1873. 
 1874. 
 1875. 
 1876. 
 1877. 
 1878. 
 1879. 
 1880. 
 ]881. 
 1882. 
 1883. 
 1884. 
 1885. 
 1886. 
 1887. 
 1888. 
 1889. 
 1890. 
 1891. 
 1892. 
 1893. 
 1894. 
 1895. 
 1896. 
 
 Number. 
 1, 139, 470, 774 
 1,313,913,604 
 1, 507, 014, 922 
 1, 779. 946, 596 
 1, 887, 979, 298 
 1, 926, 661, 780 
 1, 828, 807, 396 
 
 1, 800. 009, 256 
 1, 905. 063, 743 
 2,019,246,764 
 
 2, 367, 803, 248 
 2, 682, 620, 797 
 
 3, 040, 975. 395 
 3. 227. 888, 992 
 3,455,619.017 
 3, 358, 972, 633 
 3,510,898,488 
 3, 788, 305 443 
 
 3, 844. 726, 650 
 3, 867, 385, 640 
 
 4. 087, 889, 983 
 4, 474. 892, 767 
 4. 548, 799, 417 
 4.814,197,117 
 4, 066, 917, 433 
 4, 163. 972, 440 
 4, 237, 755, 943 
 
 174, 442, 
 
 193, 101, 
 
 272, 931, 
 
 78, 032, 
 
 68, 682, 
 
 '97, 854, 
 
 *28, 978, 
 
 105, 054, 
 
 114, 183. 
 
 348, 556, 
 
 314.817. 
 
 358, 354. 
 
 186,913. 
 
 227, 730. 
 
 *96, 646. 
 
 151.925, 
 
 277, 406, 
 
 56,421, 
 
 22. 658, 
 
 220. 504, 
 
 387. 002, 
 
 460. 909, 
 
 265. 397. 
 
 *747, 279. 
 
 97, 055, 
 
 63, 783, 
 
 42, 127, 360 
 63, 196, 960 
 70. 452, 160 
 77, 972, 560 
 71, 801, 920 
 68 558, 240 
 52; 692, 240 
 42, 921, 920 
 49, 824, 400 
 49, 542, 400 
 52, 192, 160 
 49, 480, 240 
 64, 229, 760 
 66,382,160 
 71,341,520 
 73. 598. 720 
 81, 282, 640 
 89, 239, 280 
 92, 277. 440 
 98, 609. 520 
 102. 102, 992 
 101, 145, 999 
 52, 726, 233 
 51, 168. 250 
 36, 358, 690 
 37, 466, 638 
 36, 956, 720 
 
 21, 069, 600 
 7, 255, 200 
 7, 520. 400 
 
 *6, 170, 640 
 
 *3, 243, 680 
 *15, 866, 000 
 
 *9, 770, 320 
 
 6, 902, 480 
 * 282, 000 
 
 2, 649, 760 
 *2, 711, 920 
 14, 740, 520 
 2, 152, 400 
 4, 958, 360 
 
 2, 257, 200 
 
 7, 683. 920 
 7, 956, 640 
 
 3, 038, 160 
 B, 332, 080 
 3, 493. 472 
 
 *956, 993 
 
 *48, 419, 766 
 
 "1,557,983 
 
 *14, 809, 560 
 
 1, 107, 948 
 
 *509, 918 
 
 *Decrease; all other, increase. 
 
 Note.— Consumption of cigars in the United States duriufr the tiscal \ear ending June 3il, 1896, was 
 4,237,755,943. «.,„,, 
 
 Imports of cigars, same period, 36,956,720. 
 
 Cigars imported, as compared with total consumption, less than 1 per cent. 
 Total product of cigars in Mhole Island of Cuba, 200,000,000. 
 
 Geo, K. McGaw Co., Baltimore, Md.; Blackwell's Durham 
 Tobacco Co., 511 Chestnut street, Philadelphia; Robert 
 Steel, 1401 Chestnut street, Philadelphia; Henrv Van 
 Beil & Co., 1310 Chestnut street, Philadelphia;'^ John 
 Wagner & Sons, 233 Teck street, Philadelphia; H. B. 
 Gorauley, 527 Chestnut street, Philadelphia; G. S.Nich- 
 olas, 43 Beaver street, ]S^ew York; Michaeli Linderaan, 
 393 Broadway, New York; Philip & John Frank, 39 
 Beaver street, New York; S. S. Pierce Co.; Daniel 
 Frank & Co.; Hyneman Bros.; Davenport & Hersey 
 Co.; Charles B. Perkins cK: Co.
 
 f 
 
 I 
 
 MANUFACTURERS OF CIGARS. 757 
 
 FAVORS FIVE-DOLLAR DUTY ON SUMATRA. 
 
 Cincinnati, January 6, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Having the interests of the tobacco trade sincerely at heart, I hereby 
 wish to state that I as one am much in favor of an increased duty to $5 
 on Sumatra leaf, and also Havana tobacco. 
 
 P. G. BURKIIARDT, 
 
 Leaf Tobacco Brolcer. 
 
 MANTTFACTUREES OF CIGARS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF M. KROHN, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSO- 
 CIATION OF CIGAR MAKERS, OF NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 Monday, January 4, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Kkohn said : Gentlemen, in presenting the views of the National 
 Association of Cigar Manufacturers, it has been our endeavor to take 
 a comprehensive view of the question involved and to take into con- 
 sideration the various interests centering in the tobacco industry, and 
 not look upon it from a mere seltish or narrow standpoint, for in that 
 way only, it seems to me, can we arrive at a proi^er conclusion as to 
 what is best in the arrangement of a tariff as to an industry which 
 interests so many of our people. 
 
 It has been stated that the use of a wrapx)er tobacco, or rather Suma- 
 tra tobacco, is a matter of fancy or a whim. If so, I am inclined to 
 believe that the statement that man is wonderfully and fearfully made 
 has some foundation in fact; for if we continue to purchase an article 
 that we dislike and don't want, it is a peculiar state of aftairs. Yet 
 the fact does remain that people do want the article, no matter what 
 the reason may be. 
 
 It is always supposed that in legislating for the people the interests 
 of the many are taken into consideration, and what is supposed to be 
 for the best interests of a large majority should receive the sanction of 
 all legislative bodies. Legislation is supposed to be based upon equity 
 and Justice, and I have no doubt, gentlemen, that you intend to do 
 what is just, fair, and equitable for the industry that centers in the leaf- 
 tobacco growing, handling, and manufacturing industry. 
 
 In presenting our case, we hope to be able to convince you that it is 
 to the interest of the many to have a uniform rate of duty on leaf 
 tobacco. I think there will be no difficulty in proving to you that the 
 very large industry of tobacco raising, taking all the cigar leaf raising 
 States into consideration which have only been repesented here by the 
 growers of the States of Connecticut and New York, will be benefited, 
 and that it will be to their interest to have a uniform rate, and that it 
 is only the smaller portion of the tobacco growing farmers who are 
 represented in the statements made before your committee; that whilst 
 they claim to represent the farmers engaged in the industry of raising 
 tobacco as a whole, they do in reality represent only a very small por- 
 tion of them, as I hope to be able to show you in the brief that we have 
 prepared. 
 
 The so-called cigar- wrapper tobacco leaf raised in the United States 
 is but a very small item of the production of this country. Call it a fad, 
 call it a fiincy, call it a fashion, but our eftbrts are directed to a great 
 extent in life to please and sooth the eye and taste. It may be wrong, 
 but nevertheless that is human nature.
 
 758 
 
 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 It lias been stated that in former years tbe domestic leaf lias been 
 satisfactory to the American coiisnmer. I am willing to indorse that 
 statement/ It is also true that homespun was worn by our ancestors 
 and that they were perfectly satisfied and hai)])y under those conditions. 
 I do not see any of you gentlemen wearing it to-day. We must progress 
 with the age, and the fact remains that people will seek that which their 
 tastes admire, and they will have it regardless of conditions or fortifica- 
 tions that you may throw in their way. 
 
 JSTow, let us see whether or not the greater number of people interested 
 in this subject of tobacco are engaged in the raising. Take what is 
 called filler-leaf tobacco, as against wrapper leaf, and j^ou will find that 
 the proportion of wrapper leaf raised in the United States will not bear 
 more than 20 per cent of the whole of cigar leaf, of which I am speak- 
 ing. If that is the case, should we legislate in the interest of 20 i)er 
 cent or in the interest of 80 per cent? 
 
 I would not for a moment consent to appear here as the president of 
 the National Association of Cigar ^Nlanufat turers to advocate any cause 
 did I not consider it just; and without taking up your time any further, 
 permit me to read a brief which we have prepared. I trust that your 
 action will be such that you will take into consideration not alone the 
 present but also the future effect upon the industry, for I do not con- 
 sider it wise to legislate simply for the moment. I would not consider 
 it statesmanlike to take into consideration to-day when it comes to an 
 enactment of a law that is to control and regulate to a great extent 
 such a large ajid vast industry. I believe we ought to look to the 
 future, and if possible arrive at some conclusions which will make our 
 laws permanent, so we know where we stand, and not constantly 
 change our business from one thing to another. 
 
 Mr. Krohn read from his paper, as follows : 
 
 The National Association of Cigar Manufactnrers of the United. States beg leave 
 to respectfully submit tbe following brief in connection with the framing of sched- 
 ule F (the tobacco schedule) in the proposed tariff revision bill to be drafted and 
 subuiitted to Congress. 
 
 The National Association of Cigar Manufacturers is a duly organized national 
 association with a membership composed of the leading firms engaged in the luanu- 
 factni-e of cigars in the United States. 
 
 The cigar manufacturers ^ell understand the conditions which render a revision 
 of the tariff necessary at the present time. They know full well that not only is it 
 necessary to place the revenues of the Government u})on a bnsis which will meet its 
 current and necessary expenses, but they are also advised of the fact that the theory 
 of the proposed tariff revision will be in line with the theory of protecting American 
 lal)or and American industries. 
 
 The cigar manufacturers, in common with all other American manufactnrers, are 
 in harmony with the principles of protecticm above referred to, and ihey conse- 
 quently do not appear before yon for the purpose of asking any exemption from 
 bearing a just and proper share of the burdens of maintaining our Onvernmeut, 
 which burdens they have borne in excess of their projiortion compared with other 
 industries. 
 
 The tariff" on impoi'ted leaf tobacco during the past seven years has yielded to the 
 Government a revenue as follows (the ligures are furnished by the Bureau of 
 Statistics) : 
 
 FOR THE TEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1890. 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Price per 
 pound. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Unstemmed wrappers 
 
 3, 756, 033. 95 
 
 16,0-14,667.47 
 
 1, 213, 614. 85 
 
 1,666.00 
 
 $0.75 
 .35 
 .40 
 .30 
 
 $2, 817, 025. 50 
 
 Unstemmed fillers 
 
 stemmed fillers 
 
 
 
 130. 50 
 
 Total 
 
 21,615,532.27 
 
 
 9, 128, 055. 59 
 

 
 MANUFACTURERS OF CIGARS. 
 
 759 
 
 FOE. THE TEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 189]. 
 
 Tjnst&mmeil ■wrappers. 
 Tnsteniinert wrappers. 
 
 Unstemnied fillers 
 
 Stemmed fillers 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Price per 
 pound. 
 
 7,235,515.13 
 
 $0.75 
 
 $5, 426, 636. 39 
 
 18,359.25 
 
 2.00 
 
 30, 718. 50 
 
 17, 063, 682. 79 
 
 .35 
 
 5, 972, 288. 93 
 
 895, 755. 00 
 
 .50 
 
 447, 877. 50 
 
 633, 705. 00 
 
 .40 
 
 253, 506. 00 
 
 Total. 
 
 25, 847, 077. 17 
 
 12, 137, 027. 32 
 
 rOR THE TEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1892. 
 
 Unstemmed wrappers i 327, 801. 87 
 
 Steninied wrap])ers i 72. 00 
 
 Unstemmeil fillers i 14, 353, 039. 07 
 
 Stemmed fillers j 1, 600, 783. 50 
 
 Total ; 16,341,696.44 
 
 $2.00 
 
 2.75 
 
 .35 
 
 .50 
 
 EOR THE TEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1893. 
 
 $655, 603. 74 
 
 198. 00 
 
 5, 023, 563. 77 
 
 830, 391. 76 
 
 6, 509, 757. 27 
 
 Unstemmed wrappers 2, 362, 531 . 29 
 
 Stemmed wrappers ' 6. 50 
 
 Unstemmed fillers i 16, 322, 179. 48 
 
 Stemmed fillers I 1, 461, 192. 80 
 
 Total 20, 145. 910. 67 
 
 $2.00 
 
 2.75 
 
 .35 
 
 .50 
 
 $4, 725, 062. 57 
 
 17.88 
 
 5, 712, 762. 83 
 
 730, 596. 40 
 
 11, 168, 439. 68 
 
 FOR THE TEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1894. 
 
 
 2, 850, 789. 66 
 
 13, 495, 554. 32 
 
 1,121,218.94 
 
 $2.00 
 .35 
 .50 
 
 $5, 701, 579. 30 
 
 
 4, 723, 444. 02 
 
 
 560, 609. 46 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 17, 467, 562. 92 
 
 
 10, 985, 632. 78 
 
 
 
 FOR THE TEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1895. 
 
 Unstemmed wrappers ! 351, 022. 18 
 
 Do { 3, 758, 987. 69 
 
 Stemmed wrappers ' 8. 00 
 
 Unstemmed fillers 15, 507, 877. 78 
 
 Stemmed fillers ; 1, 245, 557. 30 
 
 Unstemmed fillers 20, 743. 25 
 
 10, 841. 00 
 
 Total 20,895,037.20 
 
 $2.00 
 
 $702, 044. 36 
 
 1.50 
 
 5, 638, 481. 50 
 
 2.25 
 
 18.00 
 
 .35 
 
 5, 427, 757. 28 
 
 .50 
 
 622, 778. 66 
 
 .40 
 
 8, 297. 30 
 
 .10 
 
 223. 20 
 
 1 12,399,600.30 
 
 FOR THE TEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1896. 
 
 Unstemmed wrappers 
 
 4, 191, 015 30 
 
 307. 66 
 
 15, 872, 996. 39 
 
 1, 045, 762. 47 
 
 59, 831. 00 
 
 $1.50 
 
 2.00 
 
 .35 
 
 .50 
 
 .40 
 
 $6 286, 523. 09 
 
 Do 
 
 615. 32 
 
 
 5, 555, 548. 93 
 
 
 522, 881. 23 
 
 
 23 932.40 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 21, 169, 912. 88 
 
 
 12, 389, 500. 97 
 
 
 
 
 I desire to state that we have given here the revenue and the num- 
 ber of pounds imported for the past seven years, as we would not con- 
 sider it just nor fair in a measure of this kind to consider simply the 
 result of any one year, as the figures vary as to the quality of produc- 
 tion or the quantity of production, and also disturbances in business of 
 various kinds would have an effect.
 
 760 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Mr. Krohn continued reading as follows : 
 
 Total tobacco -withdrawn for consumption for the seven years ending June 30, 1896, 
 143, 482, 728. SI5 pdunds. On which were paid duties aggregating in the sum of 
 
 ...itput or cigars „ - 
 
 4 099 137,855, which not only shows no increase over immediately preceding years, 
 b'ut'a decrease of over 64,500,000 from the preceding year, whereas the output of 
 cigarettes has increased by 881,996,225. 
 
 It is a significant fact that the output of cigars has not grown or increased during 
 the past four years, but, on the contrary, has decreased. While it is certain that the 
 portion of our'population consuming tobacco is keeping pace in size with the increase 
 of population, that the volume of the output has not increased and has remained 
 almost stationary or decreased, accentuates the point here made, that tlie business 
 of manufacturing cigars is not an increasing or a profitable one, as compared with 
 many other industries, and that the burdens which the cigar manufacturers have 
 been compelled to bear are sufficiently onerous and heavy without being added to. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Has not the increase of consumption of cigarettes and of 
 smoking tobacco kept i)ace, added to the natural use of cigars, with the 
 increase of population "? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. It has, as far as cigarettes are concerned. I don't think 
 it will apply to smoking tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Or, in other words, the natural increase, according to the 
 increase in population, has been an increase in the consumption of 
 cigarettes instead of cigars. 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Pay'NE. And the two together have made up what would be the 
 natural increase? 
 
 31r. Krohn. Yes, sir; showing that they have resorted to a cheaper 
 article on account of circumstances. 
 
 Mr. Krohn continued reading, as follows : 
 
 The difi'erence in the duty on wrapper and filler tobaccos has also begotten an 
 unfair competition in the trade, because of the fact that in many ports of entry of 
 the country fully 95 per cent of all unstemmed tobaccos imported from Cuba, and 
 perhaps even a larger proportion, have been entered under the 35 cents ])er pound 
 filler duty. Not only has the Government thereby lost a large amount of revenue, 
 but an unhealthy, unfair, and most inequitable competition has Ijeen rendered possible 
 and indirectly encouraged. 
 
 This condition of things has operated most detrimentally, not only as against the 
 large body of cigar manufacturers, but it has also of necessity injuriously afl'ected 
 their workmen as well. 
 
 As shown, a specific uniibrm duty of about 52i^ cents per pound on all imported 
 leaf tobacco unstemmed will prevent inequality, will prevent unfair trade, will put 
 all branches of this great industry upon a parity and fair plane of e<[uality, will save 
 the Government great expense, loss, and annoyance in the collection of its duties, 
 and will yield an average revenue equal to that enjoyed by the Government during 
 the past seven years. 
 
 It may well l)e, however, that the tobacco growers may claim that a specific duty 
 of 52i cents per pound will not afibrd them sutficient protection. 
 
 The approximate consumption cm all kinds of domestic cigar leaf tobacco is about 
 60,000,000 pounds per annum, of which about 11,000,000 pounds are used for wrapper 
 purposes, and the residue is used for binder and filler purposes. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, you are asked to legislate in the interest of 11 
 against 8!). 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Forty-nine did you not say! 
 
 Mr. Krohn. About 20 per cent against 80 per cent, for whatever will 
 inure to the benefit of this so-called tobacco wrapper will injure the 
 tiller leaf tobacco or binder, and the statistics will show that ever since 
 the introduction of the high tariff to $2 and $1.50 even that the price 
 of the filler leaf produced in this country, which consists of ibiir-tifths 
 of the whole product of the cigar leaf, has been depreciated, and that 
 it is lower to-day than at any time prior to such acts. And there the
 
 MANUFACTURERS OF CIGARS. ' 761 
 
 question arises, Is it just and proper to legislate in the interest of tlie 
 20 per cent or in tbe interest of the 80 per cent? 
 Mr. Krobn continued reading', as follows : 
 
 Without eutering into details it may be confidently asserted that the levying of 
 the extremely high duty of $2 per pound on wrappers did not either lessen the use 
 of imported wrappers or increase the consumption or permanently increase the 
 market value of domestic wrappers; while, on the other hand, the remainder of 
 domestic cigar leaf tobacco, being fully 80 per cent of the total, was most injuri- 
 ously affected in price by reason of such increased duty. 
 
 It thus appears practically and conclusively that the tobacco grower will only 
 be benefited by a uniform rate of duty upon imported leaf tobacco. 
 
 A complete protection will be given by sucb specific uniform duty on the domestic 
 fillers, which, as shown, constitute about 80 per cent of the entire domestic product. 
 
 The cigar manufacturers, as already stated, have at the present time all the bur- 
 dens they can well afford to bear or that they should reasonably and fairly be 
 expected to meet. Yet in order to obtain the benefits of a uniform duty, which Avill 
 be just, fair, and equitable to all, and which will for all time prevent abuses, dis- 
 crimination, and fraud, they simply suggest that a uniform duty of not exceeding 
 55 cents per pound on all tobaccos unstemmed would aflbrd the tobacco growers as 
 full and fair a protection as any tariff not virtually prohibitory can give them, and 
 would, on the other hand, yield a proper revenue and an increase of about 5 per cent 
 of the average revenue collected during the past seven years. 
 
 A 55 cents per pound duty will at the present average price of domestic leaf 
 tobacco be a protective tariff of about 700 per cent. 
 
 While the growers are certainly entitled to and should receive the fullest protec- 
 tion possible, yet the fact must not, and will not, be lost sight of, that the cigar 
 industry is also a great one, which with its kindred branches employs many millions 
 of capital, and fully ten times as many workmen as there are persons engaged in the 
 raising of cigar leaf tobacco in the United States, and no legislation which will prove 
 destructive and harmful to what is certainly the most important branch of the 
 tobacco industry should obtain or receive any serious consideration. 
 
 A uniform duty, such as has been suggested, will certainly prove amply protective 
 to the growers, to the dealers, and to all honest manufacturers. 
 
 Secretary McCulloch, in one of his annual reports to Congress, referring to tobacco, 
 said: "An article which is so generally used, and which adds so much to the com- 
 fort of the large numbers of our population who earn their living by manual labor, 
 can not be properly considered a luxury." And this fact should be borne in mind in 
 framing a scheme of taxation upon an article which has come to be a virtual necessity. 
 
 The cigar manufacturers do not ajjpear before you claiming any unselfishness in 
 dealing with the questions involved. 
 
 They are in business as business men, seeking to make their business pay; they 
 have many obstacles to meet; many opposing conditions to overcome, and many 
 unforeseen contingencies to face, which constantly arise in the transaction of a busi- 
 ness which at best is a difidcult one, requiring careful and constant watching, experi- 
 ence, and patience. 
 
 They are, in asking protection, willing to have equal protection afforded to all other 
 branches of their industry. They simply ask, in justice, that they be not sacrificed 
 or injured irreparaljly in carrying the scheme of protection too far or to any inequi- 
 table, harsh, oruuduly burdensome degree, and it is certain that no higher rate of 
 duty, if the duty be made uniform, than 55 cents per pound for unstemmed tobacco 
 can be borne by the cigar manufacturers. 
 
 A uniform duty as herein suggested will in the mature and deliberate judgment 
 of the manufacturers, importers, and dealers in leaf tobacco be just, fair, and equable 
 to all concerned or interested, including the growers. 
 
 ■ In this connection, it is also suggested that the cigar manufacturers of this country 
 and their workmen are entitled to the protection of a duty on imported cigars of at 
 least $5 per pound, and 25 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 The small quantity of cigars imported during the past fiscal year can not be taken 
 as a standard, for the reason that during the past few months the importation of 
 cigars into this country has increased very materially, and this increase bids fair to 
 continue and become augmented. 
 
 Our domestic manufacturers and their workmen are entitled to this additional pro- 
 tection for many reasons, and it may be safely asserted that no sound argument can 
 or will be advanced opposing this increase, and a considerable and needed addition 
 to the revenues can be expected to result therefrom. 
 
 In conclusion, we respectfully claim that the committee will have performed a 
 valuable service for the entire tobacco industry of the country when it will have 
 secured the enactment of a fair, just, and uniform duty on all imported leaf tobacco, 
 even should the rate be fixed as high as 55 cents per pound for unstemmed tobacco.
 
 762 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Should the committee reach the conclusion that it will be impr<acticable to recom- 
 meud a specific uniform duty, as herein suggested, then it must be borne in mind 
 that under all circumstances it will be impossible for the cigar manufacturers to 
 exist or do business at a rate beyond the present rate, and they will prefer to submit 
 to the present discriminating and unsatisfactory rates of duty and bear the ills they 
 have as best they can rather than face the inevitable havoc which a specific rate of 
 duty exceeding 55 cents per pound would certainly compass and accomplish. 
 
 M. Krohn, President. 
 
 Morris S. Wise, Secretary. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Can you tell me about laovr many pounds of Sumatra 
 tobacco was consumed in this country in the years 18!>0 and 1891? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1890, the unstemmed 
 tobacco amounted to 
 
 Mr. Payne. I want the consumption. 
 
 Mr. Krohn. This is, I believe, the consumption taken from the 
 reports 
 
 Mr. Payne. That is the amount upon which duty was paid. Of 
 course you know the figures you have there do not represent the amount 
 of tobacco consumed in making cigars in those two years, don't you? 
 Can you give me any figures as to the actual amount of the tobacco 
 used in cigars during those two years? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. I should judge that 3,750,000 pounds would be about an 
 average. 
 
 Mr. Payne. For how many years? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. For a year. 
 
 Mr. Payne. For every year from 1890 up to the present time? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Pretty near it, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you know what the total import of Sumatra leaf, of 
 wrappers, was during the whole time of the existence of the law of 1890 ? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Do you desire to know for the fiscal year ending June 
 June 30, 1890? 
 
 Mr. Payne. No; from October, 1890, the time of the enactment of 
 the McKinley law to the time of the Wilson bill, in August, 1894. 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Well, I have it in detail. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It is about 0,000,000 pounds? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. It was in 1891 7,000,000 i)ounds. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Inthe year 1891 the large importation of 7,000,000 pounds 
 was in anticipation of the higher rate of duty? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Not for consumption in American cigars. After the 1st 
 of October, 1890, the date upon which the McKinley law went into 
 effect, until August, 1894, there were about 0,000,000 pounds imported. 
 During all that time there were imported of Sumatra leaf wrapper that 
 amount— during the whole period of the existence of the law. 
 
 Mr. Krohn. During the fiscal year 1892 there were imported 327,801 
 pounds, and during the year 1893 there were imported 2,362,531 pounds, 
 and during the year 1894 there were imported 2,850,000 pounds— leav- 
 ing out fractions; in 1895 there were imi)orted 351,000 pounds, in the 
 year 1896 there were imported 4,191,000 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. You mean thousands, not millions? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Yes, millions. 
 
 Mr. Payne. In 1892 there were imported 327,000 pounds; in 1893 
 there were imported 2,362,000 pounds; in 1894, 2,850,000 pounds, and 
 in 1895, 351,000; and in 1896 there were imported 307 pounds under the 
 $2 rate; or, in other words, 6,000,000 pounds under the 82 rate alto- 
 gether, and 7,000,000 the year before the $2 rate went into operation. 
 That would average about $1.40 per pound duty paid on the Sumatra
 
 MANUFACTURERS OF CIGARS. 763 
 
 tobacco used from October, 1890, down to August, 1894. So it would 
 seem tbat the tobacco raisers in tliis country had not had an oppor- 
 tunity of knowing what the effect of $2 a pound on Sumatra tobacco 
 leaf would be; that the McKinley law was so short lived that all the 
 tobacco brought in here was brought in at 75 cents or at $2, and the 
 average was about $1.40. Is that not so? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. The McKinley duty was in force long enough to cer- 
 tainly have its effect ; but aside from that, entirely waiving that question 
 and admitting the point you desire to make, I would call your attention 
 to the fact that a difference of 50 cents per i^ound on tobacco will only 
 make $1 on 1,000 cigars, as it requires from 2 to 2^ pounds to make 
 1,000 cigars, for wrapper purposes. That is a result of my experience; 
 I am not guessing. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you ever use domestic wrappers'? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. With the best that you ever had, how many pounds of 
 American tobacco would it take to wrap 1,000 cigars? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. I should think on an average of about 6 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Some would require more and some less? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. With some it would only take 3 or 4 pounds, while 
 others take more, but the average would be about pounds. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is your idea, under the present law, as to the per- 
 centage of wrappers that come in under the35-cent duty? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. I have not the figures just at hand. They are here, 
 though. Probably sufficient to cover 300,000,000 cigars. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Please figure that in pounds. 
 
 Mr. Krohn. It would probably average 4 or 5 pounds to the thousand. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You mean 3,000,000 cigars, don't you? What amount 
 of wrappers came in under the 35-cent-a-poundduty? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. 1 don't know. I have no positive knowledge only in so 
 far as we know that the ports of Tampa, Fla., and other ports in Florida 
 imported a certain number of pounds of tobacco, and also that it is 
 the center of the clear Habana manufacturing industry, and judging 
 from the number of pounds that have paid a duty at the rate of $1.50, 
 it is so exceedingly small that we know a great deal must have been 
 used for wrapper jnirposes that did not pay $1.50 and only a small 
 proportion so used did pay it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Can you state what per cent of the wrappers of such 
 cigars as those in weight would be wrappers and what fillers? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. It is a very difficult matter to arrive at that, and for 
 that reason we advocate a uniform rate of duty. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You can give an estimate, can't you? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. It would simply be an estimate for the very reason that 
 •the Government officers or experts who have been sent down there 
 have never been able to agree where to draw the line between filler 
 and wrapper on Habana tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I mean those actually used. You may take a thousand 
 cigars manufactured from Habana tobacco. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. I have a statement of the importations from Tampa 
 and Key West, both of Sumatra and filler. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I don't care about that. That is the official report. I 
 am trying to get at the actual facts. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. That shows what the proportion is. 
 
 Mr. Krohn. The statement I should have has been handed to these 
 other gentlemen. That would cover the facts. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I have that here. I am trying to get some information
 
 764 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTUl^ES OF. 
 
 from you Did you mean to say in answer to my question that there 
 were about ,'500,000,000 covered with the imported wrappers which were 
 not reported here as wrappers? 
 
 Mr. Krohn-. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That is your estimate? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And about how many pounds of wrappers to 1,000 of those 
 
 cigars? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. That is a very difficult matter to arrive at, as it varies 
 very much. It is not like it is in the case of Sumatra. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Give us the minimum and maximum, then, if you can not 
 give the average. 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Say about 5 pounds. 
 
 The Chairman. You have given us some information as to the prob- 
 able exteut of the entries of tobacco from Cuba, for it comes mainly 
 from Cuba of which we are speaking. As I understand it, the tobacco 
 that comes from Sumatra and used as wrappers pays duty as wrappers. 
 It is of a quality that can not be entered as a filler, and there is no 
 difficulty about defrauding the revenue on that point. But when you 
 come to Cuba tobacco, of which there is a large importation— last year 
 20,000,000 or 27,000,000 pounds— it is substantially all entered and duty 
 paid upon it as fillers at 35 cents a pound. I understand you to say 
 there is really a very large part of that 2(5,000,000 pounds which is 
 wrappers and not fillers, and ought to pay a duty at $1.50 according 
 to the present law. jSiow, is there any way of distinguishing or of 
 describing in such a way as to make the custom-house bflficials impose 
 the duty intended for wrapper tobacco upon wrapper tobacco and the 
 duty intended for fillers upon filler tobacco? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. The board so far has been unable to devise a plan. This 
 question was thoroughly entered into at the time the McKinley bill was 
 framed, and the Hon. Mr. Schroeder of New Y"ork went into an exhaust- 
 ive argument at that time, and had sam]des here to illustrate and show 
 how difficult it would be to discriminate, and various minds had vari- 
 ous ideas as to what was a wrapper and Avhat was a filler. 
 
 Mr. Evans. How would it do to put a certain rate of duty on all 
 Cuban-grown tobacco? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. That would not work on account of your having a 
 " favored-nation clause." I suppose you would have to make it a uni- 
 form rate for fillers or for wrappers for all nations. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Mr. Schroeder stated in 1890, if I recollect correctly, in 
 order to determine whether a leaf was suitable for a wrapper it would 
 be necessary to make a cigar? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Yes, sir; oftentimes it won't develop until you have the 
 tobacco dampened, moistened, and cased, and prepared for manufactur- 
 ing purposes, and only by handling it and assorting you can separate 
 the one from the other, and often then it is a matter of judgment, taste, 
 and trade requirements. What one would call a wrapper another would 
 not call a wrapper, even though he may use it as such. This is not the 
 case when you touch Sumatra, because they import none other. It 
 would not pay them, and they do not import anything except what is 
 clearly a wrapper tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Is that because the Sumatra is an inferior tobacco; 
 can it be used as a filler? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. ISTo, sir; not because of that. Because it is selected 
 more carefully, and because it is in itself plain, and on the face of it 
 shows what is fit for wrapper purposes and what is not.
 
 MANUFACTURERS OF CIGARS. 765 
 
 Mr. EvANf:^. Do we import any tobacco in considerable quantity except 
 Sumatra and West India tobacco? 
 
 Mr. Keohn. Very little, sir; we import some from Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Is Mexican tobacco fit for wrappers"^ 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Some parts of it; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. If we were to put the duty on the Sumatra wrapper 
 pretty high to keep it out and afford the producers of wrapper the pro- 
 tection they ask, would or would not that increased or high duty have 
 the effect of driving out the small manufacturers in this country f 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Yes, sir; it would have that effect; but if you want to 
 put on a duty high enough to practically keep it out, it would have to 
 exceed $5 by far. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Would not that duty have the effect of destroying the 
 smaller establishments throughout the country that are manufacturing 
 cigars, and practically give the large concerns a monopoly of the busi- 
 ness ? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Yes, sir. On account of this trouble in Cuba, Habana 
 wrappers have been closed out from this country for the present, and 
 there have been imiDorted a good many from Mexico, and this importa- 
 tion would probably increase in the future provided they have the same 
 chance of importing or exporting it to this country under the 35-cents 
 rate, when the other has to pay $1.50, or whatever it may X)ay. There 
 is an incentive there — and this is no retlection on the officials in -pass- 
 ing tobacco that way. It is simply a matter of human frailty and dif- 
 ference of opinion as to what constitutes the one or the other, and will 
 always remain so. . 
 
 The Chairman. I notice the frailty runs entirely on the side of the 
 importer and against the Government. 
 
 Mr. Krohn. It seems to be the case. We who are engaged in the 
 industry do not advocate the continuance of anything of that kind. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Very little of this Cuban tobacco is imported stemmed? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Very little. 
 
 Mr. Evans. You could not devise a scheme, then, by which the duty 
 could be fixed on fillers after they had been cut in such shape as they 
 could not be used for wrappers after they are imported? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. There is a discriminating duty now, a relatively higher 
 duty on stemmed tobacco than on unstemmed, making an allowance 
 for the weight of the stems, but it has not beeu able to control it and 
 we can not see any way to do so, nor can the Committee on Ways 
 and Means of this House — for they have failed to do so for the past 
 seven or eight years. They have been unable to devise a plan, and no 
 one else has been able to devise a plan that will work. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Is this large use of the Sumatra tobacco due to the 
 popular whim or largely to the preference of the manufacturers to that 
 sort of tobacco ? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. It is entirely due to the demand for it by the public. 
 The manufacturer is a business man and he is willing to sell any wares 
 that the people demand. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Are not those wrappers less charged with nicotine? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. No, sir; I do not see that there is any difference in that 
 respect. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Do they not make a nicer finisli? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. It makes a nicer finish than the home-grown wrapper; 
 it is pleasing to the eye; it is uniform ; it has a better finish, as has been 
 stated. The same comparison can be made that can be made of a silk 
 dress to a cotton dress. The other wrappers are thicker and heavier — 
 more gummy.
 
 766 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Mr. Turner. The other wrappers are thicker and heavier — more 
 
 gummy ? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. The American wrapper is; yes, sir. They have not the 
 same finish or texture. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Not so much nicotine there? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. They are* apt to have. The more body there is in it the 
 more nicotine it is apt to contain. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is this taste, of which 3'ou speak, that prefers the 
 Sumatra wrapper to the American wrapper peculiar to this country, 
 or does it characterize the smoking worhl generally ? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. It is a uniform thing throughout the world, and it is that 
 that regulates the price of the article. It is not the American consump- 
 tion by itself, but the consumption in general. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. It is the consensus of the world jireferring that 
 wrapper ? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLiiiN. Is it preferred in Cuba over the Cuban wrapi)ers 
 or not? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. It is not, sir. It is not permitted to enter Cuba, I 
 believe. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. If it were admitted there, is it superior as a wrapper 
 to their wrappers? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. It is not in taste. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is it in texture? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. It is in appearance. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It is not superior to our wrapper in taste, is it? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. In answering that, I will say that when Sumatra was 
 first introduced into this country people did not like it and did not 
 think it was as good in taste as our home product; but as they become 
 more familiar with it and habituated to its use they prefer it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I suppose some people are so depraved in taste that they 
 would prefer Sumatra to the Habaua? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. No; it is a matter of fact. I am telling you just as I 
 know it and see it from experiencing it. I have bought the 1S91 and 
 1892 croi)S in Connecticut, considered the finest tobacco raised in this 
 country for many years. I got the very finest of it. 1 paid a very high 
 price for those goods. I thought at the time that the ai)pearance of that 
 tobacco was equal to Sumatra tobacco and that it would sell well. But 
 instead of that I have got that tobacco today in my cellar and will sell 
 it for 50 cents on the dollar to any gentleman here, for the reason that 
 the consumer will not have it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. When you estimate that 300,000,000 cigars in this coun- 
 try are wrapped, I suppose you get your figures from the internal- 
 revenue report largely? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. We arrive at that partially from the number of manu- 
 facturers engaged in the industry in a particular line. The revenue 
 statistics do not show what class of cigars are manufactured. But we 
 know that there are so many manufacturers engaged in that particular 
 branch, and know about the output. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You get your estimates, then, partially from it? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Yes, sir; partially from it. 
 
 Mr. Evans. You say that Cuba does not allow Sumatra tobacco to be 
 imported ? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. I am not sure. I don't think thev allow any kind to 
 enter their ports. 
 
 Mr. Evans. How is this Cuban tobacco brought into the country? 
 What sort of packages?
 
 MANUFACTURERS OF CIGARS. 767 
 
 Mr. Krohn. In bales. It is packed in so-called bales. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Not iu hogsheads ? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Is the Sumatra prized iu or packed? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. It is also packed in bales. 
 
 Mr. DoLUVER. Did you furuish this sample [holding up sample of 
 tobacco] ? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. I have not been in the habit of furnishing samples to 
 either convince or deceive the committee. [After examination of sam- 
 ple.] This I should call a select lot of American Habaua seed tobacco. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Now, in what respect does it diifer from the Sumatra 
 wrapi^er ? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. It differs so far from the Sumatra wrapper that while 
 these leaves have been especially selected and do not in any form rep- 
 resent the average product, but rei^reseut in texture — that is, iu the 
 fineness, the silkiuess of the leaf — very much the quality of the Sumatra 
 tobacco; at the same time when you come to make practical application 
 and roll them on a cigar and have that cigar dried out and get it ready 
 for consumption you will find a marked difference in the morning, as 
 they say. 
 
 Mr. EusSELL. Did I understand you to ask for an increased duty on 
 cigars ? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. On imported cigars, as the committee may deem proper. 
 
 Mr. Russell. What is your suggestion? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. To raise it to $5. 
 
 Mr. EussELL. Five dollars a pound and 25 per cent? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. EusSELL. You don't think the present duty is sufficiently pro- 
 hibitive, then? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. The only reason we suggested this is in the interest of 
 the clear Habana manufacturers, as, if the specific duty passes, they will 
 be compelled to pay more for the wrapper leaf than they did heretofore. 
 It might possibly not be adequate as it is at present. 
 
 Mr. Ettssell. Then, you make this suggestion anticipating some 
 change in the duty on the leaf"? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. I do, sir. 
 
 Mr. EussELL. As a matter of fact, there has not been any increase 
 in the importation of cigars? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. There has been of recent date. Within the last few 
 months it has increased considerably. 
 
 Mr. EussELL. What class of cigars? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Clear Habana cigars from Cuba. 
 
 Mr. EussELL. Take the year 1896, compared with 1895, and the 
 importations have decreased. 
 
 Mr. Krohn. That is true. 
 
 Mr. EussELL. Then they must have tremendously decreased in the 
 first few months of this year? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. For the reason that the Government has prevented the 
 raw material from leaving the Island of Cuba, and has thereby increased 
 the cost of the raw material in this country and given them a better 
 opportunity to compete. 
 
 Mr. EussELL. I suppose if there was no change in the duties on 
 tobacco leaf you would not ask for an increased duty on cigars? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. I don't think there would be any just reason for it. 
 
 Mr. EussELL. And when you ask for an increase of 50 cents per 
 pound you contemplate that increase in the duty on tobacco leaf?
 
 768 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Mr. Keohn. jSTo ; we do not anticipate any increased duty on tobacco 
 leaf— that is, on the wrapper. ^ . .^ . ^^ 
 
 Mr. EussELL. You said you asked this increase from -f 4.50 to $5 per 
 pound, soiuewliat anticipating an increase in the duty on tobacco leaf? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. On tbe clear Habana wrappers. It would aflect princi- 
 pally tliose manufacturers wlio are engaged in tlie clear Habana indus- 
 try, and, as tbey have been importing their tobaccos principally under 
 the'so-ceut duty, they would be compelled to pay the uniform price, and 
 it would raise the price of their material, and therefore would not have 
 the same chance against the imported goods as they have now. And, 
 in auticipating that kind of legislation, we think it would be fair to have 
 an increase also of duty on the manufactured article correspondingly. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is the average weight of cigars per thousand"? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Imported or domestic"? 
 
 Mr. Payne. Imported. 
 
 Mr. Krohn. About 12 pounds, I should judge. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What waste is there in making up those 12 pounds of 
 cigars '? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. There is probably wastage of 25 per cent, or maybe 35 
 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Then 16 pounds would make that 12 pounds of cigars? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Twelve pounds of cigars, I suppose, would take from 16 
 to 18 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You are figuring for a duty of 50 cents a pound. That 
 would be $9 a thousand; and how much a pound did you want on 
 cigars ? 
 
 Mr. Krohn, Five dollars. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That would be $60 a thousand, besides the 25 per cent. 
 So that duty on the tobacco would be $9. In that way do you think 
 you would be able to comi)ete ? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. There are a great many things that enter into the 
 manufacture of clear Habana cigars in Cuba and here that it will take 
 sometime to explain. That is jitst the reason why it is so difficult for 
 you gentlemen to legislate oftentimes on a schedule. It is necessary to 
 understand the intricate workings of many branches of the business, 
 which it is difficult for any committee to understand. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Don't you think the duty on cigars under the law of 
 1890 is a pretty stiff protective duty — a pretty fair protective duty? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. Yes. 
 
 STATEMENT OF E. R. GUNBY, OF TAMPA, FLA. 
 
 Monday, January 4, 1897. 
 
 Mr. GuNBY" said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee, I 
 shall take up the time of the committee but a few moments in represent- 
 ing the clear Habana cigar manufacturers' interests, of both Florida 
 and New Y'ork — that is, the clear Habana industry of the country, 
 
 I bave been somewhat nonplussed in listening to the argumeuts 
 presented today, but shall endeavor to confine myself as nearly as pos- 
 sible to the interests of the trade I am here to represent. It seems, from 
 what has already been said, that tlie leaf-tobacco growers of Connecti- 
 cut and Wisconsin and other parts of the United States don't under- 
 stand what they want, but the manufacturers from Cincinnati and New 
 York know best what is to their interest. 
 
 Mr, Shroeder, who is eminent authority, has asserted that notwith- 
 standing the arguments of the tobacco growers they do not know what 
 they want— that what they really wantis a specific duty. It seems to
 
 MANUFACTUKERS OF CIGARS. 769 
 
 be the impression left upon the mind of this committee, from what Las 
 been stated, that the clear Habana cigar manufacturers are the people 
 who are rea])iEg: all the reward from this tobacco schedule, both of the 
 McKiuley bill and of the so-called AVilson bill. As a matter of fact, it 
 has been admitted by the arguments of those who have appeared here 
 iu behalf of interests heretofore heard that it is impossible to fix a rate 
 of duty on cigar wrappers under which Habana cigar wrappers cau be 
 imported. You will remember that prior to the passage of the McKin- 
 ley bill the duty upon cigar wrappers was 75 cents per pound. I 
 believe that was it. But there was a standard made by the Depart- 
 ment as to what might be wrappers. Wrappers were that chnracter of 
 tobacco which contained not less than 100 leaves to the pound, of a certain 
 fineness. That was the law in the classification of what was wrapper 
 prior to the passage of the McKiuley bill. 
 
 When the McKinley bill was passed we appeared here and had the 
 honor to address this committee — many of the members who compose 
 it to-day — to discuss the classification of the schedule of tobacco. And 
 the law was passed in which it was decided — in fact, it was contained 
 in the statute — that any bale or package containing any portion of 
 tobacco suitable for wrappers should be classified as wrapi^ers. That 
 became a law over the protest of the Habana peo^de. The result of it 
 was that a strict construction of that law, an actual construction of it 
 without evasion, absolutely excluded, or would exclude, from the 
 American ports all classes of Habana. Habana tobacco is grown and 
 packed in the fields in Habana. The method of its packing and the 
 character of the packing is absolutely beyond the control of the Amer- 
 ican purchaser — not like Sunuitra. In the latter case it is admitted by 
 the gentleman representing the seed Habana interest and the importers 
 that it takes H to 2 ])Ouuds to wrap 1,000 cigars. The gentleman pre- 
 ceding me admitted in answer to the pertinent question of Mr. Payne 
 that it takes 5 pounds of Havana to wrap 1,000 cigars, while 2 pounds 
 of Sumatra wrapper will do it. 
 
 Mr. BoLLiVER. Will you explain why that is! 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. Yes, sir; the difference in texture, in weight, and fine- 
 ness of the very best Habana tobacco, as packed in Habana, is of such 
 character that there are no bales of tobacco, except perhaijs one iu ten 
 thousand, that will run all wraj)per. The Habana people in this country 
 must take their tobacco as packed, and in the very best bales there are 
 15 or 20 ])er cent which must be cast out as filler, while the tobacco is 
 heavier, thicker, and not put on the cigars for its beauty, but for its 
 taste. The Habana cigar sells upon its flavor, and the Habana wrapper 
 is not so thin, so fine, or so efisy to manipulate as the Sumatra. Couse, 
 quently, the competition in the making of wrapper is very decided, it 
 being admitted, as I say, that 2 iiounds of Sumatra will wrap 1,000 
 cigars, whereas it requires 5 or 6 pounds of Habana tobacco to get the 
 same result. 
 
 In addition to that, if you will take their own figures for a moment, 
 you will find that if you take 5 or G pounds of the Habana goods for 
 1,000 cigars, furnishing the filler at the same rate, 35 cents a pound, 
 you will then pay about the same rate of duty upon your cigars that 
 you pay if you take the Habana filler and pay $1 to ^2 upon the Sumatra 
 wrapper. The competition comes upon the wrapper only and entu-ely. 
 
 The framers of the McKinley bill, as I said, to be brief, decided that 
 they would try that experiment. I had the honor to be the collector of 
 the port of Tampa at the time, against which so much has been insinu- 
 ated as to the introduction of the Habana leaf, and I am not here to 
 deceive this committee for one moment. It is true, according to statistics, 
 T H 49
 
 770 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 that only about 5 per cent of the tobacco which is made to appear as 
 Habana tobacco pays wrapper duty. This thing was thoroughly under- 
 stood, thoroughly discussed. .S^o member of the Ways and Means Com- 
 mittee who recollects the discussion that took place when the Wilson 
 bill was under consideration is deceived for a moment in regard to this 
 thing, because we brought schedules here and showed that of the very 
 best quality of Habana tobacco which is put in clear Habana goods 
 not clear wrappers, not 2 per cent of the crop of Habana is salable as 
 wrapper. When you get a bale of Habana wrapper you pay from 8300 
 to 8600 for it. It is very hard to get at all, and when it comes at all 
 this 4 or 5 per cent of the entire crop shows the payment of the $2 duty. 
 Hence the showing of the duty being so small. The clear Habana 
 manufacturer must get a part of his wrappers out of the so-called filler. 
 They are not here for the purpose of denying it. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiYER. How many cigars could be made from the wrappers 
 that you import and pay duty on in this way? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. I have not the statistics, but I think I am safe on my 
 side — I do not want to misrepresent against myself— to say not over 5 
 per cent. It may take 12 per cent, perhaps, to wrap them. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiYER. I had heard it said you imported and paid duty 
 on wra]ipers in an amount sufficient to manufacture about 3,000,000 
 cigars, and in point of fact you turn out 160,000,000 all duly wrapped. 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. That is a mistake in figures. The proportion may be 
 about right. As a matter of fact, I wish we manufactured that much. 
 Me do not do it. We manufacture about 100,000,000 clear Habana 
 cigars in Tampa. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiYEK. But import wrappers enough to manufacture only 
 about 3,000,000. 
 
 Mr. GuNBY, I think that is rather too small. We probably import 
 wrappers enough and pay wrapper duty on enough to wrap 20 or 1.5 per 
 cent of them — maybe less than that. 
 
 The Chairman. Less than 1 per cent of the tobacco imported from 
 Cuba last year to wrap cigars paid wrapper duty ? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. Less than 1 per cent of the tobacco imported. 
 
 Mr. DOLLIYER. What objection would there be to a duty being paid 
 by those ports on that portion of the Cuban tobacco which is imported 
 and used for wrappers? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. Because it is utterly impossible to get at it. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. You may have noticed about 5,000,000 pounds being 
 imported as filler tobacco, and in point of fact it was actually used for 
 wrapping cigars. 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. That question was raised 'before the Treasury Depart- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiYER. Did you raise it? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. I raised it before the Treasury Department when I was 
 collector of the port, and it Avas brought before them. They took it to 
 the Board of General Appraisers, and the result of that was that the 
 construction of the Board, after the most exhaustive examination of 
 fact by them 
 
 Mr. Tawney. On which side of the controversy did you appear? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. I was collector of the port. I decided that that class of 
 tobacco which was commercially known as wrapper alone should pay 
 wrapper duty. This decision was sustained by the Treasury Depart- 
 ment, was carried to the Board of Appraisers of New York, was thor- 
 oughly examined, and after extensive hearings of witnesses from both 
 sides that was decided to be a correct construction of the McKinley
 
 MANUFACTURERS OF CIGARS. 771 
 
 law. It went on until tlie Wilson bill was about to be framed, when 
 both sides appeared again before this very committee, and there it was 
 established to such a certainty that it was incorporated in the law 
 itself — the so-called 15 per cent clause — for the reason that the Habana 
 cigar industry was a large one, that the packing of the tobac co was 
 beyond their control ; and in addition to that, if you take a bale of 
 tobacco weighing, say, 100 pounds, you can not tell how many wrapi)ers 
 you may be able to get out of it, unlike the Sumatra, until it is unpacked, 
 stripped, cased, and ready for use. It has to be handled carefully, and 
 you may find 5, 10, or 15 i^er cent of wrappers in a bale of tobacco that 
 cost as much in Habana as a bale of Sumatra, which is all wrappers — 
 every bit of it. The result is, naturally, that to make the Habana peo- 
 ple pay $1.50 to $2 a pound on that bale of tobacco will absolutely 
 exclude it from the American market. You are paying your 81.50 not 
 only on your 10, 11, or 12 pounds of wrapper, but you are paying it on 
 the other 80 or 90 pounds of filler also. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Did the Board of Appraisers publish a decision on that? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. Yes, sir; and have never overruled it from that day to 
 this. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Would the effect of the imposition of the duty that 
 is suggested result in a transfer of cigar manufacturing from Xew York 
 and Tamjia to Cuba? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. The clear Habana cigar manufacturing would be a thing 
 of the past. 
 
 Mr. SicMiLLiN. And it would go to Cuba or some other country, 
 where they would manufacture and we would have to import? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY". It would necessitate that. It never could be brought 
 into this country, except in the lowest grade of Habana cigars. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Then the main difficulty is in sorting or culling the 
 tobacco ? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. Yes, sir; it would be that, provided it came into compe- 
 tition only with tobacco of its own class. It occupies relatively the 
 same position, being a better tobacco to the taste, and the average con- 
 sumer likes it better than the American tobacco itself. It takes G or 7 
 pounds of American tobacco wrapper to wrap 1,000 cigars. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Is this 10 or 15 per cent that you speak of being used 
 for wrappers? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY'. Leaves suitable for wrapper. The difficulty has been 
 in what they have called self- working bales. It is a class of high 
 grade Habana tobacco out of which the man that uses it assorts wrap- 
 pers, but if he pays wrapper duty on the entire bale it excludes it abso- 
 lutely. For instance, an ordinary 100-pound bale of good Habana 
 tobacco that you pay as much for as Sumatra tobacco in Sumatra, say 
 $110, might make up in clear goods 5,000 Habana cigars. Those 5,000 
 would bring in the market when manufactured not to exceed 8300 or 
 $350 — $60 or $65 per 1,000. No higher price could be gotten for them. 
 While, if you put the $2 duty on them or the $1.50 duty on them, and 
 add it to your $110, you could not get enough for your manufactured 
 goods to pay the first cost of the tobacco in the custom-house. 
 
 With reference to Sumatra tobacco, they will take a bale of 100 
 pounds and, I am told, wrap 50,000 or 75,000 cigars with it. I think it 
 not unusual to make two, three, or four wrappers out of a leaf, and 
 maybe wrap 100,000 out of it of small sizes. It is used solely for wrap- 
 pers; and another thing, the less you get of it the better you like it. It 
 is pretty and makes a good cigar, but the Habana tobacco is heavier 
 and its character is such that it is impossible to separate the wrapper
 
 772 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 from the filler iu the ports, and this has been not only the experience 
 of this committee, but the result of its careful examination, as some 
 members of it well know, in the past. So in the so-called Wilson bill 
 was incorporated the 15 per cent clause rej^ulating the importation of 
 the tobacco, and intending to cover the Habana importation solely — 
 there was no deceit about it. These gentlemen representing the 
 Sumatra knew as well as we did what it was ])ut in there for, and they 
 now want to cover all the cigars with Sumatra and only want to use a 
 little Habana to make what they call ''seed Habana." 
 
 jVIr. Payne. If the Treasury has already decided that under the law 
 of 1890 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. They were making a new law. 
 
 Mr. Payne. But they had the decision of the appraisers that annulled 
 the old law. 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. I understand that ; but they wanted to leave no ques- 
 tion as to what their rights were under it. It was a vexed question 
 and they wanted to settle it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I suppose if you would take a cigar and put on a very 
 good American binder, one almost equal to a wrapper, and then cover 
 it over with this Sumatra leaf it would hold together pretty well unless 
 the cigar should get very dry. 
 
 Mr. (tUNBY. a great many people like Sumatra tobacco ; that is, they 
 like a cigar covered with Sumatra tobacco. I think, as a general rule, 
 tliey like it more for its appearance than its quality. It is a popular 
 cigar, because they put Habana filler in it and it makes a pretty cigar, 
 and the wrappers come very cheap. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do the manufacturers in Tampa use any other tobacco 
 than Habana? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. We claim to manufacture clear Habana cigars only. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Being iu a position to know, as collector of customs there, 
 is it not a fact that they do not use Habana altogether? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. I am not collector of customs there now; Mr. Cleveland 
 api^ointed somebody else. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Are you a manufacturer? 
 
 Mr. Gunby. Xo, sir; I am not interested except as an observer. 
 
 Mr. Payne. A good deal of domestic tobacco is shipped to Tampa 
 for some purpose or other. 
 
 Mr. Gunby. I have understood some of our factories have used some 
 American tobacco, and have understood also that recently some of them 
 have used Sumatra tobacco. I think that the ditficulty of obtaining 
 clear Habana wrappers now is such that perhaps they have been driven 
 to the use of some other wrapper. By the way, we are growing in 
 Florida now a very fine American wrapper; a wrapper which the peo- 
 ple AA^ho grow it claim is almost if not quite equal to the Habaua. They 
 don't ask for any difference in the schedule on Habana leaf. They want 
 the Habana tobacco to wrap with the American leaf. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. In what county in Florida is this fine wrapper tobacco 
 grown ? 
 
 Mr. Gunby. In Polk County. There is a very large farm there, and 
 indeed they are starting now in every direction. They are planting the 
 Cuban seed, and it is hoped it will be a great success. I believe they 
 claim to have made a success of it. Now, geutlemen, that is our case, 
 as I understand it. There is one thing to which I desire to call your 
 attention, and that is as to the specific duty on wrapper, on all tobacco. 
 The result of the arguments you hear simply is that if it were possible 
 to impose upon tobacco a specific duty of 52^ cents or 55 cents the
 
 MANUFACTURERS OF CIGARS. 773 
 
 revenue will be equal to the reveuueof the iiast few years when there has 
 been a difference in the rate upon wrappers and fillers, and I believe the 
 figures will prove that is about true. But if it is true upon the importa- 
 tion of Sumatra leaf, as has been reported here, then it is also inevitably 
 true that if we have imported the Sumatra leaf to the extent we have at 
 $2 and $1.50 a pound, if you impose the 55 cents duty, and what these 
 gentlemen in New York and Pennsylvania say is true as to the character 
 of their soil when you take the crops away from them, there won't be 
 much left of the poor farmer in New York and Pennsylvania wlien you 
 get through. 
 
 Mr. Geosvenor. What is the possible increase in the production of 
 Sumatra tobacco? What are their producing possibilities? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. 1 don't know. The question that forces itself upon me 
 is, How large is the consuming capacity of this country ? We imported, 
 I think, about 2,500,000 pounds of Sumatra tobacco last year. 
 
 Mr. Payne. 4,191,000 pounds of wrappers altogether. 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. At $1.50. If that is true, then in order to raise the 
 same revenue at 50 cents you would have to import three times as much 
 wrajjper. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The proposition was this: If there is a 52i-cent duty 
 on every pound imported, and the same importations were made as last 
 year, both of Sumatra and Habana tobacco, then it would raise the 
 same duty. 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. That is true; the difference being upon the actual pro- 
 portion. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Instead of 52^ cents it should really be 60 cents. 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. Even then it is clearly proven, I think, to the committee 
 that that duty of 60 cents would be entirely a revenue duty. It could 
 have no effect as a protective duty. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What effect would that have on the Habana cigar industry ? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. Not a particle in the world, except that it would increase 
 the price of all the filler which is used, not only by the Habana people, 
 but which is used to three times that extent to put in the American 
 wrapper. 
 
 Mr. Payne. There is still protective duty enough on cigars to enable 
 you to manufacture? 
 
 Mr. Gunby. We are not here for the purpose of asking that the duty 
 on imported cigars shall not be increased. We have not asked you to 
 increase it, however. If the committee thinks it is best to increase the 
 duty on imported cigars, it will find no opposition from the Habana 
 manufacturers. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is it not a fact that after the enactment of the law of 
 1890 the manufacture of cigars very largely increased in Tampa? 
 ■ Mr. Gunby. The manufacture increased in Tampa, but it was caused 
 by a condition of things that then existed at Key West, Tampa getting 
 business that was formerly done elsewhere in our country. It was not 
 a new business that we secured. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I was told by a cigar manufacturer in Habana that 
 under the law of 1890 he had lost more than three-fourths of his trade. 
 
 Mr. Gunby. The law of 1890 put a $4.50 duty on imported cigars, 
 and at the same time the people were being educated, and they found 
 out that a Habana cigar made in Tampa or Key West was as good as 
 an imported one, and this increased the sale of cigars made in the 
 United States. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It increased your business? 
 
 Mr. Gunby. Unquestionably.
 
 774 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF.- 
 
 Mr. Payne. And your city had an unprecedented growth? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The i^riucipal industry of Tampa is the cigar industry? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. Yes, sir; that is absohitely the only manufacturing 
 industry. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What was your increase in population? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. In 1890 we had about G,000 people, and now we have 
 about 20,000. This increase has been due to the increase in the tobacco 
 business and from the moving to Tampa of manufacturers from other 
 parts of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Is that because labor is cheaper there than elsewhere? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. No, sir; it is because we are adjacent to the Island of 
 Cuba and have good communication with that island. We have a line 
 of steamers running between Tampa and Habana three times a week. 
 
 Mr. Evans, (ioiug back to that 15 per cent clause, under paragraph 
 585 of the Wilson bill, do you know of any habit in Cuba of putting less 
 than 15 per cent of wrappers in the bales, so as to evade that duty? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. There is no such habit. I can state that 1 have never 
 heard of an instance of false packing of tobacco. There may have 
 been some instances, but none have ever come to my knowledge. For 
 instance, if a class of tobacco which is wrapper clearly is packed in a 
 bale which is filler clearly, no matter what the proportion is, it is 
 an attempt to evade the law, and as a penalty it is all classed as 
 wrapioer. The 15 per cent clause was the simple recognition of a condi- 
 tion and not a theory that confronted us. It was the absolute condition 
 of the tobacco as packed in Habana and the recognition of the fact that 
 an imposition of wrapper duty would make you i)ay wrapper duty on 
 80 or 90 per cent of filler, which it is impossible to do and keep up the 
 business. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Are anj^ of the plantations raising this tobacco in 
 Cuba owned by Americans? 
 
 Mr. Gunby. I know of none. If there is a single plantation in Cuba 
 owned by Americans, I don't know of it. 1 know one instance where 
 a firm of Habana cigar manufacturers in the United States, for the 
 purpose of certainty, leased for several years a farm in the province of 
 Habana. That is the only instance of the kind that has ever come to 
 my knowledge. The tobacco is grown on the plantation and packed 
 there. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Is most of it raised in the province of Habana? 
 
 Mr. Gunby. I am not familiar enough with the facts to say where. 
 There is another province, I think, that raises a finer tobacco, and I 
 think a great deal is raised in the province of Pinar del Rio, where the 
 war is now going on. The different provinces produce difierent classes 
 of tobacco, dependent largely on the soil. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. I would like you to explain if there are not 15 per 
 cent of these imported bales that contain wrappers? Where do these 
 bales come from that cover this vast output? 
 
 Mr. Gunby. I don't say that. The law is if no bale contains more 
 than 15 per cent of wrapper it can come in under that duty. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. I understood you to say that, in point of fact, the 
 bales of Cuban tobacco imported into Tampa run more than 15 per cent 
 in wrappers. 
 
 Mr. Gunby. I said that some of the bales did. In other words, there 
 is no line of distinction drawn between wrappers and fillers in Cuba, in 
 the average bale of tobacco. There is a large class of Habana tobacco 
 which is of high grade, of which 8 or 10 or 12 per cent may be wrappers
 
 MANUFACTURERS OF CIGARS. 775 
 
 and all tlie balance filler. That we can not avoid. There is no waj- to 
 avoid it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do they make an examination at the custoyi-house to 
 see if these bales contain more than 15 per cent of wrappers? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. They onght to. In every instance they take one of ten 
 bales, open it, examine it, and see what its character is. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do they wet if? 
 
 Mr. GuNBY. Ko, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. In other words, they do not make any examination, but 
 determine the fact simply by looking- at the tobacco? 
 
 Mr. Gunby. They do not make any examination to determine how 
 much of the tobacco is wrapper. If they did they Avould ruin the 
 tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And ruin the tobacco business ? 
 
 Mr. Gunby. Yes ; and ruin the tobacco business, too. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE J. SMITH, OF NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 Monday, January i, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Smith said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I wish to say a few 
 words in reference to that branch of the industry with which I am con- 
 nected. In our cigar manufacturing we use very largely Sumatra and 
 domestic wrappers, and I wish to say something on the subject in answer 
 to Mr. Gunby, who represents the clear Habana manufacturers. Mr. 
 Gunby came to aSTew York recently and while he was there Mr. Curtis, 
 the special agent of the Treasury Department, wrote to the Treasury 
 Department stating that he did not know whether Mr. Gunby was there 
 in the interest of the cigar manufacturers or in the interest of the col- 
 lector of the port of New York. We now know that he is here in the 
 interest of the cigar manufacturers of Florida, and probably of New 
 York. There are 120,000,000 cigars manufactured in Florida of clear 
 Habana tobacco, the total number of such cigars manufactured in the 
 country being 101,000,000, and the wonderful miracle is presented of 
 120,000,000 cigars being manufactured out of 25,000 pounds of tobacco, 
 of which only 25 jier cent is wrappers. Now, I ask, is that fair to the 
 manufocturers who are using Sumatra wrappers, on which they are 
 compelled to pay $1.50 per pound, to have to meet these Tampa made 
 cigars, of which not over 1 per cent has paid the duty on wrapi)ers? 
 Three hundred millions of cigars is a moderate estimate of the amount 
 of cigars made in this country and covered with Habana wrappers, and 
 I ask, is it fair for anybody to come here and advocate the retention of 
 that section, when the facts are that they are constantly avoiding the 
 duties on wrappers, have always avoided them, and have never paid 
 them honestly? I submit that question to your reflection, whether a 
 duty should be so framed that the cigar manufacturers of the United 
 States who use either Sumatra or domestic wrappers and who number 
 over 29,000 and employ upward of 200,000 people should be injured 
 by legislation in favor of 515 manufacturers in Florida and in favor of 
 a few in the North who employ not over five or six thousand people, 
 most of whom are Cubans or Spaniards, and very few of whom ever 
 become naturalized citizens. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. How many pounds of Cuban tobacco does it take to 
 wrap 1,000 cigars? 
 
 ]\ir. Smith. There is a class of Cuban tobacco known as Perdito 
 tobacco, 3 or 4 pouiuls of which will, on an average, wrap 1,000 cigars;
 
 776 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 and wliat falls from that, and is not used as wrappers, is useful as a 
 filler. With Sumatra tobacco it takes about 2^ pounds to wrap 1,000 
 cigars. What actually goes on the cigar is less than a pound and a 
 half, and the rest of it is of no more value than 6 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Then the Sumatra tobacco wraps three times as 
 many cigars as the Cuban tobacco? 
 
 Mr. Smith. No, not three times as many ; perhaps twice as many. 
 But, as I said, what falls oft' from the Cuban tobacco is valuable, while 
 what falls off from the Sumatra is worth only G cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Paynb. I suppose that a large number of cigars are made out of 
 American fillers and Cuban wrappers"? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I never heard of anything of that kind except on a very 
 limited scale. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you use Sumatra wrappers or American wrappers 
 in your owu business? 
 
 Mr. Smith. We use both. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. In what proportion ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. We use fully 90 per cent of Sumatra wrappers. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And 10 per cent of American? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What filler do you use? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Half of the filler that we use is Cuban tobacco and the 
 rest is domestic tobacco. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. Do you use any of the Cuban wrappers? 
 
 Mr. Smith. No, sir; except in a very small proportion. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you import any Cuban wrappers? 
 
 Mr. Smith. No, sir. The fact is that all the Cuban wrappers I use is 
 merely in cigars which I make up occasionally for a few smokers. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. What do you do with the remnants of your Sumatra 
 wrappers ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. We sell it for G cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I notice that sometimes you and other witnesses speak 
 of 300,000,000 cigars manufactured in this country every year, and again 
 of 100,000,000. I wish you would explain that matter. 
 
 Mr. Smith. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1896, there were over 
 160,000,000 cigars manufactured in the State of Florida, and a careful 
 estimate shows that 120,000,000 of them were manufactured from clear 
 Cuban tobacco. The balance of the cigars manufactured in the United 
 States of clear cuban tobacco is estimated in round numbers at about 
 180,000,000, though I think the estimate a trifle high. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF 
 NEW YORK CITY CIGAR MANUFACTURING INTERESTS. 
 
 New York, January (J, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We, the undersigned cigar manufacturers, representing the cigar 
 manufacturers' interests of New York City, who appeared before your 
 committee on January 4, having become impressed with the fact that 
 your decisions would be largely influenced in fixing such rates as would 
 tend toward increasing the tariff revenues, coupled with such protec- 
 tion as would not tend to interfere with those primary objects that you 
 have in view, beg leave herewith to submit for your careful considera- 
 tion the following fiicts and statistics, together with our practical rec- 
 ommendations toward best securing the desired object.
 
 MANUFACTURERS OP CIGARS. 
 
 777 
 
 TVe believe, and are sure, tliat the present existing tariff, as far as 
 tobaccos are concerned, does and will produce the largest amount of 
 revenue that it is possible to collect from this article, and that any 
 clianges that you may make tending toward liigiier duties will defeat 
 your object and result in a decreased revenue, besides being harmful 
 to the tobacco and cigar manufacturing interests, and without the 
 slightest particle of benefit to the farmers. 
 
 We substantiate our statement by referring you to the statistics of 
 consumption of tobaccos for the seven years ending June 30, 189G. The 
 following were the net totals for said years received from revenue on 
 tobacco, viz : 
 
 1890 $9, 128, 055. 59 
 
 1891 - 12,137,027.32 
 
 1892. 6,509,757.27 
 
 1893 11, 168, 439. 63 
 
 1894 $10, 985, 632. 78 
 
 1895 12, 399, 600. 30 
 
 1896 12, 389, 500. 97 
 
 The figures for the fiscal year ending 1894 (this being the year during 
 which wrappers paid $2 duty), being dissected, show the following col- 
 lections, viz: 
 
 For wrappers $5,701,579.30 
 
 For lillers 4,723,444.02 
 
 For stemmed fillers 560, 809. 46 
 
 Totcal 10, 985, 632. 78 
 
 During this year (1894) wrappers paid $2 duty, fillers 35 cents, and 
 stemmed 50 cents. 
 Now, in 1895 we find the following statistics : 
 
 Collected for — 
 
 Wrappers at $2 per pound $702, 044. 36 
 
 Wrappers at $1.50 per pound 5, 638, 451. 50 
 
 Fillers, uustemmcd, 35 cents per pound 5, 427, 757. 28 
 
 Fillers, stemmed, 50 cents per pound 622, 778. 66 
 
 Fillers, unstemmed (scraps), at 40 cents per pound 8, 297. 30 
 
 Making a total of 12,399,600.30 
 
 For 189G statistics show the following: 
 
 Collected for — 
 
 Wrappers at $1.50 per pound $6, 286, 523. 09 
 
 Wrappers at $2 per pound 615. 32 
 
 Fillers at 35 cents per jiound 5, 555, 548. 93 
 
 Fillers, stemmed, at 50 cents per pound 522, 331. 28 
 
 Fillers, unstemmed (scraps), at 40 cents per jjouud 23, 932. 40 
 
 Making a total of 12, 389, 500. 97 
 
 ■ We have selected the year 1894 as a fair comparison to 1895 and 
 1896, for the reason that that year, viz, 1894, was the best test of the 
 efficacy of the McKinley rate, as during that year we know that no 
 wrappers were consumed in this country that were withdrawn from 
 bond prior to the passage of the McKinley bill. An additional evi- 
 dence of this assertion you will find in the statistics of the year 1893, 
 showing tha.t during that year there were withdrawn for consumption 
 2,362,531 pounds at the $2 rate, and also a considerable quantity in the 
 year 1892. 
 
 We dwell upon this point strongly, as there seems to be an impres- 
 sion in your committee that the McKinley rate never had a fair test of 
 showing what revenue it would produce.
 
 778 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 These figures, better than any words or argument, prove that under 
 the present rate of of $1.50 per pound on wrappers and 35 cents on 
 fillers, a larger amount of revenue has been collected during 1895 and 
 1896 than in any of the preceding five years. 
 
 You will notice that the reduction of the Sumatra duty from $2 to 
 $1.50 stimulated the use of that material, as well as that of Habana 
 filler. 
 
 These statistics should be convincing proof to your honorable com- 
 mittee that any changes made tending toward increased duties must 
 inevitably result in a decreased consumption, and additional and oner- 
 ous burdens placed upon the manufacturers, and result in little or no 
 increased protection to the farming interests. 
 
 The only possible way in wliich the tobacco schedule could yield a 
 larger revenue than it at present does is by framing the law so thatthe 
 Government will collect all it is entitled to under the wrapper clause, 
 which, if enforced, will result in at least $1,000,000 to $1,250,000 addi- 
 tional revenue on unstemmed wrappers, proving the total possible to 
 be realized on tobaccos to upward of $13,500,000. 
 
 EespectfuUy submitted. 
 
 Walter A. Scheffer, 
 Of Wertheim <£- Scheffer, Neic YorTc. 
 George J. Smith, 
 
 Of Poicell, Smith & Co. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. L. H. NEUDECKER, OF BALTIMORE, MD., 
 
 Monday, January 1, 1897. 
 Mr. jSTeudbcker said : We Baltimoreans are in favor of a tax of 50 
 cents per pound on all imported leaf tobacco, which would give the 
 Government more revenue than a duty of $1.50 on wrappers and 35 
 cents on fillers. The way we figure it is this : 18 pounds of fillers at 15 
 cents per pound additional duty amounts to $2.70; taking from that 
 the loss of $1 a pound on 2 pounds of Sumatra (necessary for the 
 wrapping of over 1,000 cigars), will leave a net increase to the Govern- 
 ment of 70 cents on every 1,000 cigars. It costs 10 cents a pound to 
 raise leaf tobacco in this country, and therefore a duty of 50 cents a 
 pound on imported leaf tobacco is good protection to the farmer of the 
 United States. A duty equal to five times the amount of what it costs 
 to raise tlie article in this country is suificieut protection for our farmers. 
 That would be protection against any kind of cheap labor. We further 
 claim that it is not possible to keep out Sumatra tobacco unless you put 
 a duty of $5 or $10 a pound on it, and I do not think that that even 
 would keep it out. We Baltimoreans claim that a uniform duty of 50 
 cents a pound would prevent fraud, and would also increase the reve- 
 nue of the Government. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. I. S. ELLISON, OF NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 Monday, January 4, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Ellison said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I would like to 
 
 correct some statements made here this morning by the representatives 
 
 of tobacco growers. One statement which they made was that Sumatra 
 
 tobacco is raised by cheap coolie labor. Now, I know that it costs 24.-^
 
 MANUFACTURERS OF CIGARS. 779 
 
 cents a pound to raise Sumatra tobacco, while it costs the grower of 
 tobacco in Connecticut, where the highest price leaf is grown, only from 
 10 to 12 cents a pound; and it costs the tobacco grower in other parts 
 of the country as low as 5 and G cents a pound. Now, the growers of 
 domestic tobacco have got 24J cents a pound to contend with in the 
 matter of Sumatra tobacco, which is more than double the cost of the 
 domestic product. When I say 24.} cents a pound for Sumatra tobacco, 
 I mean Sumatra tobacco as grown — filler, binder, and wrapjier, all 
 together. You have not heard the prices which this Sumatra tobacco 
 briugs in Amsterdam. I have here a list commencing with 1S64, when 
 the Sumatra tobacco first made its appearance in Amsterdam to the 
 amount of 50 bales. That was the entire crop for that year. The 
 product increased until 1882, when 102,050 bales of Sumatra tobacco 
 were brought into market and were sold at 49| cents a pound. At that 
 time our domestic tobacco, without any Sumatra competition, sold at 
 an average running from 15 to 25 cents a pound. In 1884 the number 
 of bales of Sumatra tobacco was 125,264, and the tobacco then sold at 
 52^ cents per pound. It increased until 1890, when we got our first high 
 protective duty put on tobacco. Up to 1890, when the high protective 
 duty was put on tobacco, the domestic growers of tobacco got a much 
 higher price for their product than they have received since 1890. All 
 these stories about coolie labor at from 5 to 10 cents a day are mere 
 fake stories. The Sumatra tobacco companies engage coolies for the 
 season, and these coolies get from $300 to $500 for the season. Besides 
 that, they receive from one to two hundred dollars in advance, and a 
 great many of them desert without going to work, so that the companies 
 are out of their money. When the coolies do come to Sumatra to work, 
 they are housed, fed, and taken care of in the hospitals at the expense 
 of the company, so that they can not be regarded as laborers receiving 
 only from 7 to 8 cents a day. In fact, the average price of raising 
 Sumatra tobacco is 24i^ cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Warner. Where are these companies located? 
 
 Mr. Ellison. Partly in Holland, partly in Germany, partly in Eng- 
 land, and partly in Switzerland. We tried to get up an American com- 
 l)any to control part of the Sumatra tobacco, and that is how we came 
 to find out these figures. We found that the raising of tobacco there 
 would cost too much. It costs fully twice as much to raise Sumatra 
 tobacco as it does to raise tobacco in the United States. Some of the 
 witnesses this morning spoke of the value of Sumatra tobacco. But 
 that value is for the best grades. Up to 1893 they raised a fine leaf, a 
 regular legitimate leaf. Then the fashion changed, and people wanted 
 spots on their cigars, and so the companies began to cut the leaf before 
 the croj) was mature; and of course only a very small portion of that 
 croii was fit for our market. Sumatra tobacco has become the wrapper 
 leaf of the world. Out of a crop of 240,000 bales last year we imported 
 the magnificent amount of 19,000 bales, every other bale of the crop 
 being sold in otlier countries. That is where the difiiculty comes in. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. I accompanied a gentleman to call at the office of 
 the Dutch secretary of agriculture in 1891, just following the passage 
 of the McKinley law. He spoke of the great injury of that legislation 
 to the interests of the Government of the Netherlands, and almost 
 refused to talk to us about the Chicago matter about which we had 
 called because of the great harm which that legislation had done to the 
 Government of the Netherlands. Can you explain why that wasf 
 
 Mr. Ellison. I do not speak for them. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. But I do.
 
 780 SCHEDULE F. — TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Mr. Ellison. Katurallj-. But the Americans are competitors for 
 their 'finer grades of tobacco, and if they lose in this competition they 
 naturally feel it. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. State the possibilities of extendino- the production 
 of this Sumatra tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Ellison. The production can not be extended much more. A 
 great many of the companies have had to get out of the business. 
 They do not cultivate the ground every year. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. Is the ground that is adapted to the growth of this 
 tobacco limited"? 
 
 Mr. Ellison. Yes; it is limited. In 1890 the average price of Suma- 
 tra tobacco was 26^ cents a pound; in 1891 it was 33f ; in 1892 it was 
 45|; iu 1893 it was 52| ; in 1891 it was 43i ; in 1895 it was 32|. So you 
 see how that price varies. These are the average prices at which the 
 crop sold at Amsterdam. Americans do not buy it at these sales at 
 Amsterdam because they can not aftbrd to buy a large number of bales 
 at a time. The bids are made by Dutch houses, English houses, and 
 German houses, aud American importers have to buy from them. They 
 do not buy directly. 
 
 Mr. Evans. So the Sumatra tobacco is not sold at Amsterdam to the 
 highest bidder? That statement was a mistake? 
 
 Mr. Ellison. It is sold to those who make the highest bid for the 
 entire lot. The entire lot may be 700 bales, and the tobacco is then 
 divided into first grade, second grade, third grade, etc. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF BALTIMORE MANUFACTURERS AND IMPORTERS 
 FAVORING UNIFORM DUTY. 
 
 Baltimore, January 2, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We, the undersigned cigar manufacturers, importers, and dealers in 
 leaf tobacco, do most respectfully i)etition your honorable body to 
 change the tobacco schedule of the proposed new tariff bill so as to 
 make the duty on all leaf tobacco 50 cents per pound. 
 
 The present tariff law levies a duty of $1.50 per i)ound on all leaf 
 tobacco suitable for cigar wrappers, all other tobacco 35 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 The present rate of duty on wrapper leaf of $1.50 per pound we con- 
 sider excessive and unjust to the cigar manufacturers, who, in order to 
 conduct the business of manufacturing cigars, are compelled to use the 
 Sumatra and Habana wrapper leaf 
 
 We believe a uniform rate of 50 cents per pound on all leaf tobacco 
 would produce more revenue than the present rates of $1.50 and 35 
 cents. 
 
 It is a well-known fact that the quantity of tobacco paying the rate 
 of 35 cents is far in excess of that paying $1.50, and we think a duty of 
 50 cents per pound would be sufficient protection for the American 
 farmer, as it is at least 200 per cent more than he can get for his prod- 
 uct, and experience has proved that they can not raise tobacco in the 
 United States that will compare with the product of the islands of 
 Cuba and Sumatra for cigar-manufacturing purposes. 
 
 We furthermore claim there are at least 300,000 employed in the manu- 
 facturing of cigars in the United States against 30,000 engaged in rais-
 
 MANUFACTURERS OF CIGARS. 781 
 
 ing cigar leaf tobacco, and that the jourueymaii cigar maker is the one 
 ^vl)o has been paying the increased duty on wrapper leaf under the pro- 
 vision of the McKinley tariff bill of .$2 per pound and the Wilson tariff 
 bill of $1.50 per pound on tobacco suitable for wrai)pers. Their wages 
 were reduced at the time of the passage of the McKinley bill to an 
 amount equal to the increase of duty on wrapper leaf. And your peti- 
 tioners will ever pray, etc. 
 
 Jos. Merfeld & Co., Freeman Bros. & Co., Sneeringer & Co., 
 Frank K. Bowers & Co., M. Kemper & Sous, R. B. Ramos, 
 G. W. Lentz & Co., H. Joesting & Bro., Wm. A. Boyd 
 & Co., Chas. H. Klemni & Sons, F. Horwitz & Co., 
 C. C. Isaacs & Sou, L. H. Neudecker, C. H. Brenaman 
 & Co., Elliot, Otteuheimer & Elliot, Heineman Bros., 
 E. J. Oppelt & Co., Baltimore Leaf Tobacco Co., F. W. 
 Thomas & Co., Geo. W. Emich & Co., F. & J. Faisten- 
 hamer, Isidor Merfeld, Ed Wischmeyer & Co., Kraus & 
 Co., Becker Bros., Wm. H. Myers & Bro. 
 
 THE A. B. SANTA ROSA COMPANY, OF SAVANNAH, GA., FAVORS 
 
 UNIFORM DUTY. 
 
 Savannah, Ga., January 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We take pleasure in referring your committee on thesubject of tariff 
 to our letter addressed to the Committee on Finance, Unit-ed States 
 Senate, Senator Yoorhees being chairman, some three years ago, bear- 
 ing upon the subject. Our letter and many others of prominent 
 tobacco and cigar men were j)ublished in Bulletin No. 34, Committee 
 on Finance, as replies to tariff inquiries No. 4207 to 4428, May 20,1894. 
 Those letters will give you much valuable information aud points on 
 the subject. There are many clear Habana cigars being manufactured 
 in this country aud sold by the manufacturers at such low prices that 
 the retailers are enabled to sell them at 5 cents, making a good profit. 
 Those goods are extensively manufactured in Tampa and Key West 
 and other localities, and seriously hurt those made in this country 
 with our domestic tobacco. We repeat, therefore, our suggestions that 
 a uniform specific duty of at least 50 cents on uustemmed and 75 cents 
 on stemmed tobacco would be the only solution possible on the subject. 
 Most manufacturers of Habana cigars import their tobacco, which 
 stands them at a cost of from 70 to 'iri cents per pound, including duty. 
 This explains the tremendous and ruinous competition that the clear 
 Habana cigars are making on those made fully or in part with our 
 ■domestic tobacco. 
 
 It seems to us that the tobacco growers' attention has not been called 
 to this important fact, else they would not be so obstinate in pleading for 
 protection, making Sumatra wrappers their objective point, when really 
 it is their best friend, as the more Sumatra is used the more demand 
 there is for domestic tobacco, as it is used very extensively in combina- 
 tion with same. 
 
 Bartholomew Santa Eosa, 
 No. 202 Jefferson Street, Savannah, Ga., 
 
 Manufacturer of Habana Cigars.
 
 782 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 CEEAGH, GUBKNECHT & CO., OF PHILADELPHIA, OPPOSE REDUCTION 
 OF DUTY ON TOBACCO. 
 
 Philadelphia, December 31, 1896. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As manufacturers of cigars, we are naturally very much interested 
 in the i^roposed change of tariff on leaf tobacco and cigars. In our 
 opinion, as the Government needs an increased revenue, it would be 
 unwise to reduce the duty on tobacco. We favor an increased duty on 
 cigars, or the enactment of a bill such as has been proposed by one of 
 the trade journals, which follows: 
 
 PROPOSED ACT OF CONGRESS, 
 
 A BILL to increase the duty on cigars, cigarettes, and cheroots imported into the United States from 
 a country that prohibits the exportation of leaf tobacco to the United States. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Eepreaentatiies of the United States of America 
 in Congress assembled, That on and after the ])as8age of this act there shall be levied, 
 collected, and paid upon cigars, cigarettes, and cheroots of all kinds four dollars per 
 pound and twenty-live per cent ad valorem, and paper cigars and cigarettes, including 
 wrappers, shall be subject to the same duties as are herein imposed upon cigars: 
 Provided, nevertheless. There shall be levied and collected on cigars, cigarettes, aad 
 cheroots of all kinds imported into the United States from any country where the 
 exi)ortation of wrapper or filler tobacco into the United States is prohibited by law, 
 decree, or executive order, or upon which an export duty is levied upon wrapper or 
 hller tobacco, a duty of twehe dollars per pound and fifty per ceut ad valorem, and 
 paper cigars aud cigarettes, including wrappers, shall be subject to the same duties 
 as are herein imposed upon cigars: Provided further, That it shall be the duty of 
 the Secretary of State to certify to the Secretary of the Treasury the fact that any 
 prohibitive orders or export duty spoken of in tlie foregoiug paragraph has been 
 revoked, when and in the case the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to forego 
 the collection of the additional duty of eight dollars per pound and twenty-five per 
 cent ad valorem on cigars, cigarettes, and cheroots imported from said country. All 
 acts and parts of acta inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. 
 
 CeEAGH, GiTDKNECHT & Co., 
 
 Manufacturers of Havana Cigars. 
 
 HENRY TEAISER & CO., OF BOSTON, PROTEST AGAINST CHANGE 
 IN DUTY OR INTERNAL-REVENUE TAX. 
 
 Boston, January 1, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We earnestly protest against there being any change of either the 
 duty on imported tobacco or the internal-revenue tax. Our reasons for 
 taking this position are that we think a specific duty would have to be 
 not less than 50 cents per pound nor more than 60 cents per pound, 
 and in either case we do not think that the tobacco growers of Con- 
 necticut, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Ohio, Wisconsin, and 
 Pennsylvania would have sufficient protection on the wrapper tobacco 
 which they now raise, whereas we think that the present duty of 81.50 
 per pound on wrapper tobacco is ample protection for all domestic 
 growers. 
 
 We feel that this tariff bill being formed by a Eepublican majority 
 should be carried out on a protection principle, and think that a specific 
 duty of even 00 cents or 50 cents per pound would not be in line with 
 the general Republican i^olicy of protection.
 
 MANUFACTURERS OF CIGARS. 783 
 
 As you well know, before the McKinley bill was inaugurated we paid 
 a duty of from 35 to 75 cents on all wrapper tobacco imported into this 
 country, whereas the duty is now $1.50 per pound, which certainly is 
 ample protection for the American tobacco grower, and as much of a 
 burden as the cigar-making industry can well stand. 
 
 We trust that you will give this matter your full consideration, and 
 hope that both the duty on imported tobacco and also the internal- 
 revenue tax will be left exactly as they are to-day. We are not adverse 
 to having the duty on imported cigars advanced, if your committee 
 think it expedient. 
 
 Henry Traiser & Go., 
 
 Cigar Manufacturers. 
 C. H. Traiser, Secretary. 
 
 GEORGE A. HOCHREITER, OF BUFFALO, N. Y., FAVORS A UNIFORM 
 DUTY ON FILLERS AND WRAPPERS. 
 
 BUFFAXO, X. Y., January 5, 1897. 
 CoiioiiTTEE ON Ways and Means: 
 
 ALr. Tobin, of the village of Baldwinsville, has given the committee 
 hisversion on imported tobacco. I, for one, do not think that he handles 
 one pound of imi:)orted tobacco, where he said that anyone can cover 
 1,000 cigars with li pounds of Sumatra and it will take IG pounds of 
 American tobacco. I know better, as a cigar maker. It will take 2 
 pounds first size Sumatra, at a price from $3.50 to $4 per pound, and it 
 Avill take about 6 pounds at most of the domestic wrapper, at 50 or 60 
 cents, Connecticut Habana seed or Connecticut broad leaf. There is 
 not one pound of wrapper grown in Xew York State that is fit for a 
 good 10-ceut cigar. Some is all right for 5-cent cigars. I bought 
 Sumatra by the bale at 62.25 per pound under the tarift' of 18S8. The 
 best I got was $60 for my goods. Under the tariff of 1890 I had to 
 stop handling same. Under the tariff of 1894 I can handle the same at 
 a loss to myself, because no manufacturer could have raised his stock, 
 for the reason of cheap goods brought in here to Buffalo from such 
 i;)laces in the State where these so called tobacco-growers come from. 
 
 Put a uniform duty of 52^ cents on fillers and wrapper, or 35 cents on 
 filler and 70 cents on wrapper. In 1890 it was said to protect the 
 farmer. It did so. Connecticut wrapper raised from 35 cents a pound 
 to $1.10, and no one can deny this. 
 
 George A. Hochreiter, 
 
 Cigar Manufacturer. 
 
 N. TUCHMAN, OF KANSAS CITY, FAVORS LOW DUTY ON SUMATRA 
 
 Kansas City, Mo., January 2, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir : That part of the tariff bill relating to " Sumatra tobacco 
 wrappers" being of special interest to me, as I am engaged in the man- 
 ufacture of cigars, which also interests all cigar manufacturers, I beg 
 pardon for writing you to suggest an amendment to the present bill, so 
 as to make it possible and profitable for American cigar manufacturers 
 to manufacture Sumatra-wrapped cigars. 
 
 After over half a century of trial and experiment on the American 
 continent by all of the expert leaf- tobacco growers, it has been found to
 
 784 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 be impossible to raise any tobacco equal to the Sumatra leaf. Habana 
 wrappers do not equal the Sumatra, and the Connecticut and all domes- 
 tic tobacco wrappers no more compare with the Sumatra than a cotton 
 handkerchief does with a silk one. 
 
 The present tariif on Sumatra wrapper leaf is $1.50 per pound, and 
 under the McKinley law it was $2 per pound. Under the tariif laws 
 preceding the McKinley law it was 35 and 75 cents per pound, and under 
 the last-named tariff law American cigar manufacturers were able to 
 profitably manufacture Sumatra cigars, but under the McKinley tariff 
 it was impossible to profitably manufacture those cigars in the United 
 States, and in consequence all cigar manufacturers had to suffer, and no 
 improved machinery that could be applied to the manufacture could 
 profitably manufacture those cigars in this country. Therefore it nearly 
 amounts to a prohibition of that manufacture. 
 
 I desire to call your attention to this, and to ask that you use your 
 good office to secure an amendment to the present laws so as to reduce 
 the tariff on Sumatra 's\Tap])ers to not to exceed 75 cents per pound, if 
 it is desired that the manufacture of Sumatra cigars be conducted to 
 any extent on this continent; if not, then you should have the tariff 
 raised to ^5 or more per pound, so as to absolutely prohibit the manu- 
 facture of any Sumatra cigars here. 
 
 A tariff of 75 cents a pound on Sumatra wrappers would stimulate 
 the manufacture of this grade of cigars, while the other tariff would 
 prohibit and make it impossible to profitably manufacture that grade 
 of cigars. 
 
 N. TUCHMAN, 
 
 Cigar Manvfacturer. 
 
 JOSEPH KEAUS, OF NEW YORK CITY, FAVORS HIGHER DUTIES ON 
 
 LEAF AND FILLERS. 
 
 New York, is". Y., January 11, 1897. 
 Committee on Wats and Means: 
 
 The new tariff, which is now being talked about and made ready 
 should be a protective tariff, and hence I take the liberty of addressing 
 a few lines to you as to tlie industry of the cigar business. It is highly 
 necessary that in our line of business we should have protection that 
 will protect, and not as it has been in the past and is at present. 
 
 Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, are the largest 
 tobacco-producing States in the Union. Farmers get from 2 to 6 cents, 
 sometimes a little more, for their crops, which does not pay them very 
 well, and keeps them from cultivating tobacco carefully. They emj)loy 
 very few hands, in order to make both ends meet; whereas, if protec- 
 tion would protect sufficiently, these farmers could probably use from 
 six to eight hands to each acre of tobacco, give it due care and atten- 
 tion, and would raise tobacco which would be good enough for cigars in 
 our market or any other market. 
 
 Wrapper leaf pays $1.50 duty. This tobacco has never been a qual- 
 ity improver, but on account of its look and yield it has been adopted 
 by cigar manufacturers, and to-day it is the" only wrapper tobacco in 
 the United States, and it was made so by the manufacturers. At first 
 the people of our country did not care to take the goods. They con- 
 demned same, but it was forced upon them, and now it has come to 
 stay, and $1.50 or $2 duty is not enough. This tobacco shall and must
 
 MANUFACTURERS OF CIGARS. 785 
 
 bring $5 per pound duty. In this way our domestic tobaccos will be 
 worth some money. It will pay the farmer to take care of his crops, 
 and he will raise tobacco that will always be good enough for wrapjiers, 
 and in point of quality far better than the Sumatra. Through this 
 Sumatra the manufacturer and the cigar-maker both have been almost 
 ruined, because the price derived for the Sumatra wrapped cigars, in 
 most instances, has not been sufficient to leave a margin, the duty on 
 the Sumatra and the cost having gradually reduced the labor in the 
 cigar-making business, as also the profits for the manufacturers; there- 
 fore, the quicker this is abolished and a high duty placed upon it, the 
 better for our people. Therefore the duty on wrapper tobacco, imma- 
 terial what wrapper it is, whether Habana or Sumatra, should be $5. 
 
 The duty on tobacco for filler purposes should be 75 cents unstemmed 
 (unstripped) and $1 stemmed (stripped). This duty should be all round, 
 without any misconstructions, and not as it existed heretofore in 
 Habana tobacco, that one-third of the wrappers should be imported 
 free. There is the disadvantage between those manufacturers who 
 make clear seed cigars and those that make clear Habana cigars. 
 The one pays all year round $1.50 duty for a cheap cigar, while the 
 other who makes the high-grade cigars with a larger x^rofit pays only 35 
 cents duty. That is discriminating unjustly, and such things should 
 not be iiermitted to exist. 
 
 The reason this duty should be put on fillers is to prevent as much 
 as possible foreign fillers from coming into this market, and to give 
 our farmers and manufacturers a chance to manipulate their tobaccos 
 as best they can, and make fine cigars out of them. We have the 
 Southern districts that raise tobaccos and they are almost as fine as 
 imported Havana tobacco, and in some cases not only equally as fine 
 but better, and in this instance I know what I am writing about, and 
 I stand ready to convince you that domestic tobacco grown and culti- 
 vated properly is as fine as imported tobacco either for fillers or for 
 wrappers. But under the circumstances, as matters stand now, tlie 
 peojile who cultivate tobacco can not afford to raise the same for tlie 
 price they are being paid. Only of late, since the war in Cuba, Habana 
 tobacco has taken such an enormous jump in price, it gives the South- 
 ern planters a chance to raise some tobacco, knowing that they will 
 receive prices that will warrant their going to the trouble with their 
 crop, and they have succeeded in bringing out such tobaccos as will 
 not only be a pride to the United States, but to the whole world. There 
 are some crops raised down South that are far superior to any tobacco 
 that has ever been imported into the United States for wrappers and 
 fillers. 
 
 1 stand ready to prove my assertions, and I beg personally, and for 
 everybody, that the duty on tobacco shall be specific — $5 per pound 
 for wrappers; 75 cents per pound for fillers unstemmend, and $1 per 
 pound stemmed. This duty will help the farmer, the cigar maker, the 
 manufacturer, and the best of it, it will help the Government to raise 
 more money than they ever have heretofore. The duty on cigars must 
 be correspondingly as high. This duty being high, importation can be 
 smaller, and yet the revenue will be as large as it has ever been. 
 
 Joseph Keaus, 
 
 Cigar Mamtfacturer. 
 
 T H 50
 
 786 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 HETTERMANH BROS. COMPAH'Y FAVORS $5 TAX OK SUMATRA. 
 
 Louisville, Ky., December 30, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As manufacturers of cigars we of course prefer to work Sumatra; 
 so does every cigar maker prefer to work Sumatra, in prefereuce to 
 domestic tobacco. But to put aside self-iuterest Sumatra, tobacco ought 
 to liave a duty, or any otlier foreign wrapper, of $5 per pound. This 
 would prevent the use of the same in the general manufacture. It 
 would only be used then on fancy goods that are sold at fancy prices. 
 By a 65 per pound duty wrapper that is now imported into the LJnited 
 States from other countries, and raisedbyslavelaborers, by unscrupulous 
 Hollanders, without a soul or conscience, or raised on some of the other 
 islands in the diflerent oceans by negres or Chinese, would almost be 
 entirely kept out. It would increase the cost of domestic tobacco to what 
 it formerly brought. I remember when I paid 81 per pound for domestic 
 wrappers, which we would pay to day if it was not for Sumatra. The 
 farmer who gets to-day probably from 8 to 15 cents and at the highest 
 20 cents, would get from 20 to 40 cents for his crop, and for prime 
 goods more in proportion. This would enable the farmer to pay atten- 
 tion to the raising of tobacco, to hire men to attend to it, and both 
 conld make a good living. It would also induce other sections of the 
 United States to raise tobacco, such as Texas, California, and various 
 other States, and the benefit from such a tariff would soon be felt all 
 over the country. 
 
 We would suggest the following rates : 
 
 Wrapper tobacco : per pound . . $5 
 
 Cigars and cigarettes do 10 
 
 Champagne ; per gallon . . 5 
 
 Wine and brandy do 5 
 
 Ale and beer do 5 
 
 An internal revenue on beer of $2.50 per barrel, and the Government should have 
 beer inspectors. 
 
 John Hetteemann, 
 Of Hettermann Bros. Company, Cigar Manufacturers. 
 
 WILLIAM H. JEFFERIS, OF CHESTER, PA., ASKS THAT SMALL 
 MANUFACTURERS BE COHSIDERSD. 
 
 Chester, Pa., January 8, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I employ six persons in making cigars, and pay the usual price for 
 making them. I think the small manufacturer has some rights, and 
 the fact is, to my mind, Sumatra tobacco is a necessity, and $1.50 is all 
 I want to pay — in fact, all I can afford to. If you place a higher duty, 
 say $2, as in the McKinley law, it has a harsh effect on just such strug- 
 gling manufacturers as myself, and gives the advantage to those hav- 
 ing more money. I do not object to their having more money, but I do 
 object to them having sx^ecial legislation. 
 
 William H. Jefferis, 
 
 Cigar Manufacturer.
 
 TOBACCO GROWERS IN REBUTTAL. 787 
 
 TOBACCO GROWERS IN REBUTTAL. 
 
 ADDITIOI^AL STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MK. VAN DUZEE, OF 
 
 HOESEHEADS, N. Y. 
 
 Monday, January i, 1897. 
 Mr. Van Duzer said : I want to contradict some of the statements 
 made here to-day. I have been a farmer thirty years, and I have been 
 growing tobacco thirty years. I claim to be a fairly intelligent farmer, 
 but it seems I can not tell you half as much about raisiug tobacco as 
 some of the gentlemen who have come before you to-day. I think it 
 unfair to the tobacco-raisers of this country to have men who buy 
 tobacco and manufacture cigars come here and tell what it costs to 
 raise tobacco. This sample of domestic tobacco which was presented 
 here to-day was, it is true, carefully sorted, but it was not sorted with 
 a quarter of the care taken with Sumatra tobacco, which is sorted over 
 and over until every leaf is of the same shape, and until all of the 
 cigars made from it are of the same shape. We can not afford to do 
 that with our tobacco at: the price we are paid for it. And if the gen- 
 tleman to whom that sample was shown knows what it costs to grow 
 Sumatra tobacco no better than he knows what it costs to grow tobacco 
 in Connecticut, iSTew York, and Pennsylvania, the committee ought to 
 take his statements with a great deal of allowance. This tobacco 
 [exhibiting a sample] is tobacco which, some years ago, we would not 
 have tliought of using for anything but binding purposes. It is very 
 thin and light, but there are a great many spots upon it, the same as 
 upon Sumatra tobacco, and that was why the dealer was able to get a 
 higher price for it to be used as wrappers. In Sumatra they are able 
 to take their tobacco and sort it up and develop it. With cheap prices 
 of labor that is possible, but it is not possible with us. This tobacco 
 here [exhibiting a sample], which is only a binder grade, is the only 
 tobacco we have that counterfeits Sumatra, and it is on that account 
 that it will outsell this other tobacco [showing another sample] which 
 is really of superior quality. On a farm in an adjoining county from 
 mine (a farm owned by an ex-Cabinet officer) they made an experiment 
 this year in using a chemical preparation for developing spots on the 
 tobacco leaf, and I am told that it was very successful. I mention this 
 in order to show to you that our only hope now is in getting spots on 
 the tobacco, which we thought heretofore were blemishes. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ME. GEOEGE MITCHELSON, OF ST. PAUL, MINN. 
 
 Monday, January i, 1897. 
 
 Mr. MiTCHELSON said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the commit- 
 tee, my brothers and myself have several hundred acres in Connecticut, 
 and grow about 20 acres in tobacco. If we had a duty of $5 a pound 
 on Sumatra tobacco we could grow at a profit tobacco on more than 100 
 acres in Connecticut, but now we are not making any money on our 
 tobacco. There has been no money in tobacco-raising for a Xew England 
 farmer since the 1892 crop, when we had a lighter duty than we have 
 now. But the $2 a pound duty is not enough. We want $5 a pound. 
 
 A Member of the Committee. Five dollars duty on an article that 
 costs $1.20?
 
 788 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Mr. MiTCHELaoN. I do not know what it costs, and I do not care. 
 
 Mr. Turner. I suppose you would rather have a duty of $10 a pound ? 
 
 Mr. MiTCHELSON. Sumatra is a foreign interloper, and I would like 
 to see him kept where he comes from. 
 
 Mr. Turner. You do not regard the interest of the Government at 
 all in the matter, but only the interest of your Connecticut farm. 
 
 Mr. MiTCHELSON. We can not grow tobacco and make money with a 
 duty of less than $5 a pound. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What additional price do you estimate for the 
 tobacco raised in Connecticut if the duty were made $5 a pound? 
 
 Mr. MiTCHELSON. I can not state, because the seasons vary. Some 
 years we have a wrapper crop and some years a filler crop. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You have some idea about what rate would make 
 your tobacco crop pay you. What is your best idea as to the average 
 price which a duty of $5 a pound on the imported article would give to 
 your domestic article! 
 
 Mr. MiTCHELSON. When we did not have Sumatra tobacco here we 
 got 30 cents a pound for our Connecticut tobacco, and made money and 
 were prosperous. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Would a duty of $5 a pound have that efiect now? 
 
 Mr. MiTCHELSON. Yes; in some years it would. It is only about one 
 year in ten that we can raise a good crop. In the year 1869 we had a 
 very fancy crop. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Then you would have an import duty of $o a pound 
 placed on Sumatra tobacco for nine years, in order to get the benefit of 
 the one good and full crop that you make every tenth year ? 
 
 Mr. MiTCHELSON. As a general thing, we have a crop which gives 
 seven-eighths wrappers; but, taking one year with another, we will only 
 get 20 per cent of wrappers. The number of wrappers to the pound 
 of tobacco varies from year to year. If we had a duty on Sumatra 
 tobacco we could sell domestic wrappers. 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. The American people can raise tobacco enough for 
 the world and at low prices. 
 
 The Chairman. We desire to raise as mucli revenue as possible from 
 tobacco, and, in the course of raising revenue, to adjust the duty so as 
 to encourage the raisers of domestic tobacco. It is a question first of 
 revenue and then of the protection of our own industries. If other 
 gentlemen desire to present statements on the subject, they will be pre- 
 sented in writing or in print and will be incorporated in the report of 
 this hearing if presented within a very few days. 
 
 INTERNAL-EEVENUE TAX. 
 
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY TOBACCO MANUFACTURERS OF LOUIS- 
 VILLE, KENTUCKY. 
 
 Louisville, Ky., December 30, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We, the undersigned manufacturers of tobacco at Louisville, Ky., are 
 opposed to any action on the part of Congress during the present ses- 
 sion looking to a change in the existing rate of tax on manufactured 
 tobacco. We believe that the present tax is satisfactory to all parties 
 interested, and while a change would not in itself affect the manufac-
 
 INTERNAL-REVENUE TAX. 789 
 
 turer, as lie in the end collects tlie tax from the consumer, he must suffer 
 from any agitation of the tobacco-tax question on the part of Congress 
 through the serious uusettlement and demoralization of his business 
 which must necessarily follow. 
 
 Our interests have suffered seriously from the general business de- 
 pression of the past few years, and we are urgent in our opposition to 
 any action whatever in connection with the tax on manufactured 
 tobacco. 
 
 Jno. FmzER & Bro. 
 
 Harry Weissinger Tobacco Co. 
 
 Strater Brothers Tobacco Co. 
 
 Nall & Williams Tobacco Co. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY JAMES F. EPES, OF BLACKSTONE, VA. 
 
 BlACKSTONE, Va., December 22, 1896. 
 Committee on Wats and Means: 
 
 Living, as I do, in the oldest tobacco section of the country, I take 
 the liberty of calling your attention to one of the conditions attending 
 the tax on it. 
 
 Of course, there are various qualities of the different grades; but 
 all tobaccos fall under the grades of " lugs," "medium leaf," and "fine 
 leaf." There are many crops made which bave no "fine leaf" in them; 
 but there is no crop made which has not a i:)roportion (usually about 
 one-third) of " lugs." The bottom leaves and those above affected by 
 the winds and the worms must necessarily be "lugs." 
 
 The really "fine leaf" in bright (unsmoked) tobacco sells at $25 to 
 $30 per hundredweight, and from that downward to about $2.50 per 
 hundredweight for the "lugs," and the really "fine leaf" in dark 
 (smoked) tobacco at about $10 to $14 per hundredweight, and from that 
 downward, according to grade and quality, to an average of $1.50 or 
 less per hundredweight for the " lugs." The " lugs," especially the 
 dark kinds, very often sell for barely enough to pay warehouse expenses. 
 
 Coming now to the question of the existing tax (specifically $6 per 
 hundredweight on all grades and qualities), you will see that it amounts 
 to about 20 to 30 per cent on the "fine leaf" brights,40 to 50 percent 
 on the "fine leaf" darks, while on "lugs" it amounts to the enormous 
 tax of never less than 300 and often more than 400 i^er cent. 
 
 As stated, there is no remedy in the i)ower of the producer except to 
 abandon the culture of tobacco altogether, for the reason that it is 
 impossible to make the " leaf" grade without the acconq^animent of 
 "lugs." 
 
 I see from the reports that the average price being realized this sea- 
 son for all grades of tobacco is $G per hundredweight. If I am correctly 
 informed, this is exactly the amount of the present tax, so that if an 
 ad valorem tax of 100 per cent was laid on tobacco instead of the 
 specific tax of 6 cents per pound the revenue would be the same. 
 
 In this connection, I wish also to call your attention to the fact that 
 it is fairly estimated that 6 cents per pound or $6 per hundredweight 
 is the minimum of cost at which tobacco can be produced, and it seems 
 a very great hardshii) to impose a tax on a home product equal to its 
 full average market value. 
 
 I do not think I am mistaken when I say that everyone interested 
 in tobacco (except the very large factories, and those infienced by them,
 
 790 SCHEDULE F. TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 who tliiuk themselves compensated for the large tax by the relief it 
 affords from competition) would like to see a more moderate tax on all 
 grades of tobacco. But the chief object of this letter is to call your 
 attention to the enormity of a 6-cent tax on a 1^-cent "lug." 
 Truly yours, 
 
 Ja]vi:es F. Epes. 
 
 PROTEST FHOM CIGAR MAKERS' INTERSTATIOIJAL UHION. 
 
 Chicago, III., January 4, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We earnestly protest against any increase of internal tax on cigars, 
 as such increase would fall on and work great injury to cigar makers. 
 CiaAR Makers' International Union of America, 
 
 G. W. Perkins, President. 
 
 TOBACCO "SHORTS." 
 
 STATEMEIIT SUBMITTED BY R. W. PEAK, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., January 4, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I desire to call your attention to a very important matter that con- 
 cerns cigar manufacturers. I have reference to what is called " shorts," 
 which arises from the manufacture of cigars. This is an overphis 
 material that accumulates from the manufacture of cigars. Previous 
 to the election of Mr. Harrison the cigar manufacturer had the i^rivilego 
 of packing up his shorts or cuttings and stamping them for sale, the 
 same as all other smoking tobacco. I believe there are a large num.ber 
 of cases lying idle in cigar manufacturers' cellars, whereby i f they had t ho 
 privilege of packing it and stamping it, it would accrue to the advan- 
 tage of the manufacturer, and would also add an increased re\enuG to 
 the Government. Tlie law allowing manufacturers this privilege was 
 in operation, or went in operation, shortly after the war, and continued 
 up to the time of Mr. Harrison's election. The then Commissioner of 
 Internal Eevenue ruled that there was a clause in the law prohibiting 
 the manufacturer from enjoying this privilege of disposing of this over- 
 plus material unless he took out a separate bond and a separate loca- 
 tion in which to prepare it for sale, causing an additional expense. 
 
 1 have no doubt that this movement was brought about by one or 
 two large firms, who now have the entire control of this branch of the 
 business, thereby closing up the avenues of the small manufacturers, to 
 the advantage of a monopoly, for the benefit of the few to the dis- 
 advantage of the many. 
 
 R. W. Peak, 
 Manufacturer of Cigars.
 
 FRAUDS ON THE GOVERNMENT. 791 
 
 FRAUDS ON THE GOVERNMENT. 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY S. A. BASSFORD, OF NEW YORK, H. Y. 
 
 New York, January 1, 1897. 
 
 OOMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 I respectfully submit my exxjerience while acting as special examiner 
 of all tobacco in the warehouses of this city. The tobacco schedule of 
 the McKiuley law was all right, if honestly administered, but the great 
 discrimination of ^1.05 between wrajipers and tillers was too great a 
 temptation for fraud. I found many cases. The most noted was the 
 Leibe Bros, running througli the San Francisco custom-house 488 bales 
 of wrappers and 12 bales of fillers as filler. This was probably the most 
 extensive fraud ever carried through. The Stackelbourgh was the 
 next in magnitude. These cases Avere referred and the smugglers got 
 their tobaccos through mostly on 35 cents duty. I found by reports from 
 the Bureau of Statistics and internal-revenue reports that the Govern- 
 ment lost fully $10,000,000 during the Harrison Administration, and 
 more during Mr. Cleveland's term. 
 
 Now, sir, the Government is sadly in need of revenue, and tobacco 
 being a luxury, I submit for your consideration a duty of $1.50 on all 
 tobaccos, with 20 cents additional on stripped leaf. This will yield 
 $45,000,000 annually, and with $4.50 per pound and 25 per cent ad 
 valorem on cigars, will do justice to all and greatly relieve the Govern- 
 ment. There are many different styles of tobaccos imported from 
 various countries that are used to manufacture cigars. None of them 
 that are honest but are worth more than the duty imposed. 
 
 The magnitude of the frauds committed on the Government, and the 
 parties engaged in it, would astound the whole country if exposed. 
 
 S. A. Bassfoed.
 
 SCHEDULE a. 
 
 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 793
 
 Schedule Q.-AGIIICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND 
 
 PROVISIONS. 
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 
 
 (Paragraph 189.) 
 STATEMENT OF MR. F. H. ROCKWELL, OF WARREN, PA. 
 
 January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Rockwell said : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 we are interested in the raising, feeding, and fattening of cattle in 
 Kansas, and also some in Mexico. We buy and raise a great many- 
 cattle in Mexico and bring them into Kansas as raw material for the 
 purpose of fattening them for the market. The tax on Mexican cattle 
 under the McKinley Act prohibited the bringing of cattle across there 
 Ironi that country, and we consequently accumulated a large amount of 
 cattle there which came across immediately after the Wilson bill went 
 into effect, and for that reason, you see, the number of imported Mexi- 
 can cattle was very large over what it had ever been before. 
 
 Mr. Payne. If that is the case why is it so much greater in 1896 
 than in 1895"^ 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. I do not know. I have not the figures on that item. 
 
 Mr. Payne. There were 134,000 imported in 1895 and 217,000 in 1896 ? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. They were gathered all through the country in 1895 
 and 1896, and the surplus accumulated was brought over at that time. 
 I will say in reference to the Mexican cattle we bring over that they 
 come as raw material, being entirely fattened and grazed for a space of 
 from six to eighteen months in Kansas, fed on American products and 
 cared for by American labor. 
 
 The Chairman. Tlie average valuation of the cattle imported in 1895 
 was only $4.96 per head, aud in 1896 the average value was $6.89 per 
 head. 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. Our figures on that, the average value of our cattle 
 in American money, was $7.50 a head. 
 
 The Chairman. This is the average, of course, all over the country. 
 This is the invoice value on which duty was paid! 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. Our own valuation is in the neighborhood of $7 to 
 ■ $7.50 a head. 
 
 The Chairman. It appears from the statistics that of the 217,000 
 cattle imported last year 210,000 came from Mexico; all but 1,000? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. Of course Mexican cattle are very light in weight, 
 running from 600 to 900 pounds, and the weight as compared with cat- 
 tle imported from Canada would be 1 to 2J, aud the average value 
 would be only 1 to 6. 
 
 Mr. Evans. What was the age of most of these cattle"? 
 
 795
 
 796 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Mr. EoCKWELL. They are ones, twos, threes, and those brought over 
 immediately after the Wilson bill went into effect ran to all ages, 
 because some cattle got as high as seven and eight years old there. 
 
 Mr. Turner. How many did you import? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. At that time we imported in about the neighbor- 
 hood of G,000 head. 
 
 The Chairman. You say Americans have gone over into Mexico and 
 have purchased ranches, and are raising cattle there and importing 
 them? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. They are. 
 
 The Chairman. Why did they go to Mexico, instead of doing this 
 work in the United States? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. I can only state for ourselves ; we started in busi- 
 ness in Arizona I think in 1883 or 1884. Soon after that we had a 
 long continuous drought for several years, which ruined all the ranges 
 there, and we were forced to look for other places and food for our cat- 
 tle or lose them, and we went into Mexico and secured ranges there 
 and took our cattle from Arizona down there. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Where the same weather conditions did not prevail? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. Yes, sir; it is a higher altitude, more water, and 
 good food. Such was the condition of our range at that time we were 
 obliged to either give up the business or go away. 
 
 Mr. Steele. If there is better water and more food, why do you 
 bring your raw material, as you call it, over into this country? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. The food is simply grass, and the grass and climate 
 there precludes the fiitteniug of cattle as we require them in this country. 
 There is no grain raised in that country, or practically none for feeding 
 purposes, corn being worth usually in the neighborhood of 2 cents per 
 pound there. Our cattle mainly go into canned meat which is largely 
 exported, also a great deal in the beef that is used for the poor classes, 
 the light meats and cheaper meats. I do not think in Mexico the cattle 
 come anywhere near the price per hundred pounds when they are sold 
 in the markets there to what our native cattle do. The Kansas farmer 
 certainly gets the most there is out of raising the cattle, even the Mexi- 
 can cattle. They are brought over as ones, twos, and threes, and they 
 are fed by the farmers who are hired to do it. Thej'' are kept there 
 according to the ages, as I have said, from six to eighteen months, using 
 large quantities of corn and all kinds of forage. We are located in 
 Ellsworth County, which is geographically the center portion of Kansas, 
 and we are paying the same prices for corn they pay in the adjoining 
 county and Kansas City. The market price has been made there by us 
 in order to get the amount of feed we need. I will say we paid out last 
 year for corn $22,000 to the Kansas farmers. This year it amounts to 
 nearly $40,000, besides other expenses we pay to the farmers, amounting 
 to over $10,000 in what business we do with them. 
 
 The Chairman. How would it pay the farmers of Kansas if they 
 should raise this stock instead of taking and feeding it after it is raised 
 in Mexico? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. They can not compete with these other cattle. They 
 depend upon cattle being brought in there to feed their grain to. 
 
 Mr. Steele. They have a good deal more range than they had six 
 years ago. There is more range for cattle in Kansas? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. I think there is a great deal of western land that 
 has been vacated by those trying to farm it, but they can make more 
 from feeding the cattle brought in than by trying to raise and graze 
 them.
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 797 
 
 The Chairman. Suppose tliey could do both? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. They can, but I do uot think there is much in the 
 first part of it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. They did raise all the cattle in 1892 and 1893, did they 
 not"? 
 
 Mr. EoCKWELL. Immediately before the act went into force there 
 was a large amount of cattle brought into this country. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Those were generally fattened within a year and put on 
 the market? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. They could not all be. They were all grades and 
 all ages. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The stock was j>retty much exhausted by 1893, of 
 imported cattle, was it not? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What did they do in 1893 but raise them; they did not 
 import any? 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. What is the practical objection to bringing in calves 
 under one year? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. It is a little hard to gather them up and drive them. 
 We bring a great many yearlings. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. I see a great deal in the newspapers about whole 
 train loads of cattle being shipped direct from Mexico to the Chicago 
 market? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. There have been several trains going through 
 directly there, to the canners; that is by parties who did not have the 
 means of feeding them. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. From what port of entry are they admitted ; I refer to 
 those train loads coming to Chicago? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. I think those came from the Texas border. We 
 come over the Arizona border with our cattle. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Where is Sonora? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. South of the Arizona line. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. I see 43,687 were admitted from Sonora in 1895, and 
 I was wondering where they came from? 
 
 j\rr. Rockwell. The $10 a head under the McKinley bill amounts 
 to 120 to 125 per cent ad valorem on Mexican cattle. The same tax oh 
 the cattle brought in from the Canadian side in our Eastern and 
 Middle States would amount to about 18 per cent. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Have you any means of knowing what valuation was 
 set upon the cattle that year you imported? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. Mr. Sherman, who will follow me, can give you the 
 exact figures on that part of it. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. There seems to be a sudden drop of the offlcial valu- 
 ation of those cattle from about $21 in 1893 to $4.98 the year following. 
 
 The Chairman. The result of a change from a specific duty to an ad 
 valorem duty. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. I wanted to know if the witness had any hand in the 
 valuation, so as to know what it was. 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. We did not enter any under the specific duty. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. About what valuation did you set upon your imported 
 cattle at the custom-house when you imported them? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. What we paid for them — the market price at the 
 line. We bought a great many delivered at the line. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Was there any change in the market value of cattle 
 that appears to be represented by that sudden change from $21 to 
 $4.98?
 
 798 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. I do not kuow in regard to 1893. We did no im- 
 porting ourselves at that time. ■ We practically dropped the business, 
 leaving our cattle in Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Steele. It may be partially accounted for by importing younger 
 
 animals. , . , , , ^ . 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. Kotliing but old cattle could be brought m under 
 the McKinley bill; no young cattle. 
 
 Mr. Steele. Why? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. On account of the $10 specific duty. 
 
 Mr. Steele. That applies to cattle above one year. 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. We never imported calves at all. 
 
 Mr. Steele. A 2-year-old steer would not pay the same duty as a 
 4-year-old steer? 
 
 Mr. Turner. They did not import the more valuable animals at the 
 specific tax of $10. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MK. M. M. SHERMAN, OF SALINA, KANS. 
 
 January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Sherman said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the cotnmittee, 
 in this connection of the cattle trade perhaps the most important point 
 to call the attention of the committee to is the American ownership of 
 the cattle that are brought from Mexico to the United States. Prior to 
 the passage of the McKinley bill, when the old war tariff of 20 per cent 
 ad valorem was in effect, quite a number of Americans left Arizona and 
 Texas and the border with their herds and went into old Mexico to 
 embark in the industry of cattle raising there. The idea obtained 
 among the Americans at that time that in view of both the Republican 
 platform and tlie well-known attitude of the Republican party, they 
 thought that the duties would in all probability be materially reduced, 
 and perhaps entirely removed. The reason of going in there is to be 
 found in the fact that some portions of that country in the United States 
 adjacent to Mexico were overstocked on the ranges and the ranges were 
 getting short, and, of course, all of that country is sparsely grassed, and 
 they went into Mexico onto new ranges. 
 
 Perhaps in the first instance the ranges in Arizona and Texas might 
 have been better even than the ranges in Mexico, but they were going 
 on new and unoccupied ranges. ISow, the limit to which these Ameri- 
 cans entered Mexico was from 100 to 150 miles, and that is about the 
 limit to-day Irom which the Mexican cattle come into the United States. 
 Most of them are right on the line, where tuey can get the ranges con- 
 venient. Now, in all probability, two-thirds, and it is possible even a 
 greater number, of the cattle coming from Mexico into the United 
 States are owned by Americans, and are simply raised and grazed on 
 the other side of the boundary line. And also in this connection it would 
 be well for the committee to bear in mind that where Mexican cattle 
 are raised and owned by Mexicans and handled in the United States, 
 those cattle are bought by Americans either at the Mexican range or 
 delivered on the cars at the nearest railway station. And hence it is 
 that this entire trade is in the hands of Americans, and it is as Ameri- 
 cans we come before you in connection Avith this Mexican cattle-trade 
 industry. Now, when the McKinley bill was framed, imposing the $10 
 specific duty on all cattle above calves, there was no presentation of 
 facts of that trade I believe to Congress of* the condition of the Mexi- 
 can cattle trade, that it was in the hands of Americans or anything else 
 concerning it, and I have no doubt that the mind of the committee who
 
 I 
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 799 
 
 framed the bill was upon Cauadian cattle. Their attention was called to 
 the Canadian product and value rather than to the inferior grade and 
 character of the Mexican product, and in order to meet the entry of the 
 Canadian product they imposed the $10 specific duty per head, forget- 
 ting all about the Mexican cattle. 
 
 There have been some questions asked as to the price at which cattle 
 are entered coming from Mexico into the United States, the price of 
 entering, and the value placed upon them. Onr experience is that we 
 have entered those cattle at what we paid for them. We have bought 
 cattle in Mexico as low as $G, $9, and $12, ones, twos, and threes, in 
 Mexican money, and in one instance we found difficulty in passing the 
 custom-house even when we had bought them at those figures in enter- 
 ing them at that rate. Now, the fact of the matter is some of those very 
 cattle we bought at those apparently very low prices of $G, $9, and $12, 
 we lost money on, and we paid all they were worth, and you must 
 remember in connection with the Mexican cattle and those figures of 
 $4.98 that have been here reported as the value of the Mexican cattle, 
 you must bear in mind the inferior grade of the cattle. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Are they stock cattle or fat cattle, as a rule? 
 
 Mr. Shekman. You can not get any fattened cattle in Mexico such 
 as 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. And yet some seemed to have been valued at $21. 
 
 Mr. Sherman. It is very probable those are Canadian and not 
 Mexican. 
 
 Mr. Payne. There were 638 valued at that rate imported from Mexico 
 that year. 
 
 Mr. Sherman. Of course, the $10 per head duty on cattle where cattle 
 to-day are not worth $10 a head — they might have jncked out here or 
 there some very valuable cattle and fixed this valuation upon them. 
 You might find 800 or 1,000 head of cattle worth that sum of money, 
 but it is not the average product of either the American cattle raiser or 
 the Mexican cattle raiser. That is not the average value, by any means. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. I see from the Treasury reports ibr the fiscal year 
 ending June 30, 1895, there were imported 130,791; for 189G there were 
 imported 217,992, and in the four months ending October 31, 1896, there 
 were imported 15,292 head; and upon examining the report I should 
 say there was at least 95 per cent of those cattle coming from Mexico. 
 Were they all stock cattle? • 
 
 Mr. Sherman. I would say, in regard to the entrance of these cattle 
 from Old Mexico, the first thing you note there is the Wilson tariff did 
 not go into effect, and the cattle could not be gotten out of Mexico until 
 October, and there were but a few months to bring them in 
 
 Mr. Tawney. One hundred and thirty-four thousand came over. 
 
 Mr. Sherman. Well, when it was well known that the Wilson tariff 
 would soon go into effect, preparations were made. The Americans 
 down there were hemmed in by the McKinley tariff. The Americans in 
 Mexico, when starting the business, naturally looked to the United 
 States for their market, as they were American citizens. When this 
 Ijrohibitory tariff went into effect they simply went along for the period 
 that tariff' was in effect, holding their herds and accumulating, and in 
 the course of time their ranges became overstocked, and instead of 
 3-year-old steers they had 6-year-old steers, and threes, fours, fives, 
 and sixes, and there was a rush as a reaction from the congestion, and 
 in a few months they got out a great many cattle. All of these cattle 
 to which you allude were American cattle out and out, scarcely any 
 Mexican.
 
 800 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. You mean Americans raised cattle driven across the 
 line for pasture ? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Prior to the passage of the Wilson bill? 
 
 Mr! Sherman. Prior to the passage of the Wilson bill; that is, when 
 the Americans embarked in Mexico in the cattle raising country. They 
 did not go down there to Mexico with any $10 prohibitive tariff staring 
 them in the face to go into the cattle-raising trade. They went in there 
 before, and they availed themselves of the first opportunity, of course, 
 to get them out. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Were they not there prior to the act of 1890 ? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. We ourselves entered in the year of 1886— the latter 
 part of that year. Some had gone before us and some came after, and 
 that possibly is the average time. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. At that time the duty was 20 per cent ad valorem? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir ; as I have said. And it was under that duty 
 that they went into Mexico. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. You say that the great bulk of Mexican cattle com- 
 ing into this country are cattle fattened in Mexico for the market? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. They are not fattened in Mexico for the market, for 
 corn is worth 2 cents a pound. Of course, the cattle get in fair condi- 
 tion at times upon the grass in that country and are brought out. 
 
 Mr. Dolliver. What do you do with these cattle? 
 
 Mr, Sherman. Our course of trade in these cattle is to bring them 
 across the line and to ship them to central Kansas, where we feed and 
 fatten them. 
 
 Mr. Dolliver. How long do they remain there! 
 
 Mr. Sherman. From six months up to two years, depending upon 
 the age at which they passed the line. We bring the cattle in, for 
 instance, in the fall, and we endeavor to bring the most of our cattle in 
 September, October, November, and the 3-year-olds at that age reumin 
 In Kansas until July, August, and September of the coming year. 
 
 Mr. Dolliver. What i)roportion of your cattle of this class have 
 you shipped directly to the stock yards from Mexico? 
 
 Mr, Sherman. The first train load of cattle we brought out of Mexico 
 we shipped directly upon the market. The prices realized from them 
 led me to take these same cattle 
 
 Mr. Dolliver. When was that? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. In the fall of 1894, just after the Wilson bill went 
 into effect — and the price we got for those cattle induced me to at once 
 reship those cattle back to central Kansas and fatten them and get 
 them in condition to go on the market. 
 
 Mr. Dolliver. What about the cattle the newspapers described as 
 being sold and slaughtered in Chicago? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. Last year and this year there have been some Mexican 
 cattle brought direct from the ranges of Mexico into the market at 
 Kansas City and Chicago. Those are only fit for the canners. Some 
 are sold and go back in the country, the same as I have explained we 
 did with our cattle, sold to feeders to be fattened. They are not very 
 desirable feeders. They are such an inferior grade of cattle that the 
 farmer does not like to take hold of them, and many go to the canners; 
 and let me say in this connection that these canners are slaughtered by 
 the packers and are exported to foreign countries to supply foreign 
 armies, etc. That is the course; they come in as canners, often. That 
 is the idea; they come in as raw material. The inferior grade of these 
 Mexican cattle, to which the attention of the committee has already 
 been called
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 801 
 
 Mr. Geosvenoe. Your idea, if you will allow me a question, is that 
 that this question of tariff upon foreign products ought to be affected 
 by the citizenship of the producer in the foreign country? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. I should think that ought to be taken into account. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. What effect would that have upon the whole line of 
 imported goods of every description that come into the United States? 
 How many do you think are manufactured, directly or indirectly, by 
 American citizens who have got your views and have gone abroad with 
 their money and i^ersons and gone into this business? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. I should Judge — of course I do not know — but I should 
 judge very little capital goes abroad for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenoe,. You do? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. I should judge so. That is a branch of the subject I 
 am entirely unfamiliar with. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. Then, if we should establish a rule when an Amer- 
 ican goes abroad and produces it shall have a favorable effect in the 
 differential duty, the most of our manufacturing would probably be 
 done abroad? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. I should not think so. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. Why not? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. Because we have the cheapest labor in the world. 
 
 Mr. Grosa^enor. Who has? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. The United States. We have the cheapest labor in 
 the world. It is a higher-priced labor, but it is at the same time the 
 cheapest labor. You take it in this very industry of cattle raising. 
 We who are engaged in Mexico have to hire Mexicans, and we have to 
 have two men to do one man's work 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. One to watch the other? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. We may get that man for low wages, but the ultimate 
 result is it costs quite as much if not more to raise cattle in Mexico 
 than in the United States. Of course, I am not familiar with other lines 
 of industry. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Do you apply that rule to other cheap labor countries? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. I should suppose it would apply with equal force to 
 Chinese and Japanese. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Why did you go over there if you get more out of the 
 labor here ? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. I explained one reason was the shortage of the ranges. 
 
 The Chairman. Have we not ranges in great abundance in Wyoming, 
 Montana, Colorado, and all that section of country ? Are we obliged to 
 go to Mexico to tind ranges? 
 
 Mr. Sheeman. In answer to that question I might at the same time 
 call attention to another reason, and that is as to the ranges of cattle. 
 The American Government does not seem to have recognized one fact 
 as yet, and that is that the range country of the Rocky Mountain 
 region, the arid region, is not susceptible of cultivation, and you can 
 not acquire titles to lands in sufficient quantities in the United States 
 and own your lands to raise your cattle. That is another inducement 
 that led us to go into Mexico. We could there buy land in sufficient 
 quantities so we could be the owners of the land on which we were 
 growing our cattle, and in that way control them. We could, if we so 
 desired, get good bulls to run with our cattle and we would reap the 
 entire benefit of it, whereas in the open ranges of the United States 
 the lack of ownership of the lands, if we developed water or got good 
 bulls or made any kind of improvement, all of our neighbors were 
 entitled to the benefit of our enterprise and industry. 
 T h 51
 
 802 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. I would like to ask this question. I seetbat since the 
 enactment of the Wilson bill we imported o(.)7,178 head of cattle, or 
 about 14,122 per month, while under the act of 1890 we imported, in 
 1893, 3,098 in all? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. I would like to know if it is not a fact that almost all 
 of those cattle imported from Mexico were stock cattle? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. They were all stock cattle, and even if called canners 
 they all came in under that head. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. What is the average price of stock cattle in Mexico? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. You mean the average price of cattle? 
 
 Mr. Tawney. The average price of stock cattle in Mexico in Ameri- 
 can money. 
 
 Mr. Sherman. Do you mean the entire herd, calf, cow, yearling, etc. ? 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Such as were imported during the last three years as 
 stock cattle. I want the average price in American money. 
 
 Mr. Sherman. It is perhaps diflicult to answer that question without 
 giving the different ages and the different classes of cattle. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Let me ask you this question, if you do not know that 
 as a practical importer of stock cattle 
 
 Mr. Sherman. I can answer your question, I think, satisfactory to 
 you, but in a little different form, and that is we have i)aid Jbr cattle this 
 year — for the kind of Mexican cattle we bouglit — S8 for yearlings, $11 
 for 2-year olds, and $14 for 3-year olds — that is, the Mexican cattle. 
 Now, you might say $11 Mexican money would be the average value 
 of that cattle. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Eleven dollars of Mexican money is about $5.50 of 
 American money? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. The entry was based upon the valuation at the cus- 
 tom-house. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. What is the average price of stock cattle raised in the 
 Western States and Territories? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. We also bought American cattle, although not in that 
 same vicinity, but I am speaking of the whole United States, paying 
 at the rate of $9, $12, and $15 for the same aged cattle also. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. But in American money .' 
 
 Mr. Sherman. Yes, in American money; and we considered in mak- 
 ing those purchases that the 89, $12, and $15 cattle were the cheai)er 
 cattle on account of their superior quality. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Then why do you go to iMexico to get stock cattle? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. We are familiar with the country; we have been in 
 the business there, and the reason we bought some American cattle 
 was, that they were delivered on the cars at some point 
 
 Mr, Tawney. Do you own the ranges in Mexico? 
 
 IVIr. Sherman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Evans. How much thicker does the grass grow on these ranges 
 than in the United States? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. There are parts of Arizona entirelj^ unfitted for rais- 
 ing cattle; and then again, you take the southeastern county of the Ter- 
 ritory and it is a cattle county. Even parts of that county are not fit for 
 the growing of cattle. In fact, throughout the whole range country 
 in the United States and Mexico here and there you find places fitted 
 for a range, and then again you find places unfitted for a range. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Up to August 20, 1885, the stock cattle were produced 
 on the western ranges of this country, and were all 
 
 Mr. Sherman. Feeders, I suppose you mean. They are to-day; they
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 803 
 
 were produced then and they are to day. It is supposed what are 
 termed the "feeder" class of cattle can be grown to better advantage on 
 the stock rauges in the farming communities. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. How do you account for this enormous importation of 
 cattle reaching 14,000 a month ? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. The importation from Mexico is largely owing to the 
 congestion of the market. You take, for instance, the report of the 
 Bureau of Animal Industry for the year 1895 of cattle brought out of 
 that country, which is, including the stray cattle, 240,000 head. I do 
 not know just how large a number of those were strays — these Ameri- 
 can cattle which strayed across the line. It is possible they came across 
 the line three or four times and were counted over and over again. The 
 Americans living near the line wish to preserve the American identity 
 of the cattle, so they go after them and bring them back. Up to Decem- 
 ber the number of cattle was 119,000, less than half of what it was last 
 year; and next year, as far as my knowledge of the country goes — and 
 I believe I am correct — 'tvith the threes, fours, fives, and sixes, you can 
 not get all your steer cattle, you understand, in one round-up, and you 
 have to go over the range at different times; but I should suppose there 
 would be a very great falling off, a still larger falling off another year. 
 Mexico herself is a large consumer of beef, and there are deserts and 
 inaccessible mountains and scarcity of water, and grass where there is 
 no water, and water where there is no grass, and the result is there 
 is no very great area of country on which you can raise these cattle. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY M. M. SHERMAN, OF KANSAS, AND 
 F. H. ROCKWELL, OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 COiVEVIITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 The attention of the House committee considering the revision of 
 the tariff is respectfully called to the conditions of the Mexican cattle 
 trade. 
 
 For a number of years prior to the passage of tbe McKinley law there 
 had been in force the old Morrill war tariff of 20 per cent ad valorem, 
 the same as to-day. Quite a number of Americans had embarked in 
 the cattle-growing industry in that part of Mexico adjacent to the 
 United States, i^artly induced thereto by the then existing overstock of 
 cattle on the ranges along the border, and also by reason of the impos- 
 sibility of acquiring sufticieut grazing land in fee, or in lieu of that, of 
 preserving to the use of the owners such improvements as they might 
 make on the public lands of the United States. When the McKinley 
 tariff was framed there is probably little doubt that if the attention of 
 Congress had been called to the matter and the real conditions of the 
 trade made known there would have been no imposition of a 810 per 
 head specific duty. Those interested, who were familiar with the con- 
 ditions, supposed such action entirely impossible, and made no pre- 
 sentation of facts, overlooking the point that cattle were only one of 
 almost innumerable items demanding consideration. It is probable that 
 two-thirds, and it is possible that even a higher proportion of the cattle 
 coming from Mexico are of American ownership, simply raised and 
 grazed on the other side of the boundary line. The American, when 
 entering the business, looked to the United States for his market, and 
 from 100 to 150 miles within the interior is the limit to which they 
 entered Mexico, and that to-day is the limit from which the cattle of 
 Mexico enter the United States.
 
 804 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Again the purely Mexican cattle of Mexican ownership and raising 
 are handled in the United States by Americans, and either bought at 
 the ranch or delivered aboard cars at the nearest railroad station. 
 This trade is entirely in American hands, and any profit I'esulting is an 
 American profit, expended in the United States, or added to American 
 
 capital. . , , . , ^ -. 1 J 
 
 The second consideration, and which by some might be regarded as 
 of first importance, is the impracticability, as between Mexican and 
 other foreign cattle, of imposing anything like an equitable specific 
 duty, according to any system that has been, or is likely to come into 
 practical use, unless it should be the desire of Congress to admit Can- 
 adian and other foreign cattle and to exclude the Mexican product. It 
 is not probable that Congress had this idea in view when the McKinley 
 laAV was framed; such, however, was the result. The inferior grade of 
 Mexican cattle is to be first considered. To make the inferior and light- 
 weight Mexican animal pay the same duty as the heavier and high-class 
 Canadian steer is a manifest unfairness that the Congress of the 
 United States does not knowingly wish to perpetrate. When quality 
 and weight are both considered no practical specific duty could be 
 devised in equity under which even the various kinds and grades of 
 cattle, coming from Mexico alone, could enter the United States. One 
 steer may be worth twice as much as another of the same age; again, 
 cattle entering at El Paso are, by reason of the lower freight rates from 
 this point to the interior of the United States, worth $1.50 per head 
 more than the same cattle are worth at Nogales, Ariz., on the Sonora 
 border. 
 
 Another wide diflerence between the Mexican and Canadian cattle is 
 found in the fact that the latter enter more largely as a finished product, 
 brought by the Canadian owner direct to tlie American market and 
 sold in direct competition with the best American beef, and even Avheu 
 entered as so-called feeders, represent probably not less than $25 per 
 head value, as against $5 to $7 per head for Mexican cattle of like age 
 on their respective borders. 
 
 Mexican cattle enter the United States ])ractically as raw material. 
 If they are shipped direct upon our market, even starting in fair con- 
 dition, the long shii)ment unfits them for anything but "canners." 
 This canned beef is largely reexported to supply foreign armies, etc. 
 If these cattle are fattened in the United States upon the grass of 
 Texas, or on the ISJ'orthern cattle ranges, or upon the corn of Kansas or 
 Nebraska, the character of raw material to be manufactured into beef 
 obtains to a still greater degree. 
 
 In this connection, in making a proper comparison between Mexican 
 and particularly Canadian cattle, the great distance of Mexican cattle 
 from the slaughtering market of the United States must be considered, 
 which greatly diminishes the value of the Mexican steer. 
 
 Therefore, the inferior grade, both as to weight and quality (for no 
 system of care and feed can develop the Mexican steer to an equality 
 with the Canadian in either respect), their different uses (the one a raw 
 material, the other a finished product), the great distance of Mexican 
 cattle from our market, and finally the widely varying values between 
 Mexican and other foreign cattle, preclude the idea of imposing specific 
 duties. Attention has been called to the seeming incongruity of the 
 average valuation of cattle, comparing importations under the 20 per 
 cent ad valorem tariff and under the McKinley Act. It need only be 
 stated that there were no importations under the McKinley Act, except 
 of a few high-grade animals, and that no fair comparison can be made
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 805 
 
 as between them and tlie 300,000 Mexican cattle imported for canning 
 or fattening- i)nrpo.ses under the 20 per cent ad valorem tariff since the 
 repeal of the McKinley Act. In this ijarticular business it is very easy 
 to guard against undervaluations under an ad valorem tariff, because 
 the range cattle are present and traded in on both sides of the border, 
 thus affording the American appraisers always a ready criterion as to 
 the values at which cattle should be entered. 
 
 The advantages to the United States arising from the importation 
 of Mexican cattle are perhaps best illustrated by giving the experience 
 of our own company. We have a breeding ranch in Mexico, and are 
 engaged in feeding and fattening cattle in Kansas. We have far more 
 cattle in Kansas than upon our breeding ranch. The Kansas end of 
 our business is the more important, but depends upon our ability to 
 furnish it with raw material, and without wiiich raw material we would 
 have to abandon the business. We first pay a duty of 20 per cent on 
 entering the United States, and then a freight rate, which, upon a basis 
 of a three-year-old steer, amounts to $4.50 per head, to American rail- 
 road companies to carry these cattle to central Kansas. There we buy 
 winter feed from the American farmer, which costs us from $5 to $6 
 per head. 
 
 In this connection it may be of interest to state that we are now pay- 
 ing as much for corn 240 miles west of Kansas City as is paid in Jackson 
 County, adjacent to Kansas City. These cattle are scattered about 
 among the farmers. We bring the market into the farmer's barnyard 
 for not only his corn but his forage crop as well, and hire him to market 
 his own produce by feeding it to our cattle, when he otherwise would be 
 compelled to haul it to the nearest railroad station at his own expense. 
 The fertility of his farm is kept up by feeding at home. Again, we 
 make use of pasture that costs §1.50 per head. When the cattle are 
 shipi^ed off" grass to market we pay $1.75 per head to the American 
 railroad if we ship to Kansas City and over $3 per head if we send the 
 cattle to Chicago. Seventy-five cents per head is paid to yardage com- 
 panies and commission men before the cattle are finally disposed of, 
 besides other incidental expenses. We expend $2 in the United States 
 to produce our beef product where we spend $1 in Mexico. When these 
 cattle finally come upon the market they are not even then serious com- 
 petitors of American cattle, the product being of inferior grade; in fact, 
 our more serious comj^etition with American cattle is not in the market 
 selling, but as buyers of winter feed and summer pasture. The com- 
 mittee will hardly regard that as detrimental competition. The thought- 
 ful consideration of the committee, after weighing these facts, must lead 
 it to the conclusion that the importation of Mexican cattle is a benefit 
 and not a detriment to the United States. Legislation should encourage 
 •this enterprise rather than discourage it. 
 
 We have paid in duties to the United States Government in the year 
 1896 some $10,000, while other cattle we have bought, delivered aboard 
 cars, have paid $3,000 more. To American railroad companies we have 
 l)aid for bringing our cattle to Kansas, $33,000; to railroad companies 
 for taking our cattle to Kansas City and Chicago, $7,000; to yardage 
 and commission companies we have paid $2,500. We will have to pay 
 to Kansas farmers some $40,000 for this winter's feed ; our labor bill 
 will not be far from $10,000, and we will require some 40,000 acres 
 of land upon which to pasture our cattle. Many of our cattle are year 
 lings, and for them we will be compelled to pay two winter feed bills 
 and two summer pasture bills before they are ready for market, and we 
 are within the limics when we state that, assuming present average
 
 806 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 selling value of cattle of Mexican origin, fattened in the United States, 
 to be $25, more than $15 of this represents American labor, Amer- 
 ican corn and feed, and other American expenditures. 
 
 It has been stated that the people of the corn-producing States, where 
 these Mexican cattle are being fattened, object to then- presence on the 
 ground that the Mexican animal takes the place of native cattle, and, 
 again, that these Mexican cattle depress the market of the native cattle 
 feeder and fattener. We admit that there is some opposition to the pres- 
 ence of the Mexican cattle, but it is not of the people, not of the farmer, 
 and not of anyone who will take the trouble to get at the facts in the 
 case and weigh the benefits derived from this industry as against the 
 so-called damage caused by it. The opposition to the presence of Mex- 
 ican cattle is largely composed of the corn speculator, the cattle specu- 
 lator, and the men who have been feeding a limited number of native 
 cattle. They have now to pay considerably enhanced prices for corn, 
 fodder, and pasture, and solely because of our becoming their com])eti- 
 tors for the farmers' produce wherever our cattle are. Their oiiposition 
 is aroused by competition created by us for the farmers' produce. As 
 against this we enjoy the united support of the farmers wherever we 
 have appeared with our cattle, and simply on the ground that we are a 
 benefit to them. We have displaced no native cattle in the districts 
 where we entered, for the reason that as feeders of Mexican cattle we 
 located as near the border line of the corn and grass belt as pos- 
 sible, the Mexican cattle being '^rustlers" and hardy. Native cattle 
 feeders, on the other hand, seek regions where they are sure of their 
 corn crop year in and year out, and avoid the districts of Mhicli 
 Mexican cattle can still well make use. We state as a fact, which can 
 easily be proven, that in the districts where we are we are feeding a 
 hundred Mexican steers where there was one native steer before, and 
 that so to speak we have been the cause of " ten blades of grass grow- 
 ing where there was one at the time of our advent;" and of this we are 
 proud. What Kansas needs is enough cattle to eat the feed raised. 
 Probably enough feed will go to waste there this winter to feed twice 
 the number of cattle that are there now, and the same can be said of 
 the grass of last summer or of the coming season. As to the competi- 
 tion in the beef market, and the honest fear of some people engaged in 
 raising native beef in the corn-feeding States that the Mexican steer is 
 a detrimental competitor, what are tlie facts in the case? Consider- 
 ing the immensity of the beef production, the Mexican imports of cattle, 
 though they should rise to tenfold the importance of the past year 
 (which, as further shown, is a physical impossibility), are an insignifi- 
 cant percentage pf the whole, as is proven by the statistics. During 
 the operation of the McKinley Act, which in eiicct i)rohibited absolutely 
 the importation of Mexican cattle, the prices of native beef were much 
 lower in every year of that ])eriod than during the year of LS05, when 
 Mexican importations of cattle were the largest and were entered under 
 the 20 per cent ad valorem act, thus showing conclusively that neither 
 the McKinley nor the Wilson bill had any eltect whatever on the i)rices 
 which cattle feeders of native stock obtained, and that these prices 
 were altogether governed by conditions which had nothing whatever to 
 do with the tariff in either case. We beg to call attention to the fact 
 that there is an actual dearth of feeders and young cattle on the north- 
 ern ranges, and that these Mexican cattle are generally welcomed by 
 the American range owners. When it is stated that all but 10 per cent 
 of the Mexican-cattle importations, or even a large percentage, are 
 shipped directly on the market without an intervening American feed-
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 807 
 
 iDg and fattening- period, this is incorrect, for, in tlie first place, the 
 proi)ortiou of Mexican cattle taken directly to market is small (with us 
 it has been less than 5 per cent); and again, it must be noted that a 
 considerable number of those that are shipped on the market direct are 
 bought by the farmers and cattle feeders for fattening purposes, and 
 taken out of the market again so far as immediate slaughter is concerned. 
 
 With regard to a certain statement published by a prominent J<tur- 
 nal dealing with economical questions, and which journal professes to 
 be better informed than the Government statistics, that the average 
 value of cattle imported into the United States has been $2.50 per head 
 and the duty paid thereon 51 cents, this assertion has as much sub- 
 stantiation in fact as the claim that the Kansas farmer objects to the 
 presence of the Mexican cattle and that their fattening in American 
 territory is detrimental to our people. Both of these statements are 
 either due to unreliable information and ignorance of this particular 
 industry or to opposition caused by our being local competitors lor the 
 American farmers' products. 
 
 It nmy occur to the committee that a reduction below the present 
 20 per cent ad valorem rate would tend to build up in Mexico a serious 
 competitive cattle-raising industry. Permit one who has lived on the 
 border and within Old Mexico since 1879 to state that Mexico is a large 
 consumer of beef, and to-day Mexico is buying cattle of a certain kind 
 in Texas and ship])ing them to the City of Mexico. 
 
 Fat stags and old cows, not very salable in the United States, find a 
 more ready sale in Mexico. The cost of transportation, the inferior 
 grade of cattle, and this home market do not jtermit the ex]iortation of 
 cattle from Mexico from a territory distant more than from lUO to 150 
 miles from the international line; and even that part of Mexico has 
 oidy here and there a favored region adai)ted to the grazing of cattle. 
 Deserts, inaccessible mountains, scarcity of water, no water where there 
 is grass, and no grass where there is water prevent any great extension 
 of cattle raising. 
 
 Another phase of this question is worthy of the deliberate consider- 
 ation of the committee. The year prior to the passage of the McKinley 
 tariff, 1889-90, the value of the cattle and hogs exported to Mexico 
 from the United States was — 
 
 Cattle $112,671 
 
 Hogs , .^64, 462 
 
 Other live and fresh moats 6, 649 
 
 Tot al 683, 782 
 
 The same year the imports from Mexico were — 
 
 Cattle $111,217 
 
 Hogs 434 
 
 Other live and fresh meats 1, 163 
 
 Total 112,814 
 
 showing a balance of trade in favor of the United States for one year 
 of $570,968. 
 
 Mexico, to oifset the $10 prohibitory duty of the United States under 
 the McKinley Act, imposed a similar duty, and the trade was broken 
 up, the United States losing over one-half million dollars balance of 
 trade in her favor, not on different lines, but in the same line of 
 industry. 
 
 The Bureau of Animal Industry reports that its health officers have 
 passed upon for the year 1895 240,975 head of Mexican cattle, and for
 
 808 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 the year 1896, up to December 1, 119,489. These figures include estray 
 United States cattle that did not pay duty, some of these estray cattle 
 passing the line three or four times a year, but grazing for most of the 
 time in Mexico, their owners in the United States trying to preserve 
 the American identity of the cattle. 
 
 These figures are sufficient to show, however, that the number was 
 not half so large in 189G as in 1895, and will be less another year, as 
 those cattle held in Mexico by the McKinley tariff have been disposed 
 of, and the trade is returning to its normal basis. 
 
 Mexico is again buying hogs and also cattle of the United States, 
 having reduced her tariff. If cared for, and not deliberately thrown 
 away, the trade in live stock, including hogs, will shortly show a bal- 
 ance in favor of the United States. When corn is worth 2 cents a 
 pound, as in Mexico, the hog can not be fattened to advantage. 
 
 Mexico has apj^arently passed through her period of revolutions. 
 Eailroads have entered that country ; it is now developing and progress- 
 ing and her wants are increasing. Would it not be wisdom on the part 
 of the United States to endeavor to supply those wants and to hold 
 and to increase her trade and to induce that trade to come to this coun- 
 try rather than to drive it to Enghmd, Germany, or any other foreign 
 countries by adverse legislation, which adverse legislation, if applied 
 to cattle, would, as has been shown in this argument, work a direct 
 and serious injury to American capital and to the American farmer. 
 
 In view of the statement of facts as herein submitted, we urge upon 
 your committee that there be no substitution of a specific for an ad 
 valorem duty, unless it is the wish of the committee to absolutely exclude 
 Mexican cattle, but that the present ad valoreui duty be reduced. 
 
 M. M. Sherman, 
 
 Salina, Kans. 
 F. H. Rockwell, 
 
 Warren^ Pa. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES CURTIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 
 FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS. 
 
 January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Curtis said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 I represent a district in Kansas in which most of the Mexican cattle 
 are fed, and I am here on behalf of the farmers of Kansas, the cattle 
 raisers of Kansas, and the cattle feeders of Kansas, asking that the 
 duty be restored to $10 a head on cattle 1 year and over and $2 a head 
 under 1 year. There were about 3(il,000 head of Mexican cattle 
 imported in the first twenty-three months of the Gorman- Wilson law. 
 I find in an unofficial report that they were of the average value of 
 about $2.54 a head in our money, and the average duty received was 
 about 51 cents a head. Eepresenting, as I said, the cattle district 
 
 Mr. Turner. How do you get those figures? 
 
 Mr. Curtis. From the American Economist of July 24, 1896, which is 
 a perfectly reliable i^aper. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Do you think it is more reliable than the Treasury 
 statistics % 
 
 Mr. Curtis. I do not, and will put the official figures in my state- 
 ment, I give 301,000 for the first twenty- three months of the Gorman- 
 Wilson law, but I find that the number, up to October, 1896, amounted 
 to 367,000.
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 809 
 
 Mr. Tawney, Threeliundred and sixty-seven thousand from tlie time 
 of the enactment of tlie Wilson bill until the 31st of October, 189G. 
 
 Mr. Turner. What is the average value of each? 
 
 Mr. Curtis. The average duty received was about 51 cents a head 
 on cattle from Mexico, according to the unofficial report, for the first 
 twenty-three month^s, and according to the same report the average 
 value was about $2.54 per head. 
 
 Mr. Sherman. Where did you gef. that? 
 
 Mr. Curtis. From the American Economist. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. The Treasury report makes it $4.96, but that is im- 
 ported from all countries, Canada as well as Mexico? 
 
 Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; you will find the high price is upon the Cana- 
 dian cattle and not upon the Mexican cattle. The Mexican cattle are 
 very inferior indeed, and there is not a cattle feeder in Kansas who is 
 benefited by their importation. There is not a cattle raiser in Kansas 
 who has been benefited by the importation. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Have they been injured? 
 
 Mr. Curtis. They have been injured. The district I represent feeds 
 a very large number of cattle; in fact, it is one of the largest cattle- 
 feeding and producing districts in the country and feeds more cattle 
 than any other district in the State of Kansas. I suppose it includes 
 the counties referred to by the gentleman who preceded me — the coun- 
 ties of Chase, Lyon, Wabaunsee, Greenwood, Butler, Morris, and 
 Coffey — to which cattle are im])orted and fed by the thousands every 
 year. Probably 00,000 or more Mexican cattle were fed there last year ; 
 and I visited the neighborhoods where these cattle were fed and the men 
 who fed them said they were a detriment to the country. I talked with 
 a man who was feeding about 15,000 of them, and he told me it was 
 a detriment to the neighborhood and himself. He said they had better 
 be raising the cattle there and feeding their own cattle than having 
 that measly outfit of cattle brought in from Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Sherman. As far as our cattle is concerned, permit me to state 
 the regions to which you allude are not the regions where these cattle 
 are; we are in Ellsworth County 
 
 Mr. Curtis. I did not know what county the gentleman referred to, 
 but we consider Ellsworth County in the western part of the State. 
 
 Mr. Sherman. I beg pardon, it is the geographical center of the State. 
 
 Mr. Curtis. That is so, but the counties of the Fourth district — Mor- 
 ris, Marion, Lyon, Greenwood, Wabaunsee, Chase, and others — are the 
 cattle counties of Kansas. I know that district pretty well, and have 
 visited every school district in it several times. The producers of native 
 cattle have been hurt by the importation of Mexican cattle because it has 
 brought in a class of cattle inferior to those they were raising before. 
 They are not all of them represented to be from Mexico when they try 
 to sell them, but they are Mexican cattle, and the poorest class of cattle 
 ever before brought into that section. By reason of the poor grade of 
 the Mexican cattle now coming in, the people can not afford to raise the 
 better class of cattle they were raising a few years ago. They bring 
 cattle in and sell them. Some of these feeders feed for themselves and 
 some sell and take notes, and many of the purchasers of those cattle 
 have lost money, for they were not accustomed to raising Mexican cat- 
 tle and they supposed they would make a larger increase in flesh than 
 they did, and so, of course, were disappointed. 
 
 Now, in all the time I spent in the Fourth district last year I found 
 but two parties who wanted the duty to remain as it is on cattle. One 
 was the railroad company that shipi^ed the cattle into the country and
 
 810 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 the other a gentleman who represented the interest of a live-stock com- 
 pany of Kansas City, Mo. I took particular occasion, every place I 
 went, to refer to the large importation of Mexican cattle and to find the 
 feeling in the neighborhood in reference to having the duty restored on 
 cattle, and I found the sentiment was almost unanimous, and I never 
 met but one man who said they were benefited by the importation of 
 those cattle ; but one man in all that district. For four years under the 
 McKinley law we only imported 19,000 head of cattle, and we have 
 imported about 307,000 under the Gorman-Wilson law up to October, 
 1896, and I want to say that the consumers of beef, not one of them 
 has been benefited a penny by this large increase in the importation of 
 Mexican cattle, but they have been fed poorer beef than ever before. 
 If you restore the duty upon cattle the cattle raisers of Kansas will 
 take the responsibility of furnishing their share of the cattle to supply 
 the markets of this country. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Without increasing the price of beef to the consumer? 
 
 Mr. Curtis. Without increasing the price of beef a penny to the 
 consumer, and we will give as good beef as anybody wants to eat in 
 this country, and I do not except 
 
 Mr. Turner. But how about the revenue of which we had $432,000? 
 Do you propose to sacrifice that interest of the Government? 
 
 Mr. Curtis. The revenue can be raised on other items, I take it, as it 
 has been heretofore by Eepublican legislation. We never had any 
 trouble with the revenues while the Kepublican party was in power, and 
 will not have when restored to power, and this committee formulates a 
 tariff bill along Itej)ublican lines, and if 
 
 Mr. Turner. I do not care to go into i:)olitics with you, Mr. Curtis. 
 That was a question made rather stale last fall, and I woukl not dread 
 an encounter on that subject, but at the same time I would ask you 
 whether as a Eepublican gentleman, as you seem to be, you think we 
 ought to lay taxes solely for the purpose of excluding all the products 
 of other countries? 
 
 Mr. Curtis. I say when it comes in competition with the products of 
 this country a duty should be levied large enough to protect those 
 products. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Then it is a tariff for protection and not for revenue 
 which is desired? 
 
 Mr. Curtis. So far as I am concerned, both revenue and protection. 
 I would have this committee, so far as farm jiroducts are concerned, fix 
 a duty that would prohibit the importation of one single agricultural 
 product that could be produced in this country, and the people will 
 applaud the committee if they^do it. 
 
 Mr. Turner. That is a frank statement. 
 
 Mr. Curtis. And I want to say further the people of Kansas want 
 a duty put back on hay. They want the duty increased on oats, on 
 flaxseed, hides, wool, and on all the products of the farm. 
 
 Mr. Evans. How about silver? 
 
 Mr. Curtis. It would be a good plan if there was a large duty placed 
 upon silver, too. 
 
 Mr. Bowers. Fifty cents an ounce? 
 
 Mr. Curtis. You can make it 53 if you desire. 
 
 Mr. Bowers. That is my platform. 
 
 Mr. Curtis. I herewith submit the figures taken 'from a statement 
 of the Bureau of Statistics, giving the number of cattle imported from 
 Mexico and the value as shown by the reports from the live largest 
 customs districts.
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 
 
 FROM SEPTEMBER, 1894, TO JUNE 30, 1895. 
 
 811 
 
 Customs districts. 
 
 Paso del Norte 
 
 Brazos de Santiago 
 
 Corjms Uhristi 
 
 Saluria 
 
 Arizona (Tampa) . . . 
 
 Number. 
 
 33, 521 
 10, 309 
 13, 745 
 43, 687 
 30, 375 
 
 Value. 
 
 $216,010 
 
 32, 062 
 
 55, 946 
 
 199, 607 
 
 126, 024 
 
 Average. 
 
 $6.44 
 3.11 
 4.79 
 4.50 
 4.14 
 
 FOR THE TEAR ENDINQ JUNE 30, 1896. 
 
 Cnstoms districts. 
 
 Number. 
 
 Value. Average. 
 
 Brazos de Santiago 1 21, 340 
 
 Corpus Christi j 30, 025 | 
 
 Paso del Norte 78, 731 
 
 Saluria ! 33,112 
 
 Arizona (Tampa) 1 50, 563 
 
 $84, 966 
 166, 140 
 641, 953 
 240, 471 
 316, 169 
 
 $3.97 
 5.53 
 6.63 
 7.26 
 6.25 
 
 Note. — Since the foregoing statement was made the following letter has been 
 received from the American Economist explaining the discrepancy between the 
 official figures and those given in the July number of the Economist : 
 
 New York, Januanj 5, 1897. 
 Dear Sir : Answei-ing your telegram of this date, I beg to inclose you copies of 
 the American Economist of July 21 and December 25. The former number contains 
 the statement which you referred to and, I am sorry to say, it was not quite correct. 
 The rate of duty under the present law should be $1.25 per head instead of 51 ceuts, 
 as compared with the specific $10 duty of McKinley law. The figures are those of 
 the Bureau of Statistics, and in the issue of December 25 cover the entire fiscal year 
 1896. In the issue of July 24 I see that my mistake was in adding the value of the 
 1895 imports with the number of the 1896 imports instead of with the value for 1896. 
 1 suppose that in a hurry I took the 1896 figures from the wrong column, and am very 
 sorry that they should have led to your statement being disputed. At the same time 
 I appreciate the reliance which you jilaced in the Economist. 
 Yours, very truly 
 
 C. E. BUCKLAND, 
 
 Editor American Economist. 
 Hon. Charles Curtis, M. C, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. W. W. BOWERS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 January 5, 1897. 
 Mr. Bowers said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: 
 If the committee would allow me, I would desire about two minutes on 
 the cattle question. 1 want to say that for twenty-six years I have 
 lived within 15 miles of the Mexican line, and eight years of that time 
 I was collector of customs of a district which included 200 miles of 
 Mexican boundary line, and I am therefore thoroughly familiar with 
 the cattle business. At that time, before the McKinley law came in, 
 the highest price of the Mexican cattle was $2, $4, and $6 per head. 
 They were imported from the Mexican provinces into the United 
 States, and in nine cases out of ten went directly to the market. 
 There was but very little feeding, and my judgment to-day, knowing 
 what I do about the Mexican cattle business, is this, that not more 
 than one out often cattle which were imported in the last three or four 
 years from Mexico have been imported for tlie purpose of feeding. 
 They have been sent directly to the market, and to-day the market at
 
 812 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 San Diego is largely supplied from Mexican cattle. I vrant to say also 
 that wlien the McKinley law went into operation it immediately encour- 
 aged and stimulated the cattle business in California among the small 
 farmers. During that time of course but few cattle were imported, 
 and they accumulated all along on the Mexican frontier, and when I 
 say frontier it means a strip of land 50 miles from the boundary line, 
 in which I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, no foreigner can own real estate. 
 
 Mr. Sherman. Twenty miles. 
 
 Mr. Bowers. It is 50 miles, I think, in which no American or for- 
 eigner can own real estate. He must become a citizen of IMexico 
 before he can own real estate in that strip. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. Where is the location of that strip? 
 
 Mr. Bowers. The gentleman says 20 miles, but I say it is 50 miles 
 south of the boundary line. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. The entire border? 
 
 Mr. Bowers. The entire border from the Bay of San Diego to the 
 Eio Grande along the Mexican line. All along that country cattle 
 raising is a business. The men who are engaged in it pay the laborer 
 not over 25 cents a day as a rule, and land is cheap. Now, the reason 
 why we can not feed or raise our own cattle there is that when this bill 
 was repealed they rushed those Mexican cattle into the T'nited States 
 and our jjeople could not afford to raise the cattle and feed them in 
 competition. They broke down and absolutely ruined the cattle busi- 
 ness in southern California, and that I know. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. BLUE, A REPRESENTATIVE 
 FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS. 
 
 January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Blue said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 desire to say briefly that we in Kansas have suflered very much from 
 competition from Mexican cattle. Our cattlemen have been injured 
 very much by the cattle that have been brought across the ^Mexican bor- 
 der, especially since the restriction has been modified by the Agricul- 
 tural Department. We have reached a stage Avherc the ])eople of west- 
 ern Kansas have come to the conclusion that their country is a stock- 
 raising country rather than an agricultural country. There never has 
 been a more opportune time than now for the development of our stock- 
 raising industry, if it were not for the competition that is caused by 
 these cheap Mexican cattle coming across. Speaking for myself, and I 
 think the mass of the people of Kansas, I believe in su(;h a duty on 
 Mexican cattle as to absolutely prohibit them from coming in — cer- 
 tainly all of tlie lower grades. My oi)inion is that the best thing that 
 can happen for us is the absolute exckision of all these cattle. 
 
 I am the Eepresentative at large from Kansas, and if there are any 
 other Members from Kansas here representing districts interested in 
 cattle, perhaps they would like to be heard on this subject. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. I would like to know what efiect the present tariff has 
 upon the hog market; whether or not the Mexicans come up into your 
 section of the country for the purpose of buying hogs. 
 
 Mr. Blue. Yes, sir; they buy hogs. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. The reason I ask is that I have a letter from a gentle- 
 man from Kansas City, and he speaks of the beneficial results from the 
 present tarifl". 
 
 Mr. Blue. My judgment about the matter is this, that both hogs and
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 813 
 
 corn are shipped by us to Mexico, but are only shipped there in cases 
 of extreme necessity. They do not buy any from us until the people 
 get into such a condition that they must have them, and then they 
 remove their tariff. That is only an occasional advantage to us, while 
 the disadvantages I speak of last all the time. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. W. P. SUTTON, OF WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Stttton said : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it 
 is a marked contrast on the inequality of competence that I should have 
 to stand up here against the whole Kansas delegation, but at the same 
 time I think the interest of international justice will demand a mod- 
 erately equal tariff imposed upon the products of various countries. 
 
 If we take a raw, salted hide and a Mexican cow or steer, they are 
 both raw products. They are very cheap in INIexico, they are bought 
 cheap, they come into the United States at a low valuation, and when 
 they get here they are transformed by American processes into leather 
 and boots and shoes. We do the work, make the profit, and get the 
 good result. The cow or steer comes into the United States valued at 
 Ig, $7, $8, or even $10. It is fed, watered, cared for, is carried, and it 
 is worth when sold, on an average of $25. There are $15 out of $25 
 that inure to the people of the United States. There has been so much 
 said as to importations and values tliat I desire to say to the committee 
 that in the year ending June 30, 1896, Mexico sent to the United States 
 210,277 head of cattle, valued at $1,477,431. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. What year? 
 
 Mr. Sutton. June 30, 1890. The total imports into the United States 
 up to that time 
 
 The Chairman. Those figures have been given. 
 
 Mr. Sutton (continuing). Were 217,000. So we received all but 
 1,000 from Mexico. 
 
 Now, there is another question as to prices. The cattle from France 
 imported into the United States and paying duties were valued at $289. 
 Those from the United Kingdom were valued at $150; those from 
 Canada $17, and those from Mexico $7. Had the importations of the 
 year ending June 30, 1896, been made under the McKiuley tariff tlie 
 cattle from the United Kingdom would have paid 2i per cent; those 
 from Canada 59 per cent, and those from France 6^ per cent. That is 
 a marked injustice as against the cattle of different countries. The 
 argument that I make is in favor of an ad valorem duty because it is 
 imi30ssible to specify cattle from Mexico or cattle from Canada or cattle 
 from beyond the seas. 
 
 Much was said this morning of the values of these Mexican cattle; 
 and the Kansas delegation is on record here as in favor of the utter 
 exclusion of those cattle. The gentleman from Georgia very well asked 
 this morning where would the revenue of the United States come from 
 if we shut out everything. We need some revenue even under a Demo- 
 cratic Administration. I don't thinkthe Eepublican party has received 
 any word to go to work and build a Chinese wall around this country. 
 We want a fair duty. If 20 per cent is not enough make it 25 or 3D 
 per cent. The cattle of Mexico are needed here and they can stand a 
 tariff duty if it is imposed fairly. The gentleman from Kansas said 
 these Mexican cattle were not needed. The cattle on our Western 
 plains are getting more and more tender each year. They can not stand
 
 814 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 drought, cold, or bad pasture. They die off in bad weather very rapidly 
 now. They need the admixture of this hardy Mexican breed of cattle. 
 Our cattle, when bred with these Mexican cattle, still retain the red 
 meat and the large frame, the characteristic of the Mexican cattle. One 
 party was once characterized as a party with an appetite. The Mexican 
 cattle could be called a class with very good appetite. They have this 
 large frame. They eat well, they grow well, and the Mexican steer 1 
 or 2 years of age is brought into the United States, fed in Texas or in 
 Arizona for one year, then goes farther north, probably to Montana, 
 and from tliere he eventually goes east into the markets of Kansas 
 City or Chicago. 
 
 Something was said this morning as to the direct importations of 
 Mexican beef cattle, and some gentlemen were very much alarmed for 
 fear the cattle of the United States were to have a formidable compet- 
 itor. The importations lasted three months and on one-half of them 
 we had a total loss, and they were sent back to the Kansas plains as 
 feeders. The other half, as near as we can figure, we used as canners 
 and sent abroad to fill army contracts. A very small portion stayed 
 here and were used as cheap meats. 
 
 There is another thing in regard to this matter of the treatment of 
 importations of Mexico. I will recall a time in Mexico when a failure of 
 the crops there led the ^lexican Government to suspend the duties on 
 corn. 
 
 We sent what amounted to a train load 7 miles long, classed as Kansas 
 corn, although it was not all grown in Kansas, but some of it in Texas. 
 Mexico took that. Before the McKinley bill was enforced JNIexico 
 admitted all of our live animals except geldings entirely free of duty. 
 We had a good trade in the year before the McKinley bill took effect, 
 because Mexico took from us of one article alone $84:0,000 worth, and 
 that was the much-despised American hog. 
 
 I want to say to the Kansas delegation that there is just as much 
 butter on one side of their bread as there is on the other, and I will 
 illustrate it this way: The moment the McKinley bill imposed this $10 
 prohibitory duty on live animals Mexico proceeded to ])ut a duty on 
 live animals coming into Mexico, in the case of meat, cattle, and liogs, 
 3 cents per kilo. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. I observe from this statement here that I have in my 
 hand that in 1891 we exported to Mexico 37,945 hogs; in 18i)2, 30,8.j(); 
 while in 1804 only 1,058; and in 1895, when the present law was in 
 operation, only 100. 
 
 Mr. Sutton. Yes, they put that duty on and kept it on. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Because we let their cattle in free in 1894! 
 
 Mr. GrROSVENOR. We let their cattle in free and they taxed our 
 hogs. 
 
 Mr. Sutton. They can not change their duties every time we have 
 a political revolution over here. They raised the duties from nothing 
 to 3 cents per kilo, or to what would be §15 in Mexican money on an 
 800-pound beef, when we put on the duty. 
 
 Mr. Steele. And they put a duty on our flour of $4: per barrel. 
 
 Mr. Sutton. We are discussing live animals now, if you please. 
 
 Mr. Steele. We are discussing tariff, too. 
 
 Mr. Sutton. There is one item to which I would like to call the atten- 
 tion of the committee, and that is our investments in Mexico, and the need 
 of an intelligent consideration of all the questions arising. We have 
 $25,000,000 of American money invested i!i railroads in Mexico, and we 
 have as many more millions invested in the mines there.
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 
 
 815 
 
 Mr. Tawney. If Mexico can not take care of it, it had better come 
 back home and invest here. 
 
 Mr. Sutton filed the following statement : 
 Committee on Ways and Mp:ans: 
 
 The following facts are respectfully submitted in regard to the duty to be imposed 
 on imports of cattle. Mj' only interest in this is as to cattle from Mexico. In dis- 
 cussing it, however, certain other questions* arise and are briefly mentioned: 
 
 Cattle imports for the year ending June SO, 1896. 
 
 From— 
 
 Number. 
 
 Value. 
 
 United Kingdom 
 
 FREE. 
 
 39 
 
 57 
 
 C38 
 
 $5, 438 
 
 
 
 4 523 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 734 
 
 15 091 
 
 
 DUTIABLE. 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 SOI 
 
 216, 277 
 
 2,316 
 
 1,246 
 
 13, 772 
 
 1, 477, 431 
 
 United Kingdom 
 
 Canada, etc 
 
 Mexico - - 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 217, 094 
 
 1, 494, 765 
 
 
 From Mexico by custom-houses. 
 
 Number. 
 
 Value. 
 
 
 FREE. 
 
 472 
 IGC 
 
 $2, 623 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 638 
 
 4 523 
 
 
 DUTIABLE. 
 
 
 
 78, 733 
 50, 563 
 33,112 
 30, 025 
 21, 340 
 2,504 
 
 641, 953 
 
 ^Ifi IRQ 
 
 Arizona 
 
 
 240 471 
 
 CorjiiKs Christi 
 
 166, 140 
 84 ')66 
 
 
 San Diego ; 
 
 26, 732 
 
 
 
 
 216, 277 
 •817 
 
 
 
 17' 334 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 217, 094 
 
 
 
 
 Average price per head: Free, United Eangdom, $139 ; Canada, $90 ; Mexico, $7. Dutiable, France, 
 $289; United Kingdom, $156 ; Canada, $17; Mexico, $7. 
 
 Exports from the United States for the year ending June SO, 1S96. 
 
 
 Number. 
 
 Value. 
 
 United Kingdom 
 
 364, 193 
 1,112 
 7,156 
 
 .*33, 984, 943 
 39 509 
 
 
 All other 
 
 530 220 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 372, 461 
 
 34 560 672 
 
 
 
 The declared value per head, on the average of above, was : United Kingdom, $93; 
 Mexico, $36; all other, $75. 
 
 IMPORTS FROM MEXICO FOR PREVIOUS YEARS. 
 
 DutiaUe.—im\, 6,413 head, valued at $34,385; 1892, 1,438, valued at $7,740; 1893, 
 2,597, valued at $16,376 ; 1894, 1,189, valued at $9,898 ; 1895, 1 3:5,687, valued at $651,764. 
 The average value of these imports for these years was: 1891, $5; 1892, $5; 1893, $6; 
 1894, $8; 1895, $5.
 
 816 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVLSIONS. 
 
 J^ree.— All live animals were for 1891, values alone Ptated: $44,954; 1892, $4,982; 
 1893, $8,398; 1894, $9,270; 1895, $78,625. Of the 734 head of cattle imported for the 
 year ending June 30, 1896, 638, or six-sevenths, came irom Mexico. Only 39 came 
 from the United Kingdom and 57 from Canada. The values of these were: United 
 Kingdom, $139; Canada, $90; Mexico, $7. 
 
 The dutiable imports were 217,094, of which Mexico sent 216,277, almost the whole 
 number. The values were $1,494,765, which, at 20 per cent, the present duty, gave 
 a revenue of $298,953, of which the imports from Mexico paid $295,486. 
 
 PKKSENT DUTY. 
 
 The present duty is 20 per cent, a* rate which has obtained since 1870, except while 
 the law of 1890 was in force. 
 
 My argument is for a continuation of this rate of 20 per cent, and more especially 
 against the imposition of an ad valorem rate. A Rpecitic rate is preferable when it 
 can Lie levied on a particular class of articles of easily identified goods of a compara- 
 tively equal value. A study of the A-aryiug values of cattle imported from various 
 countries will, however, show the injustice of imposing a specific duty. Under the 
 law of 1890 the rate was specific — $10 per head for cattle over 1 year. Had this rate 
 been in force during the year ending Juno 30, 1896, the per cent burdens would have 
 been as follows: From France, at $289, about 3^ percent; fioni United Kingdom, 
 $156, about 6^ per cent; Canada, $17, about 59 per cent; Mexico, $7, about 143 ])er 
 cent. As it is not convenient to give a dift'erent specific rate for cattle from different 
 cf)uutries, the above will show the injustice of a specific rate on the cattle from 
 Mexico. 
 
 SPECIFIC KATE AND LOW-GRADE STOCK. 
 
 It has been claimed that the imposition of a specific rate would keep out the 
 cheaper and presumably the inferior grades, and thus prevent the deterioration of 
 our stock. If we let in high grades free for breeding, why not legislate so as to 
 hinder the importation of such cheap stock? 
 
 The answer to this is that the Mexican stock, while inferior in the price it will 
 bring for beef or for milk at the time of importation, is i)articularly valuable as a 
 b ise for breeding. 
 
 lb is large of frame, has red meat and a very healthy appetite. It is hardy, does 
 not stay around the water holes, but gets out farther on the range to the bettor 
 grass. It can stand drougth, cold, poor pastures, and the many other incidents of 
 range life better than the higher-bred cattle of the United States. 
 
 They are surer and more prolific breeders and their calves are more robust. 
 
 Then, too, the first cross is as good as that which the plainsmen attribute to the 
 locomotive. It is alleged that one cross with the engine makes a high-grade beef; 
 it is certain that the cross of the Mexican cow with our high-grade bulls makes the 
 best stock beef cattle which can be found on our plains. The first and second, and 
 even the third, generations are more hardy because of the cross of Mexican stock. 
 It must be remembered that the Mexican stock was of the very best; that it is in 
 its present condition because of the neglect and methods of treatment which it has 
 received in Mexico. The hardy condition is a result of the practical operation of 
 the law of the survival of the fittest, working through many generations. 
 
 It is not too much to say that these Mexican cattle are very necessary for the future 
 of our own herds. Unless these hardy animals are imported in sufficient numbers 
 the annual losses on our cattle will be much greater than if enough are brought in 
 to keep up this hardy admixture. 
 
 Not only are the cows valuable as breeders, the bulls are also. A greater per cent 
 of them will serve than of our own, and the calves are usually fully as good as those 
 from the other cross. 
 
 BREEDING CLAUSE. 
 
 The laws and regulations governing the importation of animals for breeding have 
 undergone notable tTianges. Under the act of March 2, 1861, all animals were free. 
 The act of July 14, 1870, fixed the rate at 20 per cent, but those for use as breeders 
 were to be free under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury should pre- 
 scribe. He proceeded to do a little legislating and made rules to the etl'ect that to 
 be admitted they must be of superior grade adapted to improve the stockof our own 
 cattle. This kept out all except the high grades from free entry until after many 
 years a gentleman from the same State as the chairman concluded to test the matter. 
 So he imported from Nova Scotia, I think, a lot of ordinary cows as breeders and 
 intimated that if he chose to breed that grade the Secretary was not authorized to 
 make him pay duties. Of course he had to pay, but under protest, and after a law- 
 suit got his money back and established his right to breed such stock as he pleased.
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 817 
 
 Shortly after tlaat I was asked to certify au invoice for 15,000 head — 5,000 of heifers, 
 5,000 of cows, and 5,000 of bulls. After some telegraphiut; and the establishing of 
 the good faith of the importer, I gave him his invoice. The law of 1890 restricted 
 this free import and made a law wbatthe Secretary had attempted by regulation — 
 required that the stock should be of high grade, registered, and all that. This pro- 
 vision was maintained in the present law. As to this 1 do not make any comment, 
 further than to say that if tbe stockmen of the ^Yest desire to import these cattle 
 for breeding, or for beef, they ought not to be required to pay a much greater per 
 cent duty than those who import from other countries. 
 
 These cattle are the regular and suitable product of Mexico, a country which pur- 
 chasesof us a larger aud increasing amount of our agricultural food and other ])roducts 
 each year; and it will be a hardship to that country to burden the staple output of 
 her plains with a duty which if specific will of need be in the ratio of 143 per cent, as 
 against 3^ per cent from the United Kingdom and 6| per cent from France. 
 
 NOT DIFFICULT TO FIX THE VALUE. 
 
 On many articles of import it is difficult to get a uniform and honest valuation. 
 There are really no such objections in fixing values on Mexican cattle. In that coun- 
 try cattle are a chief product; they are bought and sold all over the country for local 
 use and for export. 
 
 They can not be moved from one place to the next without a full bill of sale, duly 
 signed and stamped. On this the price must be named, as well as the brands and 
 number of each brand and class. The question of price can thus be looked into at 
 any point, as these bills of sale must beproduced to the consul before he will certify 
 the invoice. Usually, too, the sales are of so large a numljcr that the money is paid 
 through some banker, and the selling price can be jiroven if needed. Then, too, the 
 Mexican Government has an elaborate system of price reports from every portion 
 of the country, aud these reports are published every month by the Government. I 
 have had occasion to make use of these reports in a question as to alleged underval- 
 uation, and found them readily given full credence by the Board of General 
 Appraisers. 
 
 THEIR USE AS BEEF. 
 
 I have said the main value of these cattle is as a base for our herds. They are 
 also imported in limited degree for beef. Tho usual method is to bring them in 
 young, graze them a year in Texas, and then sell them to Montana for another year, 
 when they are a fair grade of Western grass-fed beef. When there is a demand suf- 
 ficient in Kansas City, St. Louis, and Chicago, a considerable trade is done in these. 
 In very rare cases direct imports are made from Mexico to Chicago. 
 
 TARIFF OR PROHIBITION. 
 
 The imposition of a specific rate means prohibition ; that of an ad valorem rate 
 fair trade and increased commercial intercourse with our next neighbor to the 
 south. Duty might be ad valorem up to not to exceed $10 for neat cattle and say 
 $20 or $30 for horses and mules. 
 
 EFFECT ON OUR TRADE WITH MEXICO. 
 
 It is only fair to note the effect in the past of tariff acts in regard to our trade 
 with Mexico. Shutting out the argentiferous lead ores of Mexico transferred from 
 us to Mexico capital to the amount of $10,000,000 in smelters and kindred manufac- 
 tures. Before the tariff of 1890 imposed a specific rate on live animals from Mexico 
 that country let our live animals in free, except geldings, and we sent them of hogs 
 alone 57,723, valued at $846,246. She retaliated in 1891, and the imports of our hogs 
 fell to 12,541, valued at $195,202, for 1892; to 334, valued at $2,724, for 1894, and the 
 number has not reached above $56,112 until the last year, 1896, when by reason of a 
 strong demand we sent 17,540, valued at $206,807, while our total exports to all the 
 world were only 21,049, valued at $227,297. 
 
 A modification of the present rate will secure from Mexico some reduction of their 
 present rate and allow us to send them at least $1,000,000 worth each year of live 
 hogs. 
 
 AMERICAN RAILWAYS IN MEXICO. 
 
 We have 5,000 miles of railway in Mexico, built with our money, for the great 
 part, and by our people; managed by our people and paying large sums annually to 
 us for interest and for all the equijtment needed to keep them going. This is an 
 investment of at least $25,000,000. Twice this much of our systeuis in the border 
 States and Territories are more or less dependent on these Mexican roads for traffic 
 and directly interested in increasing our commerce with Mexico. 
 
 TH 52
 
 818 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 MEXICAN TARIFFS ON LIVE ANIMALS. 
 
 Before the imposition of our specific rate the Mexican tariff admitted our live 
 animals free, exce])t geldings ; since that time they have made the duty : Geldings, 
 $40, no change; stallions, marcs, and colts per head, $30; swine per kilo, 3 cents; 
 neat cattle per kilo, 3 cents; sheep and goats each, $1.50; mules, $5; asses, $3. 
 
 I desire to reserve the privilege of filing additional testimony at a later day. 
 
 MEMORANDUM. 
 
 The tariff of 1890 absolutely shut out Mexican cattle and brought no revenue. 
 Perhaps the price of beef was' raised to consumers. Some ])ortion of these imports 
 are of Mexican beeves, lit only for canners. These are used for the filling of con- 
 tracts for exi)ort, mostly army contracts. We should encourage this, as otherwise 
 the business would be trauBferred to and be done in Mexico, as was done in the 
 smelting of ores. 
 
 Mexico is as yet a producer of crude materials; we should afford her all proper 
 facilities for handling these and of reducing these to finished products. Sh(^ will 
 pay us a fiir but not an exorbitant tribute. If we charge her too much she will find 
 the capital to handle this business there. In 1892-93 she imported corn sufliicieut to 
 make a train 7 miles long. 
 
 In making up our schedules as to those goods which wo get from Mexico we must 
 consider the Avhole situation and all the conditions affecting this trade. 
 
 MEXICAN TARIFF OF 1887. 
 
 Animales vivos, exceiito los caballos castrados Libres 
 
 Caballos castrados .* $40. 00 
 
 MEXICAN TARIFF OF 1881. 
 
 Animales vivos no especificados Exentos 
 
 Caballos castrados $40. 00 
 
 Caballos enteros, yegnas y potros de mas de un aho 30. 00 
 
 Cerdos y lechoncillos kilo. . . 03 
 
 Ganado vacuno y sus crias do .03 
 
 Gauado cabrio y ovejuno por cabeza. . 1. 50 
 
 Ganado mular do 5. 00 
 
 Ganado asnal do 3. 00 
 
 Warner P. Sutton. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT MADE BY MR. SUTTON. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 7, J 897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Supplementiug- my remarks and the brief whicli I filed the other day 
 in re imports on live animals — and particularly Mexican cattle — I 
 desire to hand in also the accompanying letter from the Hon. Solon 
 Humphreys, of New York City, a worthy representative of those for 
 whom I spoke, and to add: 
 
 (1) It does not seem to be within the spirit or aims of a tariff law to 
 prohibit the import ot any staple and healthful article of food. Yet 
 the arguments made before you by tho.se opposed to us we e frankly 
 directed to secure such an end. With such a duty as they advocate, 
 $10 per head, we may again see the price of beef raised by a combine 
 which was in operation a few years ago. With the duty at 20 per cent, 
 as we advocate, no such combination to artificially raise prices can be 
 successful so long as we can look to Mexico and Canada for help. 
 
 (2) Tlie proposed duty of 20 per cent is that which has long obtained 
 and had the approval of successive Ee])ublican administrations. 
 
 (3) Owing to the different values of cattle imported, any specific 
 duty — unless on the product of each country by itself— will be unjust.
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 819 
 
 It will be ill the nature of a tax of 143 per ceut on those from Mexico, 
 59 ])er cent on those from Canada, 61^ per cent on those from the United 
 Kingdom, and li^ per ceut on those from France. 
 
 (4) The imposition of a tariff presupposes the need of some reve- 
 nue. Under the specific rate of 110 per head our receipts from such 
 imports were almost nothing; under the 20 per cent rate now in force, 
 and the retention of which we ask, the duties from imports of Mexican 
 cattle were about $300,000 for the year ending June 30, 1890. 
 
 (5) Under the 20 per ceut rate, before 1890, Mexico let in all our 
 live animals, except geldings, absolutely free of any duty. In one 
 year we sent that country nearly $850,000 worth of live hogs. After 
 we imposed the specific rate she changed her duty so that in one year 
 she took only $2,700 worth of hogs. 
 
 (6) There are other considerations than the one mentioned by the 
 gentlemen from Kansas to be thought of in the matter of imposing so 
 unjust a tax on a principal product of a friendly and neighboring 
 nation. 
 
 (7) A favoring climate makes it more profitable to raise some of our 
 cattle in Mexico until they are 1 year old and then to bring them to 
 the plains of Kansas and the other States of our West for fattening 
 and growth for beef. These natural conditions should be considered 
 so as to fairly foster commerce and secure an abundant supply at a 
 reasonable cost. 
 
 Eespectfully submitted. 
 
 Warner P. Sutton. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE COERALITOS COMPANY OF COLOEADO. 
 
 • New York, N. Y., January 6, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 In regard to the importation of Mexican cattle, the Corralitos Com- 
 pany desires to place before the committee some facts connected 
 therewith. 
 
 The imports from Mexico are so inconsiderable as compared with 
 the daily sales of live stock in the markets of Chicago, St. Louis, 
 Kansas City, and Omaha that they could scarcely have any influence 
 whatever upon the price of cattle in the United States. 
 
 The producers of these cattle arc mainly American ranchmen in 
 northern Mexico who, through force of circumstances, drought in Texas, 
 and other causes have moved their herds to Mexico and established 
 there breeding grounds for supplying the American ranches with 
 yearling steers. The greatest sufferers from an increased duty upon 
 these cattle will be these American cattlemen whose homes are in the 
 United States, where the products of their ranches are expended, and 
 where any benefit or detriment in the upsetting of their trade relations 
 will be mainly felt. 
 
 A material increase in the present duty on these cattle will not only 
 shut out entirely their imports from Mexico, working a hardship on 
 these men, but will as well deprive the Government of what is now a 
 fair source of revenue. Under the McKinley tariff of $10 per head 
 practically no cattle were imported from Mexico. Ten dollars per 
 head on grown cattle and $2 on calves were prohibitory, the cattle 
 raised in Mexico being worth in the American markets to-day about 
 $14 for a 4-year-old steer. The imports under the Wilson tariff have 
 been mainly for the purpose of stocking Texas and Kansas ranches
 
 820 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 with yearlings or stock cattle which are subsequently moved north to 
 Nebraska or Montana, matured there, and then sold in Kansas City, 
 Omaha, or Chicago as northern beef. A 4-year-old steer direct from 
 the Mexican range will weigh at best not over 800 to 900 pounds; the 
 same steer taken as a yearling and wintered in northern Texas or 
 Colorado and moved thence to Nebraska or Montana for maturing will 
 weigh as a 4-year-old fully 1,200 pounds. A yearling which is worth §6 in 
 Mexico after handling in this way brings about $30 on the Kansas 
 market. The additional $24 per liead all goes to the Government as 
 duty and to the American ranchman, railroad man, commission man, 
 and banker who have handled him for the market. Nearly all of the 
 imports under the Wilson tariff have been handled in this way. The 
 herds are moved from Mexico to Texas or northern New Mexico, held 
 during the winter, moved thence to Montana, Nebraska, or w^estern 
 Kansas, and shipped thence when ready for market to Kansas for 
 slaughter. This has been the growth of the Mexican business during 
 the past two years. To prohibit this will not only deprive the Amer- 
 ican of the accrued value in handling the stock, but will force as well 
 American capital into Mexico to build factories for its products tliere. 
 This has been clearly demonstrated in the smelting business, which 
 under the iirst operations of the Windom ruling on lead ores forced 
 over six millions of American capital into smelting plants at Monterey, 
 San Luis Potosi, Aguas Calientes, and other Mexican points without 
 proving of any benefit to the producers of lead in the United States. 
 
 The Mexicans have sold off the greater part of their grown cattle. 
 The price of beef is rising steadily in Mexico, and very shortly the 
 Kansas packer will find there one of his best markets. To raise a 
 yearling in Mexico, where the mild climate favors the young calves, 
 ship him to Kansas and Montana for maturity, and return him in the 
 manufactured product to Mexico for consumption, is the logical sequence 
 of natural conditions of climate and people. Any interference with 
 this train of action can be of no benefit to either nation and must be 
 a detriment to both. 
 
 In the past few years our relations with Mexico have been growing- 
 more and more intimate and friendly — greatly to our mutual benefit. 
 Any legislation shutting out their cattle would be a great blow to them 
 and could not fail to prove a disturbing element in this growing good 
 feeling between the two countries. 
 
 We, therefore, respectfully ask that the existing duty, 20 per cent 
 ad valorem, shall be continued. 
 
 The Corralitos Company has an investment in this business in land 
 and cattle of more than $1,000,000, all of its stockholders being citizens 
 of the United States. 
 
 The Corralitos Company of Colorado, 
 By Solon Humphreys, President. 
 
 STATEMENT MADE BY HON. GEORGE H. NOONAN, A REPRESENTA- 
 TIVE FROM TEXAS. 
 
 January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I desire to express my appreciation of the vast labor assumed by the 
 committee in the effort to solve the intricate tariff problem. Doubtless 
 the bill to be formulated will be essentially American in all its features, 
 which will be satisfactory to the people, and at the same time secure a
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 821 
 
 revenue tliat will meet tlie expenses of the Government. I beg leave 
 to outline briefly the wishes of .stock raisers in the western portion of 
 Texas. The breeding of live stock is the leading industry of that sec- 
 tion, and especially all of that territory bordering on the Eio Grande. 
 The present tariff has practically placed horses, cattle, sheep, and goats 
 on the free list, and it has resulted in great loss to the breeders of stock, 
 many of whom have been bankrupted. Numerous ranches have been 
 abandoned or have gone into decay, and millions of acres of good graz- 
 ing lands are unused and the grass wasted because the business does 
 not justify stockmen in raising animals for market at present rates. As 
 a consequence all of their industries are languishing from the effects of 
 Mexican competition. Kearly half a million of cattle have been imported 
 from Mexico into the United States through Texas ports since the i epeal 
 of the McKinley law. The ranchmen of Texas are unable to sell their 
 stock at the prices paid for the Mexican cattle. Texas cattle raisers are 
 required to rent or buy land u])on which to graze their cattle, and they 
 are obliged to pay more than double the wages paid in Mexico; hence, 
 citizens of Texas are almost a unit against the importation of these 
 Mexican cattle. At least 95 per cent of the cattlemen in Texas are 
 0])posed to the present duty and are in favor of the restoration of the 
 McKinley rate. 
 
 It is true there are a few speculators who prefer the present law, but 
 our law should contemi)late a higher standard of legislation. It should 
 aim to promote the welfare of the man who performs all of the duties 
 of good citizenship; who endeavors to supi^ort by toil his family, and 
 whose labor and investment inures to the benefit of his country as well 
 as himself. Now, I ha\ e no reflections to cast upon the cattle specula- 
 tor. He is a useful person, and as a capitalist can trade with American 
 citizens of the Texas persuasion and get all the cattle he can market, 
 for Texas has great recuperative powers, and the tariff once restored — 
 a specific tariff' and one sufficient to protect their interests — the old 
 abandoned ranches will at once be reoccupied and our people will 
 again be remunerated for their expenditure and labor, and the pros- 
 perity they have yearned for will return. 
 
 Placing hides on the free list in 1872 has caused great complaint 
 among stockmen. They claim it was akin to confiscation; that it was 
 a forced loan to benefit leather makers; it diminished the value of 
 every head of neat cattle in the United States at least $1 per head 
 without any benefit whatever to the consumers of leather. Texas 
 stockmen felt most sensibly the damage to their interests, as it affected 
 the price of the cattle raised by them for market; therefore they expect 
 a restoration of the tariff" on hides of at least 10 per cent. 
 
 If the rates on wool are adjusted in accordance with the suggestions 
 of Judge Lawrence, the sheep raisers of Texas can resume their busi- 
 ness with the assurance of success, for it has been ascertained by 
 numerous experiments that a duty of at least 10 cents per pound upon 
 foreign wool is requisite to enable the owner of a flock to meet his cur- 
 rent expenses, such as rent of pastures, payment of taxes, and the 
 wages of herders. The majority of sheep raisers protest most earnestly 
 against the admission of Mexican sheep and goats. The deterioration 
 of those animals resulting from inbreeding since the days of Spanish 
 colonization, it is claimed, renders the present stock of sheep and goats 
 in Mexico worthless for any purpose, and it is proposed that a duty of 
 at least $1 per head be levied upon all sheep and all goats imported 
 into the United States. In view of the fact that goatskins are imported 
 in large quantities, and that Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico could
 
 822 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 furnish all that the United States would require, a tax of 10 cents per 
 pound is requested upon all goatskins imported into the United States; 
 and a tax of 25 cents per pound should be levied upon all goat hair 
 imported. 
 
 Cattle traders are anxious for the reenactment of the clause m the 
 schedule of the McKinley law assessing $10 per head upon all cattle 
 imported into the United States. Tne low level of the labor conditions 
 that obtaia in Mexico renders it imperative to have this specific duty. 
 The ad valorem system superinduces undervaluation, cheats the Gov- 
 ernment, and injures the industries of this country beyond computation. 
 
 The breeding of horses for market is no longer a remunerative employ- 
 ment. This ancient and time-honored vocation will have to be relegated 
 to the wealthy. jSTo scheme visible can stimulate this business so as to 
 enable the farmer to derive a profit therefrom. The cheapness of the 
 ordinary harness or saddle horse fully accentuates the universal use of 
 the bicycle and the general adaptation of electricity as a motive power 
 for all time to come. But as forbidding as the outlook for horse raising 
 is, it the duty of $30 per head were reenacted it would give immense 
 relief to Texas breeders. They could furnish buyers with good horses 
 at $30 and thus exclude the inferior stock raised in Mexico from our 
 markets. Under the present arrangement one can buy jwnies imported 
 from Mexico for a nominal price, showing clearly that if the United 
 i tates received any duty at all, the amount collected was insufQcient to 
 pay the salary of the person who made the collection. The demand for 
 saddle horses for use in the Southern States would afford the people of 
 west Texas a market for their horses at very low rates if the Mexican 
 animal were excluded. The breeders in Texas are unwilling to rear and 
 break a horse to saddle and receive for him only $1 or $5. That amount 
 does not pay for the pasturage of the animal, not counting the breeders 
 time, labor, and expense. Therefore the horse breeders of West Texas 
 assert that the Government receives no benefit whatever from the cus- 
 tom houses located on the Rio Grande for duties upon horses and 
 mules; that said importations are made by traders upon a basis of val- 
 uation that precludes the receipt of duties sufficient to defray the 
 expenses of the river guards in the employ of the collector of (uistoms. 
 As a source of revenue those importations jire a failure, and it is 
 suggested that the specific duty of $30 per head on each animal be 
 reenacted. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. S. M. MILLARD, OF CHICAGO, ILL 
 
 Chicago, December 30, 1896. 
 Committee on Wats and Means: 
 
 Asa citizen of the United States, representing a large capita.1 invested 
 by citizens of this country in live stock and in life-stock ranches in 
 Mexico, bordering on the boundary line of the United States, I wish to 
 call the attention of your committee to some of the discrepancies in the 
 tariff" on cattle and live stock which have heretofore existed in the laws, 
 with the view of avoiding similar discrepancies in the future. 
 
 Schedule G of the tariff of 1890, Supplement to Ee vised Statutes, 
 volume 1, page 830, provides: 
 
 248. Cattlo more than 1 year old, $10 per head ; 1 year old or less, $2 per head. 
 
 At the time this law was enacted, and from that time to the present, 
 there has been little change in the value per head of cattle imported. 
 For years prior to the enactment of the law of 1800 the duty has been
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 823 
 
 ad valorem, and no matter what variation existed in tbe price or value 
 of cattle imiiorted, the ad valorem duty was equally adjusted aud 
 equitable. 
 
 For instance, cattle imported from Canada average in value about 
 ), $40, or $50 per bead, duty at 20 per cent ad valorem, averaging- 
 $6, $8, or $10. At tbe same time tbe value of cattle imi)orted from 
 Mexico averaged about $5 to $10 per bead — 20 per cent ad valorem, $1.20 
 to $2 per bead duty. 
 
 Under the law of 1890 the duty was changed to a specific duty, or 
 amount i)er bead, without distinction as between Canada aud Mexico, 
 while tbe diflerence in tbe values of animals did not change. The direct 
 effect of tbe specific duty left the amount per head substantially the 
 same as It had been as to Canadian cattle, but as applied to cattle 
 imported from Mexico tbe law was absolutely prohibitive. Since 1890 
 the average price of American cattle, bred or grazed in Mexico by 
 American citizens and returned to the United States to market, has 
 averaged from $5 to $10 per head. For four years, from 1890 to 1894, 
 the ranch which I represent was unable to realize a price for its cattle 
 sufficient to pay the duty and expense of shipping. This has been the 
 universal experience of citizens of tbe United States whose capital was 
 invested in breeding and grazing cattle over the border. 
 
 The spirit of the tariff' law of 1890 was intended as an equitable 
 adjustment of duties. The provisions for reciprocity were designed for 
 the purpose of enabling tbe Executive to adjust duties on certain prod- 
 ucts and to enter into relations of comity with other Governuients. 
 
 Tbe law itself was not devoid of provisos as to specific interests for 
 the benefit of the American citizen. 
 
 Sections 15 and IG of tbe tariff' law, found on page 860, Eevised Stat- 
 utes, are as follows: 
 
 Sec. 15. That the produce of the forests of the State of Maine iipon the St. John 
 Eivpr aiul its tributaries, owned by American citizens, and sawed or hewed in the 
 Province of New Brunswick by American citizens, the same being unmanufactured 
 in wliolo or in part, which is now admitted into the ports of the United States free 
 of duty, shall continue to be so admitted under such regulations as the Secretary of 
 the Treasury shall, from time to time, prescribe. 
 
 Sec. 16. That the produce of the forests of the State of Maine upon the St. Croix 
 River and its tributaries owned by American citizeiis, aud sawed in the Province of 
 New P>rnnswick by American citizens, thii same being unmanufacture 1 in whole or 
 in part, shall be admitted into the ytorts of the United States free of duty, under 
 such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall, froiu time to time, prescribe. 
 
 These provisions evince a clear desire on the part of Congress to 
 protect the capital of citizens of the United States invested in products 
 over the border. Had the cattle interest of American citizens, which 
 then existed and was being carried on in Mexico, been as ably re])re- 
 sented as were the Maine lumberman, no doubt Congress would have 
 had its attention called to the defect in the law which I have cited. 
 . In fact, tbe last tariff act shows that the Mexican interests of our 
 citizens were thought of, after the experiences under tbe former law, as 
 we find in the act on the free list tbe following ]>rovision : 
 
 Section 373, page 297, volume 2, Supplement to Eevised Statutes, is 
 as follows: 
 
 Cattle, horses, sheep, or other domestic animals, wliich have strayed across the 
 boimdary line into any foreign country, or have been or may be dri\en across such 
 boundary lino by the owner i'or pasturage purposes, together wilh their increase, 
 may be brought back to the United States free of duty under regulations to be pre- 
 scribed l)y the Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 The writer's experience as owner aiid manager of a ranch in Mexico 
 is of six years' duration. The estate which be represents was created
 
 824 SCHEDULE G. AGKICULTURAL PEODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 in 1886 and 1887. Nearly $200,000 was invested by a citizen of Chi- 
 cago 111 The investment consisted in a purchase of 150,000 acres of 
 land— a tract 12^ miles wide by 20 miles long, extending from the bor- 
 der line south into Mexico, and adjoining the Territory of Arizona oppo- 
 site Bisbee. The tract of land is known as Sau Jose ranch. 
 
 The ranch contains about 10,000 head of cattle, and is known and used 
 as abreedingranch. Originally all thecattlewerepurchasedinthe States 
 and driven over. The stock is replenished from time to time by export- 
 ing registered and graded cattle from the United States to improve the 
 herds. In every respect these cattle are of the better and higher 
 grades, and in no case are there any Mexican or " scrub" cattle. What 
 is true of the ranch represented by the writer is true of numerous 
 ranches and herds of cattle owned by citizens of the United States, 
 extending from the Yuma Valley to the Atlantic Ocean. 
 
 This ei:tire cattle interest under the law of 1 890 was virtually destroyed 
 by a prohibitive tariff. The only market for these cattle is in the United 
 States, ana the only instance known to the writer where cattle bred in 
 Mexico ever found a market during these prohibitive days was along 
 the Mexican Central Railway, where they could be shipped direct to 
 the €ity of Mexico. 
 
 The dread diseases to which cattle are subject have never been known 
 to exist with Mexican-bred cattle, especially in Sonora. The northern 
 part of Mexico is on elevated lands and remarkably free from the 
 elements which breed ticks or fevers. 
 
 The writer especially asks the attention of your committee to the sit- 
 uation of American interests in Mexico, and especially urges that the 
 property of citizens of the United States now invested in cattle and live 
 stock in Mexico be protected from confiscation by a specific duty wliich 
 is out of all proportion with the value of cattle on our southern border. 
 
 Tills interest and investment was made mainly under ad valorem 
 duties, and our citizens relying on the laws as they then stood should 
 be so far exempted as to be able to realize fair remuneration on this 
 investment. At least the duty per animal should be graded to an 
 average value. 
 
 It is impossible to fix a specific duty on Canadian and Mexican 
 cattle at the same amount per head without great injustice to the 
 American citizen whose capital is invested in IMexico. 
 
 As I have said, if Canadian cattle as imported average $10 per head, 
 a duty of $10 per head may not be out of {proportion to the value as a 
 protective or revenue measure; but for animals averaging but $5 or $G 
 per head in value the duty per animal can not consistently exceed $2 
 per head. 
 
 The writer in October and November last sold cattle belonging to his 
 ranch at $9 and $12. Suppose the duty was as in 1890. Your com- 
 mittee will readily see that the animals could little more than pay the 
 iuty. This sale is reputed as an unusually good one as to prices, yet 
 ihe owner had to pay the duty and the expense of loading in the 
 United States. 
 
 If Congress will protect the vested and invested rights of our people 
 whose investments are over the Mexican border, as well as Congress 
 ])rotected American citizens under the law of 1890 who had invested in 
 the gathering and manufacturing into lumber of the forests of New 
 Brunswick, no one can complain of impartiality or unfairness. Cer- 
 tainly no one can complain of any just law which will enable citizens 
 to save their investments in Mexican territory unless it be cattlemen 
 who, on the narrow theory of prohibiting the importation of American
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 825 
 
 cattle bred and grazed on Mexican soil, may reduce the number of cattle 
 to be marketed and thereby increase the value of their own. 
 
 1 shall assume that your committee and Congress as a body will not 
 fix a specific duty based upon the value of Canadian cattle which will 
 destroy an industry created in Mexico by American citizens. The 
 cattle imported from Canada are not bred by American citizens with 
 American capital, but are Canadian cattle, owned by foreigners and 
 shipped to the United States for a market. The cattle in Mexico are 
 as a rule American cattle, owned by Americans, and driven into Mexico 
 to breed, the title and ownership remaining in the citizens of the United 
 States, and are eventually returned to the United States for a market. 
 
 I respectfully submit that the duty on cattle should be adjusted on 
 the basis of values ; that the duty on cattle imported from Mexico should 
 not exceed one-fifth the amount on Canadian cattle. Another distinc- 
 tion should also be made in favor of citizens who have driven cattle 
 into foreign territory for breeding purposes: It is American citizens 
 and American capital Congress is supposed to favor. 
 
 I respectfully submit that the former mistake should not be repeated 
 in any new tariff which may be enacted ; and I further submit whether 
 the American cattle raiser and his capital invested in the cattle busi- 
 ness for an American market should not be encouraged, even though 
 he uses foreign territory to assist him in raising and fitting cattle for 
 a home market. 
 
 S. M. Millard. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. H. P. CHILD, OF THE KANSAS 
 CITY STOCK YARDS COMPANY. 
 
 Kansas Citv, Mo., January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The cattle imported from Mexico and brought to Kansas City for 
 sale are almost entirely of an inferior quality, even after they have 
 been stopped in transit and had the advantage of the Kansas or Texas 
 ranges. They are but indifferent beef, and probably 90 per cent of them 
 go as what is termed "cauners." In other words, their meat is canned 
 for export, since the bulk of the canned meat of the country to-day is 
 marketed abroad. 
 
 During tue year 1895 Mr. Dean, chief of the inspection bureau, 
 reports to me 240,075 head as having crossed the line into the United 
 States, and in 1890, in round numbers, 14(5,000. Of all these cattle we 
 have received on our market directly from Mexico only about 7,000 
 head, so far as our records show, but the run from the line to Kansas 
 City is very long, and if the cattle were shipped directly in for slaughter 
 they would be in a very thin and feverish condition. It is such a 
 manifest advantage to stop them and fill them up by feeding from one 
 to four or five months that i)ractically all of them are so handled. Thus 
 stopping in transit at Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas points, they lose 
 their identity in our records, as they come in as originating at the sta- 
 tions at which they have been unloaded and on our records are credited 
 to Kansas, Oklahoma, or Texas. 
 
 ' From hearsay and generally creditable estimates, I presume that 90 
 per cent of the 1895 importation have already been slaughtered, and 
 possibly 30 to 40 per cent of the 1896 cattle. The large number of 
 cattle imported in 1895 was dQe to the fact that several years had 
 elapsed during which they could not be imported under the prohibitive
 
 826 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 tariff of the McKinley law, and had therefore accumulated in Mexico 
 to such an extent as- to be very low in price and consisting largely of 
 old cattle. In 1896, notwithstanding the fact that values had gone up, 
 thereby creating a greater demand for them than in 1895, you will note 
 from the figures, which can be corroborated in the Agricultural Depart- 
 ment, that the importation was almost 100,000 less, thus evidencing 
 the fact that we have not much to dread in future years, providing 
 present conditions are not disturbed, as I look for next year's importa- 
 tion to be even still lighter, since the higher prices thio year have 
 reduced the supply still lower in Mexico, reaching still further back 
 and getting more of the old cattle which had accumulated. 
 
 Again, the area from which we may import is quite limited as com- 
 pared to that of the Eepublic. Cattle can not be driven very great 
 distances in Old Mexico to advantage, and only the high-altitude cattle 
 will be accepted at importing stations north of the quarantine line, on 
 account of Texas fever. The total of 386,000 cattle imported in two 
 years seems, on the face of it, as if it might seriously affect values in 
 our Western range country, but I do not believe that the depreciation 
 of our cattle from this cause has been any more than perceptible, if 
 that. In the first place, they do not represent in value any more than 
 half as many head of our native cattle, since they are ])oor in quality 
 and of light weight, so that they might be more justly reckoned as less 
 than 200,000 head than at the figures given. 
 
 The following table shows the number of cattle and calves slaugh- 
 tered at the leading markets of the West during the past five years. 
 I have taken only these markets, as they represent the producers who 
 will claim to be injured by competition with Mexican cattle: 
 
 Market. 
 
 Chicago .... 
 Kansas City 
 
 St. Louis 
 
 Omaha 
 
 Denver 
 
 Sioux City 
 
 Total. 
 
 1892. 
 
 2, 616, 683 
 
 728, 886 
 
 245, 630 
 
 456, 094 
 
 46.212 
 
 33, 512 
 
 4,127,017 
 
 1893. 
 
 2, 429, 948 
 
 947, 952 
 
 354, 240 
 
 542, 800 
 
 36, 541 
 
 36, 539 
 
 4, 348, 086 
 
 1894. 
 
 2, 172, 686 
 
 959, 606 
 
 420, 141 
 
 517. 544 
 
 40, 883 
 
 25, 932 
 
 1, 962, 324 
 
 922, 165 
 
 510, 731 
 
 314,312 
 
 52, 296 
 
 31, 536 
 
 1,914,030 
 
 932, 916 
 
 553, 000 
 
 303, 382 
 
 39, 679 
 
 12,972 
 
 4, 136, 852 
 
 3, 793, 364 3, 755, 979 
 
 From the figures given, which are from the official reports of the sev- 
 eral markets, you will note that the total supply of cattle has steadily 
 decreased during this period, while at local points it has increased in 
 some cases, and the last two years are considerably short ol the years 
 preceding, notwithstanding the addition of the Mexican importation. 
 From the information contained in what I have written 1 am iully sat- 
 isfied that the injury to any producer of cattle in this country through 
 the importation ol' Mexican cattle is nominal, if it can be shown at all. 
 To the consumer, of course, there is no argument against the impor- 
 tation of these cattle, as if beef is aflected at all it will be to decrease 
 it to the millions who eat. 
 
 A great benefit is derived by thousands of our people through dis- 
 posing of their grass and grain to these cattle after they have entered 
 the United States and while they are being fitted for slaughter; and 
 this, I am certain, will more than offset the loss to the producer who is 
 ill competition with them. 
 
 In regard to sheep, I have no statistics which are of material value 
 to you in your deliberations upon the taiiff', since there has been prac- 
 tically no importation of sheep under the present law. A little over
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 
 
 827 
 
 2,000 head have been imported to California for grazing and slangbter, 
 and a few days since we had a train of 3,120 head direct from Mexico, 
 whicli were sold upon our market as feeders. I understand that par- 
 ties had some thirty-odd thousand bought for importation into the 
 United States, but that the United States inspectors stopped nearly 
 all of them from coming over the line on account of being affected 
 with sheep scab. As a general proposition, however, I would be in 
 favor of admitting sheep, as well as cattle, at a reasonable rate of 
 tariff', believing that the conditions of the market and the demand for 
 wool and mutton will control the situation at all times, without doing 
 as much injury as good to the general live-stock interests of the country. 
 
 However, by far the greatest benefit to the country at large, and the 
 live-stock interest in particular, is derived fi^om the reciprocity feature 
 of the situation, whereby the Mexican Government, recognizing a 
 moderate export duty on their cattle, have made a corresponding rate 
 in their tariff on hogs being imported from the United States. 
 
 I herewith give you from our records the number of hogs bought on 
 this market and shipped to Mexico by months since January 1, 1890 : 
 
 Month. 
 
 1890. 
 
 1891. 
 
 1892. 
 
 1893. 
 
 1894. 
 
 1895. 
 
 1896. 
 
 
 4,870 
 
 9.025 
 4,093 
 6,130 
 3,741 
 6,717 
 
 21G 
 2,097 
 
 591 
 1,230 
 1,630 
 
 "2,' 475" 
 
 4,174 
 1,036 
 
 819 
 
 
 2,113 
 1,038 
 
 2,554 
 1 704 
 
 
 Marcli 
 
 
 
 
 1 137 
 
 
 4,063 
 
 4,071 
 2,495 
 7,228 
 1,441 
 3,942 
 4,133 
 1,440 
 1,236 
 
 
 
 
 
 801 
 
 Mav 
 
 1,686 
 1,162 
 3,918 
 1,870 
 6 072 
 4,426 
 2,812 
 3,700 
 
 
 
 
 3 127 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 178 
 
 
 
 
 
 1,200 
 
 
 
 
 
 4,404 
 
 
 
 
 
 954 
 
 
 
 
 912 
 1, 953 
 1,150 
 
 3,327 
 
 
 
 
 3,463 
 
 
 
 1,058 
 
 7,525 
 
 
 
 Total. 
 
 34, 979 
 
 37, 945 
 
 30, 856 
 
 819 
 
 1,058 
 
 7,166 
 
 33, 374 
 
 
 The years 1890, 1891, and 1892, you will note, did quite a large busi- 
 ness in this direction. Then came the high tariff against us of 1893 
 and 1894, which shut off our market entirely. Late iu 1894 and early 
 ill 1895 a few hogs were shipped, then came a blank of seven months, 
 in which no hogs were shipped and for which I can not at the moment 
 give a good reason, but am under the impression that it was due to the 
 high railroad rates at the time which would not leave a margin in ship- 
 ping. The present year, however, and especially the last few months, 
 has done a good business again in Mexican hogs. This is worth a great 
 deal to our market, as it represents the extra heavy hogs ranging from 
 350 to 500 x)ounds, hogs that there is really no demand for to-day in the 
 United States at their value according to cost of production. The 
 marketable hogs of the United States to-day are the lightweights, and 
 when Mexico buyers are not on our market these heavy hogs sell for 
 less price than the light ones. 
 
 The figures of exi)ortation of grain, machinery, and other commodi- 
 ties outside of live stock to Mexico, you, of course, have through the 
 Treasur}^ Department, and I simply draw your attention to them as 
 another benefit to this country through reasonable tariff' rates between 
 the two nations. 
 
 I have written this letter from the standpoint of the Kansas City 
 market, and it will probably occur to you that I, as a stock-yard man, 
 have a selfish interest in having these cattle imported and adding them 
 to our receipts in the business, from whicli we make our revenue. This, 
 of course, is truej but, on the other hand, I have been with this
 
 828 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 company twenty-five years and have got the fact very thoroughly settled 
 in my mind that the prosperity of the Stock Yards Company depends 
 absolutely upon the general prosperity of the live-stock producers of 
 the country; and in considering all questions of this nature I have 
 always, to the best of my ability, studied the interests of all branches 
 and all affected, and then chose that which apparently will benefit the 
 greatest number of our patrons, in this way believing that I secure 
 the greatest ultimate benefits to the Stock Yards Company. 
 
 H. P. Child, 
 Assistant General Manager. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE KANSAS CITY LIVE STOCK 
 COMMISSION COMPANY. 
 
 Kansas City, Mo., December 30, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Kegarding the importation of cattle from Old Mexico to the United 
 States and its effect on the cattle trade of this country, and the Govern- 
 ment revenues already and to be derived from such importation, we 
 have to say, in brief, that in our opinion the importation of cattle from 
 Mexico under present tariff laws should not be disturbed, for the fol- 
 lowing reasons: It is shown by the records that 240,000 cattle were 
 imported from Mexico in 1895 and about 130,000 in 1896, on which our 
 Government has received a handsome revenue. For several years prior 
 to 1895 no cattle were imported from that country on account of the 
 prohibitory tariff then existing. The reason why more cattle were 
 imported from Mexico in 1895 than there were in 1896 was on account 
 of the surplus that had accumulated there under the i)rohibit()ry tariff, 
 as stated, which were worked off by the owners after the present tariff 
 went into effect. It is now believed that the future output of cattle 
 from Mexico will only be normal in proportion to its productive cai)ac- 
 ity, which will not seriously interfere with cattle produced in the United 
 States. The great majority of cattle that have been imported from 
 Mexico during the past two years have sold in our markets for caniiers; 
 that is, they have been manufactured into canned meats, which liaA^e 
 been sold by those engaged in that business to foreign governments to 
 feed their armies and navies, and to foreign shipping interests. In 
 other words, Mexican cattle were imported directly to our markets, 
 slaughtered and canned, and passed on out of our country as soon as 
 possible. Our railroads got the benefit of freight transportation and 
 our manufacturers got the benefit of putting this meat in shape for the 
 stated consumption. It gave our manufacturers a chance to compete in 
 foreign markets with the cheap meats of Australia and South America, 
 which they could not have done considering the prices our own cattle 
 have sold at. Again, by admitting these Mexican cattle to be imported 
 it gives them a market and prevents capital from erecting slaughtering 
 and canning establishments in Mexico, ibr it must be understood that 
 the Mexico of to-day is not what it was a few years ago. Railroads 
 from the seacoasts have penetrated the interior of that country which 
 has put it in close touch with the outer world. It is now an easy matter 
 for capital to find a way to market the surplus products of Mexico in 
 the European markets without being compelled to pay high tribute to 
 the United States. Should capital be turned in that direction, and 
 especially so in preparing meats for consumption abroad, our people 
 would find it difficult to compete. 
 
 At first thought our people say "shut out those Mexico cattle," but
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 829 
 
 it seems clear a broader view should be taken, aud its bearing on the 
 future cattle trade of this country. Again, under existing conditions, 
 such as our friendliness with the people of Mexico, their willingness to 
 buy and import into their country a large number annually of our hogs 
 and hog products, and the large amount of grain they take, all of which 
 relieves our own markets of such surplus and benefits our farmers, to 
 say nothing of the great amount of machinery and other manufactured 
 articles they take from this country, which results beneficially to our 
 labor, it seems clear that in making tarifi' schedules against Mexico 
 that it should be done with great care and with a regard for our com- 
 merical relations with that country. Our country will continue to pro- 
 duce a surplus of farm and machinery products. Mexico is our nearest 
 neighbor, and it can be arranged to sell them a great deal if we in 
 turn will take a little from them. Reciprocity in its broadest terms 
 should be used in forming tariff schedules relating to Mexico. As long 
 as the people of that country are content with the existing tariffs it 
 should be let alone. If we find that capital is seeking investment in 
 manufactories in Mexico to prepare such raw material as we have for 
 the markets of the world, then the tariff by our Government on all such 
 articles should be lowered to meet the situation. We must bear in 
 mind that the peoj)le of Mexico are progressing. They are paying us 
 some tribute now. They buy more from us now than they do from all 
 other countries combined. Our trade with Mexico within the last two 
 years has increased to a greater extent than at any previous time. We 
 should exert ourselves to continue and increase these friendly trade 
 relations. 
 
 The Kansas City Live Stock Commission Company. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FILED BY THE KANSAS CITY LIVE 
 STOCK COMMISSION COMPANY. 
 
 Kansas City, Mo., January 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 After seeing the press reports of what was said in regard to the 
 importation of cattle from Mexico before your committee on the 5th, 
 please allow us to say that we, in common with all others interested in 
 the live-stock trade of this country, desire, when questions of public 
 interest are discussed, that all facts bearing on the subject be brought 
 out. 
 
 Eeferring you to press reports where it is stated that Mr. Curtis, of 
 the Fourth district of Kansas, said that he represented a district in 
 which more Mexican cattle were fed than any other in the United 
 States, we call your attention to the attached statement of Albert Dean, 
 United States live-stock agent, Bureau of Animal Industry, showing 
 the total number of Mexican cattle, by counties, brought into the State 
 of Kansas during 1896, to be a total of 13,141 head. (Exhibit A.) 
 
 The Fourtli district, which Mr, Curtis represents, comprises the 
 counties of Butler, Chase, Coffey, Greenwood, Lyon, Marion, Morris, 
 Osage, Shawnee, Wabaunsee, aud Woodson, into but two of which 
 (Chase, 2,515 head, and Marion, 412 head) Mexican cattle were brought. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that only 2,927 Mexican cattle were brought into 
 two counties of Mr. Curtis's district, and they by cattlemen who could 
 not obtain cattle elsewhere to consume their surplus feed. 
 
 If it were true that more of such cattle were fed in the Fourth district 
 than in any other, it would be a further proof that these cattle ought 
 to be allowed to come in without hindrance. Again, the total number
 
 830 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 of 13,141 that were imported from Mexico into the State of Kansas, as 
 compared with the total number (890,563 head) of cattle grazed, fed, and 
 marketed from Kansas, is so small that the honorable gentlemen repre- 
 senting Kansas in Congress ought not to make much fuss about it. We 
 think their statements were made and based on incorrect information. 
 On the other hand, for the good of those who might utilize the hundreds 
 of thousands of acres of grass and cheap feed going to waste every 
 year, they ought to be allowed to import some of the Mexican cattle if 
 they choose to do so. We notice further from the press reports that Mr. 
 Curtis said that the average value of cattle per head was $2.50, and that 
 they payed 51 cents per head duty. The facts are the great majority of 
 cattle imported from Mexico cost down there from $18 to $24 per head, 
 Mexican money, or from $9 to $12 per head, our money, on which a duty 
 of 20 jier cent ad valorem was paid, and we know from our acquaintance 
 with that trade that it is fully as high as can be stood and have any 
 cattle imported into this country. We were engaged in the business 
 during the prohibitory tariff of $10 per head, and none or scarcely any 
 cattle from Mexico were imported into this country during that time. 
 The statement that Mexico prohibits the importation of hogs from this 
 country is not borne out by the facts, to say nothing about what our 
 farmers realize out of the hogs Mexico took from our country and out 
 of the great quantity of corn and other products it bougiit from our 
 people. We also attach a cojiy of our first of the year circular bearing 
 somewhat on the live-stock trade. (Exhibit B,) 
 
 We also notice that Representative Bowers, of California, said before 
 your committee that the present tariff on Mexican cattle had killed the 
 cattle business in California, and that not one in ten were brought into 
 that State for feeding, etc. Mr. Albert Dean's records show that during 
 the year 189G there were G,034 Mexican cattle imported into the State 
 of California for grazing and 865 head for immediate slaughter. It 
 hardly seems i^ossible that this insignificant number of light-weight 
 Mexican cattle could possibly injure the cattle business of California 
 with its hundreds of thousands of cattle. We are familiar with the cat- 
 tle trade west to the Pacific Coast and know at this time that the beef 
 slaughterers of California are now paying a higher price for their 
 beef than for several years at this time of year. They are now paying 
 3 cents gross weight for alfalfa-fed cattle at Phcenix, Ariz. This time 
 last year they paid 2i cents per pound for the same quality of cattle. 
 The Kansas City Live Stock Commercial Company. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 United Statks Dkpartmext of Agriculture, 
 Bureau of Animal Industry (local office), 
 
 Kansas City, January 7, 1S97. 
 The Kansas City Live Stock Commission Company, 
 
 Stock Yards. 
 Gentlemen: Herewith I baud you the number of cattle imported into the State 
 of Kansas from the Republic of Mexico from January 1, 1896, to December 31, 1896; 
 also the counties to Avhich they were destined : 
 
 RiceCounty 7,328 Reno County 261 
 
 ChaseCounty 2,515 HutchinsonConntv 259 
 
 Edwards County 1, 208 Dickinson County 96 
 
 Finney County 
 
 Ford County ^ 564 
 
 Total 13.1U 
 
 Marion County 412 
 
 Respectfully, Albert Dean, 
 
 Live Stock Agent in charge, Bureau of Animal Industry.
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 831 
 
 • Exhibit B. 
 
 Kansas City, Mo., January 1, 1S97. 
 
 Dear Sir: We desire to say for our market for the year 1896, just closed, that the 
 total receipts of cattle at these yards ^Yere 1,714,532 head ; calves, 100,166 head ; hogs, 
 2,605,575 head; sheep, 1)93,123 head; horses and mules, 57,847 head; and total number 
 of cars of all kinds of stock, 113,594. The total valuation of all kinds of stock handled 
 on the Kansas City market during 1896 was $103,402,298. The receii)t8 of stock and 
 their total value far exceed any previous year, it being evidence of the great popu- 
 larity of this market held by raisers and feeders throughout the West and South. 
 Receipts came from nearly every State and Territory west of the Mississippi Kiver. 
 Our stock yard company has purchased much additional grounds, on which new 
 yards were erected. With the improvements made, it makes the Kansas City stock 
 yards the best and most convenient stock yards in the United States for the quick 
 handling of all kinds of stock. In regard to the market for all kinds of stock dur- 
 ing 1896 in the nuirkets of the country, the prices realized were not up to the expecta- 
 tions of the owners. There were many causes for this condition of things. The 
 high prices of cattle in the winter and spring of 1894 caused those engaged in the 
 business during the spring and summer of that year to scour all the Western country 
 for cattle to feed during that fall and the winter of 1895. This, coupled with the 
 high price of feed in the fall and winter of 1894, kept nuiny who had stockers not to 
 feed them that winter. These, with what had been gathered and put together dur- 
 ing the summer of 1895, made an unusual large number of cattle go into the feed lots 
 in the fall of 1895. Feed of all kinds being cheap that year, resulted in more beef 
 being made that fall and winter than in any ])revious year. These cattle came to 
 the markets during the winter, spring, and summer of 1896, resulting in a heavy sup- 
 ply of beef cattle, which caused a much lower price for all kinds of beef. Again, 
 money matters and the Presidential cami)aign of 1896, with all the talk, as usual 
 during such campaigns, that the country generally would go to the bow-wows, 
 caused many business enterjirises to lay dormant, which lessened the demnnd for 
 meats. The stringency in mouey caused many cattle to go to market and be slaugh- 
 tered that would otherwise have remained in the country. It is now thought that 
 the cattle trade is on a l)etter foundation than it has been for several years past. 
 Kearly all tlie large Western herds have either been cut down 50 to 75 per cent or 
 closed out entirely. The farmers in the Middle and Western States have also greatly 
 reduced their holdings of stock cattle. After the election in November there was 
 some activity in laying in stockers and feeders, but with all of it the supply in the 
 country on feed at this time is much short of what it was a year ago. Anotlier thing, 
 feeders are letting their fat cattle go to market just as fast as they will do to go, they 
 being satisfied with the profit they are now making. The result will be there will 
 not be a bulking up of fat cattle this winter and next spring like there was last, 
 which, in our opinion, will result in a good profit for all of this winter's and next 
 spring's feeding. 
 
 The hog market like the cattle market for 1896, was also below owners' expecta- 
 tions, wiiich was the same in 1895. However, this was not to be wondered at, forthe 
 reason that for several years jn'ior hogs sold better in proportion than other kinds of 
 stock, and they were quite profitable to farmers, it resulted in an increased supply 
 all over the country, and when it came to the markets prices lowered proportionately, 
 until the present time it is now believed that prices of hogs have reached their 
 lowest. In regard to sheep, the supply on this market has been much greater than 
 for any former year, while prices have not been high; but, considering the way 
 other kinds of stock have solcl, the sheep market has been fairly satisfactory. It is 
 a noticeable fact that the people of this country are becoming consumers of mutton 
 , to a greater extent than at any previo'us time. Formerly the people of the East and 
 Europe were the principal consumers of mutton, but now a good mutton chop tastes 
 well to all Westerners. A few years ago, on accouut of fair ])rices for wool, sheep 
 breeding Ix^caiue quiet extensive in the West, and a latge supply soon accumulated; 
 the price of wool dropped very low. Owners were then compelled to throw their 
 surplus sheep onto the market many more than could bo readily taken at fair prices. 
 However, this resulted in chea]) mutton; it encouraged many to use it instead of 
 other meats. Their tastes now being educated for mutton will cause in future a 
 good market for sheep. It is also believed that the tariif on wool will be raised 
 some; tliis will be beneficial to those engaged in the business. In regard to the 
 liorse and mule trade, it ha< been very unsatisfactory to raisers. A few years ago 
 they were high. Soon there was a big surplus; to add injury to injury, along came 
 the cable cars, electricity, and last, but not least, bicycles, which almost put the 
 finishing touch on the horses' downward march. He is yet loved, but sells low. 
 
 The Kansas City Live Stock Commission Company.
 
 832 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 THE McKINLEY RATE WANTED. 
 
 San Antonio, Tex,, January 6, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 In the matter of the revision of the tariff I desire to say that, as editor 
 of the Texas Stockman and Farmer, I snbmitted to the readers of our 
 paper in January and February last year a form of ballot eontaining 
 the following question : "Are you in favor of the reenactment of the 
 McKinley import duty of $10 i)er head on ^Mexican cattle?" To this 
 question we rec^eived 1,578 replies, of which 1,556 were in favor of the 
 $10 per head duty and 22 against i t. This large vote came from over 78 
 different counties in the State, and we believe it a fair expression of the 
 views of Texas stockmen on this important question. Fully 91> per cent 
 of Texas cattlemen are in favor of a duty sufiSciently high to keep JMexican 
 cattle on the other side of the Eio Grande, because with their clieap labor 
 Texas cattlemen can not compete with those owning ranches in that 
 country. 
 
 • YoRiES r. Brown. 
 
 CALIFORNIA'S CATTLE BUSINESS BEING DESTROYED. 
 
 SUBMITTED BY THE CALIFORNIA DELEGATION. 
 
 Under the last year of the McKinley tariff only 3,008 head of cattle 
 came into this country, while under the first year of the Wilson bill 
 there were 217,112 head of cattle brought into the United States. 
 California is largely engaged in the cattle business, and our informa- 
 tion is that the business is much injured by the new tariff. Beef cattle 
 bring on an average about $10 a head less, and without any reductit)u 
 in price to the consumer. 
 
 In our opinion the importation of cattle from Mexico under the 
 present tariff is destroying the cattle business in California. 
 
 We ask, instead of an ad valorem tariff, the restoration of the 
 specific tariff of 1890. 
 
 CHEAP MEXICAN CATTLE AN INJURY TO THE FARMER. 
 
 Garden (Jity, Kans., January 8, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 Six thousand of us people came to this part of Kansas expecting it 
 was an agricultural country, but instead it proves to be no good except 
 for grazing. Now most of us have a small herd of cattle aiid hope you 
 will give us protection from the cheap cattle of Mexico. We are not 
 able to own a branch ranch in Mexico, and if we have no protection 
 it will be but a short time before the rich cattlemen will run us out of 
 here, for we can not compete with their cheap stock. We would like 
 the same protection we had under the McKinley bill. We also believe 
 that we ought to have protection on raw hides. 
 
 E. L. Hall, 
 County Commissioner, Finney County, Kans.
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE. 833 
 
 IMPOETATIOKS OF MEXICAN CATTLE A HELP TO WESTEEN 
 
 FARMEES. 
 
 Chicago, December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are advised that there is a possibility that action may be taken 
 in the way of formiug a new tariff schedule which will seriously inter- 
 fere with the cattle trade from the border States of Mexico. The pres- 
 ent duty of 20 per cent ad valorem was in force for many years prior 
 to the enactment of the McKinley bill, and during this period the 
 growth of the cattle industry and exports of cattle were simply enor- 
 mous, showing conclusively that if any protection were needed the 
 then duty of 20 per cent was ample. Under the McKinley bill the 
 tariif was raised to a specific duty of $10 per head, which on the low- 
 grade Mexican cattle amounted in effect to an ad valorem duty of over 
 100 per cent and resulted in absolute i^rohibition of import cattle from 
 Mexico. The Wilson bill now in force reenacted the rate in force prior 
 to the McKinley bill, namely, 20 loer cent ad valorem, and under this 
 rate cattle have again been crossing the line and fed in Colorado, 
 Nebraska, and Kansas. 
 
 It seems to me of the utmost importance that the people of these 
 Western States should be able to draw on Mexico for young cattle, in 
 order to dispose of their great surplus of alfalfa, corn, hay, and other 
 products, and that no possible injustice or harm can be done to any 
 State or body of citizens by a continuance of the present tariff" on stock 
 cattle; but that, on the contrary, the effect of a prohibitive duty would 
 be to greatly injure the farmers in our States west of the Missouri 
 Eiver by curtailing their ability to dispose of to good advantage the 
 grain and other products which they are now enabled to feed profitably 
 to cattle. 
 
 The territorj'^ between Pueblo and Lajunta raised last year some- 
 thing like 100,000 tons of alfalfa; more than it was able to consume or 
 sell. It is becoming apparent that this irrigated territory must devote 
 itself to feeding cattle. 
 
 The same is equally true of other territory in Colorado and Kansas, 
 and I think these States are especially interested in providing for a 
 constant supply of young cattle at a low rate. 
 
 Paul Morton, 
 Third Vice-President Atchison, Topeka and. 
 
 Santa Fe Railway Company. 
 
 McKINLEY RATES WANTED. 
 
 Fort McKavett, Tex., January 8, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I see by the papers that a memorial has been sent j'^our committee 
 from El Paso asking that the present tariff" on cattle be retained. From 
 the best information I can get, this originates from and is signed by 
 Mexican cattle raisers and American cattle speculators interested in 
 trading in Mexican cattle. That it does not represent the views of the 
 stock raisers of Texas I can positively assure you, and further that 
 the importation of Mexican cattle under the present tariff' has been a 
 serious injury to the Texas cattle raisers is also true, and I have never 
 seen or heard of a Texas cattle raiser who favored the present tariff 
 TH 53
 
 834 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 unless be was a speculator in cattle aud interested in depressing the 
 price of cattle. It is unnecessary to repeat the arsrumeuts. You are 
 certainly able to know that it can not be for the interest of the Ameri- 
 can stockmen to compete with the large number of cattle that can in a 
 few years be raised on the cheap ranges with the poorly paid labor of 
 Mexico. Tbe present tariff' will build up the cattle industry of IMexico 
 at tlie expense of Texas if it can be maintained. The rates of the 
 Mclvinley bill were satisfactory to the Texas stockmen, and I can assure 
 you that, no matter what their politics, they are nearly all in favor of 
 a return to those rates. 
 
 0. G. BURBANK. 
 
 MEXICAN CATTLE A BENEFIT. 
 
 Waco, Tex., December 39, 1896. 
 
 Dear Sir : No change is needed in the live-stock clause, if it is rev- 
 enue the Grovernment wants. Should the ad valorem duty be continued, 
 but at the same tioie raised to 30, 40, or ^0 per cent, it will very mate- 
 rially cut off this .source of revenue, as I feel sure this interest and 
 source of revenue would be practically cut off with a higher rate. Had 
 I the time I could conclusively prove to you that a great many people 
 and interests have been beneiited by the importation of Mexican cattle. 
 As you know, most of the cattle brought into the United States in the 
 last two years were owned by Americans, men who spend all their 
 money within thii United States. The railroads have been helped. 
 The men with ])astures and no cattle. (We ourselves have ])aid out over 
 $15,000 in pasturage alone for cattle brought from Mexico since the 
 Wilson bill became effective.) No one has been injured by the impor- 
 tation of Mexican cattle, but, on the other hand, thousands of people 
 have been helped by it. 
 
 Trusting that you may see fit to help us in this matter, feeling sure 
 thac you will do what you <5an, and knowing from past experience that 
 you can do much, and thanking you kindly in advance for any favors 
 you may do us, and with kindest personal regards, I remain, 
 
 Tnos. A. Canfield. 
 
 OATS AND OAT PRODUCTS. 
 
 (Paragraph 190.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE MUSCATINE (IOWA) OATMEAL 
 
 COMPANY. 
 
 Muscatine, Iowa, January 7, 1897. 
 
 Bear Sir: It has been suggested several times that the oatmeal 
 millers should appoint a committee to appear before the Ways and 
 Means Committee to urge their claims regarding a higher tariff on oat- 
 meal, rolled oats, and oat feed, including the cheaper offal, oat hulls. 
 
 Notwithstanding some newspaper articles giving color to the fact 
 that there is an oatmeal pool, combination, or agreement, or trust, 
 whatever may be its title, these articles are entirely incorrect. It would 
 be impossible for such an arrangement to exist without tlie cooperation 
 of some of the larger mills, particularly the American Cereal Com])any 
 or our own, and we would know that such working arrangements 
 existed if such were the case.
 
 OATS AND OAT PRODUCTS. 835 
 
 We feel tluit we should have a higher tariff, which in the interest of 
 all manufacturers and grain producers would encourage inanulacturiiig- 
 within our own borders instead of offering a bonus as an inducement 
 for the products of oats to be manufactured within Canadian borders 
 and from grain purchased of the Canadian farmer, as the i^resent 
 arrangement regarding duties clearly encourages. Some other manu- 
 facturers may take a different view of the question, but all we urge Is 
 that oats should be held at as high a protective duty as any other 
 cereal, and that all products made from oats should bear the same rela- 
 tive duty. 
 
 We certainly should not support a Government at the expense of the 
 American citizens, so as to provide a good market for industries located 
 in Canada, without requiring sufficient payment to the Government for 
 the privilege up to a point which should be considered a fair margin of 
 profit for the American manufacturer. In addition to this, a part of 
 his cost should be the commercial risk, and not alone the actual num- 
 ber of bushels it may require to manufacture of a barrel of oatmeal or 
 rolled oats. 
 
 The quality of oats suitable for milling purposes always comnumds a 
 premium, and this premium should go to the American farmer in return 
 for his efforts to raise the best quality of oats; and with to-day\s 
 Chicago market for the highest price paid for oats at 20 cents x)er bushel, 
 and the price of meal at Buffalo $3 jjer barrel, it is pretty conclusive 
 evidence that no combination governs the selling price of the product, 
 and that these prices do not afford enough ])rotit to the manufacturer 
 to result in any hardship to the consumer. We can not figure any i^rofit 
 in it; but of course that is foreign to the question, except when inci- 
 dentally evidence that no combination exists, and also accounts for why 
 so little oatmeal can be shipjied into this country from Canada. 
 
 The origin of certain comments regarding a combination was in the 
 fact that some few smaller mills located on and west of the Missouri 
 Eiver tried to make some working arrangement covering the markets 
 in which they more conspicuously compete with each other. Tariff' or 
 free trade could not in any manner affect this territory or the mills 
 mentioned in that section of the country; but there are oatmeal mills 
 all through the Canadian and British possessions which could enjoy 
 the privileges of our markets. 
 
 Muscatine Oatmeal Company. 
 
 IN THE INTEREST OF WORKINGMEN. 
 
 Kearney, Nebe., January 7, 1897. 
 Dear Sir : We who manufacture oatmeal ask Congress to pass a 
 law imposing a tax of one-half cent per pound on all rolled oats, oat- 
 meal, etc., imported into this country. 
 
 Oatmeal mills pay from 1 to 3 cents per bushel more for oats than 
 farmers could possibly obtain elsewhere, and every pound of oatmeal 
 imported into this country compels our farmers to seek a poorer market 
 for that equivalent of their oat crop. It compels our mills to shut down 
 a portion of the year. Our skilled workmen are thrown out of employ- 
 ment in their particular line while the mills are shut down. We have 
 oats, capacity, and skill sufficient to supply all the oatmeal consumed 
 in the United States, and that, too, at close competitive prices. 
 
 John Brady, 
 Of the Kearney Cereal Mills.
 
 836 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTUKAL PKODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 HURT BY CANADIAN IMPORTATIONS. 
 
 Ceookston, Minn., December 28, 1896. 
 
 Bear Sir: The present duty on rolled oats or oatmeal is 15 per 
 cent, while the duty on the grain or oats is 20 per cent. 
 
 This 15 per cent duty we understand is levied upon the value of the 
 finished product, and the value or the price placed by the manufacturer 
 of same at point of shipment. 
 
 This induced a Canadian manufacturer to place low valuation upon 
 his manufactured product and consequently the finished products from 
 oats shipped from this country are a very low tariff. 
 
 It seems to us it would be more just to the American manufacturers 
 of oat products to have the duty levied so much per pound, instead of 
 a certain per cent upon the shipper's estimated value at the point of 
 shipment. 
 
 Under the former tariff' the duty was 1 cent per pound on the fin- 
 ished product from oats, and it is our opinion that the duty on rolled 
 oats and oatmeal should be at least half a cent per pound, said duty 
 of half a cent per pound being levied on all rolled oats and oatmeal 
 imported into this country, and a duty of 20 per cent should also be 
 levied upon oat hulls, oat dust, and by-products, the duty of 20 x)er cent 
 to be levied upon the value of hulls and by-products at the point of 
 shipment. 
 
 Crookston Oat Meal, Mill Company. 
 G. W. Stanton. 
 
 AD VALOREM RATE PERMITS UNDERVALUATION. 
 
 Waseca, Minn., December 28, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 We beg to call your attention to the present low tariff" on oat prod- 
 ucts, and it also seems to us that the duty on the oat itself is insuflBcient 
 to afford protection to the farmer, as we understand this grain can be 
 ground so much cheaper in Canada than it can be shipped into oiir east- 
 ern-border markets, and after freight and duty are paid still leave a big 
 profit to the shipper. The present duty on oats is 20 per cent, while on 
 oatmeal, rolled oats, and groats it is but 15 per cent — plainly a discrimi- 
 nation against the American manufacturer. 
 
 The percentage plan of duty leads the exporter to this country to 
 place low estimate of value at point of shipment. The former duty was 
 1 cent per pound. We believe it should now be placed at least at one-half 
 cent per pound to give fair protection, and there should also be placed 
 a duty on oat hulls and other by-products uniform with duty on oats. 
 We trust you will use your best efforts in this matter, and oblige 
 
 N. J. Breen & Sons, 
 
 Waseca Cereal Mills. 
 
 DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OAT PRODUCTS. 
 
 Chapman, Nebr., December 29, 1896. 
 Dear Sir : We beg leave to call your attention to the manner in 
 which the present tariff discriminates against the manufacturers of 
 products from rolled oats. The present duty on rolled oats, or oatmeal, 
 
 I
 
 BARLEY. 837 
 
 is 15 j)er cent, while the duty on the grain, or oats, is 20 per cent. This 
 15 per cent duty, as we understand it, is levied upon the value of the 
 finished product and that value or price placed by the manufacturer at 
 point of shipment. 
 
 This induces the Canadian manufacturer to place a low valuation upon 
 his manufactured product, and consequently the finished product from 
 oats shipped from that country is at a very low tariff". 
 
 It seems to us it would be more just to the American manufacturers 
 of oat products to have the duty levied so much per pound, instead of 
 a certain per cent upon the shipper's estimated value at the point 
 of shipment. Under the former tariff the duty was 1 cent per pound on 
 the finished product from oats, and it is our opinion that the duty on 
 rolled oats and oatmeal should be at least one-half a cent per pound, 
 the duty of half a cent per pound to be levied on all rolled oats and oat- 
 meal imported into this country. 
 
 Nebraska Central Milling Company. 
 
 BARLEY. 
 
 (Paragraph 191.) 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE OSWEGO (N. Y.) BOARD OF TRADE. 
 
 OSVTEGO, N. Y., January 4, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Inasmuch as a great need of the Government at the present time is 
 revenue, or to i:>ut it in another way, enough money in the Treasury to 
 meet legitimate outgoes, being an indispensable necessity, it is respect- 
 fully suggested by the body we represent whether it may not be well 
 to consider if, among other sources of income, increased receipts can 
 not be derived from the agricultural schedule by fixing a rate of duty 
 on barley, not prohibitory but still affording ample j)rotectioii to Amer- 
 ican producers — a rate which, in the language of President-elect McKin- 
 ley's letter of acceptance, will " measure the difference between wages 
 paid labor at home and in competing countries, and adequately protect 
 American investments and American enterprise." 
 
 The rate of duty on barley prior to the enactment of what is known 
 as the McKinley Act, the act of 1890, was 10 cents per bushel. The 
 rate was fixed by legislation, following the recommendations of the 
 tariff" commission of 1883. That commission considered this particular 
 item of tariff rates with care and exceptional opportunities of gather- 
 ing information for its guidance. A session of the commission was held 
 • in the city of Bufalo, N. Y., that city being an important port of entry 
 for Canadian barley, where the best-informed authorities were summoned 
 and consulted. After an exhaustive investigation, aided by the best 
 attainable testimony, the commission decided to reduce the existing rate 
 of duty on barley from 15 cents to 10 cents per bushel ; and in order to pro- 
 tect American manufacturers of malt against the competition of Cana- 
 dian maltsters, the rate of duty was changed from an ad valorem to a 
 specific duty of 20 cents per bushel. This change, it was believed, would 
 have a tendency to expand the industry of malting and confer the bene- 
 fits to be derived therefrom upon our own people. Following the adjust- 
 ment of the rates of duty on imported barley and malt — an adjustment
 
 838 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 which was accepted as fixing the policy of the Government— the busi- 
 ness of converting Canada barley into malt was vastly increased along 
 the northern frontier on the American side of the line dividing the 
 United States and Canada. Large sums of money were invested in 
 malting plants. The investment in this industry was augmented in the 
 city of Buffalo alone from $1,302,000 in 1880 to $3,299,195 in 1890, and 
 during the same period of time like investments in the city of Oswego 
 grew from $85,000 to $802,000. The business was fairly remunerati\-e 
 to its ]iromoters, but the advantages were not confined to them, since 
 they were shared largely by others. It called into use grain warehous- 
 ing and transportation facilities on the lakes, canals, and railroads, 
 affording not only employment to labor in those channels but also 
 employing large numbers of men in the industry itself. 
 
 It is scarcely too much to say that this investment of capital has 
 been rendered valueless by the prohibitory duty on Canada barley 
 under the operation of the tariff" enactment of 1890. and not remedied 
 as yet by the later act of 1894. In addition to the destruction of the 
 value of plants and correlative loss to individuals engaged in the busi- 
 ness of malting, all revenue, or practically all, for the Government 
 from that source has ceased. It has not been thought advisable at 
 this time to go into the details of figures to substantiate the assertion 
 we make as to these effects upon the owners of malting plants under 
 the acts of 1890 and 1894, because if not already understood by the 
 committee abundant evidence and specific cases of serious loss and 
 disaster can be presented to remove the iiossibility of <loul)t on that 
 point. Suffice it to say at this time that the results have been largely, 
 if not completely, annihilatory of these industries, because destru(;tive 
 of a business built up by the labor and persevering efforts of their 
 projectors. 
 
 'No one who will take the trouble to learn the extent of the injury 
 inflicted upon these interests will deny their hardship* to the parties 
 concerned, nor will they deny the justice of the appeal for corrective, 
 if not retributive, legislation. Greater hardshii)S bearing a relation to 
 individual rights of i)roperty, under a republican form of government, 
 can hardly be conceived than these have been. A word of explanation 
 of the reasons why the effects of the legislation referred to may be 
 called hardships, and why it may be classed as fatal to these business 
 interests, is due to the committee at this point, and may be summed up 
 in very few words. 
 
 The location of malt houses on the northern frontier was natural and 
 sagacious at the time they were constructed. It can not be said that 
 there was lacking foresight in api)rehending no disastrous consequences 
 to come from national legislation. The men who invested their money 
 in these establishments did not foresee, nor could they be criticised for 
 not foreseeing, that an act of Congress would ever interpose to remove 
 their base of supplies. As well might they have been expected to 
 foresee that an act of Congress would some day cut off" their water 
 supi)ly, or their means of heating or shipping, without compensation. 
 With these supplies confiscated, business would necessarily have to 
 stop, but not more certainly would it have to stop under those condi- 
 tions than it would when the only reliance for a supplj^of raw material 
 was taken away from them. That reliance has been as effectually 
 placed beyond their reach by the enactment of prohibitive duties as if 
 an embargo had been laid upon all the commerce of that ])art of the 
 country. It is impossible, indeed, for those who are thoroughly con-
 
 BARLEY. 839 
 
 versaiit with the facts in the case to see any difference so far as 
 financial cousequeuces are concerned. Since it is Avitliin the power of 
 both to destroy, it is of minor consequence to those who suffer which 
 agency causes the destruction. The business of malting barley can 
 not be carried on without water or heat, nor can it be carried on without 
 the practicability of procuring the raw material at as cheap a cost, 
 relatively, as others engaged in the same business can procure it. 
 
 And right at this point we may say the great wrong of the legisla- 
 tion of 1890 and 1894 was inflicted. It was this prohibitive exclusion 
 of supplies that disturbed existing conditions, conditions which we con- 
 ceive to have been in close alliance, if they were not in fact in them- 
 selves, in the nature of what are termed vested rights. It was an 
 inflicted wrong because existing conditions when the legislation referred 
 to was enacted afforded ample supplies of Canada barley, and the rad- 
 ically changed rate of duty checked further importation of them. It 
 will be seen, therefore, that the prohibitive duty on tlie Canada i)rod- 
 uct compelled the maltsters on the northern frontier to look elsewhere 
 for their supplies of barley. They could not move their plants to other 
 fields of production, and were therefore compelled to transport the 
 products of other localities to their plants. This, unfortunately, they 
 conld not do at a low enough cost to com])ete successfully with other 
 maltsters whose malt houses, as well as their own, had been located at 
 the time they were constructed at i)oiuts of barley production or 
 importation, with a view to convenience of its supply. The region of 
 country ])roducing barley in the State of New York is well supplied 
 with malt houses where barley is procurable, without cost of trans- 
 portation. The same conditions also prevail, but in less degree, at the 
 West. Consequently, the use of New York State barley or Western 
 barley by maltsters whose plants are located on the frontier of the 
 State of New Y'ork entails an added cost of transportation equal to a 
 fair profit for transacting the business, as compared with those more 
 fortunately located — those wiiose supplies have not been interrupted 
 by any act of legislation. Such evidence of the hardship of this legis- 
 tion must be convincing to practical men, and especially if the inade- 
 quate excuse of benefiting large numbers of our citizens, whether 
 farmers or others, can not be cited in justification. 
 
 While it is our opinion that benefits to be conferred upon citizens 
 engaged in one calling should never be urged in extenuation of injury 
 to be inflicted upon others, w^e beg to say that even that reason in this 
 case is entirely outside the jjale of all the evidence in the ])remises. 
 It was alleged that the prohibitive duty would benefit the American 
 farmer; that he would command, in consequence, a higher price for his 
 barley. The facts and the developments since the enactment of the 
 prohibitive duty show conclusively that no such result has followed. 
 Prices of American-growni barley have never before been so low as since 
 the enactment of a prohibitive rate of duty. The reports of the various 
 markets in this country prove this assertion to be true beyond the pos- 
 sibility of doubt, and in order that evidence may accompany assertion 
 we give figures tabulated from Chicago Board of Trade re])orts for the 
 years 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, and 1895, which are indicative of 
 other markets for barley as well as the market of Chicago. The prices 
 of No. 2 barley — the standard grade of Chicago — for the years named 
 were as follows, viz : In 1890 the average price for October was 76 
 cents; for November, 78 cents; for December no quotations are given 
 for No. 2, but the next lower grades averaged about 70 cents, equal to
 
 840 SCHEDULE G. — AGKICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 78 cents for No. 2. lu 1891 the prices for October were 62 cents; for 
 J^ovember, 62 cents; for December, 62 cents. In 1892, for October, 65i 
 cents; for ]S"ovember, 68 J cents; and for December, 70 cents. In 1893, 
 for October, 5Q cents; for Isovember, 54 cents; and for December, 50 
 cents. In 1894, for October, 54 cents; for November, 55 cents; and for 
 December, 54 cents. In 1895, for October, 41 cents; for November, 40 
 cents; and for December, 38i cents; thns showing a steadily declining 
 tendency, and an average decline in 1895 of fnlly 50 per cent as com- 
 pared with the values of 1890. The reports of 1896 are not yet pub- 
 lished, but we are of the opinion that when given to the public they 
 will show even lower prices than the years cited. 
 
 It may be remarked that these results are not at all strange. They 
 are only corroborative of the theory always maintained by protection- 
 ists, viz: That protective duties on imports have had the efiect in the 
 past, and will continue to have the effect in the future, of increasing- 
 production in our own country, and that such increase of production 
 must necessarily cause a reduction of all prices to the consumer. What 
 is true of manufactured articles, is also true of products of the ground. 
 The aggregation of bushels of barley raised in this country has been 
 so much greater than the malting demand that the price has been 
 gauged by the level of prices of feeding grain. Consequently the 
 exclusion of foreign barley has been inefl'ectual in lifting prices of bar- 
 ley grown in this country. The production of barley in the United 
 States is far beyond the malting demand, and the surplus has to find a 
 foreign market, or, if sold for domestic uses, its price must be measured 
 by the price of corn or oats or other coarse grains. There is no possi- 
 ble escape from this conclusion, as statistics clearly show, and for that 
 reason it is idle to argue that the exclusion of the inconsiderable quan- 
 tity of barley hitherto imported into this country will ever produce any 
 appreciable rise in the prices of our domestic product. The quantity 
 of barley imported never much exceeded, if at all, 10,000,000 bushels 
 in any one- year, while the production in the United States as far back 
 as 1890 reached the 65,000,000 mark, and is now much larger. The 
 total quantity malted that year was about 40,000,000 bushels, showing 
 a surplus of 25,000,000 bushels. In 1895 the production in this country 
 was 87,000,000 bushels, and the malting consumption did not exceed 
 50,000,000 bushels, showing that a surplus of about 37,000,000 bushels 
 was necessarily disposed of for feed. 
 
 These statements show beyond perad venture that the price of barley 
 in this country must inevitably be fixed by the value of feeding grains, 
 and that the quantity imported can have no noticeable efiect on prices. 
 It can have no effect because the quantity of feeding grains, namely, corn 
 and oats, produced annually in this country mount up into the thou- 
 sands of millions of bushels; and of what consequence, therefore, is an 
 additionof the comparatively infinitesimal quantity of 10,000,000 bushels 
 of imported barley ? With the same propriety one might maintain that 
 a duty on wheat, of which there is always a surplus for export in this 
 country, has the effect of adding to the price to the farmer of the home- 
 grown product. We maintain that the intention of those who desire to 
 help the farmer by a prohibitive duty on barley, in order to insure a 
 better price, is without the slightest merit of efficacy. It accomplishes 
 nothing in that direction. Its effect, in fact, has caused lower instead 
 of higher prices for the product of American farms. We maintain that 
 the hollowness of such claim is manifested in its true light when we 
 look at the injury and loss inflicted upon manufacturers of malt by
 
 BAELEY. 841 
 
 the imposition of prohibitive duties on foreign barley, as hereinbefore 
 set forth, without any compensating advantage to any farmer in the 
 country. 
 
 The equity of the claims of maltsters and others, who have suffered 
 so severely by this mistaken attempt to benefit farmers, becomes evi- 
 dent when the facts are all presented and studied. In order to make 
 more strikingly apparent the disadvantages of the legislation which 
 cuts oft" the maltsters of the State of New York, and in some degree 
 the maltsters of other States, from their previous and natural sources 
 of supply, it should be stated that the rate of transportation on barley 
 is greater than on malt per bushel, because in the process of malting 
 the weight is very considerably reduced by evaporation. To illustrate, 
 a bushel of barley weighs 48 pounds, while a bushel of malt weighs 
 only 34 pounds. Hence, the Eastern maltster who buys his barley at 
 the West, or at any point distant from his plant, is subjected to nearly 
 one-third more outlay for freight than the maltster who buys his barley 
 at home. Therefore, it is a fact that when both Eastern and Western 
 maltsters sell malt in the Eastern markets, as very largely they do, the 
 discrimination in favor of the latter is a considerable item of profit in 
 itself. For instance, on an output of say 300,000 bushels of barley 
 purchased at the West, to be malted in the State of New York, the dis- 
 advantage to the malster would be approximately $6,000 for the cost of 
 transportation of weight, subsequently lost by evaporation. It should 
 be remembered, too, that tbe maltsters doing business at the intermedi- 
 ate points between the far West and the East, citing, for example, the 
 cities of Buffalo, Eochester, or Oswego, are subjected to two freight 
 charges — one on barley and one on malt — Avhich aggregate together a 
 much higher total than is exacted on shipments of nialt made direct 
 from Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, or other far western points where 
 barley is converted into malt, to New York, Boston, Philadelphia, 
 Baltimore, or other cities of Eastern consumption. It will be seen, 
 therefore, that here is another disadvantage, and we believe we would 
 run no risk in estimating the total difference between the cost of trans- 
 portation to an Eastern and a Western maltster from these two causes, 
 on an output of 300,000 bushels, at not less than $15,000. 
 
 To avoid the risk of making this communication unnecessarily long, 
 it is deemed unadvisable to continue the discussion further, but to con- 
 clude by saying that for reasons well known to the committee specific 
 duties are preferable to ad valorem duties, and remembering also the 
 fact that the present rate of 30 per cent ad valorem on barley, as fixed by 
 the so-called Wilson-Gorman Act, is still in'ohibitive, it is respectfully 
 requested that your committee recommend a duty of 5 cents })er bushel 
 on barley, and also fix a rate that will establish a just equivalency of 
 protection on malt. Such rates, it is believed, will bring considerably 
 increased revenue to the Government, and at the same time make a 
 revival of the malting industries on the Northern frontier a possibility, 
 although at a largely reduced margin of profit to those engaged in the 
 business, as compared with the profit under conditions as they existed 
 prior to the tarift" enactment of 1890. 
 
 Craving your consideration of the statements herein set forth, and 
 trusting that your action will be the means of restoring life to an 
 industry seriously crippled, if not yet quite wounded to death, with 
 sentiments of profound respect, we subscribe ourselves, 
 
 RoBT, Downey, pyesident. 
 Frederick O. Clarke, Secretary.
 
 842 SCHEDULE G. AGKICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 MACARONI. 
 
 (Paragraph 192. ) 
 
 STATEMENT MADE BY AMBER J. TOOMEY, OF THE NEW YORK 
 PRODUCE EXCHANGE. 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. TooMEY said : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, macaroni rei)resents 
 a large industry here, and I am secretary and treasurer of a company 
 that "has about 150,000 invested in that industry in New York City 
 to-day. 
 
 At the time the Wilson bill was under considerati(m I appeared 
 before the Ways and Means Committee, aud from careful investigation 
 at that time, made by circulars sent out to the different mills through- 
 out the country, I estimated that 5,000,000 Dushels of American wheat 
 were used in this country in the manufacture of macaroni. Since then 
 the manufacture lias decreased considerably and I have been unable 
 to get any figures in reference to it, as there are no oflicial statistics. 
 
 We can say that our manufactures are naturally made up of raw 
 material and labor. I will si)end but a few moments on the raw mate- 
 rial. Macaroni is made from wheat. We grow the best wheat in the 
 world in this country, and, although we are large exporters of wheat, 
 still we can not supply wheat to our manufacturers as cheap as the 
 Algerians and Italians can supply it to their macaroni manufacturers. 
 As a matter of fact to-day, under a flaw in the Wilson tarifl"^! call it 
 a flaw — and also in the McKinley tariff bill, farina, from which alone 
 macaroni can be made, is on the free list, and we are using imported 
 farina, showing, therefore, that the raw material can be bought cheaper 
 on the other side. iSome of you might contend that on account of freights 
 macaroni could be manufactured cheaper in the West — from cheaper 
 wheats possibly — than it could be manuiactured in the East. In that 
 connection 1 would state this : That in order to make macaroni you have 
 to have farina. That is the cream of the wheat, the uni)ulverized part 
 of the wheat. In Marseilles, Naples, Genoa, and in most of the Italian 
 cities where macaroni is manufactured, they use a wheat principally 
 called tagarock wheat, and also wheat from India and Algeria. This 
 wheat makes practically no flour. Our wheat, which is the finest wheat 
 in the world, will pulverize into flour. It can be used for flour, nun^a- 
 roni, or anything else. The tagarock and other wheats of its kind used 
 abroad can only be used for the one article of nuicaroui, and they are 
 therefore sold tor nnich lower prices. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. You want farina placed on the free list % 
 
 Mr. TooMEY. No, sir; I don't, because there is a duty on the raw 
 material of wheat, and farina is the perfection of the manufactured 
 article. Why that should be on the free list I can not understand, 
 although I am here to discuss that subject, and I am willing to admit 
 that we are somewhat on an even plane as to the raw material. 
 
 You will therefore recognize that we compete not only Avith the better 
 paid laborer of northern Europe, but with the most poorly paid labor of 
 southern Europe. Our competitor is Italy. In the production of the 
 raw material for the manufacture of our goods our competitor is the 
 poorly paid laborer of the Asiatic countries. 
 
 We ask you to restore the tariff" of 2 cents a pound on macaroni,
 
 MACARONI. 843 
 
 wliicli is not as much as tlie difierence of the labor. We will not be 
 afraid of that labor then. 
 
 Then, on the subject of labor, I will give you some figures. We pay 
 on an average to our men, not counting the expert labor, such as book- 
 keeper or salesmen, but simply the men that work and run the machines, 
 counting the boys and workmen around tbe factory, an average of $11 
 a week. The girls make up 07 per cent of the labor, and we pay them 
 on an average $5.50 per week. Now, the average of all this, counting 
 two girls employed to one jnan, is $7.33 a week. 1 have secured figures 
 as to what is i>aid foreign labor in this industry. The figures 1 have 
 gotten are so surprisingly low that I have hardly believed them possible 
 and have estimated the wages abroad a little higher. I have heard a 
 gentleman here state that agricultural labor in Italy brings only 27 cents 
 a day. I have put the Italian labor down to $2.50 a week. Our com- 
 petitors in the business abroad give the figures of $2 a week for their 
 labor, still. I put it down at $2.50 a week to be conservative. I put 
 down the labor of the women abroad at half that. That will, altogetlier, 
 bring the average for wages abroad to $1.00 a Aveek, as compared to our 
 figures of $7.30 a week. We are paying fully five times as much as they 
 are. They do not pay 20 per cent as much for their labor as we do in 
 this country. We started at this business in 1891 under the McKinley 
 tariff", when we enjoyed a inotection of 2 cents a pound duty. We were 
 then selling our products at 8 cents a pound, and losing money because 
 we did not then fully understand the business. At the close of the 
 operation of the McKinley tariff we were selling our goods at Oi cents 
 a pound and making money, because we had then learned how to best 
 produce. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. How has the industry flourished in a general way? 
 
 Mr. TooMEY. When we started in there were no American industries. 
 There were a great many Italian industries in Italian settlements in 
 America, and I and my partner (Mr. Hadley) were here, members of the 
 New York Produce Exchange and international merchants and export- 
 ers, and we took this up as a side issue. Since then we have had a 
 great many followers in the country, and I am sorry to say nearly all 
 of them have gone to the wall. We are to-day selling macaroni at 5 
 cents a pound. The Wilson tariff put the duty at 20 per cent ad 
 valorem, and one of the things that we object to most is the ad valorem 
 duty. This is for two reasons. The principal reason is that there is no 
 necessity for an ad valorem duty on this product; and whether it is 
 sold for 5 or for cents a pound it is simply a question of a little better 
 or a little poorer raw material. The same amount of labor goes into all 
 of it, and it could be defined as to what it was worth without putting- 
 it on an ad valorem basis. 
 
 It is not a work of art, and not even a luxury. It is partly necessity 
 with a great many people, not alone the Italians, but the Americans, 
 especially in the East. Another reason we suffer from this ad valorem 
 duty is that most of our biggest competitors are Italians — are importers 
 themselves. They are from Italy. I think you will find that the Italian 
 merchants of New York, if you will look at the Treasury reports and 
 study the figures, have been notorious for their undervaluations of the 
 different articles that they have imported from abroad; so with an ad 
 valorem duty we would be at a disadvantage. This duty has been i^ut 
 down to where it is 20 per cent on nothing, practically. I say nothing, 
 but on the outside I would concede it at five-eighths of a cent per pound. 
 Our macaroni costs us 2i cents, and to make this we ask for a duty of 
 2 cents a pound, and they can manufacture for that other half cent.
 
 844 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 As reo-ards macaroni there is a great big difference in percentage as 
 between cost of manufactnre and the raw material. Macaroni is a very 
 frail thing, and has to be handled delicately in this country under a 
 condition that does not exist abroad. We have not paid in the last 
 year over If cents a pound for raw material. The price is a little 
 higher now, but it has cost us, including rent, which is higher over 
 here, at least 2^ cents a pound. We are not asking for any 100 per 
 cent, but we are" asking for 35 or 40 per cent honest ad valorem. 
 
 The Chairman. How much raw material does the macaroni industry 
 in this country consume? 
 
 Mr. TooMEY. I estimate that it takes 5,000 bushels of wheat. That 
 it takes $4,500,000 in the raw material necessary and 100 per cent more 
 perhaps should be estimated at the lowest for cost of manufacture, and 
 that would make over $5,000,000 in all. 
 
 The Ghairman. How many pounds are made in this country! 
 
 Mr. TooMEY. Five thousand bushels of wheat would make 30,000,000 
 pounds. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Do you estimate that 30,000,000 pounds are made 
 in this country? 
 
 Mr. TooMEY. We made some 3,000,000 a year ago. 
 
 The Chairman. There were 17,500,000 pounds imported. 
 
 Mr. TooMEY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Do you know of any macaroni factories in Chicago'? 
 
 Mr. TooMEY. Yes, sir; there are several there. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Are they producing macaroni now? 
 
 Mr. TooMEY. They were producing sometime ago. I presume they 
 are still producing, because we do not sell any out there and somebody 
 must be getting the trade. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. What percentage of your labor is skilled labor? 
 
 Mr. TooMEY. I would say that 75 per cent of our labor is skilled 
 labor. A remark was made here sometime ago that our labor is better 
 paid than labor abroad and that it Avas merely cheaper labor because 
 so mucli more efficient. That is 2iot so, because the labor we employ 
 in this countiy are Italians — American citizens — but they came from 
 Italy and are not as skilled as Americans in other lines. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF MANUFACTURERS OF MACARONI IN THE DISTRICT 
 
 OF NEW YORK. 
 
 New York, N. Y., January 11, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We, the undersigned, citizens of the United States, doing business 
 within the district of the port of New York as manufacturers of mac- 
 aroni, respectfully petition your honorable committee for the purpose of 
 having embodied in the proposed revision of the tariff a duty of 2 cents 
 per pound on the said article, and, in so petitioning, beg to brieliy pre- 
 sent cogent facts showing the urgent necessity of an increase of the 
 duty on said goods. 
 
 In the year 1890, by the enactment of the so-called McKinley tariff, 
 the duty on macaroni was fixed at 2 cents per pound. For several 
 years prior to that time the consumption in the United States of said 
 article had been rapidly increasing, and at the said period (1890) had 
 grown to such large proportions as to warrant "under the protection 
 of the said act" the investment of large capital in the extension, estab- 
 lishment, and building of factories throughout the country, equipi^ed 
 with expensive machinery for the manufacture of said product. The
 
 MACARONI. 
 
 845 
 
 era of prosperity seemed to liave arrived and the prospect of giving 
 vast employment to labor and receiving a fair retnrn on the capital 
 invested appeared bright. Such state of affairs gradually improved 
 up to the year 1894, when, through the enactment by Congress of a 
 new tariff (so-called Wilson bill) we were confronted with a most serious 
 turn in the situation of affairs. That act reduced the duty on macaroni 
 to 20 per cent ad valorem, equal to about two-thirds of 1 cent per 
 pound, which at once caused a dire outlook and subsequent most disas- 
 trous results. Factories throughout the country were forced into bank- 
 ruptcy, and those that endeavored to withstand the blow continued in 
 a desperate struggle for existence. 
 
 In this locality alone the consequence of the said reduction from 
 2 cents per pound to 20 per cent ad valorem was startling. For 
 instance, the IS^ational Macaroni Company of ifew York City, after an 
 investment of $20,000 for plant, was sold out for the benefit of its cred- 
 itors for $1,100. Then the Imperial Macaroni Company, La Maida 
 Bros., L. Lauri, of Hoboken, and many smaller ones, were forced to 
 suspend, all caused by said reduction, which gave the foreign man- 
 ufacturer an overwhelming advantage, making competition with them 
 ruinous to the American manufacturer. 
 
 In this condition of affairs we could give employment to our workmen 
 on an average of only three days per week and were obliged to sell our 
 output at cost of manufacture, and in the months of June to August, 
 1890, actually below the cost of manufacture, viz, 75 to 80 cents per 
 box of 24 pounds, so great was the competition with the imported arti- 
 cle, which at the same time was sold at between 75 and 80 cents per 
 box of 24 pounds, freight and duty paid. 
 
 The chief cause of advantage derived by the foreign manufacturer 
 under a low tariff is the difference in wages, the cost of machinery, very 
 high rentals, and running expenses. In Italy, the greatest j)lace of 
 manufacture of macaroni, competent help receive wages of from 10 cents 
 per day for a boy to 30 cents per day for a man for fourteen hours' 
 work, while in tliis country the rate of wages is from $1 per day in the 
 former case and $2.50 per day of nine hours in the latter. This scale 
 is equal to a ratio (average) of about 12 to 1 against us, and speaks vol- 
 umes. Then, again, take the great difference in the cost of machinery, 
 repairs, and running expenses, and you readily see our doleful position. 
 
 The Argentine Eepublic fixed a duty of 3 cents per pound on maca- 
 roni, and by this protection the industry of manufacturing it is flourish- 
 ing there. 
 
 The importation of macaroni, from all sources, into the port of New 
 York for the past seven years was as follows: 
 
 Year. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 1890 
 
 1891 
 
 1892 
 
 1893 
 
 1894, up to August 28 
 
 1894, from August 28. 
 
 1895 
 
 1896 
 
 13, 656, 728 
 11,056,104 
 12,248,193 
 
 12, 804, 395 
 9, 757, 798 
 3, 933, 158 
 
 13, 575, 798 
 14, 203, 407 
 
 $712, 361 
 586, 731 
 672, 505 
 652, 157 
 470, 087 
 144, 725 
 506, 120 
 474, 864 
 
 $273, 134 
 221, 122 
 244, 963 
 256, 088 
 195, 156 
 
 28, 945 
 101, 224 
 
 94, 972 
 
 Making from 1890 to August 28, 1894, 59,523,218 pounds (equal to 
 2,480,134 boxes of 24 pounds each), valued at .$3,093,841, paying a total 
 duty of $1,190,464, while from August 28, 1894, to December 31, 1896, 
 31,712,363 pounds (or 1,321,348 boxes), valued at $1,125,709, paying a 
 total duty of $225,142.
 
 846 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTUEAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 On the basis of the enormous quantity imported since August, 1894, 
 and the steady increase of consumption it is safe to say that about 70 
 per cent of all such, under a protective tariff, would be manufactured in 
 this country, giving employment to hundreds, making a safe investment 
 for capital, giving a boom to the farmer and the miller in the sale of the 
 product of their toil, and causing a circulation in the country, for the 
 benefit of the country, of the money paid out for wages, purchase of 
 flour and other home material, and assuring the consumer a superior 
 quality of his food, a matter most essential to him. 
 
 What we ask is a fair opportunity to compete on merit, and with that 
 chance given to us— as a duty of 2 cents per pound would assure— we 
 have no fear of competition with the world. 
 
 It is that justice, that fair play that we seek your committee to give 
 us, "the protection of American industry," the cardinal principles of 
 the Kepublican party. 
 
 We feel assured that your knowledge on this matter make it unnec- 
 essary to give herein further or more minute details, but, in closing, 
 beg your careful and earnest consideration of the facts presented, and 
 we feel satisfied that on carefully weighing them you will see the justice 
 of our cause and grant the prayer of your petitioners. 
 
 Y. Savaeese Bros., 
 
 50-56 Irvimj street^ Brooklyn. 
 A. Castrucoio & Sons, 
 
 60-66 Saclcett street, Brooklyn. 
 A. Zerega's Sons, 
 
 61 and 63 Front street, Brooklyn. 
 Atlantic Macaroni Company, 
 
 West Tirenty-Jirst street, Netc York. 
 V. Spageeo Company, 
 
 Neioark, X. J. 
 A. F. Ghiglione, 
 
 195-197 Leicis street, New York. 
 State of New York, 
 
 County of Kings, ss : 
 This is to certify that on the 14th day of January, 1897, before me per- 
 sonally appeared I'^erdinando Savarese, of firm Y. Savarese & Bros.; 
 Antonio Castruccio, of firm A. Castruccio cS: Sons; Frank Zerega, of 
 A. Zerega's Sons; Augelo F. Ghiglione, of firm A. F. Ghiglione, all 
 personally known to me to be members of their resi)ective firms as 
 herein subscribed, and each, in my presence, aftixed their respective 
 firm signature to the within petition. 
 [SEAL.] Jas. J. Manual, 
 
 Notary Public, Kings County. 
 
 AMERICAN MACARONI AS GOOD AS THE IMPORTED. 
 
 St. Paul, Minn., December 30, 1896. 
 Dear Sir : The present tariff of 20 per cent ad valorem on macaroni 
 is entirely too low for this class of goods, and a specific duty of at least 
 2 or 3 cents per i)Ound would be much more satisfactory. We manu- 
 facture just as good goods right here in St. Paul as can be turned out 
 anywhere on earth, but just as long as people can get the "imported" 
 for 3 or 4 cents per pound more than the domestic they generally will 
 get the imported. 
 
 Italian Macaroni and Yermicelli Co.
 
 MACARONI. 847 
 
 A SPECIFIC DUTY DESIRED. 
 
 New York, December 30, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The present duty on macaroni is 20 per cent ad valorem. Imports of 
 macaroni in the United States for the year ending June 30, 189G, were 
 17,532,040 pounds, representing' a value of $590,830. At 20 i)er cent 
 the duty is $119,907. The market value on macaroni being very diffi- 
 cult to ascertain and this question having given much work to the 
 United States appraisers, I respectfully suggest that a specific duty 
 would give more satisfaction. 
 
 ]\Iacaroni is imported in boxes. Said boxes should be of 25 pounds 
 each, but the manufacturer never gives the full agreed weight. The 
 United States should impose a duty of 35 cents on every box contain- 
 ing 25 pounds or less; if the boxes contain more than 25 pounds a duty 
 of 3 cents on every pound in excess sliould be collected. A duty im- 
 posed in this way will oblige the foreign manufacturer to give full 
 weight, will avoid all fraud in weight on arrival in the United States, 
 facilitate matters for the appraisers, and give enough protection to the 
 domestic macaroni manufacturers. 
 
 The importation of last year having been 17,532,640 pounds, repre- 
 senting a value of $599,830, the duty at 20 per cent was $119,907. At 
 the rate of 35 cents per box, 17,532,040 pounds being equal to 701,305 
 boxes, the duty would be $245,156, an increase of $125,189, which is 
 more than double the present duty. 
 
 Hector Grassi, 
 Of L. Gandolfi & Co., Importers. 
 
 DUTY OF TWO CENTS URGED. 
 
 New York, January 8, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 Most of the macaroni factories were erected and i^ut into operation 
 during the period that the McKinley bill was in force, when a tarifi of 
 2 cents per pound specific was paid on imi:)orted pastes. 
 
 Under the Wilson bill the taritf was changed to 20 per cent ad 
 valorem, and under this tariff the average duty collected on macaroni, 
 etc., arriving here in l-]iound packages was five-eighths of a cent per 
 pound, and a little less than one-half cent per pound on macaroni packed 
 in boxes in bulk, the latter weighing 10 kilos, or about 23 pounds, 
 arriving in wooden cases. 
 
 The cost of manufacturing in this country — labor and rent — is 2i cents 
 per i)ound, the same being paid on the lowest obtainable labor and the 
 factory operated on the most economical basis throughout, whereas the 
 same labor and rent in Italy is only one half cent per pound, and I 
 therefore desire and absolutely require a protective duty of 2 cents per 
 pound on all macaroni, sj^aghetti, vermicelli, and alimentary pastes 
 generall3^ 
 
 Since the Wilson bill has been in force, I can safely assert that all the 
 factories in this country have been operated at severe losses, many 
 having gone out of existence, and all need the protection requested in 
 order to continue the business. 
 
 The price the American manufacturers will charge under the protec- 
 tion of 2 cents per pound would probably be slightly if any higher than
 
 848 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 tliat now charged, owing to the fact that in this infant industry we 
 have since the repeal of the McKiuley bill, been unable to find a market 
 for the capacities of the factories, and in the event of adequate pro- 
 tection our output would be so increased that the cost ot manufacture 
 would be so lessened as to permit us i)rofitably to sell at present prices. 
 I estimate that about 5,000 bushels of wheat are consumed m the 
 form of farina and flour bv the manufacturers of alimentary passes m the 
 United States, and, moreover, owning to the fact that only the inost 
 glutinous wheats can be used as a basis of raw matenal, it develops 
 that we consume the most expensive and hardest wheats grown in 
 Minnesota and the Dakotas. I estimate that $4,000,000 capital is 
 already invested in macaroni factories in this country, and I claim that 
 this industry, started under the McKinley tarift', unless relieved at least 
 to the degree of the difference in labor paid here as comiiared with that 
 paid in Italy, viz, 2 cents per pound, will have to pass out of existence, 
 as we can liot meet such competition, and 1 therefore earnestly urge a 
 duty of 2 cents per pound on macaroni and all alimentary pastes 
 
 imported into the United States. 
 
 F. E. Hadley, President. 
 
 EICE. 
 
 (Paragraph 193.) 
 STATEMENT OF THEODORE G. BARKER, OF CHARLESTON, S. C. 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Barker said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have been 
 requested by a deputation composed of rice planters of south western 
 Louisiana, of rice millers and gentlemen engaged in the rice business 
 in New Orleans, and representatives of the rice interests in (icorgia 
 and South Carolina, to ])resent to you their views in a condensed form. 
 
 What we are asking for is a change in the duty on cleaned rice and 
 a slight change in tlie duty on uncleaned. The present duties are 1^ 
 cents on cleaned rice, and under the recent action of Congress they 
 have lowered the duty on uncleaned rice to eight-tentlis of one cent 
 per pound. 
 
 We represent an industry absolutely dependent on protection. That 
 dependence has been created by the action of the Government since 
 1804 or 1805, and has been continued since that time. Under the old 
 tariff the duty on cleaned rice was 2i cents i)er pound. Under that i^ro- 
 tection all of the investments of capital in the two Carolinas, in Georgia, 
 and in Louisiana, and recently in Texas, have been made dependent 
 upon that protection. Without it we can not raise rice in this country. 
 That is our contention. It is not a question of favor. It is not a ques- 
 tion of asking more or less in relation to other industries, but simply a 
 question of life or death. We are satisfied by the history of the indus- 
 tr^'^ in the two Carolinas and Georgia since 1865, where the crop has 
 been reduced one-half, coincident with the reduction of the tariff, that 
 if we are not protected against the introduction of rice grown by the 
 Asiatic cheap labor that we will go to the wall and that the domestic 
 industry will go out of existence. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is it all on account of the cheap labor abroad? 
 
 Mr. Barker. Yes, as far as we believe. There is no industry that 
 ■we know of similarly exposed to this cheapest kind of labor.
 
 RICE. 849 
 
 Mr. Payne. Asiatic cheap labor affects you in South Carolina in the 
 production of rice, then? 
 
 Mr. Barker. It affects Louisiana more. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It affects all the Southern States wherever they grow 
 rice? 
 
 Mr. Barker. Yes, sir. The product of Asiatic labor in the East 
 Indies and Japan can be brought over by long ocean transit and landed 
 in New York at such rates that we can not compete with it on the 
 present duties. That is the testimony of those gentlemen who are here 
 from Louisiana, as well as those who have, in their own experience, and 
 in the experience of their neighbors in Georgia, combined with those in 
 South Carolina, made this presentation here. 
 
 Mr, DoLLiVER. What is the ad valorem equivalent of this specific 
 duty? 
 
 Mr. Barker. It has been as high as 124 per cent. I think it is about 
 90 per cent. On that subject I desire to say to the committee that that 
 feature of the matter we contend has no bearing whatever on the merits 
 of tlie question. In spite of that high equivalent ad valorem we are 
 undergoing the process of disintegration in this industry. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Has the industry in this country ever promised to 
 supply the whole American market? 
 
 Mr. Barker. The opening of land in southwestern Louisiana and 
 also I understand recently in Texas, according to this statement 1 have 
 before me, in which these gentlemen concur, has resulted in a stimulus, 
 under protection, which, if the proper protection is given, will result 
 in a sup])ly sufticieut to meet the domestic consumption of the whole 
 United States. 
 
 I would state that the argument that we hold with regard to this 
 matter is that rice is an article of luxury and not one of prime neces- 
 sity. At the same time it is an article of use and consumption in this 
 country at the present time. But in time of war it is a necessity for 
 use in hospitals and for troops ; and the question which will be presented 
 to Congress upon this matter will be. Will this industry be obliterated 
 entirely by failing to protect it so that in time of war we may be cut off 
 entirely from import and be without this article, which will then become 
 a necessity. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Are there different styles of cleaned rice? 
 
 Mr. Barker. No, sir; but there is an article that has never had the 
 benefit of our protection which is called uncleaned in the tarili, and 
 there is a little cleaning process done to it; so that it is really nothing 
 else than cleaned rice; and that is the one special grievance of those 
 who are the advocates of the duty on the uncleaned article. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Does your brief cover your suggestions for the purpose 
 of remedying that evil? 
 
 Mr. Barker. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Turner. You say that this industry is in the process of disin- 
 tegration. Do you mean all over the country, or simply in Carolina? 
 
 Mr. Barker. I take the testimony of these gentlemen from Louisiana 
 that they are losing money under the present tariff every year. 
 
 Mr. Turner. There has been a diminution rather than an increase 
 in rice production under the present tarifi'? 
 
 Mr. Barker. I can not say that is attributable to the present tariff, 
 because it has varied with the difference of crops, but there has been 
 
 large decrease in a few years past in the production of rice. 
 
 Mr. Turner. There was a large increase at one time? 
 
 Mr. Barker. Yes, sir. 
 T H 54
 
 850 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Mr. Turner. That I remember; but bas there beeu any improvement 
 in the quality of rice grown in the East Indies and India? 
 
 Mr. Barker. I believe in Japan they make a very tine article. 
 
 Mr. Turner. That they call patna? 
 
 Mr. Ernst. ISI^o, sir; it is Japan and Java rice. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Does it arrive here in good condition ? 
 
 Mr. Barker. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. I understand you that the present duty on cleaned 
 rice of li cents you find sufficient, even from your point of viewf 
 
 Mr. Barker. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman (continuing). And that the duty on uncleaned rice 
 of eight-tenths of a cent is what you specially desire raised ? 
 
 Mr. Barker. That has been lowered from the former duty on which 
 our investments are made, down from 2^ cents. I think it used to be 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. It was 1| cents under the act of 1890. 
 
 Mr. Steele. What duty do you ask now? 
 
 Mr. Barker. That the duty on cleaned rice shall be restored to what 
 it was. 
 
 Mr. Steele. What was the duty? 
 
 Mr. Barker. We want it put back to 2 cents a pound from li 
 cents, to which latter figure it has recently been lowered; and that the 
 duty on uncleaned rice, which has been lowered recently to eight-tenths 
 of a cent, be put back to a parity, according to A'alue, with the duty of 
 2 cents on cleaned rice. 
 
 The Chairman. The duty last year was li cents. That is 100 per 
 cent. 
 
 Mr. Barker. Yes, sir; that is the equivalent ad valorem. 
 
 The Chairman. I notice that uncleaned rice is valued i)recisely the 
 same as cleaned rice, and yet the duty on that has been reduced to 
 nine-tenths of a cent. That is peculiar. Perhaps you can explain it. 
 
 Mr. Barker. That is one of the points we wish strongly to malce — 
 that the present duties admit this uncleaned rice at a much lower figure 
 than cleaned rice, when its value is nearly the same as cleaned rice, 
 and the uncleaned rice after it is brought into this country can be con- 
 verted into cleaned rice at a very small cost. Mr. Ernst will tell you 
 all about that. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. F. G. ERNST, OF NEW ORLEANS, LA. 
 
 Ti^ESDAY, January 5, 1897. 
 Mr. Ernst said: I would like to present these sam])les to the com- 
 mittee, to show the necessity of defining each grade of rice. Here is a 
 sample of paddied rice. 
 
 (Mr. Ernst exhibited to the committee various samples of rice.) 
 Now, after the hull is taken oft" it comes to the unclean state. In 
 the brewers' rice, where the rice is broken, we ask the committee, in 
 order to avoid frauds that were perpetrated under the previous act, to 
 insert that a No. 12 wire sieve should be used, because there were cases 
 where this broken rice was mixed with whole-grain rice and invoiced 
 as broken rice, at a small duty, and when it was received in this coun- 
 try it was just sifted out through the No. 12 sieve, and the whole grain 
 was sold as grocers' rice. We want that rice defined as uncleaned. 
 Here is uncleaned Japan rice [exhibiting samples of rice]. This rice
 
 RICE. 851 
 
 has the outer hull oif and the inner cuticle on. Here is the sami>le 
 they are trying to import as uncleaned rice [exhibiting]. They say that 
 is uncleaued rice. That is practically clean rice. 
 
 Mr. Payke. From the price stated in the statistics it would look as 
 though the nncleaned rice was the plain rice. 
 
 Mr. Ernst. The invoice price is about the same, and where they can 
 get this in as nncleaned rice they can save about 70 cents a hundred 
 duty. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How much does it vary in the cost price abroad? 
 
 Mr. Ernst. We have figures showing that in the brief. There is 
 very little difference. 
 
 The Chairman. There appears to have been made a difference of 
 nearly one half according to the act of 1894. 
 
 Mr. Ernst. Because there has been such a quantity imported as 
 nncleaned rice when it was really cleaned rice, and we therefore wish 
 those definitions retained. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. What do you call the brewers' rice? 
 
 Mr. Ernst (illustrating with the sample). We ask that that sieve be 
 retained in the Appraiser's office so no whole grain will pass through, 
 as has been done in previous years. We do not require the rate to be 
 changed on the broken rice, because it is a by-product. It is a natural 
 breakage. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Do you mean to say that the rice now used by the 
 brewers generally is imported ? 
 
 Mr. Ernst. Yes, sir. They grind the whole rice to make it now. 
 The invoiced price of the brewers' rice is little different from the No. 1 
 rice. It is only the rate of duty that makes it cheaper to the brewer. 
 They have to grind up their whole rice to supply the brewer. 
 
 STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE REPRESENTING THE RICE INDUSTRY. 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, our object in appear- 
 ing here on behalf of American growers and millers of rice is to ask 
 protection against the destruction which is threatened to our industries 
 by foreign capital and foreign cheap labor. 
 
 If rice grown by Asiatic labor is allowed to be imported under rates 
 of duty so low as to bring the imported article into competition with 
 domestic rice, our American industry, which now totters, must perish, 
 a valuable institution be lost, and the United States must become 
 dependent upon foreign countries wholly for its supi)ly of an article 
 which, though a luxury and not an article of prime necessity, never- 
 theless represents an annual consumption by our people of about 
 228,000,000 pounds, valued at |G,840,000. 
 
 It is recorded in history that Napoleon found that rice was essential 
 to his army as the most convenient ration for a soldier to transport, 
 the easiest cooked, and the most wholesome food. The general use of 
 rice in hospitals shows that in time of war what may now be only a 
 luxury would then become a necessity. If meantime the domestic prod- 
 uct has been allowed to perish, when a state of war forbids importa- 
 tions from the East this country will be left without any supply. 
 
 We ask your committee that, in framing a new tariff" bill, not only 
 the definitions in the present tariff" law be retained, but that the rates 
 on the different grades of rice should be fixed on a ijarity with each 
 other according to values.
 
 852 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Wheu the Wilson committee was consideriug the tariff ou rice, it was 
 made clear to those gentlemen that the bill they reported, as far as the 
 l^arities were concerned, was correct and consistent with itself. When 
 that bill came before the Finance Committee of the Senate (where no 
 hearings were had) the whole tariff on rice was changed. 
 
 Our Senators informed those interested in rice that the bill would go 
 to a committee of conference, and that the rates as fixed by the House 
 bill would be restored. As there was no conference committee 
 appointed, and as the House adopted the Senate bill, the rice-farming 
 interests were made to suffer, and they and those dependent upon them 
 have been feeling it disastrously ever since. 
 
 What we ask for is that the duties shall be as follows, viz : 
 
 Cleaned rice, 2 cents per pound. 
 
 Uncleaned rice, or rice free of the outer hull and still having the 
 inner cuticle on, li cents i)er pound. 
 
 Broken rice which will pass through a sieve known commercially as 
 a ^o. 12 wire sieve, one-fourth of 1 cent per pound, and — 
 
 Paddy, or rice having the outer hull on, 1 cent per j)ound. 
 
 The only changes proposed from the existing tariff are that cleaned 
 rice shall pay a duty of 2 cents instead of li cents per i)ound; that 
 the article designated as "uncleaned rice" shall pay a duty of 1^ cents, 
 as against the existing low-tariff rate of eight-tenths of 1 cent per 
 pound, and that paddy shall pay a duty of 1 cent per pound instead of 
 the j)resent rate of three-fourths of 1 cent per pound. 
 
 It will be objected to our position that in 1893, under a duty of 
 2 cents per pound ou clean rice, the revenue collected was $781,469.71 
 on an importation of 36,307,129 pounds, while in 1895 a revenue of 
 $1,202,324.68 was collected on a total importation of 79,407,908 pounds. 
 The explanation is that a large deficit in the supply for consumption in 
 this country was created by the almost total destruction of the rice 
 crops of the Atlantic States of Georgia and the Carolinas by a cyclone 
 of extraordinary violence in 1893 and by the loss of crop in Louisiana 
 in 1894, the increased importation being due to the necessity of making 
 up this deficit for consumption in the United States and not to the low- 
 ering of the duties. It will be seen that in the year ending June, 1896, 
 the importations returned to the normal figures of 1893 and of 1894. 
 A comparison of the years 1894 and 1896 w^ould be a more just and 
 proper test of the effect of the duty. It will be seen that in 1894 the 
 total revenue on all forms of rice under the higher duties was 
 $988,592.04, while in the year ending June, 1896, under the lower 
 duties, the revenues from all kinds of rice was $810,843.81, showing a 
 loss to the Government of $177,738.23 in revenue between that collected 
 under the higher and lower duty. 
 
 If " cleaned rice" is required to pay a duty of 2 cents per pound, the 
 relation of values of the imported article to the cost of production will 
 be only in a measure restored to what pertained under the old tariff, 
 while the duty of 1^ cents per pound on "rice uncleaned" will approxi- 
 mately maintain the true parity, according to values of "cleaned rice" 
 and "uncleaned rice," and at the same time give ample protection to 
 the interests of the American miller. 
 
 It has been our sad experience that the boldest, most active, and suc- 
 cessful attacks upon the interests of the producers of rice in the legislation 
 upon the tariff have come from two individuals in New York who have 
 erected machines of inexpensive character for polishing into "cleaned 
 rice" the article which has been imported under the name of " uncleaned 
 rice." Although this interest is confined, as far as known, to these two
 
 RICE. 
 
 853 
 
 persons in New York and one other person owning a similar machine 
 in San Francisco, employing about ten operatives, who appear as the 
 American miller importing " uncleaned rice," yet the rate of duty as 
 proposed on "uncleaned rice" will furnish these gentlemen a fair 
 measure of protection. 
 
 For example, take the tariff which we propose : 
 
 The tariff on 100 pounds, foreign milled, cleaned rice $2. 00 
 
 The tariff on 100 pounds uncleaned rice (on a 50-ceut parity), add 20 cents 
 for cost of milling in Louisiana and Carolina, would be for 100 pounds 
 '•'uncleaned rice," milled here 1. 70 
 
 giving a profit to the American miller of 30 cents per 100 pounds. A 
 capacity of 100,000 pounds per diem for an averaged-sized mill would 
 show a profit of $300 per day, which ought to be ample protection to 
 the importer and miller of ''uncleaned rice." 
 
 The following figures show the very close approximation in value of 
 the imported "cleaned rice" and the imported "uncleaned rice" and 
 how little justification there is for a disparity between them in the rates 
 of duty imposed: 
 
 Comparative import values of cleaned and uncleaned rice. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Cleaned 
 rice, per 
 pound. 
 
 Uncleaned 
 rice, per 
 pound. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Cleaned 
 rice, per 
 pound. 
 
 Uncleaned 
 rice, per 
 pound. 
 
 1892-93 
 
 Cents. 
 2.09 
 1.78 
 1.61 
 
 Cents. 
 2.10 
 1.94 
 1.52 
 
 1895 
 
 Cents. 
 1.64 
 1.65 
 
 1.50 
 
 Cents. 
 1.45 
 
 1893-94 
 
 1895 
 
 1 46 
 
 1894 
 
 1896 
 
 1 22 
 
 
 
 
 Shall the almost infinitesimal interest of the polishers of imported 
 "uncleaned rice" weigh against the larger interest of the domestic 
 producers and manufacturers of rice, and of the population dejiendent 
 upon the rice industry in the United States'? 
 
 It is estimated that in Louisiana there are 25 rice milling plants, 
 representing invested capital not less than $2,500,000, employing on an 
 average 30 hands each, making 750 employees. 
 
 It is said that in southwestern Louisiana rice production and milling 
 are almost the sole industry, and that almost the ent re population is 
 dependent upon it. 
 
 There are in the rice district probably 200,000 acres in cultivation. 
 
 In 1892-93 the production was 2,250,000 sacks of 4 bushels each. 
 
 There is probably 1,000,000 acres of land in southwestern Louisiana 
 suitable for rice culture and specially adapted to rice. 
 
 There are irrigating plants and canals in operation costing $500,000. 
 
 The population dependent upon the rice industry in Louisiana is 
 believed to be not less than 80,000 people. 
 
 In Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina there are over 70,000 
 people whose support would be destroyed or desperately imperiled if 
 the industry is allowed to die. 
 
 The entire rice industry since the emancipation of slaves has, as we 
 believe, been sustained by the protection given to it in the tariff act 
 imposing duties on importations of foreign rice. 
 
 In 1861, during the late war, rice, which can now be bought for 3 J to 
 4J cents, sold in New York for 15i cents gold. 
 
 Whether the men who framed the tariff act of 1865 saw the danger 
 of permitting the domestic rice production to perish, or how far they 
 were moved to protect the industry for the sake of the large body of
 
 854 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 emancipated slaves who were absolutely dependent on it for tlieir 
 livelihood, we can not say; but from whatever calculation their wisdom 
 came, the entire capital which has been since invested in maintaining 
 the industry has been invested on the faith of the continuance of its 
 protection. 
 
 IsTow, as it was in 1865, unless it is ijrotected against the competition 
 of Asiatic labor by a high-tariff fence, strictly and sternly guarded at 
 our custom-houses, it must die. 
 
 The history of rice production in Georgia and the Carolinas has been 
 one of constant retrograde, coincident with the constant decrease of 
 protection by the lowering of the duties on rice and the evasions of 
 the tariff law by importers of foreign rice. 
 
 The cost of producing rice is estimated to be about $24 per acre ; the 
 average yield about 32 bushels; the average price not over |20 per 
 acre. The repairs necessary to be made annually in keeping the arti- 
 ficial structures of tide water or irrigated rice lands, such as heavy 
 embankments along the edge of the rivers and embankments dividing 
 the tields and cross-ditches, requiring constant cleaning ; tanks or flumes 
 across the banks for letting the irrigation water from the rice into the 
 field or draining the water of the tields into the rivers, requiring con- 
 stant repairs; cost of pumj^ing plants to assist drainage, cost of tliresh- 
 iug mills, and the like, constitute the heavy items of expense involved 
 in the production of domestic rice. 
 
 Owing to the impossibility of the landowners keeping the exi>enses 
 of rice planting within the income from sale of their products, jjlanta- 
 tion after plantation on the Atlantic seaboard has been abandoned. 
 
 With such conditions as surround the production of domestic rice, it 
 is impossible to exist under the present tariff" of li cents per pound on 
 cleaned rice and eight-tenths of 1 cent per pound on uncleaned rice. 
 
 In framing the rice duties, ad valorem rates should not be c<msidered 
 at all, as we know from consular reports made to our Government that 
 the wages paid in China, Japan, India, and other Eastern countries are 
 from $10 to $12 per annum, and from to 10 cents per diom in silver, 
 whereas a conservative estimate shows that the labor employed in the 
 production of domestic rice runs from $180 to $230 per annum, and 
 from 50 cents to $1 jier diem in gold. 
 
 As compared with other protected industries, especially the manu- 
 facturing industries, the rice industry occupies the isolated position of 
 being the only American industry which is exposed to competition Avitli 
 cheap Asiatic labor, without the aid of the superior intelligence of the 
 American white labor and of our improved labor-saving machinery. 
 The rice industry is comi)elled to rely on the labor of the African and 
 to be to a great extent without the help of machinery. 
 
 As to the importance of defining uncleaned rice as at present defined, 
 your committee will note that during the existence of the McKinley 
 tariff there was a great deal of controversy between the appraisers as 
 to what constituted uncleaned rice. 
 
 In New Orleans rice that was appraised as cleaned rice was imported 
 into New York as uncleaned, even after the Wilson bill was put into 
 effect, with uncleaned rice defined. Attempts were made to import 
 rice with the hull and cuticle removed as "uncleaned rice." 
 
 The tariff" being very plain, it was appraised as (leaned rice and the 
 full duty exacted. However, the importers were not satisfied and 
 appealed to the United States courts in New York. A decision was 
 rendered last month in favor of the appraiser in the United States 
 courts.
 
 KiCE. 855 
 
 Therefore, gentlemen, you will understand how necessary it is to 
 retain the detinitiou in the present tarili'. It has relieved the appraisers 
 of a great deal of worry, has prevented frauds, and the Government 
 has received its just dues. 
 
 In conclusion, we call your attention to what the St. Louis platform 
 has to say on this point of protection : 
 
 We demand such an eqiiitable tariff on foreign imports which come into competi- 
 tion with American products as will not only furnish adequate revenue for the neces- 
 sary expenses of the Government^ but will protect American la])or from degradation 
 to the wage level of other lands. We are not pledged to any particular schedules. 
 The question of rates is a practical question, to be governed by the conditions of the 
 time and of product. The ruling and uncompromising principle is the protection 
 and development of American labor and industry. 
 
 Eespectfully submitted. 
 
 John Screven, 
 Bepresenting the Board of Trade of Savannah^ Ga., 
 
 and the Georgia Bice Association. 
 Theodore G. Barker. 
 Sam'l G. Stoned, 
 President West Point Bice Mill Company, of Charleston, S. C. 
 
 Isaac Ball, 
 Bepresenting Charleston Chamber of Commerce 
 
 and Planters of South Carolina. 
 Fred. G. Ernst,. 
 Emile Dttpke, 
 Bepresenting the JSew Orleans Board of Trade, Louisiana. 
 
 Chas. a. Lowry, 
 Urison Abbott, 
 C. L. Crippin, 
 Pla7iters of Southicest Louisiana. 
 Geo. G. Bauer, 
 Bepresenting LaTce Charles, Louisiana, Board of Trade. 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 (G. A. 3385.) 
 
 PATNA RICE. 
 
 Before the United States General Appraisers at New York, February 7, 1896. 
 
 In the matter of the protests, 89444 a, 90720 a, etc., of Dan Talmage's Sons, against the decision of the 
 collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain mer- 
 ■ chandise imported per Missistippi, Europe, France, Mohawk, and Europe, and entered March 22, 
 March 30, April 12, May 1, and May 20, 1895. 
 
 Opinion by Somerville, general appraiser. 
 
 The merchandise covered by the protests is Patna or Bengal rice of the same 
 description as that covered by Board decision in re Jahn (G. A, 1067), which was 
 held to be dutiable under paragraph 261 of the tariff act of 1890 as "uncleaued rice." 
 That decision was affirmed on appeal by the United States circuit court for the 
 southern district of New York (perLacombe, J.), June 16, 1892 (opinion unpublished). 
 
 In a more recent decision (in re Wo Lung, G. A. 3041), similar merchandise, 
 imported under the tariff act of 1894, was held by the Board of General Appraisers 
 not to be dutiable as "uncleaned rice" within the meaning of that phrase as found 
 in paragraph 193 of the latter tariff act, either expressly or by similitude. 
 
 The hearing in these cases was given in order to reopen the whole question 80 as 
 to afiord importers of this merchandise an opportunity to be fully heard.
 
 856 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 The evidence taken at the hearing establishes the following facts without serious 
 
 controversy: . , ^ x, ,, , i- i j? 
 
 (1) The merchandise in question consists of the well-known article of commerce, 
 Patua or Bengal rice, which was imported under the tariff act of 1894. 
 
 (2) It contains from three to five per cent of "rice polish," otherwise known as 
 rice dust, rice Hour, or rice meal, and a small percentage of broken grains of rice, 
 and prior to August 28, 1894, was known commercially as " uncleaned rice." 
 
 (3) Not only iias the outer hull been removed from the rice, but u ho the inner or 
 yellow cuticle, the latter process beiug accomplished by pestling in mortars, which is 
 the most expensive of the various processes of milliug rice. 
 
 (4) These milling processes are shown by the testimony to be (as stated in the 
 opinion of the Board in re Jahn, G. A. 1067) as follows: 
 
 (1) The "screening," or second threshing given the rough rice or "paddy," designed 
 to remove trash, stalks, and foreign particles. (2) The removal of the outer husk by 
 the •'niilling stones." (3) The separation of the chalfaud other substances by the 
 "screen blower" and "chaff fan." (4) The removal of the yellow cuticle of the grain 
 by pestling in mortars, which is the most laborious and expensive of the several 
 processes. (5) The separation of the rice bran from the rice grains by sifting, and 
 the separation of the small and large grains of rice by the " brush screen." (6) Pol- 
 ishing, which is accomplished by a horizontal revolving drum, covered with leather 
 and surrounded by a cylinder of wire gauze. 
 
 Tbe collector assessed the merchandise for duty as "rice cleaned" at H cents per 
 pound under paragraph 193 of the present tariff act; and the claim made by tl^o 
 importers is (1) that it is dutiable at eight- tenths of a cent per pound under said 
 paragraph 193 as "uncleaned rice"; or (2) by similitude to "uncleaned rice" under 
 said paragraph and section 4 of said act; or (3) at no more than 20 per cent ad valo- 
 rem as a uonennmerated partly manufactured article under section 3 of said act. 
 
 We construe the alternative plirase "or rice free of thef>uter hull and still having 
 the inner cuticle on," as used in said paragraph 193, to 1 e intended as a h filslatice 
 defivitiun of "uncleaned rice," just as in the same paragraph we find the words 
 "paddy, or rice haviiuj the outer hull on," where the alternative words are manifestly 
 intended as a definition of the word "paddy." This construction is justified, we 
 think, by the entire history of the contention in these rice cases, as will l)e seen Irom 
 the opinion of the Board in re Jahn (G. A. 1067, 8ui)ra) and the testimony taken by 
 the Ways and Means Committee of the Fifty-third Coiign ss, first session (Tariff 
 Hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means, 1893, pp. 640 and 642). 
 
 The tariff laws are replete with alternative or e.Kplauatory definitions of this kind, 
 which have been recognized as such by the courts. 
 
 Taking this view of the law it is manifest that the rice in controversy is not 
 '-'uncleaned rice" within the meaning of that phrase as used in ])aragra])h 193 of 
 the tariff' act of 1894, because it is rice free of the outer hull, but not ^'Htill having 
 the inner cuticle on." 
 
 The jjrotests, so far as claiming under paragra])h 193, must therefore be overruled, 
 unless the classification can l)e sustained under the similitude clause of section 4 of 
 said act, which applies only to imported articles not enumerated in the present tariff 
 act. "Rice cleaned" is enumerated, and so is "rice uncleaned." The article under 
 consideration is strictly neither the one nor the other of tliese articles. Which of 
 jhcm does it most resemble "either in material, ([iiality, texture, or the use to which 
 it may be applied"! Resemblance in "texture" has lio bearing on the case, and we 
 therefore confine the inquiry to similarity iu material, quality, and use. The only 
 lack of substantial resemblance in material and quality between the rice in question 
 and cleaned rice is the presence of about 4 per cent of rice polish or flour in the 
 former article and its absence from the latter. The use of each is for food, the one 
 being more merchantable than the other. This resemblance is so great that a court 
 of competent jurisdiction in the year 1888 decided that Patna or Bengal rice, sub- 
 stantially of the same kind, was the clean rice of commerce. (Pferdmenges v. Jones, 
 Cir. Ct. N. D. La., 1888, Synopsis, Treasury Department, 9445.) It is the substantial 
 resemblances only which are to be considered in determining the question of simili- 
 tude under this section, as under the analogous section 2499 of the Revised Statutes 
 of the United States appearing iu former tariff' acts, which was often construed by 
 the courts. (Arthur v. Fox, 108 U. S., 125.) 
 
 The differences in material and quality between the articles commercially known 
 as "cleaned rice" and "uncleaned rice," as defined by the present tariff'act, are 
 marked, viz, the presence in the latter article of the yellow inner cuticle, which can 
 be removed only by a very expensive process of inauufactiire by pestling in mortars, 
 and wliich until removed renders all rice unfit for human food. 
 
 It is further provided in said section 4 as to the matter of similitude — 
 "That if any nonenumerated article equally resembles two or more enumerated arti- 
 cles on which different rates of duty are chargeable, there shall be levied on such 
 nonenumerated articles the same rate of duty as is chargeable on the article which it 
 resembles jaayiiig the highest rate of duty."
 
 RICE. 857 
 
 If it be conceded that the rite in question equally resembles the two articles of 
 cleaned and uncleaned rice, the law would still re(iuire its classiiicatiou by simili- 
 tude as "cleaned rice," because that article pays a higher rate of duty than uncleaned 
 rice. The statute by legislative command thus reverses in this instance the usual 
 rule, which would otherwise give the importer the beneiit of the doubt favorable 
 to the lower rate of duty. 
 
 It follows from these views and the findings of fact above enumerated that the 
 protests must be all overruled and the collector's decision affirmed in each case, 
 which is accordingly ordered. 
 
 Note. — The above case was appealed to the United States circuit court at New 
 York City 
 
 The deci ion of the court was rendered December, 1896, sustaining the decision of 
 the appraisers. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY GUSTAVE A. JAHN & CO., OF NEW 
 YORK, N. Y., REPRESENTING THE MILLERS OF FOREIGN RICE. 
 
 New York, January 9, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We beg to call the kind attention of yonv committee to the inclosed 
 copies of official statistical statements, etc., the accuracy of which can 
 not be disputed, being matter of official record. These we most respect- 
 fully submit to you for your favorable consideration in support of our 
 earnest appeal for justice to the millers of foreign rice in this country, 
 by restoring to them the three fourths cent per pound differential duty 
 between cleaned and uncleaned rice; also to insert a new classification, 
 that of partially cleaned rice, or rice in the meal, commercially known 
 in the foreign markets as "Kough Bengal," principally exported from 
 Calcutta, and rough or undressed Java exported from Java ports, which 
 were admitted into this country prior to the enactment of the tariff of 
 1894 as uncleaned rice. 
 
 By reference to the table of receipts of Louisiana rice in New Orleans, 
 compiled by T. J. Salvant for the New Orleans Board of Trade, for 
 the last nineteen years, it will be seen that- there has been a steady 
 increase in the crop since 1884, more especially so since 1890 and 1891, 
 excepting a year or two of excessive drought, which resulted in the loss 
 of some of Providence crops, so called, because of its cultivation with- 
 out irrigation. Where irrigation is resorted to, the crops are of large 
 yield' and good quality. This ought to be conclusive proof that the 
 planter of domestic rice has not suffered any injury, nor is the rice- 
 planting industry of the country in danger of destruction by reason of 
 the difference of three-fourths cent a pound between the duty on cleaned 
 and uncleaned. 
 
 The table of imports of cleaned and uncleaned rice is taken from the 
 records of the Bureau of Statistics in Washington, covering a period 
 of fourteen years, showing the proportionate percentage of uncleaned 
 as to the cleaned out of the total rice imports for the five years prior 
 to 1888 to have been only 10 per cent. In 1888 it reached 41 per cent, 
 and from 1889 to 1896, inclusive, 36 per cent. The year 1888 proved a 
 very disastrous one for the millers of that year's importations, several 
 of whom sustained losses from which they have never recovered, and 
 the fact that of the four firms engaged in the rice milling business in 
 New York in 1894 one has since failed, another has withdrawn from the 
 business and dismantled their mill in consequence of the unprofitable- 
 ness of the business, it is practically demonstrated that the differential 
 of three-fourths cent per pound between the cleaned and uncleaned is 
 not excessive nor out of relative proportion, nor unduly favorable to 
 the uncleaned article, for if such were the case the results, so far as the
 
 858 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 New York millers are concerned, would liave been otherwise than to 
 drive them out of the business. 
 
 The amount raised in this country is about 325,000,000 pounds and 
 the imports of foreign in the Atlantic ports, principally New York, an 
 average of 79,111,000. This clearly indicates that abolit^ 80,000,000 
 pouncfs of foreign is annually required to meet the wants of the country. 
 
 The only question is as to whether it sliall be milled in this country 
 at a living profit to the miller and afford employment of hundreds of 
 men here, or milled abroad for the benefit of the foreign miller and 
 laborer and be imported in the cleaned state. 
 
 GUSTAVE A. Jahn & Co. 
 
 Tabic shoivhig increase of nee receipts. 
 [As compiled by T. J. Salvant, for the Board of Trade, New Orleans, La.] 
 
 Year. 
 
 1877-73 
 1878-79 
 1879-80 
 1880-81 
 1881-82 
 ] 882-83 
 1883-84 
 1884-85 
 1885-86 
 1886-87 
 
 Kough 
 rice. 
 
 Sackn. 
 233, 707 
 279. 611 
 182, 999 
 445, 397 
 435, 692 
 392, 750 
 459, 559 
 333, 692 
 889, 212 
 838, 476 
 
 Clean 
 rice. 
 
 Barrels. 
 16, 682 
 21, 045 
 11, 152 
 
 29, 812 
 39, 390 
 37, 736 
 41,055 
 32, 333 
 57, 983 
 48, 566 
 
 Year. 
 
 1887-88 
 1888-89 
 1889-90 
 1890-91 
 1891-92 
 1892-03 
 1893-94 
 1894-95 
 1895-96 
 
 Rough 
 rice. 
 
 Sach 
 G26, 
 737, 
 777, 
 892. 
 
 1, 052. 
 
 1, 972. 
 921, 
 789, 
 
 1, 305, 
 
 Clean 
 rice. 
 
 Barrett. 
 23, 263 
 29, 227 
 7,441 
 4,115 
 5,640 
 6,4i)0 
 6,295 
 1,650 
 7,4S2 
 
 Imports of forcif/n rice for each year ending June SO for the past ten years since the dif- 
 ferential duty between cleaned rice and uncleaned rice ivas placed at threc-fuurtlis of 1 
 cent per pound, and which practically demonstrates that said differential duty, placing 
 the duty on uncleaned rice, could not have been out of relative proportion or unduly in 
 favor of uncleaned rice, for if so all or main imports toould have been uncleaned. 
 
 [Statistics submitted taken from records of Bureau of Statistics, WasMugton, D. C] 
 
 Year. 
 
 Cleaned 
 rice. 
 
 Uncleaned 
 rice. 
 
 1883. 
 1884. 
 1885, 
 1886, 
 1887, 
 1888, 
 1889 
 1890 
 1891 
 1892 
 1893 
 1894 
 1895 
 1896 
 
 Poiinds. 
 
 63, 909, 474 
 
 64, 098, 827 
 58, 850, 662 
 43. 445, 483 
 33.731,463 
 49, 297, 108 
 64,164,192 
 49, 933, 563 
 69. 957, 877 
 51,714,617 
 39, 073, 485 
 30, 330, 167 
 79, 495, 172 
 41, 968, 806 
 
 Ponndg. 
 1,942,212 
 9, 158, 943 
 10, 264. 604 
 5, 294. 005 
 4, 000. 642 
 34, 448, 984 
 23, 831. 949 
 21, 562, 385 
 27.204,916 
 22, 1.56. 939 
 17.342,405 
 20, 574. 403 
 44, 889, 054 
 22, 748, 959 
 
 KoTE.— These figures do not include rice from the Hawaiian Islands, free of duty, nor paddy. 
 
 Five years prior to 1888 total imports of rice were 294,696,315 pounds, of which 
 30,660,405 was nucleaued, or 10.04 per cent. 
 
 lu 1888 the imports were — 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Cleaned rice 49 297 108 
 
 Uncleaned rice !.-"...'.".'.!'.'.!'.'..".'.". 34)448^984 
 
 ■^otal 83,746,092
 
 RICE. 
 
 859 
 
 Percentage of im cleaned, 41 per cent. 
 
 Total imports, 1889. to 1896 (inclusive), were 632,888,889 pounds, of which 200,311,010 
 pounds wore iincleaued. 
 Percentage of uncleaned, 31 per cent, 
 
 Treasitri/ Department report. 
 [Bureau of Statistics for August, 1896, page 289.] 
 
 Articles. 
 
 Rates of duty. 
 
 Quantities. 
 
 Values. 
 
 Duties. 
 
 Average \ Average 
 
 value peri ad valo- 
 
 unit of ' rem rate 
 
 quantity.! of duty. 
 
 Rice: 
 
 Free from Hawai- 
 ian Islands 
 
 Free 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 4, 354, 500 
 
 41,915,521.26 
 
 22, 748, 959 
 
 15, 894 
 
 68, 984, 491. 50 
 
 $163, 571. 00 
 
 627, 216. 04 
 
 350, U28. 07 
 
 244.00 
 
 916, 512. 05 
 
 
 $0. 037 
 .015 
 .015 
 .015 
 
 .013 
 
 
 
 IJ cts. per lb.. 
 j"i5 ct. pur lb. .. 
 1 ct. per lb 
 
 J ct. per lb 
 
 $628, 732. 93 
 
 181,991.68 
 
 119. 22 
 
 172, 461. 32 
 
 100 24 
 
 Uncleaned 
 
 Paddy 
 
 51.99 
 48.70 
 
 Eice flour, meal, and 
 
 18.81 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 138, 019, 365. 76 
 
 2,057,571.16 
 
 983, 305. 15 
 
 . 015 47. 80 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tlie difference between the average ad valorem rate of duty on cleaned rice and 
 that on uncleaned of 48.25 is explained by the fact that the cleaned rice imported, 
 during the year ending June 30 consisted principally of grades, such as Raugoons, 
 Basseins, and Siams, costing about 1^ cents per pound, whereas the uncleaned was 
 Jajian, a much higher grade and worth fully one-half cent per pound more. 
 
 Hod the uncleaned been of the same grade as the cleaned the value of the former 
 instead of being $350,028.07 would have been $227,489.59, and the average ad valorem 
 rate would have been 80 instead of 51.99, showing the difference to be only about 20 
 in favor of the uncleaned instead of 48.25. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY WILLIS M. MORRIS, A LOUISIANA 
 
 RICE PLANTER. 
 
 Iowa, La., December 38, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 1 desire to call tlie attention of the committee to tlie inadequate pro- 
 tection of rice. We can readily produce all tlie rice for the needs of 
 this country if we do not have to compete with the poorest-jiaid labor 
 in the world. The last two years have been years of disaster for the 
 rice planter. This section of country will produce rice, but nothing 
 else to an advantage; and as only a small portion of the land is rice 
 laud, owing to the fact that it can bo grown only on tlie lowest lands, 
 which can be flooded at certain stages of the growth of rice, and oft- 
 times only in very small patclies of land, a destruction of the rice 
 industry means a reduction of this country to a desert. It is chximed 
 by some that, owing to a defect in theMclvinley bill in regard to paddy 
 or uncleaned rice, importers evaded the law so that the present tariff 
 affords more revenue and protection than the former. However true 
 that may be I am not informed, but such a loophole should not occur 
 again. 
 
 When alleged "newspapers" from this vicinity are brought before 
 the committee showing the enormous profits of rice growing, an exam- 
 ination will show them to be only organs of a syndicate of land sharks 
 who wish to dispose of worthless land to innocent "home seekers." 
 Rice is a very expensive crop to produce. 
 
 Willis M. Morris, 
 
 Formerly of Illinois.
 
 860 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY DAN TALMAGE'S SONS, OF NEW 
 
 YORK CITY. 
 
 New York, January 22, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are iust in receipt of a copy of the memorial on rice addressed 
 von by the Lake Charles Board of Trade and "statement of the dele- 
 eatious of the rice industry before the committee," January 5. Ihe 
 former, in sustaining their plea for added protection, set f(n'th that 
 foreign rice now enjoys an advantage, and state: "Foreign can now be 
 placed on the New York market, cleaned and the duty i)aid, at 82.o0 
 to $2.75 per hundred pounds." As a matter of fact, said values are the 
 nominal cost in bond (and not duty paid) of medium or what are termed 
 general grocery grades. The lowest style of foreign rice, which by the 
 way is unsuitable for the United States, can not be placed on the New 
 York market cleaned and the duty paid below a cost of $3.45 per hun- 
 dred pounds, said rice including no profit or commission. Medium or 
 general grocery grades cost $3.70 to $4.25 per hundred pounds and 
 higher grades as quality advances up to 85 per hundred pounds. 
 
 We also take issue with various assertions of the "delegations on the 
 rice industry" before the Committee on Ways and Means, January 5. 
 
 (1) To their assertion : 
 
 It lias been our sad experiences that the ablest, most active, and successful attacks 
 upon the interests of the producers of rice in the legislation upon the tariff have 
 come from two individuals in New York, 
 
 We are one of the parties thus pilloried, and are constrained to say 
 in contra, tlie older members of the aforesaid delegation know very 
 well that such is untrue so far as it refers to us, and that while the 
 youngest member thereof was as yet unconceived and others in swad- 
 dling clothes the writer hereof was advocating (18G5) before your hon- 
 orable committee the retention of the war duties, in order to the more 
 speedy rehabilitation of the Southern rice industry, and such has been 
 our uninterrupted and consistent attitude ever since. 
 
 (2) To their assertion that the mills of New Y'ork are "machines of 
 inexpensive character for polishing into cleaned rice the article which 
 has been imported under the name of uncleaned rice," the gentlemen 
 must be ignorant as to the cost and character of milling ])lants at the 
 North and as to uncleaned rice importable under the tariff, to wit, 
 "Rice free of the outer hull and still having the inner cuticle on." 
 Anyone conversant with milling of rice will testify that "polishing" 
 will not bring said prescribed "uncleaned rice" into "cleaned rice." 
 Furthermore, that the subsequent and requisite milling processes to 
 which said "uncleaned rice" is subjected, are far more severe and 
 destructive to the grain than the single process antecedently applied 
 to make such "free of the outer hull." 
 
 (3) To their request that there be a reduction of the present differ- 
 ence in duty between cleaned rice and uncleaned rice, to wit, that said 
 present difference of duty, 70 cents per 100 ])ouiids, be reduced to 50 
 cents per 100 pounds, asking that the duty should be as follows, 
 namely, "Cleaned rice, 2 cents; uncleaned rice, or rice free of the 
 outer hull and still having the inner cuticle on, IJ cents per pound, we 
 can but say that the plea and illustration of the rice growers that one- 
 half cent difference in the duty is sufficient is specious and mislead- 
 ing. In considering the question we ask your earnest attention to the
 
 RICE. 861 
 
 following facts in connection with the importations of nncleaned rice : (1) 
 That in order to secure jOO pounds cleaned rice a much larger quantity 
 of uncleaned has to be imported, with consequent increase in the mat- 
 ter of freight and other incidental charges; (2) expenses of milling and 
 large per cent of by-products made in such process; (3) net losses on 
 by-products, much of said by-products often realizing only about one- 
 third of the duties and less than a tithe of prime cost, inclusive of 
 freight and duty. 
 
 The difference between these respective styles has for many years 
 been 75 cents per 100 pounds, and was narrowed 5 cents per 100 
 pounds under the tariff bill of 1894. As a result of this apparently 
 inlinitesimal narrowing, one of the largest and best rice mills in this 
 city has, during the past year, been dismantled, the owners thereof 
 claiming that the fractional difference destroyed what had always been 
 a moiety profit, ''tipping the scale" in favor of cleaned rice. As to 
 the mills in New York being "machines of inexpensive character for 
 polishing," etc., we would like to state that the dismantled mill, our 
 own, and, so far as we know, every other in the city, were or are 
 capable of treating rice from start to finish, i. e., of taking " paddy, or 
 rough rice having the outer hull on," and bringing it into the highest 
 of cleaned forms. 
 
 We file a most earnest protest against the rates of duty proposed on 
 uncleaned rice and in narrowing of margin between it and cleaned, 
 asking that, whatever inay be the rate prescribed upon cleaned rice, 
 the difference between it and uncleaned should be restored to three- 
 fourths cent per pound. If it be the pleasure of the committee to 
 raise the duty on cleaned rice to 2 cents per pound then we ask that 
 the other styles of rice be rated as hereinafter mentioned and that there 
 be included in the new tariff" a provision by which certain styles of 
 rice, known as " mealed rice," may be brought hither and the labor of 
 preparation for commercial and consumptive use be performed in the 
 United States rather than abroad. We might state that these styles 
 never leave the country of their production in other than the form 
 suggested. We now ask that the duties be as follows : 
 
 Clcaued rice, 2 cents per pound. 
 
 Uncleaned rice: (1) Mealed rice, or rice with the inner cuticle disintegrated and 
 partly removed bnt requiring further milling processes, li cents per pound. (2) Rice 
 free of the outer hull and still having the inner cuticle on, 1^ cents per pound. (3) 
 Paddy, rice having the outer hull on, one-lialf cent per pound. 
 
 Broken rice, which will pass through a sieve known commercially as No. 12 wire 
 sieve, one-fourth cent per pound. 
 
 We respectfully ask and urge that, whatever changes are made 
 from the existing tariff', the difference between cleaned and uncleaned 
 (1) shall be not less than one-half cent per pound; that the difference 
 between cleaned and uncleaned (2) shall not be less than three-fourths 
 cent per pound. These differences will make the duties fairly relative 
 one to the other, and simply give equal chances of importation to each 
 of the respective styles. 
 
 We submit in this connection that fractional preference, if any, might 
 well be given to the uncleaned, in that the milling of the rice within 
 the United States brings added labor to the citizens thereof. 
 
 We herewith hand a statement of the production of cleaned rice in the 
 United States showing how this industry, practically destroyed by the 
 civil war, was speedily rehabilitated, and the last five years amounted to 
 quite 50 per cent over any equal period anterior to the war. (Exhibits 
 A and B.) For comparative purposes, we also present the aggregate
 
 862 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS, 
 production for each five years of the period covered in statistics sub- 
 
 Dan; Talma ge's Sons Co., 
 John F. Talmage, President. 
 
 Exhibit A. 
 
 Aggregate production of rice in the United States for each f re years, 1S47 to 1896. 
 [Statistics Dan Talmage's Sons Co.] 
 
 Tear. 
 
 1847-1851 
 1852-1856 
 1857-1861 
 1862-1866 
 1867-1871 
 1872-1876 
 1877-1881 
 1882-1886 
 1887-1891 
 1892-1896 
 
 Pounds, 
 cleaned. 
 
 552, 
 484, 
 547, 
 20, 
 205, 
 305, 
 443, 
 573, 
 662, 
 794, 
 
 113, 400 
 110.000 
 255, 6(»0 
 705, 970 
 480, 180 
 676, 350 
 340, 190 
 040,410 
 555. 400 
 563. 900 
 
 Exhibit B. 
 
 Production of rice in the United States from 1847 to 1896. 
 
 [Statistics Dan Talmage's Sons Co. Pounds cleaned.] 
 
 Year ending- 
 
 1847. 
 
 1848. 
 1849. 
 1850. 
 1851. 
 1852 . 
 1853. 
 1854. 
 1855 . 
 1856. 
 1857 . 
 1858. 
 1859. 
 1860. 
 1861. 
 1862 . 
 1863. 
 1864. 
 1865. 
 1866. 
 1867. 
 1868. 
 1869. 
 1870. 
 1871. 
 1872. 
 1873. 
 1874. 
 1875. 
 1876. 
 1877. 
 1878. 
 1879 . 
 1880, 
 
 North Caro- 
 lina. 
 
 North and 
 
 South Caro. 
 
 lina. 
 
 Georgia. 
 
 Louisiana. 
 
 93, 488, 
 81,381, 
 96,751, 
 86, 662, 
 81,414, 
 81,776, 
 84, 188, 
 82,981, 
 64, 150. 
 85, 662, 
 83, 043, 
 89, 436, 
 93, 607, 
 96,516, 
 82, 171, 
 (a) 
 (a) 
 (a) 
 2, 471. 
 7, 500, 
 12, 018, 
 16, 659, 
 23, 428, 
 25, 423, 
 25, 800, 
 25, 705, 
 28, 344, 
 
 25, 840, 
 28, 360, 
 
 27, 354, 
 
 28. 940, 
 
 26, 926, 
 25. 304, 
 
 c 38, 252, 
 
 800 
 
 000 
 
 200 
 
 600 
 
 600 
 
 400 
 
 400 
 
 800 
 
 200 
 
 000 I 
 
 000 
 
 600 
 
 800 
 
 000 
 
 200 
 
 22, 043, 400 
 21,081,600 
 
 22, 408, 800 
 25, 675, 200 
 21.361,200 
 
 23, 957, 400 
 18, 279, 000 
 18, 448, 800 
 
 6, 721, 866 
 17, 944, 200 
 16, 521, 600 
 18, 807, 000 
 22, 625, 400 
 21, 369, 000 
 21, 429, 000 
 (a) 
 (a) 
 (o) 
 (a) 
 (a) 
 8, 429, 200 
 6, 171, 800 
 10, 720, 800 
 15, 217, 800 
 15, 000, 000 
 b 6, 750, 000 
 11,924,400 
 
 14, 221, 200 
 13, 002, 600 
 
 15, 100, 200 
 
 16, 087, 800 
 
 17, 914, 200 
 
 18, 437, 400 
 
 24, 344, 400 
 
 1, 679, 000 
 2,051,830 
 2, 086. 280 
 
 1, 580, 790 
 
 2. 269, 180 
 2, 746, 490 
 4, 706, 720 
 4, 982, 590 
 9, 502, 910 
 
 13, 329, 880 
 14, 088, 880 
 b 6, 870, 790 
 12, 007. 380 
 22, 338, 980 
 26. 450, 000 
 41.400,000 
 41,630,000 
 b 32. 892, 000 
 b 37, 772, 000 
 25, 000, 000 
 
 Total. 
 
 115, 477, 200 
 102, 402, 600 
 119,160,000 
 112,2.37,800 
 102, 775 800 
 105,733.8110 
 
 102, 467, 400 
 101, 430, 600 
 
 70, 872, 000 
 
 103, 600, 200 
 H9, 064. 600 
 
 108, 243, 600 
 
 116. 293, 200 
 
 117,885,000 
 
 106, 279, 200 
 
 2,051,830 
 
 2, 086, 280 
 
 1, 580, 790 
 
 4, 740, 580 
 
 10, 246, 490 
 
 25, 154, 720 
 
 27, 813, 790 
 
 43,651,910 
 
 53, 970, 880 
 
 54, 888, 880 
 
 39. 325. 990 
 
 52, 275, 780 
 
 62. 400. 380 
 
 67,813.400 
 
 83, 800, 800 
 
 86, 628, 200 
 
 77, 732, 400 
 
 81, 513, 800 
 
 85, 596, 800 
 
 a No report for North and South Carolina or Georgia — civil war. 
 6 Harvest storms, 
 c South Carolina.
 
 BUTTER, CHEESE, AND EGGS CONDENSED MILK. 863 
 
 Production of rice in ike United States from 1S47 to 1S9G — Continued. 
 
 Tear ending — 
 
 1881.... 
 1882.... 
 188;^.... 
 1884.... 
 ]885 .... 
 1880 . . . . 
 1887.... 
 18£8.--- 
 1881).... 
 
 189U 
 
 1891 .... 
 
 1892 
 
 1893.... 
 
 1894 . . . . 
 
 1895 . . . . 
 1896.. 
 
 North Caro- 
 lina. 
 
 5, 160, 000 
 8, 220, OUO 
 7, 128, 000 
 7, 467, 600 
 
 8, 292, 90O 
 h 5, 250, 000 
 
 9, 000, 000 
 
 5, 400, 000 
 
 6, i;U, 500 
 6,818,700 
 
 7, 650. 000 
 6, 697, 800 
 6, 818. 400 
 
 h 3, 937, 5U0 
 4, 000, 000 
 2, 720, 000 
 
 North and 
 South Caro- 
 lina. 
 
 «30, 
 6a 20, 
 ba 27, 
 a 26, 
 a-i2, 
 a 30, 
 a 32, 
 a 28, 
 a 26, 
 a 30, 
 a 28, 
 a 27, 
 a 33, 
 6a 11, 
 a 22. 
 o27. 
 
 052, 200 
 815. 200 
 349, 800 
 913,000 
 306. 700 
 398, 700 
 395, 800 
 455, 000 
 637, 300 
 432,900 
 275, 000 
 183, 900 
 250, 500 
 372, 445 
 364, 800 
 901, 440 
 
 Georgia. 
 
 24, 715, 200 
 b 18, 345, 000 
 b 18, 457, 200 
 21,119,400 
 22, 902, 000 
 b 14, 496, 300 
 19,973,700 
 11, 975, 700 
 13, 709, 400 
 15, 095, 400 
 13, 125, 000 
 12,005,700 
 15, 078, 000 
 b 8, 688. 015 
 b 6, 656, 000 
 10, 464, 000 
 
 Louisiana. 
 
 Total. 
 
 51, 
 
 55, 
 
 47, 
 
 55, 
 
 46, 
 
 100, 
 
 94, 
 
 67, 
 
 81, 
 
 79, 
 
 87, 
 
 109, 
 
 182, 
 
 c98, 
 
 c76, 
 
 dm, 
 
 941, 590 
 224. 610 
 150, 000 
 200, 000 
 000, 000 
 050 000 
 300. 000 
 800, 000 
 250, 000 
 375, 000 
 7.50, 000 
 778, 200 
 400, 000 
 867. 200 
 800, 000 
 600, 000 
 
 111,868,990 
 102,604,810 
 99. 985, 000 
 110,700,000 
 109,561,600 
 150, 195, 000 
 155, 669, 500 
 113, 630, 700 
 124, 733, 200 
 131,722,000 
 136, 800, 000 
 155, 665, 600 
 237, 546. 1100 
 122,805, 160 
 109, 820, 800 
 168, 065, 440 
 
 rt South Carolina. 
 b Harvest storms. 
 
 c Drought during growing season in Louisiana. 
 
 d Unfavorable growing conditions. Largo per cent of poor quality, and, because of exceptionally 
 low values, devoted to feeding purposes ; not reaching commercial channels. 
 
 BUTTER, CHEESE, AND EGGS, 
 
 (Paragraphs 194, 195, and 198i. ) 
 
 Point Reyes Station, Cal., December 29, 1896. 
 Dear Sir: I would suggest for tlie interest of the dairymen in gen- 
 eral all over the Union that a higher duty be put on butter, cheese, and 
 eggs. I would have, if possible, the tariff on butter at 10 cents per 
 pound, same rate on cheese, and an equal or higlier duty on eggs. You 
 know that the dairy industry has been entirely ruined since the Wilson 
 bill has been in operation, so we must do something for the dairymen 
 as well; that is, we should consume what we produce at home tirst and 
 encourage home productions, and those who want to buy imported stuff 
 can afford to pay for it. 
 
 P. F. SCILACCI. 
 
 CONDENSED MILK. 
 
 (Paragraph 196.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ANGLO-SWISS CONDENSED MILK 
 COMPANY, OF NEW YORK. 
 
 iN'EW York, December 29, 1896, 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We beg to respectfully request that in your tariff investigations tlie 
 question of duty on condensed milk receive due consideration. 
 
 While this company, as you will observe from our letter lieading, is 
 organized under the laws of Switzerland, its chief promoters, chief 
 managers, and the chief investors in the enterprise are native-born 
 American citizens.
 
 864 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 This company lias invested in manufacturing plants in the States of 
 New York and Illinois over $800,000. This important investment in 
 the United States was invited by existing protective duties securing 
 the home market to domestic manufacturers. 
 
 To show the importance of the home market, it is estimated that 
 about one-half of the world's output of condensed milk is consumed in 
 the United States. It is further estimated that only about 1 per cent 
 of the condensed milk consumed in the United States is imported. As 
 regards exportations, we have less positive information, but do know 
 that exportations considerably exceed importations. 
 • In England 5.39 per cent of the cost of production consists of labor; 
 in Switzerland and Germany, 6.07 per cent; in the United States, 8 per 
 cent. These figures regarding labor in Europe and in the United States 
 are positively reliable, the same having been taken from accurate sta- 
 tistics for 1895. 
 
 The present average cost throughout the year of fresh milk in Eng- 
 land is $1.33 per 100 pounds; in Switzerland and Germany, $1 per 100 
 pounds; in the United States — New York and Illinois averaged — $1 
 per 100 pounds. The European prices named for fresh milk are the 
 lowest of fluctuating prices. On the other hand the prices of fresh 
 milk in America are much less subject to fluctuation. 
 
 The price of American-made tin plate is now somewhat less than the 
 price of English tin plate plus the American duty. 
 
 The difierence in the cost of sugar in Europe compared with the cost 
 of sugar in the United States is determined almost entirely by the 
 amount of American duty levied on sugar; therefore the duty neces- 
 sary to be levied on condensed milk in order to protect the home market 
 is involved in the amount of American duty levied on sugar. 
 
 The cost of producing condensed milk in America is now much less 
 than it was in 1890, while the cost of production in Europe has but 
 slightly decreased since that date ; therefore a much lower rate of duty 
 on condensed milk would be amply protective. 
 
 Considering the American disadvantages arising from dearer sugar 
 and dearer labor — though labor is a minor factor — and the American 
 advantage to the extent of the freight from iMiiope to tlio United States, 
 and assuming that the present duty on sugar will remain, a duty of 1 cent 
 per pound on condensed milk will aflbrd ample protection to the home 
 market. 
 
 Sterilized milk, in tin cans, preserved without sugar, is a new product 
 and so unlike condensed milk preserved with sugar that we suggest that 
 it be scheduled separately, and that condensed milk j^reseived with 
 sugar be described difterently than it is found to be designated in the 
 tariff act of 1894, so that the two kinds, very dissimilar in character, shall 
 not be confounded in the tariff schedule. We suggest that one article 
 be designated "condensed milk preserved with sugar," and the other 
 article "sterilized condensed milk preserved without sugar." 
 
 The cost of labor is about 50 per cent greater in jjroducing sterilized 
 condensed milk preserved without sugar than in manufacturing con- 
 densed milk preseived with sugar, but the American duty on sugar, be 
 it more or less, is, of course, not involved in the production of sterilized 
 condensed milk. A light duty per pound on this article would be 
 protective. 
 
 Tlie duty should be exclusively specific. An ad valorem duty is 
 indefinitely protective and yields an uncertain revenue. 
 
 Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Co., 
 
 Geo. H. Page, General Manager.
 
 SUGAR OF MILK. 865 
 
 SUGAR OF MILK. 
 
 (Paragraiih 196.) 
 
 STATEMEIirT SUBMITTED BY THE WELLS & RICHARDSON COMPANY, 
 OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT. 
 
 Burlington, Vt., Decemher 28, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We desire to submit a short statement relative to sugar of milk. We 
 write on belialf of the National Milk Sugar Company, of which we are 
 tbe principal stockholders. They have their ottices with us, but their 
 factories are located in tbe dairying section of northern Illinois. 
 
 It is but a very few years since the manufacture of this article was 
 first attempted in this country by the predecessors of this company, 
 the American Milk Sugar Company. They met with so many difhcul- 
 ties, however, in perfecting their process and in placing their ])roduct 
 on the market that they were compelled to suspend and wind up their 
 affairs. Some of the persons interested in the company, having confi- 
 dence in the ])ro('ess which had been worked out, reorganized the busi- 
 ness under the name of the National ]\Iilk Sugar Company, and, having 
 been favored by a duty of 8 cents per pound imposed on the article 
 by tlie McKinley tarilf, they embarked once more upon tlie business of 
 its jnanufacture. Previous to the commencement of the manufacture 
 of the article in this country, during which time the article was imported 
 free of duty, the price ranged usually from 30 to 40 cents per pound; 
 but, owing to the increased competition that came about as soon as 
 its manufacture was attempted in this country, the price was rapidly 
 reduced, in the first place by the foreign makers trying to crush out its 
 nninufacture in this country, and afterwards by a competition of the 
 domestic producers. Therefore the price has for the last three years 
 averaged below one-half of the price current ten years ago, being one 
 of the plainest examples of the benefit that consumers get from the 
 manufacture of such an article in our own country, and of the fact 
 that the competition of domestic producers can be relied upon to bring 
 prices down to a reasonable basis. 
 
 We would call your attention especially to the fact that under the 
 Wilson bill the tariff on this article was reduced to 5 cents per pound. 
 The experience of the jiast two years has shown that with tlie increased 
 production we have been able to secure, and the growing demand of 
 our own markets, this rate of duty affords a reasonable protection for 
 our business, and we therefore ask that the new tariff bill maintain the 
 l)resent rate. We would also call your attention to the fact that our 
 market is almost entirely supplied at present with the product of 
 domestic manufacturers, there being but very little (if any) of the foreign 
 product imported. At the same time we have the assurance of the 
 most critical users of our goods that our manufacture is superior to 
 any that has been imported iu former years. 
 
 Wells & Eichardson Co. 
 T H 55
 
 866 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 
 
 (Paragraph 197 et seq.) 
 STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID LUBIN, OF SACRAMENTO, CAL 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN said : I desire to draw tlie attention of the committee to 
 the last two pages of the document which I will file, which gives a list 
 of things contained in this package. I wish to submit this package. 
 This package, gentlemen, perhaps is the most important in the United 
 States to-day and has a great meaning, not alone for the i)eople of Xho, 
 United States, but for the people of western and central Europe as well. 
 Much has been said about what protection does, and I wish to state we 
 are protectionists in every sense of the word. We, however, desire 
 equity in protection. So long as the manufacturers are ])rotccted by 
 tariffs on imports and so long as staples of agriculture are ex])orted we 
 desire to have them protected by a bounty on the exports, which is the 
 only way by which they can be protected; and this is in operation in 
 Europe, and the need of that is in these books. The United States 
 statistics show we exported $5,000,000 worth of agricultural machinery 
 to the cheap land and labor countries of the world. These are cata- 
 logues of factories in Europe manufacturing agricultural nuK^hinerj', 
 and these agricultural machines are being scattered on the great steppes 
 of Eussia, Argentina, North Africa, all the parts of the earth wliere 
 land is plentiful, where labor is cheap, and this is destructive of the best 
 interests of the American Republic, injuring not alone. the American 
 Eepublic, but Western and Central Europe as well. I say it isdestru(;- 
 tive to American interests, and I do not speak here because I chami)ion 
 the cauvse of the farmer any more than I (;ham])ion the cause of the 
 shoemaker, but because in the history of nations there are two bodies — 
 one a radical set of men, the progressive city men, and the conservative 
 country men. Those two forces make a liberal Government possible, 
 and when this force — the conservative force — is injured, it f>ulls down 
 the other force and destroys liberal government 
 
 The Chairman. The question of an ex])ort bounty is not before the 
 committee now for consideration. If you will confine 
 
 Mr. LuBiN. Tou are i)erfectly right. I wish to submit these books, 
 these catalogues of manufacturers of agricultural im])lements in the 
 different countries of Europe [picking up the ])ami)hlets]. This is a 
 French manufacturer, here is a great English manufacturer, and here 
 you have the Hungarian manufacturer of mowers, reai)ers, binders, and 
 everything we manufacture here. This is about half of the collection. 
 These agricultural machines in the cheap land and labor countries are 
 having the effect of destroying and lowering the world's prices, aiul con- 
 sequently the lowering of the prices in the United States, and anything 
 that touches the staples of agriculture touches the nonstaples of agri- 
 culture and destroys all agriculture, and so long as we have protection 
 for manufactures by a tariff on imports which has the effect of enhanc- 
 ing tlieir prices in the home market, we must in order to ecpialize con- 
 ditions also have a bounty on exports on agiicultural staples to like- 
 wise i)rotect and enhance their prices in the home market. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. What is the obje<-t in submitting these books? 
 
 Mr. LuBiN. Showing that agricultuial nuichineiy is being made there;
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 867 
 
 that the United States had a monopoly iu the beginning of cheap lands 
 and machinery, and that this machinery is now not alone being exported 
 at the rate of $5,000,000 annually to the cheap land and labor countr.es, 
 but millions ot dollars' worth are now being made in Europe and scat- 
 tered to the cheap land and labor countries, breaking down the prices 
 of the staples of the country permanently. At Budapest there was a 
 conference of about three hundred representative men of different coun- 
 tries of Euroi)e and they came to the same conclusion, that there is pos- 
 sibly no way by which the world's prices of staples can be permanently 
 enhanced. They said whatever measure was adopted to raise the prices 
 of the staples of agriculture would only encourage the products of the 
 cheap land and labor countries. Wherever there is a higher or lower 
 civilization, whatever the higher civilization raises the lower civilization 
 raises, and the lower civilized races are no match for the higher, but 
 if machinery and capital be owned and the land had almost for nothing, 
 machinery then gives them augmented power to destroy the difference. 
 
 Mr. Luljin submitted the following paper: 
 
 I appear before your honorable committee as the representative of the 
 views on protection and new tariff legislation of a large body of farmers 
 of the United States, especially of the State granges of California, Ore- 
 gon, Illinois, Washington, Missouri, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, these 
 State granges having formally indorsed the views to be presented. In 
 addition to these, there were also formal indorsements by the Chambers 
 of Commerce at San Francisco, Portland, Oreg., and Seattle, Board of 
 Trade at Bath, Me., the Farmers' Congress at Atlanta, Ga., the Feder- 
 ated Trades and Labor Council of Chicago, Atlantic Coast Shipowners 
 and Shii)builders at the INIaritime Exchange in Philadelphia, a joint 
 meeting of the representative leaders of the National Grange and lead- 
 ing commercial interests, the Republican State platform of California, 
 and by a large number of petitions forwarded on to both Houses of 
 Congress during the last session. All these are my credentials as to 
 representation. 
 
 It is now in order for me to present thoroughly and clearly the views 
 to be submitted. This I will endeavor to do as briefly as possible. 
 
 Before stating what measure of protection or just what tariff rates 
 would be satisfactory, I deem it in order to state first just what kind 
 of protection or tariff' rates would be unsatisfactory. 
 
 Speaking for the people whose indorsement gives me the right to say 
 I represent, I would say that under the present system of protection, 
 first, when limited to a tariff' on imports, we would not be satisfied with 
 the rates as they now are; second, it would also be unsatisfactory if 
 they were lowered; third, it would be equally unsatisfactory if the 
 rates were raised. 
 
 What we object to and protest against at this time is not the rates, 
 biit the system of protection when limited to a tariff on imports. As 
 is well known, duties are not so much levied for the purposes of rev- 
 enue as they are for the purpose of protection. This is made clear 
 when a review is made of the Reports of the Treasury Department 
 Statistics of Finance and Commerce, No. 2, for 1896-97. The last five 
 entries on page 253 show that for the past five years about 54 per 
 cent was merchandise ent* red on the free list and about 46 per cent 
 was dutiable. For 1896 there was entered free $368,897,523, and the 
 dutiable was $390,769,561. A further review of the following pages up 
 to page 299 will clearly indicate the true purpose of the duty. The 
 items are discriminatingly chosen — not for their revenue value, but for 
 purposes of protection.
 
 868 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 It is also clearly evident that for purely revenue purposes the items 
 on the free list would serve the better purpose and would bring any 
 necessary i-evenue for Government expenses with less cost and to a 
 greater certainty. It is therefore clear that the dutiable items are 
 selected m-imarily for the purpose of protection. 
 
 Why this discrimination? What is it intended to effect? 
 
 In former years it was said that protection was intended to aid the 
 upbuilding of manufacture. This having been done, the old cry has 
 been abandoned for a new one, which is, "Protection for American 
 labor against the competition of the pauper labor of the world," or, as 
 the Philadelphia Ledger puts it, "That measure of protection which 
 will equalize for the benefit of our capital and labor the difference 
 between the wage rates paid abroad and those paid here in kindred 
 industries." 
 
 Since this system is now in operation, it is in order to inquire whether 
 it produces the effect aimed at. Does it protect? It certainly does and 
 not alone to the extent of the duties collected but with the additional 
 compounded profits of middlemen added to it. 
 
 Taking these profits at 15 per cent for the importer, 20 per cent for 
 the jobber, and 25 per cent for the retailer, we find that for 1S9<I tlio 
 duties collected were $157,013,500. Add 15 per cent for the importer's 
 profit on the duty and we find the imports artificially enhanced above 
 the world's price $23,552,025, which when added to the original amount 
 makes a total cost of duty and importers' profits on duty of $180,5G5,5;>1. 
 Now add 20 per cent for jobbers' profits on the duty, and the amount is 
 130,113,106, which when added to the jobbers' cost for the duty, swells 
 the total to $216,678,637. To this add the retailers' profit of 25 per cent, 
 making $51,169,659, which when added to the retailers' cost of duty, 
 makes a grand total cost for duty to the consumer of $270,848,296. 
 
 Let it be understood right here that the figures with the additional 
 profits are not for goods or labor on them or for costs of transporta- 
 tion; they simply are the direct result of the protective system. If 
 there were no protection there would be no $270,818,323 to pay by con- 
 sumers on imports of these goods. They would be sold here at the 
 world's free-trade prices. 
 
 But, say some, where would we get the money to pay for Government 
 expenses? The answer is clear; it can be had by collecting revenue 
 for revenue's sake purely, by levying a corresponding duty on the 
 $368,897,523 now on the free list. 
 
 But what difference would that make to the consumer, seeing that 
 the middlemen's profits would likewise be added to these? 
 
 It would make a great difference; it would compel all home manufac- 
 tures to be sold at the free-trade world's price, the aggregate artificial 
 enhancement on which is very much greater than the duty and the 
 profits added. 
 
 This much greater sum, together with the duty andtheprofits thereon, 
 is the real cost of protection. 
 
 The protective tariff itself is but the wall behind which it becomes 
 possible to artificially raise wages, interest, profit, rent, and incomes in 
 all industries and occupations excepting in the production of agricul- 
 tural staples. These, as is well known, by reason of its necessary 
 surplus, are sold for export and for home use at the world's free-trade 
 prices. 
 
 There was a time in the history of this movement when this was 
 denied, but it is no longer so. except it be by the secretary of the Home 
 Market Club
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 869 
 
 Even so strong a protection paper as the Philadelphia Ledger, in its 
 issue of December 23, plainly says: 
 
 The United States is an exporting nation and there is no protection for the farmers 
 and growers of staples who supply the preponderating amount of the exports. 
 
 So, then, if agricultural staples can not be protected in the home 
 market by a tariff on imports, it must necessarily follow that they are 
 in direct competition with the staples of the world. Protection in this 
 instance fails to operate. Some, seeing this defect, deny that it is the 
 intention of the protection party to exclude agricultural stai)les from 
 the benefits of j)rotection. These seem to be sorry that the tariff on 
 imports can not act protectively on this industry. 
 
 In Washington, on the Columbia Eiver, there are huge revolving 
 wheels for catching salmon. At regular intervals there are paddle 
 boxes which in revolving catch the fish and land them in a receptacle 
 on the bank of the river. Of what use would it be to have a reverse 
 set of boxes attached to the fish wheel ? Of no use whatever, for a fish 
 could not be landed that way in a thousand years. 
 
 Can we not truthfully say that a tariff which protects manufacture 
 and can not protect the staples of agriculture is like a fish wheel hav- 
 ing front and reverse paddle boxes, and that in this case the manufac- 
 turer has the side which lands the fish while the farmer stands waiting? 
 This would, perhaps, be a good joke if it were not so costly. The fail- 
 ure of the protective system to operate for the farmer is not alone a 
 denial of privilege which renders this system paternal class legislation 
 pure and simple, but it does much more, it lifts the artificial fiat values 
 irom the shoulders of all directly or indirectly protected in the United 
 States, together with the accumulative and compounded profits thereon, 
 and lands tliem squarely on the shoulders of agriculture, not merely on 
 the producers of agricultural staples, but on all agriculture. For, ulti- 
 mately with the decrease of the area of cultivation of the staples by 
 reason of decline in prices and increase of the noustaples, all agriculture 
 is brought down to a free-trade level. 
 
 The following example will illustrate the operation of the present 
 protection system: Let A and B enter into copartnership. Let A's 
 assets be Mexican dollars, which B is to accei)t, not at their present 
 market value, but at United States coin rates, but B's assets must be 
 of an equal number of dollars in gold. Now, compel B to withdraw 
 only Mexican dollars, at United States dollar rates, and give A the 
 privilege to withdraw United States gold coin, and what would happen? 
 Anyone can see that B would be cheated, and, in the end, ruined. Now, 
 what difference is there between this example and the system of pro- 
 tection now in operation ? Does it not place the products of the farmer 
 into the hands of the protected at free trade prices'? And does it not 
 likewise compel the unprotected farmer to pay protection prices for all 
 labor and necessaries (excepting staples)? 
 
 Upon close inquiry it will be found that a leading incentive to our 
 present protection system springs from a desire to ameliorate the con- 
 dition of workingmen, especially those in large manufacturing centers. 
 The claim is broadly made that unless they are protected wages would 
 come down to the world's level. 
 
 The claim is frequently made, especially in campaign times, that labor 
 is the conservator of our Republic; hence labor is the right arm of the 
 nation. There is, in fact, no more truth in this statement than there is 
 in the claim that farmers are nature's noblemen. As a matter of fact, 
 the average farmer is no more nature's nobleman than is the average
 
 870 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 shoemaker, barber, or hod carrier. It is, however, a fact, and a fact 
 throughout history, that the independent farmers of a nation when per- 
 mitted political privileges are the conservators of liberal governments. 
 They are conservators, not because they are nature's noblemen, but 
 because they are conservatives. They are conservatives because their 
 isolation, their environment, makes them so. 
 
 Citizens of cities, on the other hand, are radicals and progressionists. 
 They are so because of the greater density of population in which they 
 live "and because of their environments. 
 
 Whatever the opinions may be as to the question of sui)eriority of 
 one body of people over another, whether the laborer be the right arm 
 of the nation or whether farmers are nature's noblemen, it does not fol- 
 low that we must by an unjust protective system help " the right arm 
 of the nation " to seat himself on the chest of " nature's nobleman." 
 
 Viewing this matter purely from the point of justice and equity, it 
 follows that if we must protect A we must at the same time protect B. 
 If we find that B can not be protected, it follows that we should not 
 then protect A. 
 
 Many statesmen while admitting this proposition as an axiom in 
 equity, are inclined to reject it on the ground of expediency. They 
 claim that it is impossible for legislation always to travel in the narrow 
 path of equity. Their sense of equity is tempered by expediency. 
 Very good. We now propose to argue our case from the point of view 
 of expediency. It may have been expedient in times past to borrow, as 
 it were, from the farmer a portion of his resources for the upbuilding 
 of manufactures. When this was done land in competing countries 
 was high, whereas here it was cheap. Later on it may also have been 
 expedient to take from him a portion of his resources and distribute it 
 in the form of protection, as the Ledger says, "which will equalize for 
 the benefit of our capital and labor the difference between the wage 
 rates paid abroad and those paid here in kindred industries." That 
 was at a time when land was still cheap and when our farmers M-ere 
 the almost exclusive users of agricultural machinery. 
 
 Unfortunately for the present system of protection these former 
 advantages are gone never to return. Land is no longer cheap, and 
 agricultural machinery is now being used in the cheapest land and 
 labor countries of the world. As an evidence of this I will quote 
 from the Yearbook United States Department of Agriculture for 1895, 
 jiage 68 : 
 
 The struggle to obtain for the offerings of the American farmer the markets of the 
 globe is fiercely carried on between him anrl every other farnior in all tlie world. 
 They are brothers in agriculture, as were Abel and' Cain, brin^'ing the fruits of the 
 ground for approval. He who briugs the best and cheapest will find approval in 
 welcoming purchasers and remunerative prices. 
 
 Competition is fiercer every year. American inventions, improved implements and 
 machinery for saving labor on the farm and for saving the fruits of that labor are 
 exported to Africa, Europe, South and Central America. Thus our own recipes and 
 contrivances for cheap production are used abroad to strengthen the abilities of for- 
 eign farmers to contend with our own in foreign markets. " Inlbrniation direct from 
 Russia, from Argentina, and from Africa tells of larger sales of American agricultural 
 implements and machinery annually in each country. 
 
 Thus competition is made far more formidable hj the increased use in foreign 
 parts of our own improved machines and implements with which American manu- 
 facturers more than ever are supplying them. 
 
 This portion of the report of the Secretary of Agriculture is correct 
 so for as it goes, but it does not go far enough. He mentions the com- 
 petition of American agricultural machinery exported to the ciioai)iand 
 and labor countries, but no mention is made of the many factories now
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 871 
 
 operatinji" in Europe producing: agricultural machines, mostly for export 
 to the cheap land and labor countries, which are the direct competitors 
 of the American farmer. 
 
 Duriug tlie months of June to October of this year I visited Europe 
 for the purpose of gathering information on this question. Factories 
 for the manufacture of agricultural machinery were visited, and a col- 
 lection was made of their price lists and catalogues. These are here 
 submitted for the consideration of this committee. As they are illus- 
 trated, there will be no necessity to become familiar with foreign lan- 
 guages in order to make out what these catalogues mean. 
 
 Here in almost every one of these books you will see illustrations of 
 reapers, mowers, seed drills, cultivators, thrashing machines, harvest- 
 ers, engines, pumps, everything wanted in all branches of agriculture. 
 Compared to the capacity of these factories, our $5,000,000 annual 
 exports of agricultural machinery and implements are insignificant in 
 amount. 
 
 There is a strong probability that the Clayton and Shuttleworth Com- 
 pany of England and Austria turns out annually as much if not more 
 than this amount alone, ^ext to this concern is the Eckert Company 
 of Berlin, whose capacity was more than doubled since I last visited 
 their factory in 1888. 
 
 I submit these catalogues to the committee in the hope that they may 
 serve to illustrate that there is a new economic world condition here. 
 
 This is clearly recognized, is clearly admitted by European statesmen 
 and economists, not because their discernment is any keener than ours, 
 but because they are nearer to the cause. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I am informed that there is to appear before your 
 committee protectionists who will urge protection to manufactures, not 
 alone against European competition, but will also submit facts showing 
 that we will soon be threatened by Asiatic competition as well. They 
 will probably inform you that the wage rate in Japanese cotton factories 
 is 8 cents a day for men and 5 cents a day for women operatives. They 
 will perhaps inform you that "in 1887, while the percentage of cotton 
 yarn produced in Japan was 18 as against 82 per cent imported, in 1893 
 the proportion had changed to 71 per cent produced in Japan against 
 20 per cent imported from abroad." They may tell you, and truthfully 
 so, that we are on the eve of a new era in manufactures; that the 
 supremacy of our wage earners over the unnumbered hordes of Asia 
 will be at an end, and that free trade, together with the employment of 
 machinery by the coolie, would level us down to the coming world level. 
 And, Mr. Chairman, when they tell you all this they will not be far from 
 the truth. The time is almost here when neither bullets nor ballots are 
 to decide. Final decision in the near future is to be by the means of 
 l^roduction by machinery, and that nation, that people will get the 
 world's job of work who will do the best work for the least money. 
 And will not the almost automatic machine respond as readily to the 
 efforts of a coolie as it does to those of a trades-union workiugman? 
 
 All this and more to the same effect will probably be said, but after 
 all, Mr. Chairman, what are the facts? It is true that we are threat- 
 ened in manufacture by Asiatic competition ; there is no doubt of it. 
 But after all a threat is not so real as a present fact, a reality. Manu- 
 facture is threatened, simply threatened, but agriculture is already 
 affected. That condition which they predicate, which they prophecy 
 as soon to affect manufactures, is already here for agriculture. While 
 manufacture sees its danger from afar, agriculture is in the midst of 
 the combat. The struggle, as Secretary Morton truthfully says, " is
 
 872 SCflEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 fiercely carried on between him (the Americau farmer) and every other 
 fanner in all the world." . , , , • , , 
 
 As an example illustrating the operation of the law which has pro- 
 duced aud is intensifying the new economic world condition in agri- 
 culture, I quote the following from the Textile Manufacturer, London, 
 September, 1896, "Cotton cultivation in the Caucasus": 
 
 Cotton was the first agricultural product of the Caucasus which drew the serious 
 attention of Russian capitalists to that country. 
 
 Since about the year 1880 one imi)ortant Moscow house has sent thousands of 
 pouds of the best American seed to the Caucasus, distributing it everywhere gratis, 
 with instructive pamphlets on the subject, translated into the language of the 
 
 country. i • i i 
 
 At first this experiment did not seem to have much effect, but in reality it marked 
 the opening of a new era for the industry, and it induced the Government to place 
 at the disposal of the chief centers of cultivation American cotton gins and saw gins. 
 
 In 1885 other prominent firms of Moscow and other towns took up the qtiestion, 
 establishing in Erivan their agencies, supplied with the best machinery of all kinds 
 and the best foreign seed, furnishing instruction gratis, teaching the peoi)le the use 
 and management of the machinery, and placing 't at their disposal when they became 
 expert at it ; aud, moreover, buying up all the crop either for their own factories or 
 for resale. 
 
 The peasants, thus freed from anxiety as to sales and from the heavy preliminary 
 expenses with regard to machinery and transport, adapted themselves more and 
 more to the new mechanical appliances, and endeavored as much as possilde to 
 extend the industry wherever the land was found to be suitable. The firms above 
 mentioned, finding the soil of the transcaucasus in many parts so well adapJed to 
 cotton planting, did not stop at Erivan, but endeavored to induce the peasants in all 
 parts to make experiments, at the same time favoring them in every ])ossil>le way, 
 so that while in the year 1884 Erivan produced but 98,920 ponds' of cotton, in 1890 
 this amount has increased to 600,000 pouds; for in the intervening years nothing 
 but cotton was sown in fields that had hitherto produced rice, sesame, and oth. r 
 grains and seeds, and even the roads were now transformed into cottou-bearin;; laud. 
 
 The general result of private and State initiative has been that, while in 1891 the 
 whole of the transcaucasian crop amounted to 98,920 pouds, in 1894 it reached 
 1,028,493 pouds. 
 
 Among the ditlerent qualities of upland seeds those which yielded the best results 
 from experiments made were the seeds of North and South Carolina, Tennessee, 
 Virginia, Missouri, and Arkansas. 
 
 The Government contributed no little to the development of the industry by dis- 
 tributing gratis a better quality of seed imported from abroad, and by introducing 
 the best class of machiner3\ 
 
 The general result of private and State iiutiative has been that with 
 this condition in agriculture and manufacture confronting us can there 
 be a question as to protection? 
 
 And if there is to be a preference, a discrimination, as to wlio shall 
 receive protection, can we honestly or justly at this time decide to 
 protect maijul'actures and leave agricultuie unprotected? 
 
 If protection is to prevent direct competition against our capital and 
 labor by pauper nations, let us ask them who it is t liat competes against 
 pauper labor. Is it the workiugman who competes against the English, 
 German, or French workiugman, or the farmer who now competes on 
 an equal level with the ryot, cooly, fellahin, moujik, or peon? 
 
 It was unquestionably good statesmanship for the founders of the 
 Eepublic to advocate a limited measure of protection for the purpose 
 of bringing into life and vigor new manufacturing industries. 
 
 These statesmen well knew that the cost of protection to manufac- 
 tures would be an indirect tax on agriculture. But they concluded, 
 and wisely so, that at that time agriculture was strong enough, rich 
 enough to stand a temporary strain. 
 
 _ At that time agriculture was strong and rich in its new lands, which 
 it obtained almost for the asking. It was strong and rich in its much 
 
 'One "poud" equals 36 pounds.
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 873 
 
 greater net returns, and it was ricli and strong when it had no such 
 pauper labor countries to com])ete against as it has now. 
 
 And even then, would these statesmen have advocated protection on 
 the plan of perpetual enhancement of manufactures at the perpetual 
 expense of agriculture? No. The new cry which protection took up 
 has no root or foundation in the original idea. Nor do we lind that 
 frankness among modern statesmen that we do in the arguments of 
 the founders. These latter frankly admitted that protection was a 
 burden on agricultural staples, and which was intended to terminate 
 on limitation, while some of our contemporary statesmen put much of 
 what the Greeks called sophisms into their arguments. 
 
 Sometimes they stoutly maintain that a tariti" on imports does protect 
 agricultural staples, notwithstanding they are exports sold in a world's 
 auction. When driven from this, they claim indirect protection for 
 agricultural staples, when, however, it is shown that any indirect jDrotec- 
 tiou which would raise the home price of these staples must at the 
 same time and to a like degree raise the world's price, and thus stimu- 
 late foreign competition and an ultimate lowering of the world's price. 
 When this is shown, they waive the indirect idea, and go in for direct 
 protection of such agricultural products as we import. When it is 
 shown that such protection only adds to the burden of the producers 
 ol" wheat, corn, cotton, tobacco, hops, or dairy products, they propose 
 diversification. And when it is shown that diversification only tends 
 to bring the nonstaples down below a profit point, they talk of bounties 
 on ])roduction of sugar. When told of the great cost and meager 
 results of bounties on production and the low world's price which sugar 
 now commands, they come to a stop, and say that we are all wrong and 
 that they are right, and some day they will get economists who will 
 demonstrate this. 
 
 And yet with all this, agricultural staples are unprotected. Shall 
 they remain unprotected so long as the present cry of protection shapes 
 the protective i)olicy ? 
 
 By what law of equity, by what law of justice, and by what law of 
 expediency shall they remain unprotected so long as manufactures are 
 protected? 
 
 Can anyone tell ? And if they are not to be unprotected, then we must 
 protect them. But how"? Shall it be by a tariff on imports? No; 
 even the Philadelphia Ledger says this is useless. What then — is there 
 a way? Yes; there is a way. and that is by an exjiort bounty. 
 
 An export bounty is a well-known method of protecting the home 
 market of such products as agricultural staples in countries exporting 
 them who at the same time have protection to manufactures. This 
 double system was in operation in England lor over one hundred years. 
 It is now in successful operation on sugar in almost all European coun- 
 tries, and is in operation on flour in France and Hungary. 
 
 It is in operation in the United States under the name of drawbacks 
 to manutacturers, who receive an export bounty of 99 cents on the dol- 
 lar from the Government duty when imported raw material is manu- 
 factured here and exported. 
 
 But some protectionists are opposed to bounties on general principles. 
 Very good; that ends protection altogether, for protection by a tariff 
 on imports makes the American producer of agricultural staples the 
 greatest bounty payer on the globe. 
 
 Some protectionists deny this, among them that stalwart protectionist, 
 the editor of the Home ?darket Bulletin of Boston, the secretary of the 
 Home Market Club, which is an adjunct of the Tariff League.
 
 874 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Some eigbt or nine months ago the Home Market Bulletin contained 
 pao-e after page of editorial reviews in which the editor labored hard 
 to show that an export bounty was not protection, and that protection 
 by a tariff on imports did not raise the price of manufactures in the 
 
 home market. . , , , . ^ ^ - i 
 
 Tlie writer, to convince him that he might be mistaken, took as an 
 example a George Wostenholm IXL knife, which he imports at 13 shil- 
 lings a dozen, bought in Sheffield, England, and which by the McKin 
 ley tariff is on the tariff" list at $-J a dozen and 50 per cent. Adding 
 this, together with the profit of importer, jobber, and retailer, placed 
 52 cents fiat or Congressional legislation value, in addition to the 48 
 cents or real world value at retail, on tlie knife. 
 
 The writer asked the editor to go to the importers, jobbers, manufac- 
 turers, and retailers of Boston and see if this could be refuted. From 
 that time on I am not aware of the fact that he has done so, or that he 
 has since then tried to show that protection to manufactures by a tariff 
 on imports was not a scheme to make th*». farmers i)ay bounties. And. 
 if farmers are compelled to pay bounties and the protected are not 
 bashful enough to receive them, on what ground, then, can they refuse 
 to pay them to the farmer? Only on the ground of selfishness, pure 
 and simple. 
 
 Our protectionist friends have time and again accused the leading 
 movers of this proposition of being free traders masquerading under 
 the guise of protectionists. 
 
 That many heretofore free traders have been won over to this cause 
 is true. That there is masquerading is not true. The waiter of this is 
 a believer in protection — in a just and equitable i)rotection; in protec- 
 tion for A and B of our country against A and J^ in foreign countries. 
 He is, however, strongly opposed to a system of protection for A at the 
 expense of B — for manufacture at the expense of agriculture. He is 
 opposed to such a system because he believes it to be unjust, inequi- 
 table, and, at this time in the world's economic history, inexpedient, 
 and which, unless rectified, must bring national decay. 
 
 Much of the effectiveness of a pa])er like this nuist deiiend upon its 
 conciseness; notwithstanding, we find a number of repetitions under 
 the head of "A new economic world condition." This is intentional 
 and as a mode of emphasis. 
 
 Not until the importance and the relation of this phase of the ques- 
 tion is understood and its bearing appreciated, not until then will the 
 people see the danger — the social, economic, and political danger in the 
 continuation of a policy which drains the American farmer of his 
 strength, especially at a time when this new economic world condition 
 and its destructive reaction upon American agriculture is upon us. 
 
 If ever there was a time when this question should be understood, 
 should be mastered, that time is now, before irreparable damage has 
 been done to the Republic. It was the custom in Kome for the Tribunes 
 of the people to announce in the Forum these words: "See that the 
 Republic receive no harm." This was said at a time when in the judg- 
 ment of the tribune there was impending danger. And is there no 
 impending danger? Can we shut our eyes to this new economic world 
 condition in agriculture which in its operation diminishes by leaps and 
 bounds the former income of the American farmer ? Can we under such 
 a condition maintain a fiscal policy and a protective system which in 
 its operation but aids the destructive tendency of the new-world condi- 
 tion? There are some who say we can ; but these can not truthfully be 
 numbered among patriotic or loyal American citizens.
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 875 
 
 While in Europe, the writer of this paper, having been provided with 
 letters of introduction and recommendation from Secretary Olney and 
 others authorizing our diplomatic agents to aid him in his investigations, 
 held a series of conferences in various countries. Space will only per- 
 mit a short synopsis of a few. 
 
 In Berlin a conference was held between Baron von Hammerstein 
 Loxten, the minister of agriculture of Prussia, his secretary, and the 
 writer of this article. The Baron kindly directed his counseling econ- 
 omists, Dr. Max Sering and Dr. Schumacher, to meet the writer in con- 
 ference. Subsequently Herr Wilhelm Turcke, manager of H. F. Eckert's 
 factory of agricultural machinery of Berlin, Germany, was invited> and 
 the conference took place. The proceedings were taken down in short- 
 hand, of which the following is a synopsis: 
 
 BERLIN CONFERENCE. 
 
 Berlin, August 6, 1S96. 
 
 Mr. LUBIN. The first question I would like to ask is: Is agriculture really suffer- 
 ing from a depression of prices of its staple products and is this depression limited 
 to a single country? 
 
 Professor Sering. The depression of prices is undouhtedly international, although 
 one country may suffer more than another. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN (to Manager Turcke). I am informed that you are at the head of the 
 largest concern in Germany manufacturing agricultural machinery and implements. 
 Do you sell your machinery in Germany only, or do you also exjjort to such important 
 wbeat-exporting countries as, for instance, Russia or Argentina? 
 
 Manager Tihcke. You are right in assuming that the concern which I manage is 
 the largest estahlishment for the manufacture of agricultural machinery in Germany. 
 We export considerably to the La Plata States, Roumania, South Africa, Australia, 
 and Russia. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN. Are you able to state from your experience what influence the intro- 
 duction of agricultural machinery has exercised on the development of countries 
 with cheap land ami labor regarding the production of large export quantities of 
 staples? 
 
 Manager Turcke. Experience has shown that by the introduction of improved 
 machinery countries with cheap land and labor have raised stajjles for export and 
 have eutered the competitive arena, which, before the advent of machinery, did not 
 export. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN. What infliience would it have on countries with cheap land and labor 
 if it were possible to withdraw all agricultural machinery introduced into such 
 countries in the last fifteen years? 
 
 Manager Turcke. The production of staples would, without a douht, decrease. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN (to Dr. Schumacher). What indnence has improvement of locomotion 
 and communication had on the increased production of stajiles? 
 
 Dr. Schumacher. The improvement of postal arrangements, telegraphic and cable 
 connections, automatic annunciators at exchanges, hotels, and otlier public places, 
 enabling the whole world to know market quotations almost at the same time, have 
 no doubt exercised considerable influence on the staple exports of countries with 
 cheap land and labor. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN. Have all these modern facilities contributed to the increased product 
 tion of the staples? 
 • Dr. Schumacher. Certainly, to a large extent. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN. Do not the traffic facilities referred to and increased use of machinery, 
 especially in cheap land and labor countries, furnish a sufficient explanation for the 
 price depression? 
 
 Professor Sering. No, not alone these but other causes must also be taken into 
 consideration. I shall refer to the most imporfant one only. Railroads ha^•e lowered 
 transportation rates; but they and steamships were the main factors in helping to 
 colonize new countries; by this colonization, some of the countries with cheap land 
 received cheap labor. During two of my visits to the West of the United States, I 
 was al)le to observe that the American farmer is suffering severely from the price 
 crisis, because he, with living expenses under which a highly cultivated population can 
 only exist in a manner worthy of human beings, can not l>ring his cost of production 
 to the low level of his competitors with cheap land and cheap labor. The present 
 depression of prices originates, therefore, from the competition of such countries as 
 Argentina and Russia, whose laborers and peasants require but little for their sub- 
 sistence.
 
 876 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 The o-reat danger threatening the farmers of central Europe and western America, 
 with their high civilization and high mode of living, is the farmer of the lower civ- 
 ilized countries, with his low mode of living. The latter's competition with his 
 staples in the raarliets of the world brings the first down to the level of the poor 
 Italian colonist in Argentina or the poor peasantry of Russia. 
 
 Mr. LUBiN. Is not a country producing less than it consumes (I mean in agricul- 
 tural staples) able to protect its agriculture in the same manner as its manufacturing 
 and other industrial interests, by levying import duties and thus raising prices? 
 
 Professor Sering. Undoubtedly it is. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN. Can a country producing a surplus over its own need (in staples) also 
 protect itself by import duties? 
 
 Professor Sering. This to me appears to be totally impossible. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN. Many politicians and economists in America would not agree with this 
 opinion of yours and would doubt your reputation as an economic expert, because it 
 is their belief that a staple-exporting country also may protect its staples by import 
 duties. 
 
 Professor Seeing. You will kindly permit me, then, to give you my reasons for the 
 opinions I hold. An import duty can only influence the home market of a country, 
 because the duty enhances the prices of such goods only which are de facto brought 
 into the country, and through it artificially raises the prices of the same class of 
 goods produced in the country in question. Th ^refore, if a country produces a sur- 
 plus of stajile products in such quantities and of such a quality tliat there does not 
 exist any economical possibility of importing them from foreign countries, a duty on 
 such staples would seem perfectly ridiculous. Furthermore, such a duty would be 
 valueless, as the home price for such staple products positively depends on the world's 
 price; for it is an assured fact that whenever production is at the exi)ort point the 
 home price of staples is then the world's price minus freight to the central ])oint of 
 distribution. If your politicians hold a diti'erent opinion, I beg you to state wliereon 
 it is based. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN. One class of economists hold the opinion that any kind of goods may 
 be protected by importduties, butdonot state their reason for this opinion. Another 
 class maintains that only manufactures and not staple products of agriculture may 
 be directly protected by import duties, but claim that by thus increasing the ])nr- 
 chasing power of those who belong to or work for protected industrial interests 
 (such as workingmen, foremen, contractors, skilled labor, etc.) they indirectly ])ro- 
 tect the producer of agricultural staples by reason of increased consumption. What 
 do you say to this statement, Professor Sering? 
 
 Professor Sering. I need not deal with the first class, as those belonging to it do 
 not or are not able to offer any reasons for their belief. With the seooncl class I 
 agree in so far that to a certain degree a strong and protected industrial develop- 
 ment is certainly able to develop a good home market for nonstaplc ])r(>ducts, such as 
 vegetables, dairy products, etc., even in countries which export staples. But it 
 must, on the other hand, be considered, (1) that most farmers are conij>elled to earn 
 their chief profits from staple products; (2) if the prices of staple products are con- 
 stantly decreasing, the nonstaples will soon follow suit by virtue of tlie I'act that the 
 farmer who hitherto only raised staples will enter with nonstaples upon the homo 
 markets and by this competition depress the price of these. This condition obtains 
 at present in Germany, and has proven very disastrous. The American farmer has 
 therefore not the slightest profit from an import duty, not even an indirect profit; 
 the result is, he bears the burden, but reaps no benefits of the protective-tarifi' svstem. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN (to Dr. Schumacher). Do you agree with the opinion that articles of 
 export can not be protected by import duties? 
 
 Dr. SCIIUMACHKlt. I do. 
 
 Mr, LuBiN (to Manager Turcke). Does not the German import duty enable von to 
 sell your agricultural machinery dearer in Germany, your home m'^ixrket, than in 
 Russia, your export maiketf 
 
 Manager Turcke. In general, it does. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN. Is this not the same with nnprotected agricnltural products of the 
 United States. Is it not possible to sell dearer in the United States and cheaper in 
 foreign countries? 
 
 Professor Sering. There is a difference, and, namely, the one, that there is no pos- 
 sibility of importing staple agricultural products intb'the United States, because it 
 produces more of these staples than its own population is able to consume. The 
 home price is therefore regulated by the world's price, sav at Liverpool, Antwerp, 
 etc., deducting freight and expenses, of course. But as far as duty on wheat is con- 
 cerned, which IS supposed to protect the farmer, it is bosh, for no' such staples are 
 brought into the United States by foreign producers. Manufactures are sold at 
 private sale, and prices are privately regulated hiuher to one person or locality and 
 lower to others^ whereas agricultural staples are sold at international prices. 
 
 Mr. l^UBiN. Do you agree with these statements? 
 
 Dr. Schumacher. I do.
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 877 
 
 Mr. LUBIN. If this is correct, then the farmer is only injured by the protective 
 tariif. He is taxed, oppressed, and underpaid for the benefit of the industrial and 
 manufacturing interests. Mr. Turcke, how much are the wages of sJiilled labor in 
 your factory? 
 
 Manager Turcke. Three to five marks per day. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN. In case such wages could be increased to $2 to $4 per day by a pro- 
 tective measure, would not the laborer in this case be enabled to consume twice as 
 much of the home agricultural staple? 
 
 Manager Turcke. I certainly am of the opinion that increase of wages would 
 bring about increased consumption of agricultural staples, but so long as they are 
 exjjorts, the production will only bring international prices in the home market. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN. Does not economic justice and equity therefore demand the protec- 
 tion of agricultural staples by an export bounty in protection countries producing 
 a surplus for export so long as the industrial and manufacturing interests are pro- 
 tected by tarifl" duties? 
 
 Professor Bering. I do not deny that that would be the logical demand of the 
 American farmer. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN. Mr. Turcke, have you a personal knowledge of the matter under dis- 
 cussiou? In what countries did you gain your experience? 
 
 Manager Turcke. As to your first question — yes. My knowledge on the subject 
 under discussion was obtained in Roumania, South Africa, and especially in Russia. 
 
 Mr. LuBLN. During how many years have you collected personal experience in 
 Russia? 
 
 Manager Turcke. During twenty years. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN. Are you able to make a short statement on the progress of agricul- 
 tural stai)]es in Russia? 
 
 Manager Turcke. It is generally admitted that Russia has made immense progress 
 in the production of agricultural staples during the last twenty years. I would 
 like to draw your attention to the fact that in the course of time the production has 
 veered around to the south, southeast, and east of Russia, where cheap land was to 
 be had. At present we observe that the movement of agricultural production is 
 extending even farther over the Volga, and it is only a question of time when south- 
 ern Siberia, as well as Transcaspia, will enter into the world's competition. 
 
 Mr. LuBiN. Is agricultural machinery imported into and applied largely in Russia? 
 
 Manager Turcke. Progress of Russian agriculture is in close connection with 
 progress of applying agricultural machinery. 
 
 SYNOPSIS OF A CONFERENCE HELD AT THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTUEE AND 
 COMMERCE OF ITALY, AT ROME, ITALY, OCTOBER 6, 1896. 
 
 Present: Giovanni Carlo Siemoni, inspector in chief of forests, attached to the 
 ministry of agriculture and commerce of Italy; Ghino Valenti, professor of political 
 economy at the Royal University of Rome and secretary-general of the society of 
 Italian agriculturists; Mario Marro, professor of rural economy at the Royal School 
 of Engineers of Rome; Hon. Wallace S. .Jones, consul-general of the United States to 
 Italy; Cav. Dr. Ernesto Chiaradia, of Rome; David Lubin, of Sacramento, Cal. 
 
 Q. (By David Lubin.) Have the prices of agricultural staples fallen within the 
 past three or four years in Italy? 
 
 A. (Valenti.) No. 
 
 Q. Have the world's prices fallen? 
 
 A. (Siemoni.) Yes. 
 
 Q. Since the world's prices fell, and the Italian did not, "were the Italian prices 
 maintained at a high rate by the protective tariff? 
 
 A. (Siemoni.) Yes. 
 . Q. Could your tariif on imports have protected these products if you had produced 
 a surplus for export? 
 
 A. (Siemoni.) No. 
 
 Q. If you had protection to manufactures by a tariff on imports, and if yon pro- 
 duced a surplus of agricultural staples for export, and you desired to protect agri- 
 culture so long as manufactures were i)rotected, how would you, in that event, 
 protect agriculture? 
 
 A. (All.) By a bounty on exports. 
 
 Q. What, in your judgment, has been the cause of the decline in the world's prices 
 of agricultural staples? 
 
 A. (Valenti.) Increase of production. 
 
 Q. In your judgment as economists, will there be in the future an increase or a 
 decrease in the world's production? 
 
 A. (Siemoni.) Increase. 
 
 Q. In what portion of the world was the increase in the past few years, and in 
 what portion of the world may we expect such an increase? 
 
 A. (All.) Where land is cheap and agricultural machinery is employed.
 
 878 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PliOVISIONS. 
 
 The effect of the decline in prices of agricultural stajHes and its 
 destructive tendency is felt as keenly in the central and western Euro- 
 pean countries as it is here, and as a result in almost every Kuropt^an 
 country there have been held conferences for inquiry into the cause of 
 the depression and for suggested remedies. 
 
 The writer was appointed delegate to one of the most important of 
 these conferences, which was held under the auspices of the Austrian 
 Government at Budapest, September 16-20. 
 
 It was called the International Agricultural Congress. There were 
 present several hundred delegates, largely economists and statesmen, 
 and the principal European countries were officially represented by 
 delegates of high official rank. 
 
 ■ Almost the entire field of fact and hypothesis was gone over, and it 
 appeared to be the general sentiment that no action could obtain, by 
 the single or united efforts of government, which would have any per- 
 manent effect in raising the world's price of agricultural staples to the 
 former and higher level. Nor was it deemed ])ossible to even ])revent 
 the world's price from sinking lower. It was also pointed out that any 
 device or method which would at this time raise the world's price 
 would in the end defeat its own purpose. 
 
 For, increasing the average profit would but accelerate production in 
 countries where land and labor were cheapest, and where machinery 
 was employed. This in turn, it was claimed, would only tend to lower 
 the world's jirices permanently, and besides practically transfer this 
 industry to the cheap land and labor countries. 
 
 From all this it is evident that there is, as it were, a race being run 
 by the farmers of the United States and those of western and central 
 Europe on the one hand, and the agricultural producers in the cheap 
 land and labor countries of eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Soutli 
 America on the other — a race which, in its practical operation, enables 
 the cheaper land and labor countries to secure to themselves the victory 
 which must always be theirs so long as they can supply the world with 
 the same quality and at a lower price. 
 
 The law of open competition, when not interferred with by restrictive 
 measures, must award the "Job" to the lowest bidder, and it is the opera- 
 tion of this law which has so seriously affected the farmers of central and 
 western Europe and of the United States. 
 
 And as we have seen, there is no way of preventing a continuance of 
 this competition. There is, therefore, left but one course of action on the 
 part of the governments adversely affected, and which is to rectify any 
 abuse of its power in burdening agriculture with unjust taxation. This 
 the European governments are doing. In protection countries the tariff 
 is raised in proportion as the world's price declines. This remedy, how- 
 ever, is only effective in countries producing no agricultural surplus for 
 export. Protection countries, which are ex])orters of these products, can 
 not remedy matters by simply raising the tariff". Sucli countries can only 
 render Justice to agriculture by a real and genuine ])rotection in the form 
 of an export bounty, or by the absolute abolition of the protective system. 
 
 One or the other must be done if we wish to save the American farmer; 
 and unless we do this promptly, we, by our refusal to do justice, may 
 thereby drive the farmer to ruin. 
 
 Kor will the American farmer mildly, patiently, or quietly go to rum. 
 It is evident that in his going he will carry with him the Republic. 
 
 The writer of this is no alarmist or radical ; on the contrary he is 
 strongly conservative, and as such is impressed with the sigiiiticant 
 lesson of the recent Presidental campaign. It was an object lesson
 
 FARM AND FIELD rRODUCTS. 879 
 
 wliich should be profited by. The struggle was hard, but tlie victory- 
 is here; this uiay satis.'y the thoughtless. Let the thoughtful consider 
 that the victory is due to the joining of forces by opponent parties, and 
 that such an event may not occur again. Nor is the claim that victory 
 is here founded on substantial fact. Where is the victory"? What 
 victory 1 
 
 It is true that we have elected McKlnley; but this in itself solved 
 nothing, and nothing will be solved until legislative inequity and 
 injustice is renioved from the American farmer. 
 
 The following correspondence will no doubt be read with interest by 
 this committee as having an indirect bearing on the subject-matter 
 under discussion : 
 
 Office of the Master of the State Grange of Pennsylvania, 
 
 Centerliall, Pa., December 16, 1896. 
 David Lubin, Esq., 
 
 17:^3 North Ei/jhfh street, Philadelphia. 
 Dear Sir and Brother : Hon. Girard C. Brown, of Yorkana, Hon. Frank Moore, of 
 Pittsburg, and yourself have been appointed a committee to appear before the 
 National Manufacturers' Association at their coming annual convention in Philadel- 
 phia. 
 
 As ex officio chairman of committees I will attend and aid the committee in its 
 efforts in behalf of a protection system which shall bo. just and equitable. 
 
 As you are in Philadelphia, you will kindly call upon the president or committee 
 of the National Manufacturers' Association and request a hearing for us and in the 
 name of the State Grange on the subject of our resolution. 
 Please notify me as to the results. 
 
 Fraternally, Leonard Rhone, 
 
 Master State Grange of Pennsijlrania. 
 
 On receipt of the above it was handed to the President of the 
 JSTational IManufacturers' Association during a committee meeting, who 
 read it to the meeting and called upon the writer of this to explain the 
 nature of the request by the grange, limiting the remarks to ten 
 minutes. 
 
 The committee was then told that it was the desire of the State 
 Grange committee to appear before the National Manufacturers' Asso- 
 ciation in order to effect a joint eftbrt in obtaining protection; not 
 l>rotection limited to a tariff on imports, not protection for manufactures 
 at the expense of agriculture, but protection equal and just for and 
 between both interests. That so long as manufactures were protected 
 by a tariff on imports, agriculture should be protected by a bounty on 
 exports. 
 
 At the conclusion of the remarks there seemed to be a general disap- 
 proval, and the chairman and others mildly protested at the charge 
 which was made that manufacturers of their association were protec- 
 tionists by citing names of some members who were free traders. The 
 committee, however, ])romised to carefully consider the matter, the 
 conclusion of which is in the following resolution : 
 
 National Association of Manufacturers 
 
 OF the United States of America, 
 
 Office of the President, 
 Philadelphia, December 30, 1896. 
 Pesolved, That while we desire to deal with all the industrial organizations of the 
 country in the s])irit of courtesy, and are not antagonistic to any of them; we deem 
 it impracticable to introduce the subject presented by Mr. Lubin to the convention 
 of the National Association of Manulactiuers. 
 
 As the correspondence, as it were, speaks for itself, it is not deemed 
 necessary to comment ui-«on it. 
 The question often asked on the proposed export bounty plan is, Who
 
 880 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 will be benefited ? Will the enlianced price by its operation reaUj go to 
 the farmer, or will it not find its way into the hands of speculators? 
 
 The answer to this is clearly set forth on page 39, House Keport No. 
 1999 of the Fifty-third Congress, and which is herewith reproduced. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE F. STONE, SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF TRADE, 
 
 CHICAGO. 
 
 Q. Mr. stone, I desire to ask you a few questions in your official capacity as secre- 
 tary of the Board of Trade of the city of Chicago. Wliat effect Tvould a Govern- 
 nieiit bounty ou the exports of wheat have, with regard to the general price of wheat 
 throughout the United States?— A. It would, in ray opinion, increase the price per 
 bushel. 
 
 Q. It is said that the speculators would get the 5 cents bounty, or at least the 
 greater part of the bounty.— A. If a bounty of 5 cents a bushel should be given by 
 the Government on all wheat exported from this country, in my opinion, the farmer, 
 or producer, would receive the full benefit of that bounty, and not the speculator or 
 exporter. It would simply enable the buyer to pay that much more than he other- 
 wise could pay or would be justified in paying. Competition would force him to pay 
 all he could to the farmer to obtain his wheat. It would be for the interest of the 
 exporter to obtain the wheat. That would be his object. Competition would force 
 him to secure it by every possible means without loss to himself. His great object is 
 to maintain his business, to enlarge his business. Competition would imped him, as 
 it now im})els him, to give every cent that he can possibly aft'ord to secure the prod- 
 uct which he seeks to export. The fierceness and intensity and volume of competi- 
 tion, by the very force of circumstances, by the very necessities of the case, would 
 drive the 5 cents bounty proposed by the Government into the pockets of the farmer 
 or producer. There it would land, and from there it could never be wrested by 
 speculators or by anybody else. 
 
 Q. It is also said that the shipowners would get this 5 cents, or the greater part of 
 it. — A. I believe the answer to that is fully embraced in the reply which I have here- 
 inbefore given. 
 
 Q. It is also admitted by some that the 5 cents would come in some way to the 
 producer for the quantity that would be exported, but that there would be no 
 advance on the greater quantity remaining for home use. — A. It is a mistake, in my 
 opinion, to say that the 5 cents per bushel bounty which it is proposed to give would 
 be confined in its beneficial results to the quantity or volume of grain exported. It 
 would affect the price of the entire crop, for the reason that grain is a surplus crop in 
 this country, and consequently the price per bushel of this grain is fixed and con- 
 trolled by the export price of this grain, and this export price, of course, I will here 
 say parenthetically, is made in competition with all the other surplus wheat-produc- 
 ing countries in the world. No domestic buyer will pay one single fraction of a cent 
 more for a single bushel of wheat than the buyer for export will pay. The latter 
 makes the price for the entire crop. If no more were raised than was reciuired for 
 home consumption the price would depend upon the domestic demand; but the 
 exjiort demand is a continuous demand, inasmuch as the demand for food can never 
 be interrupted for any length of time, and this continuous demand for wheat, so far 
 as a surplus wheat-producing country is concerned, fixes the price of the entire crop 
 of this cereal of that country. No class of domestic buyers, of course, can be made 
 to pay any more than the price offered by the export demand, the domestic and the 
 export demand being ever present in the market. 
 
 Mr. LuBix. This measure of a bounty on the export agricultural staple products 
 is intended to enhance not alone the price to the producer of the quantity exported, 
 but also of the greater quantity at home, and is intejided as a recompense, or as a 
 means of arriving at an equilibrium between the outlay by the producer of agricul- 
 tural staples for the cost to him of protection to manufacturers. 
 
 Mr. Stone. I think I have covered all the features of your inquiries in the 
 observations hereinbefore submitted. If protection is the p'ublic and controlling 
 policy, I don't wonder that the farmer wants the plate passed round to his table once 
 in a while. 
 
 George F. Stojie, 
 Secretary of the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago. 
 
 December 20, 1894. 
 
 The following article was published in The Implement Age of Phila- 
 delphia and is submitted as an addenda to the paper presented to your 
 honorable committee.
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 881 
 
 It enters more into detail of tlie proposed export bounty and oifers 
 replies to objections: 
 
 AN INTERVIEW WITH MR. LUBIN. — HOW EXPORT BOUNTIES PROTECT THE FARMER — 
 HOW THEY PROTECT THE IMPLEMENT MANUFACTURER — HOW THE MECHANIC HELPS 
 THE AGRICULTURIST. 
 
 Our readers will remember that in our issue of November 15 wo published an 
 address by Mr. David Ivubiu, which he delivered at the International Agricultural 
 Congress at Budapest, Hungary, 
 
 The importance of the subject-matter and the interest therein prompted the editor 
 of The Implement Age to learn more definite details and ascertain what facts war- 
 ranted his conclusions. So upon his arrival from Europe the editor called upon Mr. 
 Lubin, and the following is the result of the interview: 
 
 Editor. Can you briefly explain the reason why you advocate protection for agri- 
 cultural staples by an export bounty ? 
 
 Answer. Because these products can not be otherwise protected, even by a tariff 
 on imports and manufacturers of agricultural implements are interested in this pro- 
 posed export bounty on agricultural staples. Ten or fifteen years ago the best policy 
 for American manufacturers of agricultural implements was in a protective system 
 limited to a tarilf on imports. To-day such a system is not alone of no advantage to 
 them, but is, on the contrary, a detriment, because when the American farmer had a 
 world advantage in cheaper land and the exclusive use of machinery, protection then 
 indirectly raised prices, but now when our lands are high and agricultural machinery 
 is employed on much cheaper lauds in foreign countries there is an end to indirect 
 protection to the American farmer. 
 
 Editor. Of what interest is all this to the American manufacturer of agricultural 
 implements? 
 
 Answer. Of much interest and of the highest importance; for the value of the 
 shares of stock and the net earnings of these manufacturers is governed by the buy- 
 ing power of the American farmer. A new economic world condition, fairly well 
 recognized throughout Europe, but not yet generally known or understood in the 
 United States. The principal element of this new condition is in the employment 
 of agricultural machinery not alone in Europe, but in the cheap land and labor 
 couutries of the world. 
 
 Editor. Are not our exports of these too limited to produce this effect? 
 
 Answer. Yes; our annual $5,000,000 exports of agricultural machinery is insuffi- 
 cient to produce the effect, but please to take into consideration that there are now 
 a large number of factories of agricultural machinery and implements in Europe, and 
 as an evidence of this I submit these European price lists and catalogues of some of 
 the leadingmanufacturing plants producing agricultural machinery and implements 
 in Europe. The rapid growth of these factories is without a parallel in the indus- 
 trial history of Europe. 
 
 The Eckert Manufacturing Company, in Berlin, for instance, has within the past 
 few years again and again doubled its capacity. The Clayton & Shuttleworth Com- 
 pany has not alone a very large plant in England, but has a still larger one in 
 Vienna. Nor is it without significance that there are now some eighteen factories 
 in Hungary, almost all of recent origin, and almost all prosperous and expanding. 
 
 All this is but a natural development in the channels of supply and demand. 
 Agricultural staples have a world price value, cheap land, cheap labor are elements 
 iu production, but not sufficient. If to these be added agricultural machinery, the 
 advantage is manifest. This was clearly known to the European capitalist; hence 
 one class of capitalists supplied the agricultural machines and the other class applied 
 them on the available cheap land with cheap labor in North Africa, Egypt, Euro- 
 pean, and Asiatic Russia, the Danubian provinces, Asia Minor and South America. 
 Nor has the limit of competition been reached, for, as you are aware, the completion 
 of the Southern Siberian Railway will place under cultivation one of the largest 
 bodies of arable land in the world, almost all in the production of agricultural 
 staples, almost all of which will be surplus for export, thus lowering the world's 
 price permanently of such products as wheat, cotton, corn, tobacco, hops, meats, 
 dairy products, fruits, honey, hides, wool, and root crops. 
 
 These catalogues before you of European manufacture of agricultural machinery 
 amply testify to the correctness of this conclusion, and it is also evident in the 
 great increase of production in competing countries and our diminished markets in 
 countries formerly tendering us paying prices. 
 
 As you see by these United States Government statistics, in 1892 we sold 6,123,517 
 bushels of wheat to France, in 1893 this was diminished to 2, .521, 057 bushels, and in 
 1894 it was still further diminished to 1,951,030 bushels. These statistics further 
 show that the average annual wheat exports of Argentina increased from 2,000,000 
 in the quinquennium 1881-1885 to nearly 35,000,000 bushels in 1891-1895, while in 
 
 T H 50
 
 882 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Uruffnay the net exports per annum advanced from 77,000 bushels to 1,600,000 
 bushels Russia's anuual averasje exports of wheat was 76.189,773 bushels tor 
 1881-1885 which increased to 95,336,362 bushels in 1886-1890, and still further 
 increased' to 105.581,617 bushels for 1891-1895. The average for cotton in Egypt for 
 1836-1840 is 30,100,000; 1851-1855 is 60,000,000; for 1871-1875 238,000,000, and the 
 average for 1891-1893 is 449,300,000. , 
 
 Secretary Morton, in his Yearbook for 1895, attributes the decline m the home 
 price .if agricultural staples to the fact that as our export and home price is the 
 same, that as the export or world's price fell, that this caused a corresponding 
 (lecliiie in the home market price of all agricultural staples. 
 
 He attributes as the cause of decline in the world's price of these staples to the 
 advantage by foreign competitors of transportation facilities, raidd communication, 
 and the use of agricultural machinery which he claims comes mostly from American 
 manufacturers. 
 
 Comparing his conclusions with those which you see here before you from among 
 the principal authorities of Europe you will tind that Secretary Morton is correct in 
 his statements with the exception of one particular: The American manulacturcrs 
 of agricultural machinery and implements not alone do not furnish most of the 
 machinery, but they only furnish $5,000,000 worth a year, which is hardly more— if 
 as much— as is produced by the Clayton & Shuttleworth Company alone. 
 
 We can now safely come to the conclusion that while prices for agricultural staples 
 may have an upward tendency for a short tin^e, caused by drought or failure of 
 crops in one or more of the foreign countries, that with this exception we are safe 
 in predicting that the former higher prices for agricultural staples is a thing of the 
 past and not likely to return. 
 
 Editor. But why can we not curtail the production of agricultural staples below 
 the export point and thus protect them by a tariff on imports? 
 
 Answer. Because we use the exports of agricultural staples to pay for imports, as 
 you will see by this circular. No. 3, United States Agricultural Department: "Of 
 our total exports from the United States, about three-fourths are directly evolved 
 from the farms of the Republic. Of the remaining one-fourth, four-lifths consist of 
 domestic manufactures, the materials of which were largely furnished by the Ameri- 
 can farmers." You see, therefore, that if we curtail production of agricultural sta- 
 ples below the export point we would have to abolish protection in order to be able 
 to pay for our imports with manufactures at free-trade prices. 
 
 Editor. But why can not farmers produce less staples which are unprofitable and 
 produce other agricultural products which are more profitable? 
 
 Answer. Because t« do so would be to the farmer like jumping from the frying pan 
 into the fire, for you can eee that an increased production of nonstaples is even uiore 
 disastrous, because, being largely perishable, a declining price, caused by greatly 
 increased home production, must also bring these as well as the staples below the 
 protit point. The farmers of the United States are therefore confronted by a condi- 
 tion which, unless remedied, means ruin, ilow can such a condition give value to 
 shares or a stable, profitable income to the American manufacturers of agricultural 
 implements? 
 
 Editor. Can anything be done, then, which will raise the world's price of agricul- 
 tural staples? 
 
 Answer. Atthe International Agricultural Congress at Budapest it was shown that 
 nothing could be done to permanently raise the world's price; that any ex])edient 
 which would temporarily do so would be surely followed by increased "production 
 primarily in the cheap land and labor countries^ and thus lower still more and per- 
 manently the world's price. 
 
 Editor. Can anything be done to change the conditions in our own country? 
 
 Answer. Yes; we can do much if we will; we can lower the prices to the world's 
 level of the things which the American farmer must buy, and thus render him common 
 justice. If he is compelled to sell at the free-trade worlds price, he should be freely 
 permitted to pay for his labor and necessities at the world's price. 
 
 Editor. But this would be free trade, and we surely do not want that. It would 
 reduce the rate of wages to the world's level, and give us not alone the p:uropeau 
 wage rate, but presently the Asiatic as well. Would that bring i)rosperitv to the 
 American people ? You show, with good evidence, the competitive character'of agri- 
 cultural machinery in the cheap land and labor countries as a destructive agency of 
 American agriculture, but omit to observe that manulacturiug machinery is also 
 being introduced into the cheap-labor countries. Circular No. 5, United States 
 Department of Agriculture shows, that while, in 1887, 82 per cent of cottons in Japan 
 W!i8 imported and 18 per cent was manufactured there, that, in 1893, 71 percent was 
 manufactured in Japan and 29 percent w;is imported; that the wage rate in that 
 (•ountry is 8 cents a day for men and 5 cents a day for women. Will not an almost 
 automatic machine perform labor a-s well for a Japanese as tor a trades-union work- 
 iiigmaa La the United States? Would you have our working people compete on an
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 883 
 
 equal level with the yielding, resistless, imniimljered hordes who work for 8 to 5 
 cents a day? Can we, then, abandon protection? 
 
 Answer. I do not ask you to abandon protection. All I ask yon to do is to do jus- 
 tice. If you must have protection for manufacture you must, for equal and greater 
 reasons, grant protection to agriculture; not by a tariff on imports, but by a bounty 
 on exports. 
 
 EuiTOK. Like the sugar bounty down South and in the West? 
 
 Answer. No. Such a bounty on sugar is a bounty on production and is very costly, 
 but a bounty on exports costs little in comparison to its protectire value. If, Siiy, 
 30 bushels of wheat are sold for export out of 100 raised, it not only raises the price 
 iu the home market of the 30 bushels on which the export bounty is paid by the 
 ( ioverument, but it likewise and correspondingly raises the home price of the remain- 
 ing 70 bushels on which no export bounty is paid; for, as you have before seen, the 
 export and home price is the same. 
 
 Editor. Why did not the export bounty on breadstuffs in England under the 
 William and Mary Act raise the home price to the full amount of the export bounty ? 
 
 Answer. Because there was a clause iu the act which gave the export bounty on 
 condition that it be shipped on a British ship, and the English shipowner had the 
 power of taking to himself almost all its benefits, which he did, and as a result built 
 up the British merchant marine directly, and the British navy indirectly, in place of 
 British agriculture. The bill for an export bounty as a means of protecting the 
 home market prices of agricultural products now introduced in Congress contains no 
 such defects. 
 
 Editor. Would not such an act raise the price of these products in our country to 
 the poor man? 
 
 Answer. It certainly would, and to the rich man too. Protection means the 
 exclusion of cheaper prices and their necessary replacement by higher prices which 
 protection atlords. 
 
 Editor. Will our working people consent to pay the higher prices; that is, why 
 should they be compelled to pay more to the farmers? 
 
 Answer. How can they refuse if they want protection for themselves? Does not 
 the farmer pay the mechanic a duty or tax on every article manufactured; and does 
 not the duty on manufactured articles increase their cost to the farmer? 
 
 Editor. Protection is only intended to protect our products to a degree high 
 enough to offset the difference in the cost of production. 
 
 Answer. Very good ; and so long as this kind of protection is in operation can you 
 offer any objection why it should not likewise be applied to agriculture? 
 
 Editor. But it is: lor there is a protective duty on imports of agricultural staples. 
 
 Answer. But of what use is the duty so long as a portion of them are exj)<>rts, and 
 being so, brings all this production in the United States down to the world's Iree- 
 trade prices? 
 
 Editor. Seeing that the Treasury is about empty, how would we get the money 
 for the export bounty. 
 
 Answer. Our imports are about $800,000,000 a year, of which about half is on the 
 free list and the other half is disoriminately taxed about 40 per cent, not because we 
 need revenue for Government expenses, but because we want protection. Now, il 
 there be two leading industries in a country and both are protected by a systi ui 
 which only operates protectively on (me, but fails to operate protectively on tlie 
 other, what happens? Must it not follow that the unprotected industry must jia\ 
 the ultimate cost of the protective system? If this is trne — and w ho can dispute it— 
 it must follow that a portion of the costs of protection is in the money in the Treiis 
 ury collected on duties, and which is from $150,000,000 to $200,000,000 a year. Surely, 
 then, if agriculture indirectly contributes this and more, a portion of this can be 
 justly api)lied to protect agriculture in the only efficient way by which it can be ])ro- 
 tected. Don't you think so? 
 • Editor. But where will the deficiency come from? 
 
 Answer. Is there not enough to cover that from the $400,000,000 now on the free 
 list? 
 
 Editor. So, then, you have come to the conclusion that it is in the interest of tin 
 American manufacturers of agricultural implements to advocate protection to agi i 
 culture by an export bounty? 
 
 Answer. Most decidedly ; and just so long as there is protection to manufactures by 
 a tariff on imports. 
 
 Editor. Did not the vote of the people at the last election decide for protection 
 limited to a tariff on imports? 
 
 Answer. Certainly not; the vote only decided that the American people were not 
 ready for some other changes — financial, for instance — but unless the unjust and 
 iniquitous burden of a one sided protection system be promptly removed from ruin- 
 ing the American farmer there is no knowing what this same farmer will do at the 
 next election.
 
 884 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTUKAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Editor. In the event of its adoption would not foreign nations retaliate by similar 
 
 and otlier measures? ,..,^„i.i.-i, +i <•• 
 
 Answer There is nothing to retaliate about. Protection by an export bounty is 
 a measure having for its only aim the raising of the home price. It is a domestic 
 arrano-ement for protection and does not raise the world's price. The protective 
 tariff "and the proposed differentiated duty on shipping offers serious objections on 
 th.at head; but not so a bounty on exports. 
 
 Editor. Is not an export duty unconstitutional? 
 
 Answer. Yes; but we do not ask for an export duty, but for an export bounty. A 
 duty is a sum paid to the Government; is in fact a penalty on imports or exports; 
 an export bounty is a sum paid by the Government, and is a reward on exports. This 
 is constitutional, and was in operation in the United States on fish exports, and for 
 which Calhoun, a leading constitutional authority, voted. At the present time the 
 American Line Steamship Company is protected by a large annual bounty called 
 subsidy. But as protection now operates the American farmer is the greatest bounty 
 payer in the world. He pays a bounty in the highest or protected price for his labor 
 and on all things directly or indirectly protected, including domestic taxes, but he 
 receives no more for his staples than the world's free-trade prices less cost of expenses 
 from his farm to Liverpool, whether his product is exported or sold for home use to 
 the protected. 
 
 Editor. Would not an export bounty lower the world's price of agricultural 
 staples? 
 
 Answer. Not necessarily so, as we are but one factor in creating the surplus and many 
 more countries are the other and much greater factor. But even in the event of a 
 decline of a point or two, the American producer would still be ahead the 8 or 10 
 jjoiuts greater in his higher export bounty protection. Lowering the world's price 
 by those points would check the world's production and thus maintain prices to an 
 average mean. This action is just the reverse of our present system of indirect pro- 
 tection which it is claimed by increased wage rate and consuinjjtion indirectly 
 enhances prices, but as our prices are also the world's prices, it follows that the 
 world's agricultural prices are indirectly enhanced by our present protective system 
 which when granted permits a system of protection in our country at the expense 
 of the American farmer all for the benefit of foreign farmers increasing thereby our 
 competition. Whereas a bounty on exports would check foreign production and 
 render profitable American agricultural industry. 
 
 Editor. Was not the export sugar bounty in Europe a disastrous failure? 
 
 Answer. Yes and no. It was no failure to the protection countries who gave and 
 are giving the export bounty. These built up great and profitable industries. It 
 was only disastrous to the West Indies, Hawaii and which drove Cuba into revolution. 
 
 Editor. Do the farmers appreciate your eftorts in their behalf? 
 
 Answer. They do, and to the extent of a much greater number than many people 
 are aware of. In Pennsylvania alone the 500 delegates of the State Grange, repre- 
 senting 50,000 farmers, on December 11 unanimously repudiated protection as it is 
 and demanded in resolutions made public, protection by an export bounty for agri- 
 culture so long as manufactures were protected by a tariff" on imports. Similar reso- 
 lutions were previously adopted by the State granges of California, Washington, 
 Missouri, Virginia, Oregon, West Virginia, Illinois, and by boards of trades, cham- 
 bers of commerce and labor unions. 
 
 But this endeavor does not spring from a desire to serve the farmers any more 
 than shoemakers or barbers. This proposition is not advocated simply because it 
 will add to the earnings of farmers, but because it is a measure of perpetuating the 
 Republic. Clergymen and others frequently tell us that republics are destroyed by 
 the corruption of cities. It is nearer the truth to say that liberal forms of govern- 
 ment come to .an end whenever the material prosperity of its yeomanry is destroyed. 
 This, not simply because they are farmers, but because their peculiar environment 
 render farmers the conservatives they are. They are last to change the fashion of 
 their garments, their mode of speech, their opinion in politics or religion, all this 
 because of their environment. Now, just what a governor is to a boiler and engine 
 in regulating its speed, so these farmer conservatives hold in check the untempered 
 endeavor of the radical and progressive citizens of cities. 
 
 So long as there be an equilibrium of power between the.se two political forces then 
 so long is a liberal form of government possible. If one of these be impaired 
 there must follow a political disturbance, which, unless arrested, must bring disin- 
 tegration and destruction. The decline is the more rapid and irresistible if the 
 declining force be the conservative one — the farmer. 
 
 The Roman Republic was great and strong so long as the Italian farmer was inde- 
 pendent and prosperous. When, however, Roman ambition and victories added 
 new and vast territories to her rule; when by enforced slave labor she raised and 
 imported foreigu agricultural staples, which brought the Italian prices below cost 
 ot production, she thereby destroyed her independent veomanry, losing the counsel 
 and check of this conservative element— she was compelled to rely upon military
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 885 
 
 force to keep in qniet tlie unruly and then ungovernable radicals and progression- 
 ists of the cities. And so Rome fell ! 
 
 The same law which caused the fall of the Roman Republic is at work to-day. 
 If on the one hand we enhance the price of labor and necessities by protection of 
 all industries at his expense, and if iu addition to this there is a gradual and per- 
 manent lowering of the world's prices in the home market for his product — what 
 must follow but the ruin of the American farmer, and with his ruin the destruction 
 of the Republic? 
 
 Now, what has been said is either true or false. If true, it becomes the duty of 
 all right-minded American citizeus to take a stand for the preservation of the 
 Republic by demanding for American agriculture that measure of equity in protec- 
 tion by an export bounty so long as manufactures are protected by a tariff on imports. 
 
 If what has been said is false, wherein is it false? Many have tried to show, but 
 up to now none have shown. 
 
 In the following remarks I propose to briefly touch upon the question 
 of protection to the American merchant marine in the foreign trade. It 
 will soon become evident that the matter is pertinent to the subject, as 
 House bill No. 2626, introduced in the last session for an export bounty, 
 contains a clause relating to an additional bou-nty on agricultural 
 staples conditioned on their being carried on American ships. 
 
 The reasons which prompted the insertion of the clause were two: 
 First, because shipping in the foreign trade, like agricultural staples, 
 are in direct competition and can not be protected by a tariff on imports. 
 Second, to leave shipping unprotected and to protect agricultural 
 staples would be as unjust as to leave agriculture unjirotected and to 
 protect manufactures. 
 
 This was ably pointed out by the editor of Seaboard, a shipping 
 journal of New York, who urged the advocates of this proposition 
 to unite with the shipbuilders and shipowners in a mutual endeavor to 
 obtain protection for both interests. 
 
 After repeated efltbrts on the part of the Seaboard to form a union of 
 efltbrt of farmers and shipping men, a meeting was called and which 
 was held at the Maritime Exchange, Philadelphia, July 30, 1895. 
 
 At that meeting the principal speech was made by Mr. Charles H. 
 Cramp, the well-known shipbuilder. The Philadelphia papers of that 
 date report him as having said the following: 
 
 I think that when we (the shipbuilders and shipowners) went to Congress and 
 asked for a bounty for ourselves Ave committed a grave error, and I am goicg to do 
 what I can to repair it. There is not any mistake, gentlemen, that the foundation 
 of everything that is good among us, the foundation of morality itself, and every- 
 thing that is good in this country, is due to agriculture. 
 
 This appeared to be the sentiment of all the shipping representatives 
 present, for Mr. Cramp's remarks were received by the unanimous 
 approval of all present. 
 
 Resolutions denouncing protection limited to a tariff on imports and 
 demanding equitable protection which embodied this proposition were 
 unanimously adopted. The meeting, after appointing a committee to 
 promote the work, then adjourned. 
 
 True to their promise, their organ, the Seaboard, continued on and 
 made a good fight for the cause. This until just before the campaign, 
 when they (the shipping people) came to a sudden halt and dropped 
 advocating agricultural protection as if it were a red-hot stove. 
 
 They introduced a bill known as the "Elkins bill,'' calling for a dis- 
 criminating duty of 10 per cent, which the Commissioner of Navigation 
 claims would land about $59,000,000 annually into their coffers. Like 
 some people grown suddenly rich, these poor rich shipowners and ship- 
 builders had no more use for their relationship with the x>oor agricul- 
 turists.
 
 886 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Why sliould they? The agricultural bill would give them annually 
 a paltry $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 protection, but the discriminating 
 duty would '" pan out" $59,000,000 a year. 
 
 From that time on these shii)ping men began to see how mistaken 
 they were about "foundation" or "morality" or "everything that is 
 good." What were all these to $50,000,000 a year, anyway? 
 
 So they hired a grand office on Twenty-third street, New York, and 
 to show that they had turned their backs forever on the aforesaid 
 "foundation," etc, they employed the genial and talented editor of 
 Seaboard to "make the fight." And a good fight he made of it, and 
 will succeed, too — if the farmers will let him. 
 
 The cry went up " Protection to American shipping," and through 
 the indefatigable labor of the aforesaid editor indorsements came in by 
 the scores. McKinley, the National Republican Convention, and lesser 
 liglits indorsed, and the shipping men were happy — are happy yet, and 
 hopeful. 
 
 There is no inclination to enter here into details in order to show the 
 viciousuess, the impracticability, and the injustice of tliis attemi)t. 
 These three are so apparent on the surface of the matter that no great 
 time need be devoted in showing the true character of the Elkins bill. 
 
 It is vicious, because it would disturb and destroy trade relations 
 between this country and foreign nations which would tend to bring 
 about retaliatory measures of especial injury to agriculture. 
 
 It is impracticable, because it would disturb the relations of internal 
 commerce. Who could buy with certainty or confidence when one im- 
 porter could obtain shipping on a discriminating ship and another only 
 find carriage on a foreign ship? 
 
 And lastly, the $59,000,000 a year would be a dead weight on agri- 
 culture and fall with a dull tiiud squarely on the producers of agricul- 
 tural staples. For the law is invariable that the unprotected must 
 pay the ultimate cost for the protection of the protected. 
 
 The simplest way to defeat this measure is for farmers to watch the 
 actions of their Eepresentatives on it when it comes uj). It may do 
 some good for subordinate granges and individual farmers to send on 
 communications to Congress giving their views on the subject, so 
 plainly put forth as not to be mistaken. 
 
 If shipping is to be protected — and it should so long as manufac- 
 tures are — then there is ample protection in the clause contained in 
 House bill No. 2626 for the protection of agriculture by an export bounty. 
 
 Karnes and addresses of European manufacturers, importers, avd exporters of agriail- 
 tural mnchinery and iniplemcnis, as shown on the illustrated catalogues, submitted to the 
 House Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 [This is only a partial list — as many as could be collected in a limited time.] 
 
 Vipan & Headly, Leicester, England ; Ph. Mayfarth & Co., Franlsfort-on-the-AIain, 
 Germany; Dnpont Freies, Ruerles Vinaigriers, 31, Paris; Harrison. HIcGrefror & Co., 
 Leigh, LancaBliire, England; Elso-Magyar Gazdasagi Gei>gyar-re8zvenytar8asag, 
 Budapest; Polil E. es Fiai, Gazdasagi Gepgyara Vasontode, Malomepiteszet Szoiii- 
 bathely, Hungary; Bamford & Perkins, Peterborough, England; Hugo Graepel, 
 Budapest; Andreas Rieger, Hermanstadt, Hungary; E. H. Bentall & Co., Havhridgo, 
 Maldon, Essex; Hofherr &, Schrantz, Budapest; H. F. Eckert, Berlin; J. llignette. 
 Boulevard Voltaire, 162 and 164, Paris ; Edward Kuehne, Msony, Hungary ; R. Hornshy 
 «& Sons, Grantham, England; Fortin Freres, Montereau (S. and M.), France; W. F. 
 Nicholson, Budapest; Maison A. Motte, Paris; Josef Friedlaender, Vienna; J. & F. 
 Howard, Bedford, England; L. Rolle, Place Voltaire, Paris; Maldon Iron Works, 
 Mald»n, Essex; Istvan Rock, Budapest; the Johnston Harvester Company, Paris; 
 Ruston, Proctor & Co., Budapest; Charles Paul, Paris; Carl Beerman, I5erlin; Ph. 
 Pierce & Cie., Paris; Clayton & Shnttleworth, Vienna, Austria, also in England; 
 bchhck, fele, Budapest; Th. Pilter, Paris; A. Bajac, Liancourt, France; Richmond
 
 FAEM AND FIELD PEODUCTS. 887 
 
 & Shancller, Manchester, England; Miller & Weisz, Budapest; L, Herlico, Paris; 
 Wm. Cottis & Sons, Epi)ing, England; Emile-Pnzenat, a Bonrbon-Lancy (Saone-et- 
 Loire), France; Saniuelson & Co., Banbury, England; iJamlbrds,' London, England; 
 H. T. M<it &, Co., Paris; V. Thiolon & L. Mariette, Paris; F. Esteve & Co., Paris; 
 L. Dumont, Paris; J. Boulet & Co., Paris; Serramakra & Co., Paris; Jas. S. Dun- 
 can, Paris; Japy P'reres & Co., Paris; James Smytli &. Fils, Paris; A. Herrisson, Sys- 
 teme Magnier, Provins (Seine-et-Marue), Paris; Noel, 69 rue D'Angouleni© et 104 
 avenue Parmentier, Paris; Mayer E. Fiai, Szombathely, Hungary; Vve, Albaret and 
 G. Lefebvre, a Liancourt-Rantigny (Oise), France; Peltier, jne., rue Fontaine an 
 Roi, Paris; Spear & Jackson, Sheffield, P^ngland; Koii. Uug, Maschinenfabrik, Buda- 
 pest; Pud. Sack, Paris; R. Wallut & Cie, Paris; Plissonier, Lyons, France; Merlin 
 & Co., Vierzon, France; Bernard, Bishop &, Bernard, Norwich, England; Ailiian 
 Senet, Paris. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. LEONARD RHONE, MASTER OF THE STATE 
 GRANGE OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Rhone said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 appear before you by direction of tlie State Grange of Pennsylvania, 
 an association representing the organized farmers of the State, for the 
 purpose of prtsentiug to you the feelings of the farmers of our State 
 upon the protective policy of our Government. Pennsylvania has 
 always been noted for its advocacy of the protective policy of gov- 
 ernment and helped to develop the largest prosperity to our industries, 
 and the State Grange simply falls in the line of the sentiment of its 
 people. When they view the protection policy pursued by our country 
 at present they find a grave discrimination, which they think Congress 
 should at least in measure remedy. When we inquire into the agricul- 
 tural schedules we find that the manufacturer of leather is protected 
 by an import duty and the manufacturer of leather goods by another 
 import duty, while raw hides are sold in com])etition with the American 
 farmer without any such i)rotection discriminating in his interest. I 
 do not charge the Democratic party for this sin which was visited upon 
 the American farmer, because I believe that it was a Eepublican Con- 
 gress that placed raw hides on the free list. 
 
 When we were before this committee under the preparation of what 
 is known as the McKinley bill we advocated a outy of 25 per cent 
 on raw hides, so that the American farmer might receive the same 
 measure of protection in this particular that is accorded to the Ameri- 
 can manufacturer, but for some reason that schedule was stricken out; 
 we find also, under the administration of General Grant, that the Re- 
 publican Congress reduced the duty on wool, and as a consequence 
 the American farmer was obliged to take a lower price for his products 
 in the American markets, being compelled to sell in con)])etition with 
 the cheap labor and land countries of the world; and we find later that 
 it was a Democratic Congress that placed wool entirely on the free list, 
 compelling the American farmer to sell his products in com])etition 
 with the same cheap land and labor of the world, while the American 
 manufacturer of wool has been ])rotected. Now we follow the agricul- 
 tural schedule throughout, and we find the same discrimination between 
 the American farmer and the American manufacturer which our people 
 feel this Congress ought to correct, because, whatever may be the policy 
 of the American Government, the same measure of protection should be 
 accorded to the American farmer that is accorded to the American 
 manufacturer. 
 
 W^e iully realize that the protective policy can not do for the American 
 farmer what it is doing for the American manufacturer. The protective
 
 888 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 policy works as a charm, so far as nonstaples of agriculture are con- 
 cerned. An import duty will raise the price of the American farmer's 
 products to the same extent that it will raise the price of the American 
 manufacturer's products, but when it comes to the staples of agricul- 
 ture, the price of which is fixed in the markets of the world, the pro- 
 tective policy falls short, and as a result the American farmer can not 
 be protected in this way. Now, the State Grange of Pennsylvania asks 
 that the same policy be adopted to keep the prices of American agri- 
 cultural products up to the same standard that the prices of American 
 manufacturers are kept up. Now, the tariff of our country is not uniform 
 when you apply the policy of our Government, for you hud that the 
 American manufacturer can import raw material and pay a duty estab- 
 lished by this country, but if he manufactures his product and again 
 exports it the Government pays back to him 99 per cent, which is an 
 arbitrary policy of protection. 
 
 Now, if the American Government does that for the American manu- 
 facturer, then we also ask, in the name of justice, that the same prin- 
 ciple be applied to the protection of the American farmer. Therefore, 
 the protective policy can not add one cent to the price per bushel of 
 wheat or barrel of flour, because the price of that i)roduct is fixed in 
 the markets of the world, and a protective duty can not enhance the 
 price one penny, consequently there is nothing else to do but to ap])ly 
 the same principle which you apply to the American manufacturer, by 
 virtually placing a bounty in some way whereby the price might be 
 enhanced in our own market and protect the American farmer against 
 the competition of the cheap land and labor of the world. This same 
 rule applies to corn, it applies to cotton. The protective policy can 
 not be api^lied as in force in this country without applying the same 
 principle you apply to the American manufacturer, and that is what we 
 ask. And now, not to take up too much of your time, I would ask that 
 Senator Brown, a member of our legislative committee, be permitted 
 to submit the petition of the State Grange of Pennsylvania upon this 
 subject. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. If it will not interfere, before he begins, I would like 
 to ask by what method you propose to do this, by a bounty paid to the 
 producer of agricultural products? 
 
 Mr. Ehone. a bounty paid upon the export of wheat will enhance 
 the price of every bushel of wheat in American markets, because when 
 the foreign buyer puts up his hand at 80 cents the home buyer must 
 put up his hand at the same price. This law is universal, and it is well 
 understood by those who deal in the products of the staples of agri- 
 culture. Now, I would only say this: The question may be asked. 
 How do you propose to raise this revenue! When the Mckinley tariff 
 was taken off wool you decreased the national revenues over $11,000,000 ; 
 restore that duty and you can take that $11,000,000 and help the 
 American farmer so he can undersell every competitor in every country 
 of the world, and you will do precisely for the American farmer what 
 is done for the American manufacturer. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. GERARD C. BROWN, OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1897, 
 Mr. Brown said : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 have the honor to appear before you as a member of the legislative 
 committee of the State Grange of Pennsylvania, in order to give to you
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 889 
 
 the official action of the fiirmers of Peunsylvaiiia assembled at Altoona 
 on December 8 to 11 of this last year. I will read the resolutions passed 
 unanimously by that body: 
 
 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE PENKSYLVAKIA STATE GRANGE 
 IN ANNUAL SESSION AT ALTOONA, DECEMBER 8-11, 1896. 
 
 Your committee, in view of the continned depression in the prices of agricultural 
 staples, which in the })rice of wheat is only partially and temporarily relieved by the 
 demand for export caused by the accident of a shortage in the crops of onr principal 
 competitors, have given attention to the proposed policy of a bounty on agricultural 
 exports which has been so forcibly advocated by Mr. D. Lubiu, and we accept as 
 established these facts: 
 
 That the prices of agricultural products as a whole, and particularly of the great 
 8ta])le8, are so reduced as to be often below cost of production, and that in no case do 
 they oH'er a guarantee of profit. 
 
 That this situation is not confined to this country, although intensified here by the 
 more liberal mode and higher cost of living of our people — in short, by their progress 
 in education and advancement in civilization. 
 
 That unless remedied this condition must inevitably gravitate downward until 
 the level of the lower and debased agricultural population of the world is reached; 
 a condition incompatible with the maintenance of our higher civilization, and even 
 the i)erpetuity of our free institutions and our self-government. 
 
 'I'hat we recognize a new "world condition,' arising from the wonderful facilities 
 of transportation by land and sea which now bring together "as in a scroll" the 
 very ends of the earth, which outstrips even time itself in disseminating intelligence 
 through all the marts of trade. • 
 
 That we realize that by the introduction of modern automatic machinery the 
 superior efficiency of intelligent argiculturists is in a great degree discounted, and 
 the educated farmers of our land are brought into sharper competition with those 
 who but for the advantage gained l)y their use of such machinerj' could never have 
 become objects of our concern as rivals. 
 
 Tliat we are aware of the additional menace which threatens us from the approach- 
 ing com])k»tion of the Siberian railroad, and the o])ening by Russia as a bidder 
 against tlie world the most enormous contiguous arable tract on the planet, which, 
 when stocked with the latest farm machinery now manufactured in Continental 
 Europe will infallibly crowd all cereals to a point lower than ever yet reached. 
 
 I'hat we can not deceive ourselves with the idea that any measure of protection to 
 our industries oliered by a tarifi" on imports can avail in the slightest degiee to bene- 
 fit the grower of those crops of which he produces a surplus for exjjort, and whose 
 price is necessarily made in the world's market where they are and must continue to 
 be disposed of. 
 
 That we have a right to demand that the same proportion of advantage shall he 
 given to the agriculturalindustry that is accorded by law to anv other in this broad 
 land. 
 
 That while protection countries which are importers of agricultural products may 
 in a measure remedy the evil of low prices by increasiiag the duties of agricultural 
 imports, it is manifestly impossible for those which produce a surplus for exjjort to 
 give the least particle of relief to the interest of their farmers by a high tarifi' on 
 these products. 
 
 That the lessening of production of these farm staples so as to bring them within 
 the limit of our own home consumption is no remedy, as it is an economic impossi- 
 bility, and in any event could only injure by limiting the opportunities of employ- 
 ment to our people, reducing the actual resources and wealth of our country. 
 
 .\gaiu, that diversification of our production can afford no certain nor permanent 
 relief, as experience has proved that a largely increased production of s]iecialties, 
 such as dairy products, truck, berries, fruit, etc., only tends to eventuallj' lower 
 those things, as well as the staples, below the profit point. 
 
 At a time when the American farmer had a world monopoly in the production of 
 staples, when with cheaper lands he was the almost exclusive user of improved agri- 
 cultural machinerj^, he was then able to pay the ultimate net cost of a high protective 
 tarifi" and live; but when, as now, the world's prices are down to one-half their 
 former rates, in the face of this to even maintain, let alone raise still higher, the 
 protective tarifi' would be economic suicide. 
 
 What, then, is the remedy? It is clear that we must either lower the price of the 
 things which the agricultural producer must buy to the world level of value, through 
 free trade, or artificiallj' enhance in the home market the price of his products to the 
 protection level by a genuine and real protection policy. 
 
 This, we have seen, it is utterly impossible to efiect by any tariff, no matter how
 
 890 SCHEDUI-E G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 hieh upon the staple crops, whereas a bounty on exports could not fail to raise the 
 price of such products in the home market to the extent of that export bounty. 
 
 This would be securing to the American producer of these staples directly, and to 
 all farmers in this country in a greater or less degree indirectly, the same measure 
 of protection or advantage that the high tarifif now gives to manufacturers. 
 
 And just as long as our manufacturers are protected in their production by a tariff 
 on imports, every consideration of justice, equity, and expediency demands as an 
 offset an equal protection to agriculture by a bounty on exports. 
 
 Leonard Rhone, 
 Gerard C. Brown, 
 James G. McSpanan, 
 
 E. H. Thomas, 
 B. H. Warren, 
 
 F. A. Moore, 
 
 Legislative Committee. 
 
 Now, gentlemen of the committee, I have had the honor to submit to 
 you these resolutions formally adopted by the State Grange of Penn- 
 sylvania. This I have done acting by their authority, and have 
 appeared here not merely as a private individual giving my personal 
 opinions, but as a representative of the farmers of that great IState to 
 whom the duty has been intrusted. 
 
 The position of the farmers of tlie Keystone State on the tariff ques- 
 tion is pronounced and unmistakable. While not moving for change in 
 the law, they are resolute in not being discriminated against in what- 
 ^er changes may be made. 
 
 They stand for justice in tariff just as they have ever stood for justice 
 and equity before the law, by the law, under our Constitution. 
 
 This equity they recognize as their right, and, as shown by this dec- 
 laration, which was adopted without a dissenting voice at their annual 
 convention at Altoona on December 10, they are a unit in the deter- 
 mination to have their rights to equal treatment observed in tariff 
 legislation. 
 
 They realize the hollowness of the pretense of protection through a 
 tariff, and will not forget those who may foist such a policy on them in 
 their distress. After more than thirty years of protection they find 
 their properties shrunken in value from one third to one-half. Assess- 
 ment for taxation shows a falling off in twenty-five years of not less 
 than $200,0U(),000, or 25 per cent, while the burdens of taxation have 
 been intensified, the expense of living unchanged, and the cost of pro- 
 duction relatively undiminished. 
 
 They see that meanwhile other interests have been magnified in 
 importance and wealth. 
 
 The population of the State has increased about as fast as the prop- 
 erty of the farmers has diminished during these twenty-five years. 
 
 But while agriculture has so retrograded, manufacturing has gone 
 forward with wondrous strides. Capital thus invested has risen from 
 $410,000,000 to $1,000,000,000 (it was $091,000,000 in 1800), the num- 
 ber of employees has been doubled, the amount of wages paid has 
 increased 00 per cent, and the product of the factories to an even 
 greater rate. 
 
 While the population as well as the wealth of farming communities 
 has shrunken, the towns and centers of business have known no set- 
 backs. Twelve agricultural counties have less population now than 
 sixteen years since, while manufacturing towns have doubled their 
 population and quadrupled their wealth. 
 
 That the coalmining industries do not make an equal showing is 
 because the management is more concerned to roll up big profits than
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 891 
 
 to increase tlie output, and prefer the increment in dollars rather than 
 in tons. 
 
 While Pennsylvania farmers have lost $250,000,000 in the assessed 
 value of their holdings, the real estate of Philadelphia alone has in the 
 same time raised from $440,000,000 to $732,000,000. 
 
 So that under the protective system, which has prevailed ever since 
 the exigency of the war rendered its imposition possible, because it 
 seemed unavoidable, mining, manufacturing, and kimlred business enter- 
 prises have been favored and assisted, while farming has dejjreciated. 
 
 It this condition prevailed in Pennsylvania alone it might be held 
 that local causes engendered it; but it is notorious that it is coextensive 
 and aliects every State and Territory over wliich our starry banner 
 waves; more, perhaps, in some and less in other localities, but every- 
 where, and the loss to farmers is greatest where they have had the most 
 to lose. That it should exist in Pennsylvania, of all States in the Union, 
 is perhaps the greatest anomaly, if there is any truth in the home- 
 market arguments for i^rotection. 
 
 The tacts as they stand, however, utterly disprove them, and show 
 that no such tiling as a suflicient or remunerative home market has 
 been fnrnislied us in return for the immense and incalculable sacrifices 
 made by the farmers on the altar of protecticm for now a full generation. 
 
 If anything, we'are now more dependent on the foreign market than 
 we have ever been, and the only reason that the volume of our agricul- 
 tural surplus is not greater yet than it is now is because of the increas- 
 ing poverty of our farmers and their inability to continue production 
 without profit. 
 
 That the capital of the farmers of Pennsylvania, situated as they are 
 in the heart of the most heavily protected industries of this country, 
 has diminished at least 25 per cent is proven by the census of 1870 and 
 1800, which show that the assessed value of their real estate alone fell 
 in tliose twenty years from $1,043,000,000 to $022,000,000, and that 
 the capital of the manufacturers augmented in the same time from 
 $400,000,000 to $!>91,0(K).000, while the city real estate more than 
 doubled; the value of railroad, telegraph, and other sjjeculative prop- 
 erties nearly tri])led. 
 
 We submit that we are entirely satisfied that whoever may have 
 gotten the benefits of a ]>rotective tariff we certainly have not. 
 
 There is, therefore, no cause for wonderment that so conservative a 
 body as the State Grange, fairly representative of every agricultural 
 interest in Pennsylvania, even though its membershiji by more than 
 two thirds be affiliated through past association and inherited predi- 
 lections with the Republican party, should by a practically unanimous 
 assent draft and present so strong a protest against increase of tariff 
 taxation as the report which I have had the honor to present to you. 
 
 That convention recognized that the machinery of the Government 
 has passed into the hands of those who are better known as advocates 
 of radical and exorbitant protection than for anything else, and that 
 without question the ])olicy adopted would probably be extreme along 
 this line. Therefore there was no hesitation on the part of any who were 
 farmers to utter the protest and indorse the recommendation it contains. 
 
 We declare positively that if protection is to be the policy it must be 
 of a kind that will embrace us as well as our neighbors. No more 
 favoritism for s])ecial interests, and least of all at our expense. 
 
 We object to being buncoed on so vital a matter. 
 
 Even those of us who are oi)posed to any such prostitution of the
 
 892 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 powers of Government as the taxation of some for the benefit of others 
 can not fail to require an offset to tariff if they are to be subjected to it. 
 
 And as to those of us who are "worshipers of the goddess," who 
 believe in protection through a high tariff as the Chinaman believes in 
 his ioss or the Hottentot in his fetich— blind it may be, but devoted— 
 of all farmers they must demand that its sheltering wings be spread 
 over them also. . 
 
 It is useless for Congress to attempt to satisfy them with a tariff on 
 imports, no matter how high or prohibitive. Past experience tells that 
 story, even if it were not repugnant to common sense. 
 
 The time has gone by when the farmers of the United States can be 
 placated with "soothing sirup" of that kind. 
 
 That portion of them who do know that high taxes are no remedy for 
 low prices for farm products is too small and insignificant to count 
 anywhere. 
 
 Those of them who do not know that the cost of heavier taxation 
 comes right out of the farmers, and nowhere else, are not more numerous 
 or influential. 
 
 Now more than ever all are beginning to realize that wliile high 
 tariff" can increase the prices of those things whose production can be 
 controlled and regulated by mutual agreement among the producers of 
 such goods, staple farm production can not possibly be so provided for, 
 and that inevitably the net cost of protection — that is, the enhanced 
 price of the protected article— must fall on them, and that they must 
 pay it in the end. 
 
 They are naturally agitated over the prospect now before them. An 
 epoch of diminishing prices to be marked by an increase of taxation, 
 both direct and indirect, with consequent higher cost of produ(;tion, 
 lessened power of consumption, and progressive stagnation and impov- 
 erishment — such is the situation which they see no reasonable chance 
 of escaping under existing circumstances. 
 
 It largely rests with you, gentlemen of the Ways and Means Com- 
 mittee, as to what extent these forebodings are or are not to be realized. 
 
 It is not merely in the matter of originating measures of revenue and 
 taxation for that purpose, but in curbing the necessities for more reve- 
 nue by reducing the exi)enses of government, that you have so great 
 an opportunity to serve the i)eoi)le, and thus esi)ecially to relieve the 
 farmers. 
 
 The deficit which is so deplored and so embarrassing should find some 
 remedy less harsh, less grinding, upon the taxpayers and wage earners 
 of the country than an increase of taxation. 
 
 IS^othing in our development has been more remarkable than the 
 extraordinary growth of public expenditures, which have increased 
 much more rapidly than the population, and without any relation to 
 the ability of the farmers to meet them. 
 
 In 1860 Pennsylvania had 2,900,000 inhabitants and raised by taxes 
 $8,729,000, or 82.70 per capita; in 1870, with 3,500.000 population, 
 levied $24,000,000, or $6.85 per capita; but in 1890, with a population 
 of o,.300,000, required $48,000,000, or a tax of 89.06 fi)r each person. 
 
 The United States Government in 1800 levied $3.03, in 1870 $7.10, 
 and in 1890, after more than twenty- five years of i^ro found peace, 
 exacted not less than $7.59 as tax upon each man, woman, and child 
 domiciled in her borders. 
 
 One hundred years ago it required only $1.10 to keep us in order and 
 administer a Government which was, to say the least, as efficient and in
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 893 
 
 all essentials as satisfactory as we have since that time been favored 
 with. 
 
 When it is considered that in the ii)ain the prices of farm products 
 of the great staples of farm production which have made the nation 
 rich beyond all precedent in history, but which are not enriching the 
 farmers who produce them, average lower now than in those times of 
 lower taxation; when it must be admitted that the price of these farm 
 products measures the ability of the farmer to meet his taxes, there 
 can be no two opinions as to the critical condition of agriculture. 
 
 The same consideration must forbid honest legislators from any 
 chances of adding to his burdens by increasing the tariff charge on 
 anytliiug which he needs and can obtain only through an exchange of 
 the i)roducts of his labor. Nothing can excuse so reckless a disregard 
 of his interests on their part. 
 
 And since from the very nature of things the farmer must bear the 
 brunt of taxation, it is clearly not out of order when considering the 
 general agricultural schedule for this committee, which has been so 
 occupied in listening to the appeals of divers special and individual 
 interests, whose representatives are one and all extending their por- 
 ringers for a higher tax for the jiarticular benefit of each and sundry, 
 to give their attention to a method of relief to all agricultural interests, 
 so fair, so sound, so efficacious, as a general and decisive retrenchment 
 of governmental expenses all along the line, for reduction of expenses 
 means reduction of taxes. This obviates the need of increase of bur- 
 den on consumers, diminishes cost of living and of production, enlarges 
 the value of wages and the price of the products of labor, restores the 
 natural equality of all citizens under the law by lessening the oppor- 
 tunity and pulling the teeth of trusts and combines; and, while favor- 
 ing all legitimate producing interests, will especially promote agriculture 
 and tend to restore, so far as may be, those better days when profit was 
 possible and the farmers' prosperity made this a happy and contented 
 people. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ALEX. J. WEDDEEBURN, MASTER OF STATE 
 GRANGE OF VIRGINIA. 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1897. 
 Mr. Wedderburn said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com 
 mittee, I appreciate that I must be very brief, and what I have written 
 here I will not attempt to read, but will hand to the stenographer to bo 
 printed with my remarks. I am here representing the State Grange of 
 Virginia, the only nonpolitical farmers' organization in the State. I 
 simply desire to say that I have listened with a great deal of pleasure 
 to. what has preceded me during the day, and for several days x^ast, 
 wherever it has touched upon agricultural products. I have seen the 
 miners of the country and manufacturers of the country come here in 
 force. They have been thoroughly and ably represented. Growers of 
 specific agricultural products have also been well represented here, but 
 the great staples of agriculture, the products that come from the real 
 farmers of this country, from the farms of the West and the plantations 
 of the South, have until to-day not been heard. Just consider the fact 
 that out of the eight hundred millions export over 70 per cent come 
 direct from the farm, being staple products, sent out from this country 
 to bring back money into the United States. And we come here simply
 
 894 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTUKAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 to ask that we receive the same protecting care at your hands as is 
 accorded the manufacturer and the miner. When you give this pro- 
 tection to the manufacturer and miner by a tariff you raise the price of 
 those products and put the burden upon the man at the ])low who pro- 
 duces the corn, the cotton, the tobacco, and other staples in this country. 
 
 We are not here to ask you not to give this protection to those other 
 industries, but to ask you to give due, full, and fair consideration to 
 the American farmer who produces the staples which, when exported, 
 bring into America over $000,000,000 a year. 
 
 I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that it would be impossible for this com- 
 mittee to go into a full discussion of this subject at this time. There 
 are, however, two bills before the House to which I would like to call 
 attention — one presented by Mr. Johnson, of California, and another. 
 House bill 9598, presented by Mr. Meredith, of Virginia. I would 
 request, on behalf of the farmers of Virginia, and also with the sanc- 
 tion of Colonel Khone, master of the State Grange of Pennsylvania, 
 that we be given a special subcommittee and a hearing at the proper 
 time, to present facts and figures that we have prepared'quite elabo- 
 rately that will show that unless something is done for this great indus- 
 try — this money-producing industry — the farmers must go to the wall. 
 I hope you will recognize this, and that you will also consider another 
 fact — tliat unless the farmer prospers none can prosper. 
 
 There is a bill before this Congress asking that a differential duty be 
 placed in favor of American shijjs, which provides that a bonus of 10 
 per cent be placed on stuff brought in from abroad for the benetit of 
 those ships. I want to call your attention to tlie fact that if that bill 
 becomes a law the result will be to bring into this country competitors 
 for our manufactures. What we wish to do is to take out of this 
 country products produced or manufactured here and bring back 
 money. We would like to have this done in American ships. There 
 is no way by which the American farmer can be protected except by 
 an export bounty on stai)le agricultural products, and the best way to 
 protect American ships is to pay them for carrying abroad American 
 farm products. 
 
 Mr. Steele. You say you represent the only nonpolitical farmers' 
 organization. Do you have political farmers' organizations in Virginia. 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. I believe there are in several States of the I'liion. 
 I would rather be excused from saying anything about any other organ- 
 ization than the one I belong to, the Grange, which is nonjiolitical. 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn then submitted the f Mowing written argument: 
 
 As Virginia is a large producer of agricultural stajjles, on behalf of 
 our State Grange I desire to ask that in seeking whom you can benetit 
 by the bill you are now preparing that you will not overlook tiie man 
 who follows the plow and produces by his toil and industry the greater 
 part of the nation's wealth, the man upon whom the prosjyerity of all 
 depends. It has been stated that fifty men in New York could tie up 
 trade and smash things generally in this country. If this be true it is 
 an unfortunate condition, but there is no denying that if the farmers 
 went on a strike for twelve months the worldwould be depopulated. 
 If we owe to these people food, clothing, life itself, and our general 
 prosperity as a nation, certainly we owe them consideiali<m enough in 
 the enactment of our laws to place them on an equal plane with other 
 industries, and in the make-up of your schedule we believe that we 
 have the right not only to be heard but to receive as much thought, 
 care, and protection as has any other important industry of the Union.
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 895 
 
 Parties or sectiousof riglit have nothing to do with this matter — it is 
 purely and siuijtly a qnestion of business — a question of i)ati'iotisni. If 
 we admit, as we are forced to do, that stajde agriculture is the founda- 
 tion industry, the taproot of success that has brought fabulous wealth 
 to our nation in the past and is the only possible means through which 
 that prosperity can be continued — it is the duty of this committee to 
 see that this great industry is protected equally with every other 
 industry, that it is upheld and fostered instead of being made to carry 
 the burden of debt and taxation that other industries may flourish. 
 
 The basic principles upon which this country was established were 
 equality and justice. 
 
 Without regard to partisanship, the great majority of the American 
 people will agree that taxation should be adjusted so as to bear with 
 ecjual force upon all classes and on all sections. 
 
 The majority of men sup])orting a protective policy do so because 
 they believe that such a policy incidentally i)rotects all, while, on the 
 other hand, the majority of men who oppose this protection idea do so 
 because they believe that it unjustly burdens a large class \^hile it 
 benefits another much smaller class. 
 
 Whether the benefits are greater than the burdens to the general 
 l)ublic is where we disagree. 
 
 If a condition could be assured where the burdens and benefits were 
 more equall}^ distributed, doubtless the opposition to a protective 
 ])olicy would in a great measure cease. No intelligent man with a par- 
 ticle of patriotism would for a moment oppose protection t€ American 
 industries, ])rovided all American industries were equally protected; 
 and even if the burdens were more equally distributed than at present 
 the opi)osition would be less. 
 
 I take it to be self-evident that: 
 
 First. That i)rotection through a tariff, if it protects, must, until 
 competition reduces prices, mean a rise to very nearly the extent ot 
 the tariff and the profit thereon on the protected goods (the manufac- 
 tured American goods), which are sold at just enough below the price 
 of the imported competitor to secure them the larger part of the home 
 market, and that this rise has to be paid for by someone, and that some- 
 one, the consumer, who finally pays for the products and uses them. It 
 would be foolishness to assume that this rise of price is paid by the 
 importer, for he adds to his i)rice the tariff" and charges a profit thereon, 
 as well as on the price of the goods. Nor can it be charged against the 
 wholesaler; he, too, adds on his profit, as do all through whose hands 
 the goods ])ass, charging also a profit on every additional charge of 
 transportation and handling. Thus the goods finally come down to the 
 retailer, who sells them to the consumer, and he pays the cost of importa- 
 tion duties, profits, and transportation charges. It goes without saying 
 that the consumer pays these costs and, therefore, alone pays the tariff' 
 tax. 
 
 Second. The manufacturer derives the benefit from this protection. 
 He not only secures the greater part of the home market thereby, but 
 until met by home competition he can, by slightly underselling his 
 foreign competitor, make a profit over and above that which is just and 
 fair to the extent of nearly the amount of the tariff. A part of this he 
 divides with his workman, but it is readily understood that the work- 
 man's share is small, as the increase of his wages is due more to his 
 productive capacity than to the protective tariff' — American skill and 
 American machinery enabling him to produce greatly in excess of his
 
 896 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 foreign competitor. The manufacturer is enabled to protect himself 
 against home competition by combines to limit production. This, how- 
 ever, can not and does not protect the wage earner, but, on the contrary, 
 by lessening work destroys employment. 
 
 Third. That while the producer of nonstaple products of the farm, 
 the prices of which are fixed by the supply and demand at home, is 
 incidentally protected by a tariff' which supplies a home market, those 
 staple products, a part of which are exported and sold in competition 
 with like foreign products in the world's central market, where the 
 price is fixed not only for the article sold there but for the same article 
 sold here on the American farm, the price being the same at both 
 places, less the cost of transportation and other charges from the farm 
 to Liverpool, the producers of these staple agricultural products, a 
 part of which are exported, are not only not benefited by the protec- 
 tion afforded by a tariff, but are compelled to pay for the larger part, 
 if not all, of the protection given the manufacturer through the tariff', 
 the price of what the farmer sells being fixed abroad and in competition 
 witli the world's products, while the price of that which he purchases 
 is advanced at home through protection. 
 
 Fourth. The farmer producing exportable products adds to the coun- 
 try's wealth at the rate of over $600,000,000 every year. The ]>rice for 
 this immense sum of our products is fixed abroad in competition with 
 like products, produced on the cheapest lands, with the cheapest labor, 
 paid with the cheapest money, and using the very best machinery for 
 such productive purposes that is made in the world. Nor is this all. 
 The price of that very much greater portion used at home is fixed at 
 exactlj^ the same figure by the same competition, under the same condi- 
 tions, and entailing the same injustice to these wealth and bread pro- 
 ducers of our country. That is, the foreign and home price for these 
 products are the same, less transportation and other charges, and are 
 fixed abroad under free trade with the world's competition, wliile tlio 
 producer is compelled to buy his supi)lies in a protected market. 
 
 Fifth. AYhile the actual trade balances are in our favor, so far as buy- 
 ing and selling are concerned, we are in reality going annually deeper 
 into debt to foreign countries. The interest on public, corporate, and 
 private indedtedness abroad now exceeds $350,000,000; we pay to for- 
 eigners for handling our ocean transportation over $100,000,(H)0; our 
 millionaires spend abroad another hundred millions; aliens send hence 
 another hundred millions; wl)i]e over 8r)(),( !()0,000 are ])aid each year 
 for insurance; or a grand total of $700,000,000, from which, if we deduct 
 the trade balances, we have an annual increase of foreign debt of over 
 $450,000,000, which is steadily and raj^idly increasing. Under the cir- 
 cumstances, an essential in statesmanship would seem to be how to reduce 
 this adverse balance and turn it into a balance in our favor. Individ- 
 ual liberty being one of the first principles of our (Government, we can 
 not restrict those who are rich from "pursuing ]iap|)iness"' abroad and 
 scattering their millions among the nobility of Europe. As it is uncon- 
 stitutional to place a duty on exports, we are unable to restrict the 
 Chinese and Italians fi^om exporting their savings. We can, however, 
 restrict this class of immigration and save much to our nation and its 
 workingmen. By a liberal system of protection to American ships, 
 when used for the purpose, not of bringing foreign goods to our coun- 
 try to compete with our manufacturers and wage earners, but wlien 
 caiTying hence products of American farms, mines, and factories so as
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 897 
 
 to increase our exports and decrease our imports aud foreign debts. 
 We can save the $100,000,000 paid out for ocean transportation and a 
 large part of the insurance sent to old mother England. By a liberal 
 policy of export bounties on all products sent abroad in American 
 ships we can easily turn the trade balance in our favor and pay off 
 our foreign debts and restore prosperity to our farms, and thereby 
 to our factories aud mines. 
 
 The man who sells more than he buys is the one who grows rich. 
 We are not doing this. I mean, to be literal, our outgo is something in 
 the neighborhood of $450,000,000 greater than we are able to meet, or 
 very nearly 6 per cent on the entire wealth of the country, estimating 
 it to be, in sjjite of these hard times, $75,000,000,000. The continuation 
 of such a drain means continued hard times and worse distress. ISone 
 can deny that some remedy should be devised to assist in reviving the 
 farming interests of our country, which we are informed by the Secre- 
 tary of Agriculture is prosperous, because only 28 per cent of the farms 
 are mortgaged. 
 
 If equality and equity are the foundation upon which the superstruc- 
 ture of our Government rests, then if it is fair to protect the manu- 
 facturer and miner it is equally as fair to protect the farmer. We know 
 that he feeds us all ; that his prosperity means busy hours for the manu- 
 facturers and miners of America; that happiness and wealth (compara- 
 tive, of course) around the log fire in the old homestead not only means 
 wealth for the manufacturer and work for the wage earner, but it means 
 peace, plenty, and prosperity for our country; but so long as the farmer 
 raises his crops at a loss per acre, so long as the sheriffs red flag floats 
 over the mortgaged homes of the settlers on the prairies of the West or 
 the fertile valleys and sandy slopes of the South, so long will prosperity 
 refuse to come again; so long as hard times hang around the farmer's 
 cabin door, so long will its reflection be seen and felt in the homes of 
 the workingmen of New England. Under such conditions it becomes 
 the duty of every patriotic representative of the people to carefully con- 
 sider how best to promote the farmer's welfare, how best to make his, 
 the foundation industry, pay. I believe I have tried conscientiously to 
 see how this could be done, and I find but two ways by which his 
 condition can be benefited: 
 
 One is to increase the circulating medium, to expand the currency. 
 With this matter this committee is not charged. 
 
 The other is to raise the price of his products, artificially, just as the 
 price of the manufactured or mined product is raised. It would be 
 impossible and absurd to consider a |»lan of paying a bounty on pro- 
 duction, and that is not what is needed, but this committee can well 
 afford to investigate thoroughly the advisability of enabling the pro- 
 ducer of staple products to reach a foreign market with his products 
 and meet on equal grounds his competitor — the coolie, the fellah, the 
 muzhik, the ryot, and the peon. This may strike you as wild and 
 impossible, but if you will consider it without political prejudice and 
 from an economic standpoint you will find that it is not only just, but 
 practical. The bill presented by Mr. Meredith, prepared by Captain 
 Bates, ex-United States Commissioner of Navigation, and now before 
 your committee, should receive your most careful consideration. 
 
 This measure, or something on the same line, is, in my estimation, the 
 only possible way by which the farmer who produces staples can be 
 protected against the inequalities of any tariff", high or low. 
 TH 57
 
 898 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HON. HOEACE G. SNOVER, A REPRE- 
 SENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 Washington, January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The people of the Seventh district of Michigan, which has a lake 
 and river coast of soniethiiip- like 300 miles, reaching from nearly the 
 head of Saginaw Bav to the corporate limits of the city of Detroit, 
 think that tlieir condition, so far as tariff matters are concerned, could 
 be largely improved, and, in their behalf, I herewith submit some of 
 these conditions to your consideration, 
 
 Canada has long had a duty on small fruits and garden truck, which 
 have been admitted free very largely to our country from there, and 
 which has worked serious harm to our gardeners and small-fruit grow- 
 ers, as well as farmers in general. The Canadian duty on peaches is 
 1 cent Ber pound, upon small fruits 2 cents per pound, on garden truck 
 and all' kinds of greenhouse stock, all kinds of plants and ornamental 
 shrubs, trees, etc., 20 per cent ad valorem. This includes all nursery 
 stock except apple, pear, plum, and cherry trees, on which there is a 
 specific duty of 3 cents each. All of these we admit free; and the ten- 
 dency has been to encourage these industries just across the St. Clair 
 and Detroit rivers, and the establishing of important industries there 
 on the other side of the line where people engaged in them have access 
 to the markets of both countries, instead of on this side of the line, 
 where but one side could be reached. Our gardeners, particularly in 
 the southern end of Macomb County, and also in Oakland and Wayne 
 counties in the immediate vicinity of the city of Detroit, and also in St. 
 Clair County in the vicinity of the cities of Port Huron, St. Clair, and 
 Marine City, have undoubtedly been much injured by reason of these 
 articles being admitted free from Canada. 
 
 This matter has been called to the attention of the State Horticultu- 
 ral Society and also to the county horticultural societies, and I attach 
 herewith a copy of resolution received from the secretary of the State 
 Horticultural So-'iety for your consideration as a part of the statement 
 now submitted. ( '.exhibit A.) 
 
 The McKinley tnriff was in the main satisfactory, and aftorded a fair 
 protection to American farmers; yet in some respects it did not do 
 justice to the people on the border. For instance, under the McKiidey 
 law, berries from the Canadian side were admitted free, while they, on 
 the other hand, placed a duty of 2 cents per pound on them. The 
 McKinley law also placed a duty of 60 cents ]ier barrel on grapes, 
 which has been found to be totally inadequate and practically no pro- 
 tection at all. We submit that gra])es should pay duty by the pound, 
 not less than 1 cent; berries, instead of being free, should pay at least 
 as high a duty as is charged upon the other side. The change also on 
 very many products of the farm from specific to ad valorem duties, 
 made by the Wilson schedule, has proved very unsatisfactory. 
 
 These matters with reference to the Seventh district of Michigan 
 have been examined and figures carefully compiled with reference to 
 them by Frank E. Nellis, of the Mount Clemens Monitor, and I also 
 attach herewith a printed statement of these matters, as compiled by 
 him, in which I fully concur. (Exhibit B.) 
 
 What is true with reference to the Seventh district of Michigan is 
 true with regard to farmers generally in the State of Michigan and in 
 the Northwest. 
 
 Horace G. Snover, M. O.
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 
 
 899 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 A coumiuuication from tbe horticulturists of St. Clair County was referred to tbia 
 comiJiitLee, wlio have carefully considered it and do recommend adoption of the fol- 
 lowing resolution : 
 
 liesolved, That the secretary of the society address each of the Michigan represeiit- 
 atives in the United States Senate and House of Representatives as follows: The 
 Michigan State Horticultural Society, in its annual meeting in Grand Rapids, 
 December 2, 1896, respectfully calls your attention to the tarili'laws regarding sum- 
 mer fruits, vegetables, and nursery stock, which, as they now exist, allow those prod- 
 ucts to be shipped into the United States from Canada duty free, while our own 
 gardeners ami farmers are required to pay duty for sending such products into 
 Canada, amounting, in the case of berries, to 2 cents per pound, and correspondingly 
 large duties upon all other such fruits and nursery stock.' We submit that this is a 
 hardship and a tax upon our peojile, from wliich they should be relieved, and we ask 
 that you give the matter immediate attention, with a view to so amending our laws 
 as to correct the evil. 
 
 W. W. Tracy, 
 J. F. Taylor, 
 
 W. W. RORK, 
 
 Committee. 
 EXHIBIT B. 
 
 THE farmers' tariff. 
 
 [From the Mount Clemens Monitor.] 
 
 Under the McKinley tariff, duties on i»rincipal agricultural products competing 
 with ^Michigan and all other border farmers (and indirectly with all American 
 farmers) were as follows: 
 
 Article. 
 
 Cattle. - per head 
 
 Slieep do. . 
 
 Hay per ton 
 
 Straw, 30 per cent .ad valorem. 
 
 E^igs per dozen 
 
 Horses per head 
 
 Potatues per bnshel 
 
 Hogs per head 
 
 Barley per bushel 
 
 Cal)bago per head 
 
 Butter per pound 
 
 Cheese do. . 
 
 Corn > per bushel 
 
 Wheat do. . 
 
 Oats do . 
 
 Lard per pound 
 
 Bacon and ham do. . 
 
 Kate. 
 
 $10.00 
 1.50 
 4.00 
 
 .05 
 30.00 
 .25 
 1.50 
 .30 
 .03 
 .06 
 .06 
 .15 
 .25 
 .15 
 .02 
 .05 
 
 Article. 
 
 Fresh beef, mutton, and pork .per pound. . 
 
 Broom corn per ton . . 
 
 Poultry, dressed per pound . . 
 
 Poultry, live do 
 
 Honey per gallon.. 
 
 Grapes per barrel.. 
 
 Onions per busliel . 
 
 Apples do 
 
 Hops per pound. 
 
 Milk per gallon.. 
 
 Berries 
 
 Vegetables, othbr, in natural state, 25 per 
 cent ad valorem . 
 
 Beans per bushel.. 
 
 Buckwheat do 
 
 Com meal do 
 
 ■Rate. 
 
 $0. 02 
 8.00 
 .05 
 .02 
 .20 
 .60 
 .40 
 .25 
 .15 
 .05 
 
 Free. 
 
 .40 
 .15 
 .20 
 
 These duties in the main afforded a fair i>rotection to American farmers. It will 
 be noticed that with few exceptions they were specific duties, and thus prevented 
 frauds through undervaluation. 
 
 The McKinley law was not absolutely right, however. The duty of 60 cents a 
 barrel on grapes was wholly inadequate, and practically no protection at all. Grapea 
 should pay by the pound, and at least a cent a pound. Berries, instead of being free, 
 should pay (all kinds) not less than 3 cents a quart. Vegetables not specified, should 
 be specified, all of them, and a specific duty put on each kind. We believe that the 
 duty should be increased on fresh beef, mutton, and pork. Every ad valorem duty 
 should be stricken off. 
 
 The Wilson law that took the place of the McKinley tariff, is an abomination, and 
 Michigan Congressmen in helping to frame the new tariff can profitably consider its 
 deficiencies. The Wilson law put certain products, among them cabbage, milk, and 
 broom corn, on the free list. It reduced duties enormously, and by the substitution 
 of ad valorem for specific duties has added to an insufficient tariff gross fraud upon 
 the revenue. Undervaluation has almost wholly destroyed whatever of protection 
 the law was designed to afford.
 
 900 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 A comparison will show how this has been accomplished. Here is tiie Wilson law 
 schedule, affecting products named above : 
 
 Articles. 
 
 Cattle. 
 Sheep . 
 
 Straw . . . 
 Egg.s.... 
 Horses .. 
 Potatoes 
 
 Hogs 
 
 Barley . . 
 Cabbage. 
 Butter . . 
 Cbeeae . . 
 
 Corn 
 
 Wheat .. 
 Oats. 
 
 Lard 
 
 Bacon and ham 
 
 Fresh beef, mutton, and pork 
 
 Poultry, live 
 
 Poultry, dressed 
 
 Honey 
 
 Grapes 
 
 Onions 
 
 Apples 
 
 Hops 
 
 Milk 
 
 Berries 
 
 Vegetables, other than in natural state. 
 
 Beans 
 
 Buckwheat 
 
 Cora m«al 
 
 Bate. 
 
 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Do. 
 $2 per ton. 
 15 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 3 c^nts per dozen. 
 
 20 p«r cent ad valorem. 
 15 cents per bushel. 
 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 Free. 
 
 4 c«nt6 per pound. 
 
 Do. 
 20 p^r cent ad valorem. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 1 cent p«r pound. 
 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Do. 
 1 cent per pound. 
 3 cents per pound. 
 10 cants per gallon. 
 20 per oeat »A valorem. 
 20 ceat* per bushel. 
 20 per c«at ad valorem. 
 8 cants per pound. 
 Free, 
 ft*©©. 
 
 10 per cant ad valorem. 
 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 The operation ©f the measure may 1)0 judged by the following comparative tabh> 
 showing imports of eleven articles at the port of Detroit. 
 
 Articles. 
 
 Ponltry poands . 
 
 Corn biwhels. 
 
 Oats do... 
 
 Eggs doii«nB. 
 
 H^y tuns. 
 
 Beef -poandfi . 
 
 Mutton do 
 
 Straw toD«. 
 
 Barley bubhcte . 
 
 Potatoes do... 
 
 Wool poanda. 
 
 Two years 
 
 unier 
 
 McKinley 
 
 bill. 
 
 150, 822 
 
 1,940 
 
 2,408 
 
 125,975 
 
 84 
 
 45, T.'W 
 
 1,500 
 
 24 
 
 12, 636 
 
 33,840 
 
 5,899 
 
 Tw« Years 
 
 nsaer 
 WflsoB -Gor- 
 man bill. 
 
 235,347 
 
 3,8C3 
 
 22,483 
 
 218,278 
 
 2,390 
 
 348,358 
 
 65,32.5 
 
 371 
 
 53,441 
 
 90,675 
 
 280,525 
 
 The Republiean party is pledged to give the farmer a tariflF tliat •will protect him. 
 We would like to see that tariff made prohibitory. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HON. CHARLES DANIELS, A REPRE 
 SENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 A large part of the district which I have the honor to represent is 
 along the Canadian border, or contiguous to it, and is therefore greatly 
 affected by the importation of agricultural productions from the Cana- 
 dian Province of Ontario. These productions are mainly tlie same as 
 the agricultural products of western Kew York. The' land in that 
 Province along the border is much cheaper than similar land in the State 
 of New York, and the recompense paid for agricultural labor is much 
 lower there than in the State of New York. The result is that the 
 Canadian farmers along the border carry their productions to the 
 border cities, chiefly Buflalo and Lockport, and after paying the present,
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 901 
 
 rates of customs duties on the articles, cau and do sell them at prices 
 below those remunerating American farmers for their own cost of pro- 
 duction. 
 
 For example, hay in large quantities is drawn from 5 to 15 miles in 
 the interior, the duty of $2 a ton is paid on it, and then it is sold at 
 rates which crowd down what would otherwise be its fair market price. 
 The same is equally true of nearly all agricultural ]iroducts, farinaceous 
 substances, dairy j)roducts, live animals, farm and field iH'oducts men- 
 tioned in sections or subdivisions 189 to 208 of the present revenue law; 
 and the like effect extends far into the interior of the State. The duties 
 payable by the Canadian importer upon most of these articles are now 
 from one-fourth to one-half less than they were under the revenue law of 
 1890, and to tbat extent benefit the Canadian producer by enabling him 
 to undersell the American farmer in our own markets. 
 
 The act of 1890 placed the American market for agricultural products 
 more nearly in the hands of the American producer, and gave him then 
 only a slight profit on the products of his labor and his land. At the 
 best he has been a sufferer from low prices during quite a series of years, 
 and by the law of 1894 his misfortunes have been greatly aggravated 
 by reducing his prices and giving what profit there may be in the mar- 
 ket to inhabitants of the Canadian Province, who neither contribute nor 
 do anything for the support or maintenance of our own Government, or 
 of American institutions. All the advantages in these pursuits are 
 extended to and provided for j^eople who bear none of our burdens, and 
 the agriculturists of western New York are naturally led to ask what 
 advantage our Government, which we help to support, has been or now 
 is securing to us. The inquiry is entirely natural, and can not fail as 
 long as the present condition continues to create disaffection and dis- 
 satisfaction in the minds of a reflecting and intelligent as well as worthy 
 portion of our people. 
 
 Rationally it would seem to be the clear duty of the American Gov- 
 ernment, as far as it may be reasonably practical, to remove this 
 ground of just complaint. With the increased duties prescribed for 
 these products by the law of 1890, the cause of complaint was corre- 
 spondingly reduced, and the farming people along the border, and par- 
 ticularly of western New York where the passage is so short from one 
 country to the other, will be greatly benefited by a substantial resto- 
 ration on their products of that system or scale of duties. 
 
 They are our own citizens, obedient to the laws, as well as the other 
 exactions of Government, and in their pursuits should be protected 
 against unjust discriminations from other countries. Other govern- 
 ments endeavor to promote and advance the prosperity of their own 
 people, and the Government of this great Republic can wisely do no 
 less. An object of its creation was stated by the Constitution to be 
 the promotion of the general welfare, and in no one respect can that be 
 more surely done than by securing to the agriculturists the markets of 
 their own country, instead of opening them to the people of another 
 country, who can in no emergency be relied upon for either assistance or 
 support. 
 
 For the present the farming public of western New York will be sat- 
 isfied with the substantial restoration of the customs duties prescribed 
 by the revenue act of 1890, and in their behalf I respectfully ask that 
 tliis benefit shall be secured to these farmers at the present time, or in 
 the near future, when that can be done. 
 
 Chas. Daniels, 
 Thirty -third district, State of Neiv YorJc.
 
 902 SCHEDULE a — AGRICULTUEAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HON. GEO. W. SPAULDING, A REPRE- 
 SENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 In behalf of tlie farmers of JMicliigau and of other States bordering 
 on the British possessions in Nortli America, and indirectly in behalf 
 of all American farmers, 1 wish to call the attention of the committee 
 to their pressing need of a tariff" which will afford them protection on 
 and give them a market for the products of their farms. The comi)e- 
 tition between the Canadian and American farmer in the American 
 markets near the border is very sharp, and in almost every case, under 
 present conditions, the Canadian gets the belter of the tight. This 
 latter fact is due to the lower price of land in Canada, cheaper labor, 
 and cheaper transportation. The slight protection which might have 
 been intended under tlie present law is entirely destroyed by the under- 
 valuation of goods due to the ad valorem system. 
 
 In Michigan 1 tind that the markets along the border line are flooded 
 with Canadian-grown produce of the farm, dairy, and garden. I am 
 informed, and know it to be a fact, tliat farmers living williin 20 miles 
 of Detroit, and who sell their products in the market of that <'ity, must 
 start for the city in the night time in order to get a stand in the market 
 the next morning, for if they do not start this early all the maiket 
 space is monojiolized by the Canadians. This is also true, I am told, 
 in several other border cities. The following comparative ta!)le shows 
 very jdainly i o what extent we furnish a market for Canadian jjroducts. 
 The table shows the imports of eleven articles at the i)ort of Detroit 
 alone for two years under the McKinley law as compared with two years 
 under the Wilson law. I would also most respectfully call attention to 
 the fact that, although the importations under the McKinley law were 
 nuich less, on account of the higher tariff the revenue is not very 
 different. 
 
 Articles. 
 
 Two veflrs fT.„.„ „„„„„ 
 uniler ^^l" 71^" 
 
 McKinley 
 biU. 
 
 UIldtT 
 
 Wilson bill. 
 
 Poultry pounds. 
 
 Corn l.ushela. 
 
 Oats ,|(j 
 
 Eggs /.'.v. .■.■".'.".'.'.'.. ".'..dozens! 
 
 Say. toDH- 
 
 ^f^^ T)oinid8. 
 
 Mutton ,]„ 
 
 S^raw !!''"" !^"!"'"ll!!!!!toii8! 
 
 B^r'e.y bn.sliels. 
 
 Potatoes Jo 
 
 Wool '^v^^v^v/^'.v.'.'.v".v^.'^y^orm(l^. 
 
 150, 822 
 
 1,940 
 
 2,4U8 
 
 125, 975 
 
 84 
 
 45. 750 
 
 1,500 
 
 24 
 
 12. 636 
 
 33, 840 
 
 5,899 
 
 275, 347 
 
 3,863 
 
 22, 483 
 
 218, 278 
 
 2,390 
 
 348, 356 
 
 65, 325 
 
 371 
 
 53, 441 
 
 99, 075 
 
 280,525 
 
 Buffalo furnishes a market for the fatted cattle and sheep of a great 
 part of the Province of Ontario, and the live-stock raisers of Ohio, Mich- 
 igan, Indiaua, and Illinois are hardly able to compete with those of 
 Ontario, as the transportation from these States to Buffalo is more than 
 the transportation from Ontario with the present slight ad valorem 
 duty added. 
 
 The Canadian farmer, though, is not the only one we have to compete 
 with. Last year I met a gentleman from Scotland, a farmer, living 
 near Brechin on the water front of that country. In talking with him,
 
 FAKM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 903 
 
 I learned that he was raising potatoes for the 'Sew York and Boston 
 market. I asked him how he could do this, as 1 did not then think it 
 possible that one so far away conld compete with the farmers of our 
 own countiy. He informed me that he paid what was equivalent in 
 our money to $7 per acie rent. Labor in Scotland was cheaper. The 
 crop per acre was larger than the average crop in this country, and 
 the freight aud duty from his home was less than the transportation 
 from any of the middle western States. 
 
 I have great contidenee in the ability of this committee to regulate 
 these things, and would suggest but a few things in concluding; first, 
 that we return to specific duties, as under the present* system the little 
 protection which would otherwise be afibrded is destroyed by under- 
 valuation, and further 1 would suggest that in most all cases the duties 
 levied upon farm products by the McKinley law were just, and afforded 
 the much needed protection tothelaiming interests, and I would most 
 respectfully uige a return to these duties with the exceptions that a 
 duty of 3 cents per quart be ])laced on berries of all sorts wliich are 
 now and were under the McKinley law free, and that instead of a tariff 
 of (iO cents per barrel on grapes under the McKinley law that a tariff 
 of 1 cent per pound be substituted. 
 
 Geo. W. Spauldiag. ^1. C. 
 
 STATEMENT Sy EMITTED BY KRAUS & STETTEN, OF NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 New York, January 4, 1897, 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 In presenting to you herewith our suggestions as to tariff changes 
 we hope you will look over them thoroughly and make such changes as 
 you think advisable. You will find that we have confined ourselves to 
 the seed, food, and produce trade onlj-. 
 
 This country being an agricultural one, all articles that are produced 
 by tilling the land should be free of dut}^ There is more than sufficient 
 produced to supply the population of this country, and a large surplus 
 is available most of tiie time to supply other countries. It is only when 
 our crops turn out to be failures that we are compelled to draw the 
 necessaries of life from other countries. If our Government levies 
 duties on such goods it is certain that most of the people of our country 
 will have to sutler in consequence. It would, therefore, be best to liave 
 all goods which are brought forth by cultivation of the land put on the 
 free list. However, as on the other hand, this Government being in 
 somewhat straightened circumstances, it would probably be a better 
 plan to levy a reasonable duty on goods which are grown in other 
 countries, in order that there be a reasonable revenue from such 
 products. Should the tariff as proposed by some of the Western States 
 become a law, most articles in the agricultural line would be made 
 prohibitive. Prohibition of imports on such goods ^ill have the effect 
 with the working classes, or the poorer population of the country, of 
 making them suffer, aud the Government will be without revenue on 
 such goods. We would also ask you to consider the better plan to 
 bring all articles subject to duty under a specific rate of duty. 
 
 The reason this measure is particularly advisable is that it would 
 save, first, many litigations between importers and the Government; 
 second, it would put all on the same footing; and third, it wouhl do 
 away with fraudulent undervaluations, and would protect the honest
 
 904 SCHEDULE G.— AGKICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 merchant, and in consequence heavy losses to our mercantile community 
 would be avoided. 
 
 For example, according to the present law, where there is an ad 
 valorem duty an importer may take advantage of a low market abroad 
 in January to buy his goods, with the intention of vshipping them in the 
 month of July. If at the time of shipment the market for such articles, 
 on account of crop failure or speculative motives, should have risen 
 abroad, the importer who has taken his chances in buying at an early 
 date, according to the present law, has to raise his invoice to the market 
 value at the time of shipment, and is not allowed to enter his goods at 
 the price at which he actually purchased, and in consequence is obliged 
 to pay duty on a higher price, and not being allowed to raise the invoice 
 value may also be forced to pay a heavy penalty. 
 
 On the other hand if the market has declined he is not permitted to 
 invoice the goods at the market value then, but at the cost when pur- 
 chased. 
 
 It can be proven satisfactorily that mii,ny articles in the schedule of 
 agriculture are not articles of luxury, but are used by tlie bulk of the 
 population for their requirements. While it may not be advisable to 
 put them on the free list, it would certainly be proper to levy a reason- 
 able duty only. 
 
 We would like to call your special attention to such articles as dried 
 beans, pease, and lentils, and also cabbage, i^otatoes, onions, etc. 
 
 Beans, one of the necessary articles of food of the working classes, 
 will only be imported in case of crop failures in this country. It is a 
 fact that the 1895 and 1806 crops of tl»e United States were so abun- 
 dant and so cheap that large amounts of United States growth were 
 exported to Europe instead of imported. 
 
 Moreover, in the year 189G about 120,000 to 150,000 bushels of foreign 
 beans, which during the year of 1895 were imi)(>rted into tliis country 
 but remained in United States bonded warehouses, had to be reex})orted 
 to Europe, as the market value of our own product was so extremely 
 low that it was impossible to bring those in bonded warehouses into 
 consumption here, prevented by the enormous duties which importers 
 would have had to pay. 
 
 This shows that with normal harvests we do not need the assistance 
 of other producing countries, while on the other side the masses will 
 have to suffer when our crops turn out insutticient. We only state as 
 a proof of the above the importations of a few years. 
 
 During the season, October, 1892, to September, 1893, the imports of 
 dried beans amounted to over 1,000,000 bushels; October, 1893, to Sep- 
 tember, 1894, 1,000,000 bushels; October, 1894, to September, 1895, 
 500,000 bushels; October, 1895, u]) to date the iusignilicant amount of 
 3,000 bushels only. When we imported beans in a large way the ])rice 
 for our domestic beans ranged from 50 to 100 per cent higher than the 
 present ones. 
 
 For reasons stated we therefore propose to have a sjiecitic duty of 
 15 cents per bushel of 60 pounds, and consider this ample protection. 
 The same duty should be placed on dried pease, ])otatoes, and onions. 
 
 There are other articles in the agricultural schedule whicli are not 
 necessities of human life, and which at present are on the free list, or 
 only a very small duty is levied upon them. Most of these goods have 
 ruled at from 100 to 300 per cent higher in price in previous years 
 without affecting the consumption. 
 Under this schedule we name the following seeds : Canary, hemp, 
 
 I
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 905 
 
 rape, millet, sunflower, carraway, anise, feuuel, and mustard. The 
 last-named article is largely produced in the State of California, and 
 in quite sufficient quantities to su^jply the wants liere. The total 
 importations of the above seeds average about 20,000,000 pounds annu- 
 ally, and a specific duty of 1 to li cents a pound would yield to the 
 Government $200,000 or $300,000 a year. 
 
 Kraus & Stetten, 78 Park Place, 
 
 STATEMENT MADE BY HON. E. J. HILL, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
 THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 Washington, January o, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I present by request a petition of the farmers of southwestern Con- 
 necticut asking for the restoration of the customs duties of 1890 on 
 potatoes, onions, hay, eggs, and dairy products. 
 
 The farmers of my district have found themselves driven first from 
 grain growing to cattle raising, and then, by the same competition of 
 Western lands practically given by this Government to the Western 
 farmer, driven from cattle raising to the production of small fruits and 
 vegetables, dairy farming, and poultry raising for nearby markets. 
 Under the provisions of the Wilson bill these men are met by Canadian 
 competition, which must seek a Xew England and iSTew York market 
 or none, and which by water transportation can reach these markets at 
 less rates than can be afibrded to our farmers 100 miles from New York 
 or Boston by rail. As they look upon it, and I agree with them, the 
 JMcKiidey duties on these arti(;les were practically revenue duties, and 
 their reduction was substantially a gift to the Dominion farmers of .just 
 so much. Potatoes have been sold this year in the fields of Connecti- 
 cut and northern Xew York at less than the present custom duty per 
 bushel, and in many cases they have been left in tlie ground uudug. 
 Thousands of bushels of onions have been shipped into ISTew York City 
 at far less than the labor cost of raising them, to be met there by a 
 product of a much cheaper labor. The cost of hibor and investment 
 charges on many of the small fruits and dairy jjroducts bear a greater 
 l)roportion to the marketable product than the labor cost of many of 
 our manufactures to the finished article. New England can supply her 
 own people with hay, potatoes, onions, eggs, and dairy products, and 
 do it at a reasonable price, and your petitioners see no reason why 
 Canadian farmers and Bermudian and Egyptian onion growers should 
 have free range of our markets, which they practically do have when 
 the difference in cost of labor and land is ignored in the customs rates. 
 
 Connecticut has 44,000 persons engaged in agriculture, with products 
 aggregating $18,000,000. In 1880 our farms produced 55,000,000 gal- 
 lons of milk and only 1,500,000 bushels of corn; more than 7,000,000 
 pounds of butter and only 7,000 bushels of wheat; 9,000,000 pounds of 
 tobacco and only 5,000 bushels of barley. The present duties compel 
 the abandonment of high cultivation at heavy labor cost, and even our 
 hay fields have become an expense rather than a means of support to 
 our farmers. 
 
 After a bitter experience of four years Connecticut farmers and 
 manufacturers have decided by an overwhelming vote that their inter- 
 ests are identical.
 
 906 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF CONNECTICUT FARMERS, PRESENTED TO THE 
 COMMITTEE BY MR. HILL. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We, the uudersigued vegetable growers of southern Fairfiekl Couuty, 
 Conu., desire to have the figures of the McKiuley tariff on onions ami 
 potatoes, hay, eggs, and dairy products restored, on account of the dis- 
 astrous eii'ects to our business of the Wilson tariff. 
 
 E. C. BiRGE, of Southport, and 128 others. 
 
 THE WAGES OF LABOR IN FRANCE. 
 
 Lake City, Mins., January 7,1897. 
 Committee on Way^s and Means: 
 
 In a recent conversation witli a grower of nursery stock in France, 
 he informed me that their manual labor cost them but oO cents per day 
 for men aud 40 cents per day for women, and that in the outlying dis- 
 tricts they labored the same as the farmer — from ."-un to sun. We pay 
 $1.25 per day for men and $ I to women for ten houi s work. As a result 
 we can import many articles at a saving of from 20 to 40 per cent, and 
 every item imported represents just so much labor stolen from the 
 American laborer. Surely if we are to maintain the i)resent scale of 
 labor in this industry we must have a protective tariff; otherwise we 
 will import tLie goods. 
 
 In our fair Korth Star State labor has seldom gone begging, but 
 unless we do have a protective tariff, and that speedily, wages must go 
 down or the imported goods will Ibrce men out of work. Our associa- 
 tion has agreed to ask Congress to impose a duty of 82 per 1,000 on all 
 fiuit, ornanjeutal and tree stocks, a specific duty of 3 cents each on 
 roses of whatsoever kind, and an ad valorem duty of 30 j)er cent on all 
 other fruit plants, vines, etc. 
 
 Ten years ago we had a large trade iu Briti^sh America. To-day we 
 have none. Tlieir tariff* drove us out, and our Tariff having been 
 removed, Canadian nursery stock has become a strong competitor iu 
 our own markets. 
 
 We took down the bars to let Canadian nursery stock into our mar- 
 kets, and then loaned the same bars to them to obstruct the sale of <mr 
 goods in their country — and our laborer is left to cover the jjatclies and 
 rents in his garments and his blushes with his hands and we still cry 
 "•Tariff for revenue only." Bah ! Put a tight board fence around the 
 United States and exclude the world, and we still have all the elements 
 essential to pros])erity and hai)piness for our people within our borders. 
 Then why iu God's name should we oppose protection, the only safe- 
 guard and defense of our workmen ? But Til stop; you hear this iu a 
 better and worse expression every day. 
 
 J. Cole Doughty. 
 
 NEW YORK FARMERS PETITION FOR McKINLEY RATES. 
 
 COM]VIITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 We, the undersigned farmers at Calverton, in the First Congressional 
 district of New York State, desire that the provisions of tlie so called 
 McKinley tariff in Schedule G (relating to potatoes, cabbages, aud 
 other farm products) be reenacted. 
 
 V.'m. H. Hall VET aud lo others.
 
 II 
 
 FARM AND riELD PRODUCTS. 907 
 
 AGRICULTUEE THE FOUNTAIN HEAD OF PROSPERITY. 
 
 Detkoit, Mich., Decemhcr 30, 1S96. 
 
 Dear Sir: I take tlie liberty of writing you in regard to the tariff 
 measure about to be cousiderecl by Congress and to give you, in brief, 
 my views as a business man on this important question. 
 
 While I am willing to admit that this country must either have 
 increased revenues or reduce expenses, and while I am also heartily in 
 favor of ample ])rotectiou to our manufacturers that will enable them 
 to comx^ete with foreigu-made goods and also to pay good, living wages 
 to our mechanics, my letter to you is not so much in the interest of 
 the manufaeturers as for the agricultural interests of this country. I 
 have no fear but the manufacturers will be taken care of, but from ])ast 
 experience am afraid that the great body of consumers upon our farms 
 will not be represented as their large interests demand. 
 
 From a business standpoint, I can not see where any material or last- 
 ing benefit is to come to this country, or how general business is to be 
 benefited by passing a new tariff law in the interests of the manufac- 
 turers alone. 
 
 It seems to me that if prosperity is ever going to come to this coun- 
 try it must start from the fountain head — the great agricultural class — 
 and it will then soon reach out to all classes. With all the tariff to 
 manufacturers that the most greedy could desire there can be no great 
 benefit unless consumers are in condition to buy, and this is just the 
 trouble with the country. 
 
 I am satisfied that the farmers of Michigan are suffering under the 
 operation of the Wilson bill, and that in tlie new measure to be laid 
 before Congress the interests of this large class of our citizens should 
 be most carefully looked after, and iu every instance the largest pro- 
 tection given that is possible. Wool should by all means be protected, 
 as under the present condition the sheep industry is nearly ruined. 
 Michigan farmers should also be protected from all Canadian products 
 by an absolute Chinese wall that would shut out importation of all the 
 smaller ])roducts of our farms, such as eggs, butter, hay, beans, pota- 
 toes, barley, and all live stock. 
 
 J). C. Delamater. 
 
 EXPORT BOUNTY WANTED. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Springdale, Cedar County, Iowa, 
 most respectfully petition you to give us a bounty of 1~) cents per 
 bushel on corn, and 3 cents per pound on pork and beef, for its produc- 
 tion. We claim that Iowa has the most favored climate and soil on 
 earth for the production of these staple articles of food. We are pro- 
 ducing the above-named articles at the above-named prices and it is 
 the lowest possible living price that they can be i)roduced for. We 
 believe our baby industry to be as much entitled to your sympathy and 
 protection as any of the other baby industries, as, for instance, the 
 iron, woolen, cotton, and sugar industries, with their many branches. 
 ^\ e hold that to grant these several industries protection without like 
 favor to us is to burden us beyond our power to endure. Besides, your 
 honorable body has established a precedent in the granting of a bounty 
 to the producers of sugar in Jjouisiana, that is parallel to our own, in 
 that they have a mine of wealth in their soil and clima.te for the pro- 
 duction of sugar. We ask for simple justice at your hands. "A fair 
 fiela and a fair fight, for fair play is a jevrel of great price." 
 
 D. B. Morrison, and 11 others.
 
 908 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 MEMORIAL FROM CITIZENS OF PRINCESS ANNE COUNTY, VA. 
 
 Lynnhaven, Va., December 28, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Princess Anne County, Va., inter- 
 ested in agricultural pursuits, most respectfully i)etition the Committee 
 on Ways and Means of the Fifty-fourth Congress to be heard in regard 
 to Schedules G and K of the new tariff bill now in course of prepara- 
 tion by said committee. 
 
 We demand for the agricultural interests of this country the same 
 amount of protection that is accorded other industries. Heretofore, 
 and notably in our present tariff", this has not been done. Free wool 
 and protected woolen manufactures are not the kind of things that meet 
 our approbation. It is very evident that there is great depression in 
 the prices of the products of the farms of this country and that there 
 is much dissatisfaction and unrest among the tillers of the soil, and it 
 will be doing no more than wisdom and jnstice demand if the i)resent 
 and succeeding sessions of Congress will endeavor to give such needed 
 relief as is in their power to give, by wise and patriotic legislation. We 
 are iiot "incidental protectionists" and do not ask for ourselves more 
 than we are willing to accord to otiiers. 
 
 According to official tables about one-third of our imports are prod- 
 ucts of the farm, and of this amount fully $220,000,000 have been for 
 things our own farms can produce just as well as not. The reduction 
 of the duty on hay in the Wilson bill from $4 to 82 per ton, and on 
 eggs from 5 to 3 cents a dozen, has been the cause of vast quantities of 
 these products pouring in on our markets to the injury of our own pro- 
 ducers. We thereby opened our markets to Canada and all the world, 
 and they have not beeu slow in taking advantage of it. Last year we 
 received 126,000 dozen eggs from China, 9,000 dozen from Mexico, and 
 950,000 dozen from Canada, while in 1895 Canada alone deluged us with 
 2,700,000 dozen. 
 
 The lowering of the rate on potatoes from 25 to 15 cents a bushel has 
 likewise resulted injuriously to American growers. Transportation 
 charges from Glasgow and other English j)orts. are often less when 
 carried in English tramp steamers to New York, than railroad rates 
 from many sections of our own country. The duty on onions and 
 honey and various other farm products is at present so low as to inju- 
 riously affect those important industries. Without attempting to dic- 
 tate to your honorable committee any i)articular specilic rates of duty, 
 we do nevertheless pray for a sutlicient increase over present rates on 
 all the various products of the farm coming in contact with foreign com- 
 petition to secure American markets to our own countrymen. 
 
 All of which is most respectfully submitted, 
 
 U. A. Kau. 
 Samuel Rau. 
 John Tylee. 
 Geo. K. Langdon. 
 Ueiah Sellick. 
 M. A, Brooker. 
 Wm. M. May. 
 E. E. Brooker.
 
 FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS. 909 
 
 RIVERHEAD TOWN AGRICULTURE SOCIETY. 
 
 EiVERHEAD, N. Y., January 2, 1807. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As a committee representing tlie above society, realizing tliat the 
 l)resent tariff laws are not in accord with our best interests as an 
 agricultural community and of the people in general, we would respect- 
 fully call the attention- of your committee to Schedule G of the law of 
 1894, and ask that specific duties be substituted in place of ad valorem, 
 in all cases where the articles can be so enumerated, and that the rate of 
 duty on the following articles be adjusted as follows : Corn, 20 cents per 
 bushel; beans, 40 cents; wheat, 25 cents; onions, 40 cents; oats, 15 
 cents; rye, 15 ceuts; potatoes, 30 cents; caulitlower, salted for pickles, 
 at the rate of 5 cents per gallon; all other pickles, in jars, bottles, or 
 casks, 40 per cent ad valorem. All other vegetables not otherwise pro- 
 vided for in this schedule, in natural state, 25 per cent ad valorem. 
 Apples, green, 60 cents per barrel; butter, 6 cents per pound; eggs, 5 
 cents per dozen; i)ork, 2 cents per pound; dressed poultry, 4 cents per 
 pound ; hay, $4 per ton ; straw, $3 per ton. 
 
 H. L. Haxlock, 
 
 President. 
 
 E. A. Fanning, 
 
 F. B. Eeene, 
 
 Committee. 
 
 AMERICAN MARKETS FOR AMERICANS. 
 
 Shiokshinny, Pa., January 2, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Don't forget the farmer in formulating your tarift' bill. If anyone 
 needs protection, he does. We can produce more than enough to supply 
 this country. We pay the taxes and help support this Government, and 
 if need be fight for it, heuce if foreigners want to compete with us in 
 our market let them pay for it, for their allegiance and support are 
 given to another Government. Duty on foreign products does not nec- 
 essarily enhance the cost of the same to the consumers. Look at coffee. 
 Now free of duty, it costs the consumer 25 to 38 cents per jjouud. 
 Some years ago, when the duty was on, it was cheaper than now. I 
 bought it then at the rate of 10 pounds for $1. Sugar is but little lower 
 now than when there was 2 cents per pound duty. It is all right to 
 protect manufacturers if they givfe the benefit of it to their hands in 
 increased wages — that is what it is intended for; but, unless they must, 
 they do not always do this. 
 
 Bowman Garrison. 
 
 POOR BUT NUMEROUS. 
 
 North Washington, Ohio, Jan. 2, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 In behalf of my neighbors and myself, and the large number of your 
 fellow-citizens whose lot it is to labor for the support of themselves and 
 families in the business of gardening, trucking, and poultry raising, I 
 write to ask you to restore the McKinley tariff on onions, cabbage, pota- 
 toes, eggs, and poultry. The Wilson law reduced the tariff on onions
 
 910 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 one-half or 20 cents per bushel; potatoes, 10 cents; eggs, 4 cents ; and 
 makes cabbage free, and the markets are filled with imported onions 
 and cabbao-e, and at times with potatoes and eggs also, and American 
 nroducers are ruined by the cheapest class of the pauper labor ot other 
 countries We are poor but numerous. We have no lobby, but we 
 have faith in your committee, that you will be just and impartial, and 
 that vou will care as well for the poor gardeners and truckers and 
 poultrymen of the United States as for the wealthy manufacturing 
 
 and other interests. 
 
 George Jameson. 
 
 VEGETABLES AS BALLAST. 
 
 Baldwins, Long Island, January ], 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I am a Long Island farmer, engaged in growing and marketing vege- 
 tables, such as potatoes, turnips, cabbages, etc., for the New York mar- 
 kets. Before the McKiuley law went into effect we were hampered by 
 foreign vegetables, especially Scotch potatoes, German cabbages, and 
 Canada turnips, all of which were brought here and sold for less than 
 we could grow them. How they could grow these crops and send them 
 over here and sell them so cheap was at first a mystery, but it is gener- 
 ally believed that large quantities came as ballast, the only expense 
 being in loading and unloading the same. The consequence was we 
 could hardly make both ends meet. Now, when the McKinley bill 
 went into elTect all this was changed, and we could grow cabbages, 
 potatoes, and other vegetables and make a fair profit, and I can say 
 that during the years that the McKinley tariff" was in operation the 
 farmers in this part of the country were more prosi>erous than ever 
 before; at least that was my experience after following the same busi- 
 ness for twenty-two years on the same farm. 
 
 But there came a change. The Wilson bill, as you know, put cab- 
 bages and turnips on the free list and reduced the duty on potatoes 
 and other vegetables. The consequence has been that we have lost 
 considerable money, and will continue to, unless we give up the busi- 
 ness. Even now, when our potatoes, considered the best in the country, 
 are selling for $1.25 per barrel, the market is fiooded with Scotch pota- 
 toes. I think it would be well to restore the rates on all vegetables 
 (especially cabbages and potatoes) to where they were on the McKinley 
 bill. 
 
 C. W. Speague. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF CITIZENS OF DETROIT AND VICINITY. 
 
 Hon. James McMillan, Senator, and Hon. John B. Corliss, Co7i- 
 gressman. 
 
 Sirs: There being in the vicinity of Detroit a large number of citi- 
 zens who are entirely dependent upon the market Detroit affords for 
 garden vegetables, market gardening being their only business, we, 
 the undersigned, urgently petition that each of you will use your ear- 
 nest endeavors at the uext session of Congress to see that they are not 
 neglected when the beneficent doctrine of jjrotection shall again become 
 a national policy. 
 
 Ferdinand Sell and 712 others.
 
 BEANS. 911 
 
 RATES RECOMMENDED. 
 
 Upton Works, Mich., January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I would movSt respectfully request that the iuclosed schedule for farm 
 products be cousidered in the present revision of the tarifi': 
 
 Horses aud mules, value under $100, $20 per head; value $100 and over, 20 per 
 cent; cattle, under 1 year old, $1.50 per head; over 1 year old, $8; sheep, imported 
 on or before December 31 of the year in which they are lambed, 75 cents; after 
 December 31, $1.50; hos^s, two-thirds of a cent per pound; beef, mutton, and pork, 1 
 cent per pound; the same smoked, 2 cents per pound; corn, oats, rye, aud buck- 
 wheat, 10 cents per bushel; corn meal, rye or buckwheat flour, one-tliird of a cent 
 per pound; wheat, flour, aud oatmeal, two-thirds of a ceut per pound; beans and 
 onions, 20 cents per bushel; wheat, pease, and barley, 15 cents per bushel; potatoes, 
 15 cents per bushel ; turnips, ruta-bagas, lieets, and carrots, 2 cents per bnsliel ; cab- 
 bage, 1 cent each; hay, $2 i»er ton; straw, $1.50 per ton; ])oultry, live, 2 cents per 
 pound; i)oultry, dressed, 3 cents per pound; butter and cheese, 4 cents per pound; 
 eggs, 3,cent8 per dozen; apples, in barrels or boxes not exceefling 3 bushels each, 
 50 cents per package; bulk or l>ags, 15 cents per bushel; plums and currants. 1 cent 
 per pound; grapes and gooseberries, one-half cent per pound. In paragraph 374, 
 leave out "teams of animals;" iu paragraph 414, after "household effects," insert 
 " except horses." 
 
 J. Davis. 
 BEANS. 
 
 (Paragraph 197.) 
 
 STATEMENT AND RATES SUBMITTED BY THE MICHIGAN BEAN 
 JOBBERS' ASSOCIATION, 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The Michigfan Bean Jobbers' Association most respectfully submits 
 for your consideration the following as a schedule of tariff duties: 
 
 Forty cents per bushel on all dried beans iu packages; 25 cents per bushel on 
 unscreened or unpicked beans iu bulk; and 40 cents per bushel on all hand-picked 
 beans iu bulk. 
 
 This association believes that if such a rate of duty was enacted into 
 law a great benefit would accrue to American fanners. 
 
 The quantity of beans consumed in this country is in no way com- 
 mensurate with the capacity of our farmers to produce, and it thus 
 becomes a question of whether American or foreign farmers shall sup])ly 
 our market. The question is not one alone of price, for we realize that 
 competition among our own farmers may bring the price very low, but 
 what we contend is that we are entitled to the market, and should 
 have such tariff rates as will practically guarantee such results. 
 
 It will be a long time before we can consume all we can jiroduce, and 
 we are now carrying millions of bushels over each year, even though 
 the price is very low, while foreigners, under a lov/ tariff, can su}ii:)ly 
 the Eastern markets, because of the less cost of transportation, and we 
 are thus losing the benefit of the markets we help to make by pur- 
 chasing the products of Eastern manufacturers. 
 
 The danger of inflated prices does not exist; farmers can not form 
 trusts and combinations; they must sell as they harvest, and for every 
 bushel bought abroad some American farmer must carry one over. 
 You may say the duty asked is about as much as beans are selling for. 
 Then, knowing such to be the case, does not this of itself prove that
 
 912 SCHEDULE G. AGEICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 we should retain the market ? With prices away below the cost of pro- 
 duction and millions of bushels that can not be disposed of at any price, 
 it Avould seem no other argument would be necessary. 
 
 Your committee has the amount of importations for past years, and 
 we do not wish to intrude upon your time by reproducing them. We 
 will say, however, that the amount received in duties is more than 
 made up by tbe loss that has accrued to our farmers through being- 
 compelled to carry an equal amount over which might otherwise have 
 
 been sold. 
 
 W. r. Prescott, Secretary. 
 
 McKINLEY DUTY DESIRED. 
 
 Medina, X. Y., January 13, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 1 call attention to the statements I made before the committee of the 
 Fitty-first Congress, first session, as recorded on page 842, in relation 
 to tariff on field beans. I gave something of a history of the bean 
 industry and showed, as I think, the necessity of a duty of 50 cents 
 per busliel on the product. I renew again the requests therein made 
 and solicit the examination by your committee of what was then said 
 and recorded as above noticed. 
 
 A duty of 40 cents was incorporated in the McKinley bill and I 
 respectfully ask that this be reenacted in a new bill. I would say tliat 
 at present, owing to protection given, that foreign imports have ceased, 
 but they still come in large quantities from Canada. 
 
 S. C. r>OWEN. 
 
 HAY. 
 
 (Paragraph 199.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY WILLIS BULLOCK, CHAIRMAN OF LEG- 
 ISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL HAY ASSOCIATION. 
 
 [Keport of AVillis Bullock, chairman of legislative committee.] 
 
 St. Louis, Mo., Scptemhei- S, 1896. 
 Since the organizatiou of this committee, to whose care legislative action was 
 given, the most important of which was that hearing on the tarifVon im])ort(d hay, 
 the following action has been taken, which is respectfnlly snbniitted lor your con- 
 sideration. After consultation it was decided that immediate action should he taken, 
 recommending the restoration of the tarilf on hay to the schedule of October 6, 1890 
 ($4 per ton), and the following petition circulated : 
 
 "FEBm-Ain- '-'L'. is9r.. 
 "Chairman of Ways and Means COiMMITtee, 
 
 "House of Be2)rese»1atires, ll'ashingtott, 7). C. 
 "Knowing that the wealth and prosperity of this country originate at the farm 
 and mine, and as history teaches that all periods and waves'of prosjierity have fol- 
 lowed a high protective tariff, while those of depression have followed a low rate of 
 duty, demonstrate that the interests of tlie American people are best served by a 
 high rate of tax on imports; therefore we, the undersigned, representatives of the 
 hay trade and agricultural interests of the United States, ask tha'. Congress take 
 active measures toward restoring the duty on agricultural products to the scale of 
 
 The nliovo pdition was circulated throughout the hav-growing States, and several 
 thou8;iud higiKitures were received indorsing tlie action. No doubt many more 
 would Lave been received had it not been that tlie tariff bill, then before the"lIoiiae,
 
 HAY. * 913 
 
 ■was laifl aside and the impression going forth that no further action woukl be taken 
 during that session of Congress. 
 
 As the subject of tariff has been before you, and action having been taken upon 
 it by the association, it may not be out of place and be of interest to those present 
 to know how the late change has affected the hay trade by giving the following 
 figures representing imports : 
 
 We find that during the year ending .June 30, 1895, we have imported 201,909 tons, 
 valued at $1,443,906, and for the year ending with June 30, 1896, 302,652 tons, valued 
 at $2,773,535, making a total for the two years of .504,5.52 tons, valued at $4,207,251. 
 
 To those who have a few tons to dispose of the individual share may look small, 
 but when Ave see $4,207,251 of American money being paid to a foreign country for 
 that which we have at home it seems very much like helping a neighbor to a vast 
 sum of money that should be kept withiu our own family. 
 
 When we find that the total amount consumed in forty-one cities during the same 
 period was 4,883,478 tons, which can be doubled to provide for the interior and smaller 
 towns, and find that these imports, which were but 10 per cent of the amount used 
 in these forty-one cities, and a much smaller per cent of the total amount used, and 
 yet has had the effect of making the price on all American hay that has found its way 
 to the several markets since 1894, the former figures sink into insignificance. 
 
 While this small per cent has been vastly insufficient to supply our markets .and 
 only found its way into the markets of New York and New England, and on the same 
 principle that 10 cars of hay put into any market at a reduced price can make the 
 ])rice on the 100 that may be needed in that market, so the imported hay, finding its 
 way as it did into the seaboard markets, established a price there, and which has 
 been reflected over all other markets throughout the States, at a cost to the American 
 producer of at least $25,000,000. 
 
 This was demonstrated in September, 1894, when hay from the States was selling 
 in Eastern markets for $16 per ton, and when imported hay of like kind was offered 
 .at $13 per ton, the immediate result of which was that hay from the States was com- 
 pelled to meet these prices, and the same controlling power, which is the surplus, has 
 made the prices through 1895 and 1896. 
 
 With these conditions existing, the following is offered for your consideration : 
 
 "Whereas it being the object of the National Hay Association to promote the 
 interests of the hay trade in all its branches, and notwithstanding the short crop of 
 1895, it has been fully demonstrated that there was an abundant supply 2>roduoed in 
 the States to supply their markets, and it being further shown that the importation 
 of hay during the past two years has had a disturbing effect in our markets by cre- 
 ating a surplus and a depression of values to the detriment of trade; 
 
 "^e it resolved, That it becomes the duty of the National Hay Association to use 
 its influence toward the protection of American hay by requesting Congress to so 
 modify the duty as to protect the American grower against the invasion of foreign 
 product." 
 
 Which was unanimously adopted by the convention. 
 
 The average farm value for bay iu 1892 was $8.49 per ton: 1893, 
 $9.18; 1894, $8.35. 
 
 Ill 1880 the product of liay in the United States was 31,925,233 tons. 
 In 1893, 05,766,158 tons, worth $570,882,872, more than the value of 
 either the cotton or wheat crops, and nearly equal to that of the corn 
 croj). 
 
 In 1892 the value of farm products ranged as follows: Corn, 
 $550,000,000; wheat, $325,000,000; oats, $218,000,000; cotton, $500,- 
 000,000; hay, $750,000,000. 
 
 For the ten years ending 1889 the average value per acre of corn 
 was $9.47; wheat, $9.95; oats, $8.16; hay, $11.08. 
 
 In 1894 the area in the United States devoted to hay was 48,321,272 
 acres, yielding 54,874,408 tons. 
 
 In 1870 the acreage in the United States devoted to the product of 
 hay was 19,861,805, yielding 24,525,000 tons, which in 1893 reached 
 49,619,469 acres, yielding 65,766,058 tons, showing an increase during 
 the twenty-three years of 149 per cent in acreage and 168 per cent iu 
 yield. 
 
 In 1865 we raised 23,538,740 tons. 
 
 The area in the northerly Atlantic States mown for hay in 1889 
 showed a gain of 23 per cent from 1879, and a gain in yield of 28 per 
 
 T H 68
 
 914 SCHEDULE G AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 cent. The South Atlantic States, a gain of 71 per cent in area, and 
 the Northern Central group 108 per cent in area aud 114 per cent in 
 yield, the most marked gain being in the South Central States, where 
 the area gained 202 per cent and the yield 218, the Western States 
 showing 173 per cent gain in acreage and 188 per cent gain in yield. 
 Taking the country as a whole it shows an increase of three-fourths 
 more in area and 90 per cent gain in yield from 1879 to 1889. 
 
 The areraije value and yield per acre of farm crops ten years ending 1SS9. 
 
 Crop. 
 
 Corn bHshels. 
 
 Wheat do . . . 
 
 Oats do . . . 
 
 Eye do... 
 
 Barley do 
 
 Yield. 
 
 Value. 
 
 24.] 
 
 $9.47 
 
 12 
 
 9.95 
 
 26.6 
 
 8.16 
 
 11 9 
 
 8.27 
 
 21.7 
 
 12.76 
 
 Crop. 
 
 Buckwheat bnshela . 
 
 Potatoes do. . . 
 
 Tobacco pouiid.'s . 
 
 Cotton do 
 
 H^ V toii.s . 
 
 Value. 
 
 $8.24 
 38.34 
 21.51 
 lo.6'.> 
 11.08 
 
 The crop values of the United States in 1892 were as follows: 
 
 Corn $550,000,000 Cotton $500,000,000 
 
 Wheat 325,000,000 Hav 750,000,000 
 
 Oats 218,000,000 
 
 The amount of hay imported during the two years ending June 30, 
 1896, was 504,552 tons, valued at $4,207,251. 
 
 Price of hay in Montreal, Province of Quebec, showed an advance of 
 $4.23 in 1895 and 1896 over 1893. 
 
 Willis Bullock. 
 
 FOUR DOLLARS A TON ON HAY. 
 
 Freehold, N. ,I., December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Mea>s: 
 
 I send you this as an expression of my views on the tariff as it affects 
 the farmers of this country. Monmouth (county is one of the leading 
 and most important agricultural counties in the United States. Its 
 agricultural products are many. The leading crops that are directly 
 affected by the tariff and that come in competition with foreign grown 
 products are potatoes, hay, grain, eggs, poultry, and wool. Nearly 
 1,000,000 bushels of potatoes are grown here annually and are shipped 
 to the New York, Newark, and Boston markets, wli'ere they come in 
 competition with potatoes from Canada, New Brunswick, Prince 
 Edward Island, Nova Scotia. Germany, and other places. Canada hay 
 is sold in several places in this county. Sheep raising, which was very 
 profitable here some years ago, has been almost abandoned on account 
 of the low price of wool. 
 
 What the farmers here need for their protection is a duty of 25 cents 
 per bushel on foreign potatoes, $4 per ton on hay, and a duty on eggs, 
 poultry, grain, and wool. Up to two years ago we had a good market 
 for our potatoes in Cuba, which we have lost the last two years. Our 
 sales there were about 100,000 bushels annually. 
 
 D. Aug, Yanderveer, 
 Secretary Monmouth County Board of Agriculture.
 
 HOPS. 915 
 
 HOPS. 
 
 (Paragrapli 201.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES S. SHERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 
 FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Sherman said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of tlie committee 
 I wish but a single moment to call the committee's attention to the 
 hearing upon the subject of hops, prepared when the tariff act of 1890 
 was under consideration, and to ask, before you take final action on this 
 section of the bill, that the members of your committee having that 
 particular subject in charge will look over that hearing. It will be 
 found in Miscellaneous Document I^o. 176 of the first session of the 
 Fifty-first Congress, pages 10()3 to 1071. 
 
 The Chairman. Is it a lengthy document? If it is short we might 
 have it incorporated. 
 
 Mr. Sherman. I would like to have it incorporated. The argument 
 and printed brief submitted at that time by the Senator from my State 
 was a full and exhaustive treatise on the subject, and I would be glad 
 if the committee would examine it. 
 
 Mr. Turner. I would suggest that, according to my recollection of 
 it, both sides were heard at that time, and it is hardly fair to print one 
 side and not print the other side. 
 
 Mr. Sherman. The gentleman from Georgia is correct. Both sides 
 were heard fully at that time, whereas three years later, when the tarift* 
 act known as the Wilson bill was under consideration, in the hearings 
 that were had but one side of this question was heard. 
 
 The Chairman. Your citation, Mr. Sherman, as to where this can be 
 found I think will be sufficient, and the members of the committee 
 desiring to read it can refer directly to it in the document you refer to. 
 
 Mr. Sherman. That is all I desire to say — to ask the committee 
 especially to examine those hearings. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HON. D. F. WILBER, A REPRESENT" 
 ATIVE FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 
 
 WASHiNaTON, January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The hop growers of the United States, since the Gorman- Wilson bill 
 became a law, which reduced the duty on hops from 15 to 8 cents per 
 pound, have been forced to sell their product for less than the cost of 
 production. The average cost of producing hops in New York State 
 is 12 cents per pound, while the market for the past two years has 
 ranged from 5 to 8 cents per. pound. The hop growers of this country 
 to-day are face to face Avith starvation, yet in the face of these low 
 j)rices for American hops certain brewers in this country, partly on 
 account of sentiment, and also for the purpose of keeping the market 
 for American hops at a low figure, have imported from Germany the 
 past two years fully one-tenth of the consumption of hops in the United 
 States for brewing purposes, and have paid, whilf* tjie.y couJaI obtain
 
 916 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 American liops at the price above stated, at same time from 20 to 30 
 cents per pound for those imported from Germany. 
 
 The German hop is not a necessity ; in other words, it is a luxury, and 
 no better than the American product. In fact, in the Loudon market 
 to-day American hops are quoted higher and are selling for more money 
 than those produced in Germany, yet certain brewers m this country, 
 as I stated before, from sentiment— on account of these goods coming 
 from the "Faderlaud," and, perhaps, thinking that they might have 
 been grown near the place where they spent their boyhood days— have 
 a feeling that they must be superior to anything grown in our own 
 country. Many brewers buy the German product simply to mix with 
 the American product, for the purpose of advertising their beer as brewed 
 from imported hops, thereby taking advantage of the public opinion 
 which exists among many that anything imported is better than that 
 produced at home. 
 
 If the American hop grower does not receive aid, and that soon, 
 through tariff legislation, by having th-^. duty on foreign hops placed at 
 not less than 15 cents per pound, the same as in the McKiuley bill, they 
 will be driven out of business and forced to take up some other branch 
 of the agricultural industry, thereby increasing the production in what- 
 ever line they undertake to the detriment of the farmers who are now 
 engaged in raising other products. 
 
 The American hop grower insists upon equal protection with the 
 brewer. Lager beer, ale, and all fermented licjuors are to day, and have 
 been in the past, protected four and five times as much as the hop 
 industry. If Congress will not give the hop grower equal protection with 
 the brewer, and the brewer still insists upon buying a large proportion 
 of his consumption from people who do not patronize hiiu or drink his 
 beer, then the hop grower insists that the duty upon fermented liquors 
 be decreased to that extent which will not allow the brewer any more 
 protection than he himself receives. 
 
 Every branch of the agricultural industry at tlie present time is com- 
 pletely paralyzed, and unless relief comes, and comes soon, through 
 tariff* legislation, 90 per cent of the farmers of this country will be 
 obliged to lose their homes by mortgage foreclosure, and a linancial 
 crisis will be upon us the like of which never has been seen in the his- 
 tory of the country. 
 
 In fact, a large brewer acknowledged the other day after he had 
 taken a trip through the hop district of the State of New York that 
 he was amazed at the apparent poverty and heli)lcss condition linau- 
 cially of every farmer throughout the section which lie visited, and if 
 the price of hops, before the 1st day of next April, did not a<lvance 
 sufficiently to enable the grower to receive com])ensation enough from 
 the sale of last year's crop to cultivate his fields the coming year he 
 thought 75 per cent of the hop growers of the State of New York would 
 be forced out of the business. 
 
 The agriculturists of this country are appealing, in no uncertain 
 tones, to Congress for relief, and they expect to receive the same at the 
 hands of their representatives whom they have elected for that pur- 
 pose, and feel confident their appeals will be heard and granted. 
 
 I am here representing the largest hop-growing district in the United 
 States, and am directed by my people not only to ask but to implore and 
 beg of their representatives in Congress to come to their relief. They 
 look upon it as a right which they have, and yet they come to you only 
 through dire necessity, and absolute certainty that unless such relief
 
 HOPS. 917 
 
 docs come througli yon their homes and property will be taken away 
 iioui them by the sheriff, and the labor of years lost. 
 
 It is not alone the hop grower who snffers, but the dairy, hay, and 
 every branch of this great industry. We want specific duties on all 
 l)roducts of the soil, and when restored to a protective basis prosperity 
 will once more reign where now destruction, discontent, and financial 
 ruin holds sway. 
 
 D. F. WiLEER, 
 
 Ticenty-first New York District, 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. HUGH F. FOX, OF NSW YOEK, 
 COMMISSION DEALER IN HOPS. 
 
 New York, January 9, 1897. 
 Committee on Wats and Means: 
 
 I respectfully submit the following facts in reply to the statement 
 made to your committee by Uepresentative Wilber in advocating an 
 increase to 15 cents per i^ound on the duty on foreign hops. 
 
 Tlie present duty of 8 cents per pound affords protection to the extent 
 of fully 100 i)er cent upon the cost of producing hops in America. In 
 fact, hops are now raised at a cost of only 5 cents per pound on the 
 l*acific Coast and can be laid down in Xew York at a cost of GJ cents. 
 A large proportion of the Oregon crop was sold by growers at G cents 
 last year before the hops were grown. 
 
 It is admitted by growers and dealers alike that the decline in the 
 price of hops during the past three years resulted from enormous over- 
 production. The consumption of beer has not decreased, showing that 
 the situation was not influenced by the general business depression. 
 
 Mr. Wilber, however, claims that the prices of hops have declined 
 because of the reduction in the duty and the consequent increase in 
 foreign competition. And yet,during the period in question, our exports 
 reached a total of 271,127 bales, against only 43,409 bales imported. 
 It is indeed an axiom in the hop trade that London makes our prices, 
 while English growers are continually beseeching Parliament to protect 
 them against their American competitors. 
 
 It should be made clear to your comn)ittee that the foreign hops 
 imported to this country are used for a special purpose and do not 
 enter into competition with the home product. In point of fact, they 
 do not even displace our native hops to the extent of over 7 per cent of 
 the total consumption, and our imports have not increased since the 
 duty was reduced. 
 
 I would call your attention to Census Bulletin No. 143, November 12, 
 1801; also to a report made by Louis Stern, United States commercial 
 agent at Bamberg, September 14, 1896, upon the " German hop trade." 
 The latter shows how seriously the trade in German hops is threatened 
 by xVmerican competition. 
 
 In conclusion I beg to say that I doubt if Kepresentative Wilber 
 represents the views of many of his own constituents in the hop trade, 
 for the reason that in April, 1894, many of them signed a petition to 
 the Senate to impose a duty of 8 cents per pound. I append statistics 
 of production (Exhibit A), exports, and imports for the past seven 
 years, covering the period when the duty was 15 cents per pound, as 
 well as the i)eriod when the 8-cent duty was restored. 
 
 Hugh F. Fox.
 
 918 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 Hop production, imports and exports, for seven years. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 ISSi) 
 
 18fi0 
 
 1891 
 
 1802 
 
 1893 
 
 1894 
 
 1895 
 
 Total 
 
 Crop intho 
 United 
 States. 
 
 Pounds. 
 214, 050 
 201,490 
 225, 300 
 237, 800 
 277, 360 
 365, 000 
 315,000 
 
 1,836,000 
 
 Imports. 
 
 Pounds. 
 35, T35 
 21, 965 
 11, 402 
 15, 313 
 5,143 
 23, 326 
 15,000 
 
 Exports. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 43, 493 
 48, 956 
 65. 595 
 69, 494 
 89, 119 
 02, 008 
 00, 000 
 
 127, 884 I 4!*8, 665 
 
 HOP INDUSTRY DEPRESSED. 
 
 Oneonta, Otsego County, N. Y., December 30, 1S96. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Tlie hop industry has been very much depressed since the tariff was 
 reduced on hops from 15 cents per pound to 8 cents per pound, so much 
 so that the farmer for the past two years has not been able to obtain 
 the cost of production in most cases. 1 trust your committee will 
 restore the duty on hops to 15 cents per pound, without fail. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Geo. I. Wilber. 
 
 ONIONS AND POTATOES. 
 
 (Paragraphs 202 and 204.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF EDWARD N. LOOMIS, REPRESENTING THE 
 PRODUCE MERCHANTS OF NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. LooMTS said: In presenting a petition from the produce mer- 
 chants of New York City in regard to the duty on tlie importation of 
 vegetables, I wish to say a few wor<i8 in regard to the proposed duty 
 on potatoes and onions, which is the principal thing that we wish to 
 speak of. The cause they plead is this : 
 
 During the early spring months of the year there are imported from 
 Bermuda and Cuba, principally from Cuba, about 300,000 barrels of 
 onions and about 75,000 barrels of potatoes. These commence to 
 come in about the middle of March, and the crop is exhausted by the 
 1st of June. These come to our market at a time when our home farm- 
 ers can not produce the same products. Tlie earliest crop of potatoes 
 produced in this country is the crop in Florida, which is at least two 
 months later than the Bermuda crop. 
 
 Bermuda lies in the midst of the (iulf Stre-am, about G50 miles east of 
 Charleston and about the same distance from Xew York. The climate 
 is very tropical, the soil very rich, and the potatoes and onions mature 
 very early. The chief argument why a very low rate of duty is asked 
 on these vegetables is that they do not compete at all with the products 
 of our home farmers.
 
 ONIONS AND POTATOES. 919 
 
 The Chairman. Id what months are they imported solely? 
 
 Mr. LooMis. During the mouths of Marcb, April, and May. The 
 latter part of the Bermuda crop of potatoes may extend over a little 
 into June, but the moment the Florida crop begins to come into our 
 markets to any amount they can undersell the Bermuda crop at 50 cents 
 and still make a profit, and after that what remains of the Bermuda 
 crop is shut out of the market and sent to Canada or England. 
 
 The Chairman. Is it your contention that these Bermuda potatoes 
 and onions are imported in a season when there are no similar products 
 coming from American farms that are to be protected? 
 
 Mr. LooMis. Yes; that is it entirely. The difficulty before this has 
 been that a low rate of duty has been asked on this Bermuda produc- 
 tion, and the Ways and Means Committee have been unable to grant 
 that, because by placing a low rate of duty on these products in the 
 early mouths of the year it would open the gates to Scotch and Cana- 
 dian products at a time when our farms do produce those products 
 later on and would prevent proper protection for our home industries. 
 
 The protection we request is a low duty on all these fresh early vege- 
 tables that bring health and comfort to our tables in the winter months, 
 during which time our home farms can not produce them, and during 
 the later months, from June on, that a protective duty be put on these 
 vegetables which will protect our home industry. 
 
 The Chairman. What you ask is that in certain months of the 
 year — for instance, Marcli, April, and May — there be a lower duty 
 imposed than later on in the year. Is that it? 
 
 Mr. LooMis. That is it. That a lower duty be placed upon onions 
 and ])otatoe8 particularly during March, April, and May than during 
 the rest of the months of the year. That would encourage the Bermuda 
 industry, would protect the trade of these produce merchants of New 
 York, who are among the largest merchants in the country, and would 
 also lower the price of these early vegetables to the consumer. It 
 would make it possible for a larger number of the masses of the people 
 to have these fresh vegetables at a time when they would not com])ete 
 with our home industries. 
 
 The Chairman. In what mouths do the Florida and South Carolina 
 vegetables come in ? 
 
 Mr. LooMis. Several of these large dealers own large farms in the 
 Carolinas and in Virginia. They say that their farms can not bring 
 the stutt" that is produced to market until two months later than the 
 beginning of the Bermuda trade. At the beginning of May Florida 
 couimeuces to send some small amount of potatoes in, but the amount 
 is so small that the Price Current, of New York, for instance, did not 
 make any estimate of this amount last year until the 25th of May. 
 And from that date until the 5th of June Florida sent in only 20,000 
 barrels of potatoes. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. How does the price of Bermuda onions and potatoes 
 imi)orted at that season of the year compare with the price of the 
 domestic potatoes and onions raised in previous years at that j)articular 
 time, when they are being imjjorted from Bermuda? 
 
 Mr. LooMis. How does that price comoare with the price of old 
 stock? 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LooMis. Last year, while Bermuda potatoes were bringing $5 a 
 barrel on an average, our old stock was selling for from 80 cents to $1 
 per barrel. So you see as soon as the American produce begins to come
 
 920 SCHEDULE G. xiGRICULTUKAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 in it slioves the other out. The fact is those Bermuda potatoes only 
 make a small amount when compared 
 
 Mr. Tawnet. They are really a luxury? 
 
 Mr. LooMis. Yes; but they are a very healthy luxury. The growth 
 of those vegetables should be encouraged so as to reach the masses. 
 It is not a luxury in the sense that tobacco and wine are luxuries, 
 because it brings health to the tables of those who are sick, and the 
 more you encourage the industry the more you cheapen the product 
 and bring it within a wider and wider range of our people. 
 
 One other statement and I am through: During the unitrofitable 
 years of this Bermuda trade, which resulted from the high :\lcKinley 
 tariff— and the trade has also been unproiitable during the Wilson tarifl' 
 law — our merchants in New York who supply Bermuda with all her 
 supplies (we export everything Bermuda has) advanced money to Ber- 
 muda to buy that stuff. 
 
 Bermuda is so much in debt to our merchants by reason of this that 
 it is said by these merchants who present this petition that the whole 
 crop this year of Bermuda stuff has been actually paid for or mortgaged 
 to its full extent by the New York merchants who have been making 
 these advances. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Is this Bermuda stock owned by Americans ? 
 
 Mr. LooMis. A good many of these merchants invest their capital in 
 buying down there. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Most of these merchants sell on commission, do they 
 not? 
 
 Mr. LooMis. Many do; but John Nix & Co., for one, a large firm of 
 merchants in New York, have been accustomed to investing down there. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Do they own the land ? 
 
 Mr. LooMis. No; no American owns land in Bermuda. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Do they rent the land ? 
 
 Mr. Looms. No; they simply buy the products: so that whatever 
 duties you place upon the imjjortation of Bermuda potatoes simi)ly 
 raises the cost of production of those articles so much. It is i»utting 
 another item upon the cost of transportation. The duty under the 
 Wilson bill — 15 cents per bushel on potatoes and 20 cents on onions — 
 is just so much added to the cost of transportation and to get those 
 goods through the gates of the custom-house. Consequently, that duty 
 must be paid by the consumer, or else ruin the trade, and that is what 
 is being done. 
 
 Mr. DoLLTVER. When the Wilson bill had hearings there were rep- 
 resentatives of Bermuda here who testified that they ])aid the duties. 
 
 Mr. LooMis. They testitied so because there was such a loss to their 
 farmers. But I believe, and I hold, that the consumer always pays the 
 duty upon an imported article, unless the duty is so high as to make it 
 unproU table to bring the stuff here, and then, of course, the trade goes 
 to pieces. 
 
 Mr. DOLLIVER. I noticed that Mr. Watson, one of the delegates 
 rei)resenting Bermuda, who was here from Bennnda when the Wilson 
 bill was under discussion in 1893, testitied that this duty played no 
 figure whatever in the New York price of these articles. 
 
 Mr. LooMis. They have found out since that their trade is being 
 ruined by the high cost of the product, which has been brought about 
 by the duty. For iitstance, $125,000 was lost in 189G in the Bermuda 
 industry. 
 
 , Mr. DoLLiVEE. He also testified that the McKinley bill had added 
 $117,000 to the Treasury of the United States, and that if the arlicics
 
 ONIONS AND POTATOES. 921 
 
 were put on the free list it would make no difference in the price; and 
 when the question was asked him what interest he had in it, he stated 
 that he was speaking for Bermuda, and not for the United States. 
 
 Mr. LooMis. I don't think Mr. Watson appreciated how our mer- 
 chants and consumers were affected. The price will be lowered by pro- 
 duction and increased by a tariff", but you can not lower the price below 
 the limit which the cost of production represents; and if you increase 
 the cost of i)roduction by the amount of duty, then you increase the 
 limit, below which capital can not act; and so you have either got to have 
 an increase of price to the consumer, or else the trade is unprofitable. 
 
 IMr. Grosvenor. Are there imported from the Bermudas small 
 onions — onion sets, as we call them. 
 
 Mr. LooMis. For seed? 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LooMis. No, I think not. 
 
 Mr, Grosvenor. Do they propagate them from seed rather than 
 from the set? 
 
 Mr. LooMis. The method is different from our method, and that is 
 one of the reasons they come here earlier. In Bermuda the onions are 
 allowed to grow for awhile, and then they are pulled up by the roots, 
 cut off", and transplanted again, and that saves about a month in the 
 development of the onions. In Florida if you would do that the frost 
 would kill the crop. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Is it not a fact that vegetables are raised and sold in 
 the Chicago markets which come from southern California and Arizona 
 as early as they come in from Bermuda? 
 
 Mr. LooMis. I think not. All the statistics that I have been able to 
 find show that no fiosh vegetables come in except from Bermuda and 
 Cuba in the months 1 have mentioned. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. They do not come into your markets, perhaps, but they 
 are raised in southern California and Arizona, and sold in the Chicago 
 markets as early as they can be imported from Bermuda. 
 
 Mr. LoOMlS. I think not. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. With the exception of onions, I think that is true, as 
 1 have stated. 
 
 Mr. LooMis. However that may be, the cost of cultivation in those 
 islands is so great that, no matter where they are raised in our country 
 or how they are raised in those islands, we can compete with that 
 product when we are able to place our goods in the market. We can 
 undersell them 50 per cent as soon as our vegetables come in, and thus 
 drive out the Bermuda goods. We can make a profit selling them at 
 that price. That is perfectly true, or else the merchants that own truck 
 farms in Virginia and Florida would not present this petition to you 
 to-day. 
 
 The price which the Bermuda goods establishes in fresh early vege- 
 tables is the price which influences largely the price of the next crop. 
 liJvery market in the produce business depends upon the preceding 
 market, and by making the Bermuda trade a profitable one you add to 
 the profit of our truck farmers. That is a fact that is not understood 
 very universally. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. That would be an argument in favor of the duty, would 
 it not? 
 
 Mr. LooMis. No, it would not. We want to encourage the trade 
 over here. It would be an argument, it seems to me, not in favor of 
 putting any duty ui)on the goods imported. 
 
 Mr. Tawney.' If the duty will be added to the rice it would so
 
 922 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS, 
 enhance the price that the succeeding market would be benefited to that 
 
 Mr LooMis. That is only one of the small arouments. 1 think that 
 the price of the one market is governed by the price of the other. 
 The Florida farmers would get a larger price because the Bermuda 
 produce sells at a high price. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Doesn't that depend entirely on the crop? 
 
 Mr. LooMis. Yes. 
 
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY ME. LOOMIS. 
 
 New Youk, December 21, 1S96. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Sirs : We, the undersigned merchants, engaged in the side of vegetaMes, owners of 
 farms in the Southern States, and importers of vegetables from foreign countries, 
 respect! ullv show : 
 
 That the duty upon ])otatoes and onions as in the Wilson bill was fixed on potatoes 
 15 cents per bushel, on oniims -*0 cents per bushel. 
 
 That such duty is almost prohibitive against the early potatoes and onions usually 
 imported from Bermuda and Cuba, the first cost of such produce being on an average 
 of recent years $4 per barrel of potatoes and 60 cents jier bushel oi onions. The cause 
 of such hi'rge value at place of growth is the high price of labor and the very small 
 yield per acre, compared with the yield in northern countries. 
 
 That the duty of 20 cents per bushel is equal to 33i per cent of the first cost of 
 onions. 
 
 That such duties added to cost of ])roduction so increase the selling cost in the 
 United States as to deprive the masses trom tlie use of early vegetables. 
 
 That many of your petitioners are owners of, or interested in, Southern farms, and 
 are regularfy engaged in supplying tlie principal cities with green vegetables, and 
 That such supplies of fresh vegetables from Bermuda will not interfere with vege- 
 tables from farms in the United States during the early s))ring months, and that tor 
 many years early potatoes and onions have been purchased in Bermuda and imported 
 by us into the United States. 
 
 That, therefore, your petitioners respectfully request that the duty on potatoes 
 and onions may be" placed at not exceeding 15 cents per bushel during the months 
 of March, April, and May. 
 
 John Nix & Co., 281 Washington street; A. Bennett & Co., 156 West street; 
 E. P. Loomis & Co., 95 Barclay street; I. H. Buhrenburg Bro, A: Co., 
 108 Murray street; Wm. Gamble & Co., 185 Keade street; Titus Bros., 
 154 West street ; C. P. Woodworth's Son «& Co., 72 l)ey street; Seaman 
 Lichtenstein «fc Co., 81 and 83 Barclay street; Furnian & Page, 112 
 Warren street; A. G. Hutchcson & Co., 27!* Wabhingtou street; Henry 
 Brinker Sc Co., 199 West street; Ciine Bros., 335 Washington street; 
 M. O'Brien &, Son, 213 Washington street. 
 
 AP.GUMENT IN BEHALF OF THE PRODUCE MERCHANTS OF NEW YORK FOR A 
 LOWER RATE OF DUTIES ON POTATOES AND ONIONS IMPORTED DURING THE 
 MONTHS OF MARCH, APRIL, AND MAY. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Ways and Means Commiitee: 
 
 The produce merchant" of New Yorl<, whose petition regarding the regulation of 
 the tarift'on vegetables imported into the United States I present to you this morning, 
 are among the leading merchants of our country. Through tlieir hands pass not 
 only the great proportion of vegetables im])orted trom foreign countries, but also a 
 large amount of the produce raised in our Eastern and Southern Stales. By thera 
 the great amount of vegetables consumed by our people is sold to the middlemen, 
 who in turn sell to the retail grocers to deal out to the consumers. Their present 
 application is specifically as importers of Bermuda and Culian vegetables, asking 
 protection lor themselves, their customers, and the consumers of their merchandise. 
 
 The danger that threatens Bermuda importers is not, however, a lowtariH. hut the 
 already too high tariff on potatoes and onions, which makes unprotitable the produc- 
 ing and shipping of fresh vegetables to this country from Bermuda and Cuba in the 
 early spring months of the year, and which high tariff bids fair to de])rive our mer- 
 chants of that portion of their trade, our people of fresh produce from January till 
 June, and the farmers of Bermuda of the results of their toil, whit h an;^peut entirely 
 in our markets. The Bermuda produce, too, comes at a time of the year when i't 
 goes not compete with the industry of our home producers, as we shall hereafter show.
 
 ONIONS AND POTATOES. 923 
 
 AMOUNT AND VALUE OF TRADE INVOLVED. 
 
 During the months of March, April, and May there are imported annnally into this 
 country (see Schedule A) abrmt 300,000 bushels of onions and about 75,000 bushels of 
 potatoes, fully 90 per cent of which come from the islands of Bermuda. The avera.no 
 ])ric« obtained in our market for those vegetables during the season of 1896 was 75 
 cents per bushel for onions and $5 per barrel for potatoes. The cost of placing those 
 vegetables in the port of New York, the market of distribution, is *1 per bushel for 
 onions and $5 per barrel for potatoes. The tirst cost of production of a bushel of 
 onions in Bermuda is 60 cents, which, added to the freight of 20 cents per bushel and 
 the tarifl" duty of 20 cents per bushel, makes the cost of that bushel of onions in the 
 market of distribution $1 ; while the tirst coat of production of a barrel of potatoes in 
 Bermuda is $4, which, added to the freight of 60 cents and the duty of 15 cents per 
 busiicl. or 45 cents per barrel, makes the total cost of a barrel of potatoes at the mar- 
 ket of distribution about $5, as above stated. 
 
 The loss in the trade of Bermuda produce during the spring of 1896 is estimated at 
 $125,000, and this result, due somewhat to the year of depression through which we 
 have passed, is due still more to the almost prohibitive tariff that is imposed, even 
 under the Wilson bill, upon imported potatoes and onions. Two more such seasons 
 and the trade would cease. 
 
 BERMUDA PRODUCE DOES NOT COMPETE WITH AMERICAN PRODUCE. 
 
 The islands of Bermuda lie off our coast in the Atlantic Ocean, in the midst of the 
 (Juit Stream, 650 miles dne east from Charleston, and al)Out the same distance from 
 New York. The islan(is consist of about 2,422 acres of arable land (equal to 24 farms 
 of 100 acres each), with a population of 15,000 people. 
 
 On account of the almost trojtical climate and the required method of cultivation 
 of Bermuda produce, not possible in our country, the crop of onions ami potatoes 
 begins to come to market about March, or at least two montiis in advance of the 
 Florida ])roduce, which is the earliest produce raised in our country, and the Bermuda 
 cro]) is exhausted about June 15. Our Southern States raise hardly any onions, and 
 the crop of I'Morida potatoes does not commence to come to our market in any (luan- 
 tity until the Bermuda crop is almost exiiausted. What remains of the Bermuda 
 cro]) atthat t'me can not compete with the lower prices at which our Southern farm- 
 ers are enabled to sell their produce, on account of the lower cost of production 
 tliereof, and the Bermuda onioTis and potatoes are, after .Tune 1, generally shipped to 
 the West Indies, Canada, and England. (See Schedule B. ) 
 
 Several of the merchants who have signed the annexed petition, and who live in 
 New York, own large truck farms in Virginia, in the Caroliuas, and in Florida, and 
 they affirm that not only does the produce from Bermuda not interfere or compete 
 with the produce from the Southern States, but it rather enables them to open a 
 market for their produce from the South and to get the higher prices which govern 
 the preceding Bermuda market. 
 
 HISTORY OF BERMUDA TRADE UNDER PREVIOUS TARIFFS. 
 
 Previous to the McKinley bill the trade in Bermuda and Cuban produce was prof- 
 itable to our New York merchants. About two-thirds of the (juantity of potatoes 
 and onions now imported were then received in the port of New York, and being 
 admitted at the ad valorem duty of 10 per cent (with the exception of potatoes, which 
 were taxed 15 cents per bushel of 60 pounds), left the cost of the merchandise at the 
 • market of distribution at such a moderate limit that it was sold at a fair profit. 
 Under the encouragement of a fair profit the quantity of potatoes and onions from 
 those islands gradually increased (see Schedule A), which tended to lower the price 
 and to bring fresh vegetables in the early spring months within the means of a large 
 number of our people. 
 
 The McKinley tariff law of October 1, 1890, placed on onions a tax of 40 cents per 
 bushel, and on potato^ s a tax of 25 cents per bushel of 60 pounds. The cost of laying 
 down the pro<luce in New York City having been raised just so much by this tax, the 
 McKinley tariff would have presently proved a prohibitive one to all such produce. 
 During the three years this tariff continued in force Bermuda potatoes and onions 
 were shipped to our market in nearly as great a quantity as before, but the market 
 price did not respond to the increased cost, and the returns left no profit to the 
 importer and nothing to the farmer above cost of production. If the McKinley tariff 
 had remained a law but a few years longer than it did, Bermuda produce would have 
 been driven from our market and Bermuda farmers compelled to seek a new market 
 for their merchandise, or to raise other crops upon their land. 
 
 Under the W ilson tariff law of 1894 the duties on onions were reduced to 20 cent*
 
 924 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 per bnsliel and on potatoes to 15 cents per bnshel of GO pounds, while on other vejre- 
 tables iu their natural state the 10 per cent ad valorem duty still remained 
 
 Althou"-h this reduction brontjht some relief, still the hir-^er number of people 
 en-an-ed m the industrv in Bermuda, and the unavoidably more expensive methods 
 used m the cultivation of a naturally sterile soil, while they caused a larger quantity 
 to be exported to this country, brought the cost of the produce in the market ot 
 distribution so near the selling price, that no profit was made out of the industry. 
 
 BERJIUDA FARMERS ARE DEBTORS OF NEW YORK MERCHANTS. 
 
 Daring these several years of the unprofitable condition of the Bcrmnda trade 
 your petitioners had furnished and still furnish advances to the Bermuda bankers 
 and farmers to enable them to live and produce their crops, hoping that either a 
 more favorable crop or a reduction of the duty might enable the Beriuuda farmers 
 to repay said loans. These loans are secured by the future crop of potatoes and 
 onions. Which being unprofitable on account of the restrictions placed on that indus- 
 try by our tariff laws, it can be safely said that before any part of the Bermuda crop 
 is'shipped to this country it has been entirely paid for by or mortgaged to its full 
 extent to our merchants. 
 
 The relation, therefore, which our country holds to Bermuda is that of the capitalist 
 investing his capital in the foreign industry, \Nhich industry is hampered and its 
 product shut out by the laws of our country. Unless more favorable terms shall 
 be granted on which Bermuda produce may be imported to this country, that industry 
 must in time die away, with a consequent loss to ourselves of fresh, healthful vege- 
 tables at a time of the year when we can not produce them. 
 
 BERMUDA A BUYER IN UNITED STATES MARKETS. 
 
 Bermuda is geographically and commercially part of our own conntry. Her 
 markets are in the United States, she obtains her supplies from the United States. 
 tiu'l her business interests are our interests. 
 
 According to Schedules C and D, hereto annexed, the exports from the United States 
 to Bcnuuda exceed the sura total of the exports from all foreign countries to those 
 islands by more than 50 per cent, while 94 per cent of all commodities raised in 
 Bermuda are shipped to the United States. Notwithstanding this difference iu per- 
 centage, the value of the goods which Bermuda buys from the United States exceeds 
 tlie value of the goods which we buy from that country by nearly half a million 
 dollars. 
 
 A'.ain, Bermuda admits our goods to her ports either free of duty or at a tax of 
 5 per cent ad valorem, with a few exceptions, such as cattle, cigars, cigarettes, 
 tobacco, snuff, and spirits. When the crops of Bermuda yield to their purchasers a 
 fair return lor their labor, that return is spent in our markets in buying their neces- 
 saries, supplies, tools, and seed for their crops, and thus furnishes another market 
 for the industries of our people (see Schedule D). Certainly some reciprocal arrange- 
 ment is due to Bermuda. 
 
 SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR A LOWER TARIFF ON BERMUDA AND CUBAN PRODUCE. 
 
 As the chief reason why the lowest possible dutj' should be placed upon the impor- 
 tations of potatoes and onions from Bermuda and Cuba during the months of March, 
 April, and May, that produce comes to our markets at a time of the year when it is 
 impossible for our country to produce those vegetables. They do not compete in any 
 way with the old crop of potatoes that may have been stored by our merchants. 
 
 As we have shown above, and as is more fully set forth in Schedule B, tlio Ber- 
 muda crop of onions and potatoes is at least two months in advance of the crop 
 of the Southern States. During the season of 1896 the Bermuila potatoes sold on 
 an average per barrel at $5, while our old crop of potatoes was selling in the markets 
 during the months of March, April and May, at from 80 cents to $1 per barrel. The 
 crops from Florida and the Southern States commence to come in the latter part of 
 May and more fully in June. The price of those new potatoes was from $1 to $1.50. 
 below the Bermuda crop, while hardly any quantity of onions is raised at all by our 
 Southern States. The fertility of our soil in the Southern States, the che.iper farm 
 lands, and the oversupply of negro labor enables the farmers there to undersell the 
 Bermuda farmers by 5U per cent and still make a profit. Thus, on the theory of pro- 
 tection, there can be no advantage in placing a tax against the importations from 
 Bermuda and Cuba. 
 
 Secondly, a low tariff during the early spring months would lessen the cost of 
 production and increase the quantity produced, allowing competiti<m to work 
 between the sellers of that early produce, so that as, a result the price of onions and 
 potatoes and other fresh vegetal. les during March, April, iin<l May would fall, and 
 those supplies would come witliin the means of a much greater number of our 
 peo])le. That such a result would be beneficial needs no argument. 
 
 Wherefore, if it seems desirable to your committee that such a result should be
 
 ONIONS AND POTATOES. 
 
 925 
 
 biouglit about and that this industry should be encouraged to the great advantage 
 of our merchauts and our conauniers, as well as to those who ship dry goods, bread- 
 stuiVs, and farming utensils to Jjermuda, the reinedj' is simple. It will be brought 
 about liy placing a low tariff on new potatoes, onions, and vegetables imported 
 during March. April, and May, while a protective duty is placed on those products 
 during the rest of the year when they enter into competition with home products. 
 
 We therefore petition that the duty on potatoes, onions, and vegetables in their 
 natural state may be as follows: 
 
 i Potatoes grown or harvested in the current year, imported during the months of 
 Marcli, April, and May, 15 cents per bushel of 60 pounds. 
 
 Onions grown or harvested during the current year and imported during the 
 months of March, April, and May, 15 cents per bushel. 
 
 Vegetables in their natural state, other than potatoes and onions, 10 per cent ad 
 valorem. 
 
 KespectfuUy submitted. 
 
 Edward N. Loomis, 
 For the Produce Merchants of New York. 
 
 SciiKOULE A. — Showiiif/ the imports of onions and potatoes from Bermuda for ten years. 
 
 JANUARY-JUNE 5. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 1886 
 1887 
 188S 
 1889 
 1890 
 1891 
 1892 
 189:i 
 1894 
 1895 
 189G 
 
 Onions. 
 
 Bushel 
 boxea. 
 
 181, 496 
 217,450 
 178, 907 
 298, 341 
 275, 750 
 304, 975 
 360,842 
 353, 027 
 177, 1»)6 
 295, 269 
 312, 374 
 
 Value. 
 
 $248, 238. 51 
 220, 942. 16 
 291,216.26 
 158, 981. 15 
 399, 7&'J. 69 
 396, 656. 63 
 267,781.49 
 299, 882. 96 
 222, 286. 28 
 224, 2r)3. 76 
 234, 280. 00 
 
 Potatoes. 
 
 Barrels. Value. 
 
 $72, 
 144, 
 131, 
 
 97, 
 166, 
 131, 
 134, 
 135, 
 
 94, 
 131, 
 103, 
 
 869. 81 
 673. 09 
 62ii. 36 
 093. 19 
 149.79 
 996. 48 
 830. 82 
 327. 56 
 777. 34 
 309. 48 
 C40.00 
 
 AVERAGE PRICES. 
 
 
 1896. 
 
 1895. 
 
 1894. 
 
 1893. 
 
 1892. 
 
 1891. 
 
 1890. 
 
 1889. 
 
 1888. 
 
 1887. 
 
 1886. 
 
 
 $0.75 
 5.00 
 
 $0.74 
 4.84 
 
 $1. 20 
 4.87 
 
 $0.84 
 4.64 
 
 $0.76 
 5.06 
 
 $1.24 
 4.91 
 
 $1.44 
 4.74 
 
 $0.53 
 4.97 
 
 $1.65 
 5.08 
 
 $1.00 
 4.60 
 
 $1.35 
 5.31 
 
 I'Dtatoes, per barrel 
 
 ScHKDULK B.-^Showing the relative amounts of potatoes and onions placed in the New 
 York market bij our Southei-n States and by foreign countries during the months of March, 
 April, and May for the year 1896. 
 
 Onions : Bushels. 
 
 From Southern States 13^ 218 
 
 From Bermuda 205, 535 
 
 From Egypt 14,362 
 
 New i)otatoe8 : Barrels. 
 
 From Southern States, practically none before May 25 ; between May 
 
 25 and June 1, 1896 ' ', 20,000 
 
 Bermuda 19,810.74 
 
 Egypt None. 
 
 Schedule C. — Statistics shoiving the total value of the imports and exports of the colony 
 of Bermuda for the year 1894; also the imports and exports for the year 1892. 
 
 
 1894. 
 
 
 Imports. 
 
 Exports. 
 
 United States 
 
 $841, 793. 35 
 
 418, 347. 61 
 
 146, 840. 24 
 
 7, 267. 69 
 
 $433, 804. 99 
 9 754 61 
 
 
 
 19 533 57 
 
 
 16, 002. 82 
 
 
 
 1, 414, 248. 89 
 
 479,095.99
 
 926 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Schedule C.-Statistics showivg the total value of the imports and exports of the colony 
 ofBe,^mdafor the year 1S94, also the imports and exports for the year 1S9.2. -Cont d. 
 
 
 1892. 
 
 
 Imports. 
 
 Exports. 
 
 United States 
 
 Great Britain 
 
 $973, 757 
 
 422. 6t)9 
 
 172,440 
 
 11,092 
 
 $522, 178 
 11,870 
 12, 576 
 
 
 7,560 
 
 
 1, 580, 558 
 
 554,184 
 
 Value of goods imported in 1892 from the United States which paid a duty _ 
 of 5 per cent ad valorem - -:-- ■ ---- $/68,889 
 
 Value of goods imported in 1892 from the United States which were eitlier 
 free or which paid specific duties 204,868 
 
 973, 757 
 Value of goods exported to the United States in 1892 522, 178 
 
 In favor of the United States and against Bermuda 451, 579 
 
 Amount of dutv paid the United States in 1892 under the McKinlcy tarilV. . 150, 891 
 Amount of duty derived by Bermuda from its entire tariff in 1892 135. 6(52 
 
 Duty paid the United States exceeded amount collected by r.eruiuda 
 under its entire tariff by 15, 229 
 
 The year 1892 has been selected because it is an average year. The tariff laws of 
 Bermuda are the same now as then. 
 
 Schedule J).—Suvimary of exports of vegetables ship2)ed from Bei-mnda for 1S95, show- 
 ing the proportion of Bermuda produce shipped to the United States and t^ foreign 
 
 countries. 
 
 To United States. 
 
 To Canada 
 
 To West Indies . . 
 
 Beets. Onions. Potatoes. Tomatoes. Value 
 
 Boxe». 
 1,156 
 
 Total exports from Bermuda . 
 
 Boxe4. 
 
 290, 889 
 
 1,841 
 
 25, 398 
 
 1, 156 295, 2G9 
 
 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 25,896 
 
 14 
 
 1, 233 
 
 27, 143 
 
 Boxe*. 
 
 754 
 
 266 
 
 1 
 
 1,021 
 
 $340. 460. 03 
 1,501.52 
 8, 239. 91 
 
 357, 231. 63 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. RUSSELL HASTINGS, OF SONCY, 
 
 BERMUDA ISLANDS. 
 
 SoNCY, Bermuda Islands, December 23., 1896. 
 
 Dear Sir: I notice by American papers that a committee of the 
 present Congress will take up the revision of the tariff law and prepare 
 a bill to be presented to the Fifty-fifth Congress if it sliall be called in 
 extra session by President McKinley after the 4th of IMarch, 1807. 
 
 The Bermuda Islands are very much interested in the agricultural 
 schedule of the tariff law, as each winter there is ship]ied from here to 
 the United States about 250,000 bushels of onions, 30,000 barrels of 
 patatoes, 4,000 bushels of beets, 2,000 boxes of tomatoes, and small 
 amounts of other vegetables. 
 
 The published statistics for 1894, which I have in hand, show the 
 exports of vegetables to the United States tor that year to be of the
 
 ONIONS AND POTATOES. 92 < 
 
 value of .$427,5G9.G0 and for same year the imports from the United 
 States amount to $800,748. 
 
 Under the McKinley law the tariff on onions was 40 cents a bushel; 
 on potatoes, 25 cents a bushel. Under the Wilson law the rate was 
 somewhat reduced to 20 cents a bushel for onions and 15 cents a 
 bushel for potatoes. 
 
 With the return of the Republican party to power, the Bermudians 
 fear the excessive duties on onions and potatoes may be revived. I 
 write in their interest, and at the desire of several of the large growers, 
 to ask if it is probable that such will be the case. 
 
 Before the McKinley law came in force they rather looked (all being 
 free traders) upon the passage of the law with indifference, for to them 
 the fallacious cry "tlie consumer pays the tax" was an axiom. Kow 
 they know better. 
 
 The Bermudians feel that, as long as the v.alue of their exports from 
 the United States is so much greater than the vahieof their exports — 
 being nearly twice as great — their products, if it be possible to do so, 
 should come under "a favored-nation clause." 
 
 A feeling is prevalent in Bermuda that as Bermuda only puts a tariff 
 rate on United States products of 5 per cent, in a recii)rocal way the 
 rate on onions and potatoes should not be over 10 per cent, or at about 
 10 cents per bushel for both onions and potatoes. 
 
 I expect there would not be much grumbling, though, if the present 
 rates should be continued. 
 
 Russell Hastings. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY W. W. RAWSON, PRESIDENT OF THE 
 BOSTON MARKET GARDENERS' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Boston, Mass., January 11, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 In making up the new tariff bill, I wish to suggest two items that will 
 be of great importance to the farmers of New England. Theduty should 
 be increased on two articles, namely, onions and potatoes; these are the 
 largest crops of the Eastern States. The duties on these two articles 
 have been reduced about one half, and the consequence has been that 
 many farmers liave had to mortgage their farms the past two years. 
 The duty should be 40 cents per bushel on onions and 30 cents on 
 potatoes. Onions are sent here from Egypt in the summer season just 
 at the time when our croj) is ripe, and has reduced the price from 75 or 
 80 cents per busUel to 50 cents per bushel. Now, no one can grow them 
 and get any profit at this price. Before the tariff was taken off, nearly 
 double the quantity was grown. Putting the duty back to 40 cents per 
 bushel would encourage tlie growth of this crop in the East and also in 
 the West. It has also diminished the production of seed, which was 
 sold in large quantities and raised mostly in California; so you see it 
 will help the whole countr3\ 
 
 The potato crop works in the same way, but not so much. The pota- 
 toes from Canada and Nova Scotia are put in our market at very low 
 prices, and the past year they have been raised as low as 15 cents per 
 bushel in the field. No one can grow them for that; but if the duty is 
 put to 30 cents it will make a difference, not only in the Eastern but 
 also in the Western and Southern States. 
 
 W. W. Rawson, 
 I'resident Boston Mar1{et Gardeners^ Association.
 
 928 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 FARMERS CAN NOT PAY THEIR BILLS. 
 
 SouTHPORT, Conn., January 4, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The farmers of our town request me to ask that you have the McKin- 
 ley tariff restored on potatoes and onions. Our farmers have found it 
 impossible to pay their bills for the last two or three years under the 
 Wilson bill. I am an onion grower to the extent of 10 acres a year, 
 and also a carrier and seller of vegetables for the farmers of our com- 
 munity to the extent of 20,000 to 30,000 barrels per year. 
 
 Simon Banks. 
 
 Communications of similar purport were received from R. P. Conklin, 
 of Chester, N. Y., W. H. Burr, of Westport, Conn., Kichard J. Martin, 
 of Bravo, 111., and 142 others. 
 
 ONIONS. 
 
 (Paragraph 202.) 
 
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY FARMERS AND ONION GROWERS OF 
 
 DANVERS, MASS. 
 
 Danvers, Mass., January 1, 1897. 
 Committee on Wats and Means: 
 
 We, the undersigned, farmers and onion growers, citizens of l)an\('rs, 
 Mass., respectfully represent that the tariff on onions in the McKinloy 
 bill, so called, was 40 cents per bushel, while tlie present tarilf is but 
 20 cents per bushel. In ordinary years we can not compete success- 
 fully with foreign growers where labor is cheap, notably in Spain, where 
 men in onion fields are paid but 12 cents i)er day, while here they are 
 paid from $1.25 to $1.50 per day and boys from 50 cents to $1. 
 
 We respectfully, but earnestly, ask that the tariff" of 40 cents be 
 restored, and that generally the protection afforded farm products by 
 the McKinley tariff* be restored in full force. 
 
 Wm. B. Carleton and 34 others. 
 
 MANY STATES ARE INTERESTED. 
 
 Wellington, Ohio, December .50, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We desire to respectfully call the attention of your committee to the 
 present inadequate tariff" on onions. You will note that the taiiff' 
 under the McKinley law, so called, was 40 cents per bushel. In the 
 law now in force it is but 20 cents per bushel. We respectfully urge 
 that the 40-cent tariff be restored. Your committee is doubtless aware 
 that labor in countries from which onions are largely imported into the 
 United States is exceedingly low, so low that with the low ocean freight 
 rates prevailing we can not, with our higher priced labor, successfullv 
 compete with them. 
 
 We have been informed that labor in the onion-growing sections in
 
 ONIONS. 929 
 
 Spain can be procured for about 12 cents per day. We pay from $1 to 
 $1.25 per day for men and from 50 to 75 cents par day for boys and 
 girls. Add to the cost of production freight rates to the seaboard, 
 where American grown onions must compete with foreign importations, 
 and cost laid down at our seaboard cities is very decidedly higher than 
 cost of landing onions from France, Spain, and Egypt. The American 
 onion grower would be driven out of business in ordinary years with- 
 out a suitable protective tariff. In our opinion the old tariff of 40 cents 
 was not too high. We respectfully urge that it be restored. 
 
 In years when the crop is short and resulting prices naturally high, 
 as is the case now, we do not need a tariff", but in such cases the 
 importer can well afford to pay a tariff. With an ordinary crop in this 
 country prices rule so low that the crop can not be grown without a 
 loss if compelled to compete with foreign crop. Onions are grown 
 largely in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Kew York, Ohio, Michigan, Illi- 
 nois, and Iowa, and to some extent in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wisconsin, 
 and Minnesota in the Korth. We are not familiar with the onion-growing 
 sections of the South, as their onions are on the market and out of the 
 way before Northern onions are ready for market. Onions are, how- 
 ever, largely grown in the South. 
 
 Wean, Hokr, Wakner & Co. 
 
 MEMORIALS RECEIVED FROM ONION GROWERS IN VARIOUS 
 SECTIONS OF THE COUNTRY. 
 
 Perry, Lake County, Ohio, January 11, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Being deeply interested in the cultivation of onions, I would urgently 
 l)etition your committee to put the tariff" back to 40 cents per bushel on 
 onions. We pay our help from $1 to $1.25 per day for labor. In Spain 
 they pay 12 cents per day. We can not pay living Avages to our help 
 and comi^ete with foreign onions at 20 cents tariff. 
 
 James McVitty. 
 
 Communications similar to the above were received from the follow- 
 ing: A. A. Whitney, John Cramblett, .J. H. Clouse, O. E. Lockwood, 
 all of Perry, Ohio; W. H. Bowen, of Painesville, Ohio; F. L. Whit- 
 more, of Sunderland, Mass.; J. Burdick, of Cleveland, Ohio; Jos*)ph 
 Adams, of Westport, Conn.; W. Bennett, of Madison, Ohio; H. G. 
 Sanderson, of Sunderland, Mass.; C. A. Meeker, of Southport, Conn.; 
 Wm. D. Berry, of North Madison, Ohio; Joel W. Houston and A. W. 
 Bull, of Florida, N. Y.; Henry Price, of Kenton, Ohio; F. O. Williams, 
 of Sunderland, Mass.; W. H. Pope, of North Madison, Ohio, and 337 
 others. 
 
 BERMUDA ONIONS RAISED IN FLORIDA 
 
 Fairmont, Citrus County, Fla., January 11, 1897. 
 Dear Sir : I see that a lower duty on onions and potatoes is asked 
 for by a member of the New York Produce Exchange during March, 
 April, and May than any other time of the year; and in consideration of 
 the growers of Florida, I protest for the following reasons: 
 
 Several years ago I began the growing of Bermuda onions in this 
 section, and now others are also growing them, and now for the last 
 T H 69
 
 930 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 several years we have not been able to compete witli tlie Bermuda and 
 Cuba growers on account of railroad freight, etc., bcinji' higher than the 
 water'freights from those places. As au instance, I give my experience 
 of last season: About April 1 I shipped onions to Jacksonville. They 
 netted me 90 cents a crate. After making two shipments I was notified 
 not to ship any more as they were brought in by New York steamers 
 and sold at 50 to 75 cents, and that after paying duty at New York and 
 freight from Nassau to New York, and from there to Florida. 
 
 Onions can not be grown here for less than $1 net f. o. b. per crate: 
 and we, the growers of Florida, would therefore ask you to kiiuily 
 present this matter before the proper committee. 
 
 O. P. Kellee. 
 
 POTATOES, CABBAGES, AND TURNIPS. 
 
 (Paragraphs 204 :md 207.) 
 
 Vineland, N. J., December 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I hope that in regulating the rates on farm products the same rates 
 will be restored as under the McKinley law. For several years past 
 many of these products, such as potatoes, cabbages, turnips, etc., have 
 been imported from Nova Scotia, Canada, and Europe in such quan- 
 tities and sold at such x)rices as to practically diive our own farmers 
 out of the market. 
 
 Chas. K;. Landis. 
 
 GARDEN SEEDS. 
 
 (Paragraph 206^.) 
 STATEMENT OF MR. BURNETT LANDRETH, OF PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 Tuesday, Jannary 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Landreth said: Mr. Cliairraan and gentlemen of the commit- 
 tee, it is said that agriculture is the noblest occupation of man, and no 
 doubt you will concede that. If that be so, then good seeds are the 
 beginning of all wealth, and it is in the interest of seeds that I ai)pear 
 before you. 
 
 What I say I say as a spokesman of a very great number of seed 
 growers and seed merchants of this country. I am speaking princi- 
 pally for seed growers. We ask a change in the tariff rates from ad 
 valorem to specific, because we know that a great many frauds have 
 been perpetrated in the past under the ad valorem ratings, whereas 
 under the specific ratings it would not be possible to do so. The com- 
 mittee with which I am here to-day represent simply the seed men of 
 Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, but, as I said, I am speaking for them 
 all. We have embodied in a circular, which you liave in your hands, 
 our general views on the subject, but with your permission, I would 
 like to make some few other remarks in addition to what you have in 
 your ])ossession. 
 
 Seeds were entered free of duty under the bills of 1842, 1840, and
 
 GARDEN SEEDS. 931 
 
 1857. In 1861 they were subjected to au ad valorem duty at 20 per 
 cent. That ran for one year, and in 1802 that rate was raised to 30 
 per cent. That continued until 1874, when it was reduced to 20 per cent. 
 It remained at that rate until the Wilson tarilf bill went into effect, 
 M'hen it was reduced still further to 10 per cent. This reduction has 
 worked very seriously indeed against the production of many seeds. 
 Of course there are a great many seeds which are American which 
 Europe does not grow, and therefore Europe is not a competitor in tlie 
 growth of those seeds, but the most valuable seeds can be and are pro- 
 duced in Europe very cheaply, and under this low duty of 10 per cent 
 they come in such quantities and at such a low price as to almost par- 
 alyze the American seed grower. I can speak with full knowledge on 
 this matter, because I will cite you the case of an enterprise we engaged 
 in in Virginia in 18G9. 
 
 The firm of which I was a member bought a farm down there of 1,600 
 acres. Subsequently we purchased more land for the express purpose 
 of growing cabbage and turnip seeds. We could grow turnip seed there 
 of which the ordinary price in the North was 12 or 15 cents, and we 
 found in Virginia, under the conditions and climate prevailing there, 
 we could grow it at a less price, and we went down there and grew it at 
 a less price, but Americans who needed seed and who desired to be on 
 an equality with some other Americans who were getting seed from 
 abroad at that time — that is, our customers — found it necessary to buy 
 their seed from abroad, too, so as to be on the same level with their 
 competitors. The result was the development of turnip-seed growing 
 in Europe. The production of that seed in Europe has been greatly 
 developed, and it is now so cheaply produced there that we are unable 
 any longer to grow turnip seed at a profit in Virginia. It is the same 
 way with cabbage seed and several other kinds of seed. 
 
 We went to Wisconsin and bought a farm to grow pease, and the 
 Canadian production of pease became so great we had to abandon that. 
 It might be said, " How can Europe, so far off, compete with America in 
 the production of seed?" Distance cuts no figure at all in this matter, 
 because the cost of transportation is so small that it amounts to prac- 
 tically nothing. Seeds can be imported for less than half a cent a 
 pound. With the small duty of 10 per cent and the very cheap system 
 under which they are raised, we can not compete. We must have a 
 further specific protection, and then seed growers can at least make a 
 fair profit. Seed growing is not limited to one or two sections of the 
 country, but is very widely distributed. A large crop of seed is grown 
 in Kansas, Nebraska, in the New England States, in Ohio, Indiana, 
 Illinois, and to an immense extent in California. XJnless the duty be 
 increased on seed the seed growers will be troubled by the establish- 
 ment of seed depots in this country by European seed merchants who, 
 under the low tarift", will pay the tariff rate themselves and establish 
 these seed agencies at ports of entry for quickly filling all orders to the 
 great detriment of American seed growers. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What rate do you seek? 
 
 Mr. Landueth. Ten per cent is the present rate upon seeds. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Are you responsible for this proposed schedule laid 
 before the committee? Did you draw this schedule? 
 
 Mr. Landketh. The Philadelphia seed merchants drew this. Their 
 names are at the bottom of it, as you will see. 
 
 Mr. DoLLivEE. On what theory do you put clover and flaxseed on 
 the free list?
 
 932 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Mr. Landreth. I thouo-lit that flaxseed was on the free list under 
 the present law. That was an error. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. If you know, please tell us to what extent foreign seeds 
 are adulterated. 
 
 Mr. Landreth. There is a theory that they are adulterated, but we 
 do not know tbat they are. We do not sell any if we know that they 
 are adulterated seeds. We have to be importers as well as inerchaiit.s. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Then you are not enj?aged exclusively in growing seed ? 
 
 Mr. Landre ! H. We are importing as well as growiug. We have to 
 keep up with the procession. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Do you know or not that the Agricultural Department 
 has made some investigation on this subject of adulteratiou and has 
 discovered a vast amount of adulteration going on among the seed 
 importers of the United States'? 
 
 Mr. Landreth. No, not among seed importers. The adulteration is 
 charged upon the parties abroad, before the seed comes here. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. The adulteration takes place before the product is 
 brought to this country? 
 
 Mr. LA.NDRETH. So it is said. I will cite to you the case that tliere 
 are several parties in London who will buy anything in the shai)e of 
 seed, and if it is not dead, they will kill it and make it dead so it can 
 be used. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Is there any real reason for putting clover seed on 
 the free list? 
 
 Mr. Landreth. No, sir; there is no real reason. Last year we 
 imported four and a quarter million pounds of it. 
 
 Mr. DOLLIVER. Do we raise any in this country? 
 
 Mr. Landreth. Yes, sir. This is nearly all outside clover that was 
 imported, and I think- Dutch clover. There were 4,000,000 pounds, 
 and it paid on a valuation of $280,000. All that could be raised here 
 and should be raised here. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. What do you say about timothy seed and the other 
 harvest grass seed. 
 
 Mr. Landreth. Of grass seed there was imported 2,500,000 poumls, 
 of an invoice value of $100,000. Some of those could not be so well 
 raised in this country. 
 
 Mr. Turner. You propose 40 cents a bushel on pease edible in any 
 form. What are those seeds worth here per barrel? 
 
 Mr. Landreth. About $1.50 a bushel. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Does that include field pease of every kindt 
 
 Mr. Landreth. Yes, sir; all pease are the same. The duty on pease 
 now is 20 cents a bushel, and we suggest 40 cents a bushel. 
 
 Mr. Turner. What are beans worth? 
 
 Mr. Landreth. Do you mean the wholesale or the price a farmer 
 gets? 
 
 Mr. Turner. The price the farmer gets. 
 
 Mr. Landreth. Ordinarily about $!.()() or $1.75 a bushel. 
 
 Mr. Turner, l^ou propose a duty of 40 cents on beans? 
 
 Mr. Landreth. Yes, sir; 40 cents, and 40 cents on pease. 
 
 Mr. Turner. They belong to the same family, I believe? 
 
 I\Ir. Landreth. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Will the duty you propose be added to the price of 
 those things, in your opinion, under the condition of the American 
 market? Say beans are worth $1.G0, and you propose a duty of 40
 
 GARDEN SEEDS. 953 
 
 cents, would that make the price of beans about $2, tlie conditions 
 remaining the same as under this price of $1.60? 
 
 jMr. Landreth. The foreigner would divide the difference. 
 
 Mr. TuiiNER. What do you mean by that? 
 
 Mr. Landreth. I mean to say that the price of beans would be $1.50, 
 for instance, and if there was a duty of 40 cents a bushel upon them, 
 then the American farmer would get something more than $1.50. He 
 might not get the full addition of 40 cents. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Is that the reason you put the duty so high, 40 cents. 
 
 Mr. Landreth. We put the duty on pease at 40 cents, because the 
 Canadian grower, who does not grow many beans, but who grows 
 150,000 barrels of pease which compete with the American producers of 
 pease, and sends that large crop across tlie line. If the Canadian prod- 
 uct was subject to a duty of 40 cents there would not be so much of 
 it raised and a part of it would go to the American wheat growers in 
 Michigan, New York, and Wisconsin, and give them an opportunity 
 to conduct their business at a working protit. 
 
 Mr. Turner. And thereby reduce the price again? 
 
 Mr. Landreth. Partly. 
 
 Mr. Turner. You do not insist, then, that it would come down to the 
 original level? 
 
 INlr. Landreth. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Russell. I notice in the schedule you advocate a duty of 15 
 cents a bushel on potatoes. Do I understand that you advocate a duty 
 of 15 cents a bushel for table consumption? 
 
 Mr. Landreth. That is the duty at present, and when we drew that 
 schedule we thought, S])eaking for ourselves aiid with such information 
 as we had at the time, that we had better leave the duty as it was, 
 because the price is very low now and has been for two or three years. 
 But since we have come here we have talked with some potato men and 
 find that they want a high duty to provide against the Canadian and 
 Nova Scotian product. The potato growers want from 20 to 25 cents a 
 bushel. 
 
 Mr. Landreth filed the following memorial: 
 
 PHlLADELPniA, Dccemlcr 31, 1S9Q, 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We, the nTi<ler8ip;nefl, Pliiladclphia seed mercbants. seed larmers, and seed iniport- 
 618, and speaking in the interests of all farm labor employed on seed farms, desire 
 to eniplijisize our views before your committee, now engaged in considering the 
 subject of tarilf revision: 
 
 I. In changing the schedule duty on seeds from ad valorem to specific. Imported 
 pease, beans, and potatoes under former tariff schedules were subject to specific duties, 
 which system of revenue was simi»le and efl'ective. It is to the interest both of the 
 Government and seedmeu that all seeds should be subject to duty levied upon the 
 pound or bushel. 
 
 II. We also strenuously advocate an increase of the tariff rates upon garden seeds, 
 for, unless the American seed farmer has practical protection, he in many lines will 
 be driven out of business, and so will American seed merchants, for even now the 
 Germans are offering seeds put up in illustrated seed packets at low prices per 1,000, 
 ready for retailing. The commercial travelers of European seed growers, not satis- 
 fied with annual tours, are establishing permanent depots of supplies in the Eastern 
 cities. 
 
 III. Seed growing is the highest grade of agricultural labor, and the laborers 
 employed in this pursuit, unlike most other operatives, are without the protection 
 afforded by trades unions. To illustrate the comparative labor conditions, the full 
 daily wages of farm labor on the Continent is from 25 to 50 cents ])er day of fourteen 
 hours, while we average for similar labor $1.25 j)er day of ten hours. We confidently 
 state that fully 80 per cent of the cost of raising garden seeds is expended in labor 
 and in the purchase of the productions of labor, as machinery and fertilizers.
 
 934 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 IV As indicating the extent of seed farming- in the United States, the Censns Report 
 states that "there are in the United States 598 seed I'aruis, with a total of 169,951 
 acres 96 500 acres of which are devoted exclusively to the growing of vegetable and 
 flower seeds, Avhile 1,000,000 bushels of selected grains of corn, wheat, and oats tor 
 seed are grown on other farms not included in this enumeration.-' The report shows 
 "that of the 596 seed farms. 258 are in the North Atlantic division, 157 in the North 
 Central division, 89 in the South Atlantic division, 57 in the Soiith Central division, 
 35 in the Western division— a total of 596.'"' 
 
 The value of the farms, buildings, and implements is stated in the Census report 
 to be over $18,000,000. "Quite 90 per cent of these farms have come into existence 
 since 1860." , , . . 
 
 V. The scale of duties which we advocate on garden seeds, say 5 cents per pounu 
 on turnip, where 2 pounds to an acre are required, and 20 cents per pound on cab- 
 bao-e and cauliflower, where one-quarter pound of seed is required, are not in any 
 way exorbitant, when we consider the small quantity of seed necessary. 
 
 The schedule we suggest on seeds is as follows: 
 
 Five cents per pound on all seed of table beets, sugar beets, hale, leek, lettuce, 
 mangel wurzel, parsley, radish, rutabaga, rape, spinach, turnip, and on all vegetable 
 seeds not otherwise provided for. 
 
 Ten cents per pound on all seeds of carrot, celery, onion, and salsify. 
 
 Twenty cents per pound on all seeds of cabb.ige, cauliflower, and tomato. 
 
 Fifteen cents per bushel of 60 pounds on potatoes. 
 
 Forty cents per bushel of 60 pounds on all beans and pease. 
 
 Twenty per cent on all flower seeds. 
 
 Five dollars per thousand packets on seeds of every kind in packets. 
 
 The free list to include: Mushroom spawn, aromatic seeds, ])ot herbs, medi( inal 
 seeds, castor beans, cotton, canary, clover, grass seed, hemp, tree, tobacco, mustard, 
 flax, poppy, sorghum, oil seeds, vetches. 
 
 Signed and respectfully submitted. 
 
 Henry A. Dkekr. 
 
 D. Landkkth &. Sons. 
 
 RoBKUT BuisT Company. 
 
 Johnson & Stokks. 
 
 W. Atlkk Briu-KK «fe Co. 
 
 Wm. Henry Matle. 
 
 Letters indorsing Mr. Landreth's statement and ieconnneiide<l rates 
 were received from Rogers Brothers, of Cliaumont, N. Y. ; W. II. Gren- 
 ell, of Pierrepont Manor, N. Y., and others. Francis Brill, of Hemp- 
 stead, Long Island, indorsed Mr. Landrotli's statement, bnt thonght 
 cabbage seed should be protected by a duty of at least 30 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 RATES RECOMMENDED BY D. M. FERRY & CO., OF DETROIT, MICH. 
 
 Detroit, Mich., January 2, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are so thoroughly couvinced of the advantages of specific over 
 ad valorem import duties, both as regards simplicity of administration by 
 the Government and equity to the honest importer, that we venture to 
 request your committee to insert in the forthcoming laiilf measure spe- 
 cific duties on seeds. To our minds, making pease dutiable at a specific 
 instead of an ad valorem rate, as formerly, was a wonderful step in the 
 1 ight direction in the tariff act of 1890, and we believe the time has 
 come when specific duties on the goods we import should entirely sup- 
 plant duties assessed ad valorem. 
 
 Accordingly, we would respectfully submit for the consideration of 
 your committee the schedule which follows. We have given every item 
 careful consideration, and while on some of the cheaper ganlen seeds 
 the duties will amount to more than the 20 per cent rate of the tarilf of 
 1890, in the main they will tall between that rate and the existing rate 
 of 10 per cent. We have aimed to have the duty on no single article
 
 GARDEN SEEDS. 
 
 935 
 
 less than that of the present tariff, and on many the duty will closely 
 approximate an equivalent of the 20 per cent rate of the tariff of 1890: 
 
 Rate, act of 
 1890. 
 
 Kate, act of 
 1894. 
 
 DUTIABLE. 
 
 At 1 cent jjer pound. 
 
 Seeds : ABparagus, beet, chervil, cres.s (except water cress), cucumber, 
 endive, lettuce, im;s]iuu.'lou, -watcrmelou, muslirooni spawn, okra, 
 parsnip, pumpkin, rhubarb, spiuacli, squasli, tobacco, tomato, tur- 
 nip 
 
 At 2 centa per pound. 
 
 See^s: Carrot, chicory, parsley, radish 
 
 At 3 cents per pound. 
 
 Seeds: Borecole or kale, brussels sprouts, cabbage, celery, celeriac, 
 collards, kohl rabi, leek, sorrel 
 
 At 5 cents per pound. 
 
 Seeds : Onion, pepper, salsify, and all seeds not specially provided for 
 in this act 
 
 At 10 cents per pound. 
 Seeds: Artichoke, eggplant, raartyuia '. 
 
 At 15 cents per poinid. 
 Seeds : "Water cress 
 
 At 40 cents per pound. 
 
 Seeds : Brocoli, cauliflower 
 
 At 20 cents per bushel of CO pounds. 
 
 Beans , 
 
 Dried pease 
 
 FREE LIST. 
 
 Seeds : Anise, canary, caraway, cardamom, coriander, cotton, cummin, 
 fennel, feuuj^reek, hemp, iioarhound, mustard, rape, St. John's 
 bread or bene, au<:ar beet, mangel-wurzel, .sorslium or sugar cane 
 for seed, and all flower and grass seeds ; bulbs and bulbous roots, 
 not edible; all the foregoing not specially provided for in this act... 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 10 per cent. 
 
 20 percent 
 
 10 per cent. 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 10 per cent. 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 10 per cent. 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 10 per cent. 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 10 per cent. 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 10 per cent. 
 
 40 per cent 
 
 20 percent 
 
 20 per cent. 
 Do. 
 
 Free 
 
 Freet 
 
 I 
 
 From the list for which we recommend the minimum rate of duty of 
 1 cent pel- pound the following, viz, asparagus, cucumber, lettuce, musk- 
 melon, watermelon, okra, pumpkin, rhubarb, squash, tobacco, and 
 tomato are articles for which the climate of the United States is so much 
 more favorable than that of any other country that they are all pro- 
 duced here and are not imported, at least not on a commercial scale. 
 This has been the case for many years, was so when the duty was twice 
 the present rate, and undoubtedly would be so were these articles all 
 on the free list. 
 
 Endive seed was formerly generally imported, but for the last few 
 years we have found a locality in the United States where it succeeds 
 admirably and can be grown profitably for less money than in Europe, 
 notwithstanding the difference between European and American farm 
 wages. Of recent years we have not imported any endive seed except 
 when our American crops have failed. Under these circumstances no 
 further protection to the American grower than the duty of 1 cent per 
 pound on the above-named articles is either necessary or desirable. 
 
 The remaining items, viz, beet, chervil, cress (except water cress), 
 mushroom s])awn, parsnip, spinach, and turnip, are produced abroad 
 at from 3 to 7 cents per pound, so that the rate of 1 cent per pound is
 
 936 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 in every case more than the existing rate of 10 per cent, aucl on some 
 of these articles amounts to considerably moie than the 20 i)er cent 
 rate of the act of 1890. Spinach seed, which is profitably produced iu 
 Europe at 3 cents per ponnd, would thus pay a duty equivalent to 33;^ 
 per cent, while turnip, which we are having produced for us in Europe 
 at 7 cents per pound, would, at a duty of 1 cent per pound, pay a duty 
 of about 15 per cent instead of 10 per cent, as at present. It is a fact 
 that neither spinach nor turnip seed can be produced economically iu 
 this country, on account of our hot, dry summers. They thrive much 
 better in a climate where the extremes of temperature are not so great 
 as with us, where there is a long spring and summer unattended by the 
 high degree of heat we usually experience in this country. It is an 
 open question how high the duty would have to be to become prohibi- 
 tive. It is perhaps possible that all the turnip seed consumed in tlie 
 United States could be produced here, but it would be attended with 
 such an enormous increase in the cost of production as to be a veiy 
 serious and, from our standpoint, unnecessary burden both upon the 
 seed trade and farmers and planters of this country. Some twenty- five 
 years ago we embarked in the enterprise of growing turnip seed in this 
 State. We thought we had a good soil and a satisfactory climate, 
 together with the experience iu seed growing and capital re(iuisite to 
 insure success, but in spite of repeated and persistent ettbrt our crops 
 would blast and fail, so that an utter failure was the result at least half 
 the time. We have known of others in this State who have fared no 
 better. We lacked, during the period of the foimation of the seed, the 
 cool nights with a sufficiency of moisture in the atm()si)here, which 
 conditions are found in the districts in England, Holland, and France 
 where turnip seed is produced most successfully. We are convinced 
 that the duty of 1 cent per pound, which we suggest, is suflicient to 
 cover fully the difi'erence in wages paid abroad and those which would 
 be paid to the laborers emi)loyed if the seed were grown here, but we 
 must admit that this rate is not sufficiently high to overcome the more 
 favorable conditions of climate which prevail abroad. Inasmuch as we 
 are persuaded that it is not desirable to affix to this article a rate so 
 high as to prevent importations, we believe that the rate we propose is 
 ample and will result, so far as this one article is concerned, iu an 
 increase of about one-half in the revenue it ])ays. 
 
 The cost of production abroad of the articles for which we recom- 
 mend a duty of 2 cents per pound varies from 5 to 15 cents. As nearly 
 as we can estimate on the basis of our own importatif)ns, which are 
 extensive, we should say the average foreign vahie of these articles 
 will vary little, if any, from 12 cents per pound. The carrot costs 
 abroad 15 cents per pound, but at the present 10 per cent rate of duty 
 is largely grown iu this country. Two cents per pound would be an 
 appreciable increase, even on this article, though on the basis of pro- 
 tection an increase would scarcely be consitlered neciessary, as so much 
 carrot seed is already grown in California and other favorable locali- 
 ties. Eadish seed, which is the most important of the four articles 
 named, is produced abroad in the very best manner for Irom 11 to 12 
 cents per pound, so the 2 cents per pound would be nearly as much as 
 the 20 per cent rate of the act of 1890. This is another article which 
 is much more satisfactorily grown in Euroi)e than in this country, 
 which always has been largely imported, and grown in this country 
 only in the most insignificant quantities. The records on our own trial 
 grounds for many years convince us that the quality of American- 
 grown radish seed is usually, if not invariably, inferior to that of 
 
 I
 
 GARDEN SEEDS. 937 
 
 radish seed grown in tlie most favorable localities in Europe. Under 
 the circumstances, we believe the duty we propose is as high a rate as 
 this article should pay ; and as we believe it will continue to be imj^orted 
 in spite of any duty which is likely to be imposed upon it, we are 
 opposed to any higher rate than 2 cents per pound. 
 
 The articles for which we propose a rate of 3 cents per pound are 
 produced abroad at from 15 to 25 cents per pound. The rate of 3 cents 
 per pound, therefore, is, on the cheaper of these articles, equivalent to 
 20 per cent, the high.est rate these seeds have paid since the war, and 
 on none of them will the duty fall below the present rate of 10 per 
 cent. At the present time and for years past all of these articles, 
 except, perhaps, brussels sprouts, celeriac, and sorrel, unimportant 
 articles at most, have been largely grown in this country. So far as 
 our own experience is concerned, we have produced larger quantities 
 of them during the last two or three years, under the 10 per cent duty, 
 than we grew Ibrmerly, when the duty was 20 per cent. 
 
 During the last three years we have received from our growers in a 
 locality in the United States extremely favorable for its development 
 over 100,000 pounds of cabbage seed, for which we paid from 25 to 30 
 cents per ])ound. During a dozen years past we have had cabbage in 
 smaller quantities I'rom the same quarter, and its production there is so 
 l)rotitable to the growers at 25 cents per pound that they are now 
 desirous of growing larger quantities at 25 cents than we are able to 
 use. In view of these facts and others of a similar nature which we 
 might cite it seems to us that the American grower who is situated in 
 a tavorable locality does not require for his protection a higher duty 
 than that we suggest. Cabbage seed of the very best quality is pro- 
 duced, in the most painstaking manner j^ossible, in Europe at from 20 
 to 22 cents per pound. The production of this article, so far as our own 
 operations extend, has increased largely under a duty which has 
 amounted to only about 2 cents per pound. Accordingly it seems to us 
 that the rate we propose, 3 cents per pound, is entirely adequate and 
 amply provides for tlie ditierence in cost between the American and 
 foreign labor involved in its production. 
 
 Onion seed, for which we recommend a duty of 5 cents per pound, is 
 produced abroad at from 20 to 45 cents per pound, according to variety, 
 but if our own experience is that of the rest of the trade, and we 
 believe it is, the quantities of onion seed imported are insignificant 
 when compared with the quantities used annually grown in California. 
 Under these conditions it does not seem to us desirable that the rate of 
 duty should be considerably changed. The rate we propose will, we 
 believe, average somewhat higher than the existing rate of 10 per cent. 
 
 The list of seeds which we suggest for the free list is the same as the 
 free list under the existing tariff and under the tariff of 1890, and we 
 know no reason why any change should be made now. 
 
 As many of the above varieties of seeds require two years for their 
 l)roduction from the time the seed is sown until the seed crop is har- 
 vested, the seed trade is obliged to make its arrangements a long time 
 in advance, and any sudden or very great change in the rates of duty 
 would inevitably result in loss and serious hardship to the trade. We 
 have aimed in our recommendations to occupy a conservative middle 
 ground which would do justice to all interests involved, and we 
 respectfully request for our suggestions the favorable consideration of 
 your committee. 
 
 D. M. Ferry & Co. 
 
 Lem W. Bowen, Treasurer.
 
 938 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 EATES KEC0MME2fDED BY MR. AUG. EEOTERT, OF NEW YORK 
 
 CITY. 
 
 New York, N. Y., January 11, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Permit me to make a few suggestions regarding import duties on 
 Schedule G of the proposed new tariff". Some of the rates of the old 
 McKinley tariff on seeds, trees, plants, etc., were injurious to small 
 importers, and if these rates should be reestablished the wealthy cor- 
 porations would be unjustly benefited to the detriment of tlie poorer 
 ones. On the other hand, the Wilson tariff" has created a class of 
 importers of bulbs, roses, etc., who have brought over the surplus prod- 
 ucts of unreliable foreign growers, who were enabled by free duty to 
 place such articles on this market at auction sales, injuring the trade of 
 reliable importers as well as of the home growers. 
 
 Most of the articles imported under Schedule G can not be produced 
 in the United States for climatic and other influences, and all the articles 
 of this class have to be and are imported (no matter what the duty will 
 be) for i^roducing vegetables, fruits, fodder, flowers, trees, etc., but not 
 for reproducing seeds, seedlings, bulbs, etc. 
 
 Eeasonable rates of duty on all these ;nti('le>5 nre focoiiiineiul-.i'-ic '«> 
 protect the home grower (both rich and poor) and also the reliable 
 importer, supplying actual demand. They will prevent the importation 
 of suri3lus stock, which ruins prices and trade for all. The rates of the 
 old McKinley tariff" would be injurious to all, reduce the revenue of the 
 Government indirectly on account of limiiing iiiiixjrls unnei-essaiily, 
 besides causing vegetables, fruits, flowers, and fodder to advance in 
 l^rice in proportion to the detriment of the poorer classes. 
 
 There passes through mj- hands every year nearly $500,000 worth of 
 the highest class of European seeds, bulbs, i)lants, etc., and I have 
 operated under the last three tariff"s. 
 
 I trust your committee will kindly consider the rates of duty inclosed 
 (Exhibit A), which I think would be equitable. 
 
 Aug. Rhotert, Importer, 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 Garden seeds, agricultural seeds, and other seeds, n. e. s., 15 ])er cent ad valorem. 
 
 Dried pease and beans, per bushel of GO pounds, 30 cents per busliel. 
 
 Seeds: Anise, canary, caraway, coriander, cotton, croton, cnniniin, fennel, fenu- 
 greek, hemp, hoarhound, muistard, rape, St. John's bread or bent', sugar beet, man- 
 gel wurtzel, sorghum or sugar cane for seed, and all Howcr and gra^s seeds, free. 
 
 Bulbs and bulbous roots, not edible, n. e. s., 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Plants, trees, shrubs, and vines of all kinds commonly grown as nursery stock 
 (including manetti, multiflore, sweet brier, and rose rugosa, and polyautha'stock), 
 whether for planting in the open ground or for forcing under glass for cut dowers or 
 decorative purposes, n. e. s., 15 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Roses on their own roots, grafted, budded, and tree roses, $1.50 per hundred plants. 
 
 SCHEDULE AND RATES RECOMMENDED BY MR. HENRY C. 
 ANTHONY, OF POllTSMOUTH, R. I. 
 
 Portsmouth, E. I., January 4, 1897. 
 
 COMTVIITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 I would like to urge upon the committee to have the dutv upon seeds 
 changed from ad valorem to a specific duty. 1 ask such a specific duty, 
 as under that system the Government ean^iotbe cheated nor the honest
 
 I 
 
 GARDEN SLEDS. 939 
 
 importer put to a disadvantage by disliouest dealers getting in their 
 seeds on fictitious invoices. Anytliing less than an equivalent of 60 
 per cent will not be a practical benefit to the grower, as under less pro- 
 tection he Mill still be undersold by the foreigner. I, for my part, prefer 
 no tarifi" whatever unless it protects, for if does not protect it is simply 
 an offensive tax. 
 
 For example: It costs American farmers to grow turnip seed quite 
 12 cents per pound. Foreign turnip seed is landed here at less than 8 
 cents per pound. Now, to raise this to the cost of production of the 
 American i)roduct, there is necessary a duty of 60 per cent, which on 8 
 (jcnts is 4.8, making a total of 12.8, c(msequently we purpose to ask 
 5 cents per pound as the specific duty on turnip seed. 
 
 Again, on cabbage seed we propose to ask 25 cents x)er pound duty, 
 as the European growers deliver it in our ports at less than 30 cents 
 per pound, which at 60 per cent duty raises its cost 18 cents, making 
 a total of 48 cents, a price less than which no American grower of 
 cabbage should be forced to sell his seed. 
 
 Unless Congress gives the American seed farmer the required 
 protection, he in many lines will be driven out of business, and so will 
 the American seed merchants, for even now the Germans are offering 
 seeds already put up in ilhistrated seed packets at low prices per 1,000 
 packets. 
 
 The whole schedule we propose to suggest is as follows: 
 
 Five cents per pound ou all turnip, rape, spinach, parsley, beet, ni.ingold. 
 
 Ten cents jier pound ou carrot, leek, radish. 
 
 Twenty cents per pound on celery, kale, onion, salsify, tomato. 
 
 Twenty cents per bushel on pease and beans. 
 
 Fifteen cents jier pound on celery, lettuce, endive. 
 
 Forty cents per pound ou kolil rabi, broccoli. 
 
 Filty cents per pound on raulillower. 
 
 All seeds not enumerated 60 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 It would require several thousand acres to produce the vegetable 
 seeds that are imported each year, and the whole of them could be pro- 
 duced in this country, and the quality better, if the grower was properly 
 protected. How can the grower in the United States, who pays from 
 $20 to $25 per month and boards his labor, compete with the German, 
 English, and French growers, who pay their labor the equivalent of 
 37^ cents per day? 
 
 Henry C. Anthony. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY J. M. THORBUEN & CO., OF NEW 
 
 YORK CITY. 
 
 New York, January 2, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and JMeanp : 
 
 Being informed that some of our brothers in trade intend to appear 
 before your committee at the hearing on the agricultural schedule in 
 the interest of a protective duty upon seeds, we beg, respectfully, as one 
 of the oldest and largest houses in this line, to submit to you the follow- 
 ing reasons for differing with the views which we understand they are 
 to advocate. We address you in writing, as we feel we can express 
 ourselves more clearly in this way, and w^e trust it may be consistent 
 with your custom to consider our communication. 
 
 Inviting your attention to D. Landreth & Sons' circular, which has 
 been sent to us and other American seedsmen, we would submit: 
 
 First. That American seed growers do not require protection. The
 
 940 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 growing of seeds requires certain conditions of soil, climate, etc., diflfer- 
 ingwitli the different varieties : and seedsmen know the countries or 
 sections of countries in which the various sorts are produced in best 
 quality. It has therefore been our custom, quite independent of cost, 
 to grow our seeds in the localities best suited for them— our best rndisli 
 in France, our best cabbage in Connecticut and Long Island, our best 
 lettuce in California, etc. And this is the custom of seedsmen the 
 world over. Even Germans grow most of their radish seed in France. 
 A general seed farm, strictly speaking, does not exist, although some 
 are kept up as advertisements at considerable expense, for only a few 
 sorts can be grown to advantage in any particular section. Wliat is 
 meant by a seedsman growing his own seeds is simply that he su]iplies 
 the stock seed to a farmer in a locality suitable for its production, 
 arranging to take the product at a price agreed upon. The value of 
 seeds, then, depends mainly upon where they are grown. For example, 
 we quote in our catalogue: Jersey Wakefield cabbage, American 
 grown, at $1.25 per pound; French grown, at 50 cents per pound. 
 
 From this it will appear that the cabbage seed which the " European 
 grower delivers in our ports at 30 cents per pound" is an entirely differ- 
 ent article from that which "costs the American grower 45 cents to 
 produce," and, as we sell ten times as much of the American grown at 
 the high price as of the French grown at the lower, a duty of 18 cents 
 per pound proposed upon the foreign article can not surely be demanded 
 in the name of protection. 
 
 In an article like seed, the cost of which is so small in comparison 
 with the value of the product, it is evident that quality is the most 
 important consideration, and that the seed user will always want the 
 best no matter what it costs. 
 
 At the recent colonial exposition in London it transpired that most 
 of the seeds used in Australia were bought in the United States, and 
 patriotic Englishmen, writing in the London Gardeners' Chronicle, 
 wanted to know the reason of this, seeing that the American prices 
 are so much higher than those of European seedsmen. The explana- 
 tion is, of course, that the Australian seedsmen also want the best, and 
 will not buy inferior goods at lower prices. Of the articles for which 
 our friends claim protection we export to Australia, Sontli America, 
 and South Africa, celery, lettuce, cabbage, onion, tomato, leek, pease, 
 and beans, as well as many sorts which cmr climate enables us to pro- 
 duce without competition — cucumber, melon, squash, etc. Tins indi- 
 cates that the seeds that can be grown here in best quality can hold 
 their own in the markets at home and abroad. Good seeds need no 
 protection; bad seeds deserve none. 
 
 - As to the farmer on whose land the seed is grown requiring protec- 
 tion, it is ai)parent that he differs in no respect from any other fanner. 
 He can raise wheat or potatoes if he chooses. But the fact is that he 
 is always glad to get our orders, and to grow crops for seed in preier- 
 ence to crops for market. In f\ict the real cause of the "hard times" 
 which drive our friends to look to protection for help is the overproduc- 
 tion of seeds by American growers, who have found the business so 
 profitable that they raise much more than they have orders for. For 
 example, we contract with a farmer to grow an acre of cabbage seed 
 and to pay him 50 cents jier pound; he raises L* acres and sells the 
 product of the second at 40 cents i)er i)onnd to the sjnall dealers whom 
 we hoped to supply. This is the only "cheap" seed competition that 
 we should like to be protected from.
 
 GARDEN SEEDS. 941 
 
 Second. The substitution of specific duties for the xjresent ad valorem 
 duty is proposed in this circular in order to prevent dishonest dealers 
 getting in their seeds on fictitious invoices. But the change would only 
 U'ive the dishonest dealer greater inducement and a much better chance. 
 For certain varieties of seeds can not be distinguished by appearance, 
 and cauliflower seed could be imported as cabbage seed, or cabbage as 
 turnip. The only way in which the fraud could be detected would be 
 to sow the seed and wait for the product. • 
 
 To these criticisms upon the circular which we have brought to your 
 notice we beg to add the following objections to increasing the rate of 
 duty upon the seeds : 
 
 The market gardeners and truck farmers all over the country, of whom 
 a large proportion are in the South where no seeds are grown, have 
 already enough to do to make both ends meet. They are the main 
 users of seeds, and to double the price of the leading articles, spinach, 
 beet, radish, etc., would be a grievous tax upon these people, of whom 
 there are many thousands for every seed grower. We are, therefore, 
 heartily opposed to any legislation that would increase the cost of their 
 seeds. 
 
 Another effect of an increase in duty would be to compel smaller 
 seedsmen, whose capital would not conveniently admit of advanchig the 
 amount of the duty, to buy from the larger dealers. In this respect 
 the proposed increase would be more to our advantage than otherwise. 
 
 For such varieties as require two years to produce their seed we have 
 to make arrangements with European farmers two years in advance, 
 and the uncertainty as to the rate of duty they will be subjected to 
 before finally reaching us is, to say the least, a disturbing element in 
 our business. We have been in business in New York for ninety-five 
 years, for fifty of which the writer of this has been connected with our 
 house. We have done a good deal for horticulture and agricuture in 
 that time, and we consider ourselves to have deserved well of the State. 
 All we ask is to be left alone. We solicit your committee's consideration 
 of the reasons given, and remain, dear sir, 
 
 J. M. Thorbxjrn & Co., 
 
 F. W. Bruggeehof, President. 
 
 AMERICAN SEED GROWERS DRIVEN OUT OP BUSINESS. 
 
 RoOHESTEE, N. Y., January 21, 1897. 
 Dear Sir: We inclose you petition of a few seed growers of this 
 vicinity, and urge the enactment of such a measure as is set forth in 
 the printed slip inclosed [see schedule submitted by Mr. Landreth]. 
 You can hardly conceive how much this means for Eochester and 
 vicinity. Seed growers have been driven out of business by the low 
 price of seeds made by foreign countries, but seed can be grown here 
 at 10 cents per pound with a small profit to the grower. Foreign 
 countries are laying it down here at this time at 6J cents per pound 
 (all charges paid). The duty we ask to be placed on it will make no 
 difference to the consumer, as it is retailed, single pounds, at 30 cents, 
 so that the little duty we ask would place no hardship on the consumer, 
 but would vastly benefit this and other localities. We submit this to 
 your careful consideration. 
 
 J. Starkweather.
 
 942 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 PROTECTION WANTED. 
 
 Ellisbueg, N. Y., December 31, 1896. 
 Deae Sir : We understand that the seed growers of the United 
 States intend to ask the Committee on Ways and Means, now consider- 
 ing the subject of tariff revision, to raise the tariff upon garden seeds 
 to that point which will protect American seed growers. 
 We are in favor of the proposed change. 
 
 ■ W. A. Denison and 6 others. 
 
 COMPLAINT OF UNDERVALUATION. 
 
 MiLFOED, Conn., December 22, 1896. 
 Dear Sir: We want a specific duty on seeds, as anything else is 
 simply a fraud. The old ad valorem duty was a clear bid for rascality. 
 I have had some little experience in that direction, and found by under- 
 valuation the duty was avoided almost entirely, and under present con- 
 ditions the foreigner, with his cheap labor, is making our seed growers 
 quit and resort to other farm products, their business, with buildings 
 adapted to seed growing, going to waste, and losing a lifelong educa- 
 tion in that direction. 
 
 Everett B. Clark & Sons, 
 
 IScetl Or OK erg. 
 
 SPECIFIC DUTY NEEDED. 
 
 MiLFORD, Conn., December 23, 1896. 
 Dear Sir: I write urging specific duties of a fixed rate per pound, 
 quite equal to 60 per cent ad valorem. We proi)ose to ask such a spe- 
 cific duty, as under that system the Government can not be cheated nor 
 the honest importer put to a disadvantage by dishonest dealers getting 
 in their seeds on fictitious invoices. Anything less than an equivalent 
 of 00 per cent will not be a practical benefit to the grower, as under less 
 he will still be undersold by the foreigner. It costs American farmers 
 to grow turnip seed quite 12 cents per pound. Foreign turnip seed is 
 landed here at less than 8 cents per pound. Now, to raise this to the 
 cost of production of the American product tliere is necessary a duty of 
 60 per cent, which on 8 cents is 4.8, making a total of 12.8 cents. Con- 
 sequently we propose to ask 5 cents per pound as the specific duty on 
 turnip seed, 20 cents per pound on cabbage, 10 cents per pound on car- 
 rot, 20 cents per ])ound on kale, 20 cents per pound on onions; other 
 kinds, corresponding rates. I kindly urge you to fix upon the above 
 duties, as it certainly is for the best interest of all American growers. 
 We sadly need protection. 
 
 Albertus N. Clark. 
 
 FOREIGN SEED NOT AS GOOD AS AMERICAN. 
 
 Orange, Conn., Dcccmhcy 29, i>i96. 
 Dear Sir: We inclose a circular sent out by D. Laiulreth & Sons, 
 of Philadelphia, relative to proposed changes in the tariff s( hedule on 
 teeds. This proposition meets oui' hearty sup])urt as seed growers, and
 
 GARDEN SEEDS. 943 
 
 probably no State is more interested in seed growing in proportion to 
 its size tliau is our own. 
 
 The facts set forth in this circular we can verify to the letter as far 
 as turnip, cabbage, onion, carrot, beet, and parsnip seeds are concerned, 
 these being the principal grown crops in Connecticut. 
 
 There are a large number of farmers adjacent to the principal seed- 
 growing districts, chiefl}^ Orange, Milford, Wethersfleld, and adjoining 
 towns, that have lost a remunerative part of their business by being 
 compelled to give up seed growing, and this, too, with absolutely no gain 
 to American seed buyers and consumers. The foreign product has, on 
 account of its cheap price and consequent inferior quality, driven out of 
 business the American seed growers in these lines. The whole attitude 
 of the seed trade has deteriorated in point of character on account of 
 so much cheap foreign rubbish being dumped upon the unsuspecting 
 seed buyers and planters, and this, too, with no reduc ion in price to the 
 planter himself. 
 
 The unscrupulous dealer has bought the cheap foreign product — that 
 is, cheap in every sense of the word, necessarily so from its cheap pro- 
 duction — and has measured it out to his customers at the prices of good 
 seed. In this transaction the dealer alone is benefited, and that by 
 unfair means, while the American seed grower and the American seed 
 buyer have suffered. 
 
 From a purely dealer's standpoint it might be well for the present 
 schedule to remain, but it would certainly bring back an era of pros- 
 p Mity to a large number of Americans if the seed tariff could be raised 
 to a point where it would be a protection. 
 
 S. D. Woodruff & Sons. 
 
 CLOVER SEED AND HAY. 
 
 Eapids, N. Y., Decemher 31, 1S96. 
 
 Dear Sir: As a farmer I am interested in the production of agricul- 
 tural products. Among the money crops of this section is clover seed, 
 especially the alsike variety. Much of tliis seed is marketed in the city 
 of Buffalo, which would be a good market were it not for the fact that 
 lai'ge quantities of Canadian seed, which enter this country free of 
 duty, are sold there. A few years ago a good crop of clover seed was 
 quite remunerative, but as the crop is very uncertain and the price 
 fluctuates considerably in a series of years, I think it no more than 
 right that it receive a fair degree of protection. In regard to the 
 amount of protection which it should have, I would say that when we 
 compare the market ])rice of seed with the market price of other farm 
 products and the amount of protection which they receive, I think $1 
 per bushel would be a very moderate duty. The different varieties of 
 clover do not vary much from each other in price, consequently one 
 rate of duty would answer for the various varieties. 
 
 Hay is another crop which farmers depend upon for their supply of 
 money. Large quantities are transported a long distance on wagons 
 to Buffalo, where it comes in competition with Canadian hay, which 
 pays a duty of only $2 per ton. I would like to see the McKinley rate 
 of %4t per ton reestablished. 
 
 There are other articles which I might mention, but I do not wish to 
 monopolize the field. 
 
 Wm. F. Carl.
 
 944 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTUKAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 PEASE AND BEANS RAISED FOR GARDEN SEED. 
 
 Belleville, N. T., January 2, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir : I wish to call your attention to the interests of the people 
 in this county eniSfaged in the cultivation of pease and beans for the 
 garden-seed trade. This is an extensive industry carried on in the 
 northern part of this State, also in Michigan and Wisconsin. We have 
 serious competition from Canada. The present duty of 20 cents per 
 bushel is only about 10 per cent on the price we must pay tlie farmers. 
 We pay the farmers from $1.25 to $2,50 per bushel in order to fairly 
 remunerate them for growing these varieties of seed. Tliere is an effort 
 being made by some growers and dealers to get the duty on small seeds 
 increased, but they saynothing about pease and beans. The duty sliould 
 be more than double in order to compare with that of hay, grain, etc. 
 These pease and beans are sold to seed merchants and are used entirely 
 for growing green pease and beans for garden vegetables which are sold 
 in our cities and villages in the green state. 
 
 The Secretary of the Treasury, I think, has ruled that pease and beans 
 are not "garden seed;" therefore they do not take that duty, as they 
 should. If that ruling were reversed nothing more would be needed. 
 
 F. Williams. 
 
 TURNIP SEED IMPORTED AS RAPE SEED. 
 
 Fallsington, Bucks County, Pa., Jannary 11^ 1897. 
 Dear Sir: I would like to have for the following seeds a rate of 15 
 cents per ])ound: Turnii)s of all varieties, rutabaga, and beet seed; 
 rape seed the same as turnip, as rape seed and turnip seed are of the 
 same size and color and can not be distinguished without planting. 
 We can grow rape here cheaper than tnrnip, but if you have it less 
 rate, the turnip seed then comes here as rape. Do for us this favor — 
 myself and more than 150 other Bucks County fiirmers and seed grow- 
 ers. We should grow all farm produce here, and not send $400,000,000 
 out of the country for farm products. 
 
 Alfred M. Parsons. 
 
 FAVOR SPECIFIC DUTIES. 
 
 CAMBRrDGE, N. Y., Jonuary 5, 1897. 
 
 COMMTTTEE ON WAYS AND INIeANS : 
 
 In the matter of import duties on garden seeds, we favor specific over 
 ad valorem duties, and respectfully submit for the consideration of your 
 conimittee an average rate of duties between the present rate and^ the 
 tariff of 1890. The list of seeds which we suggest for the free list is 
 the same as the free list under the existing tariff and under the tariff" 
 of 1890. 
 
 Jerome B. Rice & Co., 
 Seed Merchants and Growers,
 
 GARDEN SEEDS. 945 
 
 TURNIP AND CABBAGE SEED. 
 
 NoRETSViLLE, Pa., December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Being acqnaintcd with the views of others who like myself are 
 engaged in agriculture and the raising of turnip and cabbage seed, we 
 ask for a duty of 10 cents per pound on turnip seed and 30 cents per 
 pound on cabbage seed, and that the duties on other agricultural prod- 
 ucts be increased over the rates in the ^NIcKiuley bill, and that nitrate 
 of soda, the potash salts, and other articles not mined or produced in 
 this country and used by farmers be admitted free, or as nearly so as 
 possible. 
 
 We ask the above for an acknowledged depressed industry which has 
 not been given its fiiir and proportionate share of protection either in 
 the McKinley bill or others. 
 
 James S. Newbold. 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA SEED GROWERS. 
 Penn Valley, Bucks County, Pa., January .% 1897. 
 
 CO]MMTTTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 I represent about I.IO seed growers of Bucks County, Pa., who are 
 now sutfeiing for want of a higher tariff on the seeds that are grown 
 here. We ask that a duty of 15 cents per pound be placed on turnip 
 and ruta baga seeds and 20 cents per pound on cabbage seed. The 
 growing of these seeds has been a great industry in Bucks County 
 until the tariff on foreign seed was reduced to such an extent that the 
 growers in foreign countries could deliver their seed, freight and duty 
 paid, to New York or Philadelphia below our cost of production, 
 namely, about 8 to 9 cents per i)ound on turnij) seed and 20 to 25 cents 
 per pound on cabbage seed. We estimate that the average cost of 
 growing turnip and rutabaga seed in this country is 12 cents per 
 pound and 20 cents ])er pound for cabbage seed, so it is easily seen that 
 to grow seed here with the existing tariff rates is out of the question. 
 
 Our growers have the land suitable for growing the seeds specified, 
 and im])lements and drying houses. All we want is a good protec- 
 tion and we will grow from 300,000 pounds to 500,000 pounds of turnip 
 seed and 20,000 pounds to 30,000 i)ounds of cabbage seed every year. 
 This would bring a large amount of money into our State and county 
 and would help every line of business in the vicinity. 
 
 Under the existing tariff law our growers are doing comparatively 
 nothing. The duties asked on these seeds would not be a burden on 
 the consumers and i)lanters. Turnip seed would wholesale at from 20 
 to 25 cents per pound and cabbage seed from 75 cents to $1 per pound. 
 When it is considered what a small quantity is required to sow an 
 acre — fi-om 1 to 2 pounds of turnip seed and 1 pound of cabbage seed 
 will raise enough plants to set 5 acres — you will see that the planter 
 who uses the seed will have to pay but a few cents more for the 
 American-grown seed. For the few cents more per pound that are paid 
 the planter will be getting seed that is far superior to any foreign-grown 
 seed. The foreign seed mustbe grown from stock seed sent from America, 
 which is acclimated, and the first year's crop from this stock we do not 
 consider as good as American grown. The turnii)s raised from foreign 
 
 T H GO
 
 946 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIOKS. 
 
 seed are apt to go to tops aud not to bulbs, and the cabbages do not 
 
 head as well. . , , , , . ^ ^ 4. 4.x ■ 
 
 The great bulk of foreign turnip and cabbage seed imported into this 
 country is not grown from stock seed sent from America each year, so 
 it is far inferior to our American grown seed. Tbe planters and con- 
 sumers will be greatly benefited by getting home-grown seed, 
 
 I wish to call the attention of the committee to rape seed, which is 
 very similar in appearance to turnip seed, and in some cases it would 
 take an expert to tell the difierence. If rape seed does not have the 
 same duty on it as turnip seed we fear turnip seed will be imported 
 under the name of rape seed. 
 
 Edward B. Parsons. 
 
 FISH. 
 
 (Paragraph 208 et seq.) 
 STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES H. PEW, OF GLOUCESTER, MASS. 
 
 Tuesday, Jannary o, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Pew said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we 
 are here before your committee in behalf of the fishermen and owners of 
 fisliing vessels. According to the United States Fish Commission, there 
 were in 181)2 153,900 fishermen in the United States. These, with their 
 families dependent upon them for their daily bread, pursue their calling 
 in the Southern, Northern, Western, and Kastern sections of our country. 
 According to the same Commissioners' report, there are included in this 
 1.53,900 fishermen 37,800 of what are called vessel fishermen. These 
 are the hardiest, bravest, most daring, and athletic sailors that sail tiie 
 ocean to-day. Their possession is the envy of every maritime nation 
 who knows them. They should be the pride of our own country. 
 These 37,800 vessel fishermen, manning 0,400 vessels in 1892, consti- 
 tute what is known commercially as the deep-sea fishers of the United 
 States. 
 
 These fishermen consider that they have the right to ask of this com- 
 mittee that their producing interest may be put at least on an equality 
 with the fish-producing interest of the other countries who come into 
 that competition with our men in our own market. A schedule has 
 been prepared, which we present to your committee, which meets the 
 needs of the fishermen and vessel owners. This schedule asks for an 
 increase of duty over the present Wilson bill of three-quarters of a 
 cent a pound on mackerel and halibut, one-quarter of a cent on codfish, 
 a new addition oi" li cents a pound on skinned and boneless fish, and 
 on all other kinds of fish the tarifi' is substantially the same. 
 
 Great Britain comes into contact with every production of our fish- 
 eries, and in this business is our greatest competitor. She has the 
 advantage of a wide unoccu])ied territory, where land and water i)riv- 
 ileges are very cheap, where taxation on vessels, wharves, and fishing 
 appurtenances is also very cheap, and where labor is cheap: she also 
 builds a cheaper class of vessels, because she does not i)rose{!Ute the 
 business the entire year round. She does not fit her vessels out so 
 well, does not give her men such good wages, nor does she give to them 
 the privileges that we do. Shehas the advantage of transporting goods 
 in bond through our territory unrestricted. She is commercially priv- 
 ileged — I am speaking of fishing vessels — in our ports. She is treated 
 courteously by our authorities and aided in every way in the interest of
 
 FISH. 947 
 
 international commerce. In addition to all tMs, Great Britain, under 
 an act to encourage sea fishing and the building of fishing vessels in the 
 Dominion of Canada, has paid since the year 1882 $2,365,000 in bounty 
 to the crews and owners of fishing vessels. This money is the interest 
 on what was paid them by the United States under that unjust Halifax 
 award. So this countr}^ in fact is furnishing the money to pay the boun- 
 ties on the building of vessels and bounties to fishermen of Great Britain 
 to encourage Dominion fisheries which come in direct competition with 
 our own. 
 
 A duty of 1^ cents per pound on boned and skinned fish is asked to 
 meet the increasing practice of purchasing fish in Canada, employing 
 their cheap labor there in skinning and boning them, and exporting 
 them to this country for sale. 
 
 I do not think anyone in this country except those engaged in import- 
 ing and handling these fish will object to this duty. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. About what will that duty be ad valorem? 
 
 Mr. Pew. The duty on the McKinley bill on the manufactured fish 
 would be the same as the raw material — three-fourths of a cent per 
 pound. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I was trying to get what would be its ad valorem 
 equivalent. 
 
 Mr. Pew. It would be very difficult to say, because an ad valorem 
 duty would be valued very low so you could not get at it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. So there is some diflterence in value of difterent qual- 
 ities of fish. 
 
 Mr. Pew. Yes. An increase of duty on mackerel is asked for on ac- 
 count of the direct competition of the Irish mackerel. This has sprung 
 up within the last five years and is increasing yearly. Our mackerel 
 industry, since the commencement of the fisheries and since becoming 
 an important commercial industry, according to the statistics that have 
 been compiled, has produced about $120,000,000 at a valuation in first 
 hands of cheap, nice food products. The importation of these Irish 
 mackerel is becoming a very formidable competitor to this branch of the 
 business, and if it continues to increase in the same proportion during 
 the next five years as in the last five it will prove very injurious to 
 this branch of the business. In the fish -producing business it is very 
 important that every branch of the business should be prosecuted. 
 All branches, with the exception of mackerel fishing, produce as large 
 an amount of fish as can be marketed. The principal way in which 
 these Irish mackerel hurt our mackerel is that they are imported at a 
 season of the year when the demand is light, and for that reason they 
 remain over until the next year, and oftentimes late in the spring and 
 early summer when our new catch of mackerel comes in they are mar- , 
 keted. From being so long kept they become rancid, stale, and oily. 
 The average consumer, not knowing the difference between good and 
 poor mackerel, after once purchasing has enough of mackerel, and this 
 restricts the trade and consumption. Great Britain fosters and encour- 
 ages the development of these Irish mackerel in every possible way. 
 
 It is said that the authorities advance barrels and salt to the fisher- 
 men, waiting until the fish are sold for their pay; also give cheap 
 transportation to their shipping ports. Of this we have no actual 
 knowledge, but have been so informed. There is no other important 
 market for salt mackerel but the United States. In the United States 
 land and water privileges are valuable; taxation on vessels, wharves, 
 and drying apijurtenances is high, and our labor is higher. We build 
 superior vessels, because we prosecute the business the entire year. 
 We fit our vessels better, our fishermen have better privileges and
 
 948 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 wages. We are denied the privilege of slii]>ping our flsli through the 
 Dominion territories without obtaining special permit from the Dominion 
 government. We are denied commercial privileges in their ports, and 
 if by necessity we are compelled to purchase supplies from them we 
 have to pay a license of $1.50 per ton yearly for that so-called privilege. 
 She hampers our fishing in every possible way, and treats our vessels 
 in the most outrageous and barbarous manner, which treatment was 
 characterized by the late Secretary Manning as brutal and inhumane, 
 by Secretary Bayard as offensive and unwarranted, and a violation of 
 every principle of equity and comity between civilized nations. Minis- 
 ter Phelps, speaking diplomatically, said that the United States regrets 
 the policy of Great Britain in sustaining the unwarranted acts of the 
 Dominion of Canada toward the American fishermen, which if continued 
 must lead to serious results. 
 
 I could tell you instances of the treatment received by our vessels in 
 the Dominion ports that would seem almost incredible, but they are 
 absolute facts. There are hundreds and hundreds of these cases, and 
 we have borne them and are still enduring them patiently. 
 
 This barbarous treatment of our vessels in the Dominion ports, evi- 
 dently for the purpose of making the fisheries an initating question 
 between the two countries, has significant connection with eftbrts 
 which are continually being made by Dominion officials to conclude 
 that one-sided arrangement wliich they miscall reciprocity. No reci- 
 procity treaty with the Dominion of Canada that is possible to be made 
 can be concluded that will not be injurious to the United States fish- 
 eries. 
 
 The competition from French codfish is growing to be very serious. 
 Under the act of June 30, 1851, which has been continued and is now 
 in force, bounties to encourage sea fishing have been ])aid by the French 
 Government. The bounty on French codfish sold in the United States 
 is equal to about $1.55 per quintal (111' pounds). Codfish that are 
 imported and on which this bounty is paid can not be produced profit- 
 ably to the United States fishermen at the ]>rice at which they are sold 
 in our markets, and could not be produced profitably by the French 
 fishermen were it not for this bounty i)aid them. The additional prices 
 they receive for their codfish owing to this bounty enables them to cull 
 their fish more favorably and make little concessions to the jjiirchasers 
 that can not be made by fishermen of the United Stales. This bounty 
 is given to their fishermen and their fish merchants with this stipula- 
 tion only, that the fish be caught by the fishermen of France in French 
 vessels and exported by French merchants. These facts are admitted 
 by every dealer in these fish. The bounty on codfish exi)orted to the 
 United States is 25 -per cent higher than the bounty on same k nd of 
 fish when exported to some other countries. If a like bounty wais paid 
 by the United States to her fisheries Gloucester would receive about 
 $1,000,000 annually. 
 
 In addition to bounties on codfish, bounties are paid to the fishermen, 
 as you will notice in copy of the bounty act filed herewith. (Exhibit A.) 
 
 Not content with all the advantages the shippers of these French 
 codfish have in selling them in our market over our own fishermen, 
 those interested in receiving and those who export them in bond from 
 this country are very anxious to have the law applying to custody of 
 goods in bond, which is almost as old as our customs laws, and which 
 have been so beneficial in preventing frauds on the revenue of the 
 United States, amended, so they can repack in bond or import in bulk 
 and pack in packages for export, considering the small amount of labor 
 and benefits to a few shippers as of great importance, and losing sight of
 
 FISH. 
 
 949 
 
 the great loss and injury tbe importation of these fish inflicts on our 
 great national marine industry. 
 
 I wish to show you an illustration of how the French Government 
 protects its merchants when the products of the United States fish- 
 eries are exported to their colonies and come in competition with prod- 
 ucts of their fisheries. A Gloucester merchant, iu connection with a 
 Boston firm, was shipping hake to French Cayenne. Hake are the 
 cheapest fish we produce. The consumers of fish in these colonies are 
 very queer in some respects. After they have used a certain kind of 
 fish and have become accustomed to the same, and their merchants 
 make money bv handling— as long as they are satisfied with the money 
 made, it makes no diflerence what fish comes in competition; they will 
 not buy them. These merchants had been exporting hake to Cayenne 
 for twenty-five years and had established a reputation for fair dealing 
 that had secured the confidence of the consumers, and virtually had 
 control of the fish trade of that province. 
 
 The French tried to have their codfish used in preference, but the low 
 price at which the hake were sold prevented. Then a duty of 60 francs 
 per metric fiuintal was levied upon all hake imported into the French 
 colonies. This duty was eciual to about $G on our quintal of 112 pounds. 
 Alter energetic protest from the receivers and dealers in these hake at 
 Cayenne, a reduction in the duty to about 45 francs, equal to about 
 Sl.V), was made— iu either case prohibitory, and this branch of the 
 shipper's business was destroyed. 
 
 The United States commenced in 1792 to pay bounties to encourage 
 sea fishing, and when this was discontinued in 1SG7 no protest was 
 made by the fishermen, they preferring to have their interests protected 
 by duties. 
 
 In conclusion, the increased duties we ask for in the schedule presented 
 (Exliibit B) we consider will only place our industry on an equality with 
 the fishing industries of competing nations in our own market, and if 
 protection is to be the principle of the new tariif bill we think we are 
 justified in asking for the .additional clause relating to subsidies and 
 bounties. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 SEA FISHERIES OF FRANC li.— LAW EXACTED JULY 22, "1851. 
 
 Title 1. — Cod fishery. 
 
 Article 1. Besinninfj with January 1, 1852, until Jnne 30, 1861/ the hounties for 
 eacouragement of cod lishiug will be used as follows: 
 
 Bounties for creio employed. 
 
 1. Fifty francs per man in crew of vessel fishing with S(5cherie,- either on the coast 
 of Newfoundland, St. Pierre, and Miquelon, or the Grand Banks of >ewfoundIand. 
 
 2. Fifty francs per man in crew of vessel fishing in Icelandic Seas without s^cherie. 
 
 3. Tliirty francs per man in crew of vessel fishing without secherie on the Grand 
 Banks of Newfoundland. 
 
 4. Fifteen francs per man in crew of vessel fishing on Dogger Bank (in North Sea). 
 
 Bounties on products. 
 
 1. Twenty francs per metric quintal for dry roes caught in French bottoms, either 
 imported directly, or through Government warehouses from French colonies in 
 America, India, or French establishments on the west coast of Africa, and from trans- 
 
 1 This law was extended to June 30, 1871, by the law of 23d of July, 1860, and then 
 until June 30, 1881, by law of the 3d of August, 1870, and finally until June 30, 1891, 
 by the law of December 15, 1880. 
 
 ■^ Drying privileges.
 
 950 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS, 
 atlaiitic countries, provided they arc imported into ports wLere there is a French 
 
 2. Sixteen francs per metric quintal for dry cod caught in French bottoms directly 
 from iishing stations, ports of France, and other European countries and foreign 
 States on the Mediterranean coasts, with the exception of .Sardinia and Algeria. 
 
 3. Sixteen francs per metric quintal for the importation to the French colonies of 
 America, India, and other transatlantic countries, of dry cod caught in French bot- 
 toms, when these cod will be exported from the ports of France without having 
 been warehoused. 
 
 4. Twelve francs per metric quintal for dry cod caught in French bottoms, either 
 directly from fishing stations or ports of French destined, or Sardinia or Algeria. 
 
 , Cod roes. 
 
 5. Twenty francs per metric quintal of cod roes that fishing vessels bring into 
 France as a product of their catch. 
 
 Art. 2. Vessels in pursuit of their vocation with sccherie, either on the coasts of 
 Newfoundland, St. Pierre, and iSIiquelon, or on the (Jraud Bank of Newfoundland, 
 must have a minimum crew, which will be determined by a decree of the I'resident 
 of the Republic. 
 
 Vessels fishing without s^cherie and not subioct to a minimum crew must land 
 their total catch in France. They are not authorized to deposit them temporarily 
 at St. Pierre, but in case of danuige at sea duly proved, and with its transmission 
 shalj have necessarily delayed by failure of means of 8hii)meut, a regulation of tho 
 public administration will determine under what circumstances snch deposits can 
 be made. 
 
 EXHIBIT B. 
 
 WILSON BILX. 
 
 209. Fish, smoked, dried, salted, i)ickled, or otherwise prepared for preservation, 
 three-fourths of one cent per pound. 
 
 210. Herring, pickled, frozen, or salted, and salt-water fish frozen or packed in ice, 
 one-half of one cent per pound. 
 
 481. Fish, frozen or packed in ice fresh, free. 
 
 568. Oils, or other products of American fisheries, fiee. 
 
 SCHKDULE OF DUTIES ASKKD lOR. 
 
 Mackerel and halibut, fresh, pickled, salted, dried, iced, or otherwi.se prepared 
 for preservation, one and one-half cents per pound. 
 
 Codfish, oue cent per pound. 
 
 Fish, skinned or boned, one and one half cents per pound. 
 
 Herring, pickled, salted, iced, frozen, or otherwise prepared for preservation, one- 
 half cent per pound. 
 
 All other salt water, smoked, dried, salted, pickled, iced, or otherwise prepared 
 for preservation, three-fourths cent per pound. 
 
 Fresh-water fish, frozen or packed in ice fresh, free. 
 
 Fish for bait, free. 
 
 Fish imported from countries on which a subsidy, bounty, or gratuitv is jiaid for 
 euch importation, an additional duty equal to the amount of such bounty, subsidy, 
 or gratuity on fish so imported. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBSEaUENTLY FILED BY MR. PEW. 
 
 Gloucester, Mass., January 11, 1897, 
 Committee on Wats and Means: 
 
 The following- is the residence of the crews eraploved in the fishing 
 fleet of John Pew i& Son, of Gloucester, Mass., durinV the years 1891, 
 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, and 1S96: ? & J » 
 
 Native born or claiming residence in the United States 2 614 
 
 Foreign born who do not claim residence in the United States .. '322 
 
 Birth and residence unknown 293 
 
 Total 3,229 
 
 Eighty-one per cent are residents of the United States. 
 
 John Pew & Son.
 
 FISH. 951 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. B. F. DEBUTTS, OF BOSTON. 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Debutts said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 a little while ago we heard from a gentleman from Gloncester, Mr. Pew, 
 who said he represented the lishermen of the United States. I say he 
 represents tlie Gloucester part of the United States. I am sent here 
 as the representative of the sixty-odd firms in the United States inter- 
 ested in the fishing industry, and I propose to show that Mr. Pew has 
 simply made misstateHaents when he says that what he proposes is 
 demanded by the fishermen. I take exception to the gentleman. He 
 stated that there are 37,000 men engaged in vessel tisliing. lean prov^ 
 that 80 per cent of the fishermen that man the vessels that go out 2f 
 his own ports are foreigners not registered on the voting list. I can 
 prove this from a newspaper published in his own city — the Gloucester 
 Times. I can also show that the death rate, the losses reported of 
 fishermen, indicates that over 86 per cent so lost are foreigners, accord- 
 ing to their own published statement. 
 
 I can show by statistics that he represent simply one side of the 
 question. We have in the city of Boston, on T wharf, some forty-odd 
 firms in the fishing industry, which represent the largest fishing interest 
 in the world. We would like that side of the question heard. We 
 would like the side of the Pacific Coast heard. We would like the side 
 of the Great Lakes heard. We do not propose to accept 5 per cent of 
 the fishing interest of this country as a settlement of this question. 
 The other 05 per cent are interested and are entitled to be heard. 
 
 Talking about a duty, we say we are ready for protection, but we 
 claim the percentage of three-fourths of a cent on codfish is sufficient 
 for proper protection. We have three fourths of a cent a pound on 
 fresh fish, and that is all we need ; we do not want any increase of duty. 
 Mr. Pew skips over the herring branch of the industry. We are pay- 
 ing a duty to day of over 50 per cent on the herring brought into this 
 country. He makes no allusion to the fishing of Xewfoundland. That 
 port seems to have the exclusive right to enter cargoes of herring with- 
 out duty. 
 
 1, as a merchant in the city of Boston or Portland or Bucksport or 
 any other port, can not send out my vessels and procure my cargoes 
 under the same conditions and enter them without paying a half-cent 
 duty. That excludes me, as I understand the construction of the law 
 by the collector of the port of Gloucester. If that duty was collected, 
 of one-half cent a pound on all of the cargoes of salt herring that are 
 brought into this country, a duty which should be paid, there is simply 
 a matter of buying and selliiig. There is not an American vessel that 
 catches any herring. I will take the money and put it into my skipper's 
 pocket. I send him there and tell him to buy those herring. Look at 
 the riot of Fortune Bay in 1877 when our vessels attempted to catch 
 herring there. They will blow you out of the water. You have no 
 riglit there. My captain buys and paj^s dollars or cents, or pays barter 
 for these goods, and he brings them here and they are entered free of 
 duty. The collector of customs in my city won't allow me to do it. But 
 the collector of Gloucester allows it there. It will not be allowed at 
 the ports of Kew York or Portland. 
 
 Mr. DoLLivER. Why not bring that to the attention of the General 
 Appraisers'? 
 
 Mr. De Butts. That has been brouglit before the General Appraisers
 
 952 SCHEDULE G. AGEICULTURAL PEODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 for years. One of tbe Board of General Appriiisers, ^Mr. Barnes, was 
 here this morning. When he said they should be entered there two 
 years ago, the same as they were doing in Gloucester, the Department 
 ruled that they should not be, and commanded him to pay a duty, and 
 he had to pay it, and that duty was never returned to him. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVEE. On what grounds? 
 
 Mr. De Butts. That they were not the products of an American ves- 
 sel. And yet that skipper obtained them under the same privileges 
 that the Gloucester skipper gets them— he buys or trades for them. 
 Here is an industry on T wharf alone, in which LM>1 vessels are engaged, 
 upon which there is a protection of three fourtlis of a cent a i)Ound. 
 That is enough. We do not want any more protection than that. I 
 can illustrate to you in a few minutes. 1 can take one of my fishing 
 vessels and she can go out and get a cargo of 2,(»0() fish and let the 
 Nova Scotian come in here with a protection of three-fourths of a cent 
 a pound. That is more than it costs me to catcli my fish. 
 
 It keeps the product out of this country. I have tlie honor of being 
 the one that introduced Irish mackerel into this market in 1887, and 
 opened up XhRt industry. This year we have imported nearly 40,000 
 barrels of Irish mackerel. Any dealer here will tell you the quality is 
 better than the foreign mackerel. The fish coming in does not inter- 
 fere with our industry and never will interfere with it. I brought this 
 in as a side dish, because we had no stock and could not produce it. 
 Whenever we have a decent catch the cost of production on the other 
 side is such that, with the duty added, they will not interfere. It is 
 simply a substitute for the present, and that is all it will be. 
 
 I call your attention to the polling of the fishermen. Now, I want to 
 give you a statement of fact as it appears on the register list in the 
 city of Gloucester. I want to protect my American fishermen, but I 
 don't want to i^rotect 85 per cent of foreign fishermen. When I want 
 to send my vessel to Nova Scotia, the chairnum of this committee 
 knows that in getting ready for the trip he gets what necessary pro- 
 visions the voyage will require and the needed number of men. He 
 arranges with seamen to ship as the crew. They are not American 
 citizens. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. What country are they from ? 
 
 Mr. De Butts. From Nova Scotia and Cape Breton. The Glouces- 
 ter directories show that of !*5,047 seamen only Gl 4 were on the vot- 
 ing list as American citizens. They simply come there to make their 
 bread and butter, and when the season is over migrate back home, and 
 while gone their wives have raised their little croi)S. Now, add on to 
 that number, say, 10 per cent; say they had skipped that many; that 
 will make 700 resident fishermen, and that onlv shows 10 per cent of 
 American citizens. I defy you to take the death list of seamen that 
 have been lost for the last ten years, which is juiblished and can be 
 obtained, and find 15 per cent native citizens on that death list. They 
 are natives of Nova Scotia, and when I want them I get them, and .so 
 does the balance of the fishing trade. 
 
 We don't want a prohibitory duty. We want a protective dutv to a 
 certain extent — that is, to protect our interest— but. as I said, we do 
 not want to put a duty on that will exclude this product from our 
 market, because it does not interfere with our product or with our 
 catch. 
 
 Now, when they talk about the rights of the fishermen, that is a 
 story that everybody is sick and tired of— the rights of the American
 
 FISH. 953 
 
 fisbermec. I ask you, geutleuieii, when they tell you about this great 
 uursery of the American Navy, a nursery I have shown you which 
 contains eighty-odd per cent of foreigners and 15 per cent of Ameri- 
 cans — that is a sweet nursery! It is like the nursery in the time 
 of the rebellion. To my own knowledge, when a man-of-war went 
 South to ship her crew she lay six weeks and got a single man. Where 
 is your nursery in the Navy? Some of the vessels' crews were filled 
 from the West, men on the Ohio and the Mississippi rivers and through 
 that country. We don't want to protect any such nursery. If we 
 liave a nursery, let it be an American nursery, and we will protect it. 
 This interest in the United States represents a capital of $56,000,000 
 or $60,000,000. I am talking to you about the whole interest of this 
 country. Massachusetts has a capital of over $15,000,000 and employs 
 over 20,000 people in her fisheries. There are over 200,000 employed 
 in the whole fisheries of the United States. Now, I say, the product 
 of that is over $50,000,000, and that product is amply protected to-day. 
 We say let the tariff remain as it is to-day. That is all we ask. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. DE BUTTS. 
 
 In presenting our views we represent 60 or more firms engaged in the 
 fishing industry. We desire no increase in the present duties, believing 
 that the present duty is more than a protection, and if any change is 
 made it should be decreased rather than increased. . 
 
 The present duty of three-fourths cent per pound on mackerel (Ameri- 
 can product) on an average cost of 810 per barrel, average value for 
 catch of 1890, equals an ad valorem duty of 15 per cent; codfish averag- 
 ing $3.50 per quintal, 25 per cent; smoked herring averaging 7^ cents 
 per box, about 50 per cent. 
 
 The excessive duty on box herring has driven the foreign product 
 from our market. Foreign codfish can only be handled by exporters in 
 bond, thus destroying the once thriving industry of manufacturing the 
 l)ackages or drums used in exjiorting, besides the employment of the 
 labor employed in this branch of the industry. 
 
 This increase of duty is not asked for by the fishermen, but by the 
 vessel owners of Gloucester, who put forth the claim that they repre- 
 sent the fishing industry of the United States, not taking into consid- 
 eration the large interests of the Pacific Coast, the Great Lakes, the 
 inland fisheries, the fishing of the Gulf and Southern Atlantic, the weir, 
 trap, and boat fishermen. 
 
 The T Wharf Fresh Fish Asssociation, of Boston, is the largest in 
 the world. Two hundred and ninety-one vessels have supplied this 
 market for the year 1896, landing a total of 4,200 trips, amounting with 
 fish shipped by railroad from the coast to 100,000,000 pounds, valued at 
 the price paid the fishermen to $2,500,000. 
 
 Average price paid for — 
 
 Ground tish per pound . . $0. 01^ 
 
 Herring per 1(J0 pounds . . 1. 60 
 
 Halibut per pound.. . 08 
 
 Bluetifeh do 05 
 
 Mackerel do 08 
 
 Swordtish do ■ .07 
 
 From estimates made, Gloucester has contributed 15 per cent of the 
 total pounds. We herewith submit you the weekly summary of the 
 receipts by Boston dealers giving the total arrivals of the week for
 
 954 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 the year 1896 and a comparison for the corresponding week of 1895, 
 showing the total ISTew England mackerel catch for years 1896, 1895, 
 1894 1893, 1892, and 1891; receipts of fresh mackerel at Boston for 1896, 
 1895' 1891, 1893, 1892, and 1891; imports of salt mackerel at Boston for 
 1896,' 1895, 1894, 1893, 1892, and 1891 ; receipts of salt mackerel at New 
 York and Philadelphia for same week, marked Exhibit A, 
 
 This branch of the fishing industry is rupidly increasing, and fresh 
 fish and fresh salt- water fish can now be obtained in almost any small 
 city or town in the United States, and is one of our cheapest food 
 products. 
 
 The importation of Irish mackerel was intro'duced December 23, 1887, 
 when the Aiuericau catch had fallen from an average yearly catch in 
 Massachusetts of about 250,000 barrels to 66,042 barrels in 1886, total 
 catch of Few England amounting to 79,998 barrels. Of this catch but 
 16,915 barrels were caught on our shore and 63,083 barrels from the 
 bay. In 1890 the total catch for New England was, shore 15,934 bar- 
 rels and 3,108 bay. The importation of Irish mackerel was necessary 
 to supply the demand and keep the mackerel industry in existence. 
 Should we ever have a fair catch of mackerel on our shore, Irish mack- 
 erel can not be imported to compete with the home product, as the cost 
 of production with present duty and freight would exclude them from 
 our market. 
 
 It is a well-known fact that the present crews now engaged in the 
 fisheries of Gloucester, Boston, Boothbay, and other ports do not con- 
 sist of men such as were engaged in fishing from twenty to forty years 
 ago, which then consisted ot our own countrymen, and that the larger 
 proportion of the crews of the present time are not naturalized citizens 
 of the United States. In 1888 Mr. Fitz. J. Babson was asked by the 
 Department at Washington what percentage of those engaged in man- 
 ning the fleet out of (Gloucester were foreigners aiid what were Ameri- 
 cans. He stated in his reply that only a small percentage was foreign. 
 The fishermen of Gloucester connected with Deep Sea Assembly, 
 Knights of Labor, took decided exceptions to the claim of Capt. Fitz. 
 J. Babson, that only a small percentage of those persons employed in 
 the American fisheries were foreigners. The members of the assem- 
 bly claim that a very large percentage of men employed in the fishing 
 industry are foreigners, and at a recent meeting of the local assembly 
 a committee was ap])ointed to draw up a statement, based on facts, to 
 refute that of Captain Babson. In accordance with these instructions 
 the committee, at the last meeting of the Deep Sea Assembly, submitted 
 a statement which was unanimously adopted b}^ the Knights of Labor 
 of Gloucester. This document says, in efiect : 
 
 Mr. Babson says: "In a total of 6,183 persons engaged in the fisheries there are 
 3,586 American citizens." The Gloucester Directory for the year 1>S88 shows 2,.547 
 residents who are tishermen, and of this number there are only 614 on the voting 
 list, which is about 10 per cent of the whole number employed to man the vessels 
 from this port. It is fair to presume that the 614 voters were all tlie American citi- 
 zens to be found among the lishermen, when we take into consideration the strenuous 
 efiorts put forth by political managers during the last national campaign to register 
 all native-born and naturalized citizens. Still, Mr. Babson may say that all voters 
 who were citizens did not register as voters. Well, if we should estimate the num- 
 ber who escaped the eagle eyes of the political ferrets to be 400. and add this to the 
 614, it would then only give 1,014, or a little more than 16 per ceut, American citi- 
 zens, and thus show 84 per cent aliens employed in manning the Gloucester fleet. 
 Mr. Babson says these men come here with a "noble ambition to better their condi- 
 tion. If so, why do they not become citizens? The first noble act would be for 
 them to make application to become citizens and in doe time take out naturaliza- 
 tion papers.
 
 FISH. 
 
 955 
 
 Mr. Pew states that out of 3,279 men employed since 1891 by the great 
 firm with wliich he is connected 2,G11 were native born or residents of 
 the United States, 372 aliens, and the residence of 293 unknown. This 
 represents a period of five years. He does not say how many were 
 citizens, native born or naturalized. A residence does not constitute 
 citizenship. Nor does he state what proportion of them were employed 
 to man vessels as fishermen. Out of the descendents of the hardy 
 fishermen who manned our Navy in 1812 you can not find 10 per cent 
 now employed in the fisheries or 2 per cent in the crews fi"om Glouces- 
 ter. In 1890 a poll was taken of 255 vessels landing fish at Boston, 
 with the following results: 84^ per cent were foreigners and 15§ per 
 cent were American citizens: so that the representations of the Glou- 
 cester fishermen being the nursery of the American Navy in time of 
 war does not hold good and is a theory only, and the duty does not 
 protect the American fishermen. 
 
 The total catch of salt mackerel by American vessels for the year 
 1896 amounts to about 70,000 barrels (the statistics for the year are 
 not yet completed). About 2,500 barrels came from the bay and cape 
 shore. About 15,000 barrels of the catch on our sliore was of a small 
 and inferior grade known as bull's-eye mackerel. About 40,000 barrels 
 of fresh mackerel have been received, most of which are from our shore. 
 
 Below we submit the total catch of mackerel for the State of Massa- 
 chusetts : 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Shore. 
 
 Bay. 
 
 Total. 
 
 1891 
 
 Barrels. 
 24,566 
 35, 849 
 44,707 
 34, 476 
 16,244 
 
 Barrels. 
 1,457 
 2,179 
 2,500 
 5,392 
 5,769 
 
 Barrels. 
 26 CS 
 
 1892 .• 
 
 38,028 
 
 1893 
 
 47,207 
 39,868 
 22,013 
 
 1894 
 
 1895 
 
 
 Total codfish and other ground fish — Xeic England. 
 
 Quintals. 
 
 1891 447,627 
 
 1892 384,173 
 
 1893 329,403 
 
 1894 432,240 
 
 1895 425,979 
 
 On mackerel the cat<;h includes the whole of Massachusetts. On 
 codfish and other ground fish is included the total of New England. 
 Give Gloucester credit for producing three-fourths of the total, and 
 compare the value with the total value of the fisheries product of the 
 United States, and it will be about 15 per cent of the whole. 
 
 Duty on herrinf]. — Present duty, one-half cent ])er pound. 
 
 Frozen and salt herring from Newfoundland, claimed to be the prod- 
 uct of American fishermen, are entered free at Gloucester, while other 
 ports of entry collect a duty of one-half cent per pound. February 11, 
 1895, Collector Warren, of Boston, assessed a duty of one half cent per 
 pound on the schooner N. E. ISymonds, Capt. T. M. Nicholson — 1,500 
 barrels. These herring were obtained under the same conditions as 
 those by Gloucester vessels. The General Appraisers sustained Col- 
 lector Warren, as not being products of American fishermen. 
 
 Boston, Beverly, Bucksport, Portland, and other ports of entry are 
 deprived of prosecuting this branch of the fishing industry. A part of 
 the herring imported from the Provinces are of a cheap grade and show
 
 95G SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 an ad valorem duty of 15 per cent. Taken as a whole, at a fair valua- 
 tiou tbev show an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent. Any increase of 
 duty would be prohibitory. The importation of Newfoundland herring 
 in Gloucester duty free as the product of American iishermen has 
 destroyed the importation of the Newfoundland and Labrador herring, 
 which in the past was a large factor in the trade and did not in any 
 manner compete with the American product. 
 
 We believe the present duty is a sufficient protection, and that any 
 increase would make the importation prohibitory and deprive the reve- 
 nue of the large amount now received from the importations, and largely 
 increase the price to the consumer, who now enjoys as cheap a food 
 product as can be obtained. 
 
 Capital employed, according to the census of 1890, shows— 
 
 In the United states S 5S' SS 
 
 Yearly product of United States * '^AA'AnA 
 
 People employed, United States ^XV' 2^ 
 
 InNewEnVland ^^^'^t'llt 
 
 People employed in New England ob, 595 
 
 In Massachusetts, capital $^3' 245, 2-9 
 
 With the natural increase it is safe to presume that the total capital 
 now employed will show over $60,000,000, with an annual product of 
 over $60,000,000, and a corresponding increase in the number of people 
 employed. 
 
 The amount of capital now employed in New England will amount to 
 over $25,000,000. 
 
 Statistics for 1890 show that Gloucester has 318 vessels hailing from 
 there, owned there and elsewhere, that have landed 150,000,000 pounds 
 of fish. Boston shows 37<) vessels and 9 steamers, and have landed at 
 Boston 250,000,000 pounds of tish. In this ;)76 vessel are included 173 
 hailing from Gloucester that land their product in Boston, but are 
 claimed by Gloucester and whose product is estimated in Gloucester 
 receipts. 
 
 A duty asked, that is not protection but prohibition, directed against 
 importation of mackerel from Ireland, i)rincipally in favor of a few not 
 interested, benefited, or harmed, against many directly interested and 
 affected, and seriously affecting the revenue of the Government. 
 
 The catch of mackerel in Ireland for the past few years has been 
 abundant, while our catch has been far below the normal point in 
 quantity. 
 
 Average catch of salt maclierel in the State of Massachusetts. 
 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Aver.age 
 value. 
 
 1890 to 1895, inclnsive 
 
 1880 to 1885, inclusive .- 
 
 55, 051 
 235, 337 
 
 $813. 233 
 1,753,456 
 
 $14. 50 
 7.00 
 
 
 
 Pack of Irish mackerel for seasons. 
 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Average 
 value. 
 
 1890-97 
 
 70, 000 
 55, 000 
 40, 000 
 
 
 
 1895-96 
 
 
 
 189i-95 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 165,000 
 
 $2, 475, 000 
 
 $15 

 
 FISH. 
 
 957 
 
 In three years the Irish pack has paid the United States Govern- 
 ment — 
 
 Duties $247,000 
 
 Truckmen and storehouses 28, 000 
 
 Cou:mis8ion men, who receive them at 5 per cent commission 123,750 
 
 Those distributers, first hands, dealers not vessel o-wners 247, 500 
 
 Total 646,250 
 
 The wiping out of the revenue to the United States Government, the 
 profit to the receivers and the distributer of at least $050,000, is what 
 the few Gloucester vessel owuers ask the Ways and Means Committee 
 and the honorable Senate and House of Representatives to favor them 
 with by the doubling of the present duty. 
 
 When our catch reaches a normal point in catch and value, importa- 
 tions must cease from Ireland from natural causes. As long as our 
 catch remains below normal in quantity, and in consequence above it 
 in value, these importations are a necessity to the trade, and anything 
 tending to check them would be severelj^ felt. 
 
 The doubling of the present duty would be absolute prohibition, as 
 the moment a given point in value is reached packing in Ireland must 
 stop. 
 
 The size of the Irish mackerel has been such that they have not con- 
 flicted with the American catch, and had no influence on values of 
 American-caught fish. 
 
 The legislation asked is not for protection of any industry, but for 
 special legislation in favor of one set of dealers against their competitors. 
 
 B. Feank De Butts. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 Office of Boston Fish Bureau, November 27, 1896. 
 Weekly summary of receipts by Boston dealers. 
 
 Salt mackerel .barrels . . 
 
 Salt codfish quintals.. 
 
 Smoked berrinji boxes .' . 
 
 Salt herring barrels . . 
 
 Bloaters boxes . . 
 
 Salt fish baiTcls.. 
 
 1 weDo boxes . . 
 
 Fresh mackerel barrels . . 
 
 Fresh smelts boxes.. 
 
 Fresh haddock cwts.. 
 
 Fresh codfish do 
 
 Fresh hake do 
 
 Fresh cusk do 
 
 Fresh pollock do 
 
 Fresh lialibut do 
 
 Fresh tish barrels.. 
 
 Do boxes.. 
 
 Salt fi.sh drs.. 
 
 Cannetl clams boxes.. 
 
 Canned mackerel do ... . 
 
 Canned lish do 
 
 Live lobsters barrels.. 
 
 Oysters clo 
 
 Clama do 
 
 Stallops tubs.. 
 
 1896. 
 
 Home 
 ports. 
 
 40 
 
 595 
 
 9,067 
 
 347 
 
 7,539 
 
 118 
 
 69 
 
 36 
 
 72 
 
 4,489 
 
 6,928 
 
 2,962 
 
 635 
 
 368 
 
 82 
 
 485 
 
 46 
 
 81 
 
 1,000 
 
 4,974 
 
 319 
 
 375 
 
 81 
 
 31 
 
 ForeigH 
 ports. 
 
 675 
 
 528 
 
 Total. 
 
 147 
 
 31 
 
 3 
 
 258 
 
 4 
 450 
 
 715 
 
 1,123 
 
 9,067 
 
 494 
 
 7,570 
 
 121 
 
 327 
 
 36 
 
 191 
 
 4,489 
 
 6,928 
 
 2,962 
 
 635 
 
 368 
 
 82 
 
 490 
 
 50 
 
 450 
 
 81 
 
 1,000 
 
 4,974 
 
 319 
 
 375 
 
 81 
 
 31 
 
 1895. 
 
 Home 
 porta. 
 
 2,505 
 4,883 
 
 549 
 42 
 425 
 122 
 105 
 
 588 
 86 
 
 50 
 
 2,200 
 
 61 
 
 6S1 
 102 
 
 20 
 
 Foreign 
 ports. 
 
 1,523 
 
 too 
 
 1,000 
 26 
 
 5,000 
 10 
 12 
 
 191 
 
 Total.j| 
 
 1,523 
 
 2,605 
 
 5,883 
 
 26 
 
 5,549 
 
 52 
 
 437 
 
 122 
 
 296 
 
 596 
 591 
 
 50 
 
 ,200 
 
 61 
 
 681 
 
 102 
 
 20
 
 958 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTUEAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 [From the fishing fleet.] 
 
 Fresh mixed fish : °^^ ^^ 
 
 1896 (63 arrivals) r'^Ponn 
 
 1895 (66 arrivals) l,U6t,WV 
 
 New England catch of salt mackerel to date. 
 
 Barr^s. 
 
 1896 
 
 69,456 
 
 1895 ^3,459 
 
 1894 il, 9.i5 
 
 1893: g'fg 
 
 1892 g.l86 
 
 1891 35,528 
 
 Imports of salt mackerel at Boston to date. 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 1896 28,984 
 
 1895 23,082 
 
 1894 31,658 
 
 1893 28.033 
 
 1892 35.456 
 
 1891 53,825 
 
 Beceipts of fresh mackerel at Boston to date. 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 1896 40,585 
 
 1895 17,419 
 
 1894 26,615 
 
 1893 21,853 
 
 1892 22,053 
 
 1891 34,898 
 
 Othei' receipts of sdlt mackerel. 
 
 At New York : I'.nrrels, 
 
 From Ireland 605 
 
 From Scotland 172 
 
 At Philadelphia: 
 
 From Ireland 1, 915 
 
 Boston, December i'.Q, 1896. 
 
 At a meeting of the members of the Bost<>n Fish Bureau hehl to-day, 
 the following" motion wns unanimously adopted : 
 
 111 the opinion of the bureau it is inadvisable to place any additional duty on fish; 
 also that foreisu lish entered in bulk be peruiitted to be packed in bond for exi)ort 
 under supervision of a customs officer. 
 
 That the president of tlie Boston Fish Bureau be anthorizod to appear before tb« 
 tariff committee at Wasliinirton, and represent the sentiments of the bureau na b« 
 understands theiu in reference to any chanj^es in the tarifl' on fish and fish products. 
 
 F. F. DiMiCK, Secretary. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. SYLVAimS SMITH, OF GLOUCESTER, MASS. 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1897. 
 Mr. Smith said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 do not wish to take any of your time. 1 am very mu(;h surprised at 
 what Mr. De Butts has said. Of course, I do not blame him taking a 
 positioii against us, because he is wholly a distributor and dealer ia 
 fish; and I think he has one old vessel — he told me about it last night — 
 that he wished to get rid of and would be glad to get rid of at any 
 price. He says the fishermen on our vessels have been made up hugely 
 of foreigners, coming from all the countries of Europe— northern 
 Europe— and Nova Scotia ; that they come here during the fishing season 
 and then go back home again. He says that from the list of men lost
 
 FISH. 959 
 
 at sea it is seen tliat these men are born in other countries. It may be 
 true that a great many of these men are born elsewhere than the United 
 States, but they may nevertheless be Americans. The death rate in 
 Chicago or in any other American city will show possibly a major- 
 ity being born elsewhere. We claim that, although they have come 
 from other countries, they are good American citizens — not all on the 
 voting- list, but a large number of them are. Our city has increased 
 since I went there some thirty odd years ago from 10,000 inhabitants 
 to about 30,000. 
 
 SALTED MACKEREL MUST NOT BE SHUT OUT. 
 
 Phlladelphia, January 2, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 We, the importers of and dealers in salted fish in the city of Phila- 
 delphia, understanding there is to be presented to Congress a proposi- 
 tion to put a prohibitory duty on foreign fish, would earnestly present 
 onr y)rotest against same as referring to salted inackerel, feeling it 
 would be prejudicial to the welfare of the trade and the community in 
 general, as well as to the interests of the Government, inasmuch as an 
 excessive duty would materially damage if not entirely destroy the 
 business of importing maclveiel, and thus curtail our governmental 
 revenue for the importation thereof. 
 
 Salted mackerel is a staple article of food, and were there none from 
 foreign countries, because of inability of ])roducers to pay prohibitory 
 tariff, the eifect would be (owing to the small catches in American waters 
 prevailing the past few years) that this great food article would become 
 a luxury and but few would be able to purchase it, and there is no other 
 fish salted that will take the place of mackerel. 
 
 We would, in furtherance of our reasons for not wishing excessive 
 duty on mackerel, state to your committee that from Ireland alone the 
 Government will receive for the catch of ISlKi duties amounting to over 
 $100,000, and surely we <lo not want to be deprived of this revenue. 
 
 The producers are not receiving cost for their production, and add- 
 ing to the cost would doubtless discourage them from continuing the 
 business. 
 
 S. H. Levins Sons, 150 to 15G North Delaware avenue; Cal- 
 vin S. Crowell & Co., 124 North Delaware avenue; John 
 N. Shriver & Co., 32 North Delaware avenue; Koous, 
 Schwarz & Co., 144 North Delaware avenue; Albert D. 
 Oat, 104 North Delaware avenue; W. L. Hickok & Co., 
 206 North Delaware avenue; Koller & Hanck, 218 North 
 Delaware avenue; Smith, Foster & Co., 208 North Del- 
 aware avenue; J. J. & H. F. Bigley, 222 North Delaware 
 avenue; J. C. Yost & Co., 220 North Delaware avenue; 
 John A, Harding & Co., 108 North Delaware avenue ;W.G. 
 Garsed & Co., 132 North Delaware avenue; H. C. Mac- 
 kenzie, 240 North Delaware avenue. 
 
 mDORSE ACTION OF GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. 
 
 ViNALHAVEN, Me., January 8, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The Gloucester Board of Trade has sent a delegation to appear before 
 the Ways and Means Committee in regard to increase of duty on codfish,
 
 960 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PROCUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 etc., in the interest of our fisheries, which you are well aware is a 
 great industry in our State. We heartily approve of the course which 
 the said Board of Trade of Gloucester is taking in this respect. You 
 are well aware, no doubt, of the great depression of the industry that 
 has been going on the past few years in this State, obliging a number of 
 our vessels every year to go out of the business, and what few there are 
 left are struggling on with the hope of better times, 
 
 LaINE & LiBBY, 
 
 Per T. G. Libby. 
 
 CANADIAN FISH SHOULD BE KEPT OUT. 
 
 Detroit, Mich., January S, 1897. 
 
 Deah Sir: I write to you as one of the principal native dealers in 
 American fish in Michigan. The American dealer has suffered most 
 unmercifully under the free entrance of fioh. The present law which is 
 in force you will notice permits fresh fish packed in ice to come in free 
 of duty, also frozen fish free of duty. Now, this covers the entire 
 ground. The ordinary person not familiar with the fishing business 
 would think that all other fish had a duty on them, which the law i>ro- 
 vides for, of one-half cent per pound. The fact is, that when fresh fish 
 are brought into this country they have to be packed in ice to be kei)t 
 in good condition. The frozen fish come in in a refrigerator car and are 
 free of duty. Another item of ini])ortance is the fact that the law states 
 that fish caught in Canadian waters with American nets are to be 
 entered free of duty. Just refer to the Canadian laws which prohibit 
 any American nets, American or anybody else outside of Canadians to 
 fish in her waters. The American dealer, to evade this law, contracts 
 with the Canadian for the fish, takes a bill of sale of the Canadian nets 
 and then enters the fish in America as caught with American tackle. 
 
 I appeal to you for the American dealers' rights only, and which, I 
 think, is the sentiment of every dealer on the American side, whose 
 companies are not mostly composed of Canadians and running under 
 the American laws. 
 
 The fishing on the American side is increasing yearly by the good 
 work of the Fish Commisvsion, but the fishing on tlie Canadian side and 
 in the waters of Manitoba countries, whicli is a new field, can i)r()duce 
 fish at one-half the cost of the American dealer to-day, consequently 
 they are competing with the American catchers and driving the 
 American catchers oat of business. 
 
 There should be a duty of at least 1 cent per ]iound on all whitefish, . 
 trout, pickerel, and bass coming from Canada, no matter what they 
 were caught with or in what shape they are, but the njere fact that 
 they come from Canada or Manitoba. The duty on herring, perch, 
 mullets, and all kinds of soft fish should not be less than one-half cent 
 per pound, and have the law explicit and plain, that that <luty should 
 be imposed on any fish coming from Canada. This would give the 
 American dealer the protection that he requires and must have to 
 continue in business. 
 
 Canadian capital and fisliermen are controlling the fishing business 
 of the United States. To prove this, you can refer to the respective 
 companies interested in Canadian fisiiing and see that they declare 
 annually a very large dividend, while the small American dealers and 
 catchers have been unable to declare a profit and dividend since the 
 fish have been coming in free of duty, and since they have opened up
 
 FISH. . 961 
 
 the Manitoba fisheries, which cau i^roduce three times the quantity of 
 fish that the market requires. 
 
 The price of fish to the consumer of the United States would not be 
 raised any if there was a duty of 2 cents a pound put on all kinds of 
 fish coming from Canada. The duty of 2 cents would be more injustice 
 to the American dealer and American people than anything else. 
 
 To show you the advantage the Canadian fisherman "and dealer has 
 over the American, I will cite you one of the many differences: The 
 main fishing twine used by 75 per cent of the fishermen is linen gill 
 netting twine which is manufactured in England. The Canadian fish- 
 ermen will buy the No. 40 three cord linen twine that comes from 
 England for $1 per pound, while the American fisherman is compelled 
 to pay a duty on this twine, and can not purchase a pound of it under 
 $2, whether he imports it from England or whether he buys it from the 
 American twine dealer who does import it. The labor and all expenses 
 of a Canadian fisherman is about one-half that of the American fish- 
 erman. This confirms my statement that was made that the Canadian 
 fish can be produced for nearly one half the price of the American fish. 
 The Canadian government has restricted and actually prohibits an 
 American from locating and fishing in her territory to derive the first 
 benefits which the fisherman makes; so it leaves the American dealer 
 to the mercy of the Canadian fisherman and Canadian dealer, and as 
 the dealers are doing business in the United States with the same 
 expense as the American dealer, it now discriminates against the 
 American dealer, as the Canadian dealer, selling his fish in this country, 
 can produce them for nearly one-half what the American dealer can, 
 therefore a high protection is what the American citizen and this 
 country wants. 
 
 I have been held down and depressed for years by handling United 
 States fish, while Canadian fish have been coming in free of duty in the 
 way they have. Congressmen should look at the American dealers' 
 side before a decision is reached, and tliey will see that the American 
 dealer needs more protection in this line than in any other question 
 that is before the House on duties. 
 
 We can refer you to every fish dealer in the State of Michigan 
 between the shores of Lake Michigan, near Chicago, taking in the 
 entire American waters around the lakes to Detroit, and they will all 
 coincide with my views. We have plenty of fish in our Great Lakes 
 for the supply of the country, and it is a i)ity that we are to be ham- 
 pered with fish produced by cheap labor, while at the same time if the 
 duty was imposed the price of the fish to the consumer would not be 
 any higher, and the retailer himself would prefer to see a duty to keep 
 the great overstock of fish out of the market. 
 
 Geo. H. Giddey. 
 
 DUTY ON GOLDFISH. 
 
 Cincinnati, December 19, 1896. 
 
 COMMITl'EE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 There are imported annually into this country hundreds of thousands 
 of fancy fish — goldfish and other varieties — which are used entirely for 
 ornamental purposes. Breeders in this country are capable of produc- 
 ing' and do produce their equal in every respect, but on account of the 
 extremely low price at which the Japanese and German fish are sold 
 here they are obliged to sell at almost cost. I believe that, as a source 
 of revenue, a duty on this kind of fish has been entirely overlooked, 
 T H 01
 
 9G2 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PROCUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 and ill order to pfotect the American breeders and at the same time 
 supply revenue for the Government a duty of say at least $50 per 
 thousand be placed upon them. This would oiler some inducement to 
 develop the industry in this country and would at the same time pro- 
 duce a revenue of more than $10,000 per year. 
 
 J. A. Baigel. 
 
 THE GREAT LAKES FISHERIES. 
 
 Erie, Pa., January 13, 1807. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We beg to call your attention to the necessity of a duty on fresh, frozen, 
 and salt fish on the great chain of lakes for the lollowiiig reasons: 
 
 Americans are obliged to pay a duty on linen thieads used in the catch- 
 ing of all fish in these waters. Canadian labor costs fully from 25 to 
 50 per cent less than that of American. Tlien, the Canadian Govern- 
 ment protects its shores by license, and restricts the use. of its waters 
 by American fishermen. They use entirely tlie American markets for the 
 sale of their fish, placing them at a great advantage over Americans on 
 account of lower-priced netting, lower wages, and protected waters. 
 
 Erie Fish Association, Limited, 
 L. bTREUBEB, Treasurer. 
 
 AME^BMEHT SUGGESTED TO PARAGRAPH 481 OF THE PRESENT 
 
 LAW. 
 
 Buffalo, N. Y., January 15, 1897. 
 CoiiiMiTTEE on Ways and Means: 
 
 It is a well-established fact that fish in the great fresh- water lakes 
 between the United States and Canada aie found on the north shores 
 of these lakes. It can be stated, without fear of contradiction, that 
 nearly all the fish caught are taken within the 3-mile limit which marks 
 Canadian waters. Under the law and rules governing Canadian fish- 
 eries, Americans are not allowed to take fish within such waters, and in 
 order to do so they must either fish clandestinely or emjjloy Canadian 
 fishermen. 
 
 For this reason it has long been the custom of the Ontario Fish Com- 
 pany, the Butialo Fish Comi)any, and other similar organizations to 
 purchase boats, nets, tackle, and other devices aud place them in 
 charge of Canadian fishermen, whose wages are fixed by the number of 
 pounds of fish caught. The Buffalo, Ontario, and other fish companies 
 employ hundreds of these fishermen, the product of whose work is 
 turned over to these American companies. Under this arrangement 
 nets and tackle are renewed by these companies and small boats pro- 
 vided from time to time as needed. 
 
 In 1890, when the McKinley Act was pro])osed, it was the purpose of 
 your committee to admit free of duty all fish taken in this manner, and 
 it was believed that the following language, being paragraph 571 of the 
 act, accou)plished this purpose: 
 
 Fish, tlifi product of Auicrican fisheries, and fresh or frozen fish (except salmon) 
 caught in fresh waters by American vessels, or with nets or other devices owned by 
 
 citizens of the United States. 
 
 Very soon after the act became operative, however, the right to bring 
 fish hiti,' tlie country when taken in boats aud with fishing tackle appar- 
 ently owned by Canadians was questioned by Treasury ollicials, with
 
 FISH. 963 
 
 the result tliat tlie officers of the Ontario Fish Company, with head- 
 quarters at Cape Vincent, in the State of New York, were arrested by 
 the United States marshal, charged with smuggling. As United States 
 attorney for the northern district of Kew York the matter was brought 
 to my attention, and an investigation made before a United States com- 
 missioner. The testimony taken showed that, as a matter of fact, the 
 boats, nets, tackle, and other devices were owned by the American 
 coiupany. Afterwards the collector of the port of Buffalo interpreted 
 paragraph 571 as permitting the entry, duty free, of fish thus taken. 
 Subsequently the Board of Appraisers at New York affirmed this opin- 
 ion or interpretation, and the matter before the United States commis- 
 sioner was dismissed, but not until the company had been put to large 
 expense and great embarrassment, and its officers to much personal 
 humiliation. 
 
 When the present act was in preparation it was sought to obviate in 
 future such trouble, and paragraph 481 was substituted, as follows : 
 
 Fish, frozen or packed in ice fresh. 
 
 This language is satisfactory, except tha» it includes salmon, which 
 the act of 1890 excepted, makes it impossible to bring in fresh fish 
 unless frozen or packed in ice, and fails to limit such product of Ameri- 
 can fisheries to the waters of the Great Lakes and their tributaries. 
 
 It is respectfully suggested, therefore, that your committee substi- 
 tute for paragraph 481 of the present act the following: 
 
 Fish, fresh, frozen or packed in ice (except salmon), caught in the waters of the 
 Great Lakes and in fresh waters tributary thereto, including Lake Winnipeg and 
 its tributaries, free. 
 
 This language follows the McKinley Act both in excepting salmon 
 and admitting fiesh fish without being fiozen or packed in ice, while it 
 excludes salt-water fish and dismisses the objection which formerly 
 gave our fisheries so much trouble. No exception could be taken to the 
 language of paragraph 571 of the McKinley Act, were it expedient to 
 publish in Canada the established fact that boats, nets, tackle, and 
 other devices used by Canadian fishermen are owned by Americans. 
 Such a publication would have the eiiect of canceling their li(;ense, 
 while it would deprive Americans of the privilege of obtaining at trivial 
 cost and in large abundance the fish which are found in the waters 
 adjacent to the United States, but which, unfortunately, spawn and live 
 for the most part in that portion of those waters lying within the Can- 
 adian 3-mile limit. 
 
 The Bufialo company alone catches annually between 15,000,000 and 
 16,000,000 pounds of lake fish, of which nearly one-half is sold to the 
 poorer classes at a fraction of 1 cent per pound. These are received 
 daily, packed in ice and sent throughout the country, their trade 
 extending from Boston to Denver, thus supplying tens of thousands of 
 people with cheap and excellent food. To tax such supply with half a 
 cent per pound would double the price of this food, while it would 
 afford too small a tribute to the Government to pay for its collection. 
 
 D. S. Alexander. 
 
 A MATSTE FISHEEMAFS EXPERIENCE. 
 
 WiNNEGANCE, Me., January 11^ 1897. 
 Dear Sir : Seeing in the papers that hearings on tariff matters were 
 being held, and being interested in the fish schedule. I take the liberty 
 of sending two bills received for smelts shipped to Boston by me, showing
 
 964 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 how my business is affected by low tariff on fisli. (Exhibits A and B.) 
 When fresh fish paid a tariff" of 1 cent a pouiid smelts were rarely less 
 than 6 cents per pound and up, and in the interest of our tishermen I 
 think on smelts, mackerel, and halibut there should be at least 1 to 1^ 
 cents per pound duty, and cheaper fish in x>roportion. 
 
 A, M. HOLBROOK. 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 Boston, Xovanber 14, 1896. 
 
 Eeceived of A. M. HolbrooTc, Winnegance. Sold bt/ Lombard ,^- Curtis, wholesale and com- 
 mission dealers in all kinds of fresh fish, No. 17 T Wharf. 
 
 Apr. 6. 181 pounds smelt, at 1 cent $1. 81 
 
 7. 386. pounds smelt, at li cents 5.79 
 
 10. 49 pounds smelt, at 3 cents 1.47 
 
 10. 25 pounds small smelt, at 1 cent 2.5 
 
 11. 34 pounds small smelt, at 4 cents 1. 36 
 
 12. 50 pounds small smelt, at 4 c«nt« 2. GO 
 
 12. 20 pounds small smelt, at 1 cent 20 
 
 13. 139 pounds smelt, at 5 cents 6.95 
 
 884 pounds 19.83 
 
 Express 8. 25 
 
 1L58 
 
 KXHIEIT B. 
 
 Sales of smelts f»r account of A. M. Holbrooh. 
 
 December 11. Box 45 pound smelts, at 2 cents $0. 90 
 
 Express 50 
 
 Net proceeds 40 
 
 Cash to balance 40 
 
 Boston, December 12, 1S96. 
 
 The market is glutted now with Nova Scotia smelts; selling very low. 
 
 OUE TEADE WITH NEWFOUNDLAND. 
 
 New York, January 30^ 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We are informed that during tlie recent hearings by the Ways and 
 Means Committee on tariff revision that representatives of tlie Glou- 
 cester, Mass.. fishing element appeared and urged that the present 
 schedule of duties on all classes of imported fish be doubUnl. We wish 
 to enter an emphatic protest against any such action, and to briefly 
 explain our reasons therefor. 
 
 We are engaged and have been for many years in the business of 
 exi)orting American flour, provisions, butter, leather, oils, and many 
 other natural and manufactured products to the colony of Newfound- 
 laud and the British Provinces. These products are admitted in those 
 markets at a low rate of duty, imposed for revenue puri)oses only, and 
 under no discrimination whatever, paying exactly the same as impor- 
 tations from Great Britain or anj^where else. The imports of such 
 American products into the colony of Newfoundland alone amounts to 
 $3,000,000 per annum, whereas their exports to tlie United States, which 
 are chiefly fish and oils, do not amount to one-fifth of this sura. 
 Their fishery products consist of two classes, namely, dried flsh and 
 pickled fish. The dried salted fish does not enter into competition in 
 the least with the product of the American fisheries, as it is not con- 
 sumed in the States, but is again exported to foreign markets which 
 require this particular description of quality and cure, and the fish
 
 FISH. 965 
 
 comes here in order to be distributed to the said foreign markets 
 through tlie medium of the numerous transportation lines plying from 
 this port. Instead of increasing the duty on this class of tish it ought 
 to be taken oft" altogether, as the present duty does not produce any 
 revenue to the Government, as the iish pass through here in bond and 
 the only purpose that the duty serves is to hamper the business by the 
 restrictive and expensive requirements of bonded entries, storage, 
 transfers, etc., thereby limiting the emoluments which would accrue iu 
 larger amounts to merchants, warehousemen, car men, insurance com- 
 panies, etc., if a free and unrestricted entry allowed this distribution 
 to be carried on on a larger scale. 
 
 Of the pickled fish there are three distinct types, mackerel, herring, 
 and salmon. The mackerel do enter into consumption here iu competition 
 with the American mackerel, but as the American fishery does not pro- 
 duce suflicient to supply the demands of the peoi)le, requiring importa- 
 tion not only from the British Provinces but also from Norway and 
 Ireland, a certain quantity would be imported in any case, and a higher 
 rate than the present, which is now more than ample protection to the 
 American fisheries, would merely mean an additional tax on the poor 
 class of people whose food this constitutes. The same may be said of 
 herring. Pickled salmon stands in a difierent position. Only a small 
 quantity is imported, and that is of a different quality from the Colum- 
 bia Iviver or west coast salmon, and it is used exclusively by smokers 
 for furnishing the hotels, restaurants, and markets, for which purpose 
 the American west coast salmon is not suitable. The i)resent duties 
 on these fishery products, but particularly upon the dried salted fish, 
 have already greatly ham])ered and reduced the volume of business 
 which was formerly done through the port of ISew York in the distri- 
 bution of this article to loreign markets, and this diminution in the 
 colonial exports to this markets has in turn produced a diminution in 
 their imports from here. This is particularly applicable to the colony 
 of Newfoundland, which can purchase its flour, leather, and many other 
 articles equally well in Canada, and has proceeded to do so to such an 
 extent that, whereas we formerly ran weekly steamers from New York, 
 there is now only suflicient trade to support a triweekly line, whereas 
 the service from Montreal has been increased, both in frequency and in 
 the size of the steamers employed, by the increased volume in trade 
 they have secured. It is a well-established fact that an importing 
 country Avill draw its supplies most freely from that country where it 
 can most freely distribute its own exportable products; as the proceeds 
 of those products are invested in such articles of imports as the country 
 can supply, and where the possible export trade to be done with the 
 colony of Newfoundland is of so much more value than the ridiculously 
 small revenue which could be collected, at any rate that might be im- 
 posed on its fishery products distributed through the States, it would 
 be the best policy to admit those products free, as the larger volume 
 that can be induced here will not only produce the emoluments which 
 we have already referred to in their handling and export distribution, 
 but will also enlarge the volume of their purchases of American prod- 
 ucts. The Newfoundland fisheries do not produce any mackerel, and 
 but very little of their herring comes here, most of these two articles 
 coming from the Dominion of Canada; so that whatever schedule may 
 be adopted on these two we earnestly protest that the schedule on dried 
 salted fish and salmon should be made free rather than increased ovei 
 or continued at present rates. 
 
 Harvey & Outerbeidge.
 
 966 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 EOW THE McSINLEY LAW WAS EVADED. 
 
 Detroit, Mich., January 11, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir : I have been a catcher of fish at Alpena, Mich., for twenty- 
 five years and am employing about fifty men, and all we fishermen ask 
 is to give us an equal chance with our Canadian neighbors. The Cana- 
 dian fisherman gets his twine from Scotland free of duty for about one- 
 half the price w"e do. There is a 40 per cent. duty on twine. (I would 
 say that the only gilling twine we can use is the imported twine.) We 
 pay our men on'tire average 30 i)er cent more wages than the Canadians 
 do, and there ought to be a duty of 2 cents on hard fish. Hard fish 
 constitute white, tiout, pickerel, black bass, sturgeon, catfish, and bull- 
 heads. All the other kinds are known to the trade as soft fish, and on 
 the soft fish tlie duty ought to be 1 cent a pound. This would make 
 the difference we pay on twine and labor It is also an established fact 
 that free fish don't give the consumer any cheaper fish. It doesn't 
 make any diiiVrence if the catcher sells fish at 3 or cents a pound, the 
 retail dealer sells to the consumer for the same price. I will also call 
 your attention to the fact that the McKinley bill had a duty on fish, 
 but inserted a clause in it that all fish caught by nets, boats owned by 
 American citizens, should come in free. The result of the above clause 
 was that the Canadian fisherman gives the American dealer a bill of 
 sale of the nets and boats and contracts his fish for a certain price for 
 the season. I know of one concern with a ca])ital of $100,000 liolding 
 over $1,000,000 worth of bills of sale of Canadian fishing tackle. At 
 the same time they had a law in Canada that no American was at lib- 
 erty to fish tliere or use any American equipment in Canadian waters. 
 
 1 will also state that all American dealers are in favor of a duty on 
 Canadian fish, because it would result in a healthy market. The onlj 
 dealers who are oppos<>d to a duty are those who are controlled by 
 Canadian capital, and are only organized for the purpose of marketing 
 their Canadian-caught fish. 
 
 Hope that you will give this your attention; it is of vital importance 
 to thousands of fishermen who make a living by fishing. 
 
 Casper Alpern. 
 
 FRUITS. 
 
 (Paragraphs 213 et seq.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HON. W. W. BOWERS, IN BEHALF OF 
 THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION. 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1S97. 
 
 Mr. Bowers said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 in behalf of the California delegation I wish to call your attention to 
 the fruit schedule and to show j'ou that it is for the interest of all con- 
 cerned as well as the fruit growers that the duty upon fruit should be 
 increased, and I think I can make it quite plain to you. 
 
 The Republican members of the Calilornia delegation desire to pre- 
 sent for your consideration some facts in connection with the fruit 
 schedule and some arguments to show that an increase of duty is, in 
 many cases, for the best interests of the country generally, and abso- 
 lutely necessary for the preservation of large interests not only iu the 
 State of California, but in every section of the country.
 
 FRUITS. 967 
 
 The production of fine fruit, of nearly every variety known, is one of 
 the great industries of California. Practically all the raisins produced 
 in the United States are grown in California, and the greater part of 
 all the oranges, lemons, limes, and prunes are produced in this State. 
 Indeed, the production of prunes in any quantity may be said to be 
 confined to California. 
 
 During the week ending the 12th of last month 52,424 boxes of 
 oranges were shipj)ed from Riverside alone; 75 carloads were shipped 
 from San Bernardino and 53 carloads from Eedlands during the same 
 time; and all these places are within a circle of 15 miles diameter. 
 
 One of the most successful citrus fruit fairs held in the State was at 
 Fresno last month, where twenty years ago no one thought it possible 
 to grow citrus fruits. 
 
 The one county of Santa Clara has produced the great bulk of the 
 prunes sent to market. The capacity of California for the production 
 of these fruits seems unlimited. 
 
 There were shipjied last year from the two counties of Eiverside and 
 San Bernardino 5,000 carloads of oranges and lemons, and in less than 
 five years the yield of these fruits will be doubled in the State. 
 
 During the nine months ending with September, 189G, there were 
 imported fruits and nuts to the value of $12,682,267. We sent to for- 
 eign countries this sum of money for the purchase of fruits and nuts 
 that are now produced in this country in large quantities, and can be 
 produced in unlimited quantities if proper encouragement is given, and 
 of a quality equal, and in the case of oranges and some other fruits far 
 superior to the foreign product, wliich I want to show to the committee 
 just here. Now, here are some California navel oranges, and those I 
 bought here in tlie market the other day. I paid 75 cents a dozen for 
 them [exhibiting]. Now, here are some white-livered sort of thingsfrom 
 Jamaica, and I paid 75 cents a dozen for these. Here are some man- 
 darines. I did not buy many of those, for they asked $1 a dozen for 
 them, as the crop is small this year. Here are some oranges from Flor- 
 ida, and I paid 40 cents a dozen for those. Here are some oranges from 
 Italy, Messina oranges, .ind I paid 20 cents a dozen for them. The duty 
 upon all these oranges, as I have said, to-day is 8 cents per cubic foot, 
 practically a duty of 1 cent a dozen on these oranges, which are selling in 
 the market today at retail for 75 cents. The very statement of these 
 facts will show the committee that the question of duty does not enter 
 into the price of this fruit. The advance we ask will amount to about 
 1 cent on 10 of these oranges, and about 1 cent on a dozen and a half 
 of those [exhibiting]. Now, then, I want to ask the committee if they 
 think, if you give us the additional duty of 1 cent on 10 of these 
 oranges, that the seller will charge 7G cents instead of 75 cents for 
 them, or 21 cents for these instead of 20? No; it will not be a quarter 
 of a cent on those or on these. 
 
 Mr. Geosvenor. They will probably raise it about 15 cents? 
 
 Mr. Bowers. No; I want to assure the gentleman that if you give 
 us adequate protection on this fruit we guarantee you will have to pay 
 a less price for them, for we can raise them in such quantities if you 
 protect us that there can not be such exorbitant prices. That is the 
 idea. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. How does the rate you ask compare with the rate 
 under the act of 1890? 
 
 Mr. Bowers. The rate of 1890, as I said, was simply 13 cents a cubic 
 foot, and which has been reduced to 8 cents a cubic foot; and that is, 
 I say, reducing
 
 968 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURxVL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. deducing nothing to less that nothing? 
 
 Mr. Bowers. Yes, retlncing nothing to less than nothing, as you say. 
 That is the practical effect of the duty, under the McKinley Act, of 13 
 cents per cubic ioot. Ordinarily there would be about 140 to 150 
 oranges in 2 cubic feet. There are about 100 of those [illustrating]. 
 
 Mt. Dolliver. Are there any seasons of the year in which the 
 foreign importations do not compete with that product out there! 
 
 Mr. Bowers. Well, they always compete more or less. 
 
 Mr. Dolliver. But I mean, are there any seasons of the year when 
 the American market is entirely relieved of your product? 
 
 Mr. Bowers. Not from oranges; no. The lemon is a continuous 
 bearer, always. The orange is a crop. It takes a year to mature the 
 orange crop, and it comes in crops of one croj) a year. The lemon tree 
 bears continually in California, one month the same a§ anotlier, the 
 blossoms and the green and ripe fruit being on the tree together. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Are the California oranges on the market all the year? 
 
 Mr. Bowers. No. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What ])orti(m of the year? 
 
 Mr. Bowers. The California oranges ought not be marketed until 
 the 1st of January, but they are, and then they run uj) until about the 
 last of May; well, not further than May. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What time does the Mediterranean fruit come in the 
 market? 
 
 Mr. Bowers. The Mediterranean fruit comes in a little later than 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How long does that last! 
 
 jMr. Bowers. The fact of it is, the seasons are much the same for the 
 Mediterranean and the California, just about the same. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. There is a duty on these packages; they are 
 valueless? 
 
 Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir; it does not amount to anything. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. It is really an additional duty? 
 
 Mr. Bowers. We just ask for oranges. I have some communica- 
 tions from the Orange Growers' Association, which ask for that on 
 packages, but it does not amount to anything. I think we had better 
 have straight work. 
 
 Of this amount sent abroad for the purcliase of these fruits $0,129,153 
 was paid for oranges and lemons alone; and of this amount $4,981,939 
 was paid to Italy: nearly five-sixths of the whole amount. 
 
 The rate of duty under the McKinley law on oranges, lemons, and 
 limes was 13 cents per package of 1;^ cubic feet capacity and $1.50 per 
 1,000 in bulk. The Wilson Act, or present law, fixes the duty at 8 
 cents per cubic foot for packages and 81.50 per 1,000 in bulk. Both 
 acts provided for an ad valorem duty of 30 ])('r cent upon the boxes or 
 barrels containing the fruit. The Wilson bill reduced the duties on 
 these fruits about 2 cents per cubic foot — that is, about 1 cent on 50 
 oranges, 1 cent on 75 lemons, and 1 cent on, say, 200 limes. The reduc- 
 tion was so infinitesimal that one wonders why the fathers of the bill 
 took the trouble to rewrite the paragrnj)!!. 
 
 The present law affords no protection to the American grower, and 
 but an insignificant revenne to the Government; the same was true 
 of the McKinley law. So far as the interests of the American grower 
 are concerned these articles might as well have been on the free list as 
 to be assessed such merely nominal duties. 
 
 We ask that a duty of 25 cents per cubic foot be placed upon oranges, 
 lemons, and limes when imported in packages not exceeding 2^ cubic
 
 FiiuiTS. 969 
 
 feet capacity and $2.50 per 1,000 in bulk, or in packages exceeding 2^ 
 cubic feet in capacity. 
 
 This rate of duty will not increase the price to the consumer. 
 
 The advance we ask amounts to no more than 1 cent additional duty 
 upoii 10 oranges. Will that raise the price to the consumer, tliink 
 you? Will the seller charge 76 J cents per dozen for these California 
 navels instead of 75 cents'? And for these sickly looking things from 
 Jamaica, the same? Not at all; the idea is absurd. But at the same 
 time the li cents additional duty asked will represent the difference 
 between profit and loss. It means a certain security to the American 
 grower and in the end certain security to the consumer against such 
 high prices as we will show further on. 
 
 During the nine months ending September 30, 1895, there were 
 imported 4,050,979 pounds of raisins, valued at $154,182, and for the 
 nine months ending September 30, 1896, 3,447,046 pounds, valued at 
 $1 19,336, or about 2.8 cents per pound. The duty on these raisins is 1^ 
 <ents per pound. The duty under the McKinley bill was 2^ cents per 
 pound. 
 
 All four of these packages are raisins, and the duty on these raisins 
 is IJ cents a pound. There are some raisins I bought in the market 
 here at 40 cents a pound. They are imported. Here are raisins 
 imported for which I paid 25 cents a pound, and I challenge any man, 
 if I did not tell the ])rice of each, to tell which is the best article. The 
 25-cent raisin is just as good an article as that, and yet there is 15 cents, 
 difference. Now here is the California raisin at 25 cents, and here are 
 some California raisins at 15 cents a pound [exhibiting same]. 
 
 Ml-. Dalzell. Where do the foreign raisins come from ? 
 
 Mr. Bowers. From Spain. Those are 15 cents and those are Cal 
 ifornia. They are small ones. Now, I have got one other package here 
 which T would like to show you. There are some California raisins 1 
 would like to have you see bclore breaking the package up. Pass that 
 around and then do what you want to witli them. Our raisin, growers 
 do not get over 6 cents for those and would be glad to get tbat. All we 
 ask is to make it so our raisin growers can sell such raisins for 5 cents 
 a pound. If they can get 3 or 4 cents a pound for raisins f. o. b. in 
 Calil'ornia 
 
 Mr. HivNDERSON, of Iowa. They have been selling at 1^ to 2 cents a 
 pound? 
 
 Mr. Bowers. They have been selling at Ih and 2 cents, and the cost 
 of the production of raisins in California is about 2f cents a pound to 3 
 cents a pound, and when they sell them for less than that they lose 
 their money. Now you see that difference between the 15 and 40 cents 
 shows you that the increase we ask will not increase the price to the 
 consumer. But let me go on a little further with this argument here. 
 But first, I want to call attention to another matter. Here are some 
 prunes; tliey are not marked. I pass them around. One is the Cali- 
 fornia prune, which I bought in the market for 20 cents a pound, and 
 the other is a French prune, for which I paid 25 cents a pound. The 
 duty on prunes is 1.^ cents, and I challenge anyone around the board 
 to tell which is which. Taste them and pass them around. After 
 I bought the California fruit I asked if he had French prunes; he stated 
 that he had, and I said I wanted a pound of those. He said, "They 
 are not very nice; the Call for ni as are much the nicer ones;" and so they 
 were. With 3 cents a pound to encourage our people we can make 
 those prunes so they can not in a short time charge you over 12 cents 
 a i^ound, because we can flood the American market with them. I
 
 970 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 assure yon it will not raise the price to the consumer, but the rates of 
 duty we ask will insure our people a market at some price. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the extent of the California production of 
 raisins now? Do you know how many pounds of raisins were made in 
 California last year? 
 
 Mr. Bowers. I do not know the output now, but we know that 
 years ago they sold their ])runes for 4 and 5 cents a pound. Do you 
 know wliat they are getting for prunes to-day, Mr. Barham? 
 
 Mr. Barham. No; I do not. 
 
 Mr. Bowers. If our growers can get 5 or 6 cents a pound for prunes 
 that is all we ask. 
 
 Mr. Bowers subsequently furnished the following tables of prices: 
 
 Cai.ifoknia Industries— Importations and Tariffs. 
 
 ORANGES. 
 
 California. _ 
 
 •' Boxes. 
 
 1891-92 1,452,900 
 
 1892-93 1,972,500 
 
 1893-94 1,G87,500 
 
 1894-95 2,545,200 
 
 1895-90 2,323,500 
 
 Imported. 
 [Tariff, cubic foot, 8 cents.] 
 
 1891-92 532,000 
 
 1892-93 921.000 
 
 1893-94 621,000 
 
 1894-95 923.000 
 
 1895-9G 1, 723, 850 
 
 Increase in five years: California, 59 per cent; iinportatious, 223 per cent. 
 
 MEXICAN ORAXr.KS. 
 
 Importai'lons. 
 
 Boxes. 
 
 1894-95 30,000 
 
 189.5-98 120.000 
 
 1896-97 300,000 
 
 Increase in three years, 900 per cent. 
 
 LKJION8. 
 
 ImporlaliovH. 
 [T.ariff, cubic foot, 8 cents.! -o .. 
 
 1891-92 2,326,000 
 
 1892-93 2, .546. 000 
 
 189.3-94 , 2.6I2.0«0 
 
 1894-95 2,038,000 
 
 1895-96 2,632,376 
 
 California (estimated). 
 
 1895 169,500 
 
 1896 300,000 
 
 Valne of lemons imported. 
 
 1893 $4,680,340 
 
 1894 4.272.113 
 
 18S.J-96, emling .Tune 30, twelve mouths 5,040,344 
 
 Increase in five years: California (estimated), 100 per cent: importations, 13 per 
 ceut. 
 
 I
 
 FRUITS. 
 
 971 
 
 California production. 
 
 Poiiiids, cnrert. 
 
 1890 16,000,000 
 
 1891 27,500,000 
 
 1892 22.500,000 
 
 1893 52,180,000 
 
 1894 44.750,000 
 
 1895 64,500,000 
 
 Importations. 
 [McKinley tariff, 2^ cents; Wilson tarifiF, 1 cent.] 
 
 1891 34,281,322 
 
 1892 10,869,787 
 
 1893 26,214,112 
 
 1894 9,908,122 
 
 1895 14,352,067 
 
 1896 483,658 
 
 RAISINS. 
 
 California. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1890 38,000,000 
 
 1891 52,000,000 
 
 1892 57.000,000 
 
 1893 85,000,000 
 
 1894 103,000,000 
 
 1895 91,360,000 
 
 Importations. 
 
 [Tarilf, per ponnd, 1^ cents.] 
 
 1890-91 39,572,655 
 
 1891-92 20,687,640 
 
 1892-93 27,534,563 
 
 1893-94 13,751,050 
 
 1894-95 15,921,278 
 
 1895-96 10,826,094 
 
 Value of importations of oranges and lemons from 1890 to 1S96. 
 
 Fiscal year. 
 
 Lemons. 
 
 Oranges. 
 
 1890 
 
 $3, 374, 032 
 4,351.970 
 4, 548. 263 
 4, 994. 328 
 4, 285. 278 
 4, 917, 326 
 5, 040, 344 
 
 $1, 916, 652 
 2, 339, 987 
 1 210 338 
 
 1891 
 
 1892 
 
 1893 
 
 1 695 469 
 
 1894 » 
 
 1, 127.605 
 
 Ig95 . . . 
 
 1 997 266 
 
 1896 
 
 2, 694, 131 
 
 
 Combined import values for seven years $44, 493, 069 
 
 Combined average import value per yeai' 6,356, 152 
 
 The Chairman. What did you say the retail price here isf 
 Mr. Bowers. I paid 20 and 25 cents; 5 cents a pound more for the 
 French prunes. You know Americans are a little queer about some 
 things. Many American people who drink wine and think they know 
 wine prefer to drink a decoction made from dried apples, alcohol, and 
 refuse fruit and pay $2 a bottle rather than drink good sound domestic 
 wine at from 25, 27, to 30 cents a gallon. Some of our finest ladies in 
 the land buy foreign gamblers and libertines at a high i^rice, you know, 
 because they wear foreign labels, and are not satisfied with the square,
 
 972 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 honest home product. [Laughter.] T desire to impress upon this com- 
 mittee that we do not ask this advance to raise prices. 
 
 During the nine months ending September 30, 1895, there were 
 imported 9,231,912 pounds of so-called currants free of duty, valued at 
 $142,481, and 307,546 pounds dutiable at 1^ cents per pound, a total 
 importation of 9,539,458 pounds, upon which the insignificant sum of 
 
 1896, 
 
 pounds 
 
 being a fraction over 2 cents per pound, the duties amounting to 
 
 $62,422.59. 
 
 I may say here that strictly speaking there are no currants imported. 
 The so-called Zante currants, of which over 11,000,000 pounds were 
 imported as stated above, are really a dried grape. They grow on 
 grape vines, not on currant bushes, and are used for the same i)urposes 
 as raisins, they, in fact, being an inferior raisin. 
 
 Of plums and prunes, there were imi)orted 3,607,340 pounds, valued 
 at $112,268, a little more than 3 cents per pound. The (luty is 1^ cents 
 per pound. 
 
 Of all other fruits, including dried and preserved, there were imported 
 free of duty an amount valued at $590,419, and dutiable to the value of 
 $974,591, a total value of $1,545,010. We ask that a duty of 3 cents 
 per pound be placed on raisins, plums, prunes, and all dried fruit. 
 
 The reduction of duty from 2^ to li cents did not benefit tlio con- 
 sumer, did not relieve him from any tax, but did relieve the foreign 
 grower; nor can the increase asked for of 1^ cents per pound add any 
 tax to the consumer, but will be a tax on the foreign producer — a rent 
 tax for the use of the markets of this country. 
 
 We desire to impress ui)on the committee that we do not ask this 
 advance to raise prices, but only as some security for our own pro- 
 ducers against the ruinous competition of the products of cheap labor 
 countries. 
 
 All know that as a general rule, with but few exceptions, the result of 
 protection by a tariif tax upon articles which can be i)rodu(e(l in this 
 country has been to lower the price, and at the same time give the 
 markets of this country to our own producers. And this is what the 
 fruitgrowers of California ask of you — to give them an oi)i)ortunity to 
 sell their fruit in our home market, to eventually make fruit cheaper to 
 the consumer, and to keep our money at home. This is exactly what 
 adequate protection of these fruits will accomplish. 
 
 The average wages paid agricultural laborers in Italy, where we send 
 so many millions of dollars for the purchase of oranges and lemons, is 
 27 cents per day. In Jamaica, where these oranges came from, the 
 wages are set down as from 2 to 6 cents per day in 1893. I find no 
 later statistics. In Germany, for men, 27 to 59 cents per day; for 
 women, 14 to 38 cents per day. In Mexico, from 10 to 50 cents i)er day, 
 with an average of 20 cents, American money. In France, about the 
 same as in Germany. In Spain, about the same as in Mexico. In 
 Portugal, about the same as in Mexico. In the United States, $1 per 
 day, with board and lodging. 
 
 In the matter of freigiit rates, the citrus fruit growers of Europe can 
 place their fruit in the principal markets of the United States, even 
 west of Chicago, at a cost of 30 cents a box, while it costs the Califor- 
 nia grower 90 cents per box to get his fruit to the same markets. 
 
 The foreign producer places his raisins, prunes, and dried fruit in 
 our markets at an average freight cost of $8 per ton, while it costs the
 
 FRUITS. 973 
 
 California grower $25 per tou. So we see that the cost to the American 
 grower on the western coast of transportation is three times that paid 
 by the foreigner, and we pay our laborers three times as much as the 
 foreigner. As a consequence of this great disparity in cost of produc- 
 tion and transportation tlie foreign growers have absolute control of 
 the markets of this country, for these conditions, together with the 
 nominal duty, will allow them to sell their products in our markets at 
 a price below the actual cost to the American producer, and thus shut 
 him out of his own home market, except at such time as Providence 
 intervenes in the way of an untimely frost, or drought, cutting off the 
 foreign product. 
 
 This is not a creditable condition of things for a country claiming to 
 be governed by an intelligent, wise, and patriotic public ])olicy. 
 
 It should be remembered that in ordinary fanning the crop is grown, 
 harvested, and marketed all within a twelvemonth. Not so in the case 
 of one who would go into the business of fruit growing. The orchard 
 and the vineyard require years of working and waiting before one can 
 gather the fruit, and although the increase in duty asked for will not 
 place our growers on an equality with the foreigner in our markets, yet 
 it promises some security for his investment — an opportunity for him 
 to sell his fruit for some price in his own market, instead of being, as 
 now, wholly at the mercy of the foreign cheap-labor countries. Give 
 our fruit growers adequate protection and in less than six years they 
 will produce all the fruit that can be consumed in this country, and 
 such exorbitant prices as I paid for this fruit can not be realized 
 thereafter. 
 
 It will, in the near future, reduce the price to the consumer. It will 
 result in the $16,000,000 now annually sent abroad for the ])urchase of 
 these fruits being paid to our own fruit growers, and they, in turn, will 
 have so much more to purchase other home products. 
 
 It has been, and is yet, the staple argument of those opposed to the 
 protective policy of the Republican party, that protection is wholly in 
 the interests of the great millionaire manufacturers and trusts. This is 
 true of the protection afforded by the present law, that gives the manu- 
 facturers 35 to 40 per cent protection against the production of cheap- 
 labor countries, but puts the American farmers' wool on the free list to 
 compete with Indian laborers of South America and the bushmen of 
 Australia and New Zealand. But this is not a Republican's law. It is 
 only some Democrat's idea of protection. 
 
 We now confidently hope that the incoming Republican administra- 
 tion will rectify these wrongs and rehabilitate the true protective 
 doctrine of the Republican party, which is to protect all American 
 industries alike, and to take away from those who use the argument 
 that the tariff is for the manufacturer alone all ground for it. 
 
 I will now just read one or two words from some telegrams I received 
 last night, and then I will give way to Senator Perkins, who wishes to 
 talk to the committee for a few minutes. I have here a telegram 
 received last night: 
 
 Fresno, Cal., January 4, 1897. 
 Hon. W. W. Bowers, Washington, D. C: 
 
 As an association of farmers and raisin growers, composed of 690 members, con- 
 trolling 15,200 acres of raisin grapes, we earnestly petition you to urge before the 
 Ways and Means Committee a duty of 3 cents per pound on all kinds of dried and 
 cured grapes, raisins, and currants of all descriptions. To grow raisins costs from 2} 
 to 3i cents, according to quantity yjroduced per acre; costs 3 cents more to market 
 them. Over 16,000 acres dug up during the last two years because low prices can 
 not pay American wages and compete with cheap Spanish labor. Eighty-six per
 
 074 SCHEDULE G. AGKICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 ceut of the cost of the production of our riiisins is for labor performed. Three cents 
 duty will prove oiir salvation, or we are in same relation to Spanish raisins as Cuba 
 to Weyler. Why give Spanish merchants advantage over American farmers? 
 
 The Co-operative Packeks' Associatiox. 
 
 Fresno, Cal., January 4, 1897. 
 Hon. W. W. Bowers, Washington, D. C: 
 
 At a meeting of growers representing 50,000 acres of raisin vineyards resolutions 
 were passed calling upon Congress to protect the raisin industry of the United 
 States, and thereby prevent its total annihilation, by imposing a specific duty of 3 
 cents per pound on all grape products. Ten thousand acres of vineyards have already 
 been abandoned in this district in consequence of the iualjility of our growers to 
 meet foreign competition. The action of the meeting held a week ago, of which 
 you have been fully advised, is now reaffirmed and unqualifiedly indorsed, and the 
 Representatives of California in Congress are urged to use every means in their 
 power to secure the needed protection for raisins, currants, and dried grapes. New 
 York importers have organized and sent a lobby to Wa-hington to fight us. The life 
 of the industry is at stake. Calilbrnia vineyardists look to you to save them. 
 
 O. .T. ^^'00D^VARD, 
 
 Hor.iis, 
 
 FOKSYTH, 
 
 Bkkxhakd, 
 Dunk EL, 
 
 tfoint Comtnitlee. 
 
 Mr. Bowers. I claim that if yon give a fair protection that in six 
 years the United States will produce all the fruit required for home 
 consumption and for exportation, and instead of sending the $16,000,- 
 000 of money each year for the purchase of fruit that we can raise at 
 home, we will keep that money at home and pay it to our fruit growers, 
 and they will have their $16,000,000 to buy the products of the East and 
 West or those American citizens who are engaged in other business. 
 We would have the fruit and have the money, too, instead of buying 
 the fruit and eating it up and let the other fellow have the money. I 
 know and you know the people at the last election ordered Congress to 
 go back to the Republican protective policy, and that was the result. 
 
 I thank you kindly for mj^ liearing. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Before you take your seat please state which of these 
 specimens is imported and which is American [referring to prunes]? 
 
 Mr. Bowers. The brightest are the Calitornia, and those looking a 
 little old are the imported. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE C. PERKINS, A SENATOR FROM 
 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1897. 
 
 Seuator Perkins said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com- 
 mittee, I will not take up much of your time, but Just a moment on 
 behalf of a delegation to present a memorial of a convention of the 
 fruit growers of California. This convention assembled in Sacramento, 
 representing some thirty odd counties of our State, and half of its area 
 which is susceptible to the growing of fruits successfully. As you 
 know, California has 156,000 square miles, a great empire of the West 
 as it is. This is the memorial and some data I have prepared, and I 
 will ask you, if it is consistent with your rules, to have it printed in 
 your proceedings? 
 
 The needs of the fruit interests of California were discussed at a 
 convention of fruit growers held at Sacramento December 2, 1806, and 
 were embodied in a memorial to the Congress of the United States,
 
 FEUITS. 
 
 975 
 
 which T lierewith submit, and respectfully request that it be made a 
 part of the report of this committee : 
 
 MEMORIAL BY THE CONVENTION OF FRUIT GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA. 
 The Fruit Industry and the Tariff Laws. 
 
 [Annual convention of the fruit growers of California, held at Sacramento December 1 to 4, 1896.] 
 
 Your committee, to whom was committed the subject of tariff legislation as affect- 
 ing the fruit industrj^ of this State, report as follows : 
 
 The fruits, including nuts, growu iu California, the subject of this report, and with 
 which foreign -grown fruits come in competition, are shown in the following tables. 
 These tables are arranged to show the duty under the act of l>iS3, tlie duty proposed 
 by the so-called Mills bill that passed the House of Represeutatives in 1888, the duty 
 imposed by the AIcKinley bill of 1890, and the duty under the Wilson-Gorman Act 
 of 1894. 
 
 Articles. 
 
 Act of 1883. 
 
 Milla biU, 1888. 
 
 Act of 1890. 
 
 Act of 1894. 
 
 Apples 
 
 Apples (dried, desiccated, 
 evaporated, or prepared in 
 any manner and not other- 
 wise provided for). 
 
 Plums and prunes 
 
 Figs 
 
 Comfits, sweetmeats, and 
 fruits preserved in supar, 
 sirup, mola.sscs, or si)irits 
 not specially provided for, 
 and. jellies of all kinds. 
 
 Fruits preserved in their 
 own .juices. 
 
 Orange peel and lemon peel, 
 preserved or candied. 
 
 Almonds, not shelled 
 
 Almonds, clear, shelled 
 
 Filberts and walnuts of all 
 
 kinds, not shelled. 
 Filberts and walnuts of all 
 
 kinds, shelled. 
 Peanuts, unshelled , 
 
 Peanuts, .^helled 
 
 Nuts of all kinds, shelled or 
 unshelled, not otherwise 
 provided for. 
 
 Olives, green or prepared 
 
 Olive oil. for manufacturing 
 or meehaiiieal pu^-po.ses. 
 
 Olive oil, tit for salad , 
 
 Oianges, lemons, and limes . .1 
 
 Grapes 
 
 Dates and pinenpples 
 Raisins, dried grapes 
 
 Zante currunts 
 
 Cotton-seed oil 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 -do 
 
 -do 
 
 1 cent per pound . . 
 
 2 cents per pound. 
 35 per cent ad var 
 
 lorem. 
 
 20 per cent ad va- 
 lorem. 
 
 35 per cent ad va- 
 lorem. 
 
 5 cents per pound. 
 
 7J cents per pound . 
 3 cents per pound. 
 do 
 
 1 cent per pound. . 
 
 Same as 1883. 
 
 Free 
 
 Same as 1883. 
 
 .do. 
 
 20 per cent ad 
 
 valorem. 
 Same as 1883 . . 
 
 -do 
 .do 
 -do 
 -do 
 
 licentsperpouud. do 
 
 2 ceuts per pound.] do 
 
 Free 
 
 20 per cent ad va- 
 lorem, a 
 
 25 per cent ad va- 
 lorem. 
 
 13 cents per box 
 of IJ cubic feet. 
 
 25 cents per box 
 of 2^ cubic feet. 
 
 55 cents per box 
 of 5 cubic feet. 
 
 20 per cent ad va- 
 lorem additional 
 on each cubic 
 foot over 5 cubic 
 feet. 
 
 $1.60 per M, in 
 bulk. 
 
 20 per cent ad va- 
 lorem. 
 
 1 cent per pound . . 
 
 2 cents per pound. 
 
 1 cent per pound . . 
 2u per cent ad va- 
 lorem. 
 
 Free 
 
 Same as 1883 . 
 
 Free 
 
 Same as 1883. 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 IJ cents per 
 pound. 
 
 Free 
 
 do 
 
 25 cents pe r bushel 
 2 cents per pound . 
 
 .do 
 
 2J cents perpound. 
 Same as 1883 
 
 30 per cent ad va- 
 lorem. 
 
 2 cents per pound. 
 
 5 cents per pound. 
 7J cents perpound . 
 
 3 cents per pound. 
 
 6 cents perpound. 
 Same as 1883 
 
 do 
 
 1 J cents per pound. 
 
 Free . . 
 do 
 
 35 cents per gallon , 
 
 Same as 1883 
 
 do 
 
 50 cents per box . . 
 
 50 cents per box ; 
 10 cents addi- 
 tional. 
 
 $1.50 per M 
 
 2 cents perpound. 
 
 Free 
 
 2h cents per jjound 
 
 Free 
 
 25 per cent ad va- 
 lorem. 
 
 20 per cent ad 
 valorem. 
 Do. 
 
 IJ cents per 
 
 pound. 
 Do. 
 30 jier cenl ad 
 
 valorem. 
 
 20 per cent ad 
 
 valorem. 
 30 per cent ad 
 
 Aalo7era. 
 
 3 cents ])er 
 pound. 
 
 4 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 2 cents per 
 
 pound. 
 4 cents per 
 
 pound, 
 20 per cent ad 
 valorem. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Free. 
 
 25 cents per 
 gallon. 
 
 8 cents per 
 cubic foot 
 capacity. 
 
 In bulk, $1.50 
 peril. 
 
 In addition, 
 30 per cent 
 ad valorem 
 on boxes or 
 barrels. 
 
 20 per cent ad 
 valorem. 
 Do. 
 IJ cents per 
 pound. 
 Do. 
 Free. 
 
 a Section 2513, United States Statutes, page 523.
 
 976 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTUliAL PEODUCTS AND PIIOVISIONS. 
 
 The act of 1890 imposes an additioual duty of 30 per cent ad valorem upon the boxes 
 or barrels contaiuinij; the oranges, lemons, or limes. ,,.„,. , ^ ^. 
 
 The act of 1883 ad<ied a duty also for boxes and barrels diflenng somewhat from 
 the act of 1890, and the Mills bill adoi)ted the act of 1883 in this particular. 
 
 Yonr committee also submit herewith a table showing the quantity of forei-,Ti fruits 
 comiug into competition with California fruits imported for a series of years : 
 
 Dutiable articles. 
 
 Year. 
 
 1883 
 1884 
 1885 
 1886 
 1887 
 1888 
 1889 
 18n0 
 1891 
 1892 
 1893 
 1894 
 1895 
 
 Figs. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 (a) 
 7, 945, 977 
 7, 770, 178 
 
 7, 233, 070 
 
 8, 724, 583 
 10, 058, 053 
 10. 649, 049 
 10, 284, 998 
 
 9,201,565 
 8, 338, 759 
 
 10, 503, 928 
 7, 985, 890 
 
 11, 855, 890 
 
 Prunes and 
 plums. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 (a) 
 60, 600, 228 
 
 57, 631, 820 
 64, 995, 545 
 92, 032, 625 
 70, 626, 027 
 46,154,825 
 
 58, 093, 410 
 34, 281, 322 
 10, 869, 797 
 26,414.112 
 
 9, 908, 122 
 14, 352, 057 
 
 Almonds. 
 
 Pound*. 
 
 (a) 
 3, 828, 104 
 4, 732, 269 
 5, 822, 733 
 5. 482, 363 
 5, 747. 957 
 5, .■>4r), 400 
 
 5, 715. .858 I 
 6,812,061 I 
 7, fi29, 392 
 
 6, 679, 147 
 7,436,784 
 7,903,375 
 
 Olive oil 
 (salad). 
 
 Gallons. 
 536, 749 
 610,429 
 493, 928 
 634, 354 
 744, 766 
 654, 162 
 893, 338 
 893, 984 
 605. 009 
 704. 486 
 686, 852 
 757, 478 
 775, 046 
 
 Lemons. 
 
 (o) 
 
 $2, 686, 747 
 
 2, 510, 426 
 
 2, 608, 819 
 
 3, 835, 147 
 3, 395. 983 
 3,189,534 
 
 3. 374, 032 
 4,351,970 
 
 4, 548, 263 
 4,991. 3-J8 
 4, 28.'), 278 
 3, 919, 326 
 
 Oranges. 
 
 (a) 
 $2, 901, 228 
 2, 088, 204 
 1,871,839 
 2, 408. 140 
 2, 268, 872 
 1,901,889 
 1,916,652 
 2, 339, 987 
 1,210,338 
 1, G9.-). 469 
 1,127,005 
 1, 997, 266 
 
 K.ai.<jin3. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 40, 387, 946 
 40, 679. 288 
 40, 476, 763 
 35.091,139 
 36, 914, 330 
 30, 572, 655 
 20, 687, 640 
 27, 543, 563 
 13,751,0.'>0 
 15,921,278 
 
 a Ko returns. 
 
 We also submit, as bearing upon the subject, a table showing the extent of fruit- 
 tree planting in California of varieties as to which we have foreign competition : 
 
 Acreage of fruit trees and raisin grapevine*. 
 
 Ahnonds . 
 "Walnuts . 
 
 Figs 
 
 Prunes . . . 
 
 Olives 
 
 Oranges . , 
 Lemons .. 
 
 Kinds. 
 
 Total. 
 Eaisins 
 
 Bearing. 
 
 Acres. 
 4,386 
 6,520 
 2,332 
 
 25,328 
 2, 883 
 
 41, 248 
 5,612 
 
 88,309 
 
 Nonbearing. 
 
 Acre*. 
 4,842 
 8,392 
 2,678 
 
 24.298 
 5,114 
 
 18,758 
 4,450 
 
 68,532 
 
 Total. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 9,228 
 14, 912 
 
 5,010 
 49, 620 
 
 7,997 
 60,006 
 10,062 
 
 156, 841 
 82, 222 
 
 This table is taken from the report of the State Board of Horticulture for 1892. 
 including plantings of that year. A compilation, taken from the county asse.ssora' 
 reports for 1895, shows that we have added very largely since 1892 to oar fruit-tree 
 planting. 
 
 Your committee believes that the recent Presidential election resulted in a pro- 
 nounced expression of the wish of this people to return to protective legislation. 
 While the vanquished persisted in proclaiming the single issue of free silver, the vic- 
 tors were equally vociferous \\\ declaring that the paramount issue was protection to 
 American industries. We therefore assume that in any future tariff legislation the 
 object of Congress will be not alone to obtain the requisite revenues, but to afford 
 full and ample protection to our products. 
 
 As this report is written with a view, if adopted, to form a memorial to Congress 
 upon the subjects of which it treats, we, briefly as possible, present the argument as 
 to the various fruits referred to. 
 
 "We believe that wherever it is practicable the duty should be specific and not upon 
 the ad valorem principle, by which undervaluations and frauds are directly made to 
 aid our competitors. And even where cheap and inferior merchaudise is honestly 
 valued the result is to encourage the unloading of inferior goods upon the American 
 market, and thus displacing better classes of merchandise produced at home. An 
 examination of the fruit schedules will show but few varieties taxed on the ad valo- 
 rem principle, so that there is but little change needed in this respect. 
 
 The act of 1890 gave a schedule of rates which, with some changes, would be sat- 
 isfactory to the fruit growers of California.
 
 FRUITS. 977 
 
 THE OLIVE INDUSTRY. 
 
 Olives, green or prepared, should be placed upon the dutiable list. The act of 1890 
 admitted them free. The act of 1891 placed them on the dutiable list, with 20 jter 
 cent ad valorem duty. This should be made specific, and should bo at least 20 cents 
 per gallon. We see no reason why a specific duty can not be laid on olives in this 
 form as well as in the form of oil, 
 
 Olive oil for salad was given a specific duty of 35 cents per gallon both by the act 
 of 1890 and by the act of 1894. The consumer gets this oil in bottles, about five of 
 which make a gallon ; it sells at 75 cents to $1 per bottle. The invoice price at which 
 it is valued for duty is about $1.08 per gallou, or a duty of 7 cents per bottle. We 
 thinlc this duty is too small for protection and too small for revenue, if olive oil is 
 still to be regarded as a luxury. The duty shoiild not be less than $1 per gallon, and 
 the same on all oils of which olive oil forms a part. Olive oil has not yet reached 
 the table of the masses. It is growing in use, and should be in every household as 
 food. The California jilantings of this precious tree are increasing and should be 
 encouraged. At present we must compete not only with pure oil, but also with 
 cotton seed oil and other substitutes. In 1895 we exported 21,187,728 gallons of cotton- 
 seed oil. Much of this returned to us, after further treatment, labeled pure olive oil. 
 It was valued for duty much below the value of pure olive oil, and was sold side by 
 side with pure olive oil at the same price generally, and that price was nearly five 
 times the price at which it was admitted. We claim that these fabrications are harm- 
 ful and undoubtedly do not possess the hygienic properties found in pure olive oil. 
 They should not be permitted to go upon the market under the false label now put 
 upon them. They should pay a duty sufficiently large to enable pui'e oil to compete 
 with them, and their sale should be so regulated that they could not be palmed off 
 on unsuspecting and ignorant consumers lor the genuine article. 
 
 The principle upon which pure butter is protected is the principle upon which we 
 ask protection to pure olive oil. A striking illustration of the operation of the law 
 regulating the sale of butter imitations is found in the fact that Illinois manufac- 
 tured in 1895 over 31,000.000 poiinds of oleomargarine, and paid a tax on it of over 
 $626,000, while New York State ap])eur8 in the table for only 430 pounds, and that 
 imported. The reason is stronger for protecting the home manufacturer against foi'- 
 eign competition than for protecting ourselves against ourselves, as we do with 
 reference to butter. 
 
 RAISIN INDUSTRY. 
 
 Eaisins, Zante currants, sultanas, and all other dried products of the grapp should 
 be given 2} cents per pound, the duty of 1890. This industry has grown so rapidly 
 that raisins have cheapened in the market far beyond expectations and to a point 
 aft'ording but little profit to the grower. The present duty of 1^ cents per pound 
 about covers cost of transportation to New York and Chicago. The foreign article 
 comes in with very small freight charge. Our product should have at least 1 cent 
 per pound clearly protective, and eyen this will not put our grower upon an equal 
 footing with the foreign producer. 
 
 It must be remembered, in tixiug a schedule for foreign fruits competing with Cali- 
 fornia fruits, that our market lies between 2,000 and 3,000 miles away from our 
 orchards and vineyards, and, unlike most other agricultural products, they are not 
 grown generally throughout the United States. The apple, for example, finds a 
 market near its place of production, while we must, for our fruits, seek a distant 
 market, or we have none at all. Generally speaking, the cost of transportation on 
 imported fruits is about 30 cents per 100 pounds, while we pay $1.50 per 100 pounds. 
 
 THE ALMOND INDUSTRY. 
 
 The almond calls for special mention. The price realized during the past two 
 years has not been remunerative and many trees have been worked over into prunes. 
 It is one of the most delicate fruits, and more likely to suffer from frost than even 
 the orange; it blooms early and is quite tender in the bloom and for some time after 
 setting the fruit. There are many things to discourage its planting, and yet it is 
 very desirable that we should coutinue its production, as, since we began its culture, 
 we have produced many very desirable new varieties and have cheapened the price 
 so that the consumer in recent years has indulged this luxury to a much greater 
 extent than formerly. Notwithstanding we have grown the almond quite exten- 
 sively, the importations have increased. The rate of duty does not' seem to have 
 affected the imports. In 1892, when the duty was 5 cents, our imports were 7,629,392 
 pounds. In 1895, they were nearly 8,000,000 pounds. By the act of 1883 and the act 
 of 1890 and the Mills bill, the rate was 5 cents. The Wilson bill cut it down to 3 
 cents, which is too low. There was less revenue to the Government in 1895 at 3 cents 
 than formerly at 5 cents, and there was less protection. We ask that the duty be 
 made 6 cents per pound on unshelled and 10 cents on shelled almonds. 
 
 T H 62
 
 978 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 The Tarragona almond, laroely imported from Spain, comes into competition with 
 the Lano-uedoc of this country and all varieties not classed as soft shells. The 
 Priuces8°of France and a few similar -varieties come into competition with the soft 
 and paper shell almonds of this country. The Jordan almond is a very fancy article, 
 and usually sells for about twice as much as any almond produced in this country. 
 Any duty on this almond would be inoperative as a protective duty. But a tariff of 
 6 cents per pound on unshclled and 10 cents per pound on shelled aluumds would 
 enable our growers to successfully compete with all other varieties and make orchards 
 remunerative that are now operated at a loss. 
 
 ENGLISH WALNUTS. 
 
 English walnuts are largely produced in the State. The acreage planted is greater 
 than that of the almond, and it is a more profitable tree where soil and climate are 
 favorable. The minds of our legislators as to the walnut (and the less pretentious 
 but valuable peanut) have been in accord, for in the acts of 1883 and 1890 and in the 
 Mills bill, we find the same rates imposed (except that by tbe act of 1890 the rate 
 was properly increased on shelled walnuts from .3 to 6 cents per pound). The Wilson 
 Act of 1894 cut down the rate on walnuts to 2 cents. It should be restored to the old 
 rate of 3 cents on unshelled and 6 cents on shelled. It takes much longer to bringa 
 walnut tree to bearing than the almond, and tho area adapted to its production is 
 much less. The duty ])laced upon rice by tlie advocates of tariff for revenue only 
 of 1^ cents per pound is equivalent to 10() per cent ad valorem. Rice is a common 
 article of food, essential to domestic life. There can be no justification for laying 
 this tax on an article of necessity while ira])osing a light burden upon luxuries and 
 semiluxuries. It is clearly a protective tariff for the l)euefit of the very few States 
 which grow rice, and we commend the object. Tlie illustration is given to show 
 that Congress may with justice and propriety grant all we ask, and may do so upon 
 precedent as well as upon principle. 
 
 THE PRUNE INDUSTRY. 
 
 The duty by the act of 1883 was 1 cent per pound, and the same by the Mills bill. 
 The act of 1890 increased it to 2 cents, but the act of 1891 reduced it to 1} cents. 
 The present duty does not more than cover the cost of transportation to our markets, 
 so that we practically enter them with no advantage over the foreign producer. 
 The duty should be 2| cents per pound on prunes and plums. 
 
 Since California has developed this industry the prune has become a common article 
 of food, greatly prized by the masses, and has been so cheapened in price that all 
 classes may use it. So long as the foreign trade had the market the prune was a 
 luxury. 
 
 In 1893 foreign prunes were laid down in New York City for 4 and 4^ cents per 
 pound, duty paid of 2 cents, and we imported that year over 26.000,000 pounds. 
 During the past two seasons the foreign crop has been short, but still the price has 
 not advanced materially. The fact that the foveign producer can sell for 2 and 2^ 
 cents per pound and pay commissions and freight charges out of this will show how 
 sharp is to be the couipetition wheu a good crop is produced abroad. 
 
 The duty of Ih cents per pound, as has been said of raisins and almonds, merely 
 offsets the cost of transportation. Nothing short of 2^ cents per pound will afford 
 any protection. If the California prune grower is forced to yield the trade to his 
 foreign competitor and go out of the business of growing prunes, the foreign pro- 
 ducer will inevitably raise his price, and the consumer will lose much more than by 
 paying the small additional duty asked if he prefers the foreign iirticle. 
 
 It may be remarked, as applicable to the orchardist generally in California, that 
 by the time he has brought his orchard to bearing and has his houses and barns and 
 improvements and plant complete, he has an investment of $100 or $^^00 per acre in 
 the case of orchard tracts of 10 to 20 acres. Upon this acreage and this investment, 
 to support a family and lay aside something, the owner should be able to make more 
 per acre than the farmer who tills much larger areas and can engage in diversified 
 agriculture. 
 
 We do not seek high duties to enable us to charge high prices for onr fruit. The 
 fact is, our success depends wholly on our ability to market our large and rapidly 
 increasing product, and we know we can not do this unless we keep prices down so 
 as to stimulate and increase consumption; so that the consumer is assured of low 
 prices whatever may be the duty, if we remain in the field; and the only question 
 \8, Shall we have the market, or shall it be yielded up to the foreign producer t 
 
 THE riG INDUSTRY. 
 
 rri^" ATM? *^® ^"*^'^ "^^^^ ^ ^^"*'^ P®^ pound on figs, and 2^ cents by the act of 1890. 
 Ihe Mills bill put them on the free list and the Wilson Act placed the duty at U
 
 FRUITS. 979 
 
 cents. Nothing could be more illogical than to put figs upon the free list, even 
 under tariff lor revenue only. Figs are not an article of necessity, and the con- 
 sumption has not much increased in ten years. This fruit is really most wholesome 
 and should be more widely consumed, and will be when our plantings are in full 
 bearing and we shall have learned the art of growing the fig of commerce and pre- 
 paring it for market. The tig bears a better price than the prune or raisin and 
 should pay more duty. We recommend a duty of 3 cents per pound. 
 
 COMFITS, SWEETMEATS, PRESERVED FRUITS, ETC. 
 
 Under the general heatling above, all parties and all laws seem to have regarded 
 the more costly preparations of fruit, such as glace, candied, and preserved varie- 
 ties, as essentially luxuries, and as such should pay a revenue. The industry in 
 California is developing and will find a wide and profitable field. The duty was 35 
 per cent ad valorem under former laws, and is 30 per ceut by the act of 1894. lu 
 the nature of these products a specific duty seems not practicable, but a duty of 40 
 per cent is none too large, and we recommend that rate. 
 
 ORANGES, LEMONS, AND IJ.ME8. 
 
 The citrus fruit industry has, perhaps, contributed more to bring to the notice of 
 the world the wonderful range of California's fruit products than all others com- 
 bined. In point of acreage planted, rapidity of its development, capital invested, 
 and relation to the Eastern fruit markets, it stands at the head of all our varieties. 
 We have competitors, not only in the eastern, but also in the southern portion of 
 the Western Hemisphere, and from the islauds of the sea. The orange and lemon 
 have passed beyond the class of luxuries and have become a necessity to the Amer- 
 ican people, and are demanded and consumed in large quantities. The entire coun- 
 try sympathized with the disaster that befell the Florida growers, and are anxious 
 to see their groves restored. It has been the prote('tive legislation that has given 
 rise to the wonderful development of this industry, and that has brought the orange 
 within the reach of the masses. But this protection can not be withdrawn without 
 bringing ruin to the growers. 
 
 The competition Avith our lemons is very close and very unfair, because an inferior 
 lemon is put upon the market at low prices and seriously afl'ects the price of good 
 lemons. 
 
 Mexico is preparing to enter into strong competition for our orange trade, and will 
 this season send in over 800 carloads. 
 
 We have made no reference in this report to the labor cost entering into the pro- 
 duction of fruits as compared with like cost to our competitors. This element no 
 longer needs elaboration ; everyone understands the facts. 
 
 Our present orange and lemon duty is not as protective as it should be, and is not 
 as high as it should be to yield reveniie. The rate under the acts of 1883 and 1890 
 was 13 cents per cubic foot on box of IJ cubic feet, and 25 cents per box of 2^ feet, 
 and 55 cents on box of 5 feet, and 20 per cent ad valorem on each additional cubic 
 foot. 
 
 Oranges run from 128 to 260 to a box of If cubic feet. The average number is 
 about 160 to a box, on which the McKinley bill placed a duty of about 12 cents per 
 100 and the Wilson bill 8 cents per 100. We claim that this duty is so inadequate 
 as oftering protection that our country is flooded with grossly inferior fruit and the 
 business of producing good oranges discouraged. The same may be said of the 
 duty of $1.50 laid on 1,000 oranges in bulk. It is not protective, nor is it sufficient 
 for revenue. We see no reason for these several classifications. The duty should 
 be laid at a uniform rate per cubic foot, regardless of the size of the package, and 
 should not be less than 20 cents per cubic foot, and when in bulk (which are always 
 high grade and large oranges) should bear not less than $"2.50 per 1,000. We further 
 recommend a specific duty of 10 cents per pound on citric acid and 50 cents per 
 pound on essential oils of oranges and lemons. 
 
 In conclusion, we invite attention to the fact that there is no objection, general or 
 otherwise, and never has been, to any adequate protective duties upon competing 
 foreign fruits, except it may have been or may be by the importers, and surely no 
 legislation should be framed to help the importer to the injury of the home producer. 
 
 From the beginning we have had this class of dealers to contend against. They 
 decried and belittled our raisins and our prunes and our oranges, and reluctantly are 
 now admitting that we can produce a commercial lemon. Our wines have had and 
 are still having a hard struggle against this same class. But the consumer has 
 demanded the home product, both because of its 8Uj)eriority and its cheapness, and 
 he still wants it. The orchards of California are proving to the country what her 
 gold mines were in the fifties, with the advantage that they have come to stay and 
 are practically unlimited in possibilities. 
 
 Nature has decreed California to be the orchard of America, if not of the globe.
 
 980 SCHEDULE G.— AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Here are grown the fruits of every zone. Tlie whole country has the same interest 
 in our success, or should have, that it has in the success and prosperity of other 
 specially favored regions of our marvelous country — as in the South in her cotton 
 and sugar and rice and tobacco, the great West in her corn and wheat, the Middle 
 States in their iron and coal, the East in her manufactures. That we can produce 
 in California every fruit known to the Mediterranean basin, and the hardier fruits 
 of all other climes, should arouse the pride of all Americans, and challenge their 
 friendly aid. 
 
 The more nearly the United States are enabled to produce all articles of human 
 consumption, the more nearly we shall approach the ideal country for human habi- 
 tatiou. We desire to furnish to the people of the United States fruits in abundance 
 and at reasonable prices, such fruits especially as can not be elsewhere grown iu the 
 United States. We ask only such legislation'as will enable us to do this. 
 
 N. P. Chipman, Chairman, of Bed Bluff, 
 Frank A. Kimball, of Xational City, 
 P. B. Armstrong, of Acampo, 
 W. AV. Phillips, of Fresno, 
 N. W. MoTHKRAL, of E an ford, 
 
 A. Block, of Santa Clara, 
 C. H. Allen, of San Jose, 
 
 F. M. RiGiiTER, of Campbell, 
 
 B. F. Walton, of Yuha City, 
 
 Committeemen. 
 
 Besolved, By the fruitgrowers of California, in convention assembled at Sacra- 
 mento, December 2, 1896, that the foregoing report be, and it is hereby, adopted as 
 exjiressive of the views of this convention, and that it be presented to Congress as 
 the memorial of California fruit growers; and, be it further 
 
 Besolved, That the same be i)rinted, together with this resolution, duly attested, 
 and a copy forwarded to each Senator and Representative in Congress now serving 
 and to each Senator and Reiiresentative of the Congress to assemble after the 4th of 
 March, 1897. And that the Senators and Representatives from California, at tbe 
 time serving as such, be and they are hereby specially requested to give the subject 
 of this memorial their most earnest attention and support, and to press the same 
 upon the attention of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representa- 
 tives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate. 
 
 Ellwood Cooper, President, of Santa Barbara. 
 B. M. Lelong, Secretary, of Sacramento. 
 
 In a country which can produce fruits ranging from the tropical 
 banana to the hardy apple, the problem of developing its horticultural 
 resources is one of great importance. Nearly every variety of fruit 
 desired by the people of the United States can be grown within our 
 own borders. That it should be so grown, and that the money expended 
 in producing fruits for our consumption should be expeiuled among our 
 own people, will hardly be questioned; yet millions of dollars are sent 
 abroad every year which go to the support of industries of foreign 
 lauds that are in competition with our own. The extent of imports of 
 fruits and nuts which could and should be grown in the United States 
 will be seen from the following hgures compiled by the Treasury 
 Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1895 : 
 
 Bananas $4,674,861 
 
 Currants 258,657 
 
 Diites 31(j^ 592 
 
 Figs 587,420 
 
 Lemons 3, 917, 326 
 
 Oranges 1^ 997. 266 
 
 Plums and prunes 527 625 
 
 Raisins 67l' 420 
 
 Prepared and preserved fraits ,570J 568 
 
 All other fruits 1725 342 
 
 Almonds ."."'.".!'. !"!..!".!! ".'.."!'.! '81o!439 
 
 Cocoanuts 47I ()<)4 
 
 All other nuts .......'.'.'.. 73o' 411 
 
 Tot'-il 17,239,923
 
 FRUITS. 981 
 
 Most of tliis vast amount of money should be paid to American 
 growers of the same varieties of fruits and nuts as are imported, and 
 wouhl be were sufficient protection against foreign producers aflbrded 
 to American growers. The latter are compelled to j)ay four times as 
 much for labor as do their foreign competitors, and in most cases pay 
 from three to four times as much for freight as do the growers of 
 imported fruits and nuts. In the case of oranges, for instance, the 
 California grower pays 90 cents to ship a box of fruit to New York, 
 while the rate from Sicily is about 33 cents. Spanish oranges, packed 
 in boxes holding twice as much as those used by California shipjiers, 
 pay only 50 cents a box to Kew York. Cheap labor and low freights 
 therefore place the foreign producer at such an advantage that he can 
 defy American competition. The natural consequence is that the fruit 
 and nut interests of the United States are not being developed as they 
 should. They are under the constant repression of cheap labor and 
 low freights, rendered possible by the lower wages paid by foreign 
 shipbuilders and foreign shipmasters. 
 
 Congress is therefore requested to grant to a large and very impor- 
 tant class of American producers such protection as will put them on 
 an even footing with the peasant i)roducers of Spain, Italy, France, 
 Mexico, the West Indies, and Japan, all of which are countries of 
 cheap labor, cheap land, and cheap capital. They request that sucli 
 duties be imposed on imported fruits and nuts as will offset the advan- 
 tages which their growers possess of cheaper labor and lower freights 
 to market. They request that their orchards, which are as thrifty and 
 I)roductive as any of the kind to be found in the world, be permitted to 
 furnish them a revenue upon which to live, to rear families, and to 
 found communities that will add to the prosperity of the whole coun- 
 try. A few changes in the existing tariff would effect all they desire. 
 
 At a meeting of the citrus fruit growers of California held at Los 
 Angeles December 26, 1890, a memorial was prepared in which the 
 following occurs: 
 
 Our freight rates to the Atlantic seahoard are 45 cents per cubic foot. From the 
 Mediterranean it does not exceed 15 cents. Our cost for Libor is many times as great 
 as theirs. Therefore, taking into account the cost of production in the orchard, of 
 picking, hauling, sorting, curing, packing, shipping and transportation, the difference 
 as between California and Sicily and other Mediterranean countries is between 40 
 and 50 cents per cubic foot. 
 
 We therefore pray that Congress will amend our tariff and give us an import duty 
 on oranges, lemons, limes, and pomeloes that will put us on an equality with foreign 
 growers. 
 
 There are agricultural interests of California which are disastrously 
 affected by the competition of foreign producers, notably beans, barley, 
 and chicory. 
 
 There are thousands of acres suited to the cultivation of the lima 
 and other varieties of beans, and that domestic produce should not be 
 driven out of Eastern markets by beans brought from over the sea. A 
 duty of not less than 50 cents per 100 j)ounds should be imposed. 
 
 Barley, and particularly pearl barley, has been so affected by foreign 
 competition that it is now below cost. Pearl barley is used almost 
 exclusively by the rich or well to do, and is considered a luxury. Yet 
 the California barley is crowded out of the New York market by impor- 
 tations from foreign countries. Adequate j)rotection should be granted. 
 
 The growth and manufacture of chicory is another important indus- 
 try of California which needs protection. The chicory root resembles 
 the sugar beet in that it requires a very large area of land and a vast 
 amount of labor in its cultivation. A great deal of labor is necessary
 
 982 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 at the factory to make a product for tLe market. The roasting and 
 grinding, wliicli are the last of the processes, require the least labor 
 and expenditure of all- 
 There was formerlj^ a duty on raw chicory as well as upon the manu- 
 factured article, which cailsed its cultivation in this country to expand 
 to considerable proportions. Factories were established in California, 
 Michigan, and Wisconsin, and all were doing well when the duty was 
 taken off the raw chicory and left upon the manufactured product. 
 The result was that all of these factories have been closed. Chicory 
 root was prepared in Germany up to the last two stages of the process 
 of manufacture — roasting and grinding — and was shipped here, duty 
 free, to be loasted and ground in this country. Chicory being produced 
 abroad by cheap labor has driven domestic chicory out of the market. 
 AVhat is now admitted as raw chicory is the root after it has been 
 through all the processes up to the last two — roasting and grinding. 
 It has, before importation, had expended on it 90 per cent of all the 
 labor necessary to put it in the hands of consumers, and this 90])ercent 
 is given to the support of the foreign farmer and the foreign laborer. 
 The free importation of the raw cliicory has therefore not only pre- 
 vented our farmers from continuing its cultivation, thereby depriving 
 them of a source of income, but has debarred the laborer from all but 
 a very small share in its manufacture. 
 
 A duty upon raw chicory of li cents per pound would enable our 
 farmers to resume the cultivation of this root, and should be imposed, 
 the duty on manufactured chicory remaining as it now is, 2 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 Tlie manufacture of cocoanut for the market has also, by former 
 legislation, been driven from this country to (icrmany bj^ the operation 
 of the tariff. The cocoanut can not be raised in any great quantity in 
 this country, and free importation of the cocoanut or its dried ])r()duct, 
 copra, could not interfere with American fruit growers. A duty, liow- 
 ever, has been imjwsed, I think under a niisa])i)rehension of the facts, 
 which has resulted in sending the copra from the South Pacific islands 
 right by the doors of former manufacturers in California to Germany, 
 whose cheap labor is now working u]) into marketable shajie the dried 
 cocoanut which formerly furnished employment to American laborers. 
 This industry could and should be restored to the United States by 
 suitable change in the existing taritl" law. 
 
 1 desire to place before the committee the latest expressions of tlie 
 wishes of California producers, as manifested in telegrams received 
 January 4. George Frost, president, and W. C. Fuller, secretary, of 
 the California Citrus Tariff Committee, telegraphed as follows from 
 Colton : 
 
 We depend on onr delegation obtaining sufficient to protect against imports— at 
 least 40 cents per cubic foot. 
 
 The following from Messrs. Woodward, Hobbs, Forsyth, Bernhard, 
 and Dunkel, composing a joint committee of raisin growers of California, 
 was sent from Fresno : 
 
 At a meeting of growers representing 50,000 acres of raisin vineyards, resolutions 
 were passed calling upon Cougress to protect the raisin industry of tbe United States 
 and thereby prevent its total annihilation, by imposing a spociflc duty of 3 cents 
 per pound on all grai)e products. Ten thousand acres of vineyard have a'lready been 
 abandoned in this district in consequence of the inability of our crowers to meet 
 foreign competition. The action of the meetin<i held a week ago. of which you liave 
 been fully advised, is now reaffirmed and untiu'alifiedly indorsed, and tlie Represent- 
 atives of California in Congress are urged to use every means in their power to secure
 
 FRUITS. 983 
 
 the needed protection for raisins, cnrrants, and dried grapes. New York importers 
 have organized and sent a lobby to Washington to fight us. The life of the industry 
 is at stake. California viueyardists look to the delegation to save them. 
 
 In addition to the object lesson my distinguislied colleague has pre- 
 sented on behalf of the delegation, although at his own personal 
 expen:se, I do not wish to add anything more except to say that in 
 addition to the subjects upon which he has touched i liave referred to 
 the great nut interest— almonds, walnuts, and the chicory of California 
 We can produce all the chicory that any conservative citizen requires 
 to adulterate his coflee to quiet his nerves, and our people have made a 
 statement here which is self explanatory. In addition to that we ask 
 that a duty for revenue — and my friend from Georgia will, I know, be 
 in accord with me in this respect — upon lima beans and pearl barley, 
 and what I am sure he will be in accord witli me, I want to ask a reduc- 
 tion of duty upon one article which was embodied in the Wilson-Gor- 
 man bill. It is perhaps singular that a Eepublican should come here 
 asking for a reduction, but I do so, and it is upon dried cocoanut or 
 copra. 
 
 That was done, I think, under a misapprehension. California can 
 produce, as you know, almost everything that is grown under the blue 
 sky of the heavens; the soil is so fertile that it has just to be tickled 
 with a hoe to make almost anything grow of everything known to the 
 vegetable kingdom, but cocoanuts have not been a financial success 
 raised in California. We have, therefore, cultivated a trade with the 
 South Sea Islands, and for many years in California we had a very 
 lucrative trade with the South Sea Islands, bringing copra— dried 
 cocoanut — to California where it was manufactured into oil, which is a 
 great article of commerce, and thus we gave you desiccated cocoanut 
 which you made up in the form of puddings and pastries. But through 
 a misapprehension, I think, under the Wilson-Gorman bill the duty was 
 increased some 20 per cent, and the result has been this article has 
 been shipped directly from the South Sea Islands to Germany, or 
 brought to San Francisco and reshipped there, where, by their facilities 
 and cheaper labor, they have taken that great industry from our State 
 and we have derived no revenue from it, and consequently we have 
 suffered by reason of it. We have a large and extensive commerce 
 with the South Sea Islands, and we hope you will certainly reduce the 
 duty upon the copra. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WHOLE- 
 SALE DISTRIBUTERS OF FOOD. 
 
 Kew York, K Y., January 1, 1897. 
 
 CO]VIMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 The undersigned, a committee appointed by wholesale distributers of 
 food products to the people of every State in the Union, respectfully 
 present for your consideration points which have come under our 
 observation which we believe are of interest to the public at large as 
 distinguished from those of any particular section. We recognize that 
 you are charged with a difficult task in reconciling many conflicting 
 interests, and but for the fact that an efl'ort is being made by parties 
 having a direct interest in establishing prohibitory duties, we would 
 not now claim a hearing from your honorable committee. We are
 
 984 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 moved to tbis action by a recent article in a fruit-trade paper headed: 
 "High tarifl' demanded — Duties on foreign fruits to be advanced — Con- 
 gress to be memorialized." It says: 
 
 At the convention of fyuit growers of California in Sacramento, December 2. a dis- 
 cussion of tlie increase of duties on foreign fruits resulted in the making of the fol- 
 lowiu"- report by a committee appointed for the purpose. This will serve also to 
 form a memorial to be presented to Congress at its first session. 
 
 Then follows a statement, or memorial, to which we take exception. 
 ' The distribnters of food products which this company represent 
 entertain different political views, bnt they all recognize that the Gov- 
 ernment must have sufficient revenue to meet its obligations, and believe 
 that this revenue should be raised in such a way as to yield tlie great- 
 est good to the greatest number of the citizens of the United States. 
 Such articles as fruits, nuts, and vegetables are peculiarly subject in 
 prices to climate and crops, and the interest of the consumer is often at 
 the mercy of local producers, unless a diversity of these conditions is 
 available. Hence, while we are not averse to the principle of pro- 
 tection, we would like to see it made protective to the interest of the 
 consumer as well as that of the producer. 
 
 The "happy medium" is really more to the interest of the producer 
 even than extreme protection, for the latter tempts an undue proportion 
 of capital into production and results in a surplus of products, which in 
 turn unduly depresses prices. Hence, we do not anticipate that the 
 most ardent advocate of protection to the items in this schedule will, 
 on reflection, ask an increase on existing duties for the items set forth 
 in the following tables, Avhich, as will be seen, range from 20 to 75 per 
 cent if on an ad valorem basis. All duties in this schedule should, 
 however, be made specilic, as most of them are now. 
 
 Articles (Schcdnle G, 
 tariff 1894). 
 
 Average cost f. o. b. 
 
 lioint (if jtrotluc- 
 
 tiou for llio foreign 
 
 product. 
 
 Present rate 
 of duty. 
 
 Equal to — 
 
 Duty recommended 
 by distriliuters 
 represented by 
 tbis committee. 
 
 Macaroni pastes . 
 Beans 
 
 Date.s . 
 
 Olives in bulk in wood 
 
 Olives in glass 
 
 Prunes, French, foursizes 
 
 Currants, per pound . , 
 
 i"i§8, per pound 
 
 llaisins, Valencia 
 
 Eaisins, Malaga , 
 
 Eaisins, sultana 
 
 Citron peel, caiuliod. . , 
 Orange peel, candied 
 Lemon ))eel, candied . . 
 Abuonds in shell 
 
 Almonds, shelled . 
 Filberts in shell . . 
 Filberts, shelled . . 
 Walnnts in shell . 
 Walnuts, shelled , 
 
 3 J cents per pound . 
 $1.05 per bushel of 
 
 (jO pounds. 
 3J cents per pound. 
 3U cents lu'i- gallon. 
 50 cents per gallon. 
 
 4 cents per pound. 
 
 2 to2J cents 
 
 2 to C cents , 
 
 2i to 4 cents 
 
 7 cents per pound. 
 2Jt to 4 cents 
 
 20 per cent. 
 do 
 
 do... 
 
 do... 
 
 do ... 
 
 IJ cents 
 
 'pound. 
 
 do ... 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 per 
 
 .do 
 
 6 cents per pound . 30 per cent. . 
 [•4i cents per pound . 
 5 cents per pound . 
 
 12 cents perpound. 
 
 4 cents per pound. 
 6Jcentsperpoand. 
 
 5 cents per pound . 
 11 cents perpound. 
 
 3 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 5 cents per 
 
 pound. 
 2 cents per 
 
 pound. 
 
 4 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 2 cents per 
 
 pound. 
 4 cents per 
 
 pound. 
 
 I cent per pound. . 
 21 cents per busbel 
 
 I cent per pound. . 
 C cents per gallon. 
 10 cents i)er gallon 
 37 percent 
 
 75 to 60 per cent .. 
 
 75 to 25 per cent . . 
 
 60 to 35 jier cent .. 
 
 21 J per cent 
 
 60 lo 35 per cent .. 
 
 1.8 cents perpound 
 fl.35 cents per 
 \ pound. 
 
 60 percent 
 
 42 per cent 
 
 50 per cent 
 
 61 per cent 
 
 40 per cent 
 
 36 per cent 
 
 } cent per pound. 
 15 c«nt8 per bushel . 
 
 1 cent per j)ound. 
 6 cents i)er gallon. 
 10 cents per gallon. 
 IJ cents per pound. 
 
 1 cent per pound. 
 IJ cents per pound. 
 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 2 cents per pound. 
 
 [ Do. 
 
 3 cents per pound. 
 
 6 cents per pound. 
 2 cents per pound. 
 
 4 cents per pound. 
 2 cents per pound. 
 4 cents per pound.
 
 FRUITS. 
 
 985 
 
 In order that your committee may take into consideration tbe almost 
 prohibitive duties asked for by California growers, we append the fol- 
 lowing table, showing the average cost of the foreign articles and the 
 rates of duty asked for by said growers, with the equivalent percentage : 
 
 Talle showing rates of duty asked for iy California groioers. 
 
 Articles. 
 
 cost per 
 
 pound 
 
 ■without 
 
 duty. 
 
 Eate of 
 duty per 
 
 pound 
 asked for 
 by Califor- 
 nia growers. 
 
 Equal to- 
 
 Cnrrants 
 
 Valencia raisins 
 
 Malaga raisins 
 
 Sultana raisins 
 
 Almonds, unslielled . . . 
 
 Almonds, shelled 
 
 Walnuts 
 
 Figs 
 
 Prunes, French, 4 sizes 
 Olives, bulk 
 
 $0. 02J 
 .03i 
 .07 
 .03^ 
 .05 
 .12 
 .05 
 .04 
 .04 
 O.30 
 
 $0. 02^ 
 .021 
 .02* 
 .02| 
 .06 
 .10 
 .03 
 .03 
 .021 
 a. 20 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Ill 
 80 
 3.-..\ 
 70" 
 
 120 
 84 
 60 
 75 
 62 
 67 
 
 oPer gallon. 
 
 CURRANTS. 
 
 The attitude of the Pacific Coast fruit growers in the matter of the 
 tariff" on Greek currants is peculiar and unsupported by facts. They 
 claim that these are a grape and compete with California raisins. In 
 realitj', they are a unique product, and grown nowhere else in the world 
 except in Greece and the adjacent islands belonging to that country. 
 They furnish the masses with a cheap and nutritious dried-fruit prod- 
 uct, which benefits the consumer without injimng anybody. They are 
 used by consumers as a distinct article in the preparation of food prod- 
 ucts and for which there is no real substitute. 
 
 Eeliable statistics show that the consumption of this article in the 
 United States has not been materially affected either way by the impo- 
 sition or absence of a reasonable duty. This item now pays 1^ cents 
 per i)ound duty, equal to 67 per cent ad valorem. Our Pacific Coast 
 friends ask for an additional duty of 1 cent per pound, equal to 44 per 
 cent increase, or a total of 111 per cent. While we claim that this 
 article should be allowed free entrj', not being grown in this country, 
 if a question of revenue is to be considered a duty of 1 cent per pound 
 would make this article bear a fair relation to other imports. 
 
 The argument that Pacific Coast products have to pay a higher rate of 
 freight than those brought from abroad is misleading, as shown by the 
 following facts. The combined ocean and land freight to the interior of 
 this country will equal and in many instances exceed the rail rate from 
 California to common points. For your information we beg to present 
 you the following table in confirmation of the above statement, which 
 shows the cost of moving the foreign article from the place of produc- 
 tion to the points of consumption, in connection with the rate of duty 
 assessed. This, jow will observe, gives ample protection to the Cali- 
 fornia producers.
 
 986 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Statcvient showuuj real proieclion noiv enjoyed ly Pacific Coast producers on nuts under 
 
 present tariff. 
 
 
 Present 
 duty per 
 
 100 
 pounds. 
 
 Inland 
 
 anrt ocean 
 
 freight to 
 
 Atlantic 
 
 ports. 
 
 Total 
 
 freight 
 
 and 
 
 duty to 
 
 Atlantic 
 
 ports. 
 
 Average 
 
 inland 
 
 freight 
 
 from 
 
 New 
 
 Tork to 
 
 Chicago 
 
 and 
 middle 
 
 Western 
 points. 
 
 Total 
 
 freight 
 
 and duty 
 
 to middle 
 
 Western 
 
 points. 
 
 At Pacific 
 Coast 
 points 
 the real 
 protec- 
 tion must 
 include 
 duty and 
 freight. 
 
 
 $2.00 
 
 $1.10 
 
 $3.10 
 1.30 
 
 $0.50 
 
 $3.60 
 1.30 
 
 $2.00 
 
 California walnuts, freight per 100 
 
 a 1 . .=^n 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 61.80 
 
 
 c2. 30 d3. 50 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3.00 
 
 .50 
 
 3. 50 . ."iO 
 
 4.00 
 1.30 
 
 3.00 
 
 California almonds, not shelled, freight 
 
 1.30 
 
 
 a 1.50 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 e2.20 
 
 
 /2.70 
 
 g4.5Q 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 Foreign almonds, shelled 
 
 California almonds, shelled, freight per 
 
 5. 00 1 .40 
 
 5.40 
 1.30 
 
 
 5.90 1 5.00 
 
 
 1.30 ol.OO 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 h 4. 10 
 
 
 i4.C0 
 
 Jb6.00 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 a E.stimatod. 
 /or 54 per cent. 
 
 6 or 36 per cent. 
 grorOO per cent. 
 
 cor 46 per cent. 
 A or 37i per cent. 
 
 dor 70 per cent, 
 ior :!9 per cent. 
 
 e or 44 per cent. 
 A;or 50 per cent. 
 
 For example, taking the walnut grown in the Province of Grenoble, 
 France, which is most largely consumed in this country, this article 
 pays a freight from the point of ])roduction to tlie Athmtic ports of 
 $1.10 per 100 ]iounds, to wliich we add the present duty of 2 cents 
 per pound, making $3.10 per 100 pounds; the freight from the Pacilic 
 Coast to the Atlantic Seaboard is but $1.30 per 100 pound-s leaving a 
 margin of $1.80 in favor of the domestic article; or, in other words, 
 a protection of 36 per cent to American producers. The same article 
 delivered in Chicago or middle Western points enhances its cost by the 
 rate of freight paid from the Atlantic port to the said interior points of 
 50 cents per 100 pounds, making the total amount of freight and duty 
 to said middle Western points §3.()0 per 100 pounds; the freight from 
 the Pacific Coast to the same interior ])oints being $1.30, leaves a mar- 
 gin of protection to Pacific Coast producers at said interior points of 
 $2.30 per 100 pounds, equal to 46 per cent, and at Pacific Coast points 
 $3.50 per 100 pounds, or 70 per cent of the value. 
 
 All the other articles mentioned in our several schedules are afifected 
 in similar ratio. 
 
 This, we trust, will convince your committee that when due consider- 
 ation is given to the matter of freights on botli the foreign and domestic 
 articles the present rate of duty gives ample protection to the pioducers 
 of this country. 
 
 PRUNES. 
 
 While prices of all products have been low during the past few years, 
 it is safe to say that no similar number of acres iii the United States 
 have yielded so large a profit to their owners as the fruit orchards of 
 California. That producers are often unreasonable or are frightened 
 by their own shadow is illustrated by the attitude of the Pacific Coast 
 fruit growers in their demand for an additional duty on this article.
 
 FEUITS. 
 
 987 
 
 The element of comijetition in this country between the foreign and 
 domestic product has within the past few years been reversed, if not 
 altogether obliterated, as the foreign article of the lower varieties has 
 not been for the past two years and can not now be imported to com- 
 pete with the domestic product; but, on the contrary, the California 
 producers have found a large outlet for their product in foreign coun- 
 tries, some of which are imi^ortant producers of prunes. It must there- 
 fore be obvious to your honorable body that this article can not 
 reasonably pay an increased rate of duty. Statistics available to your 
 committee show the importations of prunes during the past two years 
 to have been confined to the higher-priced product of France, and 
 what have been imi)orted are the higher grades of this product, which, 
 owing to the peculiarity of a certain class of consumers, will continue 
 to be imported regardless of the amount of duty assessed or the value 
 ruling for the domestic article, which during the present season has 
 ruled 33 per cent lower than similar grades of the French growth, f. o. b. 
 point of production. 
 
 RAISINS. 
 
 We would state that if the object of the advocates of an increased 
 duty is to exclude the importation of this article entirely we are willing 
 to admit that they are correct in their recommendations. We do not 
 believe, however, that your committee desire to so increase the duty as 
 to lead to this result, being convinced that what you wish is to arrange 
 and fix a rate of duty that will be fair and equitable to both the con- 
 sumer and those of our merchants outside of the State of California 
 engaged in the handling of the foreign product. 
 
 In this belief resi)ecting your intention, we desire to submit the fol- 
 lowing table showing the importation of Spanish raisins in boxes at 
 the port of New York during the past seven years: 
 
 Crop of— 
 
 Boxes. 
 
 Crop of— 
 
 Boxes. 
 
 1889 
 
 1, 200, 000 
 
 1, 333, 000 
 
 650, 000 
 
 750, 000 
 
 1893 .... 
 
 491 000 
 
 1890 
 
 1894 
 
 409 000 
 
 1891 
 
 1895 
 
 198, 000 
 
 1892 
 
 
 
 
 
 which shows the immense falling off in the importation of Spanish 
 raisins. This business in previous years furnished a large revenue to 
 the customs and profitable employment to thousands of our citizens 
 outside of the State of California. 
 
 That any claim should be made to further increase the duty on a 
 diminished quantity such as is now imported in face of the enormous 
 quantity of the domestic product grown and distributed by the State 
 of California seems preposterous. If anyone needs protection it is 
 those of your constituents in the Eastern States engaged in handling 
 and consuming this smaller quantity, and whose business would be 
 entirely destroyed by the proposed increase. 
 
 The California growers, we are informed, ask for an increase of 1 
 cent per pound on the ground that the present rate of duty only about 
 covers the cost of transportation to New York and Chicago, and that 
 their product should have a clear protection of 1 cent per pound. We 
 submit again that when exact figures are stated it shows that the 
 growers have enjoyed fully this protection under the existing rate of 
 duty.
 
 988 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 For example, to the present duty must be added the ocean freight to 
 New York of 50 cents per 100 pounds, making a total duty and freight 
 landed in New York of 2 cents per pound, from which if we deduct the 
 actual rate of freight on the California product to Kew York of $1 ])er 
 100 pounds leaves a clear margin of protection of 1 cent per pound, 
 and when applied to Chicago as" the distributing point for both the for- 
 eign and domestic product this protection is increased by the amount 
 of freight from New York to Chicago, say one-fourth of a cent per 
 pound, this giving the producers a protection of 1^ cents at this point 
 of distribution. 
 
 OLIVES. 
 
 The largest consumption of this article in the United States is in the 
 form of a relish. The varieties most in demand are known commer- 
 cially as queens and manzanillas. They are gathered when in their 
 green state and pickled by a special process which makes them very 
 appetizing. These olives are grown in Spain, within about 100 miles 
 of the city of Seville, and are not to be found in any other part of the 
 world. It has not yet been proven that they can be produced in 
 the United States, and until this is done no additional protection is 
 necessary. 
 
 We also ask your attention to the fact that the repacking of foreign 
 olives in this country gives employment at good wages to a large num- 
 ber of persons as i)ackers, bottle, box, cnpsnle, label, and cork makers. 
 
 We agree, however, with the Pacific Const producers that it is 
 entirely practicable for a sijecific duty to be laid upon this article, and 
 urge upon your committee to include olives in the proposed new tariff 
 bill at a specific rate of duty, but by no means exceeding the equivalent 
 of the present rate of duty of 20 per cent, equal to G cents per gallon 
 in bulk in wood, and 10 cents per gallon in glass bottles or jars. 
 
 BEANS. 
 
 Beans are an article of food in general use by those of moderate 
 means, and can only be imported in case of crop iailure in this country. 
 It is a fact that the 1895 and 1890 crops in tlie United States were so 
 abundant and so cheap that we were in position to export to Euroj^e, 
 instead of importing. This shows that witli normal liarvests we do not 
 need the assistance of other producing countries. Why let the masses 
 suffer when our crops turn out insufficient? 
 
 As a proof of above, we only state the im])()rtations of a few years. 
 Of the crops of 1892 and 1893 the imports of beans amounted to about 
 1,000,000 bushels per year. Of the crop of 1894 we imported 500,000 
 bushels, but of the crops of 1895 and 1890 to date the importations have 
 not exceeded 3,000 bushels. When we imported beans the prices for 
 our domestic product ranged from 50 to 100 per cent higher than at 
 present. 
 
 For reasons stated, we submit that a specific duty of 15 cents per 
 bushel of 60 pounds will give ample protection to the home product. 
 
 CANDIED CITRON. 
 
 The quantity that was formerly candied in Leghorn and Corsica is 
 now imported in brine and properly admitted free of duty and candied 
 in this country, using sugar refined in the United States, employing a 
 large capital and furnishing employment to a great number of people.
 
 FRUITS. 989 
 
 We recommend that a specific duty of not exceeding 2 cents per pound 
 be laid upon this candied citron instead of the present ad valorem rate 
 of 30 per cent. 
 
 FIGS. 
 
 Figs, similar to those imported from Turkey, are not grown and pre- 
 pared in any quantity anywhere in the United States, and an increased 
 duty on this article would only add to the cost to the consumer. They 
 are used by many as a laxative, and to some extent regarded as medic- 
 inal. To unnecessarily further tax this article of food seems to us botli 
 unjust and unwise. In fact, any article of food that is used by the 
 masses ought not to be too heavily taxed. Eeference to our schedule 
 will show you that this is now the case. 
 
 We ask your committe to bear in mind the interests of the consumers 
 as well as producers. A large part of the American people who are 
 not in symi)athy with extreme protective tariff views, at the recent 
 national election voted for the Eepublican candidates in the belief that 
 Eepublican tariff legislation would be reasonable, and that extremes 
 would be avoided ; and we respectfully submit that the power thus con- 
 ferred should be reasonably and justly exercised for the greatest good 
 to the greatest number. 
 
 Thos. W. Oemiston, 
 Lewis Wallace, 
 J. A. Hawkesworth, 
 
 Committee. 
 
 COST OF RAISING FRUIT IN CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 California fruit lands are in every instance high priced. All fruits, 
 and especially citrus trees, must be irrigated. Water and water rights 
 are expensive. Pipe lines, canals, and ditches for conveying water 
 cost enormous sums of money to construct and maintain. Nine-tenths 
 of all the labor employed is skilled labor. In the nurseries the plants 
 are grafted and budded by experts; the ground is prepared and sur- 
 veyed by experts. The same may be said of pruning, picking, grading, 
 curing, packing, and every subsequent operation until the fruit is 
 pa(5ked and shipi)ed. 
 
 The successful grower must employ men who understand the work, 
 and pay good wages. And finally, we must pay heavy transportation 
 charges; sometimes more than the fruit will bring when sold. 
 
 We have to compete with ira])orted fruits produced in many instances 
 oii cheap laud, without any expenses for water pipe lines and canals; 
 with peon or pauper labor at prices which defy and destroy competi- 
 tion. They ship their goods as ocean freight. It will readily be seen 
 that our fruit growers must be protected to the extent, first, of the 
 difference of the cost of production in this and competing countries; 
 second, of the difference of the cost of transportation by sea and by 
 rail to the principal centers of trade in the United States. If duties 
 are high enough to meet this additional cost of production and dis- 
 tribution, the fruit farmers of our State will be on exact equality with 
 foreign growers. Should we ask or expect less than this? 
 
 E. M. Wardall, 
 Fruit Grower^ Los AngeleSj Gal.
 
 990 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF CITIZENS OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, RELATIVE TO 
 
 DUTIES ON FRUITS. 
 
 Detroit, Mich., January 11, 1897. 
 Hon. John B. Corliss, 
 
 Member of Congress from the First district of Michigan: 
 
 We, the undersigned taxpayers, aoTiculturists, fruit growers, and 
 gardeners, earnestly request tliat the duties and tariffs be raised upon 
 products hereinafter named, so that we may be protected from the 
 invasion of foreigners, who neither i)ay taxes nor any of the running 
 ex])enses of our Government. 
 
 The duty which now exists is meager, and in many cases there is no 
 duty at ail, and does not shield or protect us in that which is dear to 
 every American farmer, namely, the markets. 
 
 We sincerely hope that you will use every endeavor to protect our 
 labors and interests from the intrusion of Canadians, who have no inter- 
 est and owe no allegiance to the welfare of our country, but who by the 
 thousands every day place their products (which products are raised on 
 cheap land by ignorant labor) in competition with ours free of exi)ense, 
 and who in many instances we find have taken complete possession of 
 our markets. We would propose that the tariff" on the following products 
 be as follows : 
 
 Grapes, 2 cents per pound; cherries, $1 per bushel; pears, $1 per bushel; plums, 
 $1 per bushel; all berries, $1 per bushel ; currnnts, 50 cents per bushel; green pease, 
 50 cents per bushel ; string beans, 50 cents per bushel ; tomatoes, 50 cents per bushel ; 
 lettuce, 25 cents per bushel; green corn, 4 cents per dozen ears; cabbage, 1 cent per 
 head. All roots that are generally sold in Avhat is called a green state or generally 
 sold in bunches, such as radishes, turnips, carrots, beets, onionB, leek, garlic, etc., 
 shall be 1 cent on each six roots, whether bunched or otherwise. All herl)S that are 
 bunched or that are generally bunched shall be 1 cent for each common-sized retail 
 bunch. 
 
 Charles W. Robinson and 64 others. 
 
 COMPETITION FROM CANADIAN FRUITS. 
 
 CoERiDGE, Cuyahoga Coltnty, Ohio, January i, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I wish to call your attention to an item in the tariff" bill now under 
 consideration that should receive your attention. I refer to the item 
 of fruits. 
 
 Canada has a tariff on most of the fruits raised in the United States 
 which is practically prohibitory, while we let many of her fruits in free, 
 which puts us at a very great disadvantage. 
 
 For instance, take our earliest fruit, the strawberry. If we raise 
 enough to supply our home market early and late during the middle of 
 the season we have too many, and a glut, with the fruit selling below 
 cost of picking. If it were not for the Canadian tariff we could export 
 our surplus, as our glut would come before her season was fairly open. 
 When our glut is over and our late berries are on, and when we should 
 be receiving fair prices, we have to meet the surplus crop of Canada, 
 which enters our market free. I think that it should not require any 
 argument to show the injustice of allowing Canada to exclude our 
 fruits from her market and then we allow hers to enter ours free. The 
 only question should be how best to remedy the matter.
 
 PINEAPPLES. 991 
 
 I have been raising fruit in the United States about forty years and 
 Lave done business under various tariffs, both in this country and in 
 Canada, and am of the opinion that if you place a duty of 2 cents per 
 pound on strawberries, raspberries, blackberries, currants, gooseber- 
 ries, and cherries, and 25 cents per bushel on apples, plums, prunes, 
 pears, and peaches, and 1 cent per pound on grapes, it would afford us 
 ample protection. Or if you put in a reciprocity clause, so arrange it 
 that Canada will take off her duty on our fruits and we will do the 
 same by hers, which would be satisfactory to our fruit growers. 
 
 D. K. Huntington. 
 
 CANADA'S DISCRIMINATING DUTIES. 
 
 Buffalo, IST. Y., Jamiary'O, 1897. 
 Dear Sir: I wish to call your attention to the condition of the fruit 
 growers and farmers aloug the Niagara River. I am a fruit grower, 
 owning a farm on the Niagara Eiver between Lewiston and Youngs- 
 town. As fruit growers, we ask that a clause be inserted in a tariff 
 bill, if presented, imposing a duty on peaches (now free) and a higher 
 duty on other fruits, eggs, hay, butter, and other farm products unless 
 our products are allowed to enter Canada on the same terms that Cana- 
 dian products enter the United States. It is a fact that Canadian 
 peaches enter the United States free, and we are shut out of the Toronto ■ 
 and other markets by heavy duties, making the charges so high as to 
 be prohibitory. There being but a limited market in Canada, the hay, 
 butter, eggs, etc., are brought to our market, paying the small duties, 
 and sold in comi)etition with our home-grown stuff, and making it still 
 more difficult for the fruit growers and farmers to find sale at living 
 prices for their products. We do not ask that their stuff be kept out of 
 our markets by raising the duties now levied, but simply that the Amer- 
 ican farmer have the same footing in Canadian markets that the 
 Canadian has in the United States. 
 
 Tellico Johnson. 
 
 PINEAPPLES. 
 
 (Paragraph 213i.) 
 
 STATEMENT VOICING THE ATTITUDE OF THE INDIAN RIVER 
 AND LAKE WORTH PINEAPPLE GROWERS' ASSOCIATION OF 
 
 FLORIDA. 
 
 Melbourne, Fla., January 11, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir: At a general meeting of stockholders of Indian Eiver 
 and Lake Worth Pineapple Growers' Association resolutions werepassed 
 to be forwarded to Florida Senators and Kepresentatives asking their 
 assistance. 
 
 The present duty on pineapples is unsatisfactory, both as to amount 
 and in that it is ad valorem. The duty asked is a specific one of 25 
 cents per cubic foot for pines in packages, or 2 cents per pine in bulk. 
 
 The association recommends that pineapples be placed on the same 
 footing with oranges and other citrus and sweet tropical productions. 
 
 Silas F. Gibbs.
 
 -AGR [CULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 FLORIDA PINEAPPLES NEED A DUTY OF 25 CENTS A BOX. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 11, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I have a communication from fruit growers in Florida asking tLat a 
 specific duty of 25 cents per box be placed on pineapples. The present 
 duty is one of 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 I am furnished with no data with reference to the growth of this fruit 
 in the United States, or its importation. I know, however, that it is 
 being grown very largely in the southern portion of Floridn, and I doubt 
 not but that a specific duty would not only add its share, whether great 
 or small, to the revenues of the Government, but would probably also 
 furnish a degree of protection to the growers. 
 
 S. M. Sparkman, M. C. 
 
 GRAPES. 
 
 (Paragraph 214.) 
 
 IMPORTERS OF SPANISH GRAPES ASK FOR SPECIFIC DUTY. 
 
 New York, January 2, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We, the undersigned, principal importers of grapes from Spain, 
 respectfully request your committee to consider the duty on this article. 
 At present these grapes are paying a duty of 20 jier cent ad valorem, 
 making the duty just about 45 cents per barrel. 
 
 We have been constantly exposed to annoyances on account of this 
 ad valorem system, and now respectfully petition you to make the duty 
 specific — say 45 cents per barrel of not exceeding 3 cubic feot capacity 
 or less, and an additional 15 cents for each additional cubic foot capacity 
 or part thereof. 
 
 The committee will potice we simply seek relief from the annoyances 
 of the present system, and do not ask for any reduction in the duties in 
 spite of the fact that these Spanish grapes do not interfere with tlie 
 domestic grapes, as the keeping qualities of this Spanish Iruit make it 
 available for use in the spring when no other fresh grapes are obtainable. 
 
 ARGUrMBAU & Eamee. 
 G. MUINCHO. 
 
 Otto G. Mayer & Co. 
 W. T. Mesternd & Co. 
 Sgobel c^- Day. 
 Charles Forster. 
 John Ellice & Co. 
 
 AN INFLUX OF CANADIAN GRAPES. 
 
 Detroit, Mich., December 28, 1896. 
 Dear Sir: For the past twenty-five years grapes in large quantities 
 have been grown in Michigan along tlie Canadian border, which for 
 nearly twenty years found Detroit a market and which paid the growers
 
 OLIVES, ETC. 993 
 
 fairly well for their labor. A few years ago grape raising was started 
 on a large scale in Canada, jnst across the Detroit Eiver, very access- 
 ible to the Detroit market, and for a number of years Canadian-raised 
 grapes have flooded the Detroit market, which have been sold at such 
 ruinously low prices that growers in Michigan have suftored greatly; 
 in fact, in most cases have received very little for their labor. 
 
 What is true of grapes grown in Michigan is also true of the grape- 
 growing industry on the Lake Erie islands. Detroit for many years 
 was a good market for the large quantity of grapes raised on the islands. 
 For a number of yeans past, however, Detroit as a market for island 
 grapes has been growing from bad to worse on account of grapes com- 
 ing from Canada, until the market is nearly ruined for the United 
 States product. We are informed that peach trees to quite an extent 
 have been planted in Canada on the shores of Lake Erie. If peach 
 raising in Canada on the shores of Lake Erie proves as successful as 
 it has on the sliore of Lake Erie in Ohio, our markets will be flooded 
 with Canadian peaches within a few years. There is no duty on Can- 
 adian peaches. We think there should be. 
 
 The United States duty on Canadian grapes is now 20 per cent on 
 what they sell for, which would be an average of about one-sixth of a 
 cent a pound of what they sold for this year. 
 
 The Canadian duty on United States grapes is 2 cents per i)ouud. 
 If the United States duty on Canadian grapes were 2 cents a pound, 
 the grape growers in Michigan and Ohio would be protected. The 
 duty on American peaches going into Canada is 1 cent a pound. 
 
 Ashley & Dustin. 
 
 OLIVES, ETC. 
 
 (Paragraph 215.) 
 
 REID, MURDOCH & CO., OF CHICAGO, RECOMMEND RATES FOR 
 OLIVES, OLIVE OIL, PRESERVES, CANDIED CITRON AND LEMON. 
 
 Chicago, January 6, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As importers, manufacturers, and large dealers in food products, we 
 desire to recommend to your committee the following changes in the 
 tariff laws : 
 
 OLIVES. 
 
 The present rate of duty, 20 per cent ad valorem, on olives shipped 
 in brine in bulk is satisfactory, except that we earnestly request that 
 the duty be changed from an ad valorem duty to a specific duty, as 
 under an ad valorem duty there is great opportunity for undervaluation. 
 Numerous cases of this kind have come before the Board of Appraisers 
 since the Wilson bill went into effect, and in one case a very great 
 quantity of olives was found to be undervalued, and great loss to the 
 Grovernment resulted, as the goods had been delivered before the under- 
 valuation was discovered, and suits are now pending against the parties 
 for the back duties. From the New York Shipping List we get the 
 information that the value of olives imported in 189G was $347,344.70, 
 which, at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem, would produce a revenue 
 of about $70,000. From the best information that we can obtain, we 
 believe that the quantity of olives, in gallons, imported during the same 
 time was about 1,400,000 gallons j consequently if a duty of 5 cents per 
 T H 63
 
 994 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 gallon without regard to size or value, was established, the Govern- 
 ment would receive the same amount of revenue, and there would be 
 no opportunity for fraud or undervaluation, and it would simplify the 
 duties of customs officials to a very great extent. We would therefore 
 recommend that the duty be made 5 cents for each American ,<iallon, 
 and that the mode of ascertaining the number of gallons in each pack- 
 age be as follows: Package to be laid on its side, bung up, capacity 
 being taken by the standard United States system of gauging, and then 
 the outage rod inserted through the bunghole until it comes in contact 
 with the solid fruit, and after taking the outage from the gauged 
 capacity of the package, the residue shall be the actual- number of 
 gallons on which duty shall be paid. 
 
 OLIVES PACKED IN GLASS OR EARTHENWARE. 
 
 These goods now pay the same rate of duty as olives in bulk, i. e., 
 20 per cent ad valorem, but in order that bottlers in this country may 
 be protected against the cheap labor, cheap glass, corks, etc., we rec- 
 ommend that the present duty of 20 per cent ad valorem be changed 
 to 40 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 Under the present law the duty on olive oil fit for salad ])ur])oses is 
 35 cents per gallon, and where packed in glass, etc., it bears the addi- 
 tional duty of the schedule tariff of glass, etc. Under this law a large 
 portion of the olive oil imported is received in glass bottles, the labor 
 of manufjicturing the glass, caps, corks, labels, cases, and the labor of 
 bottling being done in the country of exportation; whereas if olive oil 
 in bulk could be put upon the free list and a duty of 40 per cent estab- 
 lished on olive oil in glass or tins, we are confident the result would be 
 that a large industry could be built up in the United States of bottling 
 and preparing olive oil for market, thus giving employment to Ameri- 
 can labor in manufacturing glass, caps, corks, labels, etc., and the labor 
 of bottling and jireparing for market. According to the New York 
 Shipping List, during the fiscal year ending June 30, 180(), 017,003.04 
 gallons of olive oil fit for salad purposes were brought into the United 
 States, of which a very small proportion was received in bulk. As an 
 evidence of the beneficial results to accrue Irom such a policy, we beg 
 leave to call to your mind that under the McKinley bill the duty on 
 raw sugar was abolished, thereby giving us cheaji sugar, and the articles 
 of raw citrons, lemons, and oranges in brine were put upon the free list, 
 and the duty on candied citron, lemon, and orange peel was made 35 
 per cent. Prior and up to that time all the citron, lemon, and orange 
 peel used in this country had been imported in the manufactured state. 
 After that law was passed a number of concerns started into the busi- 
 ness of candying citron, lemon, and orange peel, and at the present 
 time practically all of these articles that are used in America are now 
 produced in this country; and it has resulted in giving employment to 
 a great many people, and the industry has grown to such an extent 
 that last year the American product of these articles was about 1,400 
 tons; and in this connection we would request that the present duty of 
 35 per cent ad valorem on 
 
 CANDIED CITRON, LEMON, AND ORANGE PEEL 
 
 be changed to a specific duty of 3 cents per pound. The reasons for 
 this change are the increased duties on sugars under the Wilson Act,
 
 OLIVES, ETC. 995 
 
 as well as our conviction that specific duties are, wherever practical, 
 the best for the Government and honest importers. 
 
 PRESERVES, JAMS, AND JELLIES. 
 
 Under the McKinley law, with practically free sugar — i. e., raws fi^ee 
 refined one-half cent per pound — great encouragement was given to the 
 manufacture of high-class preserves in this country, for with cheap 
 sugar we were enabled to successfully compete with the English manu- 
 facturers ; but as the Wilson bill increased the duty on sugars to 40 per 
 cent, without a corresponding increase on manufactured preserves, 
 jams, and jellies (of which sugar is about 50 per cent) we are at the 
 present time at a great disadvantage. This is occasioned by the Eng- 
 lish manufactures having free sugar, cheap labor (fully one-half the 
 cost of ours), and glassware fully 50 jjer cent less, thus enabling them 
 to send their goods to this country on a basis that it is very diflicult 
 tor us to comi^ete with, and we, therefore, request that the duty on this 
 class of goods be increased from the present duty of 30 per cent ad 
 valorem to 45 per cent ad valorem, and a corresponding increase in 
 duty, provided the present tariff on sugar is still further increased. 
 With the great abundance and variety of excellent fruit grown, manu- 
 facturers in this country can make preserves of as fine quality as can 
 be produced in the world, provided they have reasonable protection 
 against the low-priced labor and materials of foreign competitors. Ocean 
 freights, as you are doubtless aware, cut but little if any figure, as 
 the rates are so low as to be practically no hindrance to the foreign 
 shippers. 
 
 PICKLES. 
 
 As perhaps you are well aware, there is a large amount of pickles 
 imported into the United States from England. After a careful inves- 
 tigation and study of this business, we are of the opinion that the 
 reason for this is that in England pickles are prepared with pure malt 
 vinegar, and as at the present time there are no manufacturers of malt 
 vinegar in this country that we are aware of (at least any that make 
 malt vinegar such as is offered on the English market), we think it 
 would be to the interests of the general public if you would put malt 
 vinegar, in bulk, casks, or barrels, on the free list, so that manufacturers 
 of pickles in this country could (until such a time as malt vinegar is 
 manufactured here) import this vinegar and manufacture pickles equal 
 to those sent to us from foreign countries. This would in no wise inter- 
 fere with the price of the American manufacturers of vinegar, as malt 
 vinegar is so much higher in price that it does not come into competi- 
 tion with the American vinegars in any sense of the word, the best 
 American vinegars being worth only 5 to 8 cents per gallon, while malt 
 vinegar is worth, on the London market, from 20 to 30 cents per gallon. 
 It seems to us ridiculous that with the wonderful facilities we have for 
 raising cucumbers, onions, beans, and such other vegetables as are used 
 for pickling purposes, that we should import this class of food, espe- 
 cially when it is a well-known fact that the largest pickle makers in 
 England frequently purchase pickles in salt brine in this country, trans- 
 port them to England, prepare them in their malt vinegar, pack them 
 in bottles, and reship them to America; and we believe that if you will 
 put malt vinegar on the free list and increase the duty on pickles from 
 the present duty of 30 per cent ad valorem to 45 per cent ad valorem, 
 in a short time the American people will be eating American-made 
 pickles.
 
 996 SCHEDULE G. AGKICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 OAPEES. 
 
 For the same reasons as advocated on olive oil, we would recommend 
 tliat capers in bulk be put on the free list, and that capers in glass or 
 earthenware pay a duty of 45 per ceut ad valorem, instead of the pres- 
 ent duty, 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 MACARONI AND VERMICELLI. 
 
 We would recommend that the present duty of 20 per cent ad valorem 
 be changed to a specific duty of 2 cents per pound, believing that the 
 small increase of duty thereby occasioned will not be felt be the con- 
 sumer, and by making the duty specific opportunities for fraud and 
 undervaluation will be removed. 
 
 PEASE, MUSHROOMS, AND TABLE SAUCES (EITHER IN TIN OR GLASS). 
 
 We would recommend that the duty be changed from present duty 
 of 30 per cent ad valorem to 45 per cent ad valorem, as these articles 
 are luxuries, and the increase in duty will not be harmful to anyone. 
 
 VINEGAR. 
 
 Vinegars of all kinds and descriptions, in earthenware or glass, we 
 think should bear a duty of 40 per cent. Vinegars of all kinds and 
 descriptions, in hogsheads, pipes, puncheons, casks, or barrels, free. 
 We believe that the only vinegars imj^orted are malt, wine, and fruit 
 vinegars, and by making them free in bulk, and imposing on them, in 
 earthenware or glass, the duty of 40 per cent, the bottUug, packing, 
 and preparing for market will be done in this country. 
 
 TEA. 
 
 As we are well aware that this Government needs to increase its rev- 
 enues, and as some of the changes we have re(iuested would make a 
 decrease to some extent, we think a fit and proper item, and one that 
 should pay a duty, is the item of tea. If we are correctly informed 
 this is the only nation in the world that does not impose a duty on 
 tea, and one of the serious results of that is that this country is made 
 a dumping ground for all of the poor trash of the countries that 
 imjiort tea. The annual importation into this country, we understand, 
 is about 90,000,000 pounds, and we believe that a duty of 5 cents per 
 pound thereon will be one of the best possible ways for the (Govern- 
 ment to derive a revenue with the least possible injury to the peoi>le. 
 As a matter of fact, in our judgment, a duty of 5 cents i)er pound 
 would make little, if any, difference in the price paid by the consumer 
 for tea, for it is a well-known fact that tea is an article that pays a 
 large profit, both to the importer, the wliolesale dealer, and the retailer, 
 and this duty would come out of the profits of the dealers and be felt 
 little, if any, by the consumer. We further recommend that the pres- 
 ent provision for the exclusion of spurious teas be retained. 
 
 In conclusion, we only desire to say that in a general way we are 
 decidedly in favor of specific duties where practical, instead of ad
 
 OLIVES, ETC. 
 
 997 
 
 valorem duties; and it is our experience of many years in an import- 
 ing business that ad valorem duties invariably lead to undervalua- 
 tion and fraud by dealers that are unscrupulous, thereby depriving- the 
 Government of their just dues and giving an unfair advantage to the 
 dishonest importer over the honest. 
 
 Changes in tariff requested h\j Reid, Murdoch c^- Co. 
 
 Articles. 
 
 Olives in brine, in bulk 
 
 Olives, in gl.ass 
 
 Olive oil, fit for salad purposes, in bulk . 
 Olive oil, fit for saLad purposes, in glass . 
 
 Preserves, jams, and jellies 
 
 Pickles 
 
 Capers, in glass or earthenware 
 
 Capers, in bulk 
 
 Macaroni and Vermicelli 
 
 Pease, mushrooms, and table sauces, 
 
 either in tin or glass. 
 Candied citron, lemon .and orange peel. .. 
 
 Tea 
 
 Vinegar, all kinds and descriptions, in 
 
 glass or earthenware. 
 Vinegar, all kinds and descriptions, in 
 
 hogsheads, pipes, puncheons, casks, or 
 
 barrels. 
 
 Present dutv. 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 do 
 
 35 cents per gallon, specific. 
 
 do 
 
 30 per cent 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 30 per cent 
 
 j 35 per cent 
 
 Free 
 
 7h cents per gallon, specific, 
 'to 20 percent ad valorem. 
 ....do 
 
 Proposed change. 
 
 5 cents per gallon, specific. 
 
 40 per cent. 
 
 Free. 
 
 40 per cent. 
 
 45 per cent. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Free. 
 
 2 cents per pound, specific. 
 45 per cent. 
 
 3 cents per pound, specific. 
 5 cents per pound, specific. 
 40 per cent. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Reid, Murdoch & Co. 
 
 EMPLOYEES IN OLIVE-PACKING TRADE DESERVE PROTECTION. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 11, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As a seller of olives to the packing trade, I permit myself to remark 
 that my opinion is tliat the large interests of packers are far in excess 
 of the claims of Californians. It is a fact that none of the packers are 
 able to use California olives for bottling purposes, and if they were of a 
 quality which would permit of their use the packers could not obtain 
 any supplies, as they are comparatively nil. Although there may be a 
 demand in California for the home i)roduct, it is simply because of their 
 novelty, and if they were sold upon the Eastern markets upon their 
 merits they would not bring a tenth of the price of the Spanish. This 
 is because the California product is not pickled until it becomes fully 
 ripe, and therefore is of various brown or black colors, oily and soft, 
 while the Spani.sh, being i)ickled green, is of uniform color, appetizing 
 and sound, and will keep a long time. In size the California olives do 
 not equal the smallest of the Spanish, viz, the raanzanilla. It is obvi- 
 ous that if Greece, which really produces larger olives than California, 
 finds that her fruit must be dried like prunes (consumed in this country 
 by Italians) and will not stand the processing necessary to fix the color 
 and firmness of the Spanish, that California can hardly expect to do 
 better than Greece, much less equal Spain. 
 
 I think I can be borne out in the assertion that Spain has sent more 
 olives direct to San Francisco during the past five years than the whole 
 United State has produced. And I am informed that the finer hotels 
 of San Francisco regularly serve Spanish olives as a California product. 
 
 It may be urged by Californians that there are many trees planted
 
 998 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 in that State wliich will come into bearing-, and that the farmer ought 
 to be protected. Such statements are absolutely misleading as far as 
 eating olives are concerned, just as one is misled in traveling from 
 Madrid to Seville by the miliions of olive trees along the road side, 
 when not 5 per cent of them produce eating olives. 
 
 In conclusion, I beg to remark that the practical, existing i^acking 
 trade, together with their army of employees, have a thousand times 
 greater need of protection by being assured of their su])plies in bulk, 
 either free of duty or at a nominal specific duty, than are the needs of 
 California, which up to this time, and prospective, have only promises 
 of future production. 
 
 H. C. Kewcomb. 
 
 SPANISH OLIVES AND THE CALIFORNIA PRODUCT DO NOT 
 NECESSARILY CONFLICT. 
 
 Chicago, January 11, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Our attention has been called to the fact that a committee composed 
 of California fruit growers is agitating the advisability of an increased 
 duty on Spanish queen olives. The present dnty is 20 per cent ad 
 valorem. Considering the average price for a gallon of Spanish queen 
 olives for the past few years it is equivalent to abont 7.^ cents per gal- 
 lon, and we understand that the committee referred to above request 
 the increase to about 20 cents per gallon specific duty. 
 
 We have imported, ])acked, and sold Spanish (|ueen olives for many 
 years, and during that period have from time to time ]irocnred samples 
 of the California product with the view of ])ossibly substitnting same 
 for the Spanish ])ioduct, and each iiKpiiry about and experiment with 
 the California olives confirmed our belief tliat tliey could never take the 
 place of the Spanish queen ohves as a relish. 
 
 In view of the facts stated above, we see no necessity wliy California 
 olive growers should be protected to the extent they demand. The 
 Spanish queen olive does not interfere with the consumption of the Cali- 
 fornia product, nor will the California olive ever interfere with the 
 so called Spanish queen. They are entirely of a dillerent imture. The 
 California olives are very rich and nutritious, and can and Avill be used 
 as an article of food, equal in nutriment to meat and butter, and for a 
 high grade of olive oil, whereas the pickled Spanish queen olive can 
 only be used as a relish. 
 
 The duty of 20 cents per gallon would have a tendency to curtail the 
 consumption of the Spanish queen olives, because it would be equiva- 
 lent to an advance of 50 per cent on the average value. It would inter- 
 fere very materially with our business and that of other packers. It 
 would make it necessary to reduce our force of labor in the packing 
 department according to the demand, and thus throw a number of 
 experienced workers out of employment. 
 
 The increased duty would not increase the revenue of the United 
 States Government, because the importations would necessarily be 
 smaller. We believe that a specific duty is a move in the right direc- 
 tion, as it would insure a uniform valuation for all inqiortations. As to 
 the amount, we believe that it should be 5 to 7i cents jier gallon on all 
 bulk olives, and 10 to 15 cents per gallon on olives imported in glass 
 bottles or jars, to protect the labor interests. 
 
 Glasee, Kohn & Co.
 
 ORANGES AND LEMONS. 999 
 
 ORANGES AND LEMONS. 
 
 (Paragraph 216.) 
 
 MEMOEIAL SUBMITTED BY THE MONARCH ORANGE COMPANY 
 OF SUMPTER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 4, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and JTeans : 
 
 In framing a new tariff bill we request your favorable consideration 
 for the claims of the orange and lemon growers of the United States. 
 We ask that an added duty be placed ujjon oranges and lemons, and 
 that that duty be specific. We ask that the duty on oranges and lemons 
 in packages be fixed at the rate of 25 cents for every cubic foot of con- 
 tents, or fractional part thereof. We ask, also, that in case importations 
 are made in bulk or in barrels, the duty be fixed according to the rates 
 specified for boxes. 
 
 It may be remarked here that this duty would amount to less than 
 one-third of 1 cent per orange, and still less per lemon. 
 
 In support of the claim for the duty on oranges, we beg to call the 
 attention of your committee to the following points: 
 
 (1) The difference in the cost of labor to orange producers in this 
 country as com])ared with competing sources of supply in foreign 
 lands. By an official report made to the State Department, published 
 in Consular Eeport No. 188 for May, 1890, i)ages 82 and 83, it is stated 
 that the wages i)aid in the Messina district are as follows : " For pickers, 
 30 cents per day; for i)acking-house employees, 21 cents per day often 
 hours." Under our different conditions we pay for this same class of 
 labor in Florida and California from 80 cents to 61.50 per day, the 
 lower wages being paid lor boys. It will appear in the very outset that 
 the American producer of oranges and lemons is placed at a decided 
 disadvantage in the prices he must pay for labor. The lower wages 
 prevail not alone in Italy and the European countries, but in the new 
 sources of competition in ^Mexico and Jamaica. 
 
 (2) Disadvantages in freight rates. The railway freight rate from 
 California to Chicago is the same as from Mexico to Chicago. It will 
 appear that the California ])roducer is subjected to the difference in 
 cost of labor above referred to. The average cost of freight from the 
 Mediterranean sources of supply to New York is from 30 to 31 cents 
 per box, while the cost of all freight from Florida to New York is 57 
 cents ijer box. The freight rates from Jamaica to New York would be 
 even less than those from the Mediterranean ports. It will be observed 
 right here that a tariff of 50 cents per standard Florida box of 2 cubic 
 feet of contents will adjust this difference in freight rates. 
 
 (3) While the immediate result of a tariff somewhat greater than 
 the present rate upon oranges and lemons may be to cause a slight 
 rise in the i^rice, the stimulating effect of a protective tariff will give a 
 proper encouragement and development to American producers. In 
 Florida and California, and to a less degree in Louisiana, there are 
 lands as well adapted for the i^roduction of oranges as can be found 
 anywhere in the world. It is true that a serious drawback has resulted 
 from the severe frosts in Florida in the winter of 1893-94. If adequate 
 encouragement is given to these localities a quantity of oranges and 
 lemons will be produced there sufficient to supply the whole demand
 
 1000 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 for this country. lu tlie long run tlie result will be diminished cost, 
 not only at the sources of supply, but for all consumers in the United 
 
 States. 
 
 The attention of the committee is respectfully called to the threatened 
 destruction of the American grower by the rapid increase in new sources 
 of suppl}^, namely, those of Mexico and Jamaica. The receipts this 
 season, up to date, from Jamaica of oranges have been 234,690 barrels 
 and 31,707 boxes, while the shipments from Mexico this season have 
 been large enough to materially affect tbe prices of oranges grown in 
 California and Florida. 
 
 The undersigned owns a grove of 900 acres, located in Sumter County, 
 Fla., known as the "Monarch Grove." It is the largest orange grove 
 in the world. 
 
 The Monarch Orange Company, 
 
 Ralph King, Yice-Frcsident. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY DUDLEY W. ADAMS, PRESIDENT OF 
 THE FLORIDA STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
 
 Tangerine, Orange County, Fla., 
 
 January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I wish to call your attention to the fruit industry of Florida, that it 
 may receive the consideration its importance demands. 
 
 The census of 1890 shows in the State of Florida 2,810,324 bearing 
 lemon and orange trees, and of nonbearing (young) 7,710,127, or a total 
 of orange and lemons, 10,r)20,451. JJetween 1889 and 1895 this number 
 was increased to 12,000,000 or more. The census gives the crop of 
 oranges for 3889 as 3,140,740 boxes of 2 cubic feet each. In 1894 the 
 crop reached near 6,000,000. On February 8, 1895, a severe freeze 
 killed the tops of the orange and lemon trees, and temporarily cut off 
 the product. The trees are rapidly recovering, and will in due time 
 equal and then exceed former tigures. The above-nanu'd number of 
 trees, with liberal new plantings, will furnish abundant supplies for 
 the whole American market at prices satisfactory to all, and of a quality 
 so well known as to need no encomium. 
 
 The average cost of transporting a box of oranges from the Florida 
 grove to New York, Boston, or Washington is about 61 cents by all 
 rail, or 53 cents by rail and water. During the lirst ten months of last 
 year we imported 66,483,593 worth of oranges and lemons at about 
 one-half that freight rate. 
 
 The Florida crop is inade and packed with labor averaging about $1 
 per day, Avhile Europe, Jamaica, and Mexico pay labor but a fraction 
 of that sum. Can we compete '? The present tarflf of 8 cents per cubic 
 foot does not make up the difference in freight alone, and does nothing 
 for labor. It is totally inadequate as a protection, or even as a revenue 
 measure. - 
 
 To place us on an equal footing with foreign growers we need at least 
 12^ cents per cubic foot to equalize freight, imd as much more to equal- 
 ize labors wages. That would make 25 cents per cubic foot. As a 
 cubic foot contains about 100 oranges or 150 lemons, that rate would be 
 one-fourth cent each, or 3 cents per dozen on oranges, or one-sixth of 
 a cent each, or 2 cents per dozen on lemons— a sum that certainly 
 would not be oppressive to the consumer, even if the whole amount 
 should be added to the price, a condition of things I do not for one
 
 ORANGES AND LEMONS. 1001 
 
 moment admit. That rate would place the citrus industry on a sound 
 basis and its benefits would not be local, for the majority of the orange 
 and lemon groves are owned by individuals who have their homes in 
 nearly every State of the Union. As an example, I have in my charge a 
 flourishing orange grove owned by Bates College, in Lewiston, Me. 
 
 Dudley W. Adams. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY LOUIS CONTENCIN & SON, OF 
 NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 New York, January 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 In the McKinley bill the duty on oranges and lemons was fixed equal 
 to 10 cents per cubic foot of capacity after an exhaustive study of the 
 subject and in the Wilson bill the duty was reduced to 8 cents per cubic 
 foot of capacity. Have circumstances so changed as to justify a higher 
 duty than in the existing bill ! We beg to cite a few of the reasons Avhy 
 said rates of duty were adopted on said two occasions. 
 
 (1) Banger from hilling frosts. — Since then, unfortunately, it has 
 proved a reality and Florida instead of having now a crop of 8,000,000 
 to 10,000,000 boxes of oranges and lemons, scarcely produces 100,000 
 boxes. No dependence can therefore be placed upon fruit crops. 
 
 (2) Cost of transportation. — While it is true that the freight from 
 California to the seaport States is heavier than the freight and duty 
 combined from the Mediterranean, we must not lose sight of tlie fact 
 that if the railroad freight to the West and Northwest is added to the 
 latter, California can market her oranges and lemons in the West and 
 Northwest at an advantage of 30 to 50 cents per box. About the same 
 difference exists in favor of California against IMexican oranges, and, 
 furthermore, the latter fruit is marketed before California oranges are 
 sweet enough to suit the taste of consumers. 
 
 (3) Rights of consumers. — If the West and Northwest can have Cali- 
 fornia oranges and lemons cheaper on account of cheaper transporta- 
 tion, our seaport States and neighboring States, representing 30,000,000 
 consumers should have the right to obtain the fruit elsewhere just as 
 cheaj). 
 
 (4) Quality offrtiit. — The majority of the California oranges consists 
 of the so-called navel oranges, which are superior to any imported 
 oranges, and are preferred on occount of being seedless and of splendid 
 appearance. Such fruit generally sells in our seaport States at $1.50 
 to $3 per box higher than imported oranges, and are only within reach 
 of the wealthy. In London, England, they have been selling recently 
 equal to from $4 to $5.50 per box, while Mediterranean oranges were 
 selling at $1.50 for the same box capacity. If the wealthy can enjoy 
 the luscious California oranges and i)ay 60 cents to $1 per dozen in 
 fancy stores, the masses have the right to buy twenty-five imported 
 oranges for 25 cents from the peddlers or fruit stands. California 
 so-called seedlings and Mediterranean sweets, inferior to the navels, 
 can be bought just as cheap in the West, thus placing all sections of 
 the country on an equal footing. Oranges and lemons are not consid- 
 ered luxuries, but have become a necessity, and all doctors recommend 
 their free use as being conducive to health and sobriety, and the poor 
 man's child, therefore, should have the privilege of buying an orange 
 or a lemon for 1 cent as the wealthy man's child can afibrd to pay 5 to 
 10 cents for a California orange because the fruit is attractive looking.
 
 1002 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 (5) Marl-etiuf/.— The bulk of the Califoruia crop is marketed from 
 December to May. In the summer moutlis the whole country has to 
 rely on the importations from the Mediterranean. 
 
 (0) Profits of groves.— It is openly claimed that an acre in oranges 
 aud lemons pay's the California growers $500 to $3,000, which profit 
 does not look like requiring to be enhanced by further protection when 
 farmers on other products only realize from -820 to $70 to the acre. 
 
 (7) Protection to classes.— It is estimated that 500,000 of our citizens, 
 merchants, brokers, dealers, jobbers, truckmen, peddlers, laborers, gro- 
 cers, etc., in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New 
 Orleans are depending for their living directly or indirectly on the 
 importation of foreign truits, and their interests are also deserving of 
 some consideration. 
 
 (8) Transportation. — The railroad companies and our coasting steam- 
 ers and canals derive some $2,000,000 in the transportation of foreign 
 fruits. 
 
 (9) Effect of higher duties. — Will increase the cost to the masses. 
 
 (10) Revenue.— Higher duties will decrease im])ortatious and reduce 
 the revenue and the export of shooks. 
 
 (11) Benefit. — It will benefit one State to the detriment of the rest 
 of the Union, and the masses will be the sufferers. 
 
 No reason is therefore apparent to Justify a higher duty, and we 
 respectfully beg that the rate be continued as at present, adding the 
 pomelo or so-called grape fruit and shaddocks to oranges, lemons, and 
 limes. The duty should be continued as in the i)resent law at a uni- 
 form rate jier cubic foot regardless of the size of the package, it being 
 more equitable. 
 
 We beg to suggest that the 30 per cent ad valorem on the packages 
 be changed to specific, and be made the same as the committee will 
 decide to be levied on tlie fruit, and for the following reasons: 
 
 The countries exporting oranges and lemons to the Tnited States are 
 IHirchasing shooks and staves from other countries, while this country 
 can furnish them with all they need, and on said account the ."!() })er 
 cent ad valorem duty on the foreign ])acknges w;is inserted in the 
 McKiuley tariff and retained in the Wilson bill as an inducement to 
 the purchasing of shooks in this country, but said duty has proved 
 insufficient. 
 
 To our consular agent at Sorrento, Italy, Francesco Ciamjia, is due 
 the credit of having very largely increased our exports of shooks, and 
 Italy now imports almost as many shooks as she exports boxes of fruit 
 to this country, which were formerly supplied by Austria. The 
 Austrian mills, however, are waging a bitter war against our shooks. 
 They have reduced the ])rice, and through the press are causing preju- 
 dice against our shooks aud throngh influence Avent so far as to induce 
 the chamber of commerce at Catania, Sicily, to impose a tax of 1 ]ier 
 cent on freight and charges on American sliooks, to which unjust dis- 
 crimination the attention of our Secretary of State has been duly 
 called. 
 
 Spain, the next largest exporting country to the United States of 
 oranges and lemons and the largest exporters of grapes and onions, buys 
 all her shoOks and staves from other countries and none from us. 
 
 If countries shipping to the United States are not disposed to recip- 
 rocate they should be compelled to do so, and we therefore submit the 
 following schedules to your wise consideration : 
 
 Oranges, lemons, limes, pomelo or so-called grape frnit. and shaddocks, in park- 
 ages, at the rate of 8 cents per cubic foot of capacity ; in bulk, that is to say loose 
 and not in packages, $1.50 per 1,000; aud in addition thereto a duty at the iate of
 
 ORANGES AND LEMONS. 1003 
 
 8 cents per cubic foot of capacity upon the boxes, barrels, and all other styles of 
 packages of foreion growth and manufacture containing said oranges, lemons, limes, 
 grape fruit, and shaddocks: Provided, That the thin wood, so called, comprising the 
 Bides, tops, and bottoms of orange and lemon boxes of the growth and manufacture 
 of the United States, exported as orange and lemon box shooks, may be reimported 
 in completed form, filled with oranges and lemons, by the payment of duty at the 
 rate of one-half of what is imposed on similar boxes of entirely foreign growth and 
 manufacture. 
 
 The word " bulk," although clear enough, was interpreted by a lawyer 
 to mean oranges and lemons thrown into boxes or barrels without being 
 wrapped in paper nor properly packed, to which he claimed the -SO per 
 cent ad valorem duty applied. Our senior had the honor to ap])ear as 
 a witness for the Government and procured for the appraisers all the 
 witnesses against said wrong interpretation, and although the attempt 
 proved unsuccessful we take the liberty to suggest the modification as 
 a protection for the future. 
 
 We also beg to suggest that the free list (387) where the following 
 wording appears " including shooks when returned as barrels or boxes," 
 should read " including staves and shooks when returned as barrels or 
 boxes," for the reason that staves are used for barrels and the existing 
 clause includes only shooks. 
 
 Grapes, in packages, at the rate of 20 cents per cubic foot of capacity 
 of the packages; and in addition thereto a duty at the rate of 20 cents 
 per cubic foot of capacity upon the packages of foreign growth and 
 manufacture containing snch grapes. 
 
 We again beg to call your attention to the fact that under the McKin- 
 ley law it was claimed and granted that the capacity meant the quan- 
 tity of grapes in the barrels excluding the cork dust for packing. Our 
 domestic grapes are satisfactory to the masses, and the whole country 
 is Kupi)lied on an equal footing. Spain should reciprocate and buy her 
 barrels and boxes in this country. 
 
 The importation of bananas is increasing immensely and offers a good 
 source for revenue. With an importation of 15,000 000 to 17,000,000 
 bunches, a small duty of 5 cents a bunch would yield a revenue of 
 nearly $1,000,000. Said fruit to be restored to the free list by reci- 
 procity. 
 
 Pineapples, $5 per 1,000, a considerable number being grown in 
 Florida. 
 
 Onions, 40 cents per bushel. 
 
 Plums, prunes, prunelles, cherries, figs, raisins, and all other dried 
 fruits and dried grapes, 2h cents per pound. Said duty will not affect 
 consumers and will increase the revenue. 
 
 Currants from Greece and all other countries, 2 cents per pound. 
 None are grown in the United States. To be placed on the free list by 
 reciprocity. 
 
 Dates, 2 cents per pound. None grown in this country. To be 
 placed on the free list by reciprocity. 
 
 Walnuts and filberts of all kinds, not shelled, 3 cents per pound, and 
 shelled, cents per pound. 
 
 Almonds not shelled, G cents per pound, and shelled, 10 cents per 
 pound. 
 , Peanuts unshelled, 1 cent per pound, and shelled, 2 cents per pound. 
 
 By placing a high duty on shelled nuts a very large number of our 
 boys and girls will find employment. 
 
 Brazil nuts, 2 cents per pound. None grown here. To be placed on 
 the free list by reciprocity. 
 
 Cocoannts should be i)laced on the free list, as many hands are 
 employed for dessicating purposes, confections, etc.
 
 1004 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Olives, green or prepared, 25 cents per gallon. 
 
 Olive oil, pure, fit for salad purposes, $1 per gallon. Adulterated 
 olive oil, $2 per gallon. Pure olive oil to be reduced to 35 cents per 
 gallon by reciprocity. Olive oil for machinery purposes, free. 
 
 Cheese, 6 cents per pound. 
 
 Macaroni, vermicilli, and all similar preparations, 2 cents per pound. 
 Several domestic manufactories have been obliged to close and many 
 others will follow unless the above protection be granted. 
 
 Low-grade still wines, pure, $1 per gallon. High-grade still wines, 
 pure, $2,50 per gallon. Adulterated still wines, $5 per gallon. To be 
 reduced to 50 cents per gallon, and §1.25 per gallon, respectively, for the 
 pure, by reciprocity. The masses are satisfied with our domestic wines. 
 A heavier tax on wines will increase the revenue and open the way to 
 reciprocity. The importation of adulterated wines sliould be stopped. 
 
 The President of the United States should have the power to enter 
 into treaties of reciprocity with foreign nations througli our ambassa- 
 dors or ministers, or through special commissioners, within limits as 
 may be prescribed in the tariff. 
 
 Specific duties should be adopted wherever practicable as a ]»rotec- 
 tion to the revenue. Foreign .shippers as a rule, it is said, consider it 
 smart to undervalue goods, which has driven honest American mer- 
 chants from the field, foreign agents supplanting them, and while said 
 agents have become millionaires, the Americans have been gradually 
 drifting toward the poorhouse. Specific duties do not seem to be the 
 right thing apparently, the poor man's requirements being subject to 
 the same rate of duty as those of the wealthy, the masses of the ])eople 
 being the largest consumers, domestic competition will eventually rec- 
 tify the evil, supplying them at lower prices than under ad valorem 
 duties, and thus giving tbem more employment. 
 
 Louis Contencin & Son. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY CHARLES E. JORALEMON. IMPORTER, 
 OF NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 New York, N. Y., January Jl, 1897. 
 Committee on Wats and Means : 
 
 Last year we imported from Sicily about 3,400,000 boxes of oranges 
 and lemons, the freight on which is about 35 cents per box and the duty 
 at 8 cents per cubic foot, say, 20 to 22 cents per box. (Rebates for 
 American shocks, etc., not calculated in this.) This enormous impor- 
 tation was not needed for consumi)tion, but tlie quantity arrived at was 
 brought about by manipulation of bankers' credits and giving advances 
 more than requisite. The resnlt of this past year has been the ac(juir- 
 ing of wealth in Sicily through the system of letters of credit and to 
 the detriment of American dealers. Also, all the importers existing 
 under this misappropriation of funds and credits have h)st their all; 
 but the Italian agencies here, while they have presumably lost all they 
 thought they had, the loss falls on American bankers or fheir agencies. 
 
 We have had disastrous results from the advancing business, both ' 
 to foreign importers and American producers. Tliis system of advan- 
 cing money in Sicily has about swamped our biggest importers, and 
 made big losses to bankers, and also has caused the American producer 
 great loss in consequence of same.
 
 ORANGES AND LEMONS. 1005 
 
 Take the enormous imports from Sicily and the small exports to the 
 same island, and you can readily see that our country is not receiving a 
 I)roportion in trade between nations. The boxes received during this 
 past year have not come in ships of our own country. Every cent per- 
 taining to the net result of the sale of these goods, except the small 
 duty of, say, 20 cents per box, has left this country. California, the 
 factor against this small penalty, takes from the East by rail and steam 
 more than equal her shipments to the coast line. It is a fact that sea- 
 board cities like ours naturally incline toward a low rate of duty on 
 anything they can buy and sell to the West. California, on fruit, can 
 su])ply the East at a moderate price on oranges and lemons, but the 
 fact must not slip your minds that to transport this fruit there is along 
 haul through a desert land, with no local traffic to compensate, up to 
 the Missouri River. Therefore a tariff should be enacted on foreign 
 oranges and lemons to compensate the railroad companies and mer- 
 chants equal to the same basis — or, better still, higher than imported. 
 
 It will only take a few years, say five, when we can get along with- 
 out any duty. It lies with supply and demand, and at the end of the 
 period mentioned we can take care of ourselves, but you must always 
 bear in mind that a rail haul of 3,000 miles can not be accomplished as 
 cheap as 3,000 miles by water; and also you must remember that every 
 inch hauled from California to the East means so much money in our 
 own pockets, whereas a haul from a foreign country goes in foreign 
 ships, and the freight, less port charges, goes away from us completely 
 and the wages paid are not spent here, but paid to the seamen for their 
 round trip, Avhich does not end here. 
 
 To keei) out undesirable fruit and make things on a basis Avherein 
 the freight and duty should equal California freight, which is 90 cents 
 per box to New York, you should put the duty on oranges and lemons 
 from foreign countries to equal this, say, 20 to 25 cents a cubic foot, and, 
 with the freight, it will equal California freight. 
 
 This is not protection, but adjustment. Some may claim it should 
 be more, but I think this would suffice to sto]) poor fruit from coming 
 here, and everything would adjust itself and we would be on a fair 
 commercial basis. 
 
 I wish to make a notation here in regard to bananas. These goods 
 come in free now, presumably for the reason we can not raise them here. 
 The enormous importations of this fruit during the past five years have 
 caused more injury to the home-grown fruit than anything else. Peo- 
 ple who now are accustomed to eating bananas would not know any 
 diflerence in their retail price if the Government put a duty of 25 cents 
 per bunch on them. This duty would shut out culls and undesirable 
 fruit and be an incentive for bringing good fruit and bar out all 
 board of health seizures and poor fruit. There is no reason on earth 
 why bananas should come here free and stop the sale of our greatest 
 American fruit product, the apjjle. Say 12,000,000 bunches last year, 
 at 25 cents per bunch, would give a revenue of $3,000,000, and if this 
 duty cut down the imports half it would have the same effect either way. 
 
 The memorial of the Fruit Buj^ers' Union wherein it states that Cali- 
 fornia oranges are beyond foreign competition as to quality is a delusion. 
 The navel orange by its size may be prohibitive to the masses, but the 
 orange product of all grades, including the navel, can be sold to the 
 consumer as cheap as anything grown. The members of the Fruit 
 Buyers' Union, as represented by this committee, do not want Califor- 
 nia or American competition.
 
 1006 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ANT) PROVISIONS. 
 
 If we in New York city can not siiip foreign fruit West, our occupa- 
 tion is gone. That is the shoe that pinches. If you protect us in the 
 United States a few years, we won't want a foreign orange or lemon, 
 and it will be to the good of the whole country instead of a sectional, 
 selfish memorial, as presented by the Fruit Buyers' Union. 
 I do most sincerely hope you will put a duty on these goods mentioned. 
 
 Chas. E. Joealemon, 
 
 103 Barclay street. 
 
 FOREIGN FRUIT IMPORTATIONS. 
 
 Steeatok, III., December ^6^ 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I am interested to a considerable extent in the growing of oranges 
 and lemons in California, and consequently write you relating to the 
 provisions in the new tariff bill concerning the same. As you, i)erhaps, 
 well know, oranges and lemons are quite freely imported into Eastern 
 States, but the same are greatly inferior to those grown in California. ' 
 Under the present tariff law it is almost imi)ossible to compete with 
 imported oranges and lemons in the Eastern market on account of the 
 rates from California to Xew York being much higher than they are by 
 water from Spain and Italy. I think 1 fairly represent tlie feelings of 
 the fruit growers of California when I say that it is their unanimous 
 request that the tariff" on these fruits be increased to at least what they 
 were under the McKinley bill. 
 
 F. M. liYON. 
 
 FLORIDA'S NEEDS. 
 
 Washington, 1). C, 'Janunrii ll, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As one of the leading orange growers of IMorida, though not a resi- 
 dent of that State, I desire to call the attention of your committee to 
 the importance of giving greater protection to Florida an<l California 
 oranges. As you know, two-thirds of the orange crop of Florida was 
 destroyed two years ago by frost, and all the groves in the State were 
 killed to the ground, with the exception of tliose in one of tlie extreme 
 southern counties. Competition with cheap foreign labor, together 
 with low rates of freight and the present low tariff will preclude the 
 possibility of successful and profitable orange growing in that State, 
 and keep from the American table the richest orange grown in the 
 world, is^o State in the Uni(m needs protection more than does I'lorida 
 at this time. You will readily realize this when you remember that the 
 orange crop of Florida three years ago amounted to more than "),()(K),0(I0 
 boxes, while this year it will be less than 1*00,000. 1 but voice the 
 desires of orange growers of Florida when I ask your committee to 
 place a duty on foreign oranges of at least 75 cents per box, and thus 
 your committee will encourage the planting out of new groves in Florida 
 and the development of orange growing in the United States. 
 
 James li. Howe, M. C.
 
 GRAPE FRUIT AND ORANGES — LEMONS. 1007 
 
 GEAPE FRUIT AND OKANGES. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HON. S. M. SPARKMAN, A REPRE- 
 SENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January li, 1897. 
 
 ColVrMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 The orauge growers of Florida desire grape fruit placed on the dutia- 
 ble list along with oranges, lemous, and limes, it being claimed that the 
 fruit known as grape fruit, which is one of the citrus family, does not 
 come under the head of oranges, lemons, and limes. The production of 
 the grape fruit is on the increase in Florida, and very likely in other 
 portions of the country where the citrus family is grown, while at the 
 same time this fruit is now being imported, as I am informed, in large 
 quantities from the West Indies and other tropical countries. 
 
 1 was requested to ask that the duty on the class of fruit above men- 
 tioned be increased to at least $1 per box, but as the California orauge 
 growers, in so far as they are represented by Mr. Bowers, Member of 
 Congress from the Seventh district of that State, have asked that the 
 present rate of duty be increased to 25 cents per cubic foot on boxes 
 containing less than 2i cubic feet, and to $2.50 per 1,000 when brought 
 in bulk or in boxes of more than 2A cubic feet, I will indorse that 
 request. 
 
 The growth of the orange industry in the United States during the 
 past few years has been such, in my judgment, as to warrant this 
 increase, while the rapid increase in the amount of inferior fruit 
 imported has become sufficiently great to justify the committee and 
 Congress in considering the advisability of a large increase in the duty 
 on this fruit. From the standpoint of revenue, such a course would 
 seem advisable. 
 
 S, M. Sparkman, M. C. 
 
 LEMONS. 
 
 (Paragraph 210.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY F. A. KENDALL, OF CLEVELAND, OHIO. 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio, December 29, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I have the honor to state that a party of Cleveland gentlemen, encour- 
 aged by the McKinley bill, which i^rotected in a fair measure citrus 
 fruits, made a venture in California and bought 125 acres of land suit- 
 able for the raising of lemons, and have about 10,000 trees, most of 
 whicli are in bearing. They have expended $40,000 in developing the 
 enterprise. We find under the blighting intiuence of the Wilson bill 
 that it is cheaper to let the fruit rot on the ground than to shij^ it as 
 far east as Chicago, owing to the competition of cheap Sicily lemons that 
 are brought over here, i)acked by cheap labor and carried in tramp 
 steamers. This, with the cheap freights from New York to Chicago and 
 the low tariff', enables the foreign goods to be laid down in Chicago 
 and this place cheax>er than our freight bills. While the Sicily fruit
 
 1008 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 is inferior to ours, yet the multitude will buy it in preference to higher 
 priced superior fruit. 
 
 In revising- the tariff laxvs I trust that due regard will be had for the 
 California fruit interests, where much- capital has been invested which 
 will become a dead loss to investors unless we have some protection 
 against these conditions which now threaten us. 
 
 F. A. Kendall. 
 
 FRUIT AND XI^TS. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE FRUIT BUYERS' UNION OF NEW 
 
 YORK CITY. 
 
 I^EW York, Janvary /, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The Fruit Buyers' Union of this cit;-, an incorporated commercial 
 body, composed of members of all branches of the fruit trade, and rep- 
 resenting, therefore, handlers of domestic produce as well as dealers in 
 foreign fruit and nuts, i)etition your honorable body to leave unchanged 
 and undisturbed the existing tariff duties on fruit (green and dried) 
 and nuts, for the reasons hereinafter set Ibrth. 
 
 Any cliauge in tariff duties will distnrb business arrangements 
 already perfected, and, besides entailing losses upon the trade, will 
 deter merchants from embarking into enterprises looking to the exten- 
 sion of the business. The business disturbances inseparable from tariff 
 revision and the serious interruptions wliich would inevitably follow 
 any radical increase in tariff duties must work injury to everyone 
 engaged in the traflBc, 
 
 It may be easily shown that an increase in taritf duties will not 
 benefit home producers. Indeed, an increase in such duties would 
 ultimately work injury to the very interests which protective tariffs 
 are designed to protect and foster. 
 
 The ])roductiou of fruit and nuts in California, as showii by the mem- 
 orandum attached, has alrcudy reached such enormous proportions tiiat 
 the value of the products exported to iMirojx'an countries is consider- 
 able. What the total production of this State alone will be in a few 
 years baffles comimtation. INIanifestly, if it be found necessary or 
 exj^edient to export these jn-oducts now, it will become more and more 
 necessary to exj)ort them as the pi-oduction increases. 
 
 It must be conceded by every fair-minded i)erson conversant with the 
 subject that the interests of our home ])roducers can be best subserved 
 by the extension of our export business, and it is char that the impo- 
 sition of high tariff duties upon the importation of the products of the 
 countries to which we seek to export our products will retard rather 
 than promote the business. It is not likely that such action on our 
 part would provoke foreign countries into the adoption of retaliatory 
 measures which might destroy our export business altogether. 
 
 It may be urged that, be our production of fruit what it may, we can 
 not hope to sell our products to the fruit-growing countries of Europe, 
 sucli as Italy and Spain. 
 
 We concede that our exports of fruit and kindred products to Italy 
 and Spain will never be considerable (although peanuts are regularly- 
 exported to these countries); but our exports of machinery and manu- 
 factured goods are already large. Last vear the value ofour imjiorts 
 from Italy was §20,000,000, and the value of our exports $10,000,000. 
 It is not to be expected that the Italian Govornment would accept the
 
 FRUIT AND NUTS. 1009 
 
 imposition by tlie United States of high tariff duties on the fruit prod- 
 ucts of Italy, without adopting- similar measures applicable to those 
 products which we now send to them. 
 
 Italy is cited merely for the purpose of illustration, and because of 
 the common erroneous belief that our exports to that country are insig- 
 nificant. The argument is susceptible of general application. 
 
 We desire also to direct your attention to the ftict that the growers 
 of oranges in California are not beueflted by high tariff diities on 
 foreign oranges nor injured by low duties on them. The oranges grown 
 in California are of superior quality and are so much more attractive 
 in appearance than the oranges imported from foreign countries that 
 the two products are scarcely competitive. In the West the California 
 orauges, when obtainable, are used to the exclusion of all other oranges. 
 In the East, the fancy varieties of California oranges are in good demand 
 and command high prices. But for this very reason they are regarded 
 as the rich man's fruit, and the cheaper oranges of foreign countries 
 are looked upon as the fruit for the masses. 
 
 The extent of the traftic in exporting apples is also worthy of your 
 attention. From January 1, 1890, to October 1 of the same year, there 
 were exported to England and Europe from the port of Kew York 
 alone, ] 3, 744,543 pounds of dried apples and 2,033,9l}7 barrels of green 
 apples. During the same period there were also exported from this 
 port to England and Europe, fruits other than apples of the value of 
 $1,700,000, and nuts of the value of $79,000. 
 
 This country, at certain seasons of the year, imports from Spain by 
 way of England, considerable quantities of oranges and other products. 
 Hence the imposition of high tariff duties upon fruit and kindred 
 l)roducts would affect not alone business done with Italy and Spain, 
 bur as well that transacted with England, France, Germany, Belgium, 
 and other Euroi^ean countries, and our immense export traffic with these 
 countries would be disturbed and its growth retarded. 
 
 Southern California has now ], 200,904 trees bearing fruit, which pro- 
 duced in 1896 2,500,000 boxes oranges, of which some 50,000 boxes 
 were exported to Europe; also 1,742,501 trees under cultivation, which 
 in two or three years will yield about 5,000,000 boxes oranges. 
 
 She has 300,000 prune trees, which produced in 1896 80,000,000 
 pounds of prunes, of which about 3,000,000 pounds were exported to 
 Europe; 750,000 trees are under cultivation, which in about three years 
 will yield the enormous quantity of 320,000,000 pounds. 
 
 Also, 269,466 lemon trees bearing fruit, which produced this year 
 300,000 boxes, of which none were exported; 927,738 trees under culti- 
 vation, which in three or four years from now will yield nearly 2,000,000 
 boxes. 
 
 Also, 700,000 trees of various dried fruits, which produced in 1896 
 62,094,200 pounds of dried fruit ; ■ 5,000,000 pounds were exported. But 
 there are under cultivation 900,000 trees, which in a few years will pro- 
 duce over 2,000,000,000 pounds. 
 
 Also, 33,000 fig trees, which yielded in 1896 1,300,000 pounds of figs; 
 there are under cultivation 37,973 trees, which in a few years will yield 
 2,500,000 pounds. None exported. 
 
 Also, 85,898 olive trees are bearing fruit; but 856,000 trees are under 
 cultivation, which in a few years will yield an immense crop, and will 
 I)roduce a large quantity of oil. 
 
 Also, 3,500 almond trees are bearing fruit, and gave in 1896 2,500,000 
 pounds of nlmonds. 
 
 Also, 11,300 walnut trees, which produced in 1896 10,000 bags of 
 T H 04
 
 1010 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 walnuts ; under cultivation 160,000 trees, and in a few years will yield 
 a very large quantity. 
 
 Also, liad a crop tbis year of 88,196,000 pounds of raisins and 
 10,000,000 pounds dried grapes, which in a few years will be three or 
 four times as large. 
 
 In conclusion, we respectfully submit that the existing tariff duties 
 are suffi(;iently heavy, and we humbly petition your honorable body to 
 forbear from increasing them. 
 
 We ask no change except the change from ad valorem to specific 
 duties, and no reduction. "VVe request only that the existing schedule 
 remain in force. 
 
 F. E. Franke, 
 Ant. Zuella, 
 YlCTOK L. ZoiN, 
 
 Committee. 
 
 SUMMER FRUITS, VEGETAI^LKS AND NT^^SERY 
 
 STOCK. 
 
 COPY OF COMMUNICATION SENT TO THE MICHIGAN MEMBERS OF 
 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 A communication from the horticulturists of St. Clair County was 
 referred to this committee, who have carefully considered it, and do 
 recommend the adoption of the following resolution: 
 
 Jxcsolred, That the secretary of this society address each of the Michip;an Repre- 
 sentatives in the United States Senate and lionso of Representatives, as follows: 
 
 "The Michigan State Horticnltnral Society, in its annual nieetinfjin (Jrand Hajjida, 
 Deccmher 2, 1896, respectfully calls your attention to the taritf laws regardinjj; sum- 
 mer fruits, vegetables, and nursery stock, which, as they now exist, allow these 
 products to be shipped into the United States duty free, while our own gardeners 
 and fariuers are required to pay duty for sending products into Canada, amounting, 
 in the case of berries, to 2 cents per pound, and correspondingly large duties n])on 
 all other such fruits and nursery stock. ^Vo submit that this is a hardship and a 
 tax upon our people, from which they should be relieved, and we ask that you give 
 the matter immediate attention, with a vicAv to so amending our laws as to correct 
 the evil." 
 
 W. W. Tracy, 
 J. V. Taylor, 
 
 W. W. liOllK, 
 
 Committee. 
 
 ZANTE CURRANTS. 
 
 (Paragraph 217. i 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HON. D. N. BOTASSI, CONSUL- 
 GENERAL OF GREECE, IN NEW YORK. 
 
 New York, N. Y., January J2, 1S97. 
 Committee on Wats and Means: 
 
 The undersigned most respectfully begs to submit to the con.sidera- 
 tion of your committee the following remarks on the imi)ort duty on 
 Greek currants, or Zante currants, as they are usuallv called by the 
 trade. 
 
 The import duty from 1872 to 1800 was 1 cent per pound. Bv the 
 tariff" act of 1890 currants were placed on the free list. By the VVilson
 
 ZANTE CURRANTS. 1011 
 
 bill of 1894 they were transferred to the dutiable list and a duty of 1^ 
 cents per pound was imposed. 
 
 Greek or Zante currants were placed on the free list by Mr. McKinley 
 for the reason that they are not produced in this country. The Zante 
 currant is an exclusive product of Greece. Repeated efforts have long 
 been made to grow it in other countries as well as in California, but 
 they have proved futile. In fact even in Greece they will only thrive 
 within a narrow strip of land to the south of the Gulf of Corinth and in 
 the islands of Corfu, Cephalonia, and Zante. The capricious nature 
 of the genus of this plant is well known, and it is an established fact 
 that the product of currants is thus confined in space and limited in 
 quantity. 
 
 The currant is not an article of luxury, but a raw, nutritious substance, 
 largely used by the poorer classes of this country as a seasoning of bread- 
 stuff's, sauces, and cakes. Its stimulating and warming properties ren- 
 der it a cheap, wholesome, and tasty food, and it is cheaper than flour. 
 
 Zante currants must not bo confused with raisins or dried grapes. 
 They have nothing in common. In fact, while raisins and grapes are 
 articles of luxury for the table, Greek currants are an article exclusively 
 for the kitchen. This was abundantly proved before the Board of 
 United States Appraisers in March, 189G, when the most searching 
 inquiry was made and expert testimony taken by said Board, which 
 finally gave a decision that Zante currants were neither raisins nor 
 dried grapes. 
 
 The present duty on Zante currants is 1.^ cents per pound. It is a 
 most exorbitant duty for an article which does not come into competi- 
 tion with any product of the United States. It actually amounts to 
 about 150 per cent ad valorem. It is against the spirit of the treaty of 
 commerce and navigation in force between the United States and 
 Greece. Greece takes exclusively from the United States all the refined 
 petroleum that is consumed in the Kingdom. The confirmation by your 
 committee of the exorbitant duty of 1^ cents per pound on Greek cur- 
 rants will cause a heavy decrease in the importations and a correspond- 
 ing decrease in the trade in general between this country and Greece. 
 
 The annual import of Greek currants into the United States amounts 
 on an average to 33,000,000 i)ounds. The bulk of the shipments for 
 this season have arrived already, and up to October 31 they amounted 
 to a little over 16,000,000 pounds on account of the heavy duty. For 
 revenue purposes the duties collected from Greek currants are an 
 entirely insignificant item to a budget of a great country like the United 
 States. But they are a very important item to a poor country like 
 Greece. 
 
 In view of the above it is most respectfully suggested to your com- 
 mittee to place Greek or Zante currants on tlie free list as they were in 
 the tariff act of 1890. 
 
 D. jST. Botassi, 
 Cons id- General of Greece. 
 
 DUTY SHOULD NOT BE PROHIBITIVE. 
 
 Urbana, Ohio, January 1, 1897. 
 CojVimittee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Being largely interested in the importation of currants, but it not 
 being convenient for us to appear before the committee, we take the 
 liberty of addressing you personally on the subject.
 
 1012 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 We learn that California interests will insist upon a duty of 2i cents 
 per pound on currants, which would be practically prohibitive. This 
 we would not deem advisable. 
 
 Currants do not come directly in competition with California prod- 
 ucts, yet they doubtless to some extent curtail the sale of raisins. For 
 this reason we think there should be a duty on them that is protective, 
 but not prohibitive, and we think 1 cent to li cents per pound would 
 meet every requirement. 
 
 You will no doubt have elaborate arguments by importers in favor 
 of the free entry of this article, based larj>ely upon the fact that it is 
 not i^roduced in this country. This is true, yet as we have indicated 
 above, it curtails the use of an article that is produced in this country. 
 
 We believe it would not be a mistake to provide for a moderate pro- 
 tective duty on currants; but large interests would be seriously dis- 
 turbed should the duty be prohibitive. 
 
 AV. H. Makvin & Co. 
 
 ALMONDS. 
 
 (rara.urra])!! 221.) 
 STATEMENT OF MR. P. B. ARMSTRONG, OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Armstrong said : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the almond 
 growers of California met in (;onveiition under the ausi)ices of the State 
 board of horticulture on the 1st day of December for the purpose of 
 taking action in regard to making their industry and business wants 
 known. The almond growers of California have invested in their busi- 
 ness between $10,000,000 and $ir>,000,000. ]\[ost of the orclnirds were 
 planted at a time when prices were higher by (JO or 70 per cent than 
 they are to-day. The growing of almonds in California has brought 
 down the price from 30 cents to about 10 cents. 
 
 The almond growers of California are on the verge of bankruptcy. 
 I would say that at no time or under no tariff has the almond grower 
 been protected to such an extent as to prevent our business from suf- 
 fering. Take my own case for instance. I have probably the second 
 largest almond property in the world. I have invested s37r).000 in 
 that business. The orchard has been i)lanted for nine years, and in no 
 single year or any condition have 1 received one cent of prolit. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. What rate of duty do you ask? 
 
 Mr. Armstrong. We, as a convention, have asked the duty to be 
 fixed at 6 cents instead of 3 as it is to-day. The taritl" of 1813— if you 
 will just bear with me one minute — made the duty on aimonds 3 cents, 
 of 1801, 4 cents, and there was not an almond grown in California at 
 that time. The McKinley bill fixed it at 5 cents" and the Wilson bill at 
 3 cents. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. You want 1 cent additional? 
 
 Mr. Armstrong. I want a duty of cents a pound and 10 cents on 
 shelled almonds. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. How rapidly does this industry progress from the 
 start until it is productive? 
 
 Mr. Armstrong. It is hard to say. 1 think I answer it in my own 
 case. I have owned my own orchard for going on nine years— it has 
 been nine years this month— and we have" never got one dollar profit 
 out of that. 
 
 i
 
 PEANUTS. 1013 
 
 Mr. Geosvenor. I mean how soon do you get the product after 
 planting? 
 
 Mr. Armsteong. In about five years or six years it begins to bear, 
 but it takes a great number of years — like an orange or a lemon — to get 
 it into full bearing. 
 
 The Chairman. How many pounds of almonds were produced in 
 California last year? 
 
 Mr. Armstrong. About 5,500,000 pounds, and the importation is 
 about 10,000,000 pounds, if we take in the unshelled, but I would be 
 very glad 
 
 Mr. Turner. The duty you propose to put on almonds is about equal 
 to the cost of the almonds abroad f 
 
 Mr. Armstrong. I think not. 
 
 Mr. Turner. The last importation I noticed were valued at 6.6 
 cents per pound, in 1895? 
 
 Mr. Armstrong. The lowest importation prior to 1870 was 35 cents 
 a pound, and for the last five years we have been putting them in the 
 hands of the consumer at less than 10 cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. Turner, You think your information is better than the Treas- 
 ury figures? 
 
 Mr. Armstrong. I think not, but I do claim to be fairly well posted 
 on almond growing. 
 
 Mr. Turner. But you are not an importer? 
 
 Mr. Armstrong, I am not an importer, bat I can give the number of 
 pounds. 
 
 PEANTJTS, 
 
 (Paragraph 223.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY WILLIAM DILLARD, OF CLASE- 
 
 MOirr, VIRGINIA. 
 
 Claremont, Va., January 3, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Will you please permit me to call your attention to an agricultural 
 industry, involving extensive territory in Virginia, North Carolina, 
 Tennessee, Georgia, and other States, but I speak more especially of my 
 own section, "Tidewater Virginia," and the industry to which I refer 
 is that of the peanut. This industry formerly gave employment to 
 many laborers — men, women, boys, and girls, the latter engaged prin- 
 cipally in the months of October, November, and December in pulliug 
 and assorting the nuts from the vines. But of late years the industry . 
 has fallen oft' fully one-half owing to the importation and cheapness of 
 foreign fruits and nuts. The banana has well nigh driven the peanut 
 from the fruit and nut venders' stands in all the large cities of the 
 country. An Italian fruit and nut dealer said, "Me canna sella pea- 
 nut, too mana banana and other nut." Thus an industry, strictly agri- 
 cultural, has been wrecked. 
 
 Bananas are brought into this country constantly, never ceasing, by 
 the million of bunches, absolutely free of any duty whatever. Is this 
 right? They are not necessaries of life, but luxuries, and a duty should 
 be placed upon them, say from 25 to 50 cents a bunch, according to 
 quality, for revenue as well as for protection to American grown fruits 
 and nuts. 
 
 Away back in the seventies I think, peanuts had a protection of 2
 
 1014 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 cents a pound. This protection was obtained by the then representa- 
 tive in Congress from the Second Cong-ressional district of Virginia, 
 the late James. H. Piatt. A cent and a half per pound would now 
 suffice provided, however, that all kinds of foreign nuts have a good 
 and sufficient duty laid upon them. If people will have these nuts, far 
 more insipid and inferior to ours, let them pay well for them and help 
 our revenues along. We have such a varied climate and soil that we 
 can grow all the fruits and nuts we need and give employment and 
 sustenance to several million of our people, white and black. 
 
 Wm. Dillard. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY M. J. ALEXANDER, OF PITTSBURG, PA. 
 
 Pittsburg, Pa., December 28, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Mr. Edward Atkinson, statistician and economic writer, recently 
 asserted in an address before the then directors of the Atlanta., Ga., 
 Exposition, that the peanut crop in the Southern States would be one 
 of its prime staples, rivaling cotton and tobacco. A like prediction 
 made in 1800 in regard to the i)roducts from cotton seed has been real- 
 ized, in that its yearly value now quite reaches $50,000,000, Tlie prod- 
 ucts from cotton seed of commercial value are oil and ujoal. From pea- 
 nuts the products are oil and meal, but of much better (juality. All the 
 country lying along the Atlantic Seaboard south of latitude 37° 2', as 
 well as large areas inland, are adapted to the cultivation of this valu- 
 able plant, covering a large section of Virginia, North and South Caro- 
 liua, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, 3[ississippi, and Louisiana, 
 aggregating millions of acres. 
 
 The present crop aggregates, as nearly as can be estimated, 4,000,000 
 bushels, or only two-tifths of the amount yearly imported from east and 
 west Africa and from India to the single city of ^larseilles, in France. 
 By good and intelligent methods of husbandry an average of .~»0 bushels 
 an acre can be produced, so the entire croj) of the country cnuld be raised 
 on 80,000 acres. Suppose this crop were expanded to cover in these nine 
 States, ui the aggregate 3,125 stpiare miles, a territory only three times 
 as large as Westmoreland Countv. Pa., vou would have a production 
 of 100,000,000 bushels, of a value'to the "farmer of from $50,000,000 to 
 $70,000,000, or $25 to $35 per acre. 
 
 This amount of nuts would, at 20 pounds to the bushel, equal 1,000,000 
 net tons, and would yield 40,000,000 gallons of relined oil for table and 
 culinary uses and 35,000,000 gallons for lubricating and mechanical uses 
 and soap bases, 330,000 tons of grits and meal for human food, richer 
 in nutrient elements than peas, beans, or lentils, and more palatable, 
 and 330,000 tons for cattle food, richer and more wholesome than cotton- 
 seed meal. 
 
 The factories would give employment to 40,000 to 50,000 operatives 
 directly, and many more added to make the packages of wood, tin, glass, 
 paper, and bags, in which to ship these i)roducts. 
 
 Crude mills have several times been started in the Southern States to 
 utilize the nuts, but have been, as a rule, unsuccessful, principally for 
 want of skill and the fact that other oils could be made cheai)er. 
 
 It strikes me it would be a projier subject to encourage and nourish 
 with some protection, and we would in a few years realize the fnltillment 
 of Mr. Atkinson's assertion ''that there is a greater potential of future 
 wealth in the peaiuit than there was in the cotton seed a fev\- years 
 since," and new mills would dot all sections of the South.
 
 COCOANTUS. 1015 
 
 The imported products that compete are the various vegetable oils 
 from olive, sesame, rape seed, poppy seed, niger, pulg'heria, palm, cocoa, 
 hempseed, flaxseed, cotton seed, aud peanuts, and the oleaginous seed 
 themselves. Indirectly competing would be imported soaps whose bases 
 are some of these oils, especially crude, olive, sesame, and i)eanut oil. 
 
 It occurs to me that a duty not only on olive oil fit for the table, but 
 olive oil unfit for the table, would encourage the olive industry already 
 established on the Pacific Coast, as well as encourage the development 
 of this industry. 
 
 A Southerner by birth and education, my interest in that section of 
 the country led me to devote considerable time to the investigation of 
 the subject, and I have no doubt that this industry can be put on its 
 feet more easily and quickly than tin plate was. 
 
 For more than fifty years cotton seed was thrown to waste, until one 
 Mr. Lewis, of Cincinnati, after many failures and discouragements, 
 invented machinery and methods to utilize it. 
 
 A reasonable protective duty on those products that would compete 
 with this peanut product, viz, oil and meal, would stimulate the farmers 
 of the South to bring under the plow thousands of idle acres and add 
 to the wealth of our common country, as well as swell the revenues of 
 the Government. 
 
 This industry in France and Germany imports about 30,000,000 
 bushels yearly, or seven times our entire crop, where they are manu- 
 factured into oil and meal, much of the oil finding its way to this coun- 
 try as salad oil and in soaps and the meal in adulterated chocolate and 
 confections in their various commercial forms. 
 
 Under the tarifl' act of 1890 there was a duty of 10 cents per gallon 
 on cotton-seed oil; 32 cents per gallon on flaxseed, linseed, and poppy 
 seed; 35 cents per gallon on olive oil fit for table; nothing on olive oil 
 unfit for table; other oils free. 
 
 I have avoided as much as possible going into details, but hope I am 
 sufficiently explicit to secure your attention. 
 
 At my solicitation Pittsburg capitalists, with Lawrence Dilworth at 
 their head, have now about furnished a complete mill at Norfolk, Va., 
 that will consume about 1,000 bushels of nuts every twenty-four hours. 
 I have no doubt of its mechanical success and believe it is the fore- 
 runner of a new industry for the Southern States in which every Con- 
 gressman from that section will feel an interest and give it his support. 
 
 M. J, Alexander. 
 
 COCOANUTS. 
 
 (Paragraph 224.) 
 
 BRIEF FILED IS BEHALF OF IMPORTERS AND MANUFACTURERS 
 OF COCOANUT PRODUCTS. 
 
 Washington, January 5, 1897. 
 The undersigned, importers of cocoanuts in the shell and manufac- 
 turers of preparations from cocoanuts, herewith respectfully urge upon 
 your honorable committee the adoption of the following amendments 
 to and changes in Schedule G of the tariff act of August 28, 1894, 
 wherein is embraced certain agricultural products and provisions: 
 
 (1) Paragraph 221, expunge the words "cocoanuts in the shell" and 
 restore the word "cocoanuts" to the free list. 
 
 (2) Paragraph 218, "prepared or desiccated cocoanut or copra, 30
 
 1016 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 per cent ad valorem," amend to read, " prepared or desiccated cocoa- 
 nut or prepared or desiccated copra and cocoauuts shelled, 3 cents per 
 
 pound." 
 
 In support of the undersigned's contention that the first of these 
 changes would be highly beneficial to American manufacturers and in 
 no way interfere with any home industries, we have to state that cocoa- 
 nuts are a raw material, 90 per cent of the importation of which are 
 used for desiccating or confectionery purposes. 
 
 Cocoanuts were, by the act of March 2, 1861, admitted to entry free 
 of duty, were temporarOy withdrawn from the free list by the act of 
 June 6, 1872, but from that date to the 28th of August, 1894, they have 
 been admitted to entry free of duty. 
 
 In the act of October 1, 1890, popularly known as the McKinley Act, 
 cocoanuts were admitted to entry free of duty. (Vide par. 582.) 
 
 The cocoanut occupies somewhat of a dilferent plane from some of 
 the other fruits, nuts, etc., in that they are not usually eaten to any 
 extent without being prepared and manufactured either by desiccators 
 or confectioners. 
 
 Furthermore, a large proportion of the cocoanuts imported into the 
 United States are purchased in trade for articles, the growth and 
 manufacture of this country, carried in vessels owned by citizens of 
 the United States and manned by American seamen. It is one of the 
 few trades with foreign countries (and an outlet for our domestic goods) 
 left to American traders, and our Government can ill atford to legislate 
 to the destruction of such an industry of solely American capital. We 
 can not for a moment believe that it is the province of this (lovernment 
 to assess a duty on an article which practically can not be grown in 
 this country and Avhieh is used so largely by American manufa<'turcrs, 
 employing thousands of operatives. It is therefore a fact that if a duty 
 of 20 percent is imposed in the jiroposed new tarifi" act the importjition 
 of cocoanuts in the shell will fall to a very small and limited amount, 
 and a number of lines of American vessels, manned by American sea- 
 men and trading with the West Indies and Central America, will have 
 to go out of business. 
 
 We have made efforts to ascertain just how many cocoanuts are grown 
 within the limits of the United States annually, and we are informed 
 and believe that 75,000 cocoanuts, alleged to be grown annually in the 
 State of Florida is, irrespective also of a few grown in southern Cali- 
 fornia, the entire annual production of the United States. 
 
 It would therefore seem, acting on the principle of the greatest good 
 to the greatest number, that manufacturers who have thousands of dol- 
 lars invested in their plants and factories and employing many hands 
 should be considered somewhat, particularly as there is a comjjaratively 
 small revenue from the annual importation of cocoanuts into the United 
 States. 
 
 In the Monthly Summary of Finance and Commerce of the United 
 States for August, 1896, prepared in the Uureau of Statistics by the 
 Treasury Department, and on page 271 of said summary, it is set "forth 
 that the total value of cocoanuts in the shell tliat were imported during 
 the year ending June 30, 1896, amounted to the sum of $351,937, ujion 
 which duties were collected of about §70,400, and this table of statis- 
 tics being an ofiicial publication, it would seem to be a fact that the 
 amount of revenue annually received is so comi)aratively small that it 
 can not be said that the Government will suffer much in its revenues 
 if cocoanuts in the shell are restored to the free list.
 
 COCOANDTS. 1017 
 
 Again, if cocoanuts in the shell are restored to the free list in accord- 
 ance with the wishes of your petitioners, the establishment of large 
 plants for the expressing of cocoanut oil from the palp of the cocoanut 
 would be highly probable, thus giving many Americans employment. 
 Said cocoanut oil enters largely into commerce, is used for soap and 
 candles, as a lamp oil, and as an ingredient in ointment. Is there any 
 good reason, in case of favorable action by your committee, why the 
 same should not be manufactured within the limits of the United States 
 and our manufacturers be independent of Ceylon and Cochin, from 
 which places said cocoanut oil is now imported, and which is the prod- 
 uct of cooly cheap labor? 
 
 Again, the husk of the cocoanut forms the coir fiber of commerce 
 and as such would again give employment to Americans. 
 
 Again, in order to controvert any contention that the restoration of 
 cocoanuts in the shell to the free list would injure the growers of cocoa- 
 nuts within the limits of the United States, your petitioners submit a 
 letter of Mr. A. M. Ives, general manager and treasurer of the Flor- 
 ida Fruit Exchange, dated Jacksonville, Fla., October 15, 1894, and 
 giving statistics as to the ])roduction and growth of cocoanuts during 
 the years 1890, 1891, and 1892. It will be seen from said letter that for 
 the year 1890 the total production, as taken from the statistics of the 
 Bureau of Agriculture, was about 50,000 nuts; for the year 1891 about 
 42,000 nuts, and for the year 1892 a tritle over 75,000 nuts. From these 
 statistics it will be seen that the growth of cocoanuts in the United 
 States is practically nil, and that the American producer is not in 
 urgent need of i)rotection. Further, it is a matter of common knowl- 
 edge that the cocoanuts grown in the State of Florida are not of suffi- 
 cient ([uantity to su])i)ly more than one of the cities of that State. 
 Furthermore, there is no meat or kernel in the Florida nuts, and as a 
 rule they are only sold as curiosities to some visitor for from 10 to 25 
 cents each. 
 
 Again, and your petitioners beg to emphasize this fact with all the 
 strength in their power, cocoanuts in the shell, a raw material, which 
 can not be grown in the United States, are used by large manufactur- 
 ing industi'ies, as also by thousands of manufacturing confectioners 
 throughout the country, and the exaction of a duty of 20 per cent ad 
 valorem adds to the cost of the manufactured article and, as a conse- 
 quence, to the burdens of the American manufacturer. 
 
 Furtliermore, by the provisions of section 23 of the act of June 10, 
 1890 (the customs administrative act), "no allowance for damage to 
 imported merchandise shall be made in the estimation and liquidation 
 of duties thereon," and a duty of 20 per cent therefor is exacted on what 
 are known in the trade as "culls" and "rots," and no allowance is made 
 for damage during the voyage of importation in the estimation and 
 assessment of dutj'. This culling often takes from 20 to 30 per cent, 
 and it has been known to reach as high as 40 per cent, of the number 
 of nuts imported in a cargo, thus again adding to the cost of the impor- 
 tation and, as a consequence, to the cost of manufa<;turing. 
 
 Again, on careful computation, it is estimated that some 35,000,000 
 cocoanuts in the shell are imported annually into the United States, of 
 which fully -0,000,000 are used by the desiccators, and the balance by 
 the confectioners, so that it will be seen that the manufacturing interests 
 practically take all of the imports made. 
 
 We now pass to the consideration of the second of the proposed 
 amendments to and changes in Schedule G of said tariff act of August
 
 1018 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 28 1894 and respectfully commend the attention of your honorable 
 committee to the facts contained in the succeeding pages. 
 
 In support of the under si gTied's contention that the second ot these 
 changes, wherein it is urged that paragraph 218 be amended to read so 
 as to impose a duty of 3 cents per pound on prepared or desiccated 
 cocoanut or prepared or desiccated copra, and cocoanuts shelled, would 
 place manufacturers upon a sure footing and enable them to compete 
 with the cooly cheap labor of India your petitioners further state: 
 
 Copra, or the kernel of the cocoanut in the prepared state, has not 
 been defined eo nomine in any past tariff act, nor do lexicograi)liers 
 make any mention of it under that name. It was fornicrly imported 
 under the name " ground cocoanuts," and assessed for duty at 20 per 
 cent as a nonenumerated manufactured article. 
 
 In 1893 certain so-called copra was imported at the port of New York, 
 and was defined as the sun-dried meat of the cocoanut divested of the 
 shell and broken into fragments. It was assessed for duty at 30 per 
 cent, but was claimed to be exempt from duty. Said claim was event- 
 .ually sustained by the Board of Ignited States (Jencral Ai)praisers (see 
 G. A., 2811). While it was found as a matter of fact that the copra in 
 question was not prepared or desiccated copra, yet the said decision set 
 forth that in the foreign market the term "prepared copra'' is used 
 synonymously with desiccated cocoanut; that several importations of 
 desiccated cocoanut described on the invoice as jtrepared cojyra were 
 received prior to the passage of the present tariff act, and, furtlier, tliat 
 Bulletin No. 39 of the Senate Finance Committee contains, on page 77, 
 a letter from the Keystone Desiccating Company of JMiihidclpliia ask- 
 ing Congress to provide against the admission of manufactured cocoa- 
 nuts as copra. It will thus be seen that for the first time a legal 
 distinction was made between the coi)ra of conimerce and iirei)ared or 
 desiccated copra, which latter was eventually dcculed to be (hitiablcat 
 30 per cent ad valorem, but for a time it siemetl as though tlic manu- 
 factured article would be admitted to entry frei^ of duty. A further 
 finding of fact in said decision was that the word ''desiccated'' as used 
 in trade means shredded as well as dried. 
 
 Now, manufacturers who are desiccators of cocoanuts in this country 
 have a large capital invested in their business, and employ niauy opera- 
 tives, to say nothing of the tliousands of confectioners throughout the 
 countiy who use the prepared article, and it would seem as though the 
 simiile mention of the hict that this large industry was absolutely 
 unprotected from the rush of similar goods from India, where the cocoa- 
 nut meat or kernel is dried, desiccated, and prei)are(l with cooly labor 
 at 10 cents per day, and under a small valuation, w(»uUl force your I'om- 
 mittee to an immediate conclusion, i. e., tliat said industries need pro- 
 tection if ever there was a case where protocti(»n was needled. 
 
 It is an undisputed fact, thexefore, tliat if your honorable committee 
 does not come to the rescue of the nuinufacturers not a desiccating 
 plant in this country can subsist, and this industry is a large one, and 
 is under no combination or other so-called trust. 
 
 In the Monthly Summary of Finance and Commerce for the TTnited 
 States for August, 1890, and ])repared in the Bureau of Statistics by 
 the Treasury Department, and on page 271 of said summary, it is set 
 forth that of prepared or desiccated copra there was imported during 
 the year ending June 30, 1896, 1,C3^),840 pounds, valued at ?S7,32<s. and 
 upon which the average value per unit of quantity was .0.")3. From 
 this it will be seen that this manufactured article costs a trifle over 6
 
 COCOANUTS. 1019 
 
 cents per pound as it stands packed in condition ready for shipment 
 to the United States. As we have before stated, it is imported from- 
 Ceylon, where it is manufactured by cheap cooly labor. It could not 
 be manufactured in this country for less than 9 cents per pound. It 
 will further be seen that there was only $20,200 duties paid on 1,630,000 
 pounds of manufactured article. 
 
 Your petitioners further submit in evidence a letter from the acting 
 chief of the Bureau of Statistics of the Treasury Department, dated 
 Washing-ton, December 22, 1890, setting forth that the imports of dried 
 cocoanut meats or kernels not in the shell during the year ending June 
 oO, 1S90, were valued at $100,818, and that said dried cocoanut meats 
 or kernels have been decided by the General Appraisers to be free of 
 duty. It would seem as though the admission of this letter in evidence 
 would be ample proof that the manufacturers of desiccated or i^repared 
 cocoanut need some protection. This desiccated cocoanut is an Ameri- 
 can invention, and this is a case of cheap Ceylon labor against Ameri- 
 can labor. A male laborer there earns about $1.50 a week, and girls 
 are employed to manufacture this so-called copra at 30 cents per week. 
 
 Your petitioners desire to show that the 3 cents per i)ound which 
 they urge be imposed upon this prepared or desiccated copra or pre- 
 pared or desiccated cocoanut, and cocoanuts shelled, represents the 
 difference in the cost of labor merely between the United States and 
 Ceylon. 
 
 Furthermore, in C'anada the duty levied on this prepared cocoanut 
 or copra on entry is now 5 cents per pound, and if Canadian manufac- 
 turers are jjrotected to that extent, it would almost seem as though the 
 American should be also. 
 
 Again, it is believed after careful computation that the amount of 
 ca])ital invested in desiccating cocoanuts in the United States is at 
 least $0,000,000, as there are large plants in and around New York 
 City, Jersey Cit}', N. J.; Boston, Mass.; Chicago, 111., and St. Louis, 
 Mo., and this large amount of capital is irrespective of the money 
 invested in the small manufactories throughout the United States, nor 
 does said amount include in any way the amount of capital invested in 
 the confectionery manufacturing interests throngliout the country. 
 
 Your petititioners believe, in conclusion, that they have shown that 
 the interests of the importers of cocoanuts in the shell and the manu- 
 facturers of preparations from cocoanuts are identical, and they respect- 
 fully urge, first, the admission to free entry of a raw material which 
 can not be grown in the United States; second, the imposition of a 
 specific duty sufficient to protect large manufacturing interests from a 
 flood of manufactured goods, the product of cooly cheap labor in India. 
 
 Appended hereto will be found certain letters referred to in the 
 course of this petition and submitted in evidence. 
 
 Geo. O. Glavis, 
 
 Counsel. 
 John D. Godwin, 
 
 Atto7-ney, 
 
 Representing Messrs. H. P. Dyer & Co., New York, importers; Mr. 
 L. Schepp, New Y"ork, importer; Messrs. Middleton & Co., New York, 
 importers; Messrs. Spencer & Co., New York, importers; Messrs. Dun- 
 ham Manufacturing Company, New York, manufacturers; The Boston 
 Fruit Company, Boston, importers; McLellan & Brigham Company, 
 Boston, manufacturing confectioners; Wetmore & Pride Manufactur- 
 ing Company; Messrs. Dix & Wilkin s, Baltimore, importers; Messrs.
 
 1020 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 C. S. Orowell & Co., Philadelphia, importers j Messrs. Bussing & Graef, 
 Jersey City, N. J., manufacturers. 
 
 Appejtdix. 
 
 Washingtox, D. C, Decemiei- SS, 1S96. 
 Gentlemen: In reply to yonr inquiry of the 21st instant, I have to state that the 
 tigures of imports, page 271, Summary, August, 1896, as to imports of cocoanuts are 
 correct. One hundred thousand eight hundred and eighteen dollars represents the 
 value of dried cocoanut meats or kernels (not in the shell) which have been decided 
 by the General Appraisers to be free of duty. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, J. N. Whitnky, 
 
 Acting Chief of Bureau. 
 
 R. J. Godwin's Sons., 
 
 60 Wall Street, ^'ew York. 
 
 JACKSONVTLX.B, Fla., October 15, 1894. 
 Gentlemen: In reply to yours of October 12, relative to cocoannts, have to reply 
 as follows : 
 
 First, I take statistics from Bureau of Agrioulture for 18^9 showing total product 
 to be 29,6.50 nuts; for 1890, 50.710; for 1891, 41,910; for 1S92, 75.a'>5. We are informed 
 that in 1889 the cocoanuts averaged $3.65 per 100, ami in 1S92 $3.35. 
 
 1 can not answer your second question as to where this fruit is marketed, nor do I 
 know as to whether or not it is incre-ising or decreasing except so far jis can bo 
 judged from the figures given. 1 do not know what the immediate outlook for cocoa- 
 nuts in this State is, as we have handled none and know very little about the sec- 
 tions of the State where they are produced. 
 
 Yours, truly, A. M. IvR.s, 
 
 General Manager. 
 
 Messrs. Dix &, WrLKiNS, 
 
 BalUmore, Md, 
 
 COCOANUTS SHOULD BE FREE. 
 
 Jersey City, December 30, 1S9€. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Why can prepared cocoanut be imported for less money than we can 
 manufacture it here? Because there is a duty on the r;jw material, 
 cocoanuts, of $2 per 1,000, that the foreigi\ manufacturer does not i)ay. 
 Foreign manufacturers pay no duty or tax whatever. The native work- 
 men work at a daily pay of 6 to 25 cents— Indians and other cheap 
 labor. So the American manufacturer must lose his business, because 
 the cocoanuts can not grow in tlie United States, and b«'cause the i)co- 
 ple in the United States need more than 6 cents per day to live on. 
 American manufacturers pay a duty and use American labor. 
 
 We would suggest the following remedy: ]{emove the duty from 
 cocoanuts entirely, and j^lace a duty of about 3 cents per poundon the 
 foreign labor productions imported into the United States. 
 
 The competition in the United States is strong enough to keep the 
 price of goods low for the consumer, and the protective tariff will 
 enable a young man to start in the business on a moderate c^ajjital and 
 make a fair living. 
 
 In all due earnestness, this is the milk in the cocoanut, and we pray 
 that you can find it agreeable to afiord us the remedy. 
 
 Alpha Milling Compais'Y.
 
 CHICOEY. 1021 
 
 CHICORY. 
 
 (Paragraph 227, and free list, paragraph 435.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE AMERICAN CHICORY COMPANY, 
 
 OF FREMONT, NEBR. 
 
 FREiyroNT, Nebe, January 4, 1897. 
 CoionTTEE ON Ways and Means: 
 
 We have the honor to ask cousideration by your committee of the 
 chicory industry, in so far as it relates to the West aud South. 
 
 There has been cultivated for this company this year by the farmers 
 of Nebraska 1,200 acres of chicory, for which they have received $54,000. 
 The labor involved in the manufacture of this product will amount to 
 $20,000. It is our desire to increase the acreage next season to an 
 extent which would involve the payment of $150,000 to the farmers and 
 $50,000 for labor in the factories. The question whether we shall be 
 able to make this increase, or even to avoid decreasing the acreage, is 
 a matter which we feel depends almost entirely upon the action of Con- 
 gress in its adjustment of the tariff. At present the area of the coun- 
 try within which we may sell our product is very limited, by reason of 
 the fact that when we reach Chicago on the east we are met by the 
 imported article, and by a price on the same which renders it quite 
 impossible for us to compete. Without a tariff on all chicory imported, 
 as herein below outlined, we feel that our business must be largely 
 curtailed. 
 
 Under existing conditions the alternative presented is the curtail- 
 ment of the business to a point which we believe would soon force its 
 abandonment, or the cultivation of the crop by the farmers at a price 
 with which they are unacquainted and which nothing but the direst 
 necessity would induce them to accoi)t. The raising of the crop involves 
 much labor and care, but much of the lighter labor is performed by 
 women and children. Permit us to state that our contract with each 
 farmer this year averaged a tritle under 5 acres, our idea being to 
 instruct the farmers in the culture and also to give them a variety of 
 crops, so that a failure of one crop for any reason should not bring 
 distress. 
 
 Chicory is grown in California, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nebraska, 
 and the two Dakotjis and Minnesota are peculiarly adapted to the 
 culture. We intended, and if possible, by reason of our ability to com- 
 pete, shall establish factories in other parts of the country. We have 
 investigated the middle South, notably Kentucky and Tennessee, as to 
 favorable conditions for location, aud the opportunity seems present. 
 
 Two facts have been established: the first that chicory may be culti- 
 vated successfully in this country; the second, that it produces a manu- 
 factured article fully equal in every respect to foreign make; the third 
 and vital question is whether it is possible to produce domestic chicory 
 in competition with the imported. At present there is a duty on the 
 manufactured article, but no duty on the dried root. The effect of this 
 duty has been overcome by foreign manufacturers who have estab- 
 lished their factories on the seaboard in this country and by bringing 
 in the dried root free continue to flood the countiy with chicory at a 
 jn-ice which it is almost if not quite impossible to meet and in the pro- 
 duction of which no American farmer shares, which furnishes the least
 
 1022 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 possible amount for American labor, and from which the Government 
 receives no revenue. The effect of admitting the dried root free has 
 been to discourage the industry in America by confronting a domestic 
 enterprise until exhausted with the cheapest chicory and discrediting 
 domestic manufacture by numerous forms of impure, badly prepared 
 offerings under the label of domestic chicory. 
 
 We believe that a duty of 1 cent per pound on all chicory would 
 equalize matters and promote the cultivation of chicory in this country, 
 and we ask that a duty of 1 cent per pound be levied on all forms of 
 chicory, pure or mixed, dried root, or manufactured article. 
 
 We have some statistics from the Department of Agriculture which 
 we have the honor to submit (but which we do not think represent the 
 full volume of free importations). 
 
 In the year 1891 the imported chicory, burnt, prepared, and dutiable, 
 amounted to $298,027, decreasing each year almost without exception 
 until in the year ending June 30, 1895, importations of chicory, burnt 
 or prepared, and dutiable, amounted to 315,443; and further decrciia- 
 ing for the year ending June 30, 18!U>. to $14,941. We beg to call your 
 attention to the contrast between the importations "dutiable"' in 1895 
 of $15,443 and the importations of chicory "free'" in 1895 of •'?158,142 
 to the importations '^ dutiable'' in 1890 of $14,941 and the importations 
 "free" in 1890 of $210,228. Permit us to call your attention to the 
 pounds of chicory imported "free" in 18!l0, amounting to 15,811,955. 
 The pounds imported "free" in 1895 amounted to 9.544,180, an increase 
 of 0,297,709 pounds, or 00 percent increase. From Department figures 
 it is apparent that importations of the manufactured article have almost 
 disappeared, and the importation of the dried root, duty tree, grew 
 amazingly until it reached the remarkable increase of 6,300,000 pounds, 
 or 00 per cent in 1890 over 1895. 
 
 In view of the increase in consumption of chicory in this country, as 
 above indicated, the time would seem to be rii)e for the establishment 
 of the chicory culture in this country, which we believe can be accom- 
 plished by the imposition of 1 cent per pound on the dried root in addi- 
 tion to the present duty on the manufactured chicory; and if we may 
 be pardoned for the presumption, beg to express the opinion that admit- 
 ting dried root free has been a construction of the existing tariff law 
 unjustittable, in that the dried root has been classed as raw material, 
 and manifestly unfair to the American farmer and American manufac- 
 turer of home-grown chicory. 
 
 TuE American Chicory C03ipany, 
 Geo. a. Mead, /Secretary. 
 
 FOREIGN COMPETITION. 
 
 Omaha, Xebr., Decemher 10, 1896. 
 Dear Sir: Among the Nebraska industries is that of raising the 
 chicory beet and its manufacture into the chicory product. The fact is 
 that our Nebraska soil is not excelled in the world in its favorable con- 
 ditions for the cultivation and production of the chicory beet. The same 
 is true, as you doubtless know, touching the sugar beet. It is peculiar 
 m this connection that, as a matter of fact, the soil of Nebraska, in con- 
 nection with our climate, is adapted above all others in this country lor 
 raising these beets, and particularly the chicory beet. Our agricul- 
 tural population could be well supported bv the" production of these 
 beets alone if we only had the factory means of convertinu- a sutVicient 
 quantity of the beets into the manufactm-ed product and tot disiiosing
 
 CHICORY. 1023 
 
 of tlie same when inauufactured. At the present time the annual 
 importation of chicory into this country equals 90,000,000 pounds. A 
 greater portion of this ought to be raised, manufactured, and distrib- 
 uted in our country. At the present time I am informed that the man- 
 ufactured article is subject to a small tariff of 1^ cents per pound, which 
 it is claimed by those interested should be raised to 2J cents per 
 pound. The dry root comes in free, whereas it should be subject to a 
 tariff" of at least 2 cents i)er pound. In support of these claims it is 
 urged that if a reasonable tariff" be laid as above suggested the busi- 
 ness of raising and manufacturing and selling chicory in the State of 
 Nebraska can be increased to very large proportions, which, in view of 
 existing circumstances and foreign competition, is impossible. Germany 
 and Belgium, in view of their cheap labor and the low rates of ocean 
 freight, can lay the dry root down in New York at a very low figure. 
 Franck & Son manufacture the root at Flushing and put it upon our 
 markets at a ruinous competition with the small producers and manufac- 
 turers here. The American Chicory Company, a Nebraska corpora- 
 tion, has paid to the farmers of our St;ite this year 850,000 for the 
 chicory raised in this State, and in the manulacture of the article have 
 employed between 40 and 50 operatives. If the tariff" can be increased 
 as above suggested the officers of the company claim they will be able 
 to pay to our farmers several hundred thousand dollars per year and 
 employ many hundred operatives in manufacturing the product. They 
 further claim that the larger portion of the increased price by reason of 
 the tariff would go to the larmers and operatives. 
 
 C. S. Montgomery. 
 
 RAW CHICORY SHOULD BE FREE OF DUTY. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Having been for some years placed to a disadvantage with our foreign 
 competitors in the manufacture of chicory, and, as we believe, solely on 
 account of an inadequate tariff" tax on this article, we, the undersigned 
 manufacturers of chicory and coffee substitutes, would call your atten- 
 tion to the facts contained in this article — a truthful statement of facts 
 concerning this industry, showing conclusively that with free raw 
 material and a judicious tax on the manufactured articles the general 
 public and the employers of said industries will be the gainers in regard 
 to wages, quality of chicory, and price of same. When chicory paid a 
 tariff of 1 cent per pound it Avas impossible for American capital to 
 successfully compete witli the European product, as there was a duty 
 on the raw material, and it was not and could not be raised hereto 
 advantage. 
 
 The price and long hours of labor in European chicory factories also 
 proved a disadvantage, as labor here was more than double that paid 
 in Europe for the same work. 
 
 The result of this was that the few importers practically controlled 
 all the trade and arranged prices to suit themselves, while the foreign 
 manufacturers sent all their cheap and adulterated goods to this market. 
 
 Since the above mentioned time the duty on raw material has been 
 abolished and the duty on manufactured goods made a specific tax of 
 2 cents per pound. 
 
 The result of this has been to immediately encourage the manufac- 
 ture of chicory in this country, and the factories have increased to such 
 a number that the industry may be considered as well established here. 
 
 However, the fact of there being a duty on this article has not
 
 1024 SCHEDULE G, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 increased the price to the consumer, but, on the contrary, has increased 
 competition to such an extent that chicory has been sold for several 
 years at prices less than the difference of amount when duty is deducted 
 from price of imported goods, while the American chicory is always 
 freshly prepared and far superior to the damp, black, and adulterated 
 foreign chicory formerly imported. 
 
 We desire also to call the special attention of your committee to 
 the fact that in the manufacture and grinding of chicory grain a large 
 percentage becomes powder, which in Europe is adulterated with 
 roasted and ground mangel and sugar-beet roots. 
 
 This preparation is packed into small packages and sold largely in 
 this country. 
 
 Owing to the fact that our European competitors can and do adul- 
 terate these goods, and also through their long sale of these packages 
 here, we are unable to compete witli them successfully at the present 
 rate of duty, and in consequence the manufacturers here are obliged 
 to reship a large part of this product to Europe and accept any price 
 in order to get rid of it. 
 
 We therefore ask that your committee increase the duty on these 
 chicory packages, thereby giving us the opportunity of selling our 
 goods and giving employment to a large additional force of men, 
 women, and children. 
 
 While we are able to successfully compete on the gi^ain chicory with 
 a duty of 2 cents per pound, it will retiuiie a duty of at leivst 3 cents 
 per pound to overcome the i)rejudice w liich a large number of foreign- 
 born citizens always have to goods ]uit up under American labels. 
 
 We would further call your attention to the fact that, as the taritf 
 now stands, other coffee substitutes than chicory pay a duty of li cents 
 per pound, and that the (xovernment can be defrauded by importers 
 bringing package chicory here as '•coffee or substitutes," and packing 
 in the same identical style and form of i)ackage as chicory, thus evad- 
 ing one-half cent per pouiul duty. 
 
 We therefore request that, in justice to the (Jovernment and to the 
 American manufacturers, the duty on all coffee substitutes be made the 
 same as on chicory. 
 
 In conclusion, we earnestly request that the raw material continue to 
 be duty free, and that grain chicory, roasted, shall pay a tax of 2 cents 
 per pound as heretofore, and also that all jtacUage chicory, or other 
 coffee substitutes put up in packages, pay a duty of at least 3 cents per 
 pound, 
 
 HAESAERT & BUYSSE, 
 
 Jersey City, X. J. 
 Geo. Floh's Sons, 
 
 Brooklyti, N. T. 
 G. B. MiJLLER & Co., 
 
 Xeic York. 
 Belgian Chicory ]\Iills, 
 
 ^'etr TorJc. 
 G. H. Moller & Bro., 
 
 Brooklyn, iV". T. 
 P. C. TOMSON & Co., 
 
 I'hiladdphia, Pa. 
 Weikel «& Smith Spice Co., 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa. 
 Parrish Bros., 
 
 Baltimore^ Md,
 
 CHICORY. 1025 
 
 DUTY HEEDED ON RAW CHICOEY. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 7, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 Permit me, as a resident of Nebraska, to invite the attention of tlie 
 committee to the matter of a duty on raw chicory. The duty on pre- 
 pared chi<;ory at present is 2 cents per pound. The growing of the raw 
 material for this substitute for coffee promises to become a new industry 
 with our fanners if it is encouraged, and it should be, becanse of that 
 fact and because it is an agricultural industry, given the favor of Con- 
 gress. 
 
 Our imports of raw chicory have been rapidly increasing. The 
 imports for the fiscal year 1895 were 9,54:4:,18G pounds; 1890, 15,841,955 
 pounds. 
 
 The high price of cotfee makes the healthful substitute of chicory and 
 its admixture with coli'eeof more or less concern to our ra])idly increas 
 ing i)opulation, as the increase of the production of coffee does not 
 prohiise to keej) pace with the ratio of increase in consumption. Chic- 
 ory is the beverage in Belgium quite universally used in lieu of coffee, 
 and the time is approaching when the price of coffee may place it beyond 
 the reach of a very considerable class of our people. 
 
 It would api)car to be the true policy of the country, es]>ecially when 
 I)riccs for agricultural i)r()dncts are depressed, and when diversified 
 farming becomes more and more important, when our foreign sugar is 
 costing us over 888,0()(),0()0 and foreign coffee over $84,00(),000,"to do 
 everything reasonable to lighten these heavy burdens and es])ecially 
 when eiicouragen^.ent for these two ])roducts would tend to benefit our 
 farmers. Belgium agricullurists with clieap labor are raising and 
 sending us their raw chicory for Nebraska and other coffee drinkers, 
 when we should be producing it at home — and we will be raising it, if 
 fair protection or encouragement is extended. With proper legislation 
 there is no doubt that we would eventually produce the raw chicory 
 which, when i)repared, is mixed with coffee for the millions of breakfast 
 tables in the land, its admixture being concededly more healthful than 
 coffee. 
 
 The first practical effort to develoj) the chicory industry seems to 
 have been at or near O'Neill, in Holt County, Kebr., nearly five years 
 ago, when Mr. Hazelett undertook its culture. He met with many dis- 
 couragements, the educational work, not unlike that required to pro- 
 duce beets for sugar, being found exjjensive in the many details from 
 field to factory. The American Chicory Company was organized 
 January, 189G, and the company leased the plant at O'jSTeill. Because 
 of many reasons presented, the company concluded to locate at Fremont, 
 Nebr. Quite early in the spring of 189G the company began its prep- 
 arations for the season's business by importing a large quantity of seed 
 from Magdeburg, Germany. Contracts were made with 300 farmers to 
 raise 1,100 acres of chicory and the company had to look after encour- 
 aging, instructing, and superintending the work of growing the crop. 
 In the erection of the building there has been used 250,000 brick, 125,000 
 feet of lumber, and about 75 tons of iron. The structure throughout is 
 solid and permanent. The product from the fields was cut and dried 
 at this Fremont establishment, and was then, as I am advised, shipped 
 to O'Neill to be put into commercial shape, for last year only, as the 
 company's plans contemplate the erection at 7i'rem(mt this year of a 
 factory for manufacturing the dried product into the form in which it 
 T H 65
 
 1026 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTUKAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 finds its way into commerce. The Fremont factory worked up from 
 60 to 70 tons of raw chicory roots every twenty-four hours. Chicory 
 was also raised at Hastings, in Nebraska, and the product shipped to 
 Fremont. The competition this past year with foreign chicory is very 
 severe and the Fremont factory finds its best market west of Chicago. 
 The two main questions that yet remain undecided, and before this 
 industry can reach success, are, Can the crop be successfully grown with 
 profit to the farmers? Second, Can the manufactured product be sold 
 in competition with the imported article? On behalf of the farmers of 
 Nebraska and of the country, I res])ectfully ask tbat the present duty 
 on prepared chicory be increased to 3 cents per pound at least, and that 
 a duty of 2 cents per pound be placed on raw chicory. 
 
 E. Ham. 
 
 DTJTY ON CmCOEY WOULD HELP THE FARMERS. 
 
 KAcmE, Wis,, January 2, 1897. 
 
 By giving a chance to chicory factories in this country to get on their 
 feet and enable them to compete, it would not alone help the owner of 
 the factory, etc., but the farmers also, giving them a chance to raise one 
 more product, besides creating a demand for land; and as the farmer 
 has so very little benefit from tariff" laws, it would be nothing but fair 
 to give him a chance whenever it presents itself, especially when the 
 stuff is, so to speak, with little exception, all imported from Kuroj)e. 
 The article can be produced here, and I don't see why it shouhl not be, 
 especially as this is an agricultural country. 
 
 It is astonishing that we are buying this article, as well as beet sugar, 
 from Germany. 
 
 F. W. KXEIN. 
 CHICORY ROOT NOT A RAW MATERLAL. 
 
 Chicago, December 28, 1896. 
 
 Dear Sir: Being engaged in the chicory bu.siness, we take the lib- 
 erty of submitting to you our grievances which exist since the duty 
 has been taken off the imported dried chicory roots. 
 
 It is a question of mere existence to carry on this business under 
 standing circumstances, namely, to raise the roots from the seed. How 
 absurd is the fact that we cultivators of this branch of business are 
 compelled to pay a duty of 33 per cent on the seed, which we are necessi- 
 tated to obtain from Europe, and the product of this seed, the dried 
 roots, enter this country free of duty. 
 
 The manufacturers of tariff baptized dried chicory roots ''raw mate- 
 rial." We shall endeavor to prove to you that they'can not be consid- 
 ered as such. Two years ago we paid for seed, equal in amount to 100 
 kilos, 1,250 marks, and then 33 per cent dutv thereon. (T'rice for seed 
 in 1897, 240 marks.) It takes tlie very best cultivated and well fei'ti- 
 lized land in order to raise a satisfactory crop, and. further, a constant 
 weeding, hoeing, and thinning through most of the summer season; 
 then the roots, on account of their being so long, must be dug uj) with 
 forks, the foliage cut from them, washed, and finallv forwarded to 
 factory for cutting, etc. 
 
 The expense of raising and preparing 50 acres of chicory roots for 
 the factory, on an average of six tons per acre, amounts 'to ^^2,250, 
 equal to about $7.50 per ton green. This outJay is all for labor and 
 material for which we have to pay net cash. 
 
 J
 
 CHICORY. 1027 
 
 The product from the land is then taken np by factory hands, roots 
 are cut, kihi dried, sifted, roasted, crushed, and packed, either in casks 
 as granulated or in jjackages as powdered. 
 
 The shrinkage is considered over two-thirds, since we receive from 
 the kiln which we load at one time with eight tons of cut green roots 
 5,120 pounds, or at the rate of 32 pounds dried roots to 100 pounds green 
 roots. The cost of eight tons of roots from the field, according to the 
 estimate above, would be $60, or 1^ cents per pound. The expense to 
 dry these roots in calculation of one day st^am power, engines, coal, 
 cutting machine, one man to feed cutting machine, one to load kiln by 
 day and one by night, besides the coke used up in twenty-four hours, 
 bring the cost of dried roots to 1^ cents, and at this no extras are 
 included, such as running the plant, living expenses, taxes, or insurance, 
 horseshoeing, wa<ifon repairs — nothing of this kind; only cash outlay for 
 rent of land, fertilizer, and labor hands. 
 
 We are able to buy imported kiln dried chicory roots f. o. b. at our fac- 
 tory at 1§ cents per pound. A few years after we started in this busi- 
 ness we contracted witli fourteen neighboring farmers to raise roots for 
 us, and in all we received about 120 tons, for which we paid from 17.50 
 to $8 i)er ton. The next year and years after this we could not get 
 them to raise another root for us. 
 
 This was at the time when there was a 2-cent duty on chicory roots, 
 and we received 4A and 5 cents per pound, while now we get but 3 and 
 3^ cents per pound, and it makes it most impossible to keep up the 
 business, since we liave to pay 85 cents to $1.25 per day wages. To 
 pay this we must be protected at the following rates: Kiln-dried roots, 
 2 cents per pound; granulated chicory, 2^ cents per pound; and roll 
 chicory, 3 cents per pound. 
 
 At the time our plant was worked in full force we had engaged from 
 the middle of May to the end of October 80 to 125 persons, averaging 
 from 80 cents to $1.35 per day, while from December to the middle ot 
 Ai)ril we employed from 23 to 25 persons, averaging from $1 to $1.50 
 per day. 
 
 Kbembs & Co. 
 
 AMERICAN FACTORIES WITH CLOSED DOORS. 
 
 Stockton, Oal., December 23, 1896. 
 
 Dear Sir: In the present condition of affairs, the growing and 
 manufacture of chicory in the United States is at an end. The chicory 
 root resembles the sugar beet in this, that it requires a very large area 
 of land and a vast amount of labor in its cultivation. After it has been 
 cultivated and is brought to the factory, it necessitates a great deal of 
 labor to make a finished product. The roasting and grinding, which 
 are the last two processes, reciuire the least labor and expenditure of 
 all. A great amount of land and a vast amount of labor had been 
 employed in the cultivation of this root up to the time of the passage 
 of what was known as the Mcliinley law. The provisions of that bill 
 destroyed absolutely the industry in this country. 
 
 We are not able to state accurately the number of people engaged 
 in the growth and manufacture of this article, but it is very large. 
 Factories exist in Califorina, ^Michigan, and Wisconsin, all of which 
 have been obliged to close down, and the owners of many have become 
 bankrupt by reason of the existing tariff provisions. 
 
 There was formerly a duty upon the raw chicory, as well as upon the 
 manufactured article. The 3IcKinley bill took the duty off the raw
 
 1028 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 article and left it upon the manufactured article. The consequence 
 was that the chicory root was prepared in Germany up to the last two 
 stages of the processesof its manufacture, namely, roasting and grinding : 
 was shipped over here androasted in the United States; being admitted 
 duty free, and being produced by cheap labor, it has driven domestic 
 chicory entirely out of the market. Not only has it aci^omplished this, 
 but it has defeated the very purposes of the law by preventing the 
 importation of the manufactared article. 
 
 What is now admitted as raw chicory is the chicory root after it has 
 undergone all of the processes up to the last two. These processes 
 involve the use of 90 per cent of the entire labor used in its manufac- 
 ture. It will thus be seen that even admitting the raw root duty free, 
 causes the employment of 90 per cent foreign labor, in a foreign 
 country. ISTot only are our land owners and farmers deprived of the 
 opportunity of growing this root, but the laborer is debarred from par- 
 ticipation in its manufacture. 
 
 We ask that the duty upon raw chicory in all forms be restored and 
 made at least 1 cent per pound, though a higiier duty of, say. 1^ cents, 
 would insure this industry protection, as the manufactared chicory 
 has to pay the duty now imposed — 2 cents per pound. We can not 
 give you accurately the number of men employed in the growing, 
 transportation, and manufacture of this article in the United States, 
 but it amounts to a great many thousands. It must be remembered 
 that almost the entire cost of its production and manufacture is labor. 
 The foreign grower, who now has his raw chicory admitted duty free, 
 grows it in Germany, cuts it, kiln-dries it, sacks it, and prepares it for 
 roasting before sending it to this countr}'. As one man can roast as 
 much chicory as fifty can grow and prepare for roasting, you will read- 
 ily see that under the provisions of the McKinley law the foreigner has 
 deci<ledly the advantage, and that the United States Government 
 neither procures a revenue nor protects its citizens. 
 
 Bachman & Beandt. 
 
 COCOA AND CHOCOLATE. 
 
 (Paragraph 229.) 
 
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS MANUFACTURERS OF 
 CHOCOLATES AND COCOAS. 
 
 New York, December 30, 1896, 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 In revising and reframing the existing revenue tariff measure, known 
 as the Wilson bill, your committee will lind in Schedule G the following 
 paragraph, viz: 
 
 229. Cocoa, prepared or mannfactiired, not sjiecially provided for in this act, two 
 cents per pound; chocolate, sweetened, flavored, or other, valued at thirty-live cents 
 per pound, and chocolate confectionery, thirty-five per cent ad valorem. 
 
 We, the undersigned manufacturers of chocolates and cocoas in the 
 United States, maintain that this is not sufiBcicnt ])rotection for our 
 industry, nor are the amounts of duties imposed consistent, taking into 
 consideration the articles which are thereby covered and the j^olicy of 
 the Government under a revenue basis, and we herewith pray and sub- 
 mit for your kind consideration in its stead the following schedule, viz: 
 
 229. Cocea, prepared or manufactured, not 8i)eciallv provided for in tliis act, and 
 valued at twenty cents per pouud or less, four cents per pound ; valued at exceeding
 
 COCOA AND CHOCOLATE. 1029 
 
 twenty cents per pound, twenty-five per cent ad valorem. Cbocolate, sweetened, 
 flavored, or other, valued at twenty cents per pound or less, five cents per pound; 
 valued at exceeding twenty cents per pound, thirty-five per cent ad valorem. 
 
 In order to substantiate in as brief a manner as possible the claims 
 wliich we make why the duties on the articles covered by paragraph 
 229 should be increased, we beg to quote you the following, ^iz: 
 
 First. ''Cocoa, prepared or manufactured." Under this heading 
 oome all the various manufactures of powdered cocoas, packed jirinci- 
 pally in tin packages, and ground cocoa in large cakes, commercially 
 known as liquor chocolate. According to the official statistics the 
 imiwrtation of goods under this heading during the fiscal year 1895 
 amounted to 1,40(),()()0 pounds, the import valuation of which was 
 about $475,000, At the present rate of dutj^, although the average 
 valuation per pound amounted to 34 cents, nevertheless the amount of 
 duties received by the Government amounted to only about $28,000. 
 
 During the fiscal year 189(5, with the enormous businesi^ depression 
 and a considerable decrease in the amount of business done by the 
 domestic manufacturers on these articles, as you will notice by the sta- 
 tistical report of the importations of crude cocoa hereinbelow men- 
 tioned, nevertheless the importations of manufa<;tured cocoas amounted 
 to l,c{00,000 pounds, valued at about $425,000, and at the average valu- 
 ation of 33 cents per pound, the total amount of duty received by the 
 Government was only about $25,500. 
 
 We therefore feel convinced that you will sustain our claim that the 
 duties on these goods should be advanced as mentioned on the sched- 
 ule which we have submitted, and that a di^^ding line should be drawu 
 NO as to enable the Government to receive a fair compensation for the 
 higher priced cocoas which are considered an article of luxury, and 
 which are import<?d extensively on this market to the detriment of the 
 American manufacturers. 
 
 Second. "Chocolate, sweetened, flavored, or other valued at 35 cents 
 ])er pound." The sweetened chocolate entered in the United States 
 under this heading during the fiscal year 1895 amounted to 834,000 
 pounds, the import valuation of which was about $105,000, and the 
 average value of entry 20 cents per pound, and on this large amount the 
 Government received a duty of only $lt),500. 
 
 During the fiscal year 1890, notwithstanding the depression in busi- 
 ness and the considerable decrease in the amount of business done by 
 the domestic manufactm-ers, the imports of these goods increased to 
 1,050,000 pounds, the im})ort valuation of which was .$185,000, at the 
 average valuation of 18 cents per pound, and the entire amount of duties 
 received by the Government on this increasing amount was only $21,000. 
 
 You will be kind enough to take into consideration the large amount 
 of sweetened chocolate entered at the average valuation of 18 cents per 
 ])ound, whereas during the fiscal year 1896 the entire entry of sweetened 
 chocolates exceeding 35 cents per pound valuation, which is the present 
 dividing line, amounted to only 3,000 pounds, valued at $1,400, and on 
 which the Government received only $500 duties. You will notice the 
 great discrepancy between these two amounts, and you will no doubt 
 recognize the fact that the dividing line of 35 cents per pound on these 
 articles is a mistake and an injustice to the American manufacturer and 
 should be reduced to 20 cents per pound, and instead of making the 
 specific duty 2 cents per pound it should be increased to 5 cents per 
 l)ound, and above 20 cents per pound valuation to 35 per cent ad 
 valorem, the same as sugar candy and all confectionery. (See Schedule 
 E, paragraph 183.)
 
 1030 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Third. Crude cocoa: This article, which is the raw material from 
 which is made all the cocoas, prepared or manufactured, and also 
 sweetened chocolates, with the additiou of sugar, vauilla, and other 
 ingredients, instead of growing in amount as did the importations of 
 the manufactured goods, the same decreased in valuation from 
 $3,200,000 during the fiscal year 1805 to $:i,4:00,000 during the fiscal 
 year 1896, showing a decrease in the importation of raw material to the 
 value of $800,000, which shows conclusively that the foreign manufac- 
 turers, with the present low rates of duties, are gradually crushing out 
 the Americau manufacturer and depriving the Government of a revenue 
 to which it i« justly entitled. 
 
 We furthermore wish to submit to you herewith a list of the duties 
 ou manufactured chocolates and cocoas in foreign countries, and it is a 
 significant fact that no articles have received such general protection 
 by the entire world as the chocolate industiy, and the list of duties 
 imposed byforeign countries, as shown by the below-mentioned list, are 
 enormously higher than in our own country where it is most needed, viz: 
 
 C(inaia.—Chooo\&te, not sweeteneil, 4 cent« per ponnd; chocolate, Bweetened, 5 
 cents per pound; cocoa paste, chocolate, and other jireparations of cdcoa, not 
 sweetened, i cents per pound; cocoa paste, chocolate, and other preparations of 
 cocoa, containing; sugar, 5 cents per pound. 
 
 England. — Hulled cocoa and cocoa shells, soven-sixtccnthft cent perponnd; ground, 
 prepared, or other manufactured cocoa or chocolate, 4 cents per pound. 
 
 Prance. — Ground cocoa, in paste, cakes, or powder, and cocoa butter, 12 cents per 
 pound; chocolate, %^ cent* p« pound. 
 
 Germany. — Cocoa shells, \\ cents per pound; chocolate, ground cocoa, cocoa pastes 
 and chocolate paste, 9 cents per pound ; sweet chocolate, to be remolded, 5* cent, 
 per pound. 
 
 Spain. — Chocolate, 8^ cents per pound. 
 
 /<«rZy. —Cocoa, cracked, ground, or paste, 11 ceuta per pound; chocolate, 13 cents 
 per pound. 
 
 Bel(jwm. — Cocoa shells, 1^ cents per ponnd; cocoa butter, IJ cents per ponnd; 
 manuftictHred cocoa and chocolate, 4 cents per pound. 
 
 We wish now to give you more reasons why the American manufac- 
 turer is entitletl to a much higher protection than is at jjresent given 
 him under the present tarifl' bill, and in fact for a great number of 
 years past. 
 
 First. Sugar, which is extensively used in the m an u fact ore of sweet- 
 ened chocolate, at the present time pays a duty of 40 j)er cent ad 
 valorem, a«d a specific duty of one-eighth i-ent ])er pound. 
 
 Second. In the United States m our industry men are paid for ten 
 hours' work from 810 to $20 per week; women arc paid for ten hours, 
 work from $G to $12 per week. In Europe, in the largest factories there, 
 the rates for men for twelve hours' work ;ire from $4 to $5 per week, and 
 for women, for twelve hours' work, from $2.50 to $.'i per week. 
 
 Third. Tlie machinerj^, tin mold, and utensils retpiired in the manu- 
 facture of chocolate are i)rincipaLly of foreign manufacture, an<l can 
 only be purchased by the American manufacturers of chocolates \\\K>n 
 the payment of a duty of 45 per cent, plus heavy expenses for trans- 
 portation. The greater j^rt of the material used,*consisting of tin foil, 
 •wrappers, silk ribbons, and fancy boxes also cost from 35 to 00 percent 
 more than this material can be purchased by the foreign manufacturers, 
 and tin boxes for packing cocoa powders, which are extensively used, 
 cost considerably more than in Europe. 
 
 Fourth. The I'oreign manufacturers of chocolates and cocoas, such as 
 Menier, Marquis, Devinck, and Potin.of France; Stollwcrck Brothers, 
 of Cologne, Germany; Bensdorp, Van Houten, and BlooUer, of Ilol- 
 land^ Fry Brothers of Bristol, England, and many others, represent a
 
 COCOA AND CHOCOLATE. 1031 
 
 combined capital of $25,000,000. These manufacturers liave, besides this 
 enormous capital, the further great advantage of having been estab- 
 lished for a great number of years, and consequently have all the 
 benefits derived from experience and years of advertising, which, in 
 manufacturing and selling, is very essential. The American manufac- 
 ture of chocolates and cocoas has only been developed in recent years 
 and is a comparatively new industry in the United States, and with the 
 insufficient protection now obtained has been struggling against for- 
 eign competition to such an extent that many manufacturers have had 
 to discontinue in the last few years, and those remaining are shrinking 
 instead of gro'wing aa they should under proi>er protection. 
 Eespectfully submitted. 
 
 Louis Runkel, Chairman, 
 Of Bunlcel Brothers, 445—147 West Thirtieth street, New YorTc. 
 
 Henry Maillard, 
 
 114-116-118 West Twenty-fifth street, New York, 
 
 HUYLERS, 
 
 Chas. J. Coulter, Secretary, 
 Corner Eighteenth street and Irving Place, New York. 
 Crave & Martin Co., 
 Charles Abbott, Treasurer, 
 
 309-311 East Twenty-second street. New York. 
 Hanley & Hoops, 
 
 207-209, 271 Mulberry street, New York. 
 EOCKWOOD & Co., 
 
 468-470 Cherry street. New York. 
 Wallace & Co., 
 
 160-166 Monroe street. New York City. 
 Mason, Au & Mageniceimer Conf. Mfg. Co., 
 Louis Magenheimer, President, 
 
 22-28 Henry street, Brooklyn, N. Y, 
 Brewster Cocoa Mfg. Co., 
 
 Newark, N. J. 
 O. DE Gerbereux, 
 
 New York. 
 Cy. Gousset, 
 
 451 West Broadway, Neio York, 
 
 TWO CENTS A POUND DUTY RECOMMENDED. 
 
 Boston, Mass., January 2, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Under both the INIcKinley and Wilson tariff bills the duty on cocoa, 
 prepared or manufactured, has been held at the previous rate of 2 cents 
 a pound. I respectfidly ask that in framing the new bill now in your 
 hands this same rate be maintained. Previous to the enactment of the 
 present tariff, chocolate has paid a duty of 2 cents a pound, the same as 
 cocoa. Under the Wilson bill the duty was so changed that chocolate 
 valued at over 35 cents a pound is dutiable at 35 per cent. The result 
 hiis been to stop the importations of fine chocolates (canceling what 
 former revenue was derived from these goods), which do not compete 
 with American manufacture, as goods above 35 cents in value are not 
 to a great extent made in this country. I request that the rate of duty
 
 1032 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 assessed under all tariff bills previous to the Wilsou Act be restored, 
 and the new measure read: "Chocolate, prepared or manufactured, 2 
 
 cents a pound." 
 
 Stephen L. Baetlett, 
 
 Importer. 
 
 STARCH. 
 
 (Paragraph 232.) 
 
 STATEMEirr SXTSmTTED BY THE NATIOIfAL STARCH MANXTFAC- 
 TUEING COMPANY, OF NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 New York, Deoember 28, 1896, 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Under existing law (the Wilson bill) the paragraph relating to starch 
 reads: 
 
 starch, including all prepanitions from whatever substance produced, commonly 
 used as starch, on« and one half cents per pound. 
 
 Under the so-call<-d McKinley Act a duty of 2 cents per pound. 
 Under the Wilson Act of 1894, from which I have quoted, "tapioca, or 
 cassava, or cassada" is admitted free; likewise "sago, crude, and sago 
 flour" is upon the free list. 
 
 I need not call your attention to all the past history regarding starch 
 products, with which you are familiar, but 1 wish to cmphasi/e tlie belief 
 that if starch is to be made dutiable tlie free list ought to be revised. 
 
 There is not now, and theie never has be^n, brought into any market 
 in this country a pound of sago tlour or tapioca Hour that was not 
 starch. Both these products have got in free sinii)ly because the shipper 
 or receiver was moved to call them by a different name in invoice or 
 manifest of cargo for the purpose of e\ailing payment of duty. The 
 disturbance existing to day, as it has always existed, means the privi- 
 lege of the importer to invoice his product as one thing when it is 
 another thing. This fraud we wish to stop. 
 
 Oidy recently a case has been decided in the C'nited states circuit 
 court in California, wherein Judge McKenua. upon a case involving 23 
 api>eals, decided that tapioca Hour belonged upon the free list, and 
 therefore was not dutiable because there were only two kinds of tapioca 
 known to the trade, viz, tapioca pearl and tajiioca Hake. Ycu know, 
 as every dealer knows, that tapioca tlour constitutes by far the greater 
 bulk, both in quantity and value, of so-called tapioca imported into this 
 country. 
 
 As to sago flour, the same ruling holds, and while the Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers and collectors, supported by the chemists of the Gov- 
 ernment, have held that sago flour as well ks tai)ioca tlour is nothing 
 more than starch, the courts have held that these i)roducts are something 
 different from starch, and because they were included in the free list 
 they ought to be admitted duty free. Under these decisions and rulings 
 if the law remains as it is there can be no relief, Last year, from the 
 best information that 1 can get. there were more than *3()0,()()() of sago 
 flour and tapioca flour imported into this country which was admitted 
 duty free, and every pound of it ought to have paid 1.^ cents as starch. 
 
 As to the main starch paragraph, I propose this: "Starch, including 
 all preparations from whatever substance produced commonly used as 
 starch or lit, for use as starch, 1^ cents per pound."
 
 STARCH. 1033 
 
 111 the free list I advise regarding the .sago paragraph that it should 
 read, "Sago crude," thus striking out the words "and sago flour." 
 
 As to the tapioca clause in the free list, I suggest that it be made to 
 read, "tapioca, or cassava, or cassada, excei)tiug tapioca flour." 
 
 With these aiuendnieiits we would be in a fair way of reaching some- 
 thing certain in regard to the duties on starch. As the changes in 
 tariff legislation have progressed we have got rid of i)otato flour, root 
 flour, and all the other so called flours, with the excei)tion of sago flour 
 and tapioca flou:-. I believe it is high time that the last two should be 
 wiped off the free list. The im[)orter knows all the time what he is 
 buying, and he knows that when he buys sago flour or tapioca flour 
 that he is buying a purifled starch. In other words, that he is buying 
 something that has gone through a washing process in order to get rid 
 of the gluten or albumen originally a component part. Flour, as we 
 understand it, means something that may have been ground fine and 
 bolted, but not washed. 
 
 As to the rates under a new bill, we are perfectly willing that they 
 should remain as tliey are upon starch. 
 
 We are not so much concerned about dextrin, but the remarks above 
 I believe will apply equally to this product. The only thing we have in 
 view is to avoid confusion in the trade and that i)roducts imported shall 
 be called by their right names, so as to avoid <lefraiuling the revenue. 
 
 We are also producers of glucose, or grape sugar, which is now dutia- 
 ble at !"> per cent ad valorem under the existing law. Wo think this 
 paragraph had better be changed to "Glucose, one-half cent per pound." 
 
 The importations of tapioca flour and sago flour last year amounted 
 in value, as nearly as I can ascertain, to about §300,000. It may be 
 said that so small an amount can not ali'ect domestic manufacturers of 
 starch from corn or potatoes. But it does, and very seriously, because 
 the cheaper i)roduct controls the market, and is and remains a constant 
 menace. A cargo in port or to arrive of tapioca flour or sago flour, for 
 use as starch, as it is always used, means that domestic manufacturers 
 of starch must meet the price of the foreign product, whatever may be 
 the offerings. 
 
 Starch in this country, whether made from corn or potatoes, is con- 
 trolled in price by the raw product; if corn or potatoes are compara- 
 tively high or low, the price of staixh is made accordingly. If i)otatoe8 
 in Germany rule low in price and corn or i)otatoes in this country are 
 high, the foreign product will come in, and this regardless of tapioca 
 flour or sago flour. During the past few years corn and potatoes in 
 tlie United States have ruled low in price, and hence our exports have 
 been large, and the rate of duty may have seemed too high; but let 
 the price of corn or potatoes once reach normal values here and pota- 
 toes from foreign countries be quoted at low instead of high prices, 
 then there will be considerable importations of potato starch, even at 
 the present rates of duty. 
 
 But whatever the duties on or prices of domestic starch may be, the 
 fact remains that tapioca flour and sago flour are allowed to enter our 
 markets free, cigainst this, domestic starch manufacturers protest, and 
 respectfully suggest that these products be made dutiable as oilier 
 starches. They are invoiced as flour in order to escape the payment of 
 duty, and when sold they are used as starch. 
 
 Merely as indicating the confusion in the trade, nv.d the never-ending 
 differences between the customs authorities and the courts, I beg to 
 cite as follows: 
 
 As to sago flour, the decision of the Treasury Department as
 
 1034 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 publislied in tlie Moutlily Synoptical Series, 10613, and to the decision of 
 the Board of General Appraisers, No. 2701. 
 
 As to tapioca as starch, the decisions of the Board of General Ap- 
 praisers, 689, 752, 1041. 
 
 As to tapioca flour, the decisions of the Treasury Department as 
 published in the Monthly Synoptical Series, 10277, 14114, oQ F. E., 222. 
 
 As to starch, including all preparations from whatever substance 
 produced commonly used as starch, the decision of the Treasury 
 Department as published in the Monthly Synoptical Series, 10277, and 
 to the decisions of the Board of General Appraisers, Nos. 449, 504, 533, 
 689, 722, 1041, 1452, 1930, 1969, 2063, 2681, 2700, 2701, 56 F. K., 222. 
 
 The Townsend Case, decided by Judge Sliipman (circuit conrt of 
 appeals, second circuit, June 12, 1893), is the leii<ling case and has been 
 held to control importations of both tapioca flour and sago flour. The 
 following is a syllabus in the case: 
 
 Tapioca flour, which is commercially kuown as tapioca, and is used mainly by 
 calico printers and carpet manufactiu-ers for thickeniug colors, aud which, though 
 chemically a starch, is not adapted to commercial use as starch, belongs in the Tree 
 list, as tapioca, under paragraph 730 of the act of October I, 1890, and ia not dutiable 
 at 2 cents a pound as a "preijaration lit for use as starch," under paragraph 323. 
 
 We have never been able to comprehend this decision, which in effect 
 decides that althougii tapioca flour is starch, yet that it is not tit for use 
 as starch. If it has been or can be used for any ether purpose than as 
 starch, we have failed to discover such use. 
 
 Therefore we ask that sago flour and tapioca flour be stricken from 
 the free list, and be made dutiable as starch, which they are. 
 
 CHAS. 0. BURNB. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREW R. KIEFER, A REPRESENTATIVE 
 FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 
 
 Monday, January 11, 1897. 
 
 Mr. KiEFER said: I desire to present a statement from one of my 
 constituents in the matter of the reduction of duties on potatoes and 
 starch under the Wilson bill and ask that tlie rate of the McKinley 
 bill be restored. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I will get you to state whether there is not or has 
 not been a pretty strong trust in starch? 
 
 Mr. Klefer. !Not in our country. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. There was in the United States. 
 
 Mr. KiEFER. I do not know anything about tliat. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Was there not among the starch producers? 
 
 Mr. KiEFER. I do not know. 
 
 Committee on Wats and Means: 
 
 I herewith present for your careful consideration a statement of facts 
 in reference to the production of potatoes in the State of Minnesota, 
 aud especially in the Congressional district which I have the honor to 
 represent, and also in reference to the industry of starch manufacture. 
 
 For several years past potatoes have become a leading product iu 
 certain localities of the Northwest, especially in the sandy soil which 
 nature has so well adapted for their propagation. In the year 1892, for 
 the first time iu our history, it is shown tliat potatoes sold at a higher 
 price per bushel than wheat. At that time there wits a protective duty
 
 STARCH. 1035 
 
 of 25 cents a busbel under the McKinley Act. It can not be success- 
 fully contended that the high price at the period mentioned was due 
 to a shortage of crops, for in that year, according to a telegram received 
 from Hon. Albert Berg, secretarj"^ of state for Minnesota, and State 
 statistician, on the Gtb day of January, 1897, it is stated that the yield 
 of potatoes for the year 1892 in the State of Minnesota was 6,776,491 
 bushels, a larger croj) than has been produced any year since. The 
 consolidated price of potatoes during that yeiu" averaged 67^ cents per 
 bushel. It was not alone a demand for potatoes as an article of food 
 that made this substantial price to the producer, but during the years 
 of 1891 and 1892 several starch factories began operations in Minnesota, 
 principally at Anoka, North Branch, and also in Minneapolis, which 
 consumed a very large percentage of the potato crop of those years. 
 In the counties of liamsey, Hennepin, Washington, Chisago, Isanti, 
 and Kanabec thousands and thousands of acres of potatoes were grown 
 and cultivated, and the farmers of those counties reaped a substantial 
 profit. 
 
 Since the passage of the Wilson bill, production of potatoes has fallen 
 off to a considerable extent, and our starch factories have been closed 
 for a portion of the time since that act has been on the statute books. 
 It may be argued by those who still try to maintain that the present tariff 
 law is adequate and sulhcient for the advancement of agricultural inter- 
 ests as well as for the manufacturing industries that the present low 
 price of potatoes should stimulate the starcl) industry. This argument 
 would be on the theory of cheap raw material, but it must be remem- 
 bered that not only was the duty reduced on potatoes, but it was reduced 
 on starch a half cent a i)Oun(l. I urged, when the Wilson bill was being 
 considered, a retention of the duty on starch, and when it was left at 
 ljcent« a pound it was stated that it would prove ample to protect the 
 starch industry, but even a quarter of a cent a pound on large quanti- 
 ties of starch and dextrine has offered such an inducement to wholesale 
 dealers that the foreign importations tend to decrease the manufacture 
 of these commodities in this country. The McKinley duty of 2 cents 
 per pound was scarcely adequate to protect the starch industry, and I 
 would urge upon your honorable body to make the rate 3 cents per 
 pound. The potatoes used in the manufacture of starch are not of the 
 first quality, or rather not of the larger assorted kind, but are of the 
 smaller class of potatoes sometimes alluded to as "eyeballs," and which 
 are either fed to swine or go to waste entirely if they are not market- 
 able. The manufacturers of starch take these i)otatoes at a fair price. 
 I would respectfully request of you to give a most careful consideration 
 to the question of an adequate duty on potatoes and starch, and to this 
 end would refer you to the testimony before the Ways and Means Com 
 mittee when the McKinley bill was being framed. Such statements 
 being offered in support of a duty on potatoes and starch are equal if 
 not more important at the present time. I apjiend telegram received 
 from Albert Berg, secretary of state of Minnesota, showing production 
 of potatoes as follows : 
 
 Busliela. 
 
 1892 6,776,491 
 
 1893 5,390,840 
 
 1894 4,453,445 
 
 1895 23,991.036 
 
 1896 11,155^815 
 
 A. K. KlEFEK, M. C, 
 
 Fourth District Minnesota.
 
 1036 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 MUSTARD. 
 
 (Para^aph 234.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY E. R. DURKEE & CO., NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 New York, December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We beg to point out some particulars relating to the manufacture of 
 dry mustard flour. The original Wilson bill placed a duty ou manu- 
 factured mustard of 10 cents i)er pound. This protection was very 
 small, considering the fact that one-half of the mustard sold in the 
 United States was imported. We understand that at the last moment, 
 when the amendments to the punctuation of the bill were offered, some 
 corrections were worked in, and the duty was made 135 per cent ad 
 valorem. 
 
 The various health food commissions in the different States have 
 shown that foreign mustards were more frequently adulterated than the 
 American mustiirds. All the American manufacturers of any standing 
 are strictly complying with the pure-food laws, and we believe through- 
 out the country verj' little if any adulterated mustards are being sold 
 by American manufacturers. In our own case, we sell nothing but pure 
 mustard. 
 
 Since the rate of duty provided for in the Wilson bill has been in 
 force, we think the sale of English mustard ha.s greatly increased. We 
 know that our trade is less than before the bill, and we have heard the 
 same complaint made by other manufacturers. 
 
 The finer grades of mustard seeds are all imported, and it is not pos- 
 sible to make the finer grades of mustards unless the foreign seeds are 
 used. The finest yellow seed come from England, and the finest brown 
 from either England or Austria. To illustrate the proportion of seeds 
 used in our own manufacture, we have used of the foreign seeds, going 
 back to 1890, 02.80 per cent, and of the domestic seeds 37.14 per cent. 
 
 We beg to call attention to the fact that in making the mustard tiiere is 
 a large loss in the bran, which, going back to the saun,' period in our own 
 manufacture, namely, 1890, shows a loss of 28 per cent lor bran. In the 
 same period the actual ratio of labor to the cost of the seed was 51.12 
 per cent. This labor is computed solely on the turning of the seed into 
 the mustard flour and leaves off' when the Hour is manufactured. It 
 does not include any labor, nor any cost represented by boxes, barrels, 
 labels, cans, or any of the labor necessary to repack the mustard in these 
 packages, and we might point out the advantage in the jirice of tin cans 
 the foreign manufacturer iias over the American. It is simply computi'd 
 on the bare cost of turning the seed into the Hour. To sum up the whole 
 matter in our own experience, which we know by coin})arison of our goods 
 with those of other manufactureiT, must be their exi)erience as well — 
 
 Per wnU - 
 
 The foreign seed used amount to 02. 86 
 
 The domestic seed used nuionnt to ',\ 37. 14 
 
 The ratio ot labor to cost of seed \ .">!. 12 
 
 Loss iu lirao ' ] ] jjt 
 
 Besides this, as stated, there is an additional item for labor and 
 products of American manufacture in the sliape of boxes, cans, labels, 
 barrels, etc., which would swell the total ratio of labor to the value of 
 seed to far higher figures.
 
 MUSTARD. 1037 
 
 It seems to ns that there are very few articles where the item of 
 labor can figure more prominently than in the manufacture of mustard, 
 and we resi)ectfull3' urge that the duties assessed by the original 
 McKiuley bill be restored to the manufacture of mustard. 
 
 E. R. DURKEE & Co. 
 
 ENGLISH COMPETITION. 
 
 Philadelphia, December 3i, 1896. 
 
 CoilMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 Under the Wilson bill the duty on manufactured mustard was fixed 
 at 10 cents per i)Ound, wlii(!h was a very small protection in considera- 
 tion of the fact that the large proportion of mustard sold in the United 
 States is imported from England. 
 
 In the Senate this was changed from a specific duty of 10 cents per 
 pound to 25 per cent ad valorem, which on account of the various qual- 
 ities of this article may be 2 cents or it may be 8 cents per pound. 
 
 Under the old duty of 10 cents per ])ound American nmuufacturers 
 had a very satisfactory business, but under the present duty our busi- 
 ness has fallen off almost entirely in some section.s, notably in the South, 
 and English mustard has taken its place. 
 
 We ask to have the duty restored to 10 cents per pound for two 
 potent reasons: 
 
 1. Because, under the ad valorem duty, the EngKsh manufacturers 
 are steadily increasing their business here to the detriment of the 
 American manufacturers. 
 
 2. The value of manufactured nuistard is more than one-half in 
 labor and wages. 
 
 There arc many reasons why manufactured mustard should pay a 
 specilic duty of 10 cents i)er pound, but we hope those named are suffi- 
 cient to claim attention. 
 
 The a. Colburn Company, 
 A. Malcom, Treasurer. 
 
 PRESENT DUTY NOT SATISFACTORY. 
 
 Boston, Mass., December 30, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We think the duty on manufactured mustard should be 10 cents per 
 pound or more. The House Wilson bill fixed this duty. This was a 
 small duty, with the fitcts that England and France sold one-half of all 
 the mustard consumed in the United States. They made these large 
 sales even when the duty was much higher. 
 
 In the Senate this duty was amended to 25 per cent ad valorem, 
 which means from 1^ to 8 cents per pound, according to the quality of 
 the goods. 
 
 Some mustard manufacturers explained the case to a few of the 
 Northern Senators. They saw how the matter stood, and corrected the 
 wrong. 
 
 When the amendments in the punctuation of the bill were offered in 
 the Senate at tiie last moment, a certain amendment outside "punctua- 
 tion and verbal corrections" was worked in, which undid all the work 
 of the Northern Senators. In this strange way the present mustard 
 section of the tariff was brought about.
 
 1038 SCHEDULE G. — AGKICULTUEAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Our reasons for the above position are: (1) With even hig-her rate of 
 duty, foreigners sold one-half the mustard used in the United States. 
 (2) The best yellow seed grows only in England. The two best brown 
 seeds grow only in England and Austria. (3) Foreigners have a great 
 advantage over us in the cost of small tin cans. (4) The value of man- 
 ufactured mustard is one-half in labor or wages. (5) Specific duty is 
 proper because the qualities are too variable even for so-called experts. 
 
 Stickney & Poor Spice Company. 
 
 NURSERY STOCK, BULBS, AND PLANTS. 
 
 (Paragraph 234^ and free list, paragraph 587). 
 STATEMENT OF MR. FRED W. KELSEY, OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Kelsey said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 as one charged with au important public trust that has been giving 
 public hearings, I appreciate the danger of your being talked to death. 
 I shall, therefore, in what I have to say, under the circumstances, be 
 extremely brief. I am burdened at the outset by being in this presenti- 
 ment, I believe, and I think that every member of this committee shares 
 my belief that this committee is laying the foundation for the most 
 important legislation of this generation, if not this century. 
 
 I api)ear as chairman of the committee of the Florists' Club of the 
 City of New York, a representative organization, embracing the pro- 
 ducing, the dealing, the importing of nursery material, and plants and 
 bulbs. 
 
 We have given the subject of duty very careful attention for the last 
 two or three years. That attention grew out of an ambiguity in the 
 McKinley bill, and repeated in the Wilson bill, and 1 wish to appeal to 
 this committee to avoid this ambiguity in framing a parent bill. 
 
 Tlie resolution unanimously passed at the meeting of the committee 
 on Saturday was: 
 
 liesolveA, That a uiiiforru duty of 10 per cent ad valorem be placed on all trees, 
 shrubs, plants, vines, and bulbs, etc. 
 
 The above resolution was unanimously passed, and as chairman I 
 was directed to request of this committee that you give us this small 
 protection. 
 
 I can not go into the details leading up to that resolution. I can 
 simply say to yon that a thorough knowledge of the business of the 
 nursery plant production in this country leads us to appeal to you in 
 your decision upon this subject to settle two points. First, a simple 
 law that will give us no ambiguity, no uncertainty of classification, 
 which uncertainty has existed since the passage of the INIcKinley bill 
 in 1890. I may say that what led to the recommendation of this duty 
 on this material was that the committee felt that an extreme measure 
 would produce a reaction and would constantly result in agitation of 
 the tariff question, and what the committee is most anxious to accom- 
 plish ^and representing not only this organization, but one in touch 
 with all the organizations of the country) is a simple classification that 
 will relieve the industry, M'^hich is an important one, and that there 
 will not be these constant changes so serious to all business intereats. 
 
 This is such an important subject that I only wish this committee
 
 NURSERY STOCK, BULBS, AND PLANTS. 1039 
 
 would adopt the English plan, where a whole year is given to the con- 
 sideration of a subject, instead of the short time you give it. 
 
 I will put iu as a part of my statement the paper here which I have 
 prepared, wherein I state the reasons why it is necessary to have this 
 rate of duty in order to have it permanent, and, as I have said, the neces- 
 sity of having the provision was simply to avoid ambiguity. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY ME. KELSEY. 
 
 New Yoee:, January 8, 1891. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Agreeably to the resolution of the New Y"ork Florists' Club, presented 
 to your committee on the 5th instant, permit me to present for your 
 consideration the following, relative to the duty recommended on trees, 
 shrubs, plants, and bulbs in the resolution referred to, copy of which is 
 herewith attached. 
 
 Previous to the war of the rebellion nurserj' and i)lant material was 
 on the free list. In colonial times not only was no duty levied, but a 
 premium was paid for the introduction of fruits aud plants. 
 
 The policy of the Government was and still is to encourage the dis- 
 semination of this material, and at the present time hundreds of thou- 
 sands of small plants, vines, and cuttings are sent out yearly gratuitously 
 by the Agricultural Department at i)ublic expense. 
 
 It is generally recognized that cheap fruits and plants, like cheap 
 postage, accomplish the greatest good to the greatest number. Inex- 
 pensive fruit is a boon to the great mass of people, and the love of 
 ilowers is universal. 
 
 March 2, 1861, a duty of 10 per cent was levied on nursery material. 
 
 On July 14, 1862 (paragraph 239), the duty was increased on all trees, 
 plants, aud seeds to 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 On a revision of the tariff in 1872 the rate was reduced to 20 percent 
 ad valorem, and in the tariii' revision a few years later all this material 
 was restored to the free list, where it remained until the tariff act of 
 1890. Under this act the duty of 20 per cent was restored on nursery 
 material, but florists' material (paragraph 666) — "Plants used for forc- 
 ing und«r glass for cut flowers or decorative purposes" — was still retained 
 on the free list. 
 
 Under the Wilson bill the conditions were reversed, viz, nursery 
 stock being restored to the free list (paragraph 587) aud florists' mate- 
 rial, for some unaccountable reason, put over into the dutiable list (])ara- 
 graph 234^). As that paragi-aph (234i) specified the names of certain 
 plants in conjunction with their uses, great uncertainty remained as to 
 the classification until a correct classification was recommended by this 
 committee, and, with the exception of three or four items, was adopted 
 entire by the Treasury Department under the recommendation of the 
 Board of General Appraisers. (See inclosures atta<ihed — letter of this 
 committee of January 8, 1895, to Hon. Walter H. Bunn, United States 
 appraiser. New York City, and printed copy of letter of Mr. C. S. Ham- 
 lin, Acting Secretary, of March 30, 1895, Exhibit A). 
 
 Under the ambiguous wording of that paragraph (234 J) the same 
 Boaterial was continually passed at the different custom- houses, paying 
 duty in some instances under an entry or affidavit that the pla-nts were 
 "for forcing," and duty collected accordingly and the identical material 
 entered free at other custom-houses under the nursery paragraph (687) 
 item of the same act.
 
 1040 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 The evil and injustice of this system was so great that the Secretary 
 of the Treasury on February 25, 1895, recommended thiit the law be 
 cbaijgeu to simyjlify and correct the classification on the lines as recom- 
 mended by this committee. 
 
 AD VALOREM V. SPECIFIC DUTY. 
 
 ]!^o tariff bill equitable in its provisions can be drawn that provides a 
 specitic duty on nursery and plant material. This is owintj to the fact 
 that all kinds of trees and plants vary so enormously in value, accord- 
 ing to age and other conditions. For instance, an apple, i)ear, cherry, 
 or any other kind of fruit tree is wortli, average price, from $1 per 1, ()()(), 
 as a young- stock or seedling, to $100 or $200 per 100. A specific duty 
 of, saj^ $2 per 1,000 would therefore be equivalent to an average duty of 
 200 j)er cent on the small seedling stocks, which is the raw material in 
 this business, or one-tenth of 1 per cent on trees worth $2 each. 
 
 Small roses that are used largely for "stocks" — manetti, multifiora, 
 dog rose, etc. — are commercially worth an average of about $5 per 
 1,000. A specific duty of 3 cents each vrould therefore be a duty of 
 600 per cent on this material, which comprises quite a large percentage 
 of rose importations, while roses worth $250 per 100 under the same 
 clause would i)ay a duty of but 12 per cent, and this rule of enormous 
 variation of value, depending upon the size, age, and condition of the 
 material, applies to all trees, shrubs, and plants. 
 
 Such a scale of s])ecific duty, irrespective of value, would at once 
 make a travesty of the whole question of tarilf revision. It would be 
 open to attack by every "cross roads" free trader, criticised by every 
 "tariff" reformer," and place your committee and Congress on the defen- 
 sive before the country in favoring a scale of duty inequitable in its 
 provisions and ten to twenty times higher than has ever been sug- 
 gested, either in time of war or under a high protective tariff heretofore. 
 
 UNIFORM DUTY. 
 
 A uniform duty of 10 per cent ad valorem is recommended by this 
 committee for these reasons: 
 
 1. It will simplify the law and avoid all the ambiguity and injustice, 
 as heretofore, growing out of the attempted separate clssification under 
 the act of 1800 and the present law. 
 
 2. It will avoid discrimination between nursery material and plant 
 material, between which Jio discriminatian in reality exists or should 
 exist. 
 
 3. This simplification of the law by a uniform ad valorem rate will 
 facilitate clearance at the custom-houses and avoid detention of perish- 
 able goods, as frequently occurs when there is ambiguity or uncertainty 
 of classification. 
 
 4. It is a mediuiu between the two extremes of free trade and the 
 high duty of the war and the act of 1890. 
 
 5. A moderate tariff is demanded by the conservative business 
 interests of the country. 
 
 G. No extreme tariff act can give permanency, and nothing is worse 
 for the business interests of the country than this continual agitation 
 and change. 
 
 7. The steamer freight charges on imjtorted tr6es and plants are so 
 large an item in proportion to the value tliat the freight chai-ges alone
 
 NURSERY STOCK, BULBS, AND PLANTS. 1041 
 
 are equivalent to an average duty, we believe, of from 20 per cent to 
 40 per cent. 
 
 8. The need of a specific duty to avoid undervaluations does not 
 apply to this material, as with ad valorem rates undervaluations rarely, 
 if ever, occur. 
 
 The average imports of nursery and plant material duriug the last 
 ten years has not exceeded, we understand, about $250,000 or $300,000. 
 Any reasonable duty that can be levied does not, therefore, materially 
 aft'ect the question of revenue. 
 
 Should your committee recommend the law to stand as at present, a 
 continued agitation for some duty on nursery material will no doubt 
 result. 
 
 PROHIBITORY TARIFF. 
 
 The recommendation that you place a prohibitory duty of $2 per 
 1,000 on " stocks — cuttings or seedlings — of all fruit and ornamental 
 trees" we believe will be resisted by the great mass of growers all over 
 the country, and the claim is likely to be made that such a law will have 
 been enacted for the benefit of a comparatively few wealthy growers 
 at the expense of the mass of producers, who rely upon cheap seed- 
 lings as their raw material. 
 
 The average price of apple, cherry, and plum stocks for " working'^ 
 in nurseries is about $1 per 1,000, and very little is grown in this 
 country. This recommended specific rate of $2 per 1,000 (200 per 
 cent) is therefore practically prohibitory, and, we believe, will be con- 
 sidered as a most unjust and unwise measure. 
 
 Perhaps a still more serious objection to this recommendation is the 
 confusion and uncertainty that would inevitably follow by the enact- 
 ment in the same law of the clause providing that "plants, trees, 
 shrubs, and vines commonly known as nursery stock" be also dutiable 
 at " 30 per cent ad valorem." 
 
 A tariff act drawn on these lines of attempting to combine specific 
 and ad valorem duties would make confusion worse confounded in the 
 n)atter of classification. 
 
 With an unscrupulous importer and a not overconscientious cus- 
 tom-house broker, all valuable trees, plants, and vines would be 
 entered as "stocks, seedlings or cuttings," at $2 per 1,000; while honest 
 purchasers all over the country would be paying 30 per cent on the 
 same material, and vice versa. In the former case no tree or plant, 
 whatever its age or value might be, would ever attain an age of more 
 than "three years old or less," and no custom-house official in the 
 country, even though he were an expert, could possibly determine from 
 an invoice, without an examination of the contents of every case, what 
 the classification should be or what duty should be levied under any 
 such law as this. 
 
 RATE OF DUTY RECOIVIMENDED. 
 
 For the above reasons this committee, after having gone all over the 
 subject in an intended spirit of fairness with the United States Gov- 
 ernment appraisers and the Treasury Department, with a thorough 
 knowledge of the whole subject, and, as we believe, in the best interests 
 of all classes, recommend a uniform duty of 10 per cent, as stated in 
 the resolution herewith attached (Exhibit B). 
 
 Fredericiv: W. Kelsey, Chairman. 
 T H 66
 
 1042 SCHEDULE G. AGEICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 For a Uniform Tariff. 
 
 Mr. Frederick W. Kelsey, chairman of tlie committee appointed at a late meeting 
 of the New York Florists' Club for the purpose of classifying imported plants, "in 
 order that such as are entitled to free entry under the law be thus passed, and such 
 as are dutiable required to pay duty uniformly in all cases," has just received the 
 following letter from Walter H. Bunn, appraiser at the port of New York : 
 
 Port of New York, N. Y., April IS, 1895. 
 My Dear Sir: I have this day received Treasury Department Circular No. 65 of 
 Customs Division, and transmit to you herewith a copy thereof. 
 
 You will observe that the Treasury Department does not adopt your views as to 
 azaleas, cactus, chrysanthemums, lily of the valley, and roses, but holds that all 
 species of these several plants and shrubs are dutiable at 10 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 234i. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, Walter H. Bunn, Appraiser, 
 
 Mr. Frederick W. Kelsey, No. 145 Broadway, City, 
 
 copy of circular. 
 
 To Collectors and Other Officers of the Customs : 
 
 For the purpose of securing uniformity at the various ports in the classification of 
 imported nursery stock, and of plants chiefly used for forcing under glass for cut 
 flowers or decorative purposes, attention is iuvi ted to paragraphs 234^ and 587, of 
 the act of August 28, 1894, which provide as follows: 
 
 "ParaCTaph 234.J. Orchids, lily of the valley, azaleas, pahns, and other plants 
 used for forcing under glass for cut flowers or decorative purposes, ten per centum 
 ad valorem. 
 
 " Paragraph 587. (Free list.) Plants, trees, shrubs, and vines of all kinds, com- 
 monly known as nursery stock, not specially provided for in this act." 
 
 The following lists of plants. Class A, covering nursery stock entitled to free entry 
 under paragraph 587, and Class B, covering plants, either specially provided for in 
 paragraph 234^ or recognized by florists to be chielly used for forcing under glass 
 for cut flowers or decorative purposes, and dutiable at the rate of 10 per cent ad 
 valorem, are published for ready reference and for the guidance of collectors in the 
 classification of such importations. 
 
 The subjoined list is copied from a list which was submitted to the Board of Geu- 
 eral Appraisers and approved by them : 
 
 CLASS A. 
 
 The following plants, trees, shrubs, and vines of all kinds are generally grown and 
 used as nursery stock, principally for planting in the open ground, and are not chiefly 
 "used for forcing under glass for cut flowers or decorative purposes" (free of duty, 
 paragrai)li 587) : 
 
 Aconitum autumnale, althiea, ampelojjsis veitchii, andromeda, anemone fulgeus, 
 anthericuu) liliastruni, aristolochia ; aucuba, green-leaved kinds (other than japonica) ; 
 begonias, tuberous; black Hamburg grape vines and other fruiting vines and trees, 
 calycanthus, caunas, clematis, cornus mascula, cratiegus, cy tisus or laburnum, daphne 
 cneorum, delphinium (larkspur), deutzia, dielytra spectabilis (dicentra), doronicum, 
 forsythia, gaillardia, hemerocallis, helleborus niger (Christmas rose), hollyhock, 
 hydrangea, iris (all species), kalmia latifolia; lilacs, excei)t the varieties Charles X, 
 Marie la Graye, and Rubra de Marly, pot grown ; lychnis, magnolia, mahonia, mauetti 
 stock, mnltiflora rose stock, pieonia, Philadelphus (mock orange), pinks, hardy; pri- 
 mula (except the species known as P. sinensis and P. obconica), ptelea, iiyrethrum, 
 rhododendron, snowball (viburnum); spira-as, except Astilbe japonica; staphylea 
 colchica, tarragon plant (artemisia dracunculus), weeping trees, wiegelia, wistaria, 
 yucca; all deciduous trees, maple (acer), elm (ulraus), linden (tilia), horse-chestnut 
 (iesculus), etc. ; all evergreen trees, spruce (abies), arbor vitae (thuya), etc. 
 
 CLASS R. 
 
 The following ''orchids, lily of the valley, azaleas, palms, and other plants" are 
 chiefly "used for forcing under glass for cut flowers or decorative purjioses," and
 
 NURSERY STOCK, BULBS, AND PLANTS. 1043 
 
 are not used to any appreciable extent as nursery stock for hardy outside planting 
 (dutiable, 10 per cent ad valorem, paragraph 2311) : 
 
 Araucaria excelsa, Aucuba japonica, azaleas, cactus, camellia; carnations, monthly 
 (Dianthus caryophyllus) j chrysanthemums, cycas, dracrena canes, erica, ferns, lapa- 
 geriii, Laurus nobilis, lily of the valley, Marguerite (Chrysanthemum frutescens); 
 orchids, all such as Cypripediums, Cattleyas, Lselias, Odontoglossums, Dendrobiums, 
 Oncidiums, Phahenopsis, Vandas, etc. ; palms, all such as Kentias, Latanias, Sea- 
 forthia, Arecas, Cocos, Phoenix, ChamcTerops, Rhapis, etc. ; Primula sinensis and 
 P. obcouica; roses, all kinds; vallotta purpurea; lilacs, Charles X, Marie la Graye, 
 and Rubra de Marly, pot g^wn; Spiraea jai^onica (Astilbe japonica). 
 
 C. S. Hamlin, Acting Secretary. 
 
 The classification which it is thus seen has been adopted by the Treasury Depart- 
 ment is, with the exception below noted, an exact copy of the document prepared 
 and presented by the committee of the New York Florists' Club to the various author- 
 ities in this city, and also on behalf of which Mr. Kelsey was privileged to make an 
 able argument before the appraisers of the country, at that time assembled in con- 
 vention in New York City. 
 
 That the Department has not seen proper to adopt the entire list as presented is to 
 be regretted ; at the same time the club and its committee are entitled to great credit 
 for the prompt, energetic, and able manner in which the work has been carried on. 
 
 It must be understood that the committee did not pretend to discuss the reasons 
 why one class of stock was allowed free entry and another taxed; their duty was to 
 compile and prepare a list of stock dutiable and stock nondutiable, according to 
 their interpretation of the law, and to endeavor to have it adopted by the Govern- 
 ment, so that rulings might be uniform at all the ports of entry, and that importers 
 might have a safe guide to go by. 
 
 This has been partially accomplished. 
 
 In the changes noted it is evident the Treasury Department officials have been 
 guided by the letter and not the intent of the law. Paragraph 2344 affords a good 
 illustration of the damage and harm caused by a carelessly worded sentence. It 
 must seem evident to all in the trade that it was the intention of the framers of the 
 paragraph in question that only sucli plants as were used for forcing under glass 
 were to be assessed, "orchids, lily of the valley, azaleas, etc.," being given simply as 
 examples, yet the construe tion of the sentence admits of but one interpretation by 
 the olificials whom, in all justice, one can not expect to be skilled in and cognizant 
 of the multitudinous technicalities of the thousand upon thousands of similar cases 
 brought before them, the work of crude grammarians, and passed on by Congress- 
 men still more ignorant. 
 
 The following items were taken from Class A, as rendered by the New York Flo- 
 rists' Club committee, and placed on the dutiable list: 
 
 Azaleas, the species known as amcena, Ghent, mollis, nudiflora, and pontica; cac- 
 tus; chrysanthemum; lily of the valley c/«/nps. Roses : Moss, Hybrid Perpetual and 
 Remontant, Rugosa, etc. ; all classes excepting Tea and Noisette. 
 
 However, if the florists of the country are sufficiently interested in the matter we 
 believe influence can be brought to bear upon the appraisers, who in every instance 
 treated the committee with the utmost politeness and attention, and through them 
 upon the Treasury Department, to change the rulings in question so that perfect 
 uniformity may prevail, aud only those varieties which are " chiefly used for forcing 
 under glass" be declared dutialilc. 
 
 The Florists' Exchange eschews politics, but it does pray for the day when measures 
 governing the technicalities of trade may be at least submitted to experts before 
 becoming law. 
 
 EXHIBIT B. 
 
 At a meeting of the special tariff coiiimittee of the New York Florists' Club held 
 on January 2, 1897, the following resolutions, offered by Mr. Samuel Henshaw, presi- 
 dent of the club and ex officio member of the committee, were unanimously passed: 
 
 "Resolved, That this committee recommend that a uniform duty of 10 per cent ad 
 valorem be placed on all trees, shrubs, plants, vines, and bulbs grown as nursery 
 stock, or lor forcing for cut flowers or decorative purposes. 
 
 "Bcsolred, That the chairman of this committee be requested to appear before the 
 Ways and Moans Committee, if possible, at the hearing on Tuesday, January 5, and 
 present in person the above resolution ; and that a brief be filed indicating the 
 reasons why such action, in the judgment of this committee, should be taken by 
 Congress at this time."
 
 1044 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTUKAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. W. C. BARRY, OF ROCHESTER, N. Y. 
 
 Monday, January 11, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Barry said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 appear liere to-day for the nurserymen of America. At a convention 
 hekl in Indianapolis last summer they appointed a committee to meet 
 this committee and to ask for a duty on nursery stock. Their purpose 
 in asking for this duty was protection to a great industry. 
 
 It is hardly necessary for me to tell you that this industry is of a 
 peculiar kind, affecting directly the agricultural interests of the United 
 States. These nurseries begin in New York City and extend to the 
 Pacific Ocean. They employ a very large number of hands and have a 
 very large amount of capital invested. 
 
 This industry, great as it is, is likely to be injured to the largest 
 degree for want of protection. There has been no duty on nursery 
 stock for a period of years, and in consequence the markets on this side 
 have been flooded with foreign stock to the great detriment of nurseries 
 on this side. 
 
 I want to impress upon you this fact, that a duty, and a pretty large 
 duty, is absolutely necessary for the protection of this great industry 
 in this country. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Have you with you any statement which you have 
 prepared ? 
 
 Mr. Barry. Yes, sir; I have a brief that I will present. We ask 
 for a duty which is not so large after all, but large enough to ijrotect 
 the industry. AVe ask for a duty of about 30 to 40 per cent. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Have you reduced it to a specific duty? 
 
 Mr. Barry. Yes, sir; I have a brief here. If I can convince you that 
 we need a duty rather than to have this great industry go to pieces I 
 think tlien I have done all that is necessary. I would like you to hear 
 what I have to say. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiV'ER. What kind of nursery stock? 
 
 Mr. Barry. All kinds. The nurseries in Europe produce a stock 
 almost similar to this country. There are some kinds of nursery stock 
 in this country afiected more than others; for instance, the seedling- 
 nursery stock which is produced here. This stock can be produced in 
 large quantities in this country, but the industry is at an end, for the 
 reason that it can be produced so much cheaper abroad. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What was the duty in 1890—20 per cent! 
 
 Mr. Barry. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And put on the free list in 1894? 
 
 Mr. Barry. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How was the industry from 1890 to 1893 — in a compara- 
 tively good condition? 
 
 Mr. Barry. No, sir. The industry has been growing worse. I don't 
 think the 20 per cent duty was sufficient. It did more harm than good. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. What countries export most to the United States? 
 
 Mr. Barry. England exports, Germany exports, and France exports. 
 The largest exports are from France. 
 
 Mr. Dolliver. Could we put these duties on without 'interfering 
 with the importation of novelties and specialties in shrubbery and 
 fruit trees? 
 
 Mr. Barry. That is a very small item — the importation of novelties. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The law of 1890 allowed novelties to be imported by the 
 Secretary of Agriculture free of duty? 
 
 Mr. Barry. The old tariff law in regard to this matter was a very 

 
 NURSERY STOCK, BULBS, AND PLANTS. 1045 
 
 confusiug one. The seedmen and the plautsmeu and the nurserymen 
 have all had it together in a confused state, and I wish to impress this 
 upon your mind, that we come here as nurserymen, not as seedmen, 
 and noi^ as florists. We come here to look after our interests as nursery- 
 men and ask you to protect us. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. In your statement you have prepared you have classi- 
 fied your stock as you desire to have if? 
 
 Mr. Barry. Yes, sir 5 we have made a classification which will serve 
 the purpose exactly. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Was there any tariff prior to 1890 on your line of 
 goods ? 
 
 Mr. Barry. Yes; 30 per cent at one time. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How long ago was that? 
 
 Mr. Baery. About fifteen years ago. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Did the business flourish under that tariff? 
 
 Mr. Barry. Yes, sir; it did. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Is this something that can have a specific duty rather 
 than an ad valorem duty? 
 
 Mr. Barry. Yes, sir; we have proposed in what we have prepared 
 to place a specific daty and an ad valorem duty — that is, specific in 
 regard to certain articles and ad valorem in a general way. It is neces- 
 sary to have an ad valorem duty, because the details are so great and 
 the technical names so long and so difficult of pronunciation that an 
 ordinary man can not understand those names, and so we have to have 
 an ad valorem duty to cover that ground. You see this is a pretty big 
 subject — this botanical subject — and the appraisers get mixed up in 
 regard to the names. Under the present schedule the appraisers in one 
 place consider an article dutiable and in another place the same article 
 is considered free. That is the way things have been going on. This 
 is a big industry, and we want it to continue and prosper as it has in 
 the past. 
 
 It is a pretty good thing for a country to distribute trees, plants, and 
 shrubs. It is a thing that is doing good, and it should be protected. 
 
 Mr. Barry submitted the following additional statement: 
 
 At a meeting of the Eastern Nurserymen's Association held in 
 Eochester, N. Y., December 23, 1896, it was — 
 
 Resolved, Tliat it is the sense of this associatiou that the present tariff rates on 
 nursery stock shoiiUl be revised, as a measure of protection both to the large nursery 
 trade interests and their laborers, and also for the purpose of removing the ambigu- 
 ous and confusing terms of the existing schedule (see paragraphs 234+ and 587), and 
 to that end would respectfully request that your honorable committee embody in its 
 recommendations that nursery stock be scheduled as follows, and believe such 
 action will meet the unanimous approval of the nurserymen of the United States 
 aud their thousands of employees and laborers: 
 
 1. Stocks, cuttings, or seedlings of myrobolan plum, mahaled and mazzard cherry, 
 3 years old or less, $1 per 1,000 plants. 
 
 2. Stocks, cnttings, or seedlings of pear, apple, quince, and St. Julien plum, 3 
 years old or less, $2 per 1,000 plants. 
 
 3. Rose plants, budded, grafted, or grown on their own roots, 3 cents each. 
 
 4. Stocks, cnttings, and seedlings of all fruit and ornamental trees, deciduous and 
 evergreen, shrubs aud vines, mauetti, multifora, and briar rose, and all trees, shrubs, 
 plants, and vines, commonly known as nursery stock, unless otherwise specilied, 30 
 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 5. It is the desire of this association that if in the future a treaty of reciprocity 
 be made with the Dominion of Canada, nursery stock be included therein. 
 
 Paragraph 234i of the present schedule should be repealed, for the reason that it3 
 terms are ambiguous and confusing. 
 
 A short statement of the reasons for these requests: The articles 
 covered by paragraphs 1 and 2 are grown principally in France and
 
 1046 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Holland, the labor being largely performed by women, at wages of 30 
 cents per day of eleven hours, and when by men at wages of from 40 to 
 50 cents per day. It is conservatively estimated that fally 90 per cent 
 of the value of these seedlings, stocks, etc., mentioned in paragraphs 1 
 and 2 is made up of labor. These articles can be profitably and suc- 
 cessfully grown in the United States if adequate protection is afforded, 
 but can not now be produced in this country in competition with foreign 
 countries unless American labor is reduced to the same level as the 
 poorly paid labor of France and Holland. It is believed that the pro- 
 posed rates will allow the production in this country of a large quantity 
 of these articles, affording larger opportunities for the employment of 
 American labor at living wages. 
 
 Many of the articles covered by paragraphs 2 and 3 are now imported 
 in large quantities from France, Holland, and Germany by representa- 
 tives of foreign firms residing in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chi- 
 cago, and other large cities, and are disposed of at auction in those cities 
 during the winter and spring months, and at ruinously low prices. 
 Much of this stock is "surplus," which can not be readily marketed in 
 the country of production, and the foreign grower is willing to risk the 
 amount of freight cliarges on the goods, with the expecttition of realiz- 
 ing a small profit over such charges, and would not be as ready to add 
 the item of duty to the expenses of the venture. It is impossible for the 
 American nurserymen to compete with the French, German, and Dutch 
 grower, with his cheap labor, and under existing conditions, and it is 
 believed that the proposed rates of duty would gTcatly lessen such 
 importations, and thus increase the market for American products. 
 
 It is believed that the proposed schedule will remove the ambiguous 
 terms of paragraph 234.;i of the act of 1804, which leaves open to question 
 as to what plants are "used for forcing under glass for cut flowers or 
 for decorative purposes." It is known that at some ports of entry some 
 Ijlants have been declared dutiable, while at other ports the same items 
 have been admitted free of duty. 
 
 The Dominion of Canada now offers a large and constantly increasing 
 market for nursery products, but few of which are brought from Canada 
 into the United States. The Liberal party of Canada (now in power) 
 has expressed a willingness to admit American nursery stock on a fair 
 basis, and it is believed that an offer of reciprocity may secure on more 
 favorable conditions a profitable market to the American nurserymen. 
 
 According to the census of ISOO, there were in the United States 
 4,510 nurseries, the valuation of which was 841,978,835, occupying 
 172,806 acres of land, and employing a capital of $52,425,G()9. That 
 report also showed tljat there were engaged in the nursery trade 45,057 
 men, of which 20,249 were salesmen and 2,279 women, 14,200 animals, 
 and using implements to the value of $990,G0G. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. SILAS WILSON, OF IOWA. 
 
 Monday, January 11, 1S97. 
 
 Mr. Wilson said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we 
 come here to you representing 4,500 nurserymen in the United States, 
 employing at least 110,000 people and representing $41,000,000 worth 
 of property. 
 
 I want to call your attention especially to the fact that this committee 
 represents 4,500 nurserymen, and that those nurserymen arc unanimous 
 in asking what has been outlined here — that is, a duty upon nursery 
 stock. 
 
 I have been a large producer of seedlings myself, growing as many as
 
 NURSERY STOCK, BULBS, AND PLANTS. 1047 
 
 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 in a year, largely apple seedlings, supplemented 
 by cherry, pear, and plum. I have been almost driven from the field 
 by the competition of the French nurserymen. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. Do I understand that your princii)al competitiou is 
 from France? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. It is very largely from France — in the seedling line 
 particularly. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Does that stock come in by way of I^ew York or by 
 way of Canada? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. It comes to oSTew York largely, with the exception of 
 apple seedlings, which I have been growing in reduced proportions at 
 a loss, and it is only a question of protection or going out of business. 
 
 Mr. Payne. These nurseries you represent are all over the United 
 States? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. In every State in the Union. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins. What did you say the amount of capital invested was? 
 
 iMr. AViLSOxN. Forty-one million dollars, or about that, employing iu 
 the neighborhood of 110,000 workmen. It is an industry, as Mr. Barry 
 told you, that extends from New York to San Francisco. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Did you see this schedule presented by Mr. Barry? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you subscribe to that? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir; I do. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What would be the average ad valorem equivalent! 
 
 Mr. Wilson. In the neighborhood of 30 per cent. 
 
 In conclusion, I wish to impress upon you gentlemen that we are here 
 in a representative capacity, representing the American Association 
 of Nurserymen, backed up by these 4,500 nurserymen all over this 
 country, and they are i^ractically unanimous in asking this duty as a 
 necessity. 
 
 The Chairman. That is, you say that you want a specific duty that 
 shall be equivalent to about 30 per cent ad valorem? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir; I think that is what it would average, about 
 30 per cent on the three items we have named in our brief. 
 
 The Chairman. Have jon furnished in your statement the value of 
 each of the various classes of stock abroad? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman (continuing). So that we can see how your specific 
 duty would apply? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Wilson subsequently filed the following schedule of recommended 
 rates, with cost, iu behalf of the American Nurserymen's Association: 
 
 RATES RECOMMEKDED. 
 
 1. Stocks, cnttings, or seedlings of myrobolan plum, mahaleb, and mazard cherry 
 3 years old or less, $1 per 1,000 plants. 
 
 2. Stocks, cuttings, or seedlings of pear, apple, quince, and St. Julien plum, 3 years 
 old or less, $2 per 1,000 plants. 
 
 3. Rose plants, budded, grafted, or grown on their own roots, 3 cents each. 
 
 4. Stocks, cuttings, and seedlings of all fruit and ornamental trees, deciduous and 
 evergreen, shrubs and vines, manetti, multiflora and briar rose, and all trees, shrubs, 
 plants, and vines, commonly known as nursery stock, unless otherwise specified, 30 
 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 PRICES OF STOCK. 
 
 Myrobolan plum stocks, mahaleb, and mazard cherry, 3 years old or less, $3 to 
 $3.50 per 1,000. 
 
 Pear, $6.50 to $7.50 per 1,000 plants; apples, $3.50 to $5.50 per 1,000; quince, $5 to 
 $8 per 1,000; St. .Julien plum, $4 to $5.50 per 1,000. 
 
 Rose plants, $55 to $65 per 1,000. 
 
 Silas Wilson.
 
 1048 SCHEDULE G, — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 STATEMENT BY AUGUST ROLKER & SONS, OF NEW YORK. 
 
 New York, N. Y., January 1, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 A special classification is respectfully requested for the following 
 articles to avoid ambiguity and to stoji differing appraisals at the differ- 
 ent ports of entry: 
 
 Wheat, bleached, used for florists' sheaves, and now classified under 
 heading of grasses bleached, paying 20 per cent, and natural grasses 
 sunbleached, free. This article is imported Irom Italy, is used also for 
 millinery and artificial-flower purposes and can well stand paying duty, 
 at least a uniform one for all, the average foreign value being about 
 1 franc the kilometer, or about 10 cents a pound. A specific duty of 2 
 cents a pound on gross weight of cases and contents would be equal to 
 about the present rates and jirotect tlie Government from undervalua- 
 tion and from loss through inability to tare each box. The tare in this 
 instance averages about 30 i)er cent. The entire chapter of natural 
 grasses, whether in the crude natural state or bleached by natnral or 
 artificial process, could stand the same rate of duties. When dyed, a 
 duty of 10 cents a pound additional should be sufficient to i)rotectwhat 
 little home industry there is, mostly limited to millinery i)urpose8. A 
 rule could be made to import each kind i)acked in separate boxes; and 
 where importations are so trifling as to come in assorted boxes, either 
 the separate weight could be ascertained by Unit<id States weigher, or 
 the higher rate could prevail for the entire contents. 
 
 Moss, natural but dyed, loose in bundles, or put up in packages for 
 ready retailing, has been entered with 20 per cent, 10i>er cent, and free, 
 according to how it is described. A special mention of this article to 
 insure uniformity in tlie assessment of duties is advisable. The natural 
 moss can well ailbrd to pay the same rate as the dyed article; it often 
 takes a practiced eye to tell the difference. A specific duty is hardly 
 practicable, except it be one by weight, gross for net, allowing a certain 
 l>ercentage for tare. 
 
 i5atural flowers, crude not dyed, are on the free list at present. This 
 can not well be objected to, the majority of sorts imported being native 
 in other climes, such as French immortelles. Cape everlastings, etc. 
 The same flowers bleached and dyed form no well-established industry 
 in this couiitry, and might, therefore, as well be free likewise, except 
 as they form often the first parts of the artificial-flower trade. But 
 natural fresh cut flowers, such as are shipped to lis from JJermuda, 
 Trinidad, and can be imi)orted from Canada, should certainly pay a 
 heavy if not prohibitive duty, say at least 50 cents a pound. The 
 trafllc in Bermuda lily flowers at Easter time has been injuring the 
 American grower in the past considerably, and should be stopped. 
 To-day all natural flowers, grasses, and leaves, whether fresh or dried, 
 are entered free as vegetable substances crude. All dyed flowers, 
 leaves, and grasses pay 20 per cent as articles advanced in value by 
 some process or manufacture. 
 
 Still palm leaves natural dried, when dyed and prepared, are entered 
 by some free of duty as natural palm leaves, whilst we and others are 
 assessed 20 per cent by the local appraiser. Why not establish uiu- 
 formity here? The preparing and dyeing of palm leaves seems to 
 become a growing industry in our country, though we do not believe 
 that it needs protection as long as the crude article can come in free 
 of duty wlicu in the dried state. 
 
 i
 
 NURSERY STOCK, BULBS, AND PLANTS. 1049 
 
 Being large importers of bulbs, also of seeds and plants, we are aware 
 that a strong movement is on foot on the part of the nurserymen's trade 
 to obtain high protective rates. We "will with permission state our 
 views from a twenty-years experience in that line. The vaUieof bulbs 
 and seeds depend entirely on quality, which can not be correctly ascer- 
 tained by looks. The chances for undetected undervaluations are there- 
 fore so large that a duty would work against all honest importers, and 
 seems not advisable. Besides, in those lines each country produces its 
 sx>ecialties, suflBciently protected by nature itself, of which we send ours 
 to the countries less favored than we. 
 
 Garden seeds grown in America are claimed to be of such sui^erior 
 grade that a protective duty seems out of place; still in the interest of 
 stimulating quality in home growth further, the present rates of duties 
 may properly be maintained. 
 
 With nursery stock it is different. It needs protection against the 
 cheap stock thrown into our markets from Holland mainly, and grown 
 on purpose to feed the trade of the States. We find on an average the 
 provisions of the old McKinley bill by far more just and correct than 
 those of the Wilson bill. A provision to assess all plants equal with 
 20 per cent duty would hardly be any too much. Specific duties of 
 so much per thousand could not be controlled, and Europeans of dis- 
 honest tendencies would as quicklj'' misrepresent count as values; and 
 what facilities has the appraiser to have an importation of say 10 to 50 
 mille rosebushes, all full of thorns, properly recounted here? Such 
 plants as the florist uses for growing under glass or for decorative pur- 
 poses should with the same right be free of duty to-day as in 1890; but 
 tliis definition is too general. The i)lants intended to be free should be 
 named, as, for instance, orchids, azaleas, palms, lily of the valley, spirfea 
 roots, and all bulbs and bulbous roots, whether dormant or budding, 
 used for flowering, and not for medicinal, edible, or manufacturing pur- 
 poses. Though not inclined to advise a duty as a necessity on the last- 
 named articles, still if in the wisdom of Congress it should be deemed 
 advisable in order to check the growing competition of foreign dealers 
 with the American dealers' trade (which competition has strongly 
 increased since the duty was taken off"), we would consider such object 
 better attained by a higher rate of duty than the present one of only 
 10 per cent on some of these items. This being a mercenary view of 
 the matter at issue, we prefer to maintain that in the interest of advanc- 
 ing refinement in the education of the masses these articles should pay 
 no duty. 
 
 August Eolker & Sons. 
 
 FOREIGN NURSERY STOCK REACHES KANSAS. 
 
 North Topeka, Kans., January 11, 1897. 
 Dear Sir : I call your attention to a matter that, in a measure, 
 affects myself and all nurserymen of this country. You doubtless are 
 aware that France is a great nursery center for the world, and many of 
 her products enter into direct competition with what we raise even so 
 far west as Kansas. France pays for her most skilled labor, viz, 
 grafters, budders, etc., 40 cents i3er day. You know, without saying, 
 what we pay. This stock comes over mostly in the form of ballast, and 
 freight is cheap, hence it reaches the United States as cheaply as our 
 freights will place our products at the same points East. This has 
 all been very demoralizing to our business. I am president of the
 
 1050 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Western Association of Wholesale Nurserymen at Kansas City and also 
 chairinan of the committee on tariff. 
 
 We have agreed on a tariff about as follows : $2 per 1,000 on all tree 
 stocks or seedlings, fruit, ornamental and tree; a specific duty of 3 
 cents on roses, grafted, budded, or on their own roots, and an ad valorem 
 duty of 30 per cent on all other nursery stock. 
 
 In addition we would like a duty of $3 a bushel on all apple seed. 
 
 This tariff asked for by the three associations. Eastern, Western, and 
 National, will meet the hearty approval of more than 95 per cent of the 
 nurserymen of this whole country. I want to add, also, that in addi- 
 tion to the inroads of the French and Dutch, we have a stiff tariff 
 working against us in Canada, while the nurseries of that country send 
 their stock over the border as free as water. 
 
 A. L. Beooke. 
 
 STATEMENT MADE BY HON. JOHN I. RINAKER, A REPRE- 
 SENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. 
 
 Monday, Jariuary 11, 1897. 
 
 Mr. EiNAKER said: I think you have alreadj' had up the subject ot 
 bulbs and flower seed and shrubbery. These are on the free list at 
 l)reseut, and when tliey were put tliere that action closed out the busi- 
 ness in my district, by which they sustained considerable loss. 
 
 I will file a statement about it here and not take the time to read it, I 
 think you have heard something from the florists and those engaged in 
 that line of business. 
 
 The paper referred to is as follows : 
 
 Jacksonvillk, III., January 5, 1897. 
 
 Deau Sir: All treos, slirubs, plants, Imlbs, roots, and seeds used for orn.amental 
 purposes arc admitted iVee. Generally speaking, these things are luxuries and 
 should not be on the free list, and with our varied climatic and soil conditions most 
 of them could be produced in our own country if we did not have to compete with 
 cheap foreign labor, and if we could not ])roduce the same things liere we could 
 grow sometliing that would fill their place and thereby keep our money at home 
 Personally I should like to see such a high tariff on this class of goods as to shut it 
 out, except as to new varieties for dissemination. This would comi)el our dealers 
 to grow stock at homo, and, considering the large interests already engaged in this 
 business, would be the means of furnishing employmejit to a large nnmber of our 
 own laborers. 
 
 A particular stock to which I would refer is Irish junipers, which years ago paid 
 quite a duty, the exact amount I do not recall. A number of growers were produc- 
 ing and selling small plants of these at from $1;") to $20 per thousand, and as the 
 money expended in their ]>roduction was nearly all for labor, it employed quite a 
 number of laborers. The tariff was taken off and we had to compete witli imported 
 stock sold for $6 i)er thousand. What is true of this particular article is also true of 
 nearly all nursery stock, etc. 
 
 I know that one year I planted upward of 200,000 evergreen cuttings, and on 
 account of foreign stock we could not sell it for enough to pay the labor expended, 
 and that as a result we have grown a few thousand only since that time. 
 
 Frank J. Heinl, 
 
 SPICES. 
 
 (Paragraph 235 and free list 626-633.) 
 
 BRIEF SUBMITTED IN BEHALF OF VARIOUS NEW YORK 
 IMPORTERS OF SPICES. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 5, 1897. 
 The undersigned importers of spices herewith respectfully urge upon 
 your honorable committee the jidoption of the following amendments to. 
 and change in the free list, paragraphs G2G to ()33.
 
 SPICES. 1051 
 
 First. Expunge said paragraphs from tbe free list and substitute as 
 follows : 
 
 626. Cassia, cassia vera, and cassia buds, ungrouud, ten cents per pound. 
 
 627. Cinnamon, and chips of, unground, twenty cents per pound. 
 
 628. Cloves and clove stems, iiuground, ten cents per pound. 
 
 629. Ginger root, unground and not preserved or candied, ten cents per pound. 
 
 630. Mace, twenty-five cents per pound. 
 
 631. Nutmegs, twenty cents per pound. 
 
 6.S2. Pepper, black and white, unground, five cents per pound. 
 633. Pimento, unground, five cents per pound. 
 
 Second. Add pepper shells and dust, 5 cents per pound. 
 
 In support of the undersigned's contention that the first of these 
 proposed changes would be highly beneficial to our citizens and Ameri- 
 can consumers, we beg to submit the following : 
 
 Among the many articles of foreign production and growth which 
 might be made dutiable without ever proving to be a hardship to the 
 consumers in the United States, none recommend themselves more 
 than spices, among which we understand black, white, and red pep- 
 per (such as chillies, capsicums), cloves, clove stems, cassia lignea, cas- 
 sia vera, cassia known as patavia, saigon cassia, cinnamon rolls and 
 chips, nutmegs, mace, ginger, pimento, and tapiocas of all kinds, 
 unground. 
 
 Up to the year 1883, when spices were taken oft" the dutiable list, the 
 duties under the tarift" of 1879 were as follows: 
 
 On cassia, ten cents per pound. 
 
 On cassia buds, twenty cents per pound. 
 
 On cassia, ground, twenty cents per pound. 
 
 On cinnamon, chips, twenty cents per pound. 
 
 On cloves, five cents per pound. 
 
 On cloves, stems, three cents ])er pound. 
 
 On pepper, all kinds, ten cents per pound, ground. 
 
 On pepper, all kinds, five cents per pound, ungrouud. 
 
 On pepper dust, five cents per pound. 
 
 On nutmegs, twenty cents per pound. 
 
 On mace, twenty-five cents per pound. 
 
 Gingers and tapiocas were free, but there is hardly any reason why 
 the former could not stand a duty of 5 cents per pound for unground 
 root, a duty of 10 cents per pound for ground ginger, while tapiocas of 
 all kinds could bear a duty of 2^ cents per pound. 
 
 The prices of all spices have gone down considerably during the last 
 ten years, costing wholesale to-day about one-half to one-third of what 
 the cost of importation was ten years ago, yet the cost to the consumer 
 is hardly less than it was twenty-five years ago. 
 
 The following happened to one of our largest spice importers and 
 gdndcrs a few years ago. He owns property somewhere on Long 
 Island. During the preserving season he noticed under the different 
 items of groceries which his housekeeper had bought, one ounce of 
 cinnamon stick at 5 cents. He was curious to see it, and found that 
 the grocer charged 5 cents per dozen for a common cassia, which was 
 selling wholesale at 7 cents per pound. 
 
 The average consumption of pepper, the spice used probably more 
 than any other, is about one-quarter of a pound per capita per annum. 
 Ground pepper sells for about 25 cents per one-fourth of a pound, while 
 the cost of the whole pepper to the grinder is about cents per pound; 
 a duty of 5 cents per ])ound would therefore equal about a yearly tax 
 lof IJ cents per capita, which certainly can not be a burden. 
 
 On th-e other hand, there are eminent reasons why the reimposition 
 of duties on spices should prove of benefit to the consumer; chief of 
 all, it would stop adulterations.
 
 1052 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 England and Europe now send us large quantities of pepper shells, 
 worth 1 to 2 cents per pound, but absolutely without value intrinsic- 
 ally, they being used merely as adulterants. Macasser nutmegs and 
 a wild mace, which are almost poisonous, are brought here and sold at 
 low prices for the same purpose. A broken cassia comes here consist- 
 ing of a great percentage of dust, selling at a price 50 per cent less 
 than good cassia, but without any merit as to quality. In a similar way 
 clove stems are used to adulterate cloves. 
 
 The cheapening of any product will always tend to deteriorate its 
 quality, and a duty on spices will not only give the Government a good 
 revenue but improve their quality for the consumer and prove to be a 
 benefit to the country. 
 
 The spice trade, with the exception of the foreign agents, especially 
 for English houses, will be very well satisfied and welcome a duty, 
 which will make the competition with the London houses less keen and 
 avoid overimportations, under which for a number of years the spice 
 trade, like all other branches of business, has suffered. 
 
 A canvass among the large dealers in spices in New York will find 
 a general indorsement of the above-mentioned facts, and yet if the 
 question of a duty on sjiices is given any publicity, it is to be feare<l that 
 our warehouses will be filled with importations from England and Hol- 
 land before a tariff bill will go into effect, which will defeat the purpose 
 of increasing the revenue, at least for a number of years to come. 
 
 The strong jioints in favor of duties on spices are briefly stated as 
 follows : 
 
 First. That it would raise a large amount of revenue and not be 
 burdensome to the consumer. 
 
 Second. That it would insure to tlie consumer purer and better goods, 
 without increasing the cost materially, if at all. 
 
 The laws of Europe, especially England, are so much more strin- 
 gent than ours that goods of inferior quality, mixed and adulterated, 
 are naturally shipped to this market, where their sale is free and 
 unprohibited. 
 
 Should the duty be reim])osed, goods of this character would be shut 
 out, as they would not be worth the amount of the duty. 
 
 In support of our second i)oint to tax pepper shells and dust 5 cents 
 per pound, we respectfully submit that these two articles have no mer- 
 cantile value abroad, but here they are sold at about 50 per cent of 
 the value of legitimate pepper. 
 
 Geo. O. Glavis, Attorney. 
 
 Eepresentiug Messrs. Champion & Staudinger, New York, importers; 
 Messrs. Otto 11. Mayer & Co., New York, importers; Messrs. 0. V. 
 Pustau & Co., New York, importers. 
 
 SAGE, SWEET MARJORAM, ETC. 
 
 (Paragraph 235.) 
 
 Port Byron, N. Y., December 28, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means; 
 
 I desire to make a suggestion in regard to sweet marjoram, thyme, 
 summer savory, coriander seed, and sage, which are denominated by 
 the trade as butchers' sup]>lies. 
 
 Our soil is well adapted to the growing of all these articles, but owing
 
 DEGRAS, OR BROWN WOOL GREASE. 1053 
 
 to our lack of experience and tlio difference iu price of labor here and 
 in Germany and Italy they have the advantage, and we are not able to 
 compete. 
 
 Our mauulacturers are buying Italian sage, grinding and selling it to 
 the wholesale trade for 7 cents or less per pound. At these prices we 
 are not able to comijete. These articles are mostly used to flavor meats, 
 sausage, etc., and the quantity is so small it would not afiect the con- 
 sumer to put on a reasonable tariff that in the end would give us 
 experience and enable us to successfully compete with the foreign 
 article. 
 
 I have consulted with a number of dealers and find them all favorable 
 to a tariff'. 
 
 Please take this thing under consideration and put us in condition to 
 establish an industry that will furnish a large amount of labor and save 
 us sending out of the country thousands of dollars for an article much 
 inferior to what we can raise ourselves. 
 
 Oscar Gutohess. 
 
 DEGRAS, OR BROWN WOOL GREASE. 
 
 (Free list, paragraph 645.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE WORCESTER (MASS.) CHOLES- 
 
 TERINE COMPANY. 
 
 . WoRCESfER, Mass., Becemler 29, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Under the so-called Aldrich bill which passed the Senate previous to 
 the election of President Harrison, a duty of 1 cent per pound on degras, 
 or brown wool grease, was levied. Believing this duty was reasonable 
 and proper, and a fair compensation for difference between cost of labor 
 and cost of a plant for production of brown wool grease, this company 
 began its manufacture. There were several other plants already in 
 operation. 
 
 Under theMcKinley bill, so called, a duty of one-half cent per pound 
 was placed on this article, and its manufacture was begun in several 
 new localities. While importers of this article opposed a duty, they 
 recognized the reasonableness of it, and prepared themselves by large 
 importations before the bill went into effect. Kotwithstanding this 
 fact, also that the Wilson bill took the duty off, its manufacture very 
 considerably increased, and the price of the foreign article, which had 
 been 3^ cents per pound, was reduced to less than 2:^ cents. 
 
 This article is really a resultant product of the manufacture of woolen 
 goods, and if the woolen manufacturers and woolgrowers are to be pro- 
 tected, it would seem as if this article, into the recovery of which 
 practically nothing goes but labor, should receive a fair meed of 
 protection. 
 
 There is, in this company's judgment, more of this article in a raw 
 state in this country when business is in its normal condition than would 
 supply the wants of this country. 
 
 In Bradford, England, the ordinary laborer in the production of this 
 article receives 62^ cents per day; a foreman, 88 cents per day. The 
 lowest wages we ijay are $1.25 per day; foreman, $1.75 per day. 
 
 This company believes that a duty of three-fourths of a cent per
 
 1054 SCHEDULE G. AGKICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 pound on this article will result at first in a considerable increase of 
 the revenues of the Government and later on will result in a very con- 
 siderable manufacture of this article here, giving employment to consid- 
 erable labor and some capital and save an article which, owiug to cheap 
 labor conditions abroad, is now allowed to run to waste here, and will 
 add materially to the increase of the protective industry of this country. 
 A number of prominent woolen manufacturers have expressed to us 
 a desire for a duty on this article, and we have no doubt we can pro- 
 duce a petition in its favor from all the woolen manufacturers in this 
 country who are protectionists, if you so desire. 
 
 WOEOESTBR CnOLESTERINE COMPANY, 
 
 J. EusSEL Marble, Treasurer. 
 
 TKE FIRST DEGRAS COMPANY. 
 
 Pawtucket, Pt. I., January 11, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We desire to call your attention to the necessity for a duty on degras, 
 or wool grease. In the McKinley bill there was a duty of one-halt' 
 cent per i)Ound on this article, but the prescMit taritY })laced it on the 
 free list. We think about 50,000 barrels are imported annually from 
 Europe. We were the first in this country to i)ut in a plant to recover 
 the grease from our wool washings, and a few other mills are now doing 
 so. We went into the process simply to prevent the pollution of the 
 stream passing our mill. Without charging anything for the washings, 
 we find that it costs all we get for the degratS, for labor, steam, acid, 
 etc., as the price from abroad has been very low. There is, therefore, 
 no encouragement for mills to put in plants for the recovery of their 
 grease. 
 
 A very important reason why this branch of industry should be pro- 
 tected, in order to equalize conditions of labor, is, that nothing is more 
 injurious to our streams and rivers than wool washings, and from a sani- 
 tary stand])oint it will become necessary for mills to find some way of 
 removing this matter from the rivers. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 Lorraine Manufacturing Company, 
 J. P. MacPoll, Treasurer. 
 
 GAMBIER V. CANAIGRE. 
 
 (Free list, paragraph 194.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HON. T. B. CATRON, A DELEGATE 
 FROM NEW MEXICO. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 11, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I desire to call j^our attention to an industry which has lately been 
 commenced in the Territory of New Mexico, as well as in Arizona and 
 Texas. It is the industry of obtaining the extract of the canaigre 
 root. This extract is used for tanning, and is regarded as the best 
 article in the market for that purpose. It has, however, a competitor 
 in what is known as gambler. This latter jjioduct is produced in Sin- 
 gai)()re and imported into the United States. About 80 per cent of the
 
 GAMBIER V. CANAIGRE. 1055 
 
 import, as I am informed by those producing the extract of canaigre, is 
 used in tanning leather, the remainder being used by silk manufacturers 
 as a mordant in dyeing, except a small per cent used in medicine. 
 
 Both the leather and silk trades are protected by a tariff, and no 
 objection should be made to a tariff on gambler, as it forms a very small 
 part of the cost of their goods. Tanners do not use gambler exclu- 
 sively, but only in combination with bark or other materials, and then 
 only to the extent of about 5 per cent of the cost of tanning. It is 
 thought that a tariff of 1^ cents per pound on gambler would prove no 
 burden to any industry and would furnish ample protection to canaigre, 
 which is the best tanning extract now extant. 
 
 I herewith hand you a letter from Mr. 0. B. Allaire, president of the 
 Tanning Extract Company, of Peoria, 111., which has its factory at 
 Deming, in the Territory of New Mexico. He shows clearly the com- 
 petition with and the cost of canaigre, and the possibility of this prod- 
 uct being able to compete without a duty within a period of five years. 
 
 In order that you may thoroughly understand the nature of the 
 product for which we ask protection, I inclose you^ some bulletins on 
 the subject and other papers. 
 
 I respectfully recommend that you put a duty of 1| cents a pound 
 on gambler in order that the canaigre industry may be fostered. This 
 industry will give employment to a large number of employees in New 
 Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. A great advantage of this product is 
 that it is produced upon soils without irrigation, on the most arid plains, 
 and a great i:>ortion of the work in connection with it is done during the 
 winter months, when labor can be obtained cheaply. But the persons 
 who are engaged in the industrj^ I am informed, can not compete with 
 gambler in the markets of the United States because their business is 
 not suflQciently advanced at present to enable them to do so, and there 
 is no inducement for capitalists to invest a large amount of money in 
 it when it is certain that, for a period of about five years, they will 
 have to lose rather than gain in income. 
 
 I am informed that this industry, when it is fully developed to the 
 capacity required, will give employment to several thousand men. It 
 will produce an article which will relieve the great expenditure of oak 
 and hemlock barks now used in the tanning of leather. Canaigre, I am 
 told, need not be mixed with the barks at all, but the leather can be 
 tanned with it alone. This will save the forests to a great extent and 
 at the same time will utilize laud which is now absolutely desert for any 
 other purpose — an enterprise which, it seems to me, ought to be encour- 
 aged. We have a vast area of arid lands in the United States which can 
 never be put to any practical use unless we find some plants which will 
 grow on them without irrigation, like the plant in question. This plant 
 is like the Kaffir corn which is said to grow with very little moisture. 
 It is safe to say that one-fourth or one- fifth of the area of New Mexico 
 and of Arizona can be brought under cultivation by the use of this plant, 
 and there is no doubt that its cultivation would result in a great saving 
 of expense in the tanning of leather. 
 
 As it can do but little harm to any possible industry, it seems to me 
 that the duty which is asked to be imposed on gambler is so inconsid- 
 erable that no one can refuse to do it. I therefore earnestly request 
 your consideration of the matter and hope you will place upon the 
 article the duty which is asked. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 T. B. Catron, 
 Delegate from New Mexico.
 
 1056 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Deming, N. Mex., January 7, 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir: You are probably aware tbat about five years ago we built at this 
 place a factory for the manufacture of tanning extract frou) canaigre roots, which 
 grow naturally throughout this arid region. We have so far expended over 
 $75,000 in this enterprise, and have demonstrated beyond question that canaigre is a 
 very valuable and desirable tanniug material; that it can, under favorable condi- 
 tions, be produced and delivered in the markets of the world at a coat that will pay 
 good profits and. justify the development of the industry on a very large scale. 
 
 Ours is the only factory of the kind in the world, and this work has been done 
 single-handed in working out the details and economies, and in creating a market. 
 
 Our chief competing commodity is gambler, cutch, or terra japonica, different names 
 for the same article. It is imported into the United States to the extent of about 
 20,000,000 pounds annually, and is duty free. It is used by the leather trade to the 
 extent of about 80 per cent of the import. The balance is used by silk manufactur- 
 ers as a mordant in dyeing, except a very small per cent used in medicine. 
 
 Both the leather and silk trades are protected by the tariff on their products, and 
 should not object to a tariff" on gambler as in all cases it forms a very small item in 
 the cost of their goods. No tanners use gambier exclusively, but use it in combina- 
 tion with bark or other materials; the gambler in no case is over 5 per cent of the 
 cost of tanning, so that a tariff" of, say, 1^ cente per pound on gambler would prove 
 no burden on any industry. 
 
 Gambler has so far been free because none was produced in this country nor any 
 substitute for it, but you will see by pami)hlet8 that I mail you to-day, and all tan- 
 ners will admit, that canaigre is a complete and perfect substitute for gambler; that 
 they use it in place of gambler, and would use it more largely if canaigre was as 
 cheap as gambler. 
 
 We have so far developed this business by using canaigre roots of wild or natural 
 growth which cost us $7 per ton, green, as dog from the ground, delivered at the 
 factory. 
 
 Gambler has sold in New York recently as low as $2.92^ per 100 pounds, and is now 
 worth in London lis. 9d. per hundredweight. The stock is very large, and the new 
 crop will be on the market in February from Singapore; so there is no hope for 
 l)i!i:her prices for a year or more, and consequently we are selling practically nothing 
 outside of a few cases per month for experimental purposes. Our factory has not 
 turned a wheel since last June, and with present rate of sales we have enough stock 
 on hand to last two years. 
 
 This condition of affairs is all wrong and unnecessary, because it is not possible 
 Avithout a tariff on gambler to compete successfully with that article, and for five 
 years we have tried to bring this condition about, but so far have not been able to 
 do so for the following reasons: 
 
 We have expended about $.30,000 more than we have earned in experiments toward 
 low cost of manufacture and in creating a market where there was none for this 
 commodity, therefore we can not show profits on work done to indace a larger invest- 
 ment of capital. Wo are not able to offer an attractive price to induce farmers to 
 engage in the cultivation of the roots. 
 
 In short, in order to develop the industry on a large scale the initial factory must 
 first earn profits and declare dividends to its stockholders. After that is done plenty 
 of capital will be available, and the business can be conducted on a scale and under 
 conditions where no protective tariff will be necessary. 
 
 I will demonstrate this by showing the present cost of a ton of extract delivered 
 in New York or Liverpool or Hamburg and compare it with the possible cost with 
 favorable conditions such as can be easily realized : 
 
 Present cost of 1 ton extract. 
 
 5 tons green roots, at $7 per ton $35. 00 
 
 Factory expenses, 5 tons per day 20. 00 
 
 Boxes, $4; freight, $12; selling expenses, $12.50 28. 50 
 
 Total 83.50 
 
 Our selling price now is 4| cents a pound, or $90 per ton, leaving us practically no 
 profit, and Avhen idle a positive loss, for taxes, insurance, and care of property have 
 to be paid. 
 
 With gambler at about 3 cents per pound, or $(50 per ton, you can see we have no 
 chance for sales, bnt with 1^ cents duty, raising the jtrice to 4^ cents a pound, or $90 
 per ton, we would be on a parity and have a chance for business, with a probable 
 
 I
 
 GAMBIER V. CANAIGKE. 1057 
 
 chance for bij^licr prices later ou aud a lowor price on our goods throujjh further 
 economies to ])o worked out. 
 
 With ample capital and larger capacity, say, 150 tons roots per day, or 30 tons 
 extract, the following cost is possible : 
 
 5 tons roots, at $2 per ton $10. 00 
 
 Factory expense, $1. 50 per ton of roots 7. 50 
 
 Boxes, $4; freight, $12; selling expense, advertising, etc., 12^ per cent, $7. 50. 23. 50 
 
 Total 41.00 
 
 so that we could then sell at $60 per ton and have a profit of $19 aud compete success- 
 fully with gambler at present prices without a protective taritf, so that a tariff is 
 necessary only to start the iudustj'y, and not to maintain it. 
 
 It has been the writer's ambition to establish this industry upon a prosperous 
 basis. It is peculiarly adapted to this high, arid section, whore laud is plenty and 
 water scarce. With a limited supply of Avater three times the acreage can be put in 
 canaigre that can be put in other crops. It grows in the winter from November to 
 March, when water is not needed for other crops and usually goes to waste, and the 
 farmer has spare time not required for the care of fruit and grain. This crop ia 
 peculiarly adapted to the lower valleys, where water fails in summer but is plenty 
 in winter, i. e., the Rio Grande. 
 
 It will succeed only where the winters are cool but have no severe frosts and where 
 the spring and early summer are dry to facilitate the maturing of tlio tubers. 
 
 It is a crop singularly free from all known disease or ill effects from frost, heat, 
 floods, drought, or insect enemies. 
 
 It may be left in the ground for several years, and constantly increases in weight 
 and value without cost for insurance or storage necessary for other crops when har- 
 vested and held for higher prices. It does not have to be harvested at any particular 
 time, as the value for manufacturing purposes is nearly uniform the year through. It 
 is therefore free from all the contingencies of loss attending other crops. Unlike other 
 crops, the seed roots planted do not rot, but, on the contrary, grow alter planting, and 
 are harvested with increased weight with the balance of the crop. 
 
 It is estimated that an acre well managed will yield 10 tons of tubers in one year, 
 and can be produced at a cost of $20, or $2 per ton. One ton of these roots has as much 
 tanning value and will make as much leather as a ton of oak or hemlock bark in the 
 States, costing $7.50 to $8. Our bark supply is, year by year, gradually being used up 
 and becomes more remote from the tannery and more costly, so that before many years 
 this country will have to import its tanning materials from South America, Mexico, or 
 British Columbia as Europe now does, aud therefore we will gradually lose our export 
 trade unless something is done to supjily this loss, and canaigre is the only known 
 substance that can be quickly produced to an almost unlimited extent. In fact, it is 
 possible to produce it so much cheaper than bark even now that the encouragement 
 of this industry offers, perhaps, the very best means for immediately increasing our 
 exports of leather. 
 
 You may not be aware that the leather industry is the largest in the United States 
 to-day considering the capital and hands employed. So this question becomes one of 
 national as well as peculiarly local importance. 
 
 To displace the imports of gambler alone would require the manufacture of 10,000 
 tons of canaigre extract, involving the cultivation of 15,000 acres of laud annually 
 if the factories run six months each year, producing a crop value of, say, $750,000 
 annually, besides the employment of the necessary factory labor and the increased 
 demand for fuel, lumber, railroad transportation, etc. — no small item in the pros- 
 perity of this section, where there is now hardly a single industrial enterprise. 
 
 As canaigre can be produced cheaper than barks, it will gradually take the place 
 of barks; aud as we have pleuty of hides here, but no barks, tanneries will doubt- 
 less be established here where cheap hides, cheap tanning material, and a local 
 market are contiguous, so that the future possibilities are far beyond the capacity of 
 anyone to estimate. 
 
 In order that you may have outside evidence of the stability and future value of 
 this industry, I mail you a package of pamphlets, partly bulletins from the Arizona 
 and Texas experiment stations, and I hope to furnish you later bulletins from the 
 stations in California, New Mexico, and Florida. 
 
 I can also send you letters from tanners in this country and other evidence of the 
 facts as I have stated them, if you desire. 
 
 Tanning Extract Company, 
 Per C. B. Allaire, President. 
 
 Hon. T. H. Catron, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 T H 67
 
 1058 SCHEDULE G. AGlilCULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 SALT. 
 
 (Free list, paragraph 608.) 
 STATEMENT OF BTR. FRANKLIN WOODRUFF, OF BROOKLYN. 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. WooDRUPF said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 I will be very brief in my remarks to you to-day upon this question of 
 salt, as I have written out to some little extent some of the arguments 
 that I desire to present lor your consideration; but as your time seems 
 to be limited, I will be as brief as possible. 
 
 I have had an experience in salt in New York of nearly half a cen- 
 tury. I have been conversant with the different tariffs under which 
 we have lived aud have seen the workings of them, and I am free to 
 say that, so far as I am concerned, in so far as large interests are con- 
 cerned, we are utterly opposed to any change of the present provision 
 in the Wilson bill affecting this industry. It is the fairest, it is really 
 a protection clause, because in protecting one interest I think we are 
 bound to see that all interests are protected and that no one interest 
 is violated or assailed to protect any other small interest. 
 
 In the McKinley bill the tariff on some salt amounted to 100 per cent; 
 on other salt 150 per cent. It is a very heavy article to transport, as 
 you know, and it can not be made an article of merchandise for revenue 
 under the jirice of the Wilson bill, for that gave the fishermen the right 
 to use foreign salt (which they require for curing fish) free of duty. It 
 also gave to the meat curers, for export, salt free of duty. When you 
 eliminate those two items of salt for use you leave very little to collect 
 revenue upon, and it would hardly pay the Government to collect the 
 revenues that would accrue on salt. And besides, no one will for a 
 moment, in my judgment, claim that the fishery interests of N&w Eng- 
 land should be taxed, which have been suffering these many years; but 
 that the salt should be restored to the fishery trade, which amounts to 
 about $200,000 a year. 
 
 So far as the question of the protection goes I desire to say, in all 
 fairness, that if you impose a duty on salt, those taxes will more largely 
 come out of the Southern States than out of the New England States. 
 Those markets are really the only markets where foreign salt has come 
 in, even without any tariff". 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. Are you familiar with the fact that vast quantities 
 of for eign salt ascend the Mississippi River and its tributaries as high 
 up as Cincinnati, St. Louis, and much farther. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I don't think it does in vast quantities. I admit 
 there is some goes up. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. It amounts to the complete driving out of all the 
 home products there. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. There is some salt that comes to the Southern sea- 
 port cities that finds its way up, but most of the markets that would 
 receive foreign salt are found among the seaport cities in the Southern 
 States, California, and the New England Atlantic States. They are 
 really the only markets where the foreign salt can come in, even with 
 the duty free. If you put a tax on salt you will make those people in 
 the Southern States and in the other markets that I have mentioned pay 
 $1.50 a tonfor transportation. The salt can be had in Liverpool for about 
 $2.50, and it costs, on an average, $1.50 to import it to the seaboard i
 
 SALT, 1059 
 
 cities. That is 64. Syracuse salt can be made at 8 cents a barrel — 
 profitably for $2.50 a ton — and the transportation from there to New 
 York is $1, making $3.25. So the Syracuse people are having their 
 salt produced or delivered in New York for less than we can import the 
 foreign article without any duty. Now, if you turn it the other way, 
 if you take foreign salt in New York at $4 and add $1 transportation, 
 which they reduce, that would make $5. The fact is we can not sell 
 salt in Syracuse or farther west. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. The transportation of salt in New Orleans and in 
 Mobile very frequently is practically nothing except the handling. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Very frequently. And why should not we invite it 
 there. What do they take back in their vessels ^ 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you say the freight rate is $1.50 a ton or $2 from 
 Liverpool ? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I am speaking of the average foreign freights from 
 abroad ; foreign salt which comes from different ports abroad. 
 
 Mr. Payne. But take it from Liverpool, it is Is. 6d. pence per ton. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. That is by sail, but you can rarely get a sailing 
 vessel. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is there not considerable salt imported in sailing vessels 
 from Liverpool? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Very little. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The salt only has to come about 12 miles to the harbor 
 of Liverpool. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. About 20 miles. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And gets water transportation for those 20 miles. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And they get it there in steam transportation as low 
 as 3s. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I have not known any for months. Steamers would 
 not bring salt in bulk. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Are you familiar with the transportation circulars'? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do they not give the rate of transportation in all those 
 circulars? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Payne. They are reliable? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I don't know. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is it not your general opinion that the committee could 
 rely on those figures'^ 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I would not dispute their being reliable. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You are an importer of solar salt, are you not? 
 
 IVIx. Woodruff. I import the sea-water made salt from the 
 Mediterranean. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You import about all at your house that is brought into 
 the United States of the solar sea salt, do you not? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. From the Mediterranean, but not from the West 
 Indies. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you import the Turks Island salt? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is there an export duty on that? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is there not now, or has there not been, an export dutj 
 on all the salt from Turks Island? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Do you mean do they impose it? 
 
 Mr. Payne. Yes, sirj don't they levy an export duty on it?
 
 1060 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTUKAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Not that I know of. They sell it to us for so much 
 a barrel. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You say that you are not aware that their Government 
 levies an export duty on that salt? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. There may be some little taxes to pay the expenses 
 of the Government that I don't know about. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Then it is your opinion that the Government levies a 
 tax, as you say, a small tax, to pay the expenses of the Government? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. If anything, it is very small; less than a cent a 
 barrel. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you say that there is a tax? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. No, I do not say that there is any. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Since the salt has been free you and the other importers 
 from Great Britain have taken, for instance, all the market in the city 
 of New York. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. No more than we did formerly. 
 
 Mr. Payne. But you increased the importation to 500,000,000 pounds 
 a year ? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. In New York? 
 
 Mr. Payne. In the country. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Oh, I do not know as to that — 523,000,000 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The statistics show over 500,000,000 pounds imported 
 every year under free salt. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Pay NE. The freight rate on salt from Syracuse or Warsaw — or 
 that district — is $2.25 per ton, is it not? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. No; all summer loug we get it by canal for $1.80 
 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That is only a little time in the summer; but the year 
 round it is $2.25 per ton, isn't it? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. The railroad freights, I presume, are $2 a ton. So 
 we pay $2.50 a ton from abroad 
 
 Mr. Payne. With this cheap freight rate from abroad and the freight 
 rate mentioned from Syracuse, the New York salt from that region is 
 shut oat of the New York market? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Not at all. They sell more of their salt in New York 
 than we import of foreign salt. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Under the Wilson bill? 
 
 Mr. AVooDRUFF. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Of coarse salt? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Yes, sir. They sell more of their salt in New York 
 than we import of the Turks Islaiul salt. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And have during the year 1896? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I think they did during 1895 and 1896 T 
 
 Mr. Payne. You only think they had? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I am sure they had. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Can you state that? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I have nothing but general information, being in 
 the salt trade and knowing what they sell. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You say, then, that you get more of their salt than you 
 do of Turks Island salt? 
 
 Mr. Wof)DRiTFF. More than we do of all coarse West India salt. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What do you say of the other grade of salt correspond- 
 ing to the Liverpool salt? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Well, take Liverpool salt. I presume that New 
 York sells 100 tons of their fine salt and of their common salt 
 
 Mr. Payne. How much of their coarse salt?
 
 SALT. 1061 
 
 Mr, Woodruff. Tliey don't liave coarse salt. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Then New York sells none of their coarse salt? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. It is not coarse salt in comparison with the coarse 
 sea salt, or the salt that is called coarse salt in Liverpool. I presume 
 they sell $50 worth of the common Liverpool salt where we sell 1 ton 
 of foreign salt. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is that so all along the seacoast? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I don't know that. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is not this common Liverpool salt that you speak of 
 sent up within 50 miles of Syracuse and sold there below what the 
 home-made salt can be produced for? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Not that I know of; there might be some excep- 
 tions. If, for instance, somebody wanted to secure a lease for a foreign 
 market, he might perliaps pay two prices for his salt, but as a legiti- 
 mate business proposition it can not be done. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The former duty was 8 cents and under? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How much have you reduced the price of foreign salt 
 to the consumer since that duty was taken off? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. When there was a duty of 8 cents, it was 6 cents a 
 bushel, and it costs 20 cents to import salt from Turks Island; we are 
 now selling it from 13 to 15 cents. I sell it every day at 15 cents a 
 bushel. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How much did you sell it for in 1894 and 1895? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Under the McKinley bill? 
 
 Mr. Payne. No; under the tariff we had in 1895. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. The same — 13 to 15 cents. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Has it been at that price since the Wilson bill went into 
 effect? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And you have sold it everywhere for that price? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. We have, more or less, everywhere. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Are you able to tell whether all the salt in Great Britain 
 is controlled by a syndicate? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I believe it is. 
 
 Mr. Payne. A company with a capital of some $20,000,000? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. The larger part of it in Liverpool, I believe, is con- 
 trolled by a trust, but there are some outside of that trust, 
 
 Mr. Payne. Has not that trust a single agent in the United States? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I don't know that they have any agents. 
 
 Mr. Payne. One importer or one agent;, to whom all their salt is 
 consigned? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I don't think they consign it. I think the mer- 
 chants here order Liverpool salt. If I wanted to import a thousand 
 tons of Liverpool salt, I could order it, and the merchants in other cities 
 could do the same thing. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Doesn't "that syndicate fix the price? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. It fixes the price of the salt there. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And at the different ports of the world also? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. No, sir; not at all. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Have you seen their circulars, giving one price of the 
 salt in Australia and another price shipped to America, delivered at 
 such and such a port? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I have no doubt it is true. These trusts are very 
 arbitrary, and often enforce unjust measures. I am not here advocating 
 trusts. 
 
 Mr. Payne. They do fix the prices?
 
 10G2 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. In New York the price is 10 sbilliugs a ton. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You know liow salt is produced in Liverpool? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Yes, it is produced there bj^ machinery — by the 
 process of flooding and evaporation. 
 
 Coming back to my subject, I want to show to you that we have under 
 charter vessels with a carrying capacity of 10,000 tons of salt that are 
 coming out of the Mediterranean, and everyone of them is an American 
 vessel, and every one of those vessels has a cargo loaded here which it 
 will carry abroad. If they could not have gotten salt to bring home, 
 they could not have made the voyage. Therefore, I say this is an illus- 
 tration, and a fair one, that if you leave this salt the way it is you not 
 only benefit the fishing industry but all the great industries of this 
 country, indirectly, and every man, woman, and child in the country. 
 If you change this duty on salt, you injure thousands to benefit one. 
 
 It is a well known fact that there are 2,000,000 bushels in the West 
 Indies that can be brought in vessels to our seacoast market, and all 
 this is mostly carried by American tonnage. These vessels go to the 
 Windward Islands from New York with our provisions, with everything 
 that we i)roduce ; they carry cargoes of our merchandise there and bring 
 cargoes home. If it were not for this salt they could not continue that 
 business, unless they charged two freights or all of the freight on the 
 outward cargo. That would so increase the cost of produce we are 
 sending out as would probably stimulate the people of the West Indies 
 to look elsewhere for supplies. After tliat vessel has discharged her 
 cargo at her destination, she has to either get a cargo for her homeward 
 voyage or else ballast. It costs from $300 to $500 to ballast, so if you 
 put this tax on him you deprive him of from $1,000 to $1,500 freiglit 
 that he would otherwise get for his homeward cargo. 
 
 This is an article that enters into the use of all mankind, into every 
 home and homestead. If you will make it as cheap as possible and as 
 nearly free as possible, you are helping the interest of this country very 
 materially. 
 
 ] tliink our salt-producing places in this country are in a good state 
 of i)reservation and making money successfully. The idea of saying 
 that we will protect salt in order to protect the people way up in Michi- 
 gan ! Look at what it would cost in freight to take foreign salt out 
 there. There is no foreign salt that goes west through New York now, 
 or at least very little indeed. As I have said, our vessels go abroad 
 laden with cargoes of American goods produced by American labor, 
 and bring these cargoes of salt back, and I do not believe in the policy 
 of compelling the people of the South and the seaboard towns and 
 States to pay one-half more for their salt — an article of prime necessity. 
 
 As I said in the beginning, I have seen the workings of tariffs for 
 fifty years, and say this tarilinow is just and fair. There is very little 
 foreign salt that comes in. 
 
 Mr. Payne. According to your argument, we should take the duties 
 off of all manufactured goods, so that still more vessels could come in. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I don't know about that. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That was simply a suggestion in the line of your argu- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I have not studied that subject. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I was only suggesting something to try to help you out. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. There is very little heavy merchandise that comes 
 from the Mediterranean. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Under the law of 1890, the salt used in packing fish 
 was entered free. 
 
 IMr. Woodruff. Yes; and it has l)(>en so for twenty-flve years.
 
 SALT. 10G3 
 
 Mr. Payxe. So that rtoesn't cut much figure in the Wilson bill. 
 Also, under the law of 181)0, tlie salt used in packing meat for export 
 was admitted free of duty. So that doesn't cut much figure either. 
 Now, Mr. Woodruff, is it not a fact that the only change in the Wilson 
 bill has been to displace as many pounds of American salt made by 
 American labor as has been introduced additionally by you as an 
 importer of foreign salt. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. It may have had that effect, but in getting that 
 effect you are compelling people to pay $2 or $3 more for their salt. 
 
 It has been said that with salt on the free list we have been able to 
 bring salt in from the Mediterranean to be used for other things than 
 fish; that any quantity of it comes in under that bill that would not 
 have come in under the previous bill, and that thereby American salt 
 producers are deprived of all this market. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. How much less does the salt sell for nowj do you 
 know? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. About equivalent to the duty. 
 
 Mr. Tawney. Does the consumer or the jobber or the retailer get 
 the benefit? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I think the consumer gets the benefit; that is, as 
 far as my knoM'ledge goes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. i^ou mean by that, he pays the duty? 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I mean he is getting his salt so much less to-day. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. And the tariff has been about $150,000. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I don't know as they have got that. 
 
 The Chairman. Three hundred thousand dollars in 1893. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. How much has it cost to collect it, Mr. Chairman? 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. Nothing. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. I would like to present this statement, as there are 
 others from Boston and New York who desire to be heard, and will 
 therefore thank you for your courtesy and withdraw. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff" filed the following: statement: 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATESilENT SUBMITTED BY MR. FRANKLIN 
 WOODRUFF RELATIVE TO SALT. 
 
 New York, January 2, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I appear here to-day with my associates from New York and other 
 places who are interested as merchants, importers, producers, and 
 manufacturers of salt to give to you the benefit of our experience of the 
 past and our views in regard to the conditions of the salt interests of 
 this country, and from our experience our views upon the question of 
 taxation on salt. We have seen the workings of it and the result under 
 high protective tariffs, and also of salt admitted free of duty during 
 the past thirty or forty years, and speaking for myself, I am prepared 
 to say to you to-day that the present tariff', placing salt as it does, is 
 the most just, the most fair, and the best, taking everything into con- 
 sideration, that we have ever had. No one will claim, not even one of 
 your committee, that any duty that is proposed to be placed upon salt 
 in a new tariff' bill would be thought of for one moment as a source of 
 revenue, for revenue purposes, as any duty placed upon salt will hardly 
 pay the expenses of collection; therefore it must be treated as purely a 
 bill for protection, and it seems to me the highest principle of protec- 
 tion is that which gives the largest benefit to the largest number of our 
 American people; that in levying a tax upon any given article of
 
 10G4 SCHEDITLE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 inercliaiitlise sucli as produced in our country, to protect it you must not 
 Jose sight of the jirinciple of protection to be applied to other interests 
 affected in other parts of the country from that which the so-called 
 article to be protected is produced. 
 
 I make bold to say that salt in this country is protected, in my judg- 
 ment, to the fullest extent necessary to make the production of it 
 profitable, and that any tax now imposed upon the foreign article would 
 be to sim])ly enable the ])rodueers of salt in this country, in the lew 
 places where it is ])roduced, to levy a contribution unjustly and unwisely 
 ui)on different sections of the United States. 
 
 Transportation fully protects the salt jn-oduced in Michigan and the 
 farther western States where salt is produced, and very largely pro- 
 tects the salt interests in the interior of ]SIew York. For exami)ie, a 
 ton of salt in Liverpool costs ^2.50. The average freight of the salt 
 would be, say, 81.50, making $4 a ton delivered in New York and sea- 
 board cities. Salt costs, say, to make it in the interior of Kew York, 
 $2..50 a ton, and transportation to New York about $1 a ton. Thus free 
 salt costs $3.50 a ton in iSIew York: foreign salt costs $4. To transport 
 the foreign salt to the interior i^art of ^ew York at a cost of $1 a ton 
 would make the foreign article cost $5 a ton in Syracuse, while the salt 
 l)roduced in Syracuse would cost only $-.50 a ton. If you go to ]\Iich- 
 igan and other Western States this diflerence will be intensified, and 
 the foreign article would cost in Omaha about §8.50 a ton as against 
 $0.50 a ton for Syracuse salt, and other salt made farther west would 
 cost the diflerence in trans])ortation less. Michigan salt would onl>' 
 cost about $5 in Omaha, and salt made in Kansas would only cost S-5 
 or $3.50 a ton. Therefore you will see that foreign salt can not enter into 
 competition with American salt in the Northern and Western States 
 west of New England, and that tiiese salt interests are most amply and 
 fully protected by the i)resent condition of things. 
 
 Tlie only sections of our country in which foreign salt can at all com- 
 pete with the American salt are those portions of the New England 
 States bordering on the Atlantic Ocean and tire Southern Stiites bor- 
 dering on the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. The western 
 and northern portions of New England are supplied mainly with their 
 salt from New York products. You will hardly, in my judgment, ibr 
 one moment deem it wise or proper to levy a tax of $1.50 to $2 a ton 
 upon salt lmi>orted into these jiortious of our country simply to benefit 
 in a small degree only, if at all, the producers of salt in New York State, 
 and to a small extent the producers in West Virginia and southern 
 Ohio. If a duty is imposed upon salt the same as in the McKiuley bill, 
 8 cents per 100 pounds in bulk, it would amount to $1.00 a ton of 2,000 
 pounds, added to the cost of th.e salt imj)orted, only to benefit the salt 
 interests of New York, western Virginia, and southern Ohio. This would 
 hardly be fair or right, as it would produce little if any benefit to the 
 salt interest of New York State, and it is far better to let them enjoy 
 the markets they now enjoy, in which thej' are fully protected, and look 
 to the increased growth of the country to take their increased supplies 
 of their product. 
 
 Salt is a heavy, expensive article to handle. It enters into the use 
 of all mankind and almost into every phase of life. It is estimated 
 that 70,000,000 bushels of salt are needed annually to supply the people 
 of the United States. The average cost of making salt at the ditterent 
 places where it is produced is about 8 cents a bushel of 56 ])oumls, 
 which gives a liberal profit on its cost, the total product costing only 
 $5,000,000. The tax you place upon foreign salt, if the s:une as that 
 
 i
 
 SALT. 1065 
 
 ia tlie McKinley bill, a mounts to 100 per cent on some salt and 150 per 
 cent on other kinds of salt, about the highest percentage of duty ever 
 jdaced upon any article of merchandise imported that is a prime neces- 
 sity to every man, woman, and child in the world, and get little or no 
 revenue from it. I believe that it has cost more to ascertain the amount 
 of duty required in the handling and weighing of salt than would 
 pay the expenses of Government to get this information. For a good 
 many years under the McKinley and previous tariff bills the fisher- 
 men of New England have been privileged to use foreign salt in bond, 
 thus free of duty, and under the same bill this privilege was extended 
 to give curers of meat for foreign markets a drawback on salt equiva- 
 lent to the duty. As a matter of principle it is hardly right to dis- 
 criminate against one class of trade and in favor of another, and possibly 
 you, Mr. Chairman, may favor in the proposed new tariff bill no dis- 
 crimination, and so compel the fishing interests of New England to 
 pay the same duty upon the salt they use as other interests pay. This 
 would simply result in a cost to the fishing interests of New England 
 perhaps of $200,000 a year, which would certainly prove a very serious 
 burden. 
 
 Then, again, the larger part of salt imported into New England for 
 curing fish comes from the Mediterranean, known as sea-water-made 
 salt, taken from the ocean and Mediterranean waters into large vats and 
 pans and evaporated by the process of the sun until the water has 
 thoroughly evaporated and the salt crystallizes into form for use. This 
 salt is the purest quality that is produced anywhere, notably in ami 
 around the Island of Sicily. The fishermen of New England seek it for 
 its purity and its strengtli, and they will pay a larger price for it than 
 for any other salt produced in any other way. It preserves the fish 
 better, thus making a better quality that will command a higher price in 
 the market. It is a well-known fact that we do not produce this descrip- 
 tion of salt in this country, nor any salt from sea water. The Mediterra- 
 nean and West India Islands, such as Turks Island, Curasao, Bonaire, 
 and St. Marten, are the principal places for producing, and to tax these 
 salts with a high duty would be simply to levy a tax upon one class of 
 the people for the benefit of another, or drive people to using salt 
 of diilterent qualities and grades they do not want to use unless com- 
 pelled to. 
 
 The coarse salt produced from the mines of New York State has a 
 hard, flinty, sharp grain, cuts the fish in curing, giving them a ragged 
 appearance, and depreciates their value largely for market. No fisher- 
 man would use that salt if he could help it, and you would simply force 
 him to pay about $2 a ton more for foreign salt he used, and in my 
 judgment unnecessarily. Then again, it is generally conceded that salt 
 made from sea water, such as Turks Island, Buen Ayre, Curagao, Medi- 
 terranean, and other coarse salt are very much superior in quality for 
 the curing of meat ]>acked in barrels for long keeping than the manufac- 
 tured article of salt in this country. Bacon and box meats require fine 
 salt. As we do not make any salt from sea water in this country, it 
 seems to us that it would be wrong to levy any tax upon this kind of 
 salt, which is very near an article of raw material, simply driving people 
 to use something they ought not or increase the cost unnecessarily of 
 what they do want and would use without these restrictions. Now, let 
 us see that if the principle of protection is applied, it reaches every- 
 where if anywhere. 
 
 Our Southern States are very large exporters of cotton, lumber, naval 
 stores, rosin, spirits of turpentine, tobacco, etc., and they seek foreign
 
 1066 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 markets largely for these products, and to tlie fullest extent possible. 
 In exporting- or selling these articles, the question of freight and trans- 
 portation is a very large item, and enters largely into the success of the 
 business. If you impose a duty upon salt and prevent its being brought 
 into these Southern seaboard markets, the vessels coming to these ports 
 from abroad for these goods wiU necessarily have to come in ballast, 
 and to ballast a vessel and then get rid of the ballast on its arrival 
 would entail a cost upon each vessel of anywhere from $300 to $750, and 
 therefore that vessel would have to charge almost two prices for freight 
 on his homeward cargo, making it pay the whole cost of the voyage, 
 while if he brought a cargo of salt, say of 1,000 tons, he would get 
 $1,000 to $1,500 freight on it, instead of paying out $750 for ballast. 
 This would enable him to take his cargo of lumber or whatever mer- 
 chandise it was from the United States to his port of destination at a 
 very much less cost, which would tend to stimulate a largely increased 
 export of all products. 
 
 It is well known that the United States is brought into competition 
 with foreign nations on all kinds of commerce, and therefore we urge 
 upon you the importance of leaving the salt matter where it is, which 
 will i)rotect these ditterent interests by cheapening the cost of trans- 
 ])ortation and largely increasing the export trade. So with the West 
 Indies. There is a large business done between the West India islands 
 and our seaboard cities. They draw largely from our su])plies of provi- 
 sion, lumber, and various articles of merclumdise, being mainly trans- 
 ported in American vessels to the various West India islands, and they 
 are largely dependent for salt for return cargoes, and to im]>ose a duty 
 ui)on salt would deprive them of this privilege, thus placing a gieat 
 burden of loss u[)ou vessels and compelling them to get their freight 
 both ways out of the outward cargo, thus increasing the cost of the 
 outward cargo very materially, which may cause the buyers in the West 
 Indies to look elsewhere for their supplies. 
 
 It makes a very material ditterence to these American vessels whether 
 tliey come home in ballast at an outgo of $400 and $500 expense to 
 ballast, when they could get salt and receive $1,000 to $1,500 for freight 
 on their homeward cargo if not prohibited by a prohibitory tax on salt. 
 We are satisfied that our American salt interests are in a good state of 
 preservation and ])r()sperity ; that the growing markets West and every- 
 where will aft'ord them ample opportunity for develo]>ment and increase; 
 that, taking the whole situation into consideration, you can not impose 
 a tax on foreign salt without doing injustice to probably a thousand 
 people to where you benefit one; and we are most earnestly opposed to 
 any tax on salt, urging upon you to leave it where it now is, which is 
 wise, just, and proper in our judgment, and which gives protection to 
 the many interests, and for which you should provide to benefit the 
 largest number of our people. You should encourage in every way the 
 use of the very best article of salt. 
 
 In regard to manufactured salt, such as is known as table and dairy 
 salt, this country is already on a parity with other countries in manu- 
 facturing salt, and ahead of most. For instance, we make as fine a 
 table salt in this country as is made in the known world, and it has 
 been developed and made successful under a free-salt tarifl" largely. 
 If this manufactured article really needed any protection to develop it, 
 we should most earnestly advocate it, and if you gather evidence that 
 it does you might consider it in this direction. We mean by that the 
 article of salt manufactured by machinery processes, and that not in 
 any way should you levy a tax u))on salt made from sea Mater. We
 
 SALT. 1067 
 
 do uot make this iu our country; we need it; it benefits all mankind, and 
 it should be made as free as water and supi)lied at the lowest possible 
 cost. If 5'ou place a duty upon foreign salt, so as to give the markets 
 of New England and the South to the salt-producing interests of New 
 York State, what articles of merchandise produced in these sections 
 do you propose to tax that will give them the markets of New York 
 Stated Can you devise any plan of taxation that will reciprocate what 
 you take from them, only to benefit the moderate interests of New Yorlv 
 in salt? 
 
 It is estimated that about 2,000,000 bushels of sea-water-made salt is 
 imported annually into the United States from Turks Island and other 
 West India islands. Suppose you could legislate to drive all of tliis 
 trade to the New York product of salt, they would get, say, 8 cents a 
 bushel at their works; total, $100,000. The profit would only be small, 
 the difference going largely to railroads and other sources of traiisi)()r- 
 tation, the cost of which would come out of the consumer, while besides 
 it would take from our vessel owners some $160,000 they would receive 
 for freight in bringing it into the States, to say nothing of the cost the 
 vessels would be put to iu buying and getting clear of their ballast. 
 
 F. Woodruff. 
 
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY MR. WOODRUFF IN BEHALF OF NEW 
 YORK MERCHANTS, IMPORTERS, AND DEALERS. 
 
 New York, December 31, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We, the undersigned merchants, importers, and dealers in fish in New 
 York and elsewhere, not only beg to remonstrate against the further 
 increase of duty on all kinds of fish imported into the United States, 
 but we respectfully petition to your honorable body to recommend to 
 Congress a suitable reduction from the present rate of duties imposed 
 upon imported fish. They are at present so high that on many articles 
 of fish imported the duty is already prohibitory except for purposes of 
 export in bond. Of the large amount of dry codfish imported, also of 
 smoked herring, they are seldom entered for consumption in the United 
 States, for the reason they can not be sold in the market as against 
 American codfish and smoked herring. Barrel herring are a very low- 
 priced article of food for the poor classes, costing only $2 to $3 a bar- 
 rel of 200 pounds of fish, and of this $1 a barrel is paid in the United 
 States Treasury for duty. 
 
 The catch of mackerel on our coast for the last few years has been 
 exceedingly small, and we are compelled to look largely to foreign coun- 
 tries for supplies to meet the wants of the American people; and the 
 present rate of duty is a very liberal protection to those interested in 
 the catch of mackerel. If you could legislate to produce a large supply 
 of mackerel iu our waters, you could then wisely legislate to protect 
 tliem with a high duty. We therefore declare the present rate of duty 
 is excessive, and no further increase could possibly help the American 
 interests iu fish; but, on the contrary, any increase, iu our judgment, 
 would injure not only the fishing interests, but the interests "of the 
 people generally; and we firndy believe that if your honorable body 
 will reconiiFiend a reduction in tiie present duty of at least one-half, you 
 will be doing the fishing interest a benefit and everybody interested. 
 We therefore earnestly urge you to consider this question in a brond
 
 1068 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 sense, and i-i the interest of the many instead of the interest of only a 
 
 few of our American people, and we will ever pray. 
 
 F. Woodruff, H. Woodruff & Co., Charles F. Mattlage & 
 Sons, Chas. Ams, R. C Williams & Co., Thomas Stokes, 
 B. G. Hubbard, Edwin Ferris & Co., Calaum & Black- 
 ledge, J. A. Groh, James Martin, Griudal & Andresen, 
 Thomas Woodward, F. G. Strohmeyer «& H. Arpe, S. W. 
 Lewis & Co. 
 
 AifOTHEa STATEMENT BY MR. WOODRUFF. 
 
 New York, January 6, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I wish to place before you, and correctlj^ the business I referred to 
 before your committee yef>terday as beneficial to American tonnage. 
 The vessels that I referred to as under charter to my firm for their 
 homeward cargoes of salt to the United States are as follows: 
 
 The bark J. A. Wrif/ht went from Galv^eston to Trieste with cotton- 
 seed oil, the value of which was $70,000, bought and loaded in Galves- 
 ton. I'rom Trieste she went to Trapani to load salt. She got for all 
 her rour.d trip $10,000 freight. 
 
 T\iQ.Ha)/(le)i Hrowu went from Incw York to Trieste, with a cargo of 
 cotton-seed oil valued at $70,000; from thence to Trapani, and from 
 there to Portland with salt, receiving $7,000 for the round voyage. 
 
 Schooner lAicy H. RusscJl went from Philadelphia to Louis de lihone 
 with kerosene oil in barrels; thence with salt to Boston, getting $9,000 
 for the round voyage. 
 
 Schooner Geovf/e E. Walcott, from Newport News to Barcelona with 
 American cannel coal, sold at $8 a ton; thence with salt to Gloucester, 
 receiving $12,000 freight for the round voyage. 
 
 The Elvira J. French goes from Galveston to Trieste with cotton-seed 
 oil valued at $80,000; back with salt to the United States, for which she 
 gets $9,000 freight. 
 
 You will see that this business is only made possible because they 
 could get cargoes of salt home, and you will also see that these five 
 vessels received abour $45,000 for freight for these voyages, and you 
 will further see that they carry American ])roducts, mainly from the 
 Southern States, of the value of over $250,000. This is only a small 
 example of what is going on in the way of exports of lumber from the 
 Southern States, from Maine, and many other articles of merchandise, 
 only nmde possible by having sea- water salt free of duty. We don't 
 make a pound of this description of salt in this country; and I ask you 
 to embodj' in my statement before your committee yesterday these facts 
 that I now state. 
 
 F. Woodruff. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM A. HAZARD, OF NEW YORK CITY 
 
 Tuesday, Januarij 5, 1897. 
 Mr. Hazard said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 I assume this to be a very busy committee, with not too much time at its 
 disposal. I have therefore decided to prepare a printed statement 
 which I will submit in a few days, from which I hope you will be con- 
 vinced, as i have been convinced, that a duty on foreign s:ilt is entirely 
 unnecessary. It is true that in the Soutli foreign salt has a distinct
 
 SALT. lOGO 
 
 advantage over American salt; but it is also true, and can be proven, 
 that tlie foreign has not an advantage to exceed G per cent upon the 
 quantity of salt manufactured in this country over American salt. That 
 Southern business to which I refer amounts to about 70,000 tons — that 
 is, 70,000 tons were shipped into the South — and that is 4 per cent of 
 the quantity of the salt manufactured iu this country. That is all that 
 Southern business amounts to. In thelSTew York market the principal 
 salt that is used there is known as the factory filled. And the American 
 article has a distinct advantage over the English, as I can show you. 
 I have some papers here, which I am not going to read. 
 
 I am just going to refer, with your permission, to some figures. Mr. 
 Payne asked a question a few moments ago, and I would like to explain 
 that the cost of the factory filled salt, the salt in general use in New York, 
 for 189G has amounted to 88.| cents per sack, as against 72i cents for the 
 American, a sack of 224 pounds — that is the usual weight of the sack. 
 This shows in favor of domestic salt 16 cents per sack, or 22 per cent 
 in favor of the domestic product. If there are any American manufac- 
 turers here to-day who will dispute these figures I should be glad to 
 have them to do it in my presence here now. SteaTuer freight on salt 
 from England has never been lower than shillings G pence. They are 
 often as high as 7 shillings. That is by steamer. Ko sail charters were 
 made during the year 1896. Not one single sailing vessel was char- 
 tered from Liverpool to New York during the year. If the salt came 
 in sailing vessels it might be carried for 2 shillings per ton, but if it 
 was carried in that way it would still show a large percentage in favor 
 of the American salt manufacturer. 
 
 Mr. Payne, I believe, asked a few moments ago if it is not possible 
 for English salt to be sold within 10 miles of Warsaw or Syracuse for a 
 less price than the home product can be sold at those points. I will 
 answer and say no, that it is not possible — not within 10 miles of the 
 seaboard in the interior of our country anywhere. There is no compe- 
 tition of this foreign salt except in the southern country to which I have 
 already referred. This is unqualifiedly and unquestionably true. And 
 these men who come here to-day to ask you that their salt be protected 
 are asking for a protection upon a production which amounts to only 4 
 per cent of the total production of salt manufactured in the United 
 States. Ever since the Wilson bill has been a law the American salt 
 manufacturers have been increasing their output. The output of Amer- 
 ican salt manufacturers is steadily increasing to day and there is no 
 reason why it should not be increasing. What is true of New York is 
 also true of Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and all of the principal 
 cities. I have figures here which show in every case a large percentage 
 of gain in favor of the American manufacturer of the article. 
 
 It is true that some little common salt is imported into New York, 
 Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and given the English salt an 
 advantage, but it all amounts to very little, because it can not get out of 
 New York after it gets there. It is only for consumption there. As I 
 have said, I do not believe the whole amount of the foreign salt imx)orted 
 exceeds 6 per cent of the salt used in this country. 
 
 Mr. Hazard filed the following paper: 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 4, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 It is true that English salt in the South has a little advantage over 
 the American manufacturer in western New York salt, but it is also 
 true that the total quantity of English salt shipped into the South 
 does not amount to 6 per cent of the total quantity manufactured iu
 
 1070 SCHEDULE G. AGKICULTUKAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 the United States. To speak more accurately, I tliiuk seventy- odd 
 thousand tons in a single year is as much as has been shipped into the 
 South, or say 4 per cent of the entire quantity manufactured in America 
 during the same period. 
 
 The English common fine salt is sold at a lower price in the South 
 because freight rates from western New York to the Southern ports are 
 so high, and not because the wages of labor make the cost of American 
 production much higher than that of English production. 
 
 English common iine salt can be bought in Liverpool at about $2.50 
 per ton of 2,240 pounds, while the American product can be bought in 
 western New York f. o. b. the cars at $1.70 to $1.90 per ton of 2,000 
 pounds. 
 
 If you force the Southern consumer to freight his salt from western 
 New York and place him at a disadvantage with the New York con- 
 sumer, it would seem to me you do him an injustice. 
 
 Now, then, with the exception of this Soutliern business, which, as I 
 say, ajnouiits to but 4 per cent of the total output of American salt, 
 our home manufacturers have a distinct advantage over foreign salt in 
 every part of the United States. 
 
 There certainly is not an interior point within 10 miles or more of 
 Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and other seaports where 
 American salt has not an enormous advantage. It is a fact that Amer- 
 ican salt has steadily increased notwithstanding the removal of the duty 
 under the Wilsoii bill. Indeed, it was larger in 1895 than it has ever 
 been. Just here 1 may tell you that the output of American salt in 
 1895 was about 1,700,000 tons, as against the total imports of 225,0{)0 
 tons. Would this not seem as though American salt ought to be able 
 to pretty much defy the competition of the world? 
 
 Since the placing of salt on the free list some of the largest salt works 
 have been erected, and these by our most intelligent, successful, and 
 experienced manufacturers. 
 
 It is a fact that I have, or rather my firm, Francis D. Moulton & Co., 
 of New York, have, within the past few weeks entered into an agree- 
 ment with some other experienced salt men to erect a salt plant this 
 winter, and we do not need protection and do not ask it. I consider it 
 against the manufacturer's interest to restore the duty, as I believe it 
 will encourage renewed competition. Many consumers use foreign salt 
 on account of the difference in quality, and would continue to use it 
 even though the old rate of duty were restored. Immediately when 
 the duty was removed from foreign salt the price of Ashton's and the 
 lliggin's Eureka was reduced to the consumer to the full amount of the 
 duty, and it would now seem an unnecessary hardship to introduce 
 again this extra cost of the dairymen who prefer these high-grade 
 English salts. 
 
 I will submit the following statistics: 
 
 SALT AND THE TARIFF. 
 
 [Present duty on salt in sacks, 35 per cent ad valorem on value of sacks or outer covering, salt free. 
 
 Salt in bulk, tree of any duty.] 
 
 The amount received by the Government for duties on salt for the fiscal year eiul- 
 iujj June 30 was as follows: 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 1887 
 
 $676, 865. 50 
 552, 693. 75 
 4(19, 435. 47 
 391,215.06 
 408, 789. 83 
 
 1892 
 
 $329, 143. 50 
 301, 972. 60 
 
 1888 
 
 1893 
 
 1889 
 
 1894 
 
 229, 803. 57 
 
 1890 
 
 1895 
 
 53, 879. 23 
 
 1891 ^t . 
 
 1890 
 
 Not compiled. 
 

 
 SALT. 
 
 1071 
 
 When salt was dntialile, all packers of export meats were allowed a refund of the 
 duty on salt used in snch meats, this allowance materially reducing the revenue 
 durin.i^ such years, and it is doubtful if the actual revenue ilerived from such duty 
 paid the cost of its collection and if the Goverunieut did not lose rather than protit 
 thereby. 
 
 Government statistics show that percentage of duty to valuation of salt was as 
 follows : 
 
 Year. 
 
 Bulk salt. 
 
 Salt in 
 sacks. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Bulk salt. 
 
 Salt in 
 sacks. 
 
 1887 
 
 Per cent. 
 80 
 85 
 85 
 74 
 
 Per cent. 
 39 
 41 
 44 
 34 
 
 1891 
 
 Per cent. 
 76 
 82 
 82 
 93 
 
 Per cent. 
 30 
 
 1888 
 
 1802 
 
 38 
 
 1889 
 
 18X{ 
 
 35 
 
 18D0 
 
 1894 
 
 34 
 
 
 
 
 Duty on bulk salt nearly equal to cost. 
 
 FACTORY-FILLED. 
 
 This grade is used by packers of fine meats and salters of provisions, and when 
 sifted it is fit for ordin;iry table and culinary purposes. It is, in fact, the salt most 
 generally used of all grades. It is fine-ground and kiln-dried. 
 
 The price of English factory-tilled salt per ton of 2,2-iO pounds in white sacks, 
 f. o. b. Liverpool, is 27 shillings, made up as follows: 
 
 8. (1. 
 
 Salt 12 3 
 
 Freight to Liverpool .3 6 
 
 Filling sacks 1 7 
 
 Dues 3 
 
 Mats, about... 
 
 Insurance 
 
 Consul fees ... 
 Sacks, 1 about. 
 
 27 
 
 The average steam freight ' to New York for the year 1896 was 6 6 
 
 33 6 
 Equal (at exchange, $4.88) per ton.. $8. 17 
 
 Or (say) 10 sacks to the ton per sack . . .81^ 
 
 Add duty, 35 per cent ad valorem on white sacks . 07 
 
 Making cost in New York 88.} 
 
 which is the lowest average figure at which the salt can be laid down in New York. 
 
 The domestic factory-filled, made at and near Warsaw, N. Y., is sold in car- 
 loads, per sack, free on board works, at $0. 50 
 
 Freight from New York State works to New York, 10 cents per 100 pounds 22| 
 
 Cost of domestic salt laid down in New York, per sack of 224 pounds 12^ 
 
 There is here a margin between the selling price of the domestic and English salts, 
 under present conditions, of 16 cents per sack, or about 22 per cent in favor of 
 American salt. 
 
 SALT RESHIPPED FROM SEAPORT TO ISLAND POINTS. 
 
 The local rate of freight from New York to interior points tributary to the New York 
 market averages 13 cents per 100 pounds. The freight from the works of manufac- 
 turers in the central part of New York State to the same points is 10 cents per 100 
 
 1 Fluctuating slightly from time to time. 
 
 ^Steam freights on salt in sacks during the year were never lower thau 68. 6d., 
 and were as high as 78. There were no sail charters made during the year 1896.
 
 1072 SCHEDULE G. AGUICULTUUAL PKODUCTS AND PKOVISIONS. 
 
 pounds, tbongli tliis is rather above tlic average. Our couiparisons Avould show as 
 lollowa : 
 
 English factory-filled in New York, per sack $0. 88^ 
 
 Freight, New York to interior, 13 cents per 100 pounds 29 
 
 l.lTi 
 
 American factory-filled at works 50 
 
 J'reight, 10 cents per 100 pounds, per sack of 224 pounds 22^^ 
 
 72i 
 
 Difference 15 
 
 Or 62 per cent in favor of American salt. 
 
 DAIRY SALT. 
 
 Dairy salt is a grade of factory-filled, and extreme care is required in its mauufixc- 
 ture. The brands of foreign ("nctory-lilled (English) that are most extensively used 
 in this country are the Ashtou's and the Higgin's Eureka. 
 
 The very low cost of American dairy salt comi)ared with the price at which these 
 two English brands can be laid down in this country clearly shows that the Ameri- 
 can manufacturer of dairy salt can easily undersell the foreigner under the existing 
 tariff regulations. 
 
 COMMON SALT. 
 
 The grade known as common salt in Liverpool, and as common or Liverpool grouTid 
 here, corresponds to the American common Hue, and is sometimes known as barrel 
 salt. Both are distinguished from the factory-tilled in that they are not kihi-dried 
 or sifted, l)iit are siuiply allowed to drain when raked from the pans, thus retaiuing 
 a large perceutage of moisture and rendered uufit for finer purposes. They are used 
 for salting hides, feeding cattle, salting some meats, in the manufacture of pickels 
 of all kinds, soap, chemicals, etc. 
 
 Cost of common salt at seaport. 
 
 8. d. 
 
 Price of common salt in I^iverpool in brown sacks, 11 to ton of 2,240 pounds.. 14 
 
 Lowest steam freight to New York ia 1896 6 6 
 
 20 6 
 Equal (at exchange $4.88) $5.00 
 
 Or say per sack 45^ 
 
 Duty 35 per cent ad valorem or value of sacks 02^- 
 
 Making cost English salt on dock in New York 48 
 
 American common salt at works, per sack of 200 pounds, cost $0.26 
 
 Freight to New York by rail 20 
 
 Making cost American common salt, delivered to any dock within 
 lighterage district New York or Brooklyn ' 46 
 
 In favor American salt 02 
 
 At times it is possible to charter sailing ships from Liverpool to New York, freight 
 averaging about 2 shillings per ton. By this mode of transportation the cost of 
 English common salt at ship's side would be reduced per sack to about 10 cents. 
 But this ditl'erence would be offset, from the fact that English salt, in sailing ships, 
 has to be discharged in large quantities jier diem, necessitating storage. Storage 
 and labor first month, 5 cents; lighterage to competing points, 5 cents. 
 
 ' English salt cost 50 cents per ton additional for delivery by lighter to any dock 
 other than landing pier of steamers.
 
 SALT. 107; 
 
 COMPAKATIVE PKICE FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC COMMON SALT. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 Cost f. o. b. Liverpool, per ton of 2,240 nonnds 10 
 
 Ireight -^ 2 
 
 12 
 
 Equal (at exchange $4.88) $2. 93 
 
 Allowance for shortage, 5 per cent of value 12 
 
 Insurance about 2 per cent C5 
 
 3.10 
 Cost, canal boat or lighter, to make same delivery as comfjeting salt 50 
 
 Cost English salt delivered 3.60 
 
 Syracuse salt, competing quality, per ton of 2,240 pounds, f. o. b. Syra- 
 
 'cuse $2.50 
 
 Freight to New York,' including delivery 90 
 
 3.40 
 
 Difference in favor of American salt 20 
 
 The comparisons that have been made above have been based on the cost of deliv- 
 ery of foreign salt in New York, and the same average figures will apjily with only 
 slight variations to steam shipments to other Notheru ports. Steam freight to Balti- 
 nio;<-, 4s. ; iiostoii, Ss. ; Philadelphia, 3s. ; rail freight from American salt works to 
 1 hi^adelphia and Baltimore being same as to New York. Boston, 40 cents per ton 
 additional. 
 
 There have been no charters during year 1896 of sailing vessels to either Boston 
 or Baltimore, and bat one charter for Philadelphia, at 4s. 6d. freight. These ports 
 ari" rarely reached via water line by American salt. 
 
 It must be borne in miud the prices named in the foregoing comparison between 
 English and domestic salts are based on the most favoraide conditions existing at 
 tiie time of the discbarge of any foreiirn vessel at any seaport. If the salt is sold 
 direct from the steamer or sailing vessel, the figures stand as stated. If, however, 
 the cargo or part of it not being sold goes into store, tlie expense of such storage 
 must be added. The depreciation in value must also be taken into account if the salt 
 remains in store for a long time. In the case of bulk salt, there is an actual loss in 
 weig'.it and waste in bundling. 
 
 L'omestic salt is not sold under these disadvantages, as it can be shipped direct 
 from the works when onlered, and whatever is due to waste and storage on the 
 companies" own premises is included in tho first cost. 
 
 COMPARISON ENGLISH AND AMERICAN SALT AT BALTIMORE. 
 
 8. d. 
 
 English factory filled, white sacks, f. o. b. Liverpool 27 
 
 Average freight by steam 4 
 
 31 
 Equal (at exchange, $4.88) $7.56 
 
 Cost per Back 75^^ 
 
 Duty 35 per cent ad valorem on value sacks 07 
 
 Total cost per sack 82^ 
 
 American factory filled, white sacks, f. o. b. works $0. 50 
 
 Freight 10 cents per 100 pounds 22^ 
 
 . 72i 
 
 Favor of American salt 10 
 
 or, 14 per cent in favor American salt. 
 
 ' Freiglit Syracuse to New York by canal during 1896 ranged from 80 cents to $1 
 per ton, and during year 1895 freight was as low as 60 cents per ton and not higher 
 than 75 cents. Therefore, daring 1805 comparison is much more favorable to Ameri- 
 can salt. 
 
 T II 08
 
 1074 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 8. d. 
 
 English comrnon, in 200-poimd sacks, f. o. b. Liverpool 14 
 
 Average freight by steam 4 
 
 18 
 Equal (at exchange, $4.88) $4.40 
 
 Cost per sack 40 
 
 Duty 35 per cent ad valorem on value sacks O-i 
 
 Total cost per sack 42A 
 
 American common, in 200-pound sacks, f. o. b. AVdil^s $0. 2(5 
 
 Freight, 10 cents per 100 pounds 20 
 
 .46 
 
 Favor English salt 03 
 
 or, 8 per cent in favor English salt. 
 
 COMPARISON ENGLISH AXD AMEIUCAN SALT AT I'lIILADELIMIIA. 
 
 8. d. 
 
 English factory filled, white sacks, f. o. b. Liver]iool 27 
 
 Average freight by steam 3 
 
 30 
 Equal (at exchange, $4.88) $7.32 
 
 Cost ]ier sack 73 
 
 Duty 35 per cent ad valorem on value of sacks 07 
 
 Total cost per sack so 
 
 American factory tilled. Avhite sacks, f. o. b. works $0,150 
 
 Freight, 10 cents per 100 pounds 22i 
 
 .72i 
 
 Favor American salt 07^ 
 
 or, 10 per cent in favor American salt. 
 
 8. d. 
 
 English common, in 200-poimd sacks, f. o. b. Liverpool 14 
 
 Average freight by steam 3 
 
 17 
 Equal (at exchange, $4.88) $4. 15 
 
 Cost per sack 38 
 
 Duty 35 per cent ad valorem on value sacks 02i 
 
 Total cost per sack 40^ 
 
 American common, in 200-ponnd sacks, f. o. b. works $0. 26 
 
 Freight, 10 cents per 100 pounds 20 
 
 .40 
 
 Favor English salt 05i 
 
 or, 13 per cent in favor English salt. 
 
 COMPAIJISON ENGLISH AND AMERICAN SALT AT BOSTON. 
 
 8. d. 
 
 English factory filled, white sacks, f. o. b. Liverpool 27 
 
 Average freight by steam 3 
 
 Wharfage at Boston 1 
 
 31 
 Equal (at exchange, $4.88) $7. 50
 
 SALT. 1075 
 
 Cost per sack $0.75^ 
 
 Duty 35 per ceut ail valorem on value of sacks 07 
 
 Total cost per sack 82^ 
 
 American factory filled, white sack, f. o. b. works $0. 50 
 
 Freight 12 cents per 100 pounds 27 
 
 .77 
 
 Favor American salt 05^ 
 
 or, say 7 per ceut in lavur American salt. 
 
 8. d. 
 
 English common, in 200-pound sacks, f. o. b. Livernnol 14 
 
 Average freight by steam 3 
 
 Wharfage at Boston 1 o 
 
 18 
 Equal (at exchange, $4.88) $4. 40 
 
 Cost per sack 40 
 
 Duty 35 per cent ad valorem on value of sacks 02^ 
 
 Total cost jjer sack 42^ 
 
 American comiuou, in 200-})<)iuid sacks, f. o. b. •works $0. IG 
 
 Freight 12 cents per 100 pounds 24 
 
 .50 
 
 Favor English salt 07^ 
 
 or, 18 per ceut in favor English salt. 
 
 PKICES OF COMJIOX SALT (ENGLISH AND AMERICAN) COMPARED AT INLAND POINTS. 
 
 A large part of the domestic common salt in the West is put up in barrels, 280 
 pounds each. 
 
 The Liveri)ool grouud or common is not sold in this sort of package, but is usually 
 put up in burlap bags of 200 pounds weight and under. So a fair comparison would 
 he to show the cost of the foreign common iu the same sized barrels as the domestic. 
 
 Let us lirst take the case of Chicago. The average freight from l>ivorpool to 
 Chicago is about 15 shilliugs per ton of 2,240 pounds, and a low cost for the salt, 10 
 shillings per ton, f, o. b. Liverpool. 
 
 Cost of Liverpool ground, iu bulk, in Liverpool, 10 shilliugs ' or $2.44 
 
 Barrels, 280 ])ound8, say 20 cents each, 8 to the ton 1. 00 
 
 Freight to Chicago, 15 shillings 3. 66 
 
 Total 7.70 
 
 Or per barrel (8 to the ton) 07 
 
 Michigan salt, 280-pouud barrels, sold at works lor $0.?)o 
 
 Freight to Chicago, 5 cents per 100 pounds 14 
 
 .49 
 
 Showing that at present selling prices, the American salt could under- 
 sell the English at Chicago by a margin of (per barrol) 48 
 
 or, 100 per cent in favor American salt. 
 
 The same at Cleveland. 
 
 The through rate of freight from Liverpool to Cleveland has been the same as 
 to Chicago, viz, 15 .shillings, which would make the Liverpool grouud cost 
 the same as at Chicago $0. 97 
 
 The salt manufactured at Cleveland sells there for (per barrel) 35 
 
 Showing a balance in favor of the American salt of (per barrel) 64 
 
 or, 183 per cent in favor American salt. 
 
 ' Rate of exchauge taken at $4.88 throughout this i)aper.
 
 107G SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTUKAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 The same, at St. Louis. 
 
 Through fiTl-vht from Liverpool to Sfc. Louis, £ 1 por tou, or $4. 88 
 
 Salt, 10 sbilliii.i;s 2.44 
 
 Barrels as before 1.0) 
 
 Total 8.92 
 
 Or, per barrel (8 to the ton) 1. 12 
 
 Ohio River, Mi.Iii;X''"> West Virginia, aiul Kaiis-.s salt sells for, per barrel of 
 
 280 poiiuds, at works 45 
 
 Freight from West Virginia or Michigan to St. Louis, 10 cents per lOi) puuuda. .28 
 
 Total 73 
 
 Kansas salt per barrel, f. o. b. cars at works 45 
 
 Freight Kansas to St. Louis, 15 cents per lOu pounds 42 
 
 Total 87 
 
 Showing a margin in favor of the salts from Michigan, West Virginia, and 
 
 Ohio, per barrel, of o'J 
 
 Or 53 per cent in favor of American salt. 
 
 And from Kansas, per barrel 25 
 
 Or 29 per cent in favor of American salt. 
 
 To multiply these examples of (;omparative selling prices at interior points would 
 bo tedious, and would only be cumulative evidence that in every case the domesti'.' 
 salt can undersell the foreign. 
 
 COMPARISON OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN SALT AT SOUTHERN PORTS. 
 
 English common salt can be shipped into Southern ports, including New Orleans, 
 at an average cost and freight [)rifo of 14s. Gd. i)er ton of 2,240 ijoiuuls. 
 
 Equal (at oxt-hange $4.88) $3. 5i 
 
 Insurance, about 2 per cent 0') 
 
 Total 3. r9 
 
 American sal t, f. o. b. at works $2. 02 
 
 Average freight to New York via Ciiual 1. 23 
 
 Ocean freight, average 80 
 
 Insurance 05 
 
 4.10 
 
 .51 
 Or, say, 14 per cent in favor of English salt. 
 
 Total shipments of English salt into these ports during 1895 were but 70,319 tons, 
 or only 4 per cent of the total protluctinu. Anir-rioan salt total shijunents for 1800 
 are not yet comjiilcd, l)ut it can hesnfi ly Mated that liuring that year the percentage 
 is still more favorable to American salt. 
 
 packers' salt. 
 
 The great packers of the West use a grade of English salt known as "packers'," 
 put up in heavy brown bags, cost of which, f. o. b. Liverpool, is made up as follows: 
 
 Salt, 
 
 12 3 
 
 River freight 3 
 
 Filling...: 1 
 
 Mats 
 
 Dues 
 
 Insurance 2 
 
 Consul's fee 2 
 
 Sacks 3 J 
 
 Total 21 7 
 
 The average freight through from Liverpool to Western points, where this grade 
 of salt is use<l, is as follows: Chicago and Cleveland, 15 sbillings; Cincinnati anil 
 Kansas City, 21 yhilliugs; St. Louis, 20 shillings, por ton of 2,240 pounds.
 
 HALT. 1077 
 
 This •vronld mnke tlio cost of packers' salt, delivered at Cllica.^■o, 21s. 7d. ; freiglit, 
 158. ; total, 36s. 7d., wliicli (at exchange $4.88) would make $8.93 per ton, or 89 cents 
 per sack; add duty of 35 percent ad valorem, 2^ cents, gives a total of 91^ cents. 
 
 The American salt from New York State could be sold as follows: 
 
 Cost of salt' at works, per sack (white sack) $0.50 
 
 Eate of freight from works to Chicago, 12 cents per 100 pounds 27 
 
 Total 77 
 
 Showing that the English salt coats 14^ cents per sack more than the American salt 
 of the same grade, or 19 per cent in favor of American salt. 
 
 COARSE SALT. 
 
 Coarse salts are produced by the solar evaporation of sea water, and are used for 
 packing meats, salting pork, freezing ice-cream, melting snow and ice on street-car 
 tracks, and for pickling. 
 
 The principal foreign coarse salts that are used in the American market are shipped 
 from the West Indies, Turks Island, St. Martins, Curaroa, etc., and some from Medi- 
 terranean seai^orts. The American salts that compete with these are mined or 
 crushed rock salts, and the grade known as "Syracuse solar." 
 
 The present cost of salt from Turks Island, laid down In New York market, is 
 made up as follows: 
 
 Salt at the island per bushel.. $0. 07 
 
 Freight to New York do 05 
 
 Total do 12 
 
 Add charges for delivering, etc., if direct from vessel, in round lots do 02 
 
 Total do 14 
 
 The mined or solar salt sells at 12| cents per bushel delivered at buyer's wharf. 
 During canal navigation the solar salt can be brought to New York at freights vary- 
 ing from 90 cents to $1.40 cents per ton, thus saving 60 cents to $1.10 above railroad 
 freight of $2 per ton. 
 
 It must be agaiu remembered that unless the Turks Island salt is sold direct from 
 vessel the additional charge for storage must be added, which is not incurred in the 
 case of domestic. 
 
 It will readily be seen that the logical conclusion is that the demand for the foreign 
 salt comes from the consumer, who is prepared to pay an extra price for the quality 
 of salt which he thinks best adapted to his requirement. 
 
 The salt from St. Martins or Curagoa costs more than the Turks Island. The cost 
 would be made up as follows : 
 
 Salt at the island per bushel.. $0.08 J 
 
 Freight to New York do 07 
 
 Total do 15i 
 
 Delivery charges, etc do 02 
 
 Total „ do 17i 
 
 This salt is used particularly by packers of meats, and the corresponding grade of 
 domestic salt is sold at 14 or 15 cents per bushel delivered to customer's wharf. 
 
 These last figures on the coarse salt were based on New York delivery for each, and 
 of course the same argument would prove true in their case in regard to deliveries 
 out of town, as was shown in the case of the English salts, the freight to interior 
 points from the works being uniformly less than that for reshipment from New York. 
 Freights to otlier seaports than New York do not differ enough from New York to 
 alter the conclusion reached above. 
 
 LUMP ROCK SALT. 
 
 There is still remaining one kind of salt that may be considered in this connection, 
 although its use is very limited and importations therefore small. This is known 
 
 1 Comparison is made with Aniorican salt in white sacks and English salt in brown 
 Backs, which, of course, is against English salt.
 
 1078 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 as the ''lump rock," a mined salt used for feeding cattle. The cost of this salt in 
 Liverpool is as follows: 
 
 F. o. b. vessel 16 
 
 Average freight i to New York for the year per ton of 2,240 poniids 9 
 
 Total 25 
 
 Or, say (exchange at $4.88) $6.10 
 
 Price of domestic lump rock at the mines per 2,240 pounds $2. 50 
 
 Freight to New York, 10 cents per 100 pounds 2.25 
 
 Or, delivered in New York 4. 75 
 
 Difference 1.35 
 
 or 28 per cent iu favor of Am<nie;in salt. 
 
 For shipment to interior points, the cost of the foreign will again be found greater 
 than that of the domestic. 
 
 Importations of English salt into the United States, 1SS4 to 1S96, inclusive, in tons of S,S40 
 
 pounds each. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 1884 233.170 
 
 lS8."i 228. 405 
 
 18SG 2()S, 3:j7 
 
 1SS7 l(j;», 304 
 
 18^8 150, 171 
 
 1889 12."), 310 
 
 Tons. 
 
 1890 100, 74r. 
 
 1891 9\36I 
 
 1892 h8,695 
 
 1S93 00,056 
 
 1894 90,844 
 
 1895 150,263 
 
 Oulput of American salt during (he same period. 
 
 1891 1,248,493 
 
 1892 1,462,362 
 
 1893 1,477,096 
 
 1894 1,620,927 
 
 1895 1,708,706 
 
 1896 not compiled. 
 
 Tons. I Tons 
 
 1884 814,367 
 
 iXf^;] 879, 8,32 
 
 1886 963.385 
 
 1 S87 1 , 000. 4 95 
 
 1S88 1, 000. 9.S5 
 
 1889 1, 000, 696 
 
 1890 1,097,124 
 
 The above shows a stc.nly increase in the output of Aniirican salt during thie 
 period. If Americau salt ha.s suffered from coui])elition during tliis period, the infer- 
 ence is plain tliat it has bei'ii not from competition of the Engli.sh or other foreign 
 salt, but from domestic competition. 
 
 Below will be found a tabulated statement showing total importations of salt for 
 the years 1881 to 1896, inclusive. 
 
 The output of American salt for the same years is shown in parallel column : 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Imports. 
 
 Output of 
 
 American 
 
 salt. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Iraports. 
 
 Output of 
 
 American 
 
 salt. 
 
 1884 
 
 Tons. 
 416,337 
 370, 536 
 365, 164 
 313,357 
 294, 730 
 241,314 
 220, 391 
 
 Tont. 
 
 814. 367 
 
 879, 832 
 
 963, 385 
 
 1,000,495 
 
 1,006,985 
 
 1, 000, 696 
 
 1, 097, 124 
 
 1891 
 
 1892 
 
 18S3 
 
 1894 
 
 Ton*. 
 213, 614 
 209, 889 
 174, 985 
 154,232 
 221, 790 
 246, 999 
 
 Tons. 
 1.248,493 
 
 1885 
 
 1, 462. 362 
 
 1886 
 
 1,477.096 
 
 1887 
 
 1, 620. 927 
 
 1888 
 
 1895 
 
 18;i6 
 
 1, 7u8, 706 
 
 1889 
 
 (a) 
 
 1890 
 
 
 
 
 a Not compiled. 
 
 Wtt.uam a. Hazard, 
 Of Francis D. Moulton ^~ Co. 
 
 ' Lowest freight on bulk rock salt during 1896 was 9 shillings per ton of 2,240 
 pounds.
 
 SALT. 1079 
 
 PSOTESTS FROM MEAT PACKERS. 
 
 CniCAao, December 31, 1806. 
 Devi^ Sir: We desire to say that we are most strenuously opposed 
 to tlie restoration of any duty on salt, whicli enters so largely into the 
 niannfac'ture of our product. 
 
 The foreign salts, notably the English packing salt, the finer brands 
 of dairy salts, and the sea salts for pickling and capping purposes are 
 used extensively in the packing industry, and any legislation that 
 results in an increase to us of the cost of these articles "will be injurious 
 to our interests. In this connection we Trish to call your attention to 
 the fact that packers use these grades of salt to a certain extent irre- 
 spective of their cost, and that a tariff would in those cases merely add 
 to such cost without conferring any benefit upon American salt makers. 
 We use vastly larger quantities of domestic than we do of foreign salts, 
 but need the foreign for special purposes, and believe we should be 
 able to get it at the lowest possible expense. 
 
 In the event of a duty being jmt on salt we desire that provision be 
 made for the refund to packers of duties on salt used in export meats 
 of any descriptioi]. This would be of some assistance to us, but we yet 
 believe that no duty sliould be put on salt at all, as foreign salt is also 
 used for goods meant for domestic consumption, notably for butterine. 
 The competition we meet with abroad should be minimized to as 
 large an extent as possible, by our being able to obtain the supplies 
 that enter into the manufacture of our products. at the lowest possible 
 cost. A duty on salt would naturally result in an increase to us of the 
 cost of the domestic salt, and give us an additional burden all around. 
 The revenue to be derived from the comparatively small amount of 
 foreign salt brought to this country can not in any event be large, and 
 it would be an imposition to exact a higher price from the consumers 
 on an article of such universal use. 
 
 Armour &Co. ; Boyd, Lunham & Co.; Anglo-American Pro 
 vision Company, per James W. Harrison, treasurer; 
 The G. H. Hammond Company; W. H. Bell; The Cudaliy 
 Packing Company^ ]\lichael Cudahy, president; Inter- 
 national Packing Company, A. Stamford White, presi 
 dent; Libby, Mc]S"eill & Libby, incorporated, by W. F. 
 Burrows, secretary; Michener Bros. & Co.; Thos. J. 
 Lipton Company, by Hugh Shielis, vice-president; ISel- 
 Ron ]\rorris & Co.; Continental Packing Company, H. 
 Boore, suiierintendent; Chicago Packing and Provision 
 Comi)any, by William L. Gregson, vice-i)resident. 
 
 STATEMEIJT OE MR. EDWARD ^. SEOWN, OF HEW YORK. 
 
 Tuesday, Jamiary 5, 1897. 
 Mr. BUOTVN said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 I have the honor to report, in behalf of tlie salt industry of this coun- 
 try, that the importers are here to-day from iSTew York and every salt- 
 producing State. We have had a conference, and concluded that it 
 would be best to submit our case in writing. We will i)repare a state- 
 ment that we wiU hand in, and we would like to reserve the right to
 
 1080 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 make any statement verbally in answer to anything that may be here 
 alter said nj^on this subject during this hearing. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. What rate of duty do you seek? 
 
 Mr. Brown. We would suggest the reeuactraent of the McKinley 
 tariff, althougli the second proviso of that tariff is open to many objec- 
 tions, which we have mentioned in our statement. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. What proviso is tliat? 
 
 Mr. Brown, In regard to the salt used on beef which is packed for 
 export. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. All the salt for packing fish and used in the fisli- 
 eries comes in free. Is there any reason why one class of citizens of 
 the United States should be taxed on their salt and the other should 
 not? 
 
 Mr. Brown. That is a question that I think the gentlemen on the 
 committee can answer better than I can. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLTN. What is your o])inion? You come to give your 
 oj)inion as to why and how duties should be imposed? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Pardon me, but I came to report that we would hand 
 in a written statement. 
 
 Mr. IMcMiLLiN. You do not wish to express yourself on that subject? 
 
 Mr. Brown. We have expressed ourselves in our stateinent. 
 
 INIr. McjMillin. Have you any objection to stating what your expres- 
 sion is ill that statenumt, as we do not now have the benelit of it, and 
 others are to be heard on this question? 
 
 ]\Ir. Brown. In regard to fish? 
 
 Mr. McMilltn. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Brown. We will oiler no objection to enacting the McKinley 
 juovisions in regard to fish. We have reasons for thinking that they 
 are just. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. State what those reasons are. 
 
 Mr. Brown. One reason is that the difference in freight rates from 
 the domestic salt-producing point to the Uslieries is so much greater 
 than the freight rates from foreign ports to the fisheries that even with 
 the duty we do not think we could get that business, and therefore we 
 have no desire to increase the cost to the fishermen unless it was a 
 bi'nefitto the American salt producers, 
 
 Mr. JMcMiLLiN, You admit, then, that the duty is an additional cost 
 to the man that uses the salt. 
 
 Mr. Brown. !N^o, sir; we do not think so. 
 
 Mr. aMcMiLLiN. rou think as you could not get the fish market, 
 could not get the market f >r the sale of your product, you have no 
 desire to increase the cost of the salt? 
 
 Mr, Brown. Well, as my opinion, yes, 
 
 iNlr. 'J'AWNEY. He said, the cost of tiansportation. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You said they would not get it by reason of a trans- 
 portation as they would not get it anyhow. You did not wish to 
 increase the cost of the nuiterial used in i)acking! 
 
 Tlie Chairman, It is well known that there has been given, first, a 
 bounty to fishermen of 25 cents, and then that was repealed, and they 
 were given free salt on the ground that they were a training school for 
 marines and crews for vessels of the Navy, That is the ground on 
 which these vessels were given free salt. 
 
 Mr. IMcMiLLiN. Yes, that was given as an aid to the Navy. 
 
 The Chair:man. As an aid to the Navy as a training school for sea
 
 SALT. 1081 
 
 men for the Navy. And I may add that that originated in the Admin- 
 istration of Mr. Jeiierson. 
 
 Mr. EussELL. Is it a fact that the Canadian fisheries have a bounty 
 now? 
 
 The Chairman. Tliere was a bounty to the fishing vessels as far 
 back as 1867, granted on tlmt ground. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. 1 would like to inquire of you whether any packers 
 or exporters of beef have recovered the duties they have paid on 
 imported salt under paragraph 322 of the McKinley Act. 
 
 Mr. Brown. 1 understand they have. 
 
 Mr. DoLLiVER. Where? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Paid on English salt, you mean? 
 
 Mr. DOLLIVER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Brown. All the Western packers who were using English salt 
 have had the rebate, I understand. 
 
 Mr. DOLLIVER. Have any of them used that salt on their meats; and 
 if so, to what extent? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I don't know. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Certaitily they have. They have always furnished 
 certihoates to that eflect. Armour & Co. and all those big concerns 
 have done that. 
 
 Mr. DOLLIVER. I understood you to say that this salt could not 
 reach the interior as far as Chicago. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Very little of it goes that far. Some companies 
 required certain foreign salt for certain purposes, and would pay a 
 fancy jn-ice for it; but it was a very small quantity, a matter of 2,000 
 or 3,000 tons a year. The packers in Kew York City who put up meat 
 for the West Indies have always got their drawback from the custom- 
 house in ]New York. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY Mil. EDWARD W. BROWN, OF NEW 
 YORK CITY, ON BEHALF OF THE SALT MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 New York, December 30, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We have the honor to present to your honorable body our urgent 
 appeal for the restoration of the duty on salt, and we submit herewith 
 a few of our reasons in brief in support of our request. 
 
 We attach hereto a copy of a memorial that Senator Allison presented 
 to the Senate in 1804 in the interest of our industry. (Senate Mis. Doc. 
 No. 201, Fifty-third Congress, second session.) We resi)ectfully refer 
 you to that memorial for a complete statement of the conditions of the 
 salt industrj^ in this country, as well as tlie conditions regarding the 
 im])orted salt with which we have to comj)ete. 
 
 Jn the memorial we have shown that salt from England, the West 
 Indies, and the Mediterranean ])rodacing ports is brought to the Atlantic 
 seaports at nominal ballast freight rates, the average freight rate being 
 less than one-half of the rate from our salt works nearest our coast 
 ports to the coast ports. 
 
 The average freight rates from Liverpool to sundry United States
 
 1082 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 ports and the lowest fieiglit rate on domestic salt to tliose same ports 
 are per ton of 2,240 pounds: 
 
 Xew York: 
 
 Sail. 
 
 Steam 
 
 Boston : 
 
 Steam 
 
 Baltimore : 
 
 Steam 
 
 Philadelphia: 
 
 Sail. 
 
 Steam . 
 Norfolk : 
 
 Steam , 
 Savannah: 
 
 Sail. 
 
 Mobile: 
 
 Sail 
 
 Kew Orleans: 
 
 Sail 
 
 Steam 
 
 Galveston: 
 
 Sail 
 
 From Liverpool. 
 
 Port. 
 
 1893. 
 
 $0.42 
 1.10 
 
 .37 
 
 1.22 
 
 .85 
 1.70 
 
 1896. 
 
 $0.37 
 1.00 
 
 .72 
 1.22 
 
 .85 
 1.00 
 
 1.22 
 
 .24 
 1.22 
 
 .24 
 
 From 
 
 domestic 
 
 works. 
 
 $2. on 
 
 2. 6'.< 
 2.25 
 
 2.25 
 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 
 1.78 
 3.00 
 
 Salt is about the cheapest manufactured article of commerce, and 
 the average freigiit from salt works to the principal cities is as much 
 as the selling price of the salt at the works. 
 
 When it is considered that about 50 per cent of our selling price is 
 freight, it can readily be seen that we are working under a great dis- 
 advantage, and absolutely require some protection. 
 
 Domestic coiniietition has been very keen for the last twelve or fif 
 teen years, and, in consequence, the price of salt to the consumer has 
 been greatly reduced throughout tiie entire country. 
 
 Assuming that you will do us the honor to glance over the attached 
 memorial for the history of the industry up to the time of the passage 
 of the so-called Wilson bill, we will confine ourselves in this paper to 
 the conditions that have arisen under the workings of that tariff. 
 
 DOMESTIC SAIiT. 
 
 The selling prices of 189,') were made under an active competition, 
 and were as low as the salt could possibly be produced for under the 
 method then employed. The domestic manufacturers have been unable 
 to lower these prices materially, and the selling prices of domestic salt 
 are to-day practically the same as in 1893. 
 
 Since the passage of the Wilson bill, ten of the twenty-five salt 
 plants in western New York have shut down, and the production of 
 the remaining plants that are now running has been less during the 
 last year than the production of these same plants in 1893. The appar- 
 ent increase in the production of salt in New York State, appearing 
 in the (iovernraent statistical reports, is accounted for by the fact that 
 the salt brine used by the Solvay Process Works at Syracuse has not 
 been reported or considered in the estimates previous to the year 1893. 
 Since that time, the large amount of salt brine used in the production 
 of soda ash has been included in the reports of the State production. 
 That brine is not made into salt, but is used in its natural state in the 
 production of soda ash, and is not really a part of the salt product of 
 New York State. There has been a material falling off in the actual 
 production of salt during the last two years in the State of New York.
 
 SALT. 1U85 
 
 SALT FROM ENGLAND 
 
 Our memorial showed that the selling price of common English salt 
 in l^ew York in 1893 was about $4.80 per ton, and that without duty 
 that same salt could be sold for $3 per ton. It has not, to the best of 
 our knowledge, been sold for less than $4 per ton. The average has 
 been about $4.25, as this price was low enough to successfully compete 
 with the domestic article. The consumer, therefore, has not benefited 
 more than 50 cents per ton, while the English producers and their 
 agents have reaped the extra profit of about $1 per ton. 
 
 The English salt trust has held the price Of " factory filled " and 
 "dairy" salt at a very high figure, being frequently in short supply of 
 these grades, while the domestic producers have sold their salt below 
 cost in their efforts to hold their trade. The results have been that 
 very little of these grades have been imported, but we are kept in con- 
 stant fear that the Salt Union will follow the policy advocated in Falk's 
 circulars, and adopt "drastic measures" to regain the American market. 
 This would simply mean for them to accept at their works the same 
 prices that we are comj)elled to accept at ours. 
 
 The importations of English salt into the United States since 1893 
 have been: 
 
 Years ending December 31 — Tons. 
 
 1893 60.056 
 
 1894 96,844 
 
 1895 150,263 
 
 As salt was dutiable for the first half of 1S94. the years 1893 and 
 1895 must be taken for comparison of importations with and without 
 the duty. It will be seen that the increase was from 00,000 to 150,000 
 tons, or 150 per cent. 
 
 We have no means of ascertaining the exact quantities of the differ- 
 ent grades of salt included in the 150,000 tons imported in 1895, but 
 we believe that upward of 75 per cent of it was the ordinary salt of 
 commerce known as "common" or "common fine." 
 
 Messrs. F. D. Moulton & Co., the agents of the English Salt Union, 
 issued a pamphlet in 1893 entitled "Salt and the Tariff," which was 
 presented to the Ways and Means Committee during the preparation 
 of the Wilson tariff bill. 
 
 We give below that part of their statement which refers to common salt : 
 
 The grade known as common salt in Liverpool, and as common or Liverpool 
 ground here, corresponds to thi" American common fine, and is sometimes known as 
 barrel salt. Both are distinguished irom the factory filled in that tliey are not kiln 
 dried or sifted, but are simply allowed to drain when raked irom the pans, thus 
 retaining a large percentage of the moisture, and rendered unfit for finer purposes. 
 They are used for salting hides, feeding cattle, salting some meats, in the manufac- 
 ture of pickles of all kinds, soap, chemicals, etc. 
 
 Cost of common salt at seaports. ^ ^ 
 
 Price of common salt in Liverpool, per ton of 2,240 pounds in bulk 10 
 
 Averge sail freight to New York in 1893 2 3 
 
 Total 12 3 
 
 Or, say (exchange $4.88) $3. 00 
 
 Insurance per ton 05 
 
 Five per cent falls short when imported in bulk 15 
 
 Duty, 8 cents per 100 pounds 1.79 
 
 Cost of English salt in New York 4. 99 
 
 American common fine, at works, per ton of 2,240 pounds ■';'-2. 25 
 
 Freight to New York, 10 cents per 100 pounds 2. 25 
 
 4.50 
 
 In favor American salt 49
 
 1084 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Same tiithoui duty. 
 
 American salt, delivered New York $4.50 
 
 WitLout duty, English salt, delivered New York 3.20 
 
 Difference in favor English salt, per ton 1.30 
 
 We also quote (referring to the above) from a stateir.ep.t submitted 
 to the Finance Committee of tlie Senate on March 1, 18i>4, on behalf 
 of the salt manufacturers: 
 
 The statement made in ihe circular in regard to common salt is substantially cor- 
 rect. The"lall short" and "insurance," being charges common to both domestic 
 and im])orted salts, should not be considered, and the dilleience in favor of English 
 salt without duty is nearer $1.40 than $1.30 i)er ton, as claimed by Messrs. Moulton 
 & Co. They quote the price of their common salt as 10s. f. o. b. Liverpool. 
 
 We find l)y referring to Kalk's circular of .January 4, 18.S8, before the formation of 
 the 15ritish Salt Union, that common salt was quoted at 7s. per ton f. o. b. Liverpool. 
 After the formation of the union, in 1889, common salt was advanced in price, and 
 was quoted in Falk's circular of that year, "for shii)ment to America, lis. 6d. ; for 
 shiyiment to Australasia, los. 6d." Were the English union to sell now at the prices 
 of 1888 and obtained the freight rates that have existed for several years they could 
 land their "common" salt in New York City, without duty, for 9s., or $2,20, per ton. 
 As our freight rate from the New York State fields Is $2.25 per ton, how could we 
 co)iipete with this salt? 
 
 This grade would answer the purposes for which three-fifths of the salt made in 
 this country is use<l. 
 
 During the canal season salt can frequently be shipped from New York to Buftalo 
 for 55 cents per ton, and as the unloading from vessel in New York is included in 
 ocean freight, the total freight from Liverpool to Buffalo is about $1.03 per ton. 
 
 The average freight rate by sail from Liverpool to Wilmington, N. C, 
 Beaufort and Cliarleston, S. C, Brunswick and Savannah, Ga., is $1 
 per ton, and the lowest rate from domestic works to tlie same points is 
 $2.65 per ton. Tender the AVilson tariff the importations of salt into 
 these points increased from 3.140 tons in 1804 to 37,528 ions in 1896. 
 
 The average freight rate in 1895 from Liverpool to New York was Is. 
 6d. (37 cents) per ton by sailing vessels, and 5s. ($1.22) on small lots by 
 regular lino steamers. In 18!)6 the rate for sailing vessels has remained 
 at Is. 6d., while the steamer rate has been 2s. 6d. (60 cents) fiir outside 
 steamers, and 5s. (81.22) for regular liners. The rates to Boston, Phil- 
 adelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, Wilmington, Savannah, and New Orleans, 
 botli sail and steam, have been as low as ever before. 
 
 SALT FROM THE WEST INDIES. 
 
 Our memorial showed that in 1893-94 this grade of salt was sold at 
 an average price of $5 per ton for the ordinary and 85.50 for tiie extra 
 coarse grades. AVith the duty of $1.80 per ton removed, it was sup- 
 posed that these salts would sell for $3.20 and $3.70 per ton respec- 
 tively. There have been a few isolated cases where the salt has sold for 
 these figures, but th.e average selling price has been from $4.50 to $5 per 
 ton, the removal of the duty therefore making practically no reduction 
 in the cost to the consumer, but giving an extra profit of about $1.30 
 per ton, to be divided between the producers at the West Indies and 
 their selling agents. 
 
 The mevclmnt at the West Indies sold his salt previous to 1894 at an 
 averagv ])rice of $1.70 per ton (5^ cents i)er bushel). Since that time 
 his prict> has been $2.15 per ton (7 cents per bushel). The freight rates 
 from this section vary from $1.40 to $2 per ton, the average being about 
 $1.70.
 
 SALT. 1085 
 
 As the salt from many of the salt-produciug islands of the West 
 Indies can not be imported into this country free of duty, on account 
 of the reciprocity clause in the salt tariff, the amount shipped to the 
 United States from this section has not increased materially. 
 
 MEDITERRANEAN SALT. 
 
 The prevailing freight rates for a number of years past from Portu- 
 guese, Spanish, and French ports to North Atlantic ports in this country 
 have ranged from $1 to $1,115 per ton, and the rate from Italian and 
 Sicilian ports has ranged from $1.25 to $2 per ton, and the estimated 
 cost of producing salt at the Mediterranean ports is about $1.25 per ton. 
 
 PRICES TO THE CONSUMER NOT AFFECTED BY A TARIFF. 
 
 Eeplying to the argument that salt is a necessity of the poor and 
 should therefore be free: A family of six persons use for domestic pur- 
 poses on the average less than 75 pounds of salt per year. At 8 cents 
 per hundred pounds the tariff on this amount would be 8 cents, or 1 
 cent per head. 
 
 Consumers usually buy the salt in small bags. The cost of the salt 
 in a 3-ponnd bag is about one-lialf of a cent, the selling price being 
 made up almost entirely of the cost of the bag, labor of tilling, weigh- 
 ing, and sewing same, and the handling and profit of the salt jobber 
 (not the manufacturer), the wholesale grocer, and the retail grocer. A 
 3-})ound bag of salt retails at from 3 to 5 cents. At 8 cents per 100 
 pounds the duty on 3 pounds is less than one fourth of a cent, and 
 it is clearly apparent that this would in no way affect the cost to the 
 consumer. 
 
 One pound of salt will salt 16 pounds of butter, so the duty pro- 
 posed amounts to 1 cent for each 200 pounds of butter. No benefit 
 resulted to the farmer from the abolition of the duty, and his cost will 
 in no way be affected if the duty is restored. The tritiing difference is 
 absorbed in either case by the middleman. 
 
 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE IN FREIGHT RATES. 
 
 The average difference between sail rates from Liverpool to Atlantic 
 and Gulf ports and the rates from domestic salt works to the same 
 ports is 8 cents per 100 pounds in favor of the imported article. 
 
 COMPARISON OF THE COSTS OF MANUFACTURE. 
 
 The salt produced in the West Indies and JVIediterranean ports is 
 known as solar salt — i. e., sea water evaporated by the sun's heat. 
 
 The principal expense of erecting a plant for the production of solar 
 salt in the West Indies is to build a dam across the mouth of a lagoon, 
 and is merely nominal when compared with the cost of erecting works 
 or sinking a shaft in this country for the production of competing grades. 
 The native cheap labor (we are informed the average is less than 40 cents 
 per day) and the direct rays of a tropical sun enable the West Indian 
 and Mediterranean manufacturers to produce their salt for about one- 
 half the cost of manufacture in this country. 
 
 Salt is produced in England by the same methods as used in this 
 country.
 
 1086 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTUEAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 We give below in parallel columus the comparative costs of manufac 
 taring commou salt iu England and in tliis country: 
 
 England. 
 
 Kew York 
 State. 
 
 Brine 
 
 Labor 
 
 Fuel 
 
 Kent, interest, etc. 
 
 Total 
 
 «. d. 
 
 6 ($0. 12) 
 
 10 ( .20) 
 3 ( .72) 
 
 1 ( .24) 
 
 $0.15 
 .65 
 .85 
 .25 
 
 5 4 ( 1.28) 
 
 1.90 
 
 The figures given as cost of manufacturing salt in England are taken 
 from a report of the British Parliamentary commission iu 1881 (see 
 Encyclopedia Eritanuica, Vol. XXI, p. 233), but it is our opinion that 
 the cost of labor given therein is too low, and we believe that Is. lOd., 
 or 38 cents, per ton for labor is a more reliable estimate. This would 
 make the comparative costs $1.46 per ton for English salt and $1.90 for 
 salt made here. The major difierence is in the item of labor, and it is 
 on account of the higher cost of labor iu this country that we must pay 
 higher prices for our fuel. 
 
 These conditions give our foreign competitors such an advantage 
 that we feel that a tariff of 8 cents per 100 pounds is absolutely neces- 
 sary to afford us ade(juate protection. 
 
 There is absolutely no ground or reason for inciting a demand for free 
 salt, and it was merely a party cry to make political capital. 
 
 England is, we believe, the only country outside the United States 
 that does not use salt as a means of raising a largo revenue, either by 
 an import duty or an internal-revenue tax, and we feel safe in stating 
 that the consumers in every foreign country liave to pay for their salt 
 from two to twenty times the cost paid by the consumer in the United 
 States. 
 
 We respectfully request your attention to the attached statistics, 
 which ofler you concise and indisputable evidence of the effect of the 
 present tariff u]ion the salt industry of this country. 
 
 In 1872 a tariif bill was i)assed in which the duty on salt was as fol- 
 lows : " Salt in bags, sacks, barrels, or other packages, twelve cents per 
 hundred pounds; salt in bulk, eight cents per hundred pounds: Pro- 
 vided, That salt in bond may be used iu curing tish, &c. : Provided 
 further, That exporters of meats which have been cured," etc. 
 
 The salt imported in sacks are the finer grades of dairy and table 
 salt, the value of which is from two to eight times the value of the salt 
 imported iu bulk. 
 
 The question has often been raised if Congress did not intend the 
 higher specific duty to be paid on the higher-priced salt and that the 
 sacks should pay the same rate of duty as if imported separately. We 
 can find no record to show that Congress, in framing the above tariff, 
 intended that the sacks should be admitted free, but the Treasury 
 Department ruled that no extra duty need be paid on the sacks. W^hile 
 we think it quite possible that Congress intended the finer grades of 
 salt to bear a duty of 12 cents per 100 pounds, in practice the duty 
 amounted to about 9 cents per 100 pounds on the salt. 
 
 The proviso in regard to allowing salt in bond to be used in curing 
 fish, etc., is of long standing, and we understand it has been the policy 
 of both of the prominent political parties to foster in every way the 
 fishing industry. For this and other reasons we interpose no objection 
 to this provision being included in the tariff".
 
 SALT. 
 
 1087 
 
 The tariff of 1872 also contained a proviso for a rebate of the duty 
 paid on salt used in curing meats for export. There is a prevalent opin- 
 ion that frauds were perpetrated under this clause. It is impossible for 
 any expert to determine from an inspection of cured meats just what 
 salt was used and there is practically no check upon an exporter who 
 wishes to take advantage of the Government. The oaths required by 
 the Treasury Department are usually taken by employees or custom- 
 house brokers, and as a matter of fact they have no knowledge whatever 
 with regard to the correctness of the statement they swear to. 
 
 The Treasury regulations allow 40 pounds of salt to each 100 pounds 
 of pickled cured meats aud 20 pounds of salt for each 100 pounds of 
 dried salted meats. The duty refunded on such exports (based on 8 
 cents per 100 pounds) amounts to not more than 3} cents on each 100 
 ])Ounds of pickled cured meats and If cents on each 100 pounds of 
 dried salted meats. It is the custom to allow the custom-house broker 
 one-half of the amount of rebate received for his services in obtaining 
 such rebate. The amount therefore received by the packer is a mere 
 bagatelle compared with the value of the product exported, and it is 
 more than likely that the price the salt importer charges on account of 
 this rebate clause more than offsets the net rebate received by the 
 packer. 
 
 In our opinion it is immaterial to a majority of the packers whether 
 or not this proviso is made. We consider, therefore, that it would be 
 unwise to incorporate it in a tariff bill. 
 
 We respectfully recommend the following proposition for a tariff 
 clause: 
 
 Salt in bulk and salt in bags, eacke, barrels, or otber packages, 8 cents per 100 
 pounds ; but the coverings shall pay tlie same rate of duty as if imported separately : 
 Froinded, That imported salt in bond may be used in curing lish taken by vessels 
 licensed to engage in the fisheries, and in curing tish on the shores of the navigable 
 waters of the United States under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury 
 shall prescribe ; and upon proof that the salt has been used for either of the purposes 
 stated in this proviso, the duties on the same shall be remitted. 
 
 Respectfully submitted on behalf of the salt manufacturers of Xew 
 York State. 
 
 Edward W. Brown. 
 L. H. Humphrey. 
 George H. Smith. 
 Archibald S. White. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Importationa of salt into the United States. 
 
 Tear ending June 30 — 
 
 1884 
 1885 
 1886 
 1887 
 1888 
 1889 
 1890 
 
 Tons of 
 
 2,000 
 puunds. 
 
 463, 561 
 433, 840 
 423, 869 
 390, 168 
 345, 173 
 291, 188 
 253, 020 
 
 Value. 
 
 $1, 663, 831 
 1,519,998 
 1, 499, 182 
 1, 438, 031 
 1, 156, 962 
 943, 131 
 950, 025 
 
 Year ending June 30- 
 
 1891 
 1892 
 1893 
 1894 
 1895 
 1896 
 
 Tons of 
 
 2,000 
 pounds. 
 
 255, 793 
 235, 076 
 195. 983 
 172, 720 
 248, 405 
 276, 222 
 
 Value. 
 
 $928, 889 
 713, 901 
 692, 493 
 576, 664 
 680, 802 
 758, 992 
 
 The above figures are taken from the following publications of the Bureau of Sta- 
 tistics: 
 
 No. 8, Series 1893-94, Summary Statement of the Imports and Exports of the United 
 States for February, 1894. 
 
 United States Treasury Department. — Imports for Consumption into the United 
 States, 1894-95.
 
 1088 SCHEDULE G. AGIilCULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 No. 12, Series 1895-96, Monthly Summary of Finance and Commerce, June, 1896. 
 Mineral Resources of the United States, 1892. (United States Geological Survey.) 
 
 Comparison of Ihe importations of salt into the principal Jtlanticand Gulf porta for years 
 ending June 30, 1S94 and 1896. 
 
 [Reduced to tons of 2,000 pounds.] 
 
 Port. 
 
 Boston 
 
 Providence, It. I 
 
 New York 
 
 Philadelphia 
 
 Baltimoie 
 
 Wilmington, N. U... 
 Beaufort, S. C 
 
 J 894. 
 
 Tons. 
 32. 046 
 
 5,020 
 20, 858 
 11, 126 
 
 8,229 
 622 
 
 1896. 
 
 Tons. 
 41,400 
 
 6.167 
 35, 848 
 22,413 
 18. 334 
 
 3,247 
 10, 478 
 
 Port. 
 
 Charleston, S.C 
 Brunswick, Ga 
 Savannah, Ga. 
 Mobile, Ala ... 
 >i'ew Orleans.. 
 Galveston, Tex 
 
 1894. 
 
 Tons. 
 450 
 
 28 
 2,050 
 
 10 
 5,680 
 2,488 
 
 1896. 
 
 Tons. 
 5,810 
 2,587 
 
 15, 406 
 9,176 
 
 20, 375 
 
 17,311 
 
 The above figures were taken from " Imports of Merchandise," furnished by Bureau 
 of Statistics. 
 
 STATEMSITT OF E. R. BLACKER, OF MICHIGAN. 
 
 Tuesday, January 5, 1897. 
 
 Mr. Blacker said: Mr. Cliairman and geutlenieu of tlie committee, 
 in Micliigau we produced C,o{H),()00 barrels of salt a few years ago. 
 Last year we were only able to manufacture 3,075,000 barrels. We 
 have sold salt at a net price of 35 cents per barrel during 18i)(). 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. What do you say to the statement of the last gen- 
 tleman, that the business of salt producing has greatly increased under 
 the operation of the Wilson bilT^ 
 
 Mr. Blacker. Our experience in Michigan has been that the pro- 
 duction has necessarily been growing less. 
 
 Mr. Grosyenor. lias not tlie production of salt in Ohio practically 
 ceased since the enactment of the Wilson law? 
 
 Mr. Blacker. There has been a decrease with the exception of 
 Cleveland. 
 
 Mr. Hazard. I can give you the exact figures right here. 
 
 Mr. Grosyenor. I live in Ohio and ought to know about that State. 
 
 Mr. Blacker. We inanufa(.'tured in 1890 3,075,000 barrels, a reduc- 
 tion of almost 50 per cent. That was because of tlie low price. Many 
 of our factories are closed. The only reason we have been able to 
 manufacture 3,000,000 in Michigan is because of the refuse from our 
 sawmills. The factories that had to purchase coal and fuel had to 
 cease business. When I say 35 cents is our net price of salt, it costs 
 19 cents a barrel for a package and the tilling of a package. The dif- 
 ference between 10 and 35 cents is all the manufacturer in Michigan 
 has received during the past year for the amount of money invested 
 after paying taxes and insurance. The cost per barrel is 19 cents. 
 What we would like is the reenactment of the McKinley law in that 
 direction ; and I desire to state we have a very large fishing interest all 
 along' Lake Michigan. 
 
 A Member. \\'hat is the weight of the barrel you speak of? 
 
 Mr. Blacker. Three hundred pounds altogether — 280 net to the 
 barrel. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you recommend the j>rovision of the old law on 
 this subject, or do you desire to tax salt that is used in the fishing 
 business?
 
 SALT. 1089 
 
 Mr. Blacker. We recommend the reenactmeiit of the old law. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Why do you do that; why should you give free salt 
 to those who are within 50 or 100 miles of your works, and hence trans- 
 portation cost is the minimum, and put a duty on the salt that is used 
 1,000 miles away, where the transportation is a big item; what is 
 your reason for making that discrimination! 
 
 Mr. Blacker. We do not wish to antagonize these gentlemen across 
 the ocean. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You are afraid of the other people? 
 
 Mr. Blacker. We wish to harmonize rather than antagonize people. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Then it is not justice, but fear, that moves you? 
 
 Mr. Blacker. We wish to be reasonable. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. How much of your salt has been displaced by 
 foreign salt? 
 
 Mr. Blacker. That is pretty hard to tell. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff. Has any? 
 
 Mr. Blacker. I would not make the statement that any has been 
 displaced. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Have you any statistics showing the production of 
 salt in the United States for the last decade or periods embraced by 
 the condition of affairs existing under the two systems? 
 
 Mr. Blacker. We have furnished a statement in writing to the 
 committee showing the amount. 
 
 STATEMENT FILED BY MR. BLACKER IN BEHALF OF MICHIGAN 
 SALT MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We beg leave to present herewith a few facts in regard to the condi- 
 tion of the salt industry of the United States, and especially of the 
 State of Michigan, and a few reasons why we believe the duty on salt 
 should be reinstated. 
 
 We have a manufacturing capacity in the United States for double 
 the amount that can be used. The price is dropping lower and lower 
 from year to year until it has reached a point where there is no 
 profit in the business. With the duty on salt reinstated, it would very 
 materially lessen the amount imported into this country. There is no 
 grade or kind of salt that is not manufactured or produced in the 
 United States, except possibly a comparatively small amount for curing 
 meats going into the export trade with some of the countries where the 
 climate is excessively warm at all seasons, and as exporters are paid 
 back nearly the full amount of import duties on salt that goes into this 
 trade, we can see no reason for making this a point against a duty. 
 
 In the State of Michigan alone we have a manufacturing capacity of 
 0,500,000 barrels, while the make for the year 1896 was only 3,075,900 
 barrels, less than one-half the capacity, and the net price, including 
 the barrel, has dropped from 51 cents in 1894 to 35 cents in 1896. 
 About one-fourth of the salt manufacturing plants in Michigan have 
 been unable to run at all on account of such low prices. The produc- 
 tion of salt in Michigan is mainly fi'om the exhaust steam from lumber 
 sawmill engines, and it is due to this fact largely that salt has been 
 made in Michigan at all during the past year or two in face of the 
 sharp competition and low prices. 
 
 Bearing upon this subject we quote from Balk's Salt Girculai, dated 
 T H G9
 
 1090 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 Liverpool, January 10, 180G, "Exports to tlie United States." "Eea- 
 sonable freights and the abolition of the duty on salt have enabled the 
 Liverpool merchants to increase their shipments of common salt very 
 much," as the following figures will show: 
 
 In 1894 salt imported into the United States was placed upon the free 
 list under the provision of the Wilson tariff act. Imports in 1893 were 
 1,245,000 barrels, which increased to 1,500,000 barrels in 1894, and 1895 
 imports had increased to about 2,000,000 barrels, with indications that 
 the increase for 1896 will be in about the same ratio. This is the effect 
 of free trade upon the salt industry in the United States, and Michigan 
 in particular. During the year of 1894 there was produced in the 
 United States 12,907,417 barrels, valued at $4,739,285, while the year 
 of 1895 shows a production of 13,GG9,049 barrels, valued at $4,423,086, 
 or ia other words, an increased production of 702,232 barrels, and a 
 decrease in value of $316,199. 
 
 Thus from the foregoing facts you will readily see that the salt indus- 
 try of the United States is suffering from the increased importations 
 of salt into the country since the abolition of the duty. Wbile we are 
 aware that salt must be cheap, from the competition arising in the 
 United States, still we believe we are entitled to the markets of the 
 United States so long as we have ample cai)acity for manufacturing 
 and supplying the same, and urge upon you tlie necessity of placing 
 on imported salt the duty in force prior to the act of 1894. Also, that 
 in addition there shall be levied a duty on packages of any kind or 
 nature. 
 
 W. S. Eady, 
 K. R. Blacker, 
 Committee representing the Manufacturers of Salt in Michigan. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ONONDAGA COARSE SALT ASSO- 
 CIATION, OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Syracuse, X. Y., January 2^ 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The Onondaga Coarse Salt Association, composed of and represent- 
 ing the manufacturers of salt made by solar evaporation of brine in and 
 about Syracuse, N. Y"., beg leave earnestly to re(]uest of your committee 
 that in framing a new tarilf yon restore the duty on salt (of 8 cents per 
 100 pounds) which existed prior to the enactment of the present law. 
 We do not sui)pose you are unaware of the argument by which the claim 
 of the domestic manufacturers of salt might be supported, and we do 
 not feel it necessary or even ]>roiitable to trouble you here with its rep- 
 etition. We deem it proper, however, most resjiectiully to call your 
 attention to the memorial of the salt manufacturers of the United 
 States, presented to the Senate June 4, 1894, by Mr. Allison, a cojjy of 
 which is hereto annexed and which we adopt as our own (Senate 
 Miss. Doc. No. 201, Fifty-third Congress, second session); also to the 
 reply of our association to a circular letter of the Committee on Finance, 
 United States Senate, February 7, 1894, a printed copy of which is also 
 hereto attached (Exhibit A), as setting forth our claims more conven- 
 iently for your consideration than we can here do. 
 
 We can not but think that your committee must recognize as a weighty 
 argument in favor of the restoration of the duty on salt, that the ])eople 
 of the United States, embracing so many millions, and so rapidly in- 
 creasing in number, ought not ever to be liiible to become even par- 
 tially dependent upon any foreign nation lor their supply of so vital and
 
 SALT. 1091 
 
 absolutely iiecess.ary au article as salt — a dependence which at anytime 
 might arise from v>ar or blockade, if the domestic manufacture should 
 unha])pily fail or decay from neglect fitly to encourage it. Nor does it 
 seem to us your committee can look into the subject of this memorial 
 without becoming convinced that the situation of the salt manufacture 
 in the United States is such that it is in no little danger, from the aboli- 
 tion of the former duty, of being crippled and rendered so ])rofltless 
 that those now engaged in it can not be expected to continue long tlie 
 eftbrts thus far maintained only in hope that the jjolicy which operates 
 so injuriously to them and their properties would under wiser counsels 
 and better auspices be given up. 
 
 Tn the light of the actual experience of our association we speak on 
 this subject of what we have reason to know. 
 
 It is absolutely true that our manufacture, one of the most consider- 
 able in the country, and the oldest, has been conducted during the past 
 two years at a material loss, considering the capital invested, and a loss 
 which, if it were certain to be long continued, must inevitably lead to 
 the abandonment of the manufacture, and the final destruction of works 
 erected at large cost. In fact, several companies, and individuals for- 
 merly engaged in the manufacture here, have recently retired from it, 
 discouraged by the prospect. 
 
 We do not suppose ours an exceptional case. The same results must 
 be found wherever like conditions prevail. Indeed, we do not doubt 
 that in some parts of the United States the abolition of the duty on 
 salt operates even more severely than with us. (See the exhibits 
 appended to said memorial to the Senate.) 
 
 We sometimes have a cheaper transportation to market, by means of 
 the Erie Canal, than those can have who must depend wholly upon 
 railroads. But even by the canal the cost of carriage to New York is 
 greater than that for which English salt can be placed there. (See 
 said memorial to the Senate, j). 3.) 
 
 Without wearying your committee with the many arguments which 
 recommend the imposition of a duty on salt, and which are either obvi- 
 ous or set forth in the memorials referred to, we beg to say in conclusion 
 that we deem such a duty to be demanded by the nation's interest, and 
 recommended by strong considerations of equity in favor of those 
 encouraged to engage in the manufacture of salt by the fact of a long 
 established duty, which, while not perceptibly adding to the cost of 
 salt to the individual consumer, is essential to the very existence of the 
 manufacture. 
 
 We earnestly ask, therefore, for a restoration of the duty on salt as 
 a much-needed measure of protection to the salt manufacturers of the 
 United States, 
 
 The ONONDAaA Coarse Salt Association, 
 By Thos. Molluy, Secretary. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 REPLY TO CIRCULAR LETTER OF COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, UNITED STATES SENATE, 
 RELATIVE TO CUSTOMS LEGISLATION. 
 
 To the Finance Committee of the United States Senate: 
 
 Having been kindly furnished a copy of a " Circular Letter of Inquiry, No. 1, 
 Manufacturers," of your honorable committee, bearing date December 20, 1893, ve 
 beg leave to submit the following for its consideration : 
 
 We deire to ansvrer said inquiry generally, hoping that our position may be thus 
 the better understood.
 
 1092 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTUEAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 The persons and companies who compose our association are the manufacturers of 
 what is known as " coai'se salt," produced by solar evaporation on the Onondaga Salt 
 Springs Reservation at and about Syracuse, N. Y. There is a total capital of more 
 than $2,500,000 employed here in this industry, and many laborers. 
 
 "We favor the retention of the present "specific duty" on salt, which is 8 cents per 
 100 pounds on salt in bulk and 12 cents on salt in packages. 
 
 The salt imported into the United States comes, in the main, from England, the 
 Mediterranean, and the West Indies, and is sent from those countries chiefly aa bal- 
 last for vessels seeking here return cargoes, being taken at nominal rates of freight. 
 The wages of the English salt maker are from 50 to 60 per cent lower than ours. The 
 great bulk of the West India and Mediterranean sea salt is obtained from the so-called 
 lagoons, requiring no labor except that which is incurred in the harvesting of it. 
 
 Prior to 1857, the salt manufacture in the United States was almost wholly con- 
 fined to the Onondaga Salt Springs, in the State of New York, and the States of Vir- 
 ginia and Ohio. Since that time, beginning with the discovery and use of the wells 
 at Saginaw, in Michigan, salt has been found either in salt wells or in salt rock over 
 most of the States and Territories of the Union, notably over almost the entire sur- 
 face of western New York, the whole peninsula of Michigan, in the northern part of 
 Ohio south of Lake Erie, southwestern Louisiana, Kansas, Nebraska, California, 
 Utah, the Province of Ontario, Canada, on Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair, and St. Clair 
 River. The struggle for a market between the producers of dome-stic salt has low- 
 ered the price to a point where, at the present rate of wugea, the business can not con- 
 tinue, especially if the duties on imported salt are removed, for to-day salt can be, 
 and actually is, landed in \ew York and other places from foreign ports at a freight 
 less than it costs us, only 300 miles distant, to put our product there. 
 
 The consumption of stilt in this country follows closely the population, and to-day 
 65,000,000 bushels of 56 pounds is our requirement. There are to-day in existence 
 in this country salt works enough to mnko twice the above amount, if required, and 
 the wells and mines already developed are sufficient to supply the world's demand 
 for centuries to come, without exhaustion, and at a ])rice to the consumer far lower 
 than it will ever be if domestic manufacture goes to the wall in its double strife with 
 home competition and free foreign salt, as it inevitably must unless labor is greatly 
 cheapened. 
 
 The present duty of 8 cents per 100 pounds barely permits our salt to reach tide 
 water and compete with the foreign article without profit. 
 
 We are utterly driven from the market of B;ilt for use in the deep-sea fisheries and 
 packing of meats for export where the use of foreign salt is now free by act of Con- 
 gress, although the universal testimony of the fishermen and packers is that our salt 
 at the same price would drive out the foreign article by reason of its acknowledged 
 superiority. 
 
 The report from Washington for 1892 gives as the export of salt from the United 
 States, 93,000 bushels, while in the sixties, before the discovery of brine at Goderich, 
 Canada, on Lake Huron, the annual export to Canada alone from the Onondaga salt 
 works had reached 625,000 bushels. Now there is no ex])ort; and free salt could be 
 brought into central and western New York and laid down at the very doors of its 
 manufactories from the practically inexhaustible wells of Canada at a far cheaper 
 rate than the present coat of labor in its production at our wells and mines. 
 
 England to-day actually forbids the manufacture of salt in her East India Empire, 
 which has not only a very extensive seacoast and numerous islands with a great 
 number of lagoons well adapted for the manufacture of sea salt, but rock salt in 
 inexhaustible quaTitities: aud she excludes peremptorily the use of any salt except 
 that made and exported in English vessels from England, or made in her East India 
 Empire for the Crown, and levies a tax on both, yielding a revenue only second to 
 the land tax. Spain, France, and Italy, the three great producing countries of the 
 Mediterranean Sea, exact an enormous excise on the domestic use of salt, aud forbid 
 absolutely the importation of any foreign article, while all i)ermit and foster without 
 charge of excise the exportation of this commodity. The result of the policy of 
 these nations is that the cost of salt to the ordinary citizen consumer of their countries 
 is largely in excess of its cost to the citizen of the United States. 
 
 But not long will it be so, when salt shall be admitted free, when our even now 
 struggling industry shall be paralyzed or destroyed in an unequal competition with 
 the cheaper product of foreign cheaper labor. We will then soon bo made to pay to 
 the English Salt Union the price which it exacts elsewhere. 
 
 Salt is an article of prime necessity, like the elements of air and water. Nothing 
 can fill its place in the human economy; the supply from foreign sources is always 
 precarious, depending on the accidents of peace and war, ou blockades and other 
 circuuistances. Domestic capital and industry should therefore receive at least so 
 much encouragement in any system of commercial regulation as will secure in all 
 circumstances the national independence in a point of such vital concern.
 
 SALT. 1093 
 
 It ongbt to be consirlered that salt fitted for commerce and use is preeminently the 
 result of combined labor and capital; of capital applied in the erection of expensive 
 plants, ami of labor employed in the process to which the crude material is sub- 
 jected. In the commercial value of this article no appreciable estimate is made of 
 the brine in its native condition. The cost of salt in the market is simply the cost 
 of the capital and labor used in the production; and the protection oifered to it by 
 revenue and tariff laws is precisely the same in principle and in fact as that afforded 
 to any other branch of manufacturing industry. 
 
 It seems necessary to state this because it is contrary to a received impression 
 among those who have little or no acquaintance with the subject. By many persons 
 salt is supposed to be one of the bounties of the Creator, ready prepared for the use 
 of man, requiring neither capital nor skill, and only labor enough to gather it up 
 like manna in the wilderness. Their delusion has inspired no small amount of 
 ignorant and empty declamation against the impost duty on the article. It is 
 wholly a delusion. Salt is a bounty of the Creator in the same aud only in the same 
 sense as a thousand other thiugs bestowed on man by a beneficent Providence, which 
 must be transmuted by capital, labor, and skill into shapes and forms fitted for the 
 economy of human life. More than most other thiugs, its value in commerce and its 
 adaptation to use depend on the capital of the prod ucer and the labor and skill which 
 he employs. Why, then, we ask, should a diserimination be made against this arti- 
 cle in a system of commercial laws and regulations enacted whether for protection 
 or revenue, or for both ? 
 
 The competition between our different domestic interests, and between them and 
 foreign salt, insures the utmost moderation in the price of the article. A repeal or 
 material reduction of the tarift' would bring blight and paralysis upon this branch of 
 industry. The duty is the precise advantage which enables it to compete with the 
 foreign article in the great markets of the country. The loss of this advantage 
 would be fatal, and we would be forced to retire from the competition. 
 
 The first ettect of the removal of the duty might be to reduce the price of foreign 
 salt in the competing markets ; but that eftect would be transitory merely. It would 
 take place in the interest distinctly of the importer, and result in his gaining posses- 
 sion of the market. Domestic salt would not perhaps wholly disappear from the 
 country, but the foreign product would have undisputed control of the seaboard, in 
 the great cities and adjacent country, on the tide waters, and the navigable rivers. 
 Domestic commerce in this article, if it existed at all, would shrink into strictly 
 interior territory, pressed closely even there by its rival. But what then? Importers 
 are not understood to be beings of angelic nature. Sole possessors of the chief 
 markets, it is inconceivable that they would not accept all the advantages of the 
 situation. Competition is the great regulator of prices and the best guaranty for 
 moderation which the consumers of manufactured articles can possibly have. The 
 duty once removed, domestic salt could not longer compete with the foreign in our 
 markets, and the consumer here at home would have to submit as best he might to 
 the exactions of the foreign producer and the importer. 
 
 We would not be understood as advocating a high protective tariff, or even a 
 tarifi' for protection rather than for revenue. W^e are of different political parties. 
 
 We assume that there must be tarirt' laws at least for revenue. In any revision of 
 \)hem some discrimination will be found expedient in order to the incidental protec- 
 tion of domestic industries. We contend that in all legislation upon this general 
 subject domestic salt presents the very highest claim to a favorable consideration. 
 
 Salt is now one of the cheapest articles of commerce, especially when the relative 
 cost of labor entering into its manuf icture is considered. We by no means concede 
 that a repeal of the duty on it would make it any cheaper to the great mass of con- 
 sumers; the contrary, we think, is plainly true. 
 
 W"e contend for a tariff on salt because the imported article competes most injuri- 
 ously with the manufacture of our own people. While tarifl's are levied, whether for 
 revenue or protection, we ought not to be singled out for sacrifice to appease the 
 interested clamor of a particular class of foreign producers and importers. Rather, 
 we say, give us a free-trade system and restore to us the ante-war prices of labor and 
 of other things which enter into the cost of the article we produce. But since this 
 can not be, let us not be made the victims of a selfish raid against one of the inter- 
 ests which most needs and should have the benefit of the national legislation. 
 
 The above statement is approved by and made on behalf of all the manufacturers 
 of salt on the Onondaga Salt Springs Reaerration, Onondaga County, N. Y. 
 Very respectfully, etc., 
 
 Thomas Molloy, 
 Secretary of the Onondaga Coarse Salt Association. 
 
 Strachse. N. Y., February 7, 1894,
 
 1094 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 STATEMEIJT SUBMITTED BY THE SALIIJA COARSE SALT COM- 
 PANY, OF SYRACUSE, N. Y. 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y., January 5, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 In presenting- onrselves to yonr notice, and in order not to tax your 
 time too much, we, who are the most extensive coarse salt mannfac- 
 turers in the United States, indorse and adopt so far as applicable the 
 memorial of the salt manufacturers of the United States presented to 
 the Senate by Senator Allison June 4, 1894. We beg" yon to consider 
 that as our argument, and we will content ourselves with a brief but 
 comprehensive statement of the full transactions of one of our coarse 
 salt companies, selecting it as a fair sample of the cost of manufacturing 
 salt by the sun in all our establishments. 
 
 There was manufactured in all by the Onondaga coarse salt compa- 
 nies in the year 1895 (the result for 1896 not being yet available, can 
 not now be given) 2,437,591 bushels of i)6 pounds each, of which 
 amount the Salina Coarse Salt Company produced 212,693, for which 
 they received on sale (excluding State duty for salt water and its deliv- 
 ery, 1 cent per bushel) $12,945.10, or a trille over 6.085 cents per 
 bushel. This company's ordiuary exi)enses for the year 1895 were 
 $9,562.75, including $491.96 State, county, and city tax. No oflicer of 
 the direction as such receives any comi)ensation for his services; the 
 treasurer is i)aid $100 per year; the superintendent $600, and the yard 
 foreman $480 per year. The laborers who are employed about eight 
 months receive $1.25 per day and house rent for the year, which is 
 fairly worth $100 more; they are, including a fireman and engineer, 
 whose wages are $2 per day, 24 in number. The cai)ital of this com- 
 pany is $150,000 all i)aid in. and $30,000 more having from time to 
 time been added to pay for improvements, outside of and in addition 
 to the original investment. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the actual earnings did not in that year 
 exceed If per cent on the ca])ital, and the present year, with a greatly 
 decreased yield of salt (owing to the weather of the season), and no 
 gain in prices or saving in exi)enses, will not yield more than 1 per cent 
 on the capital invested. It may well be asked, -'Why do you continue 
 in the business?" The answer is, that at least eight-tenths of our 
 investment is in our vats, covering in this yard 60 acres. If they are 
 abandoned for one year and left to the weather they would be utterly 
 ruined, thus sweeping away at once 80 per cent of our investment, so 
 that as long as we retain the apparent principal and a trifle more we 
 continue their use; and besides, they can not be turned to any other 
 use, and the material of which they are constructed would be of value 
 only as poor fuel. 
 
 The 20-cent labor of the Mediterranean and the West Indies, the 50- 
 cent labor of England, the ocean rates of freight for salt from our com- 
 peting foreign ])oints will land the foreign article at our very doors, 
 while we have to submit to a charge for transportation from home to 
 the seaboard largely in excess of tlieir rate in competition. We are 
 also handicapped by the fact that while we pay large local taxes the 
 foreign article which competes with us is by the present law admitted 
 free. 
 
 We ask, therefore, that in order to permit us to continue to manu- 
 facture American salt made by American labor receiving living wages, 
 we be protected to at least the amount of 8 cents on each 100 pounds,
 
 SALT. 1095 
 
 which sum will yet fail to make up tlie difference alone caused by the 
 excess of cost of labor, freight, and taxes, now in favor of the imported 
 article. 
 
 As for the quality of our salt for any purpose for which salt is used, 
 we claim at least equality with any salt wherever produced, though 
 the fact that at the same price it everywhere will command the market 
 is evidence of its superiority. 
 
 We have taken the liberty of addingto thememorialsseutyouby other 
 salt interests, and which have our indorsement, this plea for coarse salt, 
 on behalf of the largest manufacturers of solar coarse salt in America. 
 
 The above narration of tlie experience of one of our companies and 
 of the results attained, will fairly stand as an illustration for them all 
 " Ex uno disce omnes." 
 
 We earnestly ask the favorable action of your committee upon the 
 subject of this memorial. 
 
 SALINA CfoARSE SAiT COMPANY, 
 
 By Thomas G. Alvord, President. 
 
 THE AMERICAN INDUSTRY INJURED BY FOREIGN COMPETITION. 
 
 Akron, Ohio, January 2^ 1897. 
 
 Dear Sir: In the construction of the new tariff bill I trust you will 
 give the manufacture of salt its due consideration and just assistance. 
 
 We have a plant liere at Akron, costing nearly $100,000, which has 
 had a hard time of it competing with foreign salt under existing free 
 trade, but if given fair duty on the foreign i>roduct it will not only be a 
 success as it now is, but will be largely extended. 
 
 I trust you will give this great industry throughout all sections of 
 our country the fair protection it deserves. 
 
 E. R. Harper. 
 
 DUTY OF TEN CENTS A HUNDRED POUNDS. 
 
 Wadsworth, Ohio, December 29, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I beg to call the attention of the committee to the restoration of the 
 duty on salt in the pending tariff bill, and I address you in the matter 
 with the firm opinion that you will aid in the cooperation of the salt 
 makers of the country to the movement to this end. 
 
 There is no valid reason why salt should be placed on the free list, 
 and it is manifestly unfair that we do not receive the same consideration 
 as other manufacturers whose products receive incidental protection. 
 
 We feel that every American industry should be ])laced on an equal 
 footing. With salt on the free list, and coal, which enters so largely 
 into the expense account of manufacture, on the dutiable list, and the 
 strong indications that barrel staves, which enter so heavily into the 
 cost of the package in which the salt is placed on the market, again on 
 the dutiable list, the effect will be most disastrous to the salt makers 
 if they do not receive some protection from the importation of foreign 
 salt. A duty of at least 10 cents x^er 100 pounds should be placed on 
 all foreign salt imported into this country, and no rebates whatever 
 granted to those importing same. 
 
 Jacob Detweiler, 
 Fresident of the 'Wadsv:orth Salt Company.
 
 1096 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE LONE STAR SALT COMPANY, OF 
 
 DALLAS, TEXAS. 
 
 Dallas, Tex., January 11, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We have the honor to present below to your honorable body onr 
 appeal for the restoration of the duty on salt, and we submit herewith 
 a few of our reasons in support of our request. 
 
 The salt industry of Texas is in its infancy, having been established 
 within the last ten years, and having for its basis a deposit in eastern 
 Texas, a vein of rock salt 300 feet in thickness, the brine from which is 
 shown, by an analysis made by Prof. F. E. Englehart, of New York, to 
 be the purest in the United States, the analysis showing over 99 per 
 cent pure. 
 
 In 1893 there were three salt blocks in Texas in operation, with some 
 $300,000 invested in the business.. These blocks were controlled by 
 two companies. One of these companies has gone into bankruptcy 
 since salt has been put on the free list and the works shut down. The 
 other company, operating two plants, has but one running at this 
 writing. 
 
 Our only competition is from Liverpool and fiom salt manufactured 
 by the British iSalt Union, witli a capital of '"$-0,000,000 and with works 
 covering a region of about 20 miles in length along the Mersey liiver, 
 with an output of millions of tons per annum. A personal investiga- 
 tion in 1894 on the part of the su])erintendent of our coini)any, wlio 
 was admitted to a meeting of the board of directors of the British Salt 
 Union, showed the average wages ])aid to the British workmen to be 
 not over 50 per cent of that paid to our Texas workmen, and that in 
 the cost of fuel there was even a greater disparity. 
 
 The capacity of the Texas works is about 300 tons per day of steam 
 and solar evaporated salt, which is sufficient to supply the Texas 
 market. On account of the competition of the foreign salt, the present 
 output has been reduced to not over 100 tons per day for nine months 
 in the year. 
 
 The freight rates from Liverpool to Galveston, New Orleans, and 
 Mobile do not average over 1 shilling per ton, as vessels loading with 
 cotton for Manchester are very glad to load back salt as ballast solely, 
 making no carrying charge. Were the wage and fuel conditions equal 
 the salt manufactured by the British Salt Union could be delivered at 
 the Gulf ports at not to exceed 25 cents per ton in advance of the home 
 product. This would be more than offset bj' the enormous difference 
 in the output of the two companies and the difference in the markets 
 open to each. Taking into consideration the difference in the condi- 
 tions stated above, we find it possible for the British Salt Union to 
 deliver salt at Galveston and other Gulf ports at a nuich lower figure 
 than is possible to load same on cars at the Texas works. The freight 
 rates in Texas are on the mileage basis, and Galveston, being nearer 
 to the great cattle-raising districts of the Southwest than the Texas 
 woiks at Grand Saline, in Van Zandt County, is able to monopolize 
 the trade of more than half of the State, and by reason of a cheaper 
 product is to-day shippine; not only within 13 miles of the Texas works, 
 but is going to the extreme northern boundary of the State and under- 
 selling the home product. 
 
 Prior to the establishment of the works in Texas, Liverpool salt was 
 quoted in southern Texas fully KK) per cent higher than at the present 
 
 I
 
 SALT. 1097 
 
 time, as its only competitor was salt brought in barrels from Michigan. 
 With the erection of works in Texas, a tight was inaugurated and the 
 price reduced at least 25 per cent, but with the help of the tariff the home 
 works were enabled to keep the foreign salt to within a reasonable dis- 
 tance from the seacoast and to extend the trade into the States of Louisi- 
 ana and Mississippi, and a lucrative trade was established at Vicksburg, 
 Miss., Monroe and Shreveport, La. With the advent of free salt, these 
 points became large distributing centers for Liverpool salt, which was 
 brought up the Mississippi, Ouachita, and Red rivers at so low a rate 
 as to make the shi])ping of domestic salt to these points by rail impos- 
 sible to any extent. 
 
 To summarize, we may say that the placing of salt on the free list 
 under the Wilson bill practically closed down two of the three works 
 in Texas, reduced the output from 100,000 tons to 35,000 tons per 
 annum, and at the same time increased the imports of foreign salt into 
 the port of Galveston from 2,488 tons in 1894 to 17,311 tons in 1896; 
 into the port of ifew Orleans from 5,680 tons m 1894 to 20,375 tons in 
 1S96; into the port of Mobile from 1,010 tons in 1894 to 9,176 tons in 
 1890; an increavSe of 37,083 tons. 
 
 \Vith an adequate protection, the magnificent deposits of salt in the 
 Southern States will enable the salt manufacturers of that region to 
 su])]dy practically the entire South with a home product of higher 
 purity and in belter packages, and at the same time will make a market 
 for American lumber, American nails, American iron, and work for 
 American workmen, all of which the South is able to supply. 
 
 We ask your committee to recommend a duty of 12^ cents per 100 
 pounds on salt and an adequate duty on packages, to enable us to run 
 our works at their full capacity, and to at least wear out, which we con- 
 ceive to be better than the rustingout system at present in vogue. 
 We ask, in conclusion, the protection for Southern salt which is enjoyed 
 by Southern iron. 
 
 Since writing the above we have been furnished with information 
 respecting the protection which the product of the British Salt Union 
 enjoys from the parent Government and colonies, which we beg leave 
 to submit for your respectful consideration, and which please find 
 attached (Exhibit A). 
 
 Lone Stae Salt Company. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 KXGLISH SALT. 
 
 The salt deposits in England are found at various points on her coast line and their 
 geographical locations are such as to secure freight rates from the English works to 
 any part of England at a lower price than can possibly be obtained by foreign com- 
 petitors. Sending salt to England is a parallel case to sending coals to Newcafitle. 
 The advantage in freight rates enjoyed by British companies prevents foreign com- 
 petition; therefore; England invites us to send our salt to her free of duty. But in 
 India, Australia, Canada, and other possessions of Great Britain where other countries 
 would have an opportunity to export salt, the mother country levies a duty which is 
 practically prohibitive to all salt except that imported from Great Britain. The 
 Canadian taritt' law reads: 
 
 "Salt, coarse (not to include salt imported from the United Kingdom or any 
 British possessions, or salt imported for the use of the sea or gulf fisheries, which 
 shall be free of duty), 5 cents per 100 pounds. 
 
 "Salt, line, in bulk, 5 cents per 100 pounds. 
 
 "Salt, in bags, barrels, or other packages (the bags, barrels, or other packages to 
 bear the same duty as if imported empty), 7^ eents per 100 pounds."
 
 1098 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 In India salt is a government monopoly and the strictest regulations govern its im- 
 portation. In addition to the customs duties, there are port charges and internal- 
 revenue charges which dit-criminate in favor of English salt to an extent which makes 
 it practically impossible for any other country to export salt to India. 
 
 The duty on salt to India is 2 rupees and 8 annas per maund of 82 pounds, which 
 equals 11 cents per pound, nearly nineteen times the duty imposed under theMcKin- 
 ley tariff. The duty ?,lone in India amounts to just fifteen times the selling price of 
 common salt at the salt works in the United States. 
 
 The importations of salt into India show that the great bulk of the bnsiness is 
 done by the British Salt Union. For the fiscal year 1887-88 England exported to 
 India 7,652,04.5 raaunds; the aggregate of all other European shipments was 185,989 
 maunds. For the fiscal year 1888-89 the English shipments were 8,340,061 maunds; 
 the aggregate of all other European shipments was 105,338 maunds. 
 
 The current freight rate from Hambnrg to Calcutta is Qs. (kl. per ton. The freight 
 rate from Liverpool to Calmtta is 10s. 6d. Rate from Cadiz, Lisbon, and Mediter- 
 ranean ports is materially less than the above, showing that the German- Mediterra- 
 nean salt companies have an advantage over the British in freights, and yet, with 
 this advantage and a cheaper salt, their exports to India are trifling. 
 
 BEQUESTS FROM KANSAS. 
 
 Hutchinson, Kans., January i, 1897, 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We ask that the McKiiiley tariff ou salt that was in effect before the 
 Wilson bill put salt on the absolute free list be restored. 
 
 The duty on salt under the McKiuley bill was 8 cents per hundred on 
 bulk salt ar.d 12 cents ou salt in sacks. We beg to say that since salt 
 has been ou the absohite free list it lias worked hardship to the Kansas 
 manufacturer. The EuglisJ! salt has displaced tlie Kansas salt through- 
 out the southern half of Texas and Louisiana, also in the States and 
 Territories west of Colorado. It is utterly impossible for us to compete 
 with the Liverpool salt in the Territories mentioned. If salt should 
 remain as it is now on the free list it will mean the loss of thousands of 
 dollars invested in the salt plants in Kansas and in the neighborhood 
 of $20,000 per year wa,ues paid to common lalior; besides, we will have 
 to reduce the ]>resent price of wages we are paying to hold the very 
 limited territory that wo now have for marketing our salt. 
 
 The salt industry of Kansas is the greatest industry in the State. 
 Before salt was manufactured in Kansas, eight years ago, the consumer 
 paid from $2.50 to $o per barrel for salt throughout Kansas and the 
 western territory that we now occupy. To day we are putting salt on 
 the cars at 60 cents per barrel, the price ranging from 60 to 85 cents per 
 barrel. We figure the cost of a barrel of salt at 60 cents. On the basis 
 of wages we are now paying our labor it costs us more to manufacture 
 salt in Kansas than either Michigan or New York, from the fact that 
 our fuel has to all be shipped in; also our cooperage has to be shipped 
 in from Michigan, Texas, and Arkatisas. while in tl-.e Michigan field the 
 salt works are attached to their lumbering mills, and they make their 
 own staves out of slabs from the lumber logs, using slabs for fuel. 
 Hence it is more necessary for us to have a tariff" ]>laced on English 
 salt, as it affects us much more than it does tlie Mi(;higan salt producers. 
 
 We find that a great amount of the English salt comes over the water 
 as ballast, and, paying no transportation charges whatever, is landed at 
 our ports — (lalve.ston and New Orleans — at first cost of manufacture 
 in England b}^ English rate of wages. Our best information is that 
 the laborer in the English salt plants is paid 65 cents per day for per- 
 forming the same labor that we pay $1.50 a day for. Hence you can 
 readily see if v.e can not get relief by a tariff' being placed on the 
 English salt Vv'e will be necessarily compelled to either abandon our
 
 SALT. 1099 
 
 industries or cut the wages of our laboring men down to the same basis 
 paid by the English salt manufacturer. 
 
 Frank Vincent, General Manager, 
 
 Hutchinson, Kans., January 2, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I desire to appeal for the restoration of the duties on salt as laid by 
 the McKinley bill. Kansas has a very large deposit of good salt and 
 plenty of fuel and men eager for wages in the production of it. A 
 large amount of money has been expended in plants for its manufacture. 
 Half of them are idle and going into ruin ; the other half are struggling 
 to live, and can do so by reducing the wages paid to the level of Europe. 
 Salt is a finished product, not a raw material. English salt now floods 
 our coast, coming in free as ballast for tramp vessels seeking lading for 
 export, and the American Congress has thus rendered foreign shipping 
 a great favor by encouraging foreign bottoms and admitting free of 
 duty and affording a free market and a profitable one for the ballast 
 that helps to build up the foreign f,arrying trade. 
 
 There is no excuse whatever for free salt. 
 
 It is found in all parts of our country, and is as good as any in the 
 world. The protection of it means the employment of manj' poor men 
 in various parts of this country at moderate wages. Its manufacture 
 requires no special skill nor very large capital, hence in no way benfits 
 the few or builds up a monopoly. The tariff policy means the replen- 
 ishment of the American treasury and the employment of American 
 labor. If it is a tax upon the consumer of foreign products, it is an 
 indirect tax. If it is a tax on the consumer of American (protected) 
 products, it gives emplojTnent to American labor, sustains the Ameri- 
 can plane of living for the laborer, keeps the money all at home, and 
 makes us a self-supporting people. 
 
 The question confronting the nation is that of affording employment 
 for Americans at fair wages. Free trade in salt mefins the reduction 
 of wages paid in its protluction to that of Europe. 
 
 JOAB MULYANE, 
 
 President Kansas Salt Company. 
 
 REQUESTS FROM TEE PACIFIC SLOPE. 
 
 San Francisco, December 30, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The undersigned, representing the producers and manufacturers of 
 salt in the State of California, hereby petition your honorable body to 
 restore the duty on foreign salt, which is now on the free list, being 
 placed there by the enactment of the Wilson-Gorman tariff bill to our 
 great loss, compelling us to compete with cheap foreign labor and low 
 rates of freight ot foreign ships, and overstocking a market which is 
 fully supplied with domestic salt, the quantity and quality sufficient 
 to meet all requirements. 
 
 Fifty thousand tons is the average yearly production in this State,, 
 and can be largely increased if salt is properly protected. We value 
 our salt properties up to $1,500,000, and the continued cost of improve- 
 ments and labor amounts to a very large sum of money, and all this 
 money is retained in this country. The old duty of 8 cents per 100 
 iwunds in bulk and 12 cents per 100 pounds in bags is not high, but it
 
 1100 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 was the means of increasing the salt industry to immense proportions; 
 but now it is stagnant, owing to free salt. 
 
 We respectfully refer you to the report for 1895 of the United States 
 Geological Survey, which gives a detailed account of the salt industry. 
 
 Plummer Brothers. 
 Union Pacific Salt Company, 
 
 John Barton, President. 
 American Salt Company, 
 P. Marsicano, Fresident 
 Carmen Island Salt Company, 
 
 E. L. Stern, President. 
 B. B. Barton & Co. 
 Pioneer Salt Works. 
 Solar Salt Works. 
 B. F. Barton. 
 
 San Francisco, Cal., December 29, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We, as salt ])roducers, appeal to your committee that our salt indus- 
 try be protected by the restoration of the duty on salt. 
 
 Our works are situated in the heart of the Colorado Desert, on the 
 line of the Southern Pacilic Ifailroad Company, 037 miles from San 
 Francisco. In Juno, 1891, our place became known to the world, owing 
 to the overflow of the waters of the Colorado River, which formed what 
 became known as the Salton Sea. 
 
 The importation of foreign salt to the Pacific Coast, duty free, has 
 greatly decreased our business; in fact, we simply exist. It is a well- 
 known fact on tliis coast that vessels loading in foreign ports take salt 
 as ballast at very low figures. 
 
 Salt has been landed on the Pacific Coast by foreign vessels, trans- 
 ported some 17,000 miles for a freight of only $L* per ton, a rate of freight 
 very much lower than we can move our salt by rail or steamer Go7 miles. 
 
 Mexican salt is allowed to come in comi)etition with (mr production, 
 duty free, while Mexico ])uts a prohibitory taritt' on our salt. Only a 
 few years ago we secured some trade in Chihuahua, Mexico, we pay- 
 ing a Mexican duty of $5 jxa- ton. As soon as the Mexican salt pro- 
 ducers learned that we had taken some of their trade they had the 
 duty advanced to $10 per ton, which was a little more than we could 
 stand. Mexico does not make a uniform duty to all its ports. One 
 duty is applied to its western coast, another to its eastern coast, and 
 still another to its border of the United States. It protects its indus- 
 tries according to the situation and competition, wliich, I think, is a 
 matter which should be considered in reference to a tariff" for the United 
 States. 
 
 When the duty was taken oft" of salt the consumer was in no way 
 benefited, as the amount of the duty was divided between the jobber 
 and retailer and the manufacturer compelled to sell at a reduced price. 
 We will take, for instance, a ton of salt on which there was formerly a 
 duty of $2.40 per ton. For the ])oorer class of trade salt is put up in 
 two-pound packages, taking 1,000 packages to make 1 ton of salt. 
 We have no fractional currency which will permit of the $2.40 being 
 divided so that a reduction in the price of one 2-pound sack can be given 
 to the consumer. 
 
 ISTew Liverpool Salt Company, 
 By Geo. W. Durbrow, Vice-President
 
 SAUERKRAUT. 1101 
 
 LABOR SNATCHED DIRECTLY FROM THE HANDS OF AMERICAN 
 
 WORKINGMEN. 
 
 Akron, Ohio, January 2, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The salt industiy is not a local industry. Our own State of Ohio is 
 largely engaged in the manufacture of salt, and a restoration of the 
 duty will benefit all the salt makers in the United States. Our organi- 
 zation is a new one. Within the imst two years we have invested more 
 than $80,000 in our plant, and $75,000 of this capital is New York money, 
 which has sought inveJ^tment in Ohio. Owing to the fact that the duty 
 was removed from our product by the Wilson bill, we find it uphill work 
 establishing our new business. Our plans and contracts were made 
 before the duty was removed, but could we have looked ahead and 
 known that fact and seen its effect on this industry, we would not have 
 made our investment. As it is we are straggling along, and sincerely 
 hope your committee will aid our industry as much as it has power to 
 by restoring the duty on salt. 
 
 If we could feel at all assured that the duty would be restored, we 
 would drill another well and double the capacity of our output, and 
 thus furnish em])loyment for an additional crew of twelve to twenty 
 men three hundred and sixty days per year. Since the Wilson bill went 
 into effect, the importations of English salt, under the management 
 of the English salt trust, have increased 150 per cent and over. This 
 means nothing more or less than that that amount of labor has been 
 snatched from American workingmen. 
 
 The Akron Salt Company, 
 Per John C. Patton. 
 
 SAUERKRAUT. 
 
 (Free list, paragraph 609.) 
 
 MEMORIAL OF CABBAGE GROWERS AND OTHERS PRAYING FOR 
 A DUTY OF THIRTY PER CENTUM. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We, the undersigned growers of cabbage and packers and wholesale 
 dealers in sauerkraut, respectfully call your attention to the fact that in 
 the McKinley tariff", as well as in the tariff" of August, 1894, sauerkraut 
 is on the free list, while pickled cucumbers, cauliflower, and other pre- 
 served vegetables are protected by a tax of about 30 per cent, and 
 respectfully ask to have sauerkraut simibarly protected. 
 
 The uncertainty caused by the competition of the German product 
 tends to ultra conservatism in the American trade and during the past 
 three years to extremely low prices on cabbage, while a tariff on sauer- 
 kraut will give more confidence to American packers and a better 
 market for the raw material (cabbage). 
 
 These conditions are accentuated by the fact t>hat sauerkraut itself is 
 semiperishable, i. e., must be sold daring the current trade year. 
 
 W. M, Johnston & Co., Chicago, III. 
 And 72 others.
 
 1102 SCHEDULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 TALLOW. 
 
 (Free list, paragraph 645.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE WAVEKLY MAT^ UFACTUEING 
 COMPANY AND OTHERS. 
 
 Boston, January 9, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 We come before your committee to request the restoration of the duty 
 of 1 ceut a ix)uiid ou tallow. This rate was iu force prior to 1883, and 
 was coutinued in force up to the enactment of the act of 1894. 
 
 In the year ending June 30, 1894, there was no tallow imported into 
 the United States, as far as can be ascertained from the reports of the 
 statistical bureau. In the first year after the duty was removed there 
 were imported 8,594,587 pounds valued at $443,051, and in the second 
 year after the duty was removed there were imported 8,262,597 pounds, 
 valued at $349,854.36. 
 
 This statement shows what inroads have been made on our market 
 for domestic tallow by taking off the duty of 1 cent a pound. We want 
 the home market for tallow. Protection is given to other meat prod- 
 ucts, and we demiind the same for tallow. It is the ])roduct of the 
 farm, the ranch, and the stockyard, and is as much entitled to protec- 
 tion as the wool on the shce])'s back. We now ])roduce enough tallow 
 in this country to fully supply the home consumption, and there is no 
 reason why a pound of tallow should be imi)orte(l. We feel confident 
 that the mistake made in taking the duty oil" tallow to the detriment of 
 the home producers will be corrected by the next Congress, and for that 
 reason have not entered more into detail in the discussion of this matter. 
 TuE Wayekly Manufacturing Company 
 And others. 
 
 McKINLEY DUTY WANTED ON TALLOW. 
 
 Boston, December 13, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 I would- respectfully call your attention to the fact that the pres- 
 ent tariff has made tallow and some other greases free articles for 
 entry into this country, thereby injuring the producer of tallow and 
 kindred greases. Under the McKinley tariff" there was a small duty, 
 which largely prevented the importation of Australian tallow, and 
 enabled the American producer to obtain a better price for his goods, 
 and allowed him a margin for himself and better wages for his work- 
 men. 
 
 John F. Brooks. 
 
 RATES RECOMMENDED. 
 
 STATEMENT AND PROPOSED SCHEDULE SUBMITTED BY THE NEW 
 JERSEY STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The tendency to consider the tariff question from a political rather 
 than from an economic and industrial view i)oint makes it a matter of 
 party strife and contention and keeps it unsettled. It is an admitted 
 
 «
 
 RATES RECOMMENDED. 1103 
 
 fact that all goveinmeuts reqaire revenue for the expenses of adminis- 
 tration, for needed public improvements, for defense in time of war, and, 
 in our case, a further revenue for pensioning the living exsoldiers and 
 the dependent heirs of the dead. 
 
 From what source or sources shall this revenue be derived? By 
 direct tax levied on the citizens of the United States or by a tax or 
 tariff on such im]iorted articles as are produced here or can be with 
 suitable encouragement by the Government. It is by Government 
 encouragement that the German farmer is producing sugar from sugar 
 beets for the United States, while we, possessed of a soil by the million 
 acres adapted to their growth and a climate favoring the development 
 of the saccharine matter essential to a profitable crop, are made depend- 
 ent — our farmers even, with all other sugar consumers — on a foreign 
 country for this universally used product, and an annual expenditure 
 of money aggregating millions, which might just as well be kept at 
 home. 
 
 Before proceeding further with details of rates, let me suggest that 
 this tariff question is closely connected with the labor problem here. If 
 our laboring men and women of the United States, skiUed and unskilled, 
 in the factory or on the farm, are willing to work for the same wages 
 that workmen engaged in similar branches receive in European and 
 other countries whicli send their manufactured and agricultural prod- 
 ucts here in competilion with ours, then we can reduce our tariff duties 
 to the actual needs of the Government. The question will then cease 
 to be an industrial one. 
 
 But if, on the other hand, they still insist on such wages as have 
 generall}^ prevailed since 1863, then the free entrance of the foreign 
 competing product must be restricted and our consumers made to 
 depend upon the home-grown and home-manufactured article. Is the 
 argument advanced that if this is our policy tlie price will be increased 
 to the consumer? Suppose it is. The largest proportion affected by it 
 will be the laboring classes, and experience has shown that they will 
 be better able to do this with the increased work and have money to 
 spare as against present conditions of a slightly decreased price of some 
 articles with only occasional work. 
 
 Admitting, then, that it will be of advantage to encourage and stimu- 
 late such conditions as will give steady work and good wages to our 
 armies of laboring men, we must also admit that the decline in business 
 activity is chiefly due to the greatly reduced earnings of factory and 
 farm, and also to the inability of both the manufacturer and the farmer 
 because of these lowered prices to pay the wages demanded by the 
 workmen — wages a^s high as they were when the profits were larger. 
 Conceding that a tariff" for revenue is necessary for the daily Govern- 
 ment expenses, is it not also important that an industrial protection 
 should be given for the encouragement of production and labor in tlie 
 United States — such increased revenue to be used for liquidating out- 
 standing obligations as rapidly as possible in time of peace, thus placing 
 the Government in a position to readily meet new future requirements 
 when they come without embarrassment? 
 
 iSTow, if the policy of the United States Government is to be some- 
 what along the lines indicated (as it has been largely since the war), 
 then, as a matter of common fairness, we most resi)ectfully ask, repre- 
 senting as we do not only the farmers of New Jersey, but thousands of 
 the same class in many other States, that the farmers shall have greater 
 consideration in the matter of protection than they had prior to the 
 passage of the so-called McKinley bill and more than is granted them 
 under the Wilson-Gorman schedules.
 
 1104 SCHEDULE G. — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS. 
 
 If the farmer and his family, his employees and their families, must 
 purchase their mainifactured goods from protected American manufac- 
 turers, then, as an a-ct of equal justice to the families, we claim tkat the 
 manufacturer and his protected employees shall purchase their li\ing 
 supplies aud raw material, that we do now or may by suitable encour- 
 agement produce, from us. 
 
 To protect the manufacturer only will not do. Such a course will 
 deprive the American farmer of almost every incentive to produce more 
 than is needful for the wants of his family by filling his market with 
 the productions of the low-priced labor of other countries. Our farmers 
 need encouragement. The gi-eat majority of them are struggling with 
 mortgage indebtedness, contracted, indeed when prices were better aud 
 in the hope of being able in a few years to pay off the encumbrance. 
 
 They are also taxpayers. They pay more tax in proportion to the 
 property owned than does any other class. They are patriotic. In the 
 hour of their country's need none are more ready than they to take up 
 arms in her defense. They are liberal in the use of their surplus when 
 they have one. Given prosperous times for farmers, and other indus- 
 tries will at once feel the new life from the new demands. And, con- 
 versely, I stated before the Ways and INIeans Committee of the Fifty- 
 first Congress that a protection in which the farmers' interests were 
 not considered equally with those of others would lead to an agricul- 
 tural depression that would soon be felt by merchauts, mechanics, 
 tradesmen, and other professions. 
 
 The country lias been feeling this general depression, not all due, 
 perhaps, to decreased protection, for wise 7nen attribute it in i)art at 
 least to certain other causes which 1 need not here name, but Ave ear- 
 nestly plead for a restoration of those duties on imported agricultural 
 products that were granted in the McKinley biU. 
 
 Further, we believe there should be an increased duty on live stock. 
 There is no further good reason for the admission of this ])roduct free, 
 even for breeding purposes. We can produce all we need. We sub- 
 mit a table of suggested tariff rates. (Exhibit A). 
 
 D. D. Denise, President, 
 Franklin Dye, Secretary, 
 New Jersey State Board of Agriculture. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 TABLE OF PROPOSKT) TARIFF RATES SUBMITTKD BY THE NEW JERSEY 6TATK BOARD 
 
 OF AGRICULTURE. 
 
 Animals. 
 
 Horses aud nnilos per Lead (provided that horses valued at $150 aud over 
 
 shall pay a duty of 30 per ceut ad valorem) $30. 00 
 
 Cattle more than one year old, per head 10. 00 
 
 One year old, per head 2.00 
 
 Hogs more than one year old, per head 2. 00 
 
 One year old or less, per head 1. 00 
 
 Sheep one year old or more, per head 2. 00 
 
 One year old or less 1. 00 
 
 All other live animals not especially provided for in this act, ad valorem, 20 
 
 per ceut. 
 
 lireadstitffa. 
 
 Barley, per bushel of 48 pounds 30 
 
 Buckwheat, per bushel of 48 pounds .15 
 
 Com or maize, per bushel, 56 pounds 15
 
 RATES RECOMMENDED. 1105 
 
 Corn meal, per bushel of 50 pounds $0. 20 
 
 Oats, per busliel of 30 pounds 15 
 
 Rye, per bushel of 56 pounds .15 
 
 Rye flour, ad valorem, 25 per cent. 
 
 Wheat, per bushel of 60 pounds .25 
 
 "Wheat flour, ad valorem, 25 per cent. 
 
 Dairy products. 
 
 Butter, per pound .06 
 
 Cheese, per pound .06 
 
 Milk, fresh, per gallon 06 
 
 Field products. 
 
 Cabbages, each 03 
 
 Cider, per gallon 05 
 
 Eggs, per dozen 06 
 
 Hay, per ton 5. 00 
 
 Onions, per bushel 40 
 
 Potatoes, per bushel of 60 pounds .25 
 
 Plants, trees, shrubs, and vines of all kinds, commonly known as nursery 
 
 stock, not specially provided for, ad valorem and to be fumigated to destroy 
 
 insects, 20 per cent. 
 
 Straw, per ton 4. 00 
 
 Peat moss, per ton 2. 00 
 
 Fruits and nuts. 
 
 Apples, green or ripe, per biisbel 20 
 
 Grapes, per barrel, of 3 cubic feet capacity or fractional part thereof 60 
 
 Plums and prunes, per pound : 02 
 
 Pears, green or ripe, per bushel 25 
 
 Peaches, per basket, half bushel 15 
 
 Meats. 
 
 Bacon and hams, per pound .05 
 
 Beef, mutton, and pork, per pound .03 
 
 Lard, per pound 02 
 
 Poultry live, per pound .04 
 
 Dressed, per pound .05 
 
 Tallow, per pound 01 
 
 T H 70
 
 SCHEDULE H. 
 
 SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER 
 BEVERAGES. 
 
 1107
 
 SCHEDULE H.— SPIRITS, WIKES, AKD OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 PABAORAPH8 337 ET SE<|. 
 
 spmiTS. 
 
 (Paragraphs 237-242.) 
 
 Monday, December 28, 1896, 
 STATEMENT OF MR. J. B. THOMPSON, OF HARRODSBURG, KY. 
 
 Mr. J. B. Thompson, of Harrodsburg, Ky., addressed the committee. 
 He said : 
 
 I appear before the committee in behalf of the manufacturers of 
 liquors and spirits in this country for the purpose of requesting that 
 the committee in its consideration of the measure which is to be pre- 
 sented for enactment into hiw will recommend the restoration of the 
 duty of $2.50 a gallon on all imported liquors. That is the rate at 
 which it stood under the McKiuley Act. You will remember how it 
 occurred that the duty was cut down from $2.50 a gallon under the 
 McKiuley Act to $1.80 a gallon under what is known as the Wilson Act. 
 It was intended that the duty on imported liquors should be double 
 the amount of internal-revenue tax, and it was so fixed by the Com- 
 mittee on Ways and Means. But by some sort of process — I do not 
 know exactly how, or whether it was fair or unfair — the internal-revenue 
 tax was advanced to $1.10 a gallon on domestic goods and was reduced 
 to $1,80 on the imported goods. 
 
 It was understood that it was the intention of the committee to 
 restore the duty of $2.50 a gallon on imported goods when the tax was 
 advanced on the domestic product. The bill having gone to the 
 Senate and having been passed by the Senate it was expected that the 
 matter should be corrected in conference. However, the bill never 
 reached the committee of conference, and had to be passed by the 
 House asit came from the Senate, or not be passed at all. In that way 
 the internal-revenue tax on domestic goods was advanced 20 cents a 
 gallon, while the duty on imported goods was reduced by 70 cents a 
 gallon, which was unfair to us. 
 
 I will not take up the time of the committee by any argument, but 
 will present the matter in a written statement. I desire to ask 
 on behalf of the manufacturers of this country that there be some 
 
 1109
 
 1110 SCHEDULE H. SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 reciprocity law between this country and Canada. The Canadians are 
 allowed to brings their liquors into this country in any sort of i)ackage 
 they desire, while the American manufacturer of liquors can not export 
 his goods into Canada except in 100-gallon packages — that is, 100 
 imperial gallons, which is equal to about 120 proof gallons. We want 
 some kind of reciprocal arrangement made with Canada whereby we 
 can be protected from the importation of Canadian spirits into this 
 country. They are doctored, adulterated, and fixed up and brought in 
 at about 80 per cent proof, and competition has become so sharp and 
 such enormous quantities ot Canandan spirits have been brought in 
 that the domestic manufacturers consider that they are justly and fairly 
 entitled to some y)rotection. 
 
 I should like to file a statement hereafter setting forth this matter 
 more in detail. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there anything else you desire to state! 
 
 Mr. Thompson. There may be some matters connected with the 
 administrative features of the internal-revenue law which we may desire 
 to i)resent hereafter if the committee intends to pay any attention what- 
 ever to the internal revenue branch of the nuitter. 
 
 With the concurrence of the committee, and with the permission as 
 suggested by the chairman that we may present these matters to be 
 filed on or before the 1 1th of January, 1 will not now take up any further 
 time of the committee in argunu^nt. 
 
 The Chairman. If yon can file your statement at an earlier period 
 than the 11th of January it will be more convenient to the committee. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. Yes; I will try to have it in by Monday next, and I 
 think I can. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is the custom in the spirit trade different in Canada 
 from the United States? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Have you not such trade in the United States as 
 calls for 100 gallon packages? 
 
 ^It. Thompson. We have not. We never put up 100 gallon pack- 
 ages except for the Dominion of Canada and for some points within 
 their control. For Canada we have to repack our goods at consider- 
 able expense into puncheons which contain from IL'O to 100 gallons. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Have they the custom of having bottled spirits in 
 bond? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. They have the right to bottle their spirits in bond 
 and to get stamp certificates from the Government as to their quality 
 and genuineness. That right we have not in this country. Their 
 whisky is sold here as genuine whisky, Avhile in fact it is nothing in 
 the world but an imitation of whisky, and that, too, at 80 per cent 
 proof. People are deceived by the stamp, ami therefore buy the Cana- 
 dian product as a genuine old and finished whisky, while it may not 
 be anything of the sort. 
 
 Mr. IMcMiLLiN. Have you any statistics as to the extent to which 
 this sort of whisky is inqwrted into the United States? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. No, sir; but I can get those statistics. The impor- 
 tation is very large. And not only that, but under the present tariff 
 they are filling this country with what they call Scotch whisky. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is that? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. They call it Scotch whisky. It is now very largely 
 imported and consumed in this country as a finished product from 
 Scotland. This was not so before the passage of the Wilson Act. Now
 
 SPIRITS. 1111 
 
 they are bringing it here, and the country is being flooded with it, 
 very much to the injury of the domestic trade. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Can you not make Scotch whisky in Kentucky? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. Yes; we can make an imitation of it. 
 
 Mr. Wheelee. Is not this Scotch whisky made in Canada? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. No; I think it is imported from England and Scot- 
 «id. The burden of taxatiouUiid on the domestic goods is $1.10 a 
 gallon, which is equivalent to about 500 per cent; on the cost of pro- 
 duction. That tax and the revenue law which is necessary to maintain 
 and enforce it, so as to jirotect the Government from fraudulent prac- 
 tices on the part of distillers and manufticturers, puts it beyond our 
 power to produce as cheaply as we otherwise could. It puts it beyond 
 our power to compete with the foreign manufacturer in the making of 
 pure alcohol and pure spirits, because they can use any vegetable 
 which produces pure alcohol and pure spirits, and we can not, as we 
 are restrained by the internal-revenue legislation as enforced by the 
 Treasury Department. 
 
 As the Government demands this enormous tax of more than 500 per 
 cent on domestic spirits, we ask that the duty on foreign goods be 
 advanced to such a point that it may be reasonably fair to us. 
 We would not be at all interested in the advance of the duty on 
 imported goods provided it would ai)pear that any action would be 
 taken by the committee to reduce the present enormous revenue tax on 
 domestic spirits to the revenue point. But whether tlie committee will 
 consider the question of internal-revenue taxes or not we do not know. 
 The present internal-revenue tax is far from what we call a revenue- 
 producing point. We can demonstrate all these facts by the statistics 
 of the trade aiid by the statistics of the Treasury Department, and avb 
 will be glad to do so. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. THOMPSON. 
 
 Washington, January 6, 1897. 
 
 COMTNIITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: 
 
 Representing the manufacturers of and dealers in distilled spirits? 
 we desire to submit the following statement of facts relative to the 
 taxation thereof by the Government: 
 
 In considering this matter, it seems to us that the interest of the 
 Government, the interest of the manufacturer as well as the dealer, 
 demands a reduction of the tax from the present rate of $1.10 per 
 proof gallon, which is above the revenue-producing point, to at least 
 such a point as will produce the most revenue, if it. is intended or 
 desirable to continue to raise revenue from a tax laid upon this subject- 
 matter. 
 
 That it is, and that such tax will be continued to be laid, we shall 
 assume to be a lixed policy of the legislative branch of the Govern- 
 ment, such product being classed as a pure luxury, and the tax there- 
 fore a voluntary contribution paid eventually by the consumer to the 
 support of the Government. 
 
 This tax was one of the consequences of the war, and is strictly a 
 war tax ; but as the same necessity exists now for its imposition as did 
 then for its creation, together witli other internal- revenue taxes, it will, 
 in some form, remain as long as that necessity exists. 
 
 We assume that the dominant party stands committed by its past
 
 1112 SCHEDULE H. SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 history, its platform, and the declaration of its leaders to the protec- 
 tion of the American wage-earner against any competition by importa- 
 tion of labor's products from abroad, and this necessarily includes the 
 protection of all capital employed in any occupation in which such 
 labor may be engaged; for such capital must first be made remunera- 
 tive to its possessor before he will consent to sbare its profits witb such 
 labor, and in view of this it becomes imi)ortant to consider the two 
 systems of taxation— internal revenue and the tariff duties — together, 
 as the amount of money needed by the Government fixes the rate of 
 such taxation, and each must be fixed by a consideration of the other. 
 
 Without entering into any details as to schedules, the principle of 
 protection, when thus laid down, involves the restoration of the duties 
 upon all articles placed upon the free list by the last tariff" (Wilson 
 bill), which, for the most part, included raw material entering into 
 manufactured products, and hence a rea])portionment of the rates of 
 duties fixed upon the manufactured article itself. After these matters 
 are determined, the question naturally arises. How much shall be raised 
 by the internal revenue taxes so as to produce neither a deficit nor a 
 surplus, assuming that one of the principal objects of the tariff bill is 
 to be protection as well as revenue? 
 
 If the object is to raise revenue by a tax on distilled spirits, then we 
 assert — and can conclusively show by the statistics filed herewith, 
 which are approved by the Commissioner of Internal lievenue as cor- 
 rect, and are found in the appendix filed as part of this statement — 
 that the present tax of $1.10 per gallon is beyond the revenue-produc- 
 ing point; that is, the Government receives less at a tax rate of $1.10 
 per gallon than it did at the tax rate of 90 cents per gallon, and less 
 at the rate of 90 cents per gallon than it did at a tax rate of 70 cents 
 per gallon, and but a very insignificant sum more than it would at a 
 tax rate of 50 cents per gallon. 
 
 In order to establish this, it is only necessary to examine and com- 
 pare the records of the Internal Revenue Bureau, showing the gross 
 amount received under each rate of taxation that has been imposed, 
 ascertaining the population during the time it was imposed and col- 
 lected, thereby estjiblishing the per capita consumption under each 
 respective tax as imposed. This has been done, and the figures verified 
 and proven by the Department to be approximately correct, in the cer- 
 tificates and tables appended heretx). 
 
 It is established by these statistics that the consumption per capita 
 in 1860, taken from the census of that year, was 2.86 gallons, when no 
 tax whatever was imposed or collected by the Government. That from 
 July 1,1802, to March 7, 1864, eighteen months, under a tax of 20 cents 
 a gallon, the consumi)tion was 2.51 gallons per capita. From December 
 22, 1864, to July 20, 1808, fbrty three months, when the tax was increased 
 to $2 per gallon, the consumption fell to 0.30 of a gallon per capita. 
 From July 30, 1808, to June 6, 1872, forty-eight months, when the tax 
 was reduced to 50 cents a gallon, the consumption rose again to 1.79 
 gallons per capita. From June 0, 1872, to March 3. 1875, when the 
 tax was increased from 50 cents to 70 cents a gallon, the consumption 
 fell from 1.79 gallons to 1,65 gallons per capita. From March 3, 1875, 
 to August 28, 1894, when the tax was again increased from 70 cents to 
 90 cents a gallon, the consumption further decreased from 1.65 gallons 
 to 1.27 gallons per capita. 
 
 And, again, from August 28, 1894, to the end of the fiscal year 1896, 
 when the tax was further increased from 90 cents to $1.10 a gallon, the
 
 SPIRITS. 
 
 consumption decreased from 1.27 to 0.95 of a gallon per capita, 
 statement condensed into a table shows as loilowa: 
 
 1113 
 This 
 
 Tax per 
 gallon. 
 
 Consump- 
 tiou per 
 capita. 
 
 .$0. 00 
 .20 
 .50 
 .70 
 .90 
 1.10 
 2.00 
 
 Gallons. 
 
 2.86 
 2.51 
 1.79 
 1.65 
 1.27 
 .95 
 .30 
 
 The principle which is recognized an applied in the fixing of duties 
 on iniijorted articles for the protection of home industries that the 
 price of any article governs and iucreases or decreases the consump- 
 tion, and that wherever a tax is laid upon such articles such tax cx>n- 
 stitutes a controlling factor in fixing its price, is thus fully established 
 here. That price is fixed by demand and supply, and demand and sup- 
 ply by consumption, is attested by the observation and experience of 
 all. If, however, the facts thus exhibited by the above table relating 
 to one subject-matter should be questioned on that account, they can 
 be further illustrated by an examination of the tax and consumption 
 of malt liquors, as shown by the table fixed as a front piece to the sta- 
 tistical report of the Bureau of statistics for 1895, that the per capita 
 consum])tiou in 18G7, after a tax of $L per barrel had been imposed, 
 was only 5.30 gallons per capita. 
 
 After nearly thirty years, the tax remaining the same, $1 a barr(?l, 
 the consumption of malt liquors has constantly increased not only in 
 proportion to population, but far in excess thereof, and is now 15.16 
 gallons per capita, which is really an increase per capita of more than 
 500 per cent, if the year of 1863 is taken as a basis of ])er capita con- 
 sumption. The number of gallons which wa« consumed in 1860, before 
 any tax was laid, was only 36,361,708, as shown by Table No. 142 in the 
 Eeport of the Bureau of Statistics for 1886, page 115, while from the 
 report of the present year the number of gallons of domestic malt 
 liquors consumed is 1,077,325,634. This tax, being moderate and light 
 and the tax on distilled spirits being very exorbitant, nearly 1,000 per 
 cent more than the cost of j)roduction, has tended and is tending to 
 drive consumption to this subject-matter, malt liquors, from which, in 
 proportion to alcoholic strength, the Government derives a much smaller 
 revenue than from tlie consumption of a subject-matter, distilled spirits, 
 trom which it receives an enormous revenue, being taxed in full for its 
 alcoholic strength; for except from the facts that price is fixed in pro- 
 portion to the tax levied, which thus becomes a part of the cost of 
 production, and of favoritism showu by legislation for the one subject- 
 matter over the other in taxation, why should w^e note the decrease of 
 per capita consumjition from 3.86 gallons in distilled spirits with no 
 tax, to 0.30 of a gallon per capita under a burdensome tax of $2, and 
 the increase of the per capita consumption of the other, malt liquors, 
 which was not taxed in 1860. from 36,361,708 gallons to 1,077,325,634 
 gfi lions, when a tax of $1 per barrel had been imposed thereon, all of 
 wliich has occurred during the same years and subject to the same 
 conditions, except for the difierence in proportionate taxes? 
 
 The principle that price regulates demand by controlling consump 
 tion, and that price itself is governed by the percentage of taxation, 
 and the facts being established as above, of both tax and per capita, it
 
 1114 SCHEDULE H. SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 only remains to apply these principles and facts to the subject-matter 
 under consideration. The nggregiite population is known and fixed by 
 the report of the Bureau of Statistics, and shown by the statements 
 filed with this report and for 1890, is 71,263,000. The three factors, 
 percentage of taxation, animal per capita consumption, and aggregate 
 amount of population, being known, ex vi termini the amount of rev- 
 enue to be received by the Government at each per cent of taxation is 
 known, for it is ascertainable in but one way, not by reason or by argu- 
 ment, but by a simjjle iiiatliematical calculation which can be made by 
 anyone, and is thereby reduced to an absolute certainty, as is sbLOwn 
 by the following table: 
 
 Population 
 (1896). 
 
 Per capita ^,^ii„„, ^^^. 
 siunption. """''d. 
 
 Tax rate. 
 
 Amount of 
 revenue 
 received. 
 
 71. 263, 000 
 
 71, 263. 000 
 
 71, 263, 000 
 
 71,263,000 
 
 71, 26:;, Olio 
 71.2ti3, 000 
 71,263,000 
 
 Galls. 
 2.86 
 2. .51 
 1.79 
 1.C5 
 1.27 
 .95 
 .30 
 
 202. 816. 180 
 178.770. 130 
 127.560.770 
 117..->S3.3«Ja 
 90. 504, 010 
 68, 069. 663 
 21, 378, 900 
 
 
 
 $0. 20 
 
 .50 
 
 .70 
 
 .90 
 
 1.10 
 
 2.00 
 
 $25, 754, 026 
 
 63, 780. 385 
 
 82,40H.,s«5 
 
 81, 4.53, 1)09 
 74.876,519 
 42, 757, 800 
 
 It therefore a])pears from this table that the highest ])oint of revenue 
 is reached when tlu^ rate of taxation was fixed at 70 cents per proof 
 gallon. It being thus demonstrated to a mathematical certainty that 
 the greatest amount of revenue will be received by the Government by 
 the imposition of a tax of 70 cents per proof gallon, if the object to be 
 attained bj^ this tax is revenue, then this rate of taxation must 
 be adopted as the only means to leach the desired end. It can 
 not be done by the imposition of a tax of $1.10 ])er proof gallon, for 
 that decreases the receipt.s. nor by a tax of 90 cents per proof gallon, 
 for that likewise decreases the receipts of the Government. 
 
 We need not argue that increased production is beneficial to the 
 manufacturer, if there is a fairly remunerative profit upon the capital 
 emi)loyed in the business; and that there must be under ordinary con- 
 ditions, if the business is to be continued, is self evident, for no one 
 performs the labor, endures the cares, or takes the risk incident thereto 
 except for gain. It must be admitted, then, that a reduction of the tax 
 wonld be a benefit to those engaged in the business. A reduction 
 would result in a benefit to the manufacturer and to the Government 
 by reason of an increa.se of revenue from this source. It would also be 
 a benefit to the Government in this, that it removes to a very gieafc 
 extent the inducement held out by the higher tax to violate the ])r()vi- 
 sions of the laws reating to the collection of the tax in attemi)ts to 
 defraud the Government out of its legitimate revenues arising from 
 consmnption by illicit distillation. That the higher the tax the greater 
 the amount and number of fraudulent transactions, the greater the 
 number of civil and criminal prosecutions, is not only axiomatic, but 
 proven by the records of the Internal Revenue IJuieau. It is well 
 known as part of the history of the country that under the $2 tax the 
 frauds were so numerous, the transactions so gigantic, the parties 
 engaging therein so high in official ])osition, the conspiracy so far- 
 reaching, that the Government was almost deprived of any receipts 
 from this source of revenue; the honest manufacturer, not being able 
 to compete or sell in a market where fraudulent sjurits were freely sold 
 for less than the tax, became bankrupt and was forced out of business; 
 the executive officers who were honest in intent were unable to cope
 
 SPIRITS. 1115 
 
 vrith the violators of the law, and the courts themselves finally bronght 
 into disrepute, which resulted in a reduction of the tax in 1868 to 50 
 cents a proof gallon, only one-fourth of the preceding tax. 
 
 An immoderate tax not only appeals strongly to the dishonest 
 instincts of the individual, but reduces the bulk of the article to be 
 abstracted in order that he may appropriate the same amount of gain, 
 and thereby renders detection more difficult. An examination of the 
 Commissioner of Internal Eevenue's report, 1896, page 27, will show 
 that in 1803, under a tax of 90 cents, the number of illicit stills 
 seized by the Government officers was only 806, while for the fiscal year 
 ending June 30, 1896, under a $1.10 tax, the number of illicit stills 
 seized was 1,90.5, more than 200 per cent increase in this fraudulent 
 practice alone. Nor is this all, for it is well known, although no data 
 can be given to substantiate it, that the greater part of the frauds occur 
 in the returns made from the small licensed stills. With a licensed 
 capacity of from three to five bushels per day, they mash anywhere 
 from ten to twenty, and return only the product of that for which they 
 are registered : and it is a notorious fact that in a large scope of country, 
 where heretofore large quantities of honestly made, tax-paid spirits 
 were marketed, not one gallon is salable now. A comparison of the cost 
 of collection of the tax in the various districts as shown by the tables 
 in the Commissioner's report, pages 398-399, will further establish these 
 facts, which cost is outside of any reasonable proportion of the amount 
 collected, and is being constantly increased by the eflbrts of the 
 Department to protect the revenues and prevent frauds, involving the 
 employment and pay of numbers of men, who, however vigilant, can 
 only succeed in a qualified way. 
 
 The conditions of tliis country are not favorable to the imposition 
 and collection of an exorbitant or high tax on distilled spirits, what- 
 ever may be urged in its behalf by comparison with England or other 
 countries. They are small in extent, densely populated, closely and 
 compactly connected by all the modern appliances both for communi- 
 cation and travel, while (mrs is vast in extent, sparsely settled, widely 
 separated, without means of communication or travel, with vast ranges 
 of hills and mountains, densely wooded, in which the illicit distiller 
 can conceal himself and if discovered and pursued too frequently turn 
 upon the officers and kill or drive them away. 
 
 Many a brave and valiant deputy has fallen the victim to the murder- 
 ous aim of these misguided peo])le, who assume a rebellious hostility 
 to the execution of these laws on account of the oppressiveness of the 
 tax, and are upheld in such conduct by the local sentiment and sym- 
 pathy of the community. Thus it is that the law is not enforced alike 
 in all sections, and in some it is contemptuously disregarded. Another 
 fact which should be noted is this, that imder the high tax of $1.10 
 illicit distillation and crimes against the revenue laws of the Govern- 
 ment have increased wonderfully in that section of the country lying 
 north of the Potomac and Ohio rivers, which is much more populous 
 than the mountainous country. 
 
 If, therefore, the tax is so high that the laws governing its collection 
 can not be fully enforced in all places, it is best that such tax be 
 reduced to the point where it is no longer an inducement to evade its 
 payment. 
 
 if it is best for the Government, for the reasons stated, and also 
 better for the manufacturer, to reduce the tax, the question is, to what 
 point shall it be reduced? 
 
 AVe have seen from the foregoing tables that the tax of $1.10 produces 
 only $74,876,519 per annum. Assuming this to be a sum satisfactory
 
 1116 SCHEDULE H. SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 to the Government, what rate of taxation below that will produce 
 an equal sum? It is clear that 70 cents a proof gallon will not only do 
 so, but will j)roduce $82,408,865, which is $7,534,349 more per annum. 
 We ask for a reduction to 50 cents, and couftdeiitly believe that with 
 the tax fixed at 50 cents the Government will receive as much revenue 
 as it has ordinarily done at 00 cents a gallon, and more than at $1.10. 
 It must be remembered that the showing made by the tax at 50 cents 
 in these tables is not altogether fair to that tax. It was collected from 
 1808 to 1872, a period while the currency was being contra(;ted day after 
 day for the purpose of returning to specie payments, and during a 
 period of unprecedented business depression, culminating in the panic 
 of 1873, and while the reconstruction acts were in full force and one- 
 third of the country imiwverished and prostrated by the effects of the 
 late war, destroying its power to purchase and consume. The con- 
 sumption under the 50-ceut tax in comparison with the consumption 
 under the tax of 90 cents was further curtailed by the cost of produc- 
 tion at that time. 
 
 In this business, as in all others, improved machinery, improved 
 methods of business, advancement in the knowledge of distillation have 
 increased the yield from about 2i gallons per bushel to 4f gallons per 
 bushel, and the decline in the cost of all raw materials which enter so 
 largely into the cost of ])roduction has reduced the cost of the produc- 
 tion of a gallon of spirits from 45 cents to about 15 cents; hence the 
 diflerence in the price at which the commodity after being manufactured 
 could be put upon the market is more apparent than real. It is not the 
 difference between a 50-cent tax and a 90 cent tax, or 40 cents, but the 
 dilference between 50 cents, the tax, plus the cost of ])roduction, 45 
 cents, or 95 cents, and 90 cents, the tax, plus 15 cents, tlie cost of pro- 
 dn<;tion, or $1.05, which makes only ten cents difterence; while now the 
 dilference would be 50 cents tax plus cost of production, 15 cents, equal 
 to 05 cents, and 90 cents tax i)lus 15 cents cost of production, eiiual to 
 $1.05, or a difference of 40 cents; that is, the difference between tlie 
 amount or market price of the two articles at the time the 50 cents 
 was imposed, while ap])aieiitly 40 cents was in realty only 10 cents, 
 and is now in realty 40 cents. This of itself woukl give such au 
 increase of consumption as to more than make up the loss from a reduc- 
 tion of tax. 
 
 Again, there is being urged now by some, and Congress has ])assed, 
 what is known as a free-alcohol bill for the purjiose of aiding various 
 manufacturers who consume large quantities of sjiirits as raw material 
 in the production of their articles, and which bill has been declared 
 impracticable of execution by the revenue department, it being neces- 
 sary in order to ])reveut fi-auds that the spirits which are to be with- 
 drawn without the payment of the tax for manufacturing purposes 
 should be so adulterated as to render them unfit for use thereafter as 
 a beverage, and no certain process or way having yet been developed 
 by which spirits that have been so sophisticated can not be by some 
 other process restored, the department is unwilling that this avenue 
 of fraud should be opened to evade the payment of the tax imposed 
 upon spirits. Again, if such provisions were practicable, it involves, 
 necessarily, supervision and control by the Government of the business 
 of the manufacturer during the j)rocess of manuf;icturing, which is so 
 distasteful to most of the manufacturers t-o be benefited that they would 
 much ])refer to pay a reasonable tax of 50 cents per gallon and be free 
 from the delay, business friction, and other annoyances incident to gov- 
 ernmental supervision. Most of such manufacturers produce articles 
 heavily protected by tariff" duties, and could, therefore, readily stand to
 
 SPIRITS. 1117 
 
 pay the 50 cents tax without complaint and without burden. In this 
 way the whole of this vexed question of free alcohol, involving to a cer- 
 tain extent a controversy, if not conflict, between the executive and leg- 
 islative branches of the Government, would be permanently eliminated. 
 
 In this connection the fact must not be overlooked that in quite a 
 number of instances, since the imposition of the tax of $1.10 per gal- 
 lon, the Government has ofiered for sale spirits seized for nonpayment 
 of the tax and could not get bid therefor the amount of the tax. This 
 fact can be ascertained by reference to the records of the Internal Rev- 
 enue Ikireau. This fact is not only an important one, bnt very potent, 
 as it shows either that the tax is too high and can not be paid, or that 
 in the place where the spirits were offered for sale the market was so 
 full of fraudulent spirits which have eluded the tax, and which are being 
 used and consumed, that the Government receives no revenue from this 
 subject of taxation in that section. The last is the true and correct 
 theory — that the Government is being defranded of its revenue, and 
 this has an imi)ortant bearing on the decline of per capita consumption 
 in proportion to increase of tax, for while it seems apparent that the 
 relation between the two exists, and we admit that it does exist, but 
 that only to a qualified degree it is real, we also know that the con- 
 sumption of fraudulent spirits increases as the tax is increased, which 
 is very markedly shown when the tax is raised to $-, and which dem- 
 onstrates that a point would soon be reached, if the tax should continue 
 to go up, at which revenue to the Government would cease. The con- 
 sujnption of spirits would, however, progress, but it would be the 
 consumption of fraudulent or illicit spirits. It can not be seriously 
 questioned that from the Government recei])ts and the per capita of 
 0.30 of a gallon under the $2 tax more than twice as much fraudulent 
 spirits was consumed as there was returned tax paid. It would there- 
 fore seem to be unsound reasoning to say that the consumption can be 
 controlled, except in a qualified sense, by taxation. It can only be 
 controlled to a reasonable extent by reasonable taxation, for, after that 
 point is passed, the illicit distillation and fraud begin and increase with 
 constantly accelerating force as the tax is increased. 
 
 The point at which we would put, therefore, the smallest real, not 
 apparent, amount of consumption would be at 70 cents, the highest rev- 
 enue point; or at 50 cents, a revenue point almost as high, but with 
 much less inducement to the consumption of fraudulent spirits. The 
 ilhcit distiller can not exist under a tax of 50 cents per gallon, but can 
 flourish and grow rich under a tax of $1.10 per gallon. Why f is asked. 
 Because in manufacturing illicitly, surrounded by all the uncertainties 
 of such a calling, the cost of his grain, the expense of smuggling it 
 into his distillery, the "hush money" to be paid to spies, the decreased 
 yield on account of these uncertainties, make his product cost four or 
 five times as much as spirits made in open daylight, in deference to the 
 law. • It must, therefore, cost him not less than 60 cents a gallon to pro- 
 duce it, and he must get not less than 90 cents per gallon for a fair 
 profit for his labor and risk, while the legitimate, tax-paid article at a 
 50-cent tax can be made and sold at some profit for 75 cents a gallon. 
 So, instead of the illicit distiller freezing out the honest and legitiuuite 
 distiller, as is now being done under the $1.10 tax, he is frozen out by 
 the honest fellow by reason of his inability to compete in price for 
 which tax- paid spirits can be sold. 
 
 Having thus explained how the reduction of the tax to 50 cents a 
 gallon, or to the greatest revenue-producing point, 70 cents, is to the 
 material interest of the Government in the production of more reveiuie 
 than it is now receiving at the higher rate of taxation, $1.10j how it
 
 1118 SCHEDULE H. SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER " BEVERAGES. 
 
 would decrease the cost and expense of collection of tlie revenue by 
 obviating the necessity of maintaining such an army of officers, deputy 
 collectors, and others to detect, arrest, prosecute, and convict tbe 
 violators of the provisions of the law to prevent fraud, as far as it !>* 
 possible to prevent it, costing both money and often blood, and yet suc- 
 ceeding only in joait; how it would materially benefit the honest manu- 
 facturer and impede, if not totally destroy, illicit distilling, aie there 
 not others who are so connected with this business that their interests 
 are also worthy of consideration in dealing with this matter? We 
 allude to the bankers who loan and have loaned large sums of money 
 to tliese manufacturers and now hold hy])othecated therefor large quan- 
 tities of their products, in the shape of warehouse receipts, as securities 
 for such loans, and whose solvency is bound np with, and in a measure 
 dependent upon, the prosperity of this business. In some localities the 
 bankers are, in fact, the holders of the whisky, and if the tax is not 
 reduced or some legislation of a favorable character had for the benefit 
 of what is known as pure fine whisky made for aging ]mrposes, quan- 
 tities of which are now being marketed for considerably less than the 
 original cost and carriage,-it must in the end involve these institutions, 
 precii)it;iting rushes and panics, beginning with them and continuing 
 to s])read until it coveis the entire country, involving again in all the 
 uncertainties of a i)anic a now long-suflering and financially afflicted 
 people. 
 
 In the interest of them, then, some relief from this useless and bur- 
 densome rate of taxation, which produces not revenue to the Govern- 
 ment, because it has been shown a smaller tax wouhl produce more 
 revenue, should be afforded. The manufacturers of thisclassof whisky, 
 known as tine whisky f(u- aging purposes, located largely in Kentucky, 
 Mai'yland, and reunsylvania, since the imposition of this increased tax, 
 in l.Si)4, of $1.10 per gallon, have done all they could do to obviate the 
 troubles arising therefrom and to anticii)ate these changed conditions. 
 They have cut down their production lor the last three years more than 
 5() i)er (;ent, and this year havecea^sed production altogether. This fact 
 alone should appeal strongly to your committee and insure a full, fair, 
 and uni)reiudiced consideration of all the facts herein presented. It is 
 not to be overlooked that this high rate of taxation is injurious to the 
 fruit grower, who, under a moderate tax of .">() cents, could utilize his 
 ai)ples, grapes, and ])eaches for the purpose of manufacturing alcohol, 
 which, under the present rate of $1.10, must be a total loss, rot upon 
 the ground and go to waste. Why should these ])roducts of the soil 
 be thus virtually destroyed instead of being converted into a useful and 
 v<aluable article, adding each year to the material wealth of the country? 
 No other nation on earth is so prodigal of its resources as ours. 
 
 As in dealing with such subjects as the one herein ]»resented there 
 seems to be at times a want of information relative thereto, and a very 
 great amount of prejudice in dealing therewith, it may not be inappro- 
 priate to observe the character and standing of the people engaged 
 therein. The manufacturers of distilled spirits, as a class, are men of 
 high character for honesty and integrity, as is evidenced by their fair 
 and faithful dealings with the Government, the bankers, and the business 
 world. Many are members of the various churches, high in ])ositiou and 
 of good standing therein, and many others occui)y high ]>ositions socially, 
 politically, and otherwise, and are known and api)reciated for their gen- 
 erositj^ beneficent charities, and other good works. The president of 
 a bank is never confounded witii the burglar who breaks into the bank, 
 nor the president of a railroad company with the criminal who wrecks 
 the train, nor should the manufacturer of distilled spirits be associated
 
 SPIRITS. 1119 
 
 with the keeper of the lowest "dive." They are men of wealth and 
 business aHairs who have iu vested their capital in this business for the 
 same reason and. from the same motive that other men have invested 
 theirs in other manutacturing- enterprises, such as boots and shoes, cloth 
 ing-, and iron — for ])urposes of gain. It is a legitimate business and 
 enterprise, and they have invested their money in it as such ; if it were 
 not, they would not be engaged therein. 
 
 Their jjroduct, like all other legitimate products, is intended for the 
 use and beuetit of mankind. If diverted to any other purpose that is 
 not useful or beneficial, they are no more responsible therefor than would 
 be the manufacturer of a rope for the unlawful hanging of a person by 
 others with that rope, or the manufacturer of firearms would be for the 
 murder of some person with his gun. The responsibility for misuse is 
 with the others and not with them. 
 
 While it may not be fully appreciated by all, this business is one of 
 the most extensive in the whole country, employing as many people in 
 its manufacture and sale and as closely connected with the general 
 prosi)erity of the country as any other. The amount of cai)ital invested 
 in lands, machinery, structures, and plants for the purpose of carrying- 
 on the business can not fall much short of $150,000,000, if it does not iu 
 fact exceed it. The annual cost of its manufactured product is about 
 $L'0,000,000, and the tax thereon about $80,000,000— a total cost of 
 $100,000,000, Being the mere conversion of other products into this 
 matter, its whole cost of $i:o,0O0,(K)0 is the amount ])aid by it to others' 
 labor. This gives employment to the laborer who raises the corn, the 
 rye, the barley (malt), and other products of the farm — about 30,000,000 
 bushels of grain i>er annum — which, being consumed from day to day, 
 takes the surjtlus from oH' the market and enhances the value to the 
 producer of all the rest ol his i)roducts. The vast amount of cooperage — 
 nearly L},000,000 barrels per annum — gives emplovment to the laborer 
 who fells the trees and rives out the staves in the woods; to the railroads 
 that transport this timber to the shops, and labor to the cooper in manu- 
 facturing thebarrcls ; thus emi)lo3'ing many men at remunerative wages. 
 These barrels must be securely hooped with iron, and large quantities 
 are used for this purpose, which benefits the laborer iu the mines, and at 
 the furnaces, and in the mills. 
 
 The labor employed at the distillery and the furnishing and repairs 
 of machinery, and sup])ly of new machinery for worn-out machinery, is 
 no inconsiderable item in the wages of labor. Upon the refuse or slops, 
 cattle and hogs are fed and fattened for market, and as this item of 
 feed is cheap and efficacious, these cattle and hogs are sold at lower 
 rates, and thus bring down the cost of provisions to the laborer. The 
 cost of production, including the taxes, makes a heavy demand upon 
 the banker for money, and enables him to more profitably employ his 
 surplus and maintain his rate of interest. The transportation hues are 
 heavily employed in carrying this product of nearly 2,000,000 barrels 
 per annum from place to place, for which they receive high freight 
 rates, and can in turn pay their emploj^ees reasonable wages for their 
 labor. Thousands of men are employed in marketing this matter from 
 one end of the country to the other as wholesale merchants, brokers, 
 and retail dealers, more than 250,000 being thus engaged, and allowing 
 only one helper for each so engaged, it makes an army of laborers thus 
 employed. I can imagine of no greater calamity that could befiiU a 
 country like this than that the wheels of this gieat article of commerce 
 should cease to revolve. The thousands of men thrown out of employ- 
 ment, turned back to seek a livelihood iu other occupations, already
 
 1120 SCHEDULE H, SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 overstocked aud congested with other labor, would entail misery and 
 distress, unspeakable, upon all. So, taking it all in all, it is, in its vari- 
 ous ramifications and connections, one of the most extensive business 
 connections of the entire country, and worthy of a fair, candid, and 
 unj)rejudiced consideration and of the best thought of the statesman. 
 
 It is a remarkable fact to be observed with regard to the use of alco- 
 holic stimulants, that the American people, the English, the German, 
 and the French — the four greatest nations of the earth, who have 
 advanced more rapidly in civilization, in the arts, the sciences, and in 
 commerce — are the greatest consumers of this stimulant, and their con- 
 dition compared with that of India, China, Turkey, and others who do 
 not use alcohol as a stimulant is so marked as to be almost startling in 
 effect. Is it that the ordinary or natural stimulant of business, the 
 love of gain, is not suCScient of itself, or does mankind need an artificial 
 stimuhint to call forth his greatest efforts to attain the highest condi- 
 tion for material good? There must be some cause that has produced 
 this pleasing effect. 
 
 Again, when the tax was advanced from 90 cents to .$1.10 per gallon 
 on all whisky in bond, it was done over the protest of the nuinufacturer, 
 who claimed he had a contract to tax-pay it at 90 cents and had given 
 bond to do so. But the Government, being pressed for immediate 
 revenue, seized upon his product as legitimate ]>rey, disregarded his 
 protest, and laid an additional tax of 20 cents on all whisky in bond. 
 The answer to his objection was that the distiller did not pay the 
 tax; that it was paid by the consumer; that he added it to the selling 
 price, and only advanced it for the time being, but he suffered neverthe- 
 less in the general loss and depression in liis business. 
 
 This is indeed true that the consumer and not the manufacturer pays 
 the tax, and can be illustrated by a simple statement: A has '2 barrels 
 of whisky, made at the same time; one is in bond and the other is tax 
 paid. B wishes to buy, and asks A what he will take a gallon for a 
 barrel of whisky. A says, "Which barrel? 1 will take 20 cents a 
 gallon for the one in bond (not tax ])aid), but must have .i!l.30 for the 
 other, which is tax ]>aid.'' Why? Because the tax i)aid has cost him 
 $1.10 (the tax) more, which he lias advanced. B buys the tax paid at 
 $1.30 and pays for it; then A has not ]iaid the tax, for he has recovered 
 it back from B, but B has paid it; and if B consumes the whisky he 
 has finally paid it; but if he sells, the i)erson who finally consumes 
 pays. Therefore, the price at which it is sold is regulated by the amount 
 of tax ])aid, which is added to tlie i)rice in bond; if at $1.10, the ])rice 
 is $1.30; at 50-cent tax it would be 7<»: and a reduction of taxes, as by 
 some erroneously supposed, gives nothing to the distiller, nor does it 
 take anything from the Government: for the Government can never get 
 the tax except on consumption. The distiller does not have to pay the 
 tax, but can export without payment. This is a constitutional i)rovi- 
 sion andean not be abridged. If consumption should cease to-morrow 
 and no more whisky be demanded for use, the revenue of the Govern- 
 ment would cease to-morrow, for none would, be tax jtaid; all would be 
 exported. So, also, if all the whisky in bond were destroyed by fire 
 in a single night, it would not affect the receipts of the Government; 
 for other would be made to-morrow, tax paid, and take its place. 
 
 Therefore a reduction of tax gives nothing to the distiller on whiskies 
 in bond, and the only advantage to the distiller is the same advantage 
 to the Government, in that it breaks up and destroys the illicit and 
 fraudulent distilling, which robs the Government of its revenue and the 
 honest distiller of any ])rofit. As a large amount of these spirits was 
 made under the 90-cent tax, and upon which the tax was advanced
 
 SPIRITS. 
 
 1121 
 
 lo $1.10, and is still in bond and has not been tax paid, and consider- 
 able has been, it wonld seem to be but equitable and fair to reduce the 
 tax to 50 cents on all, and thus equalize the whole matter in this way. 
 It can not be claimed that on this which was produced under the 90- 
 ceut tax a reduction is pving; anything to the distiller, unless it is first 
 admitted that the Government, by reason of its power, has first taken 
 something from him to which it was not entitled, by increasing the tax 
 thereon. 
 
 This is not a question of sentiment; it a question of cold business, 
 and should be treated from the business standpoint alone. 
 
 Belying, therefore, upon the usual standard of American statesman- 
 ship for a fair and unprejudiced consideration from the standpoint of 
 the interest of the Oovernment for needed revenue, as well as the indi- 
 vidual interest of all concerned, whether it be the manufacturer, the 
 dealer, the banker, or the laborer, we appeal to you to give us that 
 relief which is demanded by the unusual conditions of the times, and 
 to reduce this tax of $1.10 per gallon, which does not produce revenue, 
 to 50 cents per gallon, which will produce revenue, thus taking away all 
 inducements which now exist for violation of the laws and the perpe- 
 tration of fraud, and which tend so strongly to tbe encouragement of 
 malefactors. 
 
 Eespectfully submitted. J. B. Thompson. 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 THOMPSON'S TABLE. 
 
 Covsumption per capita of distilled spirits from materials other than fr\iit, and tax thereon 
 
 and revenue therefrom. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Per ceut 
 of tax. 
 
 , Population. 
 
 ! 
 
 Aggregate of 
 population. 
 
 -A-ggregate gal- 
 lons consumed. 
 
 Per cap- 
 ita CO II- 
 sunicd. 
 
 Revenue. 
 
 1860 
 
 Noiift . . . 
 
 31,443,321 
 34, 046, 000 
 
 31, 443, 321 
 
 83, 904, 285 
 
 2. 86 
 
 I^one. 
 
 18U4 
 
 $0.20 
 
 1 
 
 34', 046' 000 
 
 85! 29.5', 393 
 
 2! 57 
 
 $17," 059, 792 
 
 18t;5 
 
 34, 748, 0001 
 
 
 
 18G6 
 1807 
 
 
 2.00 
 
 3.5, 469, 000 1 
 y6,211,000f 
 
 125, 575, 875 
 
 37, 979, 104 
 
 .30 
 
 75, 958, 208 
 
 .......... 
 
 
 18f.8) 
 
 1 
 
 36, 973, OOOj 
 
 
 
 
 
 18G8 
 
 { 
 
 36, 973, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1«69 
 
 
 , 37, 756, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1870 
 
 .50 
 
 38, .558, 000 
 
 154, 652, 000 
 
 278, 099, 810 
 
 1.79 
 
 139, 049, 905 
 
 1871 
 
 
 39'. 555, 000 
 
 
 1872 
 
 
 40, 59{), OOOj 
 
 
 
 
 
 1872 
 
 1 
 
 40, 596, 000] 
 
 
 
 
 
 1873 
 1874 
 
 >......••••••.... 
 
 .70 
 
 4I,677,000l 
 42, 796. 000 f 
 
 102, 000, 000 
 
 168, 444, 000 
 
 1.65 
 
 117, 900, 800 
 
 
 1875 
 
 
 43, 951. 000) 
 
 
 
 
 
 18751 
 
 
 
 43,951,000'! 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 1876 
 
 
 
 45,137.000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1877 
 
 
 
 46, 353, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1875 
 1879 
 
 
 
 47, 998, 
 
 48, 866. 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1880 
 
 
 
 50. 1.55, 783 
 
 
 
 
 
 1881 
 
 
 
 51, 316, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1882 
 
 
 
 52, 495, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1883 
 
 
 
 53, 693, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1884 
 
 
 
 54,911,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1885 
 
 > ^ 
 
 .90. 
 
 56, 148, 000 
 
 1, 191, 336, 832 
 
 1,412,997,777 
 
 1.27 
 
 1, 271, 697, 997 
 
 1886 
 
 
 
 57, 404, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1887 
 
 
 
 58, C80, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1888 
 
 
 
 59, 974, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1889 
 
 
 
 61, 289, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1890 
 
 
 
 62, 622, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1891 
 
 
 
 63, 975, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1892 
 
 
 
 65. 403, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1893 
 
 
 
 66, 826, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1894 
 
 
 
 68, 275, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1895; 
 
 
 
 69, 753, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1895 
 
 
 1. 10 j 
 
 69, 753, 0001 
 71, 263, 000/ 
 
 110,615,275 
 
 115,104,612 
 
 .95 
 
 121, 676, 802 
 
 1896 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 T H-
 
 1122 SCHEDULE H. SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 Note 1. — The above table is made up from statistics obtained from the Commis- 
 siouer of Internal ReTenue's report and from tLe Bureau of Statistics as to ])opnla- 
 tiou. The fiscal years and the calendar years being different, we have attempted, as 
 far as possible, to separate them and show the per capita consumption for each fiscal 
 year under each percentage of taxation. In this way the same calendar year appears 
 twice in the same fiscal year, part of the calendar year being used to make up iibe 
 fiscal year, a proportionate part of the population of each calendar year being used. 
 
 Note 2. — We have not included distilled spirits from fruits in our estimates, 
 because for several years in the sixties and seventies the taxes on them were different 
 from the taxes imposed on distilled spirits from other materials. The quantities, 
 however, are very small and would not affect the general average or change the per 
 capita in any way. It would have been difficult to have separated them, and, for 
 purposes of estimate, they are wholly immaterial. 
 
 NOTF. 3. — The estimate for 1860 is based on the census of that year obtained from 
 the Bureau of Statistics. 
 
 [Extract from letter of Compiiseioner of Interual Revenue as to accuracy of foregoing table.] 
 
 Wasuxngtox, D. C, January 8, 1897. 
 
 Hon. Wai.tku Evans, 
 
 Houec of Representatives, Waiihington, D. C. 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to return herewith certain tables of statistics prepared by 
 Mr. .John 15. Thompson for use before the Ways and Means Committee upon the hear- 
 ings now in progress on the tariff bill, which tables I have examined in comi)liance 
 with your request, and with trifling exceptions have found the computatiouB therein 
 to be accurate. 
 
 [Report of Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1896.] 
 WITHDRAWALS FOR CONSUMPTION DURING THE LAST TWO FISCAL YEARS. 
 
 The quantities of distilled spirits, fermented liquors, manufactured tobacco, snuff' 
 cigars, cigarettes, and uleomargariue on which tax was paid during the last two 
 fiscal years are as follows: 
 
 ArticleB taxed. 
 
 Fiscal year ended 
 June 30— 
 
 1895. 
 
 1896. 
 
 d 67, 039. 910 
 35, 826, 098 
 
 Increase. 
 
 Sjiirits distilled from apples, jiuaoliea, and grapes 
 
 fr.Mlons a 1,102, 703 c 1,440, 810 338, lO"; 
 
 Spirits distilled from muterials other than apples, 
 
 peaches, and grapes callona..' 674,453,039 
 
 Fermented liquors barrels..' 33,5«1,411 35,826,098 2,264,087 
 
 Cigars and cheroots weighing over 3 pounds per I 
 
 thousand number. . |4, 163, 972, 440 4, 237, 755, 943 73, 783, 503 
 
 Cigarettes weighing not over 3 pounds per thou 
 
 sand number. . 3, 327, 403, 780 4, 042, 391, 640:714, 987, SCO 
 
 Cigarettes weighing ever 3 pounds per thousand, ' ' 
 
 number 1, 07:{,897| 
 
 Snuff pounds.. 10,831.474; 
 
 Tobarco, chewing and smoVing do 248.269,638 
 
 01e«raargarine . .• do 53, 264, G70 
 
 Decrease. 
 
 7,413,129 
 
 1.407,097 333.200 
 
 12,54«.5»9 1.717,125 
 
 253,667.127 5,397,499 
 
 47,623,7t3 5,640,897 
 
 a Includes $526,313.21, at 90 cents per gallou. 
 elucludes $54.04, at 90 cents per gallon. 
 
 b Includes $36,706,331.11, at 90 ceuts per gallon. 
 d Includes $3,973.57, at 90 cents per gallon. 
 
 DECKKASKD WITHDRAWAL OF TAX-PAID SPIRITS. 
 
 The quantity of tax-paid spirits (60,63.^,356.1 gallons) withdrawn from distillery 
 warehouses during the fiscal year ended .June 30, 1896. is less than the quantity 
 (74,176,239.5 gallons) withdrawn from distillery warehouses during the fiscal year
 
 SPIRITS. 1123 
 
 ended June 30, 1895, by 13,540,883.4 gallons, the decrease being distributed among 
 the different kinds known to the trade as follows: 
 
 Decrease in withdrawals of — Gallons. 
 
 Bourbon whisky 7,821,639.2 
 
 Rye whisky 2,053,401.3 
 
 Rum 456,418.9 
 
 Gin 40,020.9 
 
 High wines 71, 109. 4 
 
 Pure neutral or cologne spirits 5, 852, 527. 6 
 
 Total decrease 16,295,117.3 
 
 Increa£<3 in withdrawals of — 
 
 Gallons. 
 
 Alcohol 113, 195. 9 
 
 Miscellaneous 2, 641, 038 
 
 Total increase 2,754,233.9 
 
 Net decrease 13,540,883.4 
 
 If the quantity,' 703,120.3 gallons (as stated by the Chief of the Bureau of Statis- 
 tics), of exported domestic spirits reimported during the year upon payment or a 
 customs duty equal to the internal-revenue tax be added, the quantity virtually with- 
 drawn from distillery warehouses during the year ended June 30, 1896, is found to be 
 61,338,476.4 gallons, or 14,440,164.1 gallons less than during the year 1895, including 
 the 1,602,401 gallons reimported and tax-paid during that year. 
 
 There were also tax-paid withdrawals of spirits from general bonded warehouses 
 amounting to 6,216,284.1 gallons which should be added to the above, making the 
 total domestic spirits, exclusive of fruit brandy, withdrawn from bond on payment 
 of the tax, or of a duty equal to the tax, 67,554,760.5 gallons, or 20,2.32,794.5 gallons 
 less than the quantity so withdrawn during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1895. 
 
 The tax actually paid on spirits withdrawn from distillery warehouses and general 
 bonded warehouses and on reimported domestic spirits was as follows: 
 
 Year ended June 30, 1894 $79,008,799.50 
 
 Year ended June 30, 1896 74,310,236.55 
 
 Decrease in 1896 4,698,562.95 
 
 The relatively favorable showing as to receipts as compared with withdrawals is 
 due to the increased rate of tax under the act of August 28, 1894, from 90 cents per 
 gallon to $1.10 per gallon. 
 
 •The quantity as. stated by the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics is 703,520.6 gal- 
 lons, ")ut the amount of duty ($773,432.30) reported by him as collected represents 
 the duty at $1.10 per gallon (the present rate of internal-revenue tax) on 703,120.3 
 gallons only. To avoid a possible overstatement, this latter quantity is given in this 
 plac«.
 
 1124 SCHEDULE H. SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 [Report of Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1896.] 
 
 The following statement shows the number of cattle and hogs fed at registered 
 grain distilleries, arranged by States : 
 
 States. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Missouri 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 New Mexico .. . 
 North Carolina. 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Pennsylvania . . 
 South CaroLna. 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Texas 
 
 Virginia 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Total. 
 
 Cattle. 
 
 Number 
 fed. 
 
 170 
 68 
 
 Increase in weight. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 34, 000 
 
 6,000 
 
 121 
 
 26, 491 
 
 7,109 
 
 21 
 
 11, 128 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 2,300 
 
 91 
 
 345 
 
 182 
 
 60 
 
 ,132 
 
 29 
 
 401 
 21 
 21 
 
 836 
 
 28, 860 
 
 7. 050, 008 
 
 1,464,112 
 
 515 
 
 2, 484, 971 
 
 3,000 
 
 3,000 
 
 575, 000 
 
 16, 780 
 
 99, 360 
 
 35, 340 
 
 10, 420 
 
 547, 389 
 
 7,740 
 
 83, 900 
 
 1,050 
 
 500 
 
 183. 160 
 
 51,865 I 12,635,705 
 
 Average. 
 
 Pounds. 
 200 
 97+ 
 
 232+ 
 2B6+ 
 197 + 
 24 4- 
 223+ 
 200 
 200 
 250 
 184+ 
 288 
 
 194+ 
 157 + 
 256 + 
 266+ 
 209 -t- 
 
 50 
 
 23+ 
 219+ 
 
 Number 
 fed. 
 
 Increase in weight. 
 
 Total. 
 
 1,500 
 
 1,987 
 20 
 
 1,050 
 
 122 
 
 78 
 
 23 
 
 4,215 
 25 
 10 
 
 1,310 
 
 70 
 
 3,155 
 
 78 
 
 3,261 
 
 575 
 
 2,481 
 
 591 
 
 420 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 135, 000 
 
 132, 119 
 
 2.000 
 
 70, 395 
 
 9,260 
 
 9,160 
 
 310 
 
 452, 577 
 
 2, 500 
 
 1,500 
 
 73, 256 
 
 700 
 168, 905 
 
 10, 300 
 247, 009 
 
 46. 585 
 173, 763 
 
 45,588 
 
 15,050 
 
 243+ i 20,971 ! 1,595,977 
 
 Average. 
 
 Total 
 
 increase in 
 weight 
 of cattle 
 
 and hogs. 
 
 Pounds. 
 90 
 06+ 
 
 100 
 67+ 
 75+ 
 
 117+ 
 13+ 
 
 107 + 
 
 100 
 
 150 
 
 55+ 
 
 10 
 
 .53 + 
 132 + 
 75+ 
 81 + 
 70+ 
 77+ 
 35 + 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 169, 000 
 
 138,719 
 
 2,000 
 
 99, 255 
 
 7, 059, 268 
 
 1, 473, 272 
 
 825 
 
 2, 937, 548 
 
 5,500 
 
 4.500 
 
 575, 000 
 
 90, 036 
 
 99, 360 
 
 700 
 
 204, 245 
 
 20, 720 
 
 794, 398 
 
 54, 325 
 
 257, 663 
 
 46. 638 
 
 15, 550 
 
 183, 160 
 
 76+ 14, 231, 682 
 
 Summary. 
 
 Number of cattlf fed at registered grain distilleries in the United States. 51, 865 
 
 Total increase in weight of cattle pounds.. 12,635, 705 
 
 Average increase in weight of cnttle do 243-|- 
 
 Nunibcr of hogs fed at registered grain distilleries in the United States. 20, 971 
 
 Total increase in Aveight of iiogs pounds.. 1,595,977 
 
 Average increase in weight of hogs do 76-f- 
 
 Total number of cattle and hogs fed 72, 836 
 
 Total increase in weight of cattle and hogs pounds.. 14,231,682 
 
 Average increase in weight of cattle and hogs do 195-|- 
 
 Stills seized and casualties of officers and employees for the last twelve years. 
 [Report of Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1896.] 
 
 
 1885. 
 
 1886. 
 
 1887. 
 
 1888. 
 
 1889. 
 
 1890. 
 
 1891. 
 
 1892. 
 
 1893. 
 
 1894. 
 
 1895. 
 
 1896. 
 
 
 245 
 
 1 
 
 564 
 
 456 
 
 518 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 466 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 583 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 795 
 1 
 3 
 
 852 
 1 
 
 806 
 3 
 
 1,016 
 
 1.874 
 
 1 
 f 
 
 1,905 
 
 Officers or employees 
 killed 
 
 
 Officers or employees 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 SPIRITS. 
 
 1125 
 
 't?.'-^ 
 
 II 
 2 ? 
 
 2 ^ : 
 
 H 
 CO 
 
 3 
 o 
 
 H 
 O 
 
 < u e 
 
 Q 
 
 03 
 
 w 
 
 H 
 
 »> 
 
 9 u 
 
 5 -« 
 
 "5 "^ 
 
 I' 
 
 
 Si's 
 
 
 51 s 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 tax of 
 lected 
 stilled 
 
 , 1865 ; 
 
 be $2 
 
 10 tax 
 , 1865, 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0^ 
 ft 
 
 
 lie 30, 1804, provided that a 
 Ion should be levied and col 
 cd spirits, except brandy dii 
 from July 1, 1864, to Feb. 1 
 Feb. 1, 1865, the tax should 
 
 c. 22, 1864, provided that tl 
 lion should take cfltjct Jan. 1 
 eb. 1, 1865. 
 
 r acts of legislation refer 
 ate to tlie tax on spirits 
 tion immediately on thei 
 following : 
 
 Dates when thei/ took 
 Apr. 1, i865 
 Sept. 1,1866 
 Aug. 1,1872 
 Aug. 28, 1894 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 QQ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >. 
 
 .S-sS^ sggfSs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « a.-<- uxxxx 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 v-2 .X r'^ 5 ■ ^ 
 
 as the 
 is table 
 into op 
 except 
 
 tes of a 
 ar. 3,1 
 ily 13, 1 
 ine 6, 1 
 ug. 28, 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CS 
 
 -" % ft~ ii-r -3 ,2 ""= 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iD-;aj:a©m-*-2 
 
 >-5a»; Qat-iT^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ M J «■ c i- ftja .s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 H H 
 
 
 
 
 
 <o « 
 
 -* 
 
 «C<1 -« 
 
 CICJOXOCOO -*,-l 
 
 CO t^ 
 
 O) i-H t-> 
 
 
 
 . t- 
 
 e-1 10 
 
 co-)>-^r;o3o— . oco 
 
 ■* t* 
 
 ■— C'l 
 
 
 "5.S 
 
 ooO 
 
 M -- r-l 
 
 c>i-*'Hin'»'ox oio 
 
 OIr~ 
 
 C-105 C^J 
 
 
 
 
 u« 
 
 .2^ 
 
 o'rs" (^ 
 
 0' i.n 0' 1-' n -^ cT i.n -* 
 
 l-.^t> 
 
 cTt^oif 
 
 CO 
 
 
 C '^ 
 
 SS £: 
 
 CO05COC1C3C-05 COt* 
 
 1^ ffl. 
 
 <— 1 to 
 
 Oi 
 
 
 W)2 
 
 -g". 
 
 C<1 00 05 
 
 
 OS 
 
 iC iCiO 
 
 
 
 Mg 
 
 OS 
 
 sf"* eT 
 
 x" in x" 
 
 iri cf 
 
 ira CO 
 
 in 
 
 
 CO CO 
 
 t~ CO 
 
 
 C) CO 
 
 X 
 
 •^ w 
 
 
 
 Cl ■-( 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .-T 
 
 
 cf 
 
 
 
 95 
 
 92 "° 
 
 ^xxt*t^xin cir^ 
 
 M .-0 
 
 CO CO CO 
 
 t~ 
 
 
 M.2 
 
 
 
 MO 
 
 ■* -* Cl -^ X " X in ^H 
 
 rH 
 
 C5 W TP 
 
 
 
 ui 
 
 ■* 00 .-! 
 
 in -h' oc in iri iri in —' r-j 
 
 CO t-^ 
 
 c: ri as 
 
 CJ 
 
 
 
 ai^\ 1-t 
 
 cocj— 't^cninoi 005 
 
 
 00 f 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 •* 
 
 r-( t- Cl 
 
 int^cioosoio in^ 
 
 a 05 
 
 (Mt-O 
 
 t> 
 
 
 -»^ 
 
 00 
 
 co'cT 00" 
 
 t-'t-'oinco'-^'o" ci^ 
 
 rf t-^ 
 
 co'crTirr 
 
 
 
 
 bira 
 
 
 
 10 1^ in 
 
 .»t-3«inxtr-CO xo 
 
 in 
 
 to CD CO 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 Oiox a 
 
 cq ooi> riin r- 
 
 in 
 
 000 
 
 03 
 
 ■«lo 
 
 in 
 
 ori> in 
 
 -'' cft-"^ 
 
 00 rH 
 
 W t>" 
 
 0(f 
 
 
 ^ « 
 
 
 r-l l> 
 
 ■01 -H 
 
 t- 
 
 Cl CO 
 
 
 
 
 ^fy- 
 
 
 
 Cl 
 
 
 l> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r-T 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 11 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j3 
 
 S ►< D 
 
 cc" 00 
 
 -* OS CO 
 
 C-. t~t^COt^t-X X-H 
 
 T-i -HI 
 
 ■^00 
 
 
 
 
 3|8 
 
 .s: '^ 
 
 ■* 
 
 rH f-^ r- f-i -t ..11 rO 
 
 CO CO 
 
 CO rH i-H 
 
 
 
 ■&. 
 
 
 
 cq 
 
 (M 
 
 
 
 Len 
 
 Oft 
 
 rates 
 info 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _, 
 
 -* ■* 00 
 
 in CO ; t> X ; Cl 1 in 
 
 ■ TJI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 bO 
 
 S 
 
 CO CD CO 
 
 coo oa; t~ t^ 
 
 • Oi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _g 
 
 00 
 
 CC X X 
 
 XX , X X ; X 1 00 
 
 ■ X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 TM ^^ »H 
 
 f— 1 f.^ i ^- r- , r^ , rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "3 « 
 
 t-' 
 
 OM 0' 
 
 c*fr^ Jcfo' 'co' ' CO* 
 
 ' 00" 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 © BI 
 
 
 cc <M 
 
 1-^ c Cl 
 
 oci 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . ^-^ . .rl T3 . 
 
 "O ,.■ 
 
 T? . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 " a I ^ s I ^ ' ct 
 
 ■ bo 
 
 
 
 
 
 § 
 ^ 
 
 « 
 
 c^ 
 
 : 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 T*« .»14 T* 
 
 ■^ in ! CO t^ 1 X ! N 
 
 I irt 
 
 \ "^ 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 s 
 
 CDS CO 
 
 CO CO . -.0 CD , CO ! t^ 
 
 
 ■ C5 
 
 
 
 
 c^ 
 
 00 
 
 00 X X 
 
 XX , XX , X , X 
 
 ! CO 
 
 . CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r-4 
 
 .— I rH ,— ( 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ft5 
 
 a 
 
 M 
 
 r-T 
 
 t-'o C'f 
 
 oco 'r:"cj 'o" "co" 
 
 ' CO 
 
 ' 00 
 
 
 
 
 CO Cl 
 
 CO OrH oc: 
 
 
 
 C<M 
 
 
 
 
 >> 
 
 1-5 
 
 
 a^H * a l;^ • a .a 
 
 :3 
 
 : s 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 S 
 
 £= 2 
 
 inoooooo = 
 
 
 
 000 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 CO in 
 
 Mioinoooo ini> 
 
 
 -H .-H 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 ' r-t c4 
 
 ' ■ r-' Cl ci r-i ■ 
 
 
 "r-;-; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • a S a 
 
 £ a 
 
 S ■ a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^a 
 
 = -= =« 
 
 .a « 
 
 .a : =s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .■^ . 
 
 
 
 . Ci 
 
 ..a o.a 
 
 c^ 
 
 « ;.a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ® Oj fe 03 
 
 
 
 . c« 
 
 . +J CS -w 
 
 CS += 
 
 CS . -M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .S — I* S 
 
 
 
 • c 
 
 
 
 
 09 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 "3 
 
 
 .3 .3 = ft 
 
 
 
 ^p<^ :S (^g 
 
 r'S 
 
 ^ : S 
 
 
 
 
 
 ca 
 
 3 
 
 "= 
 n 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 ca 
 .a 
 
 a 
 
 
 -3 
 
 
 om whatever mater 
 
 om whatever mater 
 pril 1. 1865, and fro 
 except apples, gni 
 iril 1, 1865. 
 
 
 
 
 m ajqiles or peache 
 m apples, grapes or 
 m apples or peache 
 
 ni grapes 
 
 riiiii materials oth 
 
 peaches. 
 
 Ill apjiles, grapes, or 
 
 peaches. 
 
 S5 
 
 MS 
 
 111 apples, grapes, or 
 rom materials oth 
 
 
 
 ft 
 
 
 distilled fr 
 grapes. 
 
 distilled fr 
 grapes, to A 
 
 materials, ( 
 les, after At 
 
 s 
 
 OOCC— <!jO-"t. 
 
 '"^ H 
 
 . "*■ ^1 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 — 
 
 distilled fr 
 distilled fr 
 clisrilled fr 
 distilh'd fr 
 
 (li.stilled 
 s, grapes, 
 distilled fr 
 
 distilled 
 s, grapes, 
 
 .- c 
 
 .2 '^ *^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "ft 
 
 ft" ' £,0 Oi ft 
 
 « 00 « tt 3: •/ i: r. 3: j: 
 
 XX.* 
 
 X T.S 
 
 
 
 
 •5^ ~-r-r-i-^ ^-^-i £■ 
 
 Ill 
 
 a US' 
 
 
 
 
 CC 
 
 
 IB 32 
 
 m 
 
 
 Ul-Jl'M 
 
 02 M CO X 
 
 min 
 
 CO CO 
 
 
 
 1
 
 1126 SCHEDULE H. SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. A. A. MACLEAN, OF CHICAGO, ILL 
 
 Chicago, December 29, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 From to-day's Tribune I learn tliat a Mr. John B. Thompson, jr., of 
 Harrodsburg, Ky.,has appeared before your committee regardin<i^ the 
 rate of duty charged on imported Avhiskies. If the paper quotes him 
 correctly, he is reported as stating that the quantity of Canadian and 
 Scotch whiskies imported into this country under the Wilson bill has 
 proved a serious menace to the domestic trade. The report issued by 
 the Canadian government, among other items, covers the total exports 
 of whisky from Canada during the past year. You will lind that the 
 entire exports only amount to about ir>(),()()0 wine gallons. The fig- 
 ures in the government rei)ort are imperial gallons, and these ship- 
 ments were made not alone to the United States, but to various points 
 throughout tlie world. I would also advise you that the total imports 
 of Scotch whisky do not exceed these figures, and I would resiiectfully 
 suggest that this quantity is certainly not a menace to the trade in the 
 domestic article. 
 
 I liave taken the liberty of addressing you on the subject merely that 
 this matter might be i>ut before you in the ])roper light. There is cer- 
 tainly a good deal of si)urious Canadian and Scotch whiskies sold in 
 the United States. In Canadian whisky alone there are some twenty 
 different imitations of the two leading Canadian brands, all ])uriiorting 
 to have been distilled and bottled in Canada, l)ut which are all put up 
 on this side of the line and made out of the clieapest class of whisky, 
 and as they are all about SO or S.") ])t'r cent proof, they ard not only 
 defrauding the American iico]>le, but they are (leliberately cheating the 
 Government out of fully TOO i)er cent of revenue, as this whisky only 
 pays about 90 cents a gallon, whereas it should pay $1.80. 
 
 Section .3449 is supi)oscd to cover this matter, but the judges in the 
 various States Avhere any attempt has been made to try to bring i)ar- 
 ties to justice invariably rule that it does not cover imitations of 
 imported goods, and 1 would resi)ectfully suggest that without some 
 law ]»roperly enforced against imitations any increase of duty will only 
 result in more fraud being i)racticed on the public. Enforce section 
 3449 and tlie present rate of duty will increase the Government reve- 
 nue on imported wines and liquors fully 100 per cent, if not more, and 
 further result in straight goods being offered for sale. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 A. A. Maclean. 
 
 STATEMENT OF EDWARD L. SNYDER, OF NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of tiie committee, I appear here as the 
 representative of the National Wholesale Li(|Uor Dealers' Association 
 of America, an association of recent constitution, but already i)0ssess- 
 ing a very res])ectable following. I have brought a little i)ai)er which 
 I will read. It is very brief, indeed. I understood that this hearing is 
 in relation to tarilf questions, and on that account I have not come ])re- 
 liared to say anything in relation to the internal-revenue legislation, 
 believing that that would belong under a separate hearing. 
 
 The Chairman. The hearing to-day is entirely in relation to tarilf 
 questions. 
 
 Mr. Snyder. I beg to present the following points for the considera- 
 tion of the committee in the projected tariff" bill: 
 
 First. A similar allowance for outage during the bonded period on
 
 SPIRITS AND WINES. 1127 
 
 imported spirits in bulk as that granted to domestic spirits. I believe 
 that that is a simple act of justice, and I trust that the committee will 
 give us such a provision. Believing- that taritt' is solely a matter of 
 revenue, and that no advantage whatever should be given either to 
 domestic or foreign spirits, but that the duty on foreign spirits should 
 be (ixed at exactly that point which will produce revenue to the Gov- 
 ernment and be in no sense be protective- 
 Second. I suggest that there be such an adjustment of the duty on 
 imported spirits as will not be protective nor unduly favoring those 
 goods in competition with domestic production. 
 
 Third. In regard to foreign wines, there should be no increase 
 whatever in the duty. It seems to us that the present duty on wines 
 produces the greatest revenue to be derived from their importation, 
 does not i^rotect them in any manner, and is sufficient protection to the 
 domestic iivoduct. 
 
 As matters stand now, the Government is simply defrauded out of 
 the difference between the tax on domestic spirits and the duty on 
 imported spirits by the vast number of counterfeits now on the market; 
 and we beg to call the attention of j'our committee to the necessity of 
 a penal law to prevent the present evil of counterfeiting brands of for- 
 eign wines in bottle. Incidentally, section 3149 of the internal-revenue 
 law perjnits seizures of counterfeit imported goods, although there is 
 no evidence that these seizures were contemplated by the framers of 
 that section. We respectfully submit to the committee that the enact- 
 ment of legislation into a tariff bill which will cure this evil would be 
 gratefully received by the wholesale liquor dealers of the United States. 
 Section 31-19 permits the seizures of counterfeit imported goods as 
 well as of counterfeit domestic goods, but it does not prevent those goods 
 from being sold by the Treasury Department. That sale gives the pur- 
 chasers a legal right to sell the goods again, and, consec,uently, whatever 
 legislation is enacted on the subject ought to prevent the reselling of 
 these goods. That is all I have to say. 
 
 spiPtiTS a:nt) wixes. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. FREDERICK JACOBI, OF SAN FRANCISCO. 
 
 Mr. Frederick Jacobi, of Sait Francisco, Cal., addressed the com- 
 mittee. He said : 
 
 31r. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the position taken 
 bj" the gentleman who has preceded me in relation to the matter now 
 before the committee is somewhat dift'erent from the position held by 
 the producers of native wines, and I wish j^ou to permit me to read a 
 small brief drawn up at a meeting of the wine producers of California. 
 It is as follows: 
 
 At a meetiufj of the i)rotlncera of native wines, the undersigned were appointed a 
 committee to present to your honorable body the views of those most largely inter- 
 ested, for the purpose of advocating a change of the present existing duty on wines 
 and liquors. In advocating this, permit us to draw your attention to the following 
 facts, namely : 
 
 The duty on wines had been without a change for twelve years prior to the Wil- 
 son bill, this duty being 50 cents per gallon on all varieties of wines. This duty 
 was satisfactory to all interested parties, and evidently worked to the satisfaction 
 of the Government, as no change was ever suggested. 
 
 In the first draft of the Wilson bill there was no change made from the then exist- 
 ing duty of 50 cents per gallon on wine and $2.50 per proof gallon on spirits. 
 
 It was not to have been expected that any change should have been made, for the 
 reason that the Wilson bill was intended as a revenue measure, and as wines and 
 spirits have always been a source of revenue to the Government of all countries,
 
 1128 SCHEDULE H. SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 duties upon same have been levied even where free trade existed upon all other 
 commodities. 
 
 When the bill, however, was presented, though there was no change in the duty 
 on wines, a provision was introduced to the effect that though the duty on wines was 
 supposed to be 50 cents per gallon, this duty should be in no instance more than 100 
 per cent ad valorem — in other words, making the duty very indefinite, and consid- 
 ering that wines, due to the very large crops in Europe, were very cheap, the case 
 would have arisen that the bulk of wine imported into this country would have pos- 
 sibly paid from 6 to 8 cents per gallon duty. Besides this, as artiticial wines can be 
 made at almost any figure, even the small figure of 6 or 8 cents per gallon might have 
 been still further reduced. 
 
 It has becu difhcult to determine through what influence and at whose solicitation 
 the ad valorem clause was inserted in the original bill. When the bill was presented 
 to the Senate the various interests counecte<l with the wine and sjiirit line agreed 
 upon proposing a reduction of the duty on wine not exceeding 14 per cent of alcohol 
 to 30 cents per <^allon, and on Aviues of a higher alcoholic strength, up to 22 per cent, to 
 50 cents per gallon 
 
 They likewise agreed to favor a reduction of the duty on spirits from the then 
 existing duty of $2.50 per ]iroof gallon to $1.80 i^er proof gallon, which was then 
 double the amount of the internal-revenue tax. 
 
 We mention the above facts to prove the assertion that there was no necessity of 
 reducing the former duties. On the contrary, however, not only the former duties 
 were reduced to the present figures, but the internal-revenue tax on domestic liquors 
 was advanced from 'JO cents To $1.10 jier proof gallon, thns making the dilVerence 
 between the domestic tax and the duty so much smaller. The result was that the 
 recei)>ts of tax on domestic s]iirits materially decreased, without a corresponding 
 increase in receipts of duty on imported liquors. 
 
 We advocate^ therefore, a change from the present duty to the duty existing prior 
 to the enactment of the ])resent law. In other words, we favor a duty of 50 cents 
 per gallon on wines, and $2.50 per ])r()of gallon on all kinds of spirits. That this is 
 not advocated for the pnrl)os^^ of raising the j)rice of native wines or exacting a 
 larger ])rolit on same is easily gathered from the following facts: 
 
 By far the greatest portion of our native wines are absorbed by the poorer classes 
 on acconnt of tlieir cheai)ne.ss. 
 
 A material advance m price of our home product would largely curtail consump- 
 tion, and it is plainly in tlie interests of those concerned in the industry to keep the 
 price low and within the reach of the working classes. To cultivate the taste for 
 wine among the masses is certainly a desirable end to be attained. 
 
 Pure wine is beneficial to health and ]>ron)otes sobriety. 
 
 The result of replacing the duties to the old figures will l)e an increase of revenue 
 to the (iovernment, for though the importation may decrease to an extent in quan- 
 tity the higher rate of duty will increase the net rccei])t8 of the Government. 
 
 There is always a demand for the better varieties of European wines and li(|Uors, 
 and the consumption of such goods, especially by the wealthy, will continue, 
 though the duty is increased to even a higher figure than suggested by us. 
 
 The result of a higher duty will l)e in diiiiinishing the imi)ortatioii of the poorer 
 class of European wines and li(|Uors, however, which arc manufactured and adulter- 
 ated goods to a very great extent. The (ierman (iovernment, as you are aware, is 
 making an investigation now as to adulterated wines, as this branch of the wine 
 iudustry has been greatly stimulated by our lower duty on wines and liquors. 
 
 These goods, due to the lower rate of duty, come into competition with our 
 domestic wines and li(iuors, and though the (juality is inferior the fact of such 
 goods bearing a foreign stamp gives them a market, due to a ])rejudice on the part 
 of certain buyers in favor of goods bearing foreign labels and stamps. 
 
 The result is that the consumption of domestic wines and liquors has been affected 
 by such goods. If necessary, we can cite instances as to the lifjuors imported under 
 the jiresent rate of <luty, such licpuns being sim]>ly flavored sjiirits, luit, due to the 
 import stamp on the packages of same, interfering with the consumption of pure 
 domestic spirits. 
 
 It is to be surmised from correspondence appearing in various papers that an effort 
 will be made to extend reciprocity privileges also to cover wines imported from 
 countries that may possibly give us tariff concessions. Though the general propo- 
 sition of reciprocity may meet with favorable consideration by our Government, we 
 are positive that it is not advantageous to extend same to wines and liquors, and for 
 the following reasons: 
 
 Firstly, wines and liquors have always been and are to-day a source of revenue 
 to all countries, however lenient their tariff laws may be in reference to other 
 commodities. 
 
 Secondly, all wine-producing countries, however low their rates of duty may be on 
 other commodities, have invariably jdaced a high rate of duty on wines and liquors, 
 particularly when such countries are themselves ]u-oducers of wines and liquors. This 
 for the purpose of fostering an industry which is not only a direct financial benefit
 
 SPIRITS AND WINES. 1129 
 
 to a country, but has, as far as ■wines are concerned, a civilizing influence on the 
 community where same are consumed. 
 
 Thirdly, it is difficult, in the exportation of wines from any country, to determine 
 whether such wines are really the product of that country, and thus by reciprocity 
 treaty with one country you may indirectly he extending privileges to nations not 
 entitled thereto. 
 
 To illustrate this: It is a matter of record, and can be easily substantiated, that 
 France, which is the largest wine-producing country in the world, imports consider- 
 ably more than it exports, thus proving that the home consumption of France is 
 greater than its production. Therefore, iu the event of reciprocal privileges being 
 extended to France, as far as wines are concerned, the conditions may be that we 
 would bo indirectly benefiting other countries who are not extending any extra 
 facilities or advantages to us, or who may ])Ossibly have laid restrictions on some of 
 our own ])roducts. We dwell upon this fact more particularly, as we believe that 
 prior to the enactment of the Wilson bill it was through the efforts of the French 
 Government, or its representatives, that an ad valorem clause was surreptitiously 
 put in, but wisely withdrawn, from the draft of the present Wilson bill. 
 
 We, therefore, in suggesting an advance to the former duties, do not dwell upon 
 this matter for the purpose of solely urging a protection of our industry, but also 
 for the purpose of checkiuL' the interference in the sale of our goods by the introduc- 
 tion of inferior foreign products which are handled here, due to a disproportionate 
 low duty on such goods. 
 
 The change of duty, therefore, we think will result in an increase of revenue to the 
 Government, a i)rotection to the purchaser of domestic wines and spirits, and impor- 
 tation into the United States of the better varieties of European goods, as against 
 the large quantity of adulterated and manufactured goods now imported. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 E. Frowenfeld, 
 P. L. Crovat, 
 
 F. Jacobi, 
 
 Committee, 
 
 Mr. Jacobi added: I beg to state that altliough we dwell on the fact 
 in the paper which I have read that an increase of duty is not impera- 
 tively necessary, still domestic wines are selling (certain varieties of 
 them) at a lower figure tiian even the amount of the duty, which shows 
 that we are not interfered with in regard to tliese lower grades of wine. 
 But in regard to the better qualities we want a duty of 50 cents a gal- 
 lon on dear wines, so as to euable us to cultivate that class of wines and 
 to age them, all of which is done in Europe at a much lower cost than 
 can be done here. 
 
 Mr. McjMillin. What is the duty on that class of wines now? 
 
 Mr. Jacobi. Thirty cents a gallon. With a duty of 50 cents a gal- 
 lon we will be able to age our wines and make the best varieties and 
 to build up a trade for ourselves. To-day the cost of our labor and 
 the interest on the capital invested in wine making is higher than in 
 foreign countries. We are not asking too much, because we are not 
 able to raise the price of our wines indefinitelj', for the reason that the 
 bulk of our wines is consumed by the working classes. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you want the tax on spirits reduced to 90 cents a 
 gallon I 
 
 Mr. Jacobi. Yes; if the duty on foreign spirits is retained at 11.80. 
 There will be a brief filed showing that since the enactment of the 
 present law reducing the duty on imported spirits and increasing the 
 tax on domestic spirits there has been a loss to the Government of 
 $270,000 in the State of California. That is only one illustration of the 
 effect of a reduction of the duty on imported spirits. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What rate do you want to have the duty increased 
 to nowt 
 
 Mr. Jacobi. We ask the replacement of the old duty of 50 cents a 
 gallon on all varieties of wine. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is the average selling price of you-r wines now? 
 . Mr. Jacobi. That depends on the grade of wine. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is the price of your highest grade of wine?
 
 1130 SCHEDULE H. SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 Mr. Jacobi. We have wines selliug as high as 90 cents to $1 a gal- 
 lon, and ^ve have wines selliug as low as 25 cents. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And the average would be about what I 
 
 Mr. Jacobi. It is pretty hard to say what the average would be. 
 The greatest consumption is of wines of the lowest class. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. A duty of 50 cents a gallon on wines selling at 90 
 cents a gallon would be more than 50 X)er cent? 
 
 Mr. Jacobi. Yes; but the bulk of our wines is being sold at from 25 
 to 30 cents a gallon. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. P. L. CROVAT, OF NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 New York, December 23, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and ]\rEANs: 
 
 For your information, and for the furtherance of your fultilling your 
 duties in framiug a tariff for revenue, and for the protection of one of 
 the laigest industries of the State of California, wo beg to submit a few 
 statemeuts whicli we trust will enlighten you and tend to i)rotect the 
 California wine growers and brandy distillers, in order that such i)ro- 
 tectionwill allow tlieAvine growers to continue to develo]) this industry, 
 which has been handicapped by the oi)erati()n of the Wilson taritf l)ill. 
 First the Wilson bill icduced the revenue tax on foreign brandy 70 
 cents per galh)n, and at the same time increased the tax on spirits 20 
 cents ])er gallon, wliicli is virtually 90 cents per gallon in favor of the for- 
 eign manufacturers. Keducing these tigures has opened up a large 
 increase of imi)ortations of cheap foreign brandy and forced the Cali- 
 fornia grower to sell his i)roduct at the same figures, tax paid, as he sold 
 the goods i)revious to the time of the Wilson bill being in eftect, thereby 
 forcing the grower to absorb and lose 20 cents per gallon on all sales 
 since the date of the Wilson bill. Under these adverse circumstances 
 tliegrower was forced, in many cases, to stop the distillation of brandy. 
 Our vineyard is the largest in tlie world. We have 3,800 acres in vines, 
 wliich were selected from the best vineyards in I'rance, and nearly two 
 millions of dollars has been expended by tlu' late Senator Leiand Stan- 
 ford to produce a l»rnndy from i»ure wines. N()exi>ense hasbern spared 
 to show and prove to the world that we could ])roduce as good an arti- 
 cle as is ])roduced in the great brandy districts of Kuro]>e. By distilling 
 our brandy from pure sound wine. Me liave accomi)lished our i)arpose. 
 You may not be aware that a large percentage of brandy imported into 
 this country is made from potato spirits, wine lees, and pon)ace. These 
 latter ingredients are the refuse from the grapes. We throw this refuse 
 away, as we consider it rank ])oison and unwholesome. For the past 
 two years our stills ha\e been idle. 
 
 Our usual output is about 150,000 gallons per annum, which brought 
 revenue to the Government of $135,000 per year. The Wilson bill cost 
 the Government $270,000 for the past two years from us alone, and this 
 loss comes immediately alter tlielaw became operative. We understand 
 that the total output of brandy in the State of California will be about 
 one twentieth of the product of the year previous to the Wilson bill. 
 We have 5,700 barrels of brandy in Europe. French experts have 
 acknowledged our brandy as being excellent. We can not get our 
 product on the French market, for the reason that France protects its 
 growers and shuts the door to outsiders and quietly unloads their 
 unsaleable product on the kind Americans, whose doors are open to 
 them and who think that if brandy comes from a ibreign country that 
 it surely must be good, and we get for consumption what they can not
 
 SPIRITS AND WINES. 1131 
 
 dispose of in their own conn try, and is a preparation wbicli is made 
 especially for this market. Investigation will show you that the poor- 
 est quality of French cognac finds its way to this country. Stuff that 
 is doctored by foreigueis who are adepts in the art of mixing, and their 
 mixtures, which cost tbem very little, are sold in competition with the 
 pnre ethers of wine, which is pure brandy, and made by the American 
 grower who is trying to give the public pure goods. Tlie revenue 
 department will verify our statements regarding the production of 
 brandy in the United States. We do not ask for a prohibition tariff", 
 but sincerely hope that the old rate of $2.50 per proof gallon be restored. 
 This wonld keep the cheap and inferior grades of braudy from our 
 market and would put us in position to compete with better grades of 
 foreign brandy on equal terms. Brandy's value is determined prin- 
 cipally by its age. Our laws protect the purchaser from the fact that 
 the vintage of the brandy is inscribed upon each package and the pur- 
 chaser has the prima facie evidence of the age of the brandy he is buy- 
 ing. The foreigner can cut any age he desires on his packages and 
 the purchaser has to take his word as to the age, and our experience 
 has been that ten years is a nominal increase for a foreigner to date 
 back his brandy. 
 
 Of far more interest to the American grape grower is the wine 
 industry. Look back for the past two years and ask, Why is the Cali- 
 fornia wine crop so short? You will find that thousands of acres of 
 vineyards throughout the State have been abandoned, the vines have 
 been neglected, and a great many vineyards torn up. This has been 
 caused by the heavy importations of cheap foreign wines, which have 
 been imported into this country under the cloak of an imported revenue 
 stamp and sold at such prices that the poor American giower could not 
 meet the comijetitiou. It takes the American wines three years to 
 mature. The evaporation and loss in racking the wines costs the pro- 
 ducer so much that it is im])ossible for him to nuike a living, much less 
 a profit, forces him in debt, and with interest eating him bodj^ and 
 soul the result is found in abandoned vineyards and the bankruptcy- 
 courts, and, oh, how many sad cases of this kind can you find in Cali- 
 fornia. The present 30-cent rate on wine admits the most inferior 
 wines to this market, where they are blended with a wine wash made 
 by fermenting cheap raisins. Old imported casks are at a premium 
 and they are used to be filled with this base concoction and sold to the 
 consumer as imported, and is so proven from the fact that the wine is 
 in imported package. 
 
 There are a great many facts regarding the why and wherefore that 
 a duty should be fixed on imported wines that the producer of 
 American wines can only become aware of, because he is brought in 
 direct contact from competition. For wines Ave also do not ask a duty 
 to be prohibitive. We ask for 50 cents a gallon as the amount; that 
 we think should be a fiiir rate. We have no fear of the results with 
 our production against the better grades of imported wines, as those 
 who have means will buy as much as ever. It is the iniquitous cheap 
 article that is foisted on the unsophisticated American that we desire 
 to be kept by our foreign neighbors for their own consumption and be 
 allowed to compete with them in our own home with our pure wine, 
 against such pure wine as they might send with a duty of 50 cents per 
 gallon, and have our Government be as zealous for their subjects' wel- 
 fare as foreign countries are. 
 
 P. L. Crovat, 
 General Eastern Manager 
 ^^ Senator Leland Stanford's" Vina Vineyard a7id Distillery.
 
 1132 SCHEDULE H. SPIRITS. WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY WINE AND SPIRIT TEADERS' SOCIETY 
 
 Office of the Wine and Spirit Traders' Society, 
 
 New York, December 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We, the undersigned members of the Wine and Spirit Traders' 
 Society, have the honor to recommend the following rates of duty for 
 tlie consideration of your committee: 
 
 (1) Specific duties. — We earnestly recommend that specific rates of 
 duty be imposed in all cases on all merchandise covered by Schedule 
 H of the present tariff. In those cases in Mhich such rates were 
 adopted at the suggestion of this society in 1875, the system has worked 
 to the jierfect satisfaction of the (iovernment, the trade, and the con- 
 sumer. There has been a manifest and marked improvement in the 
 average quality and jjurity of the wines and spirits imported. There 
 has been no necessity ibr bringing suits for undervaluation, and none 
 have been brought, and the cost of collection has been much reduced. 
 
 The specific <luty puts all imjwrters on an equal footing, whereas 
 under an ad valorem duty the honest merchant is at the mercy of the 
 unprincipled dealer who imports in small lots and takes the chances of 
 entering his goods at lower values. 
 
 (2) Spirits (brandy, whisky, gin, rum, cordials, etc.). — Present rate of 
 duty (act of 1894), $1.80 per proof gallon. Proposed rate of duty, 
 in casks, $1.50 per proof gallon and at a proportionate rate in glass or 
 jugs. 
 
 We believe that it^ the rate ]>roi)Osed b> us is adopted, the importa- 
 tions will increase and the revenue will be in excess of that of the past 
 three years, which averaged $2,555,603, and was equal to an ad va'orem 
 duty of about 136 per cent. 
 
 The inipoitations under the duty of $1.80 per gallon show a gradual 
 increase over a higher rate of duty ($2.50 ])er iiroof gallon, act of 1890), 
 and it is fair to assume that when business resumes its normal condi- 
 tion the quantity imi)orted will be very mucli laiger than in 1895-96, 
 when it was 1,457,242 gallons, which is the greatest since 1890-91. 
 
 The duty of $1.50 i)er gallon will bring tlie greatest revenue, and if 
 the rate of tax on domestic spirits is. reduced to the same basis it will 
 result in largely increasing the revenue and j^ut a stop to illicit distill- 
 ing and fraudulent imitations. 
 
 The fact that a revenue tax on domestic sjurits and a corresponding 
 customs duty on imported spirits in excess of the highest revenue-pro- 
 ducing point cause frauds on the (4overnnicnt lar in excess of any 
 sum gained by the imposition of such high tax or duty is so well con- 
 firmed by experience as to need no argument. 
 
 (3) SpHrlding icines (champagne and all other sparkling wines). — Pres- 
 ent rate of duty (act of 1890), $8 per dozen so-called quart bottles and 
 proportionate rates on other size bottles, with a duty of three-fiuarters 
 of 1 ])er cent a ])()und on the weight of the bottles, which is equal to 21 
 cents per dozen so-called quart bottles, or $8.21 per case. Proposed 
 rate of duty, $(> per dozen so-called quart bottles and no separate or 
 additional duty on the glass. 
 
 The rate of $6 per dozen so-called quart bottles was established in 
 1864, and has since, from time to time, been agreed upon by the pro- 
 ducers of domestic wines and the importers of wines, as having fur- 
 nished ample protection to the American article. It was changed in 
 1883 to. $7, at the suggestion of Senator lirown of Georgia, on the theory 
 that champagne being a luxury it should pay the highest rate of duty
 
 SPIRITS AND WINES. 1133 
 
 Congress could be induced to impose. This, however, was done entirely 
 on his own motion without any suggestion from the domestic producers, 
 at the end of the session, during a period of great confusion, and was, 
 we consider, an inadvertence on the part of the Senate, as a reference 
 to the record of that date will, we think, sufficiently show. This rate 
 remained in force until 1890, when the House passed the McKiuley bill, 
 which increased the rates of duty on many articles, but did not include 
 champagne, as it was considered to be sufficiently taxed. When this 
 bill leached the Senate, the Finance Committee, in consequence of a 
 demand from a certain class who considered champagne one of the 
 greatest luxuries, decided it was a political necessity to increase the rate 
 $1 a case, making the ])resent duty of $8 per dozen. 
 
 The increase of $2 per case having been added to the rate of duty on 
 champagne and sparkling wines by outside influences, we ask to have 
 the original rate of $0 per dozen restored, as we believe it will largely 
 increase the imports and gradually increase the receipts. It will also 
 benefit the trade, as it will take less capital to conduct the business, 
 which is already so hami)ered by the necessary expenses connected with 
 it that there is comparatively very little profit to the American merchant. 
 
 The importations since 1870 have increased about 16 per cent, whereas 
 the population and wealtlj of the country have more than doubled dur- 
 ing this period, showing that, although champagne is used more than 
 any other wine on festive occasions, the consumption has not kept pace 
 with this development. 
 
 Champagne and other sparkling wines ready for consumption can 
 only be transported in glass, and, as the duty is assessed at a high rate, 
 we claim that no se])arate or additional duty should be put on the bottles. 
 
 (4) Still wines. ' 
 
 (5) Vermuth^ (finger wine, or (jinger cordial. — Present rate of duty 
 (act of 1894) : In casks containing 14 per cent or less of absolute alcohol, 
 30 cents per gallon; containing more than 14 per cent of absolute 
 alcohol, oO cents jier gallon; in bottles or jugs, per case of 1 dozen so- 
 called quart bottles or jugs, $1.00 ])er dozen, and proportionate rates for 
 other sizes, and no separate or additional duty on the glass. 
 
 The present duty on these articles is acceptable to the trade, and, con- 
 sidering the general depression in business, is producing a good revenue, 
 the duty on still wines in bulk for the fiscal year of 1890 being $1,042,251, 
 the average value of the wines entered at the duty of 30 cents per 
 gallon being 05 cents per gallon, and the average value of those entered 
 at the duty of 50 cents per gallon being 73 cents per gallon. 
 
 We request that no change be made. 
 
 (0) Malt liguors. 
 
 (7) Malt extract. — Present rate of duty (act of 1894) : In casks, 15 
 cents per gallon ; in bottles or jugs, 30 cents per gallon, and no separate 
 or additional duty on the bottles or jugs. 
 
 No change proposed. 
 
 (8) Gherrg juice., prune juice, prime icine. — Present rate of duty (act 
 of 1894) : Containing 18 per cent or less of absolute alcoliol, 50 cents per 
 gallon ; if containing more than 18 per cent of absolute alcohol, $1.80 
 per gallon. 
 
 This article is not generally imported by the wine and spirit import- 
 ers, but has been classed with wines and assessed at the same rate of 
 duty as still wines in bulk, as it contains about seventeen-eighteenths 
 per cent of alcohol. We annex a letter of Messrs. H. Batjer «& Co., 
 who handle this article largely. 
 
 (9) Bay rum. — Present rate of duty (act of 1894), $1 per i)roof gallon. 
 JS^o change proposed.
 
 1134 SCHEDULE H.— SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 (10) Ginger ale, fjinfjcr beer. — Present rate of duty (act ,f 1894), 20 
 per cent ad valorem, but no separate or additional duty shall be assessed 
 in the bottles. Proposed rate of duty, 10 cents i)er dozen of so-called 
 pint bottles, but no additional duty on the bottles. 
 
 The act of 1890 jiut a specific rate of duty of 13 cents per dozen so- 
 called pint bottles, but no duty on the bottles. This duty was changed 
 to an ad valorem rate of 20 per cent by the act of 1894. We request 
 that a specific duty be restored, and recommend the rate of 10 cents per 
 dozen so-called pint bottles, but no separate duty on the bottles. 
 
 An erroneous impression prevails that large prolits are connected 
 with all branches of the wine and spirit trade; this, however, is not 
 the case. The retail trade do realize large margins, but the importers 
 make only a small i)ercentage or commission on the amount of their 
 sales, and when it is realized that the total value of the importations of 
 spirits, champagnes, still wines, and malt li(juors for the fiscal year of 
 189(5 amounted to only 810,588,(518, it will be seen that a very small por- 
 tion of this amount remains to be divided by the American importers. 
 
 The imj)orters of these articles make less money than most of the 
 leading firms in other branches of business, and this is shown by a 
 comparison of their financial status. 
 
 We are among the largest contributors to the customs revenue and, 
 taking all the above into consideration, are entitled to such legislation 
 as will facilitate our business. 
 
 PRIVILEGES AND CHANGES ADVOCATED. 
 
 Stamps. — We recommend the abolition of the stamps now affixed to 
 foreign wines on the ground that they are of no utility and are an aid 
 to fraud. These stamps were originally intended for si)irits only, and 
 wines and malt liquors were included in the act, much to the detriment 
 of these interests. 
 
 AUoicancc for hakaf/c o/iriiies and tipirits i)i hulk while in hmid. — We 
 recommend that the same allowance be granted to foreign wines and 
 spirits as is granted to domestic spirits in bond under the provisions of 
 the present law, viz, for a cask of 40 gallons capacity: 
 Not to exceed 1 proof gallon for 2 months or part thereof. 
 Not to exceed li galls, for more than 2 njos. and not more than 4 mos. 
 Not to exceed 2 galls, for move than 4 mos. and not more than G mos. 
 Not to exceed 2.] galls, for more than mos. and not more than 8 mos. 
 Not to exceed .'> galls, for more than 8 mos. and not more than 10 mos. 
 Not to exceed r>^ galls, for more than 10 mos. and not more than 12 mos. 
 Not to exceed 4 galls, for more than 12 mos. and not more than 15 mos. 
 Not to exceed 4i galls, for more than 15 mos. and not more than 18 mos. 
 Not to exceed 5 galls, for more than 18 mos. and not more than 21 mos. 
 Not to exceed 5i galls, for more than 21 mos. and not more than 24 mos. 
 Not to exceed galls, for more than 24 mos. and not more than 27 mos. 
 Not to exceed (5i galls, for more than 27 mos. and not more than 30 mos. 
 Not to exceed 7 galls, for more than 30 mos. and not more than oS mos. 
 Not to exceed 7^ galls, for more than 33 mos. and not more than 30 mos. 
 and for larger and smaller casks in proportion. There is no objection 
 to this on the part of domestic producers. 
 
 Allou-ance for breakage and leakage. — We recommend that an allow- 
 ance of 5 per centum for breakage be granted on all foreign wines, spirits, 
 beer, and ginger ale imported in bottles and jugs. 
 
 There is always more or less breakage and leakage in case goods, 
 and this has to be borne by the importer without any comi)ensation. 
 
 The allowance of 5 per cent in 1 ieu of breakage wasestablished by the act 
 of 1799 and continued uninterruptedly until 1870, when it was repealed by
 
 SPIRITS AND WINES. 1135 
 
 the act of July 14 of tliat year, but it was again restored by tlie act of 
 February 8, 1875 ; so that it lias been in force for over seventy-five years. 
 Champagne and other sparkling wiues were thus made an exception 
 to the general rule, which made allowance only for the breakage actu- 
 ally sustained on the voyage of importation, because experience showed 
 that this arbitrary allowance was practically the equivalent of the 
 average damage sustained through leakage and breakage, and by this 
 means the labor of opening the packages was avoided and the integrity 
 of the jiackages preserved. 
 
 Samples. — We recommend a provision permitting the importation free 
 of duty of samples of wines, spirits, ginger ale, and beer, providing 
 that such samples do not exceed in number eleven quart bottles at any 
 one time, and provided that the collector of the port of entry shall be 
 satisfied that they are bona fide samjiles. There is no provision for 
 them under the present law. 
 
 The object of this recommendation is not to avoid payment of duty 
 on such samples, as this is of no moment, but to avoid the delay neces- 
 sary in making the entries, etc., for such payment. It is often of the 
 utmost importance to have such samjiles delivered at the earliest possi- 
 ble moment after landing. 
 
 Sales oficines, ete. ,/())• use at sea. — The shipping act of June IG, 1884, 
 provided that merchandise in bond could be sold to American vessels 
 trading with foreign i)orts, for use at sea, without the payment of duty. 
 We ask to have this privilege extended to foreign vessels, as it will 
 enable us to compete for an important trade which at present is con- 
 trolled by foreign ports. 
 
 Country of origin. — We request that all casks, cases, ])ackages, and 
 bottles or jugs containing any of the articles under Schedule H be 
 required to be marked in ])lain English words. Produce of ...., the 
 country of origin, before the American consuls certify the invoice. 
 
 This is a ])rotection to the consumer and insures his Duying genuine 
 articles. The invoice of the goods to have on it that each cask, case, 
 
 package, bottle, or jug is marked "Produce of (name of country)" 
 
 either stamjied or branded with a die, painted or stenciled on casks, 
 cases, or outside packages of any kind and printed on labels on each 
 bottle or jug. 
 
 The above rates of duty with the privileges and changes recommended 
 by this society are herewith submitted as embodying the views of the 
 trade. 
 
 Francis J. Crilly, of F. J. Crilly & Co., 
 Chas. Renauld, of Renauld & ^N^iederstadt, 
 H. E. Gourd, of H. E. Gourd, 
 Charles Graef, of Chas. Graef & Co., 
 Charles Du Viyier, of Du Yivier & Co., 
 E. La Montagne, of E. La Montague & Sons, 
 J. K. McCall, of E. Blackburn & Co., 
 Geo. S. Nicholas, of Geo. S. ISichola-s, 
 Peter McQuade, of Peter McQuade & Co., 
 Alex. D. Shaw, of Alex. D. Shaw & Co., 
 Joseph Park, of Park & Tilford, 
 H. A. Batjer, of H. A. Batjer & Co., 
 Ernst Feldman, of Ernst Feldman, 
 W. A. Taylor, of W. A. Taylor & Co., 
 A. De Bary, of F. De Bary & Co., 
 C. H. Arnold, of C. H. Arnold, 
 Council of the Wine and Spirit Traders^ Society of the United States.
 
 1136 SCHEDULE H. SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF WINE AND SPIRIT TRADERS' 
 SOCIETY, OF NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 IsTew York, January 4, 1897. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 The Wiue and Spirit Traders' Society of the United States be^ 
 leave to say that they have heard the arguments of the gentlemen 
 rei)resenting the interests of the domestic distillers, the California pro- 
 ducers, and the president of the Wholesale Liqnor Dealers' Associa- 
 tion, Mr. E. L. Snyder. The statements of the latter gentleman are 
 substantially correct, but we wish, however, to particularly emphasize 
 his remarks in reference to the amendment of section 3449, llevised 
 Statutes, regarding the sale, shipment, transportation, or remoA'al of any 
 spirituous or fermented liquors or wines, whether foreign or domestic, 
 in casks or other packages, under any other than the proper name or 
 brand known to the trade as designating the kind or (juality of the con- 
 tents of the bottles, casks, or other packages containing the same. The 
 defect in the language of the present law is that it omits the word 
 " bottles," and also provides no penalty for its violation. 
 
 We submit herewith a copy of House bill Xo. 94C0, introduced by 
 Hon. Amos J. Cummings, which is intended to correct the defects in 
 the present law. We need hardly say to your committee tliat the loss 
 to the revenue of the United States for want of such amendment can 
 hardly be estimated. The nnirket is tiooded with imitation goods, 
 which, in the case of wines and spirits subject to customs duties, 
 defraud the (iovernment by the dilference between the internal-revenue 
 tax and the duty on imported wines and spirits. 
 
 Independent of tliis, in the case of bottles, illicit distillers take 
 advantage of this lack of i)enaity to sell their entire product in bottles. 
 
 In the case of imitation of domestic spirits, the fraud is equally - 
 prevalent by the imitation of brands of the well-known distillers. Not 
 only is the Government defrauded in both mentioned cases, but the 
 public is imposed upon by the sale of hctitious, and in many cases 
 impure, compounds. 
 
 Mr. Thomi)S()n, representing ]iarticularly the Kentucky distillers, asks 
 that the duty on imported spirits be increased from the present rate of 
 $1.80 ])er proof gallon to S2.r)(), unless, as ^^e infer from his remarks, 
 the internal-revenue tax be reduced to 00 cents per proof gallon. We 
 believe that the latter figure would produce a larger revenue than the 
 [u-esent rate of 81.10, by making illieit distillation dangerous and 
 unprofitable. 
 
 It is needless to say that this society had nothing to do with fixing 
 the amount of the internal-revenue tax. How it happened is well- 
 known to your committee. It is very far from our object to restrict 
 the amount of the duty on any article in Schedule H, which can 
 be equally well produced in the United States as it can be in a for- 
 eign county, but we can hardly see the force or necessity of imi)osing 
 a duty practically prohibitory on such wines and spirits as are the 
 exclusive product of the country from which they are exported by 
 reason of its soil and favorable climatic position. 
 
 In the matter of Canadian whiskies, we agree with Mr. Thompson 
 that unless they change their law in relerence to the size of the casks 
 which can be imported into the Dominion of Canada to conform to the 
 size used in the United States -a i)rohibit()ry duty should be imposed. 
 
 It is only just to say, however, that there are no restrictions on the
 
 SPIRITS AND WINES. 1137 
 
 importation iiito the Dominion of Canada for goods in bottles, packed 
 in cases. 
 
 It lias been a fad for tlie past few years for a few people in some of 
 our large cities to drink Scotch whiskies. These do not come from 
 Canada, but from Great Britain. The insignificance of the amount, as 
 compared with the production of domestic spirits, will appear from the 
 following figures taken from the official statistics of the United States 
 Bureau and the Internal-Ilevenue Department: The total quantity of 
 spirits of all kinds imported from Great Britain for the fiscal year end- 
 ing July 1, 1896, was 149,892 gallons. This included Scotch and Irish 
 w^hisky, brandy, rum, and gin. The total quantity of spirits imported 
 from the Dominion of Canada in the fiscal year 1895-90 was loi),174 
 gallons. The total number of gallons of spirits manufactured in the 
 United States for the same period was 86,588,703. How insignificant 
 the quantity imported and how little it affected the domestic product 
 is at once apparent. 
 
 The fiscal year we have quoted for domestic spirits is the lowest since 
 1889, owing to the enormous overproduction, which caused the stagna- 
 tion in the sale of domestic goods. For instance, in the fiscal year end- 
 ing June 30, 1893, tbe total number of gallons of spirits produced in the 
 United States was 128,051,782. 
 
 The argument of Mr. Jacobi, representing the California wine pro- 
 ducers, contains many statements that are, to say the least, misleading. 
 We believe the present rate of duties on wines to be fair and to give 
 ample protection to the domestic producer. In fact, Mr. Jacobi practi- 
 cally admits tliis after the close of his argument. 
 
 The class of wines coming in under the 30 cents per gallon duty are 
 offset by the cheap American wines, which are sold for less than 30 
 cents. The higher grades of wines, which he claims should pay 50 
 cents -per gallon duty, are uniformly imported in cases, the duty on 
 which is $1.00 per case, Avhich is more than 50 cents per gallon duty, 
 besides including the duty on bottles. If the average quantity is 2.4 
 gallons per case, the duty on the wine at 50 cents per gallon would be 
 $1.40, leaving 20 cents for tbe duty on bottles. 
 
 The invoice value of wine imported at 30 cents per gallon duty aver- 
 ages 05 cents, and that over 14 per cent alcoholic strength averages 73 
 cents per gallon. Tbe fact that "inferior goods find a market because 
 they bear a foreign stamp " is largely taken advantage of by many deal- 
 ers in domestic wines to dispose of them under foreign names, thus re:-;ort- 
 ing to the un-Ameri(.'an device of not sailing under their own colors. 
 
 As to the assertion that France imports more wines than she exports, 
 we give the following official figures (French), in round numbers: 
 
 French imports and exports of wines. 
 [In millions of francs.] 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Imports. 
 
 Exports. 
 
 1893 
 
 
 183 
 144 
 212 
 
 18S 
 
 1894 
 
 232 
 
 1895 
 
 222 
 
 
 
 I As comiDared with the production of France, which is as follows : 
 
 Gallons. 
 
 1893 1, 250, 000, 000 
 
 1894 1, 000, 000, 000 
 
 1895 675, 000, 000 
 
 1896 1, 050, 000, 000 
 
 T H 72
 
 1138 SCHEDULE H. SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 It maybe well to notice that the whole wine production of the United 
 States (18,000,000 gallons annually) hardly equals 9 per cent of France's 
 importation and is less than 2 per cent of her i)roduction of wines. 
 
 As to Germany, the average yearly production of wines is 62,000,000 
 gallons, or nearly four times that of the United States. 
 
 The importations of artificial or adulterated wines is of rare occur- 
 rence. In France, by a law passed November 14, 1896, the manufacture 
 and sale of such articles is made a misdemeanor. In Germany a simi- 
 lar law is in process of enactment. It would be well if Congress could 
 formulate and pass a law of like character, ai)i)licable to the whole 
 United States. Several of the States have such laws, but it is difficult 
 to obtain convictions. In consequence, the country is flooded with 
 adulterated wines and liquors, manufactured by our own people and 
 sold under foreign or fictitious names, to the detriment of the public 
 health and revenue. 
 
 The limited time awarded us will not allow us to go into details bear- 
 ing out our figures and showing that an increase in duties on the 
 articles in Schedule 11 would not be productive of an increase in the 
 revenue. We are fully prepared, however, to do so if you desire it. 
 Very resjiectfully, 
 
 Francis J. Crilly, of Joseph F. Crilly & Co., president; 
 Charles Eenauld, of Kenauld «.^' iSlederstadt, treasurer; 
 Henry E. Gourd, of Henry E. (iourd, secretary; J. N. 
 McCall, of E. Blackburn & Co. ; Charles Du Vivier, of 
 Du Vivier & Co. ; Alex. 1 ). Shaw, of Alex. D. Shaw & Co. ; 
 Jos. Park, of Park & Tilford; Charles Graef, of Charles 
 Graef & Co.; E. La Montague, of E. La Montague & 
 Sons; A. de Bary, of Fred'k de Bary «& Co.; Geo. S. 
 Nicholas, of Geo. S. Ni<holas & Co.; H. A. Biitjer, of 
 H. A. ]^>atjer ^S: Co.; Peter McQuade,of Peter McQuade 
 & Co.; Ernst Feldmann, of ICrnst Feldmann; W. A. 
 Taylor, of W. A. Taylor ^V' Co.; C. H. Arnold, of C. II. 
 Arnold; Clias. Bellows, of Chas. Bellows, Council of the 
 Wine and Spirit Traders' Society of the United States. 
 
 BRANDT. 
 
 (rara-Traph237.) 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY WALDEN & CO., OF NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 New York, December 29, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We wish to give you a few hints how the Government obstructs our 
 trade as distillers of California brandy, especially as to exports. The 
 brandy trade of South America and the West Indies is ]>rincipally done 
 in case goods of French manufacture. To meet this trade, we must 
 put up goods of like quality and price. The first we have accomplished, 
 but the latter this (Tovernment ])rovents us from doing, as it only allows 
 us to bottle tax-paid braiuly and in bottles on wliicrh tlie duty has been 
 paid. As this tax amounts to from 82,' to S'-i per case (according to 
 the age of the goods), you can readily see it is prohibitory. As case 
 goods exi)ort trade, carrying the brand of the maker, is certainly of 
 benefit to the country as well as to the individual, we trust you can find 
 a method of our bottling in bond for export. 
 
 1 I
 
 CORDIALS AND LIQUEURS. 1139 
 
 Then, as to imports, the French carry their brandy for age without 
 tax, so old brandy is brought into this country and the duty assessed 
 on it per gallon without regard to the age, the package coming in full 
 and in good order, whereas the domestic article is carried in original 
 packages at an arbitrary leakage, so that old goods are assessed fof 
 tax for more than the contents of the package. 
 
 Then an outrageous action is the payment of tax on an empty x^ack- 
 age. On exporting old goods, the tax has to be paid on outs above the 
 allowance and in the original package, which maj' be in bad condition 
 and always much out. As all California goods have to make the long 
 trip from that State for market, it is much harder on both the cask and 
 outage than the direct trij) across the Atlantic. 
 
 We also state the fact that we can only ship brandy to Canada in 
 such large-sized packages that it is unsaleable there, whereas that 
 country can shij) here any sized packages. 
 
 If the above facts are not discrimination against the domestic brandy 
 in favor of the imi)orted, what is ? 
 
 Walden & Co. 
 
 COKDIALS A:NT) LIQUEURS. 
 
 (Paragraph 240.) 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MORRIS L. BETTMAN, OF CINCINNATI. 
 
 It is the purpose of this address to place before you cogent and 
 logical reasons why the import duty on liqueurs, cordials, and all spirit 
 products should be increased in the new tariff bill now under your con- 
 sideration from $1.80 per gallon, the present rate, to $2.50 per gallon, 
 the old rate which prevailed in the McKinley bill. 
 
 The Wilson-Gorman bill presented the remarkable condition ot 
 Increasing the internal-revenue tax on spirits and spirit goods from 90 
 cents to $1.10 per gallon and in strange and unusual contrast of reducing 
 the duty on imported spirits and spirit goods from $2.50 to $1.80 per 
 gallon. 
 
 To increase the internal revenue from 90 cents to $1.10 was to put 
 upon the distillers, manufacturers of cordials, and wholesale liquor 
 dealers a great hardship. To reduce the import duty fi'om $2.50 to 
 $1.80 was to give to foreign producers avast advantage over American 
 makers. 
 
 It can not be argued otherwise than that cordials, liqueurs, etc., are 
 luxuries. They enter only into the homes of the luxurious and well to 
 do. They are consumed exclusively by refined and expensive palates. 
 The laboring man, the artisan, the mechanic, the agriculturist does not 
 know of them nor of their use. 
 
 A prejudice certainlj^ exists in the minds of the exclusive class of 
 consumers of cordials in favor of foreign jiroducts. When the difference 
 in cost is but a trifle, the foreign product is always chos en. The quality 
 is not questioned nor examined into. As a matter of fact, the cordials 
 produced by the American manufacturers, such as ourselves, are not 
 excelled in quality, flavor, purity, or general worth by cordials manu- 
 factured anywhere in the wide world. 
 
 It has always been the policy, we believe, of the Eepublican party to 
 tax such luxuries for the maintenance of the Government, for the pro- 
 tection and promotion of the home manufacturers.
 
 1140 SCHEDULE H. — SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 The basis of all fine cordials is spirits. The best spirits in the world 
 are made from corn by enormous distilleries, like the few now in oper- 
 ation in this country. The larger the distillery the cleaner and better 
 the spirits. No distillery in Europe approaches in size our American 
 plants. The foreign distilleries are toys, trifles, pigmies compared to 
 our spirit houses. Our American spirits are, therefore, much superior 
 in quality to the spirits made in Germany, France, or any other country. 
 Spirits in these countries are principally made from potatoes, and in 
 small quantities, and have a coarse flavor and a pronounced odor 
 which the manufacturer covers up by more or less harmful adulteration. 
 No corn spirits are made in Europe, and no spirits in Europe compare 
 for one moment with the American product. 
 
 The various articles used in distillation of fine cordials are obtained 
 by European distillers, as well as by ourselves, from all parts of the 
 world, especially from South America. In the matter of the supply of 
 leaves, roots, herbs, and fruits for the distillation of cordials, we are on 
 the same footing as the foreign maker. AYe obtain them equal in 
 quality and as low in price as they do, but in all other items of expense 
 the foreigner has the advantage. His bottles costless, no internal rev- 
 enue prevails on spirits in his country, the cost of labor is much less, 
 the cost of his casing, packing, etc., is nominal compared to ours. His 
 labels, corks, and metal caps, his storage and interest cost considerably 
 less than ours. Freight to our shores is unimportant. The difference 
 between the duty paid by the imported article at the present unjust 
 rate of $1.80 and the internal revenue of $1.10 per gallon paid by us 
 is thus more than wiped out by the superior advantages enjoj-ed by the 
 foreigner. 
 
 Under the McKinley bill the tarift" on these goods was increased from 
 $2 to $2.50 per gallon, and bear in mind, gentlemen, that under that 
 beneflcent law the internal-revenue tax was but 00 cents. Should you 
 increase the import duty to $2.50 and keep the revenue tax at $i.l0 
 the foreign article still has a 20 cents per gallon advantage over the 
 rate enjoyed till 1894. 
 
 During the time that the McKinley law was in force our business 
 began to exj^and and American cordials began to gain favor. Dealers 
 carried both lines, the domestic and imported. The difference in price 
 recommended the use of the American liqueur; it gained tremendous 
 headway ; it was found fully the equal of the imported article, and its 
 merit created a market for it. 
 
 With the passage of the Wilson bill came the destruction of this 
 industry. Our extensive plant, one of the most complete and extensive 
 in the world, is comparatively idle on this class of goods. 
 
 We have, during our experience, visited the important and leading 
 establishments in our line in France and Germany, have carefully exan»- 
 ined their arrangement, methods of manufacture, and now state ])Osi- 
 tively, without danger of refutation, that our i>rocesses and methods of 
 manufacturing are infinitely superior, purer, cleaner, and more scien- 
 tific than the European; that our products are in every instance the 
 equal of the best of foreign makes, and in many instances far superior. 
 Creme de menthe is an example in i)oint. Most of the creme de menthe 
 used in this country is shipped here from Bordeaux, France. Creme 
 de menthe is liqueur of the peppermint leaf. The best peppermint 
 leaf used in Bordeaux is not equal, nor recognized as equal, to the i)ep- 
 jiermint grown in Vermont and Michigan. The world at large buys oil 
 of peppermint from America. 
 
 The chief ingredients of creme de menthe are spirits and American
 
 CORDIALS AND LIQUEURS. 1141 
 
 mint carefully and scientifically distilled, to which is added sugar and 
 some coloring'. 
 
 It must be conceded that our spirits are superior; it is conceded that 
 our peppermint is finer flavor. Is it not palj)able and self-evident that 
 our creme de menthe must be superior? But American creme de 
 menthe is more exiiensive than cheaper and inferior Bordeaux creme 
 de menthe, and the American penchant for buying something with the 
 imported stamp is too strong and the trade in American creme de 
 menthe declines. The inferior foreign article is preferred and a better 
 American product sufiers. 
 
 Is it not a pity that American creme de menthe is kept out of the 
 market and an enormous market created for imported creme de menthe 
 bj^ unjust, ruinous legislation? 
 
 Further example may be taken from kummel. Kumrael is distilled 
 from caraway seeds. Caraway seed is obtained from the Netberlands 
 or Dutch countries. The kummel most used in America is imported 
 from Berlin, far away from the plantations where the seeds are raised 
 required in its manufacture. The spirits used with this caraway seed 
 in Germany are potato spirits, horrible when compared with the prime 
 corn spirits previously referred to, made in this country. Berlin kum- 
 mel is about the same as our kummels, but the old story prevails that, 
 while it is inferior, it outsells our product at the same price, because it 
 is foreign. 
 
 Holland exports to this country great quantities of cura5ao, or 
 liqueur of the orange. The principal ingredients of Curasao are distilled 
 orange peelings, with the addition of aromatic herbs and fine spirits. 
 We make our cura5ao from Florida orange peelings, and claim that our 
 Curasao is superior to Dutch curagao. But the price of the Holland 
 article is nearly as cheap as ours, and practically monopolizes the market. 
 
 Under the $2.50 McKinley tariff, we increased our manufacturing 
 facilities, and were daily encouraged to improve in quality our cordials. 
 We devised new machinery and methods of manufacture. Our returns 
 on our enterprise and investment were acceptable, and the increased 
 use of our cordials became daily more patent. The dealers stated to the 
 consumers that they took pleasure in offering American cordials, fully 
 the equal of foreign cordials and at a much less price. They were con- 
 scientious in recommending them to the trade, and the consumer started 
 to use them. 
 
 Since the passage of the Wilson bill, trade has fallen off almost 
 entirely, and foreign goods costing about tbe same that imported goods 
 do have the preference and monopolize the field to the practical exclu- 
 sion of our equal if not superior products. 
 
 It was, indeed, to the American manufacturers a strange piece of 
 legislation to see internal-revenue taxes increased and import duties 
 reduced on precisely the same articles, to see the home market closed 
 to their own products and reserved almost exclusively for foreigners. 
 
 We appeal to you, gentlemen, for justice and for protection to our 
 industry. Justice because our products are equal to the best of foreign 
 makes, and because under the McKinley bill our business increased 
 and our sales extended into every State in the Union except one. For 
 protection, because we employ American labor, American bottles, 
 American timber, American paper, and American spirits, while the 
 foreigner sends into our country all of these articles and draws none of 
 them from it. 
 
 Rheinstrom, Bettman, Johnson & Co., of Cincinnati, 
 
 By Morris L. Bettman.
 
 1142 SCHEDULE H. — SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 WIKES. 
 
 CHAMPAGNE AND STILL WINES. 
 
 (Paragraphs 243 and 244.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF FREDERICK DE BARY & CO., OF NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 New York, December 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As imi)orters of cbajnpagne and still wines, "ue desire to call your 
 attention to the following facts v.iien your committee are considering 
 tbe duties on above-mentioned articles for tlie proposed new tariff bill: 
 
 Tbe duty on cbampagne bus gradually been increased from about $2 
 per case of one dozen (piarts, or two dozen pints, before tbe war, to $6 
 during and a long time after it, tben to 87 per case in 1883, on motion 
 of Senator Brown, of CJeorgia, in tbe last few bours of tbe session, wben 
 so mucb business was pressing tliat tbis motion was rusbed tbrough 
 botb Houses witbout debate and adopted, and bnally in 1800 to §8 per 
 case, besides an additional duty on tbe glass, wbicb latter also existed 
 in some of tbe previous tarilfs in one form or anotber. 
 
 Tbis increase of 400 per cent in tbe duty on cbampagne bas at tbe 
 present time con.spired to bring tbe cost so bigb tbat it is very seriously 
 injuring tbe ])usiness and reducing tbe revenue to tbe United States 
 witbout benefiting tbe American producer, wbose goods are selling for 
 less tban balf tbe ]iriie of tbe imported. 
 
 By referring to tbe annexed statistics of imimrtation you will find a 
 falling olf of about .'>.j i)cr cent since 1801, wbicb, wben you consider tbe 
 increased i»oi)nlation of tbe United States, is far in excess of tbat caused 
 by tbe general deinession of business. 
 
 Under tbe circnmstances we are convinced tbat a duty of *(> per case 
 witbout any separate or additional duty on tbe bottles will not only 
 largely benefit our business, but also materially increase tbe revenue, 
 witbout in tbe least injuring tbe domestic interest. Our reason for ask- 
 ing tbat no separate or additional duty be i)laced on tbe bottles is tbat 
 $0 duty per case is already very bigb; tbat cbami»agne bottles are not 
 manufactured in tbe United States, but, even if tbey were, tbe duty on 
 tlie bottles would not enbance tbeir value wben sold alter being emp 
 tied, wbile on tbe otber band tliey are bougbt and used by tbe domestic 
 manufacturers of sparkling wines, beer, and cider. 
 
 As tbe leakage and breakage on cbami)agne is very material, owing 
 to tbe bigb pressure of tbe enervescence in tbe bottles on tbe corks, we 
 suggest tbat an allowance of 5 i)er cent of tbe duty be made, as was tbe 
 case in some of tbe former tariffs. 
 
 Your bonorable committee may be under tbe impression tbat cbam- 
 pagne is only an article of luxury. Upon tbis point we would say tbat 
 it is also a necessity, and is recognized as a very desirable remedy by 
 l)bysicians in all countries, and is prescribed to a very considerable 
 extent for all classes in bospital as well as private practice; for instance, 
 in yellow fever it is considered almost a specific. 
 
 lleferring to still wines, we trust tbe present duty of oO cents per 
 gallon for wine not containing more tban 14 i)er cent alcobol will be 
 retained in tbe new taritf bill or at least not advanced above tbe rate 
 of tbe so-called McKinley bill, namely, 40 cents per gallon; also, tbat 
 
 il
 
 WINES. 
 
 1143 
 
 the duty of $1.60 per case witbout auy separate or additional duty on 
 bottles, same as in the present and in former tariffs, will be retained. 
 
 Trusting that our request to have the duty on champagne reduced 
 to $G per case and no separate or additional duty on bottles, and also 
 that the duty on still wines be fixed as suggested, will meet with your 
 approval and have your valuable support, we remain, 
 
 Fred'k de Baby & Co. 
 
 Importations of champagne for the last six years. 
 
 Fiscal year ending June 30— 
 
 Dozen 
 
 quarts. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 Eate of 
 duty. 
 
 1891 
 
 367, 461 
 
 337, 130 
 347. 619 
 245,481 
 255, 209 
 240, 199 
 
 $2, 781, 480 
 
 2, 690, 517 
 2, 780, 370 
 1, 963, 654 
 2,041,305 
 1, 921, 161 
 
 5 $7. 00 
 
 1802 
 
 I 8.00 
 8 00 
 
 1893 
 
 8 00 
 
 1894 
 
 8 00 
 
 1895 
 
 8 00 
 
 1896 
 
 8 00 
 
 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY IMPORTERS OF NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 New York, Deccmher 24, 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 As a hearing is to be had on the different schedules affecting the 
 proposed new tariff, we, the undersigned importers, respectfully re])re- 
 SGut to your honorable committee that the exorbitant duty in Sched- 
 ule II of $8 per dozen quarts, or two dozen pints, on champagnes and 
 sparkling wines imported into tlie United States and a separate duty 
 on glass is acting as a serious detriment to our business interests and 
 to the revenue, without in any way inuring to the benefit of the Amer- 
 ican producer. 
 
 The high cost of production abroad, added to the duty, makes the 
 present selling prices of these wines average more than 10!) i^er cent 
 higher than those of domestic sparkling wines, and we submit that a 
 duty of $6 per dozen quarts, or two dozen pints, etc., and no separate 
 duty on bottles, but 5 per cent allow;mce for leakage and breakage, 
 would be a great benefit to our business and to the consumer; that it 
 would materially increase the revenue from this source, which has 
 fallen off largely under tlie increased duty imposed by the present 
 tariff", as will be seen by the annexed statistics for the last six years. 
 This falling off is far beyond that caused by the general depression in 
 business, and esi)ecially if the large increase in i^opulation and wealth 
 is taken into consideration. 
 
 DUTY ox THE Gr,ASS. 
 
 Our request not to assess an additional and separate duty on the 
 bottles is based upon a duty of $6 per case being ample, and that, on 
 still wines in bottles, ale, porter, beer, ginger ale, etc., no separate duty 
 is levied on the bottles. Furthermore, champagne bottles are not 
 manufactured in this country, hence the glass interest will not be 
 injured; on the contrary, the domestic manufacturers use these bottles 
 for sparkling wines, cider, and beer, hence it would be a benefit to all 
 to have no duty assessed on these bottles.
 
 1144 SCHEDULE H. SPIRITS. WINES. AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 ALLOV.ANCK 1 Olt IJ AKAGE ANI> nitEAKAGK. 
 
 Our request for 5 per cent allowance of the duty for leakage and 
 breakage is based on the fact that owing to the high pressure of the 
 carbonic acid gas contained in champagne excessive leakage and 
 breakage is occasioned at times, and a loss of the expensive wine 
 should be sufficient without having to pay a very high duty on what is 
 not received, therefore an allowance of 5 per cent for leakage and 
 breakage is not only reasonable but just. 
 
 Although chami)agiie is to a considerable extent an article of luxury, 
 it is nevertheless a most valuable adjuiat in materia medica and an 
 indispensable remedy prescribed alike i\n- all classes, as is substanti- 
 ated by the verdict of eminent authorities in this and other countries, 
 such as Professor Loomis, Drs. Austin Flint, Willard Parker, Francis 
 S. Anstie, Professor Liebig, Drs. Dujardin lieaumetz, Thomas King 
 Chambers, ,1. W. Pavy, etc., therefore the present high cost of cham 
 pagne is a very great hardship to a large class of our population with- 
 out being of any benefit whatever to the domestic producer. 
 
 Alter seriously considering the for«^going, we trust your honorable 
 committee will lind our recjuest reasonable and advisable, and will 
 recommend that the duty <»n champagne and sparkling wines in the 
 new tariff bill should be as follows: 
 
 Six dollars per 1 dozen quart bottles or 2 dozen pint bottles, etc., 
 with no separate or additional duty on the bottles, and o per cent allow- 
 ance on the duty for leakage and breakage. We are convinced that 
 this will largely increase the revenue. 
 
 Fredk. de Bary & Co., agents for G. H. Mumm & Co.; 
 Charles Graef & Co., agents for Pommery & Greno; 
 Kesslev, Behringer «S: Co., agents for Moet «& Chandon; 
 Chas. J. Schimor & Peters, agents for Veuve Clicquot- 
 Tonsardin; G. S. Nicholas, agent for Piper-Heidsieck 
 Champagne; Hartmann & Hubbard, agents for Ueid- 
 sieck tS; Co., Dry ]\Ionopole; Taylor & De Rouge, agents 
 for George Goulet; Poosevelt & Schuyler, agents for 
 Eainart Pere et Fils; E. La Mantagne & Sons, agents 
 for Delbeck & Co.; F. O. De Luze & Co., agents for 
 Ernest Irroy & Co.; Alex. D. Shaw & Co., agents for 
 Louis Roederer; Alfred de Montebello & Co., agents for 
 Due de Montebello; Du Kiros & Co., agents for Perrier 
 Sonet & Co.; Bouche, Fils et Cie., agents for Bouch6 
 Fils et Co.; John Osborn's Sons & Co., agents for 
 Dunieuy & Cie.; Myles II. ilaffenden, agent for Giesler 
 & Co. ; Oswald Jackson & Bro., agents for St. Marceaux 
 & Co.; C. H. Arnold, agent for Deutz & Geldermann; 
 Penauld & Riederstadtig, agents for Krug & Co., 
 Reims; H. A. Biitzer & Co., agents for Ball & Co., 
 Reims; W. A. Taylor »S: Co., agents for Ackerman Laur- 
 ance Saumar; Anthony Oechs, agent for Poe. Roger 
 &Co. 
 The above firms represent over 90 per cent of the total importation 
 of chami)3gnes and sparkling wines.
 
 CHAMPAGNES — CHERRY JUICE. 1145 
 
 CHA^iPAG:N"ES. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY CHAELES GEAEF & CO., IMPOETERS, 
 
 OF NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 Arlington Hotel, 
 Washington, D. C, December 26, 1896. 
 Committee on Wats and Means: 
 
 We beg respectfully to represent tliat tLe present duty on cham- 
 pagnes — $8 on one dozen quarts with the additional duty on the glass 
 bottles — is entirely too high, as it is not needed for protection, and it 
 has effected a loss of revenue. In substantiation, we submit that the 
 producers of domestic champagne sell their goods at more than 50 per 
 cent less than the prices of imported champagnes, and that under this 
 unnecessarily high duty the imports of French champagnes have 
 decreased enormously, thus: 
 
 IMPORTS. 
 
 Cases. 
 
 1889 325.568 
 
 1890 396,153 
 
 aud 
 
 1895 239, 845 
 
 1896 (about) 210, 000 
 
 As i)er verified custom-house statistics reported in Bonfort's Wine 
 and Spirit Circular. On their face these figures show an astonishingly 
 great loss of revenue. 
 
 Under tlie desired restoration of the former duty of $G per dozen 
 quarts — with the logical allowance for leakage and breakage— not only 
 would the domestic producers sell at 50 j)er cent below the selling price 
 of imported champagnes, but there would also be a large increase in 
 revenue. 
 
 We beg, therefore, to i)etition for a duty on imported champagnes of 
 $6 jx'r dozen quarts, and $0 per two dozen pints, with no additional 
 duties on the bottles and subject to 5 per cent allowance on the break 
 age and leakage. 
 
 Eespectfully submitted. 
 
 Charles Graef «& Co., 
 Importers of Fommery Lee Champagnes. 
 
 CHESKY JUICE. 
 
 (Paragraph 247.) 
 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, December 17, 1896. 
 Dear Sir: Under the existiisg high rate of tariff the importation 
 of cherry juice is almost entirely prohibited— a loss to the liquor trade 
 at large, and almost asi entire loss of revenue to the Government; hence 
 in getting tht^ tariti" ret] need to about 15 or 20 cents, which would be 
 double what it was prior to the McKinley bill, you would render a 
 beuefit to the liquor trade of this country, also largely increase the
 
 114G SCHEDULE H, SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 revenue of the Government. Following is a copy of our letter, written 
 in 1894, to the Senate Finance Committee: 
 
 The article which we handle, and to which we beg to call attention, is cherry 
 juice. Being for many years importers of this article, we are fully conversant and 
 posted as regards its production in Germany, as well as its use in this country. 
 
 The cost of production of cherry juice in Germany is, at present, 23 to 24 cents 
 per gallon. 
 
 The present rate of duty on cherry juice is 60 cents per gallon, at which exorbi- 
 tant rate importation of the article has greatly fallen off; in fact, almost entirely 
 ceased. Owing to this excessive high duty, the trade has been compelled to quit 
 using this article. 
 
 There is no cherry juice produced in this country, and we especially beg to call 
 your attention to the fact that this article does not come in oontUct with anything 
 produced here, as the fruit in this country is of entirely different nature from that 
 produced in Germany from which cherry juice is manufactured. 
 
 Cherry juice is sohl in this country at about 95 cents, which includes duty of 60 
 cents per gallon, as also the freight from Kuropo, which is 5 cents per gallon, and, 
 calculating the loss of the goo<ls in transit, nets 28 cents for the goods. 
 
 Prior to the passajje of the tariff act of 1890 the duty on cherry juice was 20 per 
 cent ad valorem (or e(|ual to about 7 to 8 cents per gallon). The tariff of 1890 
 advanced the duty to the enormous rate of 60 cents ]ier gallon. This advance is 
 considered exorbitant, being almost three times the original cost of tbo goods. In 
 consequence thereof importation of cherry juice has almost entirely ceased, as the 
 article became too expensive lor i>ractieal use, which is not only detrimental to the 
 wholesale liiiuor rectifiers, but also a great loss to the (Government in revenue. The 
 authors of the tariff act of 1890 were under the erroneous inijjre.ssion tliat advanc- 
 ing the duty on cherry juice to 60 cents per gallon would be beneficial to the Amer- 
 ican wine producers. There is no wine ]>roduced froui chery juice now, and there 
 has not been for many years. To prove our a.ssertion : Before the ])assage of the 
 tariff act of 1890 wo sold California wines at 50 cents per gallon, which have since 
 declined to below 40 cents in price; hence it is evident that the California wine 
 producers have not been benefited by the enormous advance in duty. 
 
 The Wilson bill lias revised the duty on cherry juice to ^^0 cents ])er gallon, which 
 is considered as yet too hi^h by the trade for practical use. It will neither stimu- 
 late importation nor will it bring any revenue to the Goverumeut. A duty of 15 
 to 20 cents per galhm would bo amply suflScient, and would encourage the importa- 
 tion of this article as heretofore, and in addition thereto would yield a much larger 
 revenue to the (Joverument. 
 
 A specific duty is ])referable to an ad valorem duty, as the former prohibits any 
 undervaluation of goods. 
 
 In addition we beg to say that comparing the duty of 60 cents per gallon on cherry 
 juice with the duty of HO cents per gallon on imported wines (wines which cost in 
 Europe from $2 to $4 per gallon), your honorable Finance Committee will readily 
 perceive that the duty assessed on cherry juice is comparatively entirely out of pro» 
 portion. 
 
 We therefore recommend to your kind consideration that the present excessive 
 rite of duty on cherry juice be abolished and one more reasonable and just substi- 
 tuted. 
 
 M. Dernham, 
 Of 21. Dernham ^- Son. 
 
 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY H. A. BATJER & CO., OF NEW YORK. 
 
 New York, December 26^ 1896. 
 Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 We understand that there is to be a hearing before your honorable 
 committee on IMonday, December 28, ujion tariff" matters pertainin,i>- to 
 Schedule H, in which, among' other articles, there are mentioned fruit 
 juices, which our house is ])articularly interested in, chief among them 
 being Cherry Juice, and we respectfully submit to you for your consid- 
 eration the following fa(;ts: 
 
 It is probably incongruous to argue for a reduction in the existing 
 rate of duty on au article, but as it is the purpose of the proposed
 
 CHERRY JUICE. 
 
 1147 
 
 new tariff to be one to produce an increased revenue, we feel tliat from 
 that standpoint our argument is peculiarly applicable, for tbe following 
 reasons: 
 
 The statistics relating to tbe importation of cberry juice at tbe port 
 of New York for a number of years back are as follows : 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Punch- 
 eons, a 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Punch- 
 eons, a 
 
 1888 
 
 3,077 
 
 2,809 
 
 5,694 
 
 224 
 
 442 
 
 1893 
 
 389 
 
 1889 
 
 1894 
 
 339 
 
 1890 
 
 1895 
 
 229 
 
 1891 
 
 1896 (11 months) 
 
 159 
 
 1892 
 
 
 
 
 
 a Each containing about 160 gallons. 
 
 Before 1890 the rate of duty was 20 per cent ad valorem; equal, 
 according to market values abroad, to about 7 to 10 cents per gallon. 
 In 1890 the rate was advanced to 60 cents per gallon, on account of a 
 mistaken opinion as to purposes for which the amount of alcohol con- 
 tained in the juice could be used. In 1894 the rate was reduced to 50 
 cents, in tbe expectation that this rate would stimulate importation 
 and produce revenue. We call attention to the heavy importations 
 under the lowest rate of duty, culminating in a very large importa- 
 tion in 1890 to take advantage of the expected higher tarilf. In 1891 
 next to nothing was imported, on account of the large existing stocks. 
 In 1892 a normal importation was had under the then existing condi- 
 tions and tbe high rate of duty. From that time on the importations 
 have been steadily diminishing, until this year they amount to prac- 
 tically nothing. 
 
 In 1890 the revenue derived by the Government from this article was 
 about $80,000; in 1890 about $12,800, with the result that this article 
 is clearly overprotected, and tbe Government has not derived much 
 revenue. 
 
 From our experience with this article, having been for a number of 
 years its leading importers, we argue for a bigh protective rate of duty 
 of 25 cents per gallon, and tbis rate would not conflict with any domes- 
 tic interests, since no Cherry Juice of consequence is or can be produced 
 in this country. We assume tbat under a rate of duty of 25 cents per 
 gallon, the importation in normal years would probably again reach 
 2,000 puncheons, with a revenue to tbe Government of about $80,000. 
 
 Cherry Juice was formerly much used in the manufacture of cherry 
 and blackberry brandy. It is a pure juice of the fruit, wholesome and 
 healthy to drink in its manufactured state. This branch of the busi- 
 ness has practically ceased altogether, and the article called cherry and 
 blackberry brandy, as now put uj)on the market, is unwholesome and 
 utterly unfit as a medicinal drink. 
 
 Cherry Juice is used in increasing quantities by the manufacturers of 
 fruit and soda-water syrups and other medicinal preparations made up 
 by chemical laboratories. We think that a moderate duty such as we 
 propose would greatly extend this branch of the business, and no 
 article of domestic manufacture or growth can take its place for that 
 purpose. 
 
 There is a certain alcoholic strength necessary to keep Cherry Juice 
 in its transportation from abroad to this country, and former legisla- 
 tion has fixed this strength at 18 per cent of the volume. Anything
 
 114S SCHEDULE H.^-SPIRITS, WINES, AND OTHER BEVERAGES. 
 
 I 
 
 less than that would cause the article to ferment on the way and ren- 
 der it unsaleable here. The argument has been made, and it has been 
 the basis for the present high rate, that the alcohol contained ought to 
 be taxed, inasmuch as it is capable of being extracted and used for 
 other purposes. This argument, however, is fallacious, because even 
 should the alcohol be extracted, the juice itself would become unfit for 
 use in any way and would be a total loss, and the alcohol could not be 
 liandled profitably in competition with the domestic article. It is 
 therefore not practicable to extract the alcohol, and in fact it has never 
 been done, else it would prove just as profitable to extract it from 
 wines, now paying 30 cents per gallon duty. 
 
 Very respectfully. 
 
 H. A. Batjek & Co.
 
 ri 
 
 i i